Direct Provision - Should it be ended?

MrMusician18

RTE reporting that in the government formation talks, the green party are pushing for changes to direct provision, perhaps leading to abolition.

So is direct provision a fair way of preventing abuse of the immigration system, or a cruel inhumane pseudo prison that only serves to enrich a few providers?

If it should be abolished, what should replace it if anything?

Kivaro

"cruel inhumane pseudo prison"?
We definitely know a number of things about your opinion when you put it that way. It will most definitely change when you see the amount of taxes taken out of pay check at the end of the week/month, and then realise the amount of taxes spent on an obviously flawed asylum system and process.

As I posted on another thread:
The end of direct provision is exactly what RTE, the Irish Times, the Green Party and others are pushing for.

As soon as an African or someone from the Indian sub-continent flies into Dublin from London, Berlin, Paris etc., and mutters the word "asylum", the above groups are demanding immediate lone housing after processing. They all know that it will just further open the flood gates. It's an economically and socially insane concept.

10000maniacs

Kivaro wrote: »

"cruel inhumane pseudo prison"?
We definitely know a number of things about your opinion when you put it that way. It will most definitely change when you see the amount of taxes taken out of pay check at the end of the week/month, and then realise the amount of taxes spent on an obviously flawed asylum system and process.

As I posted on another thread:
The end of direct provision is exactly what RTE, the Irish Times, the Green Party and others are pushing for.

As soon as an African or someone from the Indian sub-continent flies into Dublin from London, Berlin, Paris etc., and mutters the word "asylum", the above groups are demanding immediate lone housing after processing. They all know that it will just further open the flood gates. It's an economically and socially insane concept.

If they have flown into Ireland from a safe country, they should be sent back to that safe country and their application for asylum in Ireland be processed from that safe country. The insanity and stupidity of direct provision has really come to the fore during the current COVID-19 crisis.

Mules

When they talk about housing alternatives they mean free apartments/ houses. The majority of asylum applications are rejected so that basically means we would be giving free houses, healthcare, education, bills paid and spending money, not just to asylum seekers but also to economic migrants. I don't know why Irish people are obliged to work and pay tax for other people to get free stuff. I really don't get it. It doesn't seem right.

ELM327

End it.
Replace with a proper border check. If you're legally entitled to be here, then in you come. Otherwise it's back to where you came from.
Simples/

Probably cheaper too for the state

The_Brood

Mules wrote: »

When they talk about housing alternatives they mean free apartments/ houses. The majority of asylum applications are rejected so that basically means we would be giving free houses, healthcare, education, bills paid and spending money, not just to asylum seekers but also to economic migrants. I don't know why Irish people are obliged to work and pay tax for other people to get free stuff. I really don't get it. It doesn't seem right.

It would be great if everyone everywhere got free stuff, but the fact that working class people just above the welfare threshold in Ireland are denied every last assistance and left at the mercy of abusive landlords and impossible housing loan requirements - and that no one seems motivated to change that is criminal. You should not be robbing the poor to pay for the poor, which is what is happening here.

tigger123

It needs to be discussed as part of a wider conversation on immigration.

If its possible to land in Ireland and claim asylum, why bother with immigration laws and visas? Instead you can just land in Dublin, claim asylum and be here legally working and building a life for years while the asylum process gets around to your case.

JohnnyFlash

It should be ended as it's fundamentally inhumane. I think the issue is finding out what to replace it with, and being able to shout down the vested interests (the NGOs, the Celtic Tiger era hotel owners - all the people making money on the back of it, be that a little bit of money, or a lot of money) that will start screaming racism etc.

Like so many things, it's complex and doesn't lend itself to simple solutions and quick sound bites.

Rodney Bathgate

We need a process that deals with asylum applications speedily (end to end in 3 to 6 months), rather than dragging them out for up to a decade. Then once the appeals process is complete, the bogus asylum seekers are deported and can never set foot here again.

None of this minister overriding the decision because of a local protest.

Anyone who turns up without a passport or other valid ID is automatically deported.

The bearded children that our minister was stupid enough to fall for makes a complete mockery of all due process.

If this is implemented then you won’t have them in direct provision for more than 6 months at most.

Geuze

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If it should be abolished, what should replace it if anything?

Yes, it should be abolished, and replaced with fast and efficient processing of asylum claims within 24 hours, or a max of 7 days at the port or airport.

This may involve the collection of travel documents on board, to prevent the intentional destruction of documents.

It would also involve lots of technology, and co-operation with other countries.

AS would welcome the faster processing of their claim.

The taxpayer might save, as DP centres could be closed.

trashcan

ELM327 wrote: »

End it.
Replace with a proper border check. If you're legally entitled to be here, then in you come. Otherwise it's back to where you came from.
Simples/

Probably cheaper too for the state

Everyone who claims asylum is "legally entitled to be here." You might not agree with that, but that is the position. Ireland is legally obliged then to provide housing for asylum seekers. Again, whether you think that's right or not, it's the legal position. I'm not sure that there is a better alternative than DP. Giving out houses and apartments would likely be a huge "pull factor", as well as leading to much local resentment, and of course the cost involved. I'm not sure what those calling for an end to DP ( the Irish Times campaign against it for instance has been relentless) think the alternative is. The problem really isn't DP itself as far as I am concerned. It's the amount of time people spend there. The system needs to move faster, a large part of that being the legal system. It can take years to get a court case heard. I've long thought that we need special immigration courts.

Mr. Karate

MrMusician18 wrote: »

or a cruel inhumane pseudo prison that only serves to enrich a few providers?

They can go home whenever they feel like it.

Rodney Bathgate

Mr. Karate wrote: »

They can go home whenever they feel like it.

I’m always amused when I hear of successful asylum applicants going on holidays - back to the very country they claimed asylum from.

thegetawaycar

It should probably be changed massively, Government run (not just funded) centres that house applicants for a short period (max 6 months) while all processes and appeals are completed during this timeframe.

After that it becomes a bigger problem though as where would the applicant go after if successful etc...

In D.P. at the moment it's a joke, you can be there years and years and then eventually into a council house all while profit is being made by the private operators

suicide_circus

Absolutely end it.

Reform and streamline the asylum process to limit the endless appeals.

No means No.

ELM327

trashcan wrote: »

Everyone who claims asylum is "legally entitled to be here." You might not agree with that, but that is the position. Ireland is legally obliged then to provide housing for asylum seekers. Again, whether you think that's right or not, it's the legal position. I'm not sure that there is a better alternative than DP. Giving out houses and apartments would likely be a huge "pull factor", as well as leading to much local resentment, and of course the cost involved. I'm not sure what those calling for an end to DP ( the Irish Times campaign against it for instance has been relentless) think the alternative is. The problem really isn't DP itself as far as I am concerned. It's the amount of time people spend there. The system needs to move faster, a large part of that being the legal system. It can take years to get a court case heard. I've long thought that we need special immigration courts.

Unless their claim is not valid.
That's what I'm saying. Improve the checks. Speed it up.
There are way too many economic migrants.

Tacitus Kilgore

Long term DP is inhumane, I don't think it's racist in particular - just pure shite for all involved (except for the hotel owners & service providers of course) Above all else, the process badly needs to be sped up, significantly.

It's hard to get rid when we have no idea what to replace it with though

Mr. Karate

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

I’m always amused when I hear of successful asylum applicants going on holidays - back to the very country they claimed asylum from.

Definitely. Especially when they pull the "I face certain death if I dare return there." card.

Rodney Bathgate

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Long term DP is inhumane, I don't think it's racist in particular - just pure shite for all involved (except for the hotel owners & service providers of course) Above all else, the process badly needs to be sped up, significantly.

It's hard to get rid when we have no idea what to replace it with though

They choose to be there long term by using every appeal process open to then then going to the courts and appeal to the minister. Their choice.

Tacitus Kilgore

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

They choose to be there long term by using every appeal process open to then then going to the courts and appeal to the minister. Their choice.

Who does? All of them?

MrMusician18

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

We need a process that deals with asylum applications speedily (end to end in 3 to 6 months), rather than dragging them out for up to a decade. Then once the appeals process is complete, the bogus asylum seekers are deported and can never set foot here again.

None of this minister overriding the decision because of a local protest.

Anyone who turns up without a passport or other valid ID is automatically deported.

The bearded children that our minister was stupid enough to fall for makes a complete mockery of all due process.

If this is implemented then you won’t have them in direct provision for more than 6 months at most.

I'm pretty sure the process is quite fast at the moment. Not lightning quick 7 day turnarounds, but everyone gets their case heard within 18 months. Ultra short turnarounds would not be legal from an international law perspective imo - in that a case couldn't be built sufficiently either way in that time.

If you are in DP longer is because your initial application was not successful, and you are appealing.

Gatling

If they rid of dp then we're just opening the flood gates and the return of the Lagos express .

Because once one is removed ,then anchor babies Will return and full social welfare for the newly arrived and no way of ever deporting individuals

Rodney Bathgate

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Who does? All of them?

The ones that aren’t successful, yes. They can leave the country at any point. If it is so ‘in humane’ then feel free to do so. Of course the majority couldn’t have gotten here without passing through another EU state so they shouldn’t be here on the first place (see Dublin convention). Many cherry pick Ireland as a destination of choice. That is enough to make those cases bogus.

Rodney Bathgate

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the process is quite fast at the moment. Not lightning quick 7 day turnarounds, but everyone gets their case heard within 18 months. Ultra short turnarounds would not be legal from an international law perspective imo - in that a case couldn't be built sufficiently either way in that time.

If you are in DP longer is because your initial application was not successful, and you are appealing.

3 to 6 months should be sufficient for end to end if the applicant is co-operative and honest.

Clarence Boddiker

Mr. Karate wrote: »

They can go home whenever they feel like it.

Indeed they do feel like it, as many of them take holidays home (home being the place they had to flee from) after they've been granted residency here.

Kivaro

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

I’m always amused when I hear of successful asylum applicants going on holidays - back to the very country they claimed asylum from.

Due to the large number of Africans getting asylum in Ireland e.g. at least 20,000 Nigerians, this will eventually result in direct flights from Dublin to Lagos and other large cities in Africa, which in turn could result in a constant flow of asylum seekers on these flights.

jrosen

Direct provision in itself was a good idea, in my opinion anyway. There is somewhere people can go, have a bed, be fed and have access to information while their application is being processed.

In theory its straight forward, in practice people appeal and while they appeal they are still in direct provision. More people arrive and we end up with essentially over populated B&B's.

What I dont understand is the appeal process, if you dont meet the criteria what is there to appeal?

Either way I think direct provision needs to stay, but it needs reform. The process shouldn't take longer than 6 months.

tobefrank321

Not sure I would end it, but we should aim for smaller centres in more locations and for residents to be more integrated in the community.
DPC residents should add no more than 5% to the population of a town, as anything more puts a strain on resources and goodwill.

Rodin

Of course it should be ended.
Should take no more than a year to decide on someone's refugee status.

They either stay or go home.
Just make a decision.

Gatling

Rodin wrote: »

They either stay or go home.
Just make a decision.

But they won't go home , we've one of the highest refusal rates in Europe depending on who you believe ,
There has been 60,000 + through direct provision but yet over a 12 year period we only managed 1300 deportations ,

They don't just go home ,and we allow near infinite appeals all funded by the tax payers .

It's win /win for them

Jurgen Klopp

I love how none of these campaigners won't just come out and say exactly what they think it should be replaced with.

Every asylum seeker to be immediately given social housing or paid accommodation with a private rental

They won't out and say that though as even these lads know the majority of the public will lose their absolute **** at such a proposal