Direct Provision - Should it be ended?

Kivaro

tobefrank321 wrote: »

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.

But why though; why integrate them during the asylum application process?
We know that the majority of asylum applicants are refused asylum due to the bogus nature of their claims. Is it then fair to integrate applicants in locations all the around the country during the application process, and without knowing if they had a past history of violent sexual assault or murder for example?

Spanish Eyes

Is Ireland any different to any other EU country regarding asylum seekers? I just wondered if DPCs exist in other countries.

MrMusician18

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.

It's a bit unfair to characterise my opinion based on that one line - I was merely repeating the accusation leveled at the system by those that want it ended in favour of a less controlled system.

When we look at DP I guess it's good to look back at where the policy came from and why it's in place - it was so designed to be as of putting as possible while meeting obligations under international law so that the non genuine wouldn't subject themselves to it and would choose another country to claim in. In that respect, it worked. In the years following it's introduction, asylum claims fell by 90% iirc.

I would tend to agree with your claims regarding RTE though. I must have seen 100s of soft reports on DP at this point, yet can't remember any that have have stated that anyone in it long term is an appellant.

I would like to see the system reformed in a way though that would see the various solicitors, NGOs and hangers on get a lot less taxpayer funding. Whatever happens with it though, I doubt that will change.

Sesame

I know its been said already but the reason so many asylum seeker are stuck in the centres for years and years is because they are recommended to appeal each decision which goes against them. It appears that the appeals process has both long waiting times to be heard, for the decision and then for more appeals.
It isn't fair on the families to be stuck in that limbo for so long. In the meantime, their kids are settling in schools and families becoming more instiutionalised. The appeals process should give them a final decision after a reasonable amount of time and either, help them move on, whether that be deportion or settle them in Ireland.

Rodney Bathgate

We need these engineers and doctors.

Rodin

Gatling wrote: »

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

Won't go home?
Marched to the airport and stuck on a flight.
Can you imagine someone due for deportation in the US be allowed to refuse to go?
They'll have been deemed to be here illegally. Off ye go.

Eric Cartman

We should have one migrant centre right beside the airport, you go in, your application processed and dealt wity within 45 days, you can appeal once and that appeal process lasts 45, by day 90 youre most likely on a flight home or agreed to be allowed stay under the condition that you can be removed with 0 notice if details of your asylum ever transpire to be untrue or you are convicted of a criminal charge beyond traffic offenses within 10 years of entry into the country or suspected involvement in extremism/terrorism/fgm.

Simplest way to deal with it, treat them better for 45/90 days , smaller centre but expidited deportations.

_Kaiser_

Absolutely end it. Replace with a properly effective immigration and border control process

- All claims reviewed within 7 days
- One appeal only if your claim is rejected. If still denied... back where you came from
- Arrive here in the back of a container with no verifiable paperwork, or from a safe country... back where you came from
- Tenure does not grant citizenship
- No "family reunions"
- No social housing or standard benefits that are not earned through work and contributions. A temporary allowance should be provided to allow successful claimants to find work with regular check-in similar to the current Welfare process
- Approved asylum claims only valid until safe to go home. If you want to stay after this, you must apply to the other established channels for residency
- Be found to be going on holiday back home.. asylum and residency denied. Back where you came from
- Commit crimes in this country... back where you came from

All of the above subject to local economic conditions and pressures on things like housing and healthcare.

On the flip side..

- Arrive legally, with needed skills to offer, and a demonstrated ability to support yourself... welcome!

tobefrank321

If you are from certain countries such as Albania or Georgia, you shouldn't even be allowed leave the airport unless you can prove what your business is. Well over 90% asylum seekers from these two countries have been proven to be bogus and without merit. That they go into DPCs is scandalous. This should be the main focus of reforms, weeding out as soon as possible those coming from genuine conflict or problem countries versus bogus economic migrants.

And also, if you don't apply to an Irish Embassy in the country or region you are coming from, you shouldn't be considered.

Unfortunately the Dail in recent years is moving ever further to the hard left and even mainstream parties are heading that direction, trying to outdo each other in wasting taxpayers money.

conndeal

The reports in the newspapers prior to DP was people smugglers were bringing people into the country. In return they had to pay the smugglers a large percentage of their social welfare after they arrived. They were living in crowded accommodation (sourced themselves) and were struggling to buy food.

DP is not as attractive to the people smugglers because they cannot demand a large percentage of the migrant's social welfare or wages after they arrive.

Kivaro

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's a bit unfair to characterise my opinion based on that one line - I was merely repeating the accusation leveled at the system by those that want it ended in favour of a less controlled system.

That was not clear in your OP, and if that is the case, then you are correct that it was unfair.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

When we look at DP I guess it's good to look back at where the policy came from and why it's in place - it was so designed to be as of putting as possible while meeting obligations under international law so that the non genuine wouldn't subject themselves to it and would choose another country to claim in. In that respect, it worked. In the years following it's introduction, asylum claims fell by 90% iirc.

I would tend to agree with your claims regarding RTE though. I must have seen 100s of soft reports on DP at this point, yet can't remember any that have been critical or state that anyone in it long term is an appellant.

I would like to see the system reformed in a way though that would see the various solicitors, NGOs and hangers on get a lot less taxpayer funding. Whatever happens with it though, I doubt that will change.

Wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. The primary motivating factor that inhibits change to the current asylum system is the profit margins for the DP centre owners, suppliers, ancillary services, and Irish legal profession who are absolutely making a mint from the current snail's pace of asylum adjudication and appeal process.
We may need the Europeans to intervene in order to change the status quo, because nobody in Government will initiate change. The upcoming Direct Provision report, commissioned by the Government, is just appalling based on the preliminary reports. It looks like a report written specifically by the groups above who are making so much money from the current asylum system. It should be binned now; even before its final release in November.

Montage of Feck

tobefrank321 wrote: »

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.

I have to disagree strongly with integration into the community. Those in direct provision are asylum seekers not refugees, their claims could be false, in my opinion most are, or have an undisclosed disease or criminal background. Until their identity, medical and criminal history and claims of asylum can be verified they should be held in a secure location.

Eric Cartman

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Absolutely end it. Replace with a properly effective immigration and border control process

- All claims reviewed within 7 days
- One appeal only if your claim is rejected. If still denied... back where you came from
- Arrive here in the back of a container with no verifiable paperwork, or from a safe country... back where you came from
- Tenure does not grant citizenship
- No "family reunions"
- No social housing or standard benefits that are not earned through work and contributions. A temporary allowance should be provided to allow successful claimants to find work with regular check-in similar to the current Welfare process
- Approved asylum claims only valid until safe to go home. If you want to stay after this, you must apply to the other established channels for residency
- Be found to be going on holiday back home.. asylum and residency denied. Back where you came from
- Commit crimes in this country... back where you came from

All of the above subject to local economic conditions and pressures on things like housing and healthcare.

On the flip side..

- Arrive legally, with needed skills to offer, and a demonstrated ability to support yourself... welcome!

The holiday one especially , ellie kisyombe should have been a test case for the government to ensure nobody can ever scam the system like that again. No immigration system which allows her to remain here is effective.

We should have also developped a system which prevented lisa smyth or ibrahim halawa ever setting foot in our state again

Rodney Bathgate

Rodin wrote: »

Won't go home?
Marched to the airport and stuck on a flight.
Can you imagine someone due for deportation in the US be allowed to refuse to go?
They'll have been deemed to be here illegally. Off ye go.

Here, they start an appeal in the local paper and social media, get the kids pictured with classmates or GAA teams, RTE are happy to include on the 6 1 news and the minister immediately caves in and gives leave to remain. Then the rest of the extended family are brought over. Then they go back home for a holiday.

By drawing out their appeal process they significantly increase the likelihood of being allowed to stay, even if they are ultimately found to be bogus asylum seekers.

The taxpayer can’t win.

DelaneyIn

Revoke our signatory to the asylum convention. It’s become nothing more than a means for fraudsters to gain residency in the state.

Richard Hillman

It's too lucrative for the legal industry and the hoteliers in rural in Ireland.

There needs to be a quickfire processing of everyone that is left. When everybody is deported, a new system needs to be set up. I

If you do not declare political asylum before arrival or on arrival in Dublin, your asylum credibility should be virtually zero. Political asylum should only be reserved for high ranking figures. This is what it was originally designed for.

If a person has come on a non-direct flight from a safe country (which is almost 100% of the time), their application is denied and deported on the next flight. They cannot be allowed to pass immigration control in Ireland. I'm pretty sure those are the rules already.

TheValeyard

Completely disagree with Direct Provison, it's cruel and long dragged out process. It's not fair on anyone and could be the Magdalene Laundry of the 21st century.

Person should be quickly processed. Allowed to stay or not.

If rejected and they wish to appeal they do it from their home country, not in this country.

Patrick2010

Tv3 report from Cahirciveen showing loads of residents out protesting and calling for an end to direct provision. If that’s what they want assume they’ll be happy if the Skellig hotel is closed and all the asylum seekers there housed locally given the welcome posters on display?

Spanish Eyes

There is nowhere in MSM or anywhere for that matter, where ordinary Joes and Josies can voice their views on what is for the most part a wholesale scamming of our system.

The minute anyone opens their mouth and questions the cost of asylum seekers and DP the debate is shut down, or should I say there is no debate at all.

A functioning democracy should include the views of everyone, particularly those paying for it all. But I am not allowed to say that am I?

Most people with a brain know the system is functioning on mainly three levels, the asylum seeker, the legal aid element, and the DP sector.

But the entirely left leaning huggy crowd have closed down all debate around this issue, along with other issues too. Fed up is not the word.

seenitall

Absolutely. Repeal the 27th while you're at it, that should help the general state of affairs too. Lots.

Also, make sure to keep the CTA in place and borders as open as possible for when Brexit really starts to bite.

Interesting times ahead, Ireland.

trashcan

ELM327 wrote: »

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.

You are correct, once the claim is rejected the right to remain comes to an end, however they still can't be removed until a deportation order has been made, under Section 3 of the 1999 Immigration Act. People looking for turnarounds in 7 or 14 days are not facing the legal realities I'm afraid. That's why I'm saying we need specialised Immigration courts who can speed up the process.

Oh, and by the way, if someone travels back to their country of origin that is grounds for removing their refugee status, ( Your refugee travel document specifically states it can't be used to travel to your CoI) as is any untruth which comes to light after they have been granted, if it was pertinent to the grant of refugee status.

double jobbing

Gatling wrote: »

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 ,

Not doubting you but do you have a source for only 1300 deported?

I've always thought you must want to be extremely unlucky to get deported from this country. It's like the state has a quota and you have an unlucky dip.

Somewhat related- if virtually all long stay DP centres are in the regions, how has any former asylum seeker ended up on a Dublin housing list in the last 20 years?

Yurt2

trashcan wrote: »

You are correct, once the claim is rejected the right to remain comes to an end, however they still can't be removed until a deportation order has been made, under Section 3 of the 1999 Immigration Act. People looking for turnarounds in 7 or 14 days are not facing the legal realities I'm afraid. That's why I'm saying we need specialised Immigration courts who can speed up the process.

Oh, and by the way, if someone travels back to their country of origin that is grounds for removing their refugee status, ( Your refugee travel document specifically states it can't be used to travel to your CoI) as is any untruth which comes to light after they have been granted, if it was pertinent to the grant of refugee status.

This is the big slap in the face with the Kisyombe situation as I understand it. The status she was chasing time and again was rejected by the state (that being recognised refugee / asylum status).

What she was granted was better than that, leave to remain status. Which is essentially the state saying 'oh f*ck it we give up'.

Off on her hollybobs to Malawi the first chance she gets, the country she was meant to be fleeing from in fear for her safety. Gives lie to the whole joke of a system.

I have met people in countries other than Ireland from the likes of Syria and Yemen in genuinely tough circumstances due to the conflicts in their homeland. Fine people who should be sheltered here.

Instead we get legions of bullsh*t artists and a cottage industry of NGO facilitators p*ssing down our legs.

Gatling

double jobbing wrote: »

I've always thought you must want to be extremely unlucky to get deported from this country.

A violent offender who viscously raped a young student only weeks after arriving here is still happily living in Dublin despite a judge ordered his deportation after serving his sentence ,
He instead claimed asylum and was granted it

Eric Cartman

DelaneyIn wrote: »

Revoke our signatory to the asylum convention. It’s become nothing more than a means for fraudsters to gain residency in the state.

at this point actually yeah, we have no business offering asylum.

Mr. Karate

DelaneyIn wrote: »

Revoke our signatory to the asylum convention. It’s become nothing more than a means for fraudsters to gain residency in the state.

We had the chance to elect people who would have done that back in Feb. Instead the usual traitors and chancers topped the polls.

Eric Cartman

Mr. Karate wrote: »

We had the chance to elect people who would have done that back in Feb. Instead the usual traitors and chancers topped the polls.

who had that in their manifesto ?

Rodney Bathgate

Eric Cartman wrote: »

at this point actually yeah, we have no business offering asylum.

We should all turn up in Lagos and claim asylum. With all the oil, gas and other natural resources the country has, it should be a great place to live.

suicide_circus

I still can't get my head around that fact that you can travel through multiple safe countries to reach Ireland and only then apply for asylum because you are in fear of xyz at home. It fair boggles my mind. It's like trawling through TripAdvisor to see where you wanna go for summer holliers, except its asylum from apparent imminent doom. Makes absolutely no sense.

Beechwoodspark

My preference is a purpose built centre for asylum seekers on or near the dublin airport land

They should have good facilities there and a fair system including 1 appeal.

If they fail that appeal then off on the next flight home.