Direct Provision - Should it be ended?

Eric Cartman

double jobbing wrote: »

In today's Dail debate Richard Boyd Barrett complained the proposals for DP reform/ scrapping were a rebranding exercise as it sounded like asylum seekrs would still be housed in institutions.

The inference being, of course, that they should be housed in actual houses and flats, as tenants, same as any other local authority tenant. Something that until we have more social homes than we have applicants for social housing, would mean asylum seekers get a preference for said housing.


Mick Barry complained that there was nothing in it that hinted at an end to deportations, and that it even hinted at faster, accelerated deportations.

Mick didn't explain whether he is opposed to all deportations (e.g rapists, Islamists) or just thinks that absolutely everybody who manages to get here should be allowed to stay in one of these bottomless amount of social homes he wants the state to provide at a priority to affordable and social homes for those of us who pay the taxes.

These were clips on FM104 news, if anybody has any more links to them in full I'd be amused to hear it.

It's actually shocking that two elected representatives can stand in a national parliament, when we are on the potential precipice of an economic disaster, and complain that people who have never spent a red cent in the country, most of whom are not fleeing any sort of danger at home, should have preferential access to housing.

We should be alarmed at how few deportations we manage to achieve.

jrosen

I did hear Mary Lou on Niall Boylan saying they should all have own door accommodation which means she thinks they all should have access to self contained accommodation. Assuming with living, cooking and sleeping facilities.

Rodin

How about we punish the airlines that bring illegals in?

Geuze

Rodin wrote: »

How about we punish the airlines that bring illegals in?

I often wondered about that.

double jobbing

Rodin wrote: »

How about we punish the airlines that bring illegals in?

I'd a mate who was flying to New Zealand the day his Aussie visa expired. When he was departing, the airline refused to let him board unless he bought a ticket for an exiting flight from NZ to the nearest country Irish citizens don't require a pre approved visa to enter (think it was Singapore). Reason being, if for some reason he was refused entry to NZ, he had no valid visa to be returned to Australia with, and thus would be stuck in limbo as the responsibility of the airline. The NZ government would regard them as not having carried out proper checks prior to boarding in Australia and would delegate the responsibility of his removal to them, at their cost. The airline would then be tasked with dumping him in the nearest visa free country, at their own cost.

His Singapore flight was refundable but it shows how seriously a government with some cop on regards these things.

Galwayguy35

And these hard left loonies like Mick Barry wonder why most of the electorate who are taxpayers despise them.

Seems to be lost on them that what they are proposing means the illegals would be competing for housing with the workshy voters who elect them to the Dail to spout this nonscense.

double jobbing

Eric Cartman wrote: »

We should be alarmed at how few deportations we manage to achieve.

I always wonder how the handful who do get the boot are unlucky enough for this to happen. Must near on be drawn out of a hat.

jones

Most people deported go because they want to go. Very few are actually deported against their will as far as I know.

This whole give people full houses/ dedicated living quarters because they mention the word "asylum" is complete lunacy. Do they honestly believe they will ever get them out? They already won't leave the dreaded direct provision centres imagine houses.

As I said earlier if this was for granted refugees that's fair enough but what they are proposing is not that.

We need to be very careful going forward if this was brought in, the floods of people who would make a beeline for Ireland (not least from the uk). As a country we seem terrified of being accused of being racist or not charitable. I think it comes from a good place but seems to be getting out of hand recently.

Surely common sense will win out?

Gatling

jones wrote: »

Most people deported go because they want to go. Very few are actually deported against their will as far as I know.

Just over 1300 deportations over a 12 + year period ,yet we've had 60,000+ through dp and god knows how Many who didn't go to direct provision ,seems odd how so few deported yet we see people screaming stop all deportations.

We need proper reception and holding centers where your not free to come and go at your own will especially where tax payers are footing the massive housing and legal aid bills while the so called asylum seekers call us all Racists ,fast track applications followed by rapid Judgements if denied you should be removed from the holding centers within 7-14 days at most on put on to a flight to the country of origins

Eric Cartman

double jobbing wrote: »

I always wonder how the handful who do get the boot are unlucky enough for this to happen. Must near on be drawn out of a hat.

Theres atleast 1 'Syrian' remaining who's prefab was raided and 20k of cannabis found. He's still here....18 months later.... so you probably have to murder a child who's dad played county and is a Gard to get kicked out.

double jobbing

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Theres atleast 1 'Syrian' remaining who's prefab was raided and 20k of cannabis found. He's still here....18 months later.... so you probably have to murder a child who's dad played county and is a Gard to get kicked out.

You see the very occasional case where a woman and her children are deported. Which makes you wonder how the feck they were that unlucky when a similarly unscrupulous case, Ellie Kisombye being an example, gets to stay after 10 years (and promptly flies home on holiday).

In her case, she effectively deceived a branch of welfare services for a 10 year period. If I claimed disability claimin to have a crippling medical condition, but for 10 years I was moonlighting as a bare knuckle fighter of such success Tyson Fury offered me an exhibition fight akin to the plot of the first Rocky film, I'm fairly sure the DSP would be interested in my miraculous overnight recovery after having taken 250 a week off them for the last decade.

I fail to see why after tens of thousands in spending on a spot in a DP hostel, food, and her 23 quid a week at the time, for 10 years, the Dept of Justice isn't investigating what changed in Malawian human rights/ politics that just slightly overlapped her positive decision.

Pronto63

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 pays all the legal fees?
Taxpayer?
If so there should be an absolute limit of 1 appeal and then deportation if unsuccessful.
I agree system must be quicker. Don’t think it’s fair to deport a 12 year old that has been here 10 years. Point is it shouldn’t take 10 years!!

double jobbing

Pronto63 wrote: »

Who pays all the legal fees?
Taxpayer?
If so there should be an absolute limit of 1 appeal and then deportation if unsuccessful.
I agree system must be quicker. Don’t think it’s fair to deport a 12 year old that has been here 10 years. Point is it shouldn’t take 10 years!!

I've never understood this argument that you can't deport a child who has made local connections, only knows this country and language etc.

You could use the same argument to suggest a 12 year old asylum seeker who is not fleeing danger should not be uprooted from his school, hometown and friends in Nigeria/ Georgia/ Albania to be sent to Ireland with its bad climate, unknown food, etc.

On a personal level you would feel sorry. On a realistic level it's another form of anchor baby tourism- stay in the asylum system with a child long enough for him/ her to have local connections and it's illegal to deport you.

Doesn't wash in the real world. And most of these lefties openly laud the murder of the Romanov children and would have full term abortion if they could get away with it. Compassion for children me hole.

jones

Gatling wrote: »

We need proper reception and holding centers where your not free to come and go at your own will especially where tax payers are footing the massive housing and legal aid bills while the so called asylum seekers call us all Racists ,fast track applications followed by rapid Judgements if denied you should be removed from the holding centers within 7-14 days at most on put on to a flight to the country of origins

This makes perfect sense and I think we all just want a fair system for everyone. We are definitely seen as a soft touch in european terms with how we handle anyone who mentions the word asylum at Dublin airport being aided by the legal system and powerful NGO's the scales seems more than tipped in the applicants favour.

The fact that claiming asylum literally means mentioning a word and your in the country for years and handed accomodation, food, full medical card and modest finance each week - even if your claim is complete BS is an inherint flaw. Its too easy to have spurious claims which the majority appear to be. This in turn clogs up the system with economic migrants and the genuine cases are stuck in a backlog.

Very odd set up and i do wonder how Europe as a whole are going to handle this going forward. We need to get our own house in order first though (pardon the pun).

biko

Rodin wrote: »

How about we punish the airlines that bring illegals in?

It's called carriers’ liability.

It works, or should work, like this.
If an airline brings in person A and person A is found by customs to not have a valid passport then the airline is paying for the transport of person A back to original destination.

When used correctly the amount of undocumented people is then zero.

Of course the passport could be a forgery, stolen, etc but this at least assures the person has a valid passport upon entry into the state.

Marcos

biko wrote: »

It's called carriers’ liability.

It works, or should work, like this.
If an airline brings in person A and person A is found by customs to not have a valid passport then the airline is paying for the transport of person A back to original destination.

When used correctly the amount of undocumented people is then zero.

Of course the passport could be a forgery, stolen, etc but this at least assures the person has a valid passport upon entry into the state.

On the inaugural Ethiopian Airlines flight from Addis Ababa seven people claimed asylum.

It is understood that the passengers disembarked and made their way to Dublin Airport’s immigration gates where they claimed asylum.

They reportedly arrived at the desk without ID or travel documentation.

A spokeswoman for Ethiopian Airlines this morning insisted that all passengers on the flight had full legal documents when they boarded in Addis Ababa but said that the airline does not comment on individual cases.

“Ethiopian Airlines has been operating for over 40 years in Europe and Dublin is its 11th City.

“We only carry passengers with full legal documents and appropriate visas. We also carry out extra checks when in doubt and take guidance from appropriate immigration teams of the destination country we operate to, if needed,” she said.

Galwayguy35

Heard someone on Matt Coopers radio show yesterday say the 2004 referendum needs to be looked at again because the voters "got it wrong and Ireland is very different now".

Yeah Ireland would be very different if we hadn't closed ths loophole where all illegals had to was pop out a few kids to ensure they were here for life.

This is a very disturbing thing to hear someone say, but we've been here before with the Lisbon Treaty.

I'd be very disappointed in any Government who decided to try to hold another referendum when 79% of voters voted to change it back in 04.

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Heard someone on Matt Coopers radio show yesterday say the 2004 referendum needs to be looked at again because the voters "got it wrong and Ireland is very different now".

Yeah Ireland would be very different if we hadn't closed ths loophole where all illegals had to was pop out a few kids to ensure they were here for life.

This is a very disturbing thing to hear someone say, but we've been here before with the Lisbon Treaty.

I'd be very disappointed in any Government who decided to try to hold another referendum when 79% of voters voted to change it back in 04.

It would be the same result again.

Beechwoodspark

Can anyone who is looking for change to direct provision please outline what the alternative will be? Genuinely curious

double jobbing

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'd be very disappointed in any Government who decided to try to hold another referendum when 79% of voters voted to change it back in 04.

Referendum?

LOL.

None of the parties trying to amend the legislation are in favour of a referendum, because they know what the result would be. Paul Murphy is on the record as stating (correctly) that changing the law requires only a majority Dail vote, not a new referendum.

That would also be true of the abortion legislation. The left are so terrified of this being done that they drew up a list of all candidates running last time with their public comments on abortion listed- any candidate without a public comment on record was deemed potentially hostile and the advice was not to give them a vote. They also asked no FF TD's be voted for in any circumstance as a majority of their Dail members were anti abortion at one stage.

It was 79% in 2004. What would it be like in 2020 when we have a housing crisis and the public are more aware of how much preferential treatment the ungrateful moaners in direct provision actually get?


The Green Party, Solidarity- PBP- Rise are all in favour. SF have made noises about it but it's unclear whether they'd be daft enough to alienate their base by supporting it. If all the left established parties vote yes they would need only a handful of votes from indepndents and left leaning FG/ FF TD's to push it over the line.

Hamachi

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It would be the same result again.

Honestly, I’m not so sure. I was in my final year of university back then; I remember being roundly castigated for daring to suggest that the 27th amendment was the right thing to do.

There were also more opposing voices in the media in that era. Some level of dissent was tolerated. Nevertheless, Michael McDowell was still subjected to an endless stream of critical diatribes, for pushing forward with the referendum. The narrative is now so strictly controlled by one agenda, that I fear for the outcome here.

What I do know is that re-introducing Jus soli citizenship would be a disaster for Ireland. I hope that this agenda is just being pushed by a small cohort of extremists and fails to gain any traction amongst the general population.

dzsfah2xoynme9

I lived in New Zealand for 3 years. One thing I noticed was that there was no mention of any Direct Provision style set up. If you shouldn't be there you were sent out on the next available plane. The right set up. If you no right to be in a country and no visa then out you go. I'd even apply that to the undocumented Irish in the USA. They knew what they were doing and the risks involved..

Hamachi

[quote="double jobbing;113791972

It was 79% in 2004. What would it be like in 2020 when we have a housing crisis and the public are more aware of how much preferential treatment the ungrateful moaners in direct provision actually get?


The Green Party, Solidarity- PBP- Rise are all in favour. SF have made noises about it but it's unclear whether they'd be daft enough to alienate their base by supporting it. If all the left established parties vote yes they would need only a handful of votes from indepndents and left leaning FG/ FF TD's to push it over the line.[/quote]

This is genuinely concerning. The last election results were anomalous and will likely be reversed next time around. It’s worrying that the left seeks to capitalize on one-off result to ride roughshod over the democratic wishes of the people. Hopefully, sanity prevails here.

If this were to happen, Ireland would be the only EU member state offering birthright citizenship. I can’t see this going down too well with our EU partners..

Galwayguy35

double jobbing wrote: »

Referendum?

LOL.

None of the parties trying to amend the legislation are in favour of a referendum, because they know what the result would be. Paul Murphy is on the record as stating (correctly) that changing the law requires only a majority Dail vote, not a new referendum.

That would also be true of the abortion legislation. The left are so terrified of this being done that they drew up a list of all candidates running last time with their public comments on abortion listed- any candidate without a public comment on record was deemed potentially hostile and the advice was not to give them a vote. They also asked no FF TD's be voted for in any circumstance as a majority of their Dail members were anti abortion at one stage.

It was 79% in 2004. What would it be like in 2020 when we have a housing crisis and the public are more aware of how much preferential treatment the ungrateful moaners in direct provision actually get?


The Green Party, Solidarity- PBP- Rise are all in favour. SF have made noises about it but it's unclear whether they'd be daft enough to alienate their base by supporting it. If all the left established parties vote yes they would need only a handful of votes from indepndents and left leaning FG/ FF TD's to push it over the line.

Thats even more troubling if they do something like a vote in the Dail.

Nesta2018

But how can you overturn the result of a referendum without another one? Genuine question. Wasn't that the issue with the 8th amendment, that it had been voted into the constitution in 1983 and therefore had to be removed the same way? I don't understand how that works.

I do see, anecdotally, a huge chasm between the opinions of those with economic, social and political power and those without. The former will never have to see their neighbourhoods transformed or feel the brunt of pressure on school places, public hospitals etc. So it's a very alarming thought that they could reintroduce jus soli citizenship against the will of everyone else. We are already in enough trouble with Brexit, Covid 19, and an existing housing crisis. Not to mention the upcoming second generation from Direct Provision coming of age; the angry resentful cohort whose sense of injustice is stoked by professional race-baiters and NGOs and who have little to offer but more social unrest.

Galwayguy35

And we see how a lot of these anchor babies turned out, roaming around in gangs beating people up.

Gatling

I'd love to see this having multiple citizenships dropped too,

Sweet.Science

Housing marches , then climate change marches , Covid and then black lives matter marches put this on the long finger for a while for the social justice warriors

It will come back around soon . Then fizzle out and something else will come to the fore front . Then that will fizzle out being replaced again by something that was put on the long finger

It's a continuous loop. They care about absolutely everything meaning it's hard to actually care about anything

SporadicMan

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Housing marches , then climate change marches , Covid and then black lives matter marches put this on the long finger for a while for the social justice warriors

It will come back around soon . Then fizzle out and something else will come to the fore front . Then that will fizzle out being replaced again by something that was put on the long finger

It's a continuous loop. They care about absolutely everything meaning it's hard to actually care about anything

What are you talking about?


The push to end Direct Provision had direct impact in the government and they came out and said that they're making plans to change it.


You're acting as if this mob isn't capable of making change. It absolutely is. That's the scary part.

Mr. Karate

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Can anyone who is looking for change to direct provision please outline what the alternative will be? Genuinely curious

Most likely outcome is that they cut the Housing list line and immediately get a Council House [and then in 6 months they're crying for a new one since the current one doesn't meet their standards]