Housing Department: New plan to end direct provision is unworkable

ChikiChiki

Direct Provision is a scheme that is making people very wealthy off the backs of the less fortunate.

I would view the whole thing akin to money laundering. A crafty method to transfer public funds via legitimate means.

In essence, its a scam.

ChikiChiki

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Direct Provision is a scheme that is making people very wealthy off the backs of the less fortunate.

I would view the whole thing akin to money laundering. A crafty method to transfer public funds via legitimate means.

In essence, its a scam.

This can not be said enough....whatever ones view on migration, its a disgrace whats going with these

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

This can not be said enough....whatever ones view on migration, its a disgrace whats going with these

absolutely its a cash grab draining the public coffers. Id close every DP centre in the morning if I could, as I'm sure most would. Where the fork in the road is what happens to the migrants afterwards, for which there are two very distinct camps on. Sadly while most advocate putting the migrants in own door properties or just allowing them in on amnesty etc.. I would much rather painfully watch the awful DP process continue.

smurgen

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Direct Provision is a scheme that is making people very wealthy off the backs of the less fortunate.

I would view the whole thing akin to money laundering. A crafty method to transfer public funds via legitimate means.

In essence, its a scam.

In alot of areas it was a bailout of failing rural hotels. I've seen it in multiple counties. Just like the temporary emergency accomodations for those on the housing list is a bailout for hotels. It's a high cost way of dealing with the issues at the taxpayers expense.

smurgen

smurgen wrote: »

In alot of areas it was a bailout of failing rural hotels. I've seen it in multiple counties. Just like the temporary emergency accomodations for those on the housing list is a bailout for hotels. It's a high cost way of dealing with the issues at the taxpayers expense.

I would like to know the relationship between those running these and all the political.parties/department involved


Its profiteering off the most vunerable and this sh1t of taking 4 and 5 years to "process claims" screams conspiracy akin to the thing in america where prision owners were found to be bribing judges

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

I would like to know the relationship between those running these and all the political.parties/department involved


Its profiteering off the most vunerable and this sh1t of taking 4 and 5 years to "process claims" screams conspiracy akin to the thing in america where prision owners were found to be bribing judges

I can't help but agree, how they can't process them in a few months is beyond me. Sure theres less than 10% of claims legitimate anyway so just a bit of doubt and its 'denied and heres your ticket back to wherever'

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I can't help but agree, how they can't process them in a few months is beyond me. Sure theres less than 10% of claims legitimate anyway so just a bit of doubt and its 'denied and heres your ticket back to wherever'

Looks.to me....they are left to rot there so long (for profit?),it then ends up.that it would be callous/wrong to fcuk them out....and being awarded immigration by default


Same as a messer in work,who deos nothing,just they end up so long there,its too much to hassle to sack em

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

Looks.to me....they are left to rot there so long (for profit?),it then ends up.that it would be callous/wrong to fcuk them out....and being awarded immigration by default


Same as a messer in work,who deos nothing,just they end up so long there,its too much to hassle to sack em

Id completely agree this is the most likely reason that our deportation rate is so low. Cant leave somebody for 5 years and then go 'you're unfit to be here'

What I don't understand is why no charities have founded their own not for profit DP centres. Say for example Amnesty, they definitely have the capital that you would need to invest to start a DP centre, why not do it more humanely.

The NGO's have been banging on about how bad DP centres are for the best part of 2 decades, in all that time they should really have created an example of how much better you could do this without trying to make a profit

VillageIdiot71

Kivaro wrote: »

According to the Sunday Business Post this morning (behind a paywall): the Department of Housing states that ‘untenable’ own-door proposal would drive up rents and lead to legal challenges. The department also stated that this new plan would result in greater levels of homelessness in Ireland and would exasperate rental inflation.

The article is behind a paywall. The Department of Housing submission is in the public domain here:

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/DHLGH%20Observations%20on%20draft%20Advisory%20Group%20report%2014092020.pdf/Files/DHLGH%20Observations%20on%20draft%20Advisory%20Group%20report%2014092020.pdf

Folk might want to download a copy, in case it vanishes.

Full of interesting views. Just to pick one

A very significant issue will arise where the asylum seeker receives a negative decision, which is very lightly touched on in the draft report and is a very clear policy gap. .... In the proposed new asylum seeker housing assistance scheme, the Group has recommended that the State continue to pay rent for a period after a negative decision but notes that this would eventually end and the failed asylum seeker would be supported to return home. It is unclear when supports are actually to end, whether it is after the first instance decision, any subsequent appeal to the IPAT or any further appeal to the Courts which could entail a period of many years.

The DHPLG notes the very high rate of rejection and the very low rate of deportation currently, and notes the far more likely scenario that this cohort will try to remain in the State without supports. At present those who receive negative decisions and exhaust the courts process can stay on in direct provision centres. ...

Good submission, highlighting just what a nonsense the approach being suggested is.

smurgen

Deleted User wrote: »

I would like to know the relationship between those running these and all the political.parties/department involved


Its profiteering off the most vunerable and this sh1t of taking 4 and 5 years to "process claims" screams conspiracy akin to the thing in america where prision owners were found to be bribing judges

Have a look at this and tell me it doesn't stink of cronyism?

"There is serious money in Direct Provision. Take a hotel with 50 rooms. The owner can expect to pull in between €1.5m - €2m annually for housing up to 150 asylum seekers.

One hotel on which somebody made such a calculation was the 56-room Skellig Star in the south Kerry town of Cahirciveen. Two months ago, it opened as a Direct Provision (DP) centre, much to the surprise of the townspeople.

Twenty four hours earlier, around 100 asylum seekers based in the Dublin area were equally surprised when told they would be heading to the deep south. The plan was that another 50 people would be joining them within weeks."



https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-30999409.html

Bubbaclaus

smurgen wrote: »

Have a look at this and tell me it doesn't stink of cronyism?

"There is serious money in Direct Provision. Take a hotel with 50 rooms. The owner can expect to pull in between €1.5m - €2m annually for housing up to 150 asylum seekers.

One hotel on which somebody made such a calculation was the 56-room Skellig Star in the south Kerry town of Cahirciveen. Two months ago, it opened as a Direct Provision (DP) centre, much to the surprise of the townspeople.

Twenty four hours earlier, around 100 asylum seekers based in the Dublin area were equally surprised when told they would be heading to the deep south. The plan was that another 50 people would be joining them within weeks."



https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-30999409.html

So Michael Haely Rae is profiteering from DP centres? Why am I not surprised.

kravmaga

smellyoldboot wrote: »

There's a much quicker way to end Direct Provision and it could be implemented tomorrow if we had the balls: Any waster that shows up without their documents in order or where Ireland could not possibly be the first safe country they landed in, straight out the fcukin door with them. No room for free-loaders, lifetime dolers , criminals and rapists here.

Most of them arriving are told to destroy all of their documents before entering the state, hence it takes longer then for the state to process their cases.

Lots of investigative work then has to take place with various agencies.

This holds up the entire D.P. process, some of them can be here for up to 10 years and still no decision made on their application for Asylum.

I suspect most of the Asylum seekers arriving into the state are just ECONOMIC MIGRANTS.

In my opinion if they commit a criminal offence and are detected, charged & convicted in a court, then they should be automatically deported back to the country of origin.

An example of the Algerian national mentioned by a previous poster.

Kivaro

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

The article is behind a paywall. The Department of Housing submission is in the public domain here:

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/DHLGH%20Observations%20on%20draft%20Advisory%20Group%20report%2014092020.pdf/Files/DHLGH%20Observations%20on%20draft%20Advisory%20Group%20report%2014092020.pdf

Folk might want to download a copy, in case it vanishes.

Full of interesting views. Just to pick oneGood submission, highlighting just what a nonsense the approach being suggested is.

Good find.
It is actually a very disturbing report, but confirms what many of us suspected was the case:

The DHPLG notes the very high rate of rejection and the very low rate of deportation currently, and notes the far more likely scenario that this cohort will try to remain in the State without supports. At present those who receive negative decisions and exhaust the courts process can stay on in direct provision centres.

The DHPLG (Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government) is admitting that those who are rejected for asylum in Ireland and exhaust the numerous court appeals can still stay on in Direct Provision centres indefinitely. So in essence, instead of deportation, the Irish tax payer continues to pay for bogus asylum seeker while they stay in DP and we also continue to pay for all the ancillary costs (health, education etc. etc) associated with these failed asylum seekers.

This does not appear to be very fair, but the obvious solution is also mentioned in the above quote. This situation is allowed to happen at enormous cost to the tax payer due to the "very low rate of deportation". If they were deported immediately after their failed legal challenges, then the situation would improve drastically when it comes to available spaces within DP centres. And of course, there should be a limit to the amount of legal challenges allowed; irrespective of the uproar that it would cause in the lucrative legal trade.

smurgen

smurgen wrote: »

Have a look at this and tell me it doesn't stink of cronyism?

"There is serious money in Direct Provision. Take a hotel with 50 rooms. The owner can expect to pull in between €1.5m - €2m annually for housing up to 150 asylum seekers.

One hotel on which somebody made such a calculation was the 56-room Skellig Star in the south Kerry town of Cahirciveen. Two months ago, it opened as a Direct Provision (DP) centre, much to the surprise of the townspeople.

Twenty four hours earlier, around 100 asylum seekers based in the Dublin area were equally surprised when told they would be heading to the deep south. The plan was that another 50 people would be joining them within weeks."



https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-30999409.html

A wee bit of deep dive on the operator there,paul collins shows he lumped alot of distressed property into nama

Not his first time living off tax payer.....now buys property on cheap back off nama,has "interests" in nursing homes and several direct provision centres


Truely the worst of "capitalism",making money hand over fist,off human misery,through gauranteed state contracts

Gervais08

As is my habit of a Sunday, I’m watching “Nothing to Declare” about Australia’s border control. Any questions about passports or visas and you don’t even get through the airport.

This might be a naive question but genuinely - why can’t we do that ?

Why do we have to land these people at all ???

Build a detention center near the airport - there is land there, don’t let them get onto the soil!!!

Donald Trump

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I can't help but agree, how they can't process them in a few months is beyond me. Sure theres less than 10% of claims legitimate anyway so just a bit of doubt and its 'denied and heres your ticket back to wherever'

If a person is legitimate, they could be processed quickly.


But the system gets clogged up with spoofers and scammers. So it delays things for the genuine ones. But even then, the genuine ones should be straightforward.


The difficulty is that anyone can read in the news that there is a conflict, say in DRC, land at Dublin airport and say they are from DRC and the rebels killed their family.



It is very difficult for the authorities to process that because they have to prove a negative.

ElJeffe

smurgen wrote: »

Fine Gael are in my eyes.

FG are not right wing. They gave traveller's ethnic status for a start. Also want to flood the country with an extra million people by 2030, those people aren't going to be all engineers and doctors btw.

smurgen

Deleted User wrote: »

A wee bit of deep dive on the operator there,paul collins shows he lumped alot of distressed property into nama

Not his first time living off tax payer.....now buys property on cheap back off nama,has "interests" in nursing homes and several direct provision centres


Truely the worst of "capitalism",making money hand over fist,off human misery,through gauranteed state contracts

Well this crony capitalism gives actual capitalism a bad name. I would love to know what the process involved in tendering of the contracts were in this instance. Is there any quality control of the centers at all? It's bad value for the taxpayer and you're keeping asylum seekers in purgatory.

Eric Cartman

Donald Trump wrote: »

If a person is legitimate, they could be processed quickly.


But the system gets clogged up with spoofers and scammers. So it delays things for the genuine ones. But even then, the genuine ones should be straightforward.


The difficulty is that anyone can read in the news that there is a conflict, say in DRC, land at Dublin airport and say they are from DRC and the rebels killed their family.



It is very difficult for the authorities to process that because they have to prove a negative.

this is why I think we should change the onus , the migrant has exactly 90 days to prove why they should get in , once that 90 days expire if they haven't managed that then goodbye.

Bubbaclaus

ElJeffe wrote: »

FG are not right wing. They gave traveller's ethnic status for a start. Also want to flood the country with an extra million people by 2030, those people aren't going to be all engineers and doctors btw.

Yes, most of them won't be engineers and doctors. Because the majority of the million is our natural population growth between now and 2040 (not 2030) and they will be unqualified Irish babies.

I find it weird how so many people were seemingly angered by a report that showed our population growth will actually be slower over next 20 years than it was in the previous 20 years.

Donald Trump

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this is why I think we should change the onus , the migrant has exactly 90 days to prove why they should get in , once that 90 days expire if they haven't managed that then goodbye.

The thing is that *if* a person was legitimately fleeing for their life in a hurry - then they might not have access to that documentation. That is the difficulty.


So the immigration have to try to prove that the person is not from there. That is a needle in a haystack job.

smellyoldboot

Donald Trump wrote: »

The thing is that *if* a person was legitimately fleeing for their life in a hurry - then they might not have access to that documentation. That is the difficulty.


So the immigration have to try to prove that the person is not from there. That is a needle in a haystack job.

I can't get on a Ryanair Flight to Liverpool/London without my boarding pass and passport. How did these sorts make it from the Me or sub Saharan africa sans such documents? In some cases arriving apparently magically from states with which there are zero direct transport links with Ireland.

Donald Trump

smellyoldboot wrote: »

I can't get on a Ryanair Flight to Liverpool/London without my boarding pass and passport. How did these sorts make it from the Me or sub Saharan africa sans such documents? In some cases arriving apparently magically from states with which there are zero direct transport links with Ireland.

You *can* legally arrive here on fake (or no) documents as long as you declare it at immigration.


The issue is that that is very easy to abuse. They know that once they claim asylum then they have to be processed.

political analyst

Kivaro wrote: »

Good find.
It is actually a very disturbing report, but confirms what many of us suspected was the case:
The DHPLG (Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government) is admitting that those who are rejected for asylum in Ireland and exhaust the numerous court appeals can still stay on in Direct Provision centres indefinitely. So in essence, instead of deportation, the Irish tax payer continues to pay for bogus asylum seeker while they stay in DP and we also continue to pay for all the ancillary costs (health, education etc. etc) associated with these failed asylum seekers.

This does not appear to be very fair, but the obvious solution is also mentioned in the above quote. This situation is allowed to happen at enormous cost to the tax payer due to the "very low rate of deportation". If they were deported immediately after their failed legal challenges, then the situation would improve drastically when it comes to available spaces within DP centres. And of course, there should be a limit to the amount of legal challenges allowed; irrespective of the uproar that it would cause in the lucrative legal trade.

It's not about lawyers' livelihoods - it's about the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits deportation to countries where torture is perpetrated by the government.

I'm aware that the asylum application process was slimmed down but that change couldn't be applied to cases that were already being processed because it couldn't be retrospective.

Kivaro

political analyst wrote: »

It's not about lawyers' livelihoods - ........

You are correct. The Irish legal profession is not the only entity accumulating millions of euros from the asylum industry. There are a number of Irish families (or familiar conglomerates) involved in providing Direct Provision in Ireland who are earning tens of millions of euros at the expense of the Irish tax payer. All of this is happening under the cloak of Irish mainstream media protection.

When we have a refugee living in a €700,000 one bedroom apartment in a wealthy Dublin suburb complaining about access to the gym facilities, then we (as in the 'normal people' in Ireland) know that something is seriously wrong with the country. The Irish Times and RTE can call us racist and lacking intellectual aptitude to understand the complexity of the asylum process in Ireland, but there will come a time when the asylum scam will be exposed. By that time, the connected Irish people who have made millions from the scam will have retired to much sunnier climes than our fare Isle.
But the damage done to our little country will possibly be insurmountable.

"Follow the money": that is what drives the asylum industry in Ireland; it has very little to do with the UN or European Convention on Human Rights.

creeper1

Gervais08 wrote: »

As is my habit of a Sunday, I’m watching “Nothing to Declare” about Australia’s border control. Any questions about passports or visas and you don’t even get through the airport.

This might be a naive question but genuinely - why can’t we do that ?

Why do we have to land these people at all ???

Build a detention center near the airport - there is land there, don’t let them get onto the soil!!!

Migrants are arriving en masse in the Canary Islands, lampedusa, Lesbos and probably many other places. I believe Ireland is or will be made take them (“fair share”)

bilbot79

As much as I don't want anyone to suffer, anything that encourages mass migration into Europe should be avoided. If asylum seekers were guaranteed housing within 3 months Ireland's population would quickly double and if millions of asylum seekers were granted citizenship in one era, the cultural and voting landscape would drastically change.

I'm loathe to turn away desperate people but lines do need to be drawn on immigration and Ireland/Europe has to come first

ThunbergsAreGo

Richard Hillman wrote: »

There are 7000 people in direct provision. How are they going to magic up homes for 7000 people and then claim that it hasn't bumped anybody down on a housing list? Even if a Secret utopian Town was found in Ireland with homes for 7000 people, people are still going to get bumped on the list.

It ain't going to be the folks in Direct Provision that will be in the homeless shelters, hotels. They are going straight to council housing. It's a fact. O'Gorman saying anything otherwise is complete folly.

There is a lot of apartment building going on right now with social housing specific being added on. It won't be long to work out where those apartments are going to go to.

It's as if the left wing parties are just teeing it up for the rise of true right wing politics.

7000 that's a whole lot of money for the legal people.

Current system is awful, make a decision and deport or integrate. This is the main issue here

SEPT 23 1989

Who the hell does "Roderic" think he is warning /threatening the people of this country with this?