President Higgins criticises Direct Provision

Juran · 19-11-2014 2:22pm #1

President Michael D Higgins has criticised the Irish system in dealing with asylum seekers known as Direct Provision, describing it as "totally unsatisfactory in almost every aspect".
The President also called for a complete revision of both the process and the law governing the system.
President Higgins made his comments in response to questions following his keynote address on human rights at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg today.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1119/660731-direct-provision-michael-d-higgins/

I can only imagine that a true asylum seeker like those poorfamilies fleeing from Syria would give their left arm to get a place in theIrish direct provision system.

Thought anyone on Michael D’s comments ???

walshb · 19-11-2014 2:28pm

Keep his mouth shut!

ectoraige · 19-11-2014 2:32pm

I imagine they would. I imagine too though that having found safe refuge, once they try to start building a new life for themselves, they would then give their right arm to get a place in a system that allows them to do so. Institutionalisation seems to lead to as many problems as it solves, we have whole families who are spending the formative years of their children stuck in limbo for no good reason.

Gatling · 19-11-2014 2:55pm

Juran wrote: »

President Michael D Higgins has criticised the Irish system in dealing with asylum seekers known as Direct Provision, describing it as "totally unsatisfactory in almost every aspect".
The President also called for a complete revision of both the process and the law governing the system.
President Higgins made his comments in response to questions following his keynote address on human rights at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg today.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1119/660731-direct-provision-michael-d-higgins/

I can only imagine that a true asylum seeker like those poorfamilies feeling from Syria would give their left arm to get a place in theIrish direct provision system.

Thought anyone on Michael D’s comments ???

Apparently Syrians are processed and given aslyum in a matter of weeks or months .
One family alone was housed in 2x 5 bed houses that a local authority had to purchase in the 12 months.

There's no real alternative to direct provison unfortunately for years we were a soft touch for bogus aslyum seekers the majority know if they bide there time they will get to stay and gain access to social welfare and social housing .

BoJack Horseman · 19-11-2014 3:06pm

Gatling wrote: »

Apparently Syrians are processed and given aslyum in a matter of weeks or months .
One family alone was housed in 2x 5 bed houses that a local authority had to purchase in the 12 months

Which local authority?

Gatling · 19-11-2014 3:25pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Which local authority?

I believe it was cavan not 100% post details in a bit

Lockstep · 19-11-2014 3:46pm

Gatling wrote: »

Apparently Syrians are processed and given aslyum in a matter of weeks or months .
One family alone was housed in 2x 5 bed houses that a local authority had to purchase in the 12 months.

Would deffo need a source for your claim that a family were given 2 five bedroom houses. If this took place, it's deffo not the norm.
Dunno much about Syrian refugees but given the ****storm that is Syria it makes sense they'd find it easy to get asylum as they're clearly not heading here to claim welfare but are fleeing from groups like the Syrian government, Al Nusra and ISIL.

I used to do volunteer work in an hotel that had been converted into an asylum seeker residence. It was pretty damn grim, families confined to single rooms and so on with nothing to do all day. Just waiting. It's basically a hostel where they're completely institutionalized. Especially irritiating was people being all "Wait, they're in a hotel??!?!? OMG SOFT TOUCH IRELAND" as if they were being waited on hand foot in a proper hotel rather than one which had been turned into a hostel for them.
Yeah it's a lot better than what they're fleeing from but they've literally nothing to do. A lot did community and volunteer work but personally, I'd be well up for letting them work, learn and contribute while their asylum claim was being processed, then at least they're contributing to society and upskilling so if they're granted asylum, they don't have a long gap in their CV and will have experience and skills to contribute.

There's no real alternative to direct provison unfortunately for years we were a soft touch for bogus aslyum seekers the majority know if they bide there time they will get to stay and gain access to social welfare and social housing .

They don't "get" to stay by waiting. If they're asylum claim is granted, then they are and frankly, they should be as if you're granted asylum, you're here for a damn good reason. If they're not granted asylum, they get deported.

AlekSmart · 19-11-2014 5:10pm

Lockstep wrote: »

Would deffo need a source for your claim that a family were given 2 five bedroom houses. If this took place, it's deffo not the norm.
Dunno much about Syrian refugees but given the ****storm that is Syria it makes sense they'd find it easy to get asylum as they're clearly not heading here to claim welfare but are fleeing from groups like the Syrian government, Al Nusra and ISIL.

I used to do volunteer work in an hotel that had been converted into an asylum seeker residence. It was pretty damn grim, families confined to single rooms and so on with nothing to do all day. Just waiting. It's basically a hostel where they're completely institutionalized. Especially irritiating was people being all "Wait, they're in a hotel??!?!? OMG SOFT TOUCH IRELAND" as if they were being waited on hand foot in a proper hotel rather than one which had been turned into a hostel for them.
Yeah it's a lot better than what they're fleeing from but they've literally nothing to do. A lot did community and volunteer work but personally, I'd be well up for letting them work, learn and contribute while their asylum claim was being processed, then at least they're contributing to society and upskilling so if they're granted asylum, they don't have a long gap in their CV and will have experience and skills to contribute.

They don't "get" to stay by waiting. If they're asylum claim is granted, then they are and frankly, they should be as if you're granted asylum, you're here for a damn good reason. If they're not granted asylum, they get deported.

Good post,do you have any stats to cover the numbers who have been deported against numbers who have deffo failed to secure Asylum ?

AlekSmart · 19-11-2014 5:14pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Which local authority?

The Govt did announce a fast-track process for victims of the Syrian conflict,which may have involved family members already residing here.

It may well mean that these families were resourced to move to suitably larger accomodation to cope with reuniting the new arrivals.

Most likely funded by the Dept of Foreign Affairs ?

Lockstep · 19-11-2014 7:07pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

Good post,do you have any stats to cover the numbers who have been deported against numbers who have deffo failed to secure Asylum ?

Over 90% of applications are rejected.
source

We deffo need asylum (as some of these people are fleeing horrendous regimes) but we're actually very harsh on asylum seekers rather than the perception that we're too soft.

What we need is a more streamlined system to address claims quicker and to allow them to work in the meantime so that they're contributing and working rather than forced to remain idle. If their claims fail, they can then be deported but at least they've been active in the meantime.

AlekSmart · 19-11-2014 9:03pm

Lockstep wrote: »

Over 90% of applications are rejected.
source

We deffo need asylum (as some of these people are fleeing horrendous regimes) but we're actually very harsh on asylum seekers rather than the perception that we're too soft.

What we need is a more streamlined system to address claims quicker and to allow them to work in the meantime so that they're contributing and working rather than forced to remain idle. If their claims fail, they can then be deported but at least they've been active in the meantime.

Ta for the link to Newspaper Article.

The figures are good to know,but still leave me with a numbers problem,the figure for Deportations in 2012 were a total of 298,which would not be close to 90% of that years total applicants.

The logjam you mentioned earlier,is not only a feature of the consideration process,but equally a feature of the deportation process itself.

But it's a digression on the thread title....the only thing I would suggest to Prez Higgins is to organize an appeal to the Supreme Court following this week's High Court adjudication on the issue....

http://www.nascireland.org/latest-news/initial-comments-high-court-decision-direct-provision/

Justice Mac Eochaidh found that direct provision was not in breach of Articles 3, 5 and 8 (inhumane and degrading treatment, right to liberty and security, privacy). In addition, the €19.10 payment and the operation of direct provision were not deemed unlawful.

Naturally the NASC are suitably miffed at the Judge,but their chagrin in lessened by his striking down of the "House Rules" elements of Direct Provision Centres.

So a good days work in the Courts of Justice then...?

Nodin · 19-11-2014 9:45pm

"lawful" and "satisfactory" are not the same thing.

AlekSmart · 19-11-2014 11:19pm

Nodin wrote: »

"lawful" and "satisfactory" are not the same thing.

Lawful is what's required...satisfactory is a variable depending upon your slant.

It would have been a satisfactory Christmas for the NASC,had the High Court decllared DP to be unlawful...but hey..half a loaf is not to be sneezed at.

Cyclingtourist · 20-11-2014 2:09am

Don't get Higgins's point about the EU and freedom of movement being a founding principal as it relates to non-EU migrants.

jank · 20-11-2014 3:38am

Lockstep wrote: »

Yeah it's a lot better than what they're fleeing from but they've literally nothing to do. A lot did community and volunteer work but personally, I'd be well up for letting them work, learn and contribute while their asylum claim was being processed, then at least they're contributing to society and upskilling so if they're granted asylum, they don't have a long gap in their CV and will have experience and skills to contribute.

The point in bold is good in theory but would create a back door to being granted a legal working visa. All one has to do is get on a plane in Nigeria and transit via London or Dubai to Ireland. Dump their documents at the airport. Rock up to immigration and claim asylum.

OK, waiting period begins... so here is your working visa. I can't imagine too many people would be happy about it especially those who went through the legal and convoluted process of getting a non EU work visa and it would create a fairly large pull factor.

We should not fix a symptom, we should fix the cause. The Cause is the long waiting times with multiple appeals and re-appeals when children 'magically' are born and then have to enter into a new application and appeal in a process that goes on for years and years.

Streamline the system and limit it to one appeal. Max waiting time of 12 months. If the client and state cannot agree on the status then they should be deported by default.

In regards education, well children are already given access to primary and secondary school. This should be enough imo. Again, if you grant people free access to third level the same pull factors emerge where people will be encouraged to enter Ireland under fraudulent circumstances. Most Irish people do not get free access to third level due to high registration fees, so I cannot see an argument for free third level for asylum seekers.

jank · 20-11-2014 3:39am

Oh and president Higgins just can't help himself it appears. He should stay closer to his remit and leave the politics to the Dail.

jank · 20-11-2014 3:43am

Nodin wrote: »

"lawful" and "satisfactory" are not the same thing.

If they wanted a more 'satisfactory' outcome of Asylum seekers then they would have lobbied the Dail not brought a court case to the High court that rules on... em... the Law.

The courts cannot pass legislation or change the factors surrounding Direct provisioning. Only the Dail can do that. The court can then decide if said legislation is lawful or not. Currently, the courts have decided the status qua is lawful.

Lockstep · 20-11-2014 10:59am

AlekSmart wrote: »

Ta for the link to Newspaper Article.

The figures are good to know,but still leave me with a numbers problem,the figure for Deportations in 2012 were a total of 298,which would not be close to 90% of that years total applicants.

Someone having their claim rejected does not mean they're deported immediately. Appeals, or they might have found a way to remain in the country legally.

jank wrote: »

The point in bold is good in theory but would create a back door to being granted a legal working visa. All one has to do is get on a plane in Nigeria and transit via London or Dubai to Ireland. Dump their documents at the airport. Rock up to immigration and claim asylum.

OK, waiting period begins... so here is your working visa. I can't imagine too many people would be happy about it especially those who went through the legal and convoluted process of getting a non EU work visa and it would create a fairly large pull factor.

We should not fix a symptom, we should fix the cause. The Cause is the long waiting times with multiple appeals and re-appeals when children 'magically' are born and then have to enter into a new application and appeal in a process that goes on for years and years.

Streamline the system and limit it to one appeal. Max waiting time of 12 months. If the client and state cannot agree on the status then they should be deported by default.

In regards education, well children are already given access to primary and secondary school. This should be enough imo. Again, if you grant people free access to third level the same pull factors emerge where people will be encouraged to enter Ireland under fraudulent circumstances. Most Irish people do not get free access to third level due to high registration fees, so I cannot see an argument for free third level for asylum seekers.

It wouldn't be hard to implement: they'd be able to work but would remain as asylum seekers and therefore have to remain in Ireland and any time spent would not count towards residency. It'd basically be the same deal as now but allowing them the option of working. It wouldn't create any right to remain or any right of residency.

We currently have thousands seeking asylum despite us having one of the lowest approval rates in the EU. Somehow, I don't think they're here for the craic when they could apply to other countries where they wouldn't be given DP and where they would have a much higher chance of getting in.

RandomName2 · 20-11-2014 9:01pm

Lockstep wrote: »

I used to do volunteer work in an hotel that had been converted into an asylum seeker residence. It was pretty damn grim, families confined to single rooms and so on with nothing to do all day. Just waiting. It's basically a hostel where they're completely institutionalized. Especially irritiating was people being all "Wait, they're in a hotel??!?!? OMG SOFT TOUCH IRELAND" as if they were being waited on hand foot in a proper hotel rather than one which had been turned into a hostel for them.
Yeah it's a lot better than what they're fleeing from but they've literally nothing to do. A lot did community and volunteer work but personally, I'd be well up for letting them work, learn and contribute while their asylum claim was being processed, then at least they're contributing to society and upskilling so if they're granted asylum, they don't have a long gap in their CV and will have experience and skills to contribute.

Oh no! Not a gap in their CV! Those always lead to awkward interview questions!

I hope they get Sky Sports in their accommodation.

Lockstep wrote: »

If they're not granted asylum, they get deported.

Unless they appeal.

Ah... don't get me wrong... I don't think asylum seekers are living in the lap of luxury under direct provision.. but when our tax-payers are paying for people who may have absolutely no basis for claiming refugee status I am not rushing to make their living conditions markedly better from anyone else in this country living on the breadline. Of course those that do fit the criteria should be granted asylum quickly.

But what's with this example of refugees from Syria? I mean, at least people in Syria are in the midst of a bloody civil war... but did they feel that the wages here were better than Turkey or something? Was there a checklist (It just has to be an English speaking country which uses the Euro! Nothing else will do!)

RandomName2 · 20-11-2014 9:04pm

jank wrote: »

Oh and president Higgins just can't help himself it appears. He should stay closer to his remit and leave the politics to the Dail.

He gave a couple of million euro to South Sudan the other day. Not his money, mind.

conorh91 · 20-11-2014 10:12pm

Lockstep wrote: »

If they're not granted asylum, they get deported.

This is incorrect. The extreme majority of applicants who are refused asylum are not deported. They may leave voluntarily or, as is common, be granted leave to remain on foot of a family relationship, despite having previously failed all their applications for protection (as well as further applications brought on behalf of children).

The delaying tactics and associated costs are quite incredible. The reason for this persistence is the sure knowledge that leave to remain is a likely conclusion, however unfounded a protection claim, and however certain the refusal of that protection claim.

AlekSmart · 21-11-2014 12:21am

Lockstep wrote: »

Someone having their claim rejected does not mean they're deported immediately. Appeals, or they might have found a way to remain in the country legally.

Thank's for that clairification Lockstep,as in your OP you may have given the impression that failed asylum seekers were speedily deported...

If they're asylum claim is granted, then they are and frankly, they should be as if you're granted asylum, you're here for a damn good reason. If they're not granted asylum, they get deported.

The core issue remains,the well publicised reality that an Irish NO,is in fact,a"well....maybe" or an invitation to try again,appeal or avail of whatever evasive measures are currently the Legal flavour of the day.

The inability of the Irish State to speedily and effectively remove failed Asylum seekers is one of it's enduring qualities particularly amongst those whos'e business it is to know these things

jank · 21-11-2014 12:55am

Lockstep wrote: »

It wouldn't be hard to implement: they'd be able to work but would remain as asylum seekers and therefore have to remain in Ireland and any time spent would not count towards residency. It'd basically be the same deal as now but allowing them the option of working. It wouldn't create any right to remain or any right of residency.

We currently have thousands seeking asylum despite us having one of the lowest approval rates in the EU. Somehow, I don't think they're here for the craic when they could apply to other countries where they wouldn't be given DP and where they would have a much higher chance of getting in.

So, the question is why do we have thousands of people waiting for years and years for a decision? What it the hold up?

I would rather time and effort being made to streamline the process so people are not waiting years and years. Make an application and limit it to one appeal. Of course there are vested interests here in the legal scetor who are making a fortune on this process and numerous appeals. What you want to do is fix a symptom that would have other consequences like attracting an even greater number of fraudulent claimants rather than fixing the underlying cause, the long and convoluted application and appeals process itself. Any rational person could see that.

The thing is though, if the state started to make decisions in a more streamlined fashion that stopped this long waiting period and began to deport people within this timeframe, you will get the usual vested interests and social commentators giving out about the process being too 'strict' or too 'impersonal'. Can't really win tbh.

jank · 21-11-2014 1:06am

AlekSmart wrote: »

Thank's for that clairification Lockstep,as in your OP you may have given the impression that failed asylum seekers were speedily deported...

The core issue remains,the well publicised reality that an Irish NO,is in fact,a"well....maybe" or an invitation to try again,appeal or avail of whatever evasive measures are currently the Legal flavour of the day.

The inability of the Irish State to speedily and effectively remove failed Asylum seekers is one of it's enduring qualities particularly amongst those whos'e business it is to know these things

Agree, it is either a yes or a no. However, I get the impression that the 'maybe' conclusion is there as a way to defuse any negative comments from the social justice mob (as if they are going to be satisfied regardless) hence the current mess.

The whole asylum process is back to front as I mentioned in another post but that is for another debate. If you take out the economic pull factors that claiming asylum will bring you will see a substantial drop of said claimants. Just look at the Australian policy over the last 24 months. From hundreds of people dying in the Indian ocean to barley a trickle trying to get over here illegally as the promise of resettlement in Australia has been taken away. Surprise surprise, they are no longer seeking to claim asylum here in that manner.

People are naturally skeptical about asylum seekers when the vast majority of claims are fraudulent. People will act in their own self interest, its only natural.

nuac · 21-11-2014 4:00pm

President should stick to his own job, and leave the Executive to do theirs.

If he wants to keep preaching on this, he should donate a chunk of his own salary and pension to fund the expenses.

walshb · 21-11-2014 5:24pm

Isn't the President, similar to the Queen, supposed to be impartial in certain matters?

conorh91 · 22-11-2014 6:07pm

walshb wrote: »

Isn't the President, similar to the Queen, supposed to be impartial in certain matters?

Only in a very small number of circumstances, such as when he is addressing the Oireachtas or the Nation in an official capacity.

He can communicate his opinions otherwise, and such an expression of opinion is immune from investigation or review by Parliament or the Courts, because the constitutional freedom enjoyed by the President is far more broad than most people realize.

I happen to disagree with the President on this one, but I think his office must be the most misunderstood office in the land. Comparisons with the far more impartial role of the British monarch are inappropriate, and are a relic of the fact that the early Presidents were idle Government appointees. They weren't constrained by the Constitution, they were constrained by their own obeisant attitude to the rest of the Oireachtas.

mister gullible · 22-11-2014 11:39pm

walshb wrote: »

Keep his mouth shut!

jank wrote: »

Oh and president Higgins just can't help himself it appears. He should stay closer to his remit and leave the politics to the Dail.

Michael D is recognised to be well educated and a supporter of human rights. It is also assumed that he won't be happy to sit idly by in face of social injustice. In other words he is a decent sort. This is why he was elected as President and a President we should respect.
The asylum seekers should not be subject to 3rd world treatment in our country. There should be a reasonably quick decision to allow them to stay and find work or, if they are chancers to have them booted out. In the meantime they should be treated in a decent manner. Ireland of the welcomes seems to apply if you have a few bob to give. As for Christian values.... ah good old Ireland.

jank · 23-11-2014 2:19am

mister gullible wrote: »

Michael D is recognised to be well educated and a supporter of human rights. It is also assumed that he won't be happy to sit idly by in face of social injustice. In other words he is a decent sort. This is why he was elected as President and a President we should respect.
The asylum seekers should not be subject to 3rd world treatment in our country. There should be a reasonably quick decision to allow them to stay and find work or, if they are chancers to have them booted out. In the meantime they should be treated in a decent manner. Ireland of the welcomes seems to apply if you have a few bob to give. As for Christian values.... ah good old Ireland.

Michael D being a member of the Labour party which more or less goes hand in hand to being a social justice warrior. That is fine on a personal level. However, the president is supposed to be apolitical. He is not meant to involve himself in the current issues facing the state. When he comes out with statements regarding direct provisioning, which is currently in the mainstream consciousness he is over stepping the remit of the president of Ireland. For this he should be rightly criticised.

Asylum seekers in Ireland are not living in 3rd world conditions. Far from it. Perhaps if you visit a 3rd world country sometime you will recognise this. I agree with a quick decision regarding their application yet this in itself presents dangers and issues. The main problem with posts like yourself is that 'more should be done' yet this cannot never be quantified into something. There are finite resources within the state. Would you favour say, more money being spent n Direct provisioning and say this money to come from OAP's rule allowance, or water tax? Probably not...

DEFTLEFTHAND · 23-11-2014 8:52am

'D' likes a bit of social justice now and then, sure he spent all his career travelling around the world on someones else's dollar fighting injustice. 'Where's Twee?' became a jokeabout phrase in the Labour Party.

Socialist living it large, 250gs, private jet and mansion, what a playa.

conorh91 · 23-11-2014 5:35pm

jank wrote: »

However, the president is supposed to be apolitical.

Where did you get that idea?

President Higgins criticises Direct Provision

Comments