Ireland: Amongst Europe's toughest for asylum seekers

RATM

Interesting report from the UNHRC in the Irish Times earlier, can't find it online yet but it'll crop up somewhere soon. It said that of 1,014 claims before the courts for asylum just 14, or around 1.3% were granted.
Across the EU Ireland ranks as the second worst place for an asylum seeker to seek asylum. The UK in comparison sees 26% of asylum cases being granted. Denmark tops the list with 47% of cases being successful.

It's an interesting report, especially given the events for Pamela in the Supreme Court yesterday.

So my question is this, given the fact that Ireland now has a record (and a reputation in the EU, presumably?) of being tough on asylum cases, what is it exactly that an asylum seeker has to prove to be granted a stay? Is being from, for example, Afghanistan or Sudan not enough?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Does Ireland actually ensure they're deported after being rejected though?

Absurdum

RATM wrote: »

Across the EU Ireland ranks as the second worst place for an asylum seeker to seek asylum.

or maybe it's the second most attractive place for bogus applications?

opo

RATM wrote: »

my question is this, given the fact that Ireland now has a record (and a reputation in the EU, presumably?) of being tough on asylum cases, what is it exactly that an asylum seeker has to prove to be granted a stay?

Persecution

RATM wrote: »

Is being from, for example, Afghanistan or Sudan not enough?

No. If it was, we would not require a determination procedure other than proof of birthplace. I am not aware of any UNHCR initiative to do something so ridiculous.

Scofflaw

Absurdum wrote: »

or maybe it's the second most attractive place for bogus applications?

That would make no sense whatsoever, since if the high refusal rate were a result of a high bogus application rate, then the bogus applications would have to be being detected at a high rate, making it a very poor place for a bogus application.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PCros

RATM wrote: »

Is being from, for example, Afghanistan or Sudan not enough?

I could be wrong but don't you have to claim asylum in the next immediate country to the one you are leaving? Therefore we're nowhere near those countries.

Scofflaw

PCros wrote: »

I could be wrong but don't you have to claim asylum in the next immediate country to the one you are leaving? Therefore we're nowhere near those countries.

You are, in fact, completely wrong - and I strongly advise people to read the forum charter on the subject of the Dublin Regulation before getting into that discussion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Denerick

The term asylum seeker has come to mean very little. In principle, it should be reserved for people fleeing persecution of some kind. Think of a Jew at the height of the holocaust crossing the border from Austria to Switzerland. He's claiming asylum because he is guaranteed to face unbelievable suffering if he returns home.

Another principle of asylum seeking should be that the person facing persecution should migrate to the nearest country in search of sanctuary. This is the case as it is often countries like Kenya or Chad that have the highest number of asylum seekers per person.

Considering most of our asylum seekers come from African countries, it seems to me to be a nonsense that they should seek 'asylum' here at all. Often there are adjacent countries that can grant asylum and are offered humanitarian assistance by the UN. What I would argue is that most asylum seekers are escaping the undoubtedly awful living conditions in UN camps and seeking asylum in western nations. These people are not asylum seekers as they already have political asylum in an adjacent country. Instead they are economic migrants. I have no problems with this. I just wish we stop playing around with words. They aren't asylum seekers if they are escaping bad living conditions, they are asylum seekers if they are escaping persecution.

Lemming

RATM wrote: »

Interesting report from the UNHRC in the Irish Times earlier, can't find it online yet but it'll crop up somewhere soon. It said that of 1,014 claims before the courts for asylum just 14, or around 1.3% were granted.
Across the EU Ireland ranks as the second worst place for an asylum seeker to seek asylum.

Those figures haven't seemed to have deviated much from figures released around the early 2000s, where if I recall it was around 6% of cases were found to be legitimate. The phrase used to describe was that "94% of all asylum cases were found to have not conformed to the criteria as outlined by the UN charter for refugees", or something very similar.

At the time, there was a lot of j'acusse by Residents against racism claiming that the Irish system was racist, and I recall the dept. of justice making that statement and citing the criteria applied was the UN's own criteria and not some makey-uppity criteria.

opo

Scofflaw wrote: »

That would make no sense whatsoever, since if the high refusal rate were a result of a high bogus application rate, then the bogus applications would have to be being detected at a high rate, making it a very poor place for a bogus application.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Perhaps. However, with the rate of deportations at an extremely low level (as is the case), coupled with the inordinate time taken to close cases (due to the legal circus primarily), then we may still be an extremely attractive place to spend a few years at someone elses expense.

This is a country where a single deportation flight can still make national news - a decade and more since unprecedented immigration, legal and illegal, began. We are also a country where a single claim for asylum - can make a national and global name for the person supposedly trying to hide.

I believe we are a particularily attractive place for bogus claims and have been for years.

caseyann

RATM wrote: »

Interesting report from the UNHRC in the Irish Times earlier, can't find it online yet but it'll crop up somewhere soon. It said that of 1,014 claims before the courts for asylum just 14, or around 1.3% were granted.
Across the EU Ireland ranks as the second worst place for an asylum seeker to seek asylum. The UK in comparison sees 26% of asylum cases being granted. Denmark tops the list with 47% of cases being successful.

It's an interesting report, especially given the events for Pamela in the Supreme Court yesterday.

So my question is this, given the fact that Ireland now has a record (and a reputation in the EU, presumably?) of being tough on asylum cases, what is it exactly that an asylum seeker has to prove to be granted a stay? Is being from, for example, Afghanistan or Sudan not enough?

No just means the false cases reach here because they didnt make it there and move on to the gullible Ireland.
Easy to condemn a system when you cant see why they were denied asylum.

donkey balls

Scofflaw wrote: »

You are, in fact, completely wrong - and I strongly advise people to read the forum charter on the subject of the Dublin Regulation before getting into that discussion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

scofflaw i dont want to be picky, just say you arrive in terminal 3 LHR you must clear customs&emmigration before making your on ward journey.
like most countries there is a secton for non nationals&nationals at passport control.

Nodin

opo wrote: »

I believe we are a particularily attractive place for bogus claims and have been for years.

In light of the figures, that makes no sense whatsoever.

opo

Nodin wrote: »

In light of the figures, that makes no sense whatsoever.

That's because a myopic look at the figures alone is a pointless and moronic excercise and that's why I suggested other reasons.

If you don't have a legitimate claim for asylum to begin with, what do you suppose would be an attraction to lodging a bogus claim here rather than somewhere else?

For example - Nigerians can claim asylum in a number of neighbouring countries. Why do you suppose we have the highest numbers of Nigerian asylum seekers in the world coupled with one of the lowest recognition rates?

Nodin

opo wrote: »

That's because a myopic look at the figures alone is a pointless and moronic excercise and that's why I suggested other reasons.

I'd say a look at figures representing what goes on as opposed to whats imagined to go on is a most worthwhile exercise, and that trying to divert away from it would be an attempt to set up a pair of goalposts more to ones liking.....

opo

Nodin wrote: »

I'd say a look at figures representing what goes on as opposed to whats imagined to go on is a most worthwhile exercise, and that trying to divert away from it would be an attempt to set up a pair of goalposts more to ones liking.....

Grow up.

If you don't want to debate - don't participate.

Nodin

opo wrote: »

Grow up.

If you don't want to debate - don't participate.

I'm sorry for dissenting from the pre-arranged exchange, however I didn't receive my lines in the post.

The facts are this is a very tough place to get into, with an ineffecient, overly long process. We need to reform the process, perhaps along the lines of Finland or one of the scandanavian nations. What we don't need is hysteria and much ado about nothing.

opo

Nodin wrote: »

I'm sorry for dissenting from the pre-arranged exchange, however I didn't receive my lines in the post.

Nodin wrote: »

The facts are this is a very tough place to get into, with an ineffecient, overly long process. We need to reform the process, perhaps along the lines of Finland or one of the scandanavian nations. What we don't need is hysteria and much ado about nothing

What in God's name does this rambling mess have to do with the original topic?

Only a few posts back you said:

Nodin wrote: »

I'd say a look at figures representing what goes on as opposed to whats imagined to go on is a most worthwhile exercise,, and that trying to divert away from it would be an attempt to set up a pair of goalposts more to ones liking.....

Did you read this rubbish in the figures?????


I think the goalposts have just left the pitch. :eek:

oscarBravo

opo wrote: »

Grow up.

If you don't want to debate - don't participate.

Leave the moderating to the moderators, thanks.

boc123

RATM wrote: »

Interesting report from the UNHRC in the Irish Times earlier, can't find it online yet but it'll crop up somewhere soon. It said that of 1,014 claims before the courts for asylum just 14, or around 1.3% were granted.
Across the EU Ireland ranks as the second worst place for an asylum seeker to seek asylum. The UK in comparison sees 26% of asylum cases being granted. Denmark tops the list with 47% of cases being successful.

It's an interesting report, especially given the events for Pamela in the Supreme Court yesterday.

So my question is this, given the fact that Ireland now has a record (and a reputation in the EU, presumably?) of being tough on asylum cases, what is it exactly that an asylum seeker has to prove to be granted a stay? Is being from, for example, Afghanistan or Sudan not enough?

I don't have the figures to hand but doesn't the Irish government allow about a third of failed asylum seekers to stay on humanitarian grounds, which realistically brings our figure up to more than that of the UK.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

I'm sorry for dissenting from the pre-arranged exchange, however I didn't receive my lines in the post.

The facts are this is a very tough place to get into, with an ineffecient, overly long process. We need to reform the process, perhaps along the lines of Finland or one of the scandanavian nations. What we don't need is hysteria and much ado about nothing.

The asylum process begins when the claimant is already IN so saying the country is tough to get into is wrong. The figures just show that we approve a very small number to legally stay here under the status of asylum seeker. The figures therefore suggest we get a huge number of bogus cases. The figures however tell us nothing about the attractiveness of Ireland to a bogus claimant as we need additional figures on the rates of actual deportation. The figures are as meaningless as the banks figures for mortgage approvals i.e. They say they approve x number but don't say the amounts they approve the customers for.

If our system has a high rate of detection after our protracted checks but low rates of response to bogus illegal claimants then even with a low percentage approved we'd remain highly attractive because if we aren't actively deporting bogus claimants, the approval process wouldn't really determine if you could stay or not.

RATM

caseyann wrote: »

No just means the false cases reach here because they didnt make it there and move on to the gullible Ireland.

But thats the whole point of the story- that Ireland isn't gullible when it comes to asslyum seekers- in fact quite the opposite. We only let in less than 1.4% of asylum seekers.

I don't know where Irish people's perception that we are an 'easy touch' when it comes to asylum seekers is derived from because these stats would appear to put an end to that lie, especially when compared to our European neighbours.

K-9

RATM wrote: »

But thats the whole point of the story- that Ireland isn't gullible when it comes to asslyum seekers- in fact quite the opposite. We only let in less than 1.4% of asylum seekers.

I don't know where Irish people's perception that we are an 'easy touch' when it comes to asylum seekers is derived from because these stats would appear to put an end to that lie, especially when compared to our European neighbours.

The perception comes from failed asylum seekers not being repatriated, it seems. I suppose, what is the point in having a 1.4% success rate if you do very little about the 98.6%.

Other countries have far higher success rates. Not sure about their policy on the unsuccessful applicants.

IPRIreland

Our biggest concern is how 'asylum seekers' are getting as far as these shores in the first place. Legally, they must claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. For African migrants, this is almost always by boat to Spain (including the Canaries) or Italy. They are extremely safe countries and, assuming they are fleeing genuine (read: TRULY GENUINE) persecution, should claim there - They aren't supposed to be cherry picking their countries.

As for 'economic migrants', they should be sent back straight away - We have appropriate methods for obtaining genuine (and currently very generous) work permits already. This might sound harsh but, if they had just applied through the normal methods for getting a work permit, there would be no problem. That's assuming their employment skills were truly necessary to the economy, urgently needed and impossible to find locally. So, how come they don't apply through these methods? I don't think it's a question of costs - many 'economic migrants' pay people smugglers plenty of cash to get them even as far as the rickety boats so, IMO, the fact that the migrant is prepared to line the pockets of criminals just to get to Europe doesn't really shine a good light on the migrant, does it?

Of course, they might be doing that out of desperation as maybe they already had a claim rejected or they don't meet the work visa requirements. All I can say is "tough". Again, it sounds harsh but let's be honest, I think 98% of Africans would come over if it was an option and we simply have to draw the line ASAP. I will concede that the work permit system could do with major refinements - A points based system, similar to Australia and New Zealand, would be ideal to tackle these issues more thoroughly IMO.

IPRIreland.

oscarBravo

IPRIreland wrote: »

Legally, they must claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in.

This is not true, and claiming it to be so is in breach of the forum charter. Read that charter carefully, and familiarise yourself with the actual provisions of the Dublin regulations before reiterating this claim.

caseyann

RATM wrote: »

But thats the whole point of the story- that Ireland isn't gullible when it comes to asslyum seekers- in fact quite the opposite. We only let in less than 1.4% of asylum seekers.

I don't know where Irish people's perception that we are an 'easy touch' when it comes to asylum seekers is derived from because these stats would appear to put an end to that lie, especially when compared to our European neighbours.

No its the appeals after appeals etc...
They do not deport them is what i mean.They are found to be not genuine cases,but they are still been fed and clothed and not flown out medical care.Its the constant appeals and the people who are whinging and acting like these people who are refused are genuine.

djpbarry

caseyann wrote: »

No its the appeals after appeals etc...
They do not deport them is what i mean.

So what would you change?

caseyann

djpbarry wrote: »

So what would you change?

If they are found after initial refusal and after two appeals not to have any grounds for asylum sent home.It is a joke that its one after the other.Basically they can not prove they are in danger and therefore grounds for deportation, so many of them fly in and out of their countries they are apparently escaping from,they can appeal to bring family here,its is never ending mess.


If i was the department of justice i would look into the Australian system.

johnnyskeleton

caseyann wrote: »

If they are found after initial refusal and after two appeals not to have any grounds for asylum sent home.It is a joke that its one after the other.Basically they can not prove they are in danger and therefore grounds for deportation, so many of them fly in and out of their countries they are apparently escaping from,they can appeal to bring family here,its is never ending mess.


If i was the department of justice i would look into the Australian system.

Ok, so you apply to ORAC, if rejected appeal to RAT, if rejected on an illegal or irrational basis you can apply to the HC by judicial review. If that fails a deportation order can be made against you.

That's the current system, and there is only one appeal from a refusal of refugee status. There are, however, other processes such as subsidiary protection but these are not appeals.

caseyann

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ok, so you apply to ORAC, if rejected appeal to RAT, if rejected on an illegal or irrational basis you can apply to the HC by judicial review. If that fails a deportation order can be made against you.

That's the current system, and there is only one appeal from a refusal of refugee status. There are, however, other processes such as subsidiary protection but these are not appeals.

That is to much! They are trying every means to get around a system and their first initial reason for asylum should be only reason allowed.
They have been very low in the deportations,and they assume when they cant find them they left on their own.

donaghs

This UK Home Office site explains the Dublin Regulations very clearly:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/enforcement/oemsectione/chapter28?view=Binary

Point 5, in order of descending priority is the first part to deal with the first asylum country.

djpbarry

caseyann wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ok, so you apply to ORAC, if rejected appeal to RAT, if rejected on an illegal or irrational basis you can apply to the HC by judicial review. If that fails a deportation order can be made against you.

That is to much!

But you just said that two appeals should be allowed?

caseyann

djpbarry wrote: »

But you just said that two appeals should be allowed?

On the same basis of application in first place,not making and searching for other reasons to get around previous refusal.

Nodin

caseyann wrote: »

On the same basis of application in first place,not making and searching for other reasons to get around previous refusal.

And in english (standard) that means......?

djpbarry

caseyann wrote: »

On the same basis of application in first place,not making and searching for other reasons to get around previous refusal.

Why are you assuming that "other reasons" are brought to the fore? You're aware that quite a large number of asylum applications are approved on appeal?

caseyann

djpbarry wrote: »

Why are you assuming that "other reasons" are brought to the fore? You're aware that quite a large number of asylum applications are approved on appeal?

Then thats good for them isnt it.Means they have been rechecked and genuine.

boc123

djpbarry wrote: »

You're aware that quite a large number of asylum applications are approved on appeal?

What is the percentage figure? I cannot access pdf's for some reason at the moment. I didn't realise it was quite large, I thought it was about the 8% mark?

boc123

caseyann wrote: »

Then thats good for them isnt it.Means they have been rechecked and genuine.

If you are interested in what is going on go to the ORAC website. They publish monthly reports and also yearly reports. They document some of the most common abuses of the system. The 2009 report is very interesting. 61% of applicants who claim they are from Somalia are found to be lying and a large percentage of people who arrive via air subsequently claim to have no passports on them. A truely remarkable feat in the security concious airline industry.

djpbarry

caseyann wrote: »

Then thats good for them isnt it.Means they have been rechecked and genuine.

So... appeals are a good thing now?

djpbarry

boc123 wrote: »

What is the percentage figure? I cannot access pdf's for some reason at the moment. I didn't realise it was quite large, I thought it was about the 8% mark?

I should have phrased that as 'quite a large number of asylum applications are approved on appeal relative to the number approved at first instance'. See the ESRI's Handbook on Immigration and Asylum in Ireland 2007 (Table 2.9) for the raw figures. For example, in 2007, The Office of the Refugee Applications made 374 positive recommendations, but of it's negative recommendations, 203 were recommended to be overturned by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. In 2004, 717 applications were recommended for approval by the RAT versus 430 by the ORAC.

It begs the question, why are such a large number of genuine cases being refused by the ORAC?

boc123

djpbarry wrote: »

It begs the question, why are such a large number of genuine cases being refused by the ORAC?

One could also phrase that question the other way around. Why are negative cases been overruled to turn into genuine cases.
The ORAC works closely with the department of justice, the UN etc. Their system is highly transparent. If their system is inherently flawed why don't the Refugee Appeals tribunal come out and say it and then it can be discussed.

donkey balls

boc123 wrote: »

If you are interested in what is going on go to the ORAC website. They publish monthly reports and also yearly reports. They document some of the most common abuses of the system. The 2009 report is very interesting. 61% of applicants who claim they are from Somalia are found to be lying and a large percentage of people who arrive via air subsequently claim to have no passports on them. A truely remarkable feat in the security concious airline industry.

i worked in the aviation industry and believe me no airline will let a pax board without a passport on international flights.

caseyann

boc123 wrote: »

If you are interested in what is going on go to the ORAC website. They publish monthly reports and also yearly reports. They document some of the most common abuses of the system. The 2009 report is very interesting. 61% of applicants who claim they are from Somalia are found to be lying and a large percentage of people who arrive via air subsequently claim to have no passports on them. A truely remarkable feat in the security concious airline industry.

From personal experience i know that,and would like to read up on that.Thanks for that but for some reason people just cant seem to fathom it.

caseyann

djpbarry wrote: »

So... appeals are a good thing now?

Not the ones like the Pamela one and others.Who have no grounds and trying to rip off the system.Appeals if their appeal is still on the same ground and found to be genuine are good.But not 3 appeals and then searching other avenues to stay.Then deportation orders given,and they are still here.

djpbarry

boc123 wrote: »

...a large percentage of people who arrive via air subsequently claim to have no passports on them. A truely remarkable feat in the security concious airline industry.

A passport is not a necessity for air travel – many (most?) airlines, including Aer Lingus, will accept a national identity card as a valid form of ID.

djpbarry

caseyann wrote: »

Not the ones like the Pamela one and others. Who have no grounds and trying to rip off the system.

How many asylum seekers fall into that bracket? I ask because we should really examine the extent of the problem before deciding that the system needs modification, shouldn’t we?

caseyann wrote: »

Then deportation orders given,and they are still here.

How many failed asylum seekers are still here?

Mena

djpbarry wrote: »

A passport is not a necessity for air travel – many (most?) airlines, including Aer Lingus, will accept a national identity card as a valid form of ID.

For flights across the EU maybe (I always have to show passport and visa on Aer Lingus though).

However "real" international flights between continents I can't see that being allowed.

boc123

djpbarry wrote: »

A passport is not a necessity for air travel – many (most?) airlines, including Aer Lingus, will accept a national identity card as a valid form of ID.

You cannot get through an airports security system and on to an international flight without a passport. To say anything else is ridiculous. It is obvious what is happening, they are dumping passports to claim they are from another country when they apply for asylum. The ORAC have even alluded to this. Hence over 60% of people who claim to be Somalian are found out not to be.

caseyann

djpbarry wrote: »

How many asylum seekers fall into that bracket? I ask because we should really examine the extent of the problem before deciding that the system needs modification, shouldn’t we?
How many failed asylum seekers are still here?

The numbers i put up on another thread,estimates of how many.I cant remember now but it was in the region of thousand area not been deported and some assumed left on own accord.

IPRIreland

boc123 wrote: »

You cannot get through an airports security system and on to an international flight without a passport. To say anything else is ridiculous. It is obvious what is happening, they are dumping passports to claim they are from another country when they apply for asylum. The ORAC have even alluded to this. Hence over 60% of people who claim to be Somalian are found out not to be.

Ireland and the UK have a mutual agreement with flights between each other and most airlines are happy enough with a regular ID (such as a student ID) for travel between the two. I dont know of any other states in Europe (or even anywhere else in the world) which has a similar agreement. It is almost 100% likely that the traveler had a passport at check in at whichever country they boarded the flight in so, unless they shredded it and flushed it down the bog mid-flight, or otherwise discarded it before boarding, then they simply must be lying.

Edit: If you go here, select 'judgements' at the top right of the page and search for Asylum, you can see loads of asylum claims including the full story submitted with the claim. Makes for interesting reading IMO. Obviously, We haven't read them all but many of them that we've read so far have been found to be bogus claims.

Nodin

caseyann wrote: »

The numbers i put up on another thread,estimates of how many.I cant remember now but it was in the region of thousand area not been deported and some assumed left on own accord.

You can't find the thread?

You can't remember the source of your figures?