President Higgins criticises Direct Provision

Juran

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

Keep his mouth shut!

ectoraige

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

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

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

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Which local authority?

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

Lockstep

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

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

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

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

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

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

AlekSmart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conorh91

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

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

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

'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

jank wrote: »

However, the president is supposed to be apolitical.

Where did you get that idea?

mister gullible

The fact remains that asylum seekers have not been treated fairly and we should be grateful that someone with a social conscience and media access has given them support. btw I don't think anyone in the main political parties should be sneering at anyone given their performance over the last couple of decades.

RandomName2

conorh91 wrote: »

Where did you get that idea?

Because it is true.

The Presidency is a largely ceremonial role. If Higgins were to show favouritism towards the Labour Party it would be against the constitutional. The limited discretionary powers does not allow for a party political role.

conorh91

RandomName2 wrote: »

The Presidency is a largely ceremonial role.

Oh now that's a subtly different proposition to the original.

I'd rather focus on the original statement.

The original suggestion was that the President is "supposed to be" apolitical.

It is incorrect.

We have had plenty of Presidents who became apolitical upon assuming office. That is a historical observation. Nowhere does it say that the President should generally avoid expressing political opinions. In fact, the only conclusion you could draw from actually reading the constitution is that the President's expression of political opinions is usually constitutionally immune from interference from the courts and the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Lockstep

RandomName2 wrote: »

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

Well, yeah. Getting a job is gonna be a lot harder if you've a few years behind you out of the workforce.

RandomName2 wrote: »

I hope they get Sky Sports in their accommodation.

Seriously?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Unless they appeal.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

Allowing asylum seekers to work isn't just making their lives better for the sake of it. It allows them independence from handouts (saving the taxpayer money) so it hardly "make(s) their living conditions markedly better from anyone else in this country living on the breadline".

RandomName2 wrote: »

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!)

Maybe they have family or friends here and given the conditions many refugees in Turkey are subjected to it makes sense not to seek asylum there. Plus, expecting southern European countries to take all the asylum burden is neither realistic, not fair.

conorh91 wrote: »

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).

Source?
They can have leave to remain granted but this is discretionary.

conorh91 wrote: »

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.

The appeals process is a problem but this is why the appeals can reform by reviewing the three grounds refugee status, subsidiary protection and leave to remain on humanitarian grounds rather than waiting for successive judicial review by the High Court.

jank wrote: »

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

See above.

jank wrote: »

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.

Agreed.

jank wrote: »

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.

Despite our extremely low acceptance rate of asylum seekers, we still have thousands. Allowing them to work while their status is being decided wouldn't incentivise them. It'd just allow them independence while they're waiting lessening the burden on the taxpayer. As it stands, they can't even fecking cook for themselves.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Because it is true.

The Presidency is a largely ceremonial role. If Higgins were to show favouritism towards the Labour Party it would be against the constitutional. The limited discretionary powers does not allow for a party political role.

No it's not. The president doesn't have a gag order on them although they can be impeached by the Oireachtas for serious misconduct)
Presidents have always taken a stance on issues they consider important like Robinson meeting with Gerry Adams, her refusal to chair a committee on the UN (despite being asked to by the government)

The President is free to take a stance on issues, especially those relating to human rights in their capacity as the guardian of the constitution (though the High Court recently found DP did not breach human rights, this was far more to do with how the applicants went about the case and the door is still open for it to be retried).
As Conorh91 pointed out, there is nothing preventing the president criticising government policy or existing laws. Should Higgins stay silent on the upcoming marriage equality referendum for example?

conorh91

Lockstep wrote: »

Allowing asylum seekers to work isn't just making their lives better for the sake of it. It allows them independence from handouts

It also provides an incentive for illegal immigration via the guise of an application for international protection.

Learn your history. That's why Ireland instituted the Direct provision scheme to begin with.

Source?
They can have leave to remain granted but this is discretionary.

Of course it is discretionary.

Anyone who is ignorant of the leave-to-remain system is ignorant of the protection system as a whole.

Please narrow it down. On what do you seek a source?

The appeals process is a problem

And what is your alternative solution?

I too am ethically opposed to protracted appeals but there are important legal barriers to restriction of appellant rights.

RandomName2

Lockstep wrote: »

Well, yeah. Getting a job is gonna be a lot harder if you've a few years behind you out of the workforce.

That's hardly the most important matter at hand.

Lockstep wrote: »

Seriously?

No, not really.

Lockstep wrote: »

Allowing asylum seekers to work isn't just making their lives better for the sake of it. It allows them independence from handouts (saving the taxpayer money) so it hardly "make(s) their living conditions markedly better from anyone else in this country living on the breadline".

It has long been established that although allowing asylum seekers to work has benefits for both host country and asylum seekers, that the negatives outweigh them; namely that it provides too much of an incentive for labour based migration and it reduces the likelihood of our reducing the massive drain of our live register.

Lockstep wrote: »

Maybe they have family or friends here and given the conditions many refugees in Turkey are subjected to it makes sense not to seek asylum there. Plus, expecting southern European countries to take all the asylum burden is neither realistic, not fair.

Is it realistic or fair to expect a country like Turkey to take the majority of Syrian refugees? Yes to both. It is an extremely large Muslim country, on the border of Syria, with strong cultural ties, and has a large responsibility in the continuation of the civil war!

Not sure why southern European countries should shoulder any of the responsibility of such asylum seekers. America might though - it certainly is not blameless in the current situation.

Lockstep wrote: »

No it's not.

Yes it is. The presidency is an apolitical office and largely ceremonial. The president is not allowed to represent a political party in his capacity as president, merely the wishes of the government. Now Higgins may have been speaking as an individual, and that is allowed insofar that it goes, but he cannot "suggest" legislation.

conorh91

RandomName2 wrote: »

he cannot "suggest" legislation.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The presidency is an apolitical office

legal source on these, please?

Lockstep

RandomName2 wrote: »

That's hardly the most important matter at hand.

Grand, seeing as you picked up on that point specifically in my previous post, I was addressing it.

RandomName2 wrote: »

T
It has long been established that although allowing asylum seekers to work has benefits for both host country and asylum seekers, that the negatives outweigh them; namely that it provides too much of an incentive for labour based migration and it reduces the likelihood of our reducing the massive drain of our live register.

Established where?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Is it realistic or fair to expect a country like Turkey to take the majority of Syrian refugees? Yes to both. It is an extremely large Muslim country, on the border of Syria, with strong cultural ties, and has a large responsibility in the continuation of the civil war!

Those aren't good reasons as to why Turkey should take most of the refugees. That they're neighbours and Muslim means feck all.
Turkey is a fairly large country but that doesn't mean they can easily absorb 1.6million Syrian refugees (the current number in Turkey)
Do you know how much strain this puts on a country's resources? Turkey isn't exactly the world's wealthiest country. Why should they take most of the burden just because they're nearby?

Also, how exactly does Turkey have a "large responsibility" for the Syrian Civil War's continuation?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Not sure why southern European countries should shoulder any of the responsibility of such asylum seekers. America might though - it certainly is not blameless in the current situation.

You were complaining about why they'd end up in Ireland.
Sure we're not the closest but if you're fleeing genocide, civil war and mass displacement, you're going to flee as soon as you can. Geographically, southern European countries have to face up to a lot more refugees (as they're nearer) but they can't be expected to shoulder this alone and have this sort of strain on their resources.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes it is. The presidency is an apolitical office and largely ceremonial.

Ceremonial, yes, apolitical, no.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The president is not allowed to represent a political party in his capacity as president, merely the wishes of the government. Now Higgins may have been speaking as an individual, and that is allowed insofar that it goes, but he cannot "suggest" legislation.

Since when? Higgins hasn't been representing a political party as president? He can certainly suggest legislation, the same way you or I can. Although as with you and I, it doesn't obligate the government to initiate it.

conorh91 wrote: »

It also provides an incentive for illegal immigration via the guise of an application for international protection.

No it doesn't. Allowing them to work while they're having their claim processed doesn't equate with a right to remain. Not sure why being allowed to work while waiting should be a problem unless you think that conditions should be kept very harsh to discourage applications. Which is a wonderfully Victorian mindset to have. Get back in your workhouse urchin. Go on, get!

conorh91 wrote: »

Learn your history. That's why Ireland instituted the Direct provision scheme to begin with.

Source?
In July 1999, it was decided that asylum seekers could apply to work but in the first 6 months, only 67 permits were granted. And seeing as direct provision was brought in in 1999....well you see where I'm going with questioning your claim.
source

As Alan Shatter said at the time "“People who have come here seeking safety and asking to be allowed to stay should be allowed, within a reasonable period of coming here, to work while awaiting a decision to be made,” he said." He's done a bit of a u-turn on it now.

Learn your history.

conorh91 wrote: »

Of course it is discretionary.

Jeez, relax.

conorh91 wrote: »

Please narrow it down. On what do you seek a source?

Your claims in the quoted text. I'll repost it again.

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).

conorh91 wrote: »

And what is your alternative solution?

Did you read my post? I'll post it again.

Lockstep wrote:

The appeals process is a problem but this is why the appeals can reform by reviewing the three grounds refugee status, subsidiary protection and leave to remain on humanitarian grounds rather than waiting for successive judicial review by the High Court.

If these appeals were reviewed simultaneously instead of successively, it'd make things a lot faster and more streamlined.

AlekSmart

Lockstep wrote: »

They can have leave to remain granted but this is discretionary.

The appeals process is a problem but this is why the appeals can reform by reviewing the three grounds refugee status, subsidiary protection and leave to remain on humanitarian grounds rather than waiting for successive judicial review by the High Court

Despite our extremely low acceptance rate of asylum seekers, we still have thousands. Allowing them to work while their status is being decided wouldn't incentivise them. It'd just allow them independence while they're waiting lessening the burden on the taxpayer. As it stands, they can't even fecking cook for themselves.

I'm not so sure this permission to work would lessen the Taxpayer's burden at all.
I'd suggest that the vast majority of such work would be at Minimum Wage or Zero Hour contract basis.
I would further suggest that the Family Income Supplement payment would become the major portion of this new found freedom to work.

A significant part of this issue revolves around what occurs AFTER the applicants status is "Decided".

The notion that the Irish State may take such action usually sends all and sundry into a tizzy,even after the appelant has been resident here for years.

Yet,for the system to work,it has to operate as most such systems elsewhere do.....those meeting the criteria are accepted,the rest travel on.

As yet,I know of no other method of operating any functional Asylum system.

Lockstep

AlekSmart wrote: »

I'm not so sure this permission to work would lessen the Taxpayer's burden at all.
I'd suggest that the vast majority of such work would be at Minimum Wage or Zero Hour contract basis.
I would further suggest that the Family Income Supplement payment would become the major portion of this new found freedom to work.

It'd be a fairly straightforward system: continuation of DP for those without adequate income to survive but if someone is self-sufficient, great. Syrian refugees include professionals, surely their skills could be better utilised than rotting in a DP hostel?

Refugees would not have entitlement to social welfare, beyond what they already have (medical cards). Likewise, those on refugee visas could be exempted from accessing schemes like FIS.

conorh91

Lockstep wrote: »

Not sure why being allowed to work while waiting should be a problem unless you think that conditions should be kept very harsh to discourage applications.

No. There's a far more obvious reason to refuse the right to access employment.

If every person who landed in the State were entitled to work here, it would effectively disable our immigration controls, and undermine the whole point of having working visas. Any Tom, Dick or Hassain could rock up and start work, grounded on a bogus claim.

Source?
In July 1999, it was decided that asylum seekers could apply to work but in the first 6 months, only 67 permits were granted. And seeing as direct provision was brought in in 1999....well you see where I'm going with questioning your claim.
[/url]

You've got this all wrong

Ireland instituted direct provision in anticipation of an influx.

There was no influx because we anticipated the influx and took steps to prevent it.

Let me explain. At the turn of the millennium, the Brits changed the way they processed asylum claims. In effect, they introduced direct provision. Up until that point, Ireland had been quite soft on asylum, but so were the Brits, and the UK is generally a very attractive location for certain nationalities with an imperial connection to the UK, so many asylum seekers didn't bother with Ireland.

So, in anticipation of an influx, we changed our rules on how asylum seekers receive benefits transfers, and on their employment rights.

Your claims in the quoted text.

It's not clear how I can provide a source to demonstrate that "many" qualify for leave-to-remain. I know it from personal experience, and although I could make an educated goes at the figure, I deliberately used the vague term of "many" because I don't believe my estimate is verifiable.

There are two 'arms' to leave to remain. The first is subsidiary protection, with new and improved procedures that now greatly favors the Applicant. Apparently SP has noticeably increased since the new regs took effect, and we're talking figures in the hundreds.

Next, the second stage.

The proposal to deport issues, and the Applicant writes to the Minister outlining his grounds for humanitarian leave (almost always marriage and children, but sometimes illness or repetition of the original asylum claim). The Minister is legally obliged to take eleven factors into account, including marriage and family life. If the Applicant is married to an EU citizen or has Irish-born children, or is not from a 'problem country', I can assure you that his chances of being deported are very slim. Either (i) he will be granted leave to remain by the Department, or (ii) the deportation order will not be executed by AGS, and it will lapse after three months. This is the practical reality.

It is also worth mentioning that an applicant sometimes leaves the Protection system, abandons all claims, and pursues residency through marriage. There are no figures on that, because they would be a bureaucratic nightmare to collect.

The bottom line is this: we are in absolutely no position to deport a substantial proportion of the total number of applicants for protection.

We are far too small a country for that, and so we only exercise strategic deportations (Nigeria, Pakistan), or deportation where the individual concerned is particularly undesirable

oppenheimer1

ectoraige wrote: »

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.

Over 90% of the claims are bogus. The reason so many are there for so long is that there are endless appeals, for which the sole purpose is to frustrate the system.

Almost all have their cases initially decided in 18 months. This context isn't reported often enough when the media discusses direct provision.

Lockstep

conorh91 wrote: »

No. There's a far more obvious reason to refuse the right to access employment.

If every person who landed in the State were entitled to work here, it would effectively disable our immigration controls, and undermine the whole point of having working visas. Any Tom, Dick or Hassain could rock up and start work, grounded on a bogus claim.

There's a difference between an "entitlement" to work and being allowed work. This could operate on a discretionary basis or their working conditions could be restricted. The idea being to allow them independence while their claim is being processed.

At any rate, I've no issues with foreigners being allowed work in Ireland, unless they are a security threat etc.

conorh91 wrote: »

You've got this all wrong

Ireland instituted direct provision in anticipation of an influx.
There was no influx because we anticipated the influx and took steps to prevent it.

Source?

conorh91 wrote: »

Let me explain. At the turn of the millennium, the Brits changed the way they processed asylum claims. In effect, they introduced direct provision. Up until that point, Ireland had been quite soft on asylum, but so were the Brits, and the UK is generally a very attractive location for certain nationalities with an imperial connection to the UK, so many asylum seekers didn't bother with Ireland.

So, in anticipation of an influx, we changed our rules on how asylum seekers receive benefits transfers, and on their employment rights.

Again, source?

conorh91 wrote: »

It's not clear how I can provide a source to demonstrate that "many" qualify for leave-to-remain. I know it from personal experience, and although I could make an educated goes at the figure, I deliberately used the vague term of "many" because I don't believe my estimate is verifiable.

You said

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).

Citation needed. If you're gonna make such a sweeping statement as to say "vast majority" you really need to be able to source your claims beyond anecdotal evidence.

So far, you've made a lot of statements and provided no evidence when requested. That's not how this forum works.

oppenheimer1

Lockstep wrote: »

There's a difference between an "entitlement" to work and being allowed work. This could operate on a discretionary basis or their working conditions could be restricted. The idea being to allow them independence while their claim is being processed.

The reason they're not allowed work is for two reasons, it would reduce the incentive for people to apply for working visas through the normal channels. Secondly it doesn't allow for the applicant to claim that they've put down roots in the community and should be allowed stay on that basis.

conorh91

Lockstep wrote: »

Source?

My source is I myself was a small child when the regime changed, and even I became aware of this through general current affairs awareness. I can only assume you are very young altogether because this is fairly common knowledge. Nevertheless, if you use google, you can easily discover the origins of direct provision.

The then-Minister for Justice with responsibility for the Protection process, John O'Donoghue, was quoted in the minutes of the Reconvened Interdepartmental Committee on Immigration, Asylum and Related Issues, November 8, 1999 as having stated “If my scheme is more attractive than the British scheme, it must stand to any kind of logical reasoning that I would have a disproportionate number coming here from Britain”.

http://www.flac.ie/download/pdf/directdiscrimination.pdf

I have given you plenty of information on the history of the Irish and British system which you can go and verify on your own time. I am not paid to answer endless requests for information which is well-established in the public domain, in order to save time for strangers on the internet who promptly ignore the veracity of the statement, once a source is handed to them.

Again, source?

This is what I am talking about.

No.

I will not go and wikipedia the history of the British asylum system. I absolutely refuse to do someone's homework, when the relevant information is readily available to anyone who will undertake a cursory search.

I appreciate that it is sometimes unfair to say 'use google' when asked for a source, but in this case, your request is akin to someone pestering another user for a source on easily established, non contentious historical facts like "who was Home Secretary in the 1929 UK Government… SOURCE??!".

Citation needed. If you're gonna make such a sweeping statement as to say "vast majority" you really need to be able to source your claims beyond anecdotal evidence.

Not when this statement I made was (i) left deliberately imprecise and (ii) was clearly premonished by myself as being of an anecdotal nature, in the sense that the same statistics are unlikely to exist anywhere.

And another thing.

Where did I say 'vast majority'?

That's not how this forum works.

Haranguing people with whom you disagree isn't exactly benefitting this discussion.

Lockstep

conorh91 wrote: »

My source is I myself was a small child when the regime changed, and even I became aware of this through general current affairs awareness. I can only assume you are very young altogether because this is fairly common knowledge. Nevertheless, if you use google, you can easily discover the origins of direct provision.

So you can't source your claim.
Grand.

conorh91 wrote: »

The then-Minister for Justice with responsibility for the Protection process, John O'Donoghue, was quoted in the minutes of the Reconvened Interdepartmental Committee on Immigration, Asylum and Related Issues, November 8, 1999 as having stated “If my scheme is more attractive than the British scheme, it must stand to any kind of logical reasoning that I would have a disproportionate number coming here from Britain”.

http://www.flac.ie/download/pdf/directdiscrimination.pdf

Congrats, you've finally given a source. Sadly for you, it shows that the key problem with asylum seekers before DP was implemented was welfare given that they could access welfare on the same levels as others in the state. This makes sense but it's a separate argument to allowing people to work instead of direct provision. It's important to note that Britain allows its asylum seekers to work after one year.

conorh91 wrote: »

I have given you plenty of information on the history of the Irish and British system which you can go and verify on your own time. I am not paid to answer endless requests for information which is well-established in the public domain, in order to save time for strangers on the internet who promptly ignore the veracity of the statement, once a source is handed to them.

Again, that's not how this forum works. If you make a claim, it is your job to source and defend it.
"The government is made up of lizard people. You want a source? GOOGLE IT YOURSELF."

conorh91 wrote: »

This is what I am talking about.

No.

I will not go and wikipedia the history of the British asylum system. I absolutely refuse to do someone's homework, when the relevant information is readily available to anyone who will undertake a cursory search.

I appreciate that it is sometimes unfair to say 'use google' when asked for a source, but in this case, your request is akin to someone pestering another user for a source on easily established, non contentious historical facts like "who was Home Secretary in the 1929 UK Government… SOURCE??!".


Not when this statement I made was (i) left deliberately imprecise and (ii) was clearly premonished by myself as being of an anecdotal nature, in the sense that the same statistics are unlikely to exist anywhere.

Same as above.
If you can't source your claims. Don't make them. Asking someone to back up their statements is a reasonable request.

conorh91 wrote: »

Where did I say 'vast majority'?

You said the extreme majority
If you want to get pedantic about the difference between "vast" and "extreme", then fair enough.

conorh91 wrote: »

Haranguing people with whom you disagree isn't exactly benefitting this discussion.

Asking someone for evidence is "haranguing" them now?

conorh91

Lockstep wrote: »

So you can't source your claim.
Grand.

I can. I gave you a source.

You asked for a source for my comment that Ireland instituted Direct Provision in anticipation of an influx of immigration, under a guise of seeking protection on foot of changes in the UK.

I gave you a source. You dismiss it.

Normally I might just shrug, except anyone who knows about direct provision understands that you are wrong. In 2013, John Cotter BL, writing about asylum in the Irish Law Times observed:

The  direct  provision and  dispersal scheme was introduced as a reaction to the decision of the UK government to introduce a similar scheme in the UK commencing in April 2000. In particular, there was a concern that more generous benefit entitlements for asylum seekers in Ireland than in the UK would constitute a “pull factor” for asylum seekers to choose Ireland as a destination

Source: pp 23-25 (2013) 31 Irish Law Times. "THE GERMAN FEDERAL  CONSTITUTIONAL COURT AND WELFARE BENEFITS FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS: CONSEQUENCES FOR THE  DIRECT  PROVISION AND  DISPERSAL SCHEME IN IRELAND? — PART II"

let me now explain why I have a problem with your last two posts, which have been nothing but demands for sources. The first reason is that, the source, although now provided, are well established and should be known by people before they express an opinion. Nobody is paid for these discussions. You have a certain level of responsibility not to thwart the flow of a discussion by simply responding to readily available information with "source", "source", "source", which is what you have been doing.

Again, where data is not readily available, or where there are grounds to dispute it, obviously a source should be provided when requested. BUT I personally take issue with requests for sources that stem solely from laziness or an unwillingness to inform yourself of very basic facts.

The sources for these well-established historical facts have now been provided in a roundabout way, but don't be surprised in future if you get ignored for haranguing one-word requests of "source?" for easily google-able facts of history that even a semi-informed person would not dispute.

You said the extreme majority

Yes. I indicated that the extreme majority of relevant individuals are not deported.

Here's the problem.

You didn't ask for a source on that until now. Or if you did, it was unclear what statement you were seeking a source on. I have already had to ask you to detail what source you are seeking, after you quoted a block of text where a number of discrete assertions were made by me.

So in this case, I don't mind providing a source, because it's a more obscure fact. If you ask for a source politely, I'll be glad to provide it. But don't accuse me of not providing sources on rare occasions where it wasn't requested by you. These stupid diversionary tactics are not helping the discussion.

Lockstep

conorh91 wrote: »

I can. I gave you a source.

You asked for a source for my comment that Ireland instituted Direct Provision in anticipation of an influx of immigration, under a guise of seeking protection on foot of changes in the UK.

I gave you a source. You dismiss it.

No I didn't. here you claim that Ireland instituted direct provision as allowing asylum seekers to work was incentivising illegal immigration. When in fact, when you finally provided a source, it stated that the key issue was to do with asylum seekers' welfare entitlements. Not being able to access the labour market.

conorh91 wrote: »

Normally I might just shrug, except anyone who knows about direct provision understands that you are wrong. In 2013, John Cotter BL, writing about asylum in the Irish Law Times observed:

The  direct  provision and  dispersal scheme was introduced as a reaction to the decision of the UK government to introduce a similar scheme in the UK commencing in April 2000. In particular, there was a concern that more generous benefit entitlements for asylum seekers in Ireland than in the UK would constitute a “pull factor” for asylum seekers to choose Ireland as a destination

Source: pp 23-25 (2013) 31 Irish Law Times. "THE GERMAN FEDERAL  CONSTITUTIONAL COURT AND WELFARE BENEFITS FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS: CONSEQUENCES FOR THE  DIRECT  PROVISION AND  DISPERSAL SCHEME IN IRELAND? — PART II"

Thanks. Once again, you've shown that it was benefit entitlements which was the issue rather than asylum seekers being able to access the labour markets. You're undermining your own argument.

conorh91 wrote: »

let me now explain why I have a problem with your last two posts, which have been nothing but demands for sources. The first reason is that, the source, although now provided, are well established and should be known by people before they express an opinion. Nobody is paid for these discussions. You have a certain level of responsibility not to thwart the flow of a discussion by simply responding to readily available information with "source", "source", "source", which is what you have been doing.

In any debate, when asserting statements, it's your job to back them up. Expecting others to prove your own points is, at best, very lazy.
What is asserted without evidence can be discounted without evidence.

conorh91 wrote: »

Again, where data is not readily available, or where there are grounds to dispute it, obviously a source should be provided when requested. BUT I personally take issue with requests for sources that stem solely from laziness or an unwillingness to inform yourself of very basic facts.

The sources for these well-established historical facts have now been provided in a roundabout way, but don't be surprised in future if you get ignored for haranguing one-word requests of "source?" for easily google-able facts of history that even a semi-informed person would not dispute.

Wait, you're getting annoyed at being expected to back up your claims and then accusing others of laziness?

Did you know asylum seekers are all lizard people? I can't be bothered to provide any evidence so you'll have to Google it yourself.

conorh91 wrote: »

Yes. I indicated that the extreme majority of relevant individuals are not deported.

And your source is...what?

conorh91 wrote: »

Here's the problem.

You didn't ask for a source on that until now. Or if you did, it was unclear what statement you were seeking a source on. I have already had to ask you to detail what source you are seeking, after you quoted a block of text where a number of discrete assertions were made by me.

So in this case, I don't mind providing a source, because it's a more obscure fact. If you ask for a source politely, I'll be glad to provide it. But don't accuse me of not providing sources on rare occasions where it wasn't requested by you. These stupid diversionary tactics are not helping the discussion.

How exactly was it unclear? I quoted part of your post and asked for the relevant source. What's the issue?

conorh91

Lockstep wrote: »

No I didn't. here you claim that Ireland instituted direct provision as allowing asylum seekers to work was incentivising illegal immigration.

No I didn't. In fairness, the post could be read the way you interpreted it, but it's not a rational interpretation.

To clarify, I indicated that a regime granting working rights to arrivals provides an incentive for immigration under the guise of an application for protection.

A fear of incentives for immigration under the guise of an application for protection is what inspired the Minister for Justice to commence direct provision in the first place. Easy access to employment is one of those incentives. Welfare is another one.

Your interpretation is thus faulty, because to interpret my words as you have done is tantamount to a claim that I don't believe welfare is one of the relevant incentives. And that's nonsense, because of course welfare was another relevant incentive in creating a potential influx.

Thanks. Once again, you've shown that it was benefit entitlements which was the issue

Benefits was one issue. Possibly the greatest issue. But there were other incentives. That's why the author write "In particular".

'In particular" indicates that there are a number of factors to consider, where one factor predominates others, albeit to an unspecific degree.

And your source is...what?

In 2011, the number of individuals whose deportations were effected was 280.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/pac/correspondence/2012-meeting332203/[PAC-R-383]Correspondence-3.5.pdf

This would be a tiny fraction of the total numbers whose are refused annually or against whom deportation orders are made annually. It's also a small fraction of the total number of deportation orders made in that year which were not acted upon. Those orders come to 2,471 in number.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2012112700072?opendocument#WRV00350

You can see from the last PQ that a high number of leave to remains are granted annually in respect of persons who were found not to have valid claims to asylum earlier in the process. I already described this as relating to family relationships, in my experience, and the Minister did reference the Zambrano judgment which would appear to substantiate my claim. No doubt you'll next want some statistics on that, but I'm afraid I've already run out of patience.

There is a very noisy element within any immigration and asylum debate with whom it is simply a waste of time to debate anything.

Lockstep

conorh91 wrote: »

No I didn't. In fairness, the post could be read the way you interpreted it, but it's not a rational interpretation.

Yes it is. You said that allowing them to work would be an incentive for illegal immigration then said this was the reason DP was implemented (even though at the time, very few asylum seekers were granted working permits.

It's difficult to interpret your post any other way.

conorh91 wrote: »

Benefits was one issue. Possibly the greatest issue. But there were other incentives. That's why the author write "In particular".

'In particular" indicates that there are a number of factors to consider, where one factor predominates others, albeit to an unspecific degree.

Indeed but only 67 work permits were granted to asylum seekers from July to December 1999 (just before DP was implemented)
As such, it's difficult to argue that working was a major incentive to apply for asylum, especially compared to welfare payments.

conorh91 wrote: »

In 2011, the number of individuals whose deportations were effected was 280.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/pac/correspondence/2012-meeting332203/[PAC-R-383]Correspondence-3.5.pdf

This would be a tiny fraction of the total numbers whose are refused annually or against whom deportation orders are made annually. It's also a small fraction of the total number of deportation orders made in that year which were not acted upon. Those orders come to 2,471 in number.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2012112700072?opendocument#WRV00350

Alan Shatter wrote:

With regard to the numbers evading deportation, it is difficult to produce precise figures. Persons against whom a deportation order has issued may for short periods fail to report to their local immigration office but many subsequently do so. In addition, I am informed that a significant number of persons who are the subject of a Deportation Order will have left the jurisdiction.

The processing of cases at the repatriation stage is a complex one with obligations to adhere to both domestic and international law and to make decisions in accordance with the UN Convention on Human Rights. The process can be a lengthy one often punctuated with judicial reviews taken by the applicants at various stages including at deportation stage. Accordingly, not all cases fit neatly into particular categories. For example, in the case of families, one member of the family may have lodged a judicial review which in turn may mean that the remainder of the family may not be processed until its outcome is determined. In addition, some applicants may also be party to an application under EU Treaty Rights or through marriage to an Irish citizen or may have been granted leave to remain as a result of these applications. Therefore, it is not possible to provide figures in respect of the remainder of the case load without engaging in a very detailed exercise which could not be justified as it would divert resources from case processing.

That's fair enough. Thanks for sourcing that.