Direct Provision disappointing report

clear thinking

Apart from having their pocket money increased to €40 the working group report is very disappointing and unimaginative.

Not allowing people to work means that the asylum seekers are unemployable so if allowed to stay they become a burden on the state. The only recommended concession here is that if you are waiting on a decision more than 9 months you might be allowed work.

Wages might mean that the protection seekers could pay all rent or pay towards rent, currently costing €11k per person.

The accommodation issue hasn't been sorted in any meaningful way apart from suggesting that better conditions be found. People cant even cook their own dinner. All very aspirational, but if there is no kitchen in the rooms now how will they squeeze them in without increasing costs radically. A combination of rent support (reduced from the current €11k) and allowing work would save huge money and allow protection seekers to get decent accommodation themselves.

The education bit of the report is a joke. People are idle and have a 5 times greater suicide rate as a result. After this report you can be in that situation for 5 years, before you can go to third level. So why not make it 1 year? The same applies to adults. And the only recommendation there is that they suggest colleges apply EU fee rates rather than non-EU fee. If the processing time is reduced over time the 5 year thing becomes a red herring immediately

If an asylum seeker is allowed stay, what is the point of having prevented them working, prevented them getting education? If they allowed to stay, allowing work will reduce the costs and reduce transition to normal life. If their case is rejected, it would still have save the state on rsignificant costs.

I can see why the Irish Refugee Council CEO resigned from the working group proposing this.

http://justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Working_Group_on_Improvements_to_the_Protection_Process

http://justice.ie/en/JELR/Executive%20Summary%20of%20the%20Report%20to%20Government%20on%20Improvements%20to%20the%20Protection%20Process......pdf/Files/Executive%20Summary%20of%20the%20Report%20to%20Government%20on%20Improvements%20to%20the%20Protection%20Process......pdf

clear thinking

Just a bit more context:
http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Difficult-to-Believe-The-assessment-of-asylum-claims-in-Ireland.pdf

jackofalltrades

The main problem I see is the time applicants can be in the asylum system.
It should be drastically shortened.
I believe in the executive summary you posted, point 31 is that they want this to be 12 months.
If my understanding is correct then that's a very good suggestion.
If the time spent is drastically reduced then the conditions will become less important.
Less people in the system would also lead to more resources to provide better services.

I don't think asylum seekers should be allowed work, this would constitute a very large pull factor towards this country.
You're also going to have people settling down only to be potentially uprooted again, which isn't fair.

rgossip30

The only real remedy is to abolish the asylum system as Enda said 'not up to scratch' .
We are a society that does not tolerate incompetience, so why continue with a defunct outdated system not fit for purpose.
The country is just taking in pet people.

Seth Brundle

rgossip30 wrote: »

We are a society that does not tolerate incompetience,

Dunno where you have been for the last flew decades. We do incompetence with such competence ironically.
We reward it; we re-elect our politicians, promote our useless public servants, give cronies jobs on boards regardless of ability.
We allow it continue.

rgossip30 wrote: »

so why continue with a defunct outdated system not fit for purpose.

Surely given the approaches to so many state projects made to date, a defunct outdated system that is unfit for purpose meets our basic requirements?

johnnyskeleton

rgossip30 wrote: »

The only real remedy is to abolish the asylum system as Enda said 'not up to scratch' .
We are a society that does not tolerate incompetience, so why continue with a defunct outdated system not fit for purpose.
The country is just taking in pet people.

Are you saying that because we have failed to properly comply with UN law we should just withdraw from UN law? thats a bit like saying if we have difficulty collecting taxes we should just abolish tax.

The question whether we should comply with the convention or not is, I suppose, a valid topic for discussion but surely such an argument cannot be based on the fact that we've been bad at implementing it so far?

rgossip30

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Are you saying that because we have failed to properly comply with UN law we should just withdraw from UN law? thats a bit like saying if we have difficulty collecting taxes we should just abolish tax.

The question whether we should comply with the convention or not is, I suppose, a valid topic for discussion but surely such an argument cannot be based on the fact that we've been bad at implementing it so far?

The Dublin Convention is not properly adhered to by European countries.
The fact that two thirds in the past came to seek asylum from the UK having failed there or overstayed visas says a lot about the system .
The Pakistanis are top of the list this year for asylum applications after the UK began exit stamps and contacting overstayers.Some have put down roots and cannot be deported our liberal marriage rules assisted.

Hungary and Austria have just stopped taking in Asylum Seekers, no permission required from the UN.

I could go on and on and on.

Eric Cartman

you are supposed to claim asylum in the first country you land in , barring a civil war in the UK or perhaps Iceland, there should not be asylum seekers here.

Close the direct provision centres and send them all home. We should not be paying for this.

PopePalpatine

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you are supposed to claim asylum in the first country you land in , barring a civil war in the UK or perhaps Iceland, there should not be asylum seekers here.

Close the direct provision centres and send them all home. We should not be paying for this.

If I'm an English-speaking refugee who's managed to cross the Mediterranean and failed to arouse you by not drowning in that sea, guess what? I'll do my damnednest to get to an English-speaking country.

Honestly, I wonder sometimes if your account is just role-playing as the actual Eric Cartman.

Eric Cartman

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If I'm an English-speaking refugee who's managed to cross the Mediterranean and failed to arouse you by not drowning in that sea, guess what? I'll do my damnednest to get to an English-speaking country.

Honestly, I wonder sometimes if your account is just role-playing as the actual Eric Cartman.

if your really fleeing persecution, war, genocide or other atrocities I don't think what language the safe country speaks is top of your agenda, also if you did it in a dodgy boat id imagine anywhere safe will do rather than risking death by going further.

the fact is there is no country that people need to flee currently that their first port of call is Ireland. We're just a convenient place to be as we're a lot more lax about letting in asylum seekers than the uk or germany (which are the real final destinations in their heads, the second they secure an EU passport)

trashcan

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Are you saying that because we have failed to properly comply with UN law ?

Have we failed to properly comply with UN law ? How so ?

clear thinking

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you are supposed to claim asylum in the first country you land in , barring a civil war in the UK or perhaps Iceland, there should not be asylum seekers here.

Close the direct provision centres and send them all home. We should not be paying for this.

Not quite, airports are international airspace so if you transit without exiting border control it is possible to move without dublin coming into effect.

clear thinking

trashcan wrote: »

Have we failed to properly comply with UN law ? How so ?

We haven't ratified some of the conventions, right to work etc.

Stheno

Eric Cartman wrote: »

if your really fleeing persecution, war, genocide or other atrocities I don't think what language the safe country speaks is top of your agenda, also if you did it in a dodgy boat id imagine anywhere safe will do rather than risking death by going further.

the fact is there is no country that people need to flee currently that their first port of call is Ireland. We're just a convenient place to be as we're a lot more lax about letting in asylum seekers than the uk or germany (which are the real final destinations in their heads, the second they secure an EU passport)

Direct flights from Ethiopia to Dublin?

PopePalpatine

Stheno wrote: »

Direct flights from Ethiopia to Dublin?

Loathe as I am to prove an iota of Cartman's point, but Ethiopian Airlines do flights directly from Addis Ababa to Dublin. IIRC Ethiopia is improving, it's more likely you'd get asylum seekers from Eritrea.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Gatling

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Stories like this don't help either


http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/grandfather-wanted-to-violate-virgin-from-his-bloodline-to-cure-hiv-31408420.html

foggy_lad

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Loathe as I am to prove an iota of Cartman's point, but Ethiopian Airlines do flights directly from Addis Ababa to Dublin. IIRC Ethiopia is improving, it's more likely you'd get asylum seekers from Eritrea.

On the inaugural flight to Dublin there were a number of people(16/12?) detained in Dublin Airport without documents who sought asylum!

trashcan

clear thinking wrote: »

We haven't ratified some of the conventions, right to work etc.

Think you may be confusing the UN with EU Directives. Any of those we haven't ratified we were not obliged to. For example the EU Reception Conditions Directive, which covers the right to work, and which we were allowed opt out of.

johnnyskeleton

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you are supposed to claim asylum in the first country you land in , barring a civil war in the UK or perhaps Iceland, there should not be asylum seekers here.

Close the direct provision centres and send them all home. We should not be paying for this.

Mod Note

*Sigh* :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59465073&postcount=4

RichardCeann

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod Note

*Sigh* :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59465073&postcount=4

You realise that post is six years old and there have been changes to the Dublin convention since, yes? I suggest you look up the Dublin III Regulation (No. 604/2013) and alter that post accordingly. Or you can keep blindingly referring to it. Either or.

oscarBravo

RichardCeann wrote: »

You realise that post is six years old and there have been changes to the Dublin convention since, yes? I suggest you look up the Dublin III Regulation (No. 604/2013) and alter that post accordingly. Or you can keep blindingly referring to it. Either or.

I'm not seeing how the revised regulation contradicts the substantive point. Can you explain how it does?

K-9

RichardCeann wrote: »

You realise that post is six years old and there have been changes to the Dublin convention since, yes? I suggest you look up the Dublin III Regulation (No. 604/2013) and alter that post accordingly. Or you can keep blindingly referring to it. Either or.

You really shouldn't argue a mod instruction on thread, but in this case do enlighten us.

RDM_83 again

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you are supposed to claim asylum in the first country you land in , barring a civil war in the UK or perhaps Iceland, there should not be asylum seekers here.

For future reference, just say there should only be a tiny minority of asylum seekers legitimately arriving in this country.
Per the Dublin Regulations as you are only deemed not to enter a country when your flight lands if you remain within the strictly controlled heavily internal transit area in an major international airport such as Heathrow or Frankfurt.
Basically the Dublin Regulations are a misapplied fig leaf, those that are for a more tolerant asylum regime often reference this clause but in reality following the rules to the letter would result in the rejection of all asylum claims apart from the tiny amount those possessing airplane tickets showing their complete route and transfers. Funnily enough this point is glossed over :rolleyes:

A better debate is if we should have a more flexible/tolerant regime while discarding the Dublin Regulations (which are increasingly unfit for purpose as the last year has shown, Hungary looking to drop it, Greece and Italy failing to process entrants and unable to sustain costs if they do).
e.g intervene directly with developing pro-active relocation to help the most at risk in conflict areas or refugee camps adjacent to conflict areas to help those most in need while at the same time applying a enforced severe regime to those that can't satisfy the burden of proof required by a harsh interpretation of the Dublin convention.
To me its a logical position, the people who make there way to Ireland are not the most vulnerable , those that can't are.
The Syrian Humanitarian Admission Programme appears to be a fairly sensible idea though open to abuse.

***Anyway since you don't technically land in a country (which is the entire point of the mod note post you its ironic you get carded for that!)***

rgossip30

RichardCeann wrote: »

You realise that post is six years old and there have been changes to the Dublin convention since, yes? I suggest you look up the Dublin III Regulation (No. 604/2013) and alter that post accordingly. Or you can keep blindingly referring to it. Either or.

The best reply to this is that the Dublin Convention is not adhered to by many EU countries especially at present. The UK and Ireland do share information but visa overstayers seeking asylum here from the Uk is 50% + this year.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/foreign-couples-will-be-quizzed-on-relationship-to-identify-sham-marriages-31425100.html

A simple way to prevent sham marriages is that both parties should be legally in the state as in the UK.