Direct Provision - Should it be ended?

MrMusician18

RTE reporting that in the government formation talks, the green party are pushing for changes to direct provision, perhaps leading to abolition.

So is direct provision a fair way of preventing abuse of the immigration system, or a cruel inhumane pseudo prison that only serves to enrich a few providers?

If it should be abolished, what should replace it if anything?

Kivaro

"cruel inhumane pseudo prison"?
We definitely know a number of things about your opinion when you put it that way. It will most definitely change when you see the amount of taxes taken out of pay check at the end of the week/month, and then realise the amount of taxes spent on an obviously flawed asylum system and process.

As I posted on another thread:
The end of direct provision is exactly what RTE, the Irish Times, the Green Party and others are pushing for.

As soon as an African or someone from the Indian sub-continent flies into Dublin from London, Berlin, Paris etc., and mutters the word "asylum", the above groups are demanding immediate lone housing after processing. They all know that it will just further open the flood gates. It's an economically and socially insane concept.

10000maniacs

Kivaro wrote: »

"cruel inhumane pseudo prison"?
We definitely know a number of things about your opinion when you put it that way. It will most definitely change when you see the amount of taxes taken out of pay check at the end of the week/month, and then realise the amount of taxes spent on an obviously flawed asylum system and process.

As I posted on another thread:
The end of direct provision is exactly what RTE, the Irish Times, the Green Party and others are pushing for.

As soon as an African or someone from the Indian sub-continent flies into Dublin from London, Berlin, Paris etc., and mutters the word "asylum", the above groups are demanding immediate lone housing after processing. They all know that it will just further open the flood gates. It's an economically and socially insane concept.

If they have flown into Ireland from a safe country, they should be sent back to that safe country and their application for asylum in Ireland be processed from that safe country. The insanity and stupidity of direct provision has really come to the fore during the current COVID-19 crisis.

Mules

When they talk about housing alternatives they mean free apartments/ houses. The majority of asylum applications are rejected so that basically means we would be giving free houses, healthcare, education, bills paid and spending money, not just to asylum seekers but also to economic migrants. I don't know why Irish people are obliged to work and pay tax for other people to get free stuff. I really don't get it. It doesn't seem right.

ELM327

End it.
Replace with a proper border check. If you're legally entitled to be here, then in you come. Otherwise it's back to where you came from.
Simples/

Probably cheaper too for the state

The_Brood

Mules wrote: »

When they talk about housing alternatives they mean free apartments/ houses. The majority of asylum applications are rejected so that basically means we would be giving free houses, healthcare, education, bills paid and spending money, not just to asylum seekers but also to economic migrants. I don't know why Irish people are obliged to work and pay tax for other people to get free stuff. I really don't get it. It doesn't seem right.

It would be great if everyone everywhere got free stuff, but the fact that working class people just above the welfare threshold in Ireland are denied every last assistance and left at the mercy of abusive landlords and impossible housing loan requirements - and that no one seems motivated to change that is criminal. You should not be robbing the poor to pay for the poor, which is what is happening here.

tigger123

It needs to be discussed as part of a wider conversation on immigration.

If its possible to land in Ireland and claim asylum, why bother with immigration laws and visas? Instead you can just land in Dublin, claim asylum and be here legally working and building a life for years while the asylum process gets around to your case.

JohnnyFlash

It should be ended as it's fundamentally inhumane. I think the issue is finding out what to replace it with, and being able to shout down the vested interests (the NGOs, the Celtic Tiger era hotel owners - all the people making money on the back of it, be that a little bit of money, or a lot of money) that will start screaming racism etc.

Like so many things, it's complex and doesn't lend itself to simple solutions and quick sound bites.

Rodney Bathgate

We need a process that deals with asylum applications speedily (end to end in 3 to 6 months), rather than dragging them out for up to a decade. Then once the appeals process is complete, the bogus asylum seekers are deported and can never set foot here again.

None of this minister overriding the decision because of a local protest.

Anyone who turns up without a passport or other valid ID is automatically deported.

The bearded children that our minister was stupid enough to fall for makes a complete mockery of all due process.

If this is implemented then you won’t have them in direct provision for more than 6 months at most.

Geuze

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If it should be abolished, what should replace it if anything?

Yes, it should be abolished, and replaced with fast and efficient processing of asylum claims within 24 hours, or a max of 7 days at the port or airport.

This may involve the collection of travel documents on board, to prevent the intentional destruction of documents.

It would also involve lots of technology, and co-operation with other countries.

AS would welcome the faster processing of their claim.

The taxpayer might save, as DP centres could be closed.

trashcan

ELM327 wrote: »

End it.
Replace with a proper border check. If you're legally entitled to be here, then in you come. Otherwise it's back to where you came from.
Simples/

Probably cheaper too for the state

Everyone who claims asylum is "legally entitled to be here." You might not agree with that, but that is the position. Ireland is legally obliged then to provide housing for asylum seekers. Again, whether you think that's right or not, it's the legal position. I'm not sure that there is a better alternative than DP. Giving out houses and apartments would likely be a huge "pull factor", as well as leading to much local resentment, and of course the cost involved. I'm not sure what those calling for an end to DP ( the Irish Times campaign against it for instance has been relentless) think the alternative is. The problem really isn't DP itself as far as I am concerned. It's the amount of time people spend there. The system needs to move faster, a large part of that being the legal system. It can take years to get a court case heard. I've long thought that we need special immigration courts.

Mr. Karate

MrMusician18 wrote: »

or a cruel inhumane pseudo prison that only serves to enrich a few providers?

They can go home whenever they feel like it.

Rodney Bathgate

Mr. Karate wrote: »

They can go home whenever they feel like it.

I’m always amused when I hear of successful asylum applicants going on holidays - back to the very country they claimed asylum from.

thegetawaycar

It should probably be changed massively, Government run (not just funded) centres that house applicants for a short period (max 6 months) while all processes and appeals are completed during this timeframe.

After that it becomes a bigger problem though as where would the applicant go after if successful etc...

In D.P. at the moment it's a joke, you can be there years and years and then eventually into a council house all while profit is being made by the private operators

suicide_circus

Absolutely end it.

Reform and streamline the asylum process to limit the endless appeals.

No means No.

ELM327

trashcan wrote: »

Everyone who claims asylum is "legally entitled to be here." You might not agree with that, but that is the position. Ireland is legally obliged then to provide housing for asylum seekers. Again, whether you think that's right or not, it's the legal position. I'm not sure that there is a better alternative than DP. Giving out houses and apartments would likely be a huge "pull factor", as well as leading to much local resentment, and of course the cost involved. I'm not sure what those calling for an end to DP ( the Irish Times campaign against it for instance has been relentless) think the alternative is. The problem really isn't DP itself as far as I am concerned. It's the amount of time people spend there. The system needs to move faster, a large part of that being the legal system. It can take years to get a court case heard. I've long thought that we need special immigration courts.

Unless their claim is not valid.
That's what I'm saying. Improve the checks. Speed it up.
There are way too many economic migrants.

Tacitus Kilgore

Long term DP is inhumane, I don't think it's racist in particular - just pure shite for all involved (except for the hotel owners & service providers of course) Above all else, the process badly needs to be sped up, significantly.

It's hard to get rid when we have no idea what to replace it with though

Mr. Karate

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

I’m always amused when I hear of successful asylum applicants going on holidays - back to the very country they claimed asylum from.

Definitely. Especially when they pull the "I face certain death if I dare return there." card.

Rodney Bathgate

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Long term DP is inhumane, I don't think it's racist in particular - just pure shite for all involved (except for the hotel owners & service providers of course) Above all else, the process badly needs to be sped up, significantly.

It's hard to get rid when we have no idea what to replace it with though

They choose to be there long term by using every appeal process open to then then going to the courts and appeal to the minister. Their choice.

Tacitus Kilgore

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

They choose to be there long term by using every appeal process open to then then going to the courts and appeal to the minister. Their choice.

Who does? All of them?

MrMusician18

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

We need a process that deals with asylum applications speedily (end to end in 3 to 6 months), rather than dragging them out for up to a decade. Then once the appeals process is complete, the bogus asylum seekers are deported and can never set foot here again.

None of this minister overriding the decision because of a local protest.

Anyone who turns up without a passport or other valid ID is automatically deported.

The bearded children that our minister was stupid enough to fall for makes a complete mockery of all due process.

If this is implemented then you won’t have them in direct provision for more than 6 months at most.

I'm pretty sure the process is quite fast at the moment. Not lightning quick 7 day turnarounds, but everyone gets their case heard within 18 months. Ultra short turnarounds would not be legal from an international law perspective imo - in that a case couldn't be built sufficiently either way in that time.

If you are in DP longer is because your initial application was not successful, and you are appealing.

Gatling

If they rid of dp then we're just opening the flood gates and the return of the Lagos express .

Because once one is removed ,then anchor babies Will return and full social welfare for the newly arrived and no way of ever deporting individuals

Rodney Bathgate

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Who does? All of them?

The ones that aren’t successful, yes. They can leave the country at any point. If it is so ‘in humane’ then feel free to do so. Of course the majority couldn’t have gotten here without passing through another EU state so they shouldn’t be here on the first place (see Dublin convention). Many cherry pick Ireland as a destination of choice. That is enough to make those cases bogus.

Rodney Bathgate

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the process is quite fast at the moment. Not lightning quick 7 day turnarounds, but everyone gets their case heard within 18 months. Ultra short turnarounds would not be legal from an international law perspective imo - in that a case couldn't be built sufficiently either way in that time.

If you are in DP longer is because your initial application was not successful, and you are appealing.

3 to 6 months should be sufficient for end to end if the applicant is co-operative and honest.

Clarence Boddiker

Mr. Karate wrote: »

They can go home whenever they feel like it.

Indeed they do feel like it, as many of them take holidays home (home being the place they had to flee from) after they've been granted residency here.

Kivaro

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

I’m always amused when I hear of successful asylum applicants going on holidays - back to the very country they claimed asylum from.

Due to the large number of Africans getting asylum in Ireland e.g. at least 20,000 Nigerians, this will eventually result in direct flights from Dublin to Lagos and other large cities in Africa, which in turn could result in a constant flow of asylum seekers on these flights.

jrosen

Direct provision in itself was a good idea, in my opinion anyway. There is somewhere people can go, have a bed, be fed and have access to information while their application is being processed.

In theory its straight forward, in practice people appeal and while they appeal they are still in direct provision. More people arrive and we end up with essentially over populated B&B's.

What I dont understand is the appeal process, if you dont meet the criteria what is there to appeal?

Either way I think direct provision needs to stay, but it needs reform. The process shouldn't take longer than 6 months.

tobefrank321

Not sure I would end it, but we should aim for smaller centres in more locations and for residents to be more integrated in the community.
DPC residents should add no more than 5% to the population of a town, as anything more puts a strain on resources and goodwill.

Rodin

Of course it should be ended.
Should take no more than a year to decide on someone's refugee status.

They either stay or go home.
Just make a decision.

Gatling

Rodin wrote: »

They either stay or go home.
Just make a decision.

But they won't go home , we've one of the highest refusal rates in Europe depending on who you believe ,
There has been 60,000 + through direct provision but yet over a 12 year period we only managed 1300 deportations ,

They don't just go home ,and we allow near infinite appeals all funded by the tax payers .

It's win /win for them

Jurgen Klopp

I love how none of these campaigners won't just come out and say exactly what they think it should be replaced with.

Every asylum seeker to be immediately given social housing or paid accommodation with a private rental

They won't out and say that though as even these lads know the majority of the public will lose their absolute **** at such a proposal

Kivaro

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Not sure I would end it, but we should aim for smaller centres in more locations and for residents to be more integrated in the community.

But why though; why integrate them during the asylum application process?
We know that the majority of asylum applicants are refused asylum due to the bogus nature of their claims. Is it then fair to integrate applicants in locations all the around the country during the application process, and without knowing if they had a past history of violent sexual assault or murder for example?

Spanish Eyes

Is Ireland any different to any other EU country regarding asylum seekers? I just wondered if DPCs exist in other countries.

MrMusician18

Kivaro wrote: »

"cruel inhumane pseudo prison"?
We definitely know a number of things about your opinion when you put it that way. It will most definitely change when you see the amount of taxes taken out of pay check at the end of the week/month, and then realise the amount of taxes spent on an obviously flawed asylum system and process.

As I posted on another thread:
The end of direct provision is exactly what RTE, the Irish Times, the Green Party and others are pushing for.

As soon as an African or someone from the Indian sub-continent flies into Dublin from London, Berlin, Paris etc., and mutters the word "asylum", the above groups are demanding immediate lone housing after processing. They all know that it will just further open the flood gates. It's an economically and socially insane concept.

It's a bit unfair to characterise my opinion based on that one line - I was merely repeating the accusation leveled at the system by those that want it ended in favour of a less controlled system.

When we look at DP I guess it's good to look back at where the policy came from and why it's in place - it was so designed to be as of putting as possible while meeting obligations under international law so that the non genuine wouldn't subject themselves to it and would choose another country to claim in. In that respect, it worked. In the years following it's introduction, asylum claims fell by 90% iirc.

I would tend to agree with your claims regarding RTE though. I must have seen 100s of soft reports on DP at this point, yet can't remember any that have have stated that anyone in it long term is an appellant.

I would like to see the system reformed in a way though that would see the various solicitors, NGOs and hangers on get a lot less taxpayer funding. Whatever happens with it though, I doubt that will change.

Sesame

I know its been said already but the reason so many asylum seeker are stuck in the centres for years and years is because they are recommended to appeal each decision which goes against them. It appears that the appeals process has both long waiting times to be heard, for the decision and then for more appeals.
It isn't fair on the families to be stuck in that limbo for so long. In the meantime, their kids are settling in schools and families becoming more instiutionalised. The appeals process should give them a final decision after a reasonable amount of time and either, help them move on, whether that be deportion or settle them in Ireland.

Rodney Bathgate

We need these engineers and doctors.

Rodin

Gatling wrote: »

But they won't go home , we've one of the highest refusal rates in Europe depending on who you believe ,
There has been 60,000 + through direct provision but yet over a 12 year period we only managed 1300 deportations ,

They don't just go home ,and we allow near infinite appeals all funded by the tax payers .

It's win /win for them

Won't go home?
Marched to the airport and stuck on a flight.
Can you imagine someone due for deportation in the US be allowed to refuse to go?
They'll have been deemed to be here illegally. Off ye go.

Eric Cartman

We should have one migrant centre right beside the airport, you go in, your application processed and dealt wity within 45 days, you can appeal once and that appeal process lasts 45, by day 90 youre most likely on a flight home or agreed to be allowed stay under the condition that you can be removed with 0 notice if details of your asylum ever transpire to be untrue or you are convicted of a criminal charge beyond traffic offenses within 10 years of entry into the country or suspected involvement in extremism/terrorism/fgm.

Simplest way to deal with it, treat them better for 45/90 days , smaller centre but expidited deportations.

_Kaiser_

Absolutely end it. Replace with a properly effective immigration and border control process

- All claims reviewed within 7 days
- One appeal only if your claim is rejected. If still denied... back where you came from
- Arrive here in the back of a container with no verifiable paperwork, or from a safe country... back where you came from
- Tenure does not grant citizenship
- No "family reunions"
- No social housing or standard benefits that are not earned through work and contributions. A temporary allowance should be provided to allow successful claimants to find work with regular check-in similar to the current Welfare process
- Approved asylum claims only valid until safe to go home. If you want to stay after this, you must apply to the other established channels for residency
- Be found to be going on holiday back home.. asylum and residency denied. Back where you came from
- Commit crimes in this country... back where you came from

All of the above subject to local economic conditions and pressures on things like housing and healthcare.

On the flip side..

- Arrive legally, with needed skills to offer, and a demonstrated ability to support yourself... welcome!

tobefrank321

If you are from certain countries such as Albania or Georgia, you shouldn't even be allowed leave the airport unless you can prove what your business is. Well over 90% asylum seekers from these two countries have been proven to be bogus and without merit. That they go into DPCs is scandalous. This should be the main focus of reforms, weeding out as soon as possible those coming from genuine conflict or problem countries versus bogus economic migrants.

And also, if you don't apply to an Irish Embassy in the country or region you are coming from, you shouldn't be considered.

Unfortunately the Dail in recent years is moving ever further to the hard left and even mainstream parties are heading that direction, trying to outdo each other in wasting taxpayers money.

conndeal

The reports in the newspapers prior to DP was people smugglers were bringing people into the country. In return they had to pay the smugglers a large percentage of their social welfare after they arrived. They were living in crowded accommodation (sourced themselves) and were struggling to buy food.

DP is not as attractive to the people smugglers because they cannot demand a large percentage of the migrant's social welfare or wages after they arrive.

Kivaro

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's a bit unfair to characterise my opinion based on that one line - I was merely repeating the accusation leveled at the system by those that want it ended in favour of a less controlled system.

That was not clear in your OP, and if that is the case, then you are correct that it was unfair.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

When we look at DP I guess it's good to look back at where the policy came from and why it's in place - it was so designed to be as of putting as possible while meeting obligations under international law so that the non genuine wouldn't subject themselves to it and would choose another country to claim in. In that respect, it worked. In the years following it's introduction, asylum claims fell by 90% iirc.

I would tend to agree with your claims regarding RTE though. I must have seen 100s of soft reports on DP at this point, yet can't remember any that have been critical or state that anyone in it long term is an appellant.

I would like to see the system reformed in a way though that would see the various solicitors, NGOs and hangers on get a lot less taxpayer funding. Whatever happens with it though, I doubt that will change.

Wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. The primary motivating factor that inhibits change to the current asylum system is the profit margins for the DP centre owners, suppliers, ancillary services, and Irish legal profession who are absolutely making a mint from the current snail's pace of asylum adjudication and appeal process.
We may need the Europeans to intervene in order to change the status quo, because nobody in Government will initiate change. The upcoming Direct Provision report, commissioned by the Government, is just appalling based on the preliminary reports. It looks like a report written specifically by the groups above who are making so much money from the current asylum system. It should be binned now; even before its final release in November.

Montage of Feck

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Not sure I would end it, but we should aim for smaller centres in more locations and for residents to be more integrated in the community.
DPC residents should add no more than 5% to the population of a town, as anything more puts a strain on resources and goodwill.

I have to disagree strongly with integration into the community. Those in direct provision are asylum seekers not refugees, their claims could be false, in my opinion most are, or have an undisclosed disease or criminal background. Until their identity, medical and criminal history and claims of asylum can be verified they should be held in a secure location.

Eric Cartman

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Absolutely end it. Replace with a properly effective immigration and border control process

- All claims reviewed within 7 days
- One appeal only if your claim is rejected. If still denied... back where you came from
- Arrive here in the back of a container with no verifiable paperwork, or from a safe country... back where you came from
- Tenure does not grant citizenship
- No "family reunions"
- No social housing or standard benefits that are not earned through work and contributions. A temporary allowance should be provided to allow successful claimants to find work with regular check-in similar to the current Welfare process
- Approved asylum claims only valid until safe to go home. If you want to stay after this, you must apply to the other established channels for residency
- Be found to be going on holiday back home.. asylum and residency denied. Back where you came from
- Commit crimes in this country... back where you came from

All of the above subject to local economic conditions and pressures on things like housing and healthcare.

On the flip side..

- Arrive legally, with needed skills to offer, and a demonstrated ability to support yourself... welcome!

The holiday one especially , ellie kisyombe should have been a test case for the government to ensure nobody can ever scam the system like that again. No immigration system which allows her to remain here is effective.

We should have also developped a system which prevented lisa smyth or ibrahim halawa ever setting foot in our state again

Rodney Bathgate

Rodin wrote: »

Won't go home?
Marched to the airport and stuck on a flight.
Can you imagine someone due for deportation in the US be allowed to refuse to go?
They'll have been deemed to be here illegally. Off ye go.

Here, they start an appeal in the local paper and social media, get the kids pictured with classmates or GAA teams, RTE are happy to include on the 6 1 news and the minister immediately caves in and gives leave to remain. Then the rest of the extended family are brought over. Then they go back home for a holiday.

By drawing out their appeal process they significantly increase the likelihood of being allowed to stay, even if they are ultimately found to be bogus asylum seekers.

The taxpayer can’t win.

DelaneyIn

Revoke our signatory to the asylum convention. It’s become nothing more than a means for fraudsters to gain residency in the state.

Richard Hillman

It's too lucrative for the legal industry and the hoteliers in rural in Ireland.

There needs to be a quickfire processing of everyone that is left. When everybody is deported, a new system needs to be set up. I

If you do not declare political asylum before arrival or on arrival in Dublin, your asylum credibility should be virtually zero. Political asylum should only be reserved for high ranking figures. This is what it was originally designed for.

If a person has come on a non-direct flight from a safe country (which is almost 100% of the time), their application is denied and deported on the next flight. They cannot be allowed to pass immigration control in Ireland. I'm pretty sure those are the rules already.

TheValeyard

Completely disagree with Direct Provison, it's cruel and long dragged out process. It's not fair on anyone and could be the Magdalene Laundry of the 21st century.

Person should be quickly processed. Allowed to stay or not.

If rejected and they wish to appeal they do it from their home country, not in this country.

Patrick2010

Tv3 report from Cahirciveen showing loads of residents out protesting and calling for an end to direct provision. If that’s what they want assume they’ll be happy if the Skellig hotel is closed and all the asylum seekers there housed locally given the welcome posters on display?

Spanish Eyes

There is nowhere in MSM or anywhere for that matter, where ordinary Joes and Josies can voice their views on what is for the most part a wholesale scamming of our system.

The minute anyone opens their mouth and questions the cost of asylum seekers and DP the debate is shut down, or should I say there is no debate at all.

A functioning democracy should include the views of everyone, particularly those paying for it all. But I am not allowed to say that am I?

Most people with a brain know the system is functioning on mainly three levels, the asylum seeker, the legal aid element, and the DP sector.

But the entirely left leaning huggy crowd have closed down all debate around this issue, along with other issues too. Fed up is not the word.

seenitall

Absolutely. Repeal the 27th while you're at it, that should help the general state of affairs too. Lots.

Also, make sure to keep the CTA in place and borders as open as possible for when Brexit really starts to bite.

Interesting times ahead, Ireland.