Asylum seekers waiting 10 years for decision

Systemic Risk · 24-07-2013 09:54AM #1

I just read an article in the galway independent about asylum seekers having to wait up to 10-11 years in direct provision centres for a decision on their status. Families live in a single hotel room together, have meals brought to them and get an allowance of 19.60 per adult p/w and 9.60 per child. They are not allowed work, store food in their rooms or cook.

There are 10 year old children in these centres who have never experienced having a home. They barely know what a kitchen is. Imagine that some of these children having been born and completed their primary education in ireland could be kicked out of the country. Many of the parents are suffering from depression and are humiliated at their situation.

I understand the necessity of these direct provision centres and expect the immigration service to screen out all false asylum seekers but this should be possible over a much shorter timeframe. I think it violates the rights of the assylum seekers to keep them waiting so long without the right to work or to a home.

What are your thoughts on the treatment of assylum seekers in ireland? Should we ensure applications are assessed quickly with a decision taking no more than a year or two including any appeals? Should they just be happy we took them in at all and are providing for them?

Uriel. · 24-07-2013 09:58AM

Simple solution. Immigration Control (or whoever processes applications) should just bulk buy "REJECTED" stamps and speed up the process.

Deise Vu · 24-07-2013 10:16AM

This is an absolutely deplorable situation unfortunately typical of Irish political decision making: There's no solution that will please both leftwing and right wing headbangers so do nothing, hope it goes away and becomes someone else's problem.

It is clear that there is abuse of the asylum system by asylum seekers (that Nigerian lady with the fictinal FMG'd child, people from non-EU European countries, people who lie about their origins etc.) and also people in genuine need (Kosovan Albanians being a fairly good example).

It shouldn't be a difficult task to ascertain where people are from, decide whether or not that country is oppressing them and allow them to stay or deport them within 3 months. If someone does not have documentation and cannot verify their origin I would just lock them up. If we don't know who or what you are why should we offer them a passport and become responsible for looking after them and their families?

I have no doubt I will attract abuse for this but I feel the Australians have this right. Originally they locked up everyone until they were proven OK. Now they are exporting the problem to Papua New Guinea as a cheaper alternative. Extremely cynical but cost-effective. In their favour, if an asylum seeker is genuinely fleeing oppression, surely he is only concerned about his and his family's safety? In my opinion that is the only thing with which a host country need be concerned. Most countries cannot even look after their own, let alone other countries problems. You can't have an open door policy so the fairest thing is to deal with applications as fast as possible, and don't leave yourself open to abuse.

Hammer Archer · 24-07-2013 10:18AM

I actually worked in the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner for a few months a couple of years ago. In general, decisions are made in asylum seekers' cases in 6 months or so. After that there were usually countless appeals and applications for judicial reviews which greatly prolonged the process.
Also, when women first presented themselves at ORAC they were told to notify the office should they become pregnant. A common tactic was to go through the appeals process and when that failed, show up at ORAC with their child in the days leading up to their deportation to apply for asylum on their behalf. This would mean their deportation would be cancelled and the process would start all over again.
Many asylum seekers did this with several children. I know of one case where a woman actually was on Primetime complaining about the length of time it was taking when it was entirely her fault.

As far as I can see, asylum seekers are treated fairly decently here, especially compared to other countries. They get guaranteed food, accommodation and just under €20 a week for the duration of their case(s) no matter how trivial their application is (in one case, someone had been working illegally for years yet only applied for asylum when they lost their job and couldn't pay their rent). Meanwhile, if you're an Irish or EU citizen and you fall on hard times, then tough luck.

shruikan2553 · 24-07-2013 10:33AM

How do we even get asylum seekers? Unless they are from iceland, france or the UK they would of had to go passed another EU country. If they are coming to ireland just because it is easier to get in they should be sent back or to the first EU country they would have come across.

Shenshen · 24-07-2013 10:44AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

How do we even get asylum seekers? Unless they are from iceland, france or the UK they would of had to go passed another EU country. If they are coming to ireland just because it is easier to get in they should be sent back or to the first EU country they would have come across.

Last time I checked, Ireland did have airports, several of them actually, with direct flights coming in from a variety of countries, not just Iceland, France and the UK.

Why does everybody seem to imagine people looking for asylum come to Ireland on foot or swim across?

AlekSmart · 24-07-2013 11:47AM

Hammer Archer wrote: »

I actually worked in the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner for a few months a couple of years ago. In general, decisions are made in asylum seekers' cases in 6 months or so. After that there were usually countless appeals and applications for judicial reviews which greatly prolonged the process.
Also, when women first presented themselves at ORAC they were told to notify the office should they become pregnant. A common tactic was to go through the appeals process and when that failed, show up at ORAC with their child in the days leading up to their deportation to apply for asylum on their behalf. This would mean their deportation would be cancelled and the process would start all over again.
Many asylum seekers did this with several children. I know of one case where a woman actually was on Primetime complaining about the length of time it was taking when it was entirely her fault.

As far as I can see, asylum seekers are treated fairly decently here, especially compared to other countries. They get guaranteed food, accommodation and just under €20 a week for the duration of their case(s) no matter how trivial their application is (in one case, someone had been working illegally for years yet only applied for asylum when they lost their job and couldn't pay their rent). Meanwhile, if you're an Irish or EU citizen and you fall on hard times, then tough luck.

Ah but,Hammer Archer,nobody wants to hear this side of the arguement,as it fails to satisfy the need to do-down Irelands asylum system and those who administer it.

A VERY significant cohort of people,with constant and vocal media based support made strenuous efforts to portray Ireland as some form of oppressive regime akin to Stalinist Russia in relation to the Asylum "Industry".

I rather suspect that 6 months in the ORAC Office rather broadened your understanding of the thing...?

There is a great deal of misinformation on the issue,particularly on exactly how the requirements of the Dublin Convention are administered.

Suffice to say,that Irelands Asylum process remains one of the fairest and most transparent in the World,but is hugely restricted in it's ability to respond to truly deserving cases by a systematic and well rehearsed mechanism designed to frustrate it at every attempt.

It does'nt matter to these scammers,that a genuinely oppressed and threatened individual/family may be denied the protection of Asylum,as long as they themselves get their feet in the door.

Right now,Ireland needs a far more robust review of it's current largely contrived "Backlog" with a view to repatriating most of the vexatious applicants back to their home countries/country of origin.

I'd also like to give a loud Thank You and Well Done to the Staff of ORAC and the Garda NBI,the vast majority of whom perform a difficult and often stressful job under less than optimal conditions...and yet remain the butt of media attacks when they have to do their duty.

Cody Pomeray · 24-07-2013 11:52AM

Hammer Archer wrote: »

I actually worked in the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner for a few months a couple of years ago. In general, decisions are made in asylum seekers' cases in 6 months or so. After that there were usually countless appeals and applications for judicial reviews which greatly prolonged the process.

The RAT are the most judicially reviewed state agency in this country. Their record is extraordinary.

The reason the RAT is so heavily subject to judicial review - and the reason why so many successful judicial reviews are taken is, sorry - largely a product of incompetence.

When cases go back before the RAT after a judicial review quashes one of their decision, it is not unheard of for the subsequent p RAT decision, which has now gone back to the RAT, to make *exactly* the same mistake and go back before the High Court, who again quash it.

This is an agency completely out on its own.

delthedriver · 24-07-2013 12:02PM

If the asylum seekers cannot meet the acceptance standards within 12 months of applying they should be returned home. It is wrong to give them false hope by accommodating them for 10 years.

I would love to know if any Irish person has ever applied for asylum or a work permit in the countries from which our asylum seekers have come from. What kind of reception would the Irish National bee greeted with?:)

vitani · 24-07-2013 12:07PM

Kevin Brophy, a solicitor, put up an interesting blog post recently:

http://brophysolicitorsfamilylaw.blogspot.ie/2013/07/edward-snowden-welcome-to-ireland.html

For many years in Ireland, we had a government appointed official who rejected every single claim for asylum that came before him. There was a deluge of complaints about him but nothing happened until one brave asylum seeker took a case against the Department and was on the verge of obtaining embarrassing Discovery documentation when our brave government conceded the case so as not to have to reveal these incriminating and hugelt embarrassing documents.

In March 2006, seven solicitors working in the area of refugee law swore affidavits stating that this man had never been known to decide a case in favour of an asylum seeker...

Personally, I think direct provision is an absolute disgrace and it shames us as a country. When you try to say this though, most people respond with one of the following:

1) If they don't like it, go home.
2) There's brand new cars outside the centres.
3) They shouldn't be here in the first place. There's no direct flights from Africa to Ireland.
4) Our welfare system is too generous.

All of which ignore the fact that these people are here and the conditions they have to live under are appalling. There's young children who've never known any other way of living, who don't even understand what a kitchen is. These kids are only going to get one childhood and it's being thrown away while the appeals are dragged out for years on end.

Direct provision also costs us money as a State. It's inefficient and was never designed as a long-term solution. Unfortunately, that's what it's become.

jugger0 · 24-07-2013 12:09PM

Reject all of them and look after our own people first, plenty of people living rough in our own country.

Amirani · 24-07-2013 12:12PM

jugger0 wrote: »

Reject all of them and look after our own people first, plenty of people living rough in our own country.

None of your family emigrated to the US/UK during the famine/economic troubles in the 70s then I presume?

AlekSmart · 24-07-2013 12:15PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

None of your family emigrated to the US/UK during the famine/economic troubles in the 70s then I presume?

Emigrated to,or sought Asylum in ...?

apollo8 · 24-07-2013 12:16PM

jugger0 wrote: »

Reject all of them and look after our own people first, plenty of people living rough in our own country.

This coming from someone who lives in a country whos main export is and always was people.

Amirani · 24-07-2013 12:17PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

Emigrated to,or sought Asylum in ...?

Either.

NoCrackHaving · 24-07-2013 12:19PM

jugger0 wrote: »

Reject all of them and look after our own people first, plenty of people living rough in our own country.

Jesus, sending people back to be raped/persecuted/killed? While there are some frauds (I have no idea how many), some asylum seekers are genuine. Sending a Muslim or Croat back to Bosnia during its wars would be horrific.

Now saying that, I agree that it should be only the first EU country you land in that you can apply for refuge. However if that happens to be Ireland and it's genuine I think most would agree on letting them stay.

Friend Computer · 24-07-2013 12:19PM

delthedriver wrote: »

If the asylum seekers cannot meet the acceptance standards within 12 months of applying they should be returned home. It is wrong to give them false hope by accommodating them for 10 years.

I would love to know if any Irish person has ever applied for asylum or a work permit in the countries from which our asylum seekers have come from. What kind of reception would the Irish National bee greeted with?:)

Asylum from what, exactly?

Rented Mule · 24-07-2013 12:21PM

Systemic Risk wrote: »

I just read an article in the galway independent about asylum seekers having to wait up to 10-11 years in direct provision centres for a decision on their status.

Wait until they try to get a driving license.

Chucky the tree · 24-07-2013 12:21PM

Hammer Archer wrote: »

I actually worked in the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner for a few months a couple of years ago. In general, decisions are made in asylum seekers' cases in 6 months or so. After that there were usually countless appeals and applications for judicial reviews which greatly prolonged the process.
Also, when women first presented themselves at ORAC they were told to notify the office should they become pregnant. A common tactic was to go through the appeals process and when that failed, show up at ORAC with their child in the days leading up to their deportation to apply for asylum on their behalf. This would mean their deportation would be cancelled and the process would start all over again.
Many asylum seekers did this with several children. I know of one case where a woman actually was on Primetime complaining about the length of time it was taking when it was entirely her fault.

As far as I can see, asylum seekers are treated fairly decently here, especially compared to other countries. They get guaranteed food, accommodation and just under €20 a week for the duration of their case(s) no matter how trivial their application is (in one case, someone had been working illegally for years yet only applied for asylum when they lost their job and couldn't pay their rent). Meanwhile, if you're an Irish or EU citizen and you fall on hard times, then tough luck.

Hardly a case of tough luck with your minimum €188 per week.

NoCrackHaving · 24-07-2013 12:21PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

Emigrated to,or sought Asylum in ...?

To be honest due to Ireland's unique history very few if any Irish people have ever needed to 'seek asylum' due to the fact that easy open emigration to the UK/US/Canada etc. has always been open to us in a way it isn't for many countries.

Hilly Bill · 24-07-2013 12:24PM

If they dont accept the immigration decision and then intentionally delay the process then ive no sympathy for them. Would they rather remain in the country for 10 years or be deported within a few months? 10 years is a stupid amount of time to be processed , they shouldnt even be allowed out the airport until they can prove that they are in danger.
There are a good number living on our streets who would love to be put up in a room with meals handed out to them every day.

hfallada · 24-07-2013 12:26PM

When you think of Asylum seekers you think of people from war torn countries that could be killed from a bomb or a bullet at any moment. But yet you hear them give out about the conditions they are living in and they receive so little from the state. You would imagine they would be grateful to be safe. I think some asylum seekers come here to chance getting a job rather than ensuring they dont die.

General General · 24-07-2013 12:26PM

Easy to improve the situation for Asylum Seekers, provide an opt-in 'extra tax' option so that people who think that conditions are appalling can put their money where their mouth is. Clearly, those who don't tick that 'extra tax' box don't want to increase their tax burden so that better (even better?) provision is made for Asylum Seekers &, I presume, that is their right, after all.

I think a whole lot of 'moaning' about many different expenditures could be similarly reduced with this kind of 'opt in', tick an 'extra tax' box kind of system.

General General · 24-07-2013 12:28PM

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Hardly a case of tough luck with your minimum €188 per week.

Good luck getting that if you were self employed & your business went tits up.

Guyanachronism · 24-07-2013 12:28PM

Direct provision system isn't perfect, I think they should take over some ghost estate somewhere and establish a more community style direct provision method, but a large part of the delays is attempts to frustrate the process and waiting for appeals to be heard. I think a special appeals court where cases are heard 48 hours after they're lodged. They have a similiar system in France. Also the offer of assisted voluntary return for people who have been in the system for two years or more.

We can improve the standards in direct provision, but I don't see an alternative, giving them work permits, even if only they have been here for a number of years like Common European Asylum System proposal, creates another pull factor.

Over 90% of asylum claims are rejected but many get to remain in the country by marrying someone who has legal residency, leave to remain granted by the minister or illegally.

Hilly Bill · 24-07-2013 12:29PM

Guyanachronism wrote: »

Direct provision system isn't perfect, I think they should take over some ghost estate somewhere and establish a more community style direct provision method, but a large part of the delays is attempts to frustrate the process and waiting for appeals to be heard. I think a special appeals court where cases are heard 48 hours after they're lodged. They have a similiar system in France. Also the offer of assisted voluntary return for people who have been in the system for two years or more.

We can improve the standards in direct provision, but I don't see an alternative, giving them work permits, even if only they have been here for a number of years like Common European Asylum System proposal, creates another pull factor.

Over 90% of asylum claims are rejected but many get to remain in the country by marrying someone who has legal residency, leave to remain granted by the minister or illegally.

They have, its called Ballbriggan.

jugger0 · 24-07-2013 12:30PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

None of your family emigrated to the US/UK during the famine/economic troubles in the 70s then I presume?

We didn't give them asylum seekers we gave them a workforce.

General General · 24-07-2013 12:35PM

jugger0 wrote: »

We didn't give them asylum seekers we gave them a workforce.

I completely agree. Skid row or worse, if you didn't work (hard) over there (often for s.f.a.).

& yes, for those who counter, you could work. Illegally.

No room & board + pocket money for you in the USA, though, so you'd kind of have to work.

jugger0 · 24-07-2013 12:36PM

apollo8 wrote: »

This coming from someone who lives in a country whos main export is and always was people.

Indeed and we gave our host countries manpower for their workforce or cannon fodder for their wars, asylum seekers give us nothing and in these tough times would it not make more sense to look after our own?

vitani · 24-07-2013 12:40PM

jugger0 wrote: »

Indeed and we gave our host countries manpower for their workforce or cannon fodder for their wars, asylum seekers give us nothing and in these tough times would it not make more sense to look after our own?

We don't allow them to work. That's our decision, not theirs.

And it doesn't have to be an either/or. Direct Provision is expensive. If a new more efficient system was put in place, the money saved could go on 'our own'.

Guyanachronism · 24-07-2013 12:42PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

They have, its called Ballbriggan.

I am not familiar with it, but from googling it seems more like social dumping than a thought out plan to ensure minimum standards.

Asylum seekers waiting 10 years for decision

Comments