Asylum seekers waiting 10 years for decision

Amirani · 24-07-2013 12:43PM

jugger0 wrote: »

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

Since when do people granted asylum in Ireland not form part of the workforce?

Shenshen · 24-07-2013 12:44PM

delthedriver wrote: »

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?:)

I don't know... places like Ecuador and Russia seem to be chuffed to bits every time a Westerner applies to them for asylum.

apollo8 · 24-07-2013 12:44PM

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?

How can they give us anything when they are not allowed to work?.
Our emigrants could and did work,you try hard to cover it up but i believe your views are based on racism.

AlekSmart · 24-07-2013 12:46PM

vitani wrote: »

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

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

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.

Vitani,can we assume,from the Kevin Brophy link,that you have an interest or involvement in this area ?

Your 4 points,outlining what "Most People" respond with,may indeed be indicative of a simplistic response,but that does not invalidate them.

Given that many of the Applicants for Asylum are supposedly in fleeing oppression and direct life threatening situations,I would be loath to describe the Irish State's Direct Provision response as anything other than humaniterian and proportionate to both the Country's ability to provide,and also the actual needs of the applicants.

Whilst Kevin Brophy's opinion and that of the other 7 "Solicitors workin in the area of refugee law" are of course valid,their close involvement in the same system does tend to require a bit of filtering when considering those opinions.

Other no less interested parties,not directly involved in the "Asylum" process may be entitled to hold a somewhat differing opinion ?

Personally,I believe Irelands Direct Provision System,whilst far from perfect,is as good and wide-ranging a system as we can offer in our current financial and social situation.

It most assuredly does not "Shame Ireland as a Country",and to suggest that is quite disparaging to those who administer and work within the DP systems

The issues surrounding Asylum seeking,and it's worldwide "Industry" Status,brought to the fore in the Boom Times,did catch Ireland on the hop.

We were simply unprepared for the reality that Ireland as a country,had become a "Mark" for those individuals and groups who operate 24/7/365 in the Asylum business.

We could'nt get our administrative heads around a situation whereby,a chancer rocking-up to our door with a cock-and-bull story needed to be firmly but fairly turned 180 and sent on their way,complete with Dick Whittington pole and satchel.

There were/are reasons,other than mere chance,that people from far flung countries managed to find themselves on Irelands doorstep.

Very few of these reasons were down to the panic of having to suddenly flee the soldiers of an oppressive regime or a Political Opponent swinging a Panga outside your front-door.

A significant number of the Asylum applicants,made and paid for "professional" advice in their home-countries,many of which,such as Nigeria,enjoy full diplomatic and social relations with Ireland.

Dare I suggest that such "Professional Advice",most likely,came from foreign based interested parties,most likely akin to our own home based ones.

I'm afraid Vitani,I differ in opinion on the issue,I believe Ireland is operating a fit-for-purpose system,adhering to the principles of Asylum as closely as it can,however as has been shown so many times,it simply buckled and collapsed under the weight of opportunistic systemic scamming.

My name is URL · 24-07-2013 12:46PM

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?:)

"meet the acceptance standards"

You haven't a clue what you're on about tbh. The fact that such delays exist isn't the fault of asylum seekers. It'd be a bit unfair to boot people out because of inadequacies in how the state goes about dealing with asylum claims.

As for your second paragraph, what does that have to do with anything? If Irish people were treated badly in a country, should it be okay for us to treat others badly?

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 24-07-2013 12:47PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

They have, its called Ballbriggan.

Inane answer.
I live in Balbriggan, its as good as anywhere else to live, not sure what kind of inane/stupid point you're trying to make.
Then again since you cant even spell it properly its safe to assume that you have no idea what you're on about:P

vitani · 24-07-2013 12:57PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

Vitani,can we assume,from the Kevin Brophy link,that you have an interest or involvement in this area ?

Your 4 points,outlining what "Most People" respond with,may indeed be indicative of a simplistic response,but that does not invalidate them.

Given that many of the Applicants for Asylum are supposedly in fleeing oppression and direct life threatening situations,I would be loath to describe the Irish State's Direct Provision response as anything other than humaniterian and proportionate to both the Country's ability to provide,and also the actual needs of the applicants.

Whilst Kevin Brophy's opinion and that of the other 7 "Solicitors workin in the area of refugee law" are of course valid,their close involvement in the same system does tend to require a bit of filtering when considering those opinions.

Other no less interested parties,not directly involved in the "Asylum" process may be entitled to hold a somewhat differing opinion ?

Personally,I believe Irelands Direct Provision System,whilst far from perfect,is as good and wide-ranging a system as we can offer in our current financial and social situation.

It most assuredly does not "Shame Ireland as a Country",and to suggest that is quite dispariging to those who administer and work within the DP systems

The issues surrounding Asylum seeking,and it's worldwide "Industry" Status,brought to the fore in the Boom Times,did catch Ireland on the hop.

We were simply unprepared for the reality that Ireland as a country,had become a "Mark" for those individuals and groups who operate 24/7/365 in the Asylum business.

We could'nt get our administrative heads around a situation whereby,a chancer rocking-up to our door with a cock-and-bull story needed to be firmly but fairly turned 180 and sent on their way,complete with Dick Whittington pole and satchel.

There were/are reasons,other than mere chance,that people from far flung countries managed to find themselves on Irelands doorstep.

Very few of these reasons were down to the panic of having to suddenly flee the soldiers of an oppressive regime or a Political Opponent swinging a Panga outside your front-door.

A significant number of the Asylum applicants,made and paid for "professional" advice in their home-countries,many of which,such as Nigeria,enjoy full diplomatic and social relations with Ireland.

Dare I suggest that such "Professional Advice",most likely,came from foreign based interested parties,most likely akin to our own home based ones.

I'm afraid Vitani,I differ in opinion on the issue,I believe Ireland is operating a fit-for-purpose system,adhering to the principles of Asylum as closely as it can,however as has been shown so many times,it simply buckled and collapsed under the weight of opportunistic systemic scamming.

No, we can't. I found that link one of the last times the topic came up here and it stuck in my memory.

I've no personal involvement in the area. A former lecturer of mine is quite involved in the campaign to end direct provision so it's something I've read up on, but I've no 'interest' in it, as such. I'm just a bleeding heart leftie, I suppose.

The issue, for me, is simply the way that asylum seekers are treated. I've no interest in discussing whether their claims are valid or whether they're scammers or opportunists, because I don't believe that makes their treatment acceptable. I believe there is a fairer way of assessing and administering claims for asylum, and accomodating asylum seekers while they wait for a decision, and that Direct Provision is not it.

Guyanachronism · 24-07-2013 01:00PM

vitani wrote: »

No, we can't. I found that link one of the last times the topic came up here and it stuck in my memory.

I've no personal involvement in the area. A former lecturer of mine is quite involved in the campaign to end direct provision so it's something I've read up on, but I've no 'interest' in it, as such. I'm just a bleeding heart leftie, I suppose.

The issue, for me, is simply the way that asylum seekers are treated. I've no interest in discussing whether their claims are valid or whether they're scammers or opportunists, because I don't believe that makes their treatment acceptable. I believe there is a fairer way of assessing and administering claims for asylum, and accomodating asylum seekers while they wait for a decision, and that Direct Provision is not it.

What is the fairer way? I hear the campaigns against direct provision, I agree with the arguments against direct provision but I never hear of the alternative.

Hilly Bill · 24-07-2013 01:08PM

Old and grey wrote: »

Inane answer.
I live in Balbriggan, its as good as anywhere else to live, not sure what kind of inane/stupid point you're trying to make.
Then again since you cant even spell it properly its safe to assume that you have no idea what you're on about:P

Calm down , i didnt say anything about the quality of the town. I added an extra L, big deal.

AlekSmart · 24-07-2013 01:08PM

Systemic Risk wrote: »

.

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?

A major part of the problem,and the largest single flaw in Systemic Risk's Two-Year decision time-frame is the ability of the vexatious Asylum Seeker to prolong the appeals process indefinitely.

Now,ALL of this has to be carried out with the active assistance,or dare I say it,connivance of the Legal Proffesion,a sizeable number of whom have grown into substantial stand-alone practices in this new growth area.

Lets be honest here,and admit that given it's ability to operate,our current Asylum System is more than capable of delivering it's adjudications within a reasonable time frame.

However,accepting such decisions does not appear to ever be on the agenda of those Legal Advisors acting against the State.

Stuff like this,for example does tend to offer,perhaps an insight into the thought processes involved ....

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/09da71281f988b10802578cb003b9192?OpenDocument

So,yes a number of the applicants Systemic Risk refers to,should indeed be happy (and grateful) that Ireland took them in and continues to provide for them....however I see little indication of such an attitude thus far ?

Cody Pomeray · 24-07-2013 01:18PM

vitani wrote: »

I've no personal involvement in the area. A former lecturer of mine is quite involved in the campaign to end direct provision

I presume you're a UCD student?!

vitani wrote: »

The issue, for me, is simply the way that asylum seekers are treated. I've no interest in discussing whether their claims are valid or whether they're scammers or opportunists, because I don't believe that makes their treatment acceptable. I believe there is a fairer way of assessing and administering claims for asylum, and accomodating asylum seekers while they wait for a decision, and that Direct Provision is not it.

Well exactly. This is a question of fairness.

The surprising thing about direct provision is that for something which can so seriously aggravate asylum seekers' destitution, and offend their human dignity, it is not actually something defined by law. It is set down in Department of Social Protection circulars and deliberated on in internal memos... what way is that to deal with so fundamental a question as access to basic services and the ability to live with some level of human dignity?

On the other hand, we have no problem passing laws to enforce automatic rejections of applications for rent supplement by asylum seekers.

We go further. We do not sign up to the EU's Reception Conditions Directive, which would probably see us embarrassed in front of the European Court of Human Rights, that is if our own court system does not embarrass us further. And some would say, that with the amount of judicial reviews against the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, and new cases emerging all the time, that this is already happening.

It is now only a matter of time before direct provision is subject to legal action.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-07-2013 01:24PM

The world was a very different place 10 years ago.

Many places have improved and lots of regimes have changed so the original grounds for seeking asylum would have changed in most cases ?

AlekSmart · 24-07-2013 01:45PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I presume you're a UCD student?!

Well exactly. This is a question of fairness.

The surprising thing about direct provision is that for something which can so seriously aggravate asylum seekers' destitution, and offend their human dignity, it is not actually something defined by law. It is set down in Department of Social Protection circulars and deliberated on in internal memos... what way is that to deal with so fundamental a question as access to basic services and the ability to live with some level of human dignity?

On the other hand, we have no problem passing laws to enforce automatic rejections of applications for rent supplement by asylum seekers.

We go further. We do not sign up to the EU's Reception Conditions Directive, which would probably see us embarrassed in front of the European Court of Human Rights, that is if our own court system does not embarrass us further. And some would say, that with the amount of judicial reviews against the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, and new cases emerging all the time, that this is already happening.

It is now only a matter of time before direct provision is subject to legal action.

I would agree on the Legal Action,as the preparations are already well underway for such an action.

If Ireland had a U.S. style Class-Action process I would suggest the Legal Profession would already have mounted such a crusade.

However,yet again I would suggest that whilst some individuals may feel "Embarassment" at Irelands Asylum proceedures,I for one,feel nothing of the sort.

To sugggest that the Irish State,and by association,it's own Citizens,is conspiring to deny Asylum Seekers access to basic services or treating them with anything less than human dignity,is not sustainable.

Is the suggestion that Ireland,in some way wishes to wage a campaign against Asylum provision..?

Can those who deride Irelands attempts to cope with it's Asylum Seekers,provide any evidence that the State is mounting such a campaign ?

The main differenc in attitude appears to centre around those who focus on the narrower element of just how the Asylum System is operating,compared to those who wish to broaden the issue out into far large Socio/Economic questions of Countries opening their borders and allowing free access to all.

The fact that Ireland has a Refugee Appeals Tribunal at all,in addition to comprehensive access to it's highest Courts for those who seek it does not in the slightest point to something for any Irish Citizen to be ashamed of.

The ECHR can,at its discretion,consider and issue it's decisions and these deserve to be fully considered,but it far from embarrasses me that we as a State can still mount a counter arguement at that court.

What Ireland as a country can sustainably provide,vs what individuals would wish it to provide,can be poles apart.

The suggestion that all current applicants will suddenly turn into fully employed contributors into mainstream Irish Society,is I fear,a little hopeful.

delthedriver · 24-07-2013 01:50PM

My name is URL wrote: »

"meet the acceptance standards"

You haven't a clue what you're on about tbh. The fact that such delays exist isn't the fault of asylum seekers. It'd be a bit unfair to boot people out because of inadequacies in how the state goes about dealing with asylum claims.

As for your second paragraph, what does that have to do with anything? If Irish people were treated badly in a country, should it be okay for us to treat others badly?

We are a country in recession. Why are we spending money trying to placate people who don't belong here? Meanwhile long term cancer sufferers are having their medical cards withdrawn? Let us look after our own people first. Why are illegal aliens or asylum seeker so anxious to gain entry here in any case? Ireland has no history of having colonies. There are other EU countries for these people to seek asylum . It would be interesting to hear what SF views are on this?

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 24-07-2013 01:51PM

What must be blindingly obvious is that neither our asylum application process nor our appeals process are fit for purpose. Consequently the many who do not come near to meeting the criteria for asylum are clogging up the system and depriving the few who are entitled to asylum of a speedy decision.

My name is URL · 24-07-2013 02:03PM

delthedriver wrote: »

We are a country in recession. Why are we spending money trying to placate people who don't belong here?

Because international human rights laws dictate it?.. and also because it's the right thing to do. Ireland is no longer in a position where it can just shut up shop and pass the buck to other nations to deal with.

Meanwhile long term cancer sufferers are having their medical cards withdrawn? Let us look after our own people first. Why are illegal aliens or asylum seeker so anxious to gain entry here in any case? Ireland has no history of having colonies. There are other EU countries for these people to seek asylum . It would be interesting to hear what SF views are on this?

Do you honestly think 'our own' would be treated any better if we turned away asylum seekers?

SF, to the best of my knowledge are quite liberal in terms of immigration policies.

Cody Pomeray · 24-07-2013 02:09PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

whilst some individuals may feel "Embarassment" at Irelands Asylum proceedures,I for one,feel nothing of the sort.

By "embarrassment", I refer to the embarrassment of the state authorities, either in terms of a decision made against them in the European courts, or in terms of any criticism made of them in the courts. I'm not suggesting that Irish citizens would be individually embarrassed, although I suggest many would be, and are, disappointed in the authorities here, and that is much worse than mere embarrassment.

To sugggest that the Irish State,and by association,it's own Citizens,is conspiring to deny Asylum Seekers access to basic services or treating them with anything less than human dignity,is not sustainable.

Is the suggestion that Ireland,in some way wishes to wage a campaign against Asylum provision..?

Can those who deride Irelands attempts to cope with it's Asylum Seekers,provide any evidence that the State is mounting such a campaign ?

If Ireland is failing asylum seekers, it does not follow as a matter of necessity that there is "a campaign" being waged against them. Some shortcomings can be a result of ignorance of the law, or a misapprehension of the common good where there is no malice. In any event, I just don't see the relevance of some malicious intent; if asylum seekers are being mistreated, e.g. by not being provided with adequate means of subsistence, then that is sufficient (see M.S.S v Belgium and Greece, or see AN v. Minister for Justice).

By not setting direct provision on a statutory footing, and therefore by seeming to deny asylum seekers legal remedies, then that is one area where the state may be falling short in its treatment of asylum seekers.

Or the level of allowance provided these people, lawfully resident in this jurisdiction, may be deemed incompatible with one or more of the rights enshrined in the ECHR.

The fact that Ireland has a Refugee Appeals Tribunal at all,in addition to comprehensive access to it's highest Courts for those who seek it does not in the slightest point to something for any Irish Citizen to be ashamed of.

It's no good having a RAT if it isn't doing its job properly. The current situation with the amount of judicial reviews coming before the superior courts, and no subsequent corrective action by the RAT is unacceptable.

The suggestion that all current applicants will suddenly turn into fully employed contributors into mainstream Irish Society,is I fear,a little hopeful

Employed? Asylum seekers, lawful residents of the state, are legally obliged to be dependent... even when they have Irish born children.

delthedriver · 24-07-2013 02:10PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Because international human rights laws dictates it?.. and also because it's the right thing to do. Ireland is no longer in a position where it can just shut up shop and pass the buck to other nations to deal with.

Do you honestly think 'our own' would be treated any better if we turned away asylum seekers?

SF, to the best of my knowledge are quite liberal in terms of immigration policies.

How much is it costing the Taxpayer per year, to house, feed , clothe, and give the asylum seekers modest spending money.?

It is fine and well to be do gooders, however IMO, charity begins at home. A little realism should prevail.

Perhaps someone could explain how asylum seekers can afford to run , tax and insure a car let alone purchase the thing on such a measly weekly allowance.
Smell the coffee?

delthedriver · 24-07-2013 02:24PM

Another question if I may please? Has there been a noticeable drop in the numbers seeking asylum since Ireland went into recession?

Regarding International human rights, I find that somewhat laughable when Australia recently turned away Boat People . No messing there, won't take 10 years to process their applications!

What about the rights of our own citizens, should we continue to finance these long stay visitors?:)

delthedriver · 24-07-2013 02:34PM

Friend Computer wrote: »

Asylum from what, exactly?

Asylum if one is a Director of a failed Irish Bank. LOL:D

Apologies, I was being a little cheeky, but I Was simply trying to highlight the word asylum. What exactly are our refugees actually seeking asylum from. How genuine are their applications in the first place? Surely it can't take 10 years to process or deny entry to Ireland

shruikan2553 · 24-07-2013 02:35PM

Shenshen wrote: »

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?

Where in Ireland does one get a flight to or from these places? Even if there was flight from Gongo landing in shannon why is security letting them through? If they are truly fleeing for their safety then they should be able to get asylum in the first country the come across.

wendell borton · 24-07-2013 02:35PM

I do think we have an obligation to take in a refuges as a relatively prosperous nation but with reservations.
We should be looking at peoples who are under threat rather than looking at each individual case.
As a small country we cant save the world, we should take in a certain amount, then we can provide adequate services in place. Genuine refuges need medical and physiological supports, educational and training to obtain employment and integrate into Irish society.

Cody Pomeray · 24-07-2013 02:39PM

delthedriver wrote: »

How much is it costing the Taxpayer per year, to house, feed , clothe, and give the asylum seekers modest spending money.? It is fine and well to be do gooders, however IMO, charity begins at home.

€69.5 million in 2011.

That doesn't come out of the social welfare budget, however to put in in context, it is equivalent to 0.33% of the social welfare budget for that year.

Charity is very much "at home".

Perhaps someone could explain how asylum seekers can afford to run , tax and insure a car let alone purchase the thing on such a measly weekly allowance.
Smell the coffee?

A lot of people get confused between asylum seekers and, say, Nigerians. That's a polite way of saying some people conflate skin colour with asylum status.

Asylum seekers are reasonably rare in this society, they do not choose where they live, they tend to live away from the mainstream community. They do not get cars, and they do not get more than €19 personal income per week (plus €9 per child).

delthedriver wrote: »

Another question if I may please? Has there been a noticeable drop in the numbers seeking asylum since Ireland went into recession?

Yes, (2011) new arrivals claiming asylum have been down something like 33% on 2010%. No figures for 2012 or 2013 yet.

There is just over 1 asylum seeker to every 1,000 people in this society. I actually think this is about where one should expect it to be.

Push Pop · 24-07-2013 03:24PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

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

I doubt they arrived looking for government assistance especially in the US!

Amirani · 24-07-2013 03:27PM

Push Pop wrote: »

I doubt they arrived looking for government assistance especially in the US!

How do you know asylum seekers in Ireland are looking for Government assistance? I'm sure most would rather work than live off the €20 "Government assistance" that they get.

Femme_Fatale · 24-07-2013 06:28PM

If they weren't genuine they'd **** off to somewhere else rather than hanging around for 10 years of getting less than €20 per week and living in cramped conditions.

Hammer Archer wrote: »

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.

I know asylum-seekers are being accommodated by the state but there's no point in pretending €20 per week is generous (it would pay a few bus trips and nothing more; some of these people brought children with them) or that people who are citizens already are left to fend for themselves (as if there are no social welfare benefits).
I read a report recently about how conditions in one of the centres in County Cork are pretty squalid and cramped. Now again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with conditions being basic, but should also be humane, - there's no excuse for absolute kips.
As for why it takes so long: there must be a reason. No point in people who aren't familiar with the system saying it should take less time. 10 years does seem excessively long all right though.

HurtLocker · 24-07-2013 06:39PM

It's hard not to question how many asylum seekers truly need asylum and aren't chancers when you see the number of applicants drop by 35% the year after the boom ended (2009). Surely the world had become more f*cked up since the world recession began.

Gatling · 24-07-2013 06:51PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

If they weren't genuine they'd **** off to somewhere else rather than hanging around for 10 years of getting less than €20 per week and living in cramped conditions.

The benifits are worth waiting for when you think about it ,
At the moment there housed ,fed , so would you risk moving to a different country that won't even give that

Cee-Jay-Cee · 24-07-2013 06:56PM

The reason many spend so long in asylum centres is because they delay the inevitable by fighting and appealing decisions. They should be sent home or to where they came from and told to make their appeal from there. Why should this Country have to house and feed anyone that's not entitled to be here let alone fund court costs which can run into millions defending asylum appeals. We need to take the same stance as Australia...basically "You are not from here and you are not getting in"

Galwayguy35 · 24-07-2013 07:02PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I know asylum-seekers are being accommodated by the state but there's no point in pretending €20 per week is generous (it would pay a few bus trips and nothing more; some of these people brought children with them) or that people who are citizens already are left to fend for themselves (as if there are no social welfare benefits).
I read a report recently about how conditions in one of the centres in County Cork are pretty squalid and cramped. Now again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with conditions being basic, but should also be humane, - there's no excuse for absolute kips.
As for why it takes so long: there must be a reason. No point in people who aren't familiar with the system saying it should take less time. 10 years does seem excessively long all right though.

Maybe it takes so long because they can challenge decisions and the taxpayer foots the bill for it.

If a decision goes against them it should be final, no appeals.

Asylum seekers waiting 10 years for decision

Comments