Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
IN RECENT MONTHS, Direct Provision, the Irish State’s system of providing board and accommodation in designated hostels to asylum seekers, has come under an increasing amount of criticism, drawing parallels with the Magdalene Laundries.
The system was introduced in 2000 and it was originally envisaged that asylum seekers would stay in direct provision for no longer than six months. However, figures from 2011 show that over 10 per cent of those in direct provision have been there for seven years or more.
The Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, recently described the system as ‘unacceptable’. She concluded that this treatment represented ‘a collective failure of a republic which needs to re-engage with what ought to be its core values’. O’Reilly’s comments followed similar concerns being raised by numerous commentators, including retired Supreme Court Judge Catherine McGuinness, various United Nations Committees and NGOs who work with asylum seekers in Ireland.
In response to O’Reilly’s scathing assessment of the treatment of asylum seekers in Ireland, the Minister from Justice Alan Shatter defended the system and stated that: “In reality, the system in this State is at least on a par and often significantly better than that in operation in many other member states. In the circumstances, it is grossly misleading to characterise our treatment of asylum seekers as being akin to that meted out to subjects of abuse who had no protection of the law or relevant State bodies.”
The failings of the Irish system has now to the attention of the UK courts, following a case taken by a Sudanese family of asylum seekers in the High Court of Northern Ireland. The family sought an order to prevent their removal from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland in accordance with common European asylum measures (the Dublin II Regulations). In essence the court found that, because of the deficiencies of the Irish system, the best interests of the children in the case would not be served by removing them to Ireland.
The Northern Ireland judgement clearly points to the fact that we are completely out of step with the UK in how we protect the best interests of our asylum-seeking children.
The Sudanese family, consisting of a mother (known as ALJ), her 18-year-old son and two other minor children had made an application for asylum in the Republic of Ireland in May 2010. Their application for refugee status was based on their fear of persecution arising from their status as non-Arab Darfuris and her political activities as a journalist in Sudan.
The application was ultimately refused and an appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal in 2011 also proved unsuccessful. The family were issued a letter (a proposal to deport) informing that the Minister had refused to give them refugee status, that their legal entitlement to remain in the State had expired and outlined the options remaining to them. On 11th July 2011 the family crossed the border into Northern Ireland and sought to make an application for asylum there. In October 2011 the UK Border Agency (UKBA) directed the family to return to Ireland, based on Dublin II Regulations.
The case before the Northern Ireland High Court was a judicial review of the UKBA’s decision on the grounds that the system of refugee and protection status determination in Ireland, with its disproportionately low rates of recognition (1.3 per cent in ROI compared with 24 per cent in UK) and the system of direct provision would constitute a breach of their rights under the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Although Justice Stephens was unprepared to find that there were “systemic deficiencies” in the Irish statutory system, he admitted that he found the evidence documenting the failings of the Irish system “disturbing”.
The decision to quash the order was based on the ‘best interests of the child’ test. The judgment examines the situation that would await the applicant children if they were to be returned to Ireland and finds that it compares unfavourably to the system in Northern Ireland. Justice Stephens was particularly concerned at the impact that a return to shared hostel accommodation would have on the children and their ability to “interact with each other as a normal family.”
The Irish system of direct provision was judged to be conducive to “enforced isolation and poverty”, and he cites “ample evidence of physical and mental health issues developing in Ireland amongst those asylum seekers who are in Direct Provision accommodation.” The long delays and the years of litigation the children would face in Ireland compared to a relatively simple process in Northern are also referenced in the judgement.
Finally, Justice Stephens finds that Ireland does not achieve EU wide standards on the treatment of asylum seekers. This is a damning indictment of our system by our nearest neighbours.
The Northern Ireland High Court is not alone in its criticism of the Irish statutory system. The Irish Supreme Court have voiced their frustrations at the system in two cases cited in Mr. Justice Stephens’ judgement, Nawaz v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (2012) and Okunade v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform (2012). Also, the Irish High Court will shortly have its say in an upcoming application for Judicial Review, lodged by six asylum seekers, including children, challenging the system of direct provision.
The family, who have been in the system for approximately four and a half years, will argue that direct provision has no legal basis and amounts to a violation of the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. The family will also argue that the exclusion of asylum seekers from social protection and the denial of the right to work pending the outcome of a decision breaches their constitutional and human rights. This case has the potential to signal the end of the direct provision system.
In our work, we at Nasc, the Irish Immigrant Support Centre find this story unfortunately all too commonplace. We work with countless families who are living with the consequences of this broken system daily. We have long called for a number of measures to be put in place which would, firstly, dramatically reduce the wait time for asylum seekers to have a final decision made on their protection claims; and secondly, dramatically improve living conditions by offering an alternative to direct provision centres.
The existing protection system – a three step structure – should be replaced with a ‘single procedures mechanism’ which would allow all the different applications to be made and examined concurrently, thereby minimising the amount of time an asylum seeker has to remain in direct provision as well as the need for such frequent recourse to the High Court. In addition, Ireland should opt in to Directive 2003/9/EC (commonly known as the Minimum Standards or Reception Directive), which lays down minimum standards for the reception of asylumseekers and includes a limited right to work.
We believe that these are realistic and achievable steps which would greatly improve conditions for asylum seekers and bring us in line with our EU counterparts.
The implications of the Northern Ireland High Court judgement are potentially far-reaching. The judgement, coupled with the pending case before the Irish High Court, may have a profound impact on the asylum system in Ireland. The urgency of reforming this area cannot be overstated as the length of time people reside in direct provision continues to increase.
The safety of children accommodated within the centre should be of paramount concern. Statistics referred to in the most recent annual report of The Reception and Integration Agency (RIA) record 121 incidents in 2012 involving children. Alarmingly these cases include seven cases of inappropriate sexualised behaviour and seven cases of the physical abuse of children. When viewed as a yardstick as to the extent to which we value our children in the State, the current treatment of asylum seeking children in Ireland is nothing short of shameful.
It remains to be seen if we will right the wrongs of our past when dealing with the treatment of those who have been subjected to institutional living. The Irish Government must urgently end the continued institutionalisation of asylum seekers in Ireland.
Claire Cumiskey and Fiona Hurley are Legal Officers at Nasc, the Irish Immigrant Support Centre.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Why do immigrants claim asylum when they come to Ireland, because they know we are a soft touch and they know that they will find one stupid organization or another falling over themselves to tell them their lives are shit and that we will fix it for them.
For them its like winning the lottery every time you buy a ticket, and still they keep on moaning.
The time has come to end the whole asylum process as we know it. The Irish people have been played for fools over and over again, in the space of a decade Irreland has changed irreversibly, not one Irish person consulted in this enormous social experiment which had cost us billions up on till now and incalculable costs will store up down the line when we have our own “urban” dissaffected minorities burning down their neighbourhoods because they’re not getting enough free stuff.
You are lucky to live in the tolerant society that is Ireland. I find your assumptions to be highly offensive and hopefully yours is a minority opinion. There always were those who were unjustly persecuted in homelands some of who need and deserve protection and others who don’t.
Are you serious??? You’re somehow blaming asylum seekers for what has happened in the last 10 years?? I would say its people like you that have brought us to this point.
“I find your comments to be highly offensive”.
Boo hoo.
As usual we get only one side of the argument from the Journal. Why will you not ask for an alternative viewpoint and do a column on it for fairness and balance?
This family are not in the system 4.5 years as you say, because it says further up that they applied in May 2010, that is 3.5 years. If they are here a year longer then they were illegal and should be removed.
They applied (and were refused) in N Ireland when refused *twice* in the ROI, does that not tell you their case had no validity ?
The system takes so long because they arrive with no papers and just a hard-luck story. It takes considerable time, effort and expense to establish their bone fides.
The system is costing us *millions* every year that we don’t have. We should stop ALL applications for the next 5-10 years until our country recovers.
Those that are here should be returned now, and we should find the illegals living here and remove them too.
Eureka!!
I have the solution
Legalise guns
So crazy it just might work :D
”This family are not in the system 4.5 years as you say, because it says further up that they applied in May 2010, that is 3.5 years. If they are here a year longer then they were illegal and should be removed.”
That’s incorrect. You’re confusing 2 different cases. The first case which mentions May 2010 is about the Northern Ireland court decision not to return the Sudanese family back to Ireland. The second case features a family who have been residing in the Irish direct provision system for 4.5 years who are taking a case in the High Court. (http://www.thejournal.ie/direct-provision-appeal-high-court-1012962-Jul2013/ )
They applied (and were refused) in N Ireland when refused *twice* in the ROI, does that not tell you their case had no validity ?
They have not been refused, the judge quashed the ruling to sent them back to the Irish direct provision system as he felt it was not in the best interests of the child, now it’s up to N.I to decide if they can stay in N.I. They also weren’t refused twice, they applied one and appealed once, two separate things.
If I am confusing two cases then it is because the Journal has muddled them above. I don’t believe I am as I believe it is the same case. Read it again above.
They *were* refused in N Ireland and it was when they appealed that decision (the same as they had done doen here) it was then the judge mentioned about the conditions.
what is your problem you stock brain that is why people will never learn did you think asylum seeker just came here for your benefit and grant who care about that you larry t bird I guess you have not travel out of Ireland that is why you talking like a wash brain don’t you have family in other country you ignorant that don’t know left to right lazy thing weather you like it or not,
We are still an island, not to hard to close off to spoofers. The process of checking those already here could and should be done fast and in a business like fashion without do-gooders and bleeding hearts interfering. Maybe something on the lines of a jury system supervised by a Barrister or solicitor which would be as fair a method as any. THEN we could allocate our scarce resources to helping genuine refugees such as we are seeing in Syria for example.
Now Morticia maybe you’d like to see a barrister on the docks in Galway with a cattle prod putting asylum seekers on Galway Hookers and pointing them towards America.
I think you are mistaken Asylum Seekers for criminals .
I think Vincent power should open his home to asylum seekers and show us all how its done from his very high.moral ground.
How come these bleeding hearts and do-gooders know what ordinary people think and what we would like to see?
In most cases asylum seekers don’t want to integrate or learn the language, and as far as get a job they would rather be on social welfare and work illegally…….
I think we need to look after our own citizens first wether they are Black White Cuban or Asian, people who have worked here,paid taxes and are down on their luck because of the recession…..
No asylum seeker is going to die from starvation, cold or murdered because of their beliefs while in Ireland so what’s the point in spending millions more???
Black or White Cubans? Have we got a big population of immigrant Cubans here?
Ata girl Cliona, excellent account if the facts ;-)
Time has come to implement an EU wide approach to this. They should set up 5 or 10 centers across the continent where applicants are sent while they wait for a decision…and the decision must be taken within an acceptable timeframe.
Excellent idea!
So they’d all be concentrated in these camps.
Sorry “centres” not camps.
I disagree. Direct provision ensures there is no economic incentive to claim asylum, while meeting the basic food/clothing needs of the asylum seekers. The social welfare system already costs us €20 billion per annum. We cannot afford to add tens of thousands more, nor can we allow them compete with the existing unemployed for work. Asylum is supposed to be about refuge from danger – not economic advancement. Our island status means they have travelled through other countries to get here bearing in mind the absence of direct travel from the main source countries like Nigeria.
If the impending High Court case overturns direct provision, the government should appeal to the Supreme Court. Comparisons to the Magdalene Launderies are also bogus because asylum seekers are free to return home to their countries of origin should they choose.
I went through the half-human industrial school system in this state ,before i emmigrated to a more civilised country, i can absolutely guarentee you there was nothing bogus about it.
@Mr. Colfer I agree 100% with you. They have the opportunity of taking Judicial Reviews at three stages which of course keeps them longer in the system. The system is choked by them as we don’t have enough Judges. Take away Judicial Reviews and it would be less than 6 months in the system.
Maybe that is the answer as it is the tax payer who foots the bill. Bearing in mind no direct flights from certain african countries. …
There should be a survey of household opinion on asylum seekers. Those advocating the cead mile failte approach should be sent their very own applicant to look after, feed and lodge. It’s the good human thing to do. Don’t be expecting those that can’t or even don’t want to help to foot the bill.
Greg I totally agree, those that want them and talk about human rights let them finance the asylum seekers!
On a human level I have so much empathy with genuine people. On a practical level the people who are non nationals I have met have been here to play the system. Schools just can’t afford them. You are already paying big time with your taxes. So small school trip to a match u want to take ur class there is no way the 3 non nationals will pay for bus what can u do?
If The Journal had control of our borders we would have being overrun by asylum seekers from the Third World years ago.They seem to advocate the open borders approach as evidenced by the relentless stream of articles in favour of asylum seekers and mass immigration in general,despite the massive damage done to social cohesion throughout Europe.
Why do we not learn from our European partners mistake.Tolerant, liberal countries like Sweden and the Nederlands now have massive problems social problems with immigrants who refuse to discard their primitve religious and cultural practices and refuse to integrate into society.If these efficient and well run countries can’t deal with these problems,what chance do we have?
Immigration pushing Quango publishes puff piece in theJournal.ie. Is there not a week that goes by without some article looking to dismantle the limited controls we have here?
There’s barely a day goes by, not to mind a week.
What’s in it for them?
Almost every media body is going to have a political slant. It’s just par for the course. Fox News, The Guardian, The Daily Mail all take their own line and publish opinion in keeping with it.
Nothing new here. It’s up to the reader to find balance by taking in different perspectives and formulating their own opinion.
Where does it mention any desire ” to dismantle the limited controls we have here”? The only things I see which they recommend are 1) dramatically reduce the wait time for asylum seekers to have a final decision made on their protection claims; and 2) dramatically improve living conditions by offering an alternative to direct provision centres.
Nasc isn’t a quango. It’s an NGO. Learn the difference, it’s substantial.
You can get a junior level part time gig there for €35k a year (or at least you could when they advertised it).
Substantial is right.
Would love to see that ad. Presumably you mean 35k pro rata, which isn’t exactly off the charts for legal work. In fact, it’s pretty average as Irish salaries would go. You want NGO workers to work for little or nothing just because they’re NGO workers?!
I’d rather there were a lot less quangos and NGO’s telling us what to do, for a start. Atlantic Philanthropies may fund a lot of these spurious bodies, but EU central funding, which we all pay for, also comes into play. These bodies, and this NASC crowd is no exception, are very slow to release details of how they are funded, suffice to tell us ad nauseum that they don’t have enough money. Mind you, they seem to manage okay.
Perhaps you can give an informed guess as to what the CEO is on? You seem to have some knowledge of the matter.
Wouldn’t have a notion. All I know is the difference between a quango and an NGO, the good work done by the latter in the name of human decency, and the average salary in Ireland. Hardly the stuff of expertise.
I too know the difference between the two, but thank you for the clarification (no sarcasm intended).
Nice to hear an impartial voice speaking up for (qua)NGOs, for a change though. Usually the only people defending them are those riding the gravy train!
By the way Aisling, at the risk of personalising this-what were NASC like to work for?
Personalising is right, but you have as much right to ask as anyone else. I interned for them, and it was singularly one of the best things I’ve ever done. I’ve never learned more or gotten better experience. What they give in sheer effort every day is- genuinely- fantastic. I detest internships and free labour, but that one broke the mould.
They don’t called our country treasure island for nothing !
The EU should tackle the root cause of the refugee problem in Europe, by putting pressure on or offering aid to or intervening militarily, in the countries refugees flee from.
Or alternatively setting up and financing refugee camps in the nearest safe haven.
Ah, more biased nonsense from the journal. This site is getting ridiculous.
Weekly column
So write the other side and send it in. Nobody has to lurk in the comments. If they don’t publish it, then moan about it.
This site does not have a fair and equally balanced editorial policy, it is as simple as that.
As thelostlenore said elsewhere, this is not unique.
What is particularly insidious about this site’s approach, is that they purport to be a news aggregator, with a facility for comment tacked on-yet they exercise their own agenda in the execution of both.
Anyway, genuinely, who would want to listen to me? I’m just an average Joe. I don’t work in the “industry”, I’m not a member of any organisations or minorities, I’m just one of the working class slobs that has to pay for it, and even worse, listen to some sheltered academic or industry leech telling me how nasty I am, or how intolerant my country is.
Your viewpoint, much as I would disagree with it, is just as valid as anyone else’s. The opportunity is there for the taking, but somehow, nobody wants to take it.
I fear it would be a wasted effort-I’ve often called for an alternative viewpoint on this site, but none has been forthcoming.
I’m not looking for the place to become a fire breathing haven for right wing views, just to be fair.
Most (but not all) of the opinion pieces here are written by people affiliated with the same organisations or cut from the same political cloth. That’s reflective of a trend in the media generally. Opinion pieces are much cheaper than investigative journalism – anyone can write a few paragraphs on what they think about a given topic, its generates loads of clicks/comments and costs virtually nothing to produce.
It’s up to the readers to take it with a pinch of salt. If i read something on the likes of the Daily Mail, I’ll be aware of the particular anti-immigration, Tory stance that paper takes and adjust my common sense filter accordingly. Likewise, on here I’m 90% certain to be getting a fairly left wing or pseudo-academic feminist point of view.
My advice is to take nothing classed as journalistic opinion at face value these days, no matter where you read it. There’s at best a slant and at worst an agenda. True investigative journalism is dead.
Aisling, we differ fundamentally on this issue-but, respect.
tll: yep, you’re on the money as usual. Your advice is well founded and well noted.
The only thing I’d add to it, and it’s something I’d imagine the authors of these pieces are banking on, is that many people are less discerning-will read something on here, or even on the likes of the Guardian or Mail, and take it as impartially arrived at gospel. I get the impression that they’d love it if we all fell into line. Thing is, we’re all different, with our own vagaries and unique characteristics. People are stubborn that way, when individuals try to tell them how to believe :)
Accordingly, once we can address that fallacy in the comments, or at least raise the need to filter everything we read, watch or hear, through the prism of common sense, we’re not doing too badly.
Well said!
The fact that some refugees are waiting over seven years and could well be waiting another seven,forced to live an an abnormal life by the state, barred from ever working,and expected to live on 19 euro a week is an absolute disgrace to human dignity, like our own homegrown industrial school and the launderies scandals,it could well be another case of the state being sued for millions for breach of human rights.
The €19.20 figure doesnt include the direct provision. We can’t afford equal access to the social welfare system.
They have the freedom to leave. The Magdalena didn’t.
It’s not time to end direct provision, its time to speed up the asylum process. There’s no reason a case cannot be heard in six months.
no it hasn’t.
Many economic refugees left this shores in times past and indeed now. Just as well other countries are more welcoming to the Irish compared to Ireland’s attitude to refugees.
Most Irish went with a shovel and a pair of wellie boots, not an iPhone and a pair of top of the range nikes. We were not always welcome.
The Irish went abroad legally for the most part. It was before the nonsense created by the 1952 Refugee Convention which allows anyone for whatever spurious reason to claim to be a refugee, and then spend years in the courts forcing the State often at taxpayers expense to let them stay even if found to be a bogus claimant.
I worked with Asylum Seekers in the UK and the system was no better than here. There are genuine cases here and direct provision is not the answer, and neither is bed and breakfast accommodation which was extensively used in the UK. The whole issue needs to be addressed and urgently. I am sure that they have a lot to offer if given the chance. Duke of Limerick has a point let the current cases stay and draw a line under it.
If we let them stay that will encourage more to come. That was the experience when the Zapatero government in Spain gave 400,000 illegal immigrants an amnesty there, to the fury of countries like Germany and France.
They don’t call our country treasure island for nothing !!
Ryan, thejournal.ie staff are to the left and all things Guardian newspaper. The opinion pieces on this website are to be expected really. I’d say most of thejournal.ie staff are Labour and Independent voters.
Welcome to thejournal.ie: http://www.theguardian.com/us/commentisfree …
Meanwhile over at the real Guardian:
I went to Oxford. So why am I so angry about it?
The way Oxbridge operates leads to ever more unfairness and inequality.
… http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/oxbridge-perpetuates-inequality <
That article is classic Guardian newspaper…..
At the risk of drawing clichéd comparisons with the Daily Mail, Brendan-it’s like the staff here looked at what the Mail was/is doing, and said, “Hey, we can do that!”
The bias is equally evident, the journalistic standards are (with one or two shining exceptions here) equally poor, the only difference being; this site’s rampant support of the immigration/equality industry, feminism (as opposed to true fairness for all, whatever their gender), and other leanings of the Left-and the Mail’s well known opposition to any and all of the above.
That article is unreal, “I won a place at Oxford, based on merit rather than where I came from. Because it has stood to me in my career, this is unfair.”
First world problems, eh?
Spot on Ryan: this site’s rampant support of the immigration/equality industry, feminism (as opposed to true fairness for all, whatever their gender). And we’ll see what kind of opinion pieces they put up next week.
… First world problems, eh?
The first world problems at the Guardian and thejournal.ie. Stay tuned for more.
Why don’t the asylum seekers sue?
The easiest way out of this is to give citizenship to all who have been here before today (only a few thousand) and draw a line under this sorry episode.
While the system is somewhat flawed we do need to keep the asylum seeker debate in perspective. The application process surely can be speed up while giving everyone appropriate care. It would however be wrong to allow everyone free access for a period of time only to refuse asylum and surely cause huge distress.
Vincent those that are claiming asylum mostly enter this country illegally, due to this we do not know who or what they are? If they fail within six months to succeed with their application and to avoid any unnecessary stress they should be sent back to their country of origin, immediately. We can’t afford to be paying for their years of free legal aid. The enormous cost to the tax payer of keeping them here for those unnecessary years while the Irish citizens income and Old Age Pensions are being decimated to the point our Pensioners must choose between eating and heating their homes.
I agree Bobby that it is wrong for the state but it is equally unfair on the asylum seekers. Someway has to be established to expedite the process for everyone’s sake. I don’t agree however with linking asylum seekers with cuts to other services. We are lucky to live in a country where we are for the most part unaware of the persecution that some of those seeking refuge here have endured.
I don’t know what the answer is but our humanity cannot become a victim of the current economic climate.
Vincent; There must be immigration control, there are possibly millions around the globe that would claim they are seeking refugee status. That is a problem to enormous for any country to deal with especially a small country like ours who’s economy is surviving on borrowed money,that cannot be facilitated by allowing easy access into our country! You must not allow the person you go to save from drowning let them place their hands around you and drag you under with them, or there will be no survivors. That is the reality!
Did you ever put money in a poor box or toss a coin to a beggar?
As a nation that is living on borrowed money, we send millions to foreign aid now those receiving it want to live with us!
Vincent forget about “tossing a coin to a beggar,” would you bring any beggar into your home?
There are many hungry lawyers out there just itching to get a case where the Stae will pay their fees.
For once I agree with Alan Shatter.
Terk er jerbs. That is all.
I ,for one , welcome our new refugee overlords !
have your say