Streamlining of asylum laws

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
The International Protection Act 2015 has come into effect which streamlines our procedures for processing asylum applications. Whether one is pro or anti asylum seekers, the move is to be welcomed. The new laws which came into effect December 31st 2016 provide for a new single procedure system, asylum-seekers will make one application, which they may appeal once. If refused, applicants can appeal to the newly established International Protection Appeal Tribunal (Ipat), which replaces the RAT (Refugee Appeals Tribunal). This replaces the previous convoluted system whereby asylum-seekers made an application for refugee status to the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (Orac). They could then appeal a refusal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT). If refused there, they were then assessed for eligibility for subsidiary protection status by Orac with the possibility of an appeal to the RAT. If refused by Orac and the RAT, an applicant could then make representations to the Minister for Justice to be allowed to stay in the State on other grounds. There still remains a backlog of cases with 4,740 asylum-seekers waiting for a decision at the end of 2015 compared with 3,701 at the end of 2014. This of course does not deal with illegals, which remains an ongoing difficulty for the EU (Brexit for example) as a whole with little prospect of agreement re refugees coming from Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Thoughts?

New asylum application process comes into effect
 


Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,655
I hope this will bring an end to the endless Judicial Reviews related to asylum.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
I hope this will bring an end to the endless Judicial Reviews related to asylum.
I don't think that judicial reviews can be ruled out, but it is reasonable to anticipate that with streamlining to two instead of the previous four stage application process, that the number of cases would drop. No matter what area of law, judicial review, remains a valid route.
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
15,746
It'll never happen in Ireland..too many well connected "legal" families making too much easy money off the back of the tax payer under the current broken system.

90% of Ireland's corruption is done in the full glare of the press and media, but spun as humanitarian works, just like the charity sector.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
It'll never happen in Ireland..too many well connected "legal" families making too much easy money off the back of the tax payer under the current broken system.

90% of Ireland's corruption is done in the full glare of the press and media, but spun as humanitarian works, just like the charity sector.
Perhaps, but it is a well worthwhile exercise is getting rid of much unneeded bureaucracy and the merging of two quangos into one.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,459
Twitter
Deiscirt
The International Protection Act 2015 has come into effect which streamlines our procedures for processing asylum applications. Whether one is pro or anti asylum seekers, the move is to be welcomed. The new laws which came into effect December 31st 2016 provide for a new single procedure system, asylum-seekers will make one application, which they may appeal once. If refused, applicants can appeal to the newly established International Protection Appeal Tribunal (Ipat), which replaces the RAT (Refugee Appeals Tribunal). This replaces the previous convoluted system whereby asylum-seekers made an application for refugee status to the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (Orac). They could then appeal a refusal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT). If refused there, they were then assessed for eligibility for subsidiary protection status by Orac with the possibility of an appeal to the RAT. If refused by Orac and the RAT, an applicant could then make representations to the Minister for Justice to be allowed to stay in the State on other grounds. There still remains a backlog of cases with 4,740 asylum-seekers waiting for a decision at the end of 2015 compared with 3,701 at the end of 2014. This of course does not deal with illegals, which remains an ongoing difficulty for the EU (Brexit for example) as a whole with little prospect of agreement re refugees coming from Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Thoughts?

New asylum application process comes into effect
My thoughts are that this really should have been put in place 10 years ago, after it had become obvious that Asylum had in effect become a free-for-all.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
My thoughts are that this really should have been put in place 10 years ago, after it had become obvious that Asylum had in effect become a free-for-all.
Indeed, the previous system was such a cack handed approach, wonder which shower put it in place?
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,459
Twitter
Deiscirt
The asylum system was put in place after the shameful refusal of many countries to accept people fleeing the third reich. Today, it's mostly used as the migration route of choice for those who don't meet the conditions most countries set for legal migration.

When you listen to people defend the system as-is (or want it further loosened) never forget you're listening to people ideologically in favour of open-borders. They're almost always too dishonest to say so and hide behind humanitarianism.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,459
Twitter
Deiscirt
1. Massively increase the UN budget for refugee assistance
2. Create a system whereby the burden is shared more equally (Applicants enter a round-robin system and are allocated a signatory country that way)
3. End the Asylum shopping option completely. No showing up 8,000km away saying the dog ate your passport.
4. Set up in-country, internationally run camps as a first option and adjacent countries as a second.
5. Make people smuggling a crime against humanity punishable by international law
6. Asylum should never be a route for normal migration. This contributes to international crime syndicates making billions from it. Applicants must return, without exception, to their country of origin once the conflict or situation that caused them to flee is resolved.

6 Steps to completely solve the problem.
 

ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,092
Well said, Kevin.

I have heard of Irish solicitors in the asylum game, contacting the authorities about clients on route who are on fake passports and wish to claim asylum. I wonder does this mean that they knowingly withheld information that people were travelling on fake passports which is surely a crime?

The new act also has a feature I believe that will allow the Irish state to refuse entry to those who come in from elsewhere in the CTA that have been refused asylum or other applications for residence/overstayed permission by period less than 12 months. That should reduce the numbers of failed Pakistani asylum seekers travelling due south from Belfast.
 

Ruff says Flaherty

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
1,474
Great news. The old system was a gravy train for the legal sector. No need for a human being to be in direct provision for 10 years plus.
 

elliebee

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Messages
4,918
Great news. The old system was a gravy train for the legal sector. No need for a human being to be in direct provision for 10 years plus.
Agreed but it was the asylum seeker's own decision to stay there rather than return to their own country after being refused asylum many many times.

I reckon these new laws will simply fast track their applications to remain in the country of choice and countries will no longer have a say in who gets refused.

“Quick recognition of those in need of protection will ensure shorter durations in State reception centres,” Enda O’Neill of UNHCR Ireland said."
 

Ruff says Flaherty

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
1,474
Agreed but it was the asylum seeker's own decision to stay there rather than return to their own country after being refused asylum many many times.

I reckon these new laws will simply fast track their applications to remain in the country of choice and countries will no longer have a say in who gets refused.

“Quick recognition of those in need of protection will ensure shorter durations in State reception centres,” Enda O’Neill of UNHCR Ireland said."
Do you think people would stay in one of those places if their life at home was better?

As an aside, does anyone know how the government assess peoples claims? Do they have people who visit, say Sudan, or do they go through an organisation in said country?
 

razorblade

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2016
Messages
8,081
Why arnt these people being deported as soon as their applications are rejected rather than wasting money and resources to house them in the centres.
 

bunkmoreland

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
519
Do you think people would stay in one of those places if their life at home was better?

As an aside, does anyone know how the government assess peoples claims? Do they have people who visit, say Sudan, or do they go through an organisation in said country?
Of course life in a D.P centre is better for many.You obviously know nothing about the asylum racket when you ask such stupid questions.
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
15,746
Why arnt these people being deported as soon as their applications are rejected rather than wasting money and resources to house them in the centres.
Someone's gotta make money from the bizarre DP system...otherwise why bother?

One man's waste....typically the tax payers...is another mans income, typically a well connected "entrepreneur" who "saw" a need that really shouldn't exist.
 

Gin Soaked

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
4,028
Someone's gotta make money from the bizarre DP system...otherwise why bother?

One man's waste....typically the tax payers...is another mans income, typically a well connected "entrepreneur" who "saw" a need that really shouldn't exist.
Until we return chancers after the appeal, the only winners here are the legal profession and quangos and those running DP centres.

Plus you then have the spectre of kids born during the stay in the 'host' country.

Immediate expulsion for violent criminality has to be a given. Regardless of the validity of the claim i the first instance.
 

Dr Pat

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,041
If the new legislation is being welcomed by the migration quangoes and those who pick the bones of the legal system to grow fat then we shouldn't hold out too much hope that the current ridiculously arcane system will change all that much. The fact that judicial review applications appear to remain an option is disgraceful.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,167
It'll never happen in Ireland..too many well connected "legal" families making too much easy money off the back of the tax payer under the current broken system.

90% of Ireland's corruption is done in the full glare of the press and media, but spun as humanitarian works, just like the charity sector.
Well said, Kevin.

I have heard of Irish solicitors in the asylum game, contacting the authorities about clients on route who are on fake passports and wish to claim asylum. I wonder does this mean that they knowingly withheld information that people were travelling on fake passports which is surely a crime?

The new act also has a feature I believe that will allow the Irish state to refuse entry to those who come in from elsewhere in the CTA that have been refused asylum or other applications for residence/overstayed permission by period less than 12 months. That should reduce the numbers of failed Pakistani asylum seekers travelling due south from Belfast.
Great news. The old system was a gravy train for the legal sector. No need for a human being to be in direct provision for 10 years plus.
Someone's gotta make money from the bizarre DP system...otherwise why bother?

One man's waste....typically the tax payers...is another mans income, typically a well connected "entrepreneur" who "saw" a need that really shouldn't exist.
Until we return chancers after the appeal, the only winners here are the legal profession and quangos and those running DP centres.

Plus you then have the spectre of kids born during the stay in the 'host' country.

Immediate expulsion for violent criminality has to be a given. Regardless of the validity of the claim i the first instance.
If the new legislation is being welcomed by the migration quangoes and those who pick the bones of the legal system to grow fat then we shouldn't hold out too much hope that the current ridiculously arcane system will change all that much. The fact that judicial review applications appear to remain an option is disgraceful.
The ignorance on this thread is truly shocking and I see the usual suspects are throwing waffle about corruption and gravy trains. Asylum applicants can get free legal aid. As someone who knows lots of solicitors I can tell you they run a mile from free legal aid. It is monotonous poorly paid work that the legal profession looks down on. Some work for seekers pro-bono. As for the DP, the centres are ghastly. A life of drudgery with no money and no prospect of getting a job or no money for education. Ok it is better than being killed or tortured but that's a pretty low bar. All applicants should be granted an amnesty who have been in the system for longer than two years and the new system needs to have people seen to be sent back from whence they came to show the systems is working.
 

elliebee

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Messages
4,918
Do you think people would stay in one of those places if their life at home was better?

As an aside, does anyone know how the government assess peoples claims? Do they have people who visit, say Sudan, or do they go through an organisation in said country?
Oh don't give me that ould nonsense. We should not feel obligated to give shelter to all in sundry who believe their lives should be improved - that's pure utter bulology.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top