Asylum Qualification Directive :2004/83/EC

by Orla Thu Oct 12, 2006 18:38 orlaward at graffiti dot net

This new law is too open and is likely to be abused. You have to control the numbers of asylum seekers coming here otherwise you're just going to have a system like Britains one where asylum seeking is primarily about a one way ticket.

by Chris Murray Thu Oct 12, 2006 19:15

The Immigration and Residence section deals directly with ideas such as
crime and bio-metric Id's.

They are constitutionally challengeable and flawed.

Those two sections have to pass through the Oireachtas-as does the Bill in toto.

However, the Directive was passed very quietly into law as an interim measure
because it had to be transposed into Irish Law by the 10th Of October.
This was the necessary bit of the Bill- the civil rights aspect.

Now it was done , without fanfare and because Ireland has ignored and is
being fined for many breaches of EU directive-specifically on the Environmental
front (going back to Sile De Valera and the habitat's Directive, which amassed
heafty fines for not implementing the habitat's directive in relation to Nature
Reserves. ) The whole issue of Breach is a study area and not fanfared by the
relevant departments, places like enfo would carry that information or FOI.

Mr Mc Dowell therefore had to implement by October the tenth and he did.
The issues of civil rights abuses such as instant deportation for petty
crime and the ID's will be subject to the usual media junket.
The point of the O/A was to let readers know-that now people who
are denied refugee status but have cases not to go back to
countries where they are in danger of harm can apply through
this directive for protection in this state.

It is not retrospective, therefore I am assuming that FGM and rape victims need
necessarily re-apply.

by Frank Thu Oct 12, 2006 21:48

I have read all about this bill with some surprise. There looks to be a loophole in it whereby if an asylum seeker is refused asylum, he/she can still be given grounds to remain on in the state (under this new bill). What it essentially means is that being given grounds to remain on in the state will become a paradise for all asylum seekers whose application for asylum was refused. In other words, its similar to what it was before the 2004 citizenship referendum. Can we really afford to sustain this? Whatever happened to the Afghan asylum seekers who staged the protest in St Patricks Cathedral in june, have they been granted asylum status or been depported? If you could update me on this with the true facts, that'd be appropriate.

by Observer Fri Oct 13, 2006 02:41

Frank what has the 2004 citizenship referendum got to do with the proposed immigration bill?

How do you work out that the situation for asylum seekers whose application has been refused will become a paradise upon implementation of this bill?

In reply to your query re the Afghan asylum seekers/hunger strikers, one of them was found to have lied in his asylum claim regarding what counties he had applied in prior to Ireland and has been sent back to the UK in line with the Dublin Convention which means that the first place where an applicant applied is where their claim must be made from.

The rest would still be in Ireland unless they have decided themselves to go elsewhere - no asylum seeker has ever been deported to Afghanistan from Ireland and these men were in various stages of the process. Even the ones who were turned down at every stage would still be here, unless they absconded or availed of voluntary repatriation.

by Deciso - Non-Aligned Sat Oct 14, 2006 00:26

These people have a right under EU and international law to claim protection under this so-called loophole. They are people not criminals. They break no laws and yet are blamed for excercising their universal rights under international human rights law.

by Rosé Sat Oct 14, 2006 01:05

I beg to disagree.

Is it not blindingly obvious to you that if asylum seekers broke no laws - specifically, immigration laws regarding entry, there would be no point in claiming asylum in the first place as would have already fulfilled their primary purpose in fleeing?

No?

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm

Article 31 refers.

Nothing of concern to refugees. Bogus applicants are another matter altogether.

by Deciso - Non-Aligned Sat Oct 14, 2006 02:01

Rose

Your have highlighted a valuable argument regarding asylum that should be discussed more often. A few points if I may. There is no such thing in law as a bogus asylum seeker. This is an emotive term that has been used to discriminate against a vulnerable group in Irish society. There is such thing as a failed asylum seeker or a manifestly unfounded claim. The UNHCR Excom conclusions dictate this. This is the law. Bogus entails they have no right to apply in the first place. They do. And they have full rights to appeal, legal service and accommodation until they get a deportation order.

The point of refugee law is to recognise those in need of international protection. In order to do this we must separate the real refugees from those who do not meet the strict criteria of the 1951 Convention. However, this does not mean there is no longer a protection need under international law for those so-called bogus applicants who fail this standard. The Cartegena Declaration and the OAU Declaration have stipulated that 'complementary protection' be afforded those who come from war-torn countries such as Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Iraq etc. Could be a few ‘bogus’ ones among that lot I suspect.

Moral relativism (which you appear to impose on the argument) does not enter into this. The law does. And it is international law the universality of which derogates the sovereign particularism of Irish immigration law. In other words an asylum seeker has a right under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to 'seek asylum' regardless of the whether or not he breaks immigration laws in the process. Once he applies for asylum under the Irish Refugee Act 1996 he is no longer illegal. And that is regardless of how he entered the state. Your statement that asylum seekers break the law is correct as most genuine refugees without visas must do so in order to gain entry into the asylum system to find recognition as a refugee. Many refugees have no legal means of entering the Irish state.

Your argument regarding real refugees v. bogus asylum seekers is a paradox. You state that it is blindingly obvious that a refugee would not bother to claim asylum if he reached Ireland because he would have already fulfilled his primary purpose in fleeing his country of origin. What is the point of having fled his country, arriving in Ireland, and then not excercising his universal right to claim asylum as a refugee? That a refugee would see ‘no point’ in claiming asylum as a refugee which would/could turn him into the illegal immigrant/bogus asylum seeker category that you yourself have problematised is simply irrational.

The original post refers to the importance of subsidiary protection as a complement to the Convention to enable failed asylum seekers an opportunity to seek protection from 'generalised violence' or 'serious harm' arising from deplorable human rights in 'unsafe' countries of origin. It is not a loophole but a requirement by the EU and the UNHCR that is imposed on us and rightly so. That persons may abuse such a law by telling untruths hardly criminalises them or perjures them. The consequences for failing this final asylum hurdle will still be legal limbo or deportation eventually.

by Rosé Sat Oct 14, 2006 03:08

Thanks for the considered and intelligent response.

There was no paradox in my original assertion that an asylum seeker would not need to claim protection if he or she had not broken any laws. You asserted in your original post that asylum seekers break no laws by seeking asylum. That was the sole point I challenged.

To further clarify my reservations, I would refer again to the appropriate article (31) which states:

"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization"

The examples given by yourself (Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Iraq) speak for themselves in this regard as Ireland is geographically not a country that substantial numbers of such asylum seekers can readily claim to have arrived from directly, in good faith.

This fact is always considered in assessing such asylum claims and is considered crucial when assessing the key ground of credibility.

It must be said that it is not the sole consideration and a convention refugee will not be rejected on these grounds.

The subsidiary protection clause will be subject to the very same scrutiny and criteria, if my reading of the instrument is correct - by first and foremost referring to the original claim for asylum and reasons for rejection.

It is therefore highly unlikely that it will be the "paradise" for failed asylum seekers that some here have previously suggested. Consider it a formalisation of what has been here all along, just not blessed by Europe and enshrined in our laws - "exceptional leave to remain".

It's really nothing new.

by Deciso - Non-Aligned Sat Oct 14, 2006 03:39

Yes I agree that it will not be the paradise that some are calling it. However, it would be wrong to say that the credibility of an applicant's travel to Ireland would have much bearing on a successful claim for subsidiary protection. The ability of an applicant to return to the country of origin without risk of refoulement (serious harm amounting to a breach of Article 3 of ECHR) will be the key test.

But it is being implemented in an ad hoc fashion. ORAC (using a single procedure) and not INIS should be dealing with subsidiary protection claims as it is essentially Convention status without one of the five convention grounds. Unfortunately the media and others will portray it as another aspect of humanitarian leave to remain which it is not. It is a rights-based system of protection not a discretionary one. It will help prevent breaches of section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 (prohibition of refoulement) which are more prone to occur under Ministerial discretion or chain refoulement under the Dublin Convention via other EU states.

It will be interesting to watch this space over the next month. My guess is that INIS in Burgh Quay will be unable to cope with the complexities of the claims and the volume. The emotive lexicon of the media debates will also be worth following.

by Brass Tacks Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:46

Now Minister Mc Dowell is operating on many, many fronts.
He is lobbying against the Data Retention laws in Europe.
He ousted a woman.
He is holding the % balance of power in Government.
He is introducing Privacy /Defamation to control media output.

AND he has to look at all of the Asylum/refugee cases.

in this:

He has not appointed women with expertise in trauma for rape/torture/fgm victims.
He has reduced the statutory powers of the advoacy agaencies.
He has transposed the protection directive 'because he had to'

Please tell me that this is not a case of:
1.Overweening political control.
2.The possibility of 'human error' is out of the question.

He may be an example to many of how to rule- but he is also an an example
of corruption in action.

He will retain his seat next election. That was dealt with on Bloomsday when he
ensured the passage of a certain piece of legislation through the Dail as
Bertie Ahern gave Charlie Haughey's funeral oration in the presence of the
past and future political power-brokers in this state.

PJ Mara: Director of Digitech (Cayman Branch)
and Denis O Brien ( director of communications infrastructure in Ireland).

If for one moment you think that you are living in a democracy, you are sorely and
sadly mistaken. The political thrust of the PD/FF alliance is accomplished by Minister Mac Dowell.
The hapless lover is accomplished by Bertie.

by Padraig Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:44

I do not think Ireland should offer asylum anymore. I think it has gone on too far now and as a country we cant keep offering asylum to all of the worlds asylum seekers. Its just not copeable in the long term future. I have read about the organisation Residents against racism and opt to disagree with their policy because they always seem to have an excuse for every asylum seeker which would obviously state that somethings wrong somewhere. I am not a racist but I am very sceptical on the way our government offers refugee status to most asylum seekers who arrives on our shore.

by Brass Tacks Sat Oct 14, 2006 13:49

We, through EU law and expansion are offering low paid immigrants the right
to work. Ireland is the only country that did not cap the influx.
we put them in shitty accomodation and minimum wage them to feed the
property millionaires and wipe their arses (literally- colonic irrigation etc).

The asylum and refugee laws are part of a directive to offer the victims of the wars that support.
which is part of the oil-guzzling west's ideal of peace and prosperity. ie 'The Western Way'.

Mr Mc Dowell has to transpose the directive into law, no two ways.

But the qualification is that they do not vote and live quietly.
Their children, (if they have vaulted the endless ropes will become Irish citizens).

The fact that highly intelligent people who seek asylum status are not allowed work
in the professions in which they have trained speaks volumes, those jobs go to the Irish.
The wage slaves come from the new states, mainly white.

So we are in a specialised systemisation comprising retaining a white staus quo,
a minority coloured elite.
A EU wage slave input.
and a growing impoverished Irish poor who get left behind.

I am sure Minister Mc Dowell would agree with you, but he is overtly careful
about balancing his act in relation to population control be it of class or colour.
The pretty pictures of a demographically balanced emergent multi-cultural society
are crass and a lie. there is no equality and I would not lose sleep over your
anxieties at all. The directive was transposed because it is part of the overall
political impetus of the EU on migrancy, and Mc Dowell is a big fish in a little
pool with out the balls to take on the EU on this issue. His retention of the
final say in applications would suggest that he will continue in his own way
to provide his notion of a balanced demographic that speaks of equality but
is probably racist and sexist too.

by Aaron - The Volunteer Group Thu Nov 02, 2006 15:02 foyede2003 at yahoo dot com Flat8, Jarvis House, Goldsmith Street, London, SE15 5SY 07939880682

I think it will pay Ireland economically to increase the human resources in Ireland by tapping from the asylum seekers and working visa seekers to Ireland.

A population of less than 4.3 million people does not speak well of an emerging economy like Ireland.

Ireland should borrow a leave from United Kingdom, U.S.A. and Canada. Without people with diverse minds, Ireland can never develop into a modern nation.

by C Murray Thu Nov 02, 2006 15:47

The British Government are going with the flow on the same issues. John Reid
introduced a law, which is almost identical to this: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79263

The co-operation between Ireland and Britain is not just at the Level of the Stormont
Talks and St Andrews agreement, the impetus seem to be toward a federal or
homgenised approach to immigration and 'counter-terrorism ' (post 9/11-data
retention and civil liberty abuses).

The Reid story was covered in the Guardian/independent- betya, you never thought
you'd see the day when the New Labour Party became more fascist that the
Tories.......................?

by omg Thu Nov 02, 2006 16:02

Ireland should borrow a leave from United Kingdom, U.S.A. and Canada. Without people with diverse minds, Ireland can never develop into a modern nation.

Ireland is a modern nation with a diverse population and getting more diverse every single day! However we would like to avoid the ghettos,poverty and riots that such diversity seems to have brought to the UK the USA and the like. Of all EU countries per head of population Ireland will be absorbing the most people from the accesion countries.

Our government whilst i admit has made great strives to improve our delapidated transport and other public assets/services should pour a lot more into these before they agree to absorb a lot more people of any background.

after all the DART aint exactly the tube now is it? our health service is a shamblesand our public works systems are old and becoming close if not over capacitated

dont get me wrong, immigrants are welcome in my view, but planning and preperation by this government is non existant in terms of the strain such additional numbers create on the system. its just common sense after all!

by C Murray Thu Nov 02, 2006 16:12

The link to the John Reid Cartoon on the Bulgarian/Romanian Laws is actually a link
to the Steve Bell site- therefore instead of Reid - we have George Bush up a camel's arse
wearing a mortar Board.

ahem- But the Guardian link on the Reid debacle is working fine........

( This was in relation to the identical British/Irish rules on acession States Bulgaria and Romania)

by Emma-RAR Thu Nov 02, 2006 17:26

To answer Frank no none of the Afghan hunger strikers have been given residency or granted leave to remain in fact more of the guys have been refused but have solicitors that will fight the case I'm sure eventually they will be granted some sort of status the unfortunate thing is this could take years which is really frustrating for asylum seekers as they cannot work or study in that time and are forced to live under the direct provision programme.

As for subsidory protection asylum seekers can still be refused and common sense would say no body is going to apply for this unless at end of asylum process it would not make sense to apply before hand.

The process is already racist I do not think this will make much of a difference especially if new immigration bill is enforced.

by OBSERVER Thu Nov 02, 2006 21:33

Why is the Asylum Process a Racist process Emma?

by C murray Thu Nov 02, 2006 22:01

The Minister for justice has cut the advocacy agencies input into the determination of residency
in this country. The final decision on who stays and who goes has been left in the hands of
Minister and Tanaiste Michael Mc Dowell. Now, as Tanaiste Mr Mc Dowell has enough to be getting on with- don't you think?

The Processing system has been streamlined and will be further streamlined after the
Immigration , Residence and Protection bill (with attendant Press junket and Media
releases). The report above, states that the protection aspect of the bill- has been transposed
into Irish Law on October the tenth- the final day that it should have been. Thus we are left with the
Immigration and Residence aspect of the bill.

Somehow Mr Mc Dowell has managed to insert a section which deals with crime and bio-metric id's.

The deportation of an immigrant/asylum seeker is instant for petty crime.
The asylum seeker will carry an id, which will include bio-metric material.

Interpreting this as most definitely anti-civil liberties is right on the nose,
however the racist aspect may be harder to prove, Saying that- given that the 'Protection'
aspect of the Bill is an EU directive and had to be implemented by Oct 10th,
it can be inferred that recognition of the need for protection was ignored until it
had to be acknowledged.

Given that a lot of women may have sought protection due to issues of rape/fgm
one could ask why they have to go into hiding,when the dept refused to acknowledge
that torture and rape as aspects of living in some cultures were not deemed worthy
of protection. These were not given due funding or recognition within the current
process:

1. Nowhere in the Dept website can one find references to trauma counsellors with
experience in this area. (drcc has intervened on behalf of one woman).
2.The Dept of Justice has underscored the 'Protection' aspect of the EU directive with
the statement that it is not retrospective.

If the dept is not racist, it is:
1.Underfunded.
2.Liable to error.
3. not directing funding towards these specific issues, which would suggest
that the Dept of justice/Equality and Law Reform- does not do what it says on the tin.

no-one demanded from Michael Mc Dowell- a very busy man that advocacy in the
issue of asylum should be held and adjudicated solely by one person- The final decison
lies alone with him- despite the feed ins from ORAC and RAT.

by Observer Thu Nov 02, 2006 23:07

Are you saying CMurray that "advocacy" groups have ever had any input into who gets to stay in Ireland?

As far as I am aware, this has been the sole remit of ORAC, the RAT and the Minister.

Still don't see any evidence of racism.

Is Emma saying that those who will implement the Bill, ie caseworkers in ORAC or Members of Tribunal in RAT are racist or that there is inherently racist legislation contained within the bill?\

Or is the dreaded racist word being bandied about yet again.

by ????????????????????????????????? Thu Nov 02, 2006 23:21

That would be an ecumenical question- you may want to spend the night thinking about it...

However you may also like to consider the homogenisation of the laws in relation to
the immigration issue on these islands and the spirit of co-operation exhibited by
Mr Reid and Mr Mcdowell in relation to both the immigration laws (Romania and Bulgaria)
The TDR (traffic Data Retention Laws) - this is a post nine/eleven measure and
we can closely examine the St Andrews Agreement too. (that would be Hain and Mc Dowell)

in fact Mc Dowell is very busy indeed. We are part of the EU now. and each of these
laws plays beautifully into the concept of federation and globalised hegemony.
The American Way.

or you can nit-pick away about the word-'Racist' and the activities of the departments
on both Islands.

I think that we are not a nation of people who examine the fine print of what precisely we
sign onto when we mandate people to take away our liberties in exchange for a feeling
of 'safety'.

= Actions speak louder than words and the actions of the present Tanaiste wd
suggest that the neo-liberal approach to human rights in concert with Mr Reid
and Mr Hain are what we expect as a people. but lets spend the evening defining
racism -. The global issue of immigration control is not really a bother for us is it?

by C Murray Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:10

Mc Dowell's Immigration Bill is published today. In the article above
about The non-retrospective Asylum qualification directive, the Tanaiste had to
transpose the protection of the bill aspect under EU law. The bio-metric aspect ties
neatly into the John Reid bio-metric id issue too, which is on the Newswire.

The joint policies of the Uk/Irish Government on Immigration show an astounding level
of co-operation on issues of race and asylum. [except they are not joint policies but
identikit- and the noxious beginnings of civil rights abuses- will add in the Reid rules
later]

its on http://www.ireland.com

This bill introduces the bio-metric id system, in which People have to produce
credit card sized cards and present them to Gardai.

as in all bills guaranteed to prokove the right into action, it will probably be
amply supported by FG on its passage through the Oireachtas.

The slick media management of the PD Party electoral campaign should be
studied- cos they get a lot of media with such a negligble % of the vote share.

UK Kollectives and no Id Campaigns links later.

by Detica-reductio ad absurdio Fri Apr 27, 2007 16:46

There has been an anti-id campaign in the UK for three years, wherin
activists advocate on behalf of immigrants and asylum seekers and take on
the Blair hegamony. Its called community -action.

Of course when everything is reduced to theoretical marxism and how to
'fit' issues into pre-conceived ideologies these things never get off the ground.

Given that 'we' dont have a Repressions or anti-patriacrchy section
this can fit in here.

http://www.no2id.net

(historical links:- http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2004/1....html
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/....html

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2004/04/63282

and :- the type of company that provides the service to the mediocre

http://www.detica.com (with multiple Einstein soundbites)

[Supporting the advocate groups who work very hard on the ground is
usually a good start]

by C Murray Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:50

In October of last year two pieces of legislation were published, by the Dept of
Justice.

One involved the refusal of the Irish Authorities to allow Romanian and Bulgarian
EU access citizens the normal rights of citizenship. The Legislation was virtually
indistinguishable from the Reid sponsored Bill which passed through the Houses
of Parliament in the Uk at the same time. This was a new labour Bill under the
steering of the Blair administration.

in 2004 the Blair administration legislated for the ID card which contains
bio-metric data and a campaign was launched to raise awareness of the
civil rights infringements of the bill.

The links to the ID campaigns are in the comment above.

In October 2006, Tanaiste Michael Mc Dowell introduced the Immigration, Residence
and Protection Bill (the Current state seems addicted to the triad formation with
dicky legislation)

The Protection aspect of the Bill is non-retrospective and had to be transposed
into Irish law at the date, this delineated in the article above.

The superflous (and Identical sections of the bill to the New Labour Bill)
On Residence and Protection have been published yesterday. The Bill
is discussed in today's I.T on the top left column (first news item) , deal
with the introduction in this stat of ID cards for asylum seekers and immigrants.

The protection aspect was required by EU law and is part of legislation.
The other two sections are not.

The Bill may or may not be voted on in the run up to the election, depending
on the timing of the date announcement.

At the same time the UK election has to be called by May 10th and there
are similar difficulties with rights erosion and democratic abuse all over the
UK kollective newswire.

by C Murray Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:56

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79263

[in relation to the summary above]