To what extent is direct provision, the irish system Of asylum - seeker accommodation, just?

Globally, most countries have systems in place which involve accommodating asylum-seekers upon arrival with necessities. Nevertheless, there is great variance in the extent to which countries provide for asylum-seekers. The political issue of asylum-seeker reception was chosen because of my passion for asylum-seekers’ rights, having heard stories of DP through the media.

 

Direct provision (DP) can be defined as “the system Ireland utilises to provide minimum support to those claiming refugee, subsidiary protection, or leave to remain,” (Thornton, 2014). Upon arrival, asylum-seekers are dispersed to one of 38 DP centres ( purpose-built, hotels, hostels, guesthouses, former convents/nursing homes, former mobile home sites). DP has been criticised due to the following issues: long lengths of stay, the for-profit motives, restrictions to accessing the workplace and education, remote locations of centres, lack of familial facilities (e.g. kitchen to cook home-made meals), and absence of trust in formal complaint system, IPAS (Social Justice Ireland, 2020).

 

Residents received a weekly allowance of €19.50 per adult and €9.60 per child, which was raised to €38.80 per week for adults and €29.80 for children in 2019. Residents were not able to access the labour market until 2018 when Ireland implemented the EU’s Reception Conditions Directive; this was a response to the Supreme Court case brought against the Irish Minister for Justice & Equality, where the banning of asylum-seekers’ access to the labour market was found to be unconstitutional (N.H.V. v Minister for Justice & Equality and ors, 2018). Especially before these improvements were made, DP was seen by many academics as institutionalised, “state-sponsored” poverty (Dunbar et al., 2020).

 

In February 2021, “A White Paper to End Direct Provision and to Establish a New International Protection Support Service'' was published to phase out DP (Government of Ireland, 2021). Nonetheless, recently, the Ukrainian crisis and the subsequent rise in asylum-seekers is delaying the process of ending DP further (Irish Legal News, 2022). This Engagement Activity will explore the research question: “to what extent is direct provision, the Irish system of asylum-seeker accommodation, just?”.

I believed that it would be unethical to interview asylum-seekers living in DP due to their vulnerability and potential trauma surrounding this sensitive topic. Instead, in an effort to approach this political issue holistically, three experts of different backgrounds were interviewed -

 

• Eoin Chanse, Engagement Officer for Abolish Direct Provision Campaign Ireland (ADPI), chosen to find out about the on the ground issues facing those in DP
• Emily Cunniffe, Policy Officer at Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), selected to help me understand EU policies around asylum-seeker reception
• Dr. Joshua Castellino, Professor of Law and Head of the Law Department at Middlesex University, London, and Executive Director of Minority Rights Group International, selected in order to also learn about EU policies, and rights of asylum-seekers

 

The method of interviews was chosen to engage with the issue on a deep level by asking specific questions. I first emailed approximately 5 potential candidates for the interview, and then conducted the interviews via Zoom, an online video-conferencing platform, with those who responded. Beforehand, I did some research and wrote guiding questions. My engagement may have been limited because of technical issues (poor internet connection) which caused some inconvenience for the interviewees. Another limitation I encountered is that many of the professionals I emailed did not respond. Thus, I learnt that it is important to allow sufficient time to find interviewees.In this paper, “just” refers to rules that are fair and correct relating to standards established by international conventions such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), European Convention on Human Right (ECHR) and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU).

Firstly, DP, or the idea of poor asylum-seeker reception, could be viewed as just if one adopts a realist perspective. External sovereignty can be defined as “when states are recognised as independent and sovereign by other states,” (Murphy & Gleek, 2016). Those with realist perspectives may support DP because they believe states act in their own interests, the world is in an anarchical situation, and states have no right to impose sanctions on one another. Since, under realist theory, states should not have to cater for the needs of other states (thus, accept asylum-seekers). Realists may argue that, due to post-Westphalian conceptions of the nation-state, countries should be able to control their borders and restrict entry in order to be externally sovereign.

 

DP can be considered unjust by liberals who believe in collective humanity and co-operation between states. Eoin Chanse pointed out that state sovereignty is becoming less significant because of international conventions that mandate for migration, such as the 1951 Refugee Convention (UNHCR, 1951). Liberal theorists would argue that due to shared humanity and compassion, and the fact that there are international standards, such as the UDHR, states should provide asylum to those who request it. Migration is viewed by liberals as a shared global challenge that, because of interdependence, each country must collectively solve. Liberal theorists would, therefore, allow unrestricted immigrantion. DP could be seen as an attempt of a realist-aligned government to deter migrants, since it does not provide adequate access to human rights. DP can thus be justified by some, as it aligns with a realist perspective that seeks to limit immigration.

Another way the research question can be approached is through the lens of internal sovereignty. Emily Cunniffe referenced the EU’s ‘Reception Conditions Directive’: an instruction for member states to follow rules regarding reception of asylum-seekers. EU directives are, as Dr. Castellino explained, requirements that are set out by the EU; unlike regulations, however, they do not contain specific instructions about how to achieve the objective. EU member states must “transpose” directives into national law (Types of legislation, n.d.). Thus, Ireland adopted “European Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations” in 2018, introducing new rules, such as allowing asylum-seekers to “request a labour market access permission”, “which ‘may’ be granted if they have not received a first instance decision on their claim after 9 months through no fault of their own” (ECRE, 2018). EU directives can be effective as they allow individual states freedom to find solutions relative to the country. However, some would argue that such legislation undermines internal sovereignty, which refers to “the ability of a state to exert legitimate control over its population and manage its affairs independently” (Murphy & Gleek, 2016). Allowing IGOs with supernational power, such as the EU, to create and enforce laws on countries could be viewed as diminishing internal sovereignty.

 

It could be argued, however, that states should forfeit some of their sovereignty in order for justice to ensue. If not for mechanisms such as the UDHR, perhaps states would act only in their own interests, with a disregard for human rights, defined as “rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status” (UN, n.d.). Dr. Castellino explained that human rights must be universal; thus, they must be provided to asylum-seekers.

Even though DP provides limited resources to asylum-seekers, it could be considered just. A key question is: to what extent should states have to provide reception to those seeking asylum? The notion of the ‘welfare state’ was defined by Emily Cunniffe as a socially just system where the state seeks to protect the health and well-being of its citizens. Ideally, she explained, the welfare state would extend to non-citizens, such as those waiting for the decision to be made on their asylum applications. A common counter-argument against the provision of social benefits to asylum-seekers, as observed by Dr. Castellino, is that they are described as ‘sponging from the state’, proclaimed by a TD (member of parliament) Noel Grealish (McGee, 2019), meaning asylum-seekers take social benefits without giving anything in return. Eoin Chanse highlighted that people who are against immigration in Ireland often argue that the state should prioritise its own citizens when it comes to social protection. This argument has gained a lot of traction in Ireland since the advent of the housing crisis that has persisted since 1993 (Kitchin, Hearne and O'Callaghan, 2015). Therefore, many feel that it is unjust for the state to ensure rights for asylum-seekers, when it has an obligation to support its citizens foremost; to neglect this obligation could be seen in its extreme form as structural violence (a theory created by Johan Galtung), defined as “when a government or other forms of power functions in a way that results in physical, mental, or other harm to individuals or groups” (Murphy & Gleek, 2016). For example, the right to privacy, Article 8 in the UDHR, is difficult to ensure for asylum-seekers, as there are not sufficient resources to provide individual dormitories. For many, therefore, DP is seen as a just compromise between the needs of Ireland’s citizens and non-citizens. Emily Cunniffe and Dr. Castellino suggest that the extension of social benefits to asylum-seekers could be made feasible by allowing asylum-seekers access to employment (Article 23 in the UDHR).

DP could be considered just because its provision of resources is limited, thus allowing for more social protection for Irish citizens, and deterring immigration, which would be viewed as unnecessary in the global anarchical situation. Some may even argue that DP does not need to comply with international standards because IGOs undermine internal and external sovereignty. Finally, DP could be deemed unjust because it fails to comply with human rights , such as the right to employment and right to privacy, and does not adequately integrate asylum-seekers into society.

 

From conducting interviews, I discovered how criticised DP is, such in the media, in academia, and in activist spaces. I became curious to discover how, in a democratic country, the Irish state was able to continue with DP for so long. The reason may be that Ireland has such a high level of internal power and legitimacy. In 2022, Ireland was the 9th least fragile state in the world (Country Dashboard | Fragile States Index, 2022) with a score of 20.8 out of 120. Irish citizens’ high level of trust in their government may have permitted DP to persist for many years.

 

Another observation I made is that DP could be considered a product of neoliberalism. Under neoliberalism, government corporations and public services become privatised - some say this generally creates more incentive for high-quality services. Further, there is little government interference (which could explain the weakness in the inspection process, as the private contractors have more sovereignty and authority over the centres than the government). The coexistence of neoliberalism and a just system for the reception of asylum-seekers seems impossible to me, as the for-profit approach has diminished the quality of DP and the human rights of the residents. Perhaps the only way that systems like DP worldwide will be abolished indefinitely is through the adoption of post-neoliberal policies which aim to provide social benefits to non-citizens as well as non-citizens.In my opinion, DP is unjust to a large extent. Although some value can be found in the arguments that justify the justness of DP, each interviewee stressed the lack of basic human rights present at DP centres. Human rights are universal, and since Ireland has signed the UDHR and is an EU member, it is vital that it complies with these standards. What I have learned is that if asylum migrants are simply given a right to work, a lot of issues are addressed: their well-being, their integration with wider communities, and their contributions would entitle them to social benefits. Ultimately, DP must be phased out in 2024 if the government is to uphold its commitments from the White Paper. But before this, it is important that the government finds a just alternative to DP.

Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, 2021. A White Paper to End Direct Provision and to Establish a New International Protection Support Service. Government of Ireland.

 

Doras - Promoting and protecting human rights. n.d. Direct Provision - Doras. [online] Available at: <http://doras.org/direct-provision/> [Accessed 23 September 2022].

 

Dunbar, R., Burke, L., Wrenn, S., Crivits, S., Shilova, A., Reid, M. and Candon, N., 2020. DIRECT PROVISION’S IMPACT ON CHILDREN: A HUMAN RIGHTS ANALYSIS. [online] Irish Centre for Human Rights. Available at: <https://www.universityofgalway.ie/media/irishcentreforhumanrights/files/reports/Direct-Provisio n-Report_-ICHR_Final-23.09.pdf> [Accessed 9 September 2022].

 

Ecre.org. 2018. Ireland: New reception rules following opt-in to EU Directive* | European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE). [online] Available at - <https://ecre.org/ireland-new-reception-rules-following-opt-in-to-eu-directive/> [Accessed 19 September 2022].

 

European Union. n.d. Types of legislation. [online] Available at: <https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/law/types-legislation_en> [Accessed 19 September 2022].

 

Irish Legal News, 2022. Ukraine war has delayed end of direct provision. [online] Available at: <https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/ukraine-war-has-delayed-end-of-direct-provision> [Accessed 16 September 2022].

 

Fragilestatesindex.org. 2022. Country Dashboard | Fragile States Index. [online] Available at: <https://fragilestatesindex.org/country-data/> [Accessed 17 September 2022].

 

Human rights (no date) United Nations. United Nations. Available at: <https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights> [Accessed: November 22, 2022].

 

Kitchin, R., Hearne, R. and O'Callaghan, C. (2015) “Housing in Ireland: From crisis to crisis,” SSRN Electronic Journal [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2566297.

 

McGee, H., 2019. TD criticised for allegedly saying African asylum seekers ‘sponge off system’. The Irish Times, [online] Available at: <https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/td-criticised-for-allegedly-saying-african-asylum-seek ers-sponge-off-system-1.4016503> [Accessed 23 September 2022].Murphy, R. and Gleek, C. (2016) Global politics: Supporting every learner across the IB continuum. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

 

N.H.V. v Minister for Justice & Equality and ors [2018] IESC 35 (Supreme Court of Ireland).

 

Social Justice Ireland. 2019. Direct provision is inhuman, degrading, and increasingly unfit for purpose | Social Justice Ireland. [online] Available at: <https://www.socialjustice.ie/content/policy-issues/direct-provision-inhuman-degrading-and-incre asingly-unfit-purpose> [Accessed 23 September 2022].

 

Thornton, Liam, The Rights of Others: Asylum Seekers and Direct Provision in Ireland (December 10, 2014). Liam Thornton, “The Rights of Others: Asylum Seekers and Direct Provision in Ireland” (2014) 3(2) Irish Community Development Law Journal 22-42. , Available at SSRN: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2685050>

 

UN General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 189, p. 137, Available at: <https://www.unhcr.org/uk/1951-refugee-convention.html> [Accessed 22 October 2022]