Click to Visit
[ Post Follow-Up ] [ Disclaimer ] [ Main BB ] [NB Refresh for current version]

re: direct provision

Posted by Natalya on March 04, 2013 at 00:13:35:

In Reply to: re: direct provision posted by sean on February 28, 2013 at 09:10:32:

When I said ‘rethink’ Sean I meant the hope the Government to start considering this situation seriously. I called for its political will, consideration and action.

The ‘thinking’ part has already been done by civil society and practical proposals have been articulated on the numerous occasions, in reports, submissions to the human rights bodies etc. I can provide you with the links if you wish.

1. Processing times should not be so lengthy. Asylum cases need to be considered within a year or two at the longest. This alone will bring the ‘expenditure’ down to 5-6 times I guess. I am not embarking on the analysis as to how to reduce these times, this is beyond my expertise, but I trust that our Government should be competent enough to reform the system.

2. Asylum seekers have to be given a right to work, so they can provide for themselves. Those who cannot work should be given access to state support for the time of the consideration of their case, which should not be as lengthy as it is now.

3. The Direct Provision as an institutional system, that is unfair and expensive, should be abolished.

Latest news FYI

As regards ‘Why should I pay for it’ I prefer not to comment. I just hope our society so strained with the iron hand of recession to hold on to the best values the humanity developed so far.


Post a Follow-Up




Optional Link URL: (http:// required)
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: (http:// required)

In submitting this post for publication I agree to the Terms and Conditions of the Disclaimer

[ Post Follow-Up ] [ Follow-Ups ] [ The BB Index ] [ Main BB ] [ Disclaimer ] [NB Refresh for current version]