English channel migrant crossing crisis #6

[Merpedy]

Here you go…

The cruel limbo of ‘direct provision’ - The Dublin Review

How the asylum-seekers live now [reportage]

thedublinreview.com

---
They’re now allowed to work after six months.

I live in direct provision. It’s a devastating system – and it has th…

archived 28 Dec 2023 17:00:23 UTC

archive.ph

Mohammed came to Ireland in 2008, fearing for his safety in Syria. Friends of his had been arrested and beaten, he told me, owing to their opposition to the regime; they had on occasion challenged security forces and government representatives in public. His initial application for refugee status was refused and his subsequent appeal was denied almost a year later. Since then, he had been waiting to find out whether he would be deported back to Syria or granted a form of ‘subsidiary protection’ in Ireland.

So not a refugee then, someone who is stuck in a limbo of waiting for a decision

In April, the Irish Times reported that 36 per cent of the 4,755 people living in direct provision at the time had been waiting for more than five years; only 12 per cent had been waiting for under a year.

I even skimmed the rest of the article and the people I read about were mostly waiting for their asylum decisions, a few had more complex cases of reapplying or appealing. This is basically not that different from the asylum seekers living in hotels or the Bibby waiting for their asylum applications to be processed - I think a story of someone who had been waiting for nearly a decade has been posted before too

The story about the care home is only significant because it intends to house those who have been granted refugee status (their asylum applications have been processed)

 

[monga]

So not a refugee then, someone who is stuck in a limbo of waiting for a decision



I even skimmed the rest of the article and the people I read about were mostly waiting for their asylum decisions, a few had more complex cases of reapplying or appealing. This is basically not that different from the asylum seekers living in hotels or the Bibby waiting for their asylum applications to be processed - I think a story of someone who had been waiting for nearly a decade has been posted before too

The story about the care home is only significant because it intends to house those who have been granted refugee status (their asylum applications have been processed)

It’s refugees that are in direct provision also, the guy in the second article had his claim for asylum granted after being refused numerous times he’s still in direct provision today whilst working full time but his wages don’t cover Dublin rent which averages €2000-3000 per month.

Over 5,600 refugees with right-to-remain still in direct provision

News from the Irish Examiner's team of reporters

www.irishexaminer.com

---
People will just be stuck in these centres or on the streets.

Almost 4,000 people trapped in direct provision due to housing crisis…

archived 19 Oct 2022 01:12:36 UTC

archive.ph

 

[monga]

 

[monga]

More woe for Bibby .

Warnings over arrest between Sunni and Shia Muslims on Bibby Stockholm

The split between the two main sects of Islam is a major cause of conflict in the Middle East and can lead to unrest at sites in the UK, a report stated.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[monga]

Complete farce ! who cares if a dangerous terrorist could face death…Not me ! …Better him than an innocent person/ people

 

[Piff paff puff]

Complete farce ! who cares if a dangerous terrorist could face death…Not me ! …Better him than an innocent person/ people

Too many people who clearly hate Britain making these decisions. Not surprised. Just thankful he's not likely to live in my area.

 

[Moth]

If the Home Secretary is going to decide to remove someone's British citizenship, they have to do it in accordance with the law and public policy. It wasn't. The people that 'hate Britain' are those that want the government to be able to act outside the law.

 

[monga]

If the Home Secretary is going to decide to remove someone's British citizenship, they have to do it in accordance with the law and public policy. It wasn't. The people that 'hate Britain' are those that want the government to be able to act outside the law.

How was he granted it in the first place with his backround?
---

Too many people who clearly hate Britain making these decisions. Not surprised. Just thankful he's not likely to live in my area.

His followers might though
---
Looks like the beginning of the end , another building that was set to house 80 men up in smoke.

---
Not surprised people don’t want these scenes in their locality with a substandard police force that are as useful as a chocolate fire guard.

 

[Moth]

How was he granted it in the first place with his backround?

Which was ... ?

 

[monga]

Which was ... ?

An illegal entry, who traveled back and forth from the country he was supposedly seeking asylum from! Do they even do backround checks?

 

[Moth]

An illegal entry, who traveled back and forth from the country he was supposedly seeking asylum from! Do they even do backround checks?

We don't know exactly what form the 'illegal entry' took except that until recently it was not illegal to enter the country by 'irregular means' in order to claim asylum. His first trip back to Sudan was not until almost 10 years after he was granted refugee status and 18 months after he obtained British citizenship.

 

[Merpedy]

I will say I find it interesting that this is the second case posted here of the government accusing someone of being linked to terrorism after they travel outside of the UK - the other story that was posted here had the guy denying that he had travelled back to his home country, it was a neighbouring country and the government claimed that they had evidence that he had entered his home country or something. If I remember right that ruling was also in favour of the refugee because the government hadn't considered or argued that they could use surveillance on the person

I have seen some discuss this story particular story in light of citizenship and the Begum precedent, which has also been discussed slightly more in light of this news story recently:

British-born man who has never left UK faces deportation

Dmitry Lima told he will be sent to Portugal, from where his parents arrived more than 30 years ago, after serving a prison sentence

www.theguardian.com

None of these seem to be comparable on facts, and I'm sure the usual suspects will come out with something about how these people are all naturally terrorists or whatever, but I just think it's giving light to an increasingly interesting topic of conversation

 

[monga]

We don't know exactly what form the 'illegal entry' took except that until recently it was not illegal to enter the country by 'irregular means' in order to claim asylum. His first trip back to Sudan was not until almost 10 years after he was granted refugee status and 18 months after he obtained British citizenship.

There were numerous attempts to deport him before he was given citizenship.
---

I will say I find it interesting that this is the second case posted here of the government accusing someone of being linked to terrorism after they travel outside of the UK - the other story that was posted here had the guy denying that he had travelled back to his home country, it was a neighbouring country and the government claimed that they had evidence that he had entered his home country or something. If I remember right that ruling was also in favour of the refugee because the government hadn't considered or argued that they could use surveillance on the person

I have seen some discuss this story particular story in light of citizenship and the Begum precedent, which has also been discussed slightly more in light of this news story recently:

British-born man who has never left UK faces deportation

Dmitry Lima told he will be sent to Portugal, from where his parents arrived more than 30 years ago, after serving a prison sentence

www.theguardian.com

None of these seem to be comparable on facts, and I'm sure the usual suspects will come out with something about how these people are all naturally terrorists or whatever, but I just think it's giving light to an increasingly interesting topic of conversation

Typical of you dismissing security threats as racist, let’s just sit back and let them get on with it …How is it possible there’s no trace of him in UK ? He’d have a birth certificate and national insurance number like everyone else.

 

[Merpedy]

dismissing security threats as racist

There's believing someone is a terrorist threat for legitimate reasons and then there's coming out with stuff that implies they're all terrorists or are naturally dangerous. I would argue that the latter is racist/Islamophobic


Anyway, to add to the conversation:
Link to judgment

A summary I found on Reddit:

Quick summary:

1. S3 is a member of the Tunjur tribe of Darfur. The Sudanese security services have a habit of randomly incarcerating members of this tribe and subjecting them to 'cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment' ("CIDT"). Also, if he was otherwise arrested in Sudan, there is a risk that his tribal background would be discovered and he would be subject to CIDT.
2. In 2018 the government had to decide whether or not depriving S3 of his British citizenship would increase his liklihood of being arrested (and subsequently subjected to CIDT) and/or whether, if he were in prison in Sudan, his having dual British citizenship would protect him from some or all of the CIDT or he would benefit from consular pressure to have him released
3. The government initially assessed that his British citizenship didn't provide him with any material protection , which assessment led to them deciding to remove his citizenship
4. He appeals this and in 2022, despite the assessment in (3) above being changed, that change is ignored and his citizenship is removed. S3 appeals
5. The SIAC hears the appeal and, following established law, decides that the 2018 decision was flawed, as was the 2022 decision. The judgment ends with the SIAC noting that the government haven't actually put forward their position as to whether it would today be considered that stripping S3 of his citizenship is still conducive of the public good, with reference to any current national security assessment.

 

[monga]

There's believing someone is a terrorist threat for legitimate reasons and then there's coming out with stuff that implies they're all terrorists or are naturally dangerous. I would argue that the latter is racist/Islamophobic


Anyway, to add to the conversation:
Link to judgment

A summary I found on Reddit:

That’s what the security services are paid to do.It was intelligence pointed to him being a threat.
---
Here’s another one where the out dated human rights laws serve the criminal.

 

[Moth]

There were numerous attempts to deport him before he was given citizenship.

Well I assume that he would have been identified for deportation purely on the grounds that his initial asylum claim was refused and before it was subsequently granted on appeal. That all happened in a period of 7 months from September 2005.

I am not aware of any attempts to deport him after he was granted refugee status (and Indefinite Leave to Remain) in April 2006, either before of after he obtained British citizenship in 2015. It is not reported in the official SIAC decision regarding his citizenship appeal and as this is the source of information for The Daily Mail etc. I very much doubt that it happened (unless you have evidence to the contrary).
---

I will say I find it interesting that this is the second case posted here of the government accusing someone of being linked to terrorism after they travel outside of the UK ...

To be fair, they apparently identified his links to ISIL while he was in the UK following his second trip to Sudan. However, they apparently did absolutely nothing about it for 9 months until he left the country again.

 

[monga]

Well I assume that he would have been identified for deportation purely on the grounds that his initial asylum claim was refused and before it was subsequently granted on appeal. That all happened in a period of 7 months from September 2005.

I am not aware of any attempts to deport him after he was granted refugee status (and Indefinite Leave to Remain) in April 2006, either before of after he obtained British citizenship in 2015. It is not reported in the official SIAC decision regarding his citizenship appeal and as this is the source of information for The Daily Mail etc. I very much doubt that it happened (unless you have evidence to the contrary).

Said he was stripped of his passport then entered illegally for a second time, I’m assuming they removed him or he left of his own accord?
---
Interesting stats

 

[Moth]

Said he was stripped of his passport then entered illegally for a second time, I’m assuming they removed him or he left of his own accord?

I think you may have something confused although I am not quite sure what:

2005 - arrived in UK and claimed asylum
2006 - given asylum / refugee status and ILR on appeal
2015 - got British citizenship
2016 - went to Sudan for the first time using his British passport.
2017 - identified as having links to ISIL in 2017
2018 (April) - His citizenship (and passport) was removed while he was in Sudan and so not able to return to UK legally
2018 - appealed against decision to remove his citizenship
2018 (September) - came back to UK 'illegally' via Dublin - detained in the UK and then released on bail
2023 - won his appeal against the 2018 decision to remove his citizenship

The Daily Mail article and particularly the headline makes it sound as if he was given British citizenship after being identified as having links to ISIL. Not true. He already had British citizenship. The SIAC tribunal simply found that the Home Secretary's decision to remove it in 2018 was wrong.

 

[Merpedy]

I think you may have something confused although I am not quite sure what:

The Daily Mail doesn't seem to have a clear timeline of what actually happened hence the confusion

 

[monga]

I think you may have something confused although I am not quite sure what:

2005 - arrived in UK and claimed asylum
2006 - given asylum / refugee status and ILR on appeal
2015 - got British citizenship
2016 - went to Sudan for the first time using his British passport.
2017 - identified as having links to ISIL in 2017
2018 (April) - His citizenship (and passport) was removed while he was in Sudan and so not able to return to UK legally
2018 - appealed against decision to remove his citizenship
2018 (September) - came back to UK 'illegally' via Dublin - detained in the UK and then released on bail
2023 - won his appeal against the 2018 decision to remove his citizenship

The Daily Mail article and particularly the headline makes it sound as if he was given British citizenship after being identified as having links to ISIL. Not true. He already had British citizenship. The SIAC tribunal simply found that the Home Secretary's decision to remove it in 2018 was wrong.

Still doesn’t alter the fact he should have his citizenship revoked on the grounds of security. Who wants to fund the enemy.