This afternoon.

Further to the Supreme Court’s unanimous finding in May that the ban preventing asylum seekers in Ireland for working is “in principle” unconstitutional…

Mary Carolan, in The Irish Times, reports:

“The Supreme Court has told the State it will make a formal declaration next February that the absolute ban preventing asylum seekers working here is unconstitutional.

“The five-judge court said on Thursday the declaration will be made on February 9th, irrespective of what progress the State has made towards addressing the court’s findings on the ban.

“…Nuala Butler SC, for the State, said the Government was in the process of opting into the EC Reception Directive, which contains a provision requiring member states to afford the right to work in certain circumstances, but the matter was complex with many issues requiring to be addressed.

She urged the court not to make a formal declaration of unconstitutionality today, saying it would lead to a “flood” of applications seeking permission to work.

“…Michael Lynn SC, for the Rohingya man who brought the successful challenge to the ban, said his side would prefer a declaration was made today but did not want to create “unnecessary obstacles” and the issue was for the court to decide.

“…The Rohingya man, aged in his thirties, spent eight years in direct provision before getting refugee status here last year. While offered work in his direct provision centre in 2013, he could not take that up due to the ban on seeking work.

“While in direct provision on a €19 weekly allowance, he suffered depression and “almost complete loss of autonomy”, he said. Being allowed to work was vital to his development, personal dignity and “sense of self worth”.”

Court to rule work ban for asylum seekers is unconstitutional (Mary Carolan, The Irish Times)

10 thoughts on “In February

  1. Andrew

    Isn’t it he case that the vast majority of those seeking asylum are not in fact entitled to seek asylum and are economic refugees.
    The reason they are in direct provision so long, is because of the lengthy and spurious appeals that are undertaken.

    1. Cian

      interesting – is it unconstitutional to ban an asylum seeker that has had their application rejected, but are appealing this, from working?

      1. scottser

        Let someone go work, pay tax for a year and satisfy the habitual residency conditions. What’s the problem?

  2. Gringo

    Oops, I think i must have strayed into the webpage of the new “ireland first them farking foreigners will take our work” party.Excuse me.

    1. scottser

      Yeah along with the ‘ hang the homeless’ brigade on here of late, it’s all gone a bit journal-ey up in here..

Comments are closed.