Advertisement

The Direct Provision Regime

  • Steven Loyal
  • Stephen Quilley
Chapter

Abstract

Introduced in April 2000, Direct Provision and Dispersal (DPD) was a new policy regime designed to manage what was perceived and presented as a burgeoning crisis of asylum seeker immigration. Housed in the Department of Justice, which has historically been responsible for both immigration and security, the asylum process until 2016 enveloped three major administrative bodies: the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC), which deals with asylum applications; the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT), which dealt with appeals made by asylum seekers concerning their applications; and the Reception and Integration Agency (RIA), which was responsible for housing and maintaining asylum seekers while their applications were processed. Replacing the existing statutory provision with a system of departmental fiat, the DPD involves the coercive dispersal of asylum seekers away from Dublin to regional centres across the country, the replacement of regular welfare (cash) payments with centrally allocated food aid and housing, and the administrative separation of asylum seekers from regular welfare claimants and recipients.

References

  1. Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and the Bare Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Agamben, G. (2000). Beyond Human Rights. In Means Without End. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, K. (2000). The Celtic Tiger: The Myth of Social Partnership in Ireland. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Allen, K. (2007). Double Speak: Neoliberalism and Migration. In B. Fanning (Ed.), Immigration and Social Change in the Republic of Ireland (pp. 84–98). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Allen, K., & O’Boyle, B. (2013). Austerity Ireland. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, B. R. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (Revised and Extended ed.). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  7. Avalos, G., Macfarlane, A., McMahon, J., & Murphy, A. (2007). ‘A Survey of Asylum Seekers’ General Practice Service Utilisation and Morbidity Patterns. Irish Medical Journal, 100(5), 461–464.Google Scholar
  8. Barnes, J. (2008). Irish Industrial Schools 1868–1908. Dublin: Irish Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Barry, K. (2014). What’s Food Got to Do with It? Cork: NASC Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Bauman, Z. (2004). Europe: An Unfinished Adventure. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  11. Begley, M., et al. (1999). Asylum in Ireland: A Public Health Perspective. Dublin: Department of Public Health UCD.Google Scholar
  12. Bloch, A., & Schuster, L. (2005). At the Extremes of Exclusion: Deportation, Detention and Dispersal. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(3), 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bosworth, M., & Guild, M. (2008). Governing Through Migration Control in British. Journal of Criminology, 48, 703–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bourdieu, P. (2014). On the State: Lectures at the College de France 1989–1991 (P. Champagne, R. Lenoir, F. Poupeau, & M.-C. Riviere, Eds.). Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  15. Calavita, K. (2005). Immigrants at the Margins. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conlon, D. (2010). The Ties That Bind: Governmentality, the State and Asylum in Contemporary Ireland. Environment and Planning, 28(1), 95–111.Google Scholar
  17. Conlon, D. (2013). Hungering for Freedom: Asylum-Seeker’s Hunger Strikes; Rethinking Resistance as Counter-Conduct. In D. Moran, N. Gill, & D. Conlon (Eds.), Carceral Spaces: Mobility and Agency in Imprisonment and Migrant Detention (pp. 133–148). Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  18. Cullen, P. (2000). Refugees and Asylum-Seekers in Ireland. Cork: Cork University Press.Google Scholar
  19. De Genova, N. (2010). The Deportation Regime: Sovereignty, Space and the Freedom of Movement. In N. Genova & N. Peutz (Eds.), The Deportation Regime (pp. 33–68). Carolina: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality, Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Dicken, P. (2007). Global Shifts. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Dreyfus, H. (1987). Foucault’s Critique of Psychiatric Medicine. Journal of Philosophy & Medicine, 12(4), 311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elias, N. (2000 [1939]). The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations (Revised ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Elias, N. (2010). The Society of Individuals. The Collected Works of Norbert Elias Volume 10 Revised Edition (University College Dublin Press).Google Scholar
  25. Elias, N., & Scotson, J. (2008/1965). The Established and the Outsiders: Collected Works of Norbert Elias (Vol. 4). Dublin: UCD.Google Scholar
  26. Fanning, B. (2001). Racism and Social Change in the Republic of Ireland. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Fanning, B., O’Connor, D., & Veale, A. (2001). Beyond the Pale: Asylum Seeking Children and Social Exclusion in Ireland. Dublin: Irish Refugee Council.Google Scholar
  28. Faughnan, P., & Woods, M. (2001). Lives on Hold. Dublin: SSRC.Google Scholar
  29. Finn, D. (2011). Ireland on the Turn? Political and Economic Consequences of the Crash. New Left Review, 67(Jan–Feb), 5–39.Google Scholar
  30. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  31. Foucault, M. (1980). Governmentality. In C. Gordon, G. Burchell, & P. Miller (Eds.), Foucault Effect (pp. 87–104). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Foucault, M. (2003). Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the College De France 1975–76. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  33. Fraser, U., & Harvey, C. (Eds.). (2003). Sanctuary in Ireland: Perspectives on Asylum Law and Policy. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.Google Scholar
  34. Garland, D. (1996). The Limits of the Sovereign State: Strategies of Crime Control in Contemporary Society. British Journal of Criminology, 36(4), 445–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Geddes, A. (2001). International Migration and State Sovereignty in an Integrating Europe. International Migration Review, 39(6), 20–42.Google Scholar
  36. Genders, E. (2013). Prisons & Privatization. In A. Dockley & I. Loader (Eds.), The Penal Landscape (pp. 27–48). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Giddens, A. (1985). The Nation-State and Violence. Cambridge, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  38. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  39. Goffman, E. (1991). Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  40. Goldberg, D. (2002). The Racial State. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  41. Gramsci, A. (1973). The National Question. In Q. Hoare & N. Smith (Eds.), Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. London: Lawrence & Wishart.Google Scholar
  42. Harding, R., & Rynne, J. (2016). Private Prisons. In Y. Jewkes, J. Bennett, & B. Crewe (Eds.), Handbook on Prisons (pp. 204–245). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Hirst, P., & Thompson, G. (1996). Globalization in Question. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  45. INIS. (2016). Irish Naturalization and Immigration Service: Immigration Review in Ireland Annual Review 2016. Dublin: INIS.Google Scholar
  46. Irish Refugee Council. (2001). Policy Recommendations on Regional Reception of Asylum Seekers in Ireland. Dublin: Irish Refugee Council.Google Scholar
  47. Irish Refugee Council. (2013). Framing an Alternative Reception System for People Seeking Protection. Dublin: Irish Refugee Council.Google Scholar
  48. Irish Refugee Council. (2016). The Reception and Housing of Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Ireland: Submission to the Housing and Homelessness Committee. Dublin: Irish Refugee Council.Google Scholar
  49. Joppke, C. (1997). Asylum and State Sovereignty: A Comparison of the United States, Germany and Britain. Comparative Political Studies, 30(3), 259–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kearney, A. (2004). Measuring Globalization: Economic Reversals, Forward Momentum. Foreign Affairs, 141, 55–69.Google Scholar
  51. Keogh, D. (1998). Jews in Twentieth Century Ireland: Refugees, Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. Cork: Cork University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Kilcommins, S., O’Donnell, I., O’Sullivan, E., & Vaughan, B. (2004). Crime, Punishment and the Search for Order in Ireland. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.Google Scholar
  53. Kirby, P. (2002). Reinventing Ireland: Culture, Society, & Global Economy. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  54. Krasner, S. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lentin, R. (2015). Asylum Seekers & the Return of the Repressed. Irish Studies Review, 24, 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lentin, R., & McVeigh, R. (2002). Racism and Anti-Racism in Ireland. Belfast: Beyond the Pale.Google Scholar
  57. Lentin, R., & McVeigh, R. (2006). After Optimism: Ireland, Racism & Immigration. Dublin: Metro Eireann.Google Scholar
  58. Loyal, S. (2003). Welcome to the Celtic Ireland. In C. Coulter & S. Coleman (Eds.), The End of Irish History (pp. 74–94). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Loyal, S. (2011). Understanding Immigration in Ireland: State, Capital & Labour in a Global Age. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Luddy, M. (2008). Magdalen Asylums in Ireland, 1880–1930: Welfare, Reform, Incarceration? In I. Brandes & K. Marx-Jaskulski (Eds.), Poor Relief and Charity: Rural Societies in Europe, 1850–1930 (pp. 283–305). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  61. Mac Éinrí, P. (2007). Immigration, Labour Migrants, Asylum Seekers and Refugees. In B. Bartley & R. Kitchin (Eds.), Understanding Contemporary Ireland (pp. 236–248). London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  62. Manandhar, M., Friel, S., Hardy, F., Share, M., & Walsh, O. (2006). Food, Nutrition and Poverty Among Asylum-Seekers in North-West Ireland. Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency.Google Scholar
  63. Mann, M. (1984). The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results. Archives of European Sociology, 25, 185–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mann, M. (1993). The Social Sources of Power: Volume II. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Massey, M., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., & Taylor, E. (1993). Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal. Population and Development Review, 19, 431–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Monbiot, G. (2016). How Did We Get into This Mess? London: Verso.Google Scholar
  67. Morawska, E. (2007). International Migration: Its Various Mechanisms and Different Theories That Try to Explain It. Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers in International Migration and Ethnic Relations (pp. 1–30). Retrieved from http://muep.mau.se/bitstream/handle/2043/5224/WB1%2007%20inlaga_1.pdf.
  68. Mullally, U. (2016). Who Benefits from the System of Direct Provision? Irish Times. Retrieved from http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/una-mullally-who-benefits-from-the-system-of-direct-provision-1.2525821.
  69. NASC. (2008). Hidden Cork: The Perspectives of Asylum Seekers on Direct Provision and the Asylum Legal System. Cork: NASC.Google Scholar
  70. O’Connor, C./FLAC. (2003). Direct Discrimination. Dublin: FLAC Publications.Google Scholar
  71. O’Connor, J. (1995). The Workhouses of Ireland: The Fate of Ireland’s Poor. Dublin: Anvil Books (Children’s Press).Google Scholar
  72. O’Donnell, I., & O’Sullivan, E. (2012). Coercive Confinement in Ireland. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  73. O’Donohue, J. (2000). Law Society Gazette. Dublin: Law Society.Google Scholar
  74. Office of the Refugee Applications Commission (ORAC). (2001). Annual Report 2001. Dublin: ORAC.Google Scholar
  75. Office of the Refugee Applications Commission (ORAC). (2009). Annual Report 2009. Dublin: ORAC.Google Scholar
  76. Office of the Refugee Applications Commission (ORAC). (2016). Annual Report 2015. Dublin: ORAC.Google Scholar
  77. Omni, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial Formation in the US. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  78. Peutz, N., & De Genova, N. (2010). Introduction. In N. De Genova & N. Peutz (Eds.), The Deportation Regime: Sovereignty, Space & Freedom (pp. 1–32). Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Reception and Integration Agency. (2010). Value for Money Report. Dublin: RIA.Google Scholar
  80. Reception and integration Agency. (2016). Annual Report 2015. Dublin: RIA.Google Scholar
  81. Rose, N. (1991). Governing the Soul. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. Ryan, B. (2001, November). The Common Travel Area Between Britain and Ireland. Modern Law Review, 64, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sassen, S. (1994). Losing Control: Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Sayad, A. (1999). Costs and Benefits. In P. Bourdieu et al. (Eds.), Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society (pp. 219–221). Cambridge, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  85. Sayad, A. (2004). The Suffering of the Immigrant. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Schuster, L., & Solomos, J. (2004). Race, Immigration and Asylum: New Labour’s Agenda and Its Consequences. Ethnicities, 4, 267–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Smith, J. (2007). Ireland’s Magdalen Laundries and the Nation’s Architecture of Containment. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Soysal, Y. (1994). The Limits of Citizenship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  89. Tilly, C. (1991). Coercion, Capital & European States. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  90. Torpey, J. (1999). The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship & the State. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wacquant, L. (2010). Crafting the Neoliberal: Workfare, Prisonfare, and Social Insecurity. Sociological Forum, 2, 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Ward, E. (1996). ‘A Big Show-Off to Show What We Could Do’: Ireland and the Hungarian Refugee Crisis of 1956. Irish Studies in International Affairs, 7, 131–141.Google Scholar
  93. Waterford Area Partnership. (2006). The Needs of Asylum Seeker Men Living in Viking House Direct Provision Center. Waterford: Waterford Area Partnership.Google Scholar
  94. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (G. Roth, Ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Loyal
    • 1
  • Stephen Quilley
    • 2
  1. 1.University College DublinDublinIreland
  2. 2.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations