Ireland may lack 'robust' asylum seeker checks over EU database exclusion
Immigration officials in Ireland may not be able to perform robust identity checks and security screening on asylum seekers due to the country's lack of access to key EU security databases, a Government report has warned.
A new implementation plan for the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum - which is due to come into force next year - states that Ireland "may not be able to carry out the most robust identity validation" due to the country's exclusion from the Schengen Area and the related IT border security systems.
The plan prepared for the Government warns of a "concern" that Ireland "may not be able to adequately conduct screening" because it will not have access to the EU's Entry/Exit system, the European Travel Information and Authorisation System, and the EU Visa Information System.
The EU's Entry/Exit system is a new IT system to help member states to manage the EU's external borders. It will be operational in October of this year, and will record the date and place of each entry and exit, facial images and fingerprints of travellers to the EU, and whether an individual has been refused entry to a country.
According to the European Commission, the database is designed to prevent irregular immigration, and identify travellers who have no right to enter, or have exceeded their permitted stay. The system can also identify travellers who are using fake identities or passports, and the information will be used to detect and investigate terrorist offences and other serious crimes.
Access to the system is restricted to countries in the Schengen area, which share information in order to allow the free movement of people between their borders.
The Schengen area includes most EU member states, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Ireland is not a member due to being part of the common travel area with the UK.
Ireland will also be excluded from the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) which will be a new entry requirement for visa-exempt nationals travelling to 30 European countries due to come into effect at the end of next year.
Immigration officials here are also not permitted to access the EU's Visa Information System which records the fingerprints and photographs of people applying for an EU visa.
This system allows officials in the participating member states to compare a visitor's finger scans, and photographs to those held on the database. A mismatch would result in further checks on the travellers identity.
The Government's National Implementation Plan for the Pact on Migration and Asylum warns that without access to these systems, "Ireland may not be able to carry out the most robust identity validation in line with the EU Pact requirements, as it is limited in its access to the full European search portal and Interoperability Framework".
Government officials are now attempting to establish if, and how, Ireland's inability to opt into these three systems will impact on the state's ability to complete all areas of security screening and to receive and share relevant data with other member states.
The Department of Justice told RTÉ's This Week programme that while Ireland will not have access to the entry/exit system, ETIAS and the Visa Information System - the Government has opted into the EuroDac system, which is a fingerprint database for asylum seekers that will be upgraded by June of next year.
It will store official documents and photographs of asylum seekers as well as their first place of application to help decrease secondary movement.
The Department said that while Ireland cannot opt in to the Schengen IT systems - the State intends to legislate nationally to align with its provisions.
It said the State will carry out screening on anybody who enters Ireland irregularly - this will consist of identity checks, health checks, security and criminal screening and gathering fingerprint data for the EuroDac database.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
The Irish firms seen as safe from Trump's planned ‘revenge tax'
Ireland's largest public companies, CRH , Flutter Entertainment and Smurfit Westrock , are on track to be cocooned from the Trump administration's planned controversial 'revenge tax', as tax advisers warn of the potential impact on other Irish businesses and individuals invested in the US. A provision in Donald Trump 's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), known as section 899, would allow the US to impose higher taxes of as much as 20 per cent over time on foreign companies, individuals or investors connected to jurisdictions that impose 'unfair foreign taxes' on US individuals and companies. Specified 'unfair' taxes include the 15 per cent global minimum effective tax regime that Ireland and other EU countries implemented last year on foot of an agreement, reached in 2021, by members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Foreign companies operating in the US that are majority-owned by US investors would not be affected by the special tax, according to the Bill's wording. Dublin-based CRH, Flutter Entertainment and Smurfit Kappa, each of which has major US operations, are all majority-owned by US investors, according to spokespeople for the three. READ MORE Spokesmen for Kingspan and Kerry Group, the next two largest Irish plcs with significant US business, which are believed to be majority-owned by investors outside the US, declined to comment. Companies may dip in and out of scope over time as investor registers evolve. The US House of Representatives passed the OBBBA last month. A Senate Republican version of the Bill, published on Monday, also includes the revenge tax, even if it proposes that enforcement is delayed by a year until 2027. The Senate version is set to be voted on by July 4th. 'If the provisions are enacted and commenced, it will suddenly become more expensive for an Irish company to have a presence in the US,' said Cormac Kelleher, an international tax partner with Forvis Mazars Ireland. 'It could also cause Irish companies planning to set up a business in the US to think twice – and maybe to look at alternative markets. Still, others might just have to take the tax hit, if the US is a very important market strategically for them.' Section 899 would increase the rate of US tax imposed on companies and investors from what the Senate version calls 'offending foreign countries' by 5 percentage points per year, up to a maximum increase of 20 points above the statutory rate. The surcharges would apply to areas including withholding taxes on dividends, royalties and interest as well as income tax on US business. While the Senate version specifies interest on US bonds would be exempt – providing relief for overseas investors in the country's $36.2 trillion (€31.4 trillion) government debt market – European investors in dividend-distributing US companies stand to be affected. Capital gains on investments are not included in this new tax plan. 'It is likely too early at this point for individuals to be able to get a clear picture of how the rules might affect Irish individuals that have US investments,' said Harry Harrison, a tax partner with PwC Ireland. 'Individuals holding investments in US stocks should talk to their tax advisers about the potential impacts, but bear in mind it will take time for the companies they have invested in to figure out to what extent they will be affected, and to make this information available to the market.' The Global Business Alliance lobby group estimates that Section 899 could cost the US 700,000 jobs over time, reduce gross domestic product by $100 billion annually, and negatively impact the value of US assets.
Irish Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Irish Daily Mirror
New RPZ rules mean you'll soon be paying even more rent. That's the whole point
It's amazing how the Government can oversee a decade-long housing crisis and still pretend they want to solve it. They engineered it, created it and take active steps to ensure it keeps on going. Look at the rush to restrict rent caps, the only measure preventing total housing chaos. Yet this reckless intervention is being framed as a national rollout of protections for renters - the exact opposite of what it is. They're calling it a 'reform' of the Rent Pressure Zones, which were reluctantly brought in in 2016 and only after runaway rents had reached a peak. Limiting rents to a 2 per cent annual hike was absolutely necessary to stop the greed. But these changes to RPZs will leave it toothless, and pile more pain on renters. The express purpose is to make rents higher so the market is "attractive" to investors. The only thing investors find attractive is money. Now, tenants are trapped into higher rents on both sides - forced to pay more if they stay long-term in the same place, or, if they move to a new place. Do I stay or do I go? Either way, you'll be stiffed for the highest rent possible. Landlords will be able to 'reset' rents after six years for sitting tenants; and they can reset them too, for new tenants. Government is determined to make the market more profitable for the investors they bend over for. This is being done on the backs of renters already stuck paying extortionate average rents of €2,000 nationally and €2,500 in cities. The reform - rushed into legislation on Friday - will ensure more rent hikes, sparking ever-upwards market rates. Sinn Fein's Eoin O Broin described it as "the deathknell of rent pressure zones as we know them'. The reason it's being done is to drive rents up. Taoiseach Micheal Martin and Housing Minister James Browne have stated this. They want an Ireland of higher rents. Martin said it was about enabling a 'stable environment in which to invest'. James Browne said: "Rents may go up." May? Will. If they don't go up, the investors won't invest. Our leaders claim it will be more costly in the short term, but lead to more supply in the long term. What use is that to tenants? That's punishing renters to pander to investors. It's also an empty pledge, as such investors deliver small volumes of very expensive rental in affluent parts of Dublin and Cork - helping just the chosen few. It goes against the Housing Commission advice, which recommended RPZs stay in place while an alternative system of rent controls is formulated. The Central Bank's Robert Kelly said the changes will 'be painful for renters'. He said: 'It's likely to be positive in terms of the level of supply, as they have rent resets within them. But the pain felt by households is not even, due to the housing crisis'. Good news for the investor - bad news for the renter. The Irish Mirror's Crime Writers Michael O'Toole and Paul Healy are writing a new weekly newsletter called Crime Ireland. Click here to sign up and get it delivered to your inbox every week Mike Allen from Focus Ireland called it 'a solution that says 'we can deliver more housing, but you won't be able to afford to live in it'. That's not a solution.' I was at the Raise the Roof rally outside the Dail on Tuesday. I've been attending such protests since 2015, usually with my son Luc and his friend Filip. I've seen them grow from little boys into young men, over the time. They're now taller than Eoin O Broin, who they first met at these protests when they were six or seven. And yet it is still going on. Childhoods continue to be lost to it. This latest move makes it clear the crisis is actually profit-driven policy. At the rally, Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald said they had gathered at the rally to call out the Government's "spoof and outright lies". TD Paul Murphy correctly called it a 'manufactured crisis' that 'transfers wealth from workers to a tiny few at the top, the corporate landlords and developers'. Deputy Rory Hearne said it is 'clearly government policy to have a permanent housing crisis'. For a government to do that to its own people is, in my view, tantamount to treason.
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
Europe without Borders: a detailed history of the Schengen system - Skilful account of a tense balancing of freedoms
Europe without Borders, A History Author : Isaac Stanley-Becker ISBN-13 : 978-0691261768 Publisher : Princeton University Press Guideline Price : £30 The Schengen system of free movement across borders for nationals of its 29 member-states symbolises the promise of liberal internationalism in Europe after its long history of conflicts and war. Originating in an interstate treaty signed in 1985 between France, West Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands, it went public in 1990 after intense negotiation between state officials just after the Berlin Wall fell. Over the following decades it embraced most states and more than 450 million people. Ireland and Cyprus are its only EU non-members. Ireland preferred to maintain the similar Common Travel Area with Britain, which never joined Schengen. This book by a US journalist and academic is a detailed history of how the Schengen system was created. Based on extensive archival research it has an acute sense of the system's humanist and cosmopolitan promise alongside market and border limits. READ MORE It breaks new ground by revealing the abiding tensions in Schengen's construction and operation: between freedom of movement for people and citizens compared with market freedom for capital and workers – and between the rights conferred on nationals of its member-states and strict restrictions on outsiders. Stanley-Becker skilfully relates these tensions to the politics of immigration in Europe after decolonisation. Schengen 'was a laboratory of free movement always meant to join Euro-nationalist rules of exclusion with neoliberal principles of market freedom', he writes. Two contrasting protests frame his study: one by lorry drivers against long border queues, which pushed Helmut Kohl and François Mitterrand into their Saarbrucken initiative in 1984 to ease Franco-German border controls by sharing them with other countries, in the name of a Citizen's Europe. And then, in 1996 and after, came protests by sans-papiers immigrants in favour of free movement as a human right. The contrast is inherent in the racial hierarchies that defined nationals of these former colonies as 'undesirables' in secret police lists. The book is strong on the legal and philosophical history and political arguments surrounding these Schengen rights, much less so on the huge everyday freedoms they gave to the many European citizens and workers who have benefitted from them and value them highly. These hard-won freedoms are now severely challenged by the new right-wing politics of immigration and identity on the continent.
