The In-Between Spaces of Asylum and

Migration: A Participatory Visual

Approach 1st ed. 2020 Edition Zoë
O’Reilly
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-in-between-spaces-of-asylum-and-migration-a-pa
rticipatory-visual-approach-1st-ed-2020-edition-zoe-oreilly/
The In-Between
Spaces of Asylum
and Migration
A Participatory Visual
Approach
Zoë O’Reilly
The In-Between Spaces of Asylum and Migration
 Zoë O’Reilly

The In-Between
Spaces of Asylum
and Migration
A Participatory Visual Approach
Zoë O’Reilly
Department of Geography
Maynooth University
Dublin, Ireland

ISBN 978-3-030-29170-9 ISBN 978-3-030-29171-6 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29171-6

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by
similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
This book is dedicated to all the people whose lives are on hold in the Direct
Provision system and other spaces on, between and within borders.
 Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Olga Jubany, the book series editor, and the editorial
and production teams for Palgrave Macmillan, including Poppy Hull
and Beth Farrow.
The research that forms the basis of this book was funded by the
National Institute for Regional and Spatial Analysis (NIRSA) at
Maynooth University and the Irish Social Sciences Platform (ISSP) as
part of their doctoral research programme.
I would like to thank several people for very helpful and insight-
ful feedback on early drafts of this book, including Professor Mary
Gilmartin, Dr. Gavan Titley, Dr. Anthony Haughey, Dr. Cian
O’Callaghan, Dr. Liam Thornton and Dr. Alan Grossman, as well as the
anonymous reviewers of the book.
I am grateful to Dr. Anthony Haughey and Dr. Alan Grossman at the
Centre for Socially Engaged Practice-Based Research at TU Dublin for
support and space to write, and to Vukasin Nedeljkovic for kind per-
mission to use maps from the ‘Asylum Archive’.

vii
viii      Acknowledgements

Many thanks are due also for help and support in various ways
to Margaret Burns, Rory O’Neill, Aoife Reilly, Prof. Karen Till,
Prof. Gerry Kearns; to the O’Reilly family, and to Alain Servant and
Solomon O’Reilly Servant.
Finally, I am enormously grateful to the participants of this research
project, whom it was a pleasure to work with and to get to know, and
without whom this book would not exist. For their participation, ideas
and enthusiasm, and for their endless courage and humour in the face
of an extremely challenging situation.
 Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Asylum and Direct Provision in Ireland 19

3 The Politics and Practice of Exclusion 57

4 The Politics and Practice of Research 95

5 Liminality 137

6 Resisting Liminality: Connectedness, Belonging

and Integration 191

7 Beyond the Space of the Project: The Politics

of Representation and Contributions to Knowledge 227

ix
x      Contents

Appendix 253

Bibliography 275

Index 299
 List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Number of applications for refugee status to

ORAC/IPO per year from 1991 to end of
September 2018 (Source RIA Monthly Report,
October 2018) 21
Fig. 2.2 RIA residents by county, end September 2018
(Source RIA Monthly Statistics Report, September
2018) 27
Fig. 2.3 Direct Provision centres in Ireland open as
of July 2018 marked in red (Source Asylum
Archive [Nedeljkovic 2018]) 28
Fig. 2.4 Direct Provision centres in Dublin open as
of July 2018 marked in red (Source Asylum
Archive [Nedeljkovic 2018]) 29
Fig. 2.5 Numbers of people in the system and
waitingtimes (Source Department of Justice
and Equality, http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/
Pages/PQ-24-07-2018-1208) 31
Fig. 2.6 Duration of stay of residents in Direct Provision
accommodation in September 2018 (Source RIA
Monthly Statistics Report, September 2018) 31
Fig. 5.1 Hotel 143

xi
xii      List of Figures

Fig. 5.2 Number 145

Fig. 5.3 Stuck in a box 148
Fig. 5.4 View from the window 149
Fig. 5.5 Freedom 150
Fig. 5.6 Birds 150
Fig. 5.7 Daily ordeal 151
Fig. 5.8 Corridor 1 152
Fig. 5.9 Corridor 2 153
Fig. 5.10 Corridor 3 154
Fig. 5.11 Corridor 4 154
Fig. 5.12 Corridor 5 155
Fig. 5.13 Corridor 6 156
Fig. 5.14 Corridors 158
Fig. 5.15 CCTV 159
Fig. 5.16 Garda station 160
Fig. 5.17 Eating area 162
Fig. 5.18 Privacy 163
Figs. 5.19 and 5.20 Same old, same old! 165
Fig. 5.21 Home 166
Fig. 5.22 Birthday 168
Fig. 5.23 Darkness and light 172
Fig. 5.24 Packed suitcases 173
Fig. 6.1 Bridge 1 203
Fig. 6.2 Bridge 2 203
Fig. 6.3 Landmark 204
Figs. 6.4 and 6.5 Swan 206
Fig. 6.6 Jim Larkin 206
Fig. 6.7 Historic building 207
Fig. 6.8 Nature 208
Fig. 6.9 Banana shoes 212
Fig. 6.10 Church 214
Fig. 6.11 Bible 215
Fig. 6.12 Saint Patrick’s Day 217
 1
Introduction

1.1 Direct Provision in Ireland and the Global

Politics of Exclusion
In September 2018,1 there were 5955 people living in ­accommodation
centres all over Ireland (Reception and Integration Agency (RIA)
September 2018)—former hotels, hostels, army barracks2 and caravan
parks. This number includes not only people who were waiting for their
claims to be processed, but also those who have been granted status but are
unable to leave due to lack of housing. Many of these people have escaped
torture and persecution, or have run from life-threatening situations in
order to attempt to create better lives for themselves and their families.
41% of these (2441 people) (RIA September 2018) were waiting for over
two years, and many for longer: six, seven, eight years for some. Reduced to

1The latest monthly statistics report on Direct Provision in Ireland provided by the Reception and

Integration Agency was published in September 2018. They have stopped making these monthly
statistics available since then.
2In July 2018, the number of people who had been granted asylum in Ireland but remained in

Direct Provision centres due to lack of housing stood at nearly 600 (Deegan 2018). In September
2019, this number had risen to close to 900 (Burns 2019).

© The Author(s) 2020 1

Z. O’Reilly, The In-Between Spaces of Asylum and Migration,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29171-6_1
2    
Z. O’Reilly

‘sixty nine numbers’3 instead of names, they wait in an institutional limbo

for a final decision on their claims. Fed and housed through the Direct
Provision system, these people are kept on the margins of society, unable
(until 2018) to access employment or for most, third-level education, and
forced to live a ‘life without choice’ (Nic Giolla Choille 2010). They are
simultaneously inside and outside: inside a system which controls their
everyday life and decisions, and yet kept outside of mainstream society in
Ireland, prevented from integrating through a series of deliberate measures.
Direct Provision centres in Ireland have been described as ‘total insti-
tutions’ by scholars, drawing on Goffman (Loyal 2011; Nedeljkovic
2018). They are the ultimate expression of ‘hostipitality’, Derrida’s inter-
twining of ‘hospitality’ and ‘hostility’, based on their shared Latin root,
evoking the idea of the undesirable guest, received with a hospitality
which is lined with barely concealed hostility (Derrida 2000). Many
people living in the Direct Provision system are consumed by the uncer-
tainty and boredom of this in-between institutional existence, and for
many, this is coupled with loss, trauma and the sense of dislocation and
confusion that accompanies being uprooted suddenly from one’s place
and life and being flung headlong into an alien world, as evoked by
John Berger’s description of the experience of migration:

Emigrer signifie toujours démanteler le centre du monde, et l’aménager dans

un monde confus, désorganise et fragmentaire. (Berger 1985: unpaginated)
[To migrate always means to dismantle the centre of the world and to rec-
reate it in a confusing, disorganized and fragmented world—my translation]

Mental illness and depression are rife (Chineyre 2011; Ní Raghallaigh

et al. 2016; Murphy et al. 2018; Nwachukwu et al. 2009; Stapleton
2012), the uncertainty exacerbated by shared and often cramped living
accommodation, often with strangers, being unable to cook or to choose
when to eat and being unable to make the choices and decisions that most
people in Ireland take for granted. Long periods of waiting for claims to
be processed lead not only to an agonizing and wasted existence for those

3On application for asylum in Ireland, applicants are provided with a reference number in the for-

mat 69/---/--. These are often referred to as ‘69 numbers’.

 1 Introduction    
3

waiting, but to enormous costs for the Irish state, which pays private com-
panies to accommodate and cater for these people, at large profit.
Direct Provision is the main system in Ireland which accommodates
people seeking asylum. Established in November 1999 as an ‘emergency
measure’ to deal with the increasing numbers of people seeking asylum at
this time, the system was implemented in April 2000 and was originally
designed to accommodate people for up to six months while their claims
were being processed. Twenty years later, it is still the main system in place.
Direct Provision and the politics of exclusion in Ireland do not stand
alone. They are part of a broader global picture of exclusion of certain cat-
egories of migrant deemed disposable, surplus. They are part of a global
politics of securitization and criminalization of certain categories of
migrant, an increasing ‘necropolitics’ (Mbembe 2003) which dictates who
may live and who may die, whose lives are valid and worth saving, and
whose are surplus, disposable. Direct Provision is also part of an increas-
ing global network of camps, detention centres, holding centres and var-
ious other spaces located on, between and within borders where people
seeking protection, safety and better lives are forced to wait for varying
amounts of time, their lives on hold while they wait for decisions from
outside, above. While spaces of waiting fill out border zones, increasingly
such spaces are also found within borders, more often than not hidden
from the public eye. Such spaces include detention or holding centres
where people are held and various forms of accommodation centres where
people can come and go with limited freedoms, such as Direct Provision
centres, reception centres and camps. What is common between them is
that they are spaces where movement is halted and people wait and lives
are on hold and freedom is curtailed to varying extents. Camps, holding
centres, detention centres and Direct Provision centres are concrete and
spatial manifestations of the politics of exclusion. They are symbolic of
intentional exclusion, disempowerment and control. However, they may
also be spaces of resistance, solidarity and strength, the people living
within them creating networks, accessing grassroots resources and contin-
uing to be active agents of their own lives in whatever ways they can.
Representations of asylum seekers in mainstream Irish media have
fluctuated between invisibility, not representing these people sufficiently
or at all, and ‘hypervisibility’ (Tyler 2006), disproportionate emphasis
4    
Z. O’Reilly

on asylum seekers, representing them as either victim or threat, and

often using alarmist or sensationalist language. While media coverage of
Direct Provision and migration to Ireland more generally has improved
in recent years, and asylum seekers themselves have become more vocal
through processes of self-organization, the voices of asylum seekers are
still insufficiently heard in the public realm in Ireland.

1.2 Research in Direct Provision

Between March and July 2010, I coordinated a collaborative visual project
with a group of ten people seeking asylum and living in a Direct Provision
centre in Ireland. The participants at the time of the project were living
in a Direct Provision centre in a medium-sized town.4 They had placed
claims for asylum with the Minister of Justice and Equality and were wait-
ing for a final answer on those claims, or on appeals against the rejection of
those claims.5 The aims of this research were, firstly, to work collaboratively
and creatively with people seeking asylum to explore and better understand
the everyday subjective experiences of living in Direct Provision and nego-
tiating the asylum system in Ireland; and secondly, to use the work created
through this collaborative process to represent these experiences in ways
which might challenge dominant representations and stereotypes, and
to contribute to bringing alternative voices on issues around the asylum
system into the public realm. Through working collaboratively with asy-
lum seekers living in the Direct Provision system, I aimed to create better
understandings of the experiences of living in the ‘semi-permanent tempo-
rariness’ (Bailey et al. 2002: 125) that this system has come to entail, and
of the experiences of living with uncertainty on an everyday basis.
The project aimed to create narratives and representations along-
side the people involved in the project which could act as ‘counter-
narratives’ to mainstream or stereotypical representations, opening a

4For confidentiality purposes, the name of the town, as well as the name of the Direct Provision

centre itself, are not used throughout this book.

5The different stages of the process of seeking asylum in Ireland, along with the various options

for those whose claim is rejected at first instance, are dealt with in detail in Chapter 2.
 1 Introduction    
5

space for the voices of those involved to be heard in the public realm.
I sought to explore the experiences of asylum seekers in a way that would
look behind or beyond the imposed label or category; rather than sim-
ply examining the category of ‘asylum seeker’ and the issues related to it,
the project sought to look behind the ‘convenient images’ (Wood 1985,
cited in Zetter 1991: 44) that a label creates. Working collaboratively and
in a participatory way may help to counter the non-participatory (Zetter
1991) and imposed nature of labels. By working with asylum seekers
in Ireland in a participatory and transparent way and finding ways to
communicate their experiences to broader audiences, both visually and
verbally, the work sought to expose the everyday lived realities of the con-
tradictory and non-transparent processes which keep people who have a
legal right to seek protection in Ireland in a state of limbo and economic,
cultural and geographical exclusion for long periods of time.
Central to this work is the importance of exploring the microl-
ogy of lived subjective experience and everyday life in order to better
understand how approaches to keeping out the ‘other’ are manifested
and experienced on the ground and in specific places and contexts.
Simplistic or homogenizing representations can ignore the complexity
of individual lives and subjectivities, as well as differences in culture,
background and education. Even if they are refugee-centred in their
approach, such representations may serve to create more emphasis on
the label of asylum seeker, stripping asylum seekers of individual iden-
tities and complexities of experience, as well as the ways in which peo-
ple seeking asylum negotiate imposed labels. As anthropologist Michael
Jackson asks:

To what extent do we, in the countries of immigration, unwittingly

reduce refugees to objects, ciphers and categories in the way we talk and
write about them, in roughly the same way that indifferent bureaucracies
and institutional forces strip away the rights of refugees to speak and act
in worlds of their own making? (2002: 80)

While it is important to remain aware that the act of focusing a study

on asylum seekers and the issues concerning them does to a certain
extent place focus on the category or label and perhaps through this
6    
Z. O’Reilly

reinforce it, by focusing on everyday subjective experience and the

micro-geographies of asylum, this study sought as far as possible to look
behind that label to opinions and experiences of asylum seekers them-
selves, and to the micrology, the ‘stuff of everyday life’ (Mahler 1999:
713) and experience, in order to move away from homogenizing and
categorizing representations and labels. Working with the voices of
asylum seekers themselves, and focusing on lived experience, can chal-
lenge not only widely held stereotypes, but also the political category of
‘asylum seeker’ in itself, exposing it as simply that: a political category
rather than a ‘type’ of person.
For approximately four months, the eight participants who remained
until the end of the project and I collaborated to create a body of work
consisting of images, texts and digital stories, stemming from their
experiences of living in the Direct Provision system, but encompassing
beyond this, their daily lives, experiences of being in Ireland, thoughts,
opinions, dreams and impressions. The collaborative project finished
with the creation of an exhibition and a book in 2012 (see Appendix),
entitled New Bridges: Experiences of Seeking Asylum in Ireland. Both the
‘outcomes’ of the collaborative project, in terms of the images, texts and
stories, and the consequent exhibition and book, and the processes of
creating these ‘outcomes’ and representing them in the public realm,
reveal various aspects of the experiences of the participants of the Direct
Provision system. They also reveal how the ‘politics of exclusion’ is lived,
experienced and negotiated on an everyday basis by a particular group
of people in a specific place, time and context.

1.3 Writing and the Politics of Research

The work was collaborative and process-based. While I began the project
with some clear approaches regarding method, I wanted the work to be as
collaborative as possible, allowing the processes to emerge from the encoun-
ter between myself, the researcher, and the participants. The fieldwork was
often messy, with unexpected events, some small, some more significant.
The original aims of the project were constantly challenged and made
ambiguous throughout the course of the project, leading me to question
 1 Introduction    
7

and rethink my approaches, both methodological and theoretical.

Anthropologist James Clifford asks of ethnographic research: ‘How is
unruly experience transformed into an authoritative written account?’
(1988: 25). Tying together the politics of representation and of research
are the challenges of rendering the complexities of both collaborative
creative research and of experience into a coherent narrative.
The realization for me during the collaborative project that the
processes themselves, and the lived experiences of the project itself, were
as important as the material outcomes (photographs, texts, stories) was
an important step in making sense of the work we were doing. This also
became important retrospectively in the process of attempting to under-
stand the experiences of the participants of living in Direct Provision
and to narrate and (re)present these experiences in a written account.
This realization was influenced by writings on participatory research and
collaborative art approaches such as dialogical and relational art, which
focus on ‘collaborative encounters and conversations’ (Kester 2004: 1)
rather than solely on the outcomes of the research or the object of art.
In order to show the processual approach of the work within the writ-
ten text, as well as the importance of this approach, I expose the pro-
cesses as far as possible, revealing both the processes and the messiness
of these, rather than hiding them to create a sanitized ‘tidy’ account.
Through revealing the processes of research, it is possible to explore
what they in turn reveal about the experiences of the participants and
the politics of research itself. Rather than seeing the often difficult pro-
cesses and ‘events’ which occurred throughout the project as the fail-
ure of the research to go smoothly, I instead explore what these events
reveal about the ongoing experiences of the participants, and use them
to contextualize these in a very real and immediate way. Exploring and
revealing the processes of research also reveals a ‘fluidity’ in the mean-
ing of the images created. Rather than being fixed, meaning instead was
liable to change for the participants according to situation, context and
potential audience. Again, rather than seeing the lack of fixed meaning
as an obstacle to the research, I instead make this an integral part of
the research outcomes. I look at the role of audience and potential audi-
ences and how these can affect meaning; and consequently how they
can affect research and the knowledge which is created from research.
8    
Z. O’Reilly

The theorization of the work, similarly, was processual and emergent.

Another challenge in how to turn the research into a coherent account
was the question of how to theorize and create a coherent account of
the complexity of experience of participants without being reductive or
imposing meaning from the outside. Alongside a methodology which
was based on meaning emerging from the encounter, similarly, concep-
tualizing the work emerged as a gradual process, taking place both dur-
ing and after the collaborative part of the project. A series of paradoxes
or ‘in-betweens’ began to emerge through the processes of the project
and the work created with the participants. Their experiences, and the
Direct Provision system itself, seemed to be located somewhere between
inside and outside, between citizenship and non-citizenship, between
hospitality and hostility, between place and non-place. A gradual sense
of the ‘in-between-ness’ of Direct Provision, and the experiences of this,
and of how to conceptualize these in-betweens, emerged while work-
ing in the Direct Provision centre with the participants and being in the
centre, while creating the body of image-text with participants, develop-
ing together themes to work with, and describing and creating meaning
from the images, as well as from exploring the work we had created after
the project had finished. Exploring the concept of ‘liminality’ (Turner
1967), and in particular developing the idea of ‘ontological liminality’,
helped to bring these various ‘in-betweens’ together, expanding the idea
of the in-between-ness of Direct Provision, and the in-between existence
of those who live within this system. Exploring the intertwined nature
of liminality and the ‘microphysics of power’ (Foucault 1979) allowed
for a deeper understanding of how architectures of power play out in
everyday lives, bodies and existence in this context. Conceptualizing
the work thus emerged from both the material and the processes of the
project. I attempt to show the processes of creating meaning, and how
meaning can be fluid and subjective rather than fixed. The lived experi-
ence of the project meant that I too experienced (albeit from a very dif-
ferent position) the control and surveillance inherent in the system, and
the daily fear and angst of living within it. Simultaneously, the images,
texts and stories which gradually emerged through the project also
express aspects of the experiences and life worlds of the participants as
 1 Introduction    
9

they waited for their cases to be processed in a space between an often

traumatic past and an uncertain and unplannable future.
The work straddles the border between academia and activism, a
publicly engaged piece of research. I came to the project with certain
biases and preconceived ideas. I wanted to work directly with people
seeking asylum and living in the Direct Provision system, and to find,
with them, alternative ways to have their voices heard and to contrib-
ute towards dispelling the myths around them through alternative rep-
resentations. My position from the start has been one of deliberately
attempting to counter a ‘narrative of negativity’ (Rotas 2006: 51) and to
stand in solidarity with them through the work around refugees and asy-
lum seekers as ‘bogus’, and burdens on society. The way and the extent in
which the work enters the public sphere is also part of crossing the bor-
der between activism and academia and it is important that the work in
its various forms is seen and read by a broad public.
I am a situated observer, no matter how collaborative this research
has been in its approach. While the photographs and the texts are cre-
ated by the people involved, they are still mediated by me: I present
them in the writing, and I frame them. I need to be constantly aware
then of my authorial voice, my ‘situatedness’, throughout the process of
framing this work. However, this awareness of my own voice and situat-
edness should not take over the voices of those I am working with. This
is where the ‘modest witness’ is important, in Haraway’s terms:

… about telling the truth, giving reliable testimony, guaranteeing impor-

tant things, providing good enough grounding – while eschewing the
addictive narcotic of transcendental foundations – to enable compelling
belief and collective action. (Haraway 1997: 22)

Despite the collaborative nature of the work, in its processes of creation,

as well as in the public representations of the work, and the focus on
foregrounding the voices and images of the participants, it is important
to acknowledge that the presentation of the work in these pages is mine,
a certain version of reality. The picture I give of the asylum system is the
one that I have experienced, albeit seen largely through the eyes of the
people I have worked with, one reality among many, pieced together
10    
Z. O’Reilly

here in a particular way. The ways in which the participants presented

their worlds to me was influenced by the ways in which I interacted
with them, and the ways in which I directed conversations and themes,
making me a mediator in the participatory process. However, by con-
stantly questioning and exposing my own role in this process, and by
incorporating the voices of the participants as far as possible, I attempt
to acknowledge and expose the performative nature of method, and
the coexistence of different versions of reality and possible tensions between
these, thus drawing attention to the politics of research.
The writing is the exploration of a journey to try to understand the
experiences of living in the Direct Provision system and to communi-
cate that understanding beyond myself and those I have worked with.
In some ways, people seeking asylum in Ireland can be seen as voiceless.
Asylum seekers are actively hidden from mainstream society through
policies and architectures of exclusion. This exclusion creates myths
which are not dispelled for the most part by those in authority or by
mainstream media, and which are often expanded by the lack of contact
those believing or spreading the myths have with people seeking asy-
lum. This serves to further exclude asylum seekers, and further diminish
possibilities for meaningful engagement and integration. But it is also
important to acknowledge that many asylum seekers are also far from
voiceless, and would not see themselves as so, and do find ways to have
their voices heard, to resist, negotiate and challenge imposed liminal-
ity and exclusion, and to create belongings and attachments in Ireland,
despite a system which in many ways serves to prevent this.

1.4 Documenting Everyday Experience

Policies, labels and practices of discrimination and exclusion, as well as
representations of asylum seekers and refugees as a threat to society or
as voiceless victims, are not abstract; they have direct effects on peo-
ple’s everyday lives, well-being and even survival. Similarly, liminality
and in-between-ness are not simply abstract concepts, but encom-
pass a set of very real experiences in the everyday lives of real people.
Broad understandings and analyses of issues surrounding asylum, and
 1 Introduction    
11

interrogations of particular policies, need to be looked at in tandem

with their effects on the ground, through the experiences of those sub-
jected to them and the everyday lives and spaces which are created and
affected by them.
In 2007, Harindranath pointed to an ‘acute lack of an engagement,
particularly in official and government discourse, but also in academic
research, with the everyday experience of refugee communities’ (2007:
138). Since then, there has been an increase in studies which focus on
the everyday lived experiences of asylum seekers (for example Conlon
2011; Ghorashi et al. 2018; Kobelinsky 2010; Mountz 2011; O’Neill
2010; O’Reilly 2018; Refugee Rights Europe 2016, 2017, 2018).
O’Neill and Harindranath state that better ‘understanding’ of the lived
experiences, lived cultures of exile, displacement and belonging feeds
into cultural politics and praxis, and may help processes of integration
and social justice (O’Neill and Harindranath 2006: 41). There is a grow-
ing interest in stories and narrative as a way of understanding experience
(Eastmond 2007; O’Neill and Harindranath 2006; see also Dona 2007).
O’Neill and Harindranath, after Horrocks et al. (2003), tell us that
‘there is an acceptance of the need to look at how people actually live
and make sense of their lives’ (O’Neill and Harindranath 2006: 42). In
‘The Art of Listening’ (2007), Back emphasizes the importance of listen-
ing to and recuperating stories of the everyday and the seemingly unim-
portant details, as well as the stories of those who often remain nameless.
The experience of seeking asylum in a foreign country can be confus-
ing, frustrating and damaging to mental and physical health. The small
details, or ‘micrology’ (O’Neill 2008), of everyday lived experience, both
negative and positive, told from the perspective of those living them and
placed in their social, political and cultural contexts, can contribute to a
fuller understanding of asylum, and of the societies and places we live in.
Working with and alongside people seeking asylum is an important
part not only of highlighting how state policies of fragmentation of
labels and bureaucratization of the refugee experience, as well as pol-
icies of marginalization, dispersal, detention and incarceration mani-
fest on the ground and are experienced by those subjected to them, but
also of ‘rehumanising’ people seeking asylum, moving away from mass
narratives which distance and homogenize and seeking to understand
12    
Z. O’Reilly

the complexities and individual people and experiences which lie

behind them.
This piece of work is based on interdisciplinary, ethnographic, prac-
tice-based research, documenting my attempt to better understand,
and to contribute towards creating better public understandings of, the
experiences of asylum seekers in Ireland, as well as to find ways to com-
municate these understandings through working with people seeking
asylum through a collaborative, photography-based project. The work
seeks to add to literature on the subjective experiences of migration,
expanding in particular understandings of the liminal spaces created
through the politics of exclusion and how these spaces are experienced,
lived and negotiated on an everyday basis by those waiting within them.
Methodologically, the work adds to the small but growing body of lit-
erature in the social sciences on participatory visual methodologies.
Through a critical interrogation of the methodology used here, I seek
to expand understandings of how creative and visual methodologies can
be used as a means of working collaboratively with research subjects in
order to provide insight and understanding into subjective experience
and into the nature of research itself. In addition to this, the work seeks
to challenge narrow representations of asylum seekers by creating alter-
native representations alongside asylum seekers themselves, and thus
bring alternative voices and representations into the public realm. The
following chapters document the journey of this research project.

1.5 Structure of the Book

The book is divided into seven chapters. Chapters 2 and 3 deal with
‘The Politics of Asylum’, providing the context and theoretical approach
of the work and placing Ireland in a broader international context.
Chapter 2, ‘Asylum and Direct Provision in Ireland’, examines the
asylum system in Ireland in detail, with particular attention on Direct
Provision. It examines Ireland’s shift from a country of net emigration
to one of immigration and the history of Ireland’s relationship to refu-
gees in relation to this. It then turns specifically to the establishment of
the Direct Provision system in 1999 and the relationship of this system
to a changing country in the twenty years of its existence.
 1 Introduction    
13

Chapter 3, ‘The Politics and Practice of Exclusion’, places Ireland in a

broader international context, both empirically and theoretically. Direct
Provision centres are part of a broader network of liminal spaces, situ-
ated between and within borders, and created by a global politics of exclu-
sion. Drawing on the work of Agamben and Derrida among others, I
create a conceptual framework for understanding the Direct Provision sys-
tem in a global context. I also look at various mechanisms of exclusion of
the unwanted ‘other’, leading to immobility increasingly becoming a part of
mobility for certain categories of migrant, and the liminal spaces which facil-
itate or are created through this. As waiting and immobility become increas-
ingly part of mobility for many migrants, I argue for the importance of
creating deeper understandings of the everyday experiences of liminal spaces.
Chapter 4 focuses on the politics and practice of the research itself.
This chapter outlines the methodological approach to the research, the
processes of planning and structuring the collaborative project and
describes how the project unfolded with the participants. I examine three
areas relevant to this particular research, but also relevant more broadly
to researchers and practitioners working with vulnerable or marginalised
groups, as well as working in places which are hidden or closed off from
the public: I look firstly at participatory research; then at the processes of
working visually; finally I look at issues of power, ethics and representa-
tion: what does it mean to represent another person or other people, and
what is the potential damage of doing this? I explore issues around partic-
ipation, participatory research and participatory art, vulnerability, and the
potential of an ‘aesthetics of injury’ (Salverson 2001: 123) that can occur
from this, relating these issues to the particular context of this research.
Chapters 5 and 6 explore different aspects of the everyday experi-
ences of asylum seekers in Direct Provision, as they emerged through
the images and texts created during the project, as well as from the dis-
cussions surrounding the creation of this material.
Chapter 5, ‘Liminality’, explores three aspects of liminality, as they
emerged from this research: spatial, temporal and ontological. The
chapter firstly traces the spatial and temporal aspects of a liminal exist-
ence in this context, the ways in which the space of the Direct Provision
centre itself, and an imposed state of ‘permanent temporariness’, are
lived and negotiated on an everyday basis. I then add a further aspect
in the form of what I have called ‘ontological liminality’, a means
14    
Z. O’Reilly

of expressing the ways in which a chronic sense of fear, insecurity, invisi-

bility and a highly controlled existence are lived and internalized.
Chapter 6, ‘Resisting Liminality: Connectedness, Belonging and
Integration’, explores the various forms of connectedness, belonging and
integration into mainstream society of people living in Direct Provision.
Despite the imposition of a liminal existence, an enforced state of ‘in-­
between-ness’, people seeking asylum do not simply passively accept this
existence, but negotiate it in various ways through their everyday lives
and practices. Looking at the actual experiences of liminality and exclu-
sion, the ‘intimacies of exclusion’ (Mountz 2011: 382), in liminal sites
also reveals various forms of belonging, involvement and connection
with places and people in the locations where asylum seekers find them-
selves, through, for example, social interactions and friendships, religious
involvements, activism and voluntary work. While these may be tenuous,
in that they are tainted with uncertainty and could be torn away at any
moment, these belongings and attachments are important and perhaps
overlooked in attempts to understand experiences of liminality, isolation
and exclusion. This chapter explores these unofficial and un-encouraged
forms of integration and belonging, important reminders that people in
liminal situations are also non-passive agents of change.
Chapter 7, ‘Beyond the Space of the Project: The Politics of
Representation and Contributions to Knowledge’, explores the ways in
which the original aims of the research were challenged, questioned and
made ambiguous through the processes of the research, and in particular
the processes of exhibiting the material to broader audiences. I also look
at what the co-created work, as well as the processes of creation and rep-
resentation of this work, reveal about the experiences of the participants
of living in the Direct Provision system. I look at the implications of this
research, both theoretically and methodologically, and for knowledge
and understanding of the politics of exclusion more generally.
As an appendix to the chapters of this book are twenty of the twen-
ty-one6 images and accompanying texts which made up the final

6One of the twenty-one images is not included here as it contains potentially recognizable
individuals.
 1 Introduction    
15

exhibition and co-created book, entitled New Bridges: Experiences of

Seeking Asylum in Ireland. The images chosen for the eventual exhibi-
tion and book were edited by the participants themselves, both individ-
ually and collectively. The texts which appeared in the exhibition, and
consequently in the book and this appendix, often differ from the texts
accompanying the same images in the body of this book, as the original
texts or captions were collectively edited and adapted for the purposes
of the exhibition.

References
Back, L. (2007). The Art of Listening. London: Berg.
Bailey, A. J., Wright, R. A., Mountz, A., & Miyares, I. M. (2002).
(Re)Producing Salvadoran Transnational Geographies. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers, 92(1), 125–144.
Berger, J. (1985). L’Exil. In La Lettre Internationale. Reprinted in Péripheries
Journal Online, France 1999 [online]. Available at: http://www.peripheries.
net/article195.html.
Burns. S. (2019, September 27). Direct Provision Risks Reversals, Refugee
Service Warns. The Irish Times.
Chineyre, V. N. (2011, January 1). Analyzing the Experiences of Asylum
Seekers in the Cork Area: The Persistence of Exclusion. Translocations:
Migration and Social Change. An Interdisciplinary Open Access E-Journal.
Clifford, J. (1988). The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth Century Ethnography,
Literature and Art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Conlon, D. (2011). A Fractured Mosaic: Encounters with the Everyday
Amongst Refugee and Asylum Seeker Women. Population, Space and Place,
17(6), 714–726.
Deegan. G. (2018, July 16). People Who Have Been Granted Asylum Are
Staying in Direct Provision Due to Lack of Housing. The Journal.
Derrida, J. (2000). Hostipitality. Angelaki, 5(3), 3–18.
Dona, G. (2007). The Microphysics of Participation in Refugee Research.
Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 210–229.
Eastmond, M. (2007). Stories as Lived Experience: Narratives in Forced
Migration Research. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 248–264.
Foucault, M. (1979 [1975]). Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage Books.
16    
Z. O’Reilly

Ghorashi, H., de Boer, M., & ten Holder, F. (2018). Unexpected Agency on
the Threshold: Asylum Seekers Narrating from an Asylum Seeker Centre.
Current Sociology, 66(3), 373–391.
Haraway, D. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleManq_
Meets_OncoMouse: Feminism and technoscience. New York: Routledge.
Harindranath, R. (2007). Refugee Communities and the Politics of Cultural
Identity. In O. G. Bailey, M. Georgiou, & R. Harindranath (Eds.),
Transnational Lives and the Media: Re-imagining Diasporas. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Horrocks, C., Kelly, N., Roberts, B., & Robinson, D. (Eds.). (2003). Narrative,
Memory and Health. Huddersfield, UK: University of Huddersfield Press.
Jackson, M. (2002). The Politics of Storytelling: Violence, Transgression, and
Intersubjectivity. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
Kester, G. (2004). Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in
Modern Art. Berkeley, CA and London: University of California Press.
Kobelinsky, C. (2010). L’accueil des demandeurs d’asile. Une ethnographie de l’at-
tente. Paris: Editions du Cygne.
Loyal, S. (2011). Understanding Immigration in Ireland: State, Capital and
Labour in a Global Age. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Mahler, S. (1999). Everyday Transnational Migration: A Case Study of
Salvadorans. American Behavioural Scientist, 42, 690–719.
Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40.
Mountz, A. (2011). Where Asylum Seekers Wait: Feminist Counter-Topographies
of Sites Between States. Gender, Place and Culture, 18(3), 381–399.
Murphy, R., Keogh, B., & Higgins, A. (2018). Erosion of Meaning in Life:
African Asylum Seekers’ Experiences of Seeking Asylum in Ireland. Journal
of Refugee Studies, 32(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fey027.
Nedeljkovic, V. (2018). Reiterating Asylum Archive: Documenting Direct
Provision in Ireland. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied
Theatre and Performance, 23(2), 289–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/135697
83.2018.1440202.
Ní Raghallaigh, M., Foreman, M., & Feeley, M. (2016). Transition from Direct
Provision to Life in the Community. Dublin: Irish Refugee Council.
Nic Giolla Choille, T. (2010, January 27). Address at Fair Ireland Forum
Dialogue, ‘Asylum Seekers’ Experiences of Ireland’s Direct Provision System’.
NUI Galway [online]. Available at: http://www.fairirelandforum.org/.
Nwachukwu, I., Browne, D., & Tobin, J. (2009). The Mental Health Service
Requirements for Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Ireland. Prepared by Working
 1 Introduction    
17

Group of Faculty of Adult Psychiatry Executive Committee. http://www.

irishpsychiatry.ie/Libraries/External_Affairs/ASYLUM_SEEKERS_
POSITION_PAPER_191010.sflb.ashx.
O’Neill, M. (2008, May). Transnational Refugees and the Transformative Role
of Art? In Performative Social Science, a special issue of Forum for Qualitative
Social Research, 9(2), Art. 59.
O’Neill, M. (2010). Asylum, Migration and Community. Bristol: The Policy Press.
O’Neill, M., & Harindranath, R. (2006). Theorising Narratives of Exile
and Belonging: The Importance of Biography and Ethno-mimesis in
‘Understanding’ Asylum. Qualitative Sociology Review, 11(1), 39–53.
O’Reilly, Z. (2018). ‘Living Liminality’: Everyday Experiences of Asylum
Seekers in the ‘Direct Provision’ System in Ireland. Gender, Place & Culture,
25(6), 821–842.
Refugee Rights Europe. (2016–2019). Documenting the Situation for Refugees
and Displaced People. Various reports available to download at: http://refu-
geerights.org.uk/reports/.
RIA (Reception and Integration Agency). (2018). Monthly Statistics Report:
September [online]. Available at: http://www.ria.gov.ie/en/RIA/Pages/
Monthly_Reports.
Rotas, A. (2006). A Soft Touch: Visual Artists from Refugee Populations (UK) and
Representations of Asylum in Contemporary Art. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
Bath Spa University.
Salverson, J. (2001). Change on Whose Terms? Testimony and an Erotics of
Injury. Theater, 31, 119–125.
Stapleton, D. (2012). In and After ‘Limbo’: The Impact of Direct Provision on
Asylum Seekers in Ireland. Critical Social Thinking: Policy and Practice, 4,
1–15.
Turner, V. (1967). Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in Rites de
Passage. In V. Turner (Ed.), The Forest of Symbols. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Tyler, I. (2006). Welcome to Britain: The Cultural Politics of Asylum.
European Journal of Cultural Studies, 9(2), 185–202.
Zetter, R. (1991). Labelling Refugees: Forming and Transforming a
Bureaucratic Identity. Journal of Refugee Studies, 4(1), 39–62.
 2
Asylum and Direct Provision in Ireland

2.1 Introduction
Asylum seekers are persons who seek to be recognized as refugees in
accordance with the terms of the United Nations Convention Relating
to the Status of Refugees (1951). An asylum seeker has a legal right to
seek refuge in Ireland under the terms of this convention. In the mid
to late 1990s, alongside the rise of the ‘Celtic Tiger’, Ireland shifted
from being a country of emigration to one of immigration, with a rapid
growth (4.1%) (Samers 2010: 22) of migrants in proportion to its over-
all population between 1996 and 2005. This ‘unprecedented and sus-
tained period of inward migration’ (Conlon 2010: 95) to Ireland can
be partly attributed to rapid economic growth, demand for labour, rela-
tively liberal immigration policies during that period, and general inte-
gration into Europe’s wider migration system (Samers 2010: 25).
In this chapter, I outline the asylum system in Ireland, the estab-
lishing of Direct Provision in 1999, and current processes for people
seeking international protection. I then focus on the Direct Provision
system itself and the conditions for those residing in it, arguing that,
since its inception, the system has been characterized by a gradual and

© The Author(s) 2020 19

Z. O’Reilly, The In-Between Spaces of Asylum and Migration,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29171-6_2
20    
Z. O’Reilly

increasing exclusion of people seeking asylum from mainstream soci-

ety in Ireland, through a series of deliberate distancing measures. I then
outline some of the critiques of the Direct Provision system by schol-
ars, activists, migrant support groups and human rights bodies over the
twenty years of its existence, despite which the system remains in place.

2.2 Ireland’s Asylum System

Prior to the 1990s, Ireland had very little experience of dealing with
refugees and asylum seekers (see Thornton 2007 for a historical anal-
ysis of reception conditions in Ireland). Ireland signed the Refugee
Convention in 1956 and the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees
in 1967. After signing the Convention, the country accepted various
groups of refugees fleeing conflict: 539 Hungarian refugees in 1956,
a small group of Chilean refugees between 1973 and 1974, and 212
Vietnamese refugees in 1979. These groups were for the most part taken
care of by voluntary and religious or charitable groups. The first refu-
gee programme set up, run and funded by the State appeared between
1992 and 1998, when the country took in 455 Bosnian refugees
(Thornton 2007: 88).
The Direct Provision system was established in Ireland in November
1999 and implemented in April 2000 as a response to the rising num-
ber of asylum applications in the 1990s. In 1992, there were just thir-
ty-nine applications for refugee status to Office of Refugee Applications
Commission (ORAC); in 1996, there were 1179 applications; by
1999, this had jumped to 7724, with numbers peaking at 11,634 in
2002. These numbers steadily declined after 2002, with applications in
2010, the year I began fieldwork for this research, at 1939. Numbers
have increased again since 2014, and by the end of November 2018,
had reached 3324, the highest number in a decade. In 2000, the year
Direct Provision was implemented, the number of asylum applications
had increased by more than 41% over the previous year to 10,938
(see Fig. 2.1).
In a context of broader patterns in Europe from the 1990s of intro-
ducing stricter barriers to entry for people seeking asylum, as well as
 2 Asylum and Direct Provision in Ireland    
21

Fig. 2.1 Number of applications for refugee status to ORAC/IPO per year from
1991 to end of September 2018 (Source RIA Monthly Report, October 2018)

proposed changes to the UK system of asylum support, including a shift

away from supporting asylum seekers through the mainstream wel-
fare system and a dispersal policy, there were fears regarding increased
flows of asylum seekers towards Ireland and abuse of the welfare system.
At the time, asylum seekers arriving in Ireland could access the main-
stream social welfare system; entitlement was based on need, and lack
of Irish nationality did not affect the payment of means-tested social
assistance payments (Breen 2008; Thornton 2013). It was argued that
with stricter access to welfare payments in Europe and the UK, Ireland’s
welfare system could be seen as a pull factor for people seeking asylum
(Thornton 2007, 2013). The Direct Provision system, based on a gov-
ernment decision in November 1999, essentially removed asylum seekers
from mainstream social welfare, providing them directly with full board
and accommodation and, theoretically, with all basic needs. The Direct
Provision policy was accompanied by a separate dispersal policy, whereby
accommodation was obtained in different areas of the country to
ensure more equal distribution of asylum seekers throughout the coun-
try (FLAC 2009: 13), similar to the policies then recently introduced
in the UK. Thornton (2013) points out that an examination of inter-
nal correspondence from the Department of Social Protection reveals a
belief that the elimination of cash payments would reduce the numbers
22    
Z. O’Reilly

of asylum seekers arriving in Ireland and eliminate the ‘pull’ factor of

welfare entitlements.
The system was originally designed to accommodate people for up
to six months while their claims were being processed. However, in
September 2018, 41% of residents in Direct Provision accommodation
had been living within the system for over two years, with 237 peo-
ple (3.9%) waiting for over six years (RIA Monthly Statistics Report,
September 2018).
Irish immigration and asylum policies have tended to differ some-
what from those of other EU Member States, being influenced by the
Common Travel Area with the United Kingdom. Under the Protocol
on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland annexed to the
Treaty of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European
Union by the Treaty of Amsterdam, Ireland has the facility to opt out of
proposed measures pursuant to Title IV of the EC Treaty, which is the
article under which most immigration and asylum measures fall. While
Ireland can opt into measures undertaken at a European level at a later
date, it has undertaken not to opt into measures which will compromise
the Common Travel Area with the UK (Quinn and Kingston 2012: 19).
Despite this, EU legislation, and the development of the Common
European Asylum System (CEAS), has had a significant impact on
Ireland’s asylum policy, and the introduction of the International
Protection Act in 2015, on which Ireland’s asylum law is now based, has
aligned Ireland more closely with EU asylum laws. EU instruments with
impact on Irish asylum law are: the Qualification Directive (Directive
2004/83/EC), which defines who qualifies for refugee status, and the
minimum level of protection for those granted either refugee or subsid-
iary protection; the Asylum Procedures Directive (Council Directive
2005/85/EC), which guarantees that every asylum applicant should have
the opportunity of having a personal interview, comprehensive informa-
tion about the procedure at the start of the process, access to legal assis-
tance and interpretation services and judicial oversight. It is also intended
to specify common criteria for (in)admissibility to asylum procedures
and common lists of ‘safe’ countries of origin and ‘safe’ third countries;
the Dublin Regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 604/2013), also known
as Dublin III (updated version), which states that an application should
 2 Asylum and Direct Provision in Ireland    
23

be made in the member state that issued a visa, the member state that
actually permitted entry (lawfully or otherwise) or, where neither of
these first two criteria apply, the state in which a claim is first made.
The underlying principles of the Dublin Regulation were that an asy-
lum seeker should have no choice about where to make the application
and that a claim could be made and examined once and once only. To
facilitate the implementation of Dublin III, that is basically the depor-
tation of people from one member state to another, states need to iden-
tify their first point of entry. The Eurodac Regulation (Regulation No.
603/2013) is intended to facilitate that. Once picked up by the police
in Greece or Italy, for example, people seeking asylum are fingerprinted
and those fingerprints are entered into the central Eurodac database
(those under 14 years old are exempt). The fingerprints of asylum appli-
cants are kept in the system for ten years (unless they obtain citizen-
ship of a member state), and those of foreign nationals arrested without
valid papers when attempting to cross an external border of the EU are
kept for two years from the date on which the fingerprints were taken.
Anyone claiming asylum now may expect to have their fingerprints
taken and compared with those in the Eurodac database. If a match is
found, an application will be made to deport the applicant to that orig-
inal member state. The Dublin Regulation and Eurodac were intended
to prevent asylum applicants testing their chances in different member
states, or in the member state of their choice. Other relevant European
legal instruments are the Temporary Protection Directive (Directive
2001/55/EC), which lays down the minimum standards for giving tem-
porary protection (TP) in the event of a mass influx of displaced per-
sons, a directive which has been put to the test in recent years in Europe
without huge success. It is intended to ‘share the burden’ of costs and
efforts between member states in receiving and providing for such ref-
ugees (referred to as ‘displaced persons’ since they will not have to go
through the asylum process). In 2018, Ireland opted into the Recast
Conditions Directive (Directive 2013/33/EU), which aims to ensure
that in all member states there are certain basic provisions made for the
accommodation, health care, education, access to legal and other sup-
port of asylum seekers so that reception conditions in different member
states should not deter or attract people seeking asylum.
24    
Z. O’Reilly

2.2.1 International Protection Process

Following a comprehensive review of the protection system in Ireland in

2014, resulting in the publication of the McMahon Report in 2015, the
International Protection Act 2015 was signed into law on 31 December
2016 and came into effect on 6 January 2017. On this date, the ORAC
was abolished and responsibility transferred to a new International
Protection Office (IPO).
On arrival in Ireland, a person must report to the IPO in Dublin.
Before an application can be made for international protection, the
applicant must first complete a preliminary interview in order to estab-
lish whether or not the application is admissible or can be accepted by
the IPO. Biometric information (fingerprints and photograph) are also
taken at this point in order to ascertain whether the Dublin Regulation
is applicable, that is whether another Member State has already granted
refugee status or subsidiary protection, or whether a country other than
a Member State is considered to be a ‘first country of asylum’.1 It is pos-
sible to appeal a negative preliminary admissibility decision. If a person’s
application is found to be admissible, they then receive a Temporary
Residence Certificate (TRC) as evidence that they have submitted a
protection application in Ireland. The application process then includes
the filling out of an application form, examination of all the informa-
tion provided and a personal interview.
The International Protection Act outlines two forms of international
protection: refugee status and subsidiary protection. To be recognized
as a refugee, a person must, owing to a well-founded fear of being per-
secuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or
membership of a particular social group, be outside his or her country
of nationality and be unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to avail
of the protection of that country, or be a stateless person, who, being

1According to the International Protection Act 2015 (Section 21, Subsection 15), a country is

a first country of asylum for a person if he or she (a) (i) has been recognized in that country as
a refugee and can still avail himself or herself of that protection, or (ii) otherwise enjoys suffi-
cient protection in that country, including benefitting from the principle of non-refoulement, and
(b) will be readmitted to that country.
 2 Asylum and Direct Provision in Ireland    
25

outside of his or her country of former habitual residence for the same
reasons as mentioned above, is unable or, owing to such fear, unwill-
ing to return to it. If it is decided that a person is not a refugee, she
may qualify for subsidiary protection. Subsidiary protection was intro-
duced in Ireland in 2006 as part of the 2004 Qualification Directive
(and updated in November 2013) and is a status which is similar to that
of refugee. It is granted where the person does not qualify as a refugee
but where the IPO considers that the person faces a real risk of suffer-
ing serious harm2 in his or her country of origin3 or country of former
habitual residence.
If the IPO recommends that the applicant is entitled to neither ref-
ugee status nor subsidiary protection, the Minister for Justice and
Equality will then consider whether or not to grant permission to
remain in the State for another reason (for example, because of fam-
ily or personal circumstances). Persons granted permission to remain
do not have all of the same rights as persons granted refugee status or
subsidiary protection. They must have been resident in Ireland for five
years before they are eligible to apply for Irish citizenship. They do
not have the right to family reunification but anyone who is entitled
to reside and remain in the State may apply to the Minister to permit
family members to join them. The Minister for Justice and Equality can
grant or refuse permission on a discretionary basis. A person is entitled
to appeal a negative decision on either refugee status or subsidiary pro-
tection to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT), but not
a negative decision on permission to remain.

2Serious harm means: (i) death penalty or execution, (ii) torture or inhuman or degrading treat-
ment or punishment of a person in his or her country of origin/country of former habitual resi-
dence or (iii) serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate
violence in a situation of international or internal armed conflict (International Protection Act
2015, Part 1 (2)).
3The precise definition is that a person eligible for subsidiary protection is a person who is not a

national of a Member State of the European Union; who does not qualify as a refugee; in respect
of whom substantial grounds have been shown for believing that he or she, if returned to his or
her country of origin/country of former habitual residence, would face a real risk of suffering seri-
ous harm; and who is unable, or, owing to such risk, unwilling to avail himself or herself of the
protection of that country; and who is not excluded from eligibility from subsidiary protection
for certain reasons (International Protection Act 2015, Part 1 (2)).
26    
Z. O’Reilly

Whereas previously, each of these statuses were applied for separate-

ly—i.e. if an application for refugee status was rejected, the applicant
would apply for subsidiary protection, and likewise, if this was rejected,
would apply for permission to remain—under the International
Protection Act 2015, all three statuses are applied for simultaneously
through a single application procedure.

2.3 Direct Provision

After a person has made an application for asylum in the IPO, he or she
is typically offered accommodation in a ‘reception centre’ in Dublin for
a period of approximately ten to fourteen days before being dispersed
to one of the Direct Provision centres across the country. According to
the most recent available report from the Reception and Integration
Agency (RIA), there were thirty-seven (RIA September 2018) Direct
Provision centres in Ireland, spread throughout eighteen counties (see
Figs. 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4), including Dublin, and housing over five and
a half thousand people (5955) (RIA September 2018).4 These cen-
tres are coordinated by the RIA, a unit of the Irish Naturalisation
and Immigration Service (INIS), which is in turn a division of the
Department of Justice and Equality. The RIA was established in 2000
at the same time as the Direct Provision system, taking the place of the
Directorate of Asylum Seeker Support and the Refugee Agency. The
responsibilities of the RIA were originally to coordinate the provision
of services to asylum seekers and refugees, to coordinate the implemen-
tation of integration policy for all refugees and those granted leave to
remain, and to respond to crisis situations resulting in increased num-
bers of refugees arriving in Ireland at the same time (FLAC 2009: 14).
The role of the RIA was amended in 2007 with the establishment of

4The number and locations of Direct Provision centres in Ireland regularly change, as centres

open and close across the country for various reasons. See Asylum Archive (Nedeljkovic 2018)
for a detailed archive of past and present centres up to 2018. Current accommodation includes
several emergency accommodation centres as numbers accommodated in established Direct
Provision Centres are at capacity.
 2 Asylum and Direct Provision in Ireland    
27

Fig. 2.2 RIA residents by county, end September 2018 (Source RIA Monthly
Statistics Report, September 2018)

the Office of the Minister for Integration and since then has been prin-
cipally concerned with reception only,5 rather than integration.
The centres consist of a ‘hodge-podge of accommodations’ (Conlon
2010: 101), including hotels, former nursing homes, caravan parks,
former army barracks and holiday villages. The RIA website describes
accommodation arrangements as follows:

Accommodation in reception and accommodation centres is provided on

a full board basis which includes the provision of a bed and three meals
per day. Residents are not allowed to cook their own food while living in
an accommodation centre. They may be required to share their bedroom
and bathroom facilities with other residents. There is a set of house rules
which all residents must comply with. A formal complaints procedure is
available for residents in the event of a dispute or grievance. (RIA 2010)

5The responsibilities of the RIA as published in Department of Justice publication Freedom of

Information Section 15 Reference Book (2008 edition) are: ‘planning and coordinating the provision
of services to asylum seekers; the accommodation of asylum seekers through the Direct Provision
system; assisting in the voluntary repatriation of destitute nationals from the twelve states which
joined the EU in May 2004 and January 2007’ (Department of Justice 2008: 180).
28    
Z. O’Reilly

Fig. 2.3 Direct Provision centres in Ireland open as of July 2018 marked in red
(Source Asylum Archive [Nedeljkovic 2018])

In addition to full board and accommodation, asylum seekers are pro-

vided with a weekly payment per person.6 Between 2000 and 2017, this
payment remained at €19.10 per adult (the payment per child increased
in 2016 from €9.60 to €15.60 per child). The adult payment was the

6Previous to 2017, the weekly allowance per adult was €19.10 and €15.60 per child. The amount

per adult was calculated from deducting the estimated cost of accommodating someone in Direct
Provision from the basic standard Supplementary Welfare Allowance in 2000, when Direct
Provision was established, and remained unchanged between 2000 and 2017, despite substantial
increases in other welfare payments during that time. At the time of calculation, the allowance of
€19.10 was equivalent to slightly less than 20% of the Supplementary Welfare payment. However,
 2 Asylum and Direct Provision in Ireland    
29

Fig. 2.4 Direct Provision centres in Dublin open as of July 2018 marked in red
(Source Asylum Archive [Nedeljkovic 2018])

only social welfare payment never to have increased over this period. In
2017, the payment was increased to €21.60 per person and in 2019, to
€38.80 per adult and €29.80 per child. In addition to this, an exceptional
needs payment may be granted, at the discretion of the community wel-
fare officer. Clothing and other exceptional needs payments are provided
case by case; asylum-seeking children are also entitled to Back to School

increases in this payment meant that in 2009, this allowance was equivalent to less than ten per cent
of the Supplementary Welfare Allowance payment. This was the only social welfare payment never
to have increased during this period (Brady 2010).
30    
Z. O’Reilly

clothing and footwear allowances. Asylum seekers are provided with a

medical card which allows them to access medical services free of charge.
All Direct Provision centres in Ireland are commercially run, and
most of them are also commercially owned, apart from seven state-
owned centres (RIA September 2018). In 2009, Ireland’s Free Legal
Advice Centre (FLAC) stated that Direct Provision centres ‘operate as
an industry rather than a means by which the government is fulfilling
its human rights commitments’ (FLAC 2009: 11). The State paid €72
million euros to private firms operating Direct Provision centres across
the country in 2018 (Deegan, Irish Times, March 6, 2018), a rise from
€57 million in 2017.7 Six firms received payments of over €5 million
each in 2018 (ibid.). These include Aramark Ireland Holdings Ltd.,
part of the US international corporation Aramark, which is the largest
prison catering company in the US. In 2016, Aramark was involved in
running three state-owned Direct Provision centres, at Kinsale Road,
Cork; Knockalisheen, County Clare; and Athlone, County Westmeath.
Other companies include Fazyard, which operates the largest Direct
Provision centre in the Dublin area, the Clondalkin Towers; Mosney
Irish Holidays Ltd., Barlow Properties, Bridgestock Ltd., Millstreet
Equestrian Services and East Coast Catering.
Since its establishment in 2000, the Irish asylum and protection sys-
tem has been marked by long delays, leading for many to years of living
in uncertainty. As stated above, the system was originally designed to
accommodate people for up to six months while their claims were being
assessed. In March 2010, when research with participants began, there
were a total of 6349 people living in forty-six Direct Provision centres
across Ireland. 2333 of these (over 36%) had been residing in the Direct
Provision system for over thirty-six months (three years), awaiting a final
decision on their claim and 1173 (over 18%) for between twenty-four
and thirty-six months (RIA Monthly Statistics Report March 2010).
In August 2012, the number waiting for over three years represented
well over half the people in the system (2970 of a total of 4869 resi-
dents). In September 2018, 41% had been waiting for over two years

7http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PQ-24-07-2018-887.
 2 Asylum and Direct Provision in Ireland    
31

Fig. 2.5 Numbers of people in the system and waitingtimes (Source

Department of Justice and Equality, http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/
PQ-24-07-2018-1208)

Fig. 2.6 Duration of stay of residents in Direct Provision accommodation in

September 2018 (Source RIA Monthly Statistics Report, September 2018)

and there were 237 people (nearly 4%) who had been waiting over six
years (Figs. 2.5 and 2.6).
Long periods of waiting for claims to be processed have led not only
to an agonizing and wasted existence for those waiting, but to enor-
mous costs for the Irish state, which pays private companies to accom-
modate and cater for these people, at large profit, as discussed above.
According to the Irish Refugee Council’s (IRC) Roadmap for Asylum
Reform (2011), one of the main reasons for this delay in the Irish system
has been the lack of a single protection procedure. A system in which a
32    
Z. O’Reilly

very small number of applications were generally granted refugee status

at first instance led to long delays as appeals were processed, as well as
unnecessary costs to the Irish State. Tied in with this was what the IRC
has called ‘a culture of disbelief ’ (IRC 2011: 3) inherent in the Irish
asylum system. In 2010, only 1.1% of applicants were granted refugee
status by the Office of Refugee Appeals Commission (IRC 2011: 2),
significantly below the average EU recognition rate at the time of 27%
(Smyth 2011). This meant that in the same year, Ireland was ranked at
the bottom of the EU league for granting protection to asylum seek-
ers. The refugee recognition rate in 2016 was 24%, as O’Connell
(2017) points out, a substantial increase over recognition rates in the
earlier years of the decade. He also points out that most of the increase
in the recognition rate in recent years appears to be due to a substantial
increase in positive second instance decisions.8
One of the key features of the new International Protection Act
2015 was a single application procedure (as explained above). As part
of the transition arrangements from the ORAC to the IPO, all appli-
cations still in review under the old procedure (approximately 3000
cases at the time of writing, according to the Minister of Justice and
Equality9) would be brought into the IPO for another interview.
Current waiting time for a first interview with the IPO is approximately
twenty months for cases which are not prioritized. In April 2018, the
UNHCR called for immediate action to reduce the length of time
people are waiting for a decision on their protection applications, stat-
ing that long periods of time spent in State-funded accommodation
is ‘leading to dependency and disempowerment among many peo-
ple seeking protection’ and ‘hampering their integration prospects’

8O’Connell explains that these rates are calculated on the basis of the total number of recommen-

dations or decisions that refugee status should be granted at first instance and appeal in any given
year as a percentage of the total number of recommendations or decisions made at first instance
or appeal in that year (O’Connell 2017).
9https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2018-06-12/531/.
 2 Asylum and Direct Provision in Ireland    
33

(UNHCR 2018). UNHCR adds that where many European coun-

tries have laid down time limits in national law for processing applica-
tions for protection, with a majority of countries setting the limit at six
months, ‘under Irish law, where a decision has not been taken within
six months, all that is required is for the Department of Justice and
Equality to provide the applicant, upon request, with an estimate of the
time it is likely to take to reach a decision’ (UNHCR 2018).

2.4 Direct Provision as a Gradual Mechanism

of Exclusion of Asylum Seekers
from Mainstream Society
Direct Provision centres have been called Ireland’s ‘hidden villages’
(Holland 2005), with asylum seekers very often geographically—as well
as socially, culturally and economically—distanced and excluded from
mainstream society. It can be argued that Irish asylum policy has been a
gradual and increased exclusion from mainstream Irish society since the
arrival of people seeking asylum in significant numbers from the mid-
1990s onwards. In 2003, Lentin argued that the response of the Irish
State to the increase in asylum applications has been a gradual process
of distancing:

beginning with psychological distancing (calling asylum seekers ‘bogus

refugees’, ‘illegal immigrants’ and/or ‘economic migrants’ and thus dis-
crediting them), going on to physical distancing (dispersing asylum seek-
ers to Direct Provision hostels), and finally to the last stage, when asylum
seekers are psychologically and physically distanced, namely deportation.
(2003: 305)

Similarly in 2007, Thornton pointed out that:

The hallmark feature of the Irish reception system for asylum seek-
ers has been the continual withdrawal and diminution of social rights
on the grounds of preserving the integrity of immigration controls and
34    
Z. O’Reilly

protection of the welfare state from those who are viewed as not having a
definitive right to be within the country. (2007: 86)

Some of the key means through which exclusion of asylum seekers from
mainstream society in Ireland has occurred since 2000 are the creation
of a separate welfare system, in the form of Direct Provision, enforced
dispersal around the country and the accompanying hidden nature of
Direct Provision centres, as well as the denial of access to employment
and education. This exclusion has been further compounded, as Lentin
points out, by ‘psychological distancing’ (Lentin 2003) through media
representation and government discourse. I look at each of these aspects
in the paragraphs below.
The shifting of asylum seekers from the mainstream welfare system
to ‘Direct Provision’ in 2000, which may be seen as a ‘deterrent meas-
ure’ (UNHCR 2000, discussed in Chapter 3), implied that the welfare
needs of asylum seekers were fundamentally different from those of
Irish citizens. This exclusion from mainstream welfare (see Thornton
2013 for a detailed discussion on this) was further compounded by
the introduction of the Habitual Residence Condition (HRC), which
came into effect in 2003 and was further clarified in 2007. Social wel-
fare payments such as jobseeker’s allowance, non contributory pension,
one parent family payment, disability allowance and child benefit are
now subject to the HRC, meaning that those not seen as ‘habitually res-
ident’ are no longer entitled to them. Section 246 of the Social Welfare
Consolidation Act 2005 provides that:

It shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that a person is not

habitually resident in the State at the date of the making of the applica-
tion concerned unless he has been present in the State or any other part
of the Common Travel Area for a continuous period of 2 years ending on
that date. (Department of Social Protection 2012)

The same section states that asylum seekers (no matter how long they
have been residing in Ireland) are not regarded as being habitually res-
ident. The difficulty of accessing payments which require ‘habitual
 2 Asylum and Direct Provision in Ireland    
35

residence’ ensures, as Thornton points out, that ‘asylum seekers are

wholly excluded from mainstream social welfare. Instead, asylum seek-
ers are catered for within an ‘exclusive and excluding Direct Provision
system’ (Thornton 2007: 90). A limited weekly allowance, which
remained unchanged between 2000 and 2017, has almost ensured mar-
ginalization of asylum seekers from mainstream society. This weekly
payment was increased in 2017 from €19.10 per adult to €21.60 and
from €15.60 per child to the same rate as the adult rate. Following
recommendations in the McMahon Report (2015), the payment has
increased in 2019 to €38.74 per adult and €29.80 per child.
The policy of dispersal, established alongside that of Direct Provision,
while seeking to distribute asylum seekers more evenly throughout the
country, thereby reducing demands on accommodation primarily in the
Dublin area, is a further form of exclusion, often leaving asylum seekers
marginalized and socially excluded (Bloch and Schuster 2005). The RIA
states that:

A key determinant in providing accommodation for asylum seekers

is maintaining in as much as possible a sensitive, balanced and propor-
tional approach nationwide. The distribution of asylum seekers in Direct
Provision across Health Services Executive (HSE) areas indicate that in no
case do the numbers exceed one third of 1% of the population of a HSE
area. (RIA 2010)

Lentin and McVeigh note that ‘there is clearly no question of integrat-

ing [residents within local communities, instead these centres] result
in asylum seekers feeling segregated and dehumanised’ (2006: 47).
Dispersal takes away asylum seekers’ freedom to choose where they
settle, removing them, as Bloch and Schuster point out, ‘from kinship
and other social networks as well as community organizations that
are known to be crucial in the early stages of settlement’ (2005: 493).
Zetter (2007) points out that:

A ‘dispersed asylum seeker’ in the UK and Ireland, for example, is

more than a bureaucratic category. It is a transformative process which
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Mr. Tower is herewith inclosed for your confidential
information. The commercial interests of Great Britain and
Japan will be so clearly served by the desired declaration of
intentions, and the views of the Governments of these
countries as to the desirability of the adoption of measures
insuring the benefits of equality of treatment of all foreign
trade throughout China are so similar to those entertained by
the United States, that their acceptance of the propositions
herein outlined and their coöperation in advocating their
adoption by the other powers can be confidently expected. I
inclose herewith copy of the instruction which I have sent to
Mr. Choate on the subject. In view of the present favorable
conditions, you are instructed to submit the above
considerations to His Imperial German Majesty's minister for
foreign affairs, and to request his early consideration of the
subject. Copy of this instruction is sent to our ambassadors
at London and at St. Petersburg for their information."
Subsequently the same proposal was addressed to the
governments of France, Italy and Japan.

{103}

On the 30th of November, Lord Salisbury addressed to

Ambassador Choate the reply of his government, as follows: "I
have the honor to state that I have carefully considered, in
communication with my colleagues, the proposal contained in
your excellency's note of September 22 that a declaration
should be made by foreign powers claiming 'spheres of
interest' in China as to their intentions in regard to the
treatment of foreign trade and interest therein. I have much
pleasure in informing your excellency that Her Majesty's
Government will be prepared to make a declaration in the sense
desired by your Government in regard to the leased territory
of Wei-hai Wei and all territory in China which may hereafter
be acquired by Great Britain by lease or otherwise, and all
spheres of interest now held or that may hereafter be held by
her in China, provided that a similar declaration is made by
other powers concerned."

Ambassador Porter, at Paris, received a prompt reply, December

16, from the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, M. Delcassé,
in the following note:

"The declarations which I made in the Chamber on the 24th of

November last, and which I have had occasion to recall to you
since then, show clearly the sentiments of the Government of
the Republic. It desires throughout the whole of China and,
with the quite natural reservation that all the powers
interested give an assurance of their willingness to act
likewise, is ready to apply in the territories which are
leased to it, equal treatment to the citizens and subjects of
all nations, especially in the matter of customs duties and
navigation dues, as well as transportation tariffs on rail
ways."

Viscount Aoki, Minister for Foreign Affairs, replied for the

government of Japan, December 26, in the following note to
Minister Buck: "I have the happy duty of assuring your
excellency that the Imperial Government will have no
hesitation to give their assent to so just and fair a proposal
of the United States, provided that all the other powers
concerned shall accept the same."

The reply of the Russian government was addressed to

Ambassador Tower by Count Mouravieff, on the 30th of December,
in the following terms:

"In so far as the territory leased by China to Russia is

concerned, the Imperial Government has already demonstrated
its firm intention to follow the policy of 'the open door' by
creating Dalny (Ta-lien-wan) a free port; and if at some
future time that port, although remaining free itself, should
be separated by a customs limit from other portions of the
territory in question, the customs duties would be levied, in
the zone subject to the tariff, upon all foreign merchandise
without distinction as to nationality. As to the ports now
opened or hereafter to be opened to foreign commerce by the
Chinese Government, and which lie beyond the territory leased
to Russia, the settlement of the question of customs duties
belongs to China herself, and the Imperial Government has no
intention whatever of claiming any privileges for its own
subjects to the exclusion of other foreigners. It is to be
understood, however, that this assurance of the Imperial
Government is given upon condition that a similar declaration
shall be made by other Powers having interests in China. With
the conviction that this reply is such as to satisfy the
inquiry made in the aforementioned note, the Imperial
Government is happy to have complied with the wishes of the
American Government, especially as it attaches the highest
value to anything that may strengthen and consolidate the
traditional relations of friendship existing between the two
countries."

On the 7th of January the reply of the Italian government was

addressed to Minister Draper, at Rome, by the Marquis Visconti
Venosta, as follows: "Supplementary to what you had already
done me the honor of communicating to me in your note of
December 9, 1899, your excellency informed me yesterday of the
telegraphic note received from your Government that all the
powers consulted by the cabinet of Washington concerning the
suitability of adopting a line of policy which would insure to
the trade of the whole world equality of treatment in China
have given a favorable reply. Referring to your communications
and to the statements in my note of December 23 last, I take
pleasure in saying that the Government of the King adheres
willingly to the proposals set forth in said note of December
9."

Finally, on the 19th of February, Count von Bülow wrote to

Ambassador White, at Berlin:
"As recognized by the Government of the United States of
America, according to your excellency's note, … the Imperial
Government has from the beginning not only asserted but also
practically carried out to the fullest extent in its Chinese
possessions absolute equality of treatment of all nations with
regard to trade, navigation, and commerce. The Imperial
Government entertains no thought of departing in the future
from this principle, which at once excludes any prejudicial or
disadvantageous commercial treatment of the citizens of the
United States of America, so long as it is not forced to do
so, on account of considerations of reciprocity, by a
divergence from it by other governments. If, therefore, the
other powers interested in the industrial development of the
Chinese Empire are willing to recognize the same principles,
this can only be desired by the Imperial Government, which in
this case upon being requested will gladly be ready to
participate with the United States of America and the other
powers in an agreement made upon these lines, by which the
same rights are reciprocally secured."

Having, now, the assent of all the Powers which hold leased
territory or claim "spheres of interest" in China, Secretary
Hay sent instructions to the Ambassadors and Ministers
representing the government of the United States at the
capital of each, in the following form:

"The —— Government having accepted the declaration suggested

by the United States concerning foreign trade in China, the
terms of which I transmitted to you in my instruction Number
—— of ——, and like action having been taken by all the various
powers having leased territory or so-called 'spheres of
interest' in the Chinese Empire, as shown by the notes which I
herewith transmit to you, you will please inform the
government to which you are accredited that the condition
originally attached to its acceptance—that all other powers
concerned should likewise accept the proposals of the United
States—having been complied with, this Government will
 therefore consider the assent given to it by —— as final and
definitive."

United States, 56th Congress, 1st Session,

House Document Number 547.

{104}

CHINA: A. D. 1900 (January).

Imperial Decree relative to the succession to the Throne.

The following is a translation of an Imperial Decree, "by the

Emperor's own pen," which appeared in the "Peking Gazette,"
January 24, 1900:

"When at a tender age we entered into the succession to the

throne, Her Majesty the Empress-Dowager graciously undertook
the rule of the country as Regent, taught and guided us with
diligence, and managed all things, great and small, with
unremitting care, until we ourself assumed the government.
Thereafter the times again became critical. We bent all our
thoughts and energies to the task of ruling rightly, striving
to requite Her Majesty's loving kindness, that so we might
fulfil the weighty duties intrusted to us by the late Emperor
Mu Tsung Yi (T'ung Chih). But since last year we have suffered
from ill-health, affairs of State have increased in magnitude
and perplexity, and we have lived in constant dread of going
wrong. Reflecting on the supreme importance of the worship of
our ancestors and of the spirits of the land, we therefore
implored the Empress-Dowager to advise us in the government.
This was more than a year ago, but we have never been restored
to health, and we have not the strength to perform in person
the great sacrifices at the altar of Heaven and in the temples
of the spirits of the land. And now the times are full of
difficulties. We see Her Gracious Majesty's anxious toil by
day and by night, never laid aside for rest or leisure, and
with troubled mind we examine ourself, taking no comfort in
 sleep or food, but ever dwelling in thought on the labours of
our ancestors in founding the dynasty, and ever fearful lest
our strength be not equal to our task.

"Moreover, we call to mind how, when we first succeeded to the

throne, we reverently received the Empress-Dowager's Decree
that as soon as a Prince should be born to us he should become
the heir by adoption to the late Emperor Mu Tsung Yi (T'ung
Chih). This is known to all the officials and people
throughout the Empire. But we suffer from an incurable
disease, and it is impossible for us to beget a son, so that
the Emperor Mu Tsung Yi has no posterity, and the consequences
to the lines of succession are of the utmost gravity.
Sorrowfully thinking on this, and feeling that there is no
place to hide ourself for shame, how can we look forward to
recovery from all our ailments? We have therefore humbly
implored Her Sacred Majesty carefully to select from among the
near branches of our family a good and worthy member, who
should found a line of posterity for the Emperor Mu Tsung Yi
(T'ung Chih), and to whom the Throne should revert hereafter.
After repeated entreaties, Her Majesty has now deigned to
grant her consent that P'u Chün, son of Tsai Yi, Prince Tuan,
should be adopted as the son of the late Emperor Mu Tsung Yi
(T'ung Chih). We have received Her Majesty's Decree with
unspeakable joy, and in reverent obedience to her gracious
instruction we appoint P'u Chün, son of Tsai Yi, as Prince
Imperial, to carry on the dynastic succession. Let this Decree
be made known to all men."

Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications

(Papers by Command: China, Number 3, 1900, pages 15-16).

CHINA: A. D. 1900 (January-March).

First accounts of the secret society of "the Boxers"
and their bloody work.
The murder of Mr. Brooks, the missionary.
Prolonged effort of foreign Ministers to procure an Imperial
Edict for the suppression of the hostile secret societies.
A naval demonstration recommended.
Testimony of Sir Robert Hart as to the causes and the
patriotic inspiration of the Boxer movement.

The year 1900 opened with news of the murder of Mr. Brooks, of
the Church of England Mission in northern Shantung, who was
wounded and captured December 30 and beheaded the day
following, by a band of marauders belonging to a secret
organization which soon became notorious under the name of the
society of "the Boxers." The British Minister at Peking
reported it to London on the 4th of January, and on the 5th he
gave the following account of the state of affairs in northern
Shantung, where the outrage occurred:

"For several months past the northern part of the Province of

Shantung has been disturbed by bands of rebels connected with
various Secret Societies, who have been defying the
authorities and pillaging the people. An organization known as
the 'Boxers' has attained special notoriety, and their ravages
recently spread over a large portion of Southern Chihli, where
the native Christians appear to have suffered even more than
the rest of the inhabitants from the lawlessness of these
marauders. The danger to which, in both provinces, foreign
missionary establishments have been thus exposed, has been the
subject of repeated representations to the Chinese Government
by others of the foreign Representatives—especially the German
and United States' Ministers—and myself. Early last month the
Governor of Shantung, Yü Hsien, was ordered to vacate his post
and come to Peking for audience, and the General Yüan
Shih-K'ai was appointed Acting Governor in his place. In
Southern Chihli the task of dealing with the disturbances was
entrusted to the Viceroy at Tien-tsin. Her Majesty's Consul at
Tien-tsin has had repeatedly to complain to the latter of the
inadequacy of the protection afforded to British life and
property in the districts affected by the rebellion; and in
consequence of these representations and of my own
 communications to the Tsung-li Yamên, guards of soldiers have
been stationed for the special protection of the missionary
premises which were endangered. On the 29th ultimo I took
occasion to warn the Yamên by letter that if the disorder were
not vigorously quelled, international complications were
likely to ensue."

After narrating an interview with the Tsung-li Yamên on the

subject of the murder of Mr. Brooks, and repeating the
assurances he had received of vigorous measures to punish the
murderers, Minister MacDonald concluded his despatch by
saying: "In a note which I addressed to the Yamên this morning
I took occasion to remind the Ministers that there were other
British missionaries living in the district where Mr. Brooks
was killed, and to impress upon their Excellencies the
necessity of securing efficient protection to these. I do not,
however, entertain serious apprehensions as to their safety,
because guards of soldiers have been for some time past
stationed to protect the various missionary residences. The
unfortunate man who was murdered was seized when he was
travelling by wheel-barrow, without escort, through the
country infested by the rebels."

{105}

A few days later, Bishop Scott, of the Church of England

Mission, at Peking, received from Mr. Brown, another
missionary in Shantung province, the following telegram:
"Outlook very black; daily marauding; constant danger; Edict
suppressing published; troops present, but useless; officials
complete inaction: T'ai An Prefect blocks; secret orders from
Throne to encourage." On this Sir Claude again called upon the
Yamên, and "spoke to them," he says, "in terms of the gravest
warning. While I could not believe it possible, I said, that
the rumours of secret orders from the Throne were true, the
mere fact of the currency of such rumours showed the
impression which the conduct of the Prefect conveyed to the
public. So much was I impressed by this, that I had come
to-day especially to protest against the behaviour of the
Shantung officials. The whole of the present difficulty could
be traced to the attitude of the late Governor of Shantung, Yü
Hsien, who secretly encouraged the seditious Society known as
'the Boxers.' I had again and again pointed out to the
Ministers that until China dealt with the high authorities in
such cases these outrages would not cease. I asked the
Ministers to telegraph to the new Governor Yüan that I had
called at the Yamên that day to complain of the conduct of the
Prefect of T'ai An. The Ministers attempted to excuse the
inertia of the local officials on the plea that their
difficulties were very great. The primary cause of the trouble
was the bad feeling existing between the converts and the
ordinary natives. This had developed until bands of marauders
had formed, who harassed Christians and other natives alike.
The local officials had hitherto not had sufficient force to
cope with so widespread a rising, but now that Yüan and his
troops had been sent to the province they hoped for the speedy
restoration of order. I impressed upon the Ministers in the
most emphatic manner my view of the gravity of the situation.
The Imperial Edict expressing sorrow for what had occurred and
enjoining strong measures was satisfactory so far as it went; but
Her Majesty's Government required something more than mere
words, and would now await action on the part of the Chinese
Government in conformity with their promises."

On the day of this interview (January 11), an Imperial Decree

was issued by the Chinese government, opening in ambiguous
terms and decreeing nothing. "Of late," it said, "in all the
provinces brigandage has become daily more prevalent, and
missionary cases have recurred with frequency. Most critics
point to seditious Societies as the cause, and ask for
rigorous suppression and punishment of these. But reflection
shows that Societies are of different kinds. When worthless
vagabonds form themselves into bands and sworn confederacies,
and relying on their numbers create disturbances, the law can
show absolutely no leniency to them on the other hand, when
peaceful and law-abiding people practise their skill in
mechanical arts for the self-preservation of themselves and
their families, or when they combine in village communities
for the mutual protection of the rural population, this is in
accordance with the public-spirited principle (enjoined by
Mencius) of 'keeping mutual watch and giving mutual help.'
Some local authorities, when a case arises, do not regard this
distinction, but, listening to false and idle rumours, regard
all alike as seditious Societies, and involve all in one
indiscriminate slaughter. The result is that no distinction
being made between the good and the evil, men's minds are
thrown into fear and doubt. This is, indeed, 'adding fuel to
stop a fire,' 'driving fish to the deep part of the pool to
catch them.' It means, not that the people are disorderly, but
that the administration is bad."

The foreign ministers at Peking soon learned that this

ambiguous decree had given encouragement to the "Boxers," and
the British, American, German, French and Italian
representatives, by agreement, addressed an "identic note" to
the Yamên, dated January 27, in which, referring to the state
of affairs in north Shantung and in the centre and south of
Chihli, each one said: "This state of affairs, which is a
disgrace to any civilized country, has been brought about by
the riotous and lawless behaviour of certain ruffians who have
banded themselves together into two Societies, termed
respectively the 'Fist of Righteous Harmony' and the 'Big
Sword Society,' and by the apathy, and in some instances
actual connivance and encouragement of these Societies by the
local officials. The members of these Societies go about
pillaging the homes of Christian converts, breaking down their
chapels, robbing and ill-treating inoffensive women and
children, and it is a fact, to which I would draw the special
attention of your Highness and your Excellencies, that on the
banners which are carried by these riotous and lawless people
are inscribed the words, 'Exterminate the Foreigners.'
 "On the 11th January an Imperial Decree was issued drawing a
distinction between good and bad Societies. The wording of
this Decree has unfortunately given rise to a widespread
impression that such Associations as the 'Fist of Righteous
Harmony' and the 'Big Sword Society' are regarded with favour
by the Chinese Government, and their members have openly
expressed their gratification and have been encouraged by the
Decree to continue to carry on their outrages against the
Christian converts. I cannot for a moment suppose that such
was the intention of this Decree. These Societies are, as I
have shown, of a most pernicious and rebellious character.

"I earnestly beg to draw the serious attention of the Throne

to the circumstances above described: the disorders have not
reached such a stage that they cannot be stamped out by prompt
and energetic action: but if such action be not immediately
taken, the rioters will be encouraged to think that they have
the support of the Government and proceed to graver crimes,
thereby seriously endangering international relations. As a
preliminary measure, and one to which I attach the greatest
importance, I have to beg that an Imperial Decree be published
and promulgated, ordering by name the complete suppression and
abolition of the 'Fist of Righteous Harmony' and the 'Big
Sword Societies,' and I request that it may be distinctly
stated in the Decree that to belong to either of these
Societies, or to harbour any of its members, is a criminal
offence against the laws of China."

{106}

In communicating the above note to Lord Salisbury, Sir Claude

MacDonald explained: "The name of the Society given in the
note as 'The Fist of Righteous Harmony' is the same as the
'Boxers.' The latter name was given in the first instance,
either by missionaries or newspapers, but does not convey the
meaning of the Chinese words. The idea underlying the name is
that the members of the Society will unite to uphold the cause
of righteousness, if necessary by force."

On the 21st of February no reply to the identic note had been

given, and the five foreign Ministers then wrote again. This
brought an answer so evasive that they asked for an interview
with the Yamên, and it was appointed for March 2d. On the
evening of the 1st they received copies of a proclamation
which the Governor-General of Chihli had been commanded to
issue. The proclamation embodied an Imperial Decree,
transmitted to the Governor-General on the 21st of February,
which said: "Last year the Governor of Shantung telegraphed
that the Society known as 'the Fist of Righteous Harmony' in
many of his districts, under the plea of enmity to foreign
religions, were raising disturbances in all directions, and
had extended their operations into the southern part of
Chihli. We have repeatedly ordered the Governor-General of
Chihli and the Governor of Shantung to send soldiers to keep
the peace. But it is to be feared that if stern measures of
suppression of such proceedings as secretly establishing
societies with names and collecting in numbers to raise
disturbances be not taken, the ignorant populace will be
deluded and excited, and as time goes on things will grow
worse, and when some serious case ensues we shall be compelled
to employ troops to extirpate the evil. The sufferers would be
truly many, and the throne cannot bear to slay without
warning. Let the Governor-General of Chihli and the Governor
of Shantung issue the most stringent Proclamations admonishing
the people and strictly prohibiting (the societies) so that
our people may all know that to secretly establish societies
is contrary to prohibition and a breach of the law."

To this the Governor-General of Chihli added, in his own name:

"I (the Governor-General) find it settled by decided cases
that those people of no occupation, busybodies who style
themselves Professors, and practise boxing, and play with
clubs, and teach people their arts; those also who learn from
these men, and those who march about and parade the villages
and marts flourishing tridents, and playing with sticks,
hood-winking the populace to make a profit for themselves, are
strictly forbidden to carry on such practices. Should any
disobey, on arrest the principals will receive 100 blows with
the heavy bamboo, and be banished to a distance of 1,000
miles. The pupils will receive the same beating, and be
banished to another province for three years, and on
expiration of that period and return to their native place be
subjected to strict surveillance. Should any inn, temple or
house harbour these people without report to the officials, or
should the police and others not search them out and arrest
them, the delinquents will be sentenced to eighty blows with
the heavy bamboo for improper conduct in the higher degree.

"From this it appears that teaching or practising boxing and

club play, and deluding the people for private gain are
fundamentally contrary to law. But of late some of the
ignorant populace have been deluded by ruffians from other
parts of the Empire who talk of charms and incantations and
spiritual incarnations which protect from guns and cannon.
They have dared to secretly establish the Society of the Fist
of Righteous Harmony and have practised drill with fists and
clubs. The movement has spread in all directions, and under
the plea of hatred of foreign religions these people have
harried the country. When soldiers and runners came to make
arrests, turbulent ruffians had the audacity to defy them,
relying on their numbers, thereby exhibiting a still greater
contempt for the law. …

"In addition to instructing all the local officials to adopt

strict measures of prohibition and to punish without fail all
offenders, I hereby issue this most stringent admonition and
notify all people in my jurisdiction, gentry and every class
of the population, that you should clearly understand that the
establishment and formation of secret societies for the
practice of boxing and club exercises are contrary to
prohibition and a breach of the law. The assembly of mobs to
create disturbances and all violent outrages are acts which
the law will still less brook. … The converts and the ordinary
people are all the subjects of the throne, and are regarded by
the Government with impartial benevolence. No distinction is
made between them. Should they have lawsuits they must bow to
the judgments of the officials. The ordinary people must not
give way to rage, and by violent acts create feuds and
trouble. The converts on the other hand must not stir up
strife and oppress the people or incite the missionaries to
screen them and help them to obtain the upper hand."

According to appointment, the interview with the Yamên took

place on the 2d of March: "Mr. Conger, United States'
Minister, Baron von Ketteler, German Minister, Marquis
Salvago, Italian Minister, Baron d'Anthoüard, French Charge d'
Affaires, and myself," writes Sir Claude MacDonald, "were
received at the Yamên by Prince Ch'ing and nearly all the
Ministers. On behalf of myself and my colleagues I
recapitulated the circumstances, as detailed above, which had
led to the demand which we now made. My colleagues all
expressed to the Prince and Ministers their entire concurrence
with the language I used, Mr. Conger reminded the Yamên of the
incredulity with which they had listened to his
representations regarding these disturbances over three months
ago, and the promises they had been making ever since, from
which nothing had resulted. Baron von Ketteler laid special
stress on the fact that in the Decree just communicated no
mention was made of the 'Ta Tao Hui,' or 'Big Knife Society,'
the denunciation of which, equally with that of the
'I-Ho-Ch'uan,' or 'Fist of Righteous Harmony,' had been
demanded. The Prince and Ministers protested emphatically that
the Throne was earnest in its determination to put a stop to
the outrages committed by these Societies. They maintained
that the method adopted for promulgating the Imperial Decree,
that of sending it to the Governors of the provinces
concerned, to be embodied in a Proclamation and acted upon,
 was much speedier and more effective than that of publishing a
Decree in the 'Peking Gazette,' as suggested by us. With regard
to the omission of the term 'Ta Tao Hui' from the Decree, they
declared that this Society was now the same as the
'I-Ho-Ch'uan.'"

{107}

At the close of the interview the five Ministers presented

identic notes to the Yamên, in which each said: "I request
that an Imperial Decree may be issued and published in the
'Peking Gazette' ordering by name the complete suppression and
abolition of the 'Fist of Righteous Harmony' and 'Big Sword
Societies,' and I request that it may be distinctly stated in
the Decree that to belong to either of these societies or to
harbour any of its members is a criminal offence against the
law of China. Nothing less than this will, I am convinced, put
an end to the outrages against Christians which have lately
been so prevalent in Chihli and Shantung. Should the Chinese
Government refuse this reasonable request I shall be compelled
to report to my Government their failure to take what may be
called only an ordinary precaution against a most pernicious
and anti-foreign organization. The consequences of further
disorder in the districts concerned cannot fail to be
extremely serious to the Chinese Government."

The reply of the Yamên to this "identic note" was a lengthy

argument to show that publication in the "Peking Gazette" of
the Imperial Edict against "Boxers" would be contrary to "an
established rule of public business in China which it is
impossible to alter"; and that, furthermore, it would be
useless, because the common people of the provinces would not
see it. Not satisfied with this reply, the Ministers, on the
10th of March, addressed another identic note to the Yamên, in
the following words: "Acknowledging receipt of your Highness'
and your Excellencies' note of the 7th March, I regret to say
that it is in no way either an adequate or satisfactory reply
to my notes or my verbal requests concerning the suppression
of the two Societies known as the 'Big Sword' and 'Fist of
Righteous Harmony.' I therefore am obliged to repeat the
requests, and because of the rapid spread of these Societies,
proof of which is accumulating every day, and which the
Imperial Decree of the 11th January greatly encouraged, I
insist that an absolute prohibitive Decree for all China,
mentioning these two Societies by name, be forthwith issued
and published in the 'Peking Gazette,' as was done with the
Decree of the 11th January. Should I not receive a favourable
answer without delay, I shall report the matter to my
Government, and urge strongly the advisability of the adoption
of other measures for the protection of the lives and property
of British subjects in China."

On the same day, each of the Ministers cabled the following

recommendation to his government:

"If the Chinese Government should refuse to publish the Decree

we have required, and should the state of affairs not
materially improve, I would respectfully recommend that a few
ships of war of each nationality concerned should make a naval
demonstration in North Chinese waters. Identic recommendations
are being telegraphed home by my four colleagues
above-mentioned."

On the 16th, Sir Claude wrote: "No reply has yet been received
from the Tsung-li Yamên to the note of the 10th March, and it
was with serious misgivings as to the attitude of the Chinese
Government on this question that I read yesterday the official
announcement of the appointment of Yü Hsien, lately Governor
of Shantung, to the post of Governor of Shansi. The growth and
impunity of the anti-Christian Societies in Shantung has been
universally ascribed to the sympathy and encouragement
accorded to them by this high officer, and his conduct has for
some time past formed the subject of strong representations on
the part of several of the foreign Representatives."
 Great Britain, Papers by Command:
China, Number 3, 1900, pages 3-26.

"The foundation of the 'Boxers' can be traced to one man, Yü

Hsien, who, when Prefect of Tsao-chau, in the south-west
corner of Shan-tung, organized a band of men as local militia
or trainbands. For them he revived the ancient appellation of
'I-Ho-Ch'üan,' the Patriotic Harmony Fists. Armed with long
swords, they were known popularly as the Ta-tao-huei, or Big
Knife Society. After the occupation of Kiao-chau Bay the
society grew in force, the professed objects of its members
being to oppose the exactions of native Catholics and to
resist further German aggression. They became anti-Christian
and anti-foreign. They became a religious sect, and underwent
a fantastic kind of spiritual training of weird incantations
and grotesque gymnastics, which they professed to believe
rendered them impervious to the sword and to the bullet of the
white man. Three deities they specially selected as their
own—namely, Kwanti, the God of War and patron deity of the
present dynasty, Kwang Chéng-tze, an incarnation of Laotze,
and the Joyful Buddha of the Falstaffian Belly. They made
Taoist and Buddhist temples their headquarters. Everywhere
they declared that they would drive the foreigner and his
devilish religion from China. To encourage this society its
founder, Yü Hsien, was in March, 1899, appointed by the Throne
Governor of Shan-tung. In four years he had risen from the
comparatively humble post of Prefect to that of the highest
official in the province."

Peking Correspondence London Times,

October 13, 1900.

Sir Robert Hart, an English gentleman who had been in the

service of the Chinese government at Peking for many years,
administering its maritime customs, is the author of an
account of the causes and the character of the Boxer movement,
 written since its violent outbreak, from which the following
passages are taken:

"For ages China had discountenanced the military spirit and

was laughed at by us accordingly, and thus, ever since
intercourse under treaties has gone on, we have been lecturing
the Government from our superior standpoint, telling it that
it must grow strong—must create army and navy—must adopt
foreign drill and foreign weapons—must prepare to hold its own
against all comers—must remember 'Codlin' is its friend, not
'Short': our words did not fall on closed ears—effect was
given to selected bits of advice—and various firms did a very
remarkable and very remunerative trade in arms. But while the
Chinese Government made a note of all the advice its generous
friends placed at its disposal, and adopted some suggestions
because they either suited it or it seemed polite and harmless
to do so, it did not forget its own thirty centuries of
historic teaching, and it looked at affairs abroad through its
own eyes and the eyes of its representatives at foreign
Courts, studied their reports and the printed utterances of
books, magazines, and newspapers, and the teaching thus
received began gradually to crystallise in the belief that a
huge standing army on European lines would be wasteful and
dangerous and that a volunteer association—as suggested by the
way all China ranged itself on the Government side in the
Franco-Chinese affair—covering the whole Empire, offering an
outlet for restless spirits and fostering a united and
patriotic feeling, would be more reliable and effective, an
idea which seemed to receive immediate confirmation from
without in the stand a handful of burghers were making in the
Transvaal: hence the Boxer Association, patriotic in origin,
justifiable in its fundamental idea, and in point of fact the
outcome of either foreign advice or the study of foreign
methods.

{108}
"In the meanwhile the seeds of other growths were being sown
in the soil of the Chinese mind, private and official, and
were producing fruit each after its kind: various commercial
stipulations sanctioned by treaties had not taken into full
account Chinese conditions, difficulties, methods, and
requirements, and their enforcement did not make foreign
commerce more agreeable to the eye of either provincial or
metropolitan officials,—missionary propagandism was at work
all over the country, and its fruits, Chinese Christians, did
not win the esteem or goodwill of their fellows, for, first of
all, they offended public feeling by deserting Chinese for
foreign cults, next they irritated their fellow villagers by
refusing, as Christians, to take part in or share the expenses
of village festivals, and lastly, as Christians again, they
shocked the official mind, and popular opinion also, by
getting their religious teachers, more especially the Roman
Catholics, to interfere on their behalf in litigation, &c., a
state of affairs which became specially talked about in
Shantung, the native province of the Confucius of over 2,000
years ago and now the sphere of influence of one of the
Church's most energetic bishops,—the arrangement by which
missionaries were to ride in green chairs and be recognised as
the equals of Governors and Viceroys had its special
signification and underlined missionary aspiration telling
people and officials in every province what they had to expect
from it: on the top of this came the Kiao Chow affair and the
degradation and cashiering of a really able, popular, and
clean-handed official, the Governor Li Ping Hêng, succeeded by
the cessions of territory at Port Arthur, Wei-Hai-Wei, Kwang
Chow Wan, &c., &c., &c., and these doings, followed by the
successful stand made against the Italian demand for a port on
the Coast of Chekiang, helped to force the Chinese Government
to see that concession had gone far enough and that opposition
to foreign encroachment might now and henceforth be the key-note
of its policy.

"Li Ping Hêng had taken up his private residence in the

southeastern corner of Pecheli, close to the Shantung
frontier, and the Boxer movement, already started in a
tentative way in the latter province, now received an immense
impetus from the occurrences alluded to and was carefully
nurtured and fostered by that cashiered official—more
respected than ever by his countrymen. Other high officials
were known to be in sympathy with the new departure and to
give it their strongest approval and support, such as Hsü
Tung, Kang I, and men of the same stamp and standing, and
their advice to the throne was to try conclusions with
foreigners and yield no more to their demands. However
mistaken may have been their reading of foreigners, and
however wrong their manner of action, these men—eminent in
their own country for their learning and services—were
animated by patriotism, were enraged at foreign dictation, and
had the courage of their convictions: we must do them the
justice of allowing they were actuated by high motives and
love of country—but that does not always or necessarily mean
political ability or highest wisdom. …

"The Chinese, an intelligent, cultivated race, sober,

industrious, and on their own lines civilised, homogeneous in
language, thought, and feeling, which numbers some four
hundred millions, lives in its own ring fence, and covers a
country which—made up of fertile land and teeming waters, with
infinite variety of mountain and plain, hill and dale, and
every kind of climate and condition—on its surface produces
all that a people requires and in its bosom hides untold
virgin wealth that has never yet been disturbed—this race,
after thousands of years of haughty seclusion and
exclusiveness, has been pushed by the force of circumstances
and by the superior strength of assailants into treaty
relations with the rest of the world, but regards that as a
humiliation, sees no benefit accruing from it, and is looking
forward to the day when it in turn will be strong enough to
revert to its old life again and do away with foreign
intercourse, interference, and intrusion: it has slept long,