04 January 2012

ALAN SHATTER ON IMMIGRATION, RESIDENCE AND PROTECTION BILL

ICP is extremely disappointed that in his recent statement reviewing immigration matters for 2011 and indicating his plans for 2012,the Minister promises to "progress" the Immigration,Residence and Protection Bill but does not indicate that we can expect to see its enactment completed during 2012.

He is the fourth minister for Justice to endeavour to enact this law and it is impossible to understand the delay.

Above all,it means that the "Single Procedure" promised for the protection system has still not been introduced.

Currently one applies for asylum and probably appeals a refusal. One probably then applies for subsidiary protection. If so the whole process begins all over again. If refused one may seek humanitarian leave to remain and again, apparently a full consideration must be done.

In the meantime the taxpayer is ripped off and the passage of time allows other circumstances to build up  which may prevent the eventual deportation of the applicant. This is why there are still 5,400 people in direct provision and thousands not deported.

The Single Procedure was meant to provide for one application for protection and the decision on asylum ,subsidiary protection or leave to remain would be done in one procedure.

Irish people are entitled to have this brought in at the earliest opportunity.

ENDS

Issued by Áine Ní Chonaill, PRO

Press Releases

November 11 2011

Refusal of refugee status overturned

A boy aged five born here to Serbian parents regarded as Roma has won a High Court order quashing the refusal of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to grant him refugee status.

Mr Justice Gerard Hogan yesterday quashed the 2009 decision refusing refugee status and directing the boy be returned to Serbia, on grounds including the tribunal?s failure to properly address what was meant by ?persecution? under the Refugee Act 1996.

Continue reading

Referendum on Children's Rights

There is a grave danger that we are about to repeat the mistake of 12 years ago, and put into the constitution measures which will cause us severe difficulties in controlling immigration.

The proposed wording for a referendum on children says the following:

?In the resolution of all disputes concerning the guardianship, adoption, custody, care or upbringing of a child, the welfare and best interests of the child shall be the first and paramount consideration?.

Consider the case of the attempt to deport a foreigner who has a child here. One would expect that in almost all cases it would be better off to be brought up in a developed country like Ireland, than in a developing country such as Nigeria, Pakistan etc. Once that decision was made that would be end of it. The child would have to be allowed to stay and, in its best interests, its parent could not be deported, be they failed asylum seeker or any illegal immigrant. This arises from the phrase ?the first and paramount consideration?.

This is not a rhetorical phrase. It has a very specific legal meaning as is explained on p.41 of the Final (3rd) Report of the Joint Committee of the Oireachtas on a referendum on children.

When this phrase exists, no other competing rights matter, such as our right to protect our borders, or the integrity of our asylum and immigration systems. Without that phrase, a balance would be sought between competing rights; with that phrase, nothing counts except the interests of the child.

Dr. Ursula Kilkelly of UCC, a child law expert, (who in her submission to the committee sought the inclusion of the word ?upbringing?) has said that the wording has the potential to impact on areas such as migration, in that the stress on the rights of the child would now have to be taken into account where, for example, an irish-born child?s mother has been deported.

?It has the potential to re-orientate (sic) the decision-making [process] and recast the framework within which those decisions are made? she said. A very sweeping statement.

We made a submission to the committee warning of such dangers in the 2007 wording. The word ?upbringing?, which greatly increases the dangers, was added later. We sought the inclusion of the following as a safeguard:

?No provision of this article may be invoked in any court proceedings regarding deportation?.

We also sought to prevent adoption procedures being used by an ?unaccompanied minor? as a stratagem to avoid being deported after reaching the age of 18. The same situation of the welfare and best interests of the child being of ?first and paramount consideration? would apply there. We therefore suggested adding to the article:

?No provision may be made by law for the adoption of any child who is resident in the state, but does not enjoy the benefit of long-term residency?. [All submissions may be viewed on the committee?s website].

The report, which makes reference to several submissions, makes no reference to our concerns. It is extraordinary that the lessons of 1998 and the Belfast Agreement have not been learned. On that occasion we warned of the consequences of copper-fastening in the constitution the right to citizenship of anyone born on the island of Ireland. The Referendum Commission, which at that time gave both sides of the argument, specifically mentioned the dangers this could pose for immigration control.

In the euphoria surrounding the Agreement, this was ignored. Six years later, after incalculable damage, it was necessary to have another referendum to fix the problem. Now we have another ?motherhood? which nobody is supposed to question.

There is, in fact, no need for this referendum. The State has already got the legal tools to protect children as Gerard Hogan S.C. has indicated, as has Adrian Hardiman of the Supreme Court.

Alan Shatter has contradicted his own arguments on the matter. On the one hand he has claimed that a recent horrific family case proves that we need this referendum. On the other, he has referred to the ?grotesque and indefensible failure? of the then Western Health Board to intervene effectively in that case. It is precisely because they had the legal tools to intervene that the failure was ?indefensible?. If they did not have the tools, because of the constitution, there could be nothing ?indefensible? about it.

There are just short of 6,000 children currently in care. That is a very sad fact, but it provides 6,000 proofs that the legal tools exist to protect children. The very same politically correct constituency which in 2004 did not want us to escape from the abusive entanglement of the 1998 referendum now advocates a repeat of that abuse. Either safeguards, such as we suggest, must be added or this unnecessary amendment should be defeated.

Read our statement here