Ireland: Immigration policies mirror EU
01 January 2000
In December 1999 the Irish government announced a new Immigration Bill, a package of measures on asylum and migration which mirrors limited European standards. Fingerprinting, the introduction of a voucher system, dispersal without choice and increased powers to deport are all part of Ireland's new approach to immigration, despite two years of pressure and criticism by refugee support groups and human rights organisations. An Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill was introduced to the Oireachtas (parliament) by the government on 18 November 1999. Here also, Ireland has adopted aspects of European asylum and migration law, allowing a ten year imprisonment of those aiding entry of refugees and migrants into Ireland, irrespective of possible humanitarian motives or the future acceptance of the concerned immigrants as asylum seekers (see Statewatch vol 9 no 3 & 4). The bias in the Irish asylum procedure, which has been described by Progressive Democrat Party member Liz O'Donnel as "a shambles", has also led to the resignation of a leading barrister from his post on the Independent Asylum Appeals Authority.
The government's approach marks a distinct break with the generous Refugee Act of 1996. The Refugee Act, despite having been passed by the Oireachtas two years ago, was never properly implemented: under the Irish legal system, most legislation is only "enabling" and needs Ministerial Orders ("Statutory Instruments"), that is, political will, to bring the legislation into effect. Its implementation was delayed by the then "rainbow" coalition, consisting of the Fine Gael-, Labour- and Democratic Left parties. The following Fianna Fail/Progressive Democrat coalition government which took office in 1997, also did everything in its power to delay the Act's implementation. As a result of this implementation failure, which did not hinder the appointment of more officials to speed up the asylum procedure, applications and deportations were processed without the existence of an independent asylum procedure. First applications were, and still are, heard by officials of the Department of Justice. Legal experts who are responsible for appeals, can only make "recommendations" to the Minister, although the latest changes are supposed to introduce an independent appeals process.
The situation led to a challenge to the Minister's deportation powers in the High Court, which decided in favour of the appellant in January 1999: in the Laurentiu case, Mr Justice Geoghegan ruled that Section 5(1)(e) of the Aliens Act 1935, from which the Minister's powers to make deportation orders had derived, was unconstitutional. Left with no powers to deport, the government quickly published the Immigration Bill, also dubbed the "Deportation Bill", in order to allow deportations to restart and also announced it wanted to get it passed by the Oireachtas "within weeks".
The Bill allows for deportations before rejected asylum seekers have exercised their right of appeal. The criteria which underlie the issuing of deportation orders have been criticised as vague and therefore incorporating minor criminal acts, the failure to pay a debt, for example. Deportations are possible if the Minister deems them to be "conducive to the common good", or in the interest of "national security" or "public policy". The Bill provides for detention centres, a new phenomenon in Ireland. A duty is also imposed on asylum seekers not to endanger their, or anybody else's safety during deportation, a corresponding duty for state officials who carry out such deportations however, is lacking - a lack which is deemed unsustainable given the increasing number of deaths during deportation all over Europe, says the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL).
The recent package has also been criticised by human rights organisations and refugee and migrant support groups. The Irish Refugee Council remarked that it regretted that the government's announcements did not incl