Immigrant policy should be more transparent

Some five years ago a Sunday Independent writer very sensibly pointed out that there was no need to paint the debate about non-nationals coming to Ireland as a choice between an open-door policy and keeping non-national presence in Ireland to an absolute minimum.

He went on to suggest "coolness and kindness" as important qualities in the debate on immigration.

He also suggested that "we could and should show a limited number of Third World economic migrants some of the generosity that Irish politicians used to demand of the US".

In one of life's little ironies, the writer, who also wrote that the Department of Justice's attitude to immigrants often made his blood boil or freeze, went on to be the current Minister for Justice. Funnily enough, whatever about coolness, he does not seem to prioritise kindness and generosity in his policy towards non-nationals.

An open-door policy is impossible and unworkable, but I don't ever remember anyone advocating it, anyway. The "absolute minimum" seems to be what we are getting. There have been a number of alarming reports in the media recently, including the fact that some parents felt they had no choice except to leave their Irish-born children behind when they were deported.

However, Department of Justice-bashing is an easy sport. For example, the initial application procedure and the appeals system for asylum-seekers have both been greatly speeded up, but there has been little acknowledgment of progress in this area.

Rather than a somewhat sterile exercise of "blame the Government", it needs to be acknowledged that the Government believes it has a mandate to operate as it does.

There is little doubt that the Government, and the Minister for Justice in particular, feel that the result of the citizenship referendum was a massive endorsement of a tough and hard-headed approach. However, there is another way of framing the debate.

What would constitute a reasonable, albeit limited, number of non-nationals - with a particular emphasis on impoverished countries - to welcome to and attempt to integrate into Ireland?

There are a number of different routes to membership of Irish society. The first is to be recognised as a refugee, under the terms of the 1951 Geneva Convention. In the past two years Ireland recognised some 3,000 refugees, and the number is steadily dropping. Recognised refugees are expected to level out at about 1,000 a year.

Once all the stages of the asylum-seeking process have been exhausted, and a person has received a letter informing him or her they are about to be deported, they may appeal directly to the Minister for "humanitarian leave to remain". Success gives a person a right of residency in Ireland because their circumstances indicate that they merit protection from the Irish State. Ireland only granted 83 such permissions to remain last year which, compared to international figures, is very small.

The Department of Justice would counter that other countries which appear more generous receive more applications for refugee status from countries such as Iraq and Somalia, whereas Ireland receives the majority of its applications from Nigeria and Romania.

It is a fair point that it is easier to have a credible claim for protection if you come from Iraq than from Nigeria. However, it ignores the fact that there are other reasons for giving humanitarian leave to remain.

For example, what about the non-national parents of Irish-born children, who applied for leave to remain in good faith, and in a way which was perfectly legitimate at the time? Many of them have spent long years in Ireland, and their children have known no other home. Even those who meet the criteria set down by legislation, that is, some 11 conditions that include things such as having a good character and prospects of employment, probably will not be granted permission to stay.

There is no transparency or accountability over how leave to remain is awarded. The EU is currently attempting to harmonise asylum policy.

Since other EU countries have more generous and transparent systems, eventually we will probably have to legislate for a more comprehensive system of "complementary forms of protection", that is, protection for those who do not meet the strict criteria for being a refugee. Why not legislate now? Even when we recognise people as refugees, we are slow to allow family reunification. For example, one Zimbabwean man has been recognised as a refugee. When he began his application for family reunification, his eldest daughter was not quite 16. She is now 19 and has no guarantee she will be allowed to come to Ireland. As she is now over 18, she may no longer be classed as a dependant. Far from welcoming people in more generous terms, we are not even treating legitimate refugees fairly.

Our asylum-seeking figures are bound up with the fact that our immigration system is archaic and incredibly complex.

Many of our asylum-seekers are really economic migrants. Under our current system, a work permit is issued to the employer, not the employee, so someone who is being exploited has little choice but to stay put, or risk being deported if they cannot find another employer. In Canada people seeking to immigrate are allocated points according to language skills, education, age and the demand for their skills. It is a transparent system, and the person receives the work permit himself or herself. This system also prevents local workers being undercut by a flood of cheap labour.

Why not issue employment-seeking visas that are valid for a month? Those who get a job during that time, and do not take that job away from an Irish citizen, could then be issued with a work visa. Our asylum-seeking applications would rapidly diminish.

So what would constitute a reasonable number of people given a chance to live long-term in Ireland?. The non-national parents of Irish-born children should be given priority. Once that backlog is taken care of, if the figures settle down to 1,000 a year being granted refugee status, could we absorb, say, a further 1,000 potential citizens every year from impoverished countries in ways varying from leave to remain to long-term employee-held work visas? If the figure prompts outrage, either because it is too high or too low, what might a limited but generous figure be?