In the 10-year period since 1994 approximately only one in 10 applicants has been afforded refugee status, writes Valerie Hughes.
Widespread condemnation has followed the drunkenness and hooliganism that featured during the week of celebrations in honour of St Patrick. But there have been very few voices raised in shock at the horrific nature of significant aspects of the deportation of 35 Nigerian nationals to their home country.
Our Government has frequently represented its asylum system as one of the most generous and liberal in Europe, giving us no cause for shame. Yet, how does this claim stand up in the light of last week's reports that mothers were deported in a manner that required them to leave some of their children behind in Ireland?
Snatching highly esteemed and hard-working Nigerian students from their schools hardly accords with the reputed values of the nation once described as "the Island of Saints and Scholars".
It is believed by some of those who deal with refugees and asylum seekers that the Government will, in effect, work towards a "trade-off" between giving residency rights to immigrant parents of Irish-born children while, at the same time, greatly expediting the number of deportations of so-called "failed" asylum applicants. If this is indeed the case,there is an immense danger that the criteria for leave to remain on humanitarian grounds in Ireland will be applied even more harshly than is already the case.
The reality is that in the 10-year period since 1994, approximately only one in 10 applicants has been afforded refugee status.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that those refused asylum in Ireland meet with an equally harsh response when they apply for leave to remain on humanitarian grounds. Astonishingly, according to the Irish Refugee Council (IRC), only 442 asylum seekers have been given this right since 1999. No wonder, IRC director Peter O'Mahony commented on RTÉ's Morning Ireland last year: "In Ireland you are almost wasting your time [ applying for leave to remain on humanitarian grounds] if you have been refused asylum."
The European Council on Refugees and Exiles has pointed out: "Even a full and inclusive interpretation of the Geneva Convention would not cover certain asylum seekers, who are nonetheless in need of international protection."
All the more important, therefore, is a generous interpretation of the criteria for leave to remain on humanitarian grounds. As of now, this is the only alternative open to unsuccessful asylum applicants in Ireland who are in urgent and desperate need of protection.
From my own experience I know of cases where unsuccessful asylum applicants from such countries as Kosovo, Serbia, Albania, and Algeria live in daily dread of sudden deportation - despite extremely compelling arguments for remaining in Ireland.
For example, one Albanian acquaintance has good reason for believing that he would be murdered by criminal elements were he to be returned to his country. Such was the risk facing him that he had to refuse a very attractive job offer since applications for work permits may be made, however unjustly, only from one's country of origin. It is a very harsh system that not only denies protection to such a genuine candidate for leave to remain, but at any moment may force his return to a situation of extreme danger.
I also know an Algerian who has been in Ireland for over seven years. He too has extremely persuasive reasons for believing that, in the context of the armed conflict in his country during the last decade, he would probably be killed were he deported to Algeria.
Though this man is not currently subject to a deportation order, he lives in a miserable limbo-like situation, with no certainty over his future and with the constant threat of deportation hanging over him. Not surprisingly, this man's mental health has broken down.
Governments regularly rely on supposedly authoritative reports about the safety of particular countries for deported asylum seekers. Unfortunately, this is to ignore the reality that wide generalisations do not give a truthful account of many local situations.
Consider, for example, the immense size and diversity of Nigeria. According to Human Rights Watch, the political considerations of western governments which view Nigeria as a key ally in Africa in "the war against terrorism", have "led to a reluctance to criticise Nigeria's human rights record" (HRW 2003).
European governments have been deporting en masse to Kosovo asylum seekers who were refused refugee status on the grounds that the environment there is now safe. However, recent UNHCR reports on Kosovo recognise the ongoing need for protection of Kosovans, who have had extremely traumatic experiences in their own country.
It is most disturbing that when the security situation in Kosovo greatly deteriorated a year ago, there was little evidence that this factor was being taken into account by the Irish Refugee Appeals Tribunal. I know of Kosovans with very serious protection needs, who have been refused asylum at a time when the international community fears an imminent outbreak of serious violence again.
The 1999 Immigration Act, Section 3 (6), provides generous criteria for facilitating the granting of leave to remain in Ireland. These include: length of stay in the country, family and domestic circumstances of the applicant, and the character and conduct of the person.
Many deportation orders and the manner of their implementation are shockingly at odds with the spirit of the 1999 Act. I strongly endorse the editorial in this newspaper on March 17th, which described the recent deportation of 35 Nigerian nationals as "an unworthy betrayal of St Patrick's legacy".
Valerie Hughes is secretary of Kosova Ireland Solidarity