I welcome the fact that The Irish Times facilitates debate and discussion on asylum-seekers and refugee issues. While I would not doubt for one moment the sincerity of the views held by contributors to the debate such as Sister Stanislaus Kennedy, I would have to take serious issue with the validity of the arguments expressed by her.
At best these arguments, in your edition of 28th March, are an example of muddled thinking and a gross oversimplification of an extremely complex issue. Sister Stanislaus writes as follows: "We need a clear statement on the number of refugees Ireland is prepared to welcome, to whom we will offer full citizenship, with the right to education, work. . . etc".
That is a key paragraph which clearly underlines a serious lack of understanding on the part of Sister Stanislaus of the issue and the Government's policy response to it. The reality is that Ireland, no more than any other signatory state to the 1951 Geneva Convention, cannot (and will not) operate its refugee and asylum policy on the basis of allowing a fixed or predetermined number of asylum-seekers into the country.
Ireland has entered a solemn and binding international commitment to consider, in accordance with internationally accepted norms, all applications made for asylum in our jurisdiction. There is no going back on that commitment; therefore the question of capping numbers of applicants cannot and does not arise.
I would have thought that, having regard to the vast media coverage of this issue in recent years, that basic, simple and immutable principle would have got through to commentators by now. In the interests of promoting informed, rational and sensible debate, I am deeply disappointed that some commentators have yet to grasp that basic tenet.
I have no way of knowing at any given time how many non-nationals will arrive at our shores to seek asylum. Currently, about 1,000 a month travel here to make application. That much said, the Government has to deal with whatever numbers arrive.
This means providing an efficient case-determination system with all the usual supports such as legal aid and translation facilities to identify as quickly as possible those who are in genuine need of the State's sanctuary by virtue of a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds set out in the convention. It also means that all applicants have to be housed, and their health and welfare needs attended to.
That is precisely the entire focus of public policy as decided upon by the Government.
Sister Stanislaus and others have stated their dissatisfaction with housing asylum-seekers in flotels. I, too, share that dissatisfaction, but while others have the luxury of voicing their concerns, I am obliged to take action to ensure that our asylum-seekers are not left sleeping in doorways, public parks or in an otherwise unacceptable fashion. If Sister Stanislaus or anybody else can point me in the direction of acceptable and viable alternatives, I will be glad to hear from them.
I think it also worthwhile pointing out that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees is not opposed to the use of flotels; subject, of course, to sensible and reasonable conditions.
Much is made by Sister Stanislaus of the fact that we have 10,000 asylum-seekers (the actual figure is closer to 20,000) here seeking employment, while at the same time the Government is seeking to attract large numbers of overseas workers to the country to take up employment opportunities.
On a superficial level, it might seem that the answer is to allow asylum-seekers an unfettered right to work on their arrival here, which (the reasoning goes) would also meet the needs of the economy in terms of filling the vacancies in the jobs market. Yet again, I am disappointed that such a simplistic solution is being advocated in answer to a very complex issue. In reality, there is no escaping the fact that were this country to adopt this approach, it would amount to a complete abandonment of immigration controls and the adoption of an "open border" immigration regime.
One obvious consequence would be that any non-national who wanted to work here would simply turn up and claim asylum. It would reward those who abuse the asylum process while at the same time corrupt that same process on which genuine asylum-seekers have to rely. Clearly, no sane government is going to eschew its sovereignty by going down that road.
As your readers will be aware, there is already in place a well-established procedure to enable non-nationals to travel here to take up employment opportunities. Furthermore, your newspaper also gave extensive coverage to the package of measures brought to the Government this week by the Tanaiste, aimed at streamlining that process to meet the needs of the economy.
The net point here is that non-nationals who wish to come to Ireland to work have a perfectly valid and legal channel in which to do so. We cannot allow our system of asylum determination to be used in usurpation of that process. It must be clearly understood that it is neither necessary nor desirable for a non-national to apply for asylum in order to take up an employment opportunity in this country.
The UNHCR advises me that every effort should be made to discourage bogus asylum applications because these only serve to clog up the determination process and thereby delay the identification of those in genuine need of the State's protection by reference to the terms of the 1951 Geneva Convention.
AS I outlined at the outset, I respect the sincerity of the views of those who might disagree with me on this issue. Open and informed debate in any democratic society demands that all of us respect the right of others to hold and express opposing views.
It is, however, not in anybody's interests - least of all of those who come here to seek asylum - to insinuate that the Government is about to "intern" asylum-seekers or to cram them into virtual prison ships.
I greatly regret that Sister Stanislaus felt it necessary to begin her article with such emotive and pejorative terms when neither I, the Government nor anybody in authority has ever even remotely suggested any such approach. Perhaps it would be in the best interests of informed comment if she had stood back a little, considered what the Government has actually decided and allowed her head to rule her heart before rushing to condemnation.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that those seeking refugee status and who, after due process in accordance with international norms, are deemed in need of it, will get the protection of this State. There is no equivocation about that and no amount of misrepresentation will alter that fact.
All other non-nationals will be treated in a manner that befits their dignity as human beings, but quite simply this Government is not prepared to allow those persons not found to be in need of the State's protection an unfettered right to stay.
I take no pleasure whatsoever in asking such persons to leave the State. But it is my duty to uphold the law and I will not shirk my responsibilities in enforcing it humanely and fairly. I have an obligation to protect the borders and, insofar as I can, the economy of this country, and no amount of ill-founded criticism is going to deflect me from that task.
John O'Donoghue is Minister for Justice