Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

-----that if the proposed amendment were passed by this House and had the direct consequence of attracting more people to the State to achieve residency status through the birth of a child here, the consequential strain on our State services, including existing immigration provision, housing, education, medical services and welfare, would need to be most carefully assessed. In light of this, I wish to give notice that the Government will refuse to grant a money message in respect of this legislation. At present, our immigration laws, which a comparative analysis will show are far more liberal than those of many EU member states, give us the latitude to offer solidarity to other member states dealing with emergency humanitarian crises as well as countries hosting large refugee populations. We have this latitude because we have a rules-based immigration system.

In summary, the proposed Bill, which is undoubtedly well-intentioned, would have consequences that reach far beyond what might be immediately obvious. There are serious implications across a wide number of areas, including Northern Ireland-UK, EU and national immigration laws and services. In effect, it undoes the current link between reckonable parental residency and the grant of citizenship to the child of non-national parents. The situation the Bill would create is one in which the child would be automatically and unconditionally granted citizenship. This is without any reference to the immigration status or legal presence in the State of the parents. If the Bill were enacted, Ireland would be out of step with the entirety of the European Union.

7 o’clock

This would create a major incentive for non-EEA nationals in other EU member states, particularly those there illegally and without lawful authority and those with non-reckonable residency, to come here to have their child. Such persons could in turn return to the original EU member state as soon as the child is born having secured Irish citizenship, thereby circumventing the immigration laws of any EU member state. The Bill fails to have any regard to our fellow member states. The European Union has a common purpose in protecting citizenship rights and free movement of people and our present arrangements reflect and share that value. There are similar potential impacts on Northern Ireland and the common travel area, including North-South and east-west impacts that would need to be carefully considered. The Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, recommended in the Seanad, when dealing with a similar Bill, that before proceeding with any change of such wide-ranging implications for ourselves, Northern Ireland, the common travel area and our fellow EU member states, a minimum requirement would be to instigate a detailed analysis of the implications of such a unilateral action, including a detailed consultation with all impacted parties and the non-governmental organisation, NGO, community.

Considering that this matter was debated nationally in 2004 and voted upon by the people, any changes at a minimum should involve a further national conversation on any alteration to the current fair procedures. In the absence of any such action and for the reasons I have outlined, the Government is not supporting this Bill. I stand over the current pathways that are fair and accessible for those who wish to comply with our immigration provision. This Government is a champion of integration and children's rights. I assure the House that I will continue to exercise my ministerial discretion in cases where humanitarian needs are presented to me and substantiated, especially those made in the best interests of the child. However, it is essential that our pathways are fair and not completely out of step with EU norms, as the proposal here not only conveys rights on those illegally in this State but those who may be living illegally in Northern Ireland as well and it provides for a pathway to EU citizenship that is not provided for in any other member state. I do not believe that the Bill is consistent with valuing responsible citizenship and therefore I urge the House to join the Government in opposing it.

See this speech in context