Brendan Ryan (Labour)

It would be wrong to re-fight the referendum. It was a clear and decisive decision of the people, although the circumstances under which it was offered to the people and debated, and the haste and the language used on both sides, were not suitable.

The pressure on the maternity hospitals in this city was cited as the matter that had come to the Minister's attention but the crisis of unparalleled proportions apparently will occur next year, after the enactment of this legislation. The babies born next summer will have been conceived after the outcome of the referendum was known. The Minister was correct that there were instances of people coming here deliberately but I believe we have not seen the end of the matter.

I accept that a significant number of the people who voted for this were not driven by any feelings of racism. There is, however, without a doubt, a segment of our society which rallied to this cause with enthusiasm and in whose company neither the Minister, who believes himself to be a card carrying liberal and libertarian, nor I would be happy. The phone-in shows during the referendum uncovered a line of anti-immigrant sentiment that was most unpleasant. If there was a loophole in our legislation, and I am still sceptical about that, the referendum was interpreted by that section of our society as the beginning of a successful campaign to raise the shutters around Ireland. Those in the Immigration Control Platform who were entirely on the periphery of Irish society now believe themselves to have been heeded once and to have a foothold. No one who has spoken in this debate in this House is in that category, including the Minister. The view of those elements of our society is that they have begun a campaign and it is up to everyone in our society, particularly the Government, to say that we have done what was needed to deal with a specific loophole and that this will remain a State that both in its rhetoric and in its laws is generous to those who come to live and work among us — not just tolerant but generous.

I am delighted with the draft of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act as it will appear following enactment. It is an idea the Minister might circulate to other Departments. It is helpful to have a draft of complicated legislation and I compliment the Minister on the idea. Whoever thought it up will get the credit for it. That is the nature of politics. It is a good idea and I welcome it.

The Minister mentioned asylum seekers and I have one question for him, which I have always wanted to ask. There are reports that the refusal rates for asylum applications for citizens of some of the contentious countries are higher in Ireland than in other states. In other words, we allow a lesser proportion of asylum applications from some of the more troubled countries, in comparison to the United Kingdom, France, Germany or anywhere else. Is that true? Do we say "No" to a higher proportion, because if we do the question must be asked. Why do we refuse a greater proportion of applicants from Somalia, Nigeria or any of the countries where there has been civil strife and persecution? Is there a lesser quality of applicant coming here or are we applying more stringent tests? Perhaps I am wrong, but a number of bodies have said studies show that Ireland is more inclined to say "No" than other countries. I would like the Minister's comments in this regard.

There is a wonderful tone of humanity in the Minister's speech about people who are here, with Irish-born children, when he refers to "the families of Irish children, whose parents do not have the right to be here". The Minister has said that "every outstanding claim to reside in the State on the basis of parentage of an Irish-born child will be examined and decided individually", etc. The Department has taken on extra staff and the Minister stated: "I have also indicated on more than one occasion that I will look at the entire situation in a decent, sensible and pragmatic way." Nobody with any kind of heart could do other than welcome what the Minister has said. My problem is that the practice and the rhetoric are hard to reconcile. The Department does not know how many Irish children have been removed from the State as a consequence of deportations.

This State, notwithstanding the wonderful rhetoric of Article 40 of the Constitution — which I was going to read, but will not, as the Minister probably knows it — has not done much about the rights of those Irish citizens, some of who are now in peculiar situations. They are Irish citizens and therefore cannot become citizens, in some cases, of the countries to which they have been returned. In some cases, it is alleged they are being denied social and health services because they are not citizens of the country to which they have been returned. The Department either does not know or will not tell us how many children are in this position. I do not know how many children have been left behind by parents who have been deported. At what stage does the State become concerned about those citizens of Ireland? Is it when the children left behind end up on the street? Is it when the children who are sent out of this country end up on the streets in the other country, or is it when they come back later and demand their rights as citizens and, as a number of people have suggested, sue the State because it abandoned them?

This State has no right to abandon any citizen. I cannot reconcile the humanity of the Minister's remarks on the issue of the parents of Irish citizens with the practice of his Department, which clearly is to obfuscate on the issue of children being removed from this country who are citizens of the State. This is to ignore the fact that the State has obligations to its citizens, just as the citizens have to the State. It would be the ultimate irony if the State used the sanctity of the family as the issue on which to justify its non-interference, having argued successfully all the way to the Supreme Court that this very sanctity should not be allowed to guarantee the parents' rights to stay here. It got a decision from the Supreme Court, which, to put it mildly, is difficult to reconcile with ordinary logic.

I accept that without a deportation policy there could not be a policy on immigration, legal or otherwise. The reality of the serious possibility of deportation is a necessary part of the instruments of a good immigration policy. The problem is this country's priorities have focused more on that aspect of immigration rather than the other. We seem to be much more enthusiastic about getting deportation organised than about the other harsh realities of immigration. I know a practitioner of Chinese medicine, about the same age as myself, who has been living here legally for a number of years. His spouse has been living with him and has now been refused an extension of her residency visa, even though everyone knows that this man is here to make money so that he can return to the home and the property he owns in China. In this case somebody says, in effect, "No, your wife cannot stay here with you". I cannot find a humane immigration policy in that. When I hear of people being told they may work here, but their spouses or children cannot join them, in this so-called welcoming country, where is the humanity in that?

In terms of its demographic profile over the next 50 years, the United States will see a spectacular increase in population, just as Europe's is undergoing an equally spectacular decline. One of the reasons is that the United States has an enlightened immigration policy. It was interesting to watch the presidential debates in which President Bush and Senator Kerry discussed the issue of immigration. When one considers the hysteria that enters into every debate about immigration in virtually every state in the European Union, and sees the relatively solid consensus between the contenders for the US presidency on the importance of immigration, the contrast is real.

Turning to more general issues, why does the Minister insist on holding on to absolute discretion, even where people meet most of the other conditions? I am concerned about the issue of Irish associations because a young man I know of Japanese origin, living here from the age of five to 20 years, was finally granted citizenship on the grounds of his Irish association. This happened, despite the fact that his parents were Japanese and they broke up. His mother stayed for a while, but the father went back. He spoke far better English than Japanese, with an impeccable Cork accent. He did not speak Japanese with a Cork accent, or at least I cannot judge that. However, it seems to me that his claim to Irish association will now be removed under this legislation. I do not know whether this was a deliberate or intended consequence of the legislation.

Will the Minister clarify whether the current three out of four years' rule could be changed to nine out of ten years? It is no longer a guarantee of anything. It could be nine out of ten. The citizenship requirements in respect of Britain could be changed if that was required as could the citizenship requirements in respect of the European Economic Area. In this regard, we have not just changed a detail to close a small loophole but have opened up the possibility of an enormously more restrictive immigration and citizenship policy in the future.

I regret that this legislation is going through. The manner, timing and tone of some of the debate on the issue in the referendum was regrettable but it is a fact of life and we have to observe and respect the will of the people. That is our form of democracy and it is the correct way. However, the country is not operating in a spirit of generosity either in its immigration policy or in the way it has dealt with the children born here who are Irish citizens and their parents, some of whom have been deported. The legality of the deportation of Irish citizens is highly questionable and the apparent indifference of the Government to the conditions under which young Irish citizens live abroad is a matter of great concern and does not augur well for the general humanity of our immigration policy.