Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Minister to the House and applaud his diligence in sitting through the debate. Such debates are useful because there has almost never been a proper, balanced debate on this issue. It is approached at all times from the extremes, making for a polarised debate. Some points need to be recorded and a certain courage needs to be shown in the approach to this issue.

The reality is that the State cannot be open to all who arrive at our borders, neither can we be seen to take a hard and difficult line. One of the problems is that we have not put in place a system which expresses the humanity we feel in certain individual cases while also protecting the validity and value of Irish citizenship and residency. A poor effort has been made to explain to the people the difference between asylum seekers, economic migrants and other migrants who arrive in the country. Therefore, pressure has been put on all sides to try to exert control over the issue in regard to children born in this country. I do not accept we cannot find a way in which those children can be accepted as Irish citizens who may remain in the State and, in that sense, that their parents can remain with them. We should find some reasonable way of dealing with this issue, which is an example of the wider issues I am discussing.

The other side of the argument, that of those who have opposed the Minister's position, has also raised questions. We need to be clear that our first responsibility and concern is for Irish citizens, our second line of responsibility is to European Union citizens and our third line of responsibility is to citizens outside the European Union. I have no difficulty in saying this. Even in an equal world, priorities must take their place.

We must address this in a fair, open and reasonable manner. In all discussions I have had with refugee, immigrant or asylum groups, I have always asked which country offers best practice in terms of immigration policy. In putting that question to some of the most liberally minded people in this area, I have never received a reply that did not include Canada, New Zealand or Australia. Despite the fact that I would push the argument, particularly in the case of Australia with its camps, ships, etc., the representatives of these groups, who would seek an expansive immigration policy, would put forward that view.

I took the trouble to consider the immigration policies of the three countries referred to and remember having a brief discussion with the Minister on New Zealand's immigration policy. Those countries take a balanced view of the economic needs of the country plus a more liberal view in regard to opening that to a wider group, before considering how they can also give an opportunity to those without any clear talent or qualification to bring with them, but who it is felt could make a contribution and live in a fair and equitable way within the country.

The three countries appear to have made a better fist of this. Canada is a perfect example of a country with integrated cities, including cities such as Toronto and those in western Canada. New Zealand is also a good example, as is Australia, in the main. However, they are working with a type of — I hate to use this word — quota system. If the Minister was to announce a proposal such as a quota system, after suffering the initial flak which he would definitely take, many of us would be prepared to say that if this system operated in an open, fair and equitable way with which we could all live, there would be a way forward. Any argument brought to its logical conclusion would have to agree that there must be some clear method. The concomitant of this is that there would also be hard times when hard decisions would have to be taken. However, if we all bought into the system, we would all have to live with the hard decisions.

My difficulty is that in dealing with these issues, some of the decisions being taken currently are too harsh and do not sit easily with me, because they do not form part of a broader context. There should be a broader context in which we would do our business and whereby we could all hold the line on issues because we would feel we were acting properly and correctly. I will deal with this concern more fully as the debate on the Bill progresses.