David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I had a guest at lunch today. She is the widow of a school friend of mine. She is English and she spoke about attending a citizenship ceremony when she achieved Irish citizenship. She spoke about it with tremendous passion and said it was one of the most moving days of her life. She was surrounded by people from Asia, Africa and Europe and this meant so much to her. It is in that human context that we have to view this important legislation.

In 2004, there was a mean-minded, despicable referendum, of which I, as an Irish citizen, am deeply ashamed. It was an appalling thing to do. Among the provisions in the referendum, it stated, "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, a person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, who does not have, at the time of the birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or is entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law." There are a couple of things we can say about this. First, the phrase, "unless provided for by law", is an open invitation to the Oireachtas to enact such legislation and that is what we are doing tonight.

Second, it is interesting that the phrase, "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution", is intended to qualify Article 2 of the Constitution following the Good Friday Agreement, which states: "It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation." What does this mean? How can somebody be part of the Irish nation while, at the same time, be denied citizenship? It is a contradiction in terms and a complete nonsense. The fact is that this change in the law simply means that the Government and the Minister can deport children.

We hear the Government all the time saying that we must bear in mind the best interests of the child when bringing in legislation. How is it in the best interests of a child that it be deported to a country that it does not know? That is also a nonsense.

Section 3, which deals with humanitarian leave to remain, is not a solution to this. A child or the parents cannot operate this section. It is triggered exclusively at the whim of the Minister. It is clear that the current system has not been put in place to address the needs of undocumented children or their families. That is not the intention.

Reference was made to other countries and we were told that 23 or 24 of the EU27 have provisions for regularisation. In Luxembourg, there is a mechanism in law to regularise children and young people and their parents before they turn 21 if the child or young person has completed four years of compulsory schooling. In France, there are a number of regularisation mechanisms and provisions in law and policies that entitle children to regularise their status at 18 years of age based on private and family life. The criteria focus on the years of residency and schooling. There is a mechanism in law in Norway that regularises children on the basis of strong humanitarian grounds in practice and regularises undocumented children who have resided there for more than four and a half years and who have attended one year of school in Norway.Even in the United Kingdom, there are provisions for regularising undocumented children. We have to face the human situation. Imagine the mental stress faced by undocumented children in this situation, children who have become aware of their parents' lack of legal status. This protection, which D.H. Lawrence called the overarching rainbow of the parents' love, is fractured by this.