Marines or migrants, we’ll lie to ourselves and hope to earn a dime
Both groups are being made to feel unwelcome. Opposition to the American soldiers is small on the ground, judging by the protests at Shannon, but well represented in the media and politics. Hostility to asylum seekers, on the other hand, can be found at every level.
Last Thursday's decision by the Supreme Court, which upheld the State's right to deport the non-national parents of Irish children, was widely supported because many people resent the abuse of the system by immigrants who beget children in order to get residency in this country.
The asylum seekers and the American soldiers both face dangers. If the US declares war, some of those soldiers will never see their families again.
Failed asylum seekers, on the other hand, are not in imminent danger of death because our system accommodates those who face persecution from oppressive governments. But some face danger and death as a result of tribal conflicts and disputes over land. Not to mention poverty.
Significantly, both issues illustrate how our leaders deal with serious moral and social problems.
The Taoiseach's latest declaration that US planes carrying munitions will need permission before landing at Shannon is his way of saying that we will not stop the Americans from landing here.
It is a decision motivated by pure pragmatism, based on a realisation that this country cannot offend America's vital interests without hurting itself very badly, both economically and politically. The moral debate which should guide all serious decision-making in this case the question of whether war in Iraq is justified becomes a secondary issue.
The same streak of pragmatism ran through the Supreme Court's decision on non-nationals last Thursday. In recent years, about 10,000 people who entered the country as asylum seekers were granted residency on the basis that their children born in Ireland qualified as Irish citizens. Another 10,000 such applications are still in the system. This happened because most people describing themselves as asylum seekers would not qualify under the relevant legislation here. They are, in fact, economic migrants, whose real terror is poverty and lack of opportunity at home, rather than death at the hands of a foreign Government. Since Ireland has no proper channel of entry for such people, it makes sense for them to come in as asylum seekers, but then to drop their claim for asylum and to apply for residency after having their child in Ireland.
From the Government's point of view this was a huge, uncontrollable loophole, and the widespread use of the system was clear to everybody.
They needn't have worried. The Supreme Court, by holding that non-national parents of children born in Ireland do not automatically qualify for residency here, gave them the pragmatic solution they wanted. Yes, children born in Ireland still have the right to reside in Ireland, and to be brought up by their parents. But these rights must now be balanced against the common good. Each case must be decided on its merits and in practice this means that the Government may, in some circumstances, deport them.
Defenders of the Supreme Court decision will rightly observe that all our constitutional rights, for example the right to private property, are subject to limitations for the sake of the common good. Any farmer whose land has been compulsorily purchased by the State can testify to that. But it is still ironic that such a decision could be reached in a society that claims to cherish the rights of the child. After all, the practical effect of the judgement is that Irish citizens may be excluded from the State. To suggest that infants could avail of their right to stay in the absence of their parents would be absurd.
No. The Supreme Court chose the requirements of smooth administration over the rights of our child citizens. Just like the Government on the issue of flights into Shannon, the judges retreated behind the thicket fence of convenience and left the thorny moral problems unanswered.
Ironically, both the Government and the Supreme Court may have made the right decisions, albeit for the wrong reasons. If the war in Iraq is justified, for example, we should make Shannon airport available anyway.
Even if the war is not justified, the military build-up in the Gulf which we are facilitating may bring Saddam to his senses and force him to co-operate with the UN.
A sound moral case can also be made for the Supreme Court decision, not least because it creates a more level playing pitch for asylum seekers. Fr Brian Moore, who administers the Vincentian Refugee Centre in Phibsboro in Dublin, points out that since only a fraction of asylum seekers get refugee status, it is undesirable that the remainder should be treated differently on the basis that they have a child. "This gives people of child-bearing age an unfair advantage," he suggests.
There may be another reason to justify the Supreme Court decision. A system that links the grant of residency with the reproduction of children is hardly desirable. While there are many genuine cases of asylum seekers having children, isn't there also a real risk of marriages of convenience, high divorce rates, absentee fathers and deprived children? Should we allow a situation which involves children being used as a means of getting a foothold in the country? It is hypocritical, however, to make such arguments unless we are also willing to establish proper channels to admit immigrants who may not technically qualify as asylum seekers.
Fr Moore, whose centre in Phibsboro assists between 20 and 50 people each day, says there are a number of measures the Government could take. "The criteria for admission as a refugee are quite strict but there is also a 'humanitarian' ground which the Government should interpret more generously," he says.
Only 111 such cases were admitted last year. Fr Moore points out that some asylum seekers face dangers which do not come within the strict definitions of the Refugee Act. He refers to situations where tribal conflicts force people to flee, or where refugees fell foul of local political dynasties or clan rituals.
Yet not even a generous interpretation of the 'humanitarian' clause will suffice, if we are sincere about commitments to international peace and justice. As long as we only talk about asylum seekers, we are living a lie, because the majority of people who come here as 'asylum seekers' are, in fact, poor people trying to create a better life for themselves and their families.
Instead of living the lie, wouldn't it be better for Ireland to establish proper channels to admit a certain number of economic migrants each year? At the moment we have a work permit system under which 40,000 people came to work last year. But only some of these people could be described as economic migrants, and among the poorer workers admitted under the system many are at the mercy of their employers who, because they retain the work permits, are in a position to exploit.
The system, sadly, is evidence that it is our own industrial needs rather than our international conscience which drives our efforts in this area.
Goodness, as Mae West said, has nothing to do with it.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
