Ruling could see children expelled from country
The Government now has to decide whether to apply the ruling only to future arrivals or to families already granted permission to live here because of an Irish-born child and those awaiting a decision on their application to stay.
It also has to decide what it will do if parents deported as a result of the ruling leave their Irish-born children here.
Justice Minister Michael McDowell, who was in London for talks on the peace process, is in Dublin today to begin assessing the implications of the ruling. More than 20,000 people face an uncertain future while the legal and practical implications are teased out.
The ruling followed an appeal by Nigerian Andrew Osayande, the father of an Irish-born son, and the Lobe couple from the Czech Republic, who have an Irish-born boy. Mr Osayande and the Lobes argued their right to stay here on the basis their children were entitled under the Constitution to remain in Ireland and to enjoy the protection of their families.
In a five-to-two majority ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court confirmed the protected status of the children as Irish citizens but said the privileges of citizenship did not automatically transfer to the parents. It ruled it was the responsibility of the Minister for Justice to balance the rights of the children against the common good in each case.
It said the common good was served by an effective asylum process and it had to be decided whether that process would be undermined by allowing a family to stay.
Chief Justice Ronan Keane, who backed the decision, said while many wished to see Ireland develop as a tolerant and pluralist society capable of accommodating immigrants, the legislature and executive could not disregard the associated problems.
He said an increased volume of immigration placed strains on social services and created integration difficulties.
The ruling brings to an end the practice of allowing non-national parents to live in Ireland if a child was born to them during their stay. The practice was based on the landmark 1990 Fajujonu case, but the Supreme Court said it differed substantially from the Lobe and Osayande cases.
Mr McDowell would not discuss his interpretation of the ruling or its implications yesterday. “In the fullness of time we will come forward with proposals which will fully respect people’s constitutional rights.”
