SEANAD REPORT: The Immigration Bill, introduced to deal with legal deficiencies identified in a recent High Court decision, was passed following angry opposition protests that it was being rushed through with undue haste and would prove to be bad law.
The controversial measure went through after less than two hours of debate. At the conclusion of the Second Stage debate, opposition members walked out of the chamber after failing to get an undertaking that further debate would be put back until next week. As a result of their absence, more than 40 amendments from opponents of the Bill were not moved, and the committee and remaining stages were completed in a mere 11 minutes.
The debate was marked by an impassioned denunciation by Mr Joe O'Toole (Ind) of a provision relating to intellectual disability, and concerns voiced by Dr Martin Mansergh (FF) about the lack of adequate time for proper consideration of the Bill.
Emphasising the need for speedy passage of the measure, Mr Brian Lenihan, Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, said that a consequence of the court judgment would be that every aspect of the immigration controls thought to be addressed by the 1946 Aliens Order would be either without a statutory basis or so open to challenge as to render them difficult to operate.
It was the Government's intention to appeal the judgment to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, it was necessary to put in place what was essentially an emergency measure.
Mr Lenihan said he was glad to signal a Government amendment which would remove the reference to disability in relation to the grounds on which non-nationals could be refused entry to the State.
Responding to opposition criticism, Mr Lenihan said that the power in question was intended to deal with situations where there was a serious likelihood of an individual suffering from a mental disorder causing immediate and serious harm to himself or herself or to other people.
Mr O'Toole said he was ashamed to have any hand, act or part in what they were doing. The attack on mental illness in the legislation went beyond anything he had every seen.
The Government proposal meant that people with significant intellectual disability could be refused entry into the State.
"If this Bill was introduced 50 years ago it would be described as naked fascism, that people with disabilities were being refused their rights by a sovereign and democratic government. It is more than I can stand for. This Bill is rooted in an Aryan philosophy that would be worthy of Nazism at its worst," he said.