Sir, - Maire Geoghegan-Quinn's statement (Opinion, January 10th) that "we have a moral duty, quite apart from our international commitments, to protect these people [i.e. refugees] from persecution" is to be welcomed. In making this points she is doing no more than recognising that asylum seekers have a moral claim on us as human beings, and that our State has accepted internationally agreed obligations towards them.
However, she makes two key points which merit comment: the assertion that our current procedures mean that we "look after those seeking asylum in this State very carefully indeed"; and the implication that those working with or concerned about asylum seekers and refugees deny the validity of deportation as one outcome of the determination process.
On the issue of the deportation she states that "the Government tends to find itself accused of racism". The policy document on refugees and asylum seekers issued jointly by the Irish Commission for Justice & Peace and Trocaire, we have acknowledged that deportation of some applicants whose cases are rejected is "an inescapable part of a fair and efficient process and provides an essential protection for genuine cases".
There could be little quarrel with the deportation of a non-citizen whose application for asylum was turned down, provided that the application had been dealt with in a manner fully respectful of due process and the internationally agreed rights of asylum seekers. The 1996 Refugee Act fully generally complied with such requirements.
However, many of its key sections remain to be implemented and in the meantime asylum applications are dealt with under updated administrative procedures in force from December 10th, 1997.
Concerns arise about to the perceived inadequacy of these procedures compared with the provisions of the 1996 Act, which was passed with all-party support. Although Mrs Geoghegan-Quinn states that the new procedures were approved by the UN High Commission for Refugees, as far as we can ascertain, while the UNHCR was consulted, it has not approved them.
The new procedures reduce the protections offered by the 1996 Act in various ways. For example, the time allowed for the UNHCR to comment on cases is cut from 14 to seven days. Whereas under the Act applications would be heard by a statutorily independent Refugee Applications Commissioner, the new procedures provide only for the cases to be assessed by "a person appointed by the Minister"; similarly, appeals against findings that an application is "manifestly unfounded" are now to be adjudicated simply by "a person of more senior rank" rather than the statutorily independent Refugee Appeals Board provided under the Act.
Mrs Geoghegan-Quinn acknowledges that "asylum seekers have to live. They need a roof over their head, food and medical help if they are sick". Elsewhere she points out that during the Irish diaspora our emigrants "were not in a position to take advantage of generous social welfare systems. They found jobs or they starved". Today, a similar choice does not face asylum seekers in Ireland, because they are legally prohibited from working pending a decision on their applications, even though this may take several years.
Our choice is between providing for, or denying, their basic human needs and rights. In the context of the "liberal and humane nation" which she says we aspire to be, the choice should be obvious. - Yours, etc.,
Blackrock, Co Dublin.