Now that the Supreme Court has found that the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking Bill 1999) is not repugnant to the Constitution, the deportations of illegal immigrants will soon begin. The Bill is intended to facilitate that process. It includes three new grounds for detaining those suspected of trying to avoid deportation and stipulates that appeals for a judicial review will have to be taken within 14 days. These were the two grounds on which the President, Mrs McAleese, referred the Bill to the court. Its other provisions include powers to finger-print all asylum-seekers.
The legal hurdles having been overcome, the Government's political determination to proceed with this ungenerous and punitive policy comes fully into focus. It is all the more regrettable because so much of the responsibility for the rapid accumulation of asylum-seekers awaiting adjudication rests with the Government itself. It was the failure of the State to operate a swift, efficient and just adjudication system that created the long waiting lists of people who will now apparently face the prospect of deportation. The Government has set its face against calls for an amnesty, which has drawn support from a broad range of organisations and public opinion. As a result Ireland's reputation as a welcoming society will suffer, especially at a time when there has never been more need for guest workers to fill gaps in the labour market.
It is important to put the Supreme Court judgment in this wider political context. The presidential reference of Sections 5 and 10 to the court on June 30th was well-advised and necessary; but the court's consideration was strictly concerned with the question of whether these sections are in keeping with the Constitution. Following the normal procedure in such cases counsel were assigned to present written and oral arguments for and against finding the sections unconstitutional.
The judgment is measured and detailed. It finds no grounds for rejecting the 14-day judicial appeal limit, based on various statutory restrictions on the right to apply for judicial review contained in other legislation and satisfaction that the High Court's discretion to extend the period is sufficiently wide to take account of language, communications and legal difficulties. Human rights lawyers disappointed with the judgment have nevertheless taken comfort from the implicit encouragement it gives for litigation against potential infringements of the High Court's discretion in these matters. The judgment says the case for equal treatment of non-nationals and citizens is ill-founded, since the relevant decisions concern, by their very nature, only non-nationals. It finds there are no new or draconian powers of detention introduced by the Bill. The political and social issues surrounding immigration and asylum-seekers are likely to be intensified now that this legislation is put on the statute books. In recent weeks a nasty and poisonous series of attacks on young foreign visitors to Ireland has revealed an extensive and dangerous undercurrent of racism and xenophobia in this society. That will be exacerbated by a campaign of deportations in months to come, especially if this is seen to be the primary response of political leadership to the issues involved.
There is still an opportunity to use these new powers in a moderate fashion, combined with more determined and sympathetic response to the human problems involved. There is also an obligation on those who oppose the Government's approach to do so more vigorously. That would keep faith with Ireland's own history of emigration and with the urgent need to create a multicultural society capable of accommodating a wide variety of cultures and skills.