The proposals announced by Justice Minister Jim O’Callaghan yesterday are striking in two respects. First, in that they genuinely do represent a significant and notable shift in Irish Government immigration policy. Second, in that they bear considerable resemblance to the plans announced by the Labour Government in the United Kingdom last week, suggesting that there is a conscious attempt by the Government to “get tough”.
The changes, as summarised in the Minister’s Press Release:
Changes to legislation will ensure that Family Reunification for those granted International Protection status will only be granted in cases where it can be shown they have sufficient resources to support family members.
Residents of international accommodation in employment to make a financial contribution towards their accommodation.
Additional powers to revoke refugee status where a person is found to be a danger to the security of the state or has been convicted of a serious crime.
Tightening of citizenship criteria to ensure there is clear guidance on the application of good character requirements and the introduction of a requirement that applicants are self-sufficient.
Residency requirements for people granted International Protection to rise from three years to five years before they can apply for citizenship.
An updated policy document will tighten the existing policy on family reunification for most non-European Economic Area (EEA) residents, reduce the effective waiting period for those on General Employment Permits, and will give permission to work for 16-18 years olds.
International Protection Applicants for citizenship must be self-sufficient and not in receipt of certain social protection payments within the previous two years before an application is made.
If you want to quibble or declare “these don’t go far enough” then, of course, you can. It is very clearly the case for example that these proposed policy changes are designed to reduce the future number of inward arrivals by making the country a less attractive place for so-called “asylum shoppers”. The eagle-eyed amongst you will have spotted that there are no measures here to radically speed up or change the deportation process for those already here without legal basis, having had their asylum applications refused.
It should also be noted that the changes to family re-unification policy are not as sweeping as might be imagined: The changes announced yesterday appear to apply only to those who have obtained citizenship or residency rights through the asylum process, and appear unlikely to affect those who have come here by other means, such as through a work permit. I asked the Department of Justice about this and will got the following reply:
The revised policy on Non-EEA Family Reunification was published today and sets out how Irish citizens and most non-EEA Irish residents (including those with employment permits) may apply to bring non-EEA family members to reside with them in Ireland. This Policy does not generally apply to beneficiaries of international protection or EEA Citizens.
Therefore, the income thresholds contained in the revised Policy document only apply to the cohorts referenced above.
It would be for the courts to consider such a matter, but it may be difficult on equality grounds to resist a legal challenge to this principle on the grounds of discrimination. The Government is saying that income thresholds for family re-unification apply to one group of people legally in the state, but not to another. That seems prima facie discriminatory to me and prime for a challenge. And such a challenge will surely be taken.
The changes to citizenship, on the other hand, seek to reverse what was essentially positive discrimination in favour of people who claim asylum. Bringing the amount of time they have to spend here up to five years simply brings that into line with the requirements for people who came here legally through another mechanism, which was always a strange anomaly.
The thrust of the policy changes, however, are directed at getting the number of people in international protection accommodation down. This is clearly to be primarily accomplished by charging those in employment for their bed and board. These charges are not small, representing up to 40% of a migrant’s total income at the highest level, and 10% for those earning less than €150 per week. This will have the direct effect of making those in IPAS centers, who work, poorer, and is clearly intended to make life in an Irish IPAS centre less attractive.
Now, some analysis:
First, it is, obviously, easy to say “too little, too late”. But things are either good or bad on their own merits. In this case, the policy changes are indeed a day late and a dollar short, but they are also objectively the kind of thing Government should have been doing years ago, so it’s a case of “better late than never”.
Second, these changes represent a fundamental change in the political wind. They represent the first significant Irish Government crackdown on immigration since the 2004 citizenship referendum, reversing twenty years of a policy drift in the opposite direction. It is worth remembering that the present two-party Government is in its second term of office. It commenced the first term in 2020 with a commitment to “end direct provision”. Five years later, it is cracking down on residents in that system by seeking to charge them relatively meaty rents. We are a far, far, cry from the days of the Government advertising a commitment to house migrants with their own front door key.
Third, the changes announced here, while they do not address issues of concern to some voters, most prominently the slow pace of deportations, are designed to tackle the most pressing problem which is the continued inward movement of people. Reducing the numbers coming in is, actually, a more urgent problem than removing people already here. It is also the easier to accomplish, given that deportation reform would take significant fights with the European Union and the domestic legal establishment and system.
Fourth, the Government clearly wants to frame immigration as primarily, if not entirely, an asylum matter. These proposals do not address or seek to address the high number of work permits and other visas being granted annually. From a political point of view, the hope is that the Government can pin immigration on the question of asylum and hope that the public ignores continued elevated rates of legal immigration.
Fifth, in terms of the politics, these measures are unlikely to move any opinion polls until and unless they are seen to be having a political effect. Any buffoon can make proposals or suggest policy change: The public wish to see results. If those results are not a steep drop in asylum applications, then the policy will be a political failure.
Sixth, the Minister deserves some credit. Outside observers do not always appreciate, I think, the political determination it takes to get the civil service to agree to proposals that it does not wish to agree to. In this case – and notably in contrast to his predecessor – the Minister has directed his department rather than having the department “guide” him. Whether he succeeds or not, he has demonstrated some skill at getting the system to move in his direction. For that, the Minister deserves credit and recognition.
Seventh, and finally: the best laid plans rarely survive first contact with the enemy, said German Field Marshall Von Moltke. In this case, as alluded to above, these plans if passed will be tested in test cases before the courts. I retain my view that true immigration reform in Ireland cannot happen without significant reform to the legal process in terms of the speed and efficiency with which it handles immigration cases, including limiting the right to appeal and increasing the speed at which such appeals are judged. That is an enormous part of the task, and failing to take it on may be what dooms these plans to failure.
We will wait and see. But for now, it is movement in the right direction, which is the first time in a very long time that such a thing could be said of the Irish Government on this issue.