The government was right to join the Danish-led coalition which is pushing for changes to the European Convention on Human Rights to make it easier to deport criminals.
Much to the chagrin of The Irish Times, the Justice Minister Jim O’Callaghan has again taken a necessary step to ameliorate the problems caused by his predecessor Helen McEntee. He deserves credit for this.
There is more that he and the government should be doing though, as Denmark and its Social Democratic government continues to lead Europe in proposing solutions to end the asylum crisis.
While criticising the decision regarding the European Convention in another Irish Times article, the chief commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Liam Herrick highlighted the fact that the shared statement calls for legal changes which to better enable European nations to work with external partners to process asylum claims outside of Europe.
Within the EU, a discussion is heating up about this, and Denmark has used its European Presidency to push for ‘external processing’ to be introduced.
In short, external processing would involve asylum seekers being housed in facilities outside the EU while their claims were being assessed.
Rather than getting to live in Europe while this process was underway, asylum seekers would be sent to purpose-built facilities elsewhere.
If their application was successful, they would then gain admission to the country they had applied to. If their application was unsuccessful, they would be promptly deported to their country of origin – given that asylum processing centres would be set up in the sending regions, this would be a much more straightforward process than what exists now.
External processing has many advantages attached. Long and drawn-out asylum processes work to the advantage of those seeking the most liberal immigration policy possible.
Despite recent improvements, cases in the Irish system are still not dealt with quickly. According to figures released earlier this year, the median processing time for a first-instance decision is 14 months, and the median processing time for the International Protection Appeals Tribunal is 13 months.
Given that people seeking international protection can apply for work permits within six months if no decision on their status has been reached (whereas those within the asylum process can apply within just five months), the economic attractions of the systems remain obvious.
As long as would-be economic migrants from much poorer countries can aspire to receive accommodation and find work while remaining within Ireland’s asylum system, we will have an asylum crisis. The same is true elsewhere in Europe – compared to the conditions which exist in the developing world, the asylum system is too good a proposition.
That is part of why Denmark has led a coalition of 15 EU members who want to outsource the asylum system by developing “equal, constructive and broad partnerships with key countries, especially along the migratory routes” which many traverse on their way to Europe.
It is a diverse coalition: Denmark, Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Romania and Finland.
One important country is missing though: Ireland.
Partially due to the connotations between the Danish-led proposals and the Rwanda plan of the previous Tory government in the UK, the Irish government is continuing to drag its heels.
Developments are taking place at EU level though, where the Commission has put forward a similar proposal for a ‘European return system’ which would involve setting up deportation hubs outside the EU where people who have already received a final return decision would be sent.
Being limited to those whose asylum applications have been refused, this would not be as comprehensive as a system of full external processing.
Minister O’Callaghan already stated in September that setting up deportation hubs was something that Ireland should not “rule out at this stage,” but he – and/or his colleagues in government – are stubbornly refusing to go further.
Developments elsewhere may well overtake them. A 2023 agreement between Italy and Albania to establish processing facilities in the latter country is finally moving forward, with the Italian Interior Minister saying this month that the facilities could now “become the first example of the ‘return hubs’” discussed elsewhere.
The refusal of the Irish government to join the Danish-led coalition is emblematic of their broader approach to immigration.
Even with a competent Justice Minister at the helm, the government continues to be reactive rather than proactive, focusing on short-term challenges rather than long-term solutions.
Mass migration is not going away. In fact, there are many reasons to believe that far more people from Africa and Asia will choose to move to Europe in the coming decades. Ireland will be among the most attractive countries for them to come to, and the asylum route will remain a very attractive option for economic migrants seeking to gain a foothold and a better life.
External processing is not a pie in the sky idea, and nor has the idea been fatally undermined by the failure of incompetent Tory governments to make it a reality.
It has been tried and tested in Australia, which like Europe finds itself in the difficult situation of being vastly more prosperous than many nearby nations, and therefore the destination for many illegal immigrants.
Starting in 2001, Australia has been sending illegal immigrants to processing facilities on the island nation of Nauru. Although the policy was initially opposed by the Labor Party, it has eventually become a vital part of the overall Australian approach, implemented under right-leaning governments and then continued under left-leaning governments.
If our government does get off the fence and lines up with the Danes, it will provoke a firestorm of criticism from the liberal left and the NGO establishment, which will be far more intense than the reaction to the announcement in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Waiting for the rest of Europe to act first would be the easiest option, but that kind of cowardice has led us to where we are now, and will lead us to greater disaster in the future.