On Friday the High Court ruled in favour of two persons applying for international protection (refugee status) in Ireland whose application to have their South African driver’s licences accepted here in exchange for a current Irish licence had been rejected.
The judicial review had been taken against the Road Safety Authority and supported by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission on the basis that the two must be considered to be residents of Ireland under the 2006 Road Traffic Regulations.
The National Driver Licence Service denied that the two persons were being discriminated against and claimed that they were subject to exactly the same residency requirements as any other person coming to Ireland from another jurisdiction.
Justice Mark Heslin ruled that Ireland is in fact the normal place of residence for the two applicants and that they are thus entitled to apply for a transfer of drivers’ licences.
This means he accepted the claims made by the IHREC that – despite their not having had their application for international protection approved – they are nonetheless “lawfully resident” in the state.
The ruling has huge implications for the remnants of a clearly dysfunctional asylum system in which the agents of the state appear to have lost the will to implement any sort of criteria. Indeed, it would seem that even when they do, they are almost certain to be over-ruled when challenged in the courts with the full backing of the NGO sector and the significant legal apparatus that does very well from the whole business.
The political direction from government ministers is also quite clear as they have indicated that they have no real intention of preventing anyone becoming resident here. Persons who arrive here mysteriously having travelled thorough other states where they could have applied for protection are now being promised an amnesty if found to have made bogus applications, and indeed to get free public housing.
This is backed by the opposition whose only contribution to the debate is to trot out incoherent justifications for positive discrimination in favour of people who statistics have proven are found in the greater part to have made false applications. But even that is no barrier it seems as not only is there a lengthy appeals process, but they also are now likely to avail of an amnesty no matter what lies they may have told.
It ought also to be noted that in their legal case, the South African couple appear to have abandoned the notion of the normally recognised criteria to apply for international protection. It is also worth recalling that these do not apply to South Africa anyway, as it is not deemed to be an unsafe country of origin for that purpose.
Their Counsel Michael Lynn argued that the male partner was a qualified delivery and hydraulics train driver in South Africa. He apparently wishes to work in haulage here, and his South African licence expires in September 2022. I doubt somehow this is the reason he put forward as to why this state should provide him with asylum.
Did anyone even think to ask Sinn Féin’s Darren O’Rourke – who was effusive over the court decision – why any black South African would even need to seek to flee from a state ruled by the African National Congress, a party which enjoys boundless admiration and a close relationship with Sinn Féin.
Like all other South Africans who have made a big thing of their experience of racism here, this couple are economic migrants. They could if they wish apply as do other people from non EU/EEA countries for a work permit. They chose not to, but instead to take advantage of a ridiculously liberal asylum process that means that all you have to do in order to stay here is – other than in very exceptional circumstances – to get here.
Oh, and it would appear that South Africa itself has somewhat stricter criteria for the transferring of foreign licences
Perhaps one of the Shinners might raise this the next time they bump into one of the ANC kleptocracy to discuss business… political business obviously.