It’s not immediately obvious what Ireland’s upcoming referendum to redefine the word “family” has to do with immigration. Indeed, at first glance the two issues seem quite unrelated.
The vote, which will be held on March 8th 2024, seeks to modify Article 41 of the Irish Constitution to say that the family is based not merely on the institution of marriage, but on “marriage or another durable relationship.” Which is, of course, about as clear as mud – what exactly a “durable relationship” could mean is anyone’s guess. I had a “durable relationship” with my goldfish when I was 8, but I’m not sure we were considered a “family” in the eyes of the law.
Regardless, the point is, this seems like an issue which is very far from the topic of immigration. And yet, according to Fine Gael Minister of State Neale Richmond, the two issues may soon be closely connected.
FINE GAEL MINISTER: THE REFERENDUM WILL HAVE “SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES” FOR “IMMIGRATION LAW”
Speaking on Virgin Media’s The Tonight Show last week, Richmond asserted that the proposed constitutional change, if passed, would not only provide the constitution with “modern time vernacular,” but would have “serious consequences” regarding immigration.
“It has serious consequences, particularly when we think of immigration law, and proving that someone is a family member, or family reunification,” he said.
“This would allow that to be accommodated as well.”
When asked by the host if this was because the new definition of family would be based merely on the loose description of “durable relationships,” the Minister replied: “Absolutely, yeah.”
That’s a statement that probably came out of left field for many people, and some viewers were no doubt left wondering what this could mean in practicality.
Well, a clue might be contained in a Seanad debate that took place on November 8th 2017, outlining the position of the Fine Gael government of the time on this general subject.
IRELAND INTRODUCED A RESTRICTIVE FAMILY RE-UNIFICATION POLICY IN 2015
In 2015, amid the European migrant crisis, when 1.3 million people came to the European continent seeking asylum from around the world, Ireland passed the International Protection Act. This Act fulfilled a variety of functions, including significantly narrowing the eligibility for asylum seeker family reunification under Irish law.
Under this piece of legislation, the only relatives an adult asylum seeker could apply to bring to Ireland is their spouse or civil partner, and their children, provided that the child was under the age of 18 and unmarried. So, essentially, adults could only bring in their immediate legal partner and child dependents, and under strict conditions at that.
SENATORS TRIED TO MAKE IT LESS RESTRICTIVE IN 2017
However, this legislation was slammed by some for being far too restrictive, with Senator David Norris saying that “it must be resisted by Seanad Éireann with all means possible.” Many wanted it to be expanded to include far more categories of relatives that an asylum seeker could bring in.
And this is why in 2017, Independent Senator Colette Kelleher introduced the International Protection (Family Reunification) (Amendment) Bill, seeking to dramatically expand the kinds of family members who could be brought to Ireland by asylum seekers. Specifically, the bill sought to expand the application categories to include “a grandparent, parent, brother, sister, child, grandchild, ward or guardian, to enter and reside in the State.” So, not only could you bring in your immediate family, but large parts of your extended family as well.
FINE GAEL REJECTED IT BECAUSE AUTHORITIES WERE ALREADY “FEELING THE STRAIN” OF PROVIDING REFUGEE HOUSING DURING “A NATIONAL HOUSING CRISIS”
During a debate on this legislation, Fine Gael TD David Stanton, who at the time was Minister of State for Immigration and Integration, explained why the government was so cautious about opening up the definition of “family” to be so broad.
Stanton explained that local authorities were incredibly strained just trying to accommodate current numbers of refugees “in the midst of a national housing crisis,” and that it would be even harder to do so for all of those refugees’ families on top of the existing challenge.
“Family reunification requires admitted family members to be resettled in the same location as the sponsoring refugee,” he said.
“Local authorities, which are already feeling the strain of providing permanent housing for refugees in the midst of a national housing crisis, will be asked to provide additional houses for the family members covered by the Bill.”
AVERage numbers of family members asylum seekers sought to bring was 20, with a high of over 70
He went on to explain that the average number of family members that asylum seekers had applied to bring to Ireland was 20, and that the highest number received was over 70.
“As the government informed the House in July, the average number of family members applied for under the family reunification provisions of the Refugee Act was 20, and the largest application was for over 70 family members,” he said.
“The admission of so many people would have significant and unquantifiable impacts on the provision of housing, healthcare, education, welfare payments and other State supports. The financial impacts of this proposal are not contemplated in the Bill.
“As a result, the government must be upfront about its intention to decline a money message for this Bill when it is considered in the Lower House.”
So that was the position of the Fine Gael government – Neale Richmond’s government – in 2017. The relevant Minister was telling us that allowing an expanded legal definition of the family for immigration purposes would lead to “significant and unquantifiable impacts” on housing, healthcare, education, welfare, and more. And yet today, Richmond is telling us that expanding the family definition would be a great idea.
in 2017, ireland had far less refugees THAN TODAY
For a sense of scale here, when David Stanton first issued this warning in 2017, Ireland had a refugee population of just 6,394 according to the UN’s Refugee Agency. Contrast that with the figure of over 100,000 today, including 13,651 non-Ukrainians, and you start to get an idea of how insane all of this is.
In effect, when our refugee population was relatively tiny compared to now, the government was telling us that it would be totally unfeasible and unsustainable to allow such wide-ranging family reunification. But now, when our refugee population is massively larger and the system is under dramatically more strain, they tell us it’s perfectly reasonable and a good idea. Where is the logic and sense in this? Where is the consistency?
The fact that the government would even contemplate allowing something like this while the country is already struggling to accommodate what it has is nothing short of insanity.
Loading ...