Legal eagles urge amnesty for refugees
There were calls from students and lawyers for an amnesty for asylum
seekers at a debate chaired by the Chief Justice Liam Hamilton in the
Kings Inns on Wednesday, 8 December 1999.
Wesley Farrell, the auditor of the Law Students Debating Society of
Ireland, stated that there is now a backlog of 8,000 asylum cases.
While 90% of asylum applications fail at the first stage, about one
third of these applicants are successful on appeal. ``The backlog must
be dealt with and a backlog clearance programme must be implemented.
In this regard granting an amnesty may be the best plan available,''
said Farrell. Criticising the delays that build up in the system, he
said: ``It is unfair for the asylum seeker to be left in limbo, not
knowing his or her status.''
``Plans to replace cash welfare payments to asylum seekers with a
scheme of `direct provision', which may include vouchers for food and
accommodation, were given the go-ahead by the cabinet last month,''
said Farrell. H epointed out that this proposal might be
unconstitutional, in that it breaches the guarantee in Article 40 (1)
of the 1937 Constitution which states that all citizens shall ``as
human persons,'' be held equal before the law. ``Put simply, would it be
fair that an asylum applicant were not given any cash whereby he
wouldn't even have any loose change in his pocket, even 20p for a
phone call?''
Referring to concerns about the Refugee Legal Service he said: ``Many
fill in the questionnaire without consulting the Refugee Legal
Service, a body related to the Legal Aid Board. This Board is
appointed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. In
this regard, questions have been raised regarding its independence,
which should be addressed''
John Hurley, Principle Officer with the Department of Justice,
Equality and Law Reform, defended Minister John O'Donoghue's record
and the independence of the Refugee Legal Service.
He asked, ``Why do we get such a large number of applicants given that
we are on the periphery of Europe?'' The reasons, he claimed, were that
the system of income support is generous, that asylum seekers
frequently disclose that they were advised to come here, and that any
child born in the state is automatically a citizen and may therefore
be entitled to the `society of its parents'.
The Minister opposes an amnesty as it would ``encourage bogus
applications,'' he said.
Derek Stewart, solicitor and spokesperson for the Irish Refugee
Council, echoed concerns expressed by Farrell about the quality and
independence of the legal service available to refugees. ``It is one
thing to be in accord with fingerprinting and Fortress Europe, but at
the same time we need to be in accord with the principles of fair
treatment,'' he said.
Barrister Peter Finlay SC, and a member of the Refugee Appeals
Authority also addressed the meeting. While over 30% of those coming
here are fleeing persecution and violence, Finlay stated that his
concern was with immigrants, many of whom had to wait for up to three
years for their cases to be determined. ``They are not fleeing
persecution - but they are fleeing extreme poverty.''
Citizens from China, Hong Kong, South Africa, Romania, Thailand and
Pakistan have all been deported, but never once has a citizen of the
US, Australia, New Zealand or Canada been so treated. ``I am satisfied
that there has been an inherently discriminatory approach to those who
come here.''
He recalled judgments which have been handed down by the Chief Justice
Liam Hamilton, saying: ```Rights exist, not because people are citizens
of the state, but because they are human beings.' It would be
advisable for the Minister to take some bearings from those
decisions.''
Supporting calls for an amnesty, he said: ``If we have had two
amnesties for tax dodgers - people who have committed a criminal
offence - why not asylum seekers, who are responsible for no greater
offence than putting their trust in us?''
BY PROINSIAS O MAOLCHALAIN
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)