The Department may yet redeem itself by taking a sympathetic approach,writes Nuala Haughey.
Hundreds of mainly African and east European immigrants turned up at Liberty Hall in Dublin last week for a public information meeting. They had one thing in common: the fear that one day they could be deported, along with their families. Some have lived in Ireland without any secure legal status for two years and more.
The meeting's organisers, the recently-formed Coalition Against Deportation of Irish Children, were shocked at the size of the crowd. They had booked a hall for 150 people but 300 arrived, so they had to hold two meetings back-to-back.
The crowd sat attentively in an ill-ventilated basement hall while a panel of lawyers and lobbyists gave them general information about the complicated situations they find themselves in. Rows of buggies lined the walls and the speakers had to struggle to be heard above the din of babies crying, gurgling or chattering on their parents' laps.
The parents were all non-EU immigrants; their infants were all Irish citizens. The group had another thing in common: all have had their claims for residency, as parents of citizens, recently revoked.
It had been the practice here until recently to automatically grant residency to immigrants once they became parents of Irish citizens. That this unusual provision led to Ireland being targeted by traffickers and immigrants determined to secure a foothold in Western Europe is without doubt.
That many of these people made spurious claims to be refugees fleeing persecution to be allowed remain in the country long enough to have citizen children is also indisputable. The numbers of women arriving in Ireland in late stages of pregnancy in recent years drove already stressed doctors and nursing staff in Dublin's main maternity hospitals to distraction.
That the authorities felt it imperative to address this situation was perfectly understandable, as it was evident that what became known as the "Irish-born child" route to residency was turning Ireland into a destination country for immigrants, who otherwise would not have any entitlement to live here.
Hence we had a Supreme Court ruling last January in what was effectively a test case for the authorities. The court ruled that non-EU immigrant parents of Irish citizens are not automatically entitled to residency in Ireland. To put it another way, it decided that the Minister for Justice had the power to deport them. While the authorities cannot deport the citizen children of these people, it is likely they will take them with them.
This judgment was followed by an announcement by the Department of Justice that it would no longer accept residency applications from people purely on the basis that they are parents of Irish citizen children. But this still left a backlog of some 11,000 residency applications from parents of Irish citizens dating back to September 2001.
Having successfully blocked off future such applications, one might have expected a modestly sympathetic approach from the Department to people waiting in the system for years who, along with their citizen children, have put down roots in this country.
However, the Department's announcement last July on how it would deal with the backlog did not inspire hope that this would be the case. The announcement was couched in the most obtuse jargon, barely understandable even for someone whose native language is English. But the bottom line was clear. At the stroke of a pen, thousands of pending residency applications were wiped out. The people whose applications have been nullified are now being asked to write afresh to the Minister outlining reasons why, instead of deportation, he should let them remain in the country on humanitarian grounds.
They have 15 days to do this and are not entitled to State-funded legal advice to help them make their submissions. Why the sudden rush for replies within 15 days, when the authorities have sat on applications for months and in some cases years? How can we justify forcing thousands of people to make such important applications without providing them with some form of legal assistance?
The outcome of these applications will mean for people the difference between a relatively privileged life for them and their children in Western Europe, or their reluctant return to countries which they have made enormous efforts to leave.
At last Wednesday's public meeting people were clamouring for information; they were at sea. Some were angry, others were upset. Those who can afford lawyers might be able to make a coherent application for leave to remain. Others will probably rely upon the goodwill of charities or friends to help them try to convince the Minister that they deserve to stay.
The way the Department is handling this matter belittles all of us who take for granted our lives of privilege.
Part of me was shamed to be at that meeting as a member of this society which is treating immigrants and citizen children of immigrants in such a casually callous fashion.
Journalists are often accused of always looking for victims, and civil servants may equally be liable to the charge that they see people as numbers rather than individuals, problems rather than possibilities.No decisions appear yet to have been made on these new leave to remain applications and the Minister, Mr McDowell, has stressed that each case will be handled individually.
The Department may yet have an opportunity to redeem itself by taking an appropriately sympathetic and humane approach to these applications, but this remains to be seen.