Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Dec 1987

Vol. 376 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Irish Emigrants in the United States: Motion.

Mr. Deenihan

I move:

That Dáil Éireann conscious of the plight of the Irish out of status emigrants in the United States, asks that the Government uses all its resources to:—

(i) get support in the United States Houses of Congress for the legislative initiatives to change their status;

(ii) establish as a matter of urgency support and advice centres in New York, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco; and

(iii) supply support for Irish emigrants in the United States similar to that supplied by the Department of Labour to Irish emigrants in the United Kingdom.

I should like to share my 40 minutes with Deputies Griffin, Higgins and McGinley. I am glad to welcome Mr. Michael Ahern who is a co-founder of the Irish Emigration Reform Movement and who is here in the gallery this evening. I am delighted to move this important motion in the House this evening.

At this time it is estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 out of status Irish emigrants are in the US. They are also categorised under the terms of illegal, unauthorised or undocumented aliens. The fact that they are illegal exposes them to all types of exploitation both in the workplace and as regards accommodation and also deprives them of health and educational benefits. It also prevents them from applying for jobs for which they are suitably qualified. Construction work and bar work are the main areas of work for men. Housekeeping, waitressing and au pair work are the main attractions for women.

The young out of status Irish live in constant fear of being caught by immigration officials. As the full enforcement date for the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which is 1 June 1988, approaches anxiety and worry among the young Irish will intensify. I experienced this at first hand on a fact-finding mission to the US this summer. The young Irish feel disillusioned and isolated and are concerned that their legal status may not be rectified in the immediate future. There is a strong affinity between IrishAmerican politicians and Ireland. If we can show an interest at home I am convinced they will respond in kind.

Paragraph (i) of the motion refers to various legislative initiatives that are being promoted at present in the US Houses of Congress to help the cause of the out of status Irish emigrants. There are three such initiatives, namely, the Immigration Act, 1987, promoted by Senator Edward Kennedy and Congressman Brian Donnelly, the Irish Permanent Resident Adjustment Act, 1987, promoted by Congressman Joseph Kennedy and a proposed amendment to the Immigration and Control Act, 1986, at present being promoted by Cardinal O'Connor of New York and expected to be introduced to Congress by Senator Al Damato of New York.

Before I discuss the various initiatives I should like to give an overview of the historical perspective as a background to the current situation. From 1820-1900 over 2,870,000 Irish legally entered the US and from 1901-50 the figure was 726,012. From 1951-60 some 48,362 entered the US legally and from 1961-70 the figure had declined to 32,966. From 1971-80 the figure dropped further to 11,490, from 1981-85 it was 4,004 and for the year 1985 it had declined to 515. This figure represents roughly one-fifth of 1 per cent of the total emigration to the US from 1985. I would like to ask the question, why did legal emigration from Ireland decline to such an extent from 1960-85? No doubt the better economic climate up to 1980 helped. Indeed the Financial Times in 1980 reported that emigration from Ireland had stopped. However, the 1985 Immigration Act has had a major impact on the number of legal immigrants allowed to enter the US from Ireland, especially in recent years, as statistics indicate.

The Act discriminated against the Irish and other traditional sources of emigration such as Italy, England and Canada. The Bill closed the door to those who no longer had immediate family ties in the US. Prior to 1985 immigrant visas were granted on the system known as national origins and the quota for each country was established proportionate to the ethnic composition of the US population based on the census taken in 1920. These guidelines established in 1924 were reinforced by the McCarron-Walker Act, 1952.

As the earliest emigrants came from Ireland, Germany, Italy and England the law favoured future emigration from these countries. It discriminated against countries who had a narrow ethnic population base among the early settlers. The 1965 Act was an attempt to end this imbalance and discrimination. However, one of the unintended effects of the 1965 Act was that it discriminated against traditional sources of emigration such as Ireland.

The Special Commission on Immigration Policy in its 1980 report to Congress stated and I quote:

The result completely unforeseen and unintended has been considerable hardship for intending immigrants from the Northern Hemisphere.

The 1965 Bill gave priority to family reunification. It created six special preferences: the first preference is for unmarried sons or daughters of citizens of the US; the second is for spouses and unmarried sons or daughters of permanent resident aliens; the third preference is for members of the professions or who, because of exceptional ability in the sciences or arts, will substantially benefit the US and whose services are sought by an employer in the US; the fourth preference is for married sons or daughters of citizens of the US; the fifth preference is for brothers and sisters of citizens of the US, provided such citizens are at least 21 years of age; the sixth preference is for skilled or unskilled labour for which a shortage exists in the US. However, in this preference a list of prohibited jobs, mainly in the unskilled category, was established. These included bar tending, domestics, contract workers, the jobs that many Irish people had sought in the past.

The Bill did not take into account the peculiarities of the Irish immigrant. Typically, the Irish immigrant has been a single person, who leaves home on his own initiative, in most cases without relatives in the US to sponsor him. The change in legislation in 1965 made it possible for thousands of refugees to sponsor other members of their family. This benefited countries like Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines and China.

The adverse change brought about by the 1965 law did not manifest itself clearly until the early eighties when the Irish economy took a downturn and also we were experiencing a dramatic rise in the population in the 18-25 age group. When the economy could not provide jobs there was no option left but to emigrate for many of our young Irish. From 1981-86 about 4,500 Irish entered the US legally, the remainder, 150,000 or so, entered on three week holiday visas and remained on in the US illegally.

The problem of illegal immigration became a major issue in the late seventies and early eighties in the US. The American public became increasingly concerned about the number of unauthorised aliens in their country. By 1982 this number was conservatively estimated at 3,500,000. A select commission on immigration and refugee policy was established in 1981 to deal with the problem. This laid the basis for the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. This Act dealt with the issue of illegal immigration. It did not address the many recommendations regarding legal immigration that the commission had proposed.

The 1986 Act is regarded as the most comprehensive reform of US immigration laws since 1952. It effectively closes the back door to illegal entry by requiring employers to hire only citizens and aliens who are authorised to work in the US. The employer will need to verify employment eligibility of anyone hired after November 1986 and complete and retain the one page form 1.9. The form will have to be presented for inspection to an immigration and naturalization and service official or a Department of Labour official upon request. If an employer has violated the new immigration laws, with respect to employees hired after 6 November 1986, he can be fined any figure between $250 to $10,000 for each unauthorised employee. Employees who make false statements or use fradulent identification or documents which were lawfully issued to another in order to gain employment may be imprisoned for up to five years or fined, or both. The effective date for full enforcement of the 1986 Act will be June 1988. The magnet of employment that attracts people has now been effectively removed by this Act.

A small provision is contained in section 314 of the Act allowing for an additional 10,000 non-preference visas for the years 1987 and 1988 in respect of the 36 so-called adversely affected countries. The inclusion of section 314 was prompted following an amendment by Congressman Brian Donnelly, to allow for more flexibility in American immigration policy. The non-preference — 5 programme produced over one million written requests for one of the 10,000 non-preference visas. According to Congressman Donnelly, the response to the programme created a bureaucratic nightmare but silenced those who believed that there is not a great need to reform the current preference category system which, in 1965, was intended to correct discrimination against many nations.

The 1986 Act also made provision for an amnesty for persons who entered the United States illegally prior to January 1982. The INS estimated that 3.5 million illegal aliens were eligible for legal status under the provisions of the Act. The period during which application can be made will expire on 4 May 1988. It seems likely now that 1.5 million illegal aliens will apply for the amnesty, two million short of the expected number. Because the majority of the out-of-status Irish arrived in America since 1982 they will not benefit from the amnesty. However, Cardinal O'Connor of New York now proposes that the 1986 Act should be amended to extend the amnesty to include two million illegals who have arrived since 1982, one million from European countries and another million from the remainder of the globe. This would solve the Irish problem. It is hoped that Senator Al Damato of New York will promote the amendment to the 1986 Act. As Cardinal O'Connor's proposal holds the only realistic hope for the out-of-status Irish every effort should be made to ensure that this proposal will be adopted. Not only must American politicians be lobbied but also Members of the European Parliament and Heads of European Governments who are themselves directly involved.

The Immigration Bill of 1987 sponsored by Senators Kennedy and Donnelly represents an attempt to correct imbalances created by the implementation of the provisions of the 1965 Act. The Bill proposes to separate existing family reunification preferences from the employment and skill-related preferences by creating a new, expanded independent category. It provides for the creation of 50,000 additional visas for older sources of immigration, especially for those from Ireland, Italy and other European countries. The additional 50,000 visas are intended for applicants who qualify on the basis of a new points system and who, once eligible, probably would be selected by random computer selection. Within this category the focus will be on those who are highly skilled and educated. The points system gives advantage to applicants from the 36 countries adversely affected by the Immigration Act of 1965.

The Kennedy-Donnelly Bill enjoys bipartisan support in the Houses of Congress and has an outstanding chance of success. Therefore, every effort should be made to support its provisions, which would ensure that future intending immigrants would have a good prospect of being accommodated.

The Irish Permanent Resident Adjustment Bill of 1987 introduced in Congress on 16 September 1987 by Congressman Joseph Kennedy applies only to nationals of the Republic of Ireland or to those born in Northern Ireland who arrived in the United States before 1 September 1987, allegedly because of the crisis obtaining in Northern Ireland. Its provisions propose amnesty for the latter groups only. Because of its limitations the Bill is unlikely to succeed.

It is my belief that Cardinal O'Connor's proposal offers the only solution for our illegal immigrants in America and that the Kennedy-Donnelly Bill offers hope for the future.

An Ceann Comhairle

I call on Deputy Griffin who is sharing the time allocated to Deputy Deenihan.

Mr. Griffin

I regret the circumstances that have occasioned the placing of this motion before the House. I am saddened, as is every Member of the House, at the recent increase in emigration. That is not an empty, sanctimonious platitude. Rather is it a sincere expression of regret that so many of our fine young people have, perforce, to emigrate. As has often been said before, our youth are the lifeblood of our nation, whose strength, talents, abilities and creativity are needed at home to build up Ireland and not other nations who have benefited in the past. It should be remembered that they built America, England and Australia. We had all hoped that the spectacle of emigration had ceased, had receded into the past but, unfortunately, it has reared its ugly head once again.

As Members of this House, we owe it to our young people who had to emigrate to do everything we possibly can to regularise and legalise their status. As has been indicated by Deputy Deenihan, our emigrants have been subjected to unscrupulous people. They cannot open a bank account. They cannot receive hospital treatment except in private wards and, if they do, the cost is so exorbitant that their savings are soon whittled away. They are totally disadvantaged. We owe it to them to ensure that we do everything we possibly can to regularise their status.

It should also go out from this House this evening that we are not unmindful, ungrateful or unappreciative of the American Government and people for the help, support and encouragement they have so lavishly given our many young immigrants of yesteryear and indeed in the recent past. Over the past 150 years the hospitable shores of America have received our people when, unfortunately, through famine, recession or other necessity, they had to leave our shores, when our country could not guarantee them the standard of living or future they deserved.

I have no doubt that an amicable solution can be found. There is a great fund of goodwill existing already in America towards these young Irish immigrants. It is my belief that a solution will be found so that the happy relations obtaining between ours and the American Government, between the older Irish generation and the newer immigrants will not only be maintained but will be strengthened.

It was in that spirit that we put down this motion in Private Members' time. There is an urgency about it. Time is running out for those who may qualify under the amnesty. As you will be aware, a Cheann Comhairle, there are approximately 150,000 of our young people in America who are classified as being undocumented, out-of-status, or illegal aliens. In order to qualify under the amnesty they would have to have been in continuous residence in the United States prior to 1 January 1982. The Immigrant Reform and Control Act of 1986 was signed into law by President Reagan on 6 November 1986. Its provisions are effective from 5 May 1987 to 4 May 1988, leaving only five months approximately within which people can avail of that amnesty under the 1986 Act. It was thought that approximately 3.5 million people would avail of that facility. To date indications are that 1.5 million approximately only will avail of it, leaving a shortfall of two million people. Within that shortfall there may lie a resolution to the plight of our young emigrants.

As Deputy Deenihan pointed out, Senators Ted Kennedy and Moynihan have introduced a Bill in Congress, entitled the Immigration Bill of 1987, whose provisions propose that the number of visas be increased from 270,000 to 320,000 per annum, representing an increase of 50,000. Of the 320,000, 50,000 would be designated as non-preference immigrant visas, to be allocated on a points system, especially to nationals of those countries adversely affected by the Immigration Nationality Act of 1965. As has been rightly pointed out, of those at present undocumented, about 120,000 will not be in a position to avail of that because they emigrated to the United States of America after the operative date, that is, 1 January 1982. But again, Cardinal John O'Connor of New York has proposed that the Act of 1986 be amended to allow those people to apply after the closing date. He agrees that we should abide by the closing date, 14 May 1988, and any shortfall, short of the proposed 3.5 million people who entered America after 1 January 1982 should be allowed to qualify for an amnesty under that amended legislation.

Our notice of motion this evening introduces three elements: first, to get support in the US Houses of Congress for the initiatives to change the status. That would be on a government to government basis. I would ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs who is here to make every approach to the American Government, to his counterpart, to resolve this problem. Likewise all associations such as the AOH, the GAA and all the county associations in America should be canvassed, as should the 43 million people of Irish extraction in the United States.

The second element is to establish centres as a matter of urgency for support and advice in New York, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco. Already the Catholic charities in the archdiocese of New York have set up 31 pastoral centres where advice is given free gratis to many of our emigrants. Doctor Dermot Clifford, Coadjutor Archbishop of Cashel and Emly, has recently returned from New York and has given us a first hand account of the efforts being made. I suggest that all the efforts be coordinated, and that we co-ordinate with the Catholic Charities Association of New York to make contact, in the most effective way, with many of these citizens.

The third element asks us to give the same amount of support as the Department of Labour are giving to the Irish emigrants in the United Kingdom. It was only this evening I heard on the news that the Minister for Labour has granted £.25 million to the Irish centres in Camden, Hammersmith and Harrogate. I would hope that a similar amount would be given to Irish centres in Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco and particularly New York, where most of the Irish people congregate. I support this and urge the Minister to do everything in his power to ensure that the status of our young Irish emigrants is legalised and formalised.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Higgins is sharing the time allocated with Deputy Deenihan, by agreement of the House.

Mr. J. Higgins

First I want to thank Deputy Deenihan very sincerely for allocating some of his precious time to me, and, second, for the very clear historical backdrop and perspective he gave to this most horrific problem that now confronts this nation and our young Irish people who are abroad in the US and have no legal entitlement to be there.

One of the peculiarities of the Irish persona has been our ability to at times bandy loose phrases or descriptions around without adequate cognisance of their true significance or meaning. We have tended as politicians collectively at our Ard Fheisanna and party conferences to describe our young people as the wealth or the nation, our greatest resource. Indeed at what was the last Ard-Fheis of Fianna Fáil before facing the reality of government, the Taoiseach described the young people of this country as our greatest national asset. Well they might be, but an asset is not an asset unless its potential is realised. A resource is not a resource unless it is exploited, and I mean exploited in the true sense and meaning of the word. What has happened is that, as a result of our inability to wrestle with our economic problems, to deal effectively with the problems we have in this country, to deal with an island which has a population of little more than the greater Manchester area and a dimension 20 times as great, we have between 140,000 and 200,000 young people in the US who are in fact our greatest national embarrassment because they have no legal entitlement to be there.

We have come to accept emigration. It is part of what we are; it is part of what we will be; it is part of what we have always been. It is deeply etched into the Irish character but we have never got used to the idea that emigration is truly a fact of life. The trauma of emigration today for somebody going abroad is as great and as heart rending as it was 100 years ago. Each person who goes abroad is a branch torn from the tree; each family who go abroad is a branch torn from the national tree but the difference between emigration now and emigration then is that in days gone by, emigration was always tempered with the realisation that if one was prepared to work hard there was opportunity abroad.

We have heard of the success stories abroad and the marvellous involvement of Irish people in commercial, political and agricultural spheres. There were always the friends, neighbours and extended family abroad offering hospitality to these people. That is no longer the case for the young Irish emigrant flying out from Shannon Airport. It is ironic that while our young people are the best educated, the most self-sufficient in terms of morale, the most independent-minded, with honours leaving certificates, diplomas from regional technical colleges, degrees from Carysfort Training College but unable to get teaching jobs, medical degrees from UCD, UCG and Trinity, they are going abroad and living the life of underground aliens.

The difficulty facing young Irish people in New York and Boston tonight is that they do not know but that tomorrow morning when they open the door of their apartment the federal authorities may be outside finding out how they got ID or Green cards and if they have proper visa credentials. That knock on the door is a very definite reality from now on. They do not know but that when they face into work tomorrow morning their employer may turn on them, having found out that they have no legal status, and the employer, because of the new federal emigration laws, can be fined up to $10,000.

As has been so effectively said by the two previous speakers, the vulnerability of these young people is leading to exploitation. Despite all their qualifications, their academic frills, etc., they are being paid $3 to $4 per hour in the most menial of jobs. They are being forced to take on occupational hazards because of their position. They are living, nine and ten together in substandard flatlets and apartments. Last year we learned of the sad spectacle of two young people from Connemara dying in such substandard accommodation. There are no unions, no insurance cover, no sense of belonging. They are in fact nonpersons. They have no legal redress if they are assaulted in the street. They cannot cash cheques. They have to cash them in public houses, taverns etc. and run the risk of being mugged and they have been mugged. They are afraid to come home if a relative dies or is ill, because if they come home the probability is they will not be able to go back.

We have confronting us the greatest Irish human tragedy since the famine, and we must do something about it now. As has been said by Deputy Griffin, this is a historic motion. It recognises the reality. Its particular merit is that it is precise. It has a clear focus, a narrow angle, and we are to hone in on this because unless we sort this problem out once and for all now, this may well be our last opportunity to do so.

Our belief that America owes us something over and above what it might owe other national groups is a fallacy but this notion is fuelled by the general euphoria that prevails on St. Patrick's Day when the entire American nation `goes green' for the day. When the green is washed out of the hair on the following day, the American is a hard pragmatist. It is back to reality. The general American population do not have a special affection for the Irish over and above other ethnic groups such as Mexicans, Japanese, Chinese and so on. We must hone in on the fact that there are 40 million IrishAmericans, that we have the Friends of Ireland, Irish-American organisations and young support groups over there such as the Irish Immigration Reform Movement. We have the Ancient Order of Hibernians, county associations, Church attachments and so forth. We must support the legislative measures which are now going through the Houses, whether it be the Kennedy Bill, or the Kennedy-Donnelly Bill, or the Damato Bill. These may very well be the last chance. If it means a convergence in the American nation on assimilation of all those together, then let us give those politicians the necessary support, advice and backup that they need.

These 140,000 young Irish people are watching us and listening to us and they have their fingers on the pulse of this House. We should also work through the European Community to ensure that collectively we organise and mobilise the 11 member states once and for all in the trauma, tragedy and drama affecting those people, with obvious disastrous consequences should the American economy burst. Should the bubble burst, there is no doubt that overnight there could be a mass exodus back to this country, again exacerbating the already bad unemployment problem here.

Today I was gratified, as was Deputy Griffin, to notice that the Minister for Labour had designated additional money for advice centres in the United Kingdom. This, again, is largely contained in our motion. I note that two of the centres in question, the Piccadilly and the Soho centres, while they are very meritorious in that they give advice, give advice to other aliens or other immigrants, rather than specifically Irish. Again, I urge that he should seriously consider funding advice centres in the main centres of population to alleviate the plight and hardship and the sense of insecurity that are now confronting young Irish people abroad.

We have no guarantee that this will not be the last initiative and the last chance. There is a mood in the American nation that they are entitled to roll up the bridges, close off the ports and create an unpolluted, uncontaminated, true American nation without any infiltration, integration or injection from abroad. It could be now or never.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy McGinley is sharing the time with Deputy Deenihan, culminating at 7.40 p.m.

Mr. McGinley

I should like to thank Deputy Deenihan for allowing me what remains of his time. I am delighted to have an opportunity to contribute on this important motion, coming from Donegal, a county which has been ravaged by emigration down through the years and up to the present day.

The tabling of this motion by the Fine Gael Emigration Group is the first concrete recognition in this House of the crisis facing young Irish immigrants in the United States at present, particularly those who have left here since 1982, those who are debarred from applying for an amnesty under the terms of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. For many years we were willing and anxious to ignore this problem. As politicians we felt that an admission that emigration was rife and rampant was an admission of our own failures, of our won economic policies being unsuccessful in that we did not succeed in providing employment and opportunities for our own young people at home.

As Deputy Higgins has said, it has become almost a cliché to talk about our greatest natural asset, our young people, We boasted about having the youngest population in Europe, of 50 per cent of the population being under 25 years of age and so on. We prepared for the education of these people, we provided the facilities in that area but, when it came to providing jobs and opportunities, I am afraid we fell down. It is only in the past year or two that other bodies and organisations have taken up the issue seriously and begun to remind us of the fact that emigration is depriving us of our young people.

One of the first to highlight the situation were sporting organisations. Indeed, the GAA did magnificent work in this respect. In Donegal they carried out a survey and found that in these past two or three years over 1,000 young men between the ages of 18 and 25 left. Some of them have gone to the United Kingdom, some to Europe but a significant number have gone to the United States. These are some of the people we are discussing here now, who find themselves in that country without legal status, experiencing all the difficulties previous speakers have mentioned.

It was only during the last election campaign that the Government party came out with a statement recognising that these young people were in the United States without status. It is interesting to read what they had to say and I quote from a document dated 11 February 1987 from the Fianna Fáil Press Office:

The next Fianna Fáil Government will undertake as a matter of urgency a major initiative to secure legal status for the large number of young Irish immigrants in the United States who have not got such status at present.

It continues:

Fianna Fáil intend to use every diplomatic and political means available to us to secure legal status for all these young people. We will also mobilise Irish-American opinion through all their organisations to bring the maximum political pressure to bear on Congress and the White House.

That statement got the fulsome endorsement of the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York at the time. In a statement made the following day they said:

It is encouraging to learn that in Ireland the leaders of the Fianna Fáil Party have taken note of the serious situation undocumented people are facing in the United States and that they are planning a programme to assist them. The Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York will continue to serve these undocumented people through its offices for immigration services and looks forward to co-operating with the assistance programme for undocumented persons which will be developed by the Irish Government.

It is only fair to ask this evening what has been or is being done at the moment to get legal status for these people? The Government have been in power now for nine months. They stated unambiguously in that statement that they would use every power of persuasion they have and we shall be expecting to get answers here this evening.

One of the most committed organisations campaigning for the legal status of young immigrants in the United States is the Catholic Church both here and in the United States. I must pay tribute to the Bishop of Raphoe, Dr. Hegarty, who has taken the initiative in this area. He has spoken forcefully and frequently about their rights and welfare. Indeed, he has already acted and given a lead to others by sending two of his young priests to the United States last summer, Fr. Cathal Ferry to Boston and Fr. Gerry Doherty to New York. They both spent three months there working with young Irish immigrants, familiarising themselves with their problems and difficulties and giving them all the assistance and help they could. Since their return home, the two priests have prepared a comprehensive report for the Bishop and the Hierarchy. Some of the suggestions in tonight's motion are identical with recommendations in the report submitted by these priests to the Bishop of Raphoe.

The main difficulties arising from these young people's non-status are mostly in the area of health, accommodation and the dangers of being exploited. We all know the prohibitive cost of health care in the United States. I know of one young Donegal couple for whom there were complications in the confinement for the birth of their first child. They did not have the benefit of any medical cover and it cost them $15,000. I know of another young man without status who fractured a leg while playing football and it cost him $15,000 or $16,000 to get medical care and treatment. These are some of the difficulties such people are experiencing because they have not a social security number, or legal status, or the green card. Another area in which they can be exploited is that of accommodation.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy might now bring his remarks to a close.

Mr. McGinley

There is an opportunity for the United States to acknowledge in a concrete way the magnificent contribution this country and its people made to the founding and development of the United States.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Lenihan)

I would like to say at the outset that it is very opportune that we are addressing the question of the out of status Irish citizens at present living and working in the United States. In that context, I would like to emphasise that I have visited more groups of Irish men and women in Washington, Chicago, New York and Boston over the past nine months than any other Minister for Foreign Affairs in the history of this State. I had very successful and constructive meetings with them and I am fully aware of the problems involved.

The first opportunity I had of meeting such groups was on St. Patrick's Day in Washington and New York. In August, I met groups in New York and in September I met groups in Chicago, New York and Boston. Those visits were outside the normal tour of duty which, as Deputy Barry knows, is concerned with the United Nations. I took it upon myself to deal with this problem because of its importance in the social sense. We all share this concern and I would not like to see this problem being thrown around like a political football. We are all conscious of the significant number of young people who are now in the United States and this has been the trend over the past five or six years during the term of office of two Governments.

This is a social phenomenon caused by a demographic problem here and forcing economic circumstances. It is a fact of life and we must face up to it and not try to apportion blame. It did not happen in the late sixties or the seventies but it is happening now and we must try to do something about it.

The problem is particularly acute in the United States of America. Before coming to the dimension of the problem in the United States I would like to reiterate our attitude towards it. We regard it, of course, as a serious national loss and I do not need to elaborate on that. I do not need to dwell on the fact that this new emigration is in many cases a trained emigration and is a national loss as well as a family and personal loss. It is a question of raising the level of confidence of people there by providing a regime where, first of all, they are entitled to their rights. I would put that as being the first prerogative. We could have a debate all night here on how this has developed and on the unfortunate nature of it, but I would prefer to get down to seeing what we can do about these people who find themselves in this situation.

On this aspect I had talks with the Friends of Ireland Group in the United States Congress in March of this year. I met a special committee of that group who were very concerned about this problem. I spoke to a number of Congressmen but more particularly I spoke to Senator Kennedy and Congressman Brian Donnelly. I would like to pay a tribute to them because they have advanced their Bill to a considerable extent. It is now in committee in the US Congress. It is before a subcommittee of the judicial committee and Senator Kennedy is very active on that committee as is Congressman Donnelly. What we want to do is to get it out of that committee as quickly as possible and passed into law.

The important thing about that legislation is that it will provide a permanent regime unlike the lottery regime which was a once-off arrangement for a particular year in which Congressman Donnelly introduced his proposals. That was yesterday's business and this year's business must be to bring in a permanent regime that will provide scope for emigrants from what are called the seed countries. We are specifically included in the schedule to the Kennedy-Donnelly Bill and emigrants from these seed countries, provided they qualify under special criteria such as education, training and English language, will get particular marks as it were. This matter is still before the committee but about 27,000 permits will in accordance with these criteria be allocated and the most intelligent examination of what is proposed shows that about 9,000 Irish emigrants should qualify for these permits per year. That is the prognostication but the significant point is that that will be a permanent regime.

It is very important that we expedite this legislation in the United States Congress because there is a danger, and I appreciate the point made by Deputy Deenihan, that if we start adopting other schemes and other legislation we will only delay the process. I warn against any delay in the process on the part of those who are friendly and well disposed towards Ireland in Congress. Already noises are coming from other reasonably strong sources, other emigrants groups, who are not included. Therefore, I would regard speed as being of the essence. I also regard this Kennedy-Donnelly legislation as being the best we have seen so far. I also had talks with Archbishop O'Connor and Monsignor Murray of the New York Diocese and he appreciates this problem as well. There is a difficulty in regard to the amnesty for those who emigrated before 1982. To some extent — and I say only to some extent — they were dealt with in the lottery legislation.

Mr. Deenihan

Only 3,000.

Mr. Lenihan

I am aware of that but the problem is a continuing one. If we get the permanent regime into place it will take care of that problem over a period of time but it is going to be very difficult to get the amnesty provision through. I have been advised on this by all those people in the Congress. I have done my homework on the Hill, as they say. Cardinal O'Connor, with whom I talked as recently as September, is aware that this is not an easy situation. We have to remember that this is not legislation passing through Dáil Éireann. We sometimes psychologically do not realise that this is legislation we have to get through a United States Congress in which there are many other racial strands and interests other than the Irish interest. I would like to pay a tribute to our officials in the embassy in Washington and to the Friends of Ireland group in the Congress and, in particular, Congressman Donnelly and Senator Kennedy, for the very positive interest they have taken in this matter and got it as far as it has got. A Bill is in shape and within the relevant committee. What we have to do is expedite it onto the floor of the House. It is the Kennedy-Donnelly Bill that would make available this quota, based on emigrants from the seed countries and based on specific criteria of educational and training qualifications and the English language.

I would like to place on record our appreciation of what Congressman Donnelly and Senator Kennedy have done in that respect. They have come together and are now co-sponsors of one Bill. The Bill is concerned — and this is how we have managed to isolate it from other areas and elements who might make the point that they are not included — with people who are disadvantaged under the 1965 emigration legislation. Deputy Deenihan raised this point. It concentrates on these people. Apart from the traditional seed countries, the countries that are getting this preference are countries that were disadvantaged under the 1965 legislation. The reason this is put in is that we have to get away from the element of discrimination. We have to establish our case as a matter of principle along with the other seed countries who were disadvantaged in 1965 and we have to ensure that it has got across to the American public and Congress that the set of criteria we are adopting gets away from any idea of discrimination. The American Congress, the American Administration and public were not aware of any overt element of discrimination in the legislation. That is a fact of life so we have to devise criteria outside that.

That shows the type of difficulty that is involved. The Bill aims at redressing the imbalance that has arisen as a result of the 1965 emigration legislation not by reintroducing the principle of national discrimination but by facilitating the flow of trained and professional workers from the countries which have provided much of the basis of United States society: in other words the seed countries. We welcome this Bill and we have made a very thorough examination of the various very simplistic measures that are proposed. There is no point in proposing a measure before the US House of Representatives or the Senate if it is just a simplistic measure that satisfies us if it has no chance of getting through their process. We have to be realistic and realise that it is the American process we have to get the legislation through.

This is why it is tremendously important to be realistic about it and not to encourage too many legislative measures. That will only confuse the situation and give reason for delay. We certainly should not encourage any delay because if there is delay in this matter it might not come through at all. I think that sometimes we are not realistic: we tend to believe our own propaganda bit. We have to get through the American legislative process what is acceptable to them, the criteria that will be acceptable to them, and within that range get the maximum for our own. Our best estimate is that the Kennedy-Donnelly legislation has a chance, is a runner, is already in the process at any rate, is acceptable across a broad range of representatives and will give us around 9,000 a year on a permanent regime basis of people who will fully qualify under the American system. We are starting out on a process which is going to be a difficult one — and I want to emphasise that — but we in the embassy are giving full support to it.

I have emphasised the fact that it is important to observe the sensitivities of people generally in the United States. We have been advised by Senator Kennedy, Congressman Donnelly and other friends in the United States of the dangers involved in adopting too high a profile in this matter. That has been my own experience. I am a reasonable politician and I have been out there on the ground. I want to say that, if this is overdone in any way, it will only arouse the feelings of people who might not be as sympathetic as we naturally are to these people. I do not have to emphasise the numbers involved. The numbers vary and I will not get into any argument about the numbers involved. It is sufficient to say that there is a substantial problem. That is my firm belief and it is a problem that must be addressed by us.

I have referred to the legislative aspect. The other aspect is the practical one of coping with the social and human problems on the ground. In that respect we have placed an officer in the consulate in New York who is already functioning whole time on this work and working six days a week. He is working in concert with a committee in New York State representative of all the bodies who are concerned about this problem, for example, the Church. As I said Cardinal O'Connor has been very helpful and both he and his specialist in this area, Monsignor Murray, have a wide range of social services, guidance services and welfare services within New York city and the state of New York. The AOH, the trade unions and the new organisation of young Irish emigrants, the Irish Immigrant Reform Group, are represented on the committee.

These four group represent different strands of Irish society and they are in different areas that can help in the way of advice with regard to jobs, and where to go in that respect, and welfare, which is important, in the way of housing, and so on. That committee are in place since last September. I attended the inaugural meeting of that committee and I am pleased to be able to report to the House that we have an official engaged full time on it.

Generally speaking, I am sympathetic to the terms of the Fine Gael motion but I must point out that the advice given to us by three of the four Irish groups in New York was that the best way to go about dealing with this problem was through the consulate based group in that city. I was told we should not consider setting up a separate advice centre in New York. The consulate based group is in place in that city and we were told it would be best to have an officer available six days per week co-ordinating the work of the Irish societies. The Irish Immigration Reform Movement did not agree with that suggestion but the other groups, those representing the trade unions, the Church and the Ancient Order of Hibernians, agree it was logical to work through the existing mechanism of the consular service. It will be possible to get action using that service rather than going through an advice centre.

In the course of the debate some Fine Gael speakers made a comparison with the position in the UK. While I appreciate that the Members were genuine in their statements I do not think there is the same strong presence of Irish organisations, centres and so on in New York that there is in Britain. There are many such centres throughout Britain. For example, there are centres in London, Leeds and Manchester. There is no advice centre in New York that one could say covers all of that city. We must remember that New York covers five major centres of population and the most practical way to deal with queries from Irish people there would be through an officer at the consulate.

The position in regard to Boston is different because the person responsible in that city for this work is the Mayor of Boston, Mr. Ray Flynn. I should like to pay tribute to him for establishing a special division in his office to deal with such problems. I was pleased to hear he was re-elected Mayor of Boston since I visited that city; I did not have anything to do with his re-election. City Hall in Boston is more powerful than any advice centre we might establish from here because everything flows from City Hall.

There is a degree of goodwill towards us in America and people are anxious to help our citizens. We get a degree of goodwill from people such as the mayor of Boston and the mayor of Chicago. The consul in the latter city is working with the mayor on this matter. The position is different in Britain where our people have gone another way because there is not the same establishment acceptance of us and our people there have had to establish their own advice centres and organisations. Successful groups have been established in Camden Town, Kilburn and so on. It is important to note that each case is sui generis and that each city is different. The position in American cities is different from that in British cities. In fact, in America the real problem is in New York. There is a strong Irish community sense in Chicago and the Irish there are helped along the way. In Boston the Irish are in because City Hall is practically controlled by the Irish. The difficulty arises in New York and that is where we must build up a system.

I am glad to report that the committees that were established two months ago are working very satisfactorily. They have addressed several key questions facing the Irish community such as the preparation of a booklet of sources of assistance and advice to newly arrived immigrants; the identification of low-cost health insurance and the carrying out of research into the banking problems of the out of status Irish. I am happy to announce that the New York city administration have decided to publish the booklet, setting out sources of assistance and advice to newly arrived immigrants — 10,000 copies as an initial run. The booklet was prepared by the consulate committee and as soon as it is available I will have copies distributed, via the Department of Labour, to various interested groups, to the Library of the House and the offices of the National Manpower Service system throughout the country. I will also arrange to have copies sent to each Deputy and Senator.

Health insurance is a very serious problem. Many of the newly arrived immigrants mentioned that because, by definition, they cannot benefit from the US social welfare system. This problem is being tackled in two ways. In the first instance the hospitals of the New York Archdiocese are, thanks to a decision by Cardinal O'Connor, open to immigrants regardless of their status. Fees are only assessed where necessary. A similar system obtains in Boston due to the initiative of Mayor Flynn. I would like to record our appreciation for those two moves.

On another front the consulate based group have researched and identified sources of relatively low cost health insurance and that information is being given to Irish immigrants. On the question of banking discussions have taken place with figures in the banking world in Boston and New York. I understand the law will have to be changed to facilitate out of status immigrants. Recently the New York based committees visited Washington and had talks about such legislation and about recent developments in the field of immigration law. We have two committees in Washington advising legislators and trying to get the necessary legislation through committees, on to the floor of the House and enacted. The Donnelly-Kennedy legislation will help us in our efforts to get an amnesty for post-1982 immigrants. If we succeed in getting an allocation for them we will be making progress.

The Bill is the best possible Bill for the future. The only omission is this amnesty matter and that is not easy. It depends on a great deal of lobbying, work and toing and fro-ing in regard to amendments that are necessary and acceptable and that is very important.

Subject to what I have just said, the Fine Gael motion is acceptable to us as a Government and I am willing to accept it. We would prefer, though, that some details of it were put in a different way. The Labour amendment is not acceptable because it goes into too much detail which is not really required in this, but we accept fully the spirit of the Fine Gael motion subject to the fact that we might have in the administrative sense to work out some of the details of the operation on the ground in a different way.

Miss Kennedy

We, too, support generally the Fine Gael motion provided its aims can be achieved by co-ordinating existing consular services in the USA along the lines suggested by the Minister and without incurring any unnecessary expenditure at this time. I believe that these aims can be met by doing things in this way. Furthermore, I thank Fine Gael for giving Private Members' time to the topic of emigration, a subject which all too often is abandoned by politicians because of the political flak it causes.

There is a certain poignancy in the Dáil deciding to discuss the issue of emigration in the run up to Christmas when about 27,000 people emigrated during this year. According to figures given to Deputy Martin Gibbons in answer to a Dáil question a fortnight ago, the Taoiseach estimated that a net 99,000 people — almost 100,000 — have left this country in the past five years. Of course, the Taoiseach called it an outward flow of persons rather than using the stark word "emigration". The net result of all this is that the issue of emigration is extremely important because in the past five years it has hit almost every family in the country. I can address this issue with some knowledge because two of my sisters decided to emigrate to Australia in the past few weeks. The interesting point about their decision, though, is that they emigrated from choice. Both had good jobs but they have now become part of the official 27,000 persons to leave the country this year. According to the Taoiseach's estimate, 28,000 left in 1986 and 20,000 in 1985. The figure is moving upwards all the time.

The increasing level of emigration of mostly young people should lead to a fundamental change of policy within this country over and above that advocated by Fine Gael in their Private Members' motion this evening. It is a very deserving motion dealing with the out of status Irish emigrants in the USA. We need to change the laws of the land which are bad for business and enterprise and to rethink our education policy. Both these issues are controlled by us in the Dáil.

Two types of people are emigrating these days, those with good education and jobs who chose to make a better living for themselves in another country and those who leave because of unemployment. I would like to address a few words to both of these problems. We have put in place a taxation and social welfare system in 1987 which is ranked in the world as the one most likely to discourage the will to work. Combined with this is our peculiar demographic problem, the problem of youth unemployment and the difficulties it will create ahead. This is highlighted when it is recognised that we have over one million people under the age of 15 in this country now. We have an enormous number of dependents both young and old and as a result five out of every six of our population are now supported by one individual who is working in the productive sector of the economy.

A most interesting paper was presented at the annual conference of the chambers of commerce in Ireland in May of this year by Dr. Edward Walsh, President of the NIHE in Limerick. He outlined how in 1986, last year, we topped the list of countries in which taxation and the social welfare system combined to discourage the will to work. We range with Italy, Greece and Spain as countries in which State interference in the economy is highest while we ranked with Italy, Greece and Portugal at the bottom of the league of financial dynamism and, again, at the bottom of the league with Greece, Portugal, Spain and Turkey for innovation and forward orientation.

There were some encouraging aspects, however, to the report compiled by Dr. Walsh. Ireland was ranked ahead of France, the UK and Belgium on human resources. We joined Japan and the Netherlands at the top in terms of outward orientation ranking. We were ranked fourth after Japan, Denmark and the USA in the availability of skilled labour category and high on the list with Japan, the USA, Turkey, Canada, Denmark and Sweden for a labour force willing to relocate, retrain or assume new functions. We were ranked eighth in the world in the education and training category with the USA, Switzerland, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Canada. The latter part of Dr. Walsh's study is interesting because it shows that if we have the will to change the laws and regulations which are dragging us downwards, killing the will to work, drowning dynamism and enterprise, we can remove the factors now inhibiting our economic development and our competitiveness as a trading nation. We can change the rules and regulations here which are making young people chose to emigrate.

I do not want to close my mind, however, to the other fundamental problem, that of job creation. Because of the high birth rate we can expect to have some 70,000 young people each year entering the jobs market. There is no prospect whatsoever, and I challenge any politician in the House to contradict me, of creating 70,000 job opportunities for young people each year for the immediate foreseeable future. Short of creating illusiory jobs in the public sector, full employment is a myth and most people outside this House recognise it as such. The Government's Programme for National Recovery pledged itself to creating 35,000 jobs a year. I believe that even this figure is mere fiction. We are not going to be able to create sufficient jobs in the next few years to stop emigration. This means that emigration is going to continue to be a fact of modern life, and this fact leads me to two inescapable conclusions. One is the fairly high probability of unemployment in Ireland and the other is the probability of a high number of young people who will continue to leave this country. As politicians we should begin to address this problem honestly here before we start looking for remedies to the situation in the USA. If young people are going to leave this country at the rate of just under 30,000 a year — that is the official figure — to seek jobs elsewhere in the world we should prepare them for it. We should not stick our heads in the sand and say that by not talking about it, it will go away.

I do not believe for one moment that we should be defeatist like the Minister, Deputy Lenihan, when he stated in his interview with Newsweek in the autumn, “We can't all live on this small island”. This island supported eight million people in less prosperous times during the last century. We should be pragmatic. We should act in the certain knowledge that most regretfully, thousands of young people, will emigrate in the years immediately ahead because of the economic problems we have to confront at home. We should change policies to confront that reality.

Given our historical and traditional attitude to emigration since the fifties, it would be naive I believe to assume that people will look at migration within the European Community any differently from how they perceive emigration to the United States. But it is different. If young people have to go abroad to find jobs anyway, how much more desirable it would be if they were to go, say, to Germany rather than as illegals to the United States as at present.

The European Community has brought us unforeseen benefits. The competitiveness in air fares would make it possible to come home more often; the cheaper telephone system would make contact with home all the easier. It would increase the probability that these young people would return to a rejuvenated Ireland in the nineties. Young Irish people would be working on the same continent.

There are two specific changes in policy which I want to advocate because of the scale of the emigration problem. I propose that instead of having major rows about small changes in the pupil teacher ratio in 1987, we should be reassessing and restructuring the whole education budget so that foreign languages are better taught in our schools.

I believe that the lack of sufficient language teaching in our schools is a scandal and a handicap given that so many people are forced to emigrate. I attempted earlier this year to get a breakdown of the amount spent on language teaching from the Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, but I was told that no breakdown on the cost of the Irish language within the education system exists. Yet more money was spent on teaching languages in primary and secondary school last year than on any other subject. Dr. Walsh, President of the NIHE in Limerick, has assessed, in recent times, that it costs £160 million a year to teach the Irish language compared with £150 million spent on English; £40 million spent on French; £3 million on German and £2 million on other languages.

I think it is scandalous that only 1 per cent of the language resources in our schools are devoted to the teaching of modern continental languages in this day and age. We could greatly improve the career opportunities for our young people within the EC if they had a proficiency in one or more continental languages. I know for a fact that in Germany there are likely to be many career opportunities for young people in the coming years given the age structure of the German population. It will create exactly the opposite problem to our own. In Germany they have a huge number of older people whereas in Ireland we have a very large number of younger people.

At a time when many parents are concerned with education cutbacks, a number of them have come to me asking if some moneys could be saved by switching some of the allocation spent on the teaching of the Irish language to other resources within the schools. They have a point. Yet the teaching of the Irish language is another one of those sacred cows within the educational system. It is the ultimate untouchable but in the context of the current education cuts, parents are beginning to ask questions. I would go so far as to state — and this is a personal view — that we should think of giving parents and children in secondary schools the choice: do they want Irish from the intermediate certificate onwards or a second foreign language which would better prepare a child for life? This view would not be shared by my parliamentary party.

I also believe Government policy should be changed in relation to career guidance in schools. There is no point, in my view, in pretending to young people that they can go ahead to be dentists, for example, when we have trained enough dentists until the year 2000. We are educating dentists for emigration.

The time has come, in my view, for parents and students to be given guidance by the Government on career opportunities for the years ahead. I believe it would be highly advisable if the Department of Education or the Department of Labour were to compile a register each year on shifts in different sectors of the jobs market. This advice would state, for example, that we do not need any more dentists trained for a number of years, or that we have enough teachers. The areas where there will be opportunities in the next five to ten years are, say, in the computer and technological areas. Schools could benefit greatly from such advice.

It would be most helpful to parents and secondary school students if a compendium of job opportunities were compiled centrally by the group with the greatest overview on developments in the area of jobs and the economy — the Government. This is not done at present.

I now return to the contents of the Fine Gael motion. I wish the Government well in seeking support from the Friends of Ireland and others in the United States to bring forward proposals to change the status of illegal immigrants in the United States. I also hope the Kennedy-Donnelly Bill to change the status of illegal immigrants will come onto the floor of Congress in the near future. I know the Minister, Deputy Lenihan, has had extensive discussions with groups in the immigration area and with prominent Irish-American politicians, but I fear we will not see this Kennedy-Donnelly Bill being adopted until well into next year.

I would like to see the Government establishing advice centres in the major United States cities mentioned in the motion. I believe this service could be provided with the consulates already in the United States. There are two members of the Irish diplomatic mission working in each of the following centres, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco, and three working in New York. As far as I am aware, there is not a very large Irish population centred in Philadelphia. I believe that if the existing services in these cities were co-ordinated and given a definite brief to provide advice for out of status immigrants, the job could be done just as well and as cheaply. The Archdiocese of New York amendment should be accepted. I would like to congratulate Cardinal O'Connor and the Catholic Church services in that city for the work they are doing for out of status immigrants.

At the end of the day, the Minister is looking at proposals in the banking and health areas, the areas which cause most concern to the immgrants and their parents at home. If we keep pressure on the United States authorities, given the goodwill in the United States towards this country — we got 31 per cent of the lottery visas in the past year — we may see some changes in this area. I wish the Government well in their endeavours.

Mr. Briscoe

The House should welcome the Minister's speech telling us what he has been doing in the United States since we came into office nine months ago. It is only fair to say he has achieved far more in those nine months than the previous Government achieved in four years, but as the Minister said, I do not think we should be politicking about this matter which is of deep concern to all. I am talking about the plight of young Irish immigrants in the United States. I do not have to tell anyone of the anxiety felt by these people in the present circumstances, wondering when the authorities will find out they are there. If they get sick they are terrified of being discovered and then not only being deported but never allowed back to the United States.

In the recent past, a newspaper, The Irish Voice, edited by Mr. Niall O'Dowd, carried out a survey of Irish illegals in New York. I understand the number surveyed was about 200 and the main findings were as follows, and this is of interest: nearly all had jobs, 77 per cent of the men were employed in the construction industry, 54 per cent of the women were employed as nannies; 50 per cent of the men earned between $400 and $500 a week and a further 30 per cent earned between $500 and $700 a week. The women, unfortunately, were less well paid with only 51 per cent earning $400 or more. Another interesting point was that 32 per cent had some third level education.

Debate adjourned.