Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 24 Jun 1987

Vol. 116 No. 11

Irish Immigrants in US: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following Motion:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to express its concern to the US Authorities on the implications of the US Immigration Bill for young Irish immigrants now working in the United States.

—(Senator Mooney.)

Mr. Kennedy

Is mian liom ar dtús fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Airgeadais go dtí an Teach seo agus cuidiú leis an méid a bhí le rá ag an Seanadóir Daly.

It was Claude Bowers who said:

America has been fortunate in drawing to her shores men and women of the most enterprising and liberty loving races of the world and in none has she been more fortunate than in the Irish.

The history of the 40 million Irish in America, whether they be of Irish birth, parentage or ancestry, is indeed a captivating and inspiring tale of the great and magnificent contribution of the Irish to the development of America in every occupation and in every field of human endeavour.

In the words of Edward F. Roberts:

Men of Irish blood hold a proud place in the glittering pageant of soldiers and statesmen who established American independence and laid the foundation of the mightiest political structure which the world has yet seen.

It is in that context and against that background that I welcome the principle of this motion. It is in that context also, that I welcome the concern and the legislative initiatives shown by Congressman Brian Donnelly in introducing amendment Bills to the Immigration Reform and Control Act, 1986, amendments which are designed to bring about greater flexibility in American immigration policy.

Congressman Donnelly, speaking in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, 20 May 1987 said:

My intention in filing this legislation today is threefold. First, our nation must reintroduce into the main immigration stream those countries that have been adversely affected by the Immigration Reform Act, 1965 and which face the same barriers with the passage of the 1986 Reform Act. Second, it holds out the possibility of legal immigration to people who see their only hope in illegal entry. Third, it would allow the natives of those 36 countries adversely affected by the Immigration Reform Act, 1965 to compete in a more fair and equitable manner under the new seventh preference category.

I welcome the amnesty provisions of the 1986 Act in regard to illegal aliens who were in the United States before 1 January 1986. I welcome section 314 of the 1986 Act in so far as it provides for an additional 10,000 non-preference visas, 5,000 a year for the fiscal years 1986 and 1987 for:

Qualified immigrants who are natives of foreign states, the immigration of whose natives was adversely affected by the 1965 changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952.

This means that 10,000 non-preference immigrant visas will be provided in the next two years over and above the 270,000 annual limitation established by the 1952 Act. I am pleased to note that Ireland has now secured approximately 3,000 of these 10,000 non-preference visas. However, section 314 of the 1986 Act has put a tiny provision in a massive document. In the words of Congressman Donnelly:

Section 314 of the 1986 Act is but a mere drop in the bucket of the need to address the decline in immigration from the nations in Europe that enjoyed long, historic and family ties with the United States.

Countries which, like Ireland, have contributed so much to the American melting pot in past generations for, in the words of William Shannon, a former United States ambassador to this country:

The Irish are now the oldest and best integrated group in American society.

No people ever believed more deeply in the cause of Irish freedom than the people of the United States. No country ever contributed more to the building of the United States than the sons and daughters of Ireland. Irish volunteers played so prominent a role in the American army that Lord Mountjoy informed the British Parliament:

We have lost America through the exertions of the Irish.

This can be seen from the fact that eight of those who signed the Declaration of Independence, the Secretary of the Congress who signed it, the officer who first read it to a public gathering and even the printer who turned out the first copies, were all Irish born or descendants of Irish immigrants. Even the White House was not exempt from Ireland's spell for one-third of all American Presidents have traced all or part of their lineage to Irish forebears.

When John FitzGerald Kennedy was elected President in 1960, the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the majority Leader in the United States Senate and the Chairman of the National Committee were all of Irish extraction. It was of course with a mixture of hope and agony that they left behind their homeland, a nation yearning to be free and led James Joyce to describe the Atlantic Ocean as "a bowl of bitter tears". An earlier poet wrote:

They are going, going, going and we cannot bid them stay.

I am, of course, glad that from America, where Ireland has so long invested her people and her children, Americans are now investing their capital here and taking their vacations here. There are now some 300 American companies in Ireland, providing employment for approximately 38,000 people with a total investment of $4.2 billion. The flow of investment is not all one way. There is evidence of an increasing interest by Irish companies in establishing an American base usually through the take-over of existing companies. Some major Irish companies have expanded in this way, companies such as the Smurfit Group. Aer Lingus, Rohan, McInerney, Fitzwilton, James Crean and many others. In 1983 Allied Irish Banks acquired 40 per cent interest in the First Maryland Corporation, one of the largest banks in the United States.

This internationalism of Irish firms has been described by Professor Dermot McAleese as a very welcome development. It is wholly consistent with the objective of building up a base of strong, indigenous Irish companies. The American nation has always been a beacon of hope and opportunity for people from foreign lands. I believe, therefore, that every effort must be made at Government and diplomatic levels to safeguard and secure the protection and status of newly arrived Irish immigrants in America. I urge the Government, in view of the magnitude of the task facing them, to seriously consider appointing a Minister with special responsibility for Irish affairs overseas, particularly in the United States and in Britain.

I also urge Irish cities, towns and counties to establish appropriate links with cities and other such units in the United States, thereby forging bonds of friendship and social, cultural, educational and economical links between the people of Ireland and the people of the United States.

In 1986 as Mayor of Limerick, I initiated a very worthwhile sister city relationship between the city of Limerick and the city of Worcester, the second largest city in the State of Massachusetts, a city which was the recipient of the all-America city award for an unprecedented four times. These arrangements are designed to foster personal and family contacts and the promotion of industrial, educational, cultural and other developments between the people of Limerick and the people of Worcester, thereby helping to harness the vast amount of friendship and goodwill that exists between the people of Ireland and the people of the United States.

Massachusetts and the general Worcester area are noted for electronic and high technology industries and a number of electronic and computer companies from these areas have recently been located in Limerick and the mid-west region. Education has been the hallmark of the Worcester area for some years and already important educational developments are taking place between the National Institute for Higher Education in Limerick and the Worcester Polytechnic Institute in matters of research and in the area of student exchange.

Burton W. Potter said at the dedication of the new Worcester City Hall on 28 April 1898:

May we realise that the true greatness of Worcester is not evidenced now and never will be evidenced by the number and length of its streets, its magnificent buildings, its intensive factories or its great populations but if it is found now and ever will be found, if found at all, in the minds and hearts of the people I believe that the time is now right to forge new bonds and new contacts between the minds and hearts of the people of Ireland and the people of the United States.

The Irish in America have integrated and assimilated into the national mainstream of American society while maintaining, as we all know, an enduring commitment to and attachment for the land of their ancestors. George Potter in his book To the Golden Door, the story of the Irish in Ireland and America wrote:

The Irish in America not only work hard, but dangerously. The bones of many Irish men lie encased in the foundations of the materials in America they helped to build.

At the same time, they moved up the leadership ladder. They lifted themselves up by the boot straps.

The story of the Irish in America can be truly represented as an Irish-American Hall of Fame which sets forth the tremendous achievements of Irish-American men and women. It is my hope, therefore, that our two countries will move even closer together and that we will be able to forge at all levels new bonds and ties of friendship. Therefore, I support this motion and I call upon the Government to launch a major political and diplomatic initiative to bring about greater flexibility in American immigration policy to facilitate countries such as Ireland which have always enjoyed historic ties and links with the United States and contributed so much to the building of America.

Mr. J. O'Toole

It is no solution to the problem of young people in Ireland today to be asking the authorities in another country to look after them when they go there. It is an abrogation of responsibility and the ultimate "cop-out" and in no way is it a manner for this Chamber or for either of the Houses of the Oireachtas to respond to the needs of young people. I worry a lot about the comments that are made by people in authority about young people and the facile treatment of their problems is very difficult to accept.

I worry when people say that we should look after them in America when people do not care what happens to them here. The most common cry about young people in Ireland today is that we should look after them because they are the hope of the future, or we should invest in them because we will reap the investment in the future. That means for young people, "We will look after you when you grow old".

It is time that it was recognised that 50 per cent of our population are young people. That is an accepted fact and the figures support it. It is extraordinary that instead of working out how these people might participate in the Ireland of today we should continue to look upon them as the hope of the future. The only hope for our young people is to grow old quickly or go to America and we will ask the people in authority there to look after them. If we in authority here abrogate our responsibility towards our young people we can hardly ask other people to take up where we leave off.

I want to put in context the latest census figures. The latest census figures from the Central Statistics Office are fairly disturbing because they show a poor pattern of emigration. We should be talking here about emigration rather than the immigration referred to in the motion. We should be more worried about people leaving this country than people going into another country. The perspective of the proposers of the motion worries me. Our worry should be for the people leaving this country before we should worry about them going into another country.

An Cathaoirleach

With the greatest respect to the Senator, I do not want a contribution on what should be, I want the Senator to contribute to item No. 7 on the Clár.

Mr. J. O'Toole

In relating item No. 7 precisely to what is on the Clár the reason we are worried about the needs of immigrants is that we have failed to worry about emigration and emigrants. It has a very clear and definite connection. The latest figures show that 30,000 young people are emigrating annually. That is a growth figure. I am not sure how many of these actually go to the United States of America because we do not have figures for that. The reason we do not is that these people, having failed to find employment or career opportunities here, are going into the United States illegally and working illegally there. Consequently we do not have clear figures on this. In a State where the age cohort is about 60,000 — there are approximately 60,000 people of any age group in Ireland — if 30,000 people leave this country annually that would mean that over the years one in every two young people is leaving this country. That figure is growing. There is a disgracefully uncontrolled rise in emigration to the United States and other countries and the vast majority of our young people are leaving us. Not only that, but from information we get from America and elsewhere it is clear that very often those people who are leaving are the most resourceful and the people we need most.

It seems to me, if our young people are our greatest national resource and they are emigrating to the United States and other countries that we are callously unconcerned because, if I draw an analogy with one of our other great national resources, Kinsale oil or gas, and if half of the Kinsale oil or gas field started to flow unused and unharnessed, there would be a national outcry. I could not imagine people standing idly by trying to have this oil safely brought to America or any other country when it was needed at home to develop our country. What is happening here is that half a generation of young people are being dumped on a scrap heap and we are standing by. I am not saying that the responsibility has arisen in the last couple of months. We all accept this level of responsibility back over the years.

We need to do something now. We must start off from the philosophical point of view that Irish youth have the right to work in Ireland. That should be our first and primary concern. It is secondary to talk about looking after them in the United States. Of course, we have a duty to our nationals in every country of the world and, of course, in that sense it should be unnecessary to ask a particular administration in a particular country to look after them. It is a duty we have to our nationals in all parts of the world.

With regard to job creation, at present the private sector are losing more jobs than they are creating. This is where ministerial responsibility comes into it. It is disastrous the way private industry are moving at present. In our new drive to create employment, the motivation must be the public good rather than private gain. We must see to it that our young people do not have to seek the support of foreign Governments, do not need to leave our country when we need them here to solve the problems we have at home. In a State with a half-developed fishing industry, an under-developed forestry industry and a tourist industry which has not yet begun to recognise the value of selling this country abroad, the real impetus should be to accommodate our young people here. We should be saying to the people in America: "Come home; we are creating employment for you".

We should be looking at ways to create that employment. In discussing the Finance Bill tomorrow I will be developing my ideas and the ideas of the trade union movement on how employment might well be developed. In the meantime, I say to the Minister and the House that we now have a greater responsibility to our young people at home than we have to them in the United States. This motion is peripheral to the real needs of young people, who have a duty and a need to participate in Ireland now.

Mr. Farrell

I support this motion because it is designed to help many of our young people who not necessarily have to go because of hardship or because they need jobs but go because they want to travel and gain experience in other countries. For that reason we should see to it that they are looked after and that they get a fair crack of the whip. It is a pity that so many people speak in the negative about our youth. We have a very good youth. Over the last 20 years we have put a huge investment into our youth.

When I was going to school there was the technical school and the college. Today there are regional colleges and various other centres. We never did more for our youth. There must be something wrong with our educational system when, after 20 years of free education and 20 years of working for our youth, we did not engender in them the motivation of enterprise, the motivation to help themselves. Instead we seem to have educated them to live in the belief that the country owes them a job, that the country owes them a home, and that they owe the country nothing.

Mr. J. O'Toole

The Constitution guarantees them the right to work.

Mr. Farrell

It also guarantees that the likes of the Senator should teach them how to work and how to help themselves as the good old technical schools did for those of us who had the blessing to go there. We learned how to help ourselves; we got an education for life. We must tell our youth to be enterprising. We are giving our youth the best education and training. The vast majority of people trained in Ireland are depending on the State for a job. They are not providing employment for themselves.

I am tired of people attacking the private sector. I have great respect for trade unions because I worked in days when there were very few trade unions and we did not get a very fair deal from employers. There is a grave need for trade unionism. Trade unionism has seemingly gone mad of late and the shoe is on the other foot. It is time we realised it is patriotic to work for our country, to do something to help our country and provide jobs. We all have a duty to provide jobs. Some of us provide jobs and set up the correct environment in which people can obtain employment and help themselves.

In my village of Grange there are eight factories owned by private enterprise, all products of the local vocational school, employing up to 100 people in a small rural village. This is the type of thing every village should be encouraging. This is what our educational system must gear itself to and stop blaming others. We all need one another but our main goal should be to build an Ireland we can all be proud of. Instead of that, we are consistently knocking our little country. We are accusing——

An Cathaoirleach

Before one of my colleagues on the other side of the House asks have I gone to sleep, would the Senator get back to the motion please?

Mr. Farrell

I am getting back to it. Remarks were made that nobody was doing anything and I had to correct that and say a lot is being done for the youth in Ireland.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. J. O'Toole

Only the teachers.

Mr. Farrell

They are all part of what is necessary and they must change their training so that our youth do not expect to be handed everything. We will give them a free education.

An Cathaoirleach

Will Senator Farrell get back to the motion?

Mr. Farrell

This is a very good motion. I hope it will be supported unanimously in this House. I believe the people who go to America, not because they have to, but because they want to explore, they want to see the way things work in other countries, will come back much better men and women as a result of their experience over there. If the present system continues they will not be allowed to expand their knowledge and gain greater expertise in a foreign country. I support the motion.

Mr. B. Ryan

I read this motion and then I read it again and again. It is a good old Fianna Fáil motion because one really does not know which side they are on. They express concern at the implications of the US Immigration Bill for young Irish immigrants now working in the United States. Are we concerned that they will be kept there or that they will not be kept there? Are we concerned that they may be sent home or sent to prison? I missed Senator Mooney's initial remarks and perhaps it is clearer now. It is sad that representatives of a party who governed this State for most of the past 60 years are reduced to begging the most right wing regime the United States has ever had the misfortune to be subjected to, to be concerned about young Irish immigrants who are working illegally in the United States.

One of the reasons I am sceptical about this motion is that the ingenuity of the proposers could have been better devoted to reflecting on why a large number of young Irish people have left this country and also reflecting on the sort of work many of them are doing. There is a regrettable legal emigration of Irish people to the United States. We cannot be concerned in this motion about those people who are working legally in the United States because obviously the Immigration Bill will not affect them. One must presume, therefore, that we are talking about illegal immigrants in the United States.

The evidence we have is that those people are not exactly working in hightech, highly skilled industries which will enable them to bring back grand new notions of enterprise to this country. They are working in precisely the same menial jobs they had here except that in the United States, in the short term at least, in certain areas of high labour demand they are a lot better paid. One presumes that since they are outside the legal economy they are not paying much in the line of taxes. One presumes, furthermore, that they are not paying much in the line of social security.

Obviously, if you are an illegal immigrant you are not into paying tax to the Revenue Commissioners who might chase you down and want to know where you came from in the first place. What we are worrying about are people in dead-end jobs, with no futures, with no skill acquisition and with a reasonable level of income acquisition. We might be better advised to be concerned about the medium to longer term future of these people. The medium to longer term future of these people is of no security, no right to marry, no right to have a family, no right to any of the services of the State. They are there illegally and will remain there illegally. We have romanticised to a certain extent the alleged enterprise of these people. There are few things more difficult to take in this benighted country than romanticising enterprise, but the idea somehow prevails that they show enterprise and creativity.

Amongst the illegal immigrants are many who have skills that they acquired here. We did not train them for free. Because we did not charge them money for the right to be educated does not mean that it was free. It means that we chose to pay for it because we thought it was a worthwhile investment in their future. I do not regard investment as giving away money. I regard investment as the way to use the resources of this country to advance this country. That is a different thing. Those people were forced to leave this country, having had the investment of resources in them, because we failed to provide employment for them. It is true that there are nurses leaving this country. It is true that there are teachers leaving this country. To the extent that they are going to work as teachers or nurses in the United States they are there legally.

I heard Senator Kennedy earlier today romanticise the whole idea of emigration and of the people who pull themselves up by their boot straps. I have never been a particular devotee of the boot straps school of economics. An awful lot of people's boot straps failed in the process. They ended up not pulling themselves up, but landing at the bottom, starving at the bottom and suffering from disease, malnutrition and overcrowding. What we identify always are those who rise above the mass of the emigrants. We must remember that there is a mass of emigrants who never rose at all and who became the backbone of the sweat-shops and the industries, not just in the United States but all over Europe.

Nobody has yet got around to romanticising the Turkish so-called "guest workers" in Europe, or the Greeks or the Portuguese in Europe. Not many of them did much with their boot straps because they were not let. What happened was that once things got tough they were all unceremoniously dumped back home.

Emigrants are welcomed into a country not because of some romantic idealism or romantic dream, but because people need a workforce. For reasons to do with demography and the age structure of the US population, young Irish workers had a role to fulfil. I would suspect also that young English-speaking workers who were available to do certain domestic and menial chores would have a considerable attraction. There are young black and young Hispanic people in the United States who are unemployed, but they have the unfortunate qualification they they do not have white skins. They do not speak good English. Therefore, in a large part of the west coast and the east coast of the United States young English-speaking white people have a great attraction. It would be worthwhile for this House to devote its time to scotch the myth that emigration is a necessity and that those who go to the United States are somehow benefiting themselves by learning and acquiring all sorts of skills. They are not learning anything. They are doing lousy, menial jobs, often under very dubious legal conditions with very little support or protection. God help them if they happen to get sick. God help them if they happen to have an accident because there is nothing for them and there will be nothing for them. We ought to be concerned not about persuading the American Government to allow the illegal immigrant to remain there — because they will not — but instead about persuading our young people, before they go to the United States, to be aware of the frightening risks they are taking with their lives, the frightening risks of illness, of insecurity and of a variety of things. If they want to emigrate they can emigrate to Western Europe where they will have greater possibilities of secure employment. They can probably find jobs in Europe related to their own particular skills. They can probably find jobs in Europe which are more rewarding in money terms, more secure in terms of their legal status and, perhaps, ultimately more likely to make a contribution to the future development of this country.

We should stop romanticising this whole idea of the US being a land of opportunities. For most illegal Irish immigrants it may be a land of short-term financial gain. It is a long-term land of hostility, insecurity and of no legal status. Whether we change the Immigration Bill or not, it will not get away from the fact that most of our illegal immigrants in the United States are going to remain illegal and are going to remain insecure. All we are talking about is not fundamentally changing their status but about the degree and the extent of the legal penalties to which they will be subjected. To be arguing in this House about minimising or changing the dreadful penalties that Irish immigrants in the United States will suffer is in many ways a waste of the time of this House. We should address the fundamental fact that perhaps 100,000 young Irish people are in severe social danger, and I do not mean that in the moral sense because one of the positive outcomes of immigration to the United States is a reasonably liberated attitude to some of these issues, but in the sense of the lack of security. We are building up problems for ourselves and for many of our young people. To suggest that we would like the American Government to cast a blind eye on illegal immigrants or to be less severe than they might otherwise be to illegal Irish immigrants is not really tackling the issue.

The fundamental problem is that God knows how many Irish people, in very short-term jobs with no social or legal security are stuck in large cities in the United States. That is a problem for us and a problem which we should address. I would be happy if at some stage this House could address that problem. How are we going to secure the future of those people, either at home or in the United States? How are we going to protect their rights? How are we going ultimately to get away from this awful necessity that they have to emigrate? May I say, in conclusion, that I do not think the trade union movement has much to do with the problems of this country. Last November when £2 billion left this country in a week it was not the trade unions who shipped it out but the captains of private enterprise to whom Senator Farrell is so attached. They did not like the way the Government were operating. I wish the trade unions had that type of clout because then we could change the country, but unfortunately they have not.

Mr. Lanigan

Having listened to Senator Ryan I am not too sure how I should begin because he seems to be totally divorced from the practicalities and realities of immigration. He is totally divorced from what the motion involves. It is intended that we should express our concern to the United States authorities about the implications of the United States Immigration Bill. The implications are not basically addressed to immigrants in the United States. They are addressed to employers. It is suggested that employers in the future will be fined large amounts of money if they are found to be employing illegal immigrants, whether they be from Ireland, Mexico, or wherever.

The reality in the United States at present is that there are a large number of jobs which are available and which young Americans are not inclined to take up as a first alternative. Immigrants in the United States are prepared to take up these jobs. They see them as stepping stones. No matter where you go in the United States at present you will find that there are people from outside the United States taking up what were considered to be menial jobs, but highly paid menial jobs. What is a menial job? A menial job, apparently, is a job that gets somebody involved in working hard, whether with his hands, or as a building labourer, as a bar person or in the electricity supply board equivalent in the United States.

Is it menial to work with your hands? What is wrong with working with your hands? Just because you have a university education, what is wrong with going out and earning good money by hard work? Why should somebody who is university educated consider that he should not work in a pit in Pennsylvania or on a high rise building in New York? Is such a person better or worse than the person who has not got a university education? Is university education something that is sacrosanct? Should people who go to university apply themselves only to the discipline in which they got involved in university? They are privileged to have had the opportunity to go through university. It broadens their minds. Does that mean that they should automatically go into the discipline in which they have been trained? A menial job was mentioned many times by Senator Ryan. It is quite obvious that he considers that because he works in academia that people who work with their hands rather than their heads are working in menial jobs.

Mr. B. Ryan

I prefer people to have the opportunity to do both.

Mr. Lanigan

I would suggest that many people who go to America, or wherever they emigrate to, who have the opportunity to work with their hands rather than stay working with their heads, are better off in the long term.

We are expressing concern in this motion about young Irish emigrants going to the United States. Look at the implications of the new immigration laws. There are a number of very concerned politicians in the United States, including Congressman Brian Donnelly, who has looked at the situation of immigrants over a long number of years. He has suggested that the United States would be better if they allowed more Irish educated people into the United States than are allowed in at present.

What is a dead end job? If one can get into a job and progress through that job, getting an increase in salary and an increase in personal involvement, and is enjoying the job, maybe by academic standards it might be a dead end job, but if it is a job that is satisfying to the individual it should not be called dead end. Why should people who go to university decide that everybody who is in a job that has not promotional prospects is in a dead end job? It is rubbish.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Lanigan

"Rise above the mass of emigrants" were the words used by Senator Ryan. In other words, he feels that there should be a group of Irish people in the United States who consider themselves to be above the mass——

Mr. B. Ryan

I did not say that.

Mr. Lanigan

The words were "rise above the mass of emigrants".

Mr. B. Ryan

That is half the sentence. The Senator left out the first half.

Mr. Lanigan

Ninety per cent of the people who go to the United States rise above the mass of emigrants. In other words, 90 per cent of the Irish who go to the United States rise above the mass of immigrants from other countries because they are going into a country which is English-speaking. They are going into a country in which their capacity to develop is recognised. They are not like Senator Brendan Ryan who does not see the horizons available to them in the United States.

The Irish people have invested a lot of money in young people. When they go to the United States they do not, as many would suggest, in the main get themselves into a situation where they cannot rise above the mass of emigrants. They are better than 90 per cent of the people who come from other places. They are better educated. They are well able to address themselves to the problems of the country. They do not find themselves with the major problems with which people from non-English-speaking countries find themselves.

"Romanticising" is a word that was used on a number of occasions by Senator Ryan. I do not know whether he has gone to Boston, Chicago or to any place in the United States. The Irish in the United States do not romanticise their situation. They go there to earn a living, not to romanticise. They meet together at various times. It may seem to Senator Ryan that it is romanticising that at weekends a group of young people sing Irish songs in an Irish ambience. Why should they not sing Irish songs in an Irish ambience after spending the rest of the week working hard? Many of them would sing American songs in an American ambience if the occasion were given to them on the Sunday night.

The problems in the United States at present are problems of growth in an economy. They do not have young people who want to take on jobs at the lower end of the job market. We have a group of people who are capable of taking jobs——

Mr. B. Ryan

Twenty-five per cent of Blacks are unemployed.

Mr. Lanigan

——at the lower end and who are willing to climb the ladder. The Irish people have always been willing to do that in the United States. It has brought them up to the highest echelons in politics, business and in the social sphere of the United States. Twenty-five per cent Black unemployment is mentioned by Senator Ryan. Twenty-five per cent of Black unemployment might be related to the educational facilities available to Blacks in the United States. It has nothing to do with this motion. If the Senator wants to bring in a motion here asking the United States Government to provide better educational facilities for Blacks, I would suggest that we can bring that motion in here and discuss it. We are not discussing the lack of educational facilities for Blacks in the United States.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Lanigan, there are two minutes to conclude.

Mr. Lanigan

Having travelled to the United States, I have a concern that there is not within the United States Government a realisation that Irish immigrants can play a major part in the development of the United States economy and social structure. I ask them, as the motion asks, that they would place as much emphasis as is possible on the positive aspects of Irish immigrants in the United States. We do not want all young Irish people to go to the United States. If they go there we should ask that the American Government should realise the value to the American economy of young, Irish, educated people going there. We would like to provide in Ireland enough work for young Irish people but there will always be people who want to emigrate. There will always be people who want to travel. I ask the United States Government to realise the value-added Irish immigrants have given to the United States.

I am disappointed Ambassador Heckler is not in the Chamber to listen to this debate. I would have thought that, because this is the first time a debate on emigration to the United States has taken place, Ambassador Heckler should have been here. I cannot understand why she is not here. She should be here if she has any interest in the job she is supposed to be doing here in Dublin. Emigration is a cancer in Irish society at present. Emigration by young people, well educated who are capable of looking after themselves and who are capable of living within the particular society, should not be underestimated.

Congressman Brian Donnelly in his Immigration Bill originally suggested that the young Irish immigrant has a lot to offer to the United States. I think that is so. I would not go along with the "menial job" attitude of Senator Ryan, the "dead end" attitude of Senator Ryan.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Lanigan, your time is up.

Mr. Lanigan

I suggest that we should ask the American Government to ensure that there will be increased facilities for young Irish immigrants and that they will not be brought under the same type of control as other immigrants to the United States.

Mr. Norris

I wish to support the motion, in particular because I feel it is proper that this House should express concern on behalf of the many thousands of young people who have gone to the United States and particularly those who have entered the United States illegally. It seems to me that the proposals of the American Government cause concern properly to this House, because of one of the principal provisions of that legislation. I am thinking, in particular, of the provision whereby employers are about to be turned into agents of the State, unfairly policing jobs which young Irish people have. It is very proper that we should express this concern. It is a dangerous thing that employers should be turned against employees in this manner in the United States. It could lead to a serious problem, including the shedding of an existing workforce. I am quite sure that the Government are aware of the substantial difficulties that would face this country if the very large numbers of those who are resident illegally in the United States were returned compulsorily by the machinery of having their jobs arbitrarily withdrawn from them.

It is a very good thing that many of our young people are properly educated. I am sorry to see this hare being raised again — this curious antagonism between the so-called educated and so-called uneducated in this country. It is very largely irrelevant to this debate. As somebody who sat in this House and was chastised on the basis of the university of life, may I say that I am very glad to have been educated in a university, partially, of course, as was everybody else, at the expense of the State but I am also more than happy to take off my jacket and roll up my sleeves. I know that many of the young people of this country are, too. However, this is a privilege that I have. This is an option that I have. I can choose to do that, if I wish. I am glad to have that opportunity. I accept, of course, that as the Chinese discovered during the cultural revolution, it is a very good thing occasionally to empty the universities and toss them out into life. Not everybody wishes to choose. It is important that all our young people have an option.

Recently, at the invitation of a distinguished Member of this House, I spoke at a meeting of the General Council of County Councils in Ballybunion. Leaving the hall I met a young man from Kerry who told me a story that I think is relevant to this evening's motion. He was a man who had taken a science degree from University College, Cork, who could not obtain employment in this country. He had a very good degree from what I could understand. He went to America illegally, could not obtain employment commensurate with his intellectual abilities, and I do not intend any slur on menial work. I do not have to remind Members of this House in a Christian and democratic State that Jesus Christ was a carpenter. If menial work was good enough for Him it surely should be good enough for us.

This young man wished to choose. He wished to employ his skills. He wished to give value to whatever community he was in for the education he had received. Yet he was on a building site in New York, one of 12 young people, ten of whom were Irish, all of whom had third level degrees and none of whom wished to spend their life on a building site. I asked him if he had health insurance. Of course, he said he did not.

Perhaps this is another area the Government could properly inquire into. I do not have sufficient knowledge, but it seems to me that the most vulnerable area of an individual's life is provision for protection when rendered incapacitated by illness. Is there a possibility, for example, that even a minimum level of reciprocal health protection could be extended, even on humanitarian grounds, to young people who find themselves in this situation in the United States, regardless of whether they are legal or illegal? This minimum level of protection should be found for our young people.

I should also like to say, in what may be taken as an aside, that it is not just the Immigration Bill which causes me concern. It is the whole immigration policy of the United States Government. I cannot agree with my distinguished colleague, Senator Lanigan, in his blanket criticisms of Margaret Heckler, I think she is concerned. I think, unfortunately, however, she represents a regime that is not always realistic. I was greatly offended by the suggestions of President Reagan, in flagrant defiance of his medical advice, that immigrants, including Irish immigrants, should be tested for AIDS. It seems that, in view of the history of this disease, they would be far better off testing them on the way out, rather than on the way in. I resent this implication by the American Government. My interest would be to protect young people in America, to give them the basic minimum protection in terms of health provision which I think is the absolute lowest line.

I also would have to remind the House that there is the question not only of the illegal immigrants but also the possibly long term more worrying situation that so many of our young people applied for visas. Just around the corner from here every day as I go down Molesworth Street I see queues at the Passport Office of people wishing to leave the country. I thought we had more or less ended this situation in the fifties and sixties. Young people very often choose to get out. Listening to the interviews around about the time the American Government were issuing extra visas, it struck me how many of those who actually managed to get visas had jobs already. They were exercising that luxury of choice in going to America.

I am one of the very few privileged people because I live in the north inner city of Dublin in an area where there is up to 85 per cent unemployment. Last night, as I came home past Hardwicke Street flats, I looked at the young people sitting on the steps. I wondered what their future was. Many of those people would be glad to have the opportunity to leave. They do not even have that very harsh and unfortunate choice. In order to cure this situation it is essential that this Government do absolutely everything they can to maximise employment, even if that employment means substantial investment in certain educational facilities.

In particular, I would suggest respectfully that the Government should look very thoroughly at matters that are under discussion currently such as the funding of the Dublin Dental Hospital because I am sure that the Government will be made aware, if they are not already aware, that the knock-on effect of this is, in fact, to open up the possibility of very considerable numbers of jobs, not in dentistry but in the pharmacology section and through the School of Pharmacy in Shrewsbury Road, which currently has a pool of jobs which cannot be filled because of lack of space. These are people who may well go to America as either legal or illegal immigrants. So, I feel it is important that this House supports the motion and I am certainly happy to so support it.

Mr. O'Callaghan

I, too, would like to support the motion and to say that a lot of what I intended to say has been very competently said by Senator Norris. As someone coming from a community that has been devastated by emigration, primarily of an illegal nature, in the past couple of years, I think it is important that we should seek to identify with the people who are currently deemed to be illegal in the United States of America. It is most opportune for us that we should comment on the tenor of the legislation which has been enacted in the United States and will become law quite soon. As it has quite rightly been said, we could easily be confronted with a situation in the next year or so in which many of our emigrants and young people living in the United States may have to return. That is something we should look at with a fair amount of trepidation at the moment because, with the present job situation here, this is one of the very few escape routes we have for people who want to do any form of work. It is probably unfortunate that in this debate here this evening too much emphasis has been put on menial work versus any other type of work these people might seek to do in the United States.

The fact is that these people are going through absolute necessity, and there is an onus on us here in this Chamber to express our solidarity with them, because they are concerned about their position. Comments from Irish American newspapers were quoted here this afternoon, and the last day as well, about the concern being expressed by the Irish American communities in the United States that there is a degree of indifference in this country to the plight of so many of our young people who are currently deemed to be illegally in the United States.

While I support the motion, I think we should be careful how we address some aspects of the question. There are many people getting caught up in this — I would almost call it razzmatazz — going off to the United States at present and we are, to a certain extent, overtly glamourising some of the positions being taken up by our emigrants in the United States. We hear of the fortunes that are being made and so on, but of course the reality is quite different. We do hear occasionally of the success stories, and they have been synonymous with the presence of Irish people in America for many centuries now. But the facts are, of course, that at the other side of the spectrum there are many failure stories. Unfortunately, these would to a large extent apply to the majority of the Irish immigrants in that they have not achieved what they set out to achieve when they went to America the first day. We have to be careful that, while we are looking here for some relief, as it were, from the American Administration in relation to the present crop of emigrants in the United States, we guard against the ultimate consequences of what we propose to do. I do not think it would be the ambition of anybody in this Chamber, or indeed in this country, to encourage people to leave, despite the fact that Members of the Dáil have exhorted young people to emigrate regularly in recent years. I certainly would not subscribe to that, even though it may be an unfortunate eventuality in some cases.

Only 25 years ago we had a similar situation where people had to emigrate. Only by creating a climate of future possibilities in this country did we ultimately create a work ethic so that people were prepared to consider the possibility of staying at home and working for this country rather than taking to the emigrant ship, whether it was to the UK or the United States. We would want to be conscious of that. As Members of this House we should not lose sight of our absolute and total obligations.

Our primary reason for being here is to create an economic climate whereby we would be in a position, as we were in the late sixties and early seventies, to create a sufficiency of employment in our own country so that these people would be able to stay at home. Indeed, many of the people currently in the United States, legally and illegally, would come home, because most of them expressed the desire to do so many times to me when I was there over the years.

It is interesting to consider how we actually approach our call to the US Government. Do we feel that we, as a country, as a race of people, are entitled to a special place in the considerations of the American immigration authorities? Certainly, judging from the tenor of the discussions here over the past few days in this debate, I think that we do; and, if we do, I think we can reasonably say that we have not been getting a proper recognition of the type of relationship our American brethren would like to think we should have with them. They are not slow on occasions to exhort us here as to how we should conduct our business and, indeed, many people comment when we fail to comment on problems in Nicaragua, El Salvador and so on — and I feel we should comment a good deal more often than we do.

Quite often the comment is couched in these terms: "Well, you know, we are expecting the occasional concession from the American Administration", as indeed was forthcoming in the debates on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Financial support, yes, was forthcoming. A degree of moral support, yes, was forthcoming. But, in a situation like this, where we deem ourselves to be in a special category vis-a-vis our relationship with the American Government, we do not appear to get the kind of response we feel we are entitled to. This is something we should look at very seriously when we are putting this before the American Administration. We have made this claim before. It was probably not as critical as it is in the present climate, but I do think that we should conceivably expect to get more consideration for this point of view than we seem to be getting at the present time.

Therefore, I would like to support the tenor of the motion, but to couch it in terms other than regarding this as being a permanent situation requiring special concessions for our immigrants. We hope we will not need those concessions until some time in the future.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Calleary)

First of all, may I thank all the Senators who have contributed to this debate — Senators Mooney, Kiely, Bradford, McKenna, O'Connor, Murphy, Reynolds, Kennedy, O'Toole, Farrell, Ryan, Lanigan, Norris and O'Callaghan — for their contributions. They were diverse, very frank and firm. The important thing is that in many cases they came from people who had to emigrate, who have come back home and who have obviously been able to put their talents and their expertise to great use here at home. The debate, as I said, was frank and diverse and to me of tremendous interest.

Might I just take up a point raised by Senator Norris? I also have seen the queues outside the Passport Office. I think, however, we would be wise here to state that many of those are not going to emigrate but are going on holidays — and good luck to them that they have the capability and the money to go on holidays. I certainly will take into account some of the other points he raised.

I would like also to take the opportunity to thank those Senators who welcomed me here to the House. I look forward to being here for many years, working in co-operation with them.

I would like, in the first place, to thank very sincerely the movers of the motion. While there are many interpretations of it, it is proper that we should read the motion. I will try to stick to that in my reply. The action is most timely, both in the context of the life of the Seanad and in the context of the present state of the problem which the motion addresses.

As far as the Seanad is concerned, it is most appropriate that the issue of emigration is addressed so early after the House has been convened. It indicates the priority which Senators give this problem, a priority with which the Government fully and completely agree. As I said, it is an indication of the experience quite a number of Senators have had. In the context of the present state of the problem the motion is also timely as it enables us to assess recent US legislation on immigration — the most important on the subject for many years — and its impact on our citizens.

There has been, of course, a great deal of speculation about the number of Irish people in the US whose status is unclear or uncertain. Given the absence of clear statistical information, this is perhaps understandable; but I would like to emphasise that the figures which have been mentioned from time to time are, in my view, exaggerated. Irish and US national systems are not designed to monitor illegal immigration flows and because of the nature of illegal immigration itself we have a problem in identifying how many of these emigrate specifically to the United States. However, recent research, which we have carried out in conjunction with US sources, suggests that the total number of Irish illegal immigrants in the US is considerably less than some reports suggest. I take the point made by Senator Mooney and others — I can vouch for it from my own experience in my county — that a tremendous number of people have left, that the GAA in America in recent years, both in hurling and football, has had a revival. When one takes into account the decline in small rural clubs in Ireland, one can quite safely add two and two and come up with the proper answer.

This Government are conscious and understanding of the personal difficulties each of our emigrants is facing because of the uncertain nature of his or her status. The Government are also aware of the anxiety and fear of their families here at home.

Turning to recent legislative developments in the US, as Senators are well aware, entry into the United States, particularly from Central American countries, has been a major cause of concern to the United States for a considerable period of years. Last year saw the passing of not one but three pieces of legislation in this area, all designed to curb illegal immigration and to make it difficult for illegal immigrants to remain in the United States. The particular legislation to which the motion before us refers, and which is of the greatest significance for Irish citizens, is the Immigration Reform and Control Act, 1986. From the Irish point of view this legislation contains three provisions of direct interest to us. First, it provides for an amnesty; second, it provides for a new non-preference category of immigration — the lottery visas; and, third, it contains new employer restrictions.

In the first place it provided for an amnesty for all illegal immigrants who had arrived in the United States before 1 January 1982. To qualify for such amnesty aliens, as well as having had to enter the United States before January 1982, must satisfy the immigration authorities that their legal status expired before that date and that they were continuously resident in the United States from before that date and that they were continuously present in the United States since 6 November, 1986, that is, at the passing of the Act. We do not know how many Irish could benefit from this; but, as it is calculated that several thousand Irish people were illegally present in the United States on that date, we believe that this measure will be of real value to them.

The second feature of the 1986 Act which is of immediate benefit to Irish people is the NP5 or lottery visas. This provision, which was mentioned by Senators Mooney, McKenna, Kennedy and others, has as its genesis a proposal from Congressman Brian Donnelly that there should be a specific annual quota of 5,000 visas for Irish people who wish to emigrate to the United States. In the negotiations between the two Houses of Congress this proposal was replaced by one which provided that a total of 10,000 visas, to be divided over a two year period, be allocated to nationals of the countries which were most disadvantaged by the passing of the 1965 Immigration Act, again a point mentioned by many Senators in their contributions. These countries totalled not less than 36.

In between the passing of the Act and its implementation, and following representations from, among other sources, our Embassy in Washington, the State Department decided that the most equitable way of distributing these 10,000 visas would be on the principle of first come, first served. The result of this is now well known. Nearly 1.5 million applications were received in Washington from all sources. Of the 10,000 visas actually awarded, over 3,000 went to Irish people, some of whom were living illegally in the United States. Successful applicants in this lottery have been notified and their applications are now, I understand, being processed by the US authorities here.

It is of particular interest to note that the number of such visas issued so far this year — in the region of 300 to 400 — is equal to the number of normal preference emigrant visas issued in the same period. In other words, this provision has meant that the number of Irish people wishing to emigrate legally on a long-term basis to the United States has already doubled as a result of the passing of this particular provision.

The 1986 Act had, of course, another side to it, and it is one which has rightly occupied the minds of Senators. This relates to what is called the employer provisions. Until the passing of the 1986 Act the attention of the US Immigration and Naturalisation Services were concentrated on the alien. Under the new Act the direct target has now become the employer of the alien. It is unlawful for an employer to knowingly hire, recruit or reserve for a fee aliens who are not authorised to work in the United States. Employers who violate the Act are subject to substantial civil penalties. These sanctions affect all US employers regardless of the size of their companies. There is, however, a "grandfather" provision which permits an employer to continue to employ an illegal alien who was hired before 7 November 1986, although, of course, the onus is still on the alien to have his or her situation regularised.

Because of the unique nature of these provisions, which are a dramatic departure from previous US Federal law, there is a phase-in period for the sanction provisions. This period was originally to run out on 31 May but it has now been extended to 1 October. The principal impact of these provisions on illegal aliens will be that, firstly, it will be much more difficult for those who arrived in the United States after 6 November 1986 to find work. Secondly, for those who arrived before 6 November 1986 it will be more difficult to move to another job. Clearly, employers who face the possibility of heavy penalties will be reluctant to hire illegal aliens.

These new sanctions will also affect aliens who are in the United States legally. They would have to provide employers with proof of their identity and their authorisation to work.

The response of Fianna Fáil and the Government to the developments I have just outlined has been at two levels. In the first place we are making a determined effort to generate sustained economic growth here at home so as to develop the capacity of our economy to employ people in productive industry and services in Ireland. This is an essential aim of our Programme for National Recovery and the prime object of Government activity since we were elected — and this is a point mentioned by, among others, Senator O'Toole and Senator O'Callaghan. Could I just take Senator O'Toole's point, when he says that Irish youth have the right to work in Ireland. I and Fianna Fáil wholeheartedly support that idea. It is one of the principal aims of our development programme that we should be able to employ our people here at home and it takes into account also the point raised by Senator Ryan. I feel that one emigrant is one too many.

Secondly, we are mounting a substantial political and diplomatic effort to improve the position of those who have entered the US illegally. I would like to remind Senators of what the Fianna Fáil Party programme says on this matter, and this was prior to the election:

Fianna Fáil are greatly concerned over the plight of many thousands of young Irish people who have been forced to emigrate over the past four years. Special problems have arisen in the United States where the status and general uncertainty of their position prevents them from making definite plans for the future—

Again, it is something that was raised by a number of Senators, including Senator Norris—

—and where they are often exposed to exploitation in their employment. This is a cause of great anxiety not only to those directly involved but also to their families here at home. Fianna Fáil would therefore undertake a major political and diplomatic initiative to secure legal status for these young people.

In other words, Fianna Fáil had identified this problem as a very real one, from the experiences of our TDs, Senators and councillors all round the country, and had, before the election, decided on what action should be taken. As Senators are aware, within one week of taking up office the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste visited the United States and met members of the influential Friends of Ireland, Congressional leaders and representatives of the US Administration and discussed this matter in depth with them. We are satisfied that as a result of that presentation members of the Congress and the Administration now have a much greater appreciation of the difficulties faced by our immigrants, of the need for measures to help regularise their position and of the urgent degree of priority which this Government attach to this problem.

Indeed, the visit of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste has already had an important outcome with the tabling of a draft Bill by Congressman Donnelly last month which, if enacted, would increase the number of immigrants' visas available to Irish citizens. The purpose of this Bill would, in effect, be to set up a new or seventh preference category of 27,000 visas. The new quota would be aimed again at citizens from countries, including Ireland, disadvantaged under the 1965 Act. It would come into effect in 1989.

The Government have welcomed very warmly Congressman Donnelly's proposal, and I would like to use this opportunity to express our strong appreciation for the dedicated efforts he has made on behalf of our citizens, both on the occasion of the passing of the 1986 Act and with the introduction of this new measure. I hope the ideas it contains will be taken up by the US Congress in a manner which will provide permanent benefit for those of our citizens who wish to live and work legally in the United States. We have signalled our reaction to our friends in both Houses of Congress, and here I would like to take some little issue with some of the criticisms that have been levelled at them.

Throughout the passage of the 1986 Act the Friends of Ireland, which include both Senator Kennedy and Speaker O'Neill, stayed in very close touch with the Irish Embassy in Washington and helped smooth the legislative process, in particular of the visa lottery part of the Bill. There seems to be a view prevalent in certain quarters that our interests were ignored in this respect by our Friends. Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth and I would like, Sir, to put this on record and to have the record straight on that point. How long it will take to have Congressman Donnelly's present measure adopted and what final form it will take is, of course, something that nobody in this House can say, given the intricacies and complexities of the American system. I take Senator Ryan's point. Again, it was one that was raised and also touched upon by Senator Norris and by Senator O'Callaghan: that there is a grave need to alert prospective illegal emigrants to the US of the pitfalls that can await them there.

Turning, however, to the point of the motion — the possibility of the very adverse repercussions of the implementation of the employer clauses in the 1986 Act, which was mentioned by many of the speakers — I would like to assure Senators that the Government are watching the situation most closely and will take cognisance of the remarks and advice given by many of the Senators. Through the Embassy in Washington and our Consulates in the United States we are maintaining close and continuous contact with Irish American groups and with Church representatives.

In this regard I welcome the remarks of Senator Murphy on his own experience in Boston when he spoke of the admirable manner in which the consular staff in Boston had looked after the emigrants there. Should any Irish citizen who is working illegally in the States contact any of our offices they will be either directly advised of their rights and how to regularise their position or referred to agencies who have a more specialised knowledge of the law. I urge them certainly to do so, and I urge any Senator who is in contact with any of our emigrants also to urge them to contact the Embassy. Should the law appear to be unfavourably implemented as regards our citizens we will not hesitate to draw the attention of the US authorities to this and to seek prompt modification of their position.

This Government share the deep concern of Senators about the numbers of young Irish who have left our shores to live and work in the United States and about the implications for them of legislative changes there. We have already acted quickly to deliver on the commitment in our Programme for National Recovery and I can assure the House that our objectives in this regard will be pursued vigorously in the coming months. I can also assure Senators on behalf of the Government that we will do everything we can to ensure that the adverse effects of this Act will be minimised as much as possible. I have great pleasure in accepting the motion.

Mr. Mooney

May I, as a member of the Fianna Fáil group — indeed it was in the name and spirit of the Fianna Fáil group that this motion was put down — thank the Minister for his contribution and, indeed, for his presence throughout the debate both last week and again this evening? In particular I would like to thank him for the very strong commitment he has given and the strong commitment of the Government to the young Irish who are now finding themselves in a legal vacuum in the United States. In that context I hope the word will go out from this House, that the Government will use every means at their disposal to get across the message of this debate, and their own message as typified in the speech of the Minister, and that he will get that message across to the United States.

It is an important message to get across. It is one that, up to now, seemingly is not getting across. I would like to quote from Niall O'Dowd's column in "The Irish in America" yesterday in which he talks about a function that took place in the Tower View Ballroom last Saturday night and says that over 900 young Irish turned up for the first function held by the new Irish emigration reform movement. He said that probably it was at least 30 years ago, during the great emigrant arrivals of the fifties, that there was such a crowd of people. But one of the people speaking at that, a Mr. Seán Minihan, who was one of the organisers of the "New Irish", as they call themselves, said: "We have had our fill of lip service from politicians in the Irish Government on how they would help the situation. The New Irish would help themselves". I hope the message will go out to Mr. Minahan and, indeed, to all of his friends who have set up the emigration reform movement, that this Government, this House and the representatives of the people of this country are four-square behind them and have made a public commitment to the cause that they have espoused and that, as has been pointed out by the Minister, every conceivable effort which has been taken will continue to be taken to monitor the attitudes, the behaviour on a legislative level of the US Government as it affects our citizens abroad. As I say again, the message, hopefully, going out loud and clear from this Chamber is, "We do care". Thank you.

Question put and agreed to.