"Ireland needs an immigration policy." This isn't exactly how the Minister of State, Ms Liz O'Donnell, put it recently when the words "shambles", "ad hoc" and "doom-laden" rolled off her tongue. The five-word statement is in fact the opening sentence of her party's draft document on immigration and asylum policy.
The thinking central to the Progressive Democrats' document is likely to be replicated in any future proposals brought forward by the Government.
The Cabinet will today meet to discuss what Government sources describe as "comprehensive proposals dealing with the entire asylum and immigration area" following the recent controversy over the lack of any coherent policy provoked by Ms O'Donnell's outburst.
Faced with a largely blank sheet of paper, the Government is planning a blueprint for handling this sensitive and highly divisive issue into the next millennium.
The main elements will be a quota-based work visa programme for people from non-EU countries, and probably the setting up of some sort of executive agency to manage the day-to-day running of asylum and immigration matters, much like the current Courts Service or Prisons Authority.
The remit of the Refugee Agency, which co-ordinates the reception of groups of refugees such as the recent intake of Kosovars, may be extended to cater for refugees who arrive as individuals. On the issue of integration of immigrants, an inter-departmental committee report written after consultation with interested groups will be published in the coming weeks.
"Irish immigration policy needs to be brought into the 1990s, and non-governmental organisations should be part of the consultation around it," said Mr Philip Watt of the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism, which gives policy advice to the Government.
"We would welcome a process whereby the outline of any future legislation was published and time was allowed for debate and discussion.".
At the moment, immigrants from countries outside the European Economic Area - EU states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway - can only enter the State through one of two doors.
One, marked "asylum", is for people claiming refugee status under the 1951 UN Geneva Convention on the grounds that they are fleeing persecution. The State is legally bound to shelter such people until a decision has been taken on their asylum claim.
The other, marked "work permits", allows people to get a visa once they have an employer who applies on their behalf for them to take up a job here.
Since last summer some 2,000 asylum-seekers, here for more than a year, have also applied for work permits. To date, only 63 have been approved.
Images of hordes of people queueing outside the Refugee Application Centre in Lower Mount Street, Dublin, and the liberal use of terms such as "swamped" have given the impression the asylum door is the main channel used by immigrants. But this is not the case, even with the more than 300 per cent increase in the number of people claiming asylum from 315 in April to 1,010 last month.
In the year to the end of November, some 6,000 work permits were granted, while during the same period 6,507 applications for asylum were made. Some 900 asylum claims have been granted to date.
To put this in a European perspective, Ireland has, during this year to October, taken in 3.1 per cent of asylum applicants in 19 European states, according to UNHCR-compiled figures. The UK has hosted 23.6 per cent, Germany 22 per cent and the Netherlands 10.7 per cent.
The total number of immigrants who are not asylum-seekers expected to arrive this year alone is 50,000. Many of these are returning Irish emigrants and nationals from other EU countries whose inflow is not controlled.
"The point of the controversy over asylum-seekers is not the issue of numbers per se, but their visibility and lack of self-sufficiency compared to people with work permits," said Father Tony O'Riordan, from the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice.
"This has put a big question mark in the public mind over whether we should be offering protection to vulnerable people, and there's a feeling that we can't cope. This leads to negative framing of the issue. What we need now is calm and a space to allow a discussion on reframing the issue.".
A difficult and sensitive issue facing the Government is how to deal with the 8,500 backlog of asylum applicants, some waiting for two years or more for a decision on their cases. These people have put down roots in the State which will make it more difficult, both legally and morally, to deport them.
The Minister for Justice has pumped resources into trying to reduce the waiting time for applicants to six months. In 1997, 14 staff worked in immigration and citizenship. Today 298 jobs have been sanctioned, although they are not all in place.
The Government is standing firm on its commitment to implement deportations, which were held up on constitutional grounds for most of this year. It has firmly rejected the increasingly loud calls for an amnesty.
"You cannot have an asylum procedure if you do not have deportation at the end of it," said Ms Berenice O'Neill, the head of the Department of Justice's asylum policy unit.
While lobby groups recognise that the power to deport is an integral part of the asylum process, Mr Jerome Connolly from the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace says the arguments in favour of an amnesty "are getting stronger each day as the backlog grows and as the number of people who are here for a long period of time increases".
The commission also wants to allow people who are not fleeing persecution, but have other humanitarian needs, to enter the State. These could include people who are "economically, politically or otherwise marginalised or poverty-stricken", according to its policy document on the area.
"It's a category between admitting people in as refugees in recognition of our formal duty to do that under law and letting in people primarily because it suits our economic needs," said Mr Connolly, the document's author.
The Clonakilty-based Immigration Control Platform is firmly opposed to introducing such humanitarian elements in immigration policy. Its spokeswoman, Ms Aine Ni Chonaill, acknowledged that the State's wealth brings increased obligations, but says this "does not mean you have to open your home to anyone".
"If we are a richer country, we may owe more money in aid, but I reject the idea that our country is for any Tom, Dick or Harry who may want to live in it," she said.
"If you are going to have a deliberate immigration policy and seek out immigrants, it should be purely on the basis of what the economy requires".
With such polarised opinions on the issue, the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice has suggested the setting up of a national immigration forum to canvass opinions on immigration policy.
In a paper in the current issue of Working Notes, the centre's journal, Father O'Riordan says such a forum would hear input from community groups, business interests and experts. Based on the model of the National Crime Forum established in 1998, it could be the "touchstone in this area for years to come", he said.
"Such a process could go a long way to clarifying the confusion that surrounds refugee and other forms of immigration and provide the space for calm and balanced debate," he added.