Ireland’s debate on immigration keeps going around in circles. There is a general feeling that the country needs to “tighten up” on the numbers coming here, in common with a mood across Europe that has led to a new EU migration pact.
But there is also a complete failure to face up to the real choices. Tánaiste Simon Harris misses no opportunity to say the Government will not shy away from the debate about immigration, but neither he nor any of his colleagues spell out the implications and trade-offs.
You can argue back and forth about whether senior politicians such as Harris and Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan are responding to public concern or helping to create it. It is all a bit of an echo chamber.
But, either way, a report from the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) on Thursday showed the public overestimate the number of migrants in the population – feeling they account for 28 per cent of the population rather than the official figure of 22 per cent, underestimate their level of education and the number who are at work.
The ESRI study highlights particularly negative attitudes to international protection (IP) applicants, with one in five feeling “very negative” about this.
Hence the move by O’Callaghan to tighten up the rules here, seek to accelerate the departure of those who do not qualify and make it harder for families to follow those who are granted asylum. Meanwhile, Harris has highlighted people accessing homeless services without a right to do so, a point disputed by those involved in providing these services.
Making sure the public has the right information is part of informing a good debate, as the ESRI points out, even if its report, sponsored by the Department of Justice, avoids any direct reference to recent statements by Government ministers that are surely a factor in public perceptions.
It does contain an elliptical remark that “political discourse that focuses heavily on international protection applications or issues like deportations, while neglecting migrants’ economic contributions, is likely to reinforce misperceptions”. It also says: “Public figures who wish to foster informed debates on migration may need to seek and avail of opportunities to correct misperceptions.” Indeed.
Reducing international asylum applicants would cut the total numbers coming to live here, of course. Just under 40 per cent of recent residency applications are those looking for international protection, though the bulk of these are from Ukraine, with just 11.5 per cent of the overall total coming from other countries.
The biggest category of those applying for residency – 46 per cent – are coming here to work or study. Given many IP applicants will still have a right to protection here, any meaningful reduction in immigration can only be achieved by reducing the numbers coming here to seek employment or study. And this is where Irish politicians specialise in the Janus strategy of facing two ways at once.
On one side, ministers talk about immigration being too high. In a recent Substack post, Harris points to the pressure this creates on housing, school places and GP access. Politicians are responsible for addressing these, he says, but adds there is a question of how much population growth is sustainable.
Facing the other way, Ireland continues to bend over backwards to help multinationals who require staff from abroad for a variety of reasons. Work permit rules are tweaked to help.
Domestic industries such as hospitality and the health service also rely on migrant employees. And the third level sector relies on international students for funding. The numbers coming here to study English in language schools may be examined, but these, too, provide workforce for retail and hospitality.
The important trade-offs have yet to be addressed. Harris does refer to the need to decide what skills the country needs and what level of student visas is appropriate.
But the question is are we willing to accept lower investment and growth in return for cutting immigration? A gentle cooling off in the economy – dare we use the phrase “soft landing”? – would be welcome, but engineering these things is mightily difficult. And Ireland’s economic strategy is based on being a kind of midway base between the US and Europe, and openness to trade and migration flows has always been part of this.
Donald Trump may be selling a brand of economic nationalism, but American multinationals on which we depend continue to operate on an international scale and hiring is part of this.
A study by the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment observed “it is safe to assume that the post-pandemic recovery in the economy would have stalled were it not for inward migration”.
As the population ages, the need for migrant labour will remain and indeed is likely to grow. The dilemma for the Government is that this maintains pressure on housing and social services.
Perhaps a slowdown in the jobs market may ease pressures a bit. The number of work permits – required by those outside the European Economic Area taking up employment here – fell from 39,000 in 2024 to 31,000 last year. Hiring in tech, in particular, has slowed and the latest CSO figures show a 2 per cent fall in employment in this sector in November. One of the engines of jobs growth is spluttering.
Indeed, the wonder has been that despite the housing crisis so many people have been coming to live and work here while the same factors have been leading to an increase in emigration of Irish youngsters.
Slower growth may ease the dilemma for the Government as it finalises a plan due later this year on migration. But it will not remove the central questions.
Ireland will follow the EU trend of tightening the rules on IP applicants – and what the State’s responsibilities should be to people fleeing war and persecution is an important question. But so is the other and separate part of the immigration debate. Does Ireland want to slow economic migration and if so what are the consequences?
My bet is that there will be a lot of noise about cutting immigration, but that the multinationals will be quietly assured that nothing much will change.