Notes on the Front

The Government’s narrative is that asylum seekers are a cost that must be reduced – by making Ireland an unattractive place for those seeking international protection.  This ignores that fact that, rather than being a cost, asylum-seekers are a source of economic growth.  It further ignores the conflicting analysis put forward by the same Government.

Asylum seekers make up only a small proportion of total immigration and a fractional number of the total population. In 2024, 4,700 people were granted protection status.  This made up 0.09% of the population (consistent with EU averages) with the numbers seeking asylum set to fall dramatically this year.

And those that are granted permission to remain in the state make a considerable economic contribution.  Jade Wilson, writing in the Irish Times, surveyed a number of studies that measure the impact of asylum seekers on the economy:

• A study of 15 western European countries from 1985 to 2015, including Ireland, found that public spending that support asylum seekers is more than compensated for by the fiscal and economic benefits they produce –  tax revenues, national income and employment.

• In the UK, which imposes tight restrictions on asylum seekers, a National Institute of Economic and Social Research study showed that allowing asylum-seekers the right to work would increase tax revenue by £1.3 billion, reduce government expenditure by £6.7 billion and increase GDP by £1.6 billion.

• A 2017 World Bank report estimated that increasing immigration by 3 per cent of the workforce in developed countries would generate global economic gains of $356 billion.

There are further studies in support of Wilson’s surveys.  A US study found that refugees (those granted international protection) are net contributors to government finances.  A European Parliament study found benefits at enterprise level for increasing employment of migrants, including asylum-seekers/refugees.

The economic benefits of asylum-seekers and refugees participating in the labour force is well established.  So why is the Government trying to discourage immigration and, in particular, asylum seekers? 

What is the Government Really Saying about Immigration?

The Department of Finance’s ‘Future Forty – A Fiscal and Economic Outlook to 2065’ projects economic and demographic trends over the next 40 years.  Their discussion of immigration is quite nuanced:

‘Inward migration can help to offset demographic challenges by boosting the working age population, filling critical skills gaps and supporting sectors experiencing labour shortages – in turn promoting economic growth, innovation and productivity.’

They further point out that, without immigration, the labour force will go into decline , making it more difficult to support an aging population and growing economy:

‘Migration appears to be the sole driver of labour force growth in the long run’.

They also point out the challenges: 

‘. . . a significant increase in net migration also poses challenges – particularly in ensuring that public services, housing and infrastructure can keep pace with demand.’

Of course, that applies regardless of where population growth comes from.

In contrast to this nuanced treatment of immigration issues, the new Minister for Finance baldly stated that immigrant numbers are too high – and not only asylum seekers.  According to Journal.ie, he added:

‘There is “a limit” to what Ireland can do for immigrants . . . ‘.

Harris ignores the important points made in his own Department’s study; namely, what immigrants actually do for the Irish economy.  So which is it – we need to maintain immigration (Department of Finance) or we need to reduce immigration (the Minister for that same Department). 

Failed Integration Policies

To fully capture the benefits of immigration, including refugees, we need robust integration policies. However, Nick Henderson of the Irish Refugee Council points out:

‘Our asylum system has been neglected for many years, left to stagnate for years and then subject to huge scrutiny and attention and change. . . the Republic has had no integration strategy for several years. On one of the most contentious and pressing issues of our time, we have no plan. Communication and leadership are also sorely lacking.’

Henderson’s point is borne out by the Migrant Integration Policy Index.  This ranks EU countries by the success of their integration policies for asylum seekers – in this instance, labour market integration policies.  It looks at access to labour market, education and vocational training and targeted integration measures directed at youth, women and family members.

Among our EU peer group we fall to the bottom – well behind the rankings of other countries.  But even in the EU as a whole Ireland ranks second to the bottom.  Successive governments, including the current one, are squandering significant opportunities to promote growth and long-term social sustainability. Instead, they are scapegoating immigrants; in particular, asylum-seekers.

What the Government is Really Saying When it Says Immigration is Too High

Government politicians may well concede all of the above – that refugees make a net contribution to the Irish economy, that migrants are the only source of labour force growth in the long-term,  But then they claim that immigration is putting increasing strain on housing and public services today.  And something must be done, especially about asylum-seekers.

However, when we look under that hood of that argument, we find a perverse and self-defeating logic.  Government politicians are actually saying:

• We have failed to maintain housing and public services

• We have failed to invest in migrant integration policies

• Because of our failures we must reduce immigration – even though we admit that immigrants and asylum-seekers produce real economic gains and are the only realistic sources of growing labour force and employment in the long-term

In short, we have dug ourselves into one hell of a hole.  Therefore, we must reduce the opportunities that immigration can provide to help us get out of that hole.  It’s not a great argument.

The Tánaiste claims the debate is between those who want a ‘calm, rational’ debate about immigration and ‘the Left’ who want to shut down that debate.  He makes this claim because he is afraid people might begin to understand what this debate is really about. 

That the debate is between those who will provide the leadership and vision that brings together policies that address our infrastructural deficits while promoting immigration as a means of growing the economy and social sustainability over the decades ahead – showing that both are not a contradiction but are mutually re-enforcing.

Ultimately, the debate is between those who want to climb out of the hole we’re in as opposed to those who stand at the bottom of that hole and shout slogans.