If we are halfway smart, we will have mixed feelings about migration

It is remarkable how seldom our political leaders contribute fresh ideas about policy or take risks in order to open up new fronts in tackling the nation’s problems. There are many reasons: Lack of imagination. Distrust of the electorate. Fear of one’s political opponents and how they might seize on any ‘gaffe’. Subservience to political masters and dominant thinking at home and abroad. Abject terror at the thought of being negatively labelled by the media.

When politicians do appear to say something new, it’s more likely to be a carefully planned pivot to stay in tune with public sentiment than anything else.

Simon Harris’s recent comments on migration were an example. His words, and the response of other politicians and of the media, show how far we are from an honest, truth-seeking debate about migration.

Harris was playing the old game of appearing to respond to public concern without saying very much at all”

Harris said our “migration” figures were too high and that it took too long for failed asylum seekers to leave the country. Out of the traps came Holly Cairns and the Social Democrats, comparing Harris with Nigel Farage, and accusing him of beating up on migrants. Fintan O’Toole accused Harris of shamefully using the term ‘migration’ while referencing a relatively small number of failed asylum seekers, 1,287 persons, who make up less than 2% of annual inward migration. This was targeting a vulnerable minority to stigmatise the whole group, O’Toole said. RTÉ meanwhile, on Today with David McCullagh, finally got around to examining the state of Denmark, where the numbers seeking asylum are very low because of Copenhagen’s strict and intimidating laws.

The real reason Harris and his FG colleagues used the word ‘migration’ was to avoid harsh rhetoric on asylum seekers, whom the public mostly see, and mostly correctly, as vulnerable people who deserve any help, including any bit of luck, they can get. Harris was playing the old game of appearing to respond to public concern without saying very much at all. Taking no risks.

Perspective

Fintan O’Toole, in presenting failed asylum seekers as a tiny fraction of our inward migration numbers, was ignoring certain more challenging figures. The 2,403 deportation orders signed in 2024 contrast sharply with a much larger number entering the country seeking international protection (18,000) in that same year. Nor did Fintan mention that 1,000 people a month are now crossing the border from the North to seek asylum. Or that the cross-border route accounts for 80% of those applying for the international protection system.

Nor can RTÉ claim to have shed light on the issues by its examination of the regulations in Denmark. David McCullough presented only a harsh critic of the law, a Danish professor whom he didn’t much challenge.

It seems the public can’t be trusted to debate, think and act morally on immigration and integration. We must be led, blindfolded if necessary.

If we are halfway smart, and halfway decent, we will have mixed feelings about migration. We need the good people who are coming to our country to work. We sympathise with desperate people seeking refuge among us.

I think of the Muslim doctor who cared so kindly for my father during visits to our home in the last days of Dad’s life.

And when I go to Mass and see African and Asian immigrant priests, and parents and their children contributing with such dignity and commitment to life in our parishes, I thank God for the Catholic, universal Church. I feel a surge of admiration and gratitude towards these newcomers. People from countries where there is a price to be paid for practising the Christian faith and maybe know the value of it as a result.

What does that mean for what are called our ‘international obligations’ under the Geneva Convention”

Yet I know that migration can only work if the people coming in are integrating successfully into the whole society without a significant clash of values and culture. And only if that host country can provide the housing, health, education, transport and other services that the increased population needs. Too many people coming, too soon and too unregulated and none of that can happen.

I also know that everything should be up for debate, even the ideas that seem far-fetched at first, even the ones that on closer examination must be put aside.

Here are some challenging questions that, in a free and open society, we should not be afraid to discuss:

How can a State grant asylum to a growing number of asylum seekers, (even if all the applicants were deserving cases), if that State can’t cater properly for its existing increased population? What does that mean for what are called our ‘international obligations’ under the Geneva Convention which prohibits returning people to countries where they would face danger?

With our ageing population in mind, and if we want to curtail migration now, are we willing to be poorer in the future? We won’t have the people to care for us with fewer people working. Costs will rise. Would people accept migration more willingly if they thought more of the future demographic and financial situation?

If Britain’s tightening of its laws causes more and more people to come from the North seeking asylum, are we willing to re-think the ‘hard border’ situation? An about-turn and restrictions on cross-border movement would be intolerable to nationalists and could endanger peace. So what then? A joint migration pact with the UK?  Where would this leave our EU commitments?

Religion

Does religion come into this? For example, is the proportion of migrants to the country that is Muslim a factor that people are entitled to consider? If we have to limit numbers, is it better for integration, social cohesion and long-term security that we seek to attract mostly people who buy into Christian heritage and traditions? Does our new secular society even know what values it wants to preserve and how much it needs Christian culture to do this?

If it’s time for a conversation around migration, as some politicians are getting around to saying, then no question can be dismissed as stupid, and everything needs to be discussed.

 

***

 

Inclusive President

I attended the presidential inauguration, morning and evening. I was lucky in my company and got an unexpectedly good seat in St Patrick’s Hall for a ceremony that I found both enjoyable and moving. It was back then to Leinster House for a few hours’ work before returning to Dublin Castle for the evening reception. This time we were allowed to bring one guest, and I did.

Around 10pm I spotted President Connolly emerging from a doorway near me, surrounded by well-wishers and security. Prodded on by those around me, and not lacking any neck of my own, I eased my way in and introduced my company to the Uachtarán. I prepared to take the photo, phone in hand. Then the President reached out her hand, took the phone from mine, handed it to a woman behind me whom I didn’t know, and pulled me into the picture.

And all of that at the end of a long triumphant day of meeting and greeting people, talking and listening.

It was thoughtful and kind.