This year an unprecedented number of elections are taking place around the world. At or near the top of the agenda in many of them is immigration. Hardly any other issue has a more polarising impact. Fear, suspicion and ignorance fill the spaces around it. Xenophobic falsehoods are being widely disseminated.
The arrival in Europe in 2015-16 of a dramatic number of migrants from conflict zones in the Middle East was the catalyst for the growth of far-right groups in several countries. Pandemic disruption, related conspiracy theories and the rise of social media all helped to strengthen these. Myth-making aimed at fomenting anti-immigrant hostility is a key part of the far-right’s arsenal. Untold millions of migrants, we are told, are laying siege to European countries and threatening not only European jobs, prosperity and social cohesion but also the very foundations of Christian civilisation. An existential confrontation of races, religions and cultures is on the way. Ethnic strife and social chaos are inevitable.
In Ireland we have largely been spared such ideologies up to now. The far right does not exist here in any organised sense. No party with a platform of that kind has managed to secure a foothold. The recent local elections saw the election of a small number of individuals with far-right leanings. However, fears that the far right might emerge as a significant political force in these and the European Parliament elections have proven groundless. The local elections also saw notable successes for candidates with an immigration background. While immigration was a prominent theme in both campaigns, public concern seems to have focused less on the growth in immigration and asylum-seeker numbers as such and more on the government’s perceived failure to make adequate provision for this. Some voters may also have been reassured by the government’s signalling of a tougher approach in future. to the processing of asylum applications, underpinned by its decision to bring Ireland into the EU’s Asylum and Migration Pact. The centre may have held in these elections because the centre responded well to these signals and this disarmed the far-right challenge.
There is, of course, much in our history and values which is likely to stem the spread of far-right sentiment, certainly on the scale seen in some other European countries. This includes our positive experience of European Union membership and the failure of Euroscepticism to take hold here. There is also, by international standards, a low incidence of xenophobic conduct. However, we can take nothing for granted.
Over the past couple of years, one particular aspect of immigration policy has been vulnerable to extremist exploitation. A tiny number of agitators has been able to take advantage of local unease in a few parts of the country about proposed accommodation for asylum-seekers. While these demonstrations have mainly ventilated legitimate concerns about the implications of particular proposals, some have also been hijacked in an effort to fan overt hostility towards the arrival of asylum-seekers there or, indeed, anywhere else. The capacity of such agitators to stir opportunistic mayhem was graphically illustrated in the Dublin riots of November 23rd last, when an overt anti-immigrant agenda morphed into a wider assault on law and order on the streets of the capital.
What are the facts in all of this? Should we fear migration, or is the world a better place for it?
Human beings have been migrating since the dawn of time. An estimated one in seven has a migratory background of some kind. Without migration, our societies would never have achieved their current levels of development. In the twenty-first century, people are moving from one country to another in ever greater numbers. More people than ever before live in a country other than the one in which they were born. We are witnessing an unprecedented level of human mobility and this is set to continue, with increasingly integrated labour markets, lower transportation costs and ever more efficient communications systems and social networks.
The total number of migrants today is some 281 million (or just over 3 per cent of the world’s population). Migrants are present in every country, most of them moving back and forth freely. It is wrong to frame migration, as many do, as a ‘problem’, still less as a ‘crisis’. Rather it is a reality, a fact of life, an essential part of the human condition.
The vast majority of migrants are searching for better economic opportunities, the chance to develop skills and experience abroad which they can ideally bring back to their home country and use as the basis for more secure livelihoods there. Most such ‘economic migrants’ use legal routes and integrate successfully in their new country. They help to address critical labour market shortages, at all skill levels, in that country. They also send remittances home, the global value of which is triple the total amount provided globally each year by official development assistance. They make a tangible contribution, therefore, to the economies of their country of origin, their country of destination and – in many cases – the countries through which they transit.
For some migrants in the poorest parts of the world, the decision to leave home can be one of existential necessity. Many find themselves in extremely vulnerable situations, forced to leave by circumstances far beyond their control. These include, increasingly, the impact of climate change on their livelihoods as well as the proliferation of armed conflicts and of ethnic and religious persecution. Caught up in situations of violence, upheaval and human rights abuses, and often facing dire humanitarian emergencies, many have no choice but to flee their home countries and seek refuge abroad. To get there, they frequently have to resort to illegal, and highly dangerous, methods of travel – such as rickety and overcrowded boats crossing the Mediterranean.
Under the 1951 Refugee Convention, which has been ratified by 144 of the UN’s 193 member states, a significant number of such people qualify as refugees who are in need of asylum or international protection. There are approximately twenty-seven million people in the world today who are formally recognised as refugees. Many others are not formally defined as refugees, on a strict reading of the Convention, but are treated de facto as if they had this status. (Epithets such as ‘vulnerable migrant’, ‘forced migrant’ or ‘emergency migrant’ are loosely applied to them). ‘Asylum-seeker’ is the term for someone who has applied for refugee status and is awaiting a decision; these number some four million globally.
What efforts have been made internationally to ensure that people on the move – whether migrants, or refugees or asylum-seekers – can do so in a safe and humane way? Traditionally, human mobility has been something on which global consensus was considered unattainable. Too many UN member states insisted on their national sovereignty and would not accept that the UN had, or could have, any role in the regulation of migration. Only the narrower category of refugees was considered suitable for special protection and support at global level.
The Mediterranean crisis of 2015-16 generated such convulsions, however, that there was a change of heart on migration. There was a recognition that the phenomenon would have to be better managed in future and that this required international cooperation and responsibility-sharing. A number of countries decided that a global agreement on migration policy should be aimed for. A universal set of principles should be agreed for the protection of both migrants and refugees, particularly those caught up in large-scale movements. It fell to Ireland and Jordan to chair the UN negotiations on this subject. In August 2016 these culminated in the ‘New York Declaration on Migrants and Refugees’, the first ever global agreement to address migration as a policy issue and the first to formulate wide-ranging commitments spanning the needs of both migrants and refugees. As Ireland’s Ambassador to the UN at the time, I was closely involved in drafting this document and in securing the agreement of all member states to it.
The New York Declaration was probably the high-water-mark of what multilateral diplomacy, and the values of liberal internationalism, could achieve on these issues. It set out a positive vision of the benefits of well-managed migration and sought to counter false narratives about it. Aided by an international environment not yet marred by right-wing populism, we were able to bind in every country in the world to a humane and compassionate regime for migrants and refugees which prioritised the human rights of all. The Declaration also managed to avoid prejudicial treatment of irregular migrants, recognising the reality that the most vulnerable people are often forced to travel in illegal ways as they try to flee intolerable situations. The approach, all countries agreed, should be not to demonise irregular migrants but rather to target the unscrupulous smugglers whose victims they become.
In two subsequent and more detailed agreements (the Global Compacts on Migration and Refugees respectively), it did not prove possible to preserve the degree of openness and tolerance which had been achieved in the New York Declaration. The world had in the intervening years become a different place, with right-wing administrations in place in the US, Brazil and a number of EU member states. In Europe, the shift to the right was itself partly due to ongoing turbulence over migration and the huge influxes of 2015-16. There was now a much sharper prioritisation of legal over illegal migrants and greater emphasis on migrants and refugees as potential security threats (with prompt deportation or returns also signalled).
The European Union faced an uphill battle as it sought to agree equitable burden-sharing across the Union for the processing of migrants and refugees. An insistence by some member states, notably Hungary and Poland, on national interests and sovereignty consistently defeated efforts to achieve a unified response. However, with all agreed on the need for well-managed migration based on the application of clear rules, the Union eventually managed in 2023 to agree a new EU Migration and Asylum Pact.
In Europe and globally, a number of myths persist still about migrants and refugees. First, a belief that the majority of migrants are irregular, or illegal, migrants. Not true. The vast majority of migrants travel by regular means and routes, through channels organised and authorised by states. An estimated three million migrants arrive legally in the European Union each year. In contrast, only about 260,000 reached the Union irregularly, by sea, last year.
Second, a belief that asylum-seekers make up a substantial proportion of total migrant numbers. Not true. In Ireland there were just 13,600 asylum applications in 2023 – out of a total of 120,700 immigrants arriving (2022 figure). Moreover, Ireland has been below the EU average for many years in terms of our asylum-seeker numbers.
Third, a belief that migration mainly involves people from Africa or the Middle East heading northward to Europe. Not true. While it is certainly the case that the European labour market will always be of interest to Africa (whose population is expected to double by 2050), the number of migrants between countries in the global South still exceeds those moving from South to North. The number of refugees arriving in Europe is also smaller than might be imagined (only 9 per cent of the global total).
Fourth, a belief that migrants are in the main poorly educated and on lower incomes. Not true. They bring with them a very wide array of skills, talents and experience. Many are highly qualified professional people (doctors, lawyers, engineers and so on). In Ireland, for example, about 58 per cent of the most recent arrivals hold a third-level qualification. A recent estimate suggested, indeed, that our immigrants are more likely to have such a qualification than their Irish-born counterparts.
Fifth, a belief that migrants arrive in a country to exploit the latter’s social services and supports and have no interest in contributing to its economy. Not true. They make a vital contribution to the prosperity and well-being of their new country. They frequently bring new skills with them, as well as dynamic and innovative thinking, key conditions for growth.
The worldwide economic contribution of migrants has been estimated at $6.7 trillion. This means that an estimated 3.4 per cent of the world’s population is contributing about 9.4 per cent of the world’s income.
In the last few years, there has been a deeper appreciation of the profound contribution migration makes as an enabler of sustainable development. The Sustainable Development Goals, adopted at the UN in 2015, make clear the potentially enormous benefits of migration. Through their acquisition of relevant skills and experience, their transfers of knowledge and their investments in their countries of origin and destination, migrants can have a disproportionate impact on economic development and wealth creation.
With ageing workforces and increasing demand for labour to support their economic growth, European countries are increasingly dependent on migrant workers. Migrants fill key roles in sectors such as healthcare, agriculture and food production, transportation, construction and the hospitality industry. Germany’s automotive industry, for example, has been experiencing acute labour shortages which can only be met by importing skilled foreign workers. And the same holds true for many other sectors of the German economy, where every second new job is now filled by an immigrant.
In a country like Ireland, migrants are a mainstay of the economy. Migrant labour is essential for the running of public services, as was amply demonstrated during the pandemic. In our healthcare system, for example, over one-third of the registered nurses and midwives are non-Irish. Migrant labour is also required by the many IT and pharma companies located here who need to be able to recruit talent and expertise from around the world. Much of our Celtic Tiger success, and of our post-recession recovery, depended on the country’s ability to attract skilled workers from abroad. The income earned by migrant workers, furthermore, generates significant tax revenues which strengthen the state’s ability to meet its education, social welfare and pension bills.
Recent reports indicate that Ireland will accept a record number of migrant workers this year, a reflection of the labour shortages we currently face in key sectors such as healthcare, technology and agriculture. The country’s economy and our prospects for growth are increasingly dependent on importing workers.
Our own history and values should lead us to a positive view of migration and the benefits it can deliver.
Emigration has been part of the life experience of virtually every family in Ireland. Our children today also go abroad but, in contrast to earlier generations, are often in a position to come back a few years later and to put to good use the skills they have acquired.
A turning point in Ireland’s development came when, with improving economic fortunes, our long tradition of emigration was replaced by net immigration. Today the number of foreign-born people living in Ireland stands at an estimated 17 per cent of the population. This is a high proportion compared to other European countries. The pace of change, moreover, has been rapid. Within a few short years there has been significant demographic change. Between the 2002 and 2022 censuses, Ireland’s population grew by roughly one-third.
While the transition to a multicultural society has been relatively smooth so far (helped, perhaps, by the diversity of nationalities involved), there may be occasional local tensions as the country adjusts. Experience elsewhere in Europe suggests we should be prepared for that. On the other hand, we lived through a period of severe recession a decade and a half ago without public discontent translating into significant levels of anti-immigrant sentiment.
Our history gives us an instinctive empathy and solidarity with those who have found it necessary to leave home in search of a better life. Within a Europe which is moving generally to the right, Ireland has been one of a dwindling number of champions of the interests of migrants. We were, for example, an enthusiastic supporter of the Global Compact on Migration when it was adopted in 2018.
In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we have welcomed over 100,000 Ukrainian refugees under the EU’s Temporary Protection Directive. As a proportion of population, this is the fifth highest intake in the EU. The government, moreover, has steadfastly refused to cap the numbers coming, emphasising Ireland’s humanitarian duty to respond to the plight of the Ukrainians. And, under the 1951 Convention (which permits no limit on numbers), we have accepted over the same period a rapidly escalating number of asylum-seekers, despite the enormous pressure this places on accommodation and services.
The management challenges all of this presents in the short term are, of course, considerable. At local level some of the accommodation options for asylum-seekers have proved controversial and attracted protests. It is no great surprise that questions and concerns should be raised about the likely impact of individual plans on local services (some of which may already be under pressure). Many of those protesting insist that their only target is the government and that they bear no ill-will towards the asylum-seekers who are to be housed in their neighbourhood. But there is clearly scope for opportunistic exploitation of these protests, as we have seen in recent months.
Steps need to be taken by the government to ensure that accommodation plans for a given location are communicated to a broad cross-section of local representatives at the earliest moment. While decisions are ultimately for the government, it clearly plays into the hands of those with nefarious intent if a local community is given inadequate notice of what is contemplated. Timely dialogue will also enable concerns about local services to be fully addressed. Robust and sustained communication, furthermore, will help to counter the misinformation and media manipulation on which far-right agitation thrives.
In a number of areas, there have also been counter-demonstrations as local people sought to reassure arriving asylum-seekers that they were welcome. It is also part of the Irish emigrant experience to have known xenophobia and bigotry at first hand.
Given the many pressures involved in absorbing a huge number of Ukrainian immigrants and asylum-seekers against the background of a domestic housing crisis, it is not surprising that the government should have sought in various ways to control the numbers. It has, for example, reduced some benefits available to Ukrainian arrivals to bring these into line with the practice in other EU member states. As regards asylum-seekers, it has taken steps to extend the list of ‘safe countries’ (facilitating more rapid processing of applications from those countries) and has also tightened border controls at airports to reduce abuses by individuals who arrive without identification documents.
The government also announced in March of this year, alongside a new asylum-seeker accommodation strategy, that Ireland would opt into the EU’s Migration and Asylum Pact. One effect of the pact, which comes into force in 2026, will be to introduce tougher border controls across the Union and to detain more people in reception centres close to borders. It also stipulates accelerated and legally binding time-frames for decisions on asylum applications and more efficient procedures for the deportation of unsuccessful applicants. The government’s decision to opt into the pact has both supporters and detractors, with some in civil society worried that individual provisions are prejudicial to the rights of migrants and asylum-seekers.
While none of the steps taken by the government are in conflict with the state’s international obligations, the High Court last year found that the failure to meet basic accommodation needs for all asylum-seekers was unlawful under Irish and EU law.
Given the unique pressures the government is facing, the various measures it has taken are in themselves understandable and defensible. Nevertheless their cumulative effect has been to reinforce perceptions that the country is reaching the limits of its capacity to absorb immigrants of all backgrounds. This, of course, lends itself to exploitation by far-right agitators. Every opportunity should be taken by the government to provide a counter-narrative which emphasises the positive benefits being brought to this country by immigrants, from the work they do in many critical sectors to their role in stimulating innovation and growth and their cultural enrichment of the country. The government should also not slacken in its reaffirmation of Ireland’s fundamental commitment to granting asylum to those found to be in need of it and our determination to honour in full all our international obligations.
A further theme I would welcome is recognition that the challenges involved in absorbing and integrating immigrants in significant numbers require a cross-governmental approach and, indeed, a whole-of-society approach. A sustained and joined-up effort is called for across all branches of government, local authorities, housing bodies, non-governmental organisations and the private sector and other stakeholders. This is a national project, one which promises deep and lasting benefits for our society even if in the short term there are undoubted challenges. Migration is ultimately something not to be feared but to be welcomed.
12/6/2024
David Donoghue was Ireland’s ambassador to Germany (2006-’09). He was also the Irish head of the Anglo-Irish Secretariat in Belfast from 1995 to 1999. As ambassador to the United Nations (2013-17), he co-led the global negotiations which delivered the Sustainable Development Goals. His One Good Day: My Journey to the Good Friday Agreement was published in 2022. He is active in a number of think tanks on issues around sustainable development, migration and refugees and conflict prevention.
