There was a hint in comments earlier this week from senior Ministers that Government policy on immigration was changing, though the emphasis was on the international protection system. It was not entirely clear whether there were also concerns about immigration more widely.
But on Friday, Tánaiste Simon Harris went a step further. Having first repeated concerns about the international protection system, he added: “More broadly, are migration numbers too high outside of international protection? I think they are as well. I think they’re separate discussions, but I think they are as well.”
At the same time, Harris was repeating that migration is “a good thing for Ireland”. And Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe referred earlier in the week to the wider benefits of an “open” economy, while referencing the need to tighten up the rules and procedures to underpin support for this.
So, the Government looks like it will try to have it both ways on the immigration debate, playing to public concerns, while also nodding to businesses that they can continue to take on an immigrant workforce. On one hand, there will be talk of tightening up, while on the other, the Government will probably expand the number of jobs for which companies can import staff, in a review now under way.
Ellen Keane: ‘I grew up believing I was unlovable, that I wasn’t attractive’
Look out Ireland, our economy could go the way of Argentina
Terence Crosbie case: Firefighters, nurses and former teacher among 80 who wrote character letters
Miriam Lord: A jaw-dropping account of DJ Carey’s thriving career as a swindler
These workforce needs – and the importance of foreign nationals in both the multinational and domestic sector – is one of two key reasons why immigration remains central to our economy. The other is – as was pointed out in a recent Department of Finance document – that the Irish workforce is ageing and that, without immigration, it would start to fall after 2035, with significant economic and social consequences.
So let’s try to pull apart the various threads of this, because immigration is not just one argument – as some would present it – but rather a collection of different issues.
The first category is international protection, where a gradual tightening up in rules is under way. The State is, we are told, running out of room to house Ukrainian asylum seekers – who come here under an EU Temporary Protection Directive – and is looking to change the rules on how long accommodation is provided. Various other changes are in train, or will come as part of the Republic signing up to the EU Migration Pact from next summer. There will be rows and debate here, but the direction of travel is clear enough.
The question for the Republic is whether this tougher approach to international protection immigration is the start of a more general change in policy direction. And Harris’s comments suggest that it might well be. This is a debate raging across Europe and in our nearest neighbour, Britain, where government policy is now specifically aimed at reducing overall immigration levels.
In the Republic, non-asylum immigration falls into two main groups – those from the European Union and the United Kingdom with the right to come to live, study and work here, and those from other countries who require permits, available under separate schemes for those with critical skills and more generally.
The main countries from which immigrants come on these visas are India, Brazil and the Philippines – some work in more highly paid jobs in the ICT sector, while many work in lower-paid jobs in accommodation, hospitality and meat processing. In the middle ground is a significant influx of nurses and healthcare workers. The numbers are substantial, with 40,000 work permits issued in 2024 alone. In total, about 21 per cent of the workforce is now foreign nationals.
The big influx of recent years, linked to strong economic growth, added to pressure on housing and other economic and social infrastructure. But it has also contributed to economic growth. Between the start of 2023 and the middle of this year, the total increase in Irish employment was 166,000 – of that, 67,000 were filled by foreign nationals from countries other than the UK and EU. The availability of international talent is a key factor in attracting foreign direct investment. And several other sectors rely heavily on foreign nationals in the public and private sectors.
In a State with pretty much full employment, there is no question of immigrants “taking Irish jobs”. Part of the UK policy is to replace immigrants with “upskilled” UK workers. Here, a review of the employment permits system is under way and the odds are that, as happened last year, additional employment categories will be added to the list of critical jobs which cannot be filled from the domestic or EU workforce. And, as a recent Ibec report noted, the Republic is unusual in the European Union in that those living here, but not born in the State, are a bit more likely to be at work than Irish natives.
Tensions here are more focused around housing and accommodating immigrants in all forms has added to a bad situation. But for the Republic, following the UK and US route of economic nationalism is not an option. Our economic model is based on being an international trading centre and free movement of people is a key part of this.
This doesn’t mean that the permit rules are set in stone, or cannot be changed to meet economic and social priorities. But this is not easy either and let’s not pretend there are no trade-offs. For example, tightening rules for international students, as Canada has done, would leave a third-level funding hole. Reducing the number of general permits or the associated rights for families to join after a period would threaten workforce shortages in areas like hospitality. There are ways to cut immigration, but none of them are cost-free.
Some easing in general economic growth would be welcome. The economy needs some breathing space. And there are signs that a topping out of the jobs market may be reducing immigration, with numbers falling in the most recent years and a drop in new work permits.
But in the long term, our economic success is based on openness to trade and migration. In whatever it does next, the Government needs to hammer this home if it is not to add to an already inflammatory mood in much of the debate, which is having consequences in the real world, with immigrants settled and working here being targeted.
It would be good if these issues could be discussed in a logical and dispassionate way, including all aspects of immigration. Good, but in the current toxic environment, it is probably unlikely.
