Not many people have heard of the International Office of Migration (IOM). You will not see them chugging gullible people on the streets for a direct debate to assist them in Caring. They do not run TV and radio ads tugging at your heartstrings.
They have no need to, for the simple reason that – like most of the “stakeholders” in the Migration Caper – their tab is on your tab, so to speak. Between the beginning of 2016 and the end of 2024, you the taxpayer have bunged the IOM €9,423,773.
That money is channelled through the Department of Justice and comes under the heading of “repatriation expert support.” Which means that the IOM through its office here helps to prepare those asylum seekers who – like more than 80% of applicants for International Protection – are found not to have satisfied the conditions for being granted asylum here and have to go home.
Before we look more closely at the IOM I thought it might be interesting to see what sort of bang for your buck they deliver. (The IOM has also drawn down almost €500,000 in providing “cultural mediation” to applicants who present themselves to the International Protection Office.)
Between 2014 and 2024 there were a total of 10,746 deportation orders made. There are no exact figures for 2016 to 2018 but the annual averages for the two years before would provide an estimate of 8,773.
Of those orders – again with an estimate for 2016-2018 – 2,995 were actually executed as in the Gardaí physically escorting the deportees on repatriation flights to their country of origin. As Gript readers will know, Ministers often claim that many of those issued with orders leave voluntarily but that there are no exact figures. Estimates range around 2,250.
Let us assume then that over the same period that the IOM was given €9.4 million to assist in the repatriation that they were involved in around 5,250 deportations and voluntary departures of people who had been issued with an order.
That would mean that each repatriation cost on average €1,795. That was not the entire cost which involves in some cases the chartering of planes. One to Nigeria in June this year cost €325,000. There were 35 people on the flight so that works out at an average of over €9,000. Arguably, that would represent a saving in social welfare and other costs were such failed applicants to remain so let us be kind to the IOM.
Although the IOM has been described as an NGO it is actually an agency of the United Nations and thus part of that organisation’s global intervention not only in what used to be the focus of its work in the countries where people are being displaced, but increasingly within the countries where displaced people end up.
Which would be fine if the bulk of asylum seekers were actually displaced persons which is clearly not the case in the Irish state given that the majority of arrivals here into International Protection have been from countries such as South Africa and Georgia which are both now designated as “safe countries of origin”, as well as Nigeria, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Algeria, Albania and elsewhere which many would argue are also safe. Poor, corrupt, dangerous and so on but not at war, under threat of famine or any other designation that the UN itself applies to refugee crises.
The IOM has been based here since 2001 and states that it employs “staff from more than 30 different countries around the world.” Curiously, however, it does not appear to employ people who are issued with work permits. It was founded in 1951, has an annual global budget of over $3.7 billion and employs somewhere in the region of 23,000 people.
While the IOM, and international responses to refugee crises in general, was initially focused on addressing emergency situations – especially in the aftermath of World War II and the forced expulsion of millions in eastern and central Europe – that emphasis might be said to have changed.
Where it was once based on the hope that displaced people might return to their homeplace now the UN would appear to regard large scale migration as inevitable and not just the consequence of war and other disasters. The IOM strategic plan is now based on the belief that “Migration is and has been for centuries, a cornerstone of development, prosperity, and progress for many. As the world faces major global transformations – from climate change, demographic transition, and urbanization to digitalization–migration can and should be part of the solution.”
As with the overall United Nations project on migration, the IOM pitches current and future large scale population movements on how it envisages the global economy developing. Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to state that its strategic plan fits perfectly with the labour requirements of international Capital and the imperative of the “free movement of labour.”
The UN Replacement Migration document of 2000 outlines explicitly the scenario in which “aging” northern and western hemisphere populations are basically replaced by people from the ‘global south.’ Complementary to that the IOM states that: “Migrants are already adapting to shifting labour markets and new ways of working, and are ameliorating divergent demographic trends within and across regions.”
The “migrants are needed to pay our pensions” trope is not central to the United Nations projections as it is to the more simple minded or devious among our own commentariat. Indeed, the 2000 paper baldly states that “immigration is not a realistic solution to demographic ageing.” What it is, of course, is a means to supply labour demands.
That is a rather circular argument because, as we have seen in Ireland, much of the demand is not only generated by the requirements of the large tech and other corporations but is required at lower levels to both house and otherwise cater for an immigrant population – now at 25% of the population of the Irish state – and significant economic sectors that are almost entirely geared to, owned and staffed by immigrants.
Apart from that, the entire ‘project’ might be built on sand if some forecasts regarding the expansion of Artificial Intelligence and other technological replacements for human agency are fulfilled. Which renders any ‘plan’ based on assumptions precarious.