One of the most frustrating things about Ireland’s ongoing immigration turmoil is to observe a debate that frequently emits more heat than light. That there is an immigration crisis is beyond doubt: Any time that a country’s own government is projecting, as the Irish Government is, a multi-billion euro fall in tourist revenue because many of the country’s hotels are leased out to accommodate new arrivals, and any time there are tent cities erupting on the streets of the capital, it is fair to say that we have a crisis.
And yet serious workable proposals to address that crisis are few and far between. Often, the (perfectly understandable) reaction to those affected by the crisis locally is simply to say “not here”. We have seen that in recent weeks in Inch and in Santry, with locals mounting blockades and, in some instances, appearing to form their own local police forces to try and prevent areas being used for migrant accommodation.
On the other hand, the policy of the state and its associated supporters in the media, and the commentariat, amounts to waving around a large sign saying “this is fine” and denouncing as undesirable persons everybody who has the temerity to notice the problem.
For many people who are neither in Government, nor involved in a protest movement, there is a clear lack of any credible alternative. Which is why we saw an opinion poll this weekend in which 76% of the public said they opposed the state’s migration policy, and yet over 80% of those same voters expressed a preference for a party that would broadly continue it. It is worth noting that those political groups which are expressly organised around the immigration issue are failing, thus far, to attract more than 1 or 2% in the opinion polls.
One of the reasons for this is, I think, that Ireland’s populist right has thus far been very good at identifying problems, and very bad at articulating achievable solutions. Note the word “achievable”.
It is depressingly easy, for example, to tweet or sloganize something like “send them home”, or “put them back on a plane if they have no documentation”. But those are largely little more than expressions of discontent. Voters deserve an alternative set of policies that are realistic, and that the public can actively vote for.
Incidentally, they deserve that across the full range of issues, and not just on immigration. But let’s start with the immigration crisis. Here are five policies that those who wish to form a credible alternative to the dominant political system should consider:
Here’s a policy that is realistic, achievable, and necessary. The state should have a large, dedicated, and well-resourced police force – separate to the Gardai – with the sole and entire remit of policing the main points of entry into the country and rooting out illegal entry as well as drug and human trafficking. Australia and the UK, for example, already employ such a force, as do many other countries. For a full rundown of what the Australian Border Force does, click here.
The border force should also have immediate responsibility for enforcing deportation orders: Once a deportation order has been made, the person against whom it has been made should be detained until either their deportation order has been carried out, or some superceding order has been made.
In order to de-clog the court system, some years ago the state introduced a dedicated court of appeals. It should do the same to de-clog the asylum system. As part of this, the state should abolish those systems that are not working and that are taking up too much time – the refugee appeals tribunal, for example. One court, with a limited right of appeal, and a dedicated remit.
At present, there seems to be an almost unlimited right of appeal, which means that there are thousands of people remaining in Ireland for years, in some cases, after their asylum application has been rejected.
Here’s something many people do not know: Under existing Irish law, specifically the immigration act of 2004, it is a crime punishable by a fine of €3,000 or 12 months in prison for an adult to land in the state without a valid travel document. According to the Irish Times, while 4,200 people arrived in Ireland with no documents last year, there has just been one prosecution for this crime since 2019.
This is a dereliction of duty: it is the state actively failing to enforce its own laws. Every single person, regardless of circumstances, should face prosecution for failing to produce a travel document. This would deter those who are using that scheme as a way to fool the asylum system, while not being a sufficiently high deterrent to deter someone genuinely fleeing for their life. And politicians should also be publicly held to account for failing to enforce laws which they have passed – imagine they took the same attitude, for example, to the laws against speeding.
The state has a right to protect its citizens, and fears about crimes committed by migrants – whether one thinks those fears justified or overblown – are clearly a factor causing disturbance in many local communities. The country has a sovereign right not to admit those people who are either a threat, or who are wanted for crimes in other countries. Taking fingerprint and DNA samples is both insurance against bad behaviour for those who arrive here, and a logical way of vetting and filtering out those who are coming here after committing undetected crimes in other countries. It would also act as a deterrent against those who come here intending to commit crimes.
The state, and the Irish people, have a fundamental right to safety, and to the expectation that their hospitality, while generous, should not be abused. Those convicted of any crime at an indictable level while awaiting a decision on their asylum case should have their application immediately voided, and be listed for automatic deportation upon the completion of any sentence imposed by the courts. Courts should also be empowered to summarily sentence applicants to having their application refused, and immediate and enforced deportation. Ideally by the border force mentioned in point one.