One of the problems with this job is that it can sometimes be difficult to gauge what the public understands instinctively, and what you, as a writer, can help explain for people who may not understand the intricacies of a particular issue. Get it wrong, and there’s a fair chance you could come across as patronising, telling people what they already know to be true. Up until yesterday, your correspondent would have thought that the problem with building more asylum centres in Ireland was likely obvious to the ordinary person, and didn’t need much commentary.
But then Roderic O’Gorman proved me wrong:
Ministers will discuss in the new year fresh plans to build a large number of new State-run reception centres for asylum seekers, Minister for Integration Roderic O’Gorman has said.
Asked how the Government intends to find new accommodation for asylum seekers this coming year given the current severe shortage, he said: “In the short term additional accommodation by private providers is going to be important. But I’ve made the case that we need to increase the level of State-owned accommodation. We need a system that is designed and equipped to accommodate that many people while their applicants are being processed.”
Anyone who has ever worked in the private sector has an instinctive understanding of supply and demand: Specifically, they will know that demand often expands to match supply, until such time as a market becomes utterly saturated and demand tails off. When the smartphone was introduced initially, for example, demand for it was quite low because the price was high and the supply was limited: Many people were happy to stick with their old Nokia 3210’s and their beloved games of “snake”. Over time, as supply increased and prices fell, everybody demanded a smart phone and now they are ubiquitous in society.
The same principle applies to immigration: Ultimately, demand for immigration into Ireland will persist until such time as the country becomes so saturated with people that it is no longer an attractive place for new immigrants to move to. The Government is not in a position really to control “demand” for accommodation for immigrants in Ireland. While we remain a relatively wealthy western country, people from less well off countries will want to come here. The only thing that the Government can control is the supply of available immigration slots: It can do this by restricting immigration at points of entry; deporting more people; or making clear to those who do come that they will not be supplied with housing or jobs or an income, thus making Ireland slightly less attractive.
What it cannot do is solve the immigration issue by building more purpose-built accommodation for migrants. This, in fact, is likely to increase demand and therefore inward migration. In essence, building accommodation for migrants is likely to increase the problem of a shortage of accommodation for migrants, not alleviate it.
Of course, building more specialist migrant accommodation centres is not simply a folly on the basic terms of supply and demand: It is also a gross political folly. For one thing, it explicitly diverts Government resources from building housing for Irish people with votes. The state may have a functionally limitless amount of money, but it does not have a functionally limitless number of carpenters and plumbers and electricians whose services it can call upon to get things built: Politicians tend to think of money as the only resource that matters, when it’s anything but the rarest commodity that the state can call upon.
Further, these centres will have to go into communities who, if past is prologue (and it usually is) will be less than keen about their new neighbours for all sorts of reasons ranging from the very rare cases of genuine racism to more widespread worries about crime and home values and the capacity of local schools and hospital. Those communities are not likely to be more inclined to vote for parties of Government.
Third, the only way such a programme can work is if it comes with defined limits: The Government, in building new accommodation centres for migrants, is setting a precedent that essentially admits that building such centres is an obligation of the state without any defined limit: If Ahmed from Afghanistan gets a space in 2024, is the state not discriminating against Matrina from Moldova in 2025 if she arrives and is not also granted a space in such a centre? A court, I suspect, would hear that case and consider it most carefully as a matter of potential discrimination if the only issue at stake was the Government’s willingness to treat one migrant as a priority for housing and another as someone who can wait her turn.
The absence of any defined limits is, of course, probably a feature of O’Gorman’s policy rather than a bug: If there’s one thing the Green Party has been exceptionally good at in Government, it has been the deliberate binding of the hands of their successors, introducing policies that will be almost impossible to reverse. This one will not be impossible to reverse, but it is a precedent that is being set, you can be sure, with some thought about the fact that it is precedent.
It should also alleviate any sense you might have that this Government intends to meaningfully alter its course on immigration: They do not. Until the Government changes or is changed, the present policy on immigration is set to continue. As, one fears, are the conflicts that this policy is provoking.