IN AUTUMN 2022, just six months after the Ukraine invasion, senior Government ministers said privately that the next battleground in Irish politics would be immigration.
Fast forward to today, with protests and counter-protests taking place around the country, and the Government scrambling to find refugee accommodation, and it is clear that this prediction came to pass.
Migration has been a major topic of debate across many European countries for years, most recently due to the high numbers of people travelling across the Mediterranean. The horrifying deaths of people in the sea only heightened the urgent discussion around how different countries dealt with the issue. But the subject had never reached a level in Ireland that meant it dominated opinion polls.
However, Irish politics has lately found itself in a fast-moving storm, with many politicians trying, and struggling, to navigate the issues and accompanying language.
At present, the State is accommodating 77,000 refugees, with 57,500 arriving from Ukraine while 19,741 are International Protection applicants. This time last year, Ireland was accommodating 7,500 International Protection applicants.
Speaking privately, TDs said the issues around immigration sprang up so quickly that they are finding it difficult to find the appropriate language and narrative.
But it’s not just local representatives. It’s Government as a whole, with senior ministers understood to be consulting with their European counterparts about what they did in their countries to deal with the issues of migration.
The discussion and debate about migration is well and truly here now, according to Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, who told the Dáil this week that it is a conversation not to be shied away from:
“I agree we all need to be careful in the words we use. Those of us who are politicians in the centre ground need to be willing to talk about migration.
“We have been a little bit afraid to talk about it, quite frankly, for the past number of years. If those of us in the centre ground do not talk about migration, we will allow the far right and the extreme left to dominate the debate in this regard and that will not be good.
“That is why we need to talk about it and find ways to talk about it carefully but sensibly as well.”
He went on to state that there should be a “big door when it comes to migration” but said there is also a need for controls as well.
“I do not agree with the view that we should have no controls at all or have no nations or no borders. Those who have that view should be honest about it and not try to cover up the fact that their view is that they do not believe in any returns or any borders. They should be honest about that if that is their view,” said Varadkar.
It’s not just the Dáil where discussions are taking place – they’re also happening at party political weekly meetings. The parliamentary party meetings tend to throw up issues that politicians are seeing on the doorsteps in their localities.
A recent Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting saw concerns raised with Tánaiste Micheál Martin about the nature of the anti-immigrant protests around the country.
Around 10 contributions from members were heard, with concerns raised about the immigration system’s ability to cope, and the pressure on resources within some communities (such as schools and GP services), as well as the nature of demonstrations.
Politicians raised concerns about the aggressive nature and violence of some protests, and questioned where all this would end.
Sources said that no politician mentioned wanting a cap on the number of refugees coming into the country, but instead the concerns centered around misinformation being spread in their areas, about the lack of communication from the Department of Integration, and concerns about how politicians were meant to react.
One TD described how the situation in some areas as “extremely worrying” with local representatives struggling to deal with the ever-changing situation.
“It is very worrying, the ground has shifted so quickly in the space of 10 days. It’s a real tinderbox,” said another, who added that there are real worries among politicians that someone could get hurt, either a member of the public or a public representative.
They said it is difficult to understand how the situation has shifted so rapidly, but they were seeing it in all constituencies.
Though those at the FF parliamentary party were keen to emphasise that they were not advocating for a cap, they went on to say that their constituents were asking how many more people Ireland can take in. Walking that delicate line in language is key, said one TD, adding that many are finding it difficult.
Other politicians have repeated the concerns privately. While potholes, roads, and hospital wait times were typical topics that politicians would hear about on the doorsteps, things have shifted.
“The big one on doorsteps is immigration. Even from ‘normal’ people,” said one, stating that constituents in the area who are not members of the far-right are raising concerns.
They said housing is a constant concern at the clinics, but the issue of immigration has “just taken off”.
TDs who spoke to The Journal said they want to play their part in countering misinformation that is being spread in their community, but without factual information being provided by the Integration Department, they are running into trouble.
One described a rumour going around that a certain building was going to be used to house refugees, but when they contacted the department to check if that was the case, they were told it wasn’t. However, a number of weeks later the building was repurposed for asylum seekers.
“That damages trust,” they said, adding that when politicians go back on their word, it damages their reputation as a reliable source of information.
This point was also raised in the Oireachtas Public Accounts Committee (PAC) this week.
Kevin McCarthy, the Secretary General of the Department of Integration appealing at the PAC to politicians to speak out when they hear or see misinformation.
He spoke in particular about the signs and claims at protests outside refugee accommodation saying that the buildings are for ‘single males’ rather than families.
“[A] narrative seems to have gotten out there that single males somehow present a threat to communities – there is no evidence,” he told the Public Accounts Committee.
“In fact, the evidence over the 22 years is to the contrary. So it is a narrative we need to challenge,” he said. “These people do not present a threat to communities. I think there is an onus on all of us to challenge that narrative, but certainly it has fed into a reluctance and we are seeing the impact of that in trying to secure contracts for international protection.”
Social Democrats co-leader Catherine Murphy gave the PAC a number of examples where she was only informed retrospectively of what facilities were being used in her region to house refugees.
“We operate on trust,” Murphy told the secretary general of the department, stating that there is a level of disrespect there that they cannot impart information to their constituents.
At the very least, what people expect from us is to be honest with them.
“That can be valuable, as we know our local community, the people in it and how we can be helpful, among other issues. The very least people expect from us is that we will be honest with them. I find it very hard to be honest with them when I am not getting the information to be honest with them until after the event. That must change,” said Murphy.
Meanwhile, McCarthy said 60 centres for international protection have been opened since 1 January last year and over 700 centres for Ukraine refugee accommodation.
“In all of those, for the most part, communities have been welcoming and supportive. There has been a relatively small number but an increasing number, and an increasingly recent prevalence, of resistance to what is happening. We are very well aware of that. We are very well aware of the need to get clear information out to public representatives in those areas on time,” he said.
Politicians were told at that committee yesterday that the Integration Department endeavours to engage with local representatives but it acknowledged the information was being leaked and shared, which was beyond its control.
It’s believed a senior officials group is now looking at the whole issue of communications, including the timing of the release of information safely.
While the Taoiseach has encouraged people to speak about the issues, the opposition has hit out against Government over its use of language, which they say is damaging.
Speaking in a debate yesterday, Independent Galway TD Catherine Connolly accused all senior ministers of giving ‘double messages’, questioning why the Taoiseach would say that the State wants to welcome and protect those who come to these shores “legitimately”.
“What does that mean? What does ‘legitimately’ mean? My understanding is that people are entitled to come here to seek asylum and there is a process,” she said.
“There is an onus on the Government to stop the use of this language. The Minister has not used it but he is in government with those who have used it. It is nothing short of shocking,” she said, while addressing Integration Minister Roderic O’Gorman.
The Irish Refugee Council shares this concern, according to Connolly, with the the group writing to the Government to point out the use of the term “legitimate”.
Connolly also criticised the Taoiseach, saying that there is a need to be “firm with those who come here with a false story or under false pretences”. Varadkar had told the Dáil that criminal gangs should never decide who enters the country, and that it is for the Government to decide, not human traffickers.
Connolly said that even someone arriving without a legitimate basis has to be processed.
“The Government is setting up false arguments and false fears on top of the most serious problems relating to housing and health… we are allowing for division with some people saying ‘they get everything’,” she said.
“An asylum seeker has no entitlement to social housing or to be on the social housing waiting list. An asylum seeker has no entitlement to children’s allowance.
“I am glad the Minister is nodding his head but unfortunately, those above him are not nodding their heads. They are giving mixed messages. I cannot say it often enough – what is happening here is dangerous,” warned Connolly.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say