Seven Perennial Truths About Immigration and Refugee Policy

The national vibe around immigration and, in particular, refugee policy, has shifted quite dramatically in Ireland, and will probably shift substantially in many Western countries, as the implications of “open border” policies become more tangible. There was a time in the very recent past - just a few months ago - when anyone who drew attention to the potential negative impact of “open border” policies in local communities in Ireland, or suggested that our rate of intake of refugees was unsustainable, was dubbed “xenophobic” or “extreme right.”

But as the government finds itself running out of hotels and other lodgings to accommodate asylum seekers, whether from the Ukraine or elsewhere, the penny is starting to drop that even the most generous home only has so many bedrooms, and even the most generous nation only has so much accommodation available. A sense of realism is finally beginning to creep in.

Free subscribers, please consider supporting my work in defence of freedom by upgrading to a paid subscription.

Notably, on 25th October last, Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar admitted that there was a “limit” to Ireland’s capacity to take in refugees and that “we’re very much at that currently.” He spoke openly of the significant incentives Ireland’s comparatively generous welfare offerings provided for refugees, including refugees already safely settled in other parts of Europe:

People who have been living safely in other parts of Western Europe for a period of time, then coming to Ireland and claiming asylum. Some of this is linked to the fact that we have a better offering in Ireland than would be the case in Northern Ireland or Britain or France or other countries that are not too far from us and that’s why we have to review the situation.

It is likely that once Ireland’s “progressive” Taoiseach has uttered these words, it will suddenly become politically correct to question the viability of what came close to an “open door” refugee policy in Ireland.

Now, the fact that people can now have this conversation without being dubbed “extreme right” or racist is to be welcomed. It is, after all, a necessary conversation. On the other hand, it is deeply regrettable that people raising reasonable questions about Ireland’s decision to take in very large numbers of asylum-seekers precisely in the midst of an unprecedented housing crisis were marginalised and ignored for so long.

Since Mr Varadkar has broken the uncomfortable silence and addressed the elephant in the room, it seems like an opportune time to state for the record some simple, perennial truths about immigration policy, truths that are frequently neglected when political correctness and image management is placed ahead of honesty and common sense:

1. There is no absolute right to be admitted to a country, anymore than to stay the night in a person’s home. Safe and prosperous nations ought to assume a proportionate amount of the burden of international refugee applications, on humanitarian grounds, according to their available infrastructure and their capacity to assimilate visitors without excessive disruption of their customs and way of life.

2. Those seeking to enter as refugees should be expected to make a case for their eligibility, in an expedited process so that they can make a life in the country if they are accepted there. When immigration bureacracy is overloaded or inadequate, asylum seekers may experience years of uncertainty about their legal status and may find it impossible to work or make plans for the future.

3. Citizens have the right to debate immigration policy and to raise questions about immigration policy. They should not be dismissed as "xenophobic" or "racist" for raising objections to this or that immigration policy. Rather, they should be given a fair hearing and be allowed to make their arguments as equal citizens in the democratic process.

4. If refugees are settled in local populations, the accommodation arrangements should be informed by a public consultation with affected citizens rather than determined unilaterally by a central government. Otherwise, refugee settlement decisions are easily delegitimised and needless tensions are created between asylum seekers and local communities.

5. Both immigrants and refugees should be required to adhere to the customs and laws that are binding within the country they are visiting. If they engage in criminal or delinquent behaviour, they should be susceptible to criminal sanction and/or deportation.

6. Immigration policy should be designed to encourage immigrants to adapt to the culture of their host society and integrate into the work force at the earliest possible opportunity, rather than becoming dependents of the State for prolonged periods of time. Putting immigrants and refugees on the welfare payroll for extended periods with little expectation of reciprocity or work is simply unsustainable, not to mention undignifying.

7. Immigration processes should be simplified and rendered less costly for those who wish to access proper, legal channels of migration. The barriers to legal immigration should be reduced, even while the costs of illegal immigration are increased, so that there are strong incentives to migrate through legal channels.

Of course, honouring these general truths is not easy in practice. But we must have a moral and political framework that fosters an orderly, humane immigration process that is tailored to the resources and infrastructure of the host country. For disorderly and “open borders” immigration policies can create major stresses for housing and public services, and generate needless tensions between host communities and new arrivals.

---

A quick thank you to all of my subscribers as the Freedom Blog approaches its second anniversary, now reaching over 4,000 subscribers. Below, I offer you a 3 minute reflection on my reasons for hope, in spite of the mounting threats to freedom.