Mick Clifford: Simon Harris should weigh his words about immigration more carefully

In the social media age we must speak carefully on topics about which a flood of misinformation is already being used to stir up outrage

Immigration is worthy of debate and political comment — but commentators and political leaders must be careful not to play into the hands of bad actors who can inflame and distort such discourse to stoke up anger. Stock picture

Last week, Simon Harris told the media that migration is too high. “There are too many people who come to this country and who are told they do not have a right to be here and it is taking too long for them to be removed,” he said.

This was not offered as a failure of government but a commentary of the system as if Mr Harris was an observer rather than the Tánaiste.

“We used to live in a country where around 3,000 people sought international protection each year,” he said. “That number has gone up to around 20,000, sometimes a little above it, sometimes a little below it. That is a significant increase and it is too high.”

Baffling framing of international protection

So went the highly questionable framing of Mr Harris’s comments on the international protection system in the wake of a presidential election in which his candidate did poorly. His comment garnered a huge response on social media, the forum that is constantly lit up with disinformation about immigration.

Some of the reaction was triumphant, heralding what posters saw as Mr Harris’s late conversion to their point of view. Others lashed out, saying he was a Johnny-come-lately trying to jump on their movement. One way or other, the message went out across social media — the Government is finally copping on that migration is out of control.

The Tánaiste’s framing of the comments was baffling.

Normally, a government attempts to highlight the positives of their administration. For instance, in the context of saying that migration into the country was too high, why didn’t Mr Harris point out that the CSO reports a 16% drop in people coming into the country for the year up to April 2025?

40% drop in asylum applications 

Or, far more to the point, according to the Department of Justice, there has been a 40% fall this year in numbers applying for international protection. Why didn’t he point out that international protection applicants represent around 10%-15% of people coming into the country annually?

He cited a figure of 20,000 annual international protection applicants, ignoring that the figure for this year is heading towards 12,000-13,000. An argument could be made that Mr Harris was either, by accident or design, inflating the actual numbers on a highly sensitive topic right now.

Surely he wasn’t attempting to pander to some of the disaffected who spoiled their votes in presidential election? Apart from anything else, that would be reckless, particularly in light of the recent violence in the Citywest IPAS centre in west Dublin.

Harris doubles down on comments

On Friday, Mr Harris doubled down on his position. He said the fact that 80% of asylum applications are rejected in Ireland was what led him to believe migration numbers were too high, and this “should raise a red flag for government”.

Again, Mr Harris, for some strange reason, was using figures that are highly questionable and reflect poorly on the system overseen by his own government.

There have been months where 80% of applicants were rejected in their initial application. 

In 2024, the last year for which there are full statistics, 3,888 applicants out of 13,099 were given the right to remain. That is just short of 30%.

Why did Mr Harris cite a figure which he knew cast the level of successful applicants in the least favourable light? Was he trying to tell us his government is doing a poor job, but he stands with those who are being fed lies and half truths on social media about immigration?

Words matter — especially in the social media age

People of a certain age will remember how every word uttered on the political situation at a time of violence in the North was carefully modulated. Everybody knew it was playing with fire to issue anything that could be spun by bad actors, or cast as an insult by those who perpetrated violence. 

It was widely accepted that words can create a mood and used as weapons to further an agenda. And all of this was in the days before social media with its in-built capacity to inflame and distort with so little effort.

The subject of immigration is certainly worthy of debateand political comment. 

But at a time when violence across the world is increasingly taking on a political bent, there is an imperative for leading politicians to ensure their utterances can’t be used as justification by some to lash out violently against innocent and vulnerable human beings.