Copying the UK's unpopular, untested migration model looks like political opportunism

Being 'tough on immigration' mainly means being tough on ordinary individuals who are keeping our society ticking over, writes Fiona Hurley, CEO of Nasc

The Garda National Immigration Bureau removing people from the State on a chartered flight which left Dublin Airport in April for Georgia. Photo: Garda Press Office

As Ireland absorbs Wednesday’s announcements on major changes to citizenship and family reunification rules, it’s clear the Government has chosen to pursue a much harsher approach to integration. 

The speed at which these proposals have surfaced makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is political opportunism. The new measures will include a requirement that refugees and migrants applying for citizenship must be ‘self-sufficient’ and not have received certain social welfare supports in the previous two years.

It also includes an increase in the residency requirement for refugees from three to five years. These ideas have travelled from Copenhagen to Westminster and now towards Dublin.

Announcing a harder line on immigration is easy. It sounds decisive, it plays well in certain headlines, and it signals a posture of control. But the reality is that being “tough on immigration” means being tough on actual immigrants — people who already live here, work here, raise children here and contribute in countless ways to our society. 

People seeking international protection and asylum seekers protest against deportations outside Leinster House this month. Photo: SAM BOAL/Collins Photos

These are our friends, our colleagues and our neighbours. The proposed changes would apply to individuals who are already legally resident in Ireland, including refugees recognised by the State as having fled persecution. They include parents working in essential but low-paid sectors, people returning to education to improve their prospects, and families using supports designed to prevent poverty. 

These are people participating in Irish society every day.  What happens when the person affected is not a hypothetical migrant, but someone who has worked, volunteered, cared for neighbours and built their life here? 

It is one thing for a minister to stand at a podium and declare that Ireland will tighten eligibility rules. It is another to stand over the real harm that will unfold when a person turns up at a constituency clinic, confused and distressed, asking why their naturalisation application has been refused despite doing everything possible to support themselves and their family.

People getting the Working Family Payment

Before Ireland follows this path, we must examine what this would mean for people who already live and work here. Working Family Payment illustrates the stakes clearly. 

According to a response to a Parliamentary Question on June 24, 2025, 48,500 households across Ireland receive Working Family Payment, supporting more than 110,000 children. These are exclusively working households. Many of these households work in care, retail, health, food production and other sectors that Ireland depends on to function, but their wages are not sufficient to fully support a family.

Minister for justice Jim O'Callaghan announcing his proposals on stricter migration rules on Wednesday. It is one thing for a minister to stand at a podium and declare that Ireland will tighten eligibility rules. It is another to stand over the real harm that will unfold when a person turns up at a constituency clinic, confused and distressed, asking why their naturalisation application has been refused despite doing everything possible to support themselves and their family.

Do you think the care assistant who comes every morning to wash, dress or make food for your elderly parent, aunt or grandparent should be prohibited from ever becoming an Irish citizen because care assistants do not get paid enough? 

Should the person who helps your family member stay safe at home be told that, because their wages are low and their children need the Working Family Payment to get by, they will face additional barriers to belonging in the country where they live, work and raise their family? 

The idea that a parent working full time while receiving Working Family Payment to keep their family afloat could be told they will not qualify for citizenship is out of step with most people’s sense of fairness. 

These are not edge cases. These are everyday families in workplaces, creches, care homes, factories, supermarkets and classrooms across the country.

Upskilling supports

Education and training raise further concerns. Many upskilling supports require participants to be in receipt of social welfare payments. If people worry that taking a place on a training programme, completing a qualification or returning to education might later count against them in a citizenship application, they may be pushed into an endless cycle of low-wage, precarious jobs with little prospect of progressing. 

Take the example of a dentist who has fled to Ireland and is now working toward having their qualifications recognised. They may need temporary income supports while they complete exams so they can help fill the significant gaps in dental services. 

Why would we want to reduce the number of people developing skills our economy urgently needs? Across the EU, labour shortages in healthcare, agriculture and ICT are well known. Ireland cannot afford policies that discourage education and workforce participation.

Child poverty

There is also the issue of child poverty. Socio-economic status is the strongest predictor of educational disadvantage among migrant children. If parents avoid lawful supports designed to prevent poverty, children bear the impact first. 

Any reform that creates fear around applying for income supports risks undermining Ireland’s commitments on reducing child poverty and narrowing education gaps.

Deterrence

The deterrence argument also needs to be addressed directly. Some claim these measures will discourage asylum seekers. This does not reflect reality. People seek asylum because they are unsafe, not because of welfare rules that may apply years later. 

Asylum seekers in Ireland do not have access to most social welfare payments in the first place. These proposals therefore cannot deter asylum claims. 

They would instead make daily life more difficult for people who have already been granted legal status and are trying to rebuild their lives.

The UK

Political debate in the UK shows how contentious these reforms are. The UK Labour Party is deeply divided over its proposals. There is backlash from within Labour, from MPs concerned about the effect on essential workers, and from rival parties arguing the reforms contradict evidence on what supports successful integration. 

If the UK governing party cannot agree on whether these reforms are workable or fair, it is reasonable to expect a similar debate in Ireland. What is unclear is why Ireland would import a policy direction from the UK before the UK itself has produced a single piece of evidence that these measures will work. 

The UK’s model prioritises restriction over inclusion, is internally contested, and remains entirely untested in terms of outcomes. There are basic questions we cannot yet answer. 

How many people would be affected? How many working families would face delays to citizenship? How many children could be pushed into deeper hardship? How many potential students or trainees would decide against education opportunities? 

Fiona Hurley: 'If Ireland adopts measures similar to those in the UK without our own evidence, modelling or consultation, we risk weakening integration, discouraging participation in education and training, and deepening poverty among working families.'

None of this has been assessed. There has been no economic modelling, no equality or human rights analysis, and no consultation with organisations that understand the lived realities of these families, including St Vincent de Paul, migrant and refugee NGOs, trade unions, disability and carers’ groups, or education and health sector bodies. 

If Ireland adopts similar measures without our own evidence, modelling or consultation, we risk weakening integration, discouraging participation in education and training, and deepening poverty among working families.

The Programme for Government promised an approach to immigration that would be “firm but fair”. We have heard plenty about the “firm”. Where has the fairness gone?

• Fiona Hurley is CEO of Nasc