75 Convictions, €77,000 and Six Deportees: Ireland Is Paying the Price for a Failed Migration Policy

There are some news stories that, at first glance, look like little more than another item in the crime reports. A number of foreign nationals have been deported, the state has paid for their transportation, officials have carried out their duties, and life goes on. We can turn the page, move on to the next article and assume that this is simply how government administration works.

But when we look at the details, this stops being an ordinary news story. It becomes a story about a state that first bears the cost of its own failures and then presents the bill to taxpayers.

According to the Irish Examiner, six Nigerian nationals with a combined total of 75 criminal convictions in Ireland were deported as part of an operation requiring a specially chartered aircraft. The cost of transporting the six men from Ireland to Rome, where they were due to join a further deportation operation to Nigeria, came to almost €77,000.

Let’s do the maths. That works out at approximately €12,833 per deportee. For the journey from Ireland to Rome alone.

Of course, deportation is not an ordinary trip. It is not simply a matter of buying a cheap airline ticket, packing a suitcase and wishing the passenger a pleasant journey. Such operations require legal procedures, security arrangements, an appropriate number of officers and cooperation between countries. I am not going to pretend that a complex deportation operation can be conducted for the price of a Ryanair ticket.

Nevertheless, one fundamental question remains: why has the Irish state allowed matters to reach the point where six people with a combined total of 75 criminal convictions must be deported through an expensive operation, rather than having their immigration status dealt with effectively at an earlier stage?

And this brings us to a much more serious issue than the cost of a single charter flight. It concerns European migration policy, the management of borders, the effectiveness of public institutions and the responsibility of politicians who have spent years assuring citizens that the system works, even as its results increasingly raise legitimate concerns.

Europe of Open Doors and Closed Eyes

Ireland is not an isolated island politically, even if its geographical position might suggest otherwise. It is part of a European system of cooperation in which decisions concerning migration, asylum, border protection and the return of people without the right to remain affect the ability of individual countries to manage their own affairs.

This does not mean that every problem with Irish migration policy has been imposed on Dublin by Brussels. That would be an oversimplification, just as it would be misleading to claim that the European Union has nothing to do with the wider picture.

The Irish government retains significant powers over immigration policy, the operation of its public services, the prosecution of offences and the implementation of deportation decisions. Dublin is responsible for how it uses the instruments available to it, how efficiently its administration operates and whether the state can enforce its own laws.

At the same time, the broader European context cannot simply be ignored. For years, the dominant narrative has too often treated criticism of inadequate migration controls as evidence of intolerance. Questions about public safety, financial costs and the effectiveness of immigration procedures have sometimes been brushed aside with moral lectures rather than answered with facts.

Yet a responsible migration policy does not mean closing every door. Nor does it mean pretending that every door must remain permanently open.

It means having clear rules, effective controls, efficient decision-making, protection for people who genuinely need it and consistent enforcement of the law against those who have no legal basis to remain.

If a state allows a situation to develop in which a person repeatedly convicted of criminal offences remains on its territory despite there being lawful grounds to terminate their right to stay, the problem is no longer exclusively about migration. It becomes a question of the effectiveness of the entire state apparatus.

And if similar cases occur across Europe, we must also ask whether common European arrangements are helping countries maintain effective control or, in practice, creating additional obstacles, delays and disputes over responsibilities.

However, simply pointing the finger at the European Commission would be far too convenient. The European migration framework establishes part of the rules, but the Irish government cannot hide behind Brussels when it must answer for the performance of its own institutions.

If Dublin cannot make effective use of the procedures available to it, it must explain why.

Seventy-Five Convictions. Where Was the System?

The most striking figure in this story is not even the €77,000. It is the number 75.

That is the combined number of criminal convictions attributed to the six deported men. This averages 12.5 convictions per person, although we do not know how those convictions were distributed among the individuals or what offences were involved.

We should not invent details that have not been established. Nor do we know when the individual convictions were handed down, the immigration status of each man or precisely when lawful grounds for deportation arose.

But that is precisely why this case demands answers.

The point is not to conduct a public trial of officials, police officers or judges after the event. It is to establish whether public institutions acted in accordance with the law and whether they could have acted earlier, more effectively and at a lower cost.

Were details of the convictions communicated promptly between the police, the courts and immigration authorities? Was the immigration status of the individuals reviewed regularly? Could deportation decisions have been made earlier? Were there legal obstacles, appeals or other circumstances that prevented the authorities from acting more quickly?

These are specific questions that the relevant institutions should answer.

We must not assume that every criminal conviction automatically provides grounds for deportation. The law is more complicated than that, and the state must respect domestic legislation as well as its applicable international obligations. Nor can we claim that more effective border controls would certainly have prevented some or all of the offences committed by these men.

However, the authorities should be able to explain why deportation took place at this stage and whether earlier action was legally possible.

A law that cannot be effectively enforced becomes an expensive declaration of intent for the taxpayer.

The Taxpayer Pays Twice

There is another aspect of this story that should particularly concern the Irish public.

The state spends money on policing, courts, prosecution services, prisons and administration. That is normal. It is how a state governed by the rule of law operates. When someone commits a criminal offence, they must face the consequences, and society must fund a system capable of prosecuting offenders and protecting public safety.

However, when dealing with individuals whose right to remain may lawfully be terminated, an additional question arises: should the state not establish at an appropriately early stage whether their continued presence in the country is legally permissible?

If lawful grounds for deportation exist but the decision is delayed for a prolonged period, costs can accumulate. These may include legal proceedings, the cost of detention where applicable, administrative work and, eventually, transportation. Not all these costs necessarily arise in every case, and without further information it is impossible to calculate the total amount spent on these six men. We also do not know whether earlier deportation would actually have been possible.

Nevertheless, the underlying question remains valid: is the system organised to minimise unnecessary expenditure and respond as early as possible when the law permits the removal of a foreign national?

A citizen who regularly pays taxes has every right to demand an answer. Not because they oppose migration. Not because they regard every newcomer as a potential criminal. But because the state has a duty to spend public money responsibly and protect the safety of everyone living in the country.

Ireland has no shortage of areas requiring public investment. Housing shortages, overstretched public services, access to healthcare and the cost of living all mean that significant public expenditure deserves proper scrutiny. Under these circumstances, almost €77,000 for one stage of a deportation operation involving six people cannot simply be dismissed as an insignificant detail.

This is not about cutting corners on public safety. It is about avoiding unnecessary costs caused by a failure to act in time.

Would a Tougher Migration Policy Solve the Problem?

In my view, Ireland needs a more consistent and effective migration policy. But it does not need one based on dramatic press conferences, tough-sounding declarations and promises that are never fulfilled.

It needs a policy in which the rules are clear, procedures are efficient and decisions are actually implemented.

People who come to Ireland legally, work, obey the law and participate in society should not be lumped together with those who break the rules. Labour migration and international mobility are part of the modern economy. Ireland itself benefits from the work of people who arrive from other countries.

But openness cannot mean abandoning responsibility. Welcoming people and enforcing the law are not contradictory objectives. On the contrary, both are necessary if the system is to retain public confidence.

The state should effectively verify the identities of people entering the country, ensure that relevant authorities exchange information efficiently, monitor the legality of residence and act promptly whenever lawful grounds exist to do so. It should also provide adequate resources to implement deportation decisions rather than allowing unexecuted decisions to generate additional costs and undermine public trust.

Would better border controls have prevented the 75 convictions in this case? We do not know. It would be dishonest to claim that they certainly would have. A person who entered a country entirely legally can still go on to commit criminal offences. Border controls cannot replace the police, the courts or effective monitoring of immigration status.

However, effective controls can reduce certain risks, improve access to relevant information and help authorities make appropriate decisions. More efficient procedures can also shorten the time between the emergence of lawful grounds for deportation and the actual implementation of the decision.

This is where a serious assessment is needed, rather than another round of political slogans.

The European Union Cannot Be an Excuse

The migration debate often produces two extremes.

On one side, some argue that every restriction is an expression of hostility towards foreigners. On the other, some suggest that tightening the rules will make every problem disappear.

Both positions fail to reflect reality.

Ireland must protect human rights, comply with the law and retain the ability to control who stays on its territory and under what conditions. It must also respond effectively to criminal offences, regardless of the nationality of the offender.

However, we cannot ignore the political consequences of Europe’s migration model. If common regulations, the organisation of procedures or a lack of effective cooperation make it difficult to ensure the timely and lawful return of people who have no right to remain, those arrangements must be reviewed and improved.

If, on the other hand, the problem lies primarily with the Irish administration, responsibility rests with the government in Dublin.

In either case, citizens deserve concrete answers, not yet another debate in which politicians trade accusations while avoiding responsibility.

It is not enough to say that deportations are expensive. Of course they are. The question is whether their costs can be reduced in particular cases through earlier and better-coordinated action.

It is not enough to say that Ireland is obliged to comply with European law. The government must also explain how it uses the powers that the law leaves in its hands.

And it is not enough to promise more effective controls. The government must demonstrate results.

Who Is Ultimately Responsible for the Bill?

Six men have been deported. The transportation bill came to almost €77,000. The case should therefore lead to one straightforward question: could it have been done earlier and at a lower cost?

We do not know whether earlier deportation was legally possible in this particular case. We do not have the complete history of the proceedings or the individual circumstances of the six men. It would therefore be wrong to pass judgement on the institutions involved without access to those details.

What we do know is that 75 criminal convictions and an expensive deportation operation provide sufficient grounds to demand an explanation.

I would like to see a public review of the case: a timeline of the proceedings, information on when lawful grounds for deportation arose, details of the obstacles that delayed implementation and an account of the total costs incurred by the state.

Without disclosing information that cannot lawfully be made public, the authorities should be able to explain whether the system worked as it was supposed to.

It would also be worth examining whether similar problems occur in other cases and whether they can be prevented.

Because if the state can spend substantial sums over a prolonged period dealing with criminal proceedings involving foreign nationals who are repeatedly convicted, only to organise an expensive deportation at a later stage, citizens are entitled to ask where necessity ends and administrative failure begins.

And that brings us back to European migration policy.

If the European migration system were more effective at combining border controls, efficient procedures and the genuine enforcement of return decisions, Ireland could avoid some of the problems it faces today.

This does not mean that every criminal offence would magically disappear or that Brussels is responsible for every failure of Irish institutions. It means that migration policy should be judged not only by its stated values but also by its actual results.

The state cannot afford to be powerless in the face of its own procedures. The European Union should not treat effective migration control as a secondary concern. And taxpayers should not be reduced to the role of people who are expected simply to pay for the consequences of other people’s mistakes.

Almost €77,000 will not bankrupt Ireland. But this story is not exclusively about money. It is about principles, public trust and whether politicians are capable of learning from situations that cost citizens money, waste public resources and undermine their sense of security.

If they cannot, similar bills will keep coming. Perhaps under different circumstances, with different names attached and at even greater expense.

A state governed by the rule of law must also be an effective state. And a migration policy that cannot successfully balance humanitarian obligations, public safety and financial responsibility will sooner or later send the bill to society as a whole.

Bogdan Feręc

Photo by Josue Isai Ramos Figueroa on Unsplash