Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ As the 26 County administration continues with its apparent open-door policy towards allowing limitless asylum seekers refuge in Ireland and leave to seek refugee status, matters are beginning to unravel into chaos. 
 

Asylum seekers alongside our own indigenous homeless are finding there is no room in Ireland as they sleep rough on the streets of the Emerald Isle in tents, sleeping bags and, in some cases, just plastic bags. Our own homeless are sleeping in similar conditions. In fact it is probably they who educated the new arrivals in the art of survival as they have been forced to live rough for many years by different governments in the Dail. Various Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and coalition partners have turned their backs on Ireland's homeless many years ago, now they are inviting asylum seekers fleeing war torn countries, particularly Ukraine, as part of the 26 counties “hate the Russians” campaign, with, to a far lesser extent, those from Syria, a few from Yemen, Afghanistan and other troubled regions around the globe only to tell them on arrival, there is no room, find a park bench. 

This is as cruel as it is well intended, you cannot invite a person round for drinks and on their arrival serve up water! If there is no room for any more arrivals, would it not be better to say so rather than fill hearts with false hope, leaving them open to racial attacks, the drug barons, and the elements? The only difference sleeping rough in Ireland to their lands of origins is there are no bombs going off here. The accommodation offered is very similar of late, the street. This open-door policy resulting in more and more bodies sleeping rough on the streets will give the far-right a launching pad which has already happened at places like East Wall in Dublin, turning genuine concerns into racial hate, something the residents never had in mind at the outset. 

The far-right have been to a limited extent successful in their attempts to turn people against the fleeing asylum seekers particularly if they happen to be single males from the African continent. What happens if these disciples of Hitler latch on to “our streets being littered with refugees”, which most are not, they are asylum seekers aiming for refugee status, how long before the fascists capitalise on this tragic situation?

Back in 2015 Angela Merkel in Germany decided to allow in “over one million refugees” from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan into Germany as part of her “open door policy” which caused a backlash from the neo-Nazi Alternative For Deutschland (AFD) party. Many of those who initially welcomed the newcomers to Germany turned violently against them after hearing the hate mongering AFD speeches. Could the same happen here, on top of what has already happened at places like East Wall? Should the government change policy? Should they abandon the “open door” stance and begin limiting or stopping any more asylum seekers entering their jurisdiction? Is it perhaps time to start housing or at least accommodating those already here before inviting any more in? Would bringing in any more desperate people only be cruelly giving them false hope?

When the 26 County administration first set about its laudable acts of charity in line with “Cead Mile Failte” (a hundred thousand welcomes) it was a great act of kindness, admittedly for the government with an ulterior motive, but for the asylum seekers it was heaven. Now, it is turning into a kind of hell, as they jump from the frying pan of their country of origin into the fire of the 26 counties! If the government closes the door they will be accused of racism. If they close the door to all but Ukrainian asylum seekers they will, rightly, be accused of favouritism. If they continue down the present trajectory, they will fill the streets, along with our own unfortunate homeless people, with “foreigners” which will fuel the far-right organisations arguments. A tricky situation, what is the answer?

Well, if the government is really interested in finding a solution to this conundrum they could look back in history to 1919 and the “Democratic Programme of the First Dail” paragraph one. This states unambiguously “we affirm that the right to private property must be subordinated to the public right and welfare”, such an occasion has arisen to “affirm” that right, to make private property ownership “subordinated to the public right and welfare”. If you look around Dublin and other towns and cities the amount of “private property” sitting vacant is phenomenal. Some have been vacant for months, even years so why not take these shops that were, public houses that were, ghost housing estates and take them into public ownership for the “public right and welfare.” It would provide employment for many shopfitters, carpenters, electricians, plasterers, brickies and general labourers in renovating these premises. Some do not need renovation such as the ghost housing estates which are ready for accommodation. I know the present owners will not like this suggestion but they are not really supposed to. What comes first, private ownership of property and the rights which accompany this ownership, or, the rights of people to have somewhere to live both indigenous and newcomer alike? I think it was Thomas Drummond who once said; property ownership has its “obligations as well as its privileges,” as true today as it was then.

All the government has to do is place a “compulsory purchasing order” on all property left idle for three months or more. Start work, where necessary, on renovating using the labour outlined above. Many homeless people both indigenous and asylum seeker are tradesmen themselves and could start helping in this renovation work, earning a living wage, where one day they themselves might live. What a great prospect for somebody who, through no fault of their own, have become homeless either through reasons of war in their lands of origins or sheer bad luck at home here in Ireland, to have the opportunity of developing premises for themselves and those in similar positions to live.

The question is, will the government have the backbone to take this decision? Will they have the balls to take on the property owners through legislation? Or, on the other hand, will they go belly up the moment the rich man frowns in an aggressive manner? They could do it if they wanted to: the question is, do they? The 26 County administration are often boasting their pride, rightly so, in Irish history and fight against oppression so now why not put some of that revolutionary past into modern day practice? I suggest they read and digest the contents of the “Democratic Programme of the First Dail” and think about enacting some of it today, otherwise I see a disaster waiting to happen!

🖼 Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Open Doors Policy 🚪 Could It Be Time For A Policy Change?

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ As the 26 County administration continues with its apparent open-door policy towards allowing limitless asylum seekers refuge in Ireland and leave to seek refugee status, matters are beginning to unravel into chaos. 
 

Asylum seekers alongside our own indigenous homeless are finding there is no room in Ireland as they sleep rough on the streets of the Emerald Isle in tents, sleeping bags and, in some cases, just plastic bags. Our own homeless are sleeping in similar conditions. In fact it is probably they who educated the new arrivals in the art of survival as they have been forced to live rough for many years by different governments in the Dail. Various Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and coalition partners have turned their backs on Ireland's homeless many years ago, now they are inviting asylum seekers fleeing war torn countries, particularly Ukraine, as part of the 26 counties “hate the Russians” campaign, with, to a far lesser extent, those from Syria, a few from Yemen, Afghanistan and other troubled regions around the globe only to tell them on arrival, there is no room, find a park bench. 

This is as cruel as it is well intended, you cannot invite a person round for drinks and on their arrival serve up water! If there is no room for any more arrivals, would it not be better to say so rather than fill hearts with false hope, leaving them open to racial attacks, the drug barons, and the elements? The only difference sleeping rough in Ireland to their lands of origins is there are no bombs going off here. The accommodation offered is very similar of late, the street. This open-door policy resulting in more and more bodies sleeping rough on the streets will give the far-right a launching pad which has already happened at places like East Wall in Dublin, turning genuine concerns into racial hate, something the residents never had in mind at the outset. 

The far-right have been to a limited extent successful in their attempts to turn people against the fleeing asylum seekers particularly if they happen to be single males from the African continent. What happens if these disciples of Hitler latch on to “our streets being littered with refugees”, which most are not, they are asylum seekers aiming for refugee status, how long before the fascists capitalise on this tragic situation?

Back in 2015 Angela Merkel in Germany decided to allow in “over one million refugees” from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan into Germany as part of her “open door policy” which caused a backlash from the neo-Nazi Alternative For Deutschland (AFD) party. Many of those who initially welcomed the newcomers to Germany turned violently against them after hearing the hate mongering AFD speeches. Could the same happen here, on top of what has already happened at places like East Wall? Should the government change policy? Should they abandon the “open door” stance and begin limiting or stopping any more asylum seekers entering their jurisdiction? Is it perhaps time to start housing or at least accommodating those already here before inviting any more in? Would bringing in any more desperate people only be cruelly giving them false hope?

When the 26 County administration first set about its laudable acts of charity in line with “Cead Mile Failte” (a hundred thousand welcomes) it was a great act of kindness, admittedly for the government with an ulterior motive, but for the asylum seekers it was heaven. Now, it is turning into a kind of hell, as they jump from the frying pan of their country of origin into the fire of the 26 counties! If the government closes the door they will be accused of racism. If they close the door to all but Ukrainian asylum seekers they will, rightly, be accused of favouritism. If they continue down the present trajectory, they will fill the streets, along with our own unfortunate homeless people, with “foreigners” which will fuel the far-right organisations arguments. A tricky situation, what is the answer?

Well, if the government is really interested in finding a solution to this conundrum they could look back in history to 1919 and the “Democratic Programme of the First Dail” paragraph one. This states unambiguously “we affirm that the right to private property must be subordinated to the public right and welfare”, such an occasion has arisen to “affirm” that right, to make private property ownership “subordinated to the public right and welfare”. If you look around Dublin and other towns and cities the amount of “private property” sitting vacant is phenomenal. Some have been vacant for months, even years so why not take these shops that were, public houses that were, ghost housing estates and take them into public ownership for the “public right and welfare.” It would provide employment for many shopfitters, carpenters, electricians, plasterers, brickies and general labourers in renovating these premises. Some do not need renovation such as the ghost housing estates which are ready for accommodation. I know the present owners will not like this suggestion but they are not really supposed to. What comes first, private ownership of property and the rights which accompany this ownership, or, the rights of people to have somewhere to live both indigenous and newcomer alike? I think it was Thomas Drummond who once said; property ownership has its “obligations as well as its privileges,” as true today as it was then.

All the government has to do is place a “compulsory purchasing order” on all property left idle for three months or more. Start work, where necessary, on renovating using the labour outlined above. Many homeless people both indigenous and asylum seeker are tradesmen themselves and could start helping in this renovation work, earning a living wage, where one day they themselves might live. What a great prospect for somebody who, through no fault of their own, have become homeless either through reasons of war in their lands of origins or sheer bad luck at home here in Ireland, to have the opportunity of developing premises for themselves and those in similar positions to live.

The question is, will the government have the backbone to take this decision? Will they have the balls to take on the property owners through legislation? Or, on the other hand, will they go belly up the moment the rich man frowns in an aggressive manner? They could do it if they wanted to: the question is, do they? The 26 County administration are often boasting their pride, rightly so, in Irish history and fight against oppression so now why not put some of that revolutionary past into modern day practice? I suggest they read and digest the contents of the “Democratic Programme of the First Dail” and think about enacting some of it today, otherwise I see a disaster waiting to happen!

🖼 Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

12 comments:

  1. "Many of those who initially welcomed the newcomers to Germany turned violently against them after hearing the hate mongering AFD speeches"

    That and the 2015–16 New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany committed by migrants against at least 1200 women with multiple reports of rape didn't exactly do the immigration spiel any favours!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why was it relevant to mention the assaults were carried out by "migrants"? If the same assaults had been carried out by Germans, would that have been an issue? Would the media have said 1,200 "assaukts by Germans"? Get those responsible by all means, but is their country of origin really of any consequence? Unless the aim is to create anti-migrant racism. A similar incident happened in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, a few years ago. The media felt fit to emphasise the men responsible for the assaults were all " Pakistani". This played into the far rights hands as they pedaled racist propaganda, as the AFD did in Germany. Suddenly all Pakistani men were rapists in the discourse of the far right. If assaults took place in Ireland, would the media report Irish Catholic males, or Belfast Protestant males? No, of course not, no millage in that. If the assaults in Rochdale had been committed by English men would the media have made an issue? No, again no millage for them.

    Besides, you are missing the point. There is a way round this, adopt the 1919 First Dail constitution, as I suggested above. Take all idle property and renovate them. Then again, if you are a supporter of private property, why care about homelessness? There is always the race card to play, and always gullible fools who will fall for it.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was worth mentioning because it happened. Forget all the far right stuff, simply opening borders for a free for all is crazy. Not saying that's what you're pushing, I'm saying incidents like these need to be recognised as happening. Some other cultures treat females very differently than ours.

      Delete
  3. I think if the same number of sexual assaults had been carried out by white German males on the same evening it would have been reported. And if not I feel people should demand to know why. I believe that when information is suppressed that is when the rumour mill kicks off.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good shout on this. Ask the question. It is the elephant in the room of the left. Open borders is disorder. Managed borders and humanitarian provisions for all is the order of the day. I've made the point before, the establishment is enhancing the far right. You are correct, we need to take ownership of vacant properties by compulsory purchase and give dignity to all, improve public services and then reopen the borders to genuine need. The far right are real and growing because of Government policy. The discrimination of different ethnic and national groups is apparent including Irish homeless. We can defeat the far right very easily by supporting those in dire straights regardless of origin. But they won't because they seek division. Actors claiming to be of the left also contribute to this, there are agendas there too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Someone from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (UKG) told me once that countries accepting first waves of refugees from countries can easily be interpreted as a cynical act.

    The first wave is usually the wealthiest, best connected, most able cohort to free a country. I have met an Afghan who was CEO of a Chamber of Commerce and a very wealthy man in his own country living in much reduced circumstances in the UK because the Taliban confiscated his assets. I have no doubt he will turn his entrepreneurial skills to productive use in the UK when he is able to.

    The warm welcome given to Ukrainians is not just because they're fighting a western approved war, but also because they're wealthy, westernised capitalists who will boost the economy of whatever country they end up in.

    Impoverished refugees do of course exist - but the actual picture is, as ever, far more complex than that.

    I think that mass immigration unsettles large portions of a host nation's population, and that includes 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants living in the UK and Ireland. I also think successive government find it more expedient to scapegoat than to explain the economic benefits immigration brings, or to involve the electorate in sincere debates about immigration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But do you not think much of it is not down to government policy but government obligation under various treaties and international law which has seen a pooling of sovereignty?
      The idea that there should be no debate around the matter is chilling. Immigration should be subject to the same type of rigorous public scrutiny and discussion as any other issue. It and Trans issues seem to be areas where the government prioritises suffocating freedom of inquiry.

      Delete
    2. "I also think successive government find it more expedient to scapegoat than to explain the economic benefits immigration brings..."

      A Thatcherite approach which suggests that ordinary people are motivated entirely by money. The vast majority of people have no problem with immigrants, as most of them just want to raise their children in (what they consider to be) a better land. However, unfiltered immigration puts pressure on public housing, public services and can lead to a sense of alienation among locals.

      Like free speech, the left have handed the far right a free kick, who then play on fears of a loss of common culture and suspicion of the establishment by blaming innocent immigrants. But, because the left have no connection with the average working class, they can't tell the difference between virulent racism and concerns over the effects of immigration and so tar everyone with the same brush.

      Delete
  6. Stifling debate is rife and indeed chilling.

    THE UN migration compact calls out the risk of overwhelming host countries capacity, an international agreement not subject to host country citizen input, instead agreed by governments, in Irelands case at least, without consultation not even the precarious citizens assembly.

    For me the question is how we treat people once they are here, that isnt open for discussion, there must be equality.

    But open borders addresses nothing of how we provide equality only exacerbating the conditions for division by being overwhelmed.

    Ireland is not full but cannot cope due to poor governance for generations.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ Christopher Owens

    Do you think they actually can't tell the difference or find it expedient to act like they don't?

    I think a majority of people, including recently arrived immigrants, could accurately describe themselves as anti mass-immigration but definitely not anti-immigrant.

    On the move so can't write much but enjoying this debate

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brandon,

      Both. Some are so attached to the idea that open borders are a good thing that any arguments against must be because of racism. Others realise the reality but, because they mistrust the working class anyway, act as if racism is rampant within the country. Hence why England and America are "forever on the verge of fascism" (reword as appropriate) every general election.

      Delete
  8. @ AM, Christopher

    Interesting points. I'm not sure I would go as far as to say debate was stifled - Braverman and Patel's obsession is red heat in a significant strata of the media.

    But I don't think it's in, for want of a better term, various elite's interests to have an honest, open debate. I'm not sure where Sunak stands (beyond three word scare politics "stop the boats") on immigration, but his three Tory predecessors were pro economic immigration.

    If there was was a referendum tomorrow on drastically reducing immigration, I think it would be a resounding success. But I think that the UK's economy is so reliant on immigration that no government will actually want to deal with the economic fallout of drastically reducing it.

    The beneficiaries of the economic benefits of immigration are decidedly not those already in the UK, immigrants or not, who have seen public services relentlessly shafted and incomes stagnate.

    If the left/liberals have given the far-right an open goal around immigration, then I think the reverse is also true. If a genuinely left/liberal party put immigration front and centre, on a ticket of looking after everyone in the country, they'd win success. Many of the loudest voices on immigration are the nastiest, stupidest, and easiest to dismiss.

    "Hence why England and America are "forever on the verge of fascism" (reword as appropriate) every general election."

    Until Trump attempted to overturn the election, I was dismissive of these utterances, though the Patriot Act concerned me. I think Trump, in his own egocentric way, would dismiss democracy for his own reasons, but not due to any commitment to fascism.

    ReplyDelete