Under this pact member states of the EU can opt to pay a financial contribution as an alternative to accepting any more asylum seekers into their jurisdictions, the money to be used to help these people fleeing war, poverty and even torture in their countries of origin.
When this ‘pact’ was agreed what the EU really had in mind was not asylum seekers in general but in particular those fleeing the war in the Ukraine. As we will all be aware the latest stage of the Israeli-Hamas war was well underway by that stage but little mention was afforded the Palestinians also fleeing terror.
When we speak of asylum seekers to me the peoples which spring to mind are from Yemen, Ukraine, Palestine – pre and post October 7th – and parts of sub-Saharan Africa but it was those from the Ukraine the EU, although not acknowledging this, had foremost in their minds. It is difficult to see how, instead of giving accommodation and a better life to these fleeing souls, these financial contributions will help? Individuals can already give, and many do, money through such agencies as UNICEF, UNHCR, and Medicines sans Frontier however the ‘pact’ was agreed and that is where we are.
It is looking increasingly likely the twenty-six-county administration may now be looking at this option under the ‘pact’ rather than accepting anymore asylum seekers. Could this option be conscience money or an attempt to appease the far-right? The Dail Government once had a policy of what amounted to an ‘open door’ strategy, one which they continued to follow, to their credit, for a long period. The question could be asked has the attacks suspected to have been carried out by the fascist right in Ireland on asylum seekers accommodation contributed to this apparent U-turn?
It is looking increasingly likely the twenty-six-county administration may now be looking at this option under the ‘pact’ rather than accepting anymore asylum seekers. Could this option be conscience money or an attempt to appease the far-right? The Dail Government once had a policy of what amounted to an ‘open door’ strategy, one which they continued to follow, to their credit, for a long period. The question could be asked has the attacks suspected to have been carried out by the fascist right in Ireland on asylum seekers accommodation contributed to this apparent U-turn?
On the other hand and very cynically could the government of Dail Eireann have planned this ‘open door’ policy knowing full well a reaction from fascist groups would be forthcoming? Could it have been a hidden ploy to take away electoral support from Sinn Fein who until recently supported the incoming influx of asylum seekers more so than most other parties, bar PBP? If it was it appears to be working as before Christmas SF leader Mary Lou McDonald was hackled and jostled at a meeting in East Wall, Dublin, once a heartland of the party’s support. The residents of East Wall once had a valid reason for protest, that being they had not been consulted over the housing of asylum seekers, mainly single males. A little misandry perhaps? That excuse is now wearing a little thin as many residents from there and many other areas appear in the clutches of the far-right. In the early days this reason for peaceful protest was valid but the heckling of the Sinn Fein President was more than that, it was an attack on the party’s policies regarding asylum seekers. There can be no doubt support for far-right ideas are growing and the socialist left appear incapable, unwilling or just plain frightened to combat the fascists. Perhaps it is a combination of all three?
The problem with the twenty-six-county administrations ‘open door’ policy was, like Angela Merkel in Germany some years ago, that they had made no plans or provisions. A humanitarian project of this size should never, for one, have been left to the profiteering private sector. They do nothing unless money can be made and humanity does not come into it. All plans to accommodate asylum seeker should have been government controlled and organised from the start. As a result of this incompetence people are arriving seeking a better life only to be told all we can give you is a tent oh, and by the way, we will now only give you €38 per week as we’ve just cut your allowance. It is an insult.
The problem with the twenty-six-county administrations ‘open door’ policy was, like Angela Merkel in Germany some years ago, that they had made no plans or provisions. A humanitarian project of this size should never, for one, have been left to the profiteering private sector. They do nothing unless money can be made and humanity does not come into it. All plans to accommodate asylum seeker should have been government controlled and organised from the start. As a result of this incompetence people are arriving seeking a better life only to be told all we can give you is a tent oh, and by the way, we will now only give you €38 per week as we’ve just cut your allowance. It is an insult.
The ‘open door’ policy was and is a good thing managed properly which could have been, and could still be done quite simply and efficiently. Instead of housing asylum seekers, most of whom are temporary guests, in hotels and unsuitable redundant buildings the many ’ghost estates’ belonging to wealthy building contractors who cannot sell the properties could have been and still could be used for indigenous homeless people and asylum seekers alike. However, and admittedly, these ‘ghost estates’ would and are insufficient relative to the numbers requiring shelter, including the indigenous homeless.
We have a housing shortage in Ireland not a shortage of land so temporary prefabricated fully equipped and furnished homes could have been very quickly erected. These are temporary dwellings but most asylum seekers are temporary guests so ‘pre-fabs’ would have and would be ideal. They can be built quickly and equally as rapidly taken down again. They are inexpensive and do provide good shelter. In post WWII Britain which was bomb damaged ‘pre-fabs’ were erected all over the land and housed many families right up until the early sixties. I lived in one until aged two and my parents were reluctant to give up their ‘pre-fab’ for a brick dwelling, as were many families. However, they were only temporary dwellings and had a life span so they had to come down once the need for them had passed. There is absolutely no reason such a programme could not have, and still could not, be embarked upon in Ireland. Such a move would also destroy the pivotal argument of the fascist right.
The ‘open door’ policy could and should be maintained and managed properly by government, not the private sector, would function well given the political will to do so.
 |
| Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist. |
Alas, along with SF a lot of the Left have adapted to anti migrant stuff. This article in the Br uitish Morning Star (unofficial paper of the Communist part sings the praises of Wagenknecht’s new party. "Most controversial in Wagenknecht’s programme has been her position on refugees and immigrants, not completely shutting the doors to Germany but keeping them less ajar, not beyond the ability to house, feed, school and integrate them, especially those coming not to escape repression but simply to find a decent living standard.".
ReplyDeleteThe recent statement of the Dublin Communities against racism which had a criticism of the treatement of Ukrainians may have supported the government decision to reduce supports for Ukrainians. "It is impossible, for example, to overlook the difference in treatment by the government of refugees from Ukraine compared to those seeking International Protection, which has served to foster a mindset of good refugees and bad refugees and underpin racist thinking. ".
Fair point, Jim, it is worrying to say the least when those consodered to be on the 'left' of politics share common cause with the far right. They may dress it up so as not to sound that way, but scratch the surface and the same popularism is present.
ReplyDeleteIn the West left-wing politics with a class analysis effectively died with the USSR. Traditional right conservatism has also died an ignominious death having lost the institutions (e.g. religion) and cultural norms that it was defending.
ReplyDeleteNominally left-wing parties becoming critical of immigration, the Corbynista and UKIP types advocating for Brexit etc. are symptoms of a possibly emerging realignment.
Immigration is an awkward issue because while the instinct of left and liberal minded people is to defy the populist right and uphold the dignity of people from different ethnic and national backgrounds, it's also true that migrant workers place pressure on housing and services.
The impetus for this migration (beyond the very human desire for a better life) are large companies and the states beholden to them seeking to enlargen the labour pool and to depress wages. Of course, the former isn't necessarily a bad thing by any means as is plain to see in our hospitals and nursing homes