Ideals rarely seem so fragile as when they are taken by those who would undo them. As an Irish Republican, it’s hard to watch these groups or individuals wrap themselves in our history while pushing openly xenophobic and racist politics. These people use the Republican mantle, but what they promote runs completely against the ideals our movement was built on. They’re certainly not Republican projects. They’re circuses formed by opportunists trying to carve out a base by stirring up fear around refugees and migrant workers.
Let’s be clear about what Republicanism actually is. Our politics come from the anti-imperialist ideals of the United Irishmen, from Connolly and Ryan’s international socialism, and from the many struggles against structural inequality in Irish History. Republicanism is civic, egalitarian and anti-sectarian at its core. It doesn’t recognise ethnic privilege, and it doesn’t blame the powerless for problems created by capitalism, imperialism or the institutions that defend them.
Those now using Republicanism as a flag of convenience to attack migrants aren’t continuing any Irish struggle. They’re simply of the same current as the hate filled mobs gaining ground up and down the country. Their whole tactic is to turn working-class frustration away from the landlords, profiteers, developers, bosses and the result of neo-colonial underdevelopment; and turn it downward instead, towards people who hold no power or influence. It’s the oldest divide-and-conquer trick in the book. It weakens the proletariat, strengthens reaction, and hands victory to the same systems Republicanism has always been opposed to.
That’s why Republicans have a responsibility to call this charade out. We can’t allow grifters and opportunists to twist our politics for their own gain, or in other cases, for self-preservation. We need to be firm that those pushing racist fear under a Republican mantle have no claim on the legacy or the future of our struggle. They don’t stand with Tone or Russell, they don’t stand with Connolly or Mellows, and they certainly don’t stand with any vision of a Socialist Republic.
If we don’t defend the principles of our own tradition, others will rewrite them beyond recognition. Now is the time to draw the line. Republicanism belongs to those committed to national sovereignty, equality, democracy, international solidarity and the dismantling of oppressive systems everywhere; not to those who target the vulnerable to cover up their own political emptiness and ignorance.
⏩Gérard Malachy is a County Down-based Socialist Republican and grassroots activist involved in Dundalk Communities United, the Community Action Tenants Union, and BDS Newry.
Did Connolly envision an Irish Republic that would take on half a million immigrants in 3 years from places as diverse as Nigeria, Algeria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Botswana, India and across South America? Who's cultural and religious sensitivities have in large part no interest in integration as evidenced elsewhere? And an Irish nation that to voice concern at this is to have discourse immediately shutdown with the redundant moniker of 'racism'?
ReplyDelete“The barbarians never take a city until someone holds the gates open to them. And it's your own multicultural authorities who will do it for you”
-Hitchens.
Apt.
No one envisaged that.
DeleteCriticism of government policy on immigration is not immediately shut down as racism. Some have tried to do that but it has met with pushback. I think there has to be a debate around all policy issues including those policies we agree with much as you are doing here. If you were making racist arguments you would end up in the Natsis page!!!
Where the racist hat fits quite well is on the hate filled heads of those who attack people rather than policy.
I get what you're saying Steve, I think that perhaps circa ten years ago or so, that did seem to be the case, and I think it was a contributing factor to making things worse, I wouldn't say that presently discourse is outright immediately shut down in totality, that's visibly not true, but there still remains plenty out there that still attempt to shut down discourse and reflexively label a person racist when that person talks in opposition of immigration. I think one of the problems with the non-racist anti-immigration folk has been not clearly separating themselves from the racists. On the other hand, the problem with some of the pro-immigration group is the exact same thing, that is, not separating those with genuine concerns from the racists, as it is very wrong to tar every anti-immigration person with that brush, it never helps matters, it only makes it worse. I wouldn't say the term racist is redundant, it has to be clear that there are many anti-immigrant folk whom are indeed very racist. I also think that a lot of the arguments that the anti-immigration lot give, are not only very inconsistent but also mis-guided shall we say, Gérard's article does a good job in highlighting some of these points. I hear the line about "not integrating" quite a lot, and out of curiosity Steve, I was wondering if you could tell me exactly what integration means to you? The same question to anyone else reading this?
DeleteI have to confess I was astonished at the numbers. The population of Ireland around the year 2020 was near 5 million. To add half a million in 3 years from 2022 to 2025 is remarkable.
DeleteIs there that many jobs in Ireland? I ask this because of the usual retort that the immigrants do the jobs the locals won't. I do not believe there is, and as such this mass influx will create huge societal pressures in every category you can think of.
Who then pays for them? The majority are not even from EU countries so Europe won't help. How are they arriving in Ireland? Does Ireland have no control of it's maritime border? The last I looked Ireland was an island. Are they all flying in? If so why isn't the Irish border control stopping them there and then?
Matt,
Integration means that like me I immersed myself in the local Australian way of life and culture. I joined clubs and societies here and made good friends with the locals. A large part of this is to do with the jobs I have worked. On the whole I would be a very much net contributor. To even get into Australia I needed to pay thousands, get a scrupulous health check with x-rays, have worked lined up and good references. I am an immigrant. Controlled immigration is a good thing for any society. Uncontrolled immigration is an absolute disaster waiting to detonate, and it's the locals who will suffer the most. Already the Irish young are leaving, I'm about to meet another fresh off the boat this morning. Can't blame him for leaving.
Thanks for the reply Steve, much appreciated. My answer to one of your questions would be the following.
Delete"Who pays for them?" - To be honest, I haven't looked at the numbers recently, but last time I did, it appeared that the overwhelming majority of immigrants to either the UK or Ireland, circa 90% come from legal routes, that is, they are studying or on work visas, or in the case of Ireland also have freedom of movement. Anyone can feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that. But on that basis I'd have to assume, they are paying for themselves, not too dissimilar from yourself Steve. Either way, I think the problem of affordability is down to the problem that the world has with wealth distribution. Refugees and asylum seekers seem to be taking the brunt of the ire, despite being only a very small percentage of overall migration. I understand the argument some have regards affordability and looking after locals first, but in my opinion, whatever local problems exist, like housing, jobs, wages etc, would still exist regardless of immigration, it's just currently immigrants, in particular refugees and asylum seekers, especially those from certain countries or religions, seem to be the easy target to blame for these problems instead of the extremely wealthy and greedy, and the "powers that be", perhaps one and the same. That's not to say that having control on immigration isn't sensible.
As for integration, I just find people's definitions interesting, I also find them to be generally somewhat vague. Let's take your answer for example. Australia being a multi-cultural country, for it to be accurate to say one immerses themselves in that way of life and culture, would have to mean immersing yourself in many different cultures, no? And perhaps you have, I won't make assumptions in your case, but it could be that you have chosen one certain specific individual culture of Australian life that you were happy to integrate into disregarding all others, or that you naturally gravitated towards those that were already most similar to yourself, as many other migrants do? Do you happen to speak any aboriginal languages? Should all schools on the island of Ireland teach the Irish language as mandatory? Should all immigrants to Ireland have to pass an Irish language test?
DeleteLet's take the UK, where I often hear people talking about culture, identity and values, which again seems rather vague, and also assumes that these words have a precise definitive meaning to everyone involved, which I think is clearly not the case. You could ask thousands of different born and bred UK citizens to define exactly what they mean by these words, and you would get thousands of people struggling to give their thousands of different answers. Am I making sense? I think each individual has an imaginative idea of what it means to them personally, but there isn't actually a unified accepted concept that actually exists in reality, if there is, I certainly don't know what it is, I genuinely don't know what "british culture" is supposed to mean. It reminds me of the jungle book song except what some local individuals, and certain groups of those individuals are really saying is that others have to be like you, to walk like you, talk like you too hoo, you see it's true, someone like you, can learn to be like someone like me.
Other than learning the local language and abiding by local laws, many other certain aspects that people use to define integration I don't care too much about, as I know plenty of born and bred locals that don't socialise, are not part of any clubs or societies, and I'm fine with that, so why not immigrants too? I'm genuinely curious.
I do have the odd chuckle when I hear of those that complain about migration, then themselves resort to migration in attempt to escape their perceived perils of immigration in their country of origin. I'm not saying that's the case with yourself Steve, but it does happen. Is that having your cake?
90% of 500,000 since 2022 arrived legally and are either working or on student visas and supporting themselves Matt? I didn't realise there were that many University places either never mind jobs. As for wealth distribution, at what point is that inequality the responsibility of Ireland? Ireland was never been an empirical power nor of colonial bent. I am asking why she doesn't seem willing or able to control her borders, the result of which will vastly exacerbate the inequality for everyone on the Island and at no point did they vote for it.
DeleteOn Australia, it's very much a multi ethnic society NOT a multi-cultural one, and it's fairly easy to identify what Australian culture is. Think of the stereotypes you see on inane Aussie soaps. A quick run down would be being obsessed with sport ( AFL/Cricket and Rugby League in particular), a sense of 'mateship' founded in the fields of Gallipoli that still echos through Australians today and various other nuances I could go into. I will say this though, as much as some don't like it I believe mandatory voting helps cement in every ethnicity into Australian life and I've lost count the amount of 'new' Australian citizens who get a letter through the door to tell them they've been selected for jury duty. This may seem crazy but it helps the buy in to society at large. They all have a vested interest in making it work. That's not to say they don't celebrate their own culture, one of the things we love to do is go to Chinatown on Lunar new year, or the Diwali festivals but they are very welcoming to everyone because they are happy.
And as I have said, CONTROLLED migration is a good thing, wanton immigration is a terrible idea.
Matt hits all the right buttons on this one.
DeleteI think what Steve might mean is integration should help prevent ghettoization and government strategies that manage ghettos through gatekeepers claiming to culturally represent a particular community.
For all his faults I think Douglas Murray made a worthwhile point in suggesting that societies should have a number of core values that people must not violate if they wish to be part of that society. But that also has to apply to those who claim to be domestic nationals and not just foreign ones. Three values I would see as core are secularism, one law for all, human rights,
I never much worried about language until working on a site one day and a fire started. Trying to communicate to a Romanian worker who did not have English suggested to me that a knowledge of the most prevalent language in a society is not without its benefits.
Many of them are working Steve and in very well paid hi tec jobs. One of the podcasts recently was pointing out that this in itself has posed something of a problem as they are so well paid that they can afford to pay for houses the way many others cannot. The podcast said that this leads to resentment when there is a serious housing crisis. But that seems more of an issue grounded in wealth distribution rather than in immigration.
DeleteThe Australian Bureau of Statistics seems to recognise Australia as multicultural. You identify the dominant culture but in every dominant culture there are subcultures competing with it.
I don't see how we can escape multiculturalism in any modern society. Describing a society as multi-ethnic but not multicultural sounds semantical although I get the point you are trying to make.
Compulsory voting? Not a fucking hope of me ever agreeing to that. What a way to legitimise the ruling class. 'None of the above' should be compulsory on a ballot card.
Steve - Like I said, I haven't looked at the figures in quite some time, but I just did a quick search without a deep dive, and the proportion of migrants to the UK that were refugees or asylum seekers was stated to be 13%. I'm not doing all the homework, you can do a search for the figures in Ireland, and if I'm wrong, I'm more than happy to be corrected. I wouldn't say that the responsibility of wealth inequality is Ireland's to bear alone, but rather an important responsibility for the world in general. You could look at it sort of like an equation, where currently people are saying:
DeleteThese people are getting something + we should also be getting something + we're not getting = that's not fair.
But this could be simplified to:
We should be getting something that we're not = that's not fair.
No need to blame the migrants. I am of the mind that should immigration and asylum be halted immediately and/or even reversed, most would more than likely find themselves with the same problems because of the reasons I stated in my previous comment, mainly a systemic problem down to the powers that be and greedy overly wealthy types.
As for Australia, it seems contradictory to say it's NOT multi-cultural it's multi-ethnicity and then go on to say how other ethnicities still celebrate their own culture. I don't disagree with your descriptors of Australian culture, and I agree that these descriptors run true across ethnicities, however, I would state that it is only a singular specific culture within Australia. One could argue that it is the dominant cultural majority, and I'd agree with that. Australia is indeed multi-cultural though and I'll stand by my statements in my previous comments. I do agree with you regards controlled migration, although it's possible we have different reasons for why this should be the case, it's also possible we have the same reasons too.
Anthony - Thank you for the input. Going by your statement on integration in regards to ghettoization etc, if that is indeed the case, I'm inclined to agree with you. I have no issues with the three values as you have stated either. I do feel language is important though. I think English speakers are lucky in being able to go to many different countries and still be able to converse in English with locals. But I feel regarding migrating to another country, the onus is on the inbound to learn the local language rather than expecting the locals to cater to them. As it stands, I haven't seen anything in the comments section yet to feel compelled to change stance from my original comments thus far, though this could change if and when additional comments convince me otherwise.
DeleteKnew you'd bite on the compulsory voting!! But thank you Anthony, you articulated what I mean far better than I did!
DeleteAs for the different cultures down here- they will all tell you they are Australian first and foremost, and that includes the First Nations people though they have been screwed over horrendously in the past.
Matt you made a comment about learning an Indigenous language, my daughter did learn some in school along with Australian sign language. Also many place names are in the local Wurundjeri language where we live. No issue with it and it adds to the character. Problem is it's utility, there are many hundreds of completely separate First Nations languages in Australia which are completely unintelligible to each mob never mind the 'Anglos'. Australia is absolutely enormous with around 100k years of First Nations history to boot, and this spread across an island which is a continent. Hell the whole of Ireland can fit into my state of Victoria over 3 times with room to spare and we're tiny compared to Western Australia and some of the other states.
I do suppose there's a grey area over what's multicultural and what's multiethnic, but as mentioned there are no 'ghettos' in Australia . They are all Australian and are free to enjoy their own cultural customs which even the rest of us enjoy, but they most definitely are Australian and seem happy to be.
This is not to say that Oz isn't without it's many problems!! lol
Just an additional thought on compulsory voting, the danger of allowing it to be optional is the dream of the right down here. They control the media to a large degree and would love nothing more to convince the masses to not bother to vote. As it IS compulsory everyone who watches what the right 'Tories' ( known as Liberals down here) don't want a bar of them which is why Labor ( without the 'u') won consecutive elections. Australian Labor is very strongly influenced by the Trade Unions so I'm not complaining!
DeleteSteve - The point I was trying to make is, just like how in the UK people will talk about being british and british culture, so too as you've said that people may say first and foremost that they are Australian, but as I mentioned before, each individual has an imaginative idea of what it means to them personally, which can overlap with others, but there isn't actually a unified accepted concept that actually exists in reality. There is certainly what you would call stereotypical Australians, I would say that much at least, but there are differences in these stereotypes too, and not everyone fits these stereotypes but can and will still lay claim to being Australian. Australia certainly has ghettos, but in a different sense, as they are a result of socio-economic problems and often multi-cultural in their makeup, except with some Aboriginal ghettos, with the Aboriginal peoples still being screwed over horrendously to this day.
DeleteBut with that, we can try and put things back into context of the original comments and indeed the original article, which I would encourage another read as Gérard made some very good valid points. Certain buzzwords get thrown around, like culture, and integration being another, and these buzzwords don't make sense unless a clear definition is given for them, which can often not be the case. Anthony has given his take in respect of ghettoization, and I can agree here that ghettos is not a result to be desired. On the flip side, as Anthony explained, this "has to apply to those who claim to be domestic nationals and not just foreign ones", as domestic nationals have their fair share of, as Anthony puts it "gatekeepers claiming to culturally represent a particular community", which in turn if integration were to have a clear and specific meaning, makes integration extremely difficult for the inbound, where in this case the blame does not lie at their feet, they were not given a fair chance to integrate to begin with, resulting in ghettos. Events in Sandy Row a year or so back would be a case in point, but in no way would I seek to label everyone in Sandy Row a racist. I have no problem with anyone voicing concerns about immigration. The problem I have is their arguments tend to be inconsistent, contradictory, and they don't pass muster. If arguments against immigration are successfully countered, on shall we say a logical or factual basis, I would expect the person(s) to concede the argument, it's not enough to simply gloss over counter-arguments and hold one's position. When concessions are not made, one has to look at why that may be, which is why the label of racist is still at play, because it appears that some people are using fallacious arguments to cover their intolerance of other ethnicities and cultures. Again with the same Sandy Row incident (many other case studies are available), a person interviewed by Nolan then actually conceded he was indeed racist and appeared shamelessly content to admit such, whereas others will still hide behind a veil of poor argumentation to say the least, with no concession being made. As I've previously mentioned, some non-racists have genuine concerns, but I still feel these concerns are more often than not, based on the same inconsistent and mis-guided arguments, and one would hope they would concede to the position of tolerance and acceptance rather than to the position of a racist...
...I do hope my own comments here are coherent, sometimes I write these comments, hit send, and then wonder if I'm being clear. But if there is any confusion, I can always try to articulate my points in a different way for clarification. It would be been nice to have additional input from more TPQ readers, as polite, respectful and open discourse is the avenue to go down for progress on these issues, and TPQ is a great place for that to happen. You and I could probably agree on quite a few things Steve, and where we don't, we can always hash it out. The fact that we are conversing here and not on the Natsis page shows that it's the racists that get short shrift and not the topic. Do give Gérard's article another read though. Also, regarding your daughter learning an aboriginal language and ASL, that was a warming thing to read Steve, I say "good on er!"
DeleteSensible discourse is always welcome, I've been around TPQ for years now I think so I'll always try to find common ground.
ReplyDeleteBut I still go back to my question, who is letting them in? Half a million in 3 years would raise the eyebrows of Nations much larger than Ireland and I'm yet to be convinced there are enough jobs in tech, health nor places at University for all of them. Racism has nothing to do with this simple mathematic/economic question.
Steve - I don't think anybody ever thinks of you as racist. As Mat says or any of us would end up on the Natsi page if they resort to racism. You don't pretend that the far right doesn't exist or make your arguments from hate.
DeleteSteve - There was certainly no veiled insinuations or accusations on my part, I sincerely hope it didn't read that way. As for your question, I don't know would be my honest answer. As we've already discussed, refugees or asylum seekers are only making up a very small percentage of overall migration, but they are the ones taking all the flak. I'd imagine whoever is letting in the majority of migrants, is doing so in an authorised official capacity rather than someone taking backhanders to look the other way. Regards to whether the math adds up to equate to sensible economics, I would still stand by that wealth distribution has to be factored in and should be regarded as a major variable for the equation of economics. But at the end of the day, I'm not the one who comes up with the figures and can only go on what is reported in regards to statistical analysis. But it does appear to me that the majority of refugees and asylum seekers are receiving unwarranted indignation. If people have a problem with net migration, it seems they are directing their discontent towards the wrong group, after all, it is things like effigies of refugees in boats we are seeing upon pyres, and not that of a student or NHS worker. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on your own questions, as to what you think or believe the case to be?
Delete