Good and Bad Immigration – by Carl Duffy

Like many other Irish, I have emigrated to another country. In my new host country, I accept many things are expected of me and the onus is on myself as a guest to adapt to a new culture.

A stringent criminal record check, legalised documents of my qualifications and a job offer were all required before I emigrated. I was invited to fill a skills shortage that my new home needs and I’m here to integrate instead of imposing the incompatible aspects of my culture.

For example, as a Republican I don’t hold much reverence towards the idea of a Constitutional Monarchy. However, in my new culture I can be arrested for standing on a paper note depicting the Monarch.

I accept this, as I am a guest in someone else’s home and must play by their rules. In Ireland, many immigrants accept our rules and make a valuable contribution. Some also bring a boutique form of multiculturalism which enriches our food choices.

Good immigration policy can provide benefits for both the hosts and the guests. Likewise, bad immigration policy can be detrimental to both. It should go without saying that the host reserves the right to decide who enters – if anyone at all. That is basic democratic sovereignty.

In Ireland, we have lost sight of this, and parts of these rights have been outsourced to both the UK and EU. The consequences of appalling immigration policy were recently visited upon an innocent victim on the streets of North Belfast.

Two British MPs, Suella Braverman (elected in Fareham and Waterlooville) and Robert Jenrick (elected in Newark) were the main culprits for the reckless decision which allowed a dangerous Sudanese international to remain in the UK – and the occupied statelet consequently.

What did we gain by having a violent Sudanese monster roaming about the streets of North Belfast armed with a knife? This was a person willing to attack innocent people in public – not entirely dissimilar to a huge number of random attacks we see throughout Europe by people the West shouldn’t be allowing in.

In the wake of such a terrible event, why isn’t the political instincts of elected Republicans in the North to emphasise the failures of a broken immigration policy – especially considering the British Government are largely responsible.

Aontú’s, Peadar Tóibín, highlighted the need for a border in the Irish sea so that immigration can be managed on an all-island basis. This is a common-sense proposal that aligns with Republican ethos.

Subsequently, the main story surrounding this event has been the reaction and burning out of homes containing immigrants – who have nothing to do with the attempted beheading. This is of course morally abhorrent, and whatever evil preceded this chaos doesn’t justify attacking other immigrants unconnected to the events on Kinnaird Avenue.

The primary focus of Sinn Féin now is to emphasise the importance of anti-racism. Yet, to think this messaging will solve our current problems is as laughable as suggesting the preaching of, ’anti-sectarianism’ would’ve halted ‘The Troubles.’

The root cause of our conflict lies in the denial of democracy and equality for Catholics in the six counties. When the democratic route for political change is closed off, some will use alternative methods to achieve their aims e.g. the Armalite and the ballot box.

For many with the perfectly reasonable position of wanting stricter immigration controls there’s a sense the democratic route is being closed off. At best some feel unheard, at worst some feel tarred as a bigot for simply trying to express legitimate concerns around the scale and management of immigration.

The ugly scenes of the past week won’t be solved by calling the perpetrators racist nor by engaging in whataboutery that other evils also exist in Ireland. Some have suggested that we don’t even have an immigration problem, we have a problem with violence. Yet, even if someone wants to keep their heads buried in the sand, many people do notice the problems surrounding mass immigration and don’t feel comfortable with the rapidity of demographic change we never voted in favour of.

Bad immigration policy is both harmful to the natives and good immigrants – who assimilate, pay taxes, contribute – as they’ll sometimes be tarred with the same brush as the bad immigrants. Good immigration policy reduces the number of bad immigrants – those who don’t assimilate, commit crime and make a net-negative economic contribution.

By ensuring a political solution can be reached democratically we can resolve these problems. We need to make sure people with legitimate concerns can voice them freely and be taken in good faith instead of being dismissed as ‘far-right.’ If we stop having conversations, violence will ensue.

We must acknowledge the failures of immigration policy – largely by the British Government (where over 97% of MPs are elected outside the six counties) in this instance – and that the people have every right to have a say over this policy. Afterall, if the people don’t have a say we don’t have democracy.

Pushing back against the EU migration pact and having a border in the Irish Sea are logical ways of managing immigration on an all-island basis. This is a golden opportunity for Republicans of all stripes to strengthen their cause – as it is much easier to manage immigration on a 32-county basis.

Yet if we decide to focus solely on ‘anti-racism’ instead then we’ll ultimately alienate many in our movement and weaken the prospects of Irish Unity. But at least we’ll get to feel morally virtuous if we continue to disproportionately focus our attention on calling out racism.