"Politicians are going to have to talk" ❓ a valid comment, but the kernal of the issue is, in my view that our politicians don't want to talk to the public about immigration. Why you will ask. ❓ Because this matter is tied in closely with our EU membership, the Rus/Ukr war conflict, the EU wide immigration "problem" and above all the new Global cold war involving EU, US, Russia, China et al. Our G'ment sticks resolutely to it's justification for immigration, namely that it's policy is motivated by humanitarian needs. Consequently it goes on the defensive by name calling it's own Irish citizens as "racist", "xenophobe", etc. But if the immigration policy may indeed have humanitarian links, it's true motivation is tied directly to EU/NATO military policy viz a vie the Rus/Ukr war. Hence we hear the Tánaiste constantly eroding(salami slicing I call it) our traditional policy of neutrality (without a referendum if at all possible). Local people are reacting "locally" on the imposition of immigrants (young males above all) into their locality, not seeing the bigger picture I have outlined above. For Global reasons the G'ment are desperate NOT to converse with local people so as not to spook the larger population with talk of WW3 and Irish military involvement. Just keep loading a guilt trip on locals to show how uncharitable, how lacking in common decency they are but don't mention the EU Masters dictating policy to our G'ment.
I am not an admirer of what is known as ‘direct democracy’. It is forced upon us where constitutional issues are involved, but otherwise we elect representatives whom we expect to use their judgement and sense to navigate the best course between the sometimes competing prerogatives of representation and leadership. If we don’t think they are getting the balance right we can sack them at the next election.
Immigration is one of those things that are not appropriate as a subject for direct democracy - firstly, because it is far too complex an issue for a useful referendum question to settle, but secondly and most importantly, because of the passions it would arouse and its likely consequences for post-referendum community harmony.
This of course implies a special responsibility on our politicians in judging that balance between representation and leadership in matters of immigration policy. In practice that means ensuring immigration is proportionate and legal. It is manifestly obvious from the growing disquiet and ferment that our politicians have failed to uphold their part of this implicit bargain with respect to certain aspects of (but not all) immigration.
There is widespread acceptance of our moral obligation to take Ukrainians fleeing the terrible conflict in their homeland, and there has been no lack of offers to accommodate them. We have also, with a remarkable lack of any political backlash, seen our society becoming almost unrecognisably diverse over a few short decades as hundreds of thousands of eastern europeans and third country nationals have come to work and make their lives here under EU freedom of movement provisions and the work visa programme.
However, there is a widespread sense accross all sections of society that the international protection system is a big scam that does little to assist the truely persecuted of this world, and is little more than a vehicle for illegal immigration and the enrichment of people smugglers. Media stories about widespread document destruction and statistics showing most of out international protection applicants coming from places that aren’t war-zones, or are otherwise defined as ‘safe’ only reinforce this perception. Needless to say, communities are far less likely to want to discommode themselves to host those they think are taking advantage of their generosity.
We should never blame migrants for wishing to improve their circumstances. It isn’t about that. The issue for Ireland is Ireland’s interests at a time we are in the middle of an acute housing crisis, and vital services are often under pressure - particularly in inner cities and small rural communities.
Our politicians are where the anger and blame should be directed. They are the ones who made the bad decisions that have caused this crisis. The most notable of these were the general amnesty extended by the Ministerfor Justice to failed asylum-seekers, and Roderick O’Gorman’s multilingual announcement that Ireland was an open house for asylum-seekers. The continuing failure to adequately resource the asylum-assessment process has also convinced asylum-seekers coming here that another asylum-amnesty is just a matter of time to clear the ever growing backlog of unfinalised asylum-claims. All of these factors are driving the huge increase in asylum-seeking arrivals - particularly from safe countries.
Of course, politicians dislike getting involved in controversial issues because they fear losing votes. But the politics of immigration in Ireland, the EU generally, and here in the US seem to be similar: The centerpoint of the public's attitude is disliking immigration of people who are culturally different (especially in language) or who might consume expensive social services. Of course, this is racist/ethnicist. The centerpoint of the elites' attitude is favoring immigration to supply labor, combined with a sense of cosmopolitanism, humanitarian obligation, and treaty obligations. The less the public is involved, the closer the reality is to the elites' preferred policy. A party that had the "courage to articulate and stand behind the policies you actually believe", if it believes the elite position, would do poorly at the next election. A party that did the same for the popular position would do something that its leaders consider counterproductive and immoral.
"Politicians are going to have to talk" ❓ a valid comment, but the kernal of the issue is, in my view that our politicians don't want to talk to the public about immigration. Why you will ask. ❓ Because this matter is tied in closely with our EU membership, the Rus/Ukr war conflict, the EU wide immigration "problem" and above all the new Global cold war involving EU, US, Russia, China et al. Our G'ment sticks resolutely to it's justification for immigration, namely that it's policy is motivated by humanitarian needs. Consequently it goes on the defensive by name calling it's own Irish citizens as "racist", "xenophobe", etc. But if the immigration policy may indeed have humanitarian links, it's true motivation is tied directly to EU/NATO military policy viz a vie the Rus/Ukr war. Hence we hear the Tánaiste constantly eroding(salami slicing I call it) our traditional policy of neutrality (without a referendum if at all possible). Local people are reacting "locally" on the imposition of immigrants (young males above all) into their locality, not seeing the bigger picture I have outlined above. For Global reasons the G'ment are desperate NOT to converse with local people so as not to spook the larger population with talk of WW3 and Irish military involvement. Just keep loading a guilt trip on locals to show how uncharitable, how lacking in common decency they are but don't mention the EU Masters dictating policy to our G'ment.
I am not an admirer of what is known as ‘direct democracy’. It is forced upon us where constitutional issues are involved, but otherwise we elect representatives whom we expect to use their judgement and sense to navigate the best course between the sometimes competing prerogatives of representation and leadership. If we don’t think they are getting the balance right we can sack them at the next election.
Immigration is one of those things that are not appropriate as a subject for direct democracy - firstly, because it is far too complex an issue for a useful referendum question to settle, but secondly and most importantly, because of the passions it would arouse and its likely consequences for post-referendum community harmony.
This of course implies a special responsibility on our politicians in judging that balance between representation and leadership in matters of immigration policy. In practice that means ensuring immigration is proportionate and legal. It is manifestly obvious from the growing disquiet and ferment that our politicians have failed to uphold their part of this implicit bargain with respect to certain aspects of (but not all) immigration.
There is widespread acceptance of our moral obligation to take Ukrainians fleeing the terrible conflict in their homeland, and there has been no lack of offers to accommodate them. We have also, with a remarkable lack of any political backlash, seen our society becoming almost unrecognisably diverse over a few short decades as hundreds of thousands of eastern europeans and third country nationals have come to work and make their lives here under EU freedom of movement provisions and the work visa programme.
However, there is a widespread sense accross all sections of society that the international protection system is a big scam that does little to assist the truely persecuted of this world, and is little more than a vehicle for illegal immigration and the enrichment of people smugglers. Media stories about widespread document destruction and statistics showing most of out international protection applicants coming from places that aren’t war-zones, or are otherwise defined as ‘safe’ only reinforce this perception. Needless to say, communities are far less likely to want to discommode themselves to host those they think are taking advantage of their generosity.
We should never blame migrants for wishing to improve their circumstances. It isn’t about that. The issue for Ireland is Ireland’s interests at a time we are in the middle of an acute housing crisis, and vital services are often under pressure - particularly in inner cities and small rural communities.
Our politicians are where the anger and blame should be directed. They are the ones who made the bad decisions that have caused this crisis. The most notable of these were the general amnesty extended by the Ministerfor Justice to failed asylum-seekers, and Roderick O’Gorman’s multilingual announcement that Ireland was an open house for asylum-seekers. The continuing failure to adequately resource the asylum-assessment process has also convinced asylum-seekers coming here that another asylum-amnesty is just a matter of time to clear the ever growing backlog of unfinalised asylum-claims. All of these factors are driving the huge increase in asylum-seeking arrivals - particularly from safe countries.
Of course, politicians dislike getting involved in controversial issues because they fear losing votes. But the politics of immigration in Ireland, the EU generally, and here in the US seem to be similar: The centerpoint of the public's attitude is disliking immigration of people who are culturally different (especially in language) or who might consume expensive social services. Of course, this is racist/ethnicist. The centerpoint of the elites' attitude is favoring immigration to supply labor, combined with a sense of cosmopolitanism, humanitarian obligation, and treaty obligations. The less the public is involved, the closer the reality is to the elites' preferred policy. A party that had the "courage to articulate and stand behind the policies you actually believe", if it believes the elite position, would do poorly at the next election. A party that did the same for the popular position would do something that its leaders consider counterproductive and immoral.