Brian,
It’s an interesting question.

But many Irish are realistic about the Irish Illegal’s in the USA, they are not in favour of anyone breaking laws of a foreign country. There is not that much widespread support for them, In fact Irish politicians when they are pleading for Irish Illegal’s in the States know they are pressing a hopeless case, and they know it. But they are more tuned into looking for votes from those in their constituency who have sons and daughters abroad, than actually trying to get exemption for them.

Secondly it’s a question of scale. There are approximately 30,000 Irish illegals in the States, out of a population of 300 million, a tiny drop in the bucket. And even if the USA opened up their doors to the whole population of Ireland, and we all moved, our 4 million would not be register in the States, due to our small numbers and our close ethnic and cultural relationship with the States.

It’s a different type of scale with our illegal population. We could have already 100,000 illegal African Immigrants in Ireland. That’s a much different population percentage compared to the Irish illegals in the USA. And Nigeria alone has 140 million people, at least half of whom live on less than a dollar a day, and many of whom WOULD move here if they got a chance.

So the Irish are subconsciously afraid of the cultural and economic shock of opening our doors, and not keeping a firm grip on our immigration policies. Considering that the Nigerian population has already grown to be one of the largest ethnic groups in the country, in the last decade, we have not done well so far with our present immigration laws.

And considering the percentage of these Nigerians who have been convicted of crime, and who have abused our welfare system, they are a lot different that the hardworking invisible illegal Irish in the states.

I disagree slightly with Liam.

Ireland is not comparable with countries such as the USA, for the simple reason that Ireland lacks any kind of coherent immigration policy.

As a result, there are some who enter Ireland and lodge an application for refugee status, but who may not fit the narrow legal definition of “refugee”. There is no real alternative option for such persons to apply under any other basis to enter Ireland, e.g. for the purposes of employment.

(Indeed, those who may have real fears of returning to their country of origin but who do not meet the refugee requirements – such as fleeing a warzone – had no option to apply to remain in the State until 2006 when “subsidiary protection” applications came into existence. Until then, persons were given the option to present reasons why, as an exceptional measure, a deportation order should not be issued against them by the Minister for Justice. Both of these options are currently available but ONLY if someone has already lodged an application for refugee status.)

As a result of this unsatisfactory situation, the refugee applications process has, for some individuals, become a de facto immigration process. This is where the waters are muddied, as those applicants who actually do have a real and well-founded fear of persecution if returned to their country of origin are thereby regarded in the same way as those who realistically may not have such a fear.

And so, we found – and still find – ourselves in a situation where immigrants in Ireland are often all labelled as “asylum seekers” or “refugees” and as such negative associations are created and applied to all applicants for refugee status AND all other immigrants.

(The double-standard continues to apply in relation to Irish immigrants in other countries around the world.)

Bryan

there is a very simple explanation for this! Absolute hypocrisy & selfish self interest! It is ever thus in Ireland.

I’m puzzled. ..As to why my comment from around 2:30pm today hasn’t appeared yet.

I was as puzzled as you were Bryan. I agree completely with Liam that people seeking refuge under false pretenses should not be granted entry into the country. However l believe that being undocumented in whichever country you are for whatever reason is breaking the law of the land.
As a ‘documented’ foreigner in Ireland l have to go through many years of expensive visa renewals before l can apply for residency which usually takes another 3 to 4 years. Its a slow process that takes usually about 8 to 10 years before you can get any sense of permanency. I wish there was someone in governement to speak on my behalf.

“If a person cannot earn a decent living in Zimbabwe I don’t think they should be criminalised for jumping over a fence and looking for work in South Africa.”
Try telling that to the South African government or, more importantly, the South African population.

Yes it is hypocrisy but like the other examples mentioned by Eoin, i’m not sure it is a conscious hypocrisy…i don’t think we, when putting that pressure on the government re the undocumented, connect it to our views or those of the government on immigration. It’s the same with voting Fianna Fail…it’s a part of our history and culture since we became a democratic state…support the cause but don’t think too much about it.

Our political consiousness I suppose, is only going through the teething problems.

Carol “Are Nigerians and other Africans not to get the chance to build those sorts of connections?”

That’s a good question , however the examples don’t line up, the US had a shortage of people in the 19thC , salaries for workers were double that of GB at the time, the US could have taken any amount Europeans . Ireland on the other hand is a small country and one has to ask assuming one knows the education a levels of those coming here are they an advantage to the country? It’s a big ask for there to be general support for allowing large numbers of relatively uneducated people to come here with all the social costs attached and little to offer in economic terms. I believe in real free markets which would include the free movement of people but as we don’t then I think the onus is on the gov. to magange migration here in the same way that countries like Australia do

Dare I dip my toe in this pool? The posts above have many iterations of the word “hypocricy”–sure I’m so unfamiliar with it, I can’t even spell it, at least not to the satisfaction of both sides of the Atlantic.

An earlier manifestation of the same sort puzzled me for a short while–how Irish “patriots” who hade risked prison and death in Ireland could flee to America and fight for the South in the Civil War.

We’ve discussed tribalism in this blog over and over. And that’s a large part of the story about those who seek special treatment for Irish law- breakers in America. (And check out South Kerry and the indignant support for John O’Donoghue there.)

As for Nigerians in Ireland, they might not want to hold their breath while awaiting a special path to citizenship.

And yes, Carol, the poorest of the new Irish in New York met the Know Nothings and their brutal hostility–well acted by Daniel Day Lewis as the butcher in Gangs Of New York.

So long as Ireland remained a poor, underdevloped country, the Irish at home could bask in their narrative of absolute goodness, tinged only by a love of the drop of the crater. At the same time, the Irish in America shifted all across the political and racist spectrum. Many showed a reluctance or inability to genarlise from their own particular experiences, and opted instead to move up the peck order a wee bit.

Let me make sure I have this right. Quite a few people think the ‘undocumented’ v ‘illegal’ thing boils down to pure hypocrisy, while others think it’s about percentages and then the last view is that Nigerians are parasites while the Irish in America are decent hard working folks? So we have options A, B and C, or some combination thereof. Hmmm….

As a guest in this nation, I’ll do my mother proud for a change and leave option A alone.

Then there’s option B, which reads to me like a justification for A. Double standards are okay if their purpose is self preservation? Call me naive, but I thought right and wrong trumped self-interest. Isn’t that why most of the rest of the world were upset about the Iraq invasion? Let’s say the US needs oil or it won’t survive, would that make an invasion of Venezuela right? If not, how is it right to criminalise the ‘undocumented’ in Ireland because there are so many of them here in relative terms than there are ‘undocumented’ Irish people in the US? And what if the US decides its total immigrant pool is as much of a drain as Ireland’s. Will we then distinguish between the ‘undocumented’ Irish and the ‘illegal’ Mexicans?

As for option C, I worry about the way Nigerians are portrayed in popular culture. From the South African film District 9 to the taxi driver who thinks he is complimenting me by telling me how wonderful it is that I’m not Nigerian. Sadly, I imagine the sorts of generalisations about Nigerians, and the immigrant population in Ireland in general, aren’t very different to those made about Irish immigrants once upon a time.

Of options A, B and C, the only one that doesn’t come across as an attempt at justifying something that’s unjust is A.

P – No, I didn’t mean to suggest that immigration restrictions are on par with invading Iraq. My point was that what should precede discussions on self-interest is a clear understanding and discussion of right and wrong. First decide what ‘the right thing to do is’ on moral and ethical grounds, and then decide that within the confines of those morals and ethics, what is in the best interests of the country.

Back to Iraq, if it were established that invading other countries for their resources is an absolute no-no, then rather than blowing years, lives and money on an ill conceived military campaign GW may have decided to invest in alternative energy.

In Ireland, there hasn’t really been an open, honest debate on the morality and ethics of immigration. My point, again, was that ideally that should happen with people trying hard to put aside self interest initially in order to figure out what the right thing is. After that, have feasibility studies, debate self-interest, protest, have referendums, whatever. But ideally all of those activities will be bound by the terms of the preceding discussion on the ethics and morality of immigration.

I think it would help if Tony would have cited the source of magic numbers and percentages of Nigerians ,Indians and Iranians vs irish undocumented engaged in criminal activities. Pure generalization.

I do think that opinion A deserves a little more attention all the same Bryan…and ultimately it boils down to the following:
a) does the human being puts right and wrong before self-preservation ( a question which I guess you’ll have difficulty solving over the course of a few blog entries)?
b) assuming for arguments sake that he/she does, what is it that makes us side with self-preservation in today’s society.

As I said before it is firstly an absense of political consciousness and secondly a major absense of contre-pouvoir….our parliamentary democracy informed by social and less social capitalists will never allow us to question our hypocritic policies.

So in the end I guess the blame lies with capitalism….:)

Btw Liam, if Doha gets resolved at some stage, CAP (in its most destructive form) will be history some 7-11years later…never say never!!!

I think the question of whether moral rightness should be put before self-preservation is redundant – doing what is morally right IS an act of selfpreservation.

If you are fleeing grave danger, it is right that we protect you. If you can and will contribute to our society, it is right that we welcome you to join us. If you will use our resources without giving enough in return, it is not right for us to take you in at the expense of taking resources from our citizens and those legitimate, contributing immigrants who we value as part of our nation.

Bryan, do you think there is a moral grey area here? I think that to exclude criminals, to assist those who are in dire need of asylum from persecution and to class everybody else as an economic migrant seems the most fair thing to do. Those who are coming here for economic reasons should be assessed in economic terms.

I can see why it is really complex for officials to assess whether someone is in genuine need of asylum. But assessing people on the basis of what they can contribute economically should be fairly straightforward, whether in Ireland or America, and those who do not meet the criteria must respect the letter of the law.

So, does this mean Barack Obama is going to go to Ireland to help me get a legal status when I immigrate from the US? Or will I have to do all the proper legal steps to make it happen? I do love how yous people keep mention the Africians or Eastern Europeans but not we Yanks.

‘Doing what is morally right is an act of self-preservation’…trix

Perhaps, but I see the question posed by this migration issue as the inverse: Is self preservation morally justified? The answer, in my opinion is, a vehement yes but ONLY IF we do not then seek to prevent others from doing likewise for their self-p.

Bryan’s puzzlement, I believe, come exactly from this; from the fact that we treat immigrants harsly while demanding exceptional treatment for our undocumented in the US. It is not a question of open borders but of consistent practise based on sound principles. In the absence of this consistency, we intentionally seek to undermine another state’s immigration policies ( a country which has on the whole been fair to migrants). I this case our self-preservation argument becomes morally redundant.

Liam;
I agree but look closer at the problem of subsidies and you see the same double standards as exist in relation to immigration: we are allowed to protect our markets with subsidies but demand that developing countries open their markets and abolish their subsidies!!!
Again no consistency.

Trix it is not a question of putting moral rightness before self-preservation in the decision but in the thought sequence leading to a decision. The thought process should run like this.

1. Are there any circumstances in which a foreigner/alien should be allowed to live in another country legally? illegally?

2. Are there any circumstances in which a foreign country should invite a foreigner (alien) to live in it’s territory legally/ illegally?

3. Are there any circumtstances in which it is morally right that a foreigner though “an illegal immigrant” in another country remains there?

Once you lay out the answers to the above questions then look at them in the light of economics, cultural identity, diversity, etc.etc.

What worries me about the above thread is that it takes off and remains at the second level of reflection and even when Bryan in his comment above and i (with my urinating around the garden take) try to bring it down from that level to the moral starting point there are no takers.

Frankly I don’t give a damn about the language per se (“undocumented”, “illegal “, “asylum seekers”). But I would like to make the language used force me to ask questions of myself as to how I “morally” view people defined by the above terms. I think this is what partly Bryan was getting at.

But the above thread moves around law, history, economics, and God knows what.

Start again: Over and above law, economics, self-preservation etc what do you think/feel about the moral right of the undocumented/illegal/asylum seeker to be in that position in Ireland or an Irish person to be in that position in the USA?

If I meet an illegal immigrant in my local pub tonight in Bangkok how should I MORALLY view his/her status?

And to use Bryans phrase how should the “collective conscience” in Ireland morally view illegal immigrants.

Before you jump in and say the law is the law and it does’nt matter how we morally view let me say it does.
The Ceann Comhairle did not break the law but the majority viewed what he did as wrong. People are able to make these distinctions and they do.

Or another example. I know it it is illegal for an 18 year old to have sex with a 17 year old in ireland (or is is a 17 with a 16 ….i don’t know the age of consent anymore!!!). Frankly I am not sure it is immoral.

So what do we get when we apply our moral eyesight to the asylum seeker/undocumented/ guy walking down the street?

Then AFTER that lets talk about how to deal with them in the light of the law, economics, etc.

Looked at this way you will have to talk much more about where the illegal/undocumented came from than where they are, which is totally missing from the above thread. And thats why the moral dimension broadens the base on which we build the decision and thus makes the final decision a better one.

Patrick

Bangkok

Bryan,
One of the reasons there has not been an open debate on immigration in Ireland is because if anyone says they are in favour of restrictions they are accused of being racist. Check out the Irish Born child citizen referendum a few years ago.
The mainstream media is also very liberal, and won’t go near immigration issues, except for a few columnists like Kevin Myers.
And big business is in favour of immigration, after all whose going to live in all those apartment blocks?

Because despite what anyone says we have an open immigration policy. If you can make it into the country from outside the EU, odds are you get to stay. Despite the fact that there is an impression we have a harsh immigration policy, we only deport a few dozen each year. People will say that they have a tough time with bureaucracy and officialdom, but the reality is we hardly ever grab anyone and send them home.

And as far as debating the rights and wrongs of immigration, looking at the French and UK experiences should show us the danger with unrestricted immigration.

The European country with the most liberal policy towards refugees is Sweden. They have been trying to do the morally right thing for the last 30 years. But they are now in a position where at least half of their crime is perpetrated by immigrants or their children. Malmo will have a Muslim majority in a decade. And they are now the official rape capital of Europe!!

Michaelstrasb wrote “(a lot of stuff)”

I do see your points Michael but I’m still stuck with my perspective in terms of Michael Martin going vote-fishing to the US. I’m well aware of the Irish lobby in Washington, but – these people are Americans. Dual citizens, some of them, but you can’t affect an American election if you’re not a voter. And you can’t vote in America if you’re not a citizen. Irish illegal aliens that get caught out are very often put on the next plane home. I have a couple of acquaintances who had that happen. My point is that Irish illegal aliens don’t have much political power, but their families back in Ireland are Irish voters and I don’t believe they have a lot to do with American elections. Martin was putting on a show for these, to pander to his Irish voter base. I would still argue that he was not making a statement that reflected public opinion.

It IS possible to separate the actions of an elected represenatative from the voter if he’s doing something that wasn’t put to a vote, and isn’t part of stated policy. I know that not every single governmental action can be put to a referendum, but this Irish-in-America thing… I’ve seen it before every few years, and it’s a real dog-and-pony show. His actions are not a direct reflection of public opinion. If you took a survey of Irish people’s attitudes towards illegal aliens in America, you’d possibly find a very mixed bag of opinions, but no overarching one. And that would be me stating opinion, but not fact

I understand the phenomonon of the average American being condemned for the actions of the Bush government by angry Europeans – but those angry Europeans would be halfwits, wouldn’t they? Ultra-opinionated students, middle-aged yank bashers, or other types who want to burnish their political-correctness badges by picking on the biggest, easiest target. I refuse to lump myself in with non-thinkers like that by generalizing in that way, or by ascribing powers of speech to politicians that I don’t believe they actually have.

These days, elected representatives tend to gain office by the slimmest of margins, usually ushered into office by half of a disinterested electorate. I don’t think any elected represenative can be said to speak (in absolute terms anyway) on behalf of his electorate anymore.

Ask yourself this, since I’m talking about another elected representative – does Ahmadinejad speak for every Iranian? When he denies the holocaust, or his government suggests that the Mossad shot that girl, the protestor who was in all the videos – do these utterances reflect Iranian opinion? Of course not.

When Blair involved the UK in the Iraq war, did he do so on behalf of the British voter? I would venture to suggest he did not. There was absolute uproar over that.

I apologise if I come off as cynical. But I am – especially as regards Irish politicians. I think they’re the worst shower of liars, thieves and manipulators, largely because we’ve been letting them get away with it. I don’t believe that any of them at this point, at least those in government, speak for any Irishman. And I think that we in the West have become jaded by the democratic process, are taking it for granted, and are letting politicians run amok.

Steve-“Sooner or later you’re going to run out of resources or run out of funding if you don’t limit your scope. These things are usually boiled down to money. and morals don’t often have a lot to do with money.”

That’s a good title for a leaving cert essay choice Individuals can make moral decisions with their resources , can a State make a moral decision by coercively extracting money from Peter and giving it to Paul? Moral choices and coercion don’t go hand in hand.

Michaelstrasb wrote “Forgive me Steve but that is absolute nonsense…yes it’s opinion but it is sure as hell pretty weak or at the least a massive exaggeration.”

It’s the latter, Michael, thank you. I should have written: “I don’t believe that any of them at this point, at least those in government, speak for every Irishman”. I get caught up in how members of my own family are suffering from Irish governmental mismanagement, and it gets me a bit upset.

However – I think the rest of my post stands. In terms of the US & UK led invasion of Iraq – how exactly could the average British or American voter (and remember, none of this was put to a vote) have prevented this from happening? Seriously. It was decided that Iraq would be attacked a long time before it happened. 911 was a great excuse to get people to buy into the idea, except it didn’t work. America and the UK were very split. But nobody voted on it.

Irish people can be held accountable for Ireland’s acceptance of Lisbon, since that was put to a vote. The people chose, for better or for worse. But would it also be correct to say that Irish people are financially inept because of the government’s NAMA project? Of course not. Who came up with NAMA? Who voted on it? Nobody. Logically the two things just don’t connect for me.

I would suggest that the failure of democracy that this illustrates is that perhaps a direct democracy system like in Switzerland could be fairer, or at least more representative of public will.

What does social contract mean though? Clearly society is not run on a “all for one and one for all basis” and how can a contract be compulsory? It ends up being one on those empty statements along the lines of calling former E Germany a democratic republic. Once the state is up and running it takes on its own momentum and serves its own purposes. Constitutions tend not to limit the power of gov. very well as they have the legal right to tax up to 100% and to borrow til the country goes bankrupt.

Sorry Bryan, but I’m just not with you on this one. Michael Martin wasn’t sent to Ireland by the Irish voter, and didn’t make his statements at their request. The statements you see on this blog, for better or for worse, ARE the opinions of the Irish voter. Some of them anyway. There’s no conflict here. I would suggest that this is, with all due respect, a controversy you have invented…

Steve – but I’m responding to comments which you say are the opinions of the Irish voter. How have I created a controversy?

Michael – Thanks Michael. I went so far as to buy my own copy of A Theory of Justice in the hope that one day, I might understand a bit more of it. Have you read Political Liberalism? Is it worth the time and energy investment?

People don’t want mass immigration from Nigeria because, in line with all cliches about Nigerians, they are overrepresented here both in Prison and Social Welfare payments.

Kevin Myers did an article based on CSO statistics – at the height of the boom only 38% of nigerians over the age of 15 were working.
The equivalent figure for Poles ? 84%.

As for illegals in the states, if the yanks want to do us a favour due to our shared history, thats great, but we should be in no way influenced in making our own immigration policy.

You simply cannot offer the benefits of a welfare state – free housing, dole, free medical, childrens allowance to everyone who fancies leaving the 3rd world.

Steve – the hypocrisy stems from the fact that you don’t see demonstrators outside Martin’s office demanding that he stop encouraging a ’soft touch’ on illegal immigrants. You don’t have over 70s medical card like protests at the fact that he is trying to work something out for Irish people in the US illegally. If he were to entertain a Nigerian diplomat on tv doing exactly the same thing for votes back in Nigeria, there would be an uproar. If a John McCain type of Irish law-maker were to suggest anything remotely resembling a work visa program for Nigerians, you would probably have those protests.

That’s hypocritical, isn’t it?

John – I was going to engage you on the Nigerians in prison or working thing, but I’m tired. Instead, let’s forget the Nigerians and focus on the Batswana. Just about every person from Botswana in Ireland is a doctor, student or relative of one of the two. That’s because many Batswana come here for medical training and most stay on for at least a few tears years. There may be a handful of ‘illegal’ Batswana in Ireland. The arguments I’ve raised would apply to them, Indians, and most other non-white immigrant groups.

Michael – the more I learn about other theories of justice, the more attractive Rawls looks. One of the big things in his favour is that focus on rights. I admire his desire to have basic rights established at the outset before things like distribution are entertained.

Hi Bryan,
Thanks for the interesting debate, you must be sick of these immigration debates by now!

And it also unfortunate that highly skilled immigrants like yourself are being tarred with the same brush as the fake asylum seekers.

Anyway to add to that last piece, about the hypocrisy and protests about illegal immigrants, the only protests I can recall are those against deportations of illegal immigrants!!

There have been dozens of protests outside the dail against deportations, remember the one a few years ago where the Justice Minister brought back a Nigerian leaving cert student after street protests, who then used the usual loophole to allow himself to stay!!

Also I can recall one where a Nigerian girl claimed she was afraid of being stoned to death back in her home town in Nigeria, but a journalist looked up her story and found that no-one had ever been stoned to death there, she promptly disappeared when it turned out she had a false name, leaving her supporters looking like mugs!

And we had a case last year when a deportation back to China of recently released prisoners, including a convicted murderer, was protested by the Residents against Racism lads!!

Still the same old Bigots, Ignorants, unexposed and uneducated. Bryan is not even a Nigerian. 11,000 Irishmen & women lives in Nigeria at the moment and majority works in Nigerian’s owned companies earning high wages & living the high lives, they will be very dissappointed to read comments like these from Ignorant brothers and Sisters from Home.