By Shane Flanagan
Donald Trump’s latest actions in regards to the (supposedly temporary) banning of incoming refugees from Syria have once again highlighted the perilous plight of those seeking refuge from war and persecution throughout the globe. The right to asylum is a valid right for anyone who may find themselves in such an unfortunate quandary and civilised nations should do what they can to uphold this tenant of civilised law. As I have previously outlined, I am against the actions Trump, and previously Obama, has taken. Hopefully, it is a temporary measure. However, I believe that this highlights the wider issue of how the idea of people genuinely seeking refuge has become degraded by those seeking to dissolve the idea of the nation-state by those on the Left.
I no longer seek to discuss the issue of national borders with regards to their purpose and effect with those who are dogmatically Left-wing in thought. To do so would be a waste of time as in my view as those whom I have encountered who have held these views seem to have little concern with logic, facts or common sense. Their desire to see a borderless utopian world which would see the dissolution of the nation-state blinds them to the dangers and far-reaching consequences that such a thing could and indeed in some cases has concurred. In the case of Britain, such issues prompted Brexit in which the EU have lost a valuable economic and political partner largely over a dispute relating to the idea of free movement. Such is the allure of this ideal that Europe has now entered a period of great uncertainty.
It appears to me that the British people were right to be wary of the idea of mass immigration and the effects with which it can have on their country. However, how much at fault for this the EU actually is is a more complex debate. Quite clearly as evidenced by events in America and Britain, the idea of mass immigration is now viewed with much suspicion. To say the least, I am also wary of this philosophy. However, we must differentiate between what the reasons actually are for these mass migrations of people. In the case of immigration, people are motivated by cultural and economic reasons and that differs greatly to the case of those genuinely seeking asylum. The problem is that the Left has long since stopped seeing these two different motivations as being actually different. These are now merely viewed as side effects of the great sway of globalisation. I have no idea what this much-utilised term means in actuality and now believe it to be a mere buzz word used by those on the Left instead of having to actually refer to the idea of mass immigration itself which of course would be tricky. Lucid language is so often the first casualty of ideology.
The problem with the mass immigration ideal is that like most things it has its good points and bad. Most who hold to Left-wing ideals don’t have to see or deal with the drawbacks. Not many who pontificate about global socialisation from the Trinity Arts Block come from working class homes, and those that do are ideologically blinded (Sinn Fein). As the French and British have found out, ghettoisation and Religious/ Cultural differences are hard to negotiate within the one state. This is the schizophrenia state of Left-wing dogma, which of course is largely atheist. Religious freedom is an ideal in their philosophy, yet, not all religions are overly concerned with such an ideal. That’s the tricky thing about philosophies that think they have the monopoly on God, the Universe and everything else. The logical implication of having such a multicultural society is that of political stagnation, which is by itself dangerous. Political schisms aren’t often conducive to social progress.
As I’ve said before, I believe wholeheartedly in the right to claim asylum. As a civilised nation we should uphold this ideal, yet the hucksterism employed by many in making bogus claims of asylum is very damaging as it makes the public wary of anyone who genuinely needs asylum in Ireland. As for those on the Left, particularly the extreme wing, their fixation on eroding our borders is just simply illogical. They confuse the idea of right to refusal with that of blatant racism. This is most certainly not the case. Asylum and immigration is one and the same to them and they have little thought of the effects that such thinking could have for our country. Yes, we want to help solve global crises and export our democracy around the world. The solution is not to invite everyone to live here in our country of limited resource with many domestic problems but to use our diplomacy and democracy as an example to others. We could also object to the actions of our allies in continually destabilising whole regions of the Middle East through their endless “War on Terror”. Did those who object so strenuously to anything that Trump does object as hearteningly when NATO under Obama foolishly intervened in Libya thus partially creating the large tide of refugees who now flock to Europe, with many drowning namelessly and forgotten in coffin ships in the Mediterranean? We must use our minds as the tools of our compassion, and not allow ourselves to blinded so easily by our hearts as we have so easily been.
If you want to keep up with our work here at The Navigator, try these on for size;