This article originated as a discussion document for the Workers’ Party of Ireland. It has been lightly edited for publication but still retains some phrases that reflect its provenance. It should be noted that it does not constitute a Workers’ Party position, quite the contrary: it is a minority viewpoint and published here as a personal article.
Immigration Discussion Paper
February, 2023
James O’Brien
Introduction
In recent months migration into Ireland has become an issue generating an unusual level of unrest. The catalyst has been the sheer quantity of asylum seekers, the majority of whom hail from the Ukraine, that have settled in Ireland with some 100,000 having arrived since the beginning of 2022. Tens of thousands more are predicted by the government to arrive in 2023.
Given the expansion of the EU in 2004 and Ireland’s refusal to countenance limitations on the numbers from Eastern Europe there is already a high number of people with a migrant background in Ireland. In addition, at lower numbers, there has been consistent immigration from Islamic and Sub-Saharan countries since the late 1990s.
Leading figures from within the Government have recently been flying kites about similar levels of migration being a norm into the future, with minister Roderic O’Gorman supporting the expansion of the criteria for refugee status to include those migrating due to climate change and Joe O’Brien proposing pathways to citizenship for Ukrainians, thereby implying that the vast majority of them will settle here permanently.
The level of immigration into Ireland, its implications for policy and the social unrest arising therefrom, forces us to address the issue directly: what should be the Party’s policy on immigration? This discussion paper aims to initiate a political discussion on the matter.
At a high level, there are two principal alternatives:
(i) Support an open borders policy
(ii) Support a regulated migration policy
There are, as the recent protests illustrate, severe pressures on public services and housing availability, which have been exacerbated by the quantity of migrants. This is a pragmatic reason advanced to reduce and regulate the number seeking to move to the country.
Many on the Irish left argue that these problems can be overcome by an adequate policy of wealth redistribution and therefore oppose restrictions on immigration as not an appropriate solution. In fact, immigration restrictions would be viewed as inherently racist as by their very nature they are aimed at foreigners.
As is often the case, we are faced with advancing policy choices within the actually existing economic system. If we take the approach of refusing to countenance remedial policies because they do not occur in or directly contribute to the establishment of a socialist system we would be reduced to simply calling for revolutionary socialism at every turn. We support wage increases despite aiming for the abolition of the wages system itself. The same approach should apply to immigration.
If we were to accept, say, People Before Profit’s line on open borders and simply taxing the cost out of the wealthy, the question that then follows is “what, if any, limit should there be on immigration?”. For example, should Ireland accept 100,000 every year for the next ten years? 250,000 a year for ten years? And what about further out than ten years?
Two questions arise if such volumes were to occur: 1) would it lead to the collapse of public services and massive social unrest? and 2) would it lead to drastic change of the ethnic make up of the country.
It is not enough, however, to argue from the pragmatic basis that the country couldn’t simply sustain the numbers currently coming in. Why should Irish people receive preferential services over migrants, including the right to live in Ireland? This is a form of discrimination after all. In this case, however, such discrimination is not unwarranted.
There is a case to be made that Irish people should receive priority in Ireland regarding immigration policy, both to preserve their living standards and to ensure that Ireland remains a country for the Irish people.
Unless there is a compelling argument as to why Irish should receive priority there is no basis for refusing any migrant permission to permanently reside here.
—————————————————————————————
The Nation-State and Socialism
Large scale migration raises issues of what constitutes the polity or state in which we envisage socialism becoming a reality. Heretofore, socialism has tended to come to power in national states, and, indeed that was the political expectation of Marx and Engels, as well as Connolly, Lenin and pretty much all early socialists.
The Soviet Union was a multi-national state and although the Russians were the most numerous it was, as Stalin predicted, fractured apart along national lines in the end despite a developing sense of Soviet national identity.
The slightly uncomfortable fact, for many modern progressives, is that the nation state is based on core ethnic groups. It is not simply a propositional form that can absorb an infinite variety and number of foreigners.
Where modern states have tended to evolve away from ethnic conceptions of a nation-state this has occurred because they can take that background for granted. Unlike in the transition away from the semi-feudal monarchies of the early modern era, in which the nation as a nation collectively constituted a revolutionary alternative, the present era has been living with ethnically based states for well over a century. [Not without cost, of course, especially in areas where there is not clear ethnic boundaries, e.g., Germany & Poland, Hungary & Romania, Russia & Ukraine] Nevertheless, the brutal process of history has delivered nation states in Europe which form the basis of a democratic state.
Insofar as nation states have evolved away from placing significant importance on their ethnic identity and have accepted large numbers of migrants from regions of significant cultural dissimilarity, they will exhibit higher degrees of violence, social unrest and ethnic conflict than before. This phenomenon persists across England, France, Sweden, Germany.
It is with the advent of national states or, more often, in the struggle to establish such states on a democratic basis that the class struggle and therefore the socialist movement takes root (See my 2017 article in Thinkleft for a further exposition of same). The difficulty with multi-ethnic states is that the competition for the allocation of resources becomes an ethnic one and one which, when established, can become very entrenched and difficult to overcome. This has applied to Ireland itself in the past, and still does in Northern Ireland). It obviously weakens the workers’ struggle and not for merely the short-term either. The national state provides the basis for mass democratic politics, such as emerged in Europe in the 19th century. Historically, this is an anomaly; the vast majority of states have been multi-ethnic in nature. However, it is rare that they are democratic for any length of time. We should be cautious about abolishing one of the pillars of democratic politics.
Furthermore, if migrants settle in such numbers that they do not assimilate quickly into the native population then a separate ethnic culture will be established and capable of reproducing itself. Islands of multiculturalism will appear and given the ruling class’s propensity to fund anything that can divert from the class struggle it is a sure bet that there will be a good deal of funding for perpetuating these cultures at the expense of assimilation.
It is a fallacy to think that the ruling class in the west are racist. Certainly in the past they had an obnoxious chauvinism but centuries of cosmopolitan cities empire have had their effect. They are international minded, e.g., majority of the senior Tory leaders are not ethnically native English.
The ruling class have no particular qualms about enclaves of Sharia or identity politics. It becomes irritating for them occasionally — few people enjoy a suicide bombing — but its value is in splintering the labour movement and diverting would be socialists into a cornucopia of identity oriented causes that trump other considerations.
Their main concern is cheap labour and a divided workers’ movement. Restricting the supply of labour is an old tactic by trade unions to counter this. If there is a duty on all to reject racist and xenophobic behaviour there is also a duty on foreign workers to not undercut domestic labour. As far back as the 19th century, Marx was writing approvingly of English workers who forcibly attacked employers and imported German workers who were there to work on the cheap. Scabbing is rightly viewed with disdain and migrant labour which undermines social solidarity is likewise unacceptable.
If the ruling class are not personally of a chauvinist disposition they have no particular qualms about using ethnic variety to divide and conquer, only this time the target is Europeans rather than Africans, Asians or native Americans, not in the sense of a military takeover but through immigration, constant propaganda targeting “whiteness” and the promotion of non-Europeans in the media. For historical as well as contemporary reasons this is particularly acute in the USA but, as with many cultural products the dominant capitalist state shows an image of the future to every laggard country. We can expect more of it here in the near future.
Demographic change, in which the core ethnic group of a country forms an ever decreasing share of the population disrupts the possibilities of forming a state with sufficient cohesion that it is able to advance towards socialism.
Ireland, as a nation, emerged from the merger of Gaelic, Vikings, Normans, and the British plantations. Each wave of migrants – in these cases, invaders – takes about 300 to 400 years to integrate such that the country is not riven by ethnic division, which has too often spilled over into outright violence. Indeed, in Northern Ireland the legacy of ethnic division, reinforced by religious sectarianism, remains a scourge to this day. And this involves tribes which are ethnically and religiously extremely close.
The advent of hundreds of thousands of migrants over a short period of time is disruptive to the ethnic fabric of a country, especially a small one. Given the scale of inward migration from Central and Eastern Europe, Ireland has done well to avoid ethnic tensions thus far, although the Ukrainian influx is seriously threatening that. But it is a question of quantity.
While modest levels of migration can be absorbed and the ethnic make up of the country maintained, problems arise when the pace and quantity increases and especially so when cultures are further apart such assimilation becomes much less practicable, as with, for example, Muslims from the Middle East.
If this occurs, the migrants can form self-sustaining communities which can reproduce themselves as ethnic groups for many generations.
One of the achievement of the capitalist mode of production was the forcing into being on a wide scale of national states which erased these tribal divisions. Through it and the often brutal process of proletarianisation petty tribal or intra-ethnic differences were overcome. In Ireland, for example, there was non-stop conflict between the O’Neills, the O’Briens, McCarthys, etc etc. This was only exacerbated with the various invasions from abroad in the following centuries. Similar events occurred elsewhere.
The creation of the nation from these various, albeit closely related, ethnic tribes is a vital waypoint in the development of human societies. The emergence of the nation-state, usually through war (and not just internal economic development), enables the rise of the class struggle as the primary locus of social conflict and therefore progress.
Migration threatens to reintroduce ethnic division into the national states of Europe. Indeed it already has in England and France and is close to doing so in Spain, Italy, and Germany. This is a step backwards.
Migration, then, is not simply an economic question, at least when conceived in straightforward terms such as pressure on housing, the health service, and the labour market. Of course, these are very real and greatly impact people. They naturally colour people’s perceptions of migration. But the issue goes deeper as it affects the capacity of the nation to reproduce itself as a nation and, therefore, the prospects for transitioning to socialism, given the latter requires a state in order to be constructed and the state has historically be constructed on a national basis.
Ethnicity is based on shared history and inter-relationships, that is, the population are related to each other more closely than they are to foreigners. This provides a deep reason for social cohesion, which is of practical relevance to feeling safe on streets, ease of interaction in public situations, and a willingness to make common sacrifices. This is in turn significantly reduces levels of alienation.
Some modern scholars posits nations as purely bourgeois constructs, which arose from the capitalists’ need for a state to create and protect an internal market and, later in the classical imperialist era, to expand its opportunities overseas. While these were factors, they are not the basis for nations, which usually predate the rise of capitalism itself. The various European states at least can be traced to the merger centuries ago of various sub-populations (e.g., the Gauls and the Franks, the Latins and the Lombards etc).
There is a biological basis to the nation which can absorb outsiders if the rate of immigration is at a reasonable level. Nevertheless, given the relative ethnic and cultural proximity — itself usually correlated with the social relations of production — of Europeans it is generally easier to envisage their assimilation than it is for Muslims or Africans.
This is one reason why a European Republic is a feasible goal: the ethnic, historical and institutional background is already there.
National (or ethnic, religious etc) culture emerges historically and is not something that is an unalterable permanent feature of any particular group. But nor is it arbitrary and open to instant change. The long pre-history and the evolution of the various modes of production structures not only social relations but the cultural practices and concomitant physical and psychological traits of a given people. The relatively long and widespread practice of literacy, numeracy, and industrialisation amongst the European peoples has resulted in them developing particular traits as well as their societies evolving towards democratic forms, equality before the law, secularisation etc.
Because of their history, not all societies are at the same level of development or move at the same pace; for instance, until recently Ireland was less industrious, and less timely, than our English counterparts, largely arising due to the different economic structure that underpinned each society. Even after southern independence it took some three generations to bring Irish society up to speed in terms of traits as punctuality and productivity and this is clearly associated with the relative decline in the agrarian nature of society as it progressively urbanised. The concomitant social differences of societies, e.g., such as clerical power, levels of religiosity, the division of labour between the sexes, which, arising from their different positions vis-à-vis the same mode of production, are well known. As Ireland converged with the advanced capitalist states in terms of economic development, these social norms changed.
For cultures starting from a much more distant point than Ireland, i.e., which are still in the process of transition into a capitalist mode of production the differences in the superstructure and the psychology of its inhabitants is still greater. In other words, it is unreasonable to expect the great mass of migrants who originate from cultures that have very different historical experiences to adopt easily to the host culture. At a minimum it takes time as well as effort to assimilate, which in turn requires that their home cultures do not exist in sufficient density that they can simply reproduce a mini-version of their society in Ireland which obviates the need to integrate.
The journey for many countries will not be any shorter than it was for Ireland, and will likely be significantly longer. It should not be forgotten that many cultures affected by imperialism were not even at a feudal stage of social development when they encountered Europeans. Some, like India or China, were at a relatively advanced stage of their own mode of production but which differed greatly from capitalism. Others were still in the early stages of the Iron Age or even in the Stone Age when contact with Europeans occurred. The psychology and social norms of populations vis-á-vis industry, religion & secularism, relations between the sexes etc are inevitably different given these different histories.
Where migration takes place from a country in which there are significant cultural commonalities, e.g., religion, civilisational inheritance and where the mode of production is at a similar level integration and the avoidance of ethnic conflict is more feasible, provided it is not at a scale that undermines the indigenous population. But where it occurs in such numbers as the last year from Ukraine it puts pressure on a host of public services, housing, and competition for labour and sets the stage for the present social unrest .
Capitalism in the age of informal empire.
Capitalism has evolved since its emergence in Western Europe hundreds of years ago. During its rise the feudal aristocracy and absolutist states were superseded by national states; empires that conquered most of the world came and went; nations pursued mercantile tariff strategies and free trade. The modern era is one of informal but very real domination by United States’ imperialism. It has by far the most dominant military and spy apparatus; it controls international finance and essentially can import unlimited goods simply by printing dollars; its cultural influence via Hollywood and its web of NGOs, think-tanks, and paid intellectuals is unparalleled.
Modern capitalism remains an extremely exploitative system; indeed more surplus value than ever is being extracted from workers across the globe. The capitalist class and their layer of professional advocates in the NGOs and think-tanks are not racist or particularly patriotic. Like ruling classes before them, such as Ancient Rome, they have developed a cosmopolitan mentality which feels closer to those of a similar strata irrespective of which country they are from. Quite often they appear to despise the plebs of their own nationality. This is apparent from the attitude of Varadaker, Eamon Ryan and that set.
That rich states attract migrants from less developed ones is a phenomenon that predates capitalism. It presupposes an empire in which such movement is possible, in this case, the American imperium. It renders class opposition to the rulers of the empire very difficult to organise and generally leads to the intensification of exploitation, which is why it is facilitated by ruling classes in different of modes of production.
But if it is a common occurrence historically, it is not a happy one. It not only weakens the proletarian class in the richer country it drains the emigrant country of workers and makes it more difficult for it to develop (and, incidentally to develop a class movement).
The cost of family formation in the advanced capitalist states means that both parents must work to afford a house and a reasonable standard of living. Small families become the norm. Young qualified workers have an incentive to emigrate given the cost of living here. These workers need to be replaced, hence the pressure to import labour. As Marx noted, there is an historical and moral element to the value of labour power; i.e., wages will be higher or lower depending on the past victories and defeats of one’s antecedents, the level of productivity, and the norms associated with a given society.
Introducing masses of workers with a different calibration of what constitutes the appropriate historical and moral element of labour power weakens the unity and strength of the labour movement. Over time that calibration will adjust but in the meantime it prevents the forward march of labour. And, of course, there is never any indication that mass migration will stop. At this juncture there is no reason not to expect millions of migrants into Europe for decades to come and given the different social values they will likely have larger families than the indigenous population. Thus, there will always likely be tension between indigenous (as well as those immigrants who have assimilated) workers and new migrants. It is the objective material conditions and not some supposedly inherent racist attitudes that give rise to this antagonism.
The advantage for capitalists is that the migrant labour will usually be cheaper than the native one (and ethnic differentiation impedes labour organisation). Downward pressure is therefore put on the average cost of labour throughout the economy. In a capitalist economy, therefore, there will be constant pressure to export native labour and import foreign workers. Over decades this has a significant effect on the composition of the ethnic make up of a country.
The more open (neo-liberal) the economy is, in the sense of the major economic decisions are driven by capitalist interests while the State takes a hands off role, the greater this process will be. It requires active State intervention to counter it, and doubly so if it is not to result in a crippling increase in the cost of production.
History does not stand still and new national states are possible: it is quite conceivable, for example, that the by now quite large foreign origin population in England will merge with native one and form an altered national identity. But it will take time and unless migration is slowed substantially it will be difficult to achieve in a harmonious manner.
The same applies to a putative European republic. Our position flows from the reality of modern capitalism and its global reach. In terms of transitioning to socialism, Ireland is in a difficult position given it is so small a state. But the goal of a European Republic — as opposed to any other configuration — was proposed because it fulfilled the essential prerequisites for a state in terms of common history, related ancestry, geographical proximity, level of economic and social development. In other words it was not an arbitrary choice. A European Republic would have to adopt some of the characteristics of a national state itself. But it would also be faced with the migration issue from outside of Europe. There is therefore no avoiding the issue.
====================================
There is no reason to facilitate the creation of ethnic blocks that reduce the percentage of the native population. Just as it right and proper to oppose western domination of Iraq, Syria etc as these countries are entitled to develop according to their own wishes, it is quite reasonable for Irish people to wish to remain a super-majority in Ireland as long as is there is no expansionist mentality that infringes on the rights of other countries.
The famous phrase in The Communist Manifesto that the “working man has no country” was not meant in an anti-national sense. Marx and Engels were not saying that the working class should have no country, merely that they were excluded from the political life of each country in Europe at that time (they could not vote, form trade unions, socialist parties were often illegal etc) so that they effectively had none. The point was for the working class to win the right to vote and participate in the political life of their country and use it to advance towards socialism, i.e. for the working class to become the leading bearer of the nation.
Of course, despite being German patriots, Marx and Engels were not chauvinistic expansionists who wished Germany to dominate other countries. Their opposition to the German ruling class goes without saying and their positive approach towards the national question was replicated down through the socialist and communist movement, from Germany to Ireland, from Cuba to Vietnam. It is a standard socialist position and the recent domination of open borders in the modern left illustrates that Marxism has largely been supplanted as the driving force of these movements.
We, however, remain wedded to Marxism as a philosophical and practical guide, including on the critical role of the state. Given that using State power is critical if society is to transition to socialism, it is essential that historic basis of the basis in a given country — almost always some sort of national or ethnic history — is maintained. If the national cohesiveness is weakened and a country falls into ethnic division then the prospects of utilising the State for socialist purposes is greatly weakened.
The corollary of using the national state to advance socialism is co-operation with other states, that is, internationalism. Socialists reject the chauvinistic nationalism that seeks to aggrandise their own state at the expense of others. Rather we support their independence and attempt to develop links through solidarity and, where appropriate, technological transfer.
This is in great contrast to the modern western (including possibly a majority of the western left) conception of essentially unregulated migration coupled with imperialist domination. It should not be forgotten that many left-wing parties supported the Islamist forces in Syria, the overthrow of Gaddafi, the Neo-Nazis in the Ukraine, amongst others. Modern US imperialism destroys societies, which incentivises people to migrate, which in turn weakens the European states and, most of all, the labour movement. The mainstream of Marxism, unlike many on the left, consistently opposed this imperialism and must continue to do so, notwithstanding the annual bouts of hysteria from the media and online leftists at the continuing existence of Russia and Syria, Putin and Assad.
The migration consequences of both capitalist globalisation and its thuggish sidekick of western, principally American, imperialism should not be borne by the indigenous people in other countries. It is necessary for each country to resist its absorption into the empire, which is likely to lead to its long-term dissolution.
Demographic change — the alteration of the ethnic makeup of a country — is a real phenomenon. Liberals like to call it a conspiracy theory but the meaning of that phrase is ambiguous in that it sometimes just means a “false theory” while at other times it means “something is happening but in a spontaneous way, not in a planned way”. In Western Europe there is an ongoing demographic shift, away from the indigenous nationalities and towards migrants from the Islamic world and sub-Saharan Africa. The native English and French are likely to be minorities in England and France by the end of the century at the latest. Should it continue, it will be a profound and permanent change in world culture.
Further, The demographic reality of Africa is such that there will be some 3 billion people there within 30 years. In the absence of significant economic development many will look to migrate to Europe. If only 10% do so that amounts to 300 million. In such a scenario, Europe would no longer be European while African countries could well suffer from such an exodus, even if the depredations of western imperialism could be dealt with.
Earlier the question of what would be acceptable quantity of immigrants to accept: 250,000 for ten years, i.e., 2.5 million? But given the numbers who would migrate if they could and if there is no limit on our part on as to who can settle here, then what reason is there to restrict immigration to 2.5 million? Ireland is relatively underpopulated compared to, say, the Netherlands or England. Perhaps we could accommodate 10 million immigrants from outside of Europe, which would still leave us with less people than Holland.
Certainly it would lead to a massive decrease in the quality of life of the indigenous population and, indeed, the cessation of the Irish nation as a nation but unless we explicitly accept that the that for socialists in Ireland that our priority is Irish people we have no basis for refusing to accept such numbers for, while it may be a worse life for the Irish it will likely be a vast improvement for migrants from sub-Saharan Africa.
To summarise, a policy of regulated migration is essential if Ireland is to cope with social unrest and possibly to ensure its long-term existence as a country for Irish people. The existence of the Irish nation is a just objective so long as it does not entail robbing other countries. National states are also key tools in the development of socialism. The effective abandonment of national states (not just in Ireland, but across Western Europe) would not advance the cause of socialism one iota. It will entrench ruling class power for many generations as ethnic divisions put down deep roots.
Socialists, then, should oppose any policy which effectively means open borders. This means that the current asylum policy must be changed as it has become a loop hole through which unregulated migration occurs. It is not feasible for the billions who are unhappy with their home country to migrate to the more developed states and for those states to survive. The individual right to asylum must be balanced against the collective right of the receiving country to ensure its own survival and reproduction. The obligation to assist others cannot come at the expense of the existence of oneself.