This is a chapter I contributed to a booklet the Evangelical Alliance of Ireland produced called Vote Wisely – a guide to help Christians discuss key issues in our upcoming national elections.
In November 2006 a UK television station, Channel Four, aired a documentary entitled 100% English. Eight volunteers, who considered themselves to be totally English, submitted to DNA tests to determine their ethnic make-up. Viewers watched in amusement as the show’s participants, including Carol Thatcher and Lord Tebbit, discovered that a considerable number of their ancestors hailed from Eastern Europe, Asia, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. One volunteer, a lawyer who is campaigning to have the English recognised as a distinct ethnic group, has since threatened to sue Channel Four because her test revealed her considerable Romany origins.
The fact is that mankind, ever since Noah and his family stumbled out of the Ark, has migrated across the globe in pursuit of an improved life. Individuals, families and tribes have fled the ‘push’ factors (famine, natural catastrophes, war, oppression and poverty) and pursued the ‘pull factors’ (food, peace, liberty and prosperity). For most of human history people have defined their identity in relation to their family, religion or dialect. Continually shifting alliances and empires, combined with migratory movements, meant that an individual could, in one lifetime, easily come under any number of political or national coverings. It was not until the rise of the nation-state in the seventeenth century that people began to define themselves primarily in respect to their nationality.
Even the Israelites, with their unique calling to be distinct and separate, were able to assimilate a surprising number of foreign elements. For example, Moses married a Midianite, Joseph married the daughter of a pagan Egyptian priest, and Rahab and Ruth (a Canaanite and a Moabite respectively) were ancestors of King David. An entire book of the Hebrew Scriptures attributes the survival of the Jews as a people to the fact that an Israelite girl, Esther, married a pagan king in direct disobedience to the Law of Moses.
We tend to look at increased worldwide migration in recent years as a new phenomenon. The truth is probably more that mankind is reverting to its normal pattern of behaviour after a 300 year blip caused by the rise of the nation-state. Politicians found it expedient for people to see themselves as being ‘English’ or ‘German’, rather than defining themselves primarily as a Yorkshireman, a Lutheran, or even a Christian. The idea that those from a particular nation were somehow superior to foreigners encouraged the rise of patriotism. The word ‘patriotism’ literally means ‘of one’s fathers’ – in other words, loyalty to one’s fellow countrymen on the basis of a shared racial origin. It was obviously in the interests of rulers and politicians to encourage patriotism, as a plentiful supply of foot-soldiers willing to die for their ‘fatherland’ gave them the strength to enforce their ambitions against the rulers of neighbouring nations.
Citizenship had, at one time, simply denoted that a resident within a particular political unit possessed certain obligations and privileges. Citizenship was not, in its earliest forms, automatically conferred by birth or ancestry. Thus the apostle Paul was a Roman citizen, even though he was a Jew from Tarsus, while many of the working-class population of Rome were denied that status. However, the emphasis on patriotism in the developing nation-states necessitated maintaining some degree of racial purity. Therefore it became essential for rulers to enforce border controls to reduce the level of foreign contamination. Citizenship became a means of identifying those who were born in the fatherland, descended from those who bore the blood of the fatherland, or a special privilege to be extended to a small group of foreigners who would prove economically or militarily useful to the nation-state.
Of course some nations were more attractive to immigrants than others, because their citizenship conferred greater status and economic opportunity. Other nations, for example those on islands, were more geographically remote. At one stage Ireland was seen as a destination offering the pull factor of economic opportunities. Scottish Presbyterians, escaping the push factors of a harsh climate and a stagnant economy, were geographically adjacent and so flooded into the north-eastern corner of Ireland. However, political mismanagement eventually caused large numbers of these immigrants’ descendants to depart for America, becoming one of the New World’s culturally dominant ethnic groups.
Ireland’s lack of economic opportunity, coupled with its geographical isolation, ensured that for 300 years there would be little or no immigration. Ireland became one of the most mono-cultural and mono-ethnic regions in Europe. Indeed, huge numbers of Irish men and women departed as economic migrants, primarily to North America or Britain. This pattern continued until recent years, when the economic boom of the Celtic Tiger, coupled with a worldwide increase in migration, magnified Ireland’s pull factors to the point where immigration exceeded emigration.
This increase in worldwide migration has several causes. One is the decreasing ratio between the cost of international travel and earnings. For example, early Irish emigrants to North America sold themselves as indentured servants. This form of temporary slavery meant that an emigrant might work unpaid for four, or even seven, years in his new home in return for his passage across the Atlantic. However, modern immigrants to most industrialized nations need only work for one month in a minimum wage occupation to repay the cost of their plane ticket.
A second reason for increased worldwide migration is the all-encompassing reach of modern media. There have always been drastically differing living standards in different parts of the world. However, word-of-mouth reports of the opportunities to be found overseas were never strong enough to motivate more than a tiny minority to run the risks involved in emigration. However, today those who live in the most abject poverty can view magazine photographs and watch an infinite number of television shows that convincingly portray the fabulous wealth and opportunities that other parts of the world enjoy. For this reason alone I believe that migration can only increase for the foreseeable future, possibly becoming the dominant issue in world politics.
A further contributory factor to increased migration has been the erosion of patriotism. As educational standards have increased, more and more people have become aware of the absurdity of believing that one race or nationality is somehow superior to another. Samuel Johnson was ahead of his time in declaring patriotism to be the last refuge of a scoundrel. Years ago would-be Irish emigrants were encouraged to believe that staying at home would be an act of patriotic duty (an argument bolstered by anti-emigration poems such as The Ballad of Noreen Bawn), but today increasing numbers of people are perfectly happy to exchange one passport for another if it results in a better lifestyle.
Ireland’s unique history of emigration has undoubtedly made Irish people more sympathetic to those now seeking to enter Ireland. The kind of xenophobic nationalism manifested in certain UK tabloids is thankfully rare on this side of the Irish Sea. I’ve often heard the observation, “Sure they’re just doing what we ourselves did for centuries.” This has also produced a different concept of nationhood. It is hard to imagine the English rejoicing over George Bush’s English ancestry as the Irish did when John F. Kennedy became US President!
The current wave of emigration into Ireland began in the 1990s. A booming economy was joined to a loophole in the Constitution which, following the Good Friday Agreement, gave anyone born on the island the right to become an Irish citizen. A clause that was composed entirely with Northern Ireland in mind became a pull factor for immigrants. Members of some of our Romanian churches in Dublin used to jokingly refer to their newborn babies as “my Irish Green Card”.
Most of these immigrants were officially asylum seekers, but many, once they received permission to remain in Ireland on account of their Irish children, immediately went on holidays to the same places from which they had fled! The inescapable conclusion is that the system was forcing economic migrants to portray themselves as asylum seekers, since that represented the best way to remain in Ireland.
Today, following the enlargement of the European Union, most immigrants into Ireland are clearly economic migrants and are happy to be recognized as such. Interestingly, a 2006 survey revealed that 70% of the Irish population believe that anyone who wants should be allowed to come into Ireland providing that they work and pay taxes.
I am aware that some people, including Christians, have strong views on the subjects of immigration, race and nationhood. However, as evangelicals we need to distinguish between views based on politics and human traditions and those that are rooted in the Bible as God’s inspired Word. The Scripture is clear that in Christ our racial differences become irrelevant (Galatians 3:28). Our citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20) and the heroes of the faith in Hebrews are described as those who were “longing for a better country—a heavenly one.” (Hebrews 11:16)
Neither should we attempt to use the separation of Israel as a people as a template for any immigration control policy. The principles God applied to the nation of Israel may be transferable to the Church, but to apply them to a modern man-made nation-state is theologically illiterate at best. Indeed, trying to identify any modern national identity with the people of God will only result in racism (as in white supremacist cults in the US) or in idolatry (as in the twin deities of “God and Ulster” that were worshipped on gable walls during my childhood in East Belfast).
I believe that it is morally and intellectually indefensible to argue that someone deserves to enjoy better economic opportunities because they happened to be born in Limerick rather than Lagos. Migration has become an unstoppable force on a worldwide scale, quite possibly because it is, like slavery or segregation, fundamentally a moral issue. Future generations may well judge rich nations’ attempts to restrict access to their resources as a historical aberration comparable to apartheid or the burning of witches.
Many of us who live in wealthier societies do so because our forefathers were lucky enough, or ruthless, to grab resources and exploit others. Today we argue that we cannot allow unrestricted immigration because that would harm ourselves economically. Such an argument is not supported by history – but even if it were, would that make it right? This is akin to shipwreck survivors in a lifeboat preventing the rescue of other survivors, who are drowning, on the grounds that the lifeboat would then become uncomfortable and crowded.
Certainly immigration drastically affects our culture and concepts of nationhood and citizenship. Culture is never static, and the Church, as the salt of the earth, can help ensure that such cultural change is positive. The wave of asylum seekers in the 1990s significantly increased the percentage of evangelical believers in Ireland and helped erode the monolithic Catholicism which treated evangelicals as second-class citizens. To a great extent our reaction to cultural change will depend on whether we are governed by fear or faith. For example, do we bemoan increased Muslim immigration into Ireland as a threat, or do we rejoice at the opportunity given to us to share our faith with people whom no missionary or church could reach in their home countries?
A multicultural Ireland will also change our concepts of nationhood and citizenship. To be Irish will be defined less by patriotism or race and more by choice. To be a citizen will mean to enter into a social contract where we agree to abide by laws and mores in return for the State providing good governance and economic opportunities. Many of us already view citizenship and nationhood in this light. If the State fails to provide good governance, as happened in Germany during the 1930s, then we are perfectly free to emigrate and apply for citizenship elsewhere without feeling that we are somehow traitors.
Ironically government policies have accelerated this looser concept of nationhood. I personally know many immigrants who have applied for Irish passports because it has become the only way for them to continue to live and work here legally. They will continue to think of themselves as Nigerian or Romanian, but the Irish passport is necessary for continued economic advancement. Their citizenship is based on a social contract, not on any shared ancestry or cultural values.
To sum up, immigration into Ireland will continue for the foreseeable future. Such immigration will inevitably modify Irish culture, not necessarily a bad thing. It is perfectly possible that such sustained immigration is compatible with continued economic growth, but even if it were not then I can see no biblical or moral justification for condemning others to live in abject poverty in order to protect our own narrow self-interest.
As evangelicals we should steadfastly refuse to vote for any candidate or party that attempts to pander to racism, xenophobia or patriotism for the purposes of political gain.
