The Irish government should listen to a real expert on migration and not Ronit Lentin. Certainly not Rosanna Flynn or Shaheed Satardien.
We thank Alessandra Buonfino for the attention she devotes to our work The Silent Invasion, even though she says that “this text would under normal circumstances not merit discussion”. In a way she is right, in the sense that a normal situation would have made the book redundant. Therefore, I assume she agrees that we do not live under “normal circumstances”.
In her review Alessandra Buonfino levels so many unfounded accusations and incorrect statements, that it’s impossible to refute all of them in a brief reply: all the more so if we consider that we address the issue of immigration from different, perhaps even incompatible, angles.
But it is vital to clarify a preliminary point. We say very clearly at the start of our book that we oppose uncontrolled immigration, not immigration as such. Each state has the sovereign right to protect its borders and regulations, which must be respected, and allow entry only to foreign people of its own choice. There is no such thing as the unlimited right to immigration. Whenever immigrants illegally enter another country, they show a fundamentally disrespectful and anti-democratic attitude by imposing their un-requested presence, in much the same way as a stranger who breaks into a private house commits an offence. There are surely exceptions, for example refugees, but we must not forget that “the abuse does not remove the use”.
But only a tiny minority of those immigrants who flow into Italy each year would appear to be real refugees; the overwhelming majority are people who, on their own account, have simply decided to leave their countries and settle elsewhere for a better life. This is perfectly legitimate, but ought to be pursued by following the rules set by the host country, however complicated and time-consuming this may be. Dura lex, sed lex (the law is harsh, but it is the law), the Latin dictum goes. Moreover, “true charity starts at home” is a maxim that ought always to be borne in mind – especially since all countries’ (and Italy’s in particular) economic resources are limited.
We have been accused of having produced an “ideologically motivated” book. Nothing is farther from the truth. We may be accused of having stated the obvious, but there is nothing ideological in plain, good common sense. On the contrary, the opposite is true: those who are upholding the idea that uncontrolled immigration ends up benefiting the country which is enduring it, are themselves pursuing an ideological agenda which is based on a wishful thinking, a utopia. And we all too well know what human and material losses were produced, and are still produced, by certain utopias born of the 20th century!
However well-intentioned, the advocacy of uncontrolled immigration is also a contradiction in terms: how can an uncontrolled process produce a good outcome when this is normally and precisely the end result of something which is under control? Unless you are God (since only God can get good out of bad), the most likely result of any such uncontrolled process is chaos (at best), and all that goes with it.
So, for any debate on immigration to be fruitful, constructive and well-grounded, a prerequisite is agreement on a principle: that uncontrolled immigration is unacceptable. If you want to call this a ready-made answer, that is all right. But for the rest, we are surely open to discussion as to how truly legal and controlled immigration can best be put to good use.
We also stand accused of fearing the increasing influence of Islam through its immigrants. But why should we be blamed if we take seriously the words of Muslim leaders themselves? After all, this increasing influence has already started with petrodollars, which are not used to create jobs in the poor countries of North Africa and Middle East, but to build mosques and cultural centres in the (former) Christian (or non-Muslim) countries targeted by Islamic immigration – including Rome, the centre of Christianity.
If we say that the ambitious or aggrandising statements of Muslim spokespersons are disturbing, our concern is reprimanded as (at least) “exaggeration”, whereas these authors are highly unlikely to be ever criticised as arrogant or intolerant. (For an enlightening insight on the differences between western and ideological Islamic societies, see Caroline Cox and John Marks, The ‘West’, Islam and Islamism: Is ideological Islam compatible with liberal democracy? (Civitas, 2003).
Alessandra Buonfino aptly cites the case of Adel Smith, which sheds light on a mindset very far from a western one. To be more precise, Adel Smith was at the forefront of Muslims in Italy calling for the removal of a fresco from a Bologna cathedral which they deemed offensive to their prophet Mohammed. Evidently, they are disturbed by the very existence of any non-Muslim religious symbols. The underlying logic is the same as that of the Taliban in Afghanistan, who dynamited the gigantic Buddhas in Bamiyan.
The alarm in this regard was sounded by Corriere della Sera in a front-page editorial (11 September 2003) on “The Shadow of Al Qaeda among illegal immigrants”, which quoted intelligence reports cautioning about accords between “Islamic terrorism and trafficking of illegal immigrants”. The British prime minister Tony Blair (and I am by no means a Blairite, simply acknowledging the truth irrespective of its origin) echoed this concern in his speech on 5 March 2004 denouncing “fanatics who will stop at absolutely nothing to cause death and destruction on a mass scale”. What happened in Madrid is a sharp reminder of this danger, and a sufficient argument for tight control on immigration to be applied. Where is the “exaggeration”?
We have no objections to the remarkably balanced way the chairman of Migrationwatch UK, Andrew Green, addressed the dangers and risks posed by uncontrolled immigration (Telegraph online, 24 February 2004) – a view that makes good sense to us. Would you call him a racist – leaving aside the fact that immigrants cannot be categorised as a “race” – or a xenophobe? Certainly not, and neither am I (my wife is a Finn).
To sum up, curbing illegal immigration would both make life difficult for actual and potential terrorists and substantially curtail dangerous activities that illegal immigrants engage in. These include, as recently reported in the Corriere della Sera (29 February 2004) and Repubblica (17 March 2004), drug and human trafficking and so-called “petty” crimes such as credit card fraud. Again, there is nothing ideological in this – merely common sense. But if, after all this, you insist that borders be broken down and floodgates opened wide for everybody to come in – and ultimately for Koranic, sharia law to replace the Christian-based rule of law; well, that will be “not in our name”!
No comments:
Post a Comment