To ensure racial harmony in the future, what canwe learn from the successes and failures of other countries, asks Kate Holmquist
Immigration, if not handled properly, brings with it a host of social problems, such as organised crime, ghettos and disease. So says the inter-govermental International Organisation for Migration (IOM), which was commissioned by the National Economic and Social Council to write the first analysis of the impact of immigration on Irish society.
Making a plan to handle immigration is a process that the Government hasn't even begun, according to the second draft of the IOM report, which is yet to be published but has been seen by The Irish Times.
Following the Canadian model can prevent us getting it wrong and experiencing the social unrest afflicting the UK and France, according to the director of the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism (NCCRI), Philip Watt. He argues that the UK has failed by embracing "multiculturalism", which means allowing ethnic minorities to retain their own identities, their own schools and their own communities. The London tube bombings of last summer exposed the vulnerability of this approach: society at large was ignorant of the hatred fermenting in some closed Muslim communities, where young British people had been reared in a different country, in terms of attitudes and beliefs.
Multiculturalism leads to segregation, according to Prof James Wickham of the sociology department at Trinity College Dublin, because each cultural group can have its own schools, networks and spokesmen. We have a precedent for this already in the State in our education system, which is run by the churches. By this logic, other religious groups must be allowed their own schools, entrenching ethnic groups within their own orbits.
Also a failure is "assimilation", the French model, which requires every citizen - no matter what their ethnic background - to embrace the qualities, characteristics and values of being "French". But for this to work, discrimination has to be stamped out - and the French have not succeeded in this.
"Interculturalism", which Watt says is the approach in Canada, is complete integration of all ethnic and national groups into the society as a whole. It sounds like a halfway house between assimilation and multiculturalism. Watt believes, for example, that the churches are doing a tremendous job of accepting cultural diversity in the schools they run and doesn't see why this should change.
But the IOM states that the Canadian situation doesn't resemble ours. And even in Canada, where their version of interculturalism enjoys high levels of support amongst the public, cracks are beginning to appear. This has occurred even though Canada's system is carefully planned, while ours seems dangerously ad hoc. We had a wave of refugees and asylum seekers, who are still in limbo as a result of the citizenship referendum in 2004, followed by a wave of migrant workers from the EU.
While our remarkable immigration trend has been determined largely by market forces, Canada's admission programme is based on criteria that include age, education, occupation, experience, language ability, association with the country of destination and labour demand. Extensive research has shown that selective immigration results in improved integration outcomes, including stronger labour market performance, lower unemployment and reduced social assistance. By comparison, non-selected migrants, such as refugees and sponsored family members, do not perform as well, the IOM states.
On the positive side, Ireland's recent relaxation of rules on immigration in relation to designated, high-demand occupations will have a "salutary effect on Ireland's ability to meet critical skill shortages and on long-term integration prospects," states the IOM. At the moment, Ireland cannot hope to achieve the success of Canada because Ireland's entry "filters" are designed to admit migrants into low-wage employment, it says.
Aine Ní Chonaill, of the Immigration Control Platform, argues that unbridled immigration, by its very nature, cannot be handled and that problems are inevitable. What concerns her most is that decisions are being made - apart from the citizenship referendum - without public input.
"What I see as the core of the immigration debate is democracy, " she says. "Every other policy is supposed to reflect people's democratic will except immigration. Ironically, it is the only one you can't undo if you get it wrong once people have established themselves."
But we can't turn back now, argues Prof Ferdinand von Prondzysnki, president of Dublin City University. "We have a choice: limit immigration and return to being a backwater of Europe," he says, "or embrace immigration and continue our economic success."