On initial scrutiny, the most informative aspect of last week's Irish Times/MRBI poll on public attitudes to immigration was its revealing snapshot of public hypocrisy. While 60 per cent of those surveyed believe we should be more generous "to refugees and immigrants in view of our own history of emigration and our current prosperity", 74 per cent think refugee numbers should be "strictly limited", and 42 per cent think only refugees qualified to fill specific job vacancies should be admitted.
This invites a question: what form of "generosity" do those who answered the first question in a manner apparently sympathetic to "refugees and immigrants" have in mind, while simultaneously believing numbers should be "strictly limited"? More comfortable holding cells? Or first-class travel on their way home?
But glib observations do nothing to address what appears to be sincere public confusion. In truth, the poll tells us little, as the confusion of terms such as "immigrant" and "refugee" renders the poll findings somewhat meaningless. The poll does tell us a great deal, however, about the nature of our discussion about immigrants and refugees.
The immigration issue is now threatening to overtake unwanted pregnancy as the great liberal bullworker of "modern" Ireland. Few issues have the same capacity to enable liberals to flex their morally superior muscles, to pretend compassion and concern for humanity while inviting not an iota of responsibility for the consequences of their stated views.
Anyone who risks giving voice to the undoubtedly widespread public fears on this issue volunteers to become a liberal whipping-boy, enabling commentators and politicians to present themselves in a flattering light by yelling "racist". (Note that it is never necessary for the liberal Don Quixote demonstrably to hold views contrary to those he attacks, still less to have alternative perspectives or solutions to offer; all that is necessary is that he be convincing in his piety and "right-thinking".)
We have travelled less far than we imagine since the days of giving pennies to the black babies. The mirror-image of the bigotry which seeks to exclude because of skin-colour or origin is the pseudo-humanitarianism which seeks to consign immigrants and asylum-seekers to the role of objects of alleged liberal compassion.
LAST week's poll exhibited this syndrome eloquently. The question of whether we should "take a more generous approach than at present to refugees and immigrants in view of our own history of emigration and our current prosperity" is reflective of liberal piety - a have-you-stopped-beating-your-Filipina-maid? type of question.
The phrase "more generous" is heavily loaded with pseudo-moral connotations, as is the placing of our obligations to immigrants in the contexts of our own historical experience and our (my italics: all of us?) "current prosperity". This contrasts strongly with the decidedly more raw, factual nature of the questions about whether only those with appropriate qualifications should be admitted and whether numbers should be "strictly limited".
An interesting aspect of the result was that Fianna Fail supporters were much more "generous" in their responses than Labour or Progressive Democrat supporters; this is because Fianna Failers, by virtue of being stigmatised as reactionary by definition, must advertise their modernity at every opportunity, whereas followers of the other parties feel confident that their liberal credentials will be accepted at face value. We know PDs do not beat their maids.
What does "strictly limited" mean, anyway? Is it different to "limited"? Far from being a facetious question, this underlines the true nature of liberal hypocrisy on this issue.
We do not have a multiplicity of possibilities as to how we deal with immigration. I believe we have three: declare Fortress Ireland; throw open our doors to all-comers; or formulate a policy based on absolute numbers of immigrants. (We do not have the option of placing limits on the number of asylum-seekers who come here.)
Virtually nobody is proposing either of the first two approaches; so the solution, by general agreement, resides in deciding roughly how many people we are ultimately prepared to accommodate. But this is the one aspect which liberals are not prepared to confront: they prefer the pretence of the vague suggestion that immigration is a "good thing".
It shouldn't be all that difficult. Are we prepared to admit, say, half-a-million people under various categories? "Oh, don't be ridiculous," comes back the liberal riposte. All right then: five. Sorry? Five immigrants "Oh, now you're being facetious again". No I'm not, but at least we've established that you believe the final figure should be somewhere between five and 500,000.
OK, how about splitting the difference: 250,003? Is that still ridiculous? And so on, hopefully to some kind of conclusion. This approach, I guarantee, will either very quickly being us to an approximate idea of how many immigrants we believe we should take, or finally lay bare the extent of our hypocrisy.
EXERCISING the standard liberal irresponsibility, I might suggest that, if we want to see this as a "moral" question, we have no option but an open-door policy. There is no other way of dealing morally with the issues raised by immigration in the context of our own past history and our alleged present prosperity.
But those who say that the consequences of this for the character of our society would be enormous are absolutely right, and such a choice would need to be preceded by a truthful and comprehensive public debate, free of bullying by those of either pluralist or purist complexions. (I do not believe, incidentally, that it would turn Ireland into a "multi-cultural society"; the nearest example of a society such as this is in Britain, where the alleged "multi-cultural co-existence" is achieved largely by the avoidance of eye-contact.)
Even if it were not already too late, Fortress Ireland is not an option, although it would certainly be more principled than the notion of an upper limit. At least those who advocate it have the courage of their convictions.