The Nuremberg-style law

national | racism & migration related issues | opinion/analysis

Sunday September 17, 2006 18:03

by diren

The proposed legislation to ‘manage immigration’ has far-reaching consequences, not only for immigrants, but also for Irish society. While the government preaches integration, it is doing everything to undermine it.

The proposed legislation to ‘manage’ immigration is one of the most pernicious pieces of legislation to be proposed in recent times. However, since the citizenship referendum, anything can now be expected from this government. This legislation already looks likely to be met with almost no opposition (rather like the referendum, although it must be said the latter was accompanied by a massive campaign of disinformation). Taken together, the proposed legislation and the amendment to the constitution strangely resemble the two measures announced at the Nuremberg rally on the 15th of September 1935. The Nazis then passed two laws, namely The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour and The Reich Citizenship Law.

Much has already been said about the citizenship referendum, so let’s move. According to Sam Smyth (McDowell’s buddy) in the Indo, the new law will “forbid suspected illegal immigrants or asylum seekers from getting married in Ireland as a basis for their residence.” Well, change “as a basis for their residence” to “purity of German blood is essential to the further existence of the German people” and we have the preamble for the Nazi law. While people will argue that citizenship must be protected from opportunist weddings, it must be asked just how many asylum seekers are getting married. If the numbers are low (and all evidence points in that direction as most people seek asylum to later bring back their families), then just what exactly does ‘protecting citizenship’ mean? And what of genuine marriages if we operate on the basis that some people do get married to access citizenship? In fact, all these do not matter much. The intention of the law is to further deepen the schism between immigrants and Irish people, one more step in the same path laid down by the citizenship referendum.

The provision whereby immigrants will be required to “be of good behaviour generally and obey the law” (Coulter, C. Irish Times 07/09/06) is its racist lynchpin. Basically, this distinguishes between two types of citizens, one who is innocent until proven guilty and another who is always suspected of illegal activities. And thus, by extension, guilty until proven innocent. Though the exact meaning of “good behaviour” has not yet been clarified, it still invites the distinction between two types of citizens.

However, where it will further increase polarisation is in the workplace. Ireland already has coercive laws regulating the right to strike. There have already been many cases of workers jailed under the Industrial Relations Act. If immigrants can be deported for traffic offences, they will be placed under the constant threat of ‘good behaviourism’. Once fear of deportation is induced into immigrants for the least transgression of the law, it is not difficult to imagine what a picket line will resemble. The scenario is too predictable. Irish workers picket their workplace because of unfair conditions. Employer seeks an injunction from the courts. Irish workers refuse to comply, but their immigrant counterparts cross the picket lines for fear of deportation. And out of the window goes any solidarity between workers.

This criminalising aspect of the law is its most important part. If workers cannot display solidarity towards each other, how will the existing divisions over working conditions, mainly pay-related, be dismantled? The proposed law will introduce another element of fear and suspicion between Irish and immigrant workers, further entrenching the two positions. While the government and the corporate media continue to preach integration, unsurprisingly its practice is hypocritical. However, one thing to be noted is that the Department of Justice has already given guarantees that the foreign CEOs of big multinationals will not be deported if caught speeding (Irish Times 08/09/06). On such occasions, it will consider the case individually. Nothing surprising in that. Fat cats must be protected after all.

The last part of course concerns the use of ID cards containing biometric data. The implication for this is far-ranging. In fact, in the light of the data retention laws in Ireland (which allow phone companies to keep details of phone calls for three years), privacy is becoming a precious commodity. This seems to be a prelude before the whole society is asked to carry the same type of IDs. The ‘guilty until proven innocent foreigner’ is being used as a guinea pig in this case. Once this is passed, it is a short step before everyone else is asked to carry their biodata everywhere, at all times. Before that happens, it will leave immigrants to Garda abuse. In the light of the recent demeanours of the force (RTS rally, Morris Tribunal etc.) the law will create another form of institutional racism, whereby immigrants will be summarily stopped and asked to produce IDs, as will be any Irish people who is not white.

But forget the Nuremberg-style part of the law. For campaigners the ‘pragmatic’ (which the right always accuses the left of lacking) side is much more important. Criminalising solidarity among workers will have long-lasting consequences on Irish society. There is enough insecurity in the workplace. No need to add to it. This law pitches migrant against Irish workers. Trade unions have been one of the real democratic forces throughout history, with their unwritten charter of solidarity and mutual aid. The new law seeks to undermine this, strengthening the neoliberal paradigm of competition within the labour movement (which has been somewhat adopted by the unions as they encourage workers to cross the pickets of their colleagues if the issue does not affect them directly) and thus weakening it. The proposed legislation is not of concern to immigrants only, but one for Irish society in general.

save preference

Comments (1 of 1)

Not so simple...

by Shop Steward

Wed Sep 27, 2006 00:23

"Ireland already has coercive laws regulating the right to strike. There have already been many cases of workers jailed under the Industrial Relations Act."

Actually this is not true. The Industrial Relations Acts have absolutely NO provisions which provide for a jail sentence. In fact they don't even create any criminal offence (apart from very minor technical offences regarding registration of trade unions and offences by employers who don't carry out the recommendations of Joint Labour Committees and such)

Nor, contrary to popular opinion, is there any law which restricts the right to strike.(apart fron the Guards and the defence forces but thats another story!) In the absence of legislation, employers have traditionally resorted to the courts to seek injunctions against strikes, industrial action or picketing. Sadly the courts (surprise, surprise!) are often all too willing to comply with the employers wishes. The 1990 Act specifically prevents such injunctions against strikes and industrial action if the union holds a secret ballot and gives the employer one weeks notice. There is also a positive right to picket in the act. Yes, you have to comply with some basic requirements to avail of the legal protections but the 1990 Act was designed to allow trade unions to operate effectively. Unlike the UK legislation which was written deliberately to make it near impossible to conduct a legal strike. And which has remained largely intact after a decade of new labour, ho hum!

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Lockdown Skeptics

The Nuremberg-style law

Comments (1 of 1)