One of the many legacies of the Great European War of 1914-1989 was that political or moral certainty of any kind became deeply unfashionable, writes Kevin Myers.
Scores of millions died because of the various -isms which consumed the birthplace of world civilisation: imperialism, nationalism, communism, racism, fascism, and Nazism.
Free Europe is an American creation; and under that protection and for fear of -isms, we have generally eschewed any clear vision of ourselves. This is understandable, considering that so many identities, most recently in this country, were for so long defined -isms' death-squads. So, Europe has tended to confine discussion over identity to an amiable babble about inclusion and tolerance. Anyone who began a conversation which expressed concerns about the long-term consequences of immigration has been pooh-poohed to the door, which was then shut firmly behind them.
But the hour is late, and it is surely time to wonder what is going on. However, I will repeat the usual pieties one has to incant when one talks on this subject in this country, not merely because they are in part true, but also for the good of my health. Unless one appends garlands of sanctimony over any dissent from the right-on crowd, their lynch-mob is waiting to kick you to death.
So I will admit that immigration is usually a good thing, and that immigrants are usually of benefit to their host country, et cetera et cetera et cetera. This is the rogation of modern piety, and like most rogations, it is pretty meaningless. Ask the Berbers of Morocco their opinions of the Arab immigrants who changed their country. Ask the Maoris a slightly different question. Ask the Fijians about the ethnic Indians who now dominate the commercial life of their country. Ask the Bushmen of the Kalarari about the Xhosa who exiled them to the desert. Best of all, ask the Hurons and the Choctaws what they think about immigration to their country. If you can find any, that is.
Prof Ferdinand von Prondzynski of Dublin City University declared last weekend that people of Irish ethnic origin could be a minority in this country by 2050. He seems to have been rather cheery about it all, as befits a good modern European, implying that a sense of tribal identity is a disposable relic of the 20th century. Large-scale immigration, he added blithely, was essential if we are to remain prosperous.
Possibly. But one thing large-scale immigration does not do is create social cohesiveness, and without social cohesion, what use is prosperity? Britain has already had the experience of large-scale immigration, and with mixed results. An informal system of apartheid has come into existence: the much ridiculed Essex girl is no more than the Cockney who has fled the capital for whiter zones.
One fifth of all babies born in Britain have foreign-born mothers. In half-a-dozen cities, the figure is over 30 per cent. This does not take into account the births to British-born mothers of immigrant origin, which in places such as Bradford, Leicester, Luton and Slough would mean that a clear majority of births are to people of clearly foreign stock.
And of course, this kind of thing has happened before in Britain. Liverpool was transformed religiously and dialectally by Irish immigration, yet few if any modern Liverpudlians - with names like McMenamin, Rooney or Murphy - would regard themselves as anything other than English. But that's today. For the best part of a century, the city was divided between English orange and Irish green, with two football teams representing the different tribes.
So inter-communal harmony can be difficult to achieve, even between people who are racially and religiously similar - hence Freud's "narcissism of small differences". Consider the lethal yet almost non-existent linguistic division between Croat and Serb, which largely hinges on having two different words for bread. Moreover, the professor's name provides a congenial harbour for both Pole and German - but both elements could tell you a tale or two about ethnic difference: in their case it is spelt "Gdansk", or if you like, "Danzig", with centuries of conflict therein.
Within the polyglot, multi-ethnic mix of his thesis, the Chinese will be the largest of the new ethnic groups in Ireland by 2050. To judge from the Lost and Found section of this newspaper, unconscionably large numbers of Chinese people are contriving to "lose" their passports on arrival. Or is this just a ploy to conceal the fact that they arrived here illegally?
The enormousness of the changes this country is undergoing is being lost in the furore over individual cases, so it is both humanitarian and politic for the Minister to allow hard-working, law-abiding youngsters who have made their home here to remain. But that doesn't mean our tongues should be tied on the broader issues of bogus asylum seekers and immigration. Do we actually want to bequeath to the grandchildren of today's young Irish married couples the status of being an ethnic minority in their own country, as suggested by Ferdinand von Prondzynski?
Immigration is a good thing only if it is controlled, and it can only be controlled if first it is discussed, honestly and openly. But there's a fat chance of that happening with the Oireachtas full of strutting TDs and senators who make a daily show of parading their morally superior credentials, aided by a backing chorus of mountebank braggarts in the media who can be relied on to denounce as racist those who are merely trying to be both honest and realistic.