Patriotic Traitors or Racist Opponents
Patriotic Traitors or Racist Opponents
The presence of Afghan immigrants in Iran has been a source of protest from various segments of society for decades, and each time, supporters and opponents accuse each other of various charges, from treason to racism. Recently, however, the discussion has also taken on political and security dimensions, as some claim that political forces are looking to turn these immigrants into an electoral army.
In the latest comments, the Afghan identity of Parastoo Ahmadi was used as a basis to consider the hypothetical concert project a conspiracy. This last piece of news was denied, but this tweet shows that political activists have realized that the presence of Afghans has gained significant public attention, and it can be used to mobilize public opinion.
Amid the ongoing debates between patriots and cosmopolitans, it seems that one approach is less considered, which is the political-legal perspective.
This claim may need explanation. When I review the debates, I get the feeling that the discussions are happening in a vacuum, not in a country called Iran under a government named the Islamic Republic and in the historical context of the year 1400 in the Iranian calendar.
The result of this neglect is the point where one, under the guise of human rights, says, ‘Aren’t you human? These are people devastated by war and poverty.’
How can you turn them away? Another says, ‘Charity begins at home.’
As long as there are poor Iranians, why should we host others who use the country’s resources? Some nostalgically recall the great cultural Iran or the unified Islamic community and delve into history and religion to conclude that Afghans are our old brothers and sisters who have sought refuge with their cousins.
Others, in the same historical context, remember the Afghan invasion of Isfahan and say their hands are stained with Iranian blood. In summary, it’s a chaotic situation.
What these discussions reflect in my mind are more ethical intuitions, with stronger biases where racial judgments come into play, and one speaks of their absolute goodness and another of their absolute evil.
Nevertheless, and although one cannot order a nation not to have ethical intuitions, it should not be forgotten that the issue of immigration to Iran by any non-Iranian human being, meaning anyone who does not have Iranian citizenship, is primarily a political issue, and it is the statesmen who should express their opinion on its details.
They are the ones who should, while formulating immigration strategies, transparently share them with the people, pass laws based on public votes in parliaments, and have a lawful approach towards those intending to immigrate to Iran.
This, however, has been missing in our Iran for some time now, exemplified by the last two or three years, during which the government has been more of a bystander regarding the entry of Afghan immigrants into Iran.
No report is given to the people about what Iran’s immigration policies towards Afghans are, no exact number of legal immigrants is provided, and probably the number of illegal immigrants is unknown. From a political knowledge perspective, these are examples of statelessness and have no pleasant consequences.
Of course, there are anarchists who believe neither in the homeland nor even in the hypothetical political borders of countries. For them, the whole world is God’s land and a shared property, and there’s room for everyone everywhere.
Whoever comes is welcome. Fortunately, however, the orbit of this world does not yet revolve according to the anarchists’ view, and therefore, until further notice, what politically and legally distinguishes the people of the world from each other are national borders.
Everyone clings tightly to these borders because they know that indifference to these imaginary lines could return humanity to the era of the Thirty Years’ War in Europe. Therefore, the issue of immigration everywhere in the world primarily has a political-governmental solution.
Look at the United States, Germany, and France. Some of their parties support open-door policies, while others favor closed doors. Ultimately, depending on public preference, each takes a path.
In Iran, however, neither political factions express a clear opinion on this matter, nor does the government have a declared clear program. The result of all this ultimately becomes the same statelessness, whose prominent examples in politics can be seen first in the presence of illegal immigrants in the country and second in the war of people against people. An issue that, no matter how you look at it, is against interests. 400 years ago, Hobbes considered the most important reason for the existence of the state to prevent this very war of people against people, and the fact that today Iranian society stands against each other regarding Afghan immigration may be due to the possibility that either there is no government in place or its sleep is very deep.