Traitors of the Homeland or Racist Opponents
Traitors of the Homeland or Racist Opponents
The presence of Afghan migrants in Iran has been a subject 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, the discussion has also taken on political and security dimensions, with some suggesting that political forces aim to turn these migrants into an electoral army.
In the latest comments, the Afghan identity of Parastoo Ahmadi was used as a basis to consider the project of a hypothetical concert as a conspiracy. This last news was denied, but this tweet indicates that political activists have realized that the presence of Afghans has attracted significant public attention and can be used to mobilize public opinion.
Amidst the ongoing debates between patriots and cosmopolitans, it seems that one approach is receiving less attention, which is the political-legal perspective.
This claim might need some 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 a historical period of 1400 AH.
The result of this neglect is the point where one, under the banner of human rights, says, ‘Aren’t you humans after all? These are people devastated by war and poverty.’
How can you turn them away? Another says, ‘A lamp that is suitable for the home is forbidden for the mosque.’
As long as there are poor Iranians, why should we host others who use the country’s resources? Some reminisce about the great cultural Iran or the united Islamic nation 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 history, remember the Afghan invasion of Isfahan and say their hands are stained with Iranian blood. In short, it’s a chaotic market.
However, what these discussions reveal to me are more moral intuitions, with more intense aspects where it leads to racial judgments, and one speaks of their absolute goodness and another of their absolute badness.
Nevertheless, and although you cannot command a nation not to have moral intuitions, it should not be forgotten that the issue of migration to Iran by any non-Iranian, meaning anyone who does not have Iranian citizenship, is primarily a political issue, and it is the statesmen who should comment on its nature and quality.
They are the ones who should, while formulating migration strategies, transparently share them with the people, pass laws based on public votes in parliaments, and have a lawful confrontation with those who intend to migrate to Iran.
This, of course, has been missing in our Iran for some time, exemplified by the past two or three years where, in response to the influx of Afghan migrants to Iran, the government has been mostly silent and merely a spectator.
No report is given to the people about what Iran’s migration policies towards Afghans are, no accurate number of legal migrants is provided, and probably the number of illegal migrants 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 supposed political borders of countries. From their perspective, 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’s relations does not yet turn 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 is clinging to these borders because they know that indifference to these imaginary lines can return humanity to the era of the Thirty Years’ War in Europe. Therefore, the issue of migration everywhere in the world has a political-governmental solution first.
Look at the United States, Germany, and France; some of their parties support open-door policies, and some support closed-door policies. Ultimately, depending on the people’s preferences, each takes a path.
In Iran, however, neither political factions express a clear opinion on this matter, nor does the government have a clear declared program. The result of all this ultimately becomes the same statelessness, whose clear examples in politics can first be seen in the presence of illegal migrants in the country and second in the war of people against people, a matter that, however you look at it, is against interests. 400 years ago, Hobbes considered the main 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 migration can be due to either the absence of a government or their deep slumber.
