Defenders of the homeland or opponents of racism
Defenders of the homeland or opponents of racism
The presence of Afghan immigrants in Iran has been protested by certain segments of society for decades, and each time defenders and opponents accuse each other of various charges from being traitors to racists. Recently, political and security aspects have also emerged in the debate, with some referring to the political forces’ intention to turn these immigrants into an electoral force.
In the latest statements, accusing Paresto and Ahmadi of being Afghan nationalists was considered a conspiracy to undermine a hypothetical concert project. Although this news was later denied, this tweet indicates that political activists have realized that the presence of Afghans has attracted significant attention from the public, which can be used to influence public opinion.
Among the ongoing debates between nationalists and cosmopolitans, it seems that a less prominent approach is the political-legal perspective.
This claim may need further explanation. When I review the arguments, I get the feeling that the discussions are happening in a void, not in a country called Iran under a government called the Islamic Republic and in a time period of 1400 SH.
The result of this indifference is simply the fact that someone under the guise of human rights says, ‘Are you not human after all? These are humans in need, suffering from war and poverty.’
How can you bring yourself to turn a blind eye while someone else says, ‘A lamp that lights up a home is forbidden in a mosque.’
As long as there is a poor Iranian, why should we host others who benefit from the country’s resources? Some of them find their way back to the grand cultural heritage of Iran or the united Islamic nation and delve into the depths of history and religion to draw conclusions. Afghans are our old brothers and sisters who have sought refuge for their descendants.
Others remember in this same history the invasion of Isfahan by the Afghans and say their hands are soaked in the blood of Iranians. The market is a confused place of loyalty and disorder.
However, what these discussions mainly illustrate in my mind are more ethical observations. They also have more severe implications where matters turn into racial discriminations, with one speaking of absolute goodness and the other of absolute evil.
Despite the fact that a nation cannot be ordered to not have ethical principles, it should not be forgotten that the issue of immigration to Iran for 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 this matter.
They should transparently present them to the public while formulating migration strategies, approve laws based on popular opinions in assemblies, and lawfully deal with those who intend to migrate to Iran.
In Iran, examples of this have been missing for some time, especially in the past two to three years, when the government has been mostly silent and passive towards the entry of Afghan immigrants into Iran.
No reports are provided to the people on what Iran’s immigration policies are towards Afghans, no precise number is given for the legal immigrants, and probably the number of illegal immigrants is not known. These are politically ignorant actions and have no good consequences.
Of course, there are anarchists who do not believe in a homeland or even in the hypothetical political borders of countries. In their view, the whole earth is God’s and a common possession, and there is room for everyone everywhere.
Whoever comes is welcomed happily, but the orbit of relationships in this world is still not in line with the views of the anarchists. Therefore, until further notice, the national borders are what distinguish people politically and legally in the eyes of the world.
Everyone is tightly attached to these borders because they know that any indifference to these imaginary lines can return humanity to the era of 30-year wars in Europe. Therefore, the issue of migration worldwide primarily has a political governance solution.
Look at the United States, Germany, and France. Some of their parties are in favor of open-door policies, while some are in favor of closed doors. Ultimately, based on the people’s preference, each takes a path forward.
