Has partition saved democracy in Ireland?

MT

We all know how much Northern Ireland has failed as a democracy. Most Nationalist and Republican thinking attributes this deep societal flaw to the consequences of partition. Had there been no division of an entirely independent island, an all Ireland democracy would have evolved.

I broadly agree with the first part of this outlook. It was much more likely than not that a tribally divided North would in the long run succumb to the ethnic one-upmanship, violent civil strife and democratic failure so depressingly common in other communally splintered parts of the globe. However, the vision of an island wide democracy enjoying peace and harmony is a fantasy – albeit a commendable one – that would never have materialised IMO. Indeed, it’s my contention that cleaving off the region that was destined to suffer democratic collapse from the rest of the island saved stable government in the south.

Had all of Ireland been cut adrift and lumped together, a disastrous civil war of far greater length than that which took place in the 20s would likely have been the result. Just think for a moment about the nature of Irish society in the early decades of the 20th century. Though outnumbered by about 5 to 1 Protestants accounted for the lion’s share of Ireland’s wealth, while those in the Northeast controlled most of its industry. It’s remarkable to think that well after the Second World War the small minority of Southern Protestants still held 60% of the Republics wealth. Just think how lopsided the figures would have been had the industrialised Northeast been included from the outset. So, despite Nationalist Ireland’s numerical strength, the economic power to sustain a prolonged military campaign with supplies and munitions would have lain very much with the opposing camp. At best a bloody and draining stalemate would have been the painful outcome – absolutely disastrous for the emergence of a stable liberal democracy. Just look at how determined well-armed minorities have kept civil wars raging for decades in Africa. The nascent roots of a democratic civil society would have been smothered in a nation wracked by unceasing conflict.

If anyone believes this to be nothing more than alarmist historical claptrap, just look at war torn Africa. Where borders were drawn to include more than one ethnic group endless societal schism has been the result. Tribal warfare has become endemic, rendering any chance of stable democracy impossible. Even where there is some semblance of peace communities have divided into their ancient factions and vote according to ethnic advantage. What African countries desperately need is a wholesale realignment of national borders – partition, in effect – so that states and tribal groupings no longer overlap. This might be the only hope for long term stability and democracy. Would there have been genocide in Darfur had Sudan been partitioned along ethno-religious lines? Not unless the people of the region had decided to butcher themselves.

Just compare the flowering of liberal democracy and the stability of the Irish Republic with the internecine feuding and bloodletting in the likes of Northern Ireland, Africa, the Balkans and the Middle East. As one of the world’s longest continually existing democracies, the harmony of the Republic stands in stark contrast to places where hostile peoples have been corralled together into one state.

Isolating a crisis ridden and now almost schizophrenic region from the rest of Ireland was a harsh measure but IMO it undoubtedly safeguarded democracy in the south.

But why is partition viewed in such a dim light in the very place that prospered as a result of it?

I think there are a number of reasons. Foremost amongst them is that Britain imposed it. Nationalist Ireland was given little or no choice in the matter, seeing it as yet another grievous humiliation foisted upon the country by the hated colonial power. Furthermore, the divide wasn’t even remotely fair. The British government, failing to act as an honest broker between the two sides, favoured Unionism from the outset. With the chair of the border commission sympathetic to Ulster unionism most of its demands were assented to. Tricked and betrayed, a large and growing minority of Nationalist Catholics was left in a cold and alien state. In many ways, the anger and, to some extent, guilt of southerners with regard to those ‘left behind’ has kept alive a desire to grant them the birthright they were denied from the outset. To add to these feelings of indignation at another cruel insult by perfidious Albion was the view that Britain had attempted to cling unto as much of its former imperial power in Ireland as it could.

An intense dislike of Unionism and the view of Unionists as at best treacherous Irishmen and at worst implanted foreign colonials also added to the unease. Granting these Orange interlopers their own state was tantamount to a reward for the hated colonial plantations. This was legitimising the presence of those with no right to be here. 'Unionists should put up or go home'.

There was also an element of the Northern disease of ‘if they’re for it, we’re agin it’. Partition was ushered in by British power and supported by Unionism. How the hell could any Irish patriot not set himself against it? If the enemy’s for partition, we’re for unity, so to speak.

I think another source of discontent is idealism and the influence of historic mythology. There was a conviction – probably reinforced by the success of democracy in the south as opposed to communal fragmentation in the north – that an all-Ireland state would surely have worked. There was a strong belief - though based more in hope than expectation - that Ulster Protestants would see sense and warm to a united Ireland in time.

The ideas promoted during the 19th century Gaelic revival have since taken a strong hold in the national psyche. The people had once lived a free and harmonious existence for centuries until that mildly turbulent age of Celtic innocence was shattered forever by crushing English oppression. It was held as the entire island’s birthright to return once again to that largely mythical golden age.

I suppose too, there has been an attachment to one last grievance. A desire to say, ‘look they wronged us for an eternity, and still our suffering continues.’ The Ireland of martyrs must live on. Indeed, maybe the North is the scar that allows some to fulfil a need to maintain the ancient animus against the Sassenach.

These often emotional arguments may have taken root but I feel partition could well have been misjudged. Though concocted by what was then a ruthless imperial power with little regard for the Irish and only contempt for their nationalism, partition has ironically turned out to be a blessing in disguise. Originally designed to shore up Unionism in a gerrymandered statelet while discarding as much of ‘rebellious’ Nationalist Ireland as possible, it’s the latter’s descendants who’ve enjoyed the greatest benefits. The legacy of Craig and the Ulster home rule movement is a fissiparous tribal powder keg. Self-governance and genuine democracy remain a forlorn hope in Northern Ireland. Instead, a Balkanised society has emerged with two tribes locked perpetually in a bitter internecine struggle. In sharp contrast to this glaring failure, it is the Irish Republic that stands as a shining example of stability, prosperity and democracy.

Dare I say it, but long may partition, democracy and prosperity continue.

Macmorris

MT wrote:

There was also an element of the Northern disease of ‘if they’re for it, we’re agin it’. Partition was ushered in by British power and supported by Unionism. How the hell could any Irish patriot not set himself against it? If the enemy’s for partition, we’re for unity, so to speak.

You've left out the most important reason. The reason most Irish people were opposed to partition was simple, because it meant that there country would be divided.

oscarBravo

Macmorris wrote:

The reason most Irish people were opposed to partition was simple, because it meant that there country would be divided.

Didn't "most people" vote for the treaty?

MT

Macmorris wrote:

You've left out the most important reason. The reason most Irish people were opposed to partition was simple, because it meant that there country would be divided.

I don't think I have, surely the following paragraph reflects that sentiment:

The ideas promoted during the 19th century Gaelic revival have since taken a strong hold in the national psyche. The people had once lived a free and harmonious existence for centuries until that mildly turbulent age of Celtic innocence was shattered forever by crushing English oppression. It was held as the entire island’s birthright to return once again to that largely mythical golden age.

I think I should state that I in no way feel that partition was a perfect solution. It was indeed a painful division of a country the vast majority of people felt should remain as one. However, the main thrust of my first post is that though partition is anathema to many and undoubtedly not a solution anyone would chose in a perfect world, it was a necessary evil to ensure democracy flourished in the south.

I'm convinced that partition has rarely been looked upon in an objective light. Instead it has been judged with the appalling way in which it was imposed and the sinister intentions of the British at the time foremost in mind. My contention is that inspite of the malicious intent - and setting aside genuine grievances - partition can be seen as having resulted in an ironic but vital benefit. It has protected Southern democracy by acting as a bulwark against the tribalism and civil war that has ravaged the north and so many other ethnically fractured parts of the globe.

I feel the idea that a stable all Ireland democracy could have been easily achieved but for partition is simply a fantasy. Commendable, yes but unachievable. The choice from the outset of independence was never one between a 26 county democracy or a 32 county democracy but the much more stark reality of a sustainable democracy in what became the Irish Republic or an unstable war torn all island nightmare.

IMO there was never an all Ireland democracy to be had. In the early 20th century, a decision had to be made between a less extensive Irish democracy or chaos. Look at what happened to Sudan or Sri Lanka. The North's Unionists would have become the Republic's very own well armed and well financed Tamil Tigers.

Macmorris

MT wrote:

The ideas promoted during the 19th century Gaelic revival have since taken a strong hold in the national psyche. The people had once lived a free and harmonious existence for centuries until that mildly turbulent age of Celtic innocence was shattered forever by crushing English oppression. It was held as the entire island’s birthright to return once again to that largely mythical golden age.

You seem to be implying that anti-partitionism was (and is) some romantic aspiration to a mythic, celtic Ireland, when in fact it was a much more moderate, conservative aim. Ireland had always been united, even under the union. People's opposition to partition had nothing to do with reviving the ancient gaelic order, it was about maintaining the existing territorial set-up, albeit in an independent republic.

I'm not arguing with your main point though. I think you're right about partition being better than the alternative. Although it shouldn't be forgotten that most of the violence in Ireland post-1921 was caused by partition itself. As well as preventing war, partition caused of bloodshed as well. The civil war in the free state and the IRA campaign in the north were due to opposition to partition.

It would have been far better if we had stayed in the union and waited for a few decades until we had gained the trust of the northern unionists.

What you're really saying is that ethnically homogenous states are more stable than the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural ones, which I would agree with. I just wish the liberal elite would remember Ireland's history when it comes to discussing immigration.

Mr.Nice Guy

Surely a key factor was the way the border was drawn? The NI state should have contained only four counties. The Free State should have gotten Fermanagh and Tyrone.

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Surely a key factor was the way the border was drawn? The NI state should have contained only four counties. The Free State should have gotten Fermanagh and Tyrone.

Shoulda woulda coulda. Parrallel dimensions forum is thatda way. We're talking political realities.

What you're really saying is that ethnically homogenous states are more stable than the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural ones, which I would agree with.I just wish the liberal elite would remember Ireland's history when it comes to discussing immigration

Oh I don't think thats what he's saying, I think thats want you want to hear.

A Dub in Glasgo

4 counties would have made NI a joke (not that the 6 did not make it one). The reason the 6 were chosen was the fact that the British wanted the biggest area with an inherent inbuilt majority. That is the reason why Ulster is not NI.

Mr.Nice Guy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

4 counties would have made NI a joke (not that the 6 did not make it one). The reason the 6 were chosen was the fact that the British wanted the biggest area with an inherent inbuilt majority. That is the reason why Ulster is not NI.

Yes, well put. It's also worth noting the success of the Arbitration courts in 1920 which many Unionists and Protestants accepted because they were fair. These courts operated in 28 of the 32 counties by June of 1920.

Macmorris

mycroft wrote:

Oh I don't think thats what he's saying, I think thats want you want to hear.

What he's saying is that the reason the south of Ireland managed to avoid the kind of ethnic conflict that the north suffered was because the south didn't have to deal with the presence of a sizeable and hostile ethnic minority, which it would have had to deal with if the country had been united. I think that seems to be an endorsement of monoculturalism.

I agree with him on partition (even though I am a nationalist who would love to see Ireland united), it's just I'm not afraid to point out the obvious implication of what he's saying - that if you support partition because you think multi-ethnic states have the potential for political instability, then you have to also take the same line when you start discussing immigration, and the possibility that we may be sacrificing the valuable ethnic homogenity that has been such an important part of the stability of our democracy. As disastrous as the Ulster plantation was in Irish history, the African, Asian and muslim plantations of this country in the next few decades will have much greater potential for igniting ethnic tension, particularly with the muslim influx.

mycroft

Macmorris wrote:

As disastrous as the Ulster plantation was in Irish history, the African, Asian and muslim plantations of this country in the next few decades will have much greater potential for igniting ethnic tension, particularly with the muslim influx.

Which is the traditional racist argument. That racial groups can't interelate and therefore, we should be hostile to intergration. Which is a pretty nifty self fufilling prophecy.

RuggieBear

Macmorris wrote:

What he's saying is that the reason the south of Ireland managed to avoid the kind of ethnic conflict that the north suffered was because the south didn't have to deal with the presence of a sizeable and hostile ethnic minority, which it would have had to deal with if the country had been united....

There were plenty of sectarian killings and intimidation of protestants in the south following partition...especially in cork. What might be called small scale ethnic cleansing...

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Which is the traditional racist argument. That racial groups can't interelate and therefore, we should be hostile to intergration. Which is a pretty nifty self fufilling prophecy.

it s the logical extension of MTs arguement

boiled down MTs arguement is that only a mono ethnic mono cultural society can be a safe productive one

Society in the 26 counties has moved on from the bitter sectarian divisions because we have freed ourselves from a society where it actually matters wether you are catholic or protestant

privilege is no longer determined by religion

there is no reason why a 32 county Ireland would not have been just as successful in building a progressive society if anything it would have happened much sooner than it did in the predominantly catholic 26 counties

what exactly unionists would have been fighting for MT never explains to be readmitted to the UK which had already turned its back on them

independence from the rest of Ireland unsuported by the UK an independent 2 or 3 counties would not last long

why sectarian divisions remained in the six counties was because it mattered in respect of privilege but also in respect of the future of the statelets very existence
unionists have been looking over their shoulder at nationalists since the foundation of northern Ireland fully aware that force of numbers might someday bring about an end to the existence of their protestant state
there was no benefit to them to make catholics/nationalists feel welcome or equal they did not want them to stay around

Only with the end of the 6 county state can the sectarian divisions be put behind us when privilege or the existance of the state no longer count on how many catholics or protestants there are will it be as unimportant as it is in the 26 counties

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

it s the logical extension of MTs arguement

boiled down MTs arguement is that only a mono ethnic mono cultural society can be a safe productive one

No it's not. He is talking about a specific point about a specific instance. For example you could take it that the Rwanda genocide means two tribes can't co exist in a single society. Despite the evidence that it occurs regularly in african societies, and countries.

He's taking the argument that the case of NI, where if the republican forces had forced a united ireland, the unionist majority would have rejected and there would have been disasterous implications when they rebelled at forced intergration.

Theres a radical difference in forcing two ethic groups to co exist, when one ethic group objects to the presence of another. To what he's suggesting;

As disastrous as the Ulster plantation was in Irish history, the African, Asian and muslim plantations of this country in the next few decades will have much greater potential for igniting ethnic tension, particularly with the muslim influx.

Theres no suggestion that theres any comparsion between Muslim influx, MacMorris is suggesting that there are parrallels. It's very see to say "hostility to different ethic groups makes intergration impossible", when instead the obvious suggestion is to attempt to remove the hostility.

It's taking the jump that members of the unionist community were ready to use arms aganist a united ireland, so therefore we now need to ensure that we object to immirgration, because if the Muslims get here it'll be worse, thats a leap in logic.

It's ignoring the historical political, and economic reasons for the antagonism between these two ethnic groups, and suggesting this means we can't successfully intergrate with other ethnic groups.

there is no reason why a 32 county Ireland would not have been just as successful in building a progressive society if anything it would have happened much sooner than it did in the predominantly catholic 26 counties

what exactly unionists would have been fighting for MT never explains to be readmitted to the UK which had already turned its back on them

Thats a comment that ignores the fact that pre WW1 the unionists were prepared to object to home rule by force if necessary, they imported weapons towards this aim. We can imagine the level of objection to a seperate state.

We had a bloody enough civil war post treaty, can we imagine trying to do this with the north involved. Plus do you really think the british public circa 1920 wouldn't have be a smigen sympathetic to a section of nth ireland fighting to remain part of the british empire?

why sectarian divisions remained in the six counties was because it mattered in respect of privilege but also in respect of the future of the statelets very existence
unionists have been looking over their shoulder at nationalists since the foundation of northern Ireland fully aware that force of numbers might someday bring about an end to the existence of their protestant state
there was no benefit to them to make catholics/nationalists feel welcome or equal they did not want them to stay around

Only with the end of the 6 county state can the sectarian divisions be put behind us when privilege or the existance of the state no longer count on how many catholics or protestants there are will it be as unimportant as it is in the 26 counties

It boggles my mind to find someone who seems like a educated individual esposing this line while supporting SF. While SF gives lip service to these ideals, they still allow their leaders to parade allongside men and women in paramilitary garb, eulogising men who blew up and murdered sections of the community. It's hyprocritical.

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

He's taking the argument that the case of NI, where if the republican forces had forced a united ireland, the unionist majority would have rejected and there would have been disasterous implications when they rebelled at forced intergration.

Is that 'forced' integration like, eh, democracy in action??

mycroft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Is that 'forced' integration like, eh, democracy in action??

:rolleyes:

What gibberish is this. There was a unionist majority in 4 counties, who objected to home rule, and the rebellion, and were prepared to use force to oppose it. If they didn't want to be part of a united ireland, and prefered to be part of the union, why wouldn't that be "forced" intergration?

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

:rolleyes:

What gibberish is this. There was a unionist majority in 4 counties, who objected to home rule, and the rebellion, and were prepared to use force to oppose it. If they didn't want to be part of a united ireland, and prefered to be part of the union, why wouldn't that be "forced" intergration?

Can I ask you what your thoughts would be on this hypothetical situation in which the majority north and south vote for Irish unity, but the two counties of Down and Antrim (who have unionist majorities) oppose this and threaten to use force through their opposition?

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Can I ask you what your thoughts would be on this hypothetical situation in which the majority north and south vote for Irish unity, but the two counties of Down and Antrim (who have unionist majorities) oppose this and threaten to use force through their opposition?

And again welcome to the politics forum and not the parrallel universe forum.

Theres no point discussing the implication if a tiny minority of Unionists who werent prepared to use violence to support their objection, objected to the move.

Following your logic to it's progression, the battle of kinsale never happened, the flight of the earls never happened, and French landing may have been successful.

Asking me to discuss an unlikely possibility without considering what the ramifications of such a situation would have had further back down the line is just daft.

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

:rolleyes:

What gibberish is this. There was a unionist majority in 4 counties, who objected to home rule, and the rebellion, and were prepared to use force to oppose it. If they didn't want to be part of a united ireland, and prefered to be part of the union, why wouldn't that be "forced" intergration?

Gibberish? Imagine calling democracy in Ireland gibberish :rolleyes:

True colours being shown now eh?

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

And again welcome to the politics forum and not the parrallel universe forum.

Thats it, slag other members who do not conform with your political view

Theres no point discussing the implication if a tiny minority of Unionists who werent prepared to use violence to support their objection, objected to the move.

No point because you do not like the implications?

Zombrex

Macmorris wrote:

. As disastrous as the Ulster plantation was in Irish history, the African, Asian and muslim plantations of this country in the next few decades will have much greater potential for igniting ethnic tension, particularly with the muslim influx.

Such a statement shows a rather worrying lack of understanding of both what the plantations actually were (muslims are not being planted in Ireland or anywhere else in Europe) and modern immigration.

Using the Ulster plantations as a warning againt immigration is kinda like using the JFK assassination as a warning against democracy.

A far better parallel, especially considering we are Irish, would be the Irish emmigration of the last 300 years right up to the 80s.

But this is another topic.

folk_smith

is there anything to the idea that there is resentment in the North b/c they feel abandoned by the 26? There was no effort by the 26 to keep the North?

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

And again welcome to the politics forum and not the parrallel universe forum.

Theres no point discussing the implication if a tiny minority of Unionists who werent prepared to use violence to support their objection, objected to the move.

Following your logic to it's progression, the battle of kinsale never happened, the flight of the earls never happened, and French landing may have been successful.

Asking me to discuss an unlikely possibility without considering what the ramifications of such a situation would have had further back down the line is just daft.

The hypothetical situation I mentioned has relevance to the point you seem to support, which is that a minority can hold the majority to ransom by threat of force. Furthermore, my logic doesn't serve to rewrite history, on the contrary it asks you to consider if a very possible scenario in the future in any way changes your view of past events. Sadly, your mind is closed.

Zombrex

folk_smith wrote:

There was no effort by the 26 to keep the North?

You mean other than the civil war?

folk_smith

Wicknight wrote:

You mean other than the civil war?

That was over 80 years ago and represents the first and last efforts to prevent the split. I do think it has gotten to the point where going backwards is out of the question, but I do think there are those in the North who feel as though they were abandoned - just a thought for discussion. I'm quite removed from the situation, so I don't have enough grounding in the facts to form a well-informed opinion, but I would like to get some feedback on this.

mycroft

Gibberish? Imagine calling democracy in Ireland gibberish

True colours. Answer my argument and oh, try not to score points. :rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Thats it, slag other members who do not conform with your political view

No theres no point in discussing a historical political hypothetical, without considering the pre conditions would would have allowed this situation to arise. Pretty soon you're down to a point to, what if william of orange hadn't won the battle of boyne, and what would have happened if we were a roman colony.

No point because you do not like the implications?

And deftly you ignore my point with a counter argument which lacks substance. Either answer my rebuttal, or don't counter attack while ignoring it it, btw this is my point;

If they didn't want to be part of a united ireland, and prefered to be part of the union, why wouldn't that be "forced" intergration?

on the contrary it asks you to consider if a very possible scenario in the future in any way changes your view of past events. Sadly, your mind is closed.

Because it's a primitive argument which ignores the fact that society evolves and changes, and the situation now is different to then. Attitudes change. Public opinion changes. When home rule was on the cards, both sides formed public miltia's to support or show their opposition for the concept. Looking at your logic means I have to transfer the politics, worldview and ethics of a people, 80 years ago, and then apply that to the present day. It's utterly pointless.

Nice to see we've gone from partition to attack anyone whose not one of us.....

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

Because it's a primitive argument which ignores the fact that society evolves and changes, and the situation now is different to then. Attitudes change. Public opinion changes. When home rule was on the cards, both sides formed public miltia's to support or show their opposition for the concept. Looking at your logic means I have to transfer the politics, worldview and ethics of a people, 80 years ago, and then apply that to the present day. It's utterly pointless.

How is it a primitive arguement? How do you know that unionists wouldn't resist reunification by threat of force? My logic doesn't require you to "transfer" anything. In the past we had a situation where the majority of the island would have opposed partition yet the majority of the north-eastern region of the island supported it. I asked you for your thoughts on the possibility of a majority of the counties of Down and Antrim supporting partition even though the majority of the island would oppose it. You have yet to answer. Would you support the right of these unionists to a two-county NI even though the majority of the island as a whole would oppose this?
I find this question very relevant to both the present and the situation 80 years ago and I'm sure others on this forum would agree. Any chance I could have your views?

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

How is it a primitive arguement? How do you know that unionists wouldn't resist reunification by threat of force? My logic doesn't require you to "transfer" anything. In the past we had a situation where the majority of the island would have opposed partition yet the majority of the north-eastern region of the island supported it. I asked you for your thoughts on the possibility of a majority of the counties of Down and Antrim opposing partition even though the majority of the island would support it. You have yet to answer. Would you support the right of these unionists to a two-county NI even though the majority of the island as a whole would oppose this?
I find this question very relevant to both the present and the situation 80 years ago and I'm sure others on this forum would agree. Any chance I could have your views?

But I don’t see it as relevant.

The situation 80 years ago was radically different.

And the current situation is radically different to then.

And the future prognosis means this situation is about as likely in the near future as demanding it anexs from the republic. The development of nth Ireland and the rest of Ireland not to mention the whole EU, means that by the time this situation could conceivable arise, the political landscape in nth Ireland won't resemble anything like it is now. So there's little point discussing it. Why can't you grasp that?

Mr.Nice Guy

How was the situation 80 years ago radically different? Partition was a key issue in Irish politics then and it is now. Also you go on to say:

mycroft wrote:

The development of nth Ireland and the rest of Ireland not to mention the whole EU, means that by the time this situation could conceivable arise, the political landscape in nth Ireland won't resemble anything like it is now. So there's little point discussing it.

Here you have given a hypothetical situation of future events! How can you be sure the political landscape won't resemble what it does now? The issue of partition will continue to remain in my opinion. I posed a hypothetical situation to you and you won't even have the decency to share your views on the issue. Your reluctance to give an answer to a question would make any Shinner proud. Disappointing.

cdebru

it seems like a simple enough question mycroft

if a majority in the six counties voted on a united Ireland would you accept antrim and north down were there is unlikely to ever be a nationalist majority repartion and oppose the will of the people of the 6 counties and the 26 counties by threat of force

nesf

Um, the plantations that occured in this country bear very little resemblence to modern immigration.

The Ulster Plantation was a systematic ethnic realignment of those counties. Modern immigration is anything but that.

Macmorris wrote:

As disastrous as the Ulster plantation was in Irish history, the African, Asian and muslim plantations of this country in the next few decades will have much greater potential for igniting ethnic tension, particularly with the muslim influx.

I personally support strict immigration laws, but even I cannot see the above as anything but rascist and sensationalist propoganda. There are solid arguments for strict immigration laws and restrictions. You don't need to be making statements like the above.