The worst bit about all of this, of course, is that we didn’t even get a link out of it. Like it would have killed the Deputy to send us a bit of traffic. Though, to be fair, the article in question did very well anyway:
It’s a niche website & I’m not going to link but I believe when xenophobic rubbish like this is spread it should be challenged not ignored & allowed fester. We actually need jobs attractive to global talent to fuel our economy to build more homes & create more jobs for everyone pic.twitter.com/wimqbSJTjA
— Neale Richmond (@nealerichmond) February 3, 2021
His complaint, as you can see, is straightforward enough. By reporting (accurately, with figures Richmond does not dispute) on the composition of Google’s workforce in Dublin, my colleague Dr. Matt Treacy was encouraging Xenophobia. For those of you not up to date on your phobias, that means “hatred or fear of foreigners”. It is sort of a sister affliction to racism.
It is an accusation that deserves an answer, since it’s been made by a prominent and well-known elected official. As Editor of this website, responsibility for all of the content that appears on it rests with me. Dr. Treacy’s article was approved for publication by me, as is all of our content, good and bad. The buck, as they say, stops here.
So here’s our defence: The statement in Matt’s headline is unambiguously, completely, and indisputably true. Google’s workforce does, in fact, comprise about 70% non-nationals. These non-nationals, when they come to Dublin, to work for Google, need places to live. They therefore compete with people who were living here already. Because they work for a large multinational corporation, their salaries – and therefore their purchasing power – is often higher than the people who live here already. As such, they drive up rents, and push – in Matt’s phrase – ordinary Dubs down the housing food chain.
Nobody, so far as we’re aware, actually disputes any of this. Deputy Richmond certainly does not. His accusation is not that we said anything untrue. His accusation is that we told you a truth which is xenophobic, and likely to encourage you, our readers, to be xenophobic.
The problem for Deputy Richmond is that facts are entirely neutral things: They have a binary status. They are either true, or they are false.
Some facts, it is true, are inconvenient for a particular political cause. For example, if Britain experiences a significant reduction in international trade this year, then that will be a fact, and it will be true, and it will be inconvenient for those people in the UK who supported Brexit. Similarly, if Britain booms this year, compared to its EU neighbours, that will be a fact, and true, and inconvenient for those who opposed Brexit.
Immigration is no different. The fact that Google (and, to be fair, other large multinationals) import a significant percentage of their workers is a fact. That those workers compete for housing and public services is also a fact. That is, perhaps, inconvenient for those who support immigration, and multinationals. That those workers pay taxes here, and contribute to the exchequer, is a fact which is more helpful to that cause.
But neither fact is xenophobic.
But let’s cut to the chase. What we were really being accused of, by the Deputy, was bigotry. When you say someone is xenophobic, what you mean is that they don’t much like foreigners because of the simple fact that they are foreign. A xenophobe, for the record, wouldn’t care whether Google hired 70% Irish, or 70% foreign. One foreigner, to the true xenophobe, would be one too many.
Not liking foreigners is bigotry. Opposing more immigration is not. Neale Richmond knows this. He’s just hoping you do not.
People who want to limit immigration prefer that policy because they believe that a country’s infrastructure can only handle and accommodate so many people. They feel, for example, that when there is a housing and homelessness crisis, it is a mistake to import wealthy people from abroad to drive up the cost of housing for the people already here. The reason they hold this position is that as the price of housing rises, more and more people are dropped off the bottom of the housing affordability ladder.
If we controlled, and limited, inward migration, especially from those likely to compete for private housing, we would take some of the pressure out of the housing market. That’s not xenophobia: It’s common sense. And, even if you disagree with me that it is common sense, then it’s just a rational argument that you happen to disagree with.
In fact, it’s Government policy, when it comes to Covid. The Government wants to restrict inward travel to Ireland, at the moment. Is that because they do not like foreigners? Or is it because they believe that bringing in people who may or may not have Covid is likely to undermine our covid suppression policy?
Richmond, incidentally, supports the restrictions on travel in place at the moment. Is he a Xenophobe?
The problem, of course, is twofold: On the one hand, Richmond is playing to the masses. Labelling your opponents as racist or bigoted or xenophobic is a trick as old as time. Indeed, the country does have some bona fide racists and xenophobes.
But on the other hand, it’s also just sheer laziness. An unwillingness to engage with the argument. And, by extension, an unwillingness to engage with voters who agree with the argument.
Matt’s piece yesterday wasn’t even mainly about immigration: What he proposed was that we reconsider the taxation of these companies because, he argued, the burden they place on our capital is not commensurate with the returns they provide. Most of their profits are offshored, and skate away from taxes. They get the benefits of unlimited migration, while Dubliners who suffer as a result see few of the benefits.
A policy which redressed that imbalance might be a good idea.
Or, Deputy, you could keep calling us, and our readers, Xenophobes. It’s up to you.