The Political Dilemma of Balancing International Hospitality with Domestic Concerns
In today’s interconnected world, the movement of people across borders in search of safety and opportunity poses a profound dilemma that tests the fabric of our global community. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), millions of individuals are forcibly displaced worldwide due to conflict, persecution, and environmental disasters. The UNHCR’s startling statistic that nearly one person is forcibly displaced every two seconds highlights the urgency and scale of this global crisis.
Imagine a small town in the heart of a nation where the hearths of homes have long been the sanctuaries of local life. Now, picture the arrival of strangers at the threshold, seeking refuge and a place to call their own. This scene sets the stage for a profound moral and political quandary that has echoed through the ages and is now resounding with greater urgency in our globalized era. As nations grapple with the waves of people crossing borders in search of safety and opportunity, the question of how to justly allocate the sanctity of shelter becomes a poignant reflection of our collective values.
A particularly contentious issue in this balancing act is the housing of foreign nationals, especially refugees and asylum seekers, juxtaposed against the housing provision for local citizens. The concern that states prioritize the needs of non-citizens over those of their populace has become a topic of heated debate, raising questions about the ethical and practical dimensions of governance in an interconnected world.
The Ethical Imperative of Hospitality and Its Roots in Western Philosophy
In his essay Perpetual Peace, Kant posits a universal right to hospitality, suggesting that foreign nationals should not be treated with hostility when they arrive on foreign soil –a principle that has evolved into the modern concept of asylum, where states are expected to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution. However, the ethical imperative to offer shelter to those in need must be reconciled with the state’s primary responsibility to its citizens.
As espoused by philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the social contract theory posits that citizens agree to surrender some freedoms to a governing body in exchange for protection and the provision of essential services, including housing, to exist among the collective. When a state appears to prioritize foreign nationals over its citizens in providing these services, it risks breaching this social contract, leading to a crisis of legitimacy –perceived and/or actual.
In his seminal work Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes presents a view of human nature and the necessity of a strong, central authority to prevent the state of nature, which he famously described as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” He argued that individuals enter into a social contract, surrendering some of their freedoms to a sovereign in exchange for security and order: “The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another… is, to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by a plurality of voices, unto one will.” (Hobbes, Leviathan, Ch. XVII)
In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke posits that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. The government is a fiduciary power to act for certain ends: “The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.” (Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Ch. IX) Locke’s emphasis on property as a fundamental right highlights the importance of the state’s role in ensuring that its citizens have access to housing. If the state fails to provide for the housing needs of its citizens, it could be seen by its body politic as failing in its fundamental duty to protect their property rights, which includes the right to secure shelter. Jean-Jacques Rousseau took a different approach in his discourse on the social contract.
In The Social Contract, Rousseau argues for a form of government based on the general will, which reflects the collective interests of the people: “Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.” (Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book I, Ch. VI) Rousseau’s concept of the general will suggests that governance should be directed by all citizens’ common interests, including providing basic needs such as housing. When the state prioritizes the housing of foreign nationals over its citizens, it may be perceived as neglecting the citizenry’s general will and collective interest.
The Pragmatic Concerns of Governance
From a political science perspective, the governance of a state involves allocating limited resources, which necessitates making difficult choices. Housing is a particularly scarce resource, and the decision to house foreign nationals can be seen as a zero-sum game where the provision for one group diminishes the availability for another.
The perception of preferential treatment for refugees can exacerbate these tensions, leading to xenophobia and social unrest. Political leaders must navigate these pragmatic concerns with great care, ensuring that the integration of foreign nationals does not come at the expense of the well-being of local citizens.
Overloading these communities with additional responsibilities for refugees without ensuring adequate services for locals is often viewed as a dereliction of governance. Moreover, the influx of foreign nationals into small communities can lead to social tensions, as the sudden demographic changes may outpace the community’s ability to adapt culturally and economically. The perception of preferential treatment for refugees can exacerbate these tensions, leading to xenophobia and social unrest. Political leaders must navigate these pragmatic concerns with great care, ensuring that the integration of foreign nationals does not come at the expense of the well-being of local citizens.
An example that demonstrates these challenges is the situation in Hamburg, Germany. The city government of Hamburg utilized urban planning regulations to provide temporary and long-term housing for nearly 38,000 refugees in less than two years. While this is a substantial achievement, the approach has faced criticism. Some refugee housing sites were located far from other residential neighborhoods, limiting opportunities for integration and causing discontent among residents. The rapid development of these sites bypassed customary community engagement processes, which later led to legal challenges and pushback from neighborhoods that did not want significant developments for refugees constructed nearby.
Similarly, in De Doorns, South Africa, high levels of xenophobic sentiment were found within the community. The term ‘inkomers’ — meaning ‘people who come inside’ — was used to describe foreign nationals, often with negative connotations. The Zimbabwean foreign nationals, in particular, were treated as outsiders and excluded, leading to significant tension between them and other groups in the area. This sentiment was fueled by the perception that foreign nationals were taking resources from the local community, which led to fears that the community might “do xenophobia in the near future.”
The International Dimension
The trend of housing foreign nationals, while local citizens struggle to find adequate housing, is not merely a domestic issue but an international one. In an increasingly globalized world, the movement of people across borders is a reality that states cannot ignore — international law and agreements like the 1951 Refugee Convention obligate states to protect refugees. However, political leaders and their respective decision-makers must balance international commitments with domestic responsibilities — for instance, by suspending or reeling back from the former when the latter suffers.
The international community has a role in supporting states that take on a disproportionate burden in housing refugees. Wealthier nations and international organizations can provide financial, technical, and logistical support to meet the needs of both foreign nationals and local citizens. This collaborative approach can help mitigate the pressures on small communities and promote a more equitable distribution of the responsibilities associated with global migration.
An example that demonstrates the challenges of balancing the housing of foreign nationals with the needs of local citizens, particularly in Ireland’s recent experiences, can be found in Rosslare Harbour. In Rosslare Harbour, a small Irish village, residents have expressed significant concern over the government’s use of hotels to house asylum seekers and Ukrainian refugees. A poster placed near three hotels filled with asylum seekers and refugees carried a blunt message from the community: “Enough is Enough.”
While peaceful and carefully calibrated, this campaign highlights the tensions arising from the government’s approach to housing foreign nationals in local communities. The residents’ concerns were not only about the use of hotels but also about the broader impact on the town, which has a population of around 1,200. Questions were raised about the capacity of local services, such as schools and healthcare, to accommodate the newcomers. The government, while considering using another hotel to house more asylum seekers, faced backlash from the community, which was already feeling the strain of the current situation. This example underscores the complexities of integrating foreign nationals into small communities, where the rapid influx can strain local infrastructure and services, leading to social tensions and calls for a more balanced approach to immigration and refugee housing.
Furthermore, the broader context in Ireland reflects these local challenges nationally. Immigration has surged to become the third most significant issue among voters, with concerns not only about the immediate impact on housing and services but also about the long-term social and cultural integration of foreign nationals. The situation in Rosslare Harbour is emblematic of the tensions faced by many communities across Ireland, where the desire to provide refuge is balanced against the practical realities of limited resources and the need to maintain social cohesion. The desire to house foreign nationals while making excuses for not providing housing for locals or citizens is a disturbing trend that raises fundamental questions about the nature of governance and the ethical responsibilities of states.
Legislators must balance the moral imperative of hospitality and the pragmatic concerns of resource allocation and social cohesion. Moreover, the international dimension of this issue requires a cooperative approach to ensure that the burdens and benefits of global migration are shared more equitably. Ultimately, the measure of a state’s governance will be judged on how it navigates these complex challenges, honoring its commitments to its citizens and the international community.
The local community’s response in Rosslare Harbour to the government’s use of hotels to house asylum seekers and Ukrainian refugees reflects a broader concern about the state’s allocation of resources and its capacity to fulfill its obligations to its citizens. As outlined in the social contract theories, the ethical imperative to provide shelter to those in need must be reconciled with the state’s primary responsibility to protect and provide for its citizens –and the trend we are now seeing globally is the fragmentation of the perception among the general populace of governments to competently uphold such a responsibility.
This subtle equilibrium between the moral imperative of hospitality and the pragmatic concerns of resource allocation and social cohesion is at the heart of contemporary governance challenges. The example of Rosslare Harbour, along with the philosophical underpinnings of hospitality and the social contract, underscores the complexity of navigating these issues in an increasingly globalized world. Therefore, the measure of a state’s governance will be judged on how effectively it honors its commitments to its citizens and the international community, striving for a more equitable distribution of the responsibilities and benefits associated with global migration.
The 1951 Refugee Convention, along with its 1967 Protocol, stands as a cornerstone, articulating the legal obligations of states to protect refugees. These documents define the term “refugee,” outline the rights of individuals granted asylum, and set forth the responsibilities of nations to safeguard these vulnerable populations. Central to the Convention is the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the expulsion or return of refugees to countries where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.
However, the noble aspirations enshrined in the Refugee Convention often collide with the gritty realities of geopolitics and resource allocation. Lebanon presents a stark example of the challenges inherent in balancing international obligations with domestic capacities. Hosting approximately 1.5 million Syrian refugees, Lebanon grapples with the repercussions of supporting a refugee population that constitutes about a quarter of its own total population. This situation places an immense strain on Lebanon’s infrastructure, public services, and economic stability, illustrating the practical difficulties of adhering to international mandates in the face of overwhelming local pressures.
The contrast between the legal ideals of the Refugee Convention and Lebanon’s experience underscores a critical gap between the envisioned and actualized support for refugees. It highlights the necessity for a more nuanced and supportive international framework that recognizes the disproportionate burdens borne by frontline states. This disparity calls for a reinvigorated global commitment to sharing the responsibility for refugee protection, transcending mere legal obligations to embrace a more equitable and practical solidarity among nations.
