Sir, - I read with interest John Waters' column on immigration, as well as the letters that followed. These approved the demarcations of culture and economics when deciding who gains entry to Ireland. However, it seems to me that there is something more to be said over and above what Mr Waters has written.
Firstly, "culture" is a notoriously slippery concept. If interpreted in a narrow or bigoted way, it can be used to exclude a person of almost any race, religion or colour. For example, many Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were denied entry to Ireland in the 1930s on grounds of "cultural difference". The proponents of "culture" as a demarcation would do well to explain what humanitarian goals were served in this case, and, furthermore, how Irish culture was served for the better.
In the case of economics, this sounds very solid grounds on which to base entry to Ireland. However, I thought John Waters was one of those who believed in running "a country, not an economy". Economic decisions are not always moral ones, as we in Ireland should know only too well. For example, economics has justified the sale of Irish passports to foreign millionaires, at the same time denying them to families fleeing injustice.
It seems to me that this question boils down to: "When is it morally right to exclude someone, or deport them, from Ireland?" Economics is part of the answer, but ethics and justice must surely be the most important considerations. Culture should be a minor issue. Irish culture cannot be as weak and defensive as John Waters thinks.
If this is the question, why should the answer not be interpreted in the most liberal manner possible? If, as one correspondent wrote, we must cherish the children of the nation equally, where is it written that we cannot cherish the children of other nations with the same justice and equity? - Yours, etc.,
Toby Joyce, Balreask Manor, Navan, Co Meath.