A chara, – Ireland’s acceptance of 4,000 refugees as a contribution to responding to the ongoing humanitarian crisis is commendable. However, it is worrying to hear talk of “orientation centres” and Army barracks as housing solutions.
For more than eight years I worked with young asylum seekers and witnessed the devastating impact of their experiences of living in direct provision. Facilities lack adequate privacy, isolate asylum seekers from the rest of the community and often breach child protection regulations.
Implemented 15 years ago, direct provision was intended to be a temporary solution to the rise in asylum-seeker applications. To consider replicating this system, by another name, is shortsighted in the extreme.
This is not the time for a “smoke and mirrors” act by the Government. It is time for courageous, authentic acts of humanitarian generosity to minimise the trauma already suffered by refugees. – Is mise,
GRACE WALSH,
Scottsdale,
Tasmania.
Sir, – Simon Coveney has distanced himself from the stance of certain eastern European countries on only accepting Christian refugees ("Coveney stresses that religion should not be a factor in responding to refugee crisis", September 6th).
While on the surface this seems perfectly reasonable, in effect what Mr Coveney is doing is to prioritise his own need not to seem discriminatory over the actual experience of Christians and other minorities which tells us that they are far more likely to face discrimination and death. This, coupled with the fact that Christian refugees have far fewer countries to flee to where they will be safe (Christians have been beheaded from Tunisia to Egypt, and are unlikely to be accepted as refugees in the Gulf states) means that they need prioritisation along with other minorities.
While I don’t believe in discrimination based on religion, I do believe in discrimination based on need, which is why I think Ireland should be prioritising Christians. – Yours, etc,
STEPHEN STAINES,
Groningen,
Netherlands.
Sir, – In responding to the question of the influx of Syrian refugees, some commentators have alluded to the “clash” that might arise should large numbers of Muslims suddenly comingle with European populaces.
The assumption that all Syrians are Muslim is false. It is worth noting that, until very recently, Syria was home to a sizable population of Christians (well in excess of two million). These include the Chalcedonian Antiochian Orthodox and the Syriac Orthodox, as well as the many Catholic branches (Melkite, Armenian Catholic, Syriac Catholic, Maronite, Chaldean Catholic and Latin). Indeed, in terms of history and diversity, Syria boasts one of the richest Christian cultures in the world.
Although fair distribution of migrants across European countries and other realms is a common concern, we must play our part in protecting Syria’s wonderful heritage. Palmyra may be lost, but new pillars can be built in charity and kindness.– Yours ,etc,
Dr SEAN
ALEXANDER SMITH,
Sandyford,
Dublin 18.
Sir, – If European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker insists on making an analogy between the current migrant situation in Europe and 19th-century emigration to the US by Italians, Irish, Jews and other Europeans (World News, September 9th), he should acknowledge that even with a massive unexplored and underpopulated continent at their disposal, the American authorities still processed everyone at Ellis Island and "documented" them before giving them a new life in America.
The current situation in the EU is not even vaguely similar. Rather it is a deliberate attempt by the Germans, under cover of the EU’s feigned incompetence, to force down the cost of labour, make their exports more competitive, and provide for the largest ageing population in Europe.
Certainly we should be generous and help refugees – we must help them as we would want to be helped – but let us speak frankly and not be treated as fools . – Yours, etc,
ANTONY ELLIOTT
KELLY,
Hampshire,
England.
Sir, – Áine Ní Chonaill of the Immigration Control Platform (September 10th) states that "The Syrians heading into Europe are not refugees from war. They were refugees when they crossed the border into Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Having reached there, they were no longer fleeing bombs and bullets."
Neither Jordan nor Lebanon ratified the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees. As such, neither country is obliged to accept persons fleeing persecution in their country of origin. Turkey is a state party to the convention, but due to a decision taken at the time of signature, it is only obliged to accept refugees from Europe.
Nevertheless, and in spite of their lack of legal obligation, these countries have opened their borders in response to the Syrian conflict in a manner which should remind “Christian” Europe of the parable of the Good Samaritan.
There are now 1,113,941 registered Syrian refugees in Lebanon – a country with a population almost identical to that of Ireland. Jordan has a further 650.000, while Turkey has also accepted in excess of one million. These countries are not shirking their moral responsibilities.
I have no doubt but that if the tables were turned, and if a million men, women and children arrived destitute on Irish shores, the Immigration Control Platform would (rightly) be calling on other countries to do more, and to take their fair share. Syria’s neighbours have done all they can – we must now accept that it is our turn. – Yours, etc,
CATHAL MALONE,
Carrigaline,
Co Cork.