Sir, - The debate about immigrants and asylum seekers has a dej a vu quality that reminds me of a similar debate here in Germany some eight years ago. At that time asylum seekers were flooding into Germany at a rate of some 15,000 per week. This influx of people stretched nerves and resources as the debate raged about whether Germany could or should be expected to absorb such large numbers. Although modern Germany has a generous record in its dealings with refugees and foreigners generally, the big refugee debate was finally won by a broad political consensus that decided that enough was enough and that economic refugees masquerading as political refugees had to be discouraged. New laws were introduced and continue to be amended. These new laws have been effective in curbing the wholesale abuse of the Geneva Convention.
There is no good reason why Ireland should repeat Germany's learning curve, when it is probable that we will arrive at the same conclusions in the end. One has to wonder about a la carte asylum seekers who, on their journey for asylum from persecution to distant Ireland, traverse several countries where their application for asylum would have been equally valid. Mr O'Donoghue is probably correct in stating that some 90 per cent of such applications are bogus.
I find it reassuring that Mr O'Donoghue and his officials take an unsentimental and pragmatic stance in screening asylum seekers. The Minister has an obligation to protect the State against the potential social, political and financial turmoil that unbridled immigration by people of diverse cultures can generate. One must not expect the Department of Justice to combine the roles of sheriff and Mother Theresa simultaneously. The processing of an asylum application is bound to be an administrative roller-coaster at the best of times and egos and conceits are likely to be bruised in the process. So a refugee from Sierra Leone is sent from pillar to post. So what? That fate can befall any citizen attempting to bring bureaucracy into line with personal aspiration. The same gentleman might like to try for a planning application next time around for comparison.
I suspect that Mr O'Donoghue's tough stance is not so much about the immigrants who are here but about those who are not here. It is no secret that a small army of potential immigrants is poised in eastern Europe waiting to move westwards and when they do, they will pursue a line of least resistance. The container-loads of immigrants of today may become the ship-loads of tomorrow. It is important that the Minister and his Department send the right signals to those pondering the pros and cons of illegal immigration to Ireland. A Rottweiler stance is probably the one that serves the country's best interests at this time. The Minister and his team are entitled to our support. Time will prove them right.
The liberals of Ireland need not feel helpless in this situation. Labelling as racist those who hold views other then their own is not enough. They are free to practise as well as preach. They can form support and advisory groups for legitimate asylum seekers (as some have done) and help unburden the social services. They can invite them to their homes. They can organise language classes. They can teach them to interact with their new community and encourage dialogue between them and their new neighbours. They can make a practical contribution if they put their minds to it. - Yours, etc., Anthony M. Cooney,
Cologne,
Germany.