Sir, – Yet another letter to The Irish Times, this time from Jane-Ann McKenna of Médecins Sans Frontières Ireland, bemoans the EU's response to the refugee crisis (May 13th). The same letter betrays the naivety that many of the open-borders proponents possess when it comes to allowing refugees into the EU.
Ms McKenna states there are 60 million or so refugees due to war and oppression, and they are mainly from Africa and the Middle East. Should we take them all in? How many should we take, if not all? How do we decide?
People who advocate that we take in more refugees need to quantify the numbers and stop the overwrought emotional rhetoric. – Yours, etc,
PAUL WILLIAMS,
Kilkee,
Co Clare.
Sir, – Médecins Sans Frontières is one of my preferred charities. So when you published a long letter from one of its directors, Jane-Ann McKenna, I read it with interest. However, my interest was not rewarded with the feeling that I was indulging myself with the nectar of good sense. There was little in what Ms McKenna says that was either interesting or new.
To berate the EU for not having done enough is easy, but it is also unfair.
Much money and effort has already been expended by the EU, and the resettlement of refugees has taken place; Germany alone has provided asylum for over one million displaced people.
Ms McKenna writes that “Europe is sending a troubling signal to the rest of the world – countries can buy their way out of providing asylum”.
But what choice does Europe have?
If Europe were to provide asylum to every person who has the money and the wherewithal to make it to Europe’s boarders, what should we do about those who are left behind? Those who are too poor, too old, too young or too sick to travel? Or indeed the 1½ billion people on our planet who simply do not have enough to eat, or indeed the money to take them to the nearest town?
Most of these people would very much like to come to Europe too. Should we provide them all with visas and air tickets to travel ?
Or should we confine our largesse to those who simply have the money and the means to make it to our shores?
The way to hell is paved with good intentions. If Europe sets itself up as a refugee camp for the rest of the world, then you can be sure that governments much less humanitarian than our own would use the situation for their own ends.
Our open border would encourage every jumped-up Cromwell to regard Europe as the Connacht of the world. Instead of making efforts to accommodate the political, religious and racial minorities within their own borders, these minorities would be encouraged, through increased discrimination and repression, to start making their long and inexorable way towards Europe. – Yours, etc,
KEVIN RYAN,
London.