Letters to the Editor: UK Rwanda project has an impact on immigration
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's recent comment on migration 'flies in the face of good and decent neighbourliness'. Picture: PA
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the recent comments made by British prime minister Rishi Sunak regarding the effectiveness of the Rwanda project and its implications for migration to the Republic of Ireland.
Sunak’s assertion that the influx of migrants to Ireland is proof of the effectiveness of threats of deportation to third countries such as Rwanda is not only insensitive, but also fundamentally flawed, and flies in the face of good and decent neighbourliness.
While it is undeniable that a fair and robust immigration system is necessary, it is equally crucial to acknowledge the contributions migrants make to our society. Whether it is in healthcare, economic growth, or other sectors, migrants play a vital role in shaping our communities and enriching our nation.
However, tensions surrounding immigration are exacerbated by underlying issues such as housing shortages, infrastructure deficiencies, and lack of investment resulting from Government policies over the years. These issues need to be addressed comprehensively to create a more inclusive and equitable society.
Furthermore, the suggestion of sending or encouraging illegal migrants from Britain to the north of Ireland, where they could potentially cross the border unchecked, is deeply concerning. Immediate measures, such as implementing checks at Belfast and Derry airports and Stranraer, are necessary to address this situation. Additionally, discussions about strengthening national borders must consider the possibility of reunifying Ireland, which could provide a more sustainable solution in the long term.
Sunak’s comments only serve to highlight the urgency of these conversations. While there may be financial implications associated with reunification, it is becoming increasingly apparent that we cannot afford to ignore the issue. The reunification of our country, both north and south, may ultimately be the most viable path forward.
It is imperative that we approach these complex issues with empathy, compassion, and a commitment to human rights.
Fergus Finlay in his recent column — ‘Nip anti-democratic thugs in the bud; they cannot be ‘controlled’’ (Irish Examiner, April 23) — described some of Ireland’s far-right groups as ‘‘anti-European … deeply fundamentalist in religious terms, and utterly racist’.
However, the European Union is, and always has been, an enthusiastic supporter of what is surely the most far-right government in existence today.
As an apartheid state (so designated by the New York-based Human Rights Watch, by Amnesty International, and by innumerable UN rapporteurs), Israel has always occupied the far right of the political spectrum in international politics.
However, its current coalition government surpasses all that has gone before. And by anyone’s estimate, they are "deeply fundamentalist in religious terms, and utterly racist" towards the indigenous Palestinian peoples.
Nevertheless, after the USA, Europe (particularly Germany, Britain, and France) is the apartheid state’s biggest supplier of weaponry — as well as of financial, economic, and diplomatic assistance. Despite the daily revelations of shocking atrocities against a civilian population not seen since the Second World War, the EU’s support is likely to continue in the longer term.
European foreign policy has form here. At an international conference on South African apartheid, held in Dublin in 1979, Oliver Tambo described the then EEC as ‘the lifeblood of apartheid’ (referenced by Kader Asmal in his 2011 autobiography, ).
It is important, I believe, to distinguish EU internal governance in terms of European citizen’s rights from its long-term foreign policies and alliances, which appear to be seamlessly driven by the violent, colonial history of its leading powers.
Peter Keenan says the claim that Jesus was divine “is very problematical” — ‘Religious role’ (Irish Examiner, Letters, April 24).
The main question over the divinity of Jesus came up around the 4th century in the guise of Arianism, but was settled soon after at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD which confirmed the gospels and tradition.
Mr Keenan tells us Jesus "never uttered" the sayings attributed to him, the proof of which he presents being a book by a 20th-century ex-professor and author Keith Ward. The intended implication can only be we should view four gospels, acts, almost two dozen letters written by various apostles, and the Book of Revelation — more written about than almost any other contemporary historical figure — as so much falsehood.
There is no doubt that Jesus regarded himself as divine: he assumed the power to forgive sins (an attribute of God alone until he gifted it to the apostles), accepted worship (again, a sole preserve of God) and demonstrated his divinity in many other ways and words.
Perhaps most telling of all, those best placed to know — his contemporaries, the Pharisees — had him crucified at a very public trial precisely on this single charge of claiming to be God, the only ‘crime’ they could find against him.
It makes no logical sense to view Jesus as some kind of important enlightened teacher if, at the same time, we either dismiss him as a liar or madman (ie he was lying about being God) or reject out of hand the best and most comprehensive source of early information about him (ie, the Gospels and epistles) as falsehood.
Regarding the article ‘Road safety group to ramp up campaign as Cork man killed in city collision named locally’ (Irish Examiner, online, April 24): Politicians’ failure to listen to the residents, the families, and the concerned tax-paying citizens who elect them into positions of trust has cost lives. Clearly they have been horribly disregarded and their concerns and cries silenced.
Because of politicians’ inability to do what is right — to listen to and act on behalf of the citizens, the children and families of their community — this story has reached much further afield.
They should be disgusted with themselves. Shame on them for wilfully not doing the jobs they were given by the citizens of their communities.
Although the English language continues to evolve and change, ‘stolen’ still means stolen.
Four Aboriginal spears that were stolen by British representative Captain Cook in 1770 have been returned to Australia after about 250 years.
How long will it take for all of the ‘stolen’ material in museums in Britain, and in probably almost every museum in the world, to be returned to their owners or descendants? Some of this material is human remains that should be buried where they came from with appropriate respect.
We now have the technology to capture the image of anything in 2D and 3D, so let’s move museums to the virtual rather than the physical, as we have with everything else.
