David Quinn
Photo: EY The only appropriate response to refugees and asylum seekers is one of charity, writes David Quinn
In his new book, Dominion, historian Tom Holland discusses the radical and transformative effect Christianity had upon the ancient world, seeding it with new ideas that shape our thinking to this day in ways we barely even acknowledge.
It’s a theme developed by other authors, but Mr Holland does it with particular verve. The single most transforming idea is that we are all made in the image and likeness of God and therefore we are all of infinite and equal moral worth. The king and the peasant might be very different in the eyes of society, but in the eyes of God, they are the same.
The ancient Greeks and Romans had no such notion. For them, might was right. The first shall be first, and the last shall be last. Christianity as an idea turned this upside down, even if the Church itself in practice sometimes went along with the ways of the world, still treating the first as first and the last as last.
Credit
St Paul, to whom Mr Holland gives huge credit, taught that in Christ: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female.”
In him, we are all one.
The logical extension of this is that in Christ, there are no races either. All races are the same and equal, and this is why racism ought to be morally abhorrent to all Christians.
At the weekend in his homily to mark the beginning of Advent, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin quoted Pope Benedict who said: “[Humans] are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary”. This is much the same point Mr Holland draws out in his book.
Archbishop Martin also told Massgoers: “I am horrified to find traces of such racism among believers. The terms ‘refugee’ and ‘asylum seeker’ should only arouse heartfelt concern in the Christian heart.”
He is correct, of course. The only appropriate response is one of charity. This is why the Church itself has programmes that reach out to refugees.
There are many ways to help refugees, some better than others. In 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, responding to the war in Syria and the millions of refugees it created, decided to open her country’s borders to anyone who wanted to come. In a short time, over a million had arrived.
Many were not Syrian, and the majority were young men, capable of making the arduous journey to Germany. Questions began to be asked. For example, was the German policy indirectly discriminating against women, children, the old and the infirm?
Maybe a better policy, and a better use of resources, was to help the refugees directly in their camps either in Syria or in nearby countries. Or perhaps rather than inviting refugees to make the long trek to Germany, it would have been better to go into the camps and ask people to apply for refugee-status from there and then fly them directly to Germany.
Britain under David Cameron was sending more aid to the refugee camps than any other EU country. Was this the way to go?
Ireland is on the edge of Europe and it is hard for refugees to get here. Under EU law, they are also supposed to claim asylum in the first EU country they arrive in, and there are very few direct flights from the world’s trouble spots to Ireland.
What happens to asylum-seekers once their country of origin is at peace again?”
What we have mainly done instead is to fly Syrians directly from their camps to Ireland, which is surely the best approach.
There is also a clear need to distinguish between genuine asylum-seekers and those who are really economic migrants. If you don’t do this, then the system becomes wide open to abuse. If asylum is given to everyone who asks for it without proper checks being conducted, then would-be economic migrants who are trying to come to Ireland legally, are effectively encouraged to take advantage of the system and claim refugee status instead.
Irish people are also affected. The social housing waiting lists become longer, for instance, as asylum-claims are processed. Is that fair if not all claims to asylum are genuine?
Why are more people arriving from these countries than from genuine trouble-spots? The question should at least be asked, and adequately answered”
This is why Leo Varadkar recently drew attention to the fact that many recent asylum-seekers arriving in Ireland are from countries like Albania or Georgia. Neither of these places is considered by the EU to be a trouble-spot, so why are more people arriving from these countries than from genuine trouble-spots? The question should at least be asked, and adequately answered.
As World War II broke out, my grand-aunt, Alice Ward, was working in France as a governess. When the Germans invaded France, she was living with a Jewish family. Eventually they were rounded up, Aunt Alice along with them. She was sent to Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. Fortunately, she survived the war and the Red Cross repatriated her to France. She lived to the ripe old age of 95, dying in 1982.
This gives rise to another question. What happens to asylum-seekers once their country of origin is at peace again? Traditionally a refugee seeks safety for a period of time, when they are fleeing war, for instance. When the war is over, should they return home?
Also, where are they best accommodated while their asylum-claims are being processed, in cities or small towns?
These are the questions we must ask when considering asylum policy. The bishops are not there to lay down precise policy prescriptions, but they must lay out broad principles that are fair to considerations of both charity and justice to all parties, national and non-national alike.
