Sir, - Is it not entirely reasonable that persons who are allegedly fleeing from persecution in their homelands would be expected to, and indeed should be required, to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach (Supreme Court decision in the Asinimova case, The Irish Times, December 2nd)? Certainly, in the case of genuine refugees reaching a safe country, I would expect feelings of relief, gratitude and an urgent desire to put themselves immediately under the care and protection of the authorities in that country. Nobody is saying that the Asinimovas should be returned forthwith to their homeland, nor that they should be denied a full examination of their claim to asylum (by the authorities in the UK). Even the UN Commissioner for Human Rights agrees with the decision in this case!
Why then the virtual hysteria exhibited (not for the first time) in the report by your Development Correspondent, Paul Cullen, with emotive phrases such as "wave of deportations" and "fortress Ireland"? Ms Asinimova arrived in Heathrow with a passport and visa for entry to the UK but, clearly, she had another destination in mind all the time: she went directly to Holyhead and took the boat to Ireland, having spent less than 24 hours on British soil. Why did she do that? Not a word about that from Mr Cullen.
Who decided to take, and who funded, such a frivolous case all the way to the Supreme Court? What fundamental human right was regarded as threatened by the attitude of the Department of Justice in this case? Surely the case wasn't fought all the way in support of the proposition that refugees, who have already reached a safe haven, should thereafter have a right to move to another country of their choice, which country should be obliged to take them in and consider their applications for asylum in that country? If that is any measure of the threat to fundamental human rights in Ireland, it seems to me that there is little to worry about. - Yours, etc.,
Lakelands Avenue, Kilmacud, Blackrock, Co Dublin.