Gentlemen, – The government’s early appropriate response to the Ukraine crisis was to welcome those escaping from the cruelty of war and violence. This approach was pinned as our ethical responsibility, in lieu of actively participating in the military aid provided by countries such as Poland and Estonia. These nations have committed their resources to donating enormous sums of money towards military equipment, all the while granting asylum to a large number of refugees under the provisionary protection directive.
However, our government is now seemingly trying to intertwine the situation of asylum seekers with Ukraine’s predicament, seemingly to offset the disastrous results of its unsuccessful attempts to secure accommodation for applicants seeking international protection (“Welfare allowances to be reduced to €38.80 for Ukrainian refugees, under new plan”, News, May 14th). These two issues should not be conflated.
Ukraine is currently at loggerheads with an imperial power that has designs on dismantling Europe’s liberal democratic values – the very principles that we, and indeed Ukraine, cherish and benefit from. Ukraine’s citizens are being forced to leave their homelands due to Russia’s deplorable hostility, which could potentially target EU countries if Russia prevails over Ukraine.
It’s a moral, strategic, and political necessity to ensure that those escaping this conflict have their basic needs met. If we choose not to supply weapons to help defend against the aforementioned hostility, we could instead ensure their children remain clothed and well nourished, their dignity preserved and their sense of safety guaranteed until a time comes when a free and unbroken Ukraine can welcome them back.
Would the Taoiseach be capable of surviving on a weekly allowance of just €36.80? It’s something worth pondering.
Lastly, the recent decision to dramatically reduce state support for the Ukrainian community in the wake of the Russian invasion in February 2022 is regrettable. This new policy appears to be a knee-jerk reaction from a flailing administration. An administration that seemingly overextended itself at first, attracting a large influx of individuals, and now appears to be wielding a sledgehammer and slashing benefits in response to growing political pressures. These pressures are related to the inundated process for seeking international protection.
Regarding the mentioned procedure, I noted that the backlog at the International Protection Office has ballooned to a staggering 21,000 individuals awaiting interview. The current rate of interviews being conducted – which I understand is around 210 weekly – means it will take no less than two years to address this backlog, and that’s without considering any new applicants. The Government’s EU migration pact, which they’ve been touting as a solution to our asylum predicaments, enforces a 90-day interview deadline. It’s unclear how this could possibly be met unless they have a plan to allocate a thousand more staff members to this cause. I welcome any insights on this matter.
Moreover, Ireland’s decision to extend a helping hand to the initial lot of Ukraine refugees may have been overly generous, and there may have been an underestimation regarding the volume of arrivals and how long the warfare in their home country would endure. The proposed drastic cuts, however, and their swift enforcement may cause our earlier kindness to quickly evaporate. These proposed stringent cuts must undeniably be a source of intense worry for many families, especially those caring for young children.
Must we really reduce benefits to the bare minimum and abruptly withdraw support from these refugees, providing them with merely 12 weeks of notice? Is it feasible for a family to adjust their household expenditure in such a limited period?
The Government ought to reconsider this proposition. If the plan is to bring about a significant decrease in weekly benefits, this should be progressively introduced over 12 months, not abruptly implemented after 12 weeks.
Our Government shouldn’t be seen as bending to the pressure of antagonistic immigration protesters who don’t reflect the views of the honourable majority that may be quiet but no less valid. Your inputs are always welcome on this matter.