Debate : 12369


Off-Topic / Debate / 12369

Re: Views on asylum seekers? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) FWIW, I heard on the radio this morning that Australia has agreed to take some of them. (...) Are they being used for slave labor? (...) I personally think that citizenship is a scam. I'd welcome those folks to the US. I guess I suppose that (...) (23 years ago, 2-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Views on asylum seekers? —Ross Crawford

(...) I hadn't heard that - and I'm skeptical that would happen, given the position of the government. Here's another story about the court action which has been brought by civil libertarian groups (URL)Australia has many refugee camps where such (...) (23 years ago, 3-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Views on asylum seekers? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I wouldn't. At least not particularly. I suppose it would be reasonable to donate to some organization that helped them find work. The housing market could supply a place to live. (...) No. That wouldn't be much of a welcome. (...) Maybe...but (...) (23 years ago, 3-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Views on asylum seekers? —Frank Filz

(...) Of course if tbey come in and don't respect property rights, they will find themselves detained, and possibly sent back where they came from. (...) And we have demonstrated that such collections are pretty effective, even as people complain (...) (23 years ago, 3-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Views on asylum seekers? —Christopher L. Weeks

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: [big snip, I agree] (...) Agreed. Further, what would happen if by offering a place to the people of Banana Republic X, we got more than half of them to want to come to the US? Could we charge them the (...) (23 years ago, 3-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Views on asylum seekers? —Pedro Silva

(...) Why not crosspost this to .fun? Pedro (23 years ago, 3-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Views on asylum seekers? —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Heck, why not a new newsgroup, lugnet.off-topic.sar...drip.drip? ;) I still disagree, by the way, that people in third world countries are any more responsible for their personal lot than we're each responsible for the prosperity brought by (...) (23 years ago, 4-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Views on asylum seekers? —Ross Crawford

(...) And where do they get housed while they're waiting for a house to become available / be built. Remember we're not talking 438 anymore, but maybe millions. And Australias problem isn't limited to 438 either - they've been coming here illegally (...) (23 years ago, 4-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Views on asylum seekers? —Dave Low

(...) As I understand the situation, Australian search and rescue informed nearby ships (including the Tampa, a Norwegian cargo freighter) that an Indonesian vessel was in distress. The Tampa picked up the refugees from their sinking boat in the (...) (23 years ago, 4-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Views on asylum seekers? —Ross Crawford

(...) WHERE in the general community? Tents? Caravans? Maybe some can afford houses, but the houses still have to be found. There are currently many thousands in detention centres in Australia, and I dare say many thousands in other places waiting (...) (23 years ago, 5-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Views on asylum seekers? —Dave Low

(...) I'm sure the building industry would be delighted to find room and resources to accomodate new Australians. As for the cost, how about a $14000 new home buyers grant? Seriously, the government is spending a massive amount of money on refugee (...) (23 years ago, 5-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Views on asylum seekers? —Ross Crawford

(...) I (...) I think we're getting confused between asylum seekers, and refugees here. See below. (...) I don't have anything to back this up except some snippets I've read in newspapers (and we all know how reliable they are), but I think most of (...) (23 years ago, 5-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Views on asylum seekers? —Dave Low

(...) Whichever, the argument against detention remains the same I think. The sustainable development question of population carrying capacity/infrastruct...mmigration levels is separate, but certainly related. (...) Here's another perspective, from (...) (23 years ago, 5-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Views on asylum seekers? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) First of all, there are tons of houses in the US that are going unused because they don't meet the stringent safety laws that we take for granted. But they are a 100% improvement over what these immigrants may be used to...and not really (...) (23 years ago, 5-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Views on asylum seekers? —Ross Crawford

(...) So where do you draw the line? What is "safe for refugees"? What happens when (not if) a house deemed "safe enough" causes injury / death, and the nearest lawyer sues on their behalf? Who foots the bill (for either side)? And do you think (...) (23 years ago, 6-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Views on asylum seekers? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) because (...) In case it's not clear...I would call them safe for everyone...not just refugees. And I think it is up to the individual to determine how much risk they want in their lives. If someone thinks living there is their best option, (...) (23 years ago, 6-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Views on asylum seekers? —James Simpson

(...) I just learned that Baltimore had a homesteading project whereby people could buy derelict houses from the city for $1 with the understanding that they would live in them and fix them up. I think that this would be a fantastic option for the (...) (23 years ago, 6-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)