 | | Re: Views on asylum seekers?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
