Subject:
|
Re: Views on asylum seekers?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Sep 2001 00:47:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
361 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > And where do they get housed while they're waiting for a house to become
> > available / be built.
>
> 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 dangerous.
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 they'd magically stop coming when all the "safe for refugees"
accomodation is filled? The living conditions would gradually get lower &
lower.
> Further, there are many parts of the US (and Australia)
> where living in tents is not a bizarre notion.
And what do they do for food? They can grow their own eventually but in the
meantime? And if you're talking outback places, growing food there isn't a
cinch, anyway.
> > > I'd advertise the address to which they had the option of sending donations • of
> > > cash and I'd set up a collection service for blankets and clothing and • stuff.
> >
> > Again, how effective do you think that would be with large numbers of people?
>
> I don't know. I figure that such a system could carry some number of
> refugees comfortably. Probably some number greater than that would show up.
> So they wouldn't be as comfortable as they'd like. As the conditions got • worse
> and worse, they would have to make a decision about whether or not it was • worth
> coming here.
Unfortunately, once they're here, they usually have no choice about whether or
not they'd rather go back.
During the crisis in Kosovo, we had a protest (by asylum seekers) in Australia,
complaining about conditions.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jun1999/ref-j18.shtml
I'm not condoning the governments actions in this case, but it points out the
problems that can occur. Obviously this probably wouldn't have happened if the
government didn't insist on housing them in detention centres, but if there
were no controls, I think the larger numbers would eventually cause similar
problems.
And it also points out that there are people willing to help out when the
government makes life hard.
> I'm not talking about giving these people a free ride. I'm just
> talking about affirming that they have a right to a place on this earth every
> bit as much as _I_ do. For me to keep them from this place of prosperity that
> I enjoy daily would be sheer evil.
However I think for them to barge in without asking, while not evil, is not
acceptable.
> > > > Or citizens who've been waiting years for a housing commision house?
> > >
> > > Everyone should be treated the same.
> >
> > That's just the problem. These people are forcing our government to treat • them
> > differently than the people who've gone through legal channels.
>
> But if you did away with these "legal channels" then you could treat them all
> the same.
But that would restrict the options for those who don't have the cash to pay
the "people smugglers".
> > Part of the job of government in
> > processing the applicants is to ensure there is sufficient accomodation.
>
> I say it aint. (Though I realize that you're just telling it like it is.)
So are you saying government should play no part in the immigration process?
> > If accomodation has been found for a refugee still not in Australia, then • suddenly
> > a ship-load of others turn up un-announced, something has to give.
>
> Let them decide what gives. You don't have to remove all risk from their
> venture.
Sure, but I think "letting them decide what gives" is a recipe for pandemonium.
Asking people who've only been in the country for a short time to make
decisions which may impact many others I think is ludicrous.
> > We can only
> > build and operate so many detention centres, so that accomodation suddenly
> > disappears, and the refugee who's applied legally has to wait even longer. I
> > don't think this is fair.
>
> I don't think herding them into detention centers is fair either.
Neither do I.
My point in asking the question is that I think the government has the right to
refuse these people entry, but in general it doesn't have the option, because
they're usually here before the government knows about them.
I still haven't formed a firm opinion about whether it was "morally right" of
them to refuse entry.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
