Subject:
|
Re: Views on asylum seekers?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Sep 2001 17:34:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
413 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > 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"?
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,
then why not?
> 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)?
With no intent to harm another, I'd have the lawyer out of luck.
> 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.
Unless they fixed the places up and built more as they got on their feet. The
point of bringing these people into a civilized nation is not so that they can
be on the dole. It is so they can accomplish and live well. They won't need
those shabby dwellings if they're willing to work hard.
> > 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.
True enough. But I don't exactly see it as my problem. Maybe I'd donate and
maybe not. The US does produce a bit of food that isn't used within...perhaps
we could route some of it to these hypothetical refugees if people were willing
to lend a hand.
> > 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.
But if we (the world, or at least the civilized world) weren't engaging in the
citizenship scam, then they could go where they thought their chances were
best.
> 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.
But it's only your problem if you make it your problem. I'm not suggesting we
set up detention centers and processing stations, and all kind of expensive
government programs. I'm just saying that people should be able to come here,
solicit charity with which to get started, and have a fair shake. If our
nation operated the way it ought to, we would have some land to make them
stewards of, and a loan to get started too. But we don't. And won't.
> > 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.
Why should they ask for freedoms that my government claims are unalienable?
> > 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".
How? Couldn't they just come on over?
> > > 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?
Right. (At least as a default. Maybe during crises or extremes.)
> 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'm not at all advocating this, but why not just ship them "back?" Or drown
them, or place them in work camps? If they aren't citizens, and don't have
a right to be there, then you can do whatever...right?
> I still haven't formed a firm opinion about whether it was "morally right" of
> them to refuse entry.
I don't exactly think it's a moral issue, I guess. Obviously I think it would
be better if they didn't do that, but there is a context in which we opperate
that is significantly removed from what I want. I understand that, and figure
that things can't go my way right now.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
