US sending back the people that fled...

[Tybaltus]

Well in the news yesterday, there is a story about 200 Haitians fleeing Haiti. They jumped overboard a ship, ran into the highways in Florida and hoped to get people to pull over so they could flee from the authorities.

Story can be found here

I feel bad, I dont know the full magnitude of why they are fleeing, I need to read up on it more, but they are obviously fleeing hard times...

The obvious problem is that US is quickly becoming filled and the population is growing. But shouldnt there be some way to help these poor people that are fleeing hardship, rather then to just send them back? And what ideas would you guys have to alleviate the problem?

[Ned Flanders]

The story is odd. The video is nuts. Anyone else seen it?

As far as why they are fleeing, I don't either, as I know little of the politics or lifestyle in Haiti (they were Haitians, right?).

They are probably fleeing hard times, indeed, but becoming an illegal alien is not going to help things, not here. This was probably the only way they had a chance to get out. I know little of the laws of immigration and the provisions one needs to fulfill to be allowed into the US or out of Haiti, for that matter, but it would seem these people had little chance of attaining such status.

[RandomThug]

I was listning to howard stern today talk about how America is great. So great people flee here, running across six lanes of highway traffic. Its crazy how bad people want into a place so many others say is a bad and horrible place.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandomThug I was listning to howard stern today talk about how America is great. So great people flee here, running across six lanes of highway traffic. Its crazy how bad people want into a place so many others say is a bad and horrible place.

Much of the time, I think it's Maslow. People aren't going to worry about niceties like sub-cultural status in a foreign land, when they're in basic need of shelter, food, warmth and safety. Of course, there are always the economic immigrants as well, but hey, as governments know (even if locals don't), low cost immigrant labor has driven economies since the 13th century.

[Mr Sleep]

Quote:

Originally posted by fable low cost immigrant labor has driven economies since the 13th century.

Absolutely you only have to look at Nikes dealing in the sweat shop trade to have evidence of that. Interestingly enough that conjures up a whole other idea....time for new thread

[CM]

What are the rules? If you send them back you send them back. Keep them otherwise. Dont get me started on the whole Elian thing. These people want to make a better life for themselves, they should be allowed to do so. I can understand that the US can not accept all the people who come to the US. However there are needs for the immigration policies to be more lax. I am in favor for these people to stay in the US. The same is for the UK, and EU.

[Nippy]

@ Fas, that's a very definite viewpoint, when you were in Pakistan, how many people emigrated to Pakistan, and how many left? It's not as easy as saying "Bah, they should all stay!"

It is an incredibly complex issue, and as a Briton, I know the complications that occur because of it...

[CM]

Nippy pakistan holds 3 million Afghanis who in 1990 had 700,000 children who are all given pakistani nationality. If a third world country with a pathetic system like Pakistan can handle this why cant some of the more developed nations. More the 50% of Jordans population are palestinian refugees and they are given status of being citizens. India at one time had 10 million refugees from Bangladesh for 2 years. Some stayed some left. So it is not only the west that has to deal with these people.

Also dealing with migration do you agree with the german model of only allowing in those people who have skills that you need? The danish govt has decided to expell its asylum seekers and refugees yet they have increased the quota for specialists doctors and IT specialists to live and work in the country. Not exactly far is it?

[Weasel]

Quote:

Originally posted by CM Not exactly far is it?

The only fair system would be to allow a certain amount from each country, per year or every two years. But then you would have some who would abuse this.

[Nippy]

Ok then, lets look at Great Britain. More financial expenditure per annum goes to housing and supporting asylum seekers and those unable to support themselves of a foreign nationality than goes on Britain's own homeless.

Does Pakistan provide financial support, healthcare, housing to every single person that goes into it? Great Britain has to, it's part of the unwritten constitution here that says we help any that require aid.

Besides that, the west provides support to middle-eastern countries anyway, take Bangladesh and the floods for example. The Royal Navy provided helicopter evacuation for those in desperate circumstances. Not only does the west provide fianancial aid, it goes out to other countries, and aids them in their own!

Do I support Germany's basis for immigrants? Yes, in a way I do. Each soverign country has it's own rights to allow those that it WANTS to allow into a country, it is their own right. I'm sure Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and so on refuse anyone they want entry into their country, the UK, I'll use the UK as an example again, provides temporary housing, food and clothes for refugees, asylum seeker etc, but they STILL escape the buildings and go into the country. They don't have National Insurance cards etc, and so cannot be given legitimate jobs. What do you want us to do, roll out the red carpet?

The wests contribution in terms of financial aid, UN, Red Cross support in war-torn areas goes way and above the costs of internal affairs.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by CM Nippy pakistan holds 3 million Afghanis who in 1990 had 700,000 children who are all given pakistani nationality. If a third world country with a pathetic system like Pakistan can handle this why cant some of the more developed nations.

A few possible factors to consider that could cause this:

Ideology. Political parties view for power all the time in the West, and one card to play in an election is the "minorities/immigrants under the current administration are taking away all your jobs." It isn't accurate, but when you're out of work and so are at least a quarter of the people in your area, it's a powerful incentive to xenophobia.

Over-population. The West *is* overpopulated, though the finger is always pointed at China or India. The UK has an enormous population for its size, and immigrants invariably travel to metropolitan areas where employment conditions are usually tight. By contrast, poorly developed countries can absorb more immigrants precisely because they are poorly developed. They lack an assortment of resources that would aid development, and one of these is manpower.

Allowable conditions. It's easy enough to resettle millions of people in a developing nation where the economic norm for the lower class permits housing that meets a far lower standard than in the West. Social policies in Western Europe preclude simply introducing people and shunting them into shanty towns, without significant government support.

Universal culture. Back in the 14th century, Abu Abduallah ibn Battuta traveled from Morrocco all the way to Central Asia, Indonesia, India, East Africa, and West African Sudan. He did this without trading, as the Polos of Venice did, by relying solely upon his credentials as a run-of-the-mill, minor Islamic lawyer/magistrate, with a knowledge of Arabic. He spoke nothing else. I'd venture, based on everything I've heard, that Pan-Islamic culture is still prominent in the MidEast, and that an appeal to the charity of Islam for co-religionists in a foreign land would not go unheard.

There has never been anything quite like that in Western, Christian Europe, where society itself was identified from the first as "secular," and opposed to the "sacred."

[CM]

Well back from class and i will reply today, and then saturday. I have an exam tomorrow so wont have any time.

Nippy by our standards of living and housing the afghans are treated no differently. They are now a segment of society and can be considered a minority group instead of being a foriegn population. Officially the estimates are 3 million. Unofficially it goes into a 5 million. They are provided the same health care benefits an average pakistani has. That means immunization and petty illnesses are covered by the govt. But we have no social health net to speak of unlike the NHS or whatever it is in the UK.

Nippy regarding the expenditure on asylum seekers, do you know if that is a per capita amount or a total amount. As well how large are these two segments population wise?

Nippy no country in the 21st century provides aid any more. It is all loans. The last country to provide a grant (without wanting it back) was china in the 1970s. Ironically it was too pakistan. All aid today is in the forums of loans and interest is a strong component of countries revenue that lend out money.

Many countries are very happy with the supporter provided by the developing world, however some say that it should be like that. Others say that the developing nations should do it to make up for colonization. But lets leave that for now. I personally think any way that the developed world helps is a good thing. because they have no obligation to do so.

However what i do not agree with is the fact that they wont allow asylum seekers, but will take in educated IT workers. That is not fair. People who fear persecution and death are given the boot while people who have skills can demand top dollar prices for skills that are in abundance around the third world.

As i said to Littz somewhere else, the European or American population will not choose to be garbage collectors or street sweepers. Rather it is the migrant and asylum seeker population that fulfills the minial (spelling?) jobs that many think are not worth it. The swiss hotelling industry thrives on this or so i have heard. Now way to back up that above statement.

Fable: The your examples of pan islamism is very true but there are difficulties. A developing nation that takes in 3 million refugees in a period of 2 years suffers extreme social, economic and political chaos. I am very much surprised that Pakistan survived that esp since US and Western aid only started arriving in 1983 with the UN and on bi-lateral basis.

Europe is over populated? hmmm...i wouldnt agree with that. The economies in relation to the population may be very tight but the population as a whole is not that large. Germany i believe is bigger than Bangladesh, yet Bangladesh has 130 million people and germany has some 80 million.

Damn have to run got work to do. Didnt notice the time. But Fable i am greatly impressed with your knowledge of the Islamic world. I base this on the simple fact that you know who Abu Abduallah ibn Battuta is. Could you please tell me which books you have read about the he region. Most of my books are in urdu, and that has degraded to the extent that i read faster in english.

[Nippy]

Fas, I'd like to say this before we go on, and that is, to debate with you is some of the most fun I've had in a long time. Thanks. You too Fable, I have no idea how much foreign cultural literture you read, but it impresses me nonetheless.

Quote:

But we have no social health net to speak of unlike the NHS or whatever it is in the UK.

The British government will provide any healthcare to anyone that comes into any British public hopsital, as opposed, for example, to the US, where you have to have insurance details to pay for services. (Right?) Is that the same as Pakistan?

Quote:

Nippy regarding the expenditure on asylum seekers, do you know if that is a per capita amount or a total amount. As well how large are these two segments population wise?

As far as I am aware, the total cost. That is including the housing support, food, clothing, temporary accomodation, probation offers and staff to deal with deportation AND entrance into the UK. In terms of population, I have no idea about the current amount of asylum seekers, it fluctuates with peak times for entering the country, and unknown illegal entry. Current British national population is 59,778,002 (July 2002 estimate).

Quote:

Nippy no country in the 21st century provides aid any more. It is all loans. The last country to provide a grant (without wanting it back) was china in the 1970s. Ironically it was too pakistan. All aid today is in the forums of loans and interest is a strong component of countries revenue that lend out money. Many countries are very happy with the supporter provided by the developing world, however some say that it should be like that. Others say that the developing nations should do it to make up for colonization. But lets leave that for now. I personally think any way that the developed world helps is a good thing. because they have no obligation to do so.

In terms of the aid, of course they do! It is not always in terms of monetary or something simple, it's a case of protection and help, the UK and US's involvement in Afghanistan has brought food, clothing aid and stability. We can't look at it economically, go back to my example of the Royal Navy, the variety of support is not small.

I suppose the west in some ways feels obligated to help, what with the past control of many different nations from remote shores.

Quote:

However what i do not agree with is the fact that they wont allow asylum seekers, but will take in educated IT workers. That is not fair. People who fear persecution and death are given the boot while people who have skills can demand top dollar prices for skills that are in abundance around the third world.

Why should they allow everyone? As you said above, any help they do give is most welcome, but surely they have the right to decide what help to give.

You mention fairness. Does fairness come into it when the recent immigrant population have attacked our members of society (white, Indian, black, whatever) as they have done in my area?

A country would want to have people in their country that can make a difference. If they want to live in another country, they should (ooohhh controversial?!?) make the effort to speak the language of that country and be of use to help the economy. Many immigrants to the UK still do not speak English.

Quote:

As i said to Littz somewhere else, the European or American population will not choose to be garbage collectors or street sweepers. Rather it is the migrant and asylum seeker population that fulfills the minial (spelling?) jobs that many think are not worth it. The swiss hotelling industry thrives on this or so i have heard. Now way to back up that above statement.

I argree absolutely Fas, (the spelling is menial) menial jobs are filled by many immigrant workers that are LEGAL. My grandad used to own an office cleaning franchise. He would contract workers to go into the offices and do the menial jobs for relatively low pay. The white (British) workers, would demand double! The sad thing is, the foreign workers, who did have National Insurance cards etc, were on the whole, a lot nicer than other people. I have no doubt of the value to our society that immigrants bring. I have many black and Asian friends, and I am glad to say that I play pool with them, work with them, study with them and will go to university with them. The issue I bring to your attention is the cost of the illegal immigrant workers, not only financially, but socially. They see the western countries as safe havens where they can find easy jobs, better money etc, but they don't realise the restrictions placed upon entry and the competition for jobs. Legal entrants will always get them over the illegal entrants.

Quote:

Europe is over populated? hmmm...i wouldnt agree with that. The economies in relation to the population may be very tight but the population as a whole is not that large. Germany i believe is bigger than Bangladesh, yet Bangladesh has 130 million people and germany has some 80 million.

I hope you don't mind me jumping in here. In terms of open urban space, there is very little left, and due to the fact that many immigrants arrive with little startup capita can afford good housing, they choke up cheap areas or get council housing (in example of UK).

Germany has recently been hit by massive unemployment and the two prospective chancellors for election both promised a recovering economy. One way to do that is to limit living in that country, and so, limit the umemployment and get jobs to national citizens.

Good luck with your exam etc, I look forward to hearing from you.

[Beowulf]

In notice that whilst everyone agrees that it's better for the host country to take in qualified immigrants, no-one mentions the effect this has on the country of origin.
It's great for a developed country to take, for example, doctors and nurses to make up a shortfall, but they're far more urgently needed where they came from.
If immigration is allowed only based on the economic needs of the host country, then the emmigrant country looses out

[RandomThug]

We should all see that now.

Everyone (individual humans) should have the ability to seek out a better life for his or her family. Now you take a Phd doctor out of a mexican barrio and drop him into a suburban north dakota town. Which is going to pay him more and support his family better.

If a thousand haitians want to leave and come to USA and only 30 are "educated" and we only take the thirty. Thats a horrible thing for thier country, but obviously they have already given up on it all together.

Its a horrible thing when a country goes to ****e, but the fact is people want better things and who is going to stop them from bettering thier lives. And who is going to stop people who currently live in a place to decide who stays goes based upon what makes thier lives better.

Personally I went to school to learn and got a good job so I can afford a good place to live in. Others dont have the choices i did so I dont argue with them wanting to "free load" here. Actually im rambling so later.