The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Immigration and Asylum
|Subject: Re: No girls allowed||Date: 8/31/2004 12:54 PM|
|Author: jerrymurphy||Number: 5 of 5|
You would be against all asylum. Well that doesn't leave much room for debate then does it. I think we should have very open borders so you and I may not see eye to eye very easily. No worries though, that what makes discussion boards interesting.
I think you are right about some things, we cannot accomidate half of the middle east. That in itself is not a problem. I doubt half of the Middle East really wants to come here anyway. If we encouraged or even just allowed women to seek asylum when they are politically oppressed, then it is likely as you say that most of the women who take advantage of the opportunity to come here would be "better off, well educated and articulate". That is OK with me. Women who are educated, financially independant and able to speak clearly will make fine citizens (or permanent residents or whatever they decide to be). In this case it will be a net gain for the US and a net loss for the oppressive society from which they came.
As for the Canadians, we wouldn't have to give them asylum. SInce they don't oppress thier women any more than they do to thier men, we'll assume that they are ineligable. I would certainly not be against screening asylum seekers to verify that they are in fact women, that the country from which they come is in fact oppressive, that they have no record of commmiting felonies, etc. We can do this ourselves and not outsource this job to stupid Canadians, average intelligent Canadians or even smart Canadians.
In all likelyhood this would encourage subversives to come to our country. Mostly I think they would be people who want to subvert thier previous home goverment not ours. Just like many Soviet dissidents came to America and described the horrors of communism and Iraqi dissidents came to the US to subvert Saddam Hussain, many women would likely come here and raise awareness and raise money to promote political change abroad. That too is OK with me. Once here I would expect them to enjoy the freedom that they had been denied earlier. As for the few who would come here attempting to subvert our goverment, I would tell them to get in line. There are plenty of subversives here already. The Neocons who want to start an American empire abroad have a good foothold in our goverment now. The Europhiles who think our foriegen policy should be determined by the UN are pretty subversive to our Constitution. There are enviromentalist wackos, Christain Conservatives, gay right activists, anti-corporate / anti-globalization types, and plenty of others who seek to take away our freedoms in one way or another. They are all subversive but we are a very strong and resiliant society.
There is also the possibility that you mentioned of terrorism. This is a very real threat. If we let in enough people some terrorists will find a way in. In fact many already have. Most of the terrorists in the Middle East have been men. The exceptions, a few Palistinian girls and some of the Iraqi women right after the fall of bagdad, have gotten a lot of attention beacuse they were women - because they were the exceptions. In most cases I believe we can deal with the threats of terrorism from immigrant women the same way we deal with threats from other groups. WIth vigilance. MIddle eastern women now can enter any public building and drive vans and get on aircrafts in the US. So can anyone else. While I think it is likely that we will be attacked again I don't think I am willing to sacrifice my freedom to prevent this attack. I resent the searches of my bags in government buildings now and the hassle of getting on a plane. Traveling abroad is even worse. I am a Irish - American male with a US Army identification and I get harrassed in every airport I enter.
I understand that there is a balance between freedom and security but I lean more toward te freedom side. Middle eastern people don't scare me. The average citizen watches them pretty closely in airport and in general. Haveing more around won't make us less safe.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|