UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (3) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: jerrymurphy Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 5  
Subject: No girls allowed Date: 6/15/2004 12:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I noticed someone started this board but no on has posted anything yet. I'll try to get the discussion going.

OK

Should women, from oppressive societies be allowed to come into our country under political asylum?

What if they are from, for examle, Saudi Arabia, where they can't vote, or drive, or wear nice revealing clothing in public? Do they deserve political asylum like the cubans got when they fled Castro?

What about women who have been individually targeted for speaking out against oppressive goverments? If they were targeted for promoting democracy we would probably give them asylum, shouldn't we give them the same if they support womens equal treatment.

Discuss, please.

Jerry
Print the post Back To Top
Author: noanchorbabies Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4 of 5
Subject: Re: No girls allowed Date: 8/25/2004 9:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Should women, from oppressive societies be allowed to come into our country under political asylum?"

No. How many such women do you suppose there are? We obviously cannot accomodate half the population of the Middle East. Besides, terrorists can be female. This could be a pretext to smuggle in subversives.

The stupid Canadians would never be able to tell for sure whether such a person was even female. They have just ruled that anyone claiming to be a Mohammedan woman cannot be required to remove the head covering that shows only the eyes, even for a government identification photograph.

The world has suddenly become too dangerous for us to continue taking risks. I would be in favor of eliminating the practice of granting political asylum for any reason, to either gender.

In reality, the poorest and most vulnerable women in these modern barbaric countries would probably NOT be the ones trying to get to the United States. Rather it would be the very few better off, well educated, and atriculate ones. Instead of trying to improve their own personal situation by relocating to America, let them stay in their countries and do whatever they can to change things. If the United States serves as a magnet to drain off any and all such potentially influential women, there will be nobody left in those countries who could work towards the general betterment of the less fortunate masses.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jerrymurphy Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 5 of 5
Subject: Re: No girls allowed Date: 8/31/2004 12:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
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.

Jerry

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (3) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement