|
>> >> If it is the first option, even my "soft" approach to asylum seekers isn't this
>> >> silly (other readers refer to previous posts), nor does it subsidise asylum
>> >> seekers at tax payers expense (only for their period of detainment. >> A forty-eight hour turn-around on deportation would minimize the level of subsidy too. >> Forgetting that about 80% of asylum seekers become refugees, what you are
>> saying is that you wouldn't accept them at all. Yes, pretty much. >> We don't have an obligation to
>> do so, but if we reckon we are such a beacon of freedom, then we should accept
>> people who flee from murderers like Pol Pot and Hussein. Why? Why is it that so many libertarians say that we have an obligation to help
victims of crime, but we have no right to take action against the perpetrators?
If Pol Pot and Hussein are committing basic human rights violations - take them
out! Don't just force me to share my home with people who claim to be their
victims. >> >> Even a policy of 'indefinite detainment until deportation' would stop the flow
>> >> as soon as the conviction behind the policy became apparent. It's the
>> >> namby-pamby should-we-shouldn't-we approach which is causing the problems. >> I don't even see what's so "namby pamby" about either what I propose or even
>> the current system. I don't think it's smart to subsidise people (at all
>> really) who probably have difficulty in giving back (such an ugly way to put
>> it), given I would scrap Pay TV and whatever luxury get up they have, but you
>> get locked up intil you are assessed, then either released with conditions,
>> deported or arrested and tried. I wasn't calling your solution "namby pamby", just the current UK (non) solution. As for luxuries. I don't have pay-TV or air conditioning (though I would like
to), yet I pay taxes so that these people can have them. Yes, I am a little
annoyed by that. >> >> >> If it is the second choice, then obviously the system needs to be reviewed and
>> >> >> tightened. Mandatory is another option but sort of integrates into my idea
>> >> >> about security checks for release. Otherwise there is the stupid option of
>> >> >> rounding up and deporting all suspicious types of people, Arabs or Muslim,
>> >> >> violently anti Government and so on, that diverts resources away from the
>> >> >> intelligence community who found this ricin stash (and who probably would be
>> >> >> observing radical Islamicists and Mc Veigh types). >> >> McVeigh types .. you mean like libertarians? :-) >> He was? I suppose the Democrats had Mr la Rouche, and the Republicans had
>> Nixon and Ann Coulter. >> That's surprising and no too surprising at the same time - conspiracy
>> theorists, paticularly in the US typically have Libertarian like complaints and
>> manifestos - even though they usually propose as solutions are likely to be
>> white power or communism, which are quite unlibertarian. Just like the
>> bombings. Yes. White-separatist organizations like www.stormfront.org propose (or used to
propose) a white homeland in which blacks are welcome, but which won't be
entitled to affirmative action. They sound pretty libertarian. Of course the
chat boards don't come across that way, but the official manifesto talks the talk.
| 
