Refugees invade another country they say to improve their life. But in actually what is happening is they bring the things they are running away from with them and lower the standard of the country they have adopted. Shouldn't they stay in their own country and improve that?
2006-10-19 12:24:53 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Actually, that's a rather hard question to answer. Each countries has their own set of problems which oppresses the poor and they are left with the easiest way out by fleeing to a developed country. Take for example the Philippines, as far as I remember Marcos (former dictator) pushed corruption in the country to a devastating level and all of the President who succeeded has his or her version of that. It is so sad that there are no body that police government corruption and the UN has actually stand idly by because of it's bureaucratic ways. Actually, you partially suggested an answer, people should not run away and face the problem and if everyone stays put and work things out the corrupt individuals are only the minority and just a handful. Youre right don't run away from your problem\s and just face it. The easiest way to get away from it all is to be a refugee. Good question.
2006-10-19 12:34:58 · answer #1 · answered by George S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Refugees have been a part of human history forever. You don't seem to realize that refugees can do good things. If it weren't for refugees, we wouldn't have America, now would we? Refugees from Europe hundreds of years ago established countries such as the United States, South Africa, and Australia. Why should non-European people not be allowed to seek a better life outside of their country? (Because you ARE talking about non-whites!)
2006-10-19 13:25:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The refugee device, extra advantageous than the different technique that i'm able to think of of, is an indictment of the intelligence of the government of refugee-accepting countries. If my homestead, or yours, burns down interior the midst of wintry climate, we've a useful expectation of being taken in via our buddies or a minimum of the interior sight social centers. In different words, we pass to the nearest shelter. If my homestead in Tennessee burns down, i do no longer anticipate to be housed on the Plaza lodge in long island; yet that, in consequence, is what refugees are doing. I stay in Canada. issues get tough in Uganda, Chile, Somalia or (have confidence it or no longer) Afghanistan, so what option have they have been given yet to return right here? answer: plenty!!!! pass around the corner! yet we've a protection rigidity of violin-enjoying attorneys who make a residing out of such bogus schemes. in my view they might desire to be attempted for Treason; yet relatively they're applauded via the left wing as "having coronary heart." In precis, no u . s . might desire to settle for refugees from a u . s . with which they have diplomatic kin, and no u . s . might desire to settle for refugees from a u . s . which won't be able to be reached over land.
2016-12-16 10:35:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mr. Z is right, and also it is hard to change a country when the majority is against your believe, and are capable of using physical force to forbid change
2006-10-19 12:31:19 · answer #4 · answered by Luis 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if they would stay in there own country they would not be refugees
2006-10-19 12:27:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
to each its own, but sooner or later the US is going to get too big for its britches
2006-10-19 12:33:16 · answer #6 · answered by Me 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋