Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ThirdEye who wrote (127315)	2/15/2001 11:16:47 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769667

Fair enough. There is another way of putting it, though. I would prefer that everyone could come to the United States, or that the whole of North America, down to Panama, had been annexed and eventually made into states. But that is impracticable. Therefore, the government gets to set the terms of admission. It so happens that it has shown favoritism to those fleeing certain regimes. One can disagree with the judgment, to the point of civil disobedience, of course. But some official policy must be set, and even civil disobedience is illegal, however conscientious. Now, the question is, was the policy unfair because it had a more lenient attitude towards those fleeing Communist regimes, compared to those fleeing civil wars or right- wing dictatorships? For those fleeing civil wars, there is not much difference between natural disaster and political upheaval, and therefore there is no automatic asylum. For those fleeing right- wing dictatorship, all they have to show is a good reason they would be targeted by the regime, and they are granted asylum. The gray area has to do with the operation of death squads that terrorize the peasantry to ensure they do not aid rebels. The problem is that it is not systematic, but random, and becomes merely a feature of involving civilians in civil war. We cannot take in all those who have a remote chance of being targeted, as that encompasses most of the population. Is it unfair that we were more prone to accept those fleeing Communist regimes, as in the Mariel boatlift? There is nothing to mandate evenhandedness, actually. In the case of right- wing dictatorships, there was no essential security threat, and therefore no political and diplomatic competition, at least not on a high level. In the case of Communist regimes, we had reason to underscore the characteristics of totalitarian control and hostility to the United States, as part of our symbolic competition with them. Simply put, the cases were different, and therefore not treated the same. One may disagree with the rationale, but it is not arbitrary, but can only be seen embedded in the international policy of the post- War period.......