Clitoral alylum

Um. I have a strong difference of opinion on this.

Ever since 1607 (the founding of the Jamestown settlement), this country has been settled by people who came here for as many different reasons as there were people. The Jamestown folks came because they were hoping to get seriously rich. The Pilgrims of 1620 came because they disagreed with the religion back home in England, but I wouldn’t characterize them as “refugees”. They lived in Holland for a while in reasonable bourgeois prosperity before they finally got together and chartered the Mayflower. That was not a “cheap” refugee expedition–it took a sizeable outlay of capital.

During the whole 17th, 18th, and most of the 19th centuries, Swedes and Germans and Irish and English and French and Russians and all sorts of people came here. Very few of them came because they were “refugees”, in the sense of “someone fleeing”, and certainly not in the modern sense of “someone fleeing for his life with only the clothes he’s wearing”.

Some of them came because they disagreed with the politics back home, but I would say that the vast majority came because they were hoping, if not to get seriously rich, then at least to have a better life, with more freedom, which would include the freedom to worship as they wished without having to deal with a lot of government interference. However, “government interference” doesn’t necessarily equal “persecution”. Many of the 19th century European states had official state religions, and if you wanted to worship as something offbeat, like a Hutterite or a Quaker, you could have problems, but which wouldn’t necessarily involve soldiers knocking on your door in the middle of the night and dragging you off to prison.

It’s only during the latter part of the 19th century, with the pogroms of Eastern Europe and Russia, and the rise of the modern state, that we start seeing “refugees”, in the sense of “people fleeing for their lives with only the clothes they stand up in.” And not all of THEM were fleeing “political” or “religious” persecution, either. It’s entirely possible to be an “economic” refugee.

Peace, you begin to remind me of those folks who move to Oregon because of its clean air, clean water, and high standard of living, and as soon as they get there, they start beating the drum to discourage other people from moving in. And some of them are quite loud and obnoxious about it. “Don’t come here, we don’t want you. We don’t need any more people in Oregon, adding their trash, their pollution, their demands for more services, filling up our schools with their children. Outlander, go home.” There’s a name for this syndrome but I can’t think what it is, offhand.

It seems like you’re saying, “Hey, I got in, but now I think we should start tightening up the requirements.” I don’t think that sounds very fair.

Duck, you seem to be serious, and your post definitely deserves a serious answer. Jb is still full of crap, he takes my every word as a personal insult. Let him wallow in his hatred.
You are right, I romantised the history somewhat. But you cannot deny that for all the oppressed in the world this country has always been a beacon of freedom, and it always (well, almost) gave asylum to the fleeing. And, such a romantic fool, I believe that these verses engraved on the Statue of Liberty pedestal, mean something. And I hope you will agree that we cannot take everyone based on economic need: 90% of the world will be here in a week. Should we take anyone whose life is endangered because of his political beliefs? Should we take anyone who can suffer mutilation (genital, manual,etc.)? Be enslaved? Killed by his neighbor? Or should we try to help them to build better counties without being labeled “policeman of the world” (how to avoid labeling?)? Because clearly, we cannot accept everyone, there are too many miserables.
I do not have the answers. Jb thinks that I should have, or I should not ask the questions. I do not think that it would be fair to admit a Sudanese girl whose relatives want to “perfect” her by doing infibulation and to reject her cousin about to be enslaved. And who are you going to admit: a threatened Tutsi or a theatened Kosovar?

So, I thought we should try to sort out these issues, at least, to discuss them. Jb calls me idiot, but wants me to find a solution. I guess, he consirers himself smart (by default; somebody out there must be smart!), but avoids thinking.

As far as your Oregon settlers comparison. There is a thread of truth to it. Those settlers wanted to live in pristine conditions. If all others come, it will defeat the purpose. One of the dialectical controversies. I guess, in simple English, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

Peace

hah hah ha ha ha!
jb

Ultimately, I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one, and leave it at that.
http://www.libertystatepark.com/emma.htm

Okay. If you say this, if you believe this–

–then why, in the very next breath, do you say this–

Either you buy the package or you don’t, Peace. Either you believe America should shelter the oppressed of the world, or you don’t.

The poem says, “huddled masses”, not “huddled masses who can prove they’re being politically persecuted by their own countries.”

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, yes, my God, yes! But do that in addition to providing a haven for those who, for whatever reason, choose not to stay and duke it out with the forces of unreason.

No. I do not agree.

And I would like to point out that the Oregon “settlers” that I’m talking about are modern-day, 20th century people, living in places like Portland even as we speak.

Duck, I agree with all your “yes”, I vote for your program with all my three hands. But I do not see how it could be implicated. And you do not say. Because I say that I do not have a solution, I appear as malevolent fucking Peace. You yell from the top of your lungs: “Come, come! Over here!” And you appear as loving midwestern middleclass cuddly Ducky wearing the duckbill slippers. But you did even not answer what I asked three times: “Can we take everyone in need?” Let alone to suggest something.

Jeepers. Well, as far as I’m concerned this discussion is over. If anybody else wants to continue, I suggest you start a new thread. As for me, I’m kind of maxed out on the whole subject of asylum, whether political, religious, or clitoral. :rolleyes: