• Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Wealth is not relevant in the question of whether people deserve asylum, the relevant question is whether they are safe

    So far, so good.

    And my next question is how to make that rich country pay the bills for the involuntary hotel guests.

    • huppakee@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      There aren’t many people who can make a country do anything and i guess the richer the country is, the harder it gets. My power for example doesn’t reach much further than the ballot box.

      But I guess your question is more along the lines of how I propose the country to pay for these people. To be honest, grasping the full economic picture behind policies concerning immigration is beyond my capabilities. But I can say that doing what is right often isn’t the same as doing what is financially to most profitable. Any country, like an individual, has to decide what’s worth paying for. For me personally, I wouldn’t want the government to let people in need in, if that meant an end to funding public broadcasting or public transport, pensions, etc.

      But as I said, i don’t know what it would cost to help these people and neither do i know how much our society and economy would benefit from them being here. So instead i’ll just repeat my view of what is right: helping people in need, even if that requires a sacrifice.