| From: | Gurth gurth@******.nl |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Refugees |
| Date: | Sun, 23 May 1999 21:27:43 +0200 |
the street was...
> >That's the bit the media never explain, and in that light it makes more
> >sense. Still, IMHO it's ludicrous to fly someone from the Balkans to an
> >island in the _Pacific_ just to house them somewhere for a while.
>
> That is true, it does seem like a long way to go. But, take a look at map
> at its not really quite as far as it seems. At least as compared to fly
> them over to the US.
Have you really thought about what you just said? A flight from western
Europe to the eastern part of North America takes about 7 hours of
boredom. The Carribean is further away, so it would take longer, and
Albania is in south-eastern Europe -- 12 hours' flying at least, I would
guess. Guam is further east than _Japan_, and further south as well; on
the map I'm looking at now, in a straight line it's about 1/3rd further
from Albania than Cuba is...
I mean, to house refugees there have to be easier solutions than flying
them across a quarter or more of the world, especially with the numbers
involved here.
> While the US has tightened them somewhat, it is still not too hard once you
> get in. As long as you're frmo a country that is on an approved list of
> countries (such as China, Cuba, Yugoslavia, etc.) its hard not to get it.
Much the same here, but it takes a while to process everybody due to the
number of refugees involved (western Europe is a popular area to flee too,
plus the Netherlands seems to be regarded highly by refugees) and the
understaffing of the agencies responsible. Also, I believe the hard part
is in checking that someone is from the country they claim they're from,
as many arrive without papers, either accidentally or intentionally.
> Sorry, let me clarify. What I meant was that this was the result of the
> Balkinization. The US goes from one big country to a whole bunch of smaller
> countries that are focused around race or ethnic background.
That it does in SR's history, yes.
> Even then, after the breakup of the US occured, there was more
> Balkinization. The NAN when it started was a fairly cohesive group of
> governments. Shortly after, differences between the Sioux and the Pueblo,
> for example, served to lessen the effect of the NAN council. After that the
> Tir, Aztlan, and a few others broke off entirely.
That leaves the question how far they're willing to go. Tsimshian, for
example, is quite obviously a place where being a minority isn't too good
for your health, whereas most other NANs seem to be OK. It would probably
be a matter mainly of what kind of people manage to take power -- those
who feel they should unite all the groups in the country (like modern-day
western politicians), or those who want to use one group to become
powerful (like in the former Yugoslavia (and I specifically didn't just
put "Milosevic" there))?
It seems to me that most of the NAN has leaders who sit somewhere in the
middle, but who lean toward the unity side.
--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I never seem to be able to finish what I
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-
GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
