Refugees, Assylum Seekers?
One of the things I haven't yet understood, and perhaps I never will, is why assylum seekers from Africa or Syria choose to go back the country from which they sought refuge... they go back either yearly, or for a year or so... or ten months. They pledge to be American citizens, but they send their money back to their original country, ostensibly to support family, rather than returning the money to the American economy, and their savings accounts, whence, if one of their family could join them, the money would be available for them...
But, no, they send the money back to the country from which they fled. They go back to the country from which they fled... as if in fact there was never any real need for assylum in the first place.
I understand they want to support some family member who may be destitute, but there is something weird in being committed to two countries at once.
One of my new tenants said he had it great under the totalian regime, but left when the freedom fighting erupted, because there was war. He says he supports the freedom fighters, but he blames the totaliam regime for his problems, while at the same time admitting he had it "great" prior to the war... or under the totalian regime. And he blames Obama for failing to stop the shipment of arms from Iran to Syria.... which Obama could do at the drop of a hat, he says, if they weren't so dependent on Iran for other negotiations.
I guess what boggles me is how America allows so-called "assylum" seekers to return to the country from which they sought refuge.
One of my other former tenants returned yearly to So. Sudan, albeit after it became its own country and so-called liberated... he shipped enormous amounts of stuff and money there... even after civil war broke out again in December of 2013.... and our government let him.... though ostensibly he was a "refugee" from religious/political (he's of the majority tribe... Dinka). persecution.
What I am not seeing from the USA is any consistency in how it thinks about asylum and refugee status. Seems to me that if you leave a country, because it was persecuting you, and you become a USA citizen, your loyalties and money should stay here. I can see the USA allowing sending "gifts" to family ... but I don't understand the USA allowing an USA "citizen" sending huge portions of income back to the country from which one fled, more particularly in person.
If an assylum seeker returns home, while war is still going on, or has re-erupted, one has to logically question whether they were really in need of asylum.
Makes no sense t
But, no, they send the money back to the country from which they fled. They go back to the country from which they fled... as if in fact there was never any real need for assylum in the first place.
I understand they want to support some family member who may be destitute, but there is something weird in being committed to two countries at once.
One of my new tenants said he had it great under the totalian regime, but left when the freedom fighting erupted, because there was war. He says he supports the freedom fighters, but he blames the totaliam regime for his problems, while at the same time admitting he had it "great" prior to the war... or under the totalian regime. And he blames Obama for failing to stop the shipment of arms from Iran to Syria.... which Obama could do at the drop of a hat, he says, if they weren't so dependent on Iran for other negotiations.
I guess what boggles me is how America allows so-called "assylum" seekers to return to the country from which they sought refuge.
One of my other former tenants returned yearly to So. Sudan, albeit after it became its own country and so-called liberated... he shipped enormous amounts of stuff and money there... even after civil war broke out again in December of 2013.... and our government let him.... though ostensibly he was a "refugee" from religious/political (he's of the majority tribe... Dinka). persecution.
What I am not seeing from the USA is any consistency in how it thinks about asylum and refugee status. Seems to me that if you leave a country, because it was persecuting you, and you become a USA citizen, your loyalties and money should stay here. I can see the USA allowing sending "gifts" to family ... but I don't understand the USA allowing an USA "citizen" sending huge portions of income back to the country from which one fled, more particularly in person.
If an assylum seeker returns home, while war is still going on, or has re-erupted, one has to logically question whether they were really in need of asylum.
Makes no sense t
Comments