Sometimes it is difficult to wrap our head around the policies and doctrines of foreign countries. This is particularly true when cultural and religious doctrines vastly differ from what we are accustomed to in the United States. When it comes to Britain, however, I expect there to be more commonalities than differences. For this reason, I am at a loss as to why the U.K. would deport a family with an HIV-positive mother and father back to a country where their political foes will kill them or the lack of HIV medication will.
The Manchinjillis are from Malawi, a southeastern African nation bordered by Zambia, Tanzania, and Mozambique. Before leaving for the U.K. to claim asylum, the Manchinjillis had their house burned down and were faced with persecution from their former government. When the Manchinjillis return to Malawi where over 1 million people live with HIV/AIDS, there will be no medication for them. There will be no medical care. They will be social pariahs. Soon, their seven year-old son, Dumisani, will be an orphan.
I am certain that Britain is concerned with the public cost of migration. So is the U.S. So are lots of other countries. But what about the moral cost of not permitting persons with dramatic, extenuating circumstances to remain? If you don't qualify for permanent immigration status as the result of being a political target and being a family with two HIV-positive parents, how does anyone qualify for permanent residency? Does this decision by the U.K. signal a trend where wealthy and healthy immigrants stand the best chance of being granted asylum?
As the steward of taxpayer monies, the government should stringently implement fiscal controls to ensure the judicious use of tax revenues. I understand there exists a possibility of incurring high costs as the result of permitting unfettered migration into a country. My question is, what is the long term moral and social cost of telling migrants to go home and die?
4 comments:
Captain Gottis, the question is whether this is occuring in the United States. It would be interesting to find out if the United States has deported anyone with HIV and/or AIDS. What is the policy in the United States. I had not thought of this perspective and I am appreciative.
Mr. Way, this is a great blog and I'm sure you were thinking of it in Covina after observing non-traditonal queens. I just want to know if this is occuring in the United States.
MWL
P.S.-Anonymous blogs are better. I don't like big brother checking my comments.
"what is the long term moral and social cost of telling migrants to go home and die?"
Dunno, but 87 hospitals have closed in California in just the past four years because of the cost care for illegal immigrants. Tax payers already take the burden for these costs along with the hundreds of thousands of anchor babies and the loophole that allows them to bring in upwards of 200 "close family relatives" to take advantage of our welfare programs (to name just one benefit bestowed). American citizens of course foot the bill for this and with our country involved in an ongoing War on Terror for generations to come, and the soon Global Warming tax (don't even get me started), I can assure you judicious use of tax revenues will never head in your direction. Whoops, you were talking about asylum. My bad.
Can we please turn this into a 9-11 truth blog now?
MWL "Mr. anonymous", big brother could give a rats ass about your comments. And if they did, what a great opportunity to let them know how you feel since they work for you, remember? What's wrong with this country?! Don't be a pussy, apparently this board is against 'em.
PS I rule
Post a Comment