SHOULD JAPAN, SOUTH KOREA AND TAIWAN BE LETTING IN MUCH MUCH MORE REFUGEES?

user ballots

Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes

Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz

TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase

Discussion
Bug Report

SHOULD JAPAN, SOUTH KOREA AND TAIWAN BE LETTING IN MUCH MUCH MORE REFUGEES?

[+] serious ballot by EUROTOPIA
ACTIVE Mon Sep 17, 07 - Tue Sep 16, 08
We always hear complaints about how 'the West' should be doing more to let in more refugees, and while such criticism may indeed be correct, what about the developed first world free nations of Asia?

Countries like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are prosperous and free. Yet their efforts in helping refugees is dismal compared to the efforts of the West. They have many neighbouring countries in Asia that unjustly persecute people under which thus define such people as 'refugees', and yet these democratic Asian nations are not doing much to help such people. While criticism of their lack of effort is not even very widespread for some bizarre reason.

Note: I am using the specific definition of a 'refugee' by international law, which in the simplest form (although there are other technical specifications) refers to those who:

- are outside their country of nationality or habitual residence;
- have a well-founded fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion; and
- are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution.

So should the free nations of Asia, such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan (possibly others as well- if so, mention them in comment section) be doing more to meet the obligations required in the refugee convention?

Yes
No

Ballot #118404 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank:

similiar ballots:
111330. Japan, South Korea and Australia fear China militarising space?
45888. If north korea invades the south should we get involved?
105702. Are US troops in South Korea there to oppress the koreans?
77431. When China invades Taiwan, how long will Taiwan be able to fend them off?
118403. What are refugees?
102655. Should the U.N. assist the 250,000 war refugees in Iraq, too?
118434. Should Europe continue to allow refugees to stay?
105520. Idaho town urges the purchase of guns to shoot refugees
69438. Do you think Taiwan should be Independent country?
70439. What can be done to stop letting loosers in Canada?

COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes
Of course. They are very behind and backwards in this regard. They should be doing much more to grant protection to refugees world wide.

by EUROTOPIA on Mon Sep 17, 07 7:56am [+]

The fact that the West is criticised so much for not doing enough, while the wealthy and free nations of Asia escape criticism is unbelievable, considering that they are doing much less yet are capable of helping out just as much.

Why is it like that? Why is the attention of criticism always focused on the West? Such issues should be based on actual practicalities and not nonsensical orientalist biases.

by EUROTOPIA on Mon Sep 17, 07 7:58am [+]

^^^ *** That should of course be 'occidentalist biases' instead of 'orientalist'. ***

by EUROTOPIA on Mon Sep 17, 07 8:03am [+]

Voted : Yes
that's the problem with national borders. we should abolish all borders, if we ever want to evolve to the next level.

by LCD on Mon Sep 17, 07 10:10am [+]

Voted : Yes
Yes

by skylab on Mon Sep 17, 07 12:42pm [+]

Only white people are so naive to think such things.

Trust me,there is no desire in all of east Asia for such things.

by robotthinker on Mon Sep 17, 07 2:30pm [+]

The only criticism I can remember hearing about the West not granting entrance to more refugees recently is criticism about the United States being extraordinarily slow and inefficient in the process of letting refugees from Iraq into the country. I'm not sure what the "refugee convention" is, but I agree the aforementioned criticism is very legitimate under the circumstances.
Regarding certain Asian countries such as Japan, those cultures are quite homogenous and collectivistic. Japan for instance is 99% Japanese.

by Applerod on Wed Sep 19, 07 5:07am [+]

"Asian countries such as Japan, those cultures are quite homogenous"

- Why is it that when Switzerland uses that excuse it is viewed by left wing intellectuals as 'racist', but when Asian countries like Japan do they are merely maintaining their heritage? The double standard is unacceptable.

Besides which, we are not even talking about normal immigration, we are talking about granting protection to people whom face unjust political persecution. Do you know the torture methods used by countries like North Korea, China, Burma and so on? These harsh realities are much more concerning than any about Japan and such being homogenous. And anyway, England was homogenous before, and then it opened up and became diverse. So the idea that countries like Japan cannot open up because they are homogenous is confusing the cause with the effect, because in reality, they are homogenous because they do not open up and that is easily something they should change.

by EUROTOPIA on Wed Sep 19, 07 6:25am [+]

robotthinker- We are talking about 'refugees' not normal immigrants. If Asians of wealthy and free nations don't care about refugees then there is seriously something wrong with Asians that needs improving. Each free country should be doing their part to help provide protection to those that would be vulnerable to unjust political persecution.

by EUROTOPIA on Wed Sep 19, 07 6:27am [+]

LCD- "that's the problem with national borders. we should abolish all borders, if we ever want to evolve to the next level."

- I strongly disagree. National borders are good and should be maintained. Doing away with them is unrealistic. No national borders equates to no sovereignty. I am happy for the Russian and Chinese governments/militaries to stay away from crossing the border of my country for example. No national borders equates to no sovereignty, no sovereignty makes democracy impossible. Your extreme idea of doing away with all borders with the naive assumption that everything would then be much better is unrealistic.

In my opinion, the nation-state system should be maintained. There should be a focus on spreading freedom and prosperity to other nation-states, ie people shouldn't have to feel pressured to leave their nation of origin- they should be entitled to have it on their own land. Completely opening all borders so that everyone can go and travel to the Global North will not ensure the prosperity or safety of the people of the Global South at all. So what is needed is that we in the Free World should be attempting to shift the balance of power in a manner which favours freedom and prosperity (which in my opinion is free-market representative democracy), while simultaneously doing our bit to help out as many refugees as is realistic by granting them protection.

by EUROTOPIA on Wed Sep 19, 07 6:37am [+]

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | Contact