Swiss Town Rejects Refugees, But Should They Be Required To Take Them?
Submitted by: lalapancakes⚫ 1 year ago in
As the United Kingdom's Amnesty Refugee Program calls on the West to take their "fair share" of refugees, a town in Switzerland basically said, "Nah."
The town, Oberwiel-Lieli cites their concern for the safety of refugees crossing dangerous bodies of water, saying taking them on will only encourage more of those dangerous trips. The town leaders also note how hard it would be for new refugees to assimilate into the Swiss language and customs.
Oberwiel-Lieli’s reasons for rejection are disingenuous but my thoughts are with Switzerland on this matter because they didn't directly instigate the war in Syria. In fact Switzerland hasn't been at war in almost 200 years. I suppose their hosting of the world elite's Swiss bank accounts could be considered a contribution to the current international crisis but I think requiring a region to take refugees on should only be applied to directly aggressive countries like 'Murika.
If a nation had nothing to do with destabilizing human life, they shouldn't be required to take the people whose lives got ruined. It’s a whole other story if they choose to, but if anyone should take refugees it should be places like Texas who had the full audacity to vote for these absolute bullshit wars. They voted for the mess, they should clean it up -- it's only fair. Honestly Texas, take the refugees you had a hand in creating, you irresponsible shits.
But as far as Switzerland... I haven't followed their involvement in invading the Middle East, but I'm pretty sure they have nothing directly to do with the refugees. Just financially. And it looks like they're willing to pay some of that debt so, there you go.