Dear Fred, The point I was trying to make about India, which has been misinterpreted is that, immigration into India is not an issue. There aren't large numbers of people trying to get into India. The one time, we did have a huge influx of refugees from what was then E.Pakistan, we "liberated" the country and formed a new one called Bangladesh, so as to keep them exactly where they were.
In another perspective, Canada, New Zealand and upto recent times, Australia didn't have a problem with migration. Because these countries have a deficit to begin with and need people just to sustain habitation. My purpose in trying to address the migrant issue is not to define who the "other" is, although it inevitably becomes part of the debate. As I stated earlier, I am a follower of Malthus and as such I cannot ignore the numbers game. It's all a numbers game to me and what is a viable, sustainable number for Goa. Onto my other post (which I keep promising and is sure to be anti-climatic). Elisabeth ----------------------------- --- Frederick Noronha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it Elisabeth's point that an "India for Indians" > policy is okay > *merely* because nobody, in her view, wants to > migrate to India? > [Incidentally, her view is wrong. There are a few > million Bangladeshis > who would love to migrate to India. Nepalis also > choose to come in, > though their numbers are smaller, under the deal > that both countries > don't need passports or visas to swap places of > residence.] > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
