Since Goan migration (for reasons of economic adversity) has been brought up, once again, a few questions may be pertinent:
1: does a country (say India) have the right to protect its borders? 2: does the sudden and uncontrolled influx of 'economic refugees' place an unreasonable burden on the recipient country and its systems & resources? 3: is structured (legal) immigration different from non-structured (non-legal) immigration? 4: do we believe that Goans (in even marginally significant numbers) have migrated illegally to other places for economic reasons? 5: could we agree that Orange juice looks, tastes and is different from Apple juice? A thought for those who might wish to think: WHY would Goans have to (even) Legally migrate to other countries IF their "gaum" was left to them and not perennially ripped off. jc On Jul 29, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Frederick FN Noronha <[email protected]> wrote: > So "religious persecution" is a good enough reason, but economic adversity > is not? > > I wonder what hundreds of thousands of Goans who left home for the latter > reason would think about it. > > On 29 July 2012 16:21, U. G. Barad <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Correct me if I am wrong. The Hindus who are leaving Bangladesh are doing >> so because they are being persecuted for their religion. Just as the >> Rohingya Muslims who are forced to leave Mayanmar, this surely categorizes >> them as refugees. >>
