2
temporary status has gone on for 10 years is because their second conclusion," and at the request of the state concerned receive immediate assistance from other states in accordance with the principle of equitable burden-sharing," have not been abided to adequately by other countries!
1
It is very noble of the U.K. Home Affairs Committee to recommend that "Britain should relax its family reunion criteria", so as to "attract offers of additional resettlement places from other countries, and the negotiations should be held "to reduce drastically the size of Hong Kong's Vietnamese refugee population", and lastly that "as part of a burden-sharing agreement, Britain should accept a small share of those who are hard to resettle". BRITAIN SHOULD TAKE IN MORE REFUGEES AS A MATTER OF POLICY and spell out their noble proposals into concrete figures. I quote from the report, "It is time to put the matter to test".
I believe that such a lead by Britain would indeed be followed by the major resettlement countries. The United States and Australia have indicated that they would view such a
lead POSITIVELY.
It is reassuring that the Home Affairs Committee recognises that United Kingdom is responsible for Hong Kong, that other countries are reluctant to do more to help Hong Kong in the absence of a further United Kingdom resettlement effort or programme, that Hong Kong, being densely populated and coping with its own half a million odd squatters without a permanent shelter have already accepted for permanent resettlement some 14,500 refugees since 1975, and lastly that integration in countries of first asylum (which Hong Kong is one) is not a realistic option except on a small scale.
Having recognized all these, does the Home Affairs Committee really consider it equitable and possible for Hong Kong to accept any more refugees for resettlement or to do away with closed camps?
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.