Khủng hoảng

[Triển]

"Khủng hoảng" là gì?

---

---

Canada ‘khủng hoảng’ vì di dân bất hợp pháp từ Mỹ tràn sang

MONTREAL, Québec (NV) — Tình trạng người di dân bất hợp pháp từ Hoa Kỳ tiếp tục lũ lượt kéo vào Canada đang khiến nhiều giới chức nước này phải lo ngại, gọi đây là cuộc “khủng hoảng” và yêu cầu chính phủ Canada phải có thêm biện pháp đối phó.

Một số chính trị gia, trước áp lực của cử tri, đã đề nghị lập hàng rào dọc theo biên giới Canada-Hoa Kỳ, là một trong số các biên giới dài nhất trên thế giới, theo bản tin Fox News.

Giới hữu trách ước tính hiện có khoảng 400 người mỗi ngày vượt qua biên giới dài khoảng 5,525 dặm giữa hai quốc gia.

Do chính phủ Donald Trump hủy bỏ quy chế cho ở tạm (TPS) đối với công dân một số quốc gia đang sống tại Mỹ như Haiti và El Salvador, nhiều người trong số này tìm đường sang Canada trước khi bị Mỹ trục xuất về nước.

Trong khoảng hai năm trở lại đây, đã có hàng ngàn người vượt biên giới từ Hoa Kỳ vào Canada, phần lớn đi từ New York sang Quebec.

Điều này tạo ra sự tranh cãi gay gắt trong chính trường Canada; nhiều chính trị gia bảo thủ coi đây là trách nhiệm của chính phủ Justin Trudeau và đòi phải có biện pháp giải quyết.

Các nhà lãnh đạo vùng Ontario đã yêu cầu chính phủ Trudeau đưa ra chính sách rõ ràng về việc đối phó với di dân bất hợp pháp, hiện đang tiếp tục kéo vào.

Các giới chức biên phòng Canada cho hay đã chặn bắt được khoảng 7,326 người tại biên giới từ Tháng Tư tới Tháng Bảy, nhưng có nhiều người khác qua lọt. (V.Giang)

/* nguồn: https://www.nguoi-viet.com/the-gioi/...%83-tran-sang/

[Triển]

Canadian Response to the "Boat People" Refugee Crisis

Maude-Emmanuelle Lambert
published
05/23/17
last edited
07/05/17


The welcoming and resettlement of many thousands of refugees from Southeast Asia in the late 1970s and early 1980s represents a turning point in the history of immigration in Canada. It was the first time that the Canadian government applied its new program for private sponsorship of refugees — the only one if its kind in the world — through which more than half of the Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian refugees who came to Canada during this period were admitted. In recognition of this unprecedented mobilization of private effort, the people of Canada were awarded the Nansen Medal, an honour bestowed by the United Nations for outstanding service to the cause of refugees. It was the first and remains the only time that the entire people of a country have been collectively honored with this award. But most importantly, this positive, humanitarian response by Canadians reflected a change in their attitude toward refugees. Never before in its history had Canada welcomed so many refugees in so little time.


Vietnamese refugees arriving in Hong Kong, 1981
(courtesy ©UNHCR/J.Micaud)

Historical Context

The Southeast Asian refugee crisis resulted from several conflicts in that part of the world. Occupied by the Japanese army during the Second World War, the colonies of French Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) gained their independence in 1954 after eight years of a hard-fought war that claimed over 500,000 victims and left Vietnam divided into two rival states. Not long afterward, a new armed conflict, the Vietnam War, broke out, with major repercussions for all of continental Southeast Asia. With the help of Russia and China, the Communist forces of North Vietnam supported a guerilla movement that fought the U.S.-backed, pro-Western government in South Vietnam.

After many years of battle, the parties to the conflict signed the Paris Peace Accords on 27 January 1973. These agreements called for the withdrawal of US forces, the release of civilian detainees and prisoners of war, the unity and territorial integrity of Vietnam, and the holding of free elections in South Vietnam. But this last condition was not met, and on 30 April 1975, Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, fell to the Communist forces from the North. About 140,000 people, fearing that the new regime would persecute them for having sided with the United States, then fled the country, some by helicopter, some by boat. Many of them were rescued by the US Navy. A few weeks later, Canada announced that it would be accepting refugees from Vietnam. As a result, over the years 1975 and 1976, Canada welcomed over 6,500 Vietnamese as political refugees; 3, 000 of them had no relatives in Canada.

Meanwhile, back in Vietnam, the new regime took hostile repressive measures against the South Vietnamese, stripping them of their homes and possessions and preventing them from holding jobs or pursuing an education. Civilian and military officials of the former South Vietnam were sent to work camps, known as “re-education camps.”

The situation in the other countries of former French Indochina was no better. By the end of 1975, Cambodia and Laos also were governed by totalitarian regimes. In Cambodia, on 17 April 1975, the Khmer Rouge took the capital, Phnom Penh, along with other cities, thus ensuring their domination of the entire country. Led by the ideologue Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge abolished private property, sent most of the population of the cities to work camps in the country, and persecuted ethnic and religious minorities. Out of a population of 8 million Cambodians, an estimated 1.4 to 2.5 million perished during this period — executed, tortured to death, or killed by forced labour, famine or lack of medical treatment. In 1978, an armed conflict broke out between Vietnam and Cambodia, adding to their peoples’ woes. In Laos, on 2 December 1975, the Communist revolutionaries of the Pathet Lao took power, abolished the monarchy, and proclaimed the Lao People's Democratic Republic.

The tense political situation, rapidly deteriorating living conditions and human rights violations in these countries triggered a vast wave of emigration. In Vietnam, the 2 to 3 million Vietnamese of Chinese ethnic origin were especially hard hit by the nationalization of private businesses in 1978 and the regime’s mistrust of them (the result of skirmishes along the Vietnam/China border in February 1979). With the encouragement of the government authorities, they began to leave Vietnam by boat. Many South Vietnamese, seeing no future for their children in the new Vietnam, decided to join the migration. Following the Vietnamese army’s invasion of Cambodia in 1978, several thousand Cambodians fled their country on foot, hoping to find refuge in Thailand.


Vietnamese refugees leaving Pulau Bidong camp, 1979
Courtesy of The Canadian Immigration Historical Society. Photo: © Margaret Tebbutt

Over the ensuing decade, an estimated 3 million people thus left by sea or land for other countries of Southeast Asia. Over 1 million people departed Vietnam aboard unseaworthy makeshift vessels, hoping to reach international waters and be rescued there. But first they had to face huge risks — drowning, hunger, dehydration, attacks by pirates, sexual assaults and even murder. Some of the refugees who survived all these perils were then stuck for months in crowded refugee camps in Hong Kong, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, while others remained confined to their vessels because no country would allow them to land.

Origin of the Expression “Boat People”

Because of the perilous conditions under which most refugees fled former French Indochina, they came to be referred to collectively as “boat people.” This term was first used in 1975 and was popularized in the media in 1979. But it is now regarded as pejorative — an example of the kind of simplistic, racist language so often used in connection with refugees. It is most closely associated with the Vietnamese who left their country starting in 1975 and continuing into the 1980s and who indeed accounted for the largest number of refugees from former Indochina at the time. But the term is inaccurate when applied to Cambodian and Laotian refugees, who fled their countries mainly by land, and thus fails to reflect the ethnic diversity of this region. It should also be noted that large proportions of these refugees were of Chinese ethnic origin, including 40 per cent of the Vietnamese, 25 per cent of the Cambodians and 20 per cent of the Laotians admitted to Canada at that time.


Cambodian refugees camp in Thailand
A general view of Sakaeo camp where Cambodian refugees have put up temporary shelters until more adequate lodgings are built
(courtesy of © UNHCR/K.Gaugler)

Consequently, it is preferable to refer to these people as “Indochinese refugees” or “Southeast Asian refugees.” Neither term is perfect: the first hearkens back to colonialism, while the second is imprecise, in that there are eight other countries in Southeast Asia. But both have the advantage of explicitly recognizing these people’s status as refugees and identifying their geographic origin to some extent.

Evolution in Canadian Humanitarian Attitudes and Legislation Regarding Refugees

After the Second World War, Canada became more open to refugees. In 1956, Canada accepted 37,000 Hungarian refugees, responding both to public pressure and to the need for workers in Canada’s booming economy. In 1969, Canada at last signed the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, first approved in 1951. Countries that sign this Convention have an obligation to provide international protection to refugees. More specifically, these countries must make provisions to resettle refugees, and when their protection cannot be guaranteed in the country where they first seek refuge, consider their resettlement in a third country. After signing the Convention in 1969, Canada exercised flexibility in admitting refugees several times in the 1970s: Tibetan refugees in 1970, ethnic Asian refugees expelled from Uganda in 1972 and Chilean refugees in 1973. But in all of these cases, these refugees were admitted under exceptional measures (see Immigration Policy in Canada). When the Indochinese refugee crisis began, there was still no Canadian law recognizing refugees as a special category of immigrants.

This changed in April 1978, when the new Immigration Act, 1976 came into force. This statute established three new categories of immigrants eligible for admission to Canada: refugees, Canadian citizens’ family members, and permanent residents and independent immigrants selected on economic grounds. Among other changes, the new Immigration Act identified, for the first time, refugees as a distinct category of immigrants and adopted the definition of a refugee within the meaning of the Convention. By including this definition in its immigration legislation, Canada clearly stated its intention to fulfill its legal obligation toward refugees. The Act also established a system for determining refugee status, provided for the admission of designated categories of refugees on humanitarian grounds, and established one of the most innovative aspects of Canada's refugee resettlement program — the private sponsorship of refugees.

At the time of the Indochinese refugee crisis, the government of Québec was deeply involved in negotiations with the federal government to recover certain powers regarding immigration. The province had established its own ministry of immigration in 1968, and in 1975 signed the Andras/Bienvenue agreement, which provided for collaboration between the Québec and federal governments in selecting refugees to be settled in Québec.

Another important step was taken in February 1978, when Québec and Canada signed the Cullen/Couture agreement, which allowed Québec to choose its immigrants according to its own criteria. This agreement led to a Québec immigration policy based on three fundamental principles: selection without discrimination, priority for family reunification, and humanitarian considerations. Québec also established its own sponsorship program, because it believed that adaptation of refugees should come under provincial jurisdiction. As a result of this measure, Québec was able to directly sponsor 10,000 refugees from Southeast Asia. From 1979 to 1982, Québec thus welcomed 22 per cent of all refugees resettled in Canada.

The Hai Hong Incident and Canadian Public Opinion

In several respects, the Hai Hong incident can be seen as a turning point in the Canadian response to the Southeast Asian refugee crisis. The Hai Hong was a ship that had sailed for Indonesia from Vietnam with 2,500 passengers on board (its actual capacity was only 2,500). En route, the ship was blown off course and damaged in a typhoon. When it attempted to land its passengers, first in Indonesia and then in Malaysia, both countries refused permission, on the grounds that these passengers — mostly Vietnamese of Chinese ethnic origin — had paid the Vietnamese authorities to be allowed to leave and hence were not refugees.

After 17 days at sea, with its engine failing and practically no food or water left on board, the Hai Hong dropped anchor off Port Klang, Malaysia on 9 November 1978. Malaysia, which had not signed the UN Convention on the status of refugees but had already admitted over 35,000 refugees from Vietnam, threatened to tow the Hai Hong out to sea and abandon the passengers to their fate.


Voice of Women for Vietnamese Children meeting, circa 1970
Lil Greene. Library and Archives Canada, e010753015


The plight of the Hai Hong galvanized the international community. The incident soon drew attention around the world, and Canadian newspapers began pressing the Canadian government to act. Aware that a quick response was needed and wanting to help, Canada faced a dilemma: if it admitted the passengers from the Hai Hong now, it would be giving them precedence over tens of thousands of refugees who had already spent months waiting in UN camps.

In a sense, it was the government of Québec that provided the solution. On 15 November 1978, the province’s minister of immigration, Jacques Couture, announced that Québec was prepared to welcome at least 200 refugees from the Hai Hong under the new Cullen/Couture agreement. The federal House of Commons quickly agreed that 600 of the ship’s passengers would be resettled in Canada and added to Canada’s annual immigration targets. Several other countries (the United States, France, Germany and Switzerland) followed Canada’s example and agreed to help by processing the passengers’ refugee applications and giving them priority for relocation. In the final analysis, the Canadian government’s decision to intervene and accept more refugees, together with pressure from the public and the sympathetic response to the distress of these Vietnamese refugees, played a decisive role in the events that followed.

Canada Accepts 60,000 Refugees in Two Years

By the end of 1978, over 200,000 Indochinese refugees had managed to reach temporary camps operated in Southeast Asia by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The countries that had signed the Convention had agreed to accept only 80,000 refugees so far. The fate of a significant number of refugees thus remained uncertain, and the pressure on the countries to which they were fleeing increased. In January and February 1979, an additional 20,000 refugees (mainly of Chinese ethnic origin) left Vietnam, and the numbers kept growing in the months that followed: 13,000 arrived in March, 26,000 in April, 51,000 in May and 57,000 in June. In addition, that same April and May, between 50,000 and 80,000 Cambodians crossed the land border into Thailand, where they were joined by 10,000 fellow Cambodians of Chinese origin.

As of May 1979, only 8,500 refugees from former Indochina had been resettled in the countries where they had first taken refuge; the international response had clearly been inadequate. On 20 and 21 July 1979, in Geneva, the UNHCR held a conference on refugees and displaced persons in Southeast Asia. Sixty-five countries attended, including Canada. On 18 July, a few days before the conference began, Canadian minister of External Affairs Flora MacDonald announced that Canada was increasing its target significantly and would be accepting 50,000 refugees by the end of 1980, half of them through its new private sponsorship program.


Reception of Southeast Asian refugees at CFB Griesbach, August 1979
Griesbach Military Base in Edmonton, one of the arrival points for Southeast Asian refugees.
Courtesy of The Canadian Immigration Historical Society. Photo: © Murray Mosher

The Canadian government quickly chartered 76 airplanes in order to transport 15,800 refugees by the end of 1979. Reception centres were set up at Canadian Forces Base Longue-Pointe (near Montréal) and Canadian Forces Base Griesbach (near Edmonton) to handle the refugees arriving on the charter flights.

In April 1980, Canada increased its target again, announcing that it would be accepting 10,000 more people, for a total of 60,000 refugees accepted in 1979-1980. Indochinese refugees accounted for 25 per cent of all new immigrants to Canada during this period, a proportion that has never been equalled since.

Importance and Commemoration of the Events

The successful resettlement of the Indochinese refugees was made possible by the combined efforts of the government of Canada, its civilian and military personnel, and private citizens who applied to sponsor individuals and families. Of the 60,000 Indochinese refugees admitted to Canada in 1979 and 1980, about 26,000 were sponsored by the government. The remaining 34,000 were sponsored by the private sector or by members of their own families, which got the new private sponsorship program off to a great start. Throughout the 1980s, Canada continued to welcome Indochinese refugees. In total, some 200,000 Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians have been resettled in Canada — the highest rate per capita among all of the countries that have accepted such refugees.


Resettlement and integration of Vietnamese refugees in Canada, 1979
In order to facilitate the integration of newly arrived refugees, the Canadian C.O.P.I (Centre d'orientation et de formation des immigrés) organizes language classes and outings during which refugees can get to know their new country, the people and the local customs.

To help the new arrivals to integrate into Canadian society, orientation and education centres offer classes where they can learn English or French and take them on outings to familiarize them with the communities in which they now live. The organizations and citizens’ groups that sponsor refugees welcome them into their communities and even their homes and help them to adjust to a new culture, secure housing and either find jobs or continue their studies.

In return, Canadians of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian origin have enriched Canadian society by making important contributions in many spheres, including the economy, politics, the arts, science and sports. In the 2011 Census, 220,425 Canadians described themselves as being of Vietnamese ethnic origin, 34,340 of Cambodian (or Khmer) ethnic origin, and 22, 090 of Laotian ethnic origin. In addition to these 276,855 people, there are a few tens of thousands of Canadians of Chinese ethnic origin who came to Canada from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

Canada’s positive, humanitarian response to the Southeast Asian refugee crisis has certainly helped to establish this country’s reputation as a land that welcomes refugees. Previously, Canada had not always welcomed refugees with open arms and had discriminated against certain groups, two examples being Canada’s refusals to admit the passengers from the vessels SS Komagata Maru in 1914 and MS Saint Louis in 1939. Years after the Southeast Asian refugee crisis, Canada showed its generosity once more when it resettled over 40,000 Syrian refugees (see Canadian Response to the Syrian Refugee Crisis).

The episode in Canadian history known as the "boat people" refugee crisis has been commemorated in various ways. In 2015, the Canadian Parliament passed the Journey to Freedom Day Act, making 30 April a national day of commemoration of the exodus of Vietnamese refugees and their acceptance in Canada after the fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam War. However, the passage of this bill by the Canadian Senate caused some controversy with the government of Vietnam, where 30 April is celebrated as Liberation Day.

A documentary film entitled A Moonless Night: Boat People, 40 Years Later, created by Thi Be Nguyen and Marie-Hélène Panisset, was released in 2016. On 20 June 2017, to mark World Refugee Day, Historica Canada released a new Heritage Minute about the welcoming of the Vietnamese “boat people” to Canada.

[ốc]

When it attempted to land its passengers, first in Indonesia and then in Malaysia, both countries refused permission, on the grounds that these passengers — mostly Vietnamese of Chinese ethnic origin — had paid the Vietnamese authorities to be allowed to leave and hence were not refugees.

Nhiều người Việt đi vượt biệt sang tới Mỹ cho rằng mình ngon lành hơn những người từ Mỹ Latinh vì ta đây hông phải là di dân lậu, nhưng quên cái lúc chân ướt chân ráo lội từ ngoài biển vào đến đảo thì cũng đâu có miếng giấy nhập cảnh nào. Nếu Indonesia hay Malaysia hồi đó có tên khùng như Trâm hiện nay thì gia đình họ cũng ly tán, con cái bị đem đi nhốt riêng rồi bắt theo đạo Hồi hết.

Cứu vật thì vật trả ơn, còn cứu thuyền nhân thì thuyền nhân nói chuyện "khủng hoảng"...

[Triển]

Cứu vật thì vật trả ơn, còn cứu thuyền nhân thì thuyền nhân nói chuyện "khủng hoảng"...

Cứu thuyền nhân, thuyền nhân trả tố cáo. Làm như họ nứt từ trong vách đất Mỹ, vách Canada
chui ra chứ không phải nứt trong cái ghe từng bị khẩm sắp chết đuối. Lại có kẻ hả hê trước nỗi lo,
hoàn cảnh khó khăn của người khác. Thật là lãnh cảm, thật là ác độc.

[008]

Ngôn ngữ mới

Từ trước đến giờ tui cứ tưởng ngôn ngữ "Newspeak" để tẩy não và kiểm soát tư tưởng người dân của xứ độc tài "Oceania" trong quyển 1984 của Orwell là chuyện … tiểu thuyết? Nhưng té ra không phải vậy, từ năm 1949 Orwell đã nhìn thấy trước được nước Mỹ ngày nay để lên tiếng cảnh cáo! "Newspeak” đã bắt đầu lan tràn từ năm 2016 và vẫn tiếp tục xuất hiện thường xuyên thêm những chữ "lạ"! Tuy nhiên, "Newspeak" nay cũng đã bị tước bản quyền để đổi tên thành "Trumpspeak" Sau đây là vài thí dụ về "Trumpspeak" có kèm luôn định nghĩa mà tui mới học được nên đem lên đây để ..."chia sẻ, sẻ chia, sẻ chia, chia sẻ...":

- Fake News (tác giả đổi nghĩa là Châm): là 1) Tin tức nào Châm không thích hoặc bất lợi cho Châm; 2) Các cơ quan truyền thông báo chí loan tin tức Châm không thích hoặc bất lợi cho Châm.
- Friend(s) (tác giả đổi nghĩa là Châm): là bất cứ người bạn (trong tưởng tượng) nào đầy quyền thế và tài năng luôn luôn xác quyết Châm là đúng và ủng hộ Châm.
- Enemies of the people (tác giả đổi nghĩa là Châm): là... giới truyền thông báo chí nào không chịu tung hô wán xuề wán xuề Châm.
- Alternative facts (tác giả là Kellyanne Conway): là "sự thật khác sự thật" về cùng một chuyện. Sự thật "thật" thì không phải thật mà sự thật "khác" đó mới là sự thật. Nói nôm na cho dễ hiểu hơn là tuy "sự thật khác" đó chính là "sự giả" nên cần được lặp đi lặp lại nhiều lần để tẩy não mọi người cho tin thành “sự thật”!
- Truth isn’t truth (tác giả là Rudy Giuliani): là tất cả những "sự" do... Châm và đồng bọn nói ra đều là "sự thật", nhưng có thể bị phe Mueller cho là... "sự giả"!

[ốc]

- would = wouldn't (tác giả là Trâm), được dùng trong khi giả nhời báo chí trước mặt Putin và khi không có Putin.
- honest = liar (tác giả là Duliani), nói về Mai cồ Cò hen, trước và sau khi Cò hen kể tội của Trâm.

[Triển]

Ngôn ngữ mới


- Fake News (tác giả đổi nghĩa là Châm): là 1) Tin tức nào Châm không thích hoặc bất lợi cho Châm; 2) Các cơ quan truyền thông báo chí loan tin tức Châm không thích hoặc bất lợi cho Châm.

Cái này là "chiến lược". Việt cộng có chữ tương tự gọi là "phản động". Ai mà không đúng ý mình, chỉ trích mình là "phản động".

- Enemies of the people

(tác giả đổi nghĩa là Châm): là... giới truyền thông báo chí nào không chịu tung hô wán xuề wán xuề Châm.

Trâm không có kẻ thù. Chỉ có "nhân dân" mới có kẻ thù. Trâm chỉ là đày tớ của nhân dân. Đây là một phương thức tranh đấu kiểu "bán cái".

- Alternative facts (tác giả là Kellyanne Conway): là "sự thật khác sự thật" về cùng một chuyện. Sự thật "thật" thì không phải thật mà sự thật "khác" đó mới là sự thật. Nói nôm na cho dễ hiểu hơn là tuy "sự thật khác" đó chính là "sự giả" nên cần được lặp đi lặp lại nhiều lần để tẩy não

mọi người cho tin thành “sự thật”!

Chân lý 2. Chữ này là châm ngôn số một làm trò cười cho thiên hạ của Con Quậy. Đã là chân lý thì làm gì có chân lý thứ hai để mà chọn với lựa.

- Truth isn’t truth (tác giả là Rudy Giuliani): là tất cả những "sự" do... Châm và đồng bọn nói ra đều là "sự thật", nhưng có thể bị phe Mueller cho là... "sự giả"!

1984 phải gọi là sấm George Orwell. Cũng có thể 1984 là sách gối đầu giường của toàn bộ gia đình Đổ Thừa: "bí kíp".

Chân lý 2, Truth isn't truth là một kiểu "từ ngữ chiến lược" để biện minh cho "fake news".

[Đậu]

Rồi thì những người di dân lậu tiên khởi gốc Việt được các nước trong khối Thế Giới Tự Do cho nhập cư. Người đi Mỹ, người đi Canada, đi Đức, đi Pháp. Mọi người mừng vui hết lớn. Từ chỗ lậu, bỗng nhiên, những người di dân tiên khởi gốc Việt hết lậu thì còn gì vui sướng cho bằng. Cái quyết định cho nhập cư có khác gì cái ơn cứu mạng, cứu rỗi.

Rồi thì một số người di dân tiên khởi gốc Việt chọn Mỹ là nơi định cư. Ngày ấy, họ được chính phủ Mỹ lo lắng rất chu đáo. Từ cái ăn, cái ở cho đến cái hoc. Tất tần tật. Cái ăn thi có tiền phút tem này. Cái ở thì có tiền mặt hàng tháng này. Cái học thì có tiền Pell Grant này. (Pell Grant chắc là học bổng?) Những sự ấy xẩy ra đặng là nhờ vào đồng thuế của nhân dân Mỹ tiến bộ hằng năm nộp cho chính phủ. Rồi thì nhờ những sự giúp đỡ tận lực như vậy mà một số di dân gốc Việt đã vươn lên từ nơi khốn khó. Nói dại mồm, giá như ngày ấy chính phủ Mỹ không cho người di dân lậu tiên khởi gốc Việt nhập cư thì cuộc đời của họ trôi về nơi mô? Hỏi chơi thôi chứ ai mà biết đặng.

Rồi thì một số trong những người này bảo lãnh cho cha me, vợ chồng, con cái, anh em của họ qua Mỹ theo chương trình ODP gì đó. Chả biết chữ ODP viết tắt từ chữ mô nhưng có nhẽ là giông giống cái chương trình, cái diện "di dân dây chuyền" mà lão Trâm lớn tiếng xỉa xói chứ gì. Cái chùm chữ "di dân dây chuyền" nghe mất cảm tình và cũng là động lực thúc đẩy tính tự ái dân tộc dâng cao. Có nhẽ, trộm đóan là vì tự ái sẽ có người chả thèm dặt chân lên đất Mỹ?

Cũng may là ngày ấy lão Trâm còn ham tiền, chưa mần chính trị hoặc vị thế của lão trên chính tràng còn tép riu nên tiếng nói của lão không có cân lượng. Thì như làm vậy, người di dân tiên khởi gốc Việt ở Mỹ nhanh nhẹn làm đơn và người xứ ta cũng tranh thủ nộp đơn xin đi Mỹ.

Rồi thì trong nhóm di dân tiên khởi gốc Việt ngày ấy và nhóm ODP sau này, bây giờ rủ nhau tỏ thái độ không thích dân "di dân lậu" từ các xứ khác đổ về. Sao lạ vậy ta? Chắc là ganh tỵ, chứ gì nữa? Sợ rằng họ sẽ hơn mình? Con cái của họ, sau này, cũng sẽ hơn con cái mình? Có Giời mới hiểu đặng.

Thì như làm vậy, xin nghỉ viết nơi đây.

[Triển]

bây giờ rủ nhau tỏ thái độ không thích dân "di dân lậu" từ các xứ khác đổ về. Sao lạ vậy ta?

Có thể là học tập từ tư tưởng sô vanh, sô diễn trong lý tưởng của Trâm mập. Coi dân tộc da voàng là trên hết, chỉ đứng sau da ... trắng thôi.

[Triển]

Don't speak from crisis, it's just a challenge!

"....The precedents highlights how, as new challenges
arise, there are opportunities to develop new standards,
guidelines and approaches. But it requires imagination,
creativity, and political leadership...."

---

Five history lessons in how to deal with a refugee crisis

What can we learn from the way we dealt with previous refugee emergencies? After all, this is not the first time, says Professor Alexander Betts


Some 16,500 Vietnamese refugees came to Britain between 1979 and 1992. Photograph: UNHCR

There is a tendency in refugee policy to assume that the latest “crisis” is unprecedented and forget the past. In fact, Hungary’s current hostility to refugees sits uncomfortably with its population’s own history of receiving sanctuary in Europe after the 1956 revolution. In the 1920s, Greek refugees even sought sanctuary in Syria.

But there is a lot that can be learned from history that could help inform responses to current global challenges. Five particular precedents stand out as instructive for informing contemporary policy responses in Europe and globally.

1. Enabling safe passage

During the inter-war years, the League of Nations high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR) created Nansen passports. These were internationally recognised refugee travel documents used to address refugee movements resulting from the collapse of empires and state formation within and on the borders of Europe. The Russian Revolution of 1917 and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire the following year, in particular, led to statelessness and refugees movements. Between 1922 and 1942 they were honoured by 52 countries and gave protection to 450,000 mainly Russian, Armenian, Assyrian, and Turkish refugees. This precedent offers an example of how, today, refugees might be given safe passage to Europe through a humanitarian visa or refugee travel document scheme to prevent them having to make dangerous journeys.


A French warship picking up a boat full of Armenian refugees fleeing from the massacre of their people by Turkish forces during the first world war. Photograph: Mansell/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Image

2. Comprehensive plans of action

After the end of the Vietnam war in 1975, hundreds of thousands of Indochinese “boat people” crossed territorial waters from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia towards south-east Asian host states such as Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, as well as Hong Kong. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s the host states, anxious about the influx, pushed many of the boats back to sea and people drowned.

Eventually, as now, there was an international public outcry to images on television and in newspapers of people drowning. In 1989, under UNHCR leadership, a comprehensive plan of action was agreed for Indochinese refugees, based on an international agreement for sharing responsibility. The receiving countries in south-east Asia agreed to keep their borders open, engage in search and rescue operations and provide reception to the boat people.

They did so based on two sets of commitments from other states. First, a coalition of governments – the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the European states – agreed to resettle all those judged to be refugees. Second, alternative and humane solutions, including return or legal immigration channels, were sought for those who were not refugees in need of international protection. The plan led to millions being resettled and the most immediate humanitarian challenge was addressed. The example offers insights into ways in which the international community might develop a comprehensive plan of action for Syrian refugees.

3. Development assistance for regions of origin

At the end of the Cold War, millions of people were displaced by proxy conflicts in Central America. They were spread across Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Belize, and Costa Rica. Some were able to go home but others could not.


Conflict in Central America led to a whole new generation of refugees. Here a family flees violence in El Salvador in 1979. Photograph: Matthew Naythons/Getty Images

The international community adopted an initiative known as CIREFCA (the International Conference on Central American Refugees), which between 1989 and 1995 created opportunities for refugee self-reliance across the region. The premise was that through targeted development assistance, opportunities could be created for both host communities and displaced populations.

Health, education, and infrastructure projects were funded mainly by the then European Community across the entire region. In total around half a billion US dollars was spent on 72 development projects across seven countries. To take an example, Mexico, with a significant number of Guatemalan refugees, recognised that it had areas of underdeveloped land. With European money for agricultural projects, it agreed to provide self-reliance opportunities and local integration for Guatemalan refugees.

The outcome was that refugees were able to contribute to the agricultural development of the Yucatan Peninsula in ways that are now well documented. The example shows how development assistance can be focused to promote more sustainable solutions for refugees in their regions of origin. Today, in countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan, development-based approaches are needed to support mutually beneficial outcomes for hosts and refugees.

4. European burden-sharing

During the Kosovo crisis in 1999, Europe faced a refugee crisis on its doorstep. In the space of just a few weeks, some 850,000 Kosovan refugees fled into neighbouring Macedonia and Montenegro. The host countries were overwhelmed and Macedonia threatened to close its border unless the rest of Europe shared responsibility.

Consequently, in April the UNHCR launched a humanitarian evacuation programme, temporarily relocating nearly 100,000 on a form of quota system. Germany took the highest number but almost every European country contributed. The programme showed how, with clear United Nations co-ordination, states were willing and able to cooperate. The example offers an obvious parallel to contemporary challenges within the same region and a source of inspiration for similar relocation proposals.

5. Adapting international legal standards

During the 1990s, there was growing recognition that the nature of global displacement was changing. With the end of the Cold War, an increasing proportion of the world’s conflicts had become intra-state rather than international, leading growing numbers of people to be displaced within their own countries rather than across borders.

So, could the world build upon the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees to create a normative framework to protect internally displaced persons? In 1998, the international community created the “Guiding principles on internal displacement”. These emerged in part from the role of non-state actors. The American think-tank the Brookings Institute, together with Bern University, collaborated on the consolidation of existing human rights law, international humanitarian law, and refugee law standards into a consolidate “soft law” framework. It has subsequently received global recognition by states and international organisations, and been translated into national and regional legal frameworks. The precedents highlights how, as new challenges arise, there are opportunities to develop new standards, guidelines and approaches. But it requires imagination, creativity, and political leadership.

Professor Alexander Betts is director of the Refugee Studies Centre at the University of Oxford. He is author of Survival Migration: Failed Governance and the Crisis of Displacement (Cornell University Press) and can be followed on Twitter at @alexander_betts


/* src.: https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...refugee-crisis