Amazon.com Widgets

A wealthy Swiss village has voted to pay a fine of £200,000 rather than take in the imposed quota of 10 asylum seekers. Is this racism?

  • Just a little bit.

    It's no new thing that people are messed up. They would rather pay through the nose than live next to somebody they don't think fits in with their standards. It is racist and wrong and these people need to get over themselves. People are people and we should help them when they need the help, not just alienate them because we don't like how they look.

  • A wealthy village in Switzerland will not accept asylum seekers, and will pay a fine to keep them out if necessary

    Swiss villagers of Oberwil-Lieli claim that their peaceful existence will be threatened if they accept outsiders into their community. Women could be assaulted, properties vandalized. Given the rise in terrorism internationally, it is wise to be vigilant about refugees coming in out of nowhere. Some refugees have turned out to be terrorists in disguise. A full-blown ban on refugees will look like a dislike towards particular groups of people - mainly those people of different ethnic backgrounds. A diplomatic approach may be to offer temporary asylum for refugees in more modest quarters.

  • No it isnt

    Immigration is destroying Europe. According to the EU 60% of the migrants who came to Europe in 2015 were economic migrants and not refugees. Most of these economic migrants intend on living off of welfare and not getting jobs or assimilating into than main stream cultures. A large amount are committing violet crimes like rapes. It is not racist for a town to not want a rise in crime or to pay welfare expenses.

  • No, this would not be racism.

    People should have the right to decide whether to take in persons seeking asylum. If the village voted to pay the fine, then why not use the money towards building a shelter for those seeking asylum. I can understand people needing help, but others should not be forced to make adjustments to their own living quarters and lifestyle.

  • If the option is in place, you should be allowed to take it.

    If there is the option to choose a fine over taking in a quota of asylum seekers, then it is not the fault of the village, but the fault of those who have put that system in place. If racism is the underlying issue, the system should simply impose the asylum seekers without offering the option to pay a fine.

  • No because people alway vote on something before do it. Some people belive in opposite I belive. That is stupid

    No because people alway vote before going doing it like voting on campaign. I think it is big debate for year come and issue is some people belive in opposite I belive like I say before . That is stupid like in way. How people role and you can't never change that like voting on campaign. People not vote for other candidates unless that candidates is gone like I say before and Rubio supporter want trump in cleverland . This debate boil to it people want say I wrong without prove it. I hope you have very mermaid day to you get home with your solider or certain . Goodbye

  • No it isnt

    They don't want terrorists in their village, so what? I only have an issue that they had to pay to keep their village safe. May be wee should just take all the terrorists and move them to Antartica if they want safety, or maybe if they are asylum seekers we should lock them up in an asylum, I don't care.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.