The Cambodian government can fix this very easily if they want the removal of people who have hit rock bottom.

All they need to do is instruct the Embassies to repatriate their destitute citizens. Explain that their citizens enjoy very relaxed visa requirements because the vast majority come, enjoy and leave (or die). However, a tiny minority need help in leaving and the embassies are going to be held responsible.

Either the Embassies accept responsibility for repatriation costs of these people, as designated by the Cambodian authorities, or the Cambodian government will. The cost of this will be defrayed by a $10 supplement to every visa issued to their citizens as a 'repatriation fee'. It won't take long for people to start asking questions about why they are being singled out.

If they still won't accept their responsibilities raise it to $100. They will soon get the message that doing nothing is no longer an option.

John Bingham wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 8:59 am

Doc67 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 8:37 am
All they need to do is instruct the Embassies to repatriate their destitute citizens.

First of all most countries don't have embassies here. Secondly many countries won't repatriate their own citizens. Nigeria, for example, is not in a huge rush to pay thousands for each of its citizens locked up abroad.

The cost of this will be defrayed by a $10 supplement to every visa issued to their citizens as a 'repatriation fee'. It won't take long for people to start asking questions about why they are being singled out.

If they still won't accept their responsibilities raise it to $100. They will soon get the message that doing nothing is no longer an option.

I don't get this, who pays this supplement?

The person applying for the visa pays the supplement.

In the event of a country not having any consular presence. either by way of their own presence or any agreement for emergency consular assistance via another embassy, then it citizens gets charged - no exceptions.

I know the embassies don't want the cost of the hassle, but that doesn't mean they can't be forced to take responsibility or their citizens get surcharged for it. They can take their pick and be judged for it too.

This is not a "locked up abroad" issue, it's a homeless and destitution scenario. However, for the locked- up cases, at $10 a visa there will be enough to get rid of them too. It might clean the place up a bit.

There were 600,000 arrivals in 2020 so $10 gives them a tidy little repatriation fund. Maybe $1 would be enough. I would be quite happy to see a $1 surcharge on my visa to know that one of my fellow citizens in a desperate condition could be sent home rather than left to die on street 172.

..it's a homeless and destitution scenario..

Many countries don't/can't seem to manage that back in their own homeland so why make exceptions here?

Clutch Cargo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:04 pm

..it's a homeless and destitution scenario..

Many countries don't/can't seem to manage that back in their own homeland so why make exceptions here?

The majority of homeless and destitute people are native to the country they are in (not that it’s ok to let people be homeless and destitute anywhere by the way) it’s stretching it a bit though when visitors to a country are living as down and outs.
With no funds or means to be here legitimately, destitute foreigners should be repatriated, and not at the expense of their hosts.
Maybe governments of the world should be more particular about who they allow in, and out, through their borders.

Doc67 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 9:37 am

There were 600,000 arrivals in 2020 so $10 gives them a tidy little repatriation fund. Maybe $1 would be enough. I would be quite happy to see a $1 surcharge on my visa to know that one of my fellow citizens in a desperate condition could be sent home rather than left to die on street 172.

I don't think I'd be that happy to pay extra on my visa every time because someone didn't set aside some money for a return ticket. I understand Covid has made things more difficult but a few of the homeless guys have been on the street for longer than that.

Maybe if Cambodia had a better FPCS system people wouldn't be able to overstay for so long and get into so many problems

Of course, there are a few exceptions that are out of the persons control, such has what if we may all think about! I came relatively close when I could not access my own bank accounts to transfer funds. There's also the chance of accidents or incapacitating illness, even mental health issues.

Seems to me it's the dilemma of personal vs state responsibility for it's citizens. Some citizens want freedom and minimal state interference as to how they run their lives. Others are happy to have set boundaries/rules and/or live off the state aka 'nanny state'. Some states want to control their citizens to excess. Some citizens are not in a position to take personal responsibility.

Some citizens believe the state should take care of citizens that 'fall between the cracks' for whatever reason. Others differ on that.

Then to complicate matters, you have the issue of what to do with expat citizens in other countries. After many years of reading news stories of 'down and out' expats, I can't help but surmise rightly or wrongly that for some, Cambodia has become the 'end of the road' with alcoholism and drugs. Was it intentional that they came here coz they heard that alcohol and drugs are cheap and plentiful? Or, did they fall into the rabbit hole as a result of losing a job, relationship breakdown, mental health issues et al? Did at some point they think 'if I run my funds down further, I wont have the means to return back to my homeland'? And why didn't they take that action and return home?

So many unanswered questions there.. I don't mean to sound uncaring but does everybody who is 'down and out' necessarily want the state to step in and 'save' them? Some would no doubt tho. A complex issue methinks..

Sometimes exceptions are worth it