4 ms·

I think asylum is being completely misused worldwide, and is just a cover for general (illegal) immigration. It would be better to stop issuing it and pull out

I think asylum is being completely misused worldwide, and is just a cover for general (illegal) immigration. It would be better to stop issuing it and pull out of the UN refugee convention altogether.

lovich 8y ago
As a point of fact, if a country grants asylum to someone then it is by definition not illegal immigration. The rest of your points are still arguable
- thucydidesofusa 8y ago
  You're correct in identifying the distinction between an illegal immigrant and a person with asylum status. However, the protocol for asylum seekers is that they present themselves to a law enforcment authority and identify themselves as an asylum seeker. Many illegals in America wait until their first law enforcement contact before claiming asylum. Additionally, refugees are obligated to stop in the first safe country. For how many people is America the first safe country? People in Canada and Mexico? Russia maybe?
- JakeAl 8y ago
  This is not a valid statement. Entering a country illegally is illegal immigration, as is overstaying one's VISA. Until they are granted legal entry, it's illegal entry, and they are illegal immigrants. The solution is simple, asylum should only be granted to those with a current legal status. If they enter illegally, they get sent back to their country of origin where they must get in line with all of the others applying. There's a backlog in applications (400K+), but it's because of all of the people jumping the line which interferes with the quotas set for legal immigrants and clogs the system.
  - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
    The US is obliged by treaty not to do that. The US ratified the UN Convention and Protocol Related to the Status of Refugees which requires that the US not punish people who cross the border without authorization for the purpose of seeking asylum.
  - learc83 8y ago
    > here they must get in line with all of the others applying For most people there is no line to get in. There is a line for close family of US citizens [1]. Employment visas for people with specific occupations, visas for exceptional people, investors etc... The only thing that the vast majority of people could qualify for is the diversity visa--50k are awarded each year. But you don't qualify if you come from a country that sent more than 50k immigrants to the US within the last year (most large countries). There are also 30k a year admitted under refuge programs as well, but most people won't qualify for that either. If you are accepted you need to make 1.5x the Federal Poverty level (other than refugees), pass a background check and a civil surgeons exam. >but it's because of all of the people jumping the line which interferes with the quotas set for legal immigrants and clogs the system People "jumping in line" (I assume you mean entering without authorization or overstaying visas) has nothing to do with how long you have to "wait in line" because there is no line for most people to wait in, and people who are waiting in some kind of line aren't held back by people breaking immigration laws. 1. Spouses, parents and children. Siblings also qualify but the wait is extremely long for most people--up to 20 years for people countries with a lot of immigrants to the US.
706f6f70 8y ago
It certainly seems like the circumstances under which the UN Convention on Refugees was written no longer reflect the realities of the world. Increasingly, refugees are fleeing natural disasters and near-collapse of governments instead of genocide. Whereas once you were fleeing certain death, it seems like now it may be damaging countries by removing the very people who would help rebuild or restore order. They also seem to be using the system for economic migration instead of actual asylum. There is also a large unintended incentive to enter a country illegally and then make an asylum claim, since it is faster and often means near-immediate access to state benefits. Article 31 of the Convention [1] is the one which grants amnesty to asylum claimants entering illegally and it made a lot of sense post-WW2, but seems like it's going to seriously test some country's ability to maintain order in the face of potentially tens of thousands arriving overnight at a border. --- [1] http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10 http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10 on page 29
- nickserv 8y ago
  I'm sure the convention will be scrapped once climate change starts to really bite and tens of millions from impoverished countries start heading towards rich countries. Already Europe is letting thousands drown in the Mediterranean.
- masonic 8y ago
  Perhaps you misread. Quoting Article 31 (1) 1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. In other words, people who cross multiple borders on the way and/or evade authorities before seeking asylum do not qualify.
DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
Your post will be more interesting if you share some of your reasoning.
- dx87 8y ago
  Not OP, but legally you have to claim asylum in the first country you arrive in, continuing further to get to a more desirable country makes you an economic migrant, not a refugee. For example, if someone flees from Syria, they can legally only claim asylum in the first country they enter, continuing on to Germany, UK, France, etc. means they legally aren't refugees as soon as they leave the first non-Syrian country they enter. That's probably what OP is talking about, if someone flees a country because they think their life is in danger, they shoudln't be allowed to travel though multiple safe countries and apply for asylum once they get into a country with better social benefits.

lovich 8y ago

As a point of fact, if a country grants asylum to someone then it is by definition not illegal immigration. The rest of your points are still arguable

thucydidesofusa 8y ago
You're correct in identifying the distinction between an illegal immigrant and a person with asylum status. However, the protocol for asylum seekers is that they present themselves to a law enforcment authority and identify themselves as an asylum seeker. Many illegals in America wait until their first law enforcement contact before claiming asylum. Additionally, refugees are obligated to stop in the first safe country. For how many people is America the first safe country? People in Canada and Mexico? Russia maybe?
JakeAl 8y ago
This is not a valid statement. Entering a country illegally is illegal immigration, as is overstaying one's VISA. Until they are granted legal entry, it's illegal entry, and they are illegal immigrants. The solution is simple, asylum should only be granted to those with a current legal status. If they enter illegally, they get sent back to their country of origin where they must get in line with all of the others applying. There's a backlog in applications (400K+), but it's because of all of the people jumping the line which interferes with the quotas set for legal immigrants and clogs the system.
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  The US is obliged by treaty not to do that. The US ratified the UN Convention and Protocol Related to the Status of Refugees which requires that the US not punish people who cross the border without authorization for the purpose of seeking asylum.
- learc83 8y ago
  > here they must get in line with all of the others applying For most people there is no line to get in. There is a line for close family of US citizens [1]. Employment visas for people with specific occupations, visas for exceptional people, investors etc... The only thing that the vast majority of people could qualify for is the diversity visa--50k are awarded each year. But you don't qualify if you come from a country that sent more than 50k immigrants to the US within the last year (most large countries). There are also 30k a year admitted under refuge programs as well, but most people won't qualify for that either. If you are accepted you need to make 1.5x the Federal Poverty level (other than refugees), pass a background check and a civil surgeons exam. >but it's because of all of the people jumping the line which interferes with the quotas set for legal immigrants and clogs the system People "jumping in line" (I assume you mean entering without authorization or overstaying visas) has nothing to do with how long you have to "wait in line" because there is no line for most people to wait in, and people who are waiting in some kind of line aren't held back by people breaking immigration laws. 1. Spouses, parents and children. Siblings also qualify but the wait is extremely long for most people--up to 20 years for people countries with a lot of immigrants to the US.

706f6f70 8y ago

It certainly seems like the circumstances under which the UN Convention on Refugees was written no longer reflect the realities of the world. Increasingly, refugees are fleeing natural disasters and near-collapse of governments instead of genocide. Whereas once you were fleeing certain death, it seems like now it may be damaging countries by removing the very people who would help rebuild or restore order. They also seem to be using the system for economic migration instead of actual asylum. There is also a large unintended incentive to enter a country illegally and then make an asylum claim, since it is faster and often means near-immediate access to state benefits. Article 31 of the Convention [1] is the one which grants amnesty to asylum claimants entering illegally and it made a lot of sense post-WW2, but seems like it's going to seriously test some country's ability to maintain order in the face of potentially tens of thousands arriving overnight at a border. --- [1] http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10 http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10 on page 29

nickserv 8y ago
I'm sure the convention will be scrapped once climate change starts to really bite and tens of millions from impoverished countries start heading towards rich countries. Already Europe is letting thousands drown in the Mediterranean.
masonic 8y ago
Perhaps you misread. Quoting Article 31 (1) 1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. In other words, people who cross multiple borders on the way and/or evade authorities before seeking asylum do not qualify.

DoofusOfDeath 8y ago

Your post will be more interesting if you share some of your reasoning.

dx87 8y ago
Not OP, but legally you have to claim asylum in the first country you arrive in, continuing further to get to a more desirable country makes you an economic migrant, not a refugee. For example, if someone flees from Syria, they can legally only claim asylum in the first country they enter, continuing on to Germany, UK, France, etc. means they legally aren't refugees as soon as they leave the first non-Syrian country they enter. That's probably what OP is talking about, if someone flees a country because they think their life is in danger, they shoudln't be allowed to travel though multiple safe countries and apply for asylum once they get into a country with better social benefits.