6 ms·

There are many angles/perspectives. Lets consider two categories for whom it is declared that we need them or they are allowed to enter: high-skilled workforce

by zerr 7y ago

There are many angles/perspectives. Lets consider two categories for whom it is declared that we need them or they are allowed to enter: high-skilled workforce and refugees. We all know (here at HN) about the huge bureaucracy and obstacles when it comes to work permits. As for the refugees - everyone declares that they are allowed to enter, but in order to qualify for such status they need to be [almost] drown in the sea or [almost] killed at the border. https://www.liberties.eu/en/news/why-refugees-do-not-take-the-plane/16529 https://www.liberties.eu/en/news/why-refugees-do-not-take-th... https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2016/02/11/why-dont-refugees-fly/ https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2016/02/11/why-dont-refugees-fly/

CapricornNoble 7y ago
So....all of the problems you've mentioned, and they ARE legitimate issues....can be resolved via means other than eliminating birthright citizenship, or adopting open borders. So can we agree to attempt implementing other measures and policies first before jumping to a drastic and likely highly-disruptive policy shift? >>>but in order to qualify for such status they need to be [almost] drown in the sea or [almost] killed at the border. There's not much we can do about natural geography. I'm not sure what alternative course of action is suggested in the case of, say, Cuban or Haitian refugees attempting access by boat. Secondly, no one is "almost killing" refugees that show up at designated legal points of entry to the country. Finally, anyone other than Mexican citizens attempting to seek asylum/refugee status by crossing the US-Mexico border is probably in error (I wouldn't go so far as to say "not acting in good faith"). Consider this from: [1] "Once refugees or asylum seekers have found a safe place and protection of a state or territory outside their territory of origin they are discouraged from leaving again and seeking protection in another country." In other words, Hondurans/Guatamalans/etc... should not be transiting Mexico to seek refugee status in the US to begin with.[2] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Restriction_of_onward_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Restriction_of_onward_... [2]https://www.unhcr.org/3c064aab4.html https://www.unhcr.org/3c064aab4.html

by zerr 7y ago

CapricornNoble 7y ago

So....all of the problems you've mentioned, and they ARE legitimate issues....can be resolved via means other than eliminating birthright citizenship, or adopting open borders. So can we agree to attempt implementing other measures and policies first before jumping to a drastic and likely highly-disruptive policy shift? >>>but in order to qualify for such status they need to be [almost] drown in the sea or [almost] killed at the border. There's not much we can do about natural geography. I'm not sure what alternative course of action is suggested in the case of, say, Cuban or Haitian refugees attempting access by boat. Secondly, no one is "almost killing" refugees that show up at designated legal points of entry to the country. Finally, anyone other than Mexican citizens attempting to seek asylum/refugee status by crossing the US-Mexico border is probably in error (I wouldn't go so far as to say "not acting in good faith"). Consider this from: [1] "Once refugees or asylum seekers have found a safe place and protection of a state or territory outside their territory of origin they are discouraged from leaving again and seeking protection in another country." In other words, Hondurans/Guatamalans/etc... should not be transiting Mexico to seek refugee status in the US to begin with.[2] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Restriction_of_onward_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee#Restriction_of_onward_... [2]https://www.unhcr.org/3c064aab4.html https://www.unhcr.org/3c064aab4.html