4 ms·

Being a refugee should not be (and isn't) a blank cheque to settle in whatever part of the world you want, financially supported by the locals regardless of whe

Being a refugee should not be (and isn't) a blank cheque to settle in whatever part of the world you want, financially supported by the locals regardless of whether they want you there or not. If it were that would be a perverse incentive to actually try and make your own country collapse, as it'd be easier to claim "refugee" status than fix domestic issues. This is doubly true given that some people are fanatical about the issue of fully open borders regardless of downsides, and will immediately expand the definition of "refugee" to incorporate anyone at all. The concept of a "climate refugee" is already being promoted, for example. Combined with the argument you're making here it is just a cynical attempt to hijack people's good natured desire to help genuine war refugees, into jackhammering unlimited migration and open borders into society without consideration of any costs. This must not be allowed to happen as this kind of abuse will ultimately result in the collapse of support for any kind of refugee and asylum support.

_benedict 4y ago
It isn’t a blank cheque, because making it to safety in a preferred country is exceptionally difficult and expensive. However, it is a blank cheque once you’ve surmounted those challenges and have arrived at the safe country you have chosen (and were able to reach), though most countries receiving such refugees are doing their best not to honour this obligation. It’s worth noting that the UK tries hard to prevent refugees reaching our shores, but the vast majority that do, and apply for asylum, are granted it [1]. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statist...
- origin_path 4y ago
  It's clearly not that difficult or expensive given the large numbers of people who manage to achieve it despite, theoretically, having no personal resources. If it were really exceptionally difficult then people wouldn't do it, as there's nothing wrong with the countries they crossed to get there.
  - clort 4y ago
    I see a selection bias in your comments there. There may be numbers of people who manage to achieve it but you can't strictly say if it was difficult or not unless you compare the number of people who tried and failed. You can't say it was not expensive unless you can demonstrate that some significant proportion of those who made it did not spend much money doing so.
  - _benedict 4y ago
    Being a refugee does not mean you have no resources. Would you flee your home country without taking your valuables? Would you have no friends or relatives to call upon to offer some monetary assistance, if it meant the difference between life and death? Most have few resources. The ones with more resources have more options about where they flee to.
    - origin_path 4y ago
      You're proving my point here. You seem to think being labelled a refugee is literally a blank cheque and the only limit on where they settle should be how far they can get with whatever funds they take with them. Remember also that there are organizations that will happily pay people money to let them relocate to more desirable locations. I don't really have a dog in this fight one way or the other, but people like you need to realize this - that sort of attitude and activism will sooner or later mean the end of the asylum system for everyone. We are already seeing credible candidates for Prime Minister want to withdraw from the ECHR to make deportations for failed asylum possible (not even easy, just possible) and it's because the public has no patience for the endless flood of "refugees" who inexplicably find France unacceptable. Abuse of the system will lead to it being terminated, and that will be popular with voters.
      - _benedict 4y ago
        On average the equivalent of 0.05% of the UK population claims asylum each year [1]. Last year about 0.07%. That doesn't sound like an endless flood to me. The world unfortunately does have a lot of refugees in it, but we do not experience the consequences of that here, much as we may act as though we do. I don't personally have a strong belief that refugees should have a blank cheque to settle anywhere. It might be fairer to permit refugees to travel further, as it's unclear why neighbouring countries should shoulder the burden. However, the only point I was making is that my understanding is that today they _do_ have that right, which is why countries make it so hard to arrive. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statist...

_benedict 4y ago

It isn’t a blank cheque, because making it to safety in a preferred country is exceptionally difficult and expensive. However, it is a blank cheque once you’ve surmounted those challenges and have arrived at the safe country you have chosen (and were able to reach), though most countries receiving such refugees are doing their best not to honour this obligation. It’s worth noting that the UK tries hard to prevent refugees reaching our shores, but the vast majority that do, and apply for asylum, are granted it [1]. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statist...

origin_path 4y ago
It's clearly not that difficult or expensive given the large numbers of people who manage to achieve it despite, theoretically, having no personal resources. If it were really exceptionally difficult then people wouldn't do it, as there's nothing wrong with the countries they crossed to get there.
- clort 4y ago
  I see a selection bias in your comments there. There may be numbers of people who manage to achieve it but you can't strictly say if it was difficult or not unless you compare the number of people who tried and failed. You can't say it was not expensive unless you can demonstrate that some significant proportion of those who made it did not spend much money doing so.
- _benedict 4y ago
  Being a refugee does not mean you have no resources. Would you flee your home country without taking your valuables? Would you have no friends or relatives to call upon to offer some monetary assistance, if it meant the difference between life and death? Most have few resources. The ones with more resources have more options about where they flee to.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    You're proving my point here. You seem to think being labelled a refugee is literally a blank cheque and the only limit on where they settle should be how far they can get with whatever funds they take with them. Remember also that there are organizations that will happily pay people money to let them relocate to more desirable locations. I don't really have a dog in this fight one way or the other, but people like you need to realize this - that sort of attitude and activism will sooner or later mean the end of the asylum system for everyone. We are already seeing credible candidates for Prime Minister want to withdraw from the ECHR to make deportations for failed asylum possible (not even easy, just possible) and it's because the public has no patience for the endless flood of "refugees" who inexplicably find France unacceptable. Abuse of the system will lead to it being terminated, and that will be popular with voters.
    - _benedict 4y ago
      On average the equivalent of 0.05% of the UK population claims asylum each year [1]. Last year about 0.07%. That doesn't sound like an endless flood to me. The world unfortunately does have a lot of refugees in it, but we do not experience the consequences of that here, much as we may act as though we do. I don't personally have a strong belief that refugees should have a blank cheque to settle anywhere. It might be fairer to permit refugees to travel further, as it's unclear why neighbouring countries should shoulder the burden. However, the only point I was making is that my understanding is that today they _do_ have that right, which is why countries make it so hard to arrive. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statist...