3 ms·

> What if they don't have papers? What if their country hasn't registered them? What if they lie about their name and birthdate, so their home country cannot id

> What if they don't have papers? What if their country hasn't registered them? What if they lie about their name and birthdate, so their home country cannot identify them? Not our problem? Not our problem, and not our problem. Keep them detained in the meanwhile. If you want asylum the least you can do is be honest. > These people have no idea where they are going, what life will be like... They take the risk because they have nothing to lose: famine, natural disasters, never ending wars, dictators. It's an inconsequential act for the most part. "Nothing to lose" that they know of. I take it being more of a fad (certainly fueled by propaganda) than anything else > The journey is not "hard". It's insufferably hard "Everybody should know that" by now. But it seems they can't see that perspective. As I said, it's more of a reckless act than anything else. Asking for charitable views cease when it's more a choice than anything else. And in the best case they'll be an overworked refugee with barely no perspective. > You live your well informed western perspective Having come from a 3rd world country, let me tell you that the naive views from the 1st world about this abound. (Your post thankfully is more balanced than most views out there.) Especially thinking mass immigration like that will solve anything about labour shortages.

hef19898 3y ago
There is a reason people usually cannot be detained without trial. That we start to make defavto exceptions for a certain group of people now is worrisome.
- raverbashing 3y ago
  Correct, and I agree it's an important point, but pre-trial detention is a thing (and I suppose pre-hearing as well) I think that's how the US justifies it (and I'm certainly not defending the way they do it). Asylum shouldn't be a "immigrate for free" card. And abusing the system hurts the legitimate claimants more.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Pre-Trial is limited, needs a judge to aprove and is counted against your sentence. Pre-Hearing used to be limited, I'd have to lie on how long exactly, and required a suspected crime to be committed. Something rooted in German history. Exception, and that got abused often, held in psychiatry in case of imminent risk of self harm and / or harming others.
goneri 3y ago
An example with France, there is between 400000 and 600000 (source an article from Le Monde) illegals, meanwhile the jail system can hold less than 60000 and are already full. So, even if you want to put everybody in prison, you need some absolutely massive investments, and the cost every year will also be substantial (guards, food, sewage, etc, etc). And I ignore the fact these facilities were designed for adults. Update for clarity, My point here is to show that you cannot technically just "Keep them detained in the meanwhile." without doing monstrous actions at industrial scale.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Oh yes, let's bring even more concetration camps then we already have, kind of. What could possibly go wrong? Edit: I read your comment correct, based on your edit.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
ben_w 3y ago
> Not our problem? Not our problem, and not our problem. Keep them detained in the meanwhile. Keeping people detained is absolutely our problem, even if you disregard their humanity, because it costs a lot of money. > If you want asylum the least you can do is be honest. You can be honest and still have not been registered in your home country, or not wanted by your home country… or worse: they do want you, so they can kill you. > Having come from a 3rd world country Which one? There's a big gap between South Sudan and Egypt, but both are technically "third world". (Even more pedantically, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland are also third world, but nobody would use the phrase today to refer to "neither NATO nor Soviet Bloc").

hef19898 3y ago

There is a reason people usually cannot be detained without trial. That we start to make defavto exceptions for a certain group of people now is worrisome.

raverbashing 3y ago
Correct, and I agree it's an important point, but pre-trial detention is a thing (and I suppose pre-hearing as well) I think that's how the US justifies it (and I'm certainly not defending the way they do it). Asylum shouldn't be a "immigrate for free" card. And abusing the system hurts the legitimate claimants more.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Pre-Trial is limited, needs a judge to aprove and is counted against your sentence. Pre-Hearing used to be limited, I'd have to lie on how long exactly, and required a suspected crime to be committed. Something rooted in German history. Exception, and that got abused often, held in psychiatry in case of imminent risk of self harm and / or harming others.

goneri 3y ago

An example with France, there is between 400000 and 600000 (source an article from Le Monde) illegals, meanwhile the jail system can hold less than 60000 and are already full. So, even if you want to put everybody in prison, you need some absolutely massive investments, and the cost every year will also be substantial (guards, food, sewage, etc, etc). And I ignore the fact these facilities were designed for adults. Update for clarity, My point here is to show that you cannot technically just "Keep them detained in the meanwhile." without doing monstrous actions at industrial scale.

hef19898 3y ago
Oh yes, let's bring even more concetration camps then we already have, kind of. What could possibly go wrong? Edit: I read your comment correct, based on your edit.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

ben_w 3y ago

> Not our problem? Not our problem, and not our problem. Keep them detained in the meanwhile. Keeping people detained is absolutely our problem, even if you disregard their humanity, because it costs a lot of money. > If you want asylum the least you can do is be honest. You can be honest and still have not been registered in your home country, or not wanted by your home country… or worse: they do want you, so they can kill you. > Having come from a 3rd world country Which one? There's a big gap between South Sudan and Egypt, but both are technically "third world". (Even more pedantically, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland are also third world, but nobody would use the phrase today to refer to "neither NATO nor Soviet Bloc").