4 ms·

When I read "the immigration system is broken," I don't think of the arduous process of filing paperwork. I highly doubt GP was whining about the difficult and

When I read "the immigration system is broken," I don't think of the arduous process of filing paperwork. I highly doubt GP was whining about the difficult and time-consuming process of filling out reams of paperwork, especially considering the context of the rest of their post where they talked about exploiting loopholes and the letter of the law to abuse the system. Context is important! No matter how high your horse is. In any case, the instant you fall just a little outside the prescribed lines is when things start to get hairy. Have a talk with any DACA recipient and you will quickly learn how broken the system can be. Or someone seeking refugee status around the time the annual ceiling is being reached.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Thank you, said it better than I would have.
TMWNN 3y ago
>especially considering the context of the rest of their post where they talked about exploiting loopholes and the letter of the law to abuse the system. I didn't read the original post that way. If the poster stayed within the rules and—more importantly—immigration officials agreed with his interpretation of the rules, who am I to gainsay their decisions? To put another way, this is why my response was to hn_throwaway_99's comment, not to the original post itself. >Have a talk with any DACA recipient and you will quickly learn how broken the system can be. Or someone seeking refugee status around the time the annual ceiling is being reached. Again, you are coming at this from the perspective that something like DACA must exist, and therefore ought to be improved/eased/etc. The a priori argument that a country must accept refugees, and the only answer to the question of "How many?" is "As many as possible". This is the same entitled line of thinking as hn_throwaway_99's declaration that a complex system with many moving parts that operate over a long period of time must therefore be "broken", with the implication that the "fix" must be to make it as close to a one-button process as possible.
- DrSAR 3y ago
  The 1951 UNHCR convention [1] would like to disagree that only an entitled line of thinking presupposes rights of refugees. [1] https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-convention https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-co...
  - remarkEon 3y ago
    The entitled line of thinking is that everyone who comes from a country where things are shitty is a "refugee". That's the problem with the way this discussion is framed.
  - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    1. They didn't say ANY refugees in the country is entitled thinking. They meant as MANY as possible is entitled. Wich is a reasonable take. 2. Also, just because a UNHCR convention says it, doesn't mean it isn't entitled. (I would say the UN is an exemplar of entitlement. The US provides the largest budget while countries like China get an equal vote in vetoing.) 3. Everyone coming illegally is either a) a refugee, b) an economic migrant or c) a threat. Every country has the right to a reasonable process to determine which bucket someone falls into. Even the 1951 convention you linked allows for that. The US's process is actually less onereous than the EU's. The EU won't grant you asylum if you come through a safe country. The US has no such concept. You can be a single military aged male from China but you will still be validly considered for asylum just like a child or 80 year old from Afghanistan.
lmm 3y ago
> In any case, the instant you fall just a little outside the prescribed lines is when things start to get hairy. Have a talk with any DACA recipient and you will quickly learn how broken the system can be. DACA is an exception for people who were already in violation of the law, no? So even if that subsystem is inconsistent, unreliable, or totally nonfunctional, it wouldn't be a reason to say the system as a whole is broken. > Or someone seeking refugee status around the time the annual ceiling is being reached. Refugee status is meant to be a last resort for people who flee in fear for their lives. For people who legitimately need it, it's ok if the process is slow or unclear as long as it's safe (frankly, the process of granting refugee status should be slow and cautious; if the system allows economic migrants to gain an advantage by claiming a refugee status that they're not entitled to, that makes the whole system worse for everyone). The system would only be broken if legitimate refugees were getting sent back into places where their lives were in danger.
- Tallain 3y ago
  > DACA is an exception for people who were already in violation of the law, no? So even if that subsystem is inconsistent, unreliable, or totally nonfunctional, it wouldn't be a reason to say the system as a whole is broken. Let me make sure I understand the point I think you're trying to make. Because people with DACA status were in violation of the law at some point in their lives, it's acceptable to thrust upon them a broken system? So, they deserve it? I just want to be sure because it sounds like you're saying it's acceptable for this system to mistreat or otherwise neglect a subset of people because reasons. Setting aside the fact that DACA status is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, namely, people brought to this country as children at a time in their lives when they could not have known what was happening let alone had the agency to say, "hey wait, have you tried the normal way to immigrate into this country, mom and / or dad?" The point I was trying to make with DACA is that the system is broken, not because of long wait times for paperwork, but because at any point the entire thing can be taken away. DACA status has been threatened multiple times. Imagine living a life you didn't ask for, not native to the land in which you live, and not native to the one you were forcibly taken from, and living under the shadow of the threat of being forcibly taken back to a strange country. That's one part of the system that is fundamentally broken, and because these people are "in violation of the law", they deserve it? The machine doesn't work unless the parts do. Or to quote Solomon Burke, if "one of us are chained, none of us are free." It's easy to dismiss a single piece that doesn't impact your life directly. "Great! The illegals have a hard time with immigration. Maybe they should not have broken the law, then!" But to many it is their entire lives, and through no fault of their own. It's this contentment with injustice elsewhere that's utterly infuriating and really shines a light on the privilege of some on this forum. Not even going to touch the "economic migrant" bit. Sounds a little too close to a dog whistle to me. Not even sure why I felt the need to engage this much.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

Thank you, said it better than I would have.

TMWNN 3y ago

>especially considering the context of the rest of their post where they talked about exploiting loopholes and the letter of the law to abuse the system. I didn't read the original post that way. If the poster stayed within the rules and—more importantly—immigration officials agreed with his interpretation of the rules, who am I to gainsay their decisions? To put another way, this is why my response was to hn_throwaway_99's comment, not to the original post itself. >Have a talk with any DACA recipient and you will quickly learn how broken the system can be. Or someone seeking refugee status around the time the annual ceiling is being reached. Again, you are coming at this from the perspective that something like DACA must exist, and therefore ought to be improved/eased/etc. The a priori argument that a country must accept refugees, and the only answer to the question of "How many?" is "As many as possible". This is the same entitled line of thinking as hn_throwaway_99's declaration that a complex system with many moving parts that operate over a long period of time must therefore be "broken", with the implication that the "fix" must be to make it as close to a one-button process as possible.

DrSAR 3y ago
The 1951 UNHCR convention [1] would like to disagree that only an entitled line of thinking presupposes rights of refugees. [1] https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-convention https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-co...
- remarkEon 3y ago
  The entitled line of thinking is that everyone who comes from a country where things are shitty is a "refugee". That's the problem with the way this discussion is framed.
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  1. They didn't say ANY refugees in the country is entitled thinking. They meant as MANY as possible is entitled. Wich is a reasonable take. 2. Also, just because a UNHCR convention says it, doesn't mean it isn't entitled. (I would say the UN is an exemplar of entitlement. The US provides the largest budget while countries like China get an equal vote in vetoing.) 3. Everyone coming illegally is either a) a refugee, b) an economic migrant or c) a threat. Every country has the right to a reasonable process to determine which bucket someone falls into. Even the 1951 convention you linked allows for that. The US's process is actually less onereous than the EU's. The EU won't grant you asylum if you come through a safe country. The US has no such concept. You can be a single military aged male from China but you will still be validly considered for asylum just like a child or 80 year old from Afghanistan.

lmm 3y ago

> In any case, the instant you fall just a little outside the prescribed lines is when things start to get hairy. Have a talk with any DACA recipient and you will quickly learn how broken the system can be. DACA is an exception for people who were already in violation of the law, no? So even if that subsystem is inconsistent, unreliable, or totally nonfunctional, it wouldn't be a reason to say the system as a whole is broken. > Or someone seeking refugee status around the time the annual ceiling is being reached. Refugee status is meant to be a last resort for people who flee in fear for their lives. For people who legitimately need it, it's ok if the process is slow or unclear as long as it's safe (frankly, the process of granting refugee status should be slow and cautious; if the system allows economic migrants to gain an advantage by claiming a refugee status that they're not entitled to, that makes the whole system worse for everyone). The system would only be broken if legitimate refugees were getting sent back into places where their lives were in danger.

Tallain 3y ago
> DACA is an exception for people who were already in violation of the law, no? So even if that subsystem is inconsistent, unreliable, or totally nonfunctional, it wouldn't be a reason to say the system as a whole is broken. Let me make sure I understand the point I think you're trying to make. Because people with DACA status were in violation of the law at some point in their lives, it's acceptable to thrust upon them a broken system? So, they deserve it? I just want to be sure because it sounds like you're saying it's acceptable for this system to mistreat or otherwise neglect a subset of people because reasons. Setting aside the fact that DACA status is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, namely, people brought to this country as children at a time in their lives when they could not have known what was happening let alone had the agency to say, "hey wait, have you tried the normal way to immigrate into this country, mom and / or dad?" The point I was trying to make with DACA is that the system is broken, not because of long wait times for paperwork, but because at any point the entire thing can be taken away. DACA status has been threatened multiple times. Imagine living a life you didn't ask for, not native to the land in which you live, and not native to the one you were forcibly taken from, and living under the shadow of the threat of being forcibly taken back to a strange country. That's one part of the system that is fundamentally broken, and because these people are "in violation of the law", they deserve it? The machine doesn't work unless the parts do. Or to quote Solomon Burke, if "one of us are chained, none of us are free." It's easy to dismiss a single piece that doesn't impact your life directly. "Great! The illegals have a hard time with immigration. Maybe they should not have broken the law, then!" But to many it is their entire lives, and through no fault of their own. It's this contentment with injustice elsewhere that's utterly infuriating and really shines a light on the privilege of some on this forum. Not even going to touch the "economic migrant" bit. Sounds a little too close to a dog whistle to me. Not even sure why I felt the need to engage this much.