3 ms·
>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 did
by 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 agoThe 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 agoThe 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 ago1. 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.