6 ms·

And we should let them all in - the people who are leaving Russia now have an ardent desire to escape what is fast becoming a totalitarian state, while the Ukra

And we should let them all in - the people who are leaving Russia now have an ardent desire to escape what is fast becoming a totalitarian state, while the Ukrainians are, of course, fleeing an invading army that has shown callous disregard for their lives.

rufus_foreman 5y ago
The article says they're in Mexico, not Russia. What's wrong with Mexico? Why can't they stay there rather than in the US? Is Mexico a totalitarian state?
- stevespang 5y ago
- bitcoinmoney 5y ago
  Economic opportunitie? Isn’t that obvious for you?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - rufus_foreman 5y ago
    Nothing in the parent comment said anything about economic opportunity. It referenced escaping a totalitarian state. Is Mexico a totalitarian state that people need to escape? I live in a city where there's a lot less economic opportunity than there used to be, a lot of manufacturing work here that used to pay good wages moved to Mexico. I'm pissed off about it to tell you the truth. Economic opportunity? Really? Had about enough of "The Economist".
    - eesmith 5y ago
      "Why Don’t Refugees Stay in the First Safe Country?" - https://care4calais.org/the-refugee-crisis/why-dont-refugees-stay-in-the-first-safe-country/ https://care4calais.org/the-refugee-crisis/why-dont-refugees... > ... many times more refugees do stay in the first country they arrive in rather than continue their journey onwards. However, we also see cases where people first arrive in a country such as Greece, Italy or Hungary and initially do try to settle there, but, if that country has economic problems like acute unemployment or food shortages it becomes impossible for them to survive and they end up destitute in the street. Some therefore decide to move on to France, or further, due to a desire to become independent and contribute to society. In the long term this will benefit both the refugee and the host country. ... > Refugees who have lost everything due to war or persecution face a daunting task in trying to rebuild their lives. Ask yourself, “If I had to suddenly leave home and everything behind me tomorrow, arriving to a new country without shelter and without work, which country would I go to and why?” If I were a refugee and spoke good English and no Spanish, I would prefer to live in the US where it's much more likely I can support myself, and where the language barrier is much smaller.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    Does that mean every person has a right to be in the US, Canada, Western Europe, South Korea or Japan (and maybe a few other countries)?
  - yucky 5y ago
    You can't claim refugee status just to improve economic opportunities. They certainly didn't walk to the US/Mexico border, so clearly they have the means...
paxys 5y ago
Counterpoint – if they managed to get to Mexico they already have asylum. International law regarding refugees is pretty clear that the first safe country they reach has to hear their case in good faith vs passing them off elsewhere. EU has such a system in place, and so does the US itself with Mexico regarding Central American refugees.
- eesmith 5y ago
  There's no obligation to claim asylum in the first safe country. > There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country. There is a requirement for the first safe country in which they arrive to hear their asylum claim but, if this does not happen for any reason, the refugee is then free to make their asylum claim elsewhere. -- https://care4calais.org/the-refugee-crisis/why-dont-refugees-stay-in-the-first-safe-country/ https://care4calais.org/the-refugee-crisis/why-dont-refugees... > There is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country. There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state. This principle has developed so that, in practice, an asylum seeker who had the opportunity to claim asylum in another country is liable to be returned there in order for his or her claim to be determined. - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/sep/21/claim-asylum-uk-legal-position https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/201... For example, the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement says "Individuals entering Canada at a land port of entry continue to be ineligible to make a refugee claim, and will be returned to the U.S. unless they meet one of the relevant exceptions under the STCA." - https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement.html https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/co... . (Though with opposition: "CCC official: Frozen bodies show why Canada must end agreement with U.S." https://cruxnow.com/cns/2022/01/ccc-official-frozen-bodies-show-why-canada-must-end-agreement-with-u-s https://cruxnow.com/cns/2022/01/ccc-official-frozen-bodies-s... ) As you say, the one between the US and Mexico only concerns migrants from Central America. Not Europe.
  - 5y ago
c0nkflict5uxway 5y ago
Yes, but that sentiment should not be limited to this particular conflict. People fleeing war should always be welcomed with open arms. There are many reasons. Moral: they probably left a lot behind and are traumatized to some degree. A little kindness goes a long ways in situations like that. Pragmatic: they had the means, wits, and luck to escape conflict to relative safety. People like that probably have good values and won't be freeloaders. History: it works. "Brain drain" is a trope for a reason. NASA would have had a much harder time with the cold war space race if the US had been less willing to accept German refugees in WWII, for example. The list goes on. And it ends with conscience: it's the right thing to do.

rufus_foreman 5y ago

The article says they're in Mexico, not Russia. What's wrong with Mexico? Why can't they stay there rather than in the US? Is Mexico a totalitarian state?

stevespang 5y ago
bitcoinmoney 5y ago
Economic opportunitie? Isn’t that obvious for you?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rufus_foreman 5y ago
  Nothing in the parent comment said anything about economic opportunity. It referenced escaping a totalitarian state. Is Mexico a totalitarian state that people need to escape? I live in a city where there's a lot less economic opportunity than there used to be, a lot of manufacturing work here that used to pay good wages moved to Mexico. I'm pissed off about it to tell you the truth. Economic opportunity? Really? Had about enough of "The Economist".
  - eesmith 5y ago
    "Why Don’t Refugees Stay in the First Safe Country?" - https://care4calais.org/the-refugee-crisis/why-dont-refugees-stay-in-the-first-safe-country/ https://care4calais.org/the-refugee-crisis/why-dont-refugees... > ... many times more refugees do stay in the first country they arrive in rather than continue their journey onwards. However, we also see cases where people first arrive in a country such as Greece, Italy or Hungary and initially do try to settle there, but, if that country has economic problems like acute unemployment or food shortages it becomes impossible for them to survive and they end up destitute in the street. Some therefore decide to move on to France, or further, due to a desire to become independent and contribute to society. In the long term this will benefit both the refugee and the host country. ... > Refugees who have lost everything due to war or persecution face a daunting task in trying to rebuild their lives. Ask yourself, “If I had to suddenly leave home and everything behind me tomorrow, arriving to a new country without shelter and without work, which country would I go to and why?” If I were a refugee and spoke good English and no Spanish, I would prefer to live in the US where it's much more likely I can support myself, and where the language barrier is much smaller.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  Does that mean every person has a right to be in the US, Canada, Western Europe, South Korea or Japan (and maybe a few other countries)?
- yucky 5y ago
  You can't claim refugee status just to improve economic opportunities. They certainly didn't walk to the US/Mexico border, so clearly they have the means...

paxys 5y ago

Counterpoint – if they managed to get to Mexico they already have asylum. International law regarding refugees is pretty clear that the first safe country they reach has to hear their case in good faith vs passing them off elsewhere. EU has such a system in place, and so does the US itself with Mexico regarding Central American refugees.

eesmith 5y ago
There's no obligation to claim asylum in the first safe country. > There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country. There is a requirement for the first safe country in which they arrive to hear their asylum claim but, if this does not happen for any reason, the refugee is then free to make their asylum claim elsewhere. -- https://care4calais.org/the-refugee-crisis/why-dont-refugees-stay-in-the-first-safe-country/ https://care4calais.org/the-refugee-crisis/why-dont-refugees... > There is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country. There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state. This principle has developed so that, in practice, an asylum seeker who had the opportunity to claim asylum in another country is liable to be returned there in order for his or her claim to be determined. - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/sep/21/claim-asylum-uk-legal-position https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/201... For example, the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement says "Individuals entering Canada at a land port of entry continue to be ineligible to make a refugee claim, and will be returned to the U.S. unless they meet one of the relevant exceptions under the STCA." - https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement.html https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/co... . (Though with opposition: "CCC official: Frozen bodies show why Canada must end agreement with U.S." https://cruxnow.com/cns/2022/01/ccc-official-frozen-bodies-show-why-canada-must-end-agreement-with-u-s https://cruxnow.com/cns/2022/01/ccc-official-frozen-bodies-s... ) As you say, the one between the US and Mexico only concerns migrants from Central America. Not Europe.
- 5y ago

c0nkflict5uxway 5y ago

Yes, but that sentiment should not be limited to this particular conflict. People fleeing war should always be welcomed with open arms. There are many reasons. Moral: they probably left a lot behind and are traumatized to some degree. A little kindness goes a long ways in situations like that. Pragmatic: they had the means, wits, and luck to escape conflict to relative safety. People like that probably have good values and won't be freeloaders. History: it works. "Brain drain" is a trope for a reason. NASA would have had a much harder time with the cold war space race if the US had been less willing to accept German refugees in WWII, for example. The list goes on. And it ends with conscience: it's the right thing to do.