|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 24 2022 08:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2022 08:27 Sermokala wrote:
Biden lays down the gauntlet and says that two more dem senators and he will codify roe vs wade. After an attempt to make the election about if human being deserve to be treated as human beings biden decides to make it about if women deserve to die because they are women. It's not clear whether you're saying you think this is a bad thing.
I'm going to take the bold chance and expose my hot take that human beings should be treated as human beings and that women shouldn't just die more because why not. I know that's controversial but im just an edgy and brave person like that.
|
United States42673 Posts
On September 24 2022 09:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2022 08:54 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2022 08:27 Sermokala wrote:
Biden lays down the gauntlet and says that two more dem senators and he will codify roe vs wade. After an attempt to make the election about if human being deserve to be treated as human beings biden decides to make it about if women deserve to die because they are women. It's not clear whether you're saying you think this is a bad thing. I'm going to take the bold chance and expose my hot take that human beings should be treated as human beings and that women shouldn't just die more because why not. I know that's controversial but im just an edgy and brave person like that.
I honestly still don’t know what you’re trying to say here.
|
On September 24 2022 09:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2022 08:54 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2022 08:27 Sermokala wrote:
Biden lays down the gauntlet and says that two more dem senators and he will codify roe vs wade. After an attempt to make the election about if human being deserve to be treated as human beings biden decides to make it about if women deserve to die because they are women. It's not clear whether you're saying you think this is a bad thing. I'm going to take the bold chance and expose my hot take that human beings should be treated as human beings and that women shouldn't just die more because why not. I know that's controversial but im just an edgy and brave person like that.
I'm with Kwark you aren't being very clear on whether this is a good or bad thing. Are you saying Democrats shouldn't promise to protect human rights when Republicans threaten them or...?
|
I -think- Serm is upset that it's being used as a bargaining chip, as opposed to just something that should be done and 'given' in the name of basic human rights?
|
|
|
On September 24 2022 07:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2022 23:23 ChristianS wrote:
Sounds like you agree the comparison math is stupid. Great! Couldn’t be happier. Now I think you must have a different understanding of the word “overwhelmed” than me in this context but that sounds extremely boring to argue about.
I’ve been extremely unhappy with Biden on immigration. He’s been better than expected on some stuff and maaaybe the courts are partly to blame on immigration but like, I think MPP should have been ruled illegal day 1. Instead it continued well into the next administration. I think using Covid as an excuse to shut down asylum seekers that otherwise would have been entitled to make their case in court was bullshit that a court should have seen through immediately. Instead it continued well into the next administration.
Really, though, the “we’re just enforcing the rule of law!” argument lost most of its power as soon as metering became an intentional strategy to reduce *legal* immigration. That started under Obama (I don’t know for sure if it was an intentional strategy back then or just a lack of resources, but Obama was plenty eager to look hardline on immigration).
At that point you’ve got both US and international law entitling these people to apply for asylum in a timely fashion. Maybe they get rejected! But they’re entitled to apply. But hundreds or thousands are lining up at each port of entry and as a policy we only process 50 applications a day. So people just start coming across, getting apprehended, and *then* applying, and we can’t legally deport them because they do actually have a legal right to apply; we’ve just been refusing to give them that right at the port of entry. Then conservatives are outraged that all these people get to just come across, get apprehended, and stay anyway until their court date, but we’re the ones breaking the law here.
I’d much rather have a robust system for processing asylum cases in a timely fashion. But that would increase legal immigration, and contrary to Introvert’s insistence, conservatives are not actually interested in that, even for legitimate asylum cases. I don’t actually think most liberals are, either. Everybody knows this system is broken but there’s a lot more political will behind keeping it broken or breaking it further than there is in actually getting it functioning, so we’re stuck here forever.
So, uh, sorry El Paso had a bunch more homeless people last week. I hope they found shelters and such for those people to stay in. I’d love for the system to work better so things like that didn’t happen, but I don’t think anyone is actually interested in voting accordingly. I just fundamentally disagree with your philosophy that we can solve this problem if we just provided more resources and funding and allowed more people to expeditiously apply for asylum and get into the country. It's akin to saying that if we just massively incentivized even more people to show up at the border seeking asylum we could solve the problem of having too many people at the border seeking asylum. This is the California theory of governance. Just throw more and more money into making it easier to be homeless and then act surprised when homelessness goes up. Then you get to argue that the problem is even greater and now you need even more money to address it.
Whether applications are processed efficiently is orthogonal to whether they’re granted. I don’t see the argument for being deliberately inefficient. Is it really so expensive to hire enough of whoever is processing applications that, going forward, each asylum seeker gets a quick yes/no?
|
I'm remarking at the absurdity of the election being turned into a semi-equal contest between one side that wants women to not die for some reason, that human beings should be treated as human beings vs the side that thinks we should make things worse for women and immigrants for no coherent reason.
Yes obviously the Dems should win but I don't know if I've seen a dumber political fight or one that had less value to have. Its literal cruelty and hate vs disinterest and apathy. Its so infuriating to have to argue with people so much to just keep the basic things we have now.
Its absurd that people are fighting and dieing across the world to just have a basic existence and here we have to argue if women deserve to be punished for existing in 2022 or if its better to have a good economy or brown people in the country.
|
On September 25 2022 02:02 Djabanete wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2022 07:54 BlackJack wrote:On September 22 2022 23:23 ChristianS wrote:
Sounds like you agree the comparison math is stupid. Great! Couldn’t be happier. Now I think you must have a different understanding of the word “overwhelmed” than me in this context but that sounds extremely boring to argue about.
I’ve been extremely unhappy with Biden on immigration. He’s been better than expected on some stuff and maaaybe the courts are partly to blame on immigration but like, I think MPP should have been ruled illegal day 1. Instead it continued well into the next administration. I think using Covid as an excuse to shut down asylum seekers that otherwise would have been entitled to make their case in court was bullshit that a court should have seen through immediately. Instead it continued well into the next administration.
Really, though, the “we’re just enforcing the rule of law!” argument lost most of its power as soon as metering became an intentional strategy to reduce *legal* immigration. That started under Obama (I don’t know for sure if it was an intentional strategy back then or just a lack of resources, but Obama was plenty eager to look hardline on immigration).
At that point you’ve got both US and international law entitling these people to apply for asylum in a timely fashion. Maybe they get rejected! But they’re entitled to apply. But hundreds or thousands are lining up at each port of entry and as a policy we only process 50 applications a day. So people just start coming across, getting apprehended, and *then* applying, and we can’t legally deport them because they do actually have a legal right to apply; we’ve just been refusing to give them that right at the port of entry. Then conservatives are outraged that all these people get to just come across, get apprehended, and stay anyway until their court date, but we’re the ones breaking the law here.
I’d much rather have a robust system for processing asylum cases in a timely fashion. But that would increase legal immigration, and contrary to Introvert’s insistence, conservatives are not actually interested in that, even for legitimate asylum cases. I don’t actually think most liberals are, either. Everybody knows this system is broken but there’s a lot more political will behind keeping it broken or breaking it further than there is in actually getting it functioning, so we’re stuck here forever.
So, uh, sorry El Paso had a bunch more homeless people last week. I hope they found shelters and such for those people to stay in. I’d love for the system to work better so things like that didn’t happen, but I don’t think anyone is actually interested in voting accordingly. I just fundamentally disagree with your philosophy that we can solve this problem if we just provided more resources and funding and allowed more people to expeditiously apply for asylum and get into the country. It's akin to saying that if we just massively incentivized even more people to show up at the border seeking asylum we could solve the problem of having too many people at the border seeking asylum. This is the California theory of governance. Just throw more and more money into making it easier to be homeless and then act surprised when homelessness goes up. Then you get to argue that the problem is even greater and now you need even more money to address it. Whether applications are processed efficiently is orthogonal to whether they’re granted. I don’t see the argument for being deliberately inefficient. Is it really so expensive to hire enough of whoever is processing applications that, going forward, each asylum seeker gets a quick yes/no?
The consequence of announcing you're going to make it easier for everyone to quickly apply for asylum and enter the US while they wait for their application is that you're going to greatly increase the number of people that show up seeking asylum. Think about how many people are willing to wait for years while their application is processed and then consider how many more people would come if they got a quick yes/no instead. I think a lot more people would be willing to make the dangerous trek across Central America and a lot more people would be rejected for asylum so that will kind of suck for them.
|
United States42673 Posts
On September 25 2022 06:28 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 02:02 Djabanete wrote:On September 24 2022 07:54 BlackJack wrote:On September 22 2022 23:23 ChristianS wrote:
Sounds like you agree the comparison math is stupid. Great! Couldn’t be happier. Now I think you must have a different understanding of the word “overwhelmed” than me in this context but that sounds extremely boring to argue about.
I’ve been extremely unhappy with Biden on immigration. He’s been better than expected on some stuff and maaaybe the courts are partly to blame on immigration but like, I think MPP should have been ruled illegal day 1. Instead it continued well into the next administration. I think using Covid as an excuse to shut down asylum seekers that otherwise would have been entitled to make their case in court was bullshit that a court should have seen through immediately. Instead it continued well into the next administration.
Really, though, the “we’re just enforcing the rule of law!” argument lost most of its power as soon as metering became an intentional strategy to reduce *legal* immigration. That started under Obama (I don’t know for sure if it was an intentional strategy back then or just a lack of resources, but Obama was plenty eager to look hardline on immigration).
At that point you’ve got both US and international law entitling these people to apply for asylum in a timely fashion. Maybe they get rejected! But they’re entitled to apply. But hundreds or thousands are lining up at each port of entry and as a policy we only process 50 applications a day. So people just start coming across, getting apprehended, and *then* applying, and we can’t legally deport them because they do actually have a legal right to apply; we’ve just been refusing to give them that right at the port of entry. Then conservatives are outraged that all these people get to just come across, get apprehended, and stay anyway until their court date, but we’re the ones breaking the law here.
I’d much rather have a robust system for processing asylum cases in a timely fashion. But that would increase legal immigration, and contrary to Introvert’s insistence, conservatives are not actually interested in that, even for legitimate asylum cases. I don’t actually think most liberals are, either. Everybody knows this system is broken but there’s a lot more political will behind keeping it broken or breaking it further than there is in actually getting it functioning, so we’re stuck here forever.
So, uh, sorry El Paso had a bunch more homeless people last week. I hope they found shelters and such for those people to stay in. I’d love for the system to work better so things like that didn’t happen, but I don’t think anyone is actually interested in voting accordingly. I just fundamentally disagree with your philosophy that we can solve this problem if we just provided more resources and funding and allowed more people to expeditiously apply for asylum and get into the country. It's akin to saying that if we just massively incentivized even more people to show up at the border seeking asylum we could solve the problem of having too many people at the border seeking asylum. This is the California theory of governance. Just throw more and more money into making it easier to be homeless and then act surprised when homelessness goes up. Then you get to argue that the problem is even greater and now you need even more money to address it. Whether applications are processed efficiently is orthogonal to whether they’re granted. I don’t see the argument for being deliberately inefficient. Is it really so expensive to hire enough of whoever is processing applications that, going forward, each asylum seeker gets a quick yes/no? The consequence of announcing you're going to make it easier for everyone to quickly apply for asylum and enter the US while they wait for their application is that you're going to greatly increase the number of people that show up seeking asylum. Think about how many people are willing to wait for years while their application is processed and then consider how many more people would come if they got a quick yes/no instead. I think a lot more people would be willing to make the dangerous trek across Central America and a lot more people would be rejected for asylum so that will kind of suck for them.
Then the logical conclusion is to add beatings to the process. We'll hear your case in a month, rather than 3 years, but we will beat you daily during that month.
|
On September 25 2022 06:28 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 02:02 Djabanete wrote:On September 24 2022 07:54 BlackJack wrote:On September 22 2022 23:23 ChristianS wrote:
Sounds like you agree the comparison math is stupid. Great! Couldn’t be happier. Now I think you must have a different understanding of the word “overwhelmed” than me in this context but that sounds extremely boring to argue about.
I’ve been extremely unhappy with Biden on immigration. He’s been better than expected on some stuff and maaaybe the courts are partly to blame on immigration but like, I think MPP should have been ruled illegal day 1. Instead it continued well into the next administration. I think using Covid as an excuse to shut down asylum seekers that otherwise would have been entitled to make their case in court was bullshit that a court should have seen through immediately. Instead it continued well into the next administration.
Really, though, the “we’re just enforcing the rule of law!” argument lost most of its power as soon as metering became an intentional strategy to reduce *legal* immigration. That started under Obama (I don’t know for sure if it was an intentional strategy back then or just a lack of resources, but Obama was plenty eager to look hardline on immigration).
At that point you’ve got both US and international law entitling these people to apply for asylum in a timely fashion. Maybe they get rejected! But they’re entitled to apply. But hundreds or thousands are lining up at each port of entry and as a policy we only process 50 applications a day. So people just start coming across, getting apprehended, and *then* applying, and we can’t legally deport them because they do actually have a legal right to apply; we’ve just been refusing to give them that right at the port of entry. Then conservatives are outraged that all these people get to just come across, get apprehended, and stay anyway until their court date, but we’re the ones breaking the law here.
I’d much rather have a robust system for processing asylum cases in a timely fashion. But that would increase legal immigration, and contrary to Introvert’s insistence, conservatives are not actually interested in that, even for legitimate asylum cases. I don’t actually think most liberals are, either. Everybody knows this system is broken but there’s a lot more political will behind keeping it broken or breaking it further than there is in actually getting it functioning, so we’re stuck here forever.
So, uh, sorry El Paso had a bunch more homeless people last week. I hope they found shelters and such for those people to stay in. I’d love for the system to work better so things like that didn’t happen, but I don’t think anyone is actually interested in voting accordingly. I just fundamentally disagree with your philosophy that we can solve this problem if we just provided more resources and funding and allowed more people to expeditiously apply for asylum and get into the country. It's akin to saying that if we just massively incentivized even more people to show up at the border seeking asylum we could solve the problem of having too many people at the border seeking asylum. This is the California theory of governance. Just throw more and more money into making it easier to be homeless and then act surprised when homelessness goes up. Then you get to argue that the problem is even greater and now you need even more money to address it. Whether applications are processed efficiently is orthogonal to whether they’re granted. I don’t see the argument for being deliberately inefficient. Is it really so expensive to hire enough of whoever is processing applications that, going forward, each asylum seeker gets a quick yes/no? The consequence of announcing you're going to make it easier for everyone to quickly apply for asylum and enter the US while they wait for their application is that you're going to greatly increase the number of people that show up seeking asylum. Think about how many people are willing to wait for years while their application is processed and then consider how many more people would come if they got a quick yes/no instead. I think a lot more people would be willing to make the dangerous trek across Central America and a lot more people would be rejected for asylum so that will kind of suck for them.
Really? You think the inefficiency of the US's asylum system is a moral good (in utilitarianism)? With a straight face you are claiming that people wanting to request asylum are making the determination while sitting at home in Venezuela, Honduras or wherever, saying: "well, I could risk my life by trying to hike across the Mexican desert and then hope a coyote smuggles me over the border, but... the US will then take too long to process my application so fuck it, not worth it"
Pull the other one, it has bells on it.
|
|
|
On September 25 2022 07:30 Djabanete wrote:
Blackjack, if people who meet condition Q are, by US law and policy, allowed to enter the country, then using gross incompetence to prevent people who meet condition Q from entering is just subversion of US law and policy. Subversion of the law is what one does if one thinks the law is wrong. I take it that you don’t believe seekers of asylum from humanitarian crises should have a legal path to entry?
My argument is that you're never actually going to achieve your goal if your added supply of people processing asylum applications also increases the demand of people seeking asylum. When you go to Disney World the line to get onto Space Mountain takes 2 hours. People think if Disney built a 2nd Space Mountain right next to it then instead of having a 2 hour queue they would have 2 lines each with a 1 hour queue. It's nonsense. At best you would probably have 2 queues of 1.75 hours each. There's no shortage of people willing to wait 2 hours to go on Space Mountain but there is a shortage of people willing to wait 3 hours.
Go to any emergency room around the world and you're likely in for a long wait. It's not that they are being intentionally incompetent or they like people to wait while suffering in pain. It's that if there were no wait a lot of people would just choose to go to a place where they can see a doctor immediately, get their blood drawn, get a CT scan, etc. instead of the laborious task of making appointments with their doctor, going to an outpatient lab, going to an outpatient imaging company. The more you do to increase staff/beds/resources to get the wait times down the more demand will go up and then the wait times go back up. So just like you will get more asylum seekers to apply for the new quick/easy streamlined process you will also get more people going to the newly upgraded ER that has no wait times. Eventually a new equilibrium gets set and that new equilibrium is never at quick and easy.
|
So what you're trying to say through a bizzare healthcare example is Induced demand. The more roads you build the more traffic comes to fill the capacity.
The solution is the same in both cases, bus rapid transit. Spread the asylum seekers throughout the country through a federally planned system to distribute population to where capacity exists to fill.
The answer is not to make it an even worse existence for those fleeing bad situations. The answer is to consider the human beings as human beings and do what's best for them, and through those actions what's best for the nation.
|
United States42673 Posts
"If we make a working ER then people will try to use it"
Yes, yes they will. Which is presumably what we built the ER for. If we didn't want people to use it we wouldn't have built one in the first place.
|
On September 25 2022 06:28 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 02:02 Djabanete wrote:On September 24 2022 07:54 BlackJack wrote:On September 22 2022 23:23 ChristianS wrote:
Sounds like you agree the comparison math is stupid. Great! Couldn’t be happier. Now I think you must have a different understanding of the word “overwhelmed” than me in this context but that sounds extremely boring to argue about.
I’ve been extremely unhappy with Biden on immigration. He’s been better than expected on some stuff and maaaybe the courts are partly to blame on immigration but like, I think MPP should have been ruled illegal day 1. Instead it continued well into the next administration. I think using Covid as an excuse to shut down asylum seekers that otherwise would have been entitled to make their case in court was bullshit that a court should have seen through immediately. Instead it continued well into the next administration.
Really, though, the “we’re just enforcing the rule of law!” argument lost most of its power as soon as metering became an intentional strategy to reduce *legal* immigration. That started under Obama (I don’t know for sure if it was an intentional strategy back then or just a lack of resources, but Obama was plenty eager to look hardline on immigration).
At that point you’ve got both US and international law entitling these people to apply for asylum in a timely fashion. Maybe they get rejected! But they’re entitled to apply. But hundreds or thousands are lining up at each port of entry and as a policy we only process 50 applications a day. So people just start coming across, getting apprehended, and *then* applying, and we can’t legally deport them because they do actually have a legal right to apply; we’ve just been refusing to give them that right at the port of entry. Then conservatives are outraged that all these people get to just come across, get apprehended, and stay anyway until their court date, but we’re the ones breaking the law here.
I’d much rather have a robust system for processing asylum cases in a timely fashion. But that would increase legal immigration, and contrary to Introvert’s insistence, conservatives are not actually interested in that, even for legitimate asylum cases. I don’t actually think most liberals are, either. Everybody knows this system is broken but there’s a lot more political will behind keeping it broken or breaking it further than there is in actually getting it functioning, so we’re stuck here forever.
So, uh, sorry El Paso had a bunch more homeless people last week. I hope they found shelters and such for those people to stay in. I’d love for the system to work better so things like that didn’t happen, but I don’t think anyone is actually interested in voting accordingly. I just fundamentally disagree with your philosophy that we can solve this problem if we just provided more resources and funding and allowed more people to expeditiously apply for asylum and get into the country. It's akin to saying that if we just massively incentivized even more people to show up at the border seeking asylum we could solve the problem of having too many people at the border seeking asylum. This is the California theory of governance. Just throw more and more money into making it easier to be homeless and then act surprised when homelessness goes up. Then you get to argue that the problem is even greater and now you need even more money to address it. Whether applications are processed efficiently is orthogonal to whether they’re granted. I don’t see the argument for being deliberately inefficient. Is it really so expensive to hire enough of whoever is processing applications that, going forward, each asylum seeker gets a quick yes/no? The consequence of announcing you're going to make it easier for everyone to quickly apply for asylum and enter the US while they wait for their application is that you're going to greatly increase the number of people that show up seeking asylum. Think about how many people are willing to wait for years while their application is processed and then consider how many more people would come if they got a quick yes/no instead. I think a lot more people would be willing to make the dangerous trek across Central America and a lot more people would be rejected for asylum so that will kind of suck for them.
I think it’s revealing that you think the asylum system would have such elastic demand if it ran efficiently. If we actually allowed people to apply immediately (as required by law!) and processed their claims in, say, 3 months you’d have a lot fewer people around with this intermediate legal status of “asylum seeker,” AKA “allowed to be here pending results of my case, check back in 3 years.” Sure that’d be a bigger draw for people whose cases are likely to prevail, but not for the people who are counting on years of legal limbo before their case is likely rejected. The implication would be that you think there’s a lot of people who have legitimate asylum claims but aren’t currently seeking it because our system is so brutal and slow they don’t think they’re likely to get the asylum our system *currently promises them,* at least not in a reasonable time frame.
Do you know how fucked up circumstances usually have to be for you to have a legitimate asylum claim? Lotta different stories come out of a lot of different places, but it’s not unusual for it to be something like “a drug cartel threatened to kill my family if my son doesn’t fight in their war against another cartel.” If you think that situation is real and common but you just don’t care or think it’s your problem, fine. But then you’re seriously gonna turn around and ask me to have compassion for the poor El Pasoans who have to deal with an extra 1000 homeless for a while?
It’s kind of rare to see an impassioned case for how valuable the asylum system is, and frankly I’m not qualified to make it. But think about every time Americans have had opinions about what’s happening around the globe. Aw man, some dictator or something is abusing his people, or some ethnic or religious minority is being persecuted! And we’re torn between an interventionist impulse (“Let’s send in guys with guns and shoot the bad guys!”) and an isolationist impulse (“Let’s leave them alone, we always just fuck things up worse when we go in anyways.”). A lot of situations we know we can’t go in (e.g. Hong Kong a few years back) but we spend a lot of time and energy worrying about the injustice of it all.
What if we said “we can’t fix things over there, but anybody who needs to escape can come here”? It won’t solve every problem. Refugees go through hell to get out of danger in the first place, and having to leave their homeland is often deeply painful. And it leaves the “bad guys” in charge with fewer people to resist them. But at the same time, it will be that much harder for tyrants to control their people if they have an escape, and rather than spend so much money and lives on a foreign war, we can spend quite a bit less on temporary lodging and provisions and education for them to integrate into our society. Hell, it probably costs quite a bit less than it would to raise and educate an American child to the point that they can join the work force at an equivalent level.
Like, hey, maybe there’s some value in the “huddled masses” after all if we widen our view beyond the increased burden they’ll place on El Paso’s public bathrooms?
|
United States42673 Posts
The more I think about that argument the weirder it is. Do you think Disney deliberately cap their number of rides so that their park doesn't become too popular? What on earth is going on in your head?
|
|
|
On September 25 2022 07:00 Acrofales wrote:
[...]"well, I could risk my life by trying to hike across the Mexican desert and then hope a coyote smuggles me over the border, but... the US will then take too long to process my application so fuck it, not worth it"
My opinion is that regardless of the country (US, EU, Finland, etc) this is the reason things should be more annoying.
People wandering "across the globe" is bad. It causes problems, and if your country isn't doing shit right then make it right instead of fleeing. My harsh opinion.
|
On September 25 2022 09:36 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 07:00 Acrofales wrote:
[...]"well, I could risk my life by trying to hike across the Mexican desert and then hope a coyote smuggles me over the border, but... the US will then take too long to process my application so fuck it, not worth it"
My opinion is that regardless of the country (US, EU, Finland, etc) this is the reason things should be more annoying. People wandering "across the globe" is bad. It causes problems, and if your country isn't doing shit right then make it right instead of fleeing. My harsh opinion.
People don't leave their homes, family, friends, and entire lives behind just because they don't want to fix what's going on where they currently live, they do it because they genuinely feel their lives are in danger and are out of options. People are legitimately seeking literally life-saving protection in a foreign land where they have no connections or roots, and you want to make the system arbitrarily more annoying and difficult because people seeking asylum in a new country might cause problems sometimes. The privilege is oozing out of your post, my god. And what an incredibly ignorant statement too, holy shit.
|
On September 25 2022 10:01 StasisField wrote:
People don't leave their homes, family, friends, and entire lives behind just because they don't want to fix what's going on where they currently live, they do it because they genuinely feel their lives are in danger and are out of options.
I don't think this is correct. If you are to believe this or if you are correct though then i guess there is not much discussion about the refugee policies in any country, between us i mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
