I used the term 'international definition' intentionally. I'm speaking about the common definition of the word not including people in the situation of crossing multiple large friendly countries to go to another as refugees at that point. The immediate threat to life and limb is over and now others are in more dire need.
And yet, it's not as simple as entry to the first country either, because we can both acknowledge that if someone escaping from Syria crosses the border into Iraq or Lebanon that they should keep on walking until they find an actually safe place.
But the point is that you're talking to people, using emotional terms, but trying to use legalistic reasoning to make them do something they feel is not only needed but benefits the wrong people. They're using their eyes and judging the conditions of the refugee claimants and finding them wanting.
> > emotional appeals won't make go away.
> caused by their demonisation in the public eye and as such will be fixed by emotional appeal.
I have a feeling that this has already been tried and that there's probably some misalignment preventing that from working - maybe making it backfire. Maybe that you may feel that this isn't a valid political opinion on the values of the refugee system but a comment on the race of the claimants or something...?
Thankfully in my country many of the questionable refugee claimants are the same racial group as many current legal immigrants and this is defusing that would otherwise be a nasty race-baiting angle to the debate.
Otherwise, I would ask what more demonization you think is needed other than for them to be shown to be jumping a queue meant to save lives?
> their status legal status means they are by default actively prevented from working and covering their own costs
If they really are fleeing for their life we can cover the costs and would be glad to.
To the last point: until their claim is processed in the UK, which can take years, they have no right to work and have to rely on meagre public handouts or work under the table to survive. This makes them a drain on taxpayers despite being able to support themselves if they were allowed, and paid employment promotes integration. I think it stays the way it is because of "taking the jobs" of natives and it also allows politicians to demonize them as a drain on the public purse (which they are but through no fault of their own) as a distraction/othering.
> This makes them a drain on taxpayers despite being able to support themselves if they were allowed
I hear this from people who seem to be promoting using the system as a back-door way into a permanent work visa. I'd rather avoid perverse incentives and just support people.
> I think it stays the way it is because of "taking the jobs" of natives
This sounds like something a privileged knowledge worker can sneer at the low-brows for. I think it's as valid a consideration as any other import/tariff type issue and should be examined honestly. Again though, we can avoid the issue by simply paying to help refugees and that's probably the kindest.
If we allow them to work then we're essentially requiring them to work and if they just escaped with their lives they probably have other priorities for a while. The economic benefit for us from more workers is minimal enough that we can forego it to make a better and less exploitative system.
> allows politicians to demonize them as a drain on the public purse
I think there are enough obviously false claims that people are upset about that they're not worried about the costs of the honest claimants.
> Which international law do you think does that?
I used the term 'international definition' intentionally. I'm speaking about the common definition of the word not including people in the situation of crossing multiple large friendly countries to go to another as refugees at that point. The immediate threat to life and limb is over and now others are in more dire need.
And yet, it's not as simple as entry to the first country either, because we can both acknowledge that if someone escaping from Syria crosses the border into Iraq or Lebanon that they should keep on walking until they find an actually safe place.
But the point is that you're talking to people, using emotional terms, but trying to use legalistic reasoning to make them do something they feel is not only needed but benefits the wrong people. They're using their eyes and judging the conditions of the refugee claimants and finding them wanting.
> > emotional appeals won't make go away.
> caused by their demonisation in the public eye and as such will be fixed by emotional appeal.
I have a feeling that this has already been tried and that there's probably some misalignment preventing that from working - maybe making it backfire. Maybe that you may feel that this isn't a valid political opinion on the values of the refugee system but a comment on the race of the claimants or something...?
Thankfully in my country many of the questionable refugee claimants are the same racial group as many current legal immigrants and this is defusing that would otherwise be a nasty race-baiting angle to the debate.
Otherwise, I would ask what more demonization you think is needed other than for them to be shown to be jumping a queue meant to save lives?
> their status legal status means they are by default actively prevented from working and covering their own costs
If they really are fleeing for their life we can cover the costs and would be glad to.