Growing number of Russians, Ukrainians seeking asylum at U.S.-Mexico border(timesofsandiego.com)
timesofsandiego.com
Growing number of Russians, Ukrainians seeking asylum at U.S.-Mexico border
https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2022/03/04/growing-number-of-russians-ukrainians-seeking-asylum-at-u-s-mexico-border/
65 comments
There is simply no moral justification for prohibiting the movement of any human who has not been accused of a crime. Nobody chooses what country they're born in. The least we can do as a species is allow individuals to seek out countries that align with their values.
Can i just move into your house? What nonsense. Can your social services, hospitals , housing , job market, schools handle an unlimited number of people? Let's say they did, do nations and people with conflicting beliefs exist, with violent histories between them? Also, is accusation guilt?
Borders exist because of resources. Countries exist based on a society's collective belief and agreement on how a government should work and what rights and responsibilities the governors and governed have which includes management and allocation of resources.
You have homeless people lining up venice beach and you think you can take care of refugees? How about house and feed your own homeless people before housing and feeding foreigners? Not a false dichotomy. Explain why homeless people can't be housed the same way refugees are. Most are not due to mental illness or willingness to live as a hobo.
Borders exist because of resources. Countries exist based on a society's collective belief and agreement on how a government should work and what rights and responsibilities the governors and governed have which includes management and allocation of resources.
You have homeless people lining up venice beach and you think you can take care of refugees? How about house and feed your own homeless people before housing and feeding foreigners? Not a false dichotomy. Explain why homeless people can't be housed the same way refugees are. Most are not due to mental illness or willingness to live as a hobo.
>Can i just move into your house?
No, you may not.
>Also, is accusation guilt?
No, but it is moral justification for restricting movement, so that a trial may be conducted and evidence produced.
>You have homeless people lining up venice beach and you think you can take care of refugees?
I didn't say anything about taking care of anyone.
>Not a false dichotomy
Yes, it is.
No, you may not.
>Also, is accusation guilt?
No, but it is moral justification for restricting movement, so that a trial may be conducted and evidence produced.
>You have homeless people lining up venice beach and you think you can take care of refugees?
I didn't say anything about taking care of anyone.
>Not a false dichotomy
Yes, it is.
My bad. You just wanted them to come to your country and not have the resources for badic survival and dignity and you don't care about how their movement affects others at the destination. I assumed otherwise but of course, if you want freedom without any onligations and responsibility, this would be a false dichotomy. Being in a civilized society however means taking on responsibilities in exchange for freedoms like freedom to move.
>Being in a civilized society however means taking on responsibilities in exchange for freedoms like freedom to move.
According to whom? I can support your freedom to travel without being in any way responsible for your welfare. Responsibility, just like freedom, lies with the individual.
According to whom? I can support your freedom to travel without being in any way responsible for your welfare. Responsibility, just like freedom, lies with the individual.
Even a hardened libertarian doesn't believe that. You need to apply critical thinking to your idea.
> Responsibility, just like freedom, lies with the individual.
Let reply with your own question: according to whom? You? Is that the type of government anyone has agreed to be governed by?
Why don't you go start your own form of government with that principle then?
To answer your question: according to people, ever since we decided living as hunter-gatherers sucked. When you live together with others, not taking care of them means hurting yourself as well. Let me pick a simple example for you: everyone pays tax for a sewage system and water mains. A town built for a smaller number of people than what it has will see people shitting outdoors and causing disease and the homeless overflow will bring back cholera which will not only affect everyone's health but also their income and safety.
Another example if you somehow find a controversy in the previous: Let's say the residents if LA all moved to Miami over the summer. As a miami resident you are no longer able to use the roads or afford a place to live and all the grocery stores and restaurants are empty. So now, you are forced by others to suffer or move. Well at least you pay taxes and agreed to live there. But then you come to my country and decide to do the same, except you never paid taxes here and never agreed to follow the rules of the land but you want to displace me and cause me suffering? And you expect me to be ok with it?
Come on. No stupid ideas but this is intellectual laziness at best.
> Responsibility, just like freedom, lies with the individual.
Let reply with your own question: according to whom? You? Is that the type of government anyone has agreed to be governed by?
Why don't you go start your own form of government with that principle then?
To answer your question: according to people, ever since we decided living as hunter-gatherers sucked. When you live together with others, not taking care of them means hurting yourself as well. Let me pick a simple example for you: everyone pays tax for a sewage system and water mains. A town built for a smaller number of people than what it has will see people shitting outdoors and causing disease and the homeless overflow will bring back cholera which will not only affect everyone's health but also their income and safety.
Another example if you somehow find a controversy in the previous: Let's say the residents if LA all moved to Miami over the summer. As a miami resident you are no longer able to use the roads or afford a place to live and all the grocery stores and restaurants are empty. So now, you are forced by others to suffer or move. Well at least you pay taxes and agreed to live there. But then you come to my country and decide to do the same, except you never paid taxes here and never agreed to follow the rules of the land but you want to displace me and cause me suffering? And you expect me to be ok with it?
Come on. No stupid ideas but this is intellectual laziness at best.
Have you ever dealt with actually dangerous, wicked people who see others as prey and laws as obstacles on their way? Borders is what protects us from them. Those who want open borders should spend a couple months in the camps with the wannabe immigrants just outside the border, and see for themselves who they want to admit. Also, you should lead by example: it's just more efficient to win support this way. Ask CBP to pick a random small group who's just crossed the border and offer them to live at your place until they find some housing. When picking a group, don't limit your choice to families with kids - that's an unfair bias we want to avoid (borders should be open to everyone, right?)
I have, and they were white people who were born in the same country as me, and didn't have to work very hard for what they have. I learned not to trust people who don't have any experience with work or hardship.
What about your house?
I know it's reductio ad absurdum but people can have ideas about who they want living with them, and that's not bigoted or wrong. Is their desire less valid than the desire of the person wanting to live wit them? I can't see why it would be.
What we can say is that the right to self-determination, that is to have a say in how you are governed, is a fundamental human right. And surely that includes the right to have a country, have borders, and have immigration policies and controls.
I know it's reductio ad absurdum but people can have ideas about who they want living with them, and that's not bigoted or wrong. Is their desire less valid than the desire of the person wanting to live wit them? I can't see why it would be.
What we can say is that the right to self-determination, that is to have a say in how you are governed, is a fundamental human right. And surely that includes the right to have a country, have borders, and have immigration policies and controls.
I think an honest reading of what I wrote would conclude that I was referring to international movement. I could have done a better job by using that qualifier, or replacing "movement" with "migration".
Why are "international" borders different or special. Aren't borders just lines on a map?
Why would someone be morally entitled to control access to their own property, (which is also just lines on a map administered by their government), but not have a moral right to self-determination including administration of any other borders under the control of their government?
Why would someone be morally entitled to control access to their own property, (which is also just lines on a map administered by their government), but not have a moral right to self-determination including administration of any other borders under the control of their government?
Why is a national border at all the logical line to draw? I think per your argument I should get to decide you can't come into the state I live in, Colorodo.
You have a level of personal ownership of the space you live in that you don't have over the country as a whole. A country is not just a scaled up family.
You have a level of personal ownership of the space you live in that you don't have over the country as a whole. A country is not just a scaled up family.
> Why is a national border at all the logical line to draw?
A border is a line that has come to be agreed upon by the people on either side of it. And people on either side of those borders have the right to self-determination. You can't logic your way out of the desires of other people and how they choose to be governed.
A border is a line that has come to be agreed upon by the people on either side of it. And people on either side of those borders have the right to self-determination. You can't logic your way out of the desires of other people and how they choose to be governed.
Well if everyone agrees to stay on their side of the line refugees wouldn't be an issue. Clearly some people want to walk over the line. Why do you think their wishes are less valid?
The main argument for your position boils down to "their ancestors had less military power, so they should live less desirable places". You can justify that with some logical systems, but not the one you're using (self-determination).
The main argument for your position boils down to "their ancestors had less military power, so they should live less desirable places". You can justify that with some logical systems, but not the one you're using (self-determination).
> Well if everyone agrees to stay on their side of the line refugees wouldn't be an issue. Clearly some people want to walk over the line. Why do you think their wishes are less valid?
I think that because they want to enter the country of other people who have the fundamental human right to self-determination, i.e., how they are governed, including the administration of their borders.
> The main argument for your position boils down to "their ancestors had less military power, so they should live less desirable places". You can justify that with some logical systems, but not the one you're using (self-determination).
That's not the main argument for my position. If you don't believe people should have the right to self-determination, or at least that your wishes should override if they are unable to provide a reason that you deem sufficient or "logical" then fine. That's authoritarian though, and many more people would consider it immoral than those who consider self-determination (including borders) to be immoral.
I think that because they want to enter the country of other people who have the fundamental human right to self-determination, i.e., how they are governed, including the administration of their borders.
> The main argument for your position boils down to "their ancestors had less military power, so they should live less desirable places". You can justify that with some logical systems, but not the one you're using (self-determination).
That's not the main argument for my position. If you don't believe people should have the right to self-determination, or at least that your wishes should override if they are unable to provide a reason that you deem sufficient or "logical" then fine. That's authoritarian though, and many more people would consider it immoral than those who consider self-determination (including borders) to be immoral.
> I think that because they want to enter the country of other people who have the fundamental human right to self-determination, i.e., how they are governed, including the administration of their borders.
Sure, if you believe countries have a fundamental right to do whatever they want then you can justify anything a country does.
That's not what self-determination means, though. It refers to the right of people to pick their government, but doesn't give that government unlimited power. If it did, it would override every other right.
> If you don't believe people should have the right to self-determination, or at least that your wishes should override if they are unable to provide a reason that you deem sufficient or "logical" then fine. That's authoritarian though
I believe individual rights, including the right to mobility, override the right of a government to do whatever it wants. I'm surprised you've found a definition of authoritarian where it's individuals being authoritarian towards governments that want to tell them what they can do.
Sure, if you believe countries have a fundamental right to do whatever they want then you can justify anything a country does.
That's not what self-determination means, though. It refers to the right of people to pick their government, but doesn't give that government unlimited power. If it did, it would override every other right.
> If you don't believe people should have the right to self-determination, or at least that your wishes should override if they are unable to provide a reason that you deem sufficient or "logical" then fine. That's authoritarian though
I believe individual rights, including the right to mobility, override the right of a government to do whatever it wants. I'm surprised you've found a definition of authoritarian where it's individuals being authoritarian towards governments that want to tell them what they can do.
I didn't say whatever they want that's a strawman. I said self-determination which obviously includes administration of borders and immigration.
> I believe individual rights, including the right to mobility, override the right of a government to do whatever it wants. I'm surprised you've found a definition of authoritarian where it's individuals being authoritarian towards governments that want to tell them what they can do.
Another strawman. I'm saying you believing that other people must live under a society and system of laws that personally satisfy you, and that they are immoral if they feel differently, is authoritarian.
Just curious about your ideas of individual liberty. How do you feel about lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine passports, by the way?
> I believe individual rights, including the right to mobility, override the right of a government to do whatever it wants. I'm surprised you've found a definition of authoritarian where it's individuals being authoritarian towards governments that want to tell them what they can do.
Another strawman. I'm saying you believing that other people must live under a society and system of laws that personally satisfy you, and that they are immoral if they feel differently, is authoritarian.
Just curious about your ideas of individual liberty. How do you feel about lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine passports, by the way?
You have called out your own fallacy and disproven your point. Thank you.
What point was it that you think I disproved?
[deleted]
A middle ground on immigration policy is that a country operates a 1 in 1 out policy.
Ie. If you want citizenship in country X, you have to find someone else who is willing to give up citizenship.
The end result will be a market for citizenships. More desirable countries will be more expensive, just like some cities are more expensive to live in.
Ie. If you want citizenship in country X, you have to find someone else who is willing to give up citizenship.
The end result will be a market for citizenships. More desirable countries will be more expensive, just like some cities are more expensive to live in.
A nice idea but this also requires borders to be entirely controlled on both sides, and for tracking of individuals. I don't know of any country that can or wants to do this.
I think it would be interesting to have a per country quota that factors in environmental emissions (better quota for those making an effort) as well as attractiveness (a balanced flow means a larger quota).
Maybe not "moral", but practical justification is a countries' services would collapse with open borders to populous 3rd world countries.
It's no longer the 1800s where migrants come and live of the land.
It's no longer the 1800s where migrants come and live of the land.
What’s interesting is the contrast between the demographics of Afghan refugees and Ukrainian ones. At the Polish border the people crossing in were overwhelmingly elderly or women with children. It’s a sharp contrast to the majority of able-bodied young men who were trying to storm the airport in Kabul.
In any case, if they are already in Mexico then they are out of harm’s way and are in a safe country where they can claim asylum as refugees. They can then apply for regular immigration for the US if they wish to do so as economic migrants.
In any case, if they are already in Mexico then they are out of harm’s way and are in a safe country where they can claim asylum as refugees. They can then apply for regular immigration for the US if they wish to do so as economic migrants.
Ukraine imposed martial law prohibiting fighting age men from leaving. Without that, the demographics would probably look very different.
B.S.! Why ukraine refugees? Did the US cause their problem? Why not all those nice EU countries? Why not mexico if they are there already? Take care of your own people before worrying about refugees you did not not cause in a country an ocean and a sea away!
The two situations aren't at all comparable. US foreign policy isn't what caused Russia to invade Ukraine.
Agree or not, but that is exactly the case being made by Russia. Here in the West we're led to believe the Ukrainian coup of 2014 was totally organic and sprung from the magic fairy dust of happiness and democracy. The Russians will tell you that was a CIA coup that installed an anti-Russian regime right on their border. This is why they took Crimea in 2014 and why we did nothing about it.
> Agree or not, but that is exactly the case being made by Russia.
It is, in between other cases about historical Russian territory and grievances against past leaders who deprived Russia of that territory.
> Here in the West we're led to believe the Ukrainian coup of 2014 was totally organic and sprung from the magic fairy dust of happiness and democracy.
Perhaps some tell that tale, whereas Russia’s claim is that there puppet Yanukovych came from the same mythical land. Even if the former were as much of a lie as the latter, it wouldn't excuse, much less cause of necessity, an invasion like the one taking place.
> This is why they took Crimea in 2014 and why we did nothing about it.
It's not, though obviously it was among the propaganda excuses.
We also did not do nothing about it, though, in retrospect, it is clear we didn't do enough about it. The things we did do about it, of course, tend to figure into Russian propaganda for the current invasion, removed from their context as a direct response to the invasion, occupation, and annexation of Crimea and the less overt (than Crimea eventually became, though very similar to the first phase in Crimea) invasion of Donbas, Luhansk, and other parts of Eastern Ukraine.
It is, in between other cases about historical Russian territory and grievances against past leaders who deprived Russia of that territory.
> Here in the West we're led to believe the Ukrainian coup of 2014 was totally organic and sprung from the magic fairy dust of happiness and democracy.
Perhaps some tell that tale, whereas Russia’s claim is that there puppet Yanukovych came from the same mythical land. Even if the former were as much of a lie as the latter, it wouldn't excuse, much less cause of necessity, an invasion like the one taking place.
> This is why they took Crimea in 2014 and why we did nothing about it.
It's not, though obviously it was among the propaganda excuses.
We also did not do nothing about it, though, in retrospect, it is clear we didn't do enough about it. The things we did do about it, of course, tend to figure into Russian propaganda for the current invasion, removed from their context as a direct response to the invasion, occupation, and annexation of Crimea and the less overt (than Crimea eventually became, though very similar to the first phase in Crimea) invasion of Donbas, Luhansk, and other parts of Eastern Ukraine.
spot on.
russia started the war. this war is a response to steep development of ukraine-nato relations in 2021 and complete disregard of the minsk accord by kiev (suggested or sanctioned by the us).
russia started the war. this war is a response to steep development of ukraine-nato relations in 2021 and complete disregard of the minsk accord by kiev (suggested or sanctioned by the us).
Surely it's the ruling class and the war profiteers who owe that. The common person in the US has not wanted war or has been deceived and lied to by the aforementioned in order to get their support. And the common American has suffered as well, the loss of their sons and trillions of dollars.
Then they get told again by the very elites who started and profited from those wars in the first place that they are now bad people who have a responsibility to make amends for it! It's really sickening.
The idea that the common people "owe" anything for a war that has already stolen immeasurable value from them is class war propaganda. It's the same old privatization of war profits and the socialization of costs.
Then they get told again by the very elites who started and profited from those wars in the first place that they are now bad people who have a responsibility to make amends for it! It's really sickening.
The idea that the common people "owe" anything for a war that has already stolen immeasurable value from them is class war propaganda. It's the same old privatization of war profits and the socialization of costs.
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.
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.
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...
> 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/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/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-s... )
As you say, the one between the US and Mexico only concerns migrants from Central America. Not Europe.
> 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...
> 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/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/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-s... )
As you say, the one between the US and Mexico only concerns migrants from Central America. Not Europe.
So has Mexico heard their asylum case, or given a reason why they won't?
Likely they did not apply to Mexico for asylum. Under international law there is no requirement they do so.
Your own link says there is a requirement for them to hear the asylum case, which can only happen if the refugees file as such.
If they did not file for refugee status then they are simply illegal aliens in Mexico. If they do file in Mexico and they refuse to hear their case for asylum, then they could file in the next country.
If they did not file for refugee status then they are simply illegal aliens in Mexico. If they do file in Mexico and they refuse to hear their case for asylum, then they could file in the next country.
The "requirement for them to hear the asylum case" is the obligation on Mexico ONLY IF someone applies for asylum.
Asylum seekers are NOT REQUIRED to apply for asylum in the first country they get to.
> If they did not file for refugee status then they are simply illegal aliens in Mexico.
That is not correct.
Just how do you think they get on the plane without a visa or visa waiver?!?
They apply for a tourist visa, which is easier to get for Mexico than for the US. They are in Mexico, legally, then travel to the US border to apply for asylum.
Asylum seekers are NOT REQUIRED to apply for asylum in the first country they get to.
> If they did not file for refugee status then they are simply illegal aliens in Mexico.
That is not correct.
Just how do you think they get on the plane without a visa or visa waiver?!?
They apply for a tourist visa, which is easier to get for Mexico than for the US. They are in Mexico, legally, then travel to the US border to apply for asylum.
Since they filed for tourist visas under false pretenses then they are in Mexico illegally.
Please point to the relevant section of Mexican law before you claim something is illegal.
Furthermore, for all you know, every single one of them could have answered the question "Por qué motivo viaja a México?" with "Para solicitar asilo en los EE.UU." And been allowed entry telling the truth.
Furthermore, for all you know, every single one of them could have answered the question "Por qué motivo viaja a México?" with "Para solicitar asilo en los EE.UU." And been allowed entry telling the truth.
By definition you can't meet the requirements for a tourist visa if you're seeking asylum as a refugee (see economic solvency requirements, job/address, etc.). And lying on federal immigration paperwork is in fact a crime in Mexico as it is in every nation on earth, so I would advise you to speak with an attorney that specializes in that area for potential punishments.
Where is that definition? I cited sources, so surely you can too.
Clearly they got a visa, so were sufficiently able to demonstrate the certificate of employment and bank statements. No part of the definition of "refugee" requires they be penniless and unemployed.
Which law are they breaking?
Again, why do you know they lied? Do you have evidence?
And, does it matter? Obrador has said Mexico will grant asylum status to Ukranian and Russian refugees. https://fronterasdesk.org/content/1760627/mexico-says-its-pr...
And the US has no restrictions on accepting refugees that have already been granted asylum elsewhere, excepting when there's an Asylum Cooperative Agreements. (The law is at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-I/subchapter-B/... .) And there is no Asylum Cooperative Agreement for this situation.
So, flee to Mexico with a tourist visa, request asylum, get accepted. Travel to the US. Cross the border. Request asylum.
I've cited my sources showing every step appears to be legal.
What is your goal in continuing this conversation? Keep Ukrainian refugees out of the US? Learn more about international refugee law?
Clearly they got a visa, so were sufficiently able to demonstrate the certificate of employment and bank statements. No part of the definition of "refugee" requires they be penniless and unemployed.
Which law are they breaking?
Again, why do you know they lied? Do you have evidence?
And, does it matter? Obrador has said Mexico will grant asylum status to Ukranian and Russian refugees. https://fronterasdesk.org/content/1760627/mexico-says-its-pr...
And the US has no restrictions on accepting refugees that have already been granted asylum elsewhere, excepting when there's an Asylum Cooperative Agreements. (The law is at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-I/subchapter-B/... .) And there is no Asylum Cooperative Agreement for this situation.
So, flee to Mexico with a tourist visa, request asylum, get accepted. Travel to the US. Cross the border. Request asylum.
I've cited my sources showing every step appears to be legal.
What is your goal in continuing this conversation? Keep Ukrainian refugees out of the US? Learn more about international refugee law?
>Obrador has said Mexico will grant asylum status to Ukranian and Russian refugees
That's wonderful news, so it sounds like this is a moot argument. There is no reason for them to request asylum in the US now. This is a problem solved :)
That's wonderful news, so it sounds like this is a moot argument. There is no reason for them to request asylum in the US now. This is a problem solved :)
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.
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.
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?
What's wrong with Mexico? Why can't they stay there rather than in the US?
Is Mexico a totalitarian state?
Economic opportunitie? Isn’t that obvious for you?
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...
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".
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".
"Why Don’t 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.
> ... 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]
[deleted]
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)?
I'm an American, and I've spent a lot of time in Mexico. I'm a bit surprised that Ukrainians would want to come to the US from Mexico right now. Mexico is a lot more distant from the current conflict than the US, life there is more affordable, and the weather is better. A lot of my American friends are leaving for Mexico due to the current war.
Maybe they read somewhere that Trotsky moved to Mexico?
> I'm an American, and I've spent a lot of time in Mexico. I'm a bit surprised that Ukrainians would want to come to the US from Mexico right now. Mexico is a lot more distant from the current conflict than the US
It’s more distant in the sense that it is more committed to good relations with Putin. Why Ukrainians or Russians fleeing because of Putin’s aggression (whether because they are targets of it or dob’t feel they can safely oppose it at home) might not prefer that is... hardly mysterious.
It’s more distant in the sense that it is more committed to good relations with Putin. Why Ukrainians or Russians fleeing because of Putin’s aggression (whether because they are targets of it or dob’t feel they can safely oppose it at home) might not prefer that is... hardly mysterious.
Going by international laws on refugees, any country further along the travel path can send these people back to the first country in the path they consider safe, so for example the US could send these people back to Mexico, Mexico could send them back to Germany, and Germany could send them back to Poland. The US has absolutely no obligation to take these people.
Hopefully these people can make it in alright