Economic refugees =/= refugees of warfare.
If they are fleeing a warzone, that’s the fine. Poverty isn’t a valid reason, especially if they are passing other nations to go straight into the west.
Whose criteria?
Your position on ascribing characteristics to these refugees and their inability to succeed in this country.
Oh and also i disagree that they should not be brought based on some auspicious position that we have enough people here.
85% of refugees wind up in (typically neighboring) developing countries, such as Uganda and Ethiopia, which alone combine to accept 500,000 refugees annually).
The vast majority of those Uganda refugees are coming from war torn South Sudan and DRC.
(I’m sharing this because most people aren’t aware of this and mostly think of refugees as coming to developed nations, not countries with per capita incomes of <$700/year)
I have an issue with solely economic refugees but there is a persecuted refugee they can fall under economic refugees to some extent and that i think is missing from the point of comparison
Your government’s criteria.
How?
…
It’s both scary and funny on how we got a clown like Donald Trump in the first place. Doubling down on the same issues that brought in a madman. Even the EU took note as well as Britain who adopted an Australian style migration system.
I see you neglected the request to quote that part of the OP you disagree with.
JWK
When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Revolutionary Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens who have invaded America’s borders.
If you think the Biden Administration is not intentionally filling the United States with the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled and criminal populations of Central America, here is the proof:
Biden raises refugee cap to 62,500 amid progressive outcry
That’s incorrect.
A expansion of the refugee cap to 62,500 spots, of which fewer than 10% are dedicated to Central America/Caribbean, is not “proof” that Biden wants to intentionally fill the US with the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled and criminal people of Central America.
Have you ever met a refugee?
62,500 isn’t rushing in. In fact it’s an historically low number pre-trump.
Allan
Refugees and asylum seekers are two completely different categories.
Two completely different processes.
There is no cap for asylum seekers, there is for refugees.
Allan
1 Like
Here is the refugee crieteria.
Allan
For one thing you thing you don’t have to worry about being deported if you have refugee status.
And unlike asylum seekers, you don’t wind up in immigration court when you are a refugee.
Allan
Who is going to pay the $BILLIONS for their economic needs? And how does inviting tens of thousands of poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled and criminal foreigners of third world countries advance the general welfare of the United States and her taxpaying citizens?
JWK
It’s not the general welfare.
It’s being humanitarian that we signed off.
Allan
Answer the freaken question! How does inviting tens of thousands of poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled and criminal foreigners of third world countries advance the general welfare of the United States and her taxpaying citizens?
While taxpayer funded public housing meant to help our nation’s poor citizens is being filled with Central America’s poverty stricken population LINK ;
and our nation’s health care system is being over burdened with the healthcare needs of those invading our country LINK ;
and children of American citizens attending public schools are having activities cut to pay for the needs of the children of those flooding across our border LINK ;
not to mention that $ billions in U.S. Taxpayer revenue is being handed over in the form of direct payments to those who have flooded across our border LINK ;
How does inviting tens of thousands of poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled and criminal foreigners of third world countries advance the general welfare of the United States and her taxpaying citizens?
JWK
It’s obeying a treaty that was ratified by the senate of the United States.
So you don’t want to go by an established treaty ratified by the senate?
It’s all there in black and white.
Allan
There is no treaty requiring the United States to open its doors and invite the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled and criminal foreigners of third world countries into the United States.
Stop making stuff up.
Refugees and asylum-seekers must meet the definition of a refugee found in Section 101(a)(42)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.) or 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). That section says:
The term “refugee” means:
(A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality,is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion . . . .
Coming here for a “better life” is not grounds to open our doors to “refugees” and/or “asylum-seekers”
Now, let us listen to why they come as they themselves say:
.
.
American citizens have no obligation to be made into tax slaves to support the economic needs of those flooding into the United States for a “better life”. We have our own citizens in need of help.
JWK
:
