You’re asking who’s idea simple compassion was?
Compassion is a noble thing but its more often a thing where it makes people who live in mansions surrounded by gates in charge of the system look good while an average person or multiple people end up dead due to a lack of vetting and supervision by the look-gooders thru their indiscriminate and unbuffered “compassion” cases and its frustrating.
A girl gets raped and murdered by a Syrian refugee because he wasnt properly vetted/supervised and everyone wants to drown that out with domestic statistics when its irrelevant and was entirely preventable.
I guess that one’s on the girl and her parents, they should have read the 1950s refugee agreements as suggested, would cleared everything right up. They should have known better.
World gotta spin
You’re mixing up a lot of unrelated things. That’s not about vetting and supervision and neither about taking in refugees. It’s about presumption of innocence. It’s the cost society pays for not prosecuting ppl for things they haven’t done yet. Otherwise life would be a shitshow of a witch hunt.
We’ve been there and it was horrible and we don’t wanna regress back to those dark ages.
That would be “everybody” with the context being that the agreements regarding refugees were built by international effort in 1951.
It’s called the refugee convention.
It happened post ww2 due to the massive displacement of people because of the war.
A refugee has a set of rights, and have a status that ensures those rights in international law, and with any given nation having others as well.
Since refugee status isn’t the same as permanent residency status, or citizenship, requiring them to swear to some kind of integration is essentially impossible, and would also be not only impossible to enforce, but absolutely stupid as well.
It seems odd that someone from Syria needs to seek asylum all the way across the Atlantic Ocean for what is essentially a local issue, particularly the idea it cannot be a neighboring safe region that happens to lack a certain je ne sais quois. At a certain point it seems there is convenience being sought, who else is guranteed convenience or preference when their life is otherwise ostensibly on the line and gets to have that indulged?
The idea that of course they cant be integrated, thats idiotic, I honestly dont know what to say to that other than that should be part of the deal. It should go without saying that someone seeking asylum should be aware theres participation on their part expected, otherwise they are free to shop around other venues where they can get the band back together and revive the practices and customs and issues that led to their needing to leave the original place. Theres not a way I can make that make sense in my head
Imagine fleeing Belgium in WW2 and being asked to stay in France since it’s a local problem
“Apt”
o.O
Ah, this is not a stupid question but an opportunity for OP to shit on refugees
That’s not a real question, it’s a dog whistle wrapped in a rhetorical question.
No, theres a lack of accountabillity and safety in the design that continually pops up and galvanizes the extreme political right. Y’all are profoundly unserious and closed-minded about insisting a morally problematic program with the best of intentions actually be robust and sustainable and doing no harm to the citizens who are the actual stake-holders
