Have you even read the links that you use to build an argument?! The Wikipedia page for The Convention itself says that the kind of people on the border with Belarus ARE NOT refugees, they do not match the definition of refugee as defined by The Convention and this problem is highlighted in the article!
Can you quote some places that work in this exact scenario? These links look exhaustingly vague, and also old in a sense I do not see fresh edits put after the fall of USSR and Balkan wars and genocides - the cause of many running from that place in Europe itself. It is kinda weird. Nothing actualizing that after 9\11 and Syria too. And EU countries put public quotas of how many refugees they can take in with an agreement with the UN, and called out Belarus on using refugee crysis as a weapon… Can you point out what I don’t see there?
That it sometimes runs counter to your Centrist “sure, we can uphold the rights of SOME people, but surely not all” middle of the road nonsense doesn’t change the law.
Besides, contrary to xenophobic popular myth, immigrants are in general a net BENEFIT to the destination country’s economy, refugees especially so.
And that’s not even counting the benefits of a more diverse culture as opposed to the stagnant monoculture that anti-immigration conservatives tend to espouse.
Why’d not you paint me a fascist outright? It seems like you suppose I’m all for ethnostates and hate immigrants, and I’m not to dictate your vision.
I don’t know what experience you generalize by your second paragraph in my quote of you, I guess the american one? It is not a blanket statement because its’ success depends on processes of integration of said immigrants into existing system and coming shenanigans. My Russia does it wrong for example and I can tell about that but not in that thread as it’s irrelevant.
The later paragraph also depends on how they are integrated, if integrated at all.
ed: Like, if there’s no communication between the home community and refugees and they are distanced, there are no benefits to reap.
deleted by creator
Have you even read the links that you use to build an argument?! The Wikipedia page for The Convention itself says that the kind of people on the border with Belarus ARE NOT refugees, they do not match the definition of refugee as defined by The Convention and this problem is highlighted in the article!
Can you quote some places that work in this exact scenario? These links look exhaustingly vague, and also old in a sense I do not see fresh edits put after the fall of USSR and Balkan wars and genocides - the cause of many running from that place in Europe itself. It is kinda weird. Nothing actualizing that after 9\11 and Syria too. And EU countries put public quotas of how many refugees they can take in with an agreement with the UN, and called out Belarus on using refugee crysis as a weapon… Can you point out what I don’t see there?
Why’d not you paint me a fascist outright? It seems like you suppose I’m all for ethnostates and hate immigrants, and I’m not to dictate your vision.
I don’t know what experience you generalize by your second paragraph in my quote of you, I guess the american one? It is not a blanket statement because its’ success depends on processes of integration of said immigrants into existing system and coming shenanigans. My Russia does it wrong for example and I can tell about that but not in that thread as it’s irrelevant.
The later paragraph also depends on how they are integrated, if integrated at all.
ed: Like, if there’s no communication between the home community and refugees and they are distanced, there are no benefits to reap.