Comment by djohnston | Hacker News Reader

Comment by djohnston | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> It is 100% legal and moral to seek asylum.

Where? In the first available country of safe refuge because you're fleeing political persecution or war? Yeah, I'd say that's 100% legal and moral. That's how you get from Syria to Turkiye.

Is it legal and moral to then pass through 5 or 6 countries on your way to the USA or Sweden and request "asylum" because you want to find safe refuge in the country that has the best economic opporunity (or benefits)? How about buying a plane ticket from MENA to Mexico and then claiming asylum at the US border? Certainly the Mexican gov't isn't beholden to whatever dictator you were escaping in the Middle East. Could it be you're actually just abusing the asylum system to improve your economic outlook?

Mayyybe that abuse is legal, but if you want to say it's moral you'll have to answer to the millions of people who pay money, fill out the forms, and immigrate to the US legally in search of the same opportunities. My take on it would be that cutting the line isn't moral, but maybe your values differ.

Easy to wag fingers when you’ve never remotely been in this situation before.

Well I won’t be in that situation in the foreseeable future, and I’d rather make my life better at the polls than altruistically throw a bone to strangers

I’m a legal immigrant and I had to wait in line like everyone else. How is that fair to people like me when someone cuts in line?

I’m not exactly from a “paradise country” myself so I understand these people very well so please don’t use that “you don’t know their situation” talking point with me. We all feel for them but we need to be practical. Rules are rules and they must be followed. That’s how societies function.

I’m a legal immigrant too. But I don’t take issue with people escaping horrible circumstances and making a better life in my country. Nor do I see it as “cutting in line.”

We can agree to disagree. The decision is ultimately up to the country.

> Nor do I see it as “cutting in line.”

How? Them being allowed to stay will significantly reduce the chances of those who play by the rules and follow the standard process.

Also you’re implicitly supporting a sort of “hunger games” and think that it’s perfectly acceptable to allow immigrants to risk their lives in the Mediterranean/English Channel/Sahara etc. for a chance to get in.

Of course it’s not your personal fault and in any case it doesn’t matter as long as you don’t think about it but thousands of people are dying because ignoring the rules became an option.

Yes, I always point out the journey a lot of them take to the USA is extremely dangerous. I wouldn’t care if it were just grown men doing this since they have some life experience but a lot of times these are children not “teenagers” but literal kids being guided by strangers.

I know people who have crossed illegally through Mexico and the horrors they witnessed, it’s inhumane. So glad you pointed this out in your comment.

> In the first available country of safe refuge because you're fleeing political persecution or war? Yeah, I'd say that's 100% legal and moral. That's how you get from Syria to Turkiye.

Is it moral to put the burden on a random country (Turkey in this case) just because it happens to border a country at war? Why shouldn't the huge economic costs be spread out more evenly?

Why should Turkey accept any immigrants that have no right to asylum? Why should the spreading of economic migrants all over europe be morally correct towards any european citizen? Why should anyones hard earned tax money go towards such people and not our own? In Germany, bridges are collapsing and the train network is massively underfunded and derelict which would need a massive investment. And yet, there is no money left. I wonder what is such a massive financial drain that this can't be done.

That’s quite a claim. Any evidence that Germany’s purported lack of money for fixing their infrastructural issues is due to immigration? Because it sounds a lot like the baseless red meat that the far right likes to throw at their base. (See “£350m a week for the NHS.”)

I did not say that this is the main reason, I said it is a drain on taxpayers money. And since every migrant costs lots of money, not just directly in the form of unearned social welfare but indirectly due to health insurance, etc., this is money that can not otherwise be used - for example, as investments into infrastructure. Paying welfare to millions of economic migrants is simply not possible without other areas suffering and, as can be seen from recent polls, is not wanted by many Germans.

But if the total “drain” is, for example, 1%, especially when other budget categories are much larger slices of the pie, then it is effectively a non-issue. And you also have to factor in the economic contributions of immigrants, many of whom presumably have jobs and pay taxes. So having the actual numbers on hand is very important. (Even if we’re assuming that Germany’s declining infrastructure is due to lack of money, which seems suspect to me. More likely to simply be a lack of political will.)

Germany is struggling to meet its 2% military budget requirement, as mandated by the EU. It's not a non-issue at all. And other budget categories - like healthcare - are already expensive, not only for the government spending but normal people because contributions are rising.

> And you also have to factor in the economic contributions of immigrants, many of whom presumably have jobs and pay taxes.

Yes, a whole third has some form of employment. And employment can also mean a mini job that pays practically no taxes and costs the taxpayer due to additional payments for rent, etc. The number of migrants who actually contribute is small. The rest receives welfare.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com