As a daughter of refugees parents who didn’t insist on what country they were sent to.. and were honest, never complained even though they weren’t treated as people are treated today, and appreciated everything.. my problem lies with refugees who bring the problems they LEFT INTO THE COUNTY THAT WELCOMES THEM! Just last week, a group of refugees murdered a woman in her own home during a house break in.. This is not an isolated case and we have problems with gangs now.. so basically these people have bought the exact issue they were escaping to their new home and they don’t care because our laws are extremely soft. So whose rights are more important, the residents of a country or refugees who refuse to follow the laws.. and cause havoc.. of course the vast majority of refugees and immigrants are law abiding wonderful people but when the minority cause so much grief and fear I personally feel there should be steps taken to ensure this doesn’t happen..
@@JoeMama-qm5rd okay, internet guy. Did you know that international law only matters if nations sign on to whatever governing body happens to be governing? It apparently doesn’t matter to rogue nations or nations who can bribe that international governing body. That’s human nature. Laws do not constrain those with the means to circumvent them. What magical world of ideas do you live in? It also happens to be a world where everyone plays by the rules right?
@@leonardticsay8046 Laws have a normative power, and this does actually help somewhat contain those with the means to circumvent them. If a signatory to an international law blatantly does not act in accordance to that law, then that signatory gets reprimanded. This can be in terms of condemnation as well. International law can often help set norms. It ain't all like the IR 'neorealists' say. SECOND: If you signed an international law, you are beholden to it. A lot of what governments do ARE dictated by these international law. And that signage stays the same even if your "national interests" (a reductionist concept) change. So "there is no such thing as international law against national interests" is a false statement at best and nonsense at worst.
I must reject this notion that refugee populations can contribute positively to an advanced economy. Somali refugees, still here decades after their civil war started, offer a net negative contribution. Their unemployment rate is the highest of any group, and their main source of income is welfare.
Europe complains about asylum seekers. Go to Cameroon and see the millions of people living there who are refugees from Chad, Central African Republic, Nigeria, Congo, etc. They are more than 5 million but they live there quietly and are being accommodated in villages. I have been to many of such places. Have you seen the government complaining? People talk about asylum seekers as if they all come to Europe. Sad.
Dont You forget something? Asylum seekers dont come only from Africa, but from the whole world! And that is one big problem. When these UN rules were made it was after WW2 and seeing the movement of the people usually to the next countries. Not like now from other continents. And these people moved usually BACK after the war. Asylum is per rule a temporary situation. Today.its not enough to have a safe haven, warm place and three meals a day, but You need full integration program with language courses, job-integration, social welfare for people that should move theoretically back after a war. This costs a lot and cant be compared to a village hut and a UN/NGO-sponsored meal a day. Another main problem would be the pretender that come because of the hope of wealth and take away places reserved for asylum seekers. In some european countries they started to check the phones to see where they really come from. There are whole.regions in Africa where families have more children they can support and it got natural then to collect money in the whole family to send the young adults to the illigal trip to Europe. And these are not the poorest but rather middle class people that are better educated and are needed in their own country. Its sometimes like a job-choice for kids: fisher, carpenter, shop-owner, maybe college and the last gets a trip to Europe...The poor people in Cameroon You are talking of rarely have the means to seeks asylum in Europe. You need a separate program for work- immigration and better system to filter the pretender from the real ones. Also why dont You compare size and population of Africa to Europe?
As a daughter of refugees parents who didn’t insist on what country they were sent to.. and were honest, never complained even though they weren’t treated as people are treated today, and appreciated everything.. my problem lies with refugees who bring the problems they LEFT INTO THE COUNTY THAT WELCOMES THEM! Just last week, a group of refugees murdered a woman in her own home during a house break in.. This is not an isolated case and we have problems with gangs now.. so basically these people have bought the exact issue they were escaping to their new home and they don’t care because our laws are extremely soft. So whose rights are more important, the residents of a country or refugees who refuse to follow the laws.. and cause havoc.. of course the vast majority of refugees and immigrants are law abiding wonderful people but when the minority cause so much grief and fear I personally feel there should be steps taken to ensure this doesn’t happen..
Everyone should stay in their own country and sort out their own messes.
There is no such a thing as International law against national interests!
Such a thing would happen under a one world government. That should be avoided at all costs.
Yes there is. International law by definition takes precedence over national law. Read a book.
@@JoeMama-qm5rd okay, internet guy. Did you know that international law only matters if nations sign on to whatever governing body happens to be governing? It apparently doesn’t matter to rogue nations or nations who can bribe that international governing body. That’s human nature. Laws do not constrain those with the means to circumvent them. What magical world of ideas do you live in? It also happens to be a world where everyone plays by the rules right?
@@leonardticsay8046 Laws have a normative power, and this does actually help somewhat contain those with the means to circumvent them.
If a signatory to an international law blatantly does not act in accordance to that law, then that signatory gets reprimanded. This can be in terms of condemnation as well. International law can often help set norms. It ain't all like the IR 'neorealists' say.
SECOND: If you signed an international law, you are beholden to it. A lot of what governments do ARE dictated by these international law. And that signage stays the same even if your "national interests" (a reductionist concept) change. So "there is no such thing as international law against national interests" is a false statement at best and nonsense at worst.
I must reject this notion that refugee populations can contribute positively to an advanced economy. Somali refugees, still here decades after their civil war started, offer a net negative contribution. Their unemployment rate is the highest of any group, and their main source of income is welfare.
Exactly!
Europe complains about asylum seekers. Go to Cameroon and see the millions of people living there who are refugees from Chad, Central African Republic, Nigeria, Congo, etc. They are more than 5 million but they live there quietly and are being accommodated in villages. I have been to many of such places. Have you seen the government complaining? People talk about asylum seekers as if they all come to Europe. Sad.
Dont You forget something? Asylum seekers dont come only from Africa, but from the whole world! And that is one big problem. When these UN rules were made it was after WW2 and seeing the movement of the people usually to the next countries. Not like now from other continents. And these people moved usually BACK after the war. Asylum is per rule a temporary situation.
Today.its not enough to have a safe haven, warm place and three meals a day, but You need full integration program with language courses, job-integration, social welfare for people that should move theoretically back after a war. This costs a lot and cant be compared to a village hut and a UN/NGO-sponsored meal a day.
Another main problem would be the pretender that come because of the hope of wealth and take away places reserved for asylum seekers. In some european countries they started to check the phones to see where they really come from.
There are whole.regions in Africa where families have more children they can support and it got natural then to collect money in the whole family to send the young adults to the illigal trip to Europe. And these are not the poorest but rather middle class people that are better educated and are needed in their own country. Its sometimes like a job-choice for kids: fisher, carpenter, shop-owner, maybe college and the last gets a trip to Europe...The poor people in Cameroon You are talking of rarely have the means to seeks asylum in Europe.
You need a separate program for work- immigration and better system to filter the pretender from the real ones.
Also why dont You compare size and population of Africa to Europe?
Sir Lord Or Lord Sir? 🤔