First, migrants and refugees are not the same thing, either legally or morally. The Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were not the victims of economic depression, a random breakdown of law and order or even a civil war. They were being explicitly targeted for persecution and eventual murder based on their ethnicity.
First, migrants and refugees are not the same thing, either legally or morally. The Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were not the victims of economic depression, a random breakdown of law and order or even a civil war. They were being explicitly targeted for persecution and eventual murder based on their ethnicity.
Today many if not most migrants claim political asylum even though they wouldn't qualify for such treatment under traditional standards. That has added to the confusion and vitriol surrounding the issue.
But even (Indeed, especially) if migrants, UN sponsored refugees and legitimate asylees are conflated, neither the US nor other Western nations can afford - either politically or financially - to absorb every foreigner whose quality of life prospects in his or her home country happens to be intolerably poor. The number of such people is likely to grow exponentially in coming decades. We need to develop global strategies to deal with what is likely to be a massive population shift. https://thedispatch.com/p/a-solution-to-the-coming-global-migration
That doesn't mean the cap for actual refugees and asylees shouldn't be high here, or that legal conventional immigration shouldn't be significantly increased - perhaps subject to employment or educational priorities. We need to be realistic but that is no reason to let policy be dictated by spite.
First, migrants and refugees are not the same thing, either legally or morally. The Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were not the victims of economic depression, a random breakdown of law and order or even a civil war. They were being explicitly targeted for persecution and eventual murder based on their ethnicity.
Today many if not most migrants claim political asylum even though they wouldn't qualify for such treatment under traditional standards. That has added to the confusion and vitriol surrounding the issue.
But even (Indeed, especially) if migrants, UN sponsored refugees and legitimate asylees are conflated, neither the US nor other Western nations can afford - either politically or financially - to absorb every foreigner whose quality of life prospects in his or her home country happens to be intolerably poor. The number of such people is likely to grow exponentially in coming decades. We need to develop global strategies to deal with what is likely to be a massive population shift. https://thedispatch.com/p/a-solution-to-the-coming-global-migration
That doesn't mean the cap for actual refugees and asylees shouldn't be high here, or that legal conventional immigration shouldn't be significantly increased - perhaps subject to employment or educational priorities. We need to be realistic but that is no reason to let policy be dictated by spite.