Minor asylum seekers Form 2014-2022

Actually, that’s not quite accurate. The Trump Administration has worked hard to add regulations to H1B visa applications. Remember the rhetoric form Trump about how we wanted smart and talented and trained immigrants? Well, H1B visa applicants are the epitome of this. But the Trump Administration has added red tape and it now is harder and takes longer to get an H1B visa. Additionally, the Trump Administration has sought to reduce the total number of legal immigrants, ban them from certain countries, and also significantly reduce the number of refugees. Also the Trump Administration has acted to kick out a number refugees and immigrants who are here legally. It’s dishonest to say that Republicans are all in favor of legal immigrants, it’s just the law breakers they oppose. Remember Trump’s comment about “Sh*thole” countries? It was in reference to legal immigration.But wait, there’s more. All of those caravans that Trump has been raging at? Those are people seeking asylum. Now maybe some of them don’t qualify—fine. But the point is, showing up at the border without a visa, going to a legal port of entry, requesting asylum, and then telling the truth—that’s legal—that’s how it’s supposed to be done. And this whole mess of criminalizing asylum seekers, separating them from their children and placing the children in detention (rather than with family members or temporary foster parents)—that is done with the intention of discouraging these legal asylum seekers. Trump Administration senior officials have specifically said this—they’re trying to discourage these asylum seekers and have them not come to the US. And of course there is Trump’s rhetoric—about how these caravans of asylum seekers are filled with gangs, terrorists, criminals and he’s deploying the US military and they’ll have ROE that allow them to use deadly force. These are not the actions and words of someone who is just opposed to illegal immigration and is fine with legal immigration.And let’s talk about the Dreamers. A 2-year old or minor doesn’t get a say in whether or not they come to the US. The folks who’ve been part of DACA have played by the rules once they became adults, registered, obeyed the law, contributed to the US in some fashion. And Trump has been seeking to get them kicked out and started by ending DACA and resisting all Congressional forms of an alternative program. Here he’s got a group of individuals that even Republican voters say we ought to allow stay or pra path to citizenship—it’s not their fault they’re here. But Trump wants ’em gone.The Trump Administration (with the backing of the nationally elected members of the GOP) has worked hard to make it much more difficult to be a legal immigrant. It is a dishonest claim to say that the GOP is just against people who broke the law coming here and are welcoming and encouraging those those who seek to come here legally.

About ~12 % of the Irish population is nonnational and foreign-born, so that statistic directly contradicts your perception that Ireland is “Usually not a destination for refugees/migrants”When the E.U expanded in 2022 Ireland was one of only 3 countries to have no restriction on the movement of the new member states of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia.These new member states joined during Irelands Presidency of the E.U. the welcome ceremony was held at Áras an Uachtaráin the residency of The Irish PresidentFrom the outset, we welcomed people and they were given a Cead mile failte / hundred thousand welcomes by the Irish people.Those of Eastern European extraction make up a sizeable minority, The Polish population alone in Ireland as of 2022 census was 122,515. There are more polish speakers in Ireland then they are native Irish speakers it is the second most spoken language besides English.15 years after Ireland opened its borders to the EU’s expansion, which coincidentally happened during Ireland presidency of the Eu• the migrants who have arrived since describing an open and inclusive society where they continue to prosper.It’s clear we hugely underestimated the number of eastern Europeans that would pour into Ireland.Poles, Latvians, and Lithuanians flowed in at an extraordinary rate, a result of our decision • along with the UK and Sweden • to allow unlimited access to the citizens of the 10 new EU accession states to our labor market.While the census recorded just 4,000 Polish-born people in 2022. by 2022 it ballooned to 65,000. Four years later, it topped 120,000.In the process, they transformed small parts of every town of the country into mini-Baltic enclaves. No town was left without a Polski sklep that sold pickles, Polish beer or smoked fish.But the doomsayers were wrong as well. Ireland absorbed the workers like a sponge. Fears that Polish plumbers and other low-paid workers would steal jobs and price Irish workers out of the market never really materialized.We are not like our near neighbors. Ireland managed the influx with little or no political fallout partly because of our low unemployment rates and economic boom at the time. Even when the bottom fell out of the economy, there was no real sense of alarm. Many lefts, to be sure, but many also stay on and hope for the best.It was a reminder that in opening its borders, Ireland didn’t just receive a temporary wave of guest-workers, it also received tens of thousands of people with hopes and dreams of carving out a successful life hereDuring the economic downturn and Financial Crisis that hit Ireland in 2022 With high unemployment and real competition for jobs, many might have predicted heightened resentment towards our eastern European neighbors. That never happened. Nor is there any indication of support for right-wing populist parties such as Ukip, which whipped up fears about immigration in the UK that certainly played a part in Brexit.There is little evidence also to suggest that migrants, from the European Union in particular, push down wages or displace the jobs of domestic workers. They in fact often fill key gaps in the jobs market, for example in the health service or the hospitality and IT sectors. This is a lesson that has been brought home forcefully in the last few months in Britain.Ireland probably took in, in per capita terms more of our European Neighbours and non-EU migrants then our Friends in the UK without any populous backlash.There was no Right-wing reaction or anti Immigrant sentiment outside the little shite Justin Barret and Gemma O’Doherty and their ilk. Politics in Ireland tends to be centered and seldom extreme from either end of the political spectrum.As for Asylum seekers, the Dublin Regulation says that an Asylum seeker should seek asylum in the nearest safe country they land in. Ireland is on the periphery of Europe with limited direct transport links to countries that Refugees or Asylum seekers hail come from.The top five nations that accounted for most asylum seekers in 2022 were Syria followed by Pakistan, Albania, Zimbabwe and Nigeria. those countries don’t have direct routes to Ireland.Asylum seekers in Ireland are housed in Direct Provision centres and can sometimes be caught in legal limbo. Direct Provision centres do not exactly make the Asylum process in Ireland attractive. People can be stuck in the process for years . The whole refugee and asylum seeker debate can be very emotive , the Process could be speeded up so Genuine asylum seekers are not stuck in that legal limbo and often poor living conditions for years.The system is not perfect in Ireland but for the most part we have been spared any populous backlash or anti-migrant sentiment. In this era of Brexit and Trump given our history, we know what it is like be Migrants,This short documentary will give you some Idea of how non nationals Integrate in to Irish society.If you include 2022 economic metrics then Ireland is the 6th wealthiest country in the World. it has been outperforming and the fastest growing economy in Europe for a number of consecutive years now.By all measurable metrics, The Republic of Ireland is an ahead socially and economically than our near neighborsIreland is the European hub to over 1,000 leading multinational companies! Companies who require a skilled, educated and highly capable workforce to drive their success chose to locate in Ireland.Over 1,000 FDI giants in ICT, Social Media, Pharmaceuticals and Finance have made Ireland the hub of their European operations, with names such as Google, HP, Apple, IBM, Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, Pfizer, GSK and Genzyme.Ireland has been the Fastest growing country within the Eurozone for a number of consecutive years now. it grew by almost 8% last yearIreland has been attracting Immigrants in relatively large numbers since the Celtic Tiger boom of the last ’90s. So if you are under the Impression that the country does not attract Migrants you are mistaken.If you exclude Luxembourg from the equation then Ireland is the Richest per capita in GDP terms Eurozone country. You might have an outdated view of the Irish economy and think of it in the same brackets as Albania's but with Brutal weather . and not an attractive destination for migrants.

Thanks 4 the A2A!I live in Europe and have never tried boarding a plane in Columbia but from what I know, no airline will allow you to board unless you have a US passport or a valid Visa. Also, the tickets are not really cheap and affordable for everyone. Even if you can afford them, you legally can not get on that plane.Just imagine: how great it is when you have all those freedoms! Be grateful that you have the passport that you have and do not even have to think about such trivial things. Not everyone is as lucky.People in misery, regardless if they seek refuge from Central America of Syria or elsewhere, just want to LEAVE all that behind and have the chance to live a normal life somewhere better, somewhere safe. I personally think that the voyage a refugee undertakes is as risky as the wars and problems they are trying to escape from and they should be helped instead of making their sad lives even more hard by rigid administration.Of course, nothing will get better as long as the essential problems aka reasons why they are leaving in the first place, are addressed and solved. But there are interests behind that, groups of people who live of that and they will not give up their positions easily. Almost like some sort of a viscous, endless circle. And it is always normal, “small fish” people that suffer the most.Good luck to all of you who venture on that path!

Wanting fair trade - even insisting on fair trade - is fine.What’s the problem is the Donald’s understanding - or lack thereof - of what “fair” means. He seems to think the 200+% Canadian tariffs on US dairy products are unfair, but not the fact that US dairy is subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars a year, while Canadian dairy isn’t. He seems to think it’s unfair that New York City is full of BMW and Mercedes cars, but Berlin isn’t full of Chevy and Ford cars. Except BMW is the largest car exporter from the US.At the point at which you can’t even understand what underlies various parts of making trade “fair”, your ability to negotiate is going to be hampered. That’s before you get to the major psychological problem with negotiating Donald style - He considers negotiations to be, inherently, zero-sum. If I win, you must lose. This is potentially a viable way to think about Manhattan real estate, where you mostly have a lot of characters with too much money on their hands squabbling over a fixed supply of land. It’s a guaranteed fail in trade negotiations, where success means everyone getting some comparative advantage. This sets us up for scenarios like his turning around an opposing the DACA deal he originally championed - he appears to actually believe that if the other guy is willing to make the deal, the deal must be bad for him.Original question:Why is it wrong for Trump to insist on fair trade within the G8 group and other countries?

Your question is justified, because Germany has suddenly broken with its long-lasting  policy of preventing asylum. To understand what is going on, we need to look back. The EU followed and is still following a strict policy of closure. The policy can be summarized by protection from refugees rather than protection for refugees. As the most powerful state, Germany plays an important key role in the asylum policy of the EU. For example, Germany is mainly co-responsible for the Dublin rule. According to the Dublin rule, a member state of the EU can reject refugees if they arrive from another member state. Since Germany is surrounded by EU member states and by so-called safe third countries, they were one of the main advocates of the Dublin rule. It was common practice that Germany refused to process asylum from applicants that arrived from a safe third state. In doing so, Germany left the refugee problem to countries at external borders like Greece and Italy.Germany also used to block attempts to introduce a quota to fairly distribute refugees across all member states. Until recently, one common view was that most refugees mostly came for economic reasons and aimed to exploiting the social welfare state.For almost two decades, Germany and other EU member states accepted death refugees as a policy of deterrence and not as a necessity to change their policy. Since 1998, about 20,000 refugees drowned while trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea to reach Europe • 3,500 people  drowned in 2022 and 2000-2500 so far in 2022. showing an increasing trend. Until the tragedy in Lampedusa in 2022 with 300 deaths, some fellow European Union member states, including Germany and the United Kingdom, took the position that saving the lives of those in danger at sea was creating a magnet for irregular migration. Suddenly Germany has changed its mind? Not really. What will remain is the EU-wide policy of closure. What has changed is that Germany is willing to accept refugees from safe third EU countries, that Germany suspended the Dublin rule, and that Germany wants to introduce a quota to fairly distribute the refugees across EU member states. What also has changed is that almost all media outlets are pro-refugee and there is a strong support in the German population to accept refugees. In 2022. the European Court of Justice ruled that the Dublin rule is not applicable to countries like Greece (and also Hungary, Bulgaria, Italy) due to certain legal shortcomings, therefore, rejected asylum applicants that have entered Germany from those states could successfully file claims against Germany. In addition, rules  that refugees should apply for asylum in the first EU member state of their arrival - usually  Italy or Greece - are no longer enforced, because the responsible Member States are overstrained by the huge amounts of incoming refugees.  Consequently, the Dublin rule became ineffective and suddenly Germany suspended the rule. This in turn means an increased influx of refugees and suddenly Germany suggested to introduce a quota.  To make the best of the misery, the public discussion about refugees is more and more accompanied by their economic usefulness for Germany. Note that this does not mean that acceptance of refugees is motivated by economical reasons as indicated by the question.Last but not least, all my respect goes to the German people who welcome the refugees in an unprecedented way. These people are the light of the world. But I am worried that the helpfulness today will change into anger and refusal in the long term.Acknowledgement: I am grateful to Meredith Lesly for improving this answer.

Sometimes you just have to shake your head and laugh…Progressivism formed around the idea of making the US an Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation and, so, limiting immigration to Western European countries. Progressives• first foray toward this goal was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which ended Chinese immigration until we were their allies in World War II. They did want to show some sensitivity to the “deplorables” already here, so long as they stayed out of white society, workplaces and markets. And most of their social policies, like minimum wage and child labor laws, were aimed at precisely that goal.But, in those days, progressives amounted to some sixty percent or even more of voters, at their peak. These days, in large part owing to the toll their own preference for abortion has taken on their voting numbers, they amount to around fifteen percent of the populace, which means they are forced to form voting coalitions with the very “deplorables” their grandparents and great-great-grandparents openly deplored. (In yet another delicious irony, our first anti-abortion law came in New York State in 1872, a result of the first progressive campaign (as far as I can find anyway) led by the New York Times, with other states following suit.)That flexibility is to be expected, after all, progressives invented the ethics of pragmatism• whatever works for them is good. Besides, most progressives now live and work in places securely free from the “unwoke.” Furthermore, owing to their success in getting abortion legalized with the Roe v. Wade SCOTUS ruling of 1973 (a century after they made it illegal in the first place), starting eighteen years later, they began realizing a net loss of some quarter of a million voters (probably more like a third of a million) per year since the early 90s.With those numbers piling up, Democratic progressives have, during this millennium, shifted to pushing for more immigrants and refugees, ideally ones in need of prolonged government hand-holding who then become accustomed to the progressive welfare state and vote accordingly. It’s part and parcel of the old Democratic strategy of getting a political lock on our larger cities using the Curley Effect (academic version.pdf) to shape the electorate in order to maintain control at the cost of a bit of economic stagnation. (And you thought most of America’s largest cities have enjoyed Democratic control since forever because it has been just so lovely.)And so we have today’s postmodern progressives pragmatically extolling the virtues of wide-open immigration in a way that should have their Progressive Era and New Deal forebears turning over in their graves. Some of their recent talking points (stolen from Charlie Fortin’s answer to a similar question—What do you think of President Donald Trump’s plan to put migrants in sanctuary cities?):Illegals pay more in taxes than they costIllegals do jobs Americans won’t doIllegals are completely moral human beings, more moral than Americans. If they were affected by drugs or human trafficking in their native country then they should receive asylum here.Who knows, the next Nobel Laureate or president of INTEL could be among themNinety percent of them show up for their immigration hearingThey are bringing their children to keep their family intactWe need them to pay taxes for our aging populationAny limit on illegal immigration is racistEtc.Okay, taking that at face value, why would they refuse Trump’s offer? According to their own expressed take on the matter, they should leap at the chance to receive an influx of released detainees and asylum seekers, or has this all been just so much virtue signaling? Still, this reluctance seems to be where they’re at now (which could pragmatically change):Pelosi’s spokeswoman Ashley Etienne issued a standard statement: “The extent of this administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated. Using human beings—including little children—as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable.” Like the media, Pelosi, whose district covers the sanctuary city of San Francisco, didn’t directly challenge the unspoken but clear premise that something terrible would happen to these cities if immigrants came to them.(That is from Masha Geeson of The New Yorker, who goes on to urge the Democrats to take Trump up on his offer.)Thanks to progressives, we don’t have a federal government anymore, more at a national government—shaped to fit their preference for a top-down, hierarchical state not limited to the governmental public sector but able to impose its will on the private and civil sectors and on the various states and even their counties and cities. It’s just that it does not do for Republicans to be in charge of such a well-oiled, super-charged machine• like your wacky brother-in-law taking your car out for a spin unbidden.So, will they go for it or resist just on principle (the principle of not allowing Republicans to tell them what to do even when it is supposedly what they want to do)?We have eight states—California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont—that have declared themselves Sanctuaries. We have 141 counties (by my possibly incorrect hand count) in 21 states and 32 cities (including most of our largest) in 17 states. That provides plenty of real estate for released immigrants without overburdening any few of them.There are also law agencies in Rhode Island and New Mexico refusing to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which was formed in 2022 pursuant to the Homeland Security Act, that passed with bipartisan support. What “refusing to cooperate” means is that when ICE presents a detainer to take control of an alien in custody, law enforcement agencies within the jurisdiction are required to refuse to honor the demand.Very, very curious for people who worship at the altar of top-down control• but then Democrats have a long history of resorting to states• rights when they do not accept the law of the land—pragmatism.And Trump seems determined to let us all find out the true underlying motives of Democrats in forming so many sanctuaries. Troll level: Mastermind. With Pelosi’s demur above, he’s already won round one—bluff called. Now to see how he continues to box them in. Pass the popcorn.Just for the record, I am quite pro-immigrant, to the point of favoring an open-borders policy, with this reservation, paraphrasing Milton Friedman: Open borders? Welfare state? Pick one. With Democrats trying to mesh both policies together in order to gain ascendancy over us, I’m glad to put both on hold until sanity returns.

I’m sorry, but you need to state which country you are talking about. Asylum seekers to a large extent fall under national legislation. But since the OP lives in the US, I will assume the question is about the US.Where I live, asylum seekers are not detained. It would be cruel and barbaric. They are put in cheap housing, fed, and given a very modest allowance.And if that doesn’t persuade you, it is also massively expensive and pointless. After all, they want asylum, so it is in their interest to stay put and wait for their application to be processed. A tiny percentage drop under the radar, but it’s cheaper and more efficient to search for them specifically.You should note that at the height of the European refugee crisis, the country where I live took in some 3,000 asylum seekers per day—about 90,000 in a month. We’ve got the population and GDP of North Carolina. If this is beyond the capability of the entire US of A, there’s really no helping you.

they came in to Israel illegally through the Egyptian border. The Africans first went to Egypt but being that Egypt is a mess and they arent well treated there, many crossed the border while being shot at by Egyptian border police. The AFrican claim to be political refugees when in reality they are mostly economic refugees.