- Thread starter
- #41
Asylum seekers are obliged by the legal definition of the term to seek refuge in the first safe port of call. Not travel half way around the world in search of sanctuary. Especially when they pass through dozens of 'safe' countries.
The term's a con, as it plants a picture in ignorant minds of tearful refugees fleeing from immediate danger, which is designed to elicit sympathy. Whereas in reality a lot of these so-called "asylum seekers" are, in fact, social security seekers.
then only mexicans and canadians are obliged for asylym in USA. No one else. Since USA is half way around the World for everyone else.
I dont see what is wrong with seeking social security, most Forefathers of modern day White Americans were social security seekers. seekers of opportunities, gold diggers and what not
Social security didn't exist when the men and women who rebelled against Great Britain began carving the nation you so desperately want to become part of. And those who followed in their wake risked a far more perilous crossing from Europe (and Africa) than climbing over a fence. Being the legal heirs of an industrious group of patriarchs doesn't make you a gold digger.
of course social security existed back then too not in the modern sense, but in the sense of being secure from persecution and discrimination and escape famines (irish), having opportunity to earn a Piece of bread etc. it is very similar today. your ad hominem is wrong at place, but what to expect from a guy who writes "far right" in his profile