"Our position is clear,” he said. “We have said that migration is not a human right. Countries have a right to determine the entry requirements for foreign citizens.”
He's 100% right. No country should at all be forced to take on people whom they do not want.
no but saying they shouldn't be forced to deal with a problem and acting like this is a political problem ignores the problem. People are going to move if they can't live safely and in some measure of happiness , if these countries want to say they have no right then fine but people are there at the gates.
Oh fuck man this thread is going to be a bloodbath
Honestly, if you don't get too upddity with trying to be a moral high-horse, a lot of these threads can be more civil. Some issue are bit impossible to actually try and be
I've said this a few times, but I'm a left-leaning centrist. But I do not like the idea that countries should be forced to accept people they don't want to accept. Hence why they're able to decline signing this UN Agreement, therefor they are not bound to it's rules. If you are a country who does in fact sign this, then good for you. You country's government made a decision they believe will be good for theme, but for other countries this could be the exact opposite and potentially cause problems.
If we're going down the whole 'people are at the gates' sort of road, then those people will end up shot crossing the border as people don't have a right to go where they please.
Woah let's keep it real, those who will not sign certainly won't be shooting those who illegally cross their borders, no one wants that. That is, if anything even comes of this pact ultimately.
There are however genuine concerns regarding even the final version of this pact, and I tend to agree with those who are reluctant to sign.
You tell them, man. You and other proud Chileans should stand up to immigration
You bring up migrants/refugees dying a lot
you said it, id rather people live unhappy lives or die than have brown people live on my street
Good on Chile for not signing something that undermines their sovereignty
Nice try. Simply, I'd rather my country focus on our own issues before we open our doors even further than we already do.
In one discussion the two of us had, I asked him what he would do if he were forced into being an economic migrant, and big surprise, he said he would do it, except he was afraid of being shot or dying in the process.
i agree send all new zealand immigrants in australia back to new zealand since they have their own issues and will always have their own issues forever
I know your doors have been so ruthlessly pummelled at this point that they no longer close, but most people have fully functioning doors and they remain, at worst, ajar.
at what point would you decide that your countries issues have been sufficiently resolved for your opinion to change
We take our quota, we definitely don't need a global pact to tell us what to do which may or may not eventually impede our sovereignty. The issue will be about future refugees and Australia with our current arrangement.
Probably reducing the homelessness rate and actually solving our housing crisis so we aren't buying refugees houses while people live in cars or damp houses.
An agreement doesn't really infringe upon sovereignty though, because, it's... ya' know, an agreement?
Also, my comment was just implying that you're gay for no good reason and i apologise.
The sovereignty issue, which the other countries have been talking about, is when it becomes non-binding.
I get what you mean, and honestly, the sovereignty argument in terms of EU membership is something I actually agree with, as an example. Still, I feel that the world requires a more uniform governmental structure as we go into the future. Nationalist notions need to become a thing of the past in order for us to prevent Climate Change and other things.
Sure, more uniform, but this kind of stuff is scaring the people towards nationalism. Not only does the NZ government not want to talk about this pact due to the unpopular topic of immigration, we also aren't getting a vote on it.
Good on Chile.
Nah. If we move in that direction what we get is a bunch of oligarchs living on the other side of the planet deciding what is best for you. Rather we should move to more dynamic and localized power structures. And the U.N. is a bunch of small groups voting together on things they agree, not what is best for the world. Furthermore, because of the way humans develop culture, getting rid of a national idea in exchange for an uniform culture would never work.
How can freedom of movement not be a human right?
I look forward to the majority of spanish-descened Chileans handing the country back to the Mapuche and other native groups and heading home to Spain, since they've agreed that they have no right to have immigrated there.
Except there is always "another issue" for a country to have to focus on domestically so that's not really an excuse.
Pretty much never.
It's the same reason he will say he "Doesn't oppose immigration, just certain types of immigration" while rating winner on every thread about immigration being stopped.
It's okay to not get the irony of a nation founded through (violent) immigration refusing to accept immigration. Also, if we refuse to peacefully accept immigration in an era where we will start seeing the first climate refugees, you'll force people to resort to what the European settlers did - i.e. violent methods to get safety for them and theirs.
I'm not actually advocating they come back to Europe, I'm pointing out the delicious irony of nations of immigrants saying "No!" to it, and what this situation will lead us to unless we strap on our big boy pants globally accept that it will happen and we have the option right now of deciding what form it will take.
So we're really just going to sit here as some of the most powerful and wealthy nations in the world and do nothing for people whose situations are out of their control as they likely have no say in those government, economic or domestic policies?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
