Posted on Mar 1, 2017
Why do we grant permanent immigration status to refugees?
Suspended Profile
5.84K
71
22
Why do we grant permanent immigration status with a clear path to citizenship to refugees --- when the purpose of our engagement in their home country is to rebuild peace and restore the normal civil rule of government. If this is so, then why not grant temporary residence with the requirement to return to their home country if and when it is pacified? Why shouldn't we require refugees to return to their country of origin when the terror, violence, and war from which they were fleeing no longer exists? Warmest Regards, Sandy :)
Posted in these groups: 
Immigration
Office of the President (POTUS)
Republicans
Democrats
Employment
Immigration Office of the President (POTUS) Republicans Democrats Employment
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 14
It is a decision by the US, many countries, including Canada and Germany provide a 5 years refuge visa that allows immediatel entry but allows for deportation upon arrest or after the time period. Most other countries use a merit based immigration system like Canada and Germany, see the theme?
The real reason is the Democrats want to encourage immigration as 2/3 tend to vote Democrat. This method flipped CA from GOP to Dem within 12 years.
The real reason is the Democrats want to encourage immigration as 2/3 tend to vote Democrat. This method flipped CA from GOP to Dem within 12 years.
"Why shouldn't we require refugees to return to their country of origin when the terror, violence, and war from which they were fleeing no longer exists?"
I'll assume thats a rhetorical question, as clearly the answer is, we should once the reasons or conditions for making them a refugee have abated.
I'll assume thats a rhetorical question, as clearly the answer is, we should once the reasons or conditions for making them a refugee have abated.
Ask yourself, why aren't the Vietnamese refugees on their way home? Same for the Cuban refugees? Their former homes are peaceful now, aren't they? Obviously"peace" can mean many things, many of which are not safe for refugees to return, especially those who have assimilated, have children who are as American as you and I.
Suspended Profile
CPT Jack Durish - Let me refine the question for you: Why not send them home when it is safe for them to return home? If it never becomes safe - then fine - they can apply for asylum and stay here. But, if there is no reason not to return home - why not send them home? Warmest Regards, Sandy :)
SSgt Christopher Brose
1LT Sandy Annala - The problem with anything like this is who gets to make the determination? And does that person have any accountability if they determine wrong?
Apart from that, it's a good question IMO.
Apart from that, it's a good question IMO.
SGT William Howell
1LT Sandy Annala - Once a refugee is here and they actually have laid roots and if they have become productive members of society I don't see why they should not be considered for citizenship. Freedom is the foundation of America. I personally would love to have the ability to swap out refugee for an American citizens of my choosing, one for one. There is a trailer park down the street and that is where I would start.
SSG William Bowen
1LT Sandy Annala - They wouldn't really apply for asylum. Asylum and being a refugee are pretty much the same thing except one is done before you get here (refugee), and one is done after you are here (asylum). Once people are approved for refugee status, it has been pretty much determined that they have a valid case of fear of remaining in their home country and are allowed to come here. Seeking asylum on the other hand, involves a process (currently taking about 2-3 years) in which your individual case has to be validated that your fear of returning to your home country is credible.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google
Don't get carried away wasn't the intent of the original post!