Comments by "Scott Charney" (@scottcharney1091) on "Protest over migrants in NYC turns violent" video.

  1.  @brailrice Asking for asylum is perfectly legal.
    9
  2. What about them? This is not either/or. A great many homeless people (NYC's homeless situation is not too bad at the moment) won't go into shelters anyway, and that's understandable. The places are dangerous, and their curfews make it difficult to find/keep a job.
    7
  3. If they can get work authorization, then they can work, and that creates a stimulus. Ask economists. It's not a zero-sum game.
    6
  4. Asylum seekers do not constitute an invasion.
    5
  5.  @samkuo4745 This very video mentions work authorization.
    4
  6.  @francismarion6400 How so? Mayors across middle America have asked for refugees/asylum seekers, to try and mitigate the emptying out of their towns.
    4
  7.  @FigsForYou Job totals are elastic, not inelastic. Ask any economist. It's not a zero-sum game. People used to say that women shouldn't enter the workforce because they were taking jobs away from "qualified men." You're committing what's called the "lump of labor fallacy."
    3
  8. Asking for asylum is perfectly legal.
    3
  9. Yes, as a matter of fact.
    3
  10. There are indeed big cities in middle America, but you make a good point. Mayors of shrinking towns have asked for refugees/asylum seekers. The problem is that people like Greg Abbott are intentionally causing trouble for places they don't like.
    3
  11.  @brailrice My lease wouldn't allow it, and besides, that's not how the asylum process works. You're being disingenuous. Consider that you might need to seek asylum/refuge someday.
    2
  12.  @brailrice No, it's simply the reality of how this works.
    2
  13.  @alanhobbs4498  Ask economists across the spectrum; most of them agree that migration is one of the best ways (and perhaps the best) to fight poverty, and borders are a roadblock to eye-popping benefits. Anyway, the asylum process involves screening.
    2
  14. Yes they are.
    2
  15.  @AHammock An asylum seeker? No.
    2
  16.  @Marvolo14 Hence the need to expedite the process here.
    2
  17.  @nivamartinez4366 What's so funny? That's not a rebuttal, so please be specific.
    2
  18. Fault? How so?
    1
  19.  @davidsonowski414 The US is party to international agreements regarding asylum.
    1
  20.  @davidsonowski414 I don't have a house, and that's not how the process works anyway.
    1
  21.  @sourabh7137 Yeah, and economists also make it clear that migration is the best way to fight poverty, and in fact the potential benefits are off-the-charts. Let the migrants work.
    1
  22.  @FigsForYou These people are not illegal immigrants, but that's beside the point. Taking one job doesn't mean that it takes one away, except in the very short term. Not only that, but migrants are very often better candidates for low-skill jobs than US citizens are (if US citizens are applying in sufficient numbers anyway). You must know how difficult it is for managers to get good help these days. There is no "lump of labor," no matter how many populists on the left or right promote the idea.
    1
  23.  @ceeIoc Look at how refugees/asylees are re-settled.
    1
  24.  @ceeIoc  They're not exactly "living large." Nobody in their position is. It's a simple humanitarian measure, and it's an obligation to people fleeing from violence. Said violence often has its origins in US policy, by the way.
    1
  25.  @ceeIoc  They're fleeing violence, among other things. They're entitled to the opportunity to claim asylum/refuge. Also, there is no "line" to get in for lower-skilled workers, as there are almost no such visas available. Regarding the homeless, yes, that is also a crisis. This isn't an either/or situation.
    1
  26. It's not either/or. Migrants are a stimulus anyway. Let them have work authorization.
    1
  27.  @Lisa-my5sy You don't know that. Note that the majority of them make it to their court dates.
    1
  28. It's not either/or. Migration is a stimulus on both ends of the equation, provided they have the right to work.
    1
  29.  @samkuo4745 Not so. They mostly arrived in groups and surrendered themselves to request asylum. Even those who did not (due to backlog, among other things) were eligible to ask for asylum from within the country. Getting authorization to work is part of the procedure to make refugees/asylum seekers less dependent on others.
    1
  30.  @Whoknowsme007 See international laws regarding refugees/asylum seekers. If they were allowed to work, that would mean less dependence on assistance from the state and charities, and the benefits would be considerable according to economists across the spectrum. In nearly all cases they weren't able to save (are you serious?) especially if they had to pay coyotes. Note also that the US, Canada, and Spain are opening centers in the source countries where people can apply for asylum directly.
    1
  31.  @Nafisatou99  It wasn't long ago that the World Economic Forum was a target of left-wing protests... and then the conspiracy theories started.
    1
  32.  @TS-wh4ey Asylum seekers won't be placed in a tent city in any country with a shred of decency.
    1
  33.  @gregsmith1342 The White House isn't equipped to provide humanitarian relief.
    1
  34. What's that supposed to mean?
    1
  35. Because the US is a huge part of the reason why there are so many problems elsewhere in the Americas. They come here because the US goes there.
    1
  36.  @gregsmith1342 You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  37. As long as they can get work authorization, that's a great idea.
    1
  38. History repeats itself; there was similar hostility to my ancestors, and indeed towards the ancestors of a lot of those protesting against the asylum seekers.
    1
  39. What's anyone's problem with asylum-seekers?
    1
  40.  @Susan-ms1wm  That would be dishonest. Also: "our" country, not "are" country.
    1
  41.  @Susan-ms1wm  Also, I should have mentioned that, in a positive development, the US, Canada, and Spain have been setting up centers in some Latin American countries so that people can apply for asylum/refugee status without travelling far. However, that's not feasible for people in immediate danger, among other situations.
    1
  42. Yes, if the spirit of Ellis Island can endure.
    1
  43.  @kenjiujitsu2024 To the extent that that's true, I wouldn't want to emulate such a situation. Besides, the cooks on Ellis Island offered food to the newcomers. Asylum seekers & refugees in particular are entitled to humanitarian assistance.
    1
  44.  @kenjiujitsu2024 All of the above are, as it happens.
    1
  45.  @kenjiujitsu2024 It's not on the scale of a lot of other places.
    1
  46.  @kenjiujitsu2024 Per capita? No, NY is behind a few others.
    1
  47.  @kenjiujitsu2024 No, not at all. It's not a matter of either/or. All are entitled to help.
    1
  48.  @RR-zq3mk Asylum is a federal matter, and it's part of international law. Besides, there are mayors of shrinking towns in middle America who have shown a desire to accept refugees/asylum seekers.
    1
  49.  @francismarion6400 They are being vetted; that's the refugee/asylum process, and most of them make their court dates. I can't include links anymore, so see "Heartland Strong" in the Christian Science Monitor, "Amid Anti-immigration Wave, Some Small Towns Welcome Refugees with Open Arms" from PBS, "He Was the Mayor who Brought Refugees to Rutland" from Vermont Public, "Afghan Refugees Are Finding a Warm Welcome" from National Geographic, "Denver Asks for Refugees" from Colorado Politics, "Coleman Has Put out Welcome Mat for Refugees in Columbus" in The Columbus Dispatch, and many more!
    1
  50.  @MH_6160  Why do that to asylum seekers and refugees?
    1
  51.  @francismarion6400  Yes, the first two parts are indeed being applied to the border. The vetting isn't instant, obviously. Afghan refugees are fleeing violence (in part created by the US), and the same is true of the people from Latin America. Denver and Columbus are just two examples; I showed you others, and besides, Columbus is not exactly huge (and it's representative of Middle America, no?). Your characterization of PBS is silly; if it was really government-run, don't you think that it would change noticeably between presidential administrations? If Mexico and/or other countries are not safe for the same reasons that are forcing people to flee in the first place, then they can keep moving. Note that the US, Canada, and Spain are setting up centers where people can apply from within their home countries, though I hope that you can understand why that's not feasible for everyone. If they're actually saying that they're here for purely economic reasons (which is actually a boon to both sides of the equation, but never mind), why would they go to their court hearings, or talk to the immigration lawyers who often volunteer to help them? Note that the legal process is stacked against the migrants. As for the DNA tests, that's probably impossible to do en masse anyway, so what can one say? You might be in their position someday.
    1
  52. Understanding what? Asking for asylum is legal.
    1
  53. Indeed, it's so mean-spirited. People were hostile to my ancestors also.
    1
  54. Asking for asylum is perfectly legal. Also: *border
    1
  55. They come here because the US goes there, so it is indeed our responsibility. Besides, migrants are a boon anyway.
    1
  56. Asking for asylum is completely legal.
    1
  57. Asylum seekers are not squatters.
    1