Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "'Let's build a wall around the welfare state, not the United States'" video.

  1. Like making the process substantially cheaper and faster.
    2
  2. The US has no official language, so not sure why what language they read, write and speak is relevant.
    1
  3.  @terrific804  Can you explain your "proof of persecusion". How would one present this proof? Maybe in some sort of court?
    1
  4. So basic human rights?
    1
  5.  @terrific804  Seeking asylum is a right, so yes actually it is. Maybe learn what human rights are.
    1
  6.  @terrific804  That's exactly how seeking asylum works. You seem to be confusing seeking asylum with receiving it. Asylum seekers are given entry pending trial, and can be denied thereafter. And yes, seeking asylum is a right. You should probably read up a bit more, as 193 of the 195 countries have ratified at least one of the nine binding treaties that are directly influenced by the declaration. Your number is in reference to the original 1948 vote, when only 58 countries even had UN membership. None voted against.
    1
  7.  @terrific804  "Finally, the Convention lays down basic minimum standards for the treatment of refugees, without prejudice to States granting more favourable treatment. Such rights include access to the courts, to primary education, to work, and the provision for documentation, including a refugee travel document in passport form." "The Conference, considering that, in the moral, legal and material spheres, refugees need the help of suitable welfare services, especially that of appropriate non- governmental organizations, recommends Governments and inter-governmental bodies to facilitate, encourage and sustain the efforts of properly qualified organizations." Also, food, education and housing are all rights listed in the other articles of human rights, soooo.
    1
  8. Thanks fascist.
    1
  9. Asylum seekers pay more into the system than they receive.
    1
  10.  @loc4725  The ASPE report from February this year reviewed the fiscal impact of refugees and asleep at the federal, state and local levels from 2005 to 2019 and found that: "Overall, this federal study finds that the net fiscal impact of refugees and asylees was positive over 15-year period, as $123.8 billion." "Refugees and asylees with 10 or more years of residency had approximately the same level of income as the total U.S. population." There is more where they break it all down, I recommend giving it an read.
    1
  11.  @loc4725  UK net migration has fluctuated around the 240K mark for 2 decades. GDP per capita far more closely matches financial crashes and market recovery than anything to do with immigration. In fact the largest drop in GDP per capita was during covid. You literally posted a policy stating that workers already in the UK still get first pick of jobs. It specifically says that they have to fill a role that "cannot be filled by a settled worker". It's not about increasing profitability, it's about EO pay increasing far faster than average worker pay, and EOs creating a massive pay gap. It's a widening gulf between the lowest and highest paid employees.
    1
  12.  @loc4725  The UK bans asylum seekers from working for 1 year, then heavily restricted their employment opportunities after that. It seems like they could learn a thing or two from the US system. The current proposal to fly migrants to Rwanda would cost a fortune. Everyone should get all benefits regardless of working. It results in those at the bottom working more. The UK needs to build more housing.
    1
  13.  @loc4725  "We ban people from working mainly because so many get their application refused, and so it doesn't make sense allowing them to work in the meantime." So you would rather they take benefits without paying into the system at all? That costs us dearly in the long run. Acceptance rates are also actually pretty high as well. "One of the big pull factors of the U.K., besides the language is the benefits available;. we provide money, housing, training (including University education) and help learning the language or support if they don't want to do that, which many don't. But as I understand it in the U.S. once asylum is granted they're on their own and it's left to the charitable sector to provide all the post-grant assistance." This is actually one of the ways the UK is superior to the US. Housing is a human right and we should be doing far more to provide it. Getting people into higher education is the best way to get them to contribute more to the economy. "As for Rwanda the idea here is that it acts as a deterrent." So we cut off our nose to spite our face. Great. "We even had a stabbing and a murder recently after a jihadist turned up here after failing to get asylum in 3 other countries." Using an anecdotal example doesn't change that asylum seeker crime rates are lower than the average. "By making it clear they will not get to stay here if asylum is granted we remove the incentive" What? If asylum is granted why not allow them to stay? This makes no sense at all. "By making it clear they will not get to stay here if asylum is granted we remove the incentive, and according to the Irish government this has already started to have an effect" This is all based on the idea that seeking asylum is bad and we want less asylum seekers, while ignoring everything else that has been said up to this point. They pay into the economy, cause less crime, would be able to work and pay even more into the economy if restrictions were pulled back and are on average genuinely in need of asylum. Why would we want less people? We have this whole argument about the benefits vs the costs, then you go off on a tangent based on your own idea that asylum seekers are bad, without considering anything we just talked about. It totally undermines everything being said and just shows you aren't actually interested in a discussion on the cost/benefit analysis of people in need of genuine assistance while seeking asylum.
    1
  14. Nope. The federal government controls who is and isn't allowed within the US.
    1
  15. Sounds like we should expand welfare to help businesses grow.
    1
  16. ​ @timbotrout  As someone who came here legally, you are wrong. Getting work authorisation took close to a year.
    1
  17. Exploiting prosperity is literally just capitalism.
    1
  18.  @sil3ntwint3r  You're confusing private property with personal property. Nobody is arguing for the removal of personal property.
    1
  19. Schrödinger's immigrant. Both a lazy tax on the system, and a vicious job stealing monster. This is very typical of the right. They say the same of Biden, who is both a dithering old fool and a genius Marxist communist politician out to take over the US. The whole viewing the enemy as strong and weak at the same time is a common fascist trait.
    1