• Armand1@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    I assume this is sarcasm. Calling North America (and some European) countries universally safe is pretty comical. Very few countries are safe to everyone.

    If you really wanted to clear the backlog, the opposite approach would make more sense. Mark many countries as unsafe and let most people from there in. That’s not a great idea, an individualized approach makes more sense of course. Most regimes tend to target specific minorities rather than everyone (or they’d have no one to govern), so if you want to limit the amount of immigration (a big “if”) then you’d want to start there on your acceptance criteria to pass people easier, then consider case-by-case for less clear cases, like activists etc.

    • HM King Charles III DG FD@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Do suppose mexico is in north america. What european countries are unsafe? Balkans?

      Edit: I somehow forgot Ukraine and Russia LOL

      France and Ireland do make up a sizeable number. I do agree an individualised approach for the remaining ones would make more sense, but I don’t see a point in wasting time on people who were already in a safe country to begin with and paid a people smuggling gang to bring them across a border.

      • Codpiece@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Safe by what standards? Yours, Conservatives, Reforms? Are you suggesting everyone should conform to a single state sanctioned religion or be less gay? I think a lot of the asylum seekers probably have a valid reason for moving.