No. of Recommendations: 1
BHMWe are being overrun by the unintended consequences of a treaty signed 70 years ago. And we live with these consequences without question, because what other choice do we have?
Because we haven't attended to the necessary legislation. I know it's frustrating, but we're paralyzed because it's a great campaign issue.
Interesting that the asylum seekers streaming through our southern border had to pass through a number of other countries that also signed the same treaty and therefore in theory have the same "obligations" that we do. Yet the asylees flow right through them looking for a better deal in the USA.
I agree. I would go with them having to apply in the first country that would accept them and was safe for them that they passed through. I'd experiment to see how that worked.
I noted that one of the requirements in the defunct bill was that if they could move to a safe place within their country, they should do that.
There exists a diversity of definition of refugees across the globe, where countries and local districts even have differing legal meanings and rights allocated to refugees.[3]
The paper [3] reference is about: " refugee employment and workforce integration. Using a relational framework, we organize our findings around three levels of analysis – institutional, organizational and individual – to outline the complexity of factors affecting refugees’ employment outcomes." So that's about once the are in the country there employment rights may differ because the internal definition of a refugee governs the employment and integration into the workforce. The treaty defines the international definition of the refugee for purposes of the obligations of the treaty.
