undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjlokier5y ago0 comments

No, the majority of migrants subject to removal have not entered the country illegally.

Most enter legally, and then something happens which changes that.

For some it's government maladministration. Outside their control. This happens a lot. I think that's inhumane because it's outside their control and they don't have the money or legal backing to fight it, and because the system does not apply ordinary principles of justice to resolve these issues.

For some, it's abuse by government. That is, something just plain illegal by the government, not a mistake but an intentional administrative action which is against the law. Again, I think that's inhumane because most people don't have the money or legal backing to fight.

For some it's that their partner's wage drops below a threshold. Outside their control. I think that's inhumane because once you are in and settled and started a family etc. you should not be so precarious that a slight change in your partner's income results in you having to leave.

Think of the number of people during the pandemic whose income has reduced. Now imagine the added stress of facing deportation on a plane because your partner's income dropped.

For some it's losing their job. Outside their control. I think that's inhumane because it's a breeding ground for abuse by their employer: "if you don't do whatever we tell you and suck it up, we will fire you and you will have to leave your family and the country".

For some it's their partner dumping them. Outside their control. I think that's inhumane because it's a breeding ground for abuse by their partner: "if you don't do whatever nasty things I demand you do for me I will dump you and you will have to leave your job and the country".

For some they never entered - they were born in the country. They are legal until age 18, at which point they lose rights.

I think it's inhumane to remove someone who is born and bred in a country, and who doesn't even know something will happen until at the age of 18 or so, they apply to university, and find out not only can they not go, they get a letter telling them to leave the only place they have ever known. Go "home"... where? There isn't another "home".

0 comments

nailer5y ago

> I think (beaurocratic failure) is inhumane because it's outside (the migrant's) control

I think inhumane implies malice. This is incompetance.

> intentional administrative action which is against the law.

Agreed that's malicious.

> For some it's that their partner's wage drops below a threshold. Outside their control. I think that's inhumane because once you are in and settled and started a family etc.

That's sometimes part of the contract for entering a country. Nobody is forced to accept it.

jlokierOP5y ago

> That's sometimes part of the contract for entering a country. Nobody is forced to accept it.

That truly depends on your meaning of "force". For example, if I point a gun at you and tell you to give me your money or else, you are not forced to give me the money. You still have a choice. Yet, we commonly say that someone is forced because they are compelled by the alternative being a worse option created by someone else deliberately.

In that sense, yes people are forced to accept that contract.

Although it is part of the contract, I think it's inhumane that the contract is set up that way, and nation states should be held to higher standards than that.

If the contract for living in a country was that they chopped off a finger each year, would that be humane? No it wouldn't, and we'd protest against it. Some people would still choose it anyway. But something being part of a contract does not make that thing humane.

Why would people choose it anyway? Because being with the person you love matters a lot to some people.

And it matters to me that people who love each other, whoever they are, are allowed by nation states to be together if they wish. I consider it a basic facet of humane society to allow that. A proper example of what ought to be a simple human right. In the ballpark of "we hold these truths to be self-evident".

For two people who love each other to be prevented by law from being together in either of their home countries (because it's certainly possible for both ends to have incompatible restrictions) is, in my opinion, inhumane.

Also, for someone to be with someone else and then if the relationship turns sour to have the state applying enormous pressure to stay in the abusive relationship (whether with a partner or employer), that is also, in my opinion, inhumane and not a state functioning as it should. The state's job is to protect all people in its care, that includes all people it has accepted into its care as well. A state is ideally held to the standards of its noble constitution. It is not good enough to say "well it was part of the contract". We do not allow abusive terms in contracts to be upheld, even if they have been accepted. If someone agrees to be a slave, we declare that agreement void. Some things are struck out by courts if necessary when deciding what is right. Same should apply, in my opinion, to this.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse