Why refugees shouldn't be granted permission to work.?

Question

I need points supporting the motion "refugees shouldn't be granted permission to work".Its just a debate,please don't take it personally.

Answer 1

You need to be more specific. You are probably using the word "refugee" when you mean "asylum seeker" or "undocumented migrant". Under the Geneva and New York Conventions (see below) a true refugee, certified as such, has the right to work and, indeed, most of the non-political rights of citizens.

Whoever phrased the debating issue you are faced with was unfortunately naïve, because there are no points that would work, unless (if you are talking about the USA or all the other signatories of the convention (i.e., most of the countries of the world), the convention was repudiated.

If, on the other hand, you mean "asylum seekers", or people who (1) arrive in a country by stealth or enter under false pretenses, or (2) use false papers or obtain a visa by misrepresentation or hapapen to have a valid visa and then circumstances change or they change their mind and decide to seek asylum, then the question is quite different.

Countries hesitate to grant true refugee status to asylum seekers simply because it gives them legal rights. (Palestinian refugees do not qualify under the Geneva Convention; they qualify for help from UNRWA in the Middle East.) UNHCR, sometimes with Red Cross involvement, may sponsor persons for refugee status.

As for the granting of lesser "asylum" rights (sometimes called "Category BÉ" you need to distinguish between people who are obvious candidates: political leaders of a formerly democratic government overthrown by a despot (Mossadegh in Iran comes to mind), or a journalist, poet, playwright, writer, professor, human rights lawyer and so on, as compared to persons who are clearly economic migrants and those on the margins, who might have had some minor role in a human rights affair.

The problem is that immigration lawyers learned quickly how to use refugee law to the advantage of their clients in doubtful cases. And certain regions of the world: Gujarat, much of the Philippines, parts of Africa and Latin America... have a tradition of emigration for economic reasons. Once a member of an extended family gets into a Western country, others follow ("chain migration")

The UK established a rule a couple of years ago that if a asylum seeker did not claim asylum immediately upon arrival, s/he lost any claim for State benefits. (In the USA, welfare benefits other than medical aren't readily available to asylum seekers and other aliens.)

The trouble is, that asylum seekers can't work legally anyway, so they become wards of charities -- much as is the case in the USA.

But in both the US and the UK, working "off the books" is easy. Only in civil-law countries (as Europe, Japan, etc.) is it common to require people to register their places of abode (with the police, city hall, etc.) There are virtually no controls over residence, and poor controls over employment (fake ID is available all over the UK & US), and one can start his/her own business with no ID at all in either place. (Indeed, aliens are free to start businesses in both, although "employment" as compared with "investment" may be restricted. (In the USA B1 visas can often legally be used to start up a business, and a treaty E1 visa obtained later. But E visas are dependent upon an FCN treaty. I won't go into this further now.)

Conclusions: Given that true "refugees" have, in a way, government sponsorship (their bona fides have been certified) and they are long-term residents (at least until their is peace, or government change, in their old country), it's hard to see how your proposition fits for them.

Fake asylum seekers -- who lie in hopes of economic advantage -- ought not to be encouraged. BUT: an immigration judge will tell me that s/he KNOWS that only 15% (say) of the cases that come before the Court are valid. But s/he doesn't know WHICH 15% those are. In the end, maybe 5% get in on merit, 10% on luck; and another 10% who are real asylum candidates are sent home to die. Or else they fade into the underbrush, or try again in another country (and thus fall afoul of another rule: "first safe country" -- which is where a candidate for asylum is required to file.

There's a UNHCR Handbook -- doubtless by now on their Web site -- that tells much more.

As for undocumented aliens ("illegal immigrants") -- these are economic migrants who slip into the country with no claim to refugee status (although they may claim asylum if caught -- it worked for a while with Salvadorans and Guatemalans, but not lately). They are, like Asians and East Europeans (not EU citizens, they have the right to work) in the UK, a backbone of low-wage industries and agriculture. The Government doesn't have a real incentive to stop them since politically influential businesspeople profit from them: either by employment them (agriculture, food processing) or by their presence keeping down the wages of unskilled workers.

By and large, true "refugees" are inellectuals, university graduates, skilled professionals. Obviously there are exceptions. Asylum seekers can be at any level of education or wealth. (They include crooken politicians like Marcos with millions in the bank -- but they usually enter as "people of independent means" or investors and not as candidates for asylum.

I could go on, but that probably includes most of what you need. You are in an untenable position unless you redefine "refugee" to take it outside international and US/UK domestic law.

Answer 2

Your refugee status isn't affected as long as you adhered to the circumstances connected to those granted asylum contained in the united kingdom. for extra information in this, verify the united kingdom boarder organization internet website. in conserving with even if you're granted a refugee status or given "impressive go away to proceed to be" you may both acquire a commute record from the residing house place of work or have the show you how to're granted stamped on your unique commute record you used to enter the united kingdom. you may get employment outdoors the united kingdom yet vacationing on British commute record would not with out delay provide you visa's to particular international places, so that you want inspect the international places you're planning to visit and be conscious in the adventure that they'll provide you a visa on BTD.

Answer 3

Refugees should be returned to their mother country because:
1. They will add up to the unemployment rate;
2. Refugees cannot be hired because of barriers in language;
3. Working conditions are not suitable to their culture; and
4. The government will use funds to feed and give them shelter
instead of giving it to the citizens.

Answer 4

They should give freedom to work since they are basically
lost their livelihoods earlier and give an opportunity to
make their life comfortable and continue to help others
and see that show should move on with the help of the
refugees and however their identity of refugees to be checked
before they are engaged for work

Answer 5

Ok but first tell me are you or your children willing to pick lettuce or are you prepared to pay $10.00 a pound for cucumbers, are you proposing a better alternative?

I will check back and happily answer your question.

Answer 6

They need to go through the motions like everyone else has to when they come to this country.

They need to pay taxes like everyone else in this country.

They need to be positive, productive, and contributing members of our society.

When they play by the rules, then welcome to the US!