• bedrooms@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    How long is that “long term”? A refugee only wants a permanent solution. Any law that will send them back at, say 80, is a nonsolution if they are seeking refuge from China, Saudi, wherever. Because they know they are lucky if their punishment at home is merely a death sentence.

    I won’t believe this is a well-minded deal. The pattern has been that the bureaucrats feared conservative backlash and took every step to deter foreigners to stay. That WON’T change without destroying the current political structure.

    • kefirchik@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a step in the right direction, regardless. Refugees are not all in the same situation and not all of them “only want a permanent solution”. The article cites “refugees from conflict zones”, and many people in such situations are indeed considering returning home if it becomes safe. Many other people may be in a location for several years before choosing a more careful plan to settle somewhere.

      Lastly, it’s a lot easier for a country to normalize the long term status of temporary residents when they are already in the work force, speaking the language, not an outsized burden on social services, etc.