The Thursday Thinking Question
Tom @ Topical Talk
25 November 2021
Make sure you've visited the Learning Zone and taken the quiz before you answer this question!
We have learnt that:
A migrant is a person who moves from one place to another to find work or better living conditions, for example.
An asylum-seeker is a person who is forced to leave their country and apply to live in another country for protection.
Governments have rules for who can enter and stay in their country and these are often different depending on if someone is a migrant or an asylum-seeker. So your Thinking Question is:
Should a country's entry rules be different for asylum-seekers compared to migrants?
How to answer: Give both sides of the argument followed by your opinion, for example:
"One reason for the YES side is...
One reason for the NO side is...
My opinion is... because..."
Comments (38)
26 Nov 2021
No, in my opinion, the rules should not differ between immigrants and asylum seekers, but more facilities should be given to asylum seekers, because he was forcibly displaced, and he cannot return, and he will not be able to wait until he is allowed to enter the country, because he does not have a place to live in while waiting for him to be allowed to do so. As for the immigrant, he will have a place to reside in, if he waits for a long time, and he has left the country of his own free will, and has completed the immigration process.
A very balanced and thoughtful answer, pioneering_wilddog.
26 Nov 2021
No, in my opinion, the rules should not differ between immigrants and asylum seekers, because the immigrants struggled to get here too. They did not emigrate from a strong country to expel them. They immigrated from a collapsed country that is unable to provide the simplest things for living. If you do not shelter them, you will condemn them to death, so you must The rules do not differ, but indulgences must be offered, because they have suffered a lot during migration and while I live in that country.
I do not agree with you, because immigrants immigrated coldly without pressure or coercion and can return to their country whenever they want, unlike asylum seekers who were forced to leave their country and cannot return to it. Also, the immigrant has coordinated his place of residence and prepared his affairs and requirements, unlike the asylum seeker who was forced to leave his country Nothing, and with regard to the state's treatment of asylum seekers who have been displaced from their country, it is different from immigrants, so they treat asylum seekers as if they are guilty and sinned against the immigrant.
Well done for clearly explaining the differences between the two. Have you made any assumptions in your comment?
Well done for clearly explaining the differences between the two. Have you made any assumptions in your comment?
Well done for clearly explaining the differences between the two. Have you made any assumptions in your comment?
27 Nov 2021
One of the reasons for the absence of a side is that the asylum seeker goes to protection and protection includes housing, work and money as well, and that the immigrant goes to get a job from which he earns housing and shelter
My opinion is that the immigrant goes to enjoy his rights and the asylum seeker as well, such as food, shelter, treatment, education, freedom, etc.
It is true that the refugee is forced to leave and the immigrant too, but do you not see that priority is given to the refugee because he was displaced by rape and not against his will? Exiting the will different from leaving with will, because migration is considered a nation of asylum, so a decision was taken by occupation, so it is surprision was taken by occupation, so it is surprising, and if the countrise do not want to receive them, they to the least.
27 Nov 2021
No, in my opinion, it should not be violated, it is not the condition of the difference in the rules of immigrants or asylum seekers, sometimes an asylum seeker emigrates, he is close to leaving the country, it is not from the laws of evidence to interfere in this specialty or the goal of his asylum, or if the state is suspicious of something? And sometimes the immigrant, may he be the goal of the immigrant to have a picnic and luxury outside other countries? Sometimes due to difficult circumstances, they leave and migrate; Work disk abroad, chances of success, study opportunities?
28 Nov 2021
One of the reasons for the side of blessings is:
Asylum and subsidiary protection, also called protection
Temporary or subsidiary protection, both types of international protection granted to an asylum seeker. Asylum seekers do not have the right to choose the type of protection they will receive. The authorities in my opinion are: they decide what kind to get. There is a European directive (non-binding norm) that sets out the criteria for protection, because: This is left to each EU country to incorporate into its own laws, resulting in a disparity between member states..
All comments should be written in your own words. This comment has wording that is hard to understand for the people reading the Student Hub. Can you explain what it means?
I mean in my comment that grounds for asylum asylum seekers do not have the right to choose what type of protection the authorities will receive because: This is up to each of the countries to include in their own laws, which leads to a disparity between member states..
28 Nov 2021
Yes,there should be different rules for asylum seekers and migrants as asylum seekers are forcibly banished from their country, being vulnerable and homeless whereas a migrant has a place to stay if they cannot find a spot that suits them. I believe that they should enforce a rule making that asylum seekers are provided free shelter and food ( if they cannot work ) until their crisis is solved but a migrant will still need to go through the process of immigration and payments.
No, there should not be different rules, though there should be priority for asylum seekers who are struggling. Migrants will go through the immigration process as usual, however there should be some cost decrease on shelter and food for asylum seekers. They should still have to show some legal documents to make sure, however they will not need to go through the complete process.
My opinion is that there should not be different rules because migrants and asylum seekers are both going to be struggling to find a place, though it may be harder for asylum seekers. Instead there should not be rules but some assistance created for these people.
I have given you a star for your clear explanation. When you mention "assistance" - what do you think are the three things that would be most helpful?
I have given you a star for your clear explanation. When you mention "assistance" - what do you think are the three things that would be most helpful?
I have given you a star for your clear explanation. When you mention "assistance" - what do you think are the three things that would be most helpful?
29 Nov 2021
One of the reasons for the yes side is that the immigrant and asylum seeker are going for the same purpose, which is living, stability, protection and work, this common aspect.
As for one of the reasons for the side, it is not that the immigrant person has to search for work and stability on his own, or the asylum seeker is requesting from the state protection, stability and security.
I do not agree with you on that, because there is a big difference between the immigrant and the asylum seeker in terms of the purpose. The asylum seeker aims to live, stability, protection and work if there is one of the things that he is satisfied with, but the immigrant can have stability and protection in his country and live with that, he is not satisfied so he immigrate to work for example. The immigrant solves his problem himself or with the help of a person, and no state has to solve this problem like the asylum seeker.
29 Nov 2021
In my opinion, the rules for the entry of immigrants those seeking asylum should not be different because there is no deference. A refugee is forced by a person to leave. As for the immigrant, the circumstances of life forced him to immigrate, but the refugee has the greatest chance of leniency be cause the immigrant can return to his country whenever he wants, but the refugee does not can come back.
Are you sure that migrants are "forced" to move to another country?
The correctness of what I wrote is 80%because no person risks his life for nothing. The person who does not have a hop thorough which he can provide his daily food for his children. How can he live, as he resorts to this migration, or there are those who cannot provide safety for his family, so he goes as an emigrant with them. The examples indicate that they are forced. As for remaining twenty, it is possible that a person wants to achieve his ambitions, so he emigrates in the hope of achieving them. Although his economic life is good, these people who should not be tolerated only.
I do not think so because immigrants are not obliged to move to another country because immigrated immigrants are willingly in order to improve their lives and search for work and I think that they can return to their country whenever they want
29 Nov 2021
Yes, I think rules should be different. Two totally different kinds of people with different circumstances, rules for each should be different too. It is because immigrants are maybe looking for job opportunities, to meet their needs to get a decent life, but no they are not FORCED to leave their homelands, their families and maybe their kids. As for political asylum, they usually look for protection, they look for SAFETY, then I think their rules should be easier. Asylum seekers is prevented from visiting their homelands before obtaining citizenship. So it is really important to give them what they need and to keep them safe as soon as possible.
29 Nov 2021
Yes, in my opinion, we should set new rules for them. There is a question that arises, why should you change the rules and conditions??? Because immigrants live in their homes happy and have money, as a result, they live in the best conditions. As for the asylum seeker, he was living happily, but he left his home and his money because of the occupation. I think that every immigrant should live with his refugee brother in his house and inherit it and live together happily, meaning he is considered by one of his family. Laws: 1- That they be one nation. 2- Solidarity and solidarity (that they cooperate in the redemption of their prisoners and do not leave a debtor unless they help him or give him). 3- Equality (if a person rents a person and brings him into his protection, then people should respect his neighborhood and no one can violate him). 4- The duty of the nation to be united in the face of injustice, aggression and corruption. 5- Combating the outlaws of the state and its system (anyone who succeeds? He breaks the laws and gets out of the state. 6- Achieving justice. What I spoke of is that they make a big city that includes immigrants and refugees and that they implement these conditions.
30 Nov 2021
my opinon is that the rules should not differ between asylum seekers and migrantes because migrantes have another place to live in and that their migrantes is for the sake of self recreacion Deserues help quickly is asylum seekers
30 Nov 2021
My opinion is shouldn't the rules about entering any country be different for an asylum seeker compared to a refugee? Because migrants have migrated from their country against their will, a refugee is a person who has fled their country as a result of serious violations, and an asylum seeker is a person who has left their country to seek protection from serious human rights violations.
People who are migrants have chosen to leave their country and move to another - this is not necessarily against their will.
30 Nov 2021
No, in my opinion, it should not be violated. It is not the condition of difference in the rules of immigrants or asylum seekers. Sometimes an asylum seeker emigrates, he is close to leaving the country. There are no laws that evidence interference in this specialty or the goal of his asylum, or if the state is suspicious of
30 Nov 2021
No. In my opinion, the rules should not differ between immigrants and asylum seekers. An asylum seeker is a person who has left his country in order to seek protection from persecution and serious violations of his human rights in another country, but has not yet been officially recognized as a refugee, and is waiting for a decision on his asylum claim. Asking for asylum is a human right. This means that everyone should be allowed to enter another country to seek asylum. Migrants are people who reside outside their countries of origin, who are not asylum seekers or refugees. Some immigrants leave their countries in search of work or study, or to join their families, for example. Others feel they have to leave because of poverty, political unrest, gang violence, natural disasters, or other dangerous circumstances around them. My opinion is that the rules should not differ between immigrants and asylum seekers because they are all looking for comfort and an easy life
01 Dec 2021
In my opinion, any country that receives immigrants, whether they are legal or illegal immigrants, must put in place laws that protect their countries from chaos and disturbances. Other than that, they are both in the laws because in the end they left their countries willingly or by force, they understand the need for protection, safety, stability and a better chance of life. To receive them, it must have the strength to secure its protection and at the same time provide the migrants with the integrated care they deserve.
01 Dec 2021
There should be no different rules between asylum seekers and immigrants, because an asylum seeker is a person who has fled his country due to the risk of serious violations of his human rights where the danger to his life has reached the point of choosing to leave and seek safety outside his country, and because the government of his country is unable They will provide protection for asylum seekers, but they will nevertheless be at risk if they return to their country. As for migrants, they are people who reside outside their countries of origin. Some migrants leave their countries in search of work, education, or joining their families, while others feel that they have to leave because of poverty, weakness, or dangerous conditions in their countries.
01 Dec 2021
think that I do not agree with you in your view of your situation of paradoxes in the accommodation of immigrants and refugees. It is necessary to unify those paradoxes that created a lot of grief, sadness and destruction for asylum seekers. An asylum seekers is a person who proves to us all that he is looking for protection that he did not find in his country, so he was forced to leave his country by force. And cruelty and he is forced to flee from torture, killing and repression, so we must stand by them and look at them from a humanitarian standpoint that helps them reach safety and escape by himself. As for the immigrant, he leaves his country of his own free will with his official papers and the necessary charters and his immigration is legal and official. Because, in the end, people are looking for humane treatment before political and borderline
01 Dec 2021
In my opinion, the rules for the entry of immigrants those seeking asylum should not be different because there is no deference. A refugee is forced by a person to leave. As for the immigrant, the circumstances of life forced him to immigrate, but the refugee has the greatest chance of leniency be cause the immigrant can return to his country whenever he wants, but the refugee does not can come bsck.
You say that refugees can't go back - should that have an impact on whether the rules are the same or different?
01 Dec 2021
I do not agree with you in your opinion, because the immigrants are the ones who wanted to emigrate and with their rationality, to expel the pent-up spirit inside them. As for the asylum seekers, they forced him to leave. They do not have the right to do so, whether he was mistaken or not. All laws are not for the people to give him all his orders.
03 Dec 2021
I do not agree with you, because immigrants have freedom of movement between countries and a place of residence for them and complete freedom. As for the refugee, he does not have any freedom and he was forcibly expelled from his country in addition to the absence of a place of residence for him. Some countries treat immigrants poorly. It is better to work on establishing institutions that include all the needs of the refugees, as this will return to the state with many benefits and increase the number of the community’s safe population, thus making the community stronger.
03 Dec 2021
I believe that it is the duty of states to set equal and easy rules between the entry of an immigrant, refugee and tourist, as they have provided facilities for immigrants and refugees, as we see what happens with immigrants due to their poor living conditions and disasters that lead to the loss of the lives of their loved ones and their families at sea. It is possible to amend the rules of countries so as not to lose more Humans lives .
You must be logged in with Student Hub access to post a comment. Sign up now!