A comprehensive understanding of the differences between "status" and "continuous flow" is essential in the world of immigration policies, which encompasses legal economic, illegal, and refugee immigration.
This distinction is not just limited to semantics but is fundamental in creating effective strategies to support underprivileged communities within our territories and to address the staggering numbers of genuine refugees and those living in poverty worldwide. Let us delve into these concepts further and explore their implications for countries grappling with immigration challenges.
"Status" refers to the condition of certain groups within a country, such as national minorities or the homeless, whose presence is static. These populations have been part of the societal fabric for years, with their numbers relatively unchanged but subject to government programs aimed at reducing poverty and improving living conditions. Addressing the needs of these groups requires targeted, long-term strategies that focus on upliftment and integration into broader society.
In contrast to "status," "continuous flow" describes the ongoing influx of asylum seekers and refugees, which poses a dynamic challenge. Uncontrolled immigration can lead to societal breakdown, especially when there are no limits on the number of refugees allowed into a country. The influx of immigrants can increase annually, driven by the hope of better living standards than those left behind. However, this influx will not only bring significant challenges, leading to societal breaking point, but it is also not factually feasible in the long term. It is essential to understand the scale of the challenge.
Globally, there are approximately 100 million genuine refugees as per UN report, in addition to another 1,000 million individuals living in conditions of poverty. Together, they create an almost unlimited pool of potential refugees as they are all targeting a limited territory of North America (370 million population) and Western Europe (550 million population), it becomes clear that an unlimited immigration without a cap is neither acceptable nor feasible under any scenario.
To address this vast number of individuals, it would require 100 years of sustained effort with 10 million transfers every year to clear that pool. This is not a Herculean task; it is a Sisyphean one - helping 1000 refugees today will only result in 2000 coming tomorrow and the first 1000 of them bring 5000 more through family reunification. However, none of them generates sufficient taxes to repay the benefits they receive.
It is noteworthy that all NGOs and government policies that lean towards the left are supporting the "no cap" policy as it is believed that humanity cannot be limited. Nevertheless, the question of how to do so remains unanswered. Fair Immigration Protocols on the other hands not only have an anser but are the answer. Either we help near the crisis locations and permanantly stop the inflow of refugees and illegal immigrants to Europe and NA, same as it as been done by Australia, or we will reach the Society Breaking Point around 2030.
Comentarios