"They're not real asylum seekers, they're only economic migrants!"
The philosophy behind this: poverty doesn't count as a proper problem. A real problem would be something like not being able to 
Anti-materialism with the mask off.
"They're not real asylum seekers, they're only economic migrants!"
The philosophy behind this: poverty doesn't count as a proper problem. A real problem would be something like not being able to
Anti-materialism with the mask off.
I think it’s probably a useful distinction. Elsewhere in the thread we’re talking about “expats”. Is somebody who retires from the U.S. to South America where they can actually live off of their social security check an expat, an economic migrant or a refugee? They’re making use of the same features like exchange rate that many of the immigrants coming the other way are.
Many of the people I work with have petty bourgeois aspirations in their home countries. They and their families fund businesses and property purchases back home with the USD they earn here. Somebody who was just born here in the first place and does the same thing might be called a colonizer or exploiter.
The only answer has to be ending the imperial dominance of the U.S. over these other parts of the world in the first place, but if we’re trying to do any useful analysis in the meantime I don’t think there’s any benefit to just flattening all immigration into “refugee” and ignoring the differences.
This is I think the bigger distinction than economic or violent. If you’ve fled because you can’t afford to live in your home country, you’re a refugee. You’re fleeing violence. Whether it’s the violence of a gang you’re fleeing or the violence of the state kicking you out of your home because you can’t afford rent.
If you’ve left your home country to work for higher wages to support family in your home country, I think that’s more different than the other two situations
Yeah definitely, I agree with what you’re saying.