Originally Posted by
FredBiscuits
Okay, I'll try to simplify.
You said that there are genuine refugees. But then also said that nobody should be able to get on a plane without an passport. So, how in your mind does a genuine refugee get to a genuine safe country?
Taking Syria, as an example. You won't get a passport or ID if you are outside of Damascus, and not a Loyalist to the regime. The countries around you are either unsafe, a belligerent in the war you are fleeing, busy collapsing themselves, or Israel which will not allow Syrian people to enter. So how does a genuine Syrian refugee get out?
And again, if the point of the passport is to allow the receiving country to do background checks, or vet the people as the current fashionable phrase goes, how do you do background checks in a failed nation? So is there any possibility of a genuine refugee getting asylum in a safe country under a system that demands both a passport and a glowing background check?
I would say a miniscule number of genuine refugees, the sort of people who almost everyone would agree need asylum, would meet both of these requirements. So what some people mean when they call for "passports and vetting for all refugees" is "this is our excuse to refuse everyone, genuine or disingenuous, but still make it look like we have a system".