Europe submits voluntarily

[Jokodo]

Politely turn them away at the border. "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

So you propose giving up due process?

Can it get any more anti Western values?

Due process for what? Nobody is charging the would-be immigrants with a crime. If they don't have necessary qualifications to enter, they are free to go and pursue opportunities elsewhere. As to what those qualifications might be, it's really up to them to prove that they need asylum, for example.

Keep in mind you're talking to a guy who never locks his car and front door because that denies due process to others, who must be presumed to have the right to enter until proven not to.

A country is not like a private home and car. Although it may make me an asshole, I'm perfectly entitled to kick out guests at my home I don't like the color of their socks. An individual is not bound by the prohibition of arbitrariness, the state is. No-one has a right to be enter my house unless I explicitly grant them that right, which I'm entitled to do on an entirely arbitrary basis. Whether or not an individual is allowed to enter a state, or is to be granted any other right, is a decision that must be based on facts.

 

[fromderinside]

A country is not like a private home and car. Although it may make me an asshole, I'm perfectly entitled to kick out guests at my home I don't like the color of their socks. An individual is not bound by the prohibition of arbitrariness, the state is. No-one has a right to be enter my house unless I explicitly grant them that right, which I'm entitled to do on an entirely arbitrary basis. Whether or not an individual is allowed to enter a state, or is to be granted any other right, is a decision that must be based on facts.

Apt except I'm not going to visit Russia because they don't operate according to law first, I can do whatever I want second. Most EU nations have national laws parallel to EU open door policy. The political scuffle is in nations about whether such policy should be changed by nations within the EU. So if Bomb#20 does live in Ferndale CA his view might be correct while if he lives in SF or LA or Oakland, or Fresno, or Sacramento, or any city of size in CA, he would have double bolts on his doors just because one can't expect possible entrants to be like Gentle Ben.

 

[Jokodo]

A country is not like a private home and car. Although it may make me an asshole, I'm perfectly entitled to kick out guests at my home I don't like the color of their socks. An individual is not bound by the prohibition of arbitrariness, the state is. No-one has a right to be enter my house unless I explicitly grant them that right, which I'm entitled to do on an entirely arbitrary basis. Whether or not an individual is allowed to enter a state, or is to be granted any other right, is a decision that must be based on facts.

Apt except I'm not going to visit Russia because they don't operate according to law first, I can do whatever I want second. Most EU nations have national laws parallel to EU open door policy. The political scuffle is in nations about whether such policy should be changed by nations within the EU. So if Bomb#20 does live in Ferndale CA his view might be correct while if he lives in SF or LA or Oakland, or Fresno, or Sacramento, or any city of size in CA, he would have double bolts on his doors just because one can't expect possible entrants to be like Gentle Ben.

I don't get what you're trying to say, or how it's a response to my point.

 

[DrZoidberg]

1. This sweet gesture sends a powerful political message. But in a normal European "crowned republic" like Sweden, the king or queen is determinedly apolitical. Europe's royalty struck that bargain a century ago in order to not have their jobs abolished. They serve at the pleasure of the elected government and rarely weigh in on public affairs even to make the mildest and most sensible suggestions unless "their" ministers want them to. So it's entirely likely that the reason the king asked the government for this permission is because the government put him up to it.

I have no clue what goes on behind the scenes. But our king is pretty reluctant ruler, disinterested of kingly matters. He's above all famous for shagging celebrity hotties and various models as well as getting publicly drunk with friends. Not to forget all the times he has actually tried and just managed to put his foot in his mouth. He can best be described as a "geezer". Just a chill dude without any real ambition in life. A guy who just wants to avoid responsibility and just have some fun. Not a thinker.

I honestly don't think that he gives a damn about politics. If he would get deposed and forced to get a job, I think he would be fine. He comes across as a guy who just gets on with it, no matter what "it" is. Not too bothered about life's circumstances.

The most bizarre thing is that this behaviour has made him and his family loved by the people. The Swedes love this guy. It's like we can't get enough of him. I personally find it baffling. His history makes me doubt that he does this because:

1. ...anybody asked him to.
2. ...he put any thought behind it. It's just not his style. Like I said... not a thinker. He does dumb shit all the time.

This is what you get in a non-meritocratic system of government. There's a hilarious story about when the crown prince got the question of who was Sweden's head of state in school. He didn't know the answer. The answer was, his dad. So obviously it's not a topic that comes up around their dinner table.

2. Sweden has a severe housing crisis due to the sudden increase in demand. The government has already bought up buildings, paid elevated rents to landlords, allowed tighter packing of renters, and seized commercial private property.

There's nothing sudden about Sweden's housing crisis. In the 60'ies the government decided that all Swedes should have affordable housing and put a cap on what landlords are allowed to pay. So housing developers just stopped building rental flats. They built other stuff. More lucrative stuff. Stuff not designed for living in. That's the problem.

3. Sweden has had a law on the books for decades allowing the seizure of underutilized private homes in an emergency situation.

Hmm... we also have plenty of loopholes to allow people to hide the fact that private homes are underutlized. I think this looks like a real thing on paper. While not being an actual thing.

So I couldn't say if Sweden's government is considering such seizures; but, hypothetically, if they were planning to seize private homes, they'd be bloody idiots if asking the king to ask for permission to turn his palace into a refugee asylum wasn't the first thing they'd do.

Even if they legally can, I don't think they'll dare. It'd be political suicide. We'll see.

 

[Jayjay]

Politely turn them away at the border. "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

So you propose giving up due process?

Can it get any more anti Western values?

Due process for what? Nobody is charging the would-be immigrants with a crime. If they don't have necessary qualifications to enter, they are free to go and pursue opportunities elsewhere. As to what those qualifications might be, it's really up to them to prove that they need asylum, for example.

Keep in mind you're talking to a guy who never locks his car and front door because that denies due process to others, who must be presumed to have the right to enter until proven not to.

A country is not like a private home and car. Although it may make me an asshole, I'm perfectly entitled to kick out guests at my home I don't like the color of their socks. An individual is not bound by the prohibition of arbitrariness, the state is. No-one has a right to be enter my house unless I explicitly grant them that right, which I'm entitled to do on an entirely arbitrary basis. Whether or not an individual is allowed to enter a state, or is to be granted any other right, is a decision that must be based on facts.

Indeed, and that's waht we are saying: If a person wants to enter a country, the due process is for the applicant to make his case that he should be allowed to enter based on facts.

 

[Bomb#20]

Keep in mind you're talking to a guy who never locks his car and front door because that denies due process to others, who must be presumed to have the right to enter until proven not to.

Just where in California are you located Bomb#20?
...
So if Bomb#20 does live in Ferndale CA his view might be correct while if he lives in SF...

It's not my view -- I'm not the guy Jayjay was talking to. I was lampooning the previous poster. Guess I needed one of these.

 

[Jokodo]

Politely turn them away at the border. "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

So you propose giving up due process?

Can it get any more anti Western values?

Due process for what? Nobody is charging the would-be immigrants with a crime. If they don't have necessary qualifications to enter, they are free to go and pursue opportunities elsewhere. As to what those qualifications might be, it's really up to them to prove that they need asylum, for example.

Keep in mind you're talking to a guy who never locks his car and front door because that denies due process to others, who must be presumed to have the right to enter until proven not to.

A country is not like a private home and car. Although it may make me an asshole, I'm perfectly entitled to kick out guests at my home I don't like the color of their socks. An individual is not bound by the prohibition of arbitrariness, the state is. No-one has a right to be enter my house unless I explicitly grant them that right, which I'm entitled to do on an entirely arbitrary basis. Whether or not an individual is allowed to enter a state, or is to be granted any other right, is a decision that must be based on facts.

Indeed, and that's waht we are saying: If a person wants to enter a country, the due process is for the applicant to make his case that he should be allowed to enter based on facts.

Indeed, you say? After I just demolished your analogy by pointing out the rather obvious fact that entry to a private home is in no way parallel to entry into a country?

Once again, you seem to have lost track of the discussion. I and Jayjay where debating his proposal that, since some asylum seekers are known to have thrown away there papers, we should summarily bar all who are found without papers, thereby presuming that they are among those who threw away their papers without evidence and thereby denying them the chance to make the case for why they should be granted asylum. That is giving up due process.

I thought due process was a core Western value? I thought you guys were about protecting Western values? Do you see the contradiction?

I for one don't want to live in a Europe where the principle of due process is exchanged for a principle of "due process - for Aryans".

 

[TSwizzle]

I for one don't want to live in a Europe where the principle of due process is exchanged for a principle of "due process - for Aryans".

Oh the drama Is it safe to assume you are going to flounce out of Europe and take up residence in some third world shit hole ? That'll teach Europe, the bastards.

 

[angelo]

This just in, today's most bizarre news. The Swedish king has asked the government for permission to turn buildings of the royal palace in Stockholm into refugee asylums. I'm not sure what to think of this. Not that he has any power, as this proves. Having to ask permission to use his own houses for what he wants.

He doesn't actually live in the royal palace. It's just for representation. He lives in another palace. But I think this gesture is sweet. It's certainly big enough. It won't be the actual core palace building (the one that tourists gawk at). It'll be in other buildings in the vicinity, but equally old and impressive. As a symbol it's incredibly powerful. Symbolically this is the heart of Sweden opening up to refugees. As symbols go for our openness to refugees, can't beat that. I think this may very well be the first time he's done something actually useful in his life. So I guess our king isn't completely worthless. Who would have thunk? I applaud the move anyway.

Here it is in Sweden's main tabloid. Google translate it if you're interested.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article21742058.ab

Yes, that's sweet. A few considerations that may not be obvious, particularly to Americans...

1. This sweet gesture sends a powerful political message. But in a normal European "crowned republic" like Sweden, the king or queen is determinedly apolitical. Europe's royalty struck that bargain a century ago in order to not have their jobs abolished. They serve at the pleasure of the elected government and rarely weigh in on public affairs even to make the mildest and most sensible suggestions unless "their" ministers want them to. So it's entirely likely that the reason the king asked the government for this permission is because the government put him up to it.

2. Sweden has a severe housing crisis due to the sudden increase in demand. The government has already bought up buildings, paid elevated rents to landlords, allowed tighter packing of renters, and seized commercial private property.

3. Sweden has had a law on the books for decades allowing the seizure of underutilized private homes in an emergency situation.

4. In Germany, government officials have already advocated seizing private homes for use by refugees.

5. This gesture is sweet. The palace is certainly big enough. As a symbol it's incredibly powerful. Symbolically this is the heart of Sweden opening up to refugees. As symbols go for our openness to refugees, can't beat that.

So I couldn't say if Sweden's government is considering such seizures; but, hypothetically, if they were planning to seize private homes, they'd be bloody idiots if asking the king to ask for permission to turn his palace into a refugee asylum wasn't the first thing they'd do.

Great gesture. Invite the enemy into your homes, worst still, I can't think of a better way to turn people against government policy than to seize homes to house freeloaders.

 

[Jayjay]

Politely turn them away at the border. "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

So you propose giving up due process?

Can it get any more anti Western values?

Due process for what? Nobody is charging the would-be immigrants with a crime. If they don't have necessary qualifications to enter, they are free to go and pursue opportunities elsewhere. As to what those qualifications might be, it's really up to them to prove that they need asylum, for example.

Keep in mind you're talking to a guy who never locks his car and front door because that denies due process to others, who must be presumed to have the right to enter until proven not to.

A country is not like a private home and car. Although it may make me an asshole, I'm perfectly entitled to kick out guests at my home I don't like the color of their socks. An individual is not bound by the prohibition of arbitrariness, the state is. No-one has a right to be enter my house unless I explicitly grant them that right, which I'm entitled to do on an entirely arbitrary basis. Whether or not an individual is allowed to enter a state, or is to be granted any other right, is a decision that must be based on facts.

Indeed, and that's waht we are saying: If a person wants to enter a country, the due process is for the applicant to make his case that he should be allowed to enter based on facts.

Indeed, you say? After I just demolished your analogy by pointing out the rather obvious fact that entry to a private home is in no way parallel to entry into a country?

Once again, you seem to have lost track of the discussion. I and Jayjay where debating his proposal that, since some asylum seekers are known to have thrown away there papers, we should summarily bar all who are found without papers, thereby presuming that they are among those who threw away their papers without evidence and thereby denying them the chance to make the case for why they should be granted asylum. That is giving up due process.

No. The due process in this case is that if you can prove that you need asylum, you may enter. Papers might help establish that, but in absence of papers some other proof is also acceptable. If there is no proof, why should they be granted asylum? Whether they intentionally displaced their papers or not is irrelevant, only that in absence of papers the determination whether they really need asylum or not is a much more time-consuming and expensive process.

I thought due process was a core Western value? I thought you guys were about protecting Western values? Do you see the contradiction?

I for one don't want to live in a Europe where the principle of due process is exchanged for a principle of "due process - for Aryans".

I don't see why Aryans trying to enter Europe without papers should be treated any differently.

 

[bilby]

Politely turn them away at the border. "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

So you propose giving up due process?

Can it get any more anti Western values?

Due process for what? Nobody is charging the would-be immigrants with a crime. If they don't have necessary qualifications to enter, they are free to go and pursue opportunities elsewhere. As to what those qualifications might be, it's really up to them to prove that they need asylum, for example.

Keep in mind you're talking to a guy who never locks his car and front door because that denies due process to others, who must be presumed to have the right to enter until proven not to.

A country is not like a private home and car. Although it may make me an asshole, I'm perfectly entitled to kick out guests at my home I don't like the color of their socks. An individual is not bound by the prohibition of arbitrariness, the state is. No-one has a right to be enter my house unless I explicitly grant them that right, which I'm entitled to do on an entirely arbitrary basis. Whether or not an individual is allowed to enter a state, or is to be granted any other right, is a decision that must be based on facts.

Indeed, and that's waht we are saying: If a person wants to enter a country, the due process is for the applicant to make his case that he should be allowed to enter based on facts.

Indeed, you say? After I just demolished your analogy by pointing out the rather obvious fact that entry to a private home is in no way parallel to entry into a country?

Once again, you seem to have lost track of the discussion. I and Jayjay where debating his proposal that, since some asylum seekers are known to have thrown away there papers, we should summarily bar all who are found without papers, thereby presuming that they are among those who threw away their papers without evidence and thereby denying them the chance to make the case for why they should be granted asylum. That is giving up due process.

No. The due process in this case is that if you can prove that you need asylum, you may enter. Papers might help establish that, but in absence of papers some other proof is also acceptable. If there is no proof, why should they be granted asylum? Whether they intentionally displaced their papers or not is irrelevant, only that in absence of papers the determination whether they really need asylum or not is a much more time-consuming and expensive process.

I thought due process was a core Western value? I thought you guys were about protecting Western values? Do you see the contradiction?

I for one don't want to live in a Europe where the principle of due process is exchanged for a principle of "due process - for Aryans".

I don't see why Aryans trying to enter Europe without papers should be treated any differently.

So, if you were on holiday overseas, and your papers were lost or stolen, you think that when you try to return home, they should just politely turn you away at the border?

That, as you have no papers, no effort should be made to determine whether you have a legitimate reason to stay - due to citizenship, residency, or refugee status?

Or do you perhaps think that the international treaties regarding the handling of refugees, ratified by your government, are somehow 'less' the law than the rules regarding citizens and visa holders; or that only those laws should change? If so, why?

 

[angelo]

If a person lost all his papers, including a passport. It takes less than a few hours to confirm his identity. My late father had his suitcase stolen while in Europe. All his papers including his wallet were in that suitcase. Withing half a day he had a new passport, I'd papers, ect.

 

[Jokodo]

I for one don't want to live in a Europe where the principle of due process is exchanged for a principle of "due process - for Aryans".

Oh the drama Is it safe to assume you are going to flounce out of Europe and take up residence in some third world shit hole ? That'll teach Europe, the bastards.

No, but it's safe to assume that I'll fight against neofascism whenever it rears its ugly head.

 

[angelo]

Oh the drama Is it safe to assume you are going to flounce out of Europe and take up residence in some third world shit hole ? That'll teach Europe, the bastards.

No, but it's safe to assume that I'll fight against neofascism whenever it rears its ugly head.

You mean you'll fight muslim neofacists?

 

[Jokodo]

No, but it's safe to assume that I'll fight against neofascism whenever it rears its ugly head.

You mean you'll fight muslim neofacists?

Them too, but they're not currently the most common or dangerous brand where I live or anywhere near there, nor on track to become so.

 

[Bomb#20]

This is what you get in a non-meritocratic system of government. There's a hilarious story about when the crown prince got the question of who was Sweden's head of state in school. He didn't know the answer. The answer was, his dad. So obviously it's not a topic that comes up around their dinner table.

As opposed to a theoretically meritocratic system? There's a hilarious story about a conversation between Olof Palme and Yitzhak Rabin in which they were debating some obscure point of Old Testament interpretation, and Palme allegedly accused Rabin of relying on an inaccurate translation.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If a person lost all his papers, including a passport. It takes less than a few hours to confirm his identity. My late father had his suitcase stolen while in Europe. All his papers including his wallet were in that suitcase. Withing half a day he had a new passport, I'd papers, ect.

They also lose memory of their birthdays and when giving a false name, it becomes especially difficult. In fact it's frequently not clear which country they came from. Not many Syrians speak Tamil or Urdu.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Politely turn them away at the border. "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

So you propose giving up due process?

Can it get any more anti Western values?

Due process for what? Nobody is charging the would-be immigrants with a crime. If they don't have necessary qualifications to enter, they are free to go and pursue opportunities elsewhere. As to what those qualifications might be, it's really up to them to prove that they need asylum, for example.

Keep in mind you're talking to a guy who never locks his car and front door because that denies due process to others, who must be presumed to have the right to enter until proven not to.

A country is not like a private home and car. Although it may make me an asshole, I'm perfectly entitled to kick out guests at my home I don't like the color of their socks. An individual is not bound by the prohibition of arbitrariness, the state is. No-one has a right to be enter my house unless I explicitly grant them that right, which I'm entitled to do on an entirely arbitrary basis. Whether or not an individual is allowed to enter a state, or is to be granted any other right, is a decision that must be based on facts.

Indeed, and that's waht we are saying: If a person wants to enter a country, the due process is for the applicant to make his case that he should be allowed to enter based on facts.

Indeed, you say? After I just demolished your analogy by pointing out the rather obvious fact that entry to a private home is in no way parallel to entry into a country?

Once again, you seem to have lost track of the discussion. I and Jayjay where debating his proposal that, since some asylum seekers are known to have thrown away there papers, we should summarily bar all who are found without papers, thereby presuming that they are among those who threw away their papers without evidence and thereby denying them the chance to make the case for why they should be granted asylum. That is giving up due process.

I thought due process was a core Western value? I thought you guys were about protecting Western values? Do you see the contradiction?

I for one don't want to live in a Europe where the principle of due process is exchanged for a principle of "due process - for Aryans".

Entry to a private home is parallel to entry to a foreign country. Wes should have the right to check out who is coming in. The only difference is a country is simply larger with more families.Your statement for "due process for Aryans doesn't hold water because those want asylum can apply for this. Clearly those who throw away their passports refuse to give their birthdates and give false names to avoid tracking are not likely to be confident they can qualify for Asylum are they now. This would apply to a Syrian "refugee" who only speaks Urdu.

Many come from countries where due process doesn't exist.

 

[Jokodo]

Politely turn them away at the border. "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

So you propose giving up due process?

Can it get any more anti Western values?

Due process for what? Nobody is charging the would-be immigrants with a crime. If they don't have necessary qualifications to enter, they are free to go and pursue opportunities elsewhere. As to what those qualifications might be, it's really up to them to prove that they need asylum, for example.

Keep in mind you're talking to a guy who never locks his car and front door because that denies due process to others, who must be presumed to have the right to enter until proven not to.

A country is not like a private home and car. Although it may make me an asshole, I'm perfectly entitled to kick out guests at my home I don't like the color of their socks. An individual is not bound by the prohibition of arbitrariness, the state is. No-one has a right to be enter my house unless I explicitly grant them that right, which I'm entitled to do on an entirely arbitrary basis. Whether or not an individual is allowed to enter a state, or is to be granted any other right, is a decision that must be based on facts.

Indeed, and that's waht we are saying: If a person wants to enter a country, the due process is for the applicant to make his case that he should be allowed to enter based on facts.

Indeed, you say? After I just demolished your analogy by pointing out the rather obvious fact that entry to a private home is in no way parallel to entry into a country?

Once again, you seem to have lost track of the discussion. I and Jayjay where debating his proposal that, since some asylum seekers are known to have thrown away there papers, we should summarily bar all who are found without papers, thereby presuming that they are among those who threw away their papers without evidence and thereby denying them the chance to make the case for why they should be granted asylum. That is giving up due process.

I thought due process was a core Western value? I thought you guys were about protecting Western values? Do you see the contradiction?

I for one don't want to live in a Europe where the principle of due process is exchanged for a principle of "due process - for Aryans".

Entry to a private home is parallel to entry to a foreign country.

It is not. I can kick you out of my private home because I don't like the color of your socks. A country is bound by the non-arbitrariness principle, i.e. it must rationally justify its decisions.

Wes should have the right to check out who is coming in. The only difference is a country is simply larger with more families.Your statement for "due process for Aryans doesn't hold water because those want asylum can apply for this. Clearly those who throw away their passports refuse to give their birthdates and give false names to avoid tracking are not likely to be confident they can qualify for Asylum are they now.

But by assuming that everyone who arrives without a passport has thrown it away and barring them at the borders, you're depriving an awful lot of people of their opportunity to apply for asylum.

This would apply to a Syrian "refugee" who only speaks Urdu.

Many come from countries where due process doesn't exist.

So what you propose isn't "due process - for Aryans" but "due process - for people born in countries that have due process"? Or how is that last remark supposed to make sense?

 

[Jayjay]

Politely turn them away at the border. "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

So you propose giving up due process?

Can it get any more anti Western values?

Due process for what? Nobody is charging the would-be immigrants with a crime. If they don't have necessary qualifications to enter, they are free to go and pursue opportunities elsewhere. As to what those qualifications might be, it's really up to them to prove that they need asylum, for example.

Keep in mind you're talking to a guy who never locks his car and front door because that denies due process to others, who must be presumed to have the right to enter until proven not to.

A country is not like a private home and car. Although it may make me an asshole, I'm perfectly entitled to kick out guests at my home I don't like the color of their socks. An individual is not bound by the prohibition of arbitrariness, the state is. No-one has a right to be enter my house unless I explicitly grant them that right, which I'm entitled to do on an entirely arbitrary basis. Whether or not an individual is allowed to enter a state, or is to be granted any other right, is a decision that must be based on facts.

Indeed, and that's waht we are saying: If a person wants to enter a country, the due process is for the applicant to make his case that he should be allowed to enter based on facts.

Indeed, you say? After I just demolished your analogy by pointing out the rather obvious fact that entry to a private home is in no way parallel to entry into a country?

Once again, you seem to have lost track of the discussion. I and Jayjay where debating his proposal that, since some asylum seekers are known to have thrown away there papers, we should summarily bar all who are found without papers, thereby presuming that they are among those who threw away their papers without evidence and thereby denying them the chance to make the case for why they should be granted asylum. That is giving up due process.

No. The due process in this case is that if you can prove that you need asylum, you may enter. Papers might help establish that, but in absence of papers some other proof is also acceptable. If there is no proof, why should they be granted asylum? Whether they intentionally displaced their papers or not is irrelevant, only that in absence of papers the determination whether they really need asylum or not is a much more time-consuming and expensive process.

I thought due process was a core Western value? I thought you guys were about protecting Western values? Do you see the contradiction?

I for one don't want to live in a Europe where the principle of due process is exchanged for a principle of "due process - for Aryans".

I don't see why Aryans trying to enter Europe without papers should be treated any differently.

So, if you were on holiday overseas, and your papers were lost or stolen, you think that when you try to return home, they should just politely turn you away at the border?

That, as you have no papers, no effort should be made to determine whether you have a legitimate reason to stay - due to citizenship, residency, or refugee status?

Of course. And while they make that determination, I woud have to wait, and if necessary assist in their queries. That's normal practice anywhere in the world. If the border control cannot find any proof of my citizenship, I would be denied entry and quite likely for a good reason.

Or do you perhaps think that the international treaties regarding the handling of refugees, ratified by your government, are somehow 'less' the law than the rules regarding citizens and visa holders; or that only those laws should change? If so, why?

What international law says that anyone claiming to be refugee can be allowed entry without any proof that they he is, in fact, a refugee? If that were the case, I wouldn't have to worry about losing my passport one bit... I could always get through immigration just by saying that I'm a refugee. No questions asked!