Non-Paywalled Version of My Boston Globe Article Making the Case for Legislation Granting Permanent Residency Rights to Ukrainian Migrants and Others Admitted by Using the President's Parole Power

It has been reprinted (with permission) by the Cato Institute.

The Cato Institute has (with permission) posted a non-paywalled version of my recent Boston Globe article making the case for enacting an adjustment act giving permanent residency and work rights to Ukrainian refugees and others admitted by means of the presidential parole power. Here's an excerpt:

The United States has done much to open its doors to Ukrainian refugees fleeing the brutal Russian invasion that began in February 2022. Since that time, over 117,000 Ukrainians have entered the country under the innovative Uniting for Ukraine private refugee sponsorship program, in which I am a sponsor.…

But unless Congress or President Biden act soon, this success may be seriously compromised. The vast majority of Ukrainians admitted over the last year have so far been given only a temporary right to live and work in the United States. When their time limits expire, they could be subject to deportation or at least be unable to work legally.

Ukrainians admitted under the Uniting for Ukraine program are granted residency and work rights for two years after arrival. For the earliest program participants, those rights will expire in April or May 2024. More will lose legal status thereafter. Ukrainians who reached the United States before April 11, 2022, have been given Temporary Protected Status, which offers similar residency and work permits. But TPS for Ukrainians is currently scheduled to expire on Oct. 19….

Biden could potentially extend the Uniting for Ukraine and TPS deadlines through unilateral executive action. But such an executive fix would still leave refugees vulnerable to the whims of whomever sits in the White House….

The best solution for this problem is for Congress to pass a Ukrainian Adjustment Act, giving Ukrainian migrants who have entered the United States during the war the right of permanent residency and work status. That would give them a secure status no longer subject to the vagaries of politically driven executive discretion.

Such adjustment acts have been repeatedly enacted for migrants fleeing war and tyranny admitted under previous exercises of the presidential parole power used to create Uniting for Ukraine, beginning with Hungarian refugees fleeing the 1956 Soviet invasion. Congress could easily do the same in this case. But it may need to act swiftly. Significant legislation of any kind will be hard to enact during the 2024 presidential election year.

The article also addresses arguments that enacting an adjustment act for Ukrainians would be unfair to migrants from other countries:

One possible argument against a Ukrainian Adjustment Act is that it would be unfair to migrants fleeing similar war and oppression elsewhere. I agree the latter deserve permanent refuge as well. For example, Congress should also enact an Afghan Adjustment Act giving permanent sanctuary to refugees fleeing the cruel Taliban regime that seized power after the 2021 US withdrawal….

I have also advocated giving [permanent] refuge to Russians fleeing Putin's increasingly repressive regime…. The same reasoning applies to migrants fleeing horrific violence and oppression in Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, to whom Biden extended the Uniting for Ukraine model in January.

But if it turns out that it is only politically feasible to enact an adjustment act for Ukrainians…. that is better than refusing to enact such legislation for anyone until we can do it for everyone. The best should not be the enemy of the good.

I have addressed  concerns about fairness and discrimination in greater detail here and here.

Comments

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Yes, definitely grant this to White Europeans. Even if they are Nazi Ukranians.

[Ben_]

Yet another systematic abuse of power urged by open borders proponent.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ilya, WE DON'T CARE!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Somin must have posted some libertarian content.

[hobie]

Ben, both your birth and your nationality were an accident. Be thankful for them...and extend it to others. There might be a whole slew of hateful, bigoted misfits in the Ukrainian diaspora, chaffing to extend your cause

[CountmontyC]

Get them in using the excuse of a temporary emergency and say it will only be until the emergency is over and then demand they be made permanent residents. So is this bait and switch or outright fraud?

[Frank Drackman]

Just say Nyet

[Currentsitguy]

If these people are refugees and not immigrants do they not presumably plan on returning home once conditions make that feasible?

[Frank Drackman]

to the Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic? not likely

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know why, but I honestly was expecting you to have made at least a little bit better case for it.

Why permanent? Why not just formally until the end of the war?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I've wondered this before, but are there examples of people admitted under Temporary Protected Status who eventually are forced to go home when the emergency ends?

[Brett Bellmore]

To be clear, when one makes a case for something, it's normal practice to address the objections actual opponents would make, not fake objections that are just layups for making greater demands.

"One possible argument against a Ukrainian Adjustment Act is that it would be unfair to migrants fleeing similar war and oppression elsewhere."; I'm pretty sure no actual opponent of giving Ukrainians this permanent status would make this argument. It's transparently just an opportunity to demand similar adjustments for further groups, too.

A real objection would be something like,

"Asking to let people in for a temporary refuge, then demanding to make that permanent once they're here; Isn't that just a bait and switch?"

"Won't granting permanent residence to people temporarily admitted result in people just assuming, perhaps justifiably, that any future request to extend temporary refuge is just a dishonest ploy to bring in more permanent residents?"

"How is Ukraine supposed to recover after the war if we permanently deprive them of all these ideal citizens; Wouldn't we just be draining them dry?"

See, it's not hard to find real arguments you need to respond to, if you bother engaging with actual opponents of your position. By failing to address such real objections, you generate the impression that you actually don't have any answers to them.

Surely that's not the case...

[David Nieporent]

Hey, Brett, remember when you try to pretend that the right wing isn't anti-immigration, but only anti-illegal immigration? And yet whenever Prof. Somin suggests making legal immigration easier, the same people who are anti-illegal immigration throw tantrums.

[hobie]

No need to shame Brett, David. I'm sure he understands the fallacy of his own thinking. He just had a momentary lapse of reason, I'm sure.

[Life of Brian]

And yet whenever Prof. Somin suggests making legal immigration easier

In all fairness. Prof. Somin's freely-acknowledged endgame is to have no material border impediments whatsoever, so it's a bit rich to cast his perpetual search for emergency/hard-facts excuses to achieve his policy preferences as "making legal immigration easier."

Proponents of legal immigration (of which I'm one as well) tend to labor under the quaint notion that the rules should be set up to attract/prefer those most likely to make net positive contributions to the country, rather than anyone having a heartbeat and a hard-luck story.

[Brett Bellmore]

My position is actually quite simple: On basically every topic, our government should adopt the policy which is most beneficial to existing citizens of this country, and our progeny. Within the constraints of the Constitution and law, of course, and with the rights and interests of non-citizens as a side constraint, never a goal.

Government feasts upon our labor, obligates us into the future, issues orders to us which it backs up with force, and the ONLY plausible justification for any of this is that it is acting on OUR behalf, in OUR interests. To coerce and despoil somebody for their own interest is questionable enough, to do it for somebody else's interest is slavery, straight up.

So, in my view, the only legitimate immigration policy for OUR government to adopt, is one which maximizes the welfare of existing citizens and our descendants. Long term, not just for the moment. Under current realities, this is hardly going to be a policy of open borders. Nor closed borders! Selective immigration.

Somin holds to a universal ethic, demands that OUR government act to maximize, not OUR welfare, but instead total welfare, world wide. He, for instance, wants us to open our borders to Ukrainians, not because it would be good for US, but because it would be good for THEM.

And then rather unconvincingly rationalizes that it would be good for us, as well, because he knows on some level that his universal ethic is not widely held.

Since he wants to subject us to all the rights violations inherent in being governed, for the benefit of others, not us, I don't consider him all that much of a libertarian. He's just what passes for a 'liberal' these days, with a shrinking admixture of libertarianism.

My critique of his essay was sincere: He doesn't even make a passing attempt to address real objections to his position, the only objection he deigns to address is one of his own fabrication, designed to give him an opportunity to advocate for open borders.

That's not terribly persuasive for anybody who doesn't already agree with him. Does he even understand that?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Indeed. There are areas that would be beneficial. And other countries know this, that's why they have the various iterations of a point system, in regards to their immigration (and much, much reduced illegal/back door immigration).

Where would be useful?
1. A program that selected for foreign-trained doctors and nurses to immigrate, with accelerated credentialing in the US, with the caveat that they work in underserved (typically rural) areas for 5-10 years.
2. The same for select lawyers, with accelerated credentialing (perhaps they only need to pass the bar, no US law school needed) and they work in underserved US rural areas.

Those are sensible proposals.

Instead, what we get is an illegal immigration program that turns a blind eye to any real enforcement in the US, resulting in mass illegal-child labor. Not to mention wage suppression among America's working class.

[David Nieporent]

People on the right used to (claim to) think that central planning was both immoral and ineffective; free markets were much better at assessing and providing for economic needs. And yet, when it comes to labor, people on the right think that some politicians and bureaucrats in Washington can figure out the right amount and type of labor that the national and regional economies need.

Does the U.S. need more doctors? Perhaps. How many, what types, and where? I don't know. But what I do know that people who work for the Department of Labor (or Commerce Department, or any other agency in Washington D.C.) don't know the answers to those questions either. Not about doctors, not about electricians, or insurance salesmen, or shortstops. No more than they know about the number of widgets or pipes or dishwashers.

[M L]

Yeah. So, perhaps our immigration policy should be to end "chain migration," illegal border crossers, and asylum fraud, and instead have a system where if you get a job in the US, then you can get a green card that's good at least until you are no longer employed, and provided that the employer will hire any available qualified American applicants first.

[Artifex]

A bit disingenuous don't you think.

No difference at all between highly trained professionals such as doctors and barely literate third world farmers. Nope, derp, derp, derp. Let the market sort it out ! Now of course our current system makes no differentiation between highly paid professionals and taxi drivers. They all all pay the same amount of taxes right ?

The irony here is that, yes, the market could sort such things out and we almost certainly would be better off importing the cream of the crop from other nations. My guess is that if you polled most libertarians they would have few issues importing those that would certainly pay their own way. Recognizing that would probably hurt the usual dishonest narrative that discards honest reasons, and instead puts in place the usual lies, so don't expect to hear it.

The fundamental truth that Ilya avoids like the plague and attempts to talk around is that you can have open immigration or a welfare state but not both. When the bottom 57% pay no federal income tax (in 2021) and the top 1% pay a third of the total tax burden, importing more in the bottom 50% means there is less for actual, current, living and breathing citizens. No amount of dishonest doublespeak will change that. Heck, even at the current moment, go ahead and import as many foreign born in that 1% payer class into the US and I will be the first to stand and cheer. That's not a distinction you want to draw is it ? It's easier to lie and screech about what the other side must believe instead of what they really do believe.

On the other hand if you feel like dismantling the welfare state, you can have a wider range of immigration. This is another topic that will be dishonestly avoided since it doesn't play into the narrative.

The problem with Ilya's viewpoint is that rhetoric avoiding the real issues is going to convince absolutely no one.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's amusing how quickly Mr. Neirporent goes from pro-immigration cheerleader to "we couldn't POSSIBLY entertain the idea of immigration for those sorts of people, we just don't know enough! What are you, a "central planner?!".

A more skeptical person might observe this, and observe that while Mr. Neirporent is fine with getting lots of cheap immigrant labor so people can cut his yard cheaper, when that immigrant labor might actually be in his field, and lower HIS wages, suddenly, we just can't possibly entertain the idea.

[Armchair Lawyer]

David,

This is the sort of back-door immigration policy which is ultimately dishonest to having a real immigration policy.

"Oh, we're only letting them in temporarily, they'll go home after that"
OK...fine.

"Oh, they're here now, we need to have them here forever"
Ummm what? That's not what we agreed to!

It's a bait and switch that is too common.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, David: Do you think that somebody who objects to bank robbery will be mollified by a proposal that the bank voluntarily hand depositors' money out to anybody who asks for it? I mean, under such a system, bank robbery would go away entirely, right? Opponents of bank robbery should be delighted!

The right wants selective legal immigration. The big objection to illegal immigration is that it bypasses that selectivity. Making all immigration legal is no response to a demand that immigration be selective.

[David Nieporent]

The right wants less immigration, period. They couldn't care less if it's legal or illegal. They just want fewer people coming here.

And the call for "selective" immigration is economically illiterate, as I mention above. Or it would be, if it were anything other than a euphemism for "less immigration."

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course we want less than at present; We've got the legal allotment coming it, AND massive illegal immigration amounting to, since Biden threw the border open, several million a year.

If you shut off the illegal immigration, we might talk about raising the allotment for legal immigration. As the total between the two is vastly in excess of any sane immigration rate, no.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden didn't throw the border open; that's a conspiracy theory. USCIS is still doing it's job and deporting people, regardless of what you say.

Immigrants are not one big pot to lump together. Different countries of origin are different.

But to the main point - Illegal and legal are different. I agree with that, but also the right has claimed that for a long time. Now the mask is off. Immigrants are immigrants, to be lumped together and hated.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Biden didn’t throw the border open; "

The actual numbers contradict you. When Biden took office illegal border crossings skyrocketed, and have never come down. You're really going to pretend that wasn't a deliberate policy choice?

Well, to hell with you if you think we're stupid enough to believe that.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Don't forget, deportations dropped through the floor.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ice-deportations-illegal-immigrant-criminals-dropping-sharply-under-biden

[Sarcastr0]

Dumbass, this story says the target numbers dropped from the Trump admin's goals.

Trump's goals were...not realistic. Some might say made up.

[Sarcastr0]

Hey Brett, that's not Biden doing anything, is it?

You're doing to say Biden threw open the doors, you should probably include some administrative policy.

Or you can just wallow in partisan nativist bullshit, I suppose.

[damikesc]

When you promise free health care for illegals, which he did at one of the DNC debates...this is what follows.

[VinniUSMC]

Hey, Brett, remember when you try to pretend that the right wing isn’t anti-immigration, but only anti-illegal immigration? And yet whenever Prof. Somin suggests making legal immigration easier, the same people who are anti-illegal immigration throw tantrums.

Hey David, why pretend that this is about immigration at all? Ukrainian citizens aren't immigrating here, they are being given temporary refuge. Ilya, and you in this case, are arguing in bad faith.

[Sarcastr0]

Holy crap the ANGER in the comments here.

Guys, immigration benefits US citizens. And not just highly trained immigrants.
Whatever level it becomes an economic issue is well beyond the current one. There is precisely one economist who disagrees with this take.

This isn't bank robbery, this is a pretty low-key policy. And no, it's not dishonest to make a temporary status permanent out in the open like this.

As DMN said, you all hate *immigration* you're just afraid to say it, for reasons.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Guys, immigration benefits US citizens."

Bullcrap. Some immigration benefits US citizens. Some harms us. Sometimes even immigration that's beneficial in the short run harms us long term. Or visa versa, I'll admit.

That's why it needs to be selective. But there's no room for selective immigration in Somin's world. He's barely willing to concede that you can stop foreign armies from marching across the border!

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, you're a Great Replacement nutter, so yeah you're gonna be nativist as all hell.

Your post here backs up nothing, make no nods to economics, just say stuff you believe to be true. And then, of course, exclude the middle via an ad hominem attack on Prof. Somin. Again. Weird how he comes in for that fallacy more than any other Conspirator. That and being called a communist and people asking he be deported. Great comentariat we got here.

You ignore the studies Prof. Somin has linked to in the past. And Cato. I could link you more, you're just ad hominem them away.

This is because you are a zealot on this issue.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sarcastro....you've got this odd theory that of course "immigration benefits" countries.

Yet, every single developed country has barriers to immigration. Every. Single. One.

What do you think all these countries don't know, that you magically do?

[Sarcastr0]

You've got an odd definition of immigration, if you think it's the same thing as having no barriers to immigration.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yeah, funny being angry at the Biden Administration effectively facilitating child labor and child trafficking...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/whistleblower-tells-congress-that-govt-delivering-migrant-children-human-traffickers

[Sarcastr0]

Are you in QAnon?

[KenveeB]

David, the solution isn't just to make all immigration legal and then it's hunky-dory. It's to make immigration legal in the right circumstances, and then be opposed to immigration that isn't done in those circumstances, ie illegal. I have a problem with people not following the rules, yes. But largely because there's a REASON for those rules. Just wiping away all the rules doesn't even begin to address the actual problem.

[Sarcastr0]

When has David, or the OP, said make all immigration legal?

[M L]

Anyone who isn't for open borders, is "anti-immigration" in some sense.

It may be somewhat dishonest, but that's how the open borders proponents (who often don't admit they are for open borders) use terms to suggest that anyone who favors something less than open borders, or any reasonable limits on immigration numbers, is somehow prejudiced, or against immigration generally, or against immigrants themselves.

[Sarcastr0]

Anyone who isn’t for open borders, is “anti-immigration” in some sense.

It may be somewhat dishonest...

They stay honest. If your beef is with the rhetoric of people not really in this comment thread, that doesn't seem material here.

I'm not for open borders, but I'm not blind; the hostility to immigrants is blanket and virulent all over these threats. You are among those saying we should utterly close the border for a while, IIRC.

[M L]

You are the poster child for dishonest accusations of racism, blah blah ism, phobia, "anti-immigrant" etc.

Nonetheless, if one person is for open borders, and the other is for setting some astronomically high limit on immigration numbers, then the latter is technically "anti-immigration" relative to the former.

[Sarcastr0]

No, that is not true, technically or otherwise. Anti-immigration is not a comparative term.

I mean, you're a neo-Confederate; I don't really need to point to your immigration position to call you a racist.

[M L]

Thanks for proving my point.

[Armchair Lawyer]

That is the truth though. There isn't a good answer, so Ilya ignores the issue.

[hobie]

The reflexive bigotry of this blog is just outstanding. I've known many Ukrainians, and their work ethic would put all of you to shame. As a nation would be so lucky to have you all replaced by these people. Let them in...all of them. God knows we need the labor.

[Frank Drackman]

White Power!!!!!!

[hobie]

Yer damn right!

[Life of Brian]

God knows we need the labor.

Perhaps we might give some attention to our sadly sagging workforce participation rate first, rather than just throwing up our hands and swelling the denominator even further.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The best thing about our immigrant-haters and other vestigial right-wing bigots is that their stale, ugly thinking will die with them (in the normal course; fortunately, most clingers are older) and that they and their conservative views will be replaced by better Americans and better preferences in our electorate and society.

Some of you may be hoping to reverse the tide of the culture war and have a different result at the modern marketplace of ideas; you might as well pray for a Rapture.

[Life of Brian]

Given your recent and refreshing candor about your true circumstances, Artie, it's completely understandable that you'd be lunging to Prof. Somin's pom-poms in the hope of maintaining the influx of exploitable cheap labor. Were your mother to have to pay above-table rates for yard work, basement repairs, &c., I could see it putting a real dent in your Costco hot dog budget.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What did he say?

[Life of Brian]

Basically that all the highbrow shtick is just a contrived act, and in reality he drinks whatever beer people donate to him and does most of his shopping at Costco. It was a week or so ago, but I'll see if I can dig it up.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

he drinks whatever beer people donate to him

I drink a few beers a month. But there are at least 30 cases of beer (loosely defined; some ciders, seltzers, RTDs in the mix) in my garage; people are constantly shoving cases of beer into my car (two, five, eight cases sometimes) and delivering beer to my house. People also give dozens of beer-branded shirts, hats, and jackets (and sunglasses, patio umbrellas, neon signs, golf bags, glassware, etc.) to me each year. This -- that I drink beer that was a gift, made by people I like, and is sitting in my garage, rather than purchasing beer -- indicates to you that I am destitute?

does most of his shopping at Costco

True. I spend approximately $20,000 each year at Costco. (Kirkland is entirely a coincidence, though.) This confirms your conclusion I am impoverished?

You are similarly wrong about my mother and my hot dog budget. My mother is dead. I have a hot dog at Costco every few years -- I prefer the pizza.

I respect Prof. Somin's ideas because he seems to be a well-meaning libertarian. I disrespect those who assail him here because they tend to be faux libertarian hypocrites and genuine bigots.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

But how will Ukrainian immigration make America "less white," as you charmingly put it?

(Imagine someone saying that "Ukrainian immigrants will make the nation less black")

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, I think a very strong case could be made for increased immigration from Ukraine. Not the sort of increased immigration Somin wants, because, let's face it, he just wants open borders, period.

But things are really unpleasant in Ukraine at the moment, which means that we can get their best and their brightest (And since they're a first world country with a somewhat Western society, that's quite bright indeed.) at fire sale prices. Smart, educated, go-getters who would really contribute to America. Maximum bang for the buck.

We could skim their cream and leave their country with the whey, doomed to a generation of poverty even if they win this war. Not a very nice thing to do to Ukraine, but it would work out great for us.

Somin can't make that case, of course, because it doesn't lead to his end goal, open borders. It doesn't imply inviting in every warm body, regardless of cost/benefit.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, then Yuri or Alexi gets here and gets rejected from every Med School with MCAT's that would get Latavious, Rectaljavon, full ride Scholarships, told he owes "Reparations" (I'm all for Reparations, how much are the Blacks going to pay us for freeing them?) You think their "Best and Brightest" (Really? still using that term? so was the Nuke-ular expert who got fired for stealing womens luggage the "Best" or the "Brighest") are gonna be happy slinging Hashbowns at Waffle House?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, there are other countries in the world. Those with means in Ukraine will go somewhere, whether it’s hear or elsewhere.

I also don’t think we’re nearly as good as you think at figuring out who is the cream and who is the chaff till they've been here for a while, to mix a metaphor.

[Brett Bellmore]

We may not be perfect at it, but we're better at it than just throwing up our hands and not trying, which is Somin's answer.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think we are, actually.

Especially given as DMN points out we don't centrally plan our industry, so we do not have a great sense of what our demand signal is year to year.

[hobie]

You try educating the people who believe in Trump. Good luck

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I believe in Trump in the sense that I believe he exists. Other than that, when he does something useful it’s by accident, and I believe he’s a shady real-estate-executive, and former Democrat, in New York City.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think it's totally by accident: He wanted to end up with a reputation as a hugely successful President, and for that reason only, he pursued policies he thought would be hugely successful.

Doesn't mean he was ideal at identifying such policies, or carrying them out, but that was his goal.

In some ways I find that motivation safer than ideology, because an ideologue will stick with something their ideology says to do, even if it's obviously very destructive. See our current administration for an example of that!

A pragmatist who just wants a good reputation can respond better to events.

[Nige]

No, he pursued some policies the crowds at his rallies cheered loudest about. He pursued others that were random and incoherent or which made him feel strong. Tax cuts for the rich and filling judicial openings with Federalist Society stooges were ideological, but not his ideology.

[Brett Bellmore]

Everything seems random and incoherent if you're determined to ignore the reasons for it.

[Nige]

I didn't say he didn't have reasons - none of them were pragmatism. The only really pragmatic thing he did was accelerate vaccine development - and that was because he wanted the vaccine before the election.

[Sarcastr0]

The definition of successful to Trump was owning the libs.

That's not gonna create hugely successful policies.

[Frank Drackman]

and presided over a disastrous exit from Afghanistan, unlike Senescent J, who's talking to Easter Bunnies.

[VinniUSMC]

I’ve known many Ukrainians, and their work ethic would put all of you to shame.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

I worked with one Ukrainian. She was a great person. She immigrated legally. Trying to make refugees into permanent residents as an end-run around immigration law is bad policy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right. I've no doubt that a lot of these refugees would make excellent additions to our society. (But not all of them, of course.) That's not why Somin is advocating this.

He's advocating it because he wants open borders, and see sees this as just another foot in the door to that end.

[Sarcastr0]

Hey, who the fuck cares the motives of the author, engage with the content, not ad hominem.

[Brett Bellmore]

I did engage with the content: I pointed out that his piece utterly failed to address any real objections to his position, instead addressing only a straw man he'd conjured up to have an excuse to advocate open borders.

This is such a glaring deficiency in everything he writes about immigration that you have to discuss why that's the case. WHY does he never engage with real arguments against his position?

Because he's a fanatic on the topic, that's why. And fanatics aren't good at engaging with contrary views.

[VinniUSMC]

Because he’s a fanatic on the topic, that’s why. And fanatics aren’t good at engaging with contrary views.

Precisely why I stopped engaging with Sarcastr0. Like Artie, his responses are predictable and rarely add anything of substance to the topic/argument.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, whatever on that front. But you did not actually engage with his content.

Your objections are all about this switching from temporary to permanent, which is just formalistic, and doesn't get at the actual impact.

[KenveeB]

You're still just skipping over the actual point of the argument. You say that it would be "best" to change their temporary status to permanent. But you never explain why that's the best answer, except for your own preference for open borders. If the problem is uncertainty, then instead of giving a calendar date that TPS expires, tie it to the end of the war. They'll know they can stay until 6 months after the war, or whatever, and have the certainty to know they won't be forced to find a new place to live while there's still a war raging and they can't go home. But there's no reason to say the BEST way to remove that uncertainty is to completely do away with the concept that they were granted temporary refuge based on a solveable problem.

[Sarcastr0]

Making people subject to deportation is not enough of a reason?

Seems to me it at the very least meets the threshold of preventing harm to persons, and shifts the burden to you to show this is a bad policy in some way.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it's not enough of a reason. Getting to live here is a privilege that's being extended to them on the basis of hardship. When the hardship ends, so does the privilege.