It's actually kind of genius.
It implicitly reframes a debate about immigration, to a debate about ecology/sustainability.
Like I'm not defending it or saying it's honest. But as a marketing jiujitsu move, it's actually impressively creative.
It implicitly reframes a debate about immigration, to a debate about ecology/sustainability.
Like I'm not defending it or saying it's honest. But as a marketing jiujitsu move, it's actually impressively creative.
This specific policy may not be well intentioned, it may even be a means to avoid taking in those refugees when the time comes, but this is the kind of thing that nations should be thinking about right now.
It’s kind of what we get for completely wrecking the global south tbh - the number of democracies we overthrew, the drug cartels we propped up, the damage we did is finally coming to bear fruit and it’s just as sour as the soil we tilled.
Is the land in refugees home countries better able to sustainably support the populations on average, whether moving because of climate, lack of a way to support the people, etc?