Kids In Cages...

[Sparko]

[Charles]

[carpedm9587]

Denmark is part of the EU. The EU effectively is open borders

Umm...I don't think so. Passing country-to-country without passports and/or visas between EU members is supported. I don't think you can simply change countries and automatically gain citizenship in the new country. I'm not sure about the rules related to relocating and living in another EU country long-term. But all of this is only between participating countries.

[carpedm9587]

I mean the stupid multi-quote is STILL on. I'm trying to irrationally blame you, remember?

Go ahead an blame, Teal. I have broad shoulders.

Besides...I'm somewhat used to it around here...

[Teallaura]

Umm...I don't think so. Passing country-to-country without passports and/or visas between EU members is supported. I don't think you can simply change countries and automatically gain citizenship in the new country. I'm not sure about the rules related to relocating and living in another EU country long-term. But all of this is only between participating countries.

I think right of movement is limited to citizens of EU nations. Which would mean... you are not actually wrong...

For once...

[Terraceth]

I wish Leonhard visited more often, because this would be a great thing for him to weigh in on.

[demi-conservative]

Island is populist?? Like Ellis Island?

[rogue06]

I think right of movement is limited to citizens of EU nations. Which would mean... you are not actually wrong...

For once...

4FourHorsemen.gif

[carpedm9587]

I think right of movement is limited to citizens of EU nations. Which would mean... you are not actually wrong...

For once...

It happens now and again...

[Charles]

Interesting points given by Sam Kim in Christianity Today in the article Are We Morally Distressed by What is Taking Place on Our Border?:

[seer]

Interesting points given by Sam Kim in Christianity Today in the article Are We Morally Distressed by What is Taking Place on Our Border?:legally seeking asylum and protection from violence.

Prove that...

[Charles]

Prove that...

So, you agree on all the rest? Or was your "prove that" an attempt to avoid the other points Sam Kim made?

[seer]

So, you agree on all the rest? Or was your "prove that" an attempt to avoid the other points Sam Kim made?

Sam can say what he wants, I don't, and will not, agree with illegal immigration. And remember Jesus and his family went back to their own country nor did they break the laws of the foreign country they found refuge in as far as we know. So again demonstrate that the majority have legal asylum rights by our laws. The fact is recently 65% were denied.

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/539/

[Charles]

Sam can say what he wants, I don't, and will not, agree with illegal immigration. And remember Jesus and his family went back to their own country nor did they break the laws of the foreign country they found refuge in as far as we know. So again demonstrate that the majority have legal asylum rights by our laws. The fact is recently 65% were denied.

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/539/

So, you did not answer the question. Are you trying to avoid the other points, or do you actually agree? I and I think you lost track of what he said. He said they are "legally seeking asylum and protection from violence."

[carpedm9587]

Sam can say what he wants, I don't, and will not, agree with illegal immigration. And remember Jesus and his family went back to their own country nor did they break the laws of the foreign country they found refuge in as far as we know. So again demonstrate that the majority have legal asylum rights by our laws. The fact is recently 65% were denied.

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/539/

He said "legally seeking asylum and protection from violence." One can apply for asylum and be denied and still be "legally seeking asylum," a point a lot of people on the right seem to ignore, forget, or simply be ignorant of. This is quite likely how Teal and Sparko got off on their tangent that I am somehow for "open borders." I am for hearing the petition of anyone/everyone who crosses our borders and submits themselves immediately to authorities (or applies at one of our embassies) and requests asylum. Because it is currently a fact that anyone so doing will be caught in a multi-year process, giving them access to the U.S. for the entirety of that period, the number of people doing this has soared to get access for that multi-year period, hoping to be able to parlay it into a longer period, have "anchor babies," disappear as an "illegal," etc. To address that reality we need to:

1) Provide points for application outside the U.S.
2) Reduce the review process to a few weeks by providing adequate resources to execute those reviews expeditiously.

When people realize that only a fraction of the people applying are being granted asylum because the rest don't meet the requirements, they will tend to think twice about spending massive amount of money and exposing themselves to the dangers of the journey only to be denied and sent back. Meanwhile, we won't be turning away people who actually DO qualify for asylum, so we will continue to be acting in good faith among the international community.