Kids In Cages...

[oxmixmudd]

Currently if someone crosses the border at any place other than a port of entry they will be denied asylum and they will be breaking the law (crossing the border without permission IS illegal in itself.)

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...for-protection

Yeah - they changed the law to they could call more people illegal and make it even harder to gain asylum*. What I don't understand is why you are buying into their callousness.

So let me ask you a question. Suppose you know that you face a brutal death at the hands of cartels or a long journey and a non fatal incarceration on the US border. Which are you going to choose? Not much of a deterrent for folks in that situation.

Jim

*which may well condemn even more people to death.

[seer]

Yeah - they changed the law to they could call more people illegal and make it even harder to gain asylum*. What I don't understand is why you are buying into their callousness.

So let me ask you a question. Suppose you know that you face a brutal death at the hands of cartels or a long journey and a non fatal incarceration on the US border. Which are you going to choose? Not much of a deterrent for folks in that situation.

That would apply to half the third world Jim, and we just can't take them all - we would become a third world hell hole. What benefits our country and citizens should be our first concern.

[oxmixmudd]

That would apply to half the third world Jim, and we just can't take them all - we would become a third world hell hole. What benefits our country and citizens should be our first concern.

No, we cant. That is the harsh reality, and all the more reason these issues need to be approached in an apolitical fashion and not by trading insults on twitter. Unfortunately, Trump is the master of insults and chaos and useless when to solve a problem requires clear thinking and a willingness to work with people that dont see everything exactly as you do.

Jim

[Sparko]

Sparko - you where passing judgement on the parents rather than asking why they might feel they had no choice. It is what it is.



Why are you trying to justify yourself here? It's really simple. You assumed there was no valid reason for those people to be enduring what they were enduring without any factual evidence that is the case for the people in those pictures. I asked a simple question - why are you not asking - instead - what are the conditions like in their home are that they could push a parent to decide to endure that? You should have never tried to cast aspersions upon the parents. And I'm pretty sure you know that. There are other arguments you can make, but that was a particularly poor one.

you are doing again the very think I was talking about. You accuse me of assuming there is no valid reason, while you are assuming they are running for their lives. So at worst we are both "assuming" - neither of us have been down there ourselves. Yet I am the bad guy because I don't agree with your assumptions. You seem to do that on just about every topic. You pick a stance, assume various things believing them to be "facts" and then anyone who disagrees with you is the enemy of all that is good. To you there is no "opinion" - whatever you think is the absolute truth and there is no room for disagreement. Anyone who dares disagree is not only wrong, but immoral/deplorable/evil.

Nothing you have said there justifies casting aspersions on the immigrants themselves, especially accusing the parents of callous negligence. If they are being misled, then the blame is on the people misleading them. And if they are being misled, it is only because conditions are so bad at home they are desperate enough to be able to be misled. No-one leaves their home for a journey of thousands of miles on the barest hope of improvement if what they already have is good.

So saying that they are not running for their lives is casting aspersions on them? People have been sneaking across our border for over 200 years. Are we the only safe country in the world or something?

You might be right - I might be right.

I can hardly believe you just admitted that.

This is pure speculation as to why a cartel doesn't massacre thousands to get at a few. Thankfully, so far they have not. Who knows why. It's a silly argument on your part anyway.

It's not silly. It is no more silly than you believing they are all running for their lives. If so why are they running to the USA instead of other closer countries?

And again, what you are doing is casting aspersions on those that are actually fleeing death at the hands of cartels rather than acting out of compassion for such people.

There we go again. I am being bad because my opinions don't agree with yours. You can't imagine I might be right and they are not running from the cartels, so my suggesting such a thing is "casting aspersions"

The bitterness and callousness you've bought into following trump often overwhelms me Sparko. I honestly often just don't know what to say. You, nobody, can approach how we talk about the immigrants based on petty political disagreements like Trump does and like you've been lured into doing. The petty bitterness and politics of Trump and the the Democrats can't be allowed to steal our humanity - but that is what is happening in this political feud over the border.

Jim

Sorry to disappoint you Jim. Maybe it is just better if I don't interact with you on the topic.


I feel for the people who are going through this and those being held in the camps. But I think the solution is to dissuade them from even coming up here in the first place. I think what the government needs to do is set up a system where people can apply for asylum at their local US Embassy. The local embassy would likely know the local conditions and would be able to take the people in who qualify and even transport them to the USA at our expense. That would solve the horrors of the trip to the USA in the caravans and eliminate the holding cells. But we can't just have open borders and there has to be a limit to how many people we can take in per year and that has to be spread out among the whole world, not just people from central and south America. If that is callous, then so be it. We can't take in the whole world unless we want to become as poor as where they are coming from.

[Sparko]

Yeah - they changed the law to they could call more people illegal and make it even harder to gain asylum*. What I don't understand is why you are buying into their callousness.

So let me ask you a question. Suppose you know that you face a brutal death at the hands of cartels or a long journey and a non fatal incarceration on the US border. Which are you going to choose? Not much of a deterrent for folks in that situation.

Jim

*which may well condemn even more people to death.

1. Prove they are running for their lives.
2. I would go to the nearest safe country and ask for asylum whatever the legal way was. I would not walk through a country offering me asylum (Mexico) to get to the USA. If I were in Guatemala I would probably go to Belize or Mexico.

[Sparko]

What is your solution Ox?

[Teallaura]

No, we cant. That is the harsh reality, and all the more reason these issues need to be approached in an apolitical fashion and not by trading insults on twitter. Unfortunately, Trump is the master of insults and chaos and useless when to solve a problem requires clear thinking and a willingness to work with people that dont see everything exactly as you do.

Jim

Seer's wrong on part of that - sure, we can't, but more importantly we SHOULD NOT. Taking the internal economic pressure off of their home nations is a long term detriment to the people and their countries. They - the entire populations of these countries - need long term solutions that lead to their own economic and political growth. They need solutions that will allow their OWN prosperity - and those do not exist here.

By not doing the hard part and saying no you are condemning those who cannot get here and at least another generation to the same poverty and political instability that drives them out of their homes now. YOU are the one advocating to cause long term harm to these people - you don't see it because you don't want to, but you are.

[rogue06]

So let me ask you a question. Suppose you know that you face a brutal death at the hands of cartels or a long journey and a non fatal incarceration on the US border. Which are you going to choose? Not much of a deterrent for folks in that situation.

There is a third choice which you've excluded that has been mentioned before in these discussions. That is stopping in the country that offered you sanctuary.

If what you are doing is fleeing for your life from some threat... you succeeded when you entered Mexico. You were out of the territory of those threatening you. You were somewhere offering sanctuary. Somewhere that shares the same culture and language. Somewhere that if the situation changes at home, it would be easy to return from -- if you wanted to.

But if you weren't actually fleeing for your life. If that's just something you were told to say. That you had a different motive for moving north. Then it makes a lot more sense that you wouldn't stop where you were offered sanctuary because sanctuary wasn't your goal. Then it is more understandable why you would continue on, likely dragging small children, for another 2500 miles. Through mountains and deserts. Through territories controlled by the same sort of violent gangs you say you are trying to avoid. Trusting criminals who statistics reveal rape nearly a third (or more) of the girls and women they help sneak into the U.S. And then you reach a place where you don't speak the same language and the culture is strange. Of course if you never plan on trying to assimilate this isn't a major concern...

Obviously seeking safety is likely the furthest thing from the minds of such folks.



[note that the use of "you" is in the general sense and not meant specify anyone in particular]

[NorrinRadd]

I have never been against voter ID laws in general, but I believe voter ID laws are unjust if every measure to allow to vote hasn't been taken. This includes such measures as voting by mail.

Any law that makes it artificially difficult to acquire the means of voting, or that systematically target certain demographics, are indefensible. They will only be defended if they benefit the party in power. Like gerrymandering, which conservatives in the US are uneasy about, but don't really do anything about because they stand to benefit from it.

A few years, TPTB moved my polling place. What had been a quick jaunt down the hill turned into a drive of several miles. Some of my cousins also have to drive several miles.

[Tassman]

That would apply to half the third world Jim, and we just can't take them all - we would become a third world hell hole. What benefits our country and citizens should be our first concern.

NOTHING can justify the inhumane treatment these people are receiving at the border at the hands of the US government. Fix that first, like any civilized country should, and deal constructively with the rest later.

[NorrinRadd]

NOTHING can justify the inhumane treatment these people are receiving at the border at the hands of the US government. Fix that first, like any civilized country should, and deal constructively with the rest later.

Nope, sorry, been there, done that, got the "Ha-ha, you were dumb enough to believe Democrat promises" T-shirt.

[seer]

NOTHING can justify the inhumane treatment these people are receiving at the border at the hands of the US government. Fix that first, like any civilized country should, and deal constructively with the rest later.

Oh stop, they probably have it better there than they did in their own country, and...

Australia’s Brutal Treatment of Migrants

http://theconversation.com/yes-the-u...plorable-98706

Australia Immigration Detention

Australia arguably has the most restrictive immigration control regime in the world, making widespread use of offshore detention facilities, imposing mandatory detention measures, and working closely with other countries in the region to boost their detention capacities. All of the country's detention facilities are operated by private contractors, including offshore facilities, which have been the subject of growing criticism because of the abuses suffered by detainees at some of these facilities.

https://www.globaldetentionproject.o...ific/australia

[carpedm9587]

Currently if someone crosses the border at any place other than a port of entry they will be denied asylum and they will be breaking the law (crossing the border without permission IS illegal in itself.)

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...for-protection

So, first, thanks for sharing this. I was not aware that a new rule had been set down last November. That being said, I'm not sure what the legal standing of this order is. Trump and his administration have issued many asylum-related orders, and most are now tied up the courts, AFAICT. The requirement that asylum can be denied simply because the requester first touched U.S. soil at something other than a designated point of entry does not, on its face, make much sense to me. It would be the equivalent of saying to an abused person seeking protection in a church or home, "we can only consider protecting you if you come in the front door." On the face of it, it seems absurd.

That being said, Trump continues to do absurd things, and rally his base to hate immigrants of all stripes. Now we're even working towards hating U.S. citizens who were born here and have lived their entire lives here.

I have to wonder - is this REALLY the president you folks want...? Really?

[oxmixmudd]

There is a third choice which you've excluded that has been mentioned before in these discussions. That is stopping in the country that offered you sanctuary.

If what you are doing is fleeing for your life from some threat... you succeeded when you entered Mexico. You were out of the territory of those threatening you. You were somewhere offering sanctuary. Somewhere that shares the same culture and language. Somewhere that if the situation changes at home, it would be easy to return from -- if you wanted to.

But if you weren't actually fleeing for your life. If that's just something you were told to say. That you had a different motive for moving north. Then it makes a lot more sense that you wouldn't stop where you were offered sanctuary because sanctuary wasn't your goal. Then it is more understandable why you would continue on, likely dragging small children, for another 2500 miles. Through mountains and deserts. Through territories controlled by the same sort of violent gangs you say you are trying to avoid. Trusting criminals who statistics reveal rape nearly a third (or more) of the girls and women they help sneak into the U.S. And then you reach a place where you don't speak the same language and the culture is strange. Of course if you never plan on trying to assimilate this isn't a major concern...

Obviously seeking safety is likely the furthest thing from the minds of such folks.



[note that the use of "you" is in the general sense and not meant specify anyone in particular]

Im not sure it's obvious. Mexico has it's own poverty, crime and drug problems. I dont know the details, but id like to understand why they dont accept that offer before I would be able to accept you have a valid point. It could be the reach of the cartels makes it no safer there, likewise if the issue is poverty, they may not have any more potential there. Many that come here send all the extra back to provide for mother, father, wife and chidren or extended family, and that just may not be possible in mexico.

Jim

[seer]

and rally his base to hate immigrants of all stripes.

Nope...

Now we're even working towards hating U.S. citizens who were born here and have lived their entire lives here.

Easy to hate American haters...

I have to wonder - is this REALLY the president you folks want...? Really?

As compared to whom? Hillary? The present Communist field of candidates?