Supreme Court: The Wall Can Go Foward...

[Zara]

Again, where do you think they stay while they are waiting months or years to join a caravan?

Not IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. Since you're probably going flip back into your assumptions and the need to say the word caravan - This is about genuine asylum seekers that, by definition, flee their country of origin for safety from persecution.

[Sparko]

Not IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. Since you're probably going flip back into your assumptions and the need to say the word caravan - This is about genuine asylum seekers that, by definition, flee their country of origin for safety from persecution.

yes, they wait in their own country. Where do you think they wait? The caravans gather and leave from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala once or twice a year, then go through to Mexico to the USA. In the meantime, the people wait at home in Guatemala till it is time for the next caravan.

They can just as easily wait at home after applying for asylum at a local US Embassy. And if they are in imminent danger, the US Embassy can take them in and give them protection. This would be a very, very few of the thousands that travel in the Caravans. Most of the people traveling in the caravans are not in imminent danger.

These people even use chat rooms and the internet to figure out when the next caravan is leaving.

“The social networks have had an empowering role in this new way of migrating,” said Abbdel Camargo, an anthropologist at the College of the Southern Border in Mexico. “They organize themselves en masse in their home countries, formed by entire families, and the networks serve them as a mechanism for safety and communication throughout the journey.”
https://www.apnews.com/77e346d48eee42dc9ffce43c92bb261f

and when they are sent back, they just wait for the next caravan.

I don't know what you have been reading but your ideas about what is going on or the process is just wrong. Where are you getting your information?

[Zara]

yes, they wait in their own country. Where do you think they wait? The caravans gather and leave from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala once or twice a year, then go through to Mexico to the USA. In the meantime, the people wait at home in Guatemala till it is time for the next caravan.

They can just as easily wait at home after applying for asylum at a local US Embassy. And if they are in imminent danger, the US Embassy can take them in and give them protection. This would be a very, very few of the thousands that travel in the Caravans. Most of the people traveling in the caravans are not in imminent danger.

These people even use chat rooms and the internet to figure out when the next caravan is leaving.

“The social networks have had an empowering role in this new way of migrating,” said Abbdel Camargo, an anthropologist at the College of the Southern Border in Mexico. “They organize themselves en masse in their home countries, formed by entire families, and the networks serve them as a mechanism for safety and communication throughout the journey.”
https://www.apnews.com/77e346d48eee42dc9ffce43c92bb261f

and when they are sent back, they just wait for the next caravan.

I don't know what you have been reading but your ideas about what is going on or the process is just wrong. Where are you getting your information?

What process? You have been getting your ideas from conservative media. You used the word caravan six times. Like seriously, • Edited by a Moderator •

Again, your understanding of persecution - and what an embassy can mean for someone - appears to be very limited. The story I posted, 300 people were killed in the protest, 2000 were injured. Many of them were tortured. Those are gross human rights violations, for political beliefs. Thus the necessary and sufficient conditions for asylum. One embassy cannot support that many people as asylum seekers or act as a safe haven. They were also subject to abusive prosecution, detention and other human rights violations.

There are genuine refugees in the area, you want to hand wave that away. You also seem to want to paint them all with the same brush. This is dehumanising and dangerous to genuine refugees.

Get with reality. These are unstable countries, with governments and gangs that persecute people within the five categories of persecution. I get that you don't want that to be true, unfortunately, it is true. You don't want to deal with it, so you come up with execuses as to why it isn't your problem. I get that. I'm sorry, but the world isn't all cake and parties. It is a problem and it needs people that aren't children to step up and deal with it.

Moderated By: DesertBerean

Disguised profanity is not permitted.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Sparko]

Again, your understanding of persecution - and what an embassy can mean for someone - appears to be very limited. The story I posted, 300 people were killed in the protest, 2000 were injured. Many of them were tortured. Those are gross human rights violations, for political beliefs. Thus the necessary and sufficient conditions for asylum. One embassy cannot support that many people as asylum seekers or act as a safe haven. They were also subject to abusive prosecution, detention and other human rights violations.

There are genuine refugees in the area, you want to hand wave that away. You also seem to want to paint them all with the same brush. This is dehumanising and dangerous to genuine refugees.

Get with reality. These are unstable countries, with governments and gangs that persecute people within the five categories of persecution. I get that you don't want that to be true, unfortunately, it is true. You don't want to deal with it, so you come up with execuses as to why it isn't your problem. I get that. I'm sorry, but the world isn't all cake and parties. It is a problem and it needs people that aren't children to step up and deal with it.

What story? On Nicaragua? The people we are talking about are not in Nicaragua. Nicaragua might be one of the only countries in the area with genuine refugees. And they are not trying to come to the USA. They are fleeing to Costa Rica which has an open door policy for them. They are doing what any real refugee does: go to the nearest safe place for asylum, they are not trudging 3000 miles to the USA. That isn't happening in Guatemala or Honduras. Want to try again?

[Zara]

What story? On Nicaragua? The people we are talking about are not in Nicaragua. Nicaragua might be one of the only countries in the area with genuine refugees. And they are not trying to come to the USA. They are fleeing to Costa Rica which has an open door policy for them. They are doing what any real refugee does: go to the nearest safe place for asylum, they are not trudging 3000 miles to the USA. That isn't happening in Guatemala or Honduras. Want to try again?

One of the only countries in the area with genuine refugees, are you serious? Again, hand waving so you don't have to deal with the problem, much? Honduras: violence again political protestors (recent protest, 16 killed, 1,300 injured, similar violations), journalists, lawyers, human rights defenders, LGBT people, and people the government doesn't like. All forming genuine refugees. You might not like LGBT people, but if they are persecute, for their identity, they can ask for asylum. Guatemala, violence against journalists, human rights defenders, the indigenous population, women and children as well as wider violence by gangs against one of the five categories - which, in some instances, is sufficient for asylum status.

This is outside of my belief that the US owes the country for the gross human rights violations perpetrated as part of the various interventions for economic and political gains by past US administrations. Supporting these countries should be a priority, again, my opinion, since then people won't actually want to leave. People don't put themselves through a great deal of potential suffering if the conditions in these countries isn't terrible. Building a wall doesn't solve those issues - it just hides the problem behind a wall. They remain your neighbours.

[JimL]

He (and Pelosi and Schumer, Waters and the other Dems) had basically the exact same ideas about illegal immigration that Trump does.
1. We need to stop the flow of illegal immigrants.
2. We can only take in so many per year and they need to meet the correct criteria
3. People need to apply in their home country instead of coming here in caravans.

They only differed on the solution. As we can see Obama's solution did not stop anything. A wall would.

Nope, the wall is not the only alternative. Immigration reform, making the system itself work, without the necessity of constructing a 2000 mile long wall, not paid for by Mexico. You going to build another 2000 mile long wall along the northern border too, paid for by Canada? How about along the east and west coastlines.

[Cow Poke]

Nope, the wall is not the only alternative. Immigration reform, making the system itself work, without the necessity of constructing a 2000 mile long wall, not paid for by Mexico. You going to build another 2000 mile long wall along the northern border too, paid for by Canada? How about along the east and west coastlines.

I bet you thought this one up all by yourself! Even LiberalTalkingPointsForDummies couldn't come up with anything THAT stupid.

[Starlight]

You are from New Zealand, correct?

Oh, nice. Hi Zara, I was already liking your posts, but nice to see another fellow Kiwi.

Your immigration laws and criteria are even more strict than the US.

I suspect this is false. NZ has one of the highest per-capita immigration rates in the Western world, more than twice the per capita immigration rate of the US last I looked.

Maybe you should worry about your back yard before you worry about ours?

Sparko, my concern is not about how many immigrants and refugees are or aren't taken - I firmly believe each country has a complete right to take as few or as many immigrants as it wishes. I don't believe in the libertarian idea of open borders and fully support countries policing their borders to the extent that they want to.

My concern is solely about how people are treated during the immigration / asylum-seeking process. Even if the government ends up rejecting their claim and deporting them, what matters is that they were treated well and humanely.

That means a couple of key things:
1. It means not stealing their children off them and then kicking them out of the country without their children so they never see their children again.
2. It means not locking up 50 of them together in a tiny cage with no water except the toilet and no showers and no sanitary products or soap and insufficient temperature control and medical care.

Currently, the US is failing hard at those two things, and that's the issue. NZ isn't. You hand-wavingly conflate the fact that NZ 'detains' a tiny minority of its incoming refugees in decent conditions, with the horrendous conditions in the concentration camps the US is running currently.

Trying to make this an argument about refugee quota is stupid, that's not the point, at all. And, for what it's worth, the party I vote for in NZ wants to quadruple our refugee quotas but lower total immigration (refugees are only a tiny percentage of total immigration).

[Sparko]

One of the only countries in the area with genuine refugees, are you serious? Again, hand waving so you don't have to deal with the problem, much? Honduras: violence again political protestors (recent protest, 16 killed, 1,300 injured, similar violations), journalists, lawyers, human rights defenders, LGBT people, and people the government doesn't like. All forming genuine refugees. You might not like LGBT people, but if they are persecute, for their identity, they can ask for asylum. Guatemala, violence against journalists, human rights defenders, the indigenous population, women and children as well as wider violence by gangs against one of the five categories - which, in some instances, is sufficient for asylum status.

how is that any different that happens right here in the USA? Political protesting is not the basis for being a refugee.

And you are still ignoring the fact that they are remaining in their own countries waiting on the next caravan. Those actual refugees in Nicaragua? They skidaddled to Costa Rica. They are not waiting for some caravan. So those who are waiting on the caravan are not in imminent danger and can just as well wait for their local application to be processed.

[Sparko]

Nope, the wall is not the only alternative. Immigration reform, making the system itself work, without the necessity of constructing a 2000 mile long wall, not paid for by Mexico. You going to build another 2000 mile long wall along the northern border too, paid for by Canada? How about along the east and west coastlines.

Immigration reform? Obama tried that. in 2008! he had 8 years to make it work. And here we are. It didn't work.

[Sparko]

Oh, nice. Hi Zara, I was already liking your posts, but nice to see another fellow Kiwi.

I suspect this is false. NZ has one of the highest per-capita immigration rates in the Western world, more than twice the per capita immigration rate of the US last I looked.

Sparko, my concern is not about how many immigrants and refugees are or aren't taken - I firmly believe each country has a complete right to take as few or as many immigrants as it wishes. I don't believe in the libertarian idea of open borders and fully support countries policing their borders to the extent that they want to.

My concern is solely about how people are treated during the immigration / asylum-seeking process. Even if the government ends up rejecting their claim and deporting them, what matters is that they were treated well and humanely.

That means a couple of key things:
1. It means not stealing their children off them and then kicking them out of the country without their children so they never see their children again.
2. It means not locking up 50 of them together in a tiny cage with no water except the toilet and no showers and no sanitary products or soap and insufficient temperature control and medical care.

Currently, the US is failing hard at those two things, and that's the issue. NZ isn't. You hand-wavingly conflate the fact that NZ 'detains' a tiny minority of its incoming refugees in decent conditions, with the horrendous conditions in the concentration camps the US is running currently.

Trying to make this an argument about refugee quota is stupid, that's not the point, at all. And, for what it's worth, the party I vote for in NZ wants to quadruple our refugee quotas but lower total immigration (refugees are only a tiny percentage of total immigration).

We agree then. I don't want to see anyone mistreated either. So you should support Trump's plan to allow them to apply from their home country and not have to suffer a 3000 mile trip to be held in cages. right?

[Teallaura]

Have you seen me use the word genuine a number of times ? Why do you ignore that to continue to post your dumb comments about other types of migrants - this wasn't about them. I don't think the US should have open boarders. I made that clear a number of times. But you keep falling into your own strawman of what I say, because of your assumptions.

You're showing your self to be a real smarty.

I only addressed those with a legitimate claim to asylum - and as I stated, most are NOT in immediate danger of life or limb. Your assertion that they cannot apply in their own countries when that is the case, is moronic. Your assertion that they are better off fleeing for the border rather than seeking immediate protection in an embassy or consulate is also moronic. There will undoubtedly be a tiny number who are close enough that safely crossing the border is the better option than safely reaching the embassy - but that does not make the case that all asylum seekers must first flee the country - which is YOUR moronic argument.

[Teallaura]

Nope, the wall is not the only alternative. Immigration reform, making the system itself work, without the necessity of constructing a 2000 mile long wall, not paid for by Mexico. You going to build another 2000 mile long wall along the northern border too, paid for by Canada? How about along the east and west coastlines.

We don't have to worry about the Canadian border - the bears will eat anyone dumb enough to try going cross country.

[Teallaura]

What story? On Nicaragua? The people we are talking about are not in Nicaragua. Nicaragua might be one of the only countries in the area with genuine refugees. And they are not trying to come to the USA. They are fleeing to Costa Rica which has an open door policy for them. They are doing what any real refugee does: go to the nearest safe place for asylum, they are not trudging 3000 miles to the USA. That isn't happening in Guatemala or Honduras. Want to try again?

Psst, he's trying to make the case for only legitimate asylum seekers. He's still wrong, but that's why he's not addressing the caravans since they clearly aren't legit asylum seekers.

[Cow Poke]

We don't have to worry about the Canadian border - the bears will eat anyone dumb enough to try going cross country.

Plus, it's kinda hard to walk to Canada from South or Central America to come in from the North. I think Jimmy flunked Canography.