Latin American Caravan(s) Headed for Southern U.S. Border

Northstar
Yes, the part where you read the last 7 posts so you know what people are talking about.
Click to expand...

My apologies. Border wall - Central Americans - illegal/legal immigration - visas - E3 visa - Australians - Paul Ryan - Irish - bachelor degrees - Marshall Islanders - Saudi Arabian terrorists - IRA - bachelor degrees/no bachelor degrees.

Got it!

What about Norwegians?
 
Novalee
Here is a link that more clearly gets at what i was pointing out

https://www.macleans.ca/news/world/why-do-so-many-jihadis-have-engineering-degrees/



As far as the irish , im sure they are all fine but my point still stands they are basicaly just being let in like the marshall islanders .
Click to expand...

I really still don't get how this matters, and what it has to do with this topic. I've plenty of middle eastern students join various engineering program and they did it via student visa and wealthy backing from the nation they originated from.
 
So how did the caravan invasion go? Apparantly another one coming with 15.000 people. So I guess Trump is pulling back the arms in the middle east to re deploy them at the southern border?
 
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/15/7417...telling-potential-refugees-to-apply-elsewhere

If you're passing through mexico en-route to the US, you have to apply for asylum in mexico or your asylum claim here is not legit. That's the new proposed rule.

So many things not to like about this new rule, not the least of which is that it will slow down every asylum evaluation we process, because we now have to verify whether the person has broken it (even if they're applying for asylum from China for example). Let's say that you're applying for asylum from China, and your flight out had a layover in South Korea. Are you DQ'd?

If you happen to be in a country that is land-locked by what some would call stuff-hole countries, then you're just out of luck unless you can fly - which is a much more difficult way to escape a country than by foot.

All this really is is an attempt to shut down the asylum system by imposing arbitrary and challenging rules on asylum seekers, and I think that's disgraceful because we should be welcoming of all peaceful people fleeing violence.
 
Danoff
(even if they're applying for asylum from China for example).
Click to expand...
Norway too, I presume.

:P

Danoff
All this really is is an attempt to shut down the asylum system by imposing arbitrary and challenging rules on asylum seekers, and I think that's disgraceful because we should be welcoming of all peaceful people fleeing violence.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying, I'm just saying...but shouldn't that, at bare minimum, be all peaceful people regardless of their motivation?

...

Until restrictions on immigration are accompanied by restrictions on reproductive activity, the former is motivated by xenophobia (perhaps selective xenophobia) and not the absurd notion that there are too many people here as suggested by those who attempt to defend this sort of policy.
 
TexRex
I'm not saying, I'm just saying...but shouldn't that, at bare minimum, be all peaceful people regardless of their motivation?
Click to expand...

Yea probably. That statement just takes longer for me to think through to make sure I can really stand behind it, because it's so much broader. But I can't think off of the top of my head where it goes wrong.
 
Danoff
Yea probably. That statement just takes longer for me to think through to make sure I can really stand behind it, because it's so much broader. But I can't think off of the top of my head where it goes wrong.
Click to expand...
I get that completely; but as you say, it's hard to find flaw with it.

I really want to go further and eliminate the "peaceful" qualifier, but I hesitate to as it likely incites invites questions that I'm just not prepared to answer right now. Still, "peaceful" is rather ambiguous...and shouldn't we abhor the violent/harmful acts of people rather than people themselves?
 
Last edited:
Dotini
Okay. But does the same thing apply for those fleeing only poverty and not violence?
Click to expand...

As @TexRex pointed out, it should probably apply to all peaceful people regardless on their motivation. But I'm mostly speaking with context to our asylum program, which is to help people who are fleeing violence. I think it's a worthy cause.
 
Danoff
As @TexRex pointed out, it should probably apply to all peaceful people regardless on their motivation. But I'm mostly speaking with context to our asylum program, which is to help people who are fleeing violence. I think it's a worthy cause.
Click to expand...
If the entire populations of South America and Central America were to immigrate to the US (there's loads of room, I concede), would any criteria at all be acceptable for their asylum? Not suffering from violence, not poor, just want to be here. Sounds worthy?
 
Dotini
If the entire populations of South America and Central America were to immigrate to the US (there's loads of room, I concede), would any criteria at all be acceptable for their asylum? Not suffering from violence, not poor, just want to be here. Sounds worthy?
Click to expand...

Hypothetically, what if the entire population of the United States wanted or tried to immigrate into Canada? What should the criteria be?
 
Dotini
If the entire populations of South America and Central America were to immigrate to the US (there's loads of room, I concede), would any criteria at all be acceptable for their asylum? Not suffering from violence, not poor, just want to be here. Sounds worthy?
Click to expand...

If the entire populations want to immigrate we should accept those nations as territories into the US. And yes, it does sound worthy. Let's flip it around slightly differently than what @Liquid did above, what is "unworthy" about it? What is the complaint?
 
Danoff
If the entire populations want to immigrate we should accept those nations as territories into the US. And yes, it does sound worthy. Let's flip it around slightly differently than what @Liquid did above, what is "unworthy" about it? What is the complaint?
Click to expand...
Hundreds of millions of immigrants streaming across the southern border? I personally would probably have no complaint, at least not near the beginning. However, I suspect that in our present real world of fear and loathing, it may lead to armed violence at state and local levels, possibly civil war. Even though I'm old, rich and insulated from the southern border, I would likely find armed insurrection across the distant countryside to be too much to abide in comfort.
 
Dotini
Hundreds of millions of immigrants streaming across the southern border? I personally would probably have no complaint, at least not near the beginning. However, I suspect that in our present real world of fear and loathing, it may lead to armed violence at state and local levels, possibly civil war. Even though I'm old, rich and insulated from the southern border, I would likely find armed insurrection across the distant countryside to be too much to abide in comfort.
Click to expand...

Well I did say something about peaceful. I suppose you're insinuating that the American people themselves would not respond peacefully to large-scale immigration?
 
Danoff
Well I did say something about peaceful. I suppose you're insinuating that the American people themselves would not respond peacefully to large-scale immigration?
Click to expand...
Not all. Not me. But assuredly, undoubtedly some would take extreme umbrage, if the scale were large enough - on the order of hundreds of millions. I'm mildly surprised that didn't occur to you.
 
Dotini
Not all. Not me. But assuredly, undoubtedly some would take extreme umbrage, if the scale were large enough - on the order of hundreds of millions. I'm mildly surprised that didn't occur to you.
Click to expand...

If that happened (Americans took up arms against peaceful immigrants), then the response is not to keep out the peaceful people...
 
Danoff
If that happened (Americans took up arms against peaceful immigrants), then the response is not to keep out the peaceful people...
Click to expand...
Likely its not immigrants that would be in the crosshairs, but politicians and enablers. Immigrants may die by the scores of millions from starvation and exposure in abandoned towns and countryside.
 
Danoff
Still criminal and worthy of imprisonment.
Click to expand...
Ideally true. But in the real world, when an entire nation is invaded, it's likely law enforcement will side with that portion of the native population trying maintain public safety and order.
 
Dotini
Ideally true. But in the real world, when an entire nation is invaded, it's likely law enforcement will side with that portion of the native population trying maintain public safety and order.
Click to expand...

They should probably side against the side perpetuating violence against innocent people.

Anyhoo.... is this an actual concern of yours?
 
Danoff
They should probably side against the side perpetuating violence against innocent people.

Anyhoo.... is this an actual concern of yours?
Click to expand...
No. The immigration issue is currently small beans compared to more serious issues, and is being overhyped. I don't post on the topic much at all. Though I do believe it has the potential to get worse, the threshold is distant.
 
The only reason we have an asylum system is because we destabilize those countries. I could be wrong, but I don’t see the Europeans seeking asylum at an alarming rate.
 
the_boy
The only reason we have an asylum system is because we destabilize those countries. I could be wrong, but I don’t see the Europeans seeking asylum at an alarming rate.
Click to expand...


https://theweek.com/articles/837512/complicated-history-asylum-america--explained
Why did the laws change?
World War II displaced at least 7 million people in Europe. In response, U.S. lawmakers created the nation's first formal refugee and asylum policies. The Displaced Persons Act of 1948 resettled some 400,000 European refugees over four years. Meanwhile, the newly formed United Nations recognized the right of refugees to seek asylum in other countries. In 1951, the U.N. defined a refugee as anyone who cannot return to his or her home country "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion." The U.S. signed on to the U.N.'s refugee protocol in 1967, finally creating a comprehensive system for granting asylum with the Refugee Act of 1980.
Click to expand...
 
the_boy
The only reason we have an asylum system is because we destabilize those countries. I could be wrong, but I don’t see the Europeans seeking asylum at an alarming rate.
Click to expand...

Firstly, your history needs some fleshing out (as shown by @Danoff). Secondly, "alarming" is subjective and forms a particular aspect of attitudes and policies around what constitutes "good" or "bad" immigration.
 

Latest Posts

Back