Caravan with Central Americans heading to border
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
NP here: Generally agree as to her inability to separate her feelings from reality. However, she sounds far more extreme than many liberals; even the typical DC bubble-dwelling type liberals. |
Anonymous
How do you make Americans side with immigrant's plight? Force? What are the logistics of that on a practical level. That very statement is emotional (as an American, you should feel badly enough to side with immigrants, illegal immigrants included). Other posters already destroyed your asylum law argument. They are traveling through a safe country who could grant them asylum, but won't. In fact, that country is busy sending THEIR poor HERE on OUR dime. No more. |
Anonymous
Where do you get that Mexico won't offer them asylum and instead is sending the caravan here? Fox? Mexican authorities have encouraged the caravan to seek asylum there and told them it's easier to do so. |
Anonymous
The highlighted word says it all. You think the law "should" say something, but the fact is that it does not. The U.S. immigration law has no provision for welcoming the poor huddled masses. It just doesn't. Poverty is not grounds for immigration. I get that you think it ought to be, but it isn't currently. The U.S. does have asylum laws, and grounds for asylum specifically exclude economic hardship. In addition, countries are entirely justified in restricting access to potential asylees because asking for asylum is not a right, it's a privilege born out of opportunity. They can always apply for a refugee status in their own country. That's what the law says, untwisted. The law also says you apply for asylum in the first safe country you traverse. It would be much easier for Central Americans to settle in Mexico, for instance, where they face no language barriers. But they don't want Mexico, and the feeling is fully mutual. |
Anonymous
Are there reports of them applying for asylum in Mexico and getting rejected? |
Anonymous
This is why I can never become a liberal. Though I'm frustrated with Republicans too at least they make more sense. Liberal arguments like pp's above literally have no rationale. A ton of heart but no reason. How can you possibly let everyone in who has dealt with hardships in their country? Literally the whole world would be coming here. PP, you seriously need to examine the sense of your views. As much as I wish the world were a perfect utopia and we could open our borders to anyone and everyone who would like to live here, in this day and age (not hundreds of years ago when the US was first settled as you're referencing), it is not possible. If you let these 1,200 migrants in now, another 1,200 will come, and another, etc. We can't do that. The world is not perfect, not ideal and we must have laws, otherwise the quality of life for everyone goes down. If you want to help, find ways to travel to those countries and help the people there. What can their governments, social policies, etc do to make living conditions for their own people better? We cannot save the world. |
Anonymous
Yes, Mexico routinely deports them back to their home country. http://time.com/5226064/immigrant-caravan-halted-mexico-donald-trump/ |
Anonymous
| The article says Mexico offered refugee status to those who qualified. |
Anonymous
Is there something wrong with that? |
Anonymous
Do you want to go back in time that far? Fine. Lets go. In GB, eight-year-old boys were publicly hanged for stealing turnips. Lets not forget the Labor Houses that had existed until late 1930s. Child labor - all E and W Europe. 10 hours per day for children as young as 7. In Germany and most Eastern and Western Europe, for sexual intercourse with animals people were burned alive, homosexuals' heads were chopped off until late XXVII century. Homosexuality was considered a perversion until very recent years by the way. Atheism was equated with heresy and in different countries/different centuries was punished by death/moxibustion with the red-hot iron/anathema. Church was very strong and played the key role in ruling the society. Slavery was legal - is that what you are advocating for? If you want to bring back the laws of times of discovery and development of America you have to have the WHOLE package. |
Anonymous
First, it would be nice to have a citation for the statement that refugee status has been offered. Secondly, if this is true, that is fine. Let them take the offer. Those who don’t take the offer - we should not allow them into our country. If they choose not to take refugee status in Mexico, why not? If they continue to head to the US, why? Those who are not offered refugee status - there is a reason they are not offered this status. These are very likely people we would not want to have in our country either. |
Anonymous
Just as late my as you’re not claiming to be a “Christian.” In which case you should probably step back and ask yourself WWJD. |
Anonymous
It's in the article. That's the citation. The article also says the caravan is basically dispersed, and was never equipped to reach the US border anyway. |
Anonymous
Why would I claim to be a Christian, and why would I care what Jesus would do? He has no bearing on me or my religion. You think everyone who is mindful of cost, consequences, and impossibility of liberal policies is a Christian? We're just not operating on "feelings," like liberals, and exercise some logic. |
Anonymous
Ah, but just like a criminal will always find a gun, the druggie will find the drugs. If demand exists, the supply will come from somewhere. You need to attack from both sides. |