Should South Sudanese be removed from the USA?

[Richard T]

This is some recent action taken by the Trump administration on current visa holders in the USA from South Sudan. South Sudanese are generally Christians. The article suggests that it involves about 150 people who have "temporary protection status" but then it says that all South Sudanese will have their visas revoked. Regardless of the numbers, the group is rather small and those that are here in the USA likely have few funds to even travel back. Should the USA have more compassion on these people? Admittedly, their government should take immigrants who have committed crimes back. But they are in a civil war, half the nation starving, and Russia and China are involved there as well.

U.S. revoking all visas for those from South Sudan, Rubio says

It was the first such measure singling out all passport holders from a particular country since President Trump returned to the White House.

www.cbsnews.com

Sudan’s civil war: What military advances mean, and where the country could be heading next - defenceWeb

A series of advances by the Sudanese military has led some observers to posit that the African nation’s yearslong civil war could be at a crucial turning point.

www.defenceweb.co.za

 

[FireDragon76]

No asylum seeker with legitimate claims of persecution or danger should be turned away. It's difficult to argue that turning away asylum seekers without due process is consistent with Christian ethics.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Should the USA have more compassion on these people?

Let me steer you in the right direction. The USA, or at least a good portion of us, does have compassion, Donald Trump, does not. Those who put him into power will have to suffer the consequences of someone who rules over them with no compassion. It will be a very, very tough lesson .
Blessings

 

[Malleeboy]

No asylum seeker with legitimate claims of persecution or danger should be turned away. It's difficult to argue that turning away asylum seekers without due process is consistent with Christian ethics.

Agreed but the key word is "legitimate". Plenty of people who claim asylum, once granted suddenly are able to travel back to their home countries on a regular (eg yearly) basis. It is easy to clog the courts, and use asylum claim to get citizenship.

There was a couple in Australia, who basically used having children as means to stay here. Both of them had been rejected, but each new child had to be assessed individually, and the process took them a couple of years, which gave them time to have another kid, which then had to have its own assessment. (We don't have birth right citizenship but if your kids are here for 10 years they are then granted) So a guy with a known link to a terrorist organization, got to stay here.

The other issue is when compassion leads to bad outcomes.

For example, people were flying to Indonesia, then paying people smugglers to boat them across to Australia, Except the smugglers used the crappiest boats and crammed people on them to maximize profits without enough food or water across a considerable broad and dangerous sea (subject to cyclones (hurricanes), thunderstorms, sharks, crocs and jellyfish/Irukandji. As a consequence people were drowning in increasing numbers. So what to do?

If you grant the people who make it asylum, then more people come and more drown.
If you burn the boats, they just take more and more unseaworthy boats, leading to more drowning. People who are people smugglers, "unbelievably" being that they are criminals often lied about the boats, the conditions and how hard the crossing was, When the boats did make it, they just dropped people of in croc infested swamps in the middle of nowhere.
If you pick them up in our sea territory, then more people come, leading to use of worse boats being used and greater chance of missed people who drown.
If you pick them up in Indonesia, then more people will come, which the Indonesians don't like. Furthermore why should people who can afford an airfare and to pay $10K per person for a boat trip, get preferential entrance to Australia over people stuck in camps who don't have such means. Especially when having that level of resource would get you a decent life in many countries. Shouldn't the most under resourced be the front of the queue. Additionally do we have a greater responsibility to prioritize refugees from our own region not people who have flown half way round the world.

So Australia basically made it clear that people who come by boat will not be settled, and the boats stopped coming. Consequently people stopped drowning. Was it more compassionate to put the people smugglers out of a career, stop people making a dangerous journey (that they were often lied to about how bad it was) and rather take the most needy asylum seekers, not those with considerable means?

 

[Richard T]

Agreed but the key word is "legitimate". Plenty of people who claim asylum, once granted suddenly are able to travel back to their home countries on a regular (eg yearly) basis. It is easy to clog the courts, and use asylum claim to get citizenship.

There was a couple in Australia, who basically used having children as means to stay here. Both of them had been rejected, but each new child had to be assessed individually, and the process took them a couple of years, which gave them time to have another kid, which then had to have its own assessment. (We don't have birth right citizenship but if your kids are here for 10 years they are then granted) So a guy with a known link to a terrorist organization, got to stay here.

The other issue is when compassion leads to bad outcomes.

For example, people were flying to Indonesia, then paying people smugglers to boat them across to Australia, Except the smugglers used the crappiest boats and crammed people on them to maximize profits without enough food or water across a considerable broad and dangerous sea (subject to cyclones (hurricanes), thunderstorms, sharks, crocs and jellyfish/Irukandji. As a consequence people were drowning in increasing numbers. So what to do?

If you grant the people who make it asylum, then more people come and more drown.
If you burn the boats, they just take more and more unseaworthy boats, leading to more drowning. People who are people smugglers, "unbelievably" being that they are criminals often lied about the boats, the conditions and how hard the crossing was, When the boats did make it, they just dropped people of in croc infested swamps in the middle of nowhere.
If you pick them up in our sea territory, then more people come, leading to use of worse boats being used and greater chance of missed people who drown.
If you pick them up in Indonesia, then more people will come, which the Indonesians don't like. Furthermore why should people who can afford an airfare and to pay $10K per person for a boat trip, get preferential entrance to Australia over people stuck in camps who don't have such means. Especially when having that level of resource would get you a decent life in many countries. Shouldn't the most under resourced be the front of the queue. Additionally do we have a greater responsibility to prioritize refugees from our own region not people who have flown half way round the world.

So Australia basically made it clear that people who come by boat will not be settled, and the boats stopped coming. Consequently people stopped drowning. Was it more compassionate to put the people smugglers out of a career, stop people making a dangerous journey (that they were often lied to about how bad it was) and rather take the most needy asylum seekers, not those with considerable means?

Yes, that is a good example of an unintended consequence. Is so far they are unlikely to show up as refugees on their own. Wiki shows about 49,000 in the USA many of which came previously during an earlier civil war in 1990s. It looks like there are some aid groups and even churches that sponsor some of them. I get it that it must be frustrating to work with their government. But under the circumstances I hope they are more careful assuming they are legitimate refugees.

 

[Yarddog]

This is some recent action taken by the Trump administration on current visa holders in the USA from South Sudan. South Sudanese are generally Christians. The article suggests that it involves about 150 people who have "temporary protection status" but then it says that all South Sudanese will have their visas revoked. Regardless of the numbers, the group is rather small and those that are here in the USA likely have few funds to even travel back. Should the USA have more compassion on these people? Admittedly, their government should take immigrants who have committed crimes back. But they are in a civil war, half the nation starving, and Russia and China are involved there as well.

U.S. revoking all visas for those from South Sudan, Rubio says

It was the first such measure singling out all passport holders from a particular country since President Trump returned to the White House.

www.cbsnews.com

Sudan’s civil war: What military advances mean, and where the country could be heading next - defenceWeb

A series of advances by the Sudanese military has led some observers to posit that the African nation’s yearslong civil war could be at a crucial turning point.

www.defenceweb.co.za

Most likely these people are protected under US Immigration laws. A Federal judge would place an injunction against Trump to keep them here.

 

[Richard T]

Most likely these people are protected under US Immigration laws. A Federal judge would place an injunction against Trump to keep them here.

I hope so, assuming the Trump administration follows the injunction.

 

[Yarddog]

I hope so, assuming the Trump administration follows the injunction.

Trump is learning that those injunctions mean something. We'll see if he obeys the orders to return the man he illegally sent out.