-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Are Folks Making America Hate Again?
- Thread starter doubtingmerle
- Start date
MrMoe
Part-Time Breatharian
That’s a huge leap into conspiratorial thinking you’ve made.
“There has been an increase in pending legislation recently regarding the use of E-Verify which may be driven from the Trump administration’s stance on immigration.
At the federal level, the Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act (S.1151) was introduced in the senate on March 26, 2025. This bill would expand the use of E-Verify, hold employers accountable, and increase penalties for non-compliance. At the state level, pending bills in three states (Montana HB 226, Kentucky HB 673, and Idaho HB 252) would require private employers to use E-Verify if passed.“
What’s Happening with E-Verify Requirements
Stay up to date on what’s happening with E-Verify requirements in 2025 from the latest GovDocs Legislative Scoop.
www.govdocs.com
Crossing the border illegally is a crime.
Is It a Crime to Cross the U.S. Border Without Permission or Gain Entry By Fraud?
Illegal entry (or "improper entry") to the US carries criminal penalties (fines and jail or prison time), in addition to civil penalties and immigration consequences
www.alllaw.com
“For the first improper entry offense, the person can be fined (as a criminal penalty), or imprisoned for up to six months, or both.”
Upvote
0
- Jan 28, 2003
- 9,969
- 2,521
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Whether or not someone is able to respond after being taken out of context is not the point.
The point is that interrupting someone mid-sentence—and ignoring the words at the end that clarify their meaning—is a poor tactic. Taking a snippet and disregarding the surrounding context is misleading and rude. It’s not a respectful or constructive way to carry on a conversation.
In my illustration, I was saying, "We need to solve this, and we can do it with solution A, or solution B, or solution C." But if I’m interrupted at the second comma to make it look like I’m ignoring other viewpoints, that’s misrepresentation.
Likewise, when you break comments into snippets and ignore what’s said in the next sentence, you distort the meaning. Telling me, "You can always point back to what you or others said," is not a good answer. Repeatedly misrepresenting people, then saying they can always go back and explain how they were misunderstood, does not make for good conversation.
I prefer dialogue that respects context—rather than conversations where we constantly need to "point back" to fix what was taken out of context in the first place.
Upvote
0
- Jan 28, 2003
- 9,969
- 2,521
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
ChatGPT? Seriously? Where did ChatGPT get this information?
I asked ChatGPT, "What percentage of immigrants are fleeing persecution?" It responded:
As of the end of 2023, approximately 117.3 million people worldwide were forcibly displaced due to persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations, or events seriously disturbing public order. This figure includes refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons, and others in need of international protection.
While precise percentages are difficult to determine, a significant portion of these individuals are fleeing persecution.
When I use ChatGPT for questions like this, I always ask for sources. And I often ask for the best argument against what I am saying, with sources for the opposing viewpoint. Then I look at the sources on both sides. When used that way, ChatGPT can be an enormously useful tool. It is a great way to find sources on both sides of an argument.
For example, I asked, "Do you have any sources that refute the claim that only 10%–20% of all immigrants are fleeing persecution?" It responded:
The claim that only 10%–20% of immigrants are fleeing persecution is not supported by current global data. In fact, a significant portion of international migrants are forcibly displaced due to persecution, conflict, violence, or human rights violations.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as of the end of 2023, there were approximately 117.3 million people worldwide who were forcibly displaced. This figure includes:
- 43.4 million refugees, including 31.6 million under UNHCR’s mandate and 6 million Palestinian refugees under UNRWA’s mandate.
(https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends?utm_source=chatgpt.com) - 5.8 million other people in need of international protection.
(https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/overview/figures-glance?utm_source=chatgpt.com) - 8 million asylum-seekers.
(https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/overview/figures-glance?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
These categories collectively represent individuals who have fled their countries due to persecution or serious threats to their safety. When combined, they account for a substantial portion of the global forcibly displaced population. Therefore, the assertion that only 10%–20% of immigrants are fleeing persecution significantly underestimates the reality.
So there. You could have easily seen the refutation of your claim before you made it. ChatGPT would have gladly told you why the statistic it just gave might be wrong.
By the way, are you interested in seeing sources that refute your claim? If you have ChatGPT, it is easy to find such sources. I now use it all the time to see what arguments can be made against what I write. If the arguments are sound, I adjust my views to match this new information. Do you have this same desire to learn the truth? Or are you in this game only to prove you are right, while ignoring evidence that opposes you?
Yes. Again, from ChatGPT:
- El Salvador: Deportees Killed After Return
A 2020 Human Rights Watch report titled “Deported to Danger” documented at least 138 cases of Salvadorans killed after deportation from the U.S. between 2013 and 2019.
(Deported to Danger) - Cameroon: Asylum Seekers Harmed Post-Deportation
In 2020, dozens of Cameroonian asylum seekers deported from the U.S. were tortured or detained upon return. In 2024, the U.S. allowed 27 of them to return, acknowledging legal violations.
(Deported Cameroonian Asylum Seekers Returned to US) - Guatemala: Wrongful Deportation of LGBTQ+ Asylum Seeker
In 2025, a Guatemalan man granted asylum due to persecution based on sexual orientation was wrongly deported. A judge ruled the deportation unlawful and ordered his return.
(US judge orders Trump administration to return wrongly deported gay man) - Venezuela: Asylum Seekers Deported to El Salvador’s Mega-Prison
In March 2025, the U.S. deported 137 Venezuelans to El Salvador, where they were imprisoned without trial. Among them was a gay makeup artist misidentified as a gang member.
(March 2025 American deportations of Venezuelans - Wikipedia) - Djibouti: Deportees Stranded in Hazardous Conditions
In May 2025, migrants deported by the U.S. were stranded at a U.S. base in Djibouti. They were held in a shipping container under extreme heat and poor sanitary conditions.
(Group stranded with Ice in Djibouti shipping container after removal from US)
Huh? You write this in response to, "So while we may be justified in enforcing some form of consequence for undocumented immigrants, many of us believe it's best—both for them and for us—to find a path that allows at least many to stay, under mutually beneficial terms."
Your response just ignores what I wrote. Why should I bother to respond if you cannot address what I actually write?
I meant to say the harshest possible punishment allowed by law. The harshest response allowed by law in many cases of crossing into the United States illegally is deportation. You seem to be saying that, since this harsh response is allowed, therefore we must do it. Why would we not consider leniency if circumstances justify leniency?
You are simply ignoring the question. Once again, I had written, "Your messages consistently imply that breaking the law must be met with the harshest possible punishment [allowed by law]. But why? Where is the mercy in that? Do you advocate the same for every single lawbreaker?"
I did not see your answer. Are you going to be consistent and insist that dancers to the national anthem must be given the maximum possible sentence without mercy? If you can see having mercy on dancers, why not consider mercy to those who are here illegally?
By the way, regarding the ugly faces law, I asked my new friend, ChatGPT, if it could refute its own claim that it is illegal to make faces at dogs in Oklahoma. It responded with an argument refuting its earlier claim, citing this source:
Strange Pet Laws - Separating Fact From Fiction — Rescue Legacy
See? The technique of using ChatGPT as devil’s advocate works. I will drop that argument about making faces at dogs.
This just ignores the question, "If the employment of undocumented workers has gone on for years—and if we even have labor laws that specifically protect undocumented workers—then why must we now pivot to punishing them to the full extent of the law?"
You can apparently accept ignoring the full consequences against a law forbidding dancing to the National Anthem. If you can consider leniency on dancers, why is it wrong to consider something less than the maximum consequences against someone who is not legally here?
I am talking about the undocumented who are good citizens and are doing much good for both them and us. You ignore them and talk about criminals. We both agree that criminals must go. That is not the topic of this discussion.
No.
Why would not being soft on illegal dancing to the National Anthem also send the wrong message that one can sometimes disobey the law without consequences? Sometimes it is okay to show leniency.
I have responded to this several times. You just ignore what I write, and pretend I never said it.
Again, there is a lot of good in America, and a lot of evil. I hold out that the good in America will win, so I take my chances on staying here.
Many people that are here illegally take the same chances. Their odds are much better here than they are in their country of origin. For many, it is simply a matter of life or death to come here to escape the horrors at home. They have no choice. They come here with the hope of survival. We should hear their cases. If the best solution is to let them stay here, then we should find some terms that allow them to stay.
Upvote
0
BCP1928
Well-Known Member
- Jan 30, 2024
- 8,273
- 4,149
- 82
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
Six months? For one of the most heinous crimes a person can commit? Maybe we should impose the death penalty.That’s a huge leap into conspiratorial thinking you’ve made.
“There has been an increase in pending legislation recently regarding the use of E-Verify which may be driven from the Trump administration’s stance on immigration.
At the federal level, the Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act (S.1151) was introduced in the senate on March 26, 2025. This bill would expand the use of E-Verify, hold employers accountable, and increase penalties for non-compliance. At the state level, pending bills in three states (Montana HB 226, Kentucky HB 673, and Idaho HB 252) would require private employers to use E-Verify if passed.“
What’s Happening with E-Verify Requirements
Stay up to date on what’s happening with E-Verify requirements in 2025 from the latest GovDocs Legislative Scoop.
Crossing the border illegally is a crime.
Is It a Crime to Cross the U.S. Border Without Permission or Gain Entry By Fraud?
Illegal entry (or "improper entry") to the US carries criminal penalties (fines and jail or prison time), in addition to civil penalties and immigration consequences
“For the first improper entry offense, the person can be fined (as a criminal penalty), or imprisoned for up to six months, or both.”
Upvote
0
- Aug 3, 2007
- 8,777
- 3,160
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
No matter what is done, there is a human cost. A legal immigration system with over 600,000 annual allowed admissions and there is an asylum quota of 125,000 for 2025 in the US seems sensible. Prior to 2021, murders by illegal entrants were in the single digits since then there are dozens per year for a total of 180 murders from 2021-2024. Some will scream the race card at others who accept legal immigration but want illegal immigration controlled.
Source for illegal entrant murder.
Source for illegal entrant murder.
Upvote
0
MrMoe
Part-Time Breatharian
You’re making an assumption that it is a deliberate tactic rather than for example the speaker not making their point clear.
And yet you are guilty of the very same thing you are complaining about. I provided examples of you doing so.
Pointing back is the best solution to what is perceived to be taken out of context.
Upvote
0
Pommer
CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
- Sep 13, 2008
- 22,273
- 13,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Generally,, when a thread is down to “let’s argue over arguments and how best to make them”, the gold has run out.
From then it’s “argument-by-attrition”.
Upvote
0
MrMoe
Part-Time Breatharian
Would you have preferred Grok?
ChatGPT gets its information from publicly available information on the internet.
You could have easily asked what percentage of that make up all immigrants.
I asked Grok your exact question and it estimated about 20-25%.
I’m guessing you didn’t specify in the U.S. which is what I asked and how chatgpt got that percentage.
This is why we should incentivise legal immigration.
You say sending people back to countries where their lives are in danger is not a compassionate solution, I say letting undocumented strangers into the country and letting them stay, putting American citizens in danger is also not a compassionate solution.
I did address what you actually wrote. I’m my opinion it’s very selfish for you and others to not want to have consequences for criminals because they benefit the country in some way.
This is partly why I snippet certain parts. You never know when the person replying hasn’t been clear.
In most circumstances concerning illegal immigration don’t justify leniency.
First of all, your question is a false equivalency. Secondly, the law about dancing to the national anthem is considered outdated and no longer enforced. Apparently you can find lots of outdated laws still in the books.
So, no. I am not going to insist that dancers to the national anthem must be given the maximum possible sentence without mercy.
I’m curious what specific question you asked it, to get that answer, because there is nothing in that article that refutes its own claim that the law isn’t real.
Because unlike showing leniency to illegal immigrants not enforcing this no dancing law hasn’t got anyone killed as far as I’m aware.
If those undocumented people crossed the border illegally then they are by law criminals.
So I’m not ignoring them, and we both don’t agree that criminals must go because you want to keep the ones that benefit the country and can be potentially exploited. And the whole topic of this conversation is about illegal immigrants.
Yet you want them to stay here despite having no documentation leaving them vulnerable to exploitation.
Not in the majority of cases of illegal immigration.
Actually, for the majority the odds are better if they stay in their country and come to America legally.
Upvote
0
BCP1928
Well-Known Member
- Jan 30, 2024
- 8,273
- 4,149
- 82
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
In the end that point of view is not going to do you any good. In the end immigration is a real problem not an ideological one and can only be solved by confronting the problem in reality rather than drifting off into right-wing fantasy land.
Upvote
0
MrMoe
Part-Time Breatharian
No idea what you’re talking about. I recognize the very real problem of illegal immigration. That is why I’m happy Trump won. Because he’s actually confronting the problem. It’s those on the left that don’t want criminals to be punished for their crime that are living in a fantasy land.
Upvote
0
Pommer
CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
- Sep 13, 2008
- 22,273
- 13,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Our nation does not have enough people to fill the jobs.
We need immigrants to “fill the bottom in”, (just as we’ve needed them for the past 300 years, yes even before we were a nation).
It’s way past time for Congress to overhaul the immigration system.
Upvote
0
No, its about diversity, equity and inclusion. Those are quite different than equality.
I am in favor of equality of opportunity not outcome. We can never have true equity. Every single one of us brings different things to the table from personalities, skills, intelligence etc to the table. No one should be excluded due to things like race or sex. Those things do not determine our abilities.
DEI aims to give others based upon those immutable characteristics of race or sex a job over other races or sex just because. At the same time rejecting those who may actually have a better personality, skills or intelligence because they are not the preferred race or sex or these days, gender.
Research. There are plenty of places where those involved in the trainings and application have said so and admitted it.
Glad we agree on the oppressor/oppressed issue. I dont think that anyone would argue that we all carry preferences on who we hang with. Its perfectly natural to do so. I'm sure you have certain people you feel.more comfortable hanging with than others.
Ive got no problem with that. Its the natural state on human kind.
We also rank our preferences. I love hanging with Christian brothers and sisters. But if I had to choose I would rather hang with conservative ones than liberal ones. And I'm sure many of them feel the same way.
If I had a conservative black guy and a liberal.white guy, I would much rather hang with the black guy. So what?
DEI does go to extremes. And thats the problem. We could provide examples all day. Take a look at Harvard.
DEI as implemented isnt just about "education". Its about application. The process of choosing a "considered oppressed group" over a "considered oppressor" group. The idea of implementation of "we hire minorities over white people or women over men" and the reasoning is we need to show favoritism of one group.over another. Which isn't based upon skill levels but skin color or gender.
There shouldnt be any emphasis on it. Its a system based upon a false premise. The oppressed vs the oppressor. So yes we should stop trying. Because if I dont have a transgender person in my business doesn't mean I'm a bigot or an oppressor.
What we should be doing is looking at rhe real causes of inequality not some trumped up one.
Becauae there are some honest reasons why there may be equality differences that have absolutely nothing to do with bias toward a singular group.
What we do t need is people telling g balck people that the reason they aren't doing as well is becauae they are an oppressed group in a white man's world.
Upvote
0
We have seen an increase of asylum.seekers of upwards of 520% since 2020. Still only about 40% are actually granted asylum. Which hasn't changed over the years. In fact its gone down.
The people coming here illegally are using asylum as a tactic to stay.
Rhe vast majority of people coming here illegally are men ages 18-35 who are bringing no women or children. Men. And you are telling me they are the ones in great danger in their homeland. They are leaving women, children, mothers, fathers, sisters, wives behind?
They are not in any real danger in their country. Instead of staying there and working to change things they decide to go to another established country and many of them are trying to change things here. Or in Europe. Why on earth do we have men coming here in droves and then establishing areas and cultural issues that they had where they are from?
No, its time we put a stop to this before more Americans are harmed by this.
Upvote
0
Akita Suggagaki
Well-Known Member
- Jul 20, 2018
- 10,008
- 7,169
- 70
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
- Jan 28, 2003
- 9,969
- 2,521
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
MrMoe, I came here looking for discussion on reactions that I consider hatred within the MAGA movement. I mentioned several areas in the opening post. Much of this thread, including your posts, has centered on immigrants.
The good news is that you’ve provided some credible arguments from the other side for me to consider.
The bad news is that I really can’t refer to this as a “conversation.” It seems like you misunderstand everything I write and attempts to clarify get me nowhere. Let’s just say we don’t understand each other, and our attempts to bridge that gap have failed. I don’t know if that’s my fault or yours, but communication has basically broken down.
I’ll respond to a few things from your latest post. Then I plan to write up my thoughts on Medium and share the link here. After that—who knows what’s next in my writing agenda.
AI has notoriously given some very bad answers, so I don’t trust something just because an AI says it.
Even if accurate, your “immigrant” category includes many groups, including legal immigrants. Mixing them all together and saying 25% come from persecution does not answer the question of what percent of asylum seekers come from countries where they face persecution.
To repeat an earlier chart, here is what I found on the many types of non-citizens here:
My source for this chart is... ChatGPT! So I can’t guarantee its accuracy, but I haven’t found any other source that summarizes the categories this clearly. I offer it as a tentative summary unless someone finds something better.
Lumping asylum seekers in with all these other groups to estimate what percentage are legitimate asylum seekers is not a legitimate analysis.
You ignore what I actually wrote. I’ve explained multiple times that letting them stay can be best for them and best for us. I’ve emphasized that I’m seeking mutually beneficial solutions. Working cooperatively to find such solutions is, by definition, not selfishness.
Regarding consequences for undocumented workers, I’ve said repeatedly that consequences may be appropriate. But in many cases, I don’t think deportation is the right one.
Yet you ignore all that and write as though I’ve never said it. That’s called bearing false witness.
By the way, I prefer religions where people don’t bear false witness.
What about the people who hire undocumented immigrants? Millions of undocumented immigrants are working here, earning wages, paying taxes—but are not eligible for many of the benefits citizens have. The people hiring them are doing so illegally. We all know that. The IRS knows it. It even issues them ITIN numbers to file taxes in place of a Social Security number. This is done openly—even though the hiring is illegal.
As I’ve shown before, many of the companies doing this are Trump supporters. Even the Trump Organization has done it.
So, if you insist that undocumented immigrants (mostly brown) must be deported without leniency because they broke the law, do you also insist that the people who hire them (mostly white), including the Trump Organization, be punished to the full extent of the law?
You call me selfish. But I am seeking solutions that are mutually beneficial. In my proposal for a path to legal status with defined rights, we get the benefit of their labor, and they get legal status with protections in the country they believe is best for them. Since it’s voluntary and benefits both sides, that’s not selfish.
But you keep leaving out the part in italics. If you cut that part out, my argument might sound selfish. But when you include it, it clearly isn’t.
Please do not pretend that something becomes selfish by omitting half the sentence.
Again, I prefer religions where people don’t bear false witness.
You also propose what you see as a mutually beneficial solution: in your view, deportation reduces crime and returns people to safer countries. I think both claims are wrong—but the point is, you too are seeking a mutually beneficial outcome.
I could leave out the part in italics and accuse you of selfishness, but that would be false witness.
And, for the record, I oppose exploitation. I oppose slavery. You know that. Please don’t pretend otherwise.
That’s not how asylum works. You can’t apply by mail. To request asylum, you must be in the U.S. or present yourself at the border. By definition, that means the person is claiming they can’t safely return home.
What do you recommend we do?
Currently, we let them stay while their cases are processed—which often takes years. During that time, many are exploited. When their hearing comes, many lack legal counsel, can’t make their case effectively, and are sent home.
I would prefer they be treated humanely while waiting, receive a speedy trial, and be assigned a public defender if they can’t afford one. Yes, that takes money—and that’s where Congress needs to step in.
Wouldn’t it be great to have a Congress that actually does its job? I digress.
So, what do you propose we do when someone comes here saying their life is at risk if they go home? Should we send them back and tell them to wait years for processing—and hope they survive that long?
The good news is that you’ve provided some credible arguments from the other side for me to consider.
The bad news is that I really can’t refer to this as a “conversation.” It seems like you misunderstand everything I write and attempts to clarify get me nowhere. Let’s just say we don’t understand each other, and our attempts to bridge that gap have failed. I don’t know if that’s my fault or yours, but communication has basically broken down.
I’ll respond to a few things from your latest post. Then I plan to write up my thoughts on Medium and share the link here. After that—who knows what’s next in my writing agenda.
AI has notoriously given some very bad answers, so I don’t trust something just because an AI says it.
Even if accurate, your “immigrant” category includes many groups, including legal immigrants. Mixing them all together and saying 25% come from persecution does not answer the question of what percent of asylum seekers come from countries where they face persecution.
To repeat an earlier chart, here is what I found on the many types of non-citizens here:
Major Mutually Exclusive Groups of Non-Citizens in the U.S. Workforce
| Group | Description | Work Authorization? | Estimated % of U.S. Workforce |
|---|---|---|---|
| Undocumented Immigrants | Individuals residing without legal authorization. | ❌ No | ~4.8% |
| Asylum Seekers | Individuals applying for protection; lawful presence pending decision. | ❓ Yes, after obtaining an EAD (work permit) | ~1.0% |
| Green Card Holders | Lawful permanent residents with full rights to live and work. | ✅ Yes | ~8.0% |
| Temporary Visa Holders | Visitors on temporary visas (e.g., H-1B workers, F-1 students). | ❓ Some can work (depends on visa type) | ~2.0% |
| Refugees | Individuals granted refugee status abroad before entering the U.S. | ✅ Yes | ~0.5% |
| DACA Recipients | Young undocumented immigrants granted temporary deferred action and work rights. | ✅ Yes (temporary protection) | ~0.3% |
| TPS Holders | Nationals from disaster-affected countries granted temporary stay. | ✅ Yes | ~0.1% |
| Parolees | Temporarily allowed into U.S. for urgent humanitarian reasons. | ❓ Sometimes (depends on parole terms) | ~0.2% |
My source for this chart is... ChatGPT! So I can’t guarantee its accuracy, but I haven’t found any other source that summarizes the categories this clearly. I offer it as a tentative summary unless someone finds something better.
Lumping asylum seekers in with all these other groups to estimate what percentage are legitimate asylum seekers is not a legitimate analysis.
You ignore what I actually wrote. I’ve explained multiple times that letting them stay can be best for them and best for us. I’ve emphasized that I’m seeking mutually beneficial solutions. Working cooperatively to find such solutions is, by definition, not selfishness.
Regarding consequences for undocumented workers, I’ve said repeatedly that consequences may be appropriate. But in many cases, I don’t think deportation is the right one.
Yet you ignore all that and write as though I’ve never said it. That’s called bearing false witness.
By the way, I prefer religions where people don’t bear false witness.
What about the people who hire undocumented immigrants? Millions of undocumented immigrants are working here, earning wages, paying taxes—but are not eligible for many of the benefits citizens have. The people hiring them are doing so illegally. We all know that. The IRS knows it. It even issues them ITIN numbers to file taxes in place of a Social Security number. This is done openly—even though the hiring is illegal.
As I’ve shown before, many of the companies doing this are Trump supporters. Even the Trump Organization has done it.
So, if you insist that undocumented immigrants (mostly brown) must be deported without leniency because they broke the law, do you also insist that the people who hire them (mostly white), including the Trump Organization, be punished to the full extent of the law?
You call me selfish. But I am seeking solutions that are mutually beneficial. In my proposal for a path to legal status with defined rights, we get the benefit of their labor, and they get legal status with protections in the country they believe is best for them. Since it’s voluntary and benefits both sides, that’s not selfish.
But you keep leaving out the part in italics. If you cut that part out, my argument might sound selfish. But when you include it, it clearly isn’t.
Please do not pretend that something becomes selfish by omitting half the sentence.
Again, I prefer religions where people don’t bear false witness.
You also propose what you see as a mutually beneficial solution: in your view, deportation reduces crime and returns people to safer countries. I think both claims are wrong—but the point is, you too are seeking a mutually beneficial outcome.
I could leave out the part in italics and accuse you of selfishness, but that would be false witness.
And, for the record, I oppose exploitation. I oppose slavery. You know that. Please don’t pretend otherwise.
That’s not how asylum works. You can’t apply by mail. To request asylum, you must be in the U.S. or present yourself at the border. By definition, that means the person is claiming they can’t safely return home.
What do you recommend we do?
Currently, we let them stay while their cases are processed—which often takes years. During that time, many are exploited. When their hearing comes, many lack legal counsel, can’t make their case effectively, and are sent home.
I would prefer they be treated humanely while waiting, receive a speedy trial, and be assigned a public defender if they can’t afford one. Yes, that takes money—and that’s where Congress needs to step in.
Wouldn’t it be great to have a Congress that actually does its job? I digress.
So, what do you propose we do when someone comes here saying their life is at risk if they go home? Should we send them back and tell them to wait years for processing—and hope they survive that long?
Upvote
0
- Jan 28, 2003
- 9,969
- 2,521
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Here is what I have been able to find:
(Source)
Yes, many that come seeking asylum are denied asylum.
But that often depends largely on whether they have a good lawyer. Some asylum seekers have a good lawyer--often from people who do it pro bono--and their odds are good. Others have no lawyer. Their odds are bad. See Tell Me How it Ends.
Being refused asylum because one does not have a lawyer is not the same thing as not deserving asylum.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
