Border Crisis

[Ringo84]

Voters are NOT accepting of open borders, welcoming anyone who wants in. There have always been restrictions and limitations, certainly since WWII.

Americans are famously close-minded on the subject of immigration, ignoring the fact that most of them are immigrants or sons and daughters of immigrants. Not "playing well in Peoria" doesn't seem like a good reason to deny the existence and humanity of impoverished people migrating here from Central America.
Ringo

 

[mark46]

Americans are famously close-minded on the subject of immigration, ignoring the fact that most of them are immigrants or sons and daughters of immigrants. Not "playing well in Peoria" doesn't seem like a good reason to deny the existence and humanity of impoverished people migrating here from Central America.
Ringo

OK

So, you know what you think is best, and care not all that Americans have judged differently for the past 100 years, many many times.

 

[Ringo84]

OK

So, you know what you think is best, and care not all that Americans have judged differently for the past 100 years, many many times.

Tying people's rights to how well they poll is a terrible idea that rarely if ever ends well. If I'm remembering correctly, polling taken during the sit-in Civil Rights protests of the early '60s indicated that only 22%ish of Americans supported the protests, and another 60%ish opposed them.

Now, of course, sit-ins are probably seen universally as a positive step toward expanding rights (I say probably because I don't take anything for granted after 2016). But if the ability of Black Americans to sit at segregated lunch counters had been put to a vote in 1961, it probably would have been voted down handily.
Ringo

 

[Aldebaran]

Americans are famously close-minded on the subject of immigration, ignoring the fact that most of them are immigrants or sons and daughters of immigrants. Not "playing well in Peoria" doesn't seem like a good reason to deny the existence and humanity of impoverished people migrating here from Central America.
Ringo

Yes, I am a son of an immigrant who came here a few generations ago. But he came here legally. That means he obeyed the laws of the country he was coming to concerning immigration.

 

[mark46]

Tying people's rights to how well they poll is a terrible idea that rarely if ever ends well. If I'm remembering correctly, polling taken during the sit-in Civil Rights protests of the early '60s indicated that only 22%ish of Americans supported the protests, and another 60%ish opposed them.

Now, of course, sit-ins are probably seen universally as a positive step toward expanding rights (I say probably because I don't take anything for granted after 2016). But if the ability of Black Americans to sit at segregated lunch counters had been put to a vote in 1961, it probably would have been voted down handily.
Ringo

Then by all means, go out and organize in favor of unlimited immigration. Demonstrate at the borders when the government disagrees.

I participated in the demonstrations in the 60's.

Let's be clear with regard to immigration. You couldn't get 10% to support unlimited immigration. Let me tell you some the priorities of those who favor increased immigration, not tied to specific jobs.
1) fair treatment for Hispanics citizens in the US
2) fair treatment of the undocumented in the US.
3) humane treatment of those detained at the border (this does NOT mean they won't be deported)
4) citizenship for DACA folk (2 million last I saw)
5) a path to citizenship for the 10 million undocumented in the US (some think the number is larger)
6) reverse Trump reductions in refugees
AFTER ALL OF THIS PERHAPS WE CAN TALK ABOUT INCREASES IN THE NUMBERS

BOTTOM LINE
I would reduce new refugees to zero (except immediate family members) to zero if I could get the above priorities.

 

[mark46]

Then by all means, go out and organize in favor of unlimited immigration. Demonstrate at the borders when the government disagrees.

I participated in the demonstrations in the 60's.

Let's be clear with regard to immigration. You couldn't get 10% to support unlimited immigration. Let me tell you some the priorities of those who favor increased immigration, not tied to specific jobs.
1) fair treatment for Hispanics citizens in the US
2) fair treatment of the undocumented in the US.
3) humane treatment of those detained at the border (this does NOT mean they won't be deported)
4) citizenship for DACA folk (2 million last I saw)
5) a path to citizenship for the 10 million undocumented in the US (some think the number is larger)
6) reverse Trump reductions in refugees
AFTER ALL OF THIS PERHAPS WE CAN TALK ABOUT INCREASES IN THE NUMBERS

 

[Ringo84]

I'm very glad to hear that; the past four years have shown people a lot of the evils of our current immigration system. I argue they don't go far enough, because I think more immigration is better for the economy and better for human rights.
Ringo

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm very glad to hear that; the past four years have shown people a lot of the evils of our current immigration system. I argue they don't go far enough, because I think more immigration is better for the economy and better for human rights.
Ringo

If "immigrants" come here illegally, get on welfare, commit crimes and end up being supported by taxpayers in prison, it doesn't help the economy one bit. However, coming here legally, being part of the system and building a career that betters their own life and those of the community they live in, then they improve the economy. What's going on at the border (children being sent across on their own in hopes of America becoming their foster parents) is a far cry from that.

 

[disciple Clint]

I don't know of any agreements that Biden ended with the Mexican government. Please show me where he did that. Was there ever any written agreement between Trump and the Mexican government or was it a verbal threat?

You are not aware of the Remain in Mexico Agreement? There is a vast amount of information about it available on Google.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Perhaps historically, that is true. However, *if* an asylum applicant can demonstrate her life is in danger, it seems to me a judge should grant her asylum.

So if, for example, 2 billion people's lives were in danger...let's say of starvation due to climate change....

You think we should allow them in?

Also, when you say "historically"....you make it sound as if we're talking about a long time ago. That's how international law defines asylum now...as in "presently".

 

[Ana the Ist]

What I don't get is why these refugees from the Triangle are considered worse or more dangerous or whatever than ordinary illegal economic migrants from Mexico.

Depends upon what you mean by "worse".

I don't think any vastly large group of people can be considered better or worse than another unless you're comparing them by a specific measurable factor.

If the factor is something like education...sure, generally speaking, poor people fleeing central American nations tend to be less educated and the education they do have is of a poorer quality than the average Mexican economic migrant.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Americans are famously close-minded on the subject of immigration, ignoring the fact that most of them are immigrants or sons and daughters of immigrants.

This is a tired and worn out argument. We all know that at some point everyone came from somewhere else if we look far enough into history.

And?

There are immigration problems. They don't magically disappear because of what happened in history. The idea that we should do nothing to solve those problems is both childish and nonsensical.

 

[wing2000]

So if, for example, 2 billion people's lives were in danger...let's say of starvation due to climate change....

You think we should allow them in?

Also, when you say "historically"....you make it sound as if we're talking about a long time ago. That's how international law defines asylum now...as in "presently".

Historically, as in how the asylum law has been interpreted to date. As for admitting 2 billion people? Obviously our country can't absorb that many people.

 

[Speedwell]

Then by all means, go out and organize in favor of unlimited immigration. Demonstrate at the borders when the government disagrees.

I participated in the demonstrations in the 60's.

Let's be clear with regard to immigration. You couldn't get 10% to support unlimited immigration. Let me tell you some the priorities of those who favor increased immigration, not tied to specific jobs.
1) fair treatment for Hispanics citizens in the US
2) fair treatment of the undocumented in the US.
3) humane treatment of those detained at the border (this does NOT mean they won't be deported)
4) citizenship for DACA folk (2 million last I saw)
5) a path to citizenship for the 10 million undocumented in the US (some think the number is larger)
6) reverse Trump reductions in refugees
AFTER ALL OF THIS PERHAPS WE CAN TALK ABOUT INCREASES IN THE NUMBERS

BOTTOM LINE
I would reduce new refugees to zero (except immediate family members) to zero if I could get the above priorities.

I don't get what you are saying about numbers. If people are identified as refugees, then you house them somehow and hear their cases for asylum. There is no predicting ahead of time how many will be granted asylum and how many will be sent back. What are you going to say? "We are only going to grant asylum to 1000 refugees this year, so after we do that we will stop hearing asylum cases?"

 

[Hank77]

Which are imaginary.



Why not?
Ringo

Borders between countries are just as real, not imaginary, as the property line between me and my neighbor's property. I'm responsible for taking care of what's on my side of that line, physically and financially. It would be a real mess without property lines/borders.

 

[Speedwell]

Borders between countries are just as real, not imaginary, as the property line between me and my neighbor's property. I'm responsible for taking care of what's on my side of that line, physically and financially. It would be a real mess without property lines/borders.

Right. And if your neighbor's house was on fire and he ran into your yard for safety you would have him arrested for trespassing, right?

 

[Hank77]

You are not aware of the Remain in Mexico Agreement? There is a vast amount of information about it available on Google.

I haven't been talking about a remain in Mexico agreement. I've been referring to remaining in Central America, stopping the caravans coming from Central America.

 

[Hank77]

Right. And if your neighbor's house was on fire and he ran into your yard for safety you would have him arrested for trespassing, right?

If he intended on living on my property yes I would trespass him.

 

[mark46]

I don't get what you are saying about numbers. If people are identified as refugees, then you house them somehow and hear their cases for asylum. There is no predicting ahead of time how many will be granted asylum and how many will be sent back. What are you going to say? "We are only going to grant asylum to 1000 refugees this year, so after we do that we will stop hearing asylum cases?"

If the US is going to accept anyone who is danger of serious danger in their own country from gangs, starvation or family, then there will be millions coming in. Why wouldn't there be? If a private organization decided to fly Yemen refugees to the US, should they all be accepted for asylum?

I guess the issue to face is our legal definition of asylum and the processes at the border. The government certainly has the right and need to act within 72 hours.

 

[Speedwell]

If the US is going to accept anyone who is danger of serious danger in their own country from gangs, starvation or family, then there will be millions coming in. Why wouldn't there be? If a private organization decided to fly Yemen refugees to the US, should they all be accepted for asylum?

No, their claims for asylum should be adjudicated.

I guess the issue to face is our legal definition of asylum and the processes at the border. The government certainly has the right and need to act within 72 hours.

I think there needs to be a better understanding by all of us about what asylum is and how it is granted.