Page 130 of 218

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:25 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
trpmb6 wrote:If you are facing a credible death threat, the most sensible action is to go straight to the embassy. Not march thousands of miles north on the hopes you'll make it. I don't even know how that can be argued against.


There are potentially circumstances where the long route can be safer.

That said, it seems likely that asylum is being used primarily as a means to immigrate via a somewhat shorter process than otherwise. Which, to a degree, is fair. If I were in a country that qualified for asylum to the US, I'd happily take the somewhat less painfully slow way. The vast majority are likely not in extreme personal danger(certainly not the kind of danger I would have to demonstrate to the state to get a handgun license where I live), but simply want to leave a generally rough country for a better one, and are taking the easier path.

Anyways, showing up at the border crossing or the embassy...either one is valid, and both would be legal attempts at asylum. Neither would get you automatically detained. It seems as if very few folks would be under direct threat from an organization that can reach to all US embassies and border crossings.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:25 pm UTC
by Yablo
gmalivuk wrote:
Yablo wrote:Anyone taking children through the desert and/or any other dangerous situation with the intention of circumventing U.S. immigration law is not seeking asylum, and they do not have the children's best interests at heart.
[citation needed]

I suppose it's possible someone putting children through an unnecessary risk with the intention of skirting a law doesn't automatically equate to not having the children's best interests at heart, but if not, it's still a pretty misguided and self-centered way of seeking their children's welfare.

If the goal is honestly to seek asylum, anyone sneaking across the border in violation of immigration law can really only be doing it out of ignorance of the easier and legal way.

The fact that you're privileged enough to find doing so unimaginable doesn't actually count as a citation, btw.

Please don't assume I've somehow been given any special rights or unearned advantages. I am thankful to have been fortunate enough to have been born in a country I don't feel the need to flee.

If I did feel the need to leave the United States and seek asylum, I would do so legally, and I certainly would never put my wife or son through a dangerous wilderness run to cross a border illegally when I have the option to do it safely and legally instead.

trpmb6 wrote:I actually think they are fed a lot of misinformation about what will happen when they cross the border. The coyotes get them across and then it's just a "walk north" until someone finds you and say you are seeking asylum.

I tend to agree though, if you're truly seeking asylum you shouldn't have marched north from honduras through other countries. You should have gone to the US embassy in Honduras. That's one of the main reasons for having an embassy - other than to service our own citizens while abroad.

Oh, I have no doubt they are fed misinformation. If the coyotes are charging enough to make it worth their while to smuggle people across the border, they've got to convince the people they're smuggling that the coyote's service is needed and that everything will be golden once they're safely across. That makes it the job of the U.S. State Department and its counterparts to ensure people are properly educated on the situation.

trpmb6 wrote:If you are facing a credible death threat, the most sensible action is to go straight to the embassy. Not march thousands of miles north on the hopes you'll make it. I don't even know how that can be argued against.

Definitely. I spent about two weeks in South Korea several years ago, and before I ever left the U.S., I made damned sure I knew where the embassy was in relation to my hotel and the most direct route for getting there.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:35 pm UTC
by trpmb6
I will allow that people may simply not know that this is an option. In which case I dont even know how you make them aware. It's not like the local government is going to allow you to drop leaflets or run TV ads (for those who have access to TV) of how to apply for asylum. (And that is assuming it is even a policy of the US to actively promote the availability of asylum.)

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:37 pm UTC
by Dauric
trpmb6 wrote:If you are facing a credible death threat, the most sensible action is to go straight to the embassy. Not march thousands of miles north on the hopes you'll make it. I don't even know how that can be argued against.


If the gang/organized crime group that you face a death threat from has effective territorial control of the city the embassy is in, you'd never make it to the embassy. Given the depth of official corruption in some of these countries "police" may be effectively just another face of criminal organization.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:39 pm UTC
by sardia
trpmb6 wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:[citation needed]

Do you understand the situations in their home countries? Do you understand the process of applying for asylum? Have you ever had to flee with your family from credible death threats?

If not, the fuck off with this bullshit.


If you are facing a credible death threat, the most sensible action is to go straight to the embassy. Not march thousands of miles north on the hopes you'll make it. I don't even know how that can be argued against.

That would imply that the administration is staffed to handle large groups applying for asylum. Also, apparently you can't apply for asylum at an embassy. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 5xt_iDmFmo

We haven't even gotten to the previous administration slow walking asylum/refugee claims. And then there's the Trump administration reducing incoming refugee numbers to roughly 0.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:40 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
I mean, if you really want to drop leaflets on a country to encourage people to bail, the US *can* do that. I don't see that in our immediate future, but it's something that has been done for, say, North Korea. It's not that hard if it's something you want.

But generally, we currently are having problems processing the current number of attempted immigrants. So, I don't see a big case for advertising for more, based either on practical needs, nor the current Trump administration preferences.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:45 pm UTC
by natraj
yes, a temporary, planned visit to a country where you have a defined length of stay and are heading home to the country you feel safe returning to at the end is completely comparable to living in a place where you actively fear for your life and do not have a ready and viable place to leave to, you sure did make a great point there yablo.

anyway i actually don't care one whit what's legal because laws without ethics don't mean much to me. in the not too distant past it was illegal for my family to sit down at white people restaurants and y'all would have been exactly the type of people arguing well! they broke LAWS, OBVIOUSLY we need to throw the book at them. it has been illegal to fight segregation, slavery, internment camps, actual genocide in this country, so the fact that people crossing the border are committing a misdemeanor - - cuz it is a misdemeanor that y'all are getting all het up about and insisting that it's, like, 100% k impossible to do anything BUT throw them in jail forever and rip their families apart for the legal equivalent of unpaid parking tickets -- for some reason doesn't move me.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:50 pm UTC
by trpmb6
sardia wrote: Also, apparently you can't apply for asylum at an embassy. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 5xt_iDmFmo



I had no idea. Did further research on actual US government sites which confirmed. That explains the syrian's using the refugee system via us embassy. I had confused those two terms. Asylum != Refugee.

Well that explains why they travel those many miles.

Now we just need to figure out how to communicate to them to just go to a port of entry instead of crossing illegally.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:58 pm UTC
by iamspen
trpmb6 wrote:Now we just need to figure out how to communicate to them to just go to a port of entry instead of crossing illegally.


We could just start taking kids from their families. That would probably get the message across.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:16 pm UTC
by moiraemachy
trpmb6 wrote:Now we just need to figure out how to communicate to them to just go to a port of entry instead of crossing illegally.
God, you are serious.

Listen. If all it took for someone to get into the US was walking to an embassy while being threatened to be killed, people would pay coyotes to threaten them so they could get asylum. Why doesn't this work? For the same reason people might prefer to enter illegally instead of trying their luck applying for asylum.

The bureaucracy around getting asylum has to be a big barrier to immigration, otherwise people would use it to get into countries. Naturally, this means people without much literacy of access to lawyers - coincidentally, "bad immigrants" - might just get told they didn't quite provide everything needed to qualify for asylum, sorry, good luck with that.

Poor third world country citizens are not stupid, they understand the power dynamics of this situation very well.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:22 pm UTC
by trpmb6
A rigorous entry requirement is no excuse for entering a country illegally.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:26 pm UTC
by Thesh
The law itself is unjust.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:34 pm UTC
by moiraemachy
trpmb6 wrote:A rigorous entry requirement is no excuse for entering a country illegally.

I agree but that's not the point.

The point is, if you assume there is an easy guaranteed way for these people to get in, then it follows that they are either idiots or up to no good. In most cases they aren't.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:37 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
moiraemachy wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:A rigorous entry requirement is no excuse for entering a country illegally.

I agree but that's not the point.

The point is, if you assume there is an easy guaranteed way for these people to get in, then it follows that they are either idiots or up to no good. In most cases they aren't.


True. But if you want them to use the rigorous system, then you've got to discourage those who just ignore it. Thus the zero tolerance policy. In theory, this ought to be coupled with reworking the legal system to be less tedious, but hey, nobody ever said the government was painless, right?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:03 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
trpmb6 wrote:
sardia wrote: Also, apparently you can't apply for asylum at an embassy. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 5xt_iDmFmo



I had no idea.

Yeah no shit, that was my point with the [citation needed]. You are all talking out of your ass about how immigration works, kind of like everyone else with such a hardon for fascist policies.

Tyndmyr wrote:
moiraemachy wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:A rigorous entry requirement is no excuse for entering a country illegally.

I agree but that's not the point.

The point is, if you assume there is an easy guaranteed way for these people to get in, then it follows that they are either idiots or up to no good. In most cases they aren't.


True. But if you want them to use the rigorous system, then you've got to discourage those who just ignore it. Thus the zero tolerance policy. In theory, this ought to be coupled with reworking the legal system to be less tedious, but hey, nobody ever said the government was painless, right?
This isn't a matter of government moving slowly because bureaucracy. This is part of an active attempt to halt all immigration of "undesirables" (i.e. people of color). It's not in their interest to make immigration easier for anyone, which is why they're going out of their way to make it as difficult as possible from every direction.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:14 pm UTC
by trpmb6
gmalivuk wrote:This is part of an active attempt to halt all immigration of "undesirables" (i.e. people of color).

[Citation Needed]

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:17 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
trpmb6 wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:This is part of an active attempt to halt all immigration of "undesirables" (i.e. people of color).

[Citation Needed]



I think it's pretty obvious that Trumps actions fit the pattern of him being a racist who wants to only let in the lighter-skinned folk.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:20 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
In fairness, white people who are poor or otherwise disadvantaged will probably have a very hard time as well. The "undesirables" don't *only* include people of color.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:23 pm UTC
by natraj
that's true, but also more a byproduct than a target of trump's policies. from everything he actually says and does it's very clear who his policies are INTENDED to harm; the fact that they also harm poor white people is just collateral.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:25 pm UTC
by trpmb6
Well let's just pass this Cruz legislation or someone else's and move onto the next problem. Bored of talking about this today. Excited to wake up tomorrow and have the news tell me what to be outraged about next.

Surprised they haven't latched onto the UN human rights thing as hard as I thought they would.


Edit so I'm not double posting
The funny/sad thing is poor white people are Trumps biggest supporters.

I've personally benefited quite a bit thanks to his policies. So it really is no surprise I would support a lot of what he has done.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:28 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
The Cruz legislation is garbage for reasons I've already pointed out. If you want legislation that isn't garbage, call your Republican congresspeople and tell them to vote for the bill that doesn't completely gut the asylum process.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:28 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
trpmb6 wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:This is part of an active attempt to halt all immigration of "undesirables" (i.e. people of color).

[Citation Needed]


Hispanic folks have been singled out on a number of occasions. It isn't law as such, but it is a thing that happens along the border frequently enough.

That said, I don't think Trump has gone to any lengths to make immigration easier for anyone in particular. It seems like an overall trend of cracking down on illegal immigration, which is a fair position in theory, but I'm not gonna bother to defend all such efforts as being entirely fair in practice.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:32 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
And yet here you are defending the policy of separating families and putting kids in cages, so I'm left wondering where the line is for what you'd actually find indefensible.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:36 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
gmalivuk wrote:And yet here you are defending the policy of separating families and putting kids in cages, so I'm left wondering where the line is for what you'd actually find indefensible.


The "I'm not going to bother to defend that" is because there's enough evidence that, even from a standpoint of playing devil's advocate, it's mostly pointless. People along the border, to include lots of enforcement people, are sometimes racist.

As for the child-cages, it's more an observation that all the outrage is predictably partisan. It seems as if the main objection folks have to them is that Trump's the one supporting child-cages.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:41 pm UTC
by ucim
trpmb6 wrote:Just give him the wall so we can all move on with our lives.
So.... we should just give our lunch money to the bully? I wonder how that would play out.

Jose

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:47 pm UTC
by natraj
i mean us immigration law is racist in theory AND practice so. like it's not a case of "racist along the border because some border patrol officers are jerks", it's a case of "literally the entire CONCEPT of having immigration laws, from the very first immigration law ever created right up until the present, was imagined up and enacted specifically because white people wanted to keep nonwhite people out of america". this is plain fact, and the history of how we got "illegal immigration" in the first place. white people who say "well my ancestors came here legally why can't they" are full of shit; for much of this country's history there were no restrictions whatsoever on immigration and people, largely white people, were free to come over here, murder natives and enslave black people all they wanted.

then, shock, gasp, chinese people started coming! and white people were like fuck that this is awful, let's make laws and stop nonwhite people from coming over, and that has been the ways immigration law has proceeded ever since. immigration laws currently, still, are biased in enormous favour of white people, both because of which countries we favour and which we don't AND because it's way easier to bring people over once you are already here and guess who there is still most of here, white people.

it's a farce pretending that there is any equity when it comes to immigration, and that everyone just has a chance to do it "the right way", when white people literally stole this country and then set up the laws to try and keep other people out and now, at this exact moment that we are discussing, are trying their hardest to make sure that it stays as difficult as possible for brown people to get in because they are terrified of becoming a minority in a land that was never theirs to begin with.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:47 pm UTC
by trpmb6
gmalivuk wrote:The Cruz legislation is garbage for reasons I've already pointed out. If you want legislation that isn't garbage, call your Republican congresspeople and tell them to vote for the bill that doesn't completely gut the asylum process.


Except the link you gave was to a Twitter post that was written prior to Cruz's legislation being introduced.

I found this slate article that made a good point about due process. The rest was just nonesense.

I'm not sure due process is the right legal term in this case since they aren't being prosecuted (at least not in the asylum proceedings they may be for crossing the border illegally - that's a separate issue). But I agree, you can't expect someone to be fully prepared for an Asylum hearing that quickly.

Anyone find data on the typical time frame for an asylum hearing?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:49 pm UTC
by trpmb6
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu ... ocess-take

Turns out there is an answer for that

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:50 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
ucim wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:Just give him the wall so we can all move on with our lives.
So.... we should just give our lunch money to the bully? I wonder how that would play out.

Jose

Bullies are well known for relenting and not being bullies any more once you give in once. They certainly don't think to themselves, "Hey, I bet I could get away with this every day."

natraj wrote:
white people who say "well my ancestors came here legally why can't they" are full of shit; for much of this country's history there were no restrictions whatsoever on immigration and people, largely white people, were free to come over here, murder natives and enslave black people all they wanted.

"Why can't they just do it like my ancestors did, by being white and in the year 1897?"

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:59 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
natraj wrote:i mean us immigration law is racist in theory AND practice so. like it's not a case of "racist along the border because some border patrol officers are jerks", it's a case of "literally the entire CONCEPT of having immigration laws, from the very first immigration law ever created right up until the present, was imagined up and enacted specifically because white people wanted to keep nonwhite people out of america". this is plain fact, and the history of how we got "illegal immigration" in the first place. white people who say "well my ancestors came here legally why can't they" are full of shit; for much of this country's history there were no restrictions whatsoever on immigration and people, largely white people, were free to come over here, murder natives and enslave black people all they wanted.


Well, every country has laws regarding immigration, pretty much. They're sort of necessary on some level, even if the current and past sets have been kinda fucked. Immigration laws are mostly not about equality. They're written for the advantage of the country. Is it equal to favor rich and healthy people over the poor and hungry? Nah. Not even close.

But pretty much every country would rather have the former, and the laws reflect that.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:00 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
natraj wrote:i mean us immigration law is racist in theory AND practice so. like it's not a case of "racist along the border because some border patrol officers are jerks", it's a case of "literally the entire CONCEPT of having immigration laws, from the very first immigration law ever created right up until the present, was imagined up and enacted specifically because white people wanted to keep nonwhite people out of america". this is plain fact, and the history of how we got "illegal immigration" in the first place. white people who say "well my ancestors came here legally why can't they" are full of shit; for much of this country's history there were no restrictions whatsoever on immigration and people, largely white people, were free to come over here, murder natives and enslave black people all they wanted.


Except for the parts where we tried to keep out the Irish, Germans and Italians, the filthy Catholic scum.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:05 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
Tyndmyr wrote:
natraj wrote:i mean us immigration law is racist in theory AND practice so. like it's not a case of "racist along the border because some border patrol officers are jerks", it's a case of "literally the entire CONCEPT of having immigration laws, from the very first immigration law ever created right up until the present, was imagined up and enacted specifically because white people wanted to keep nonwhite people out of america". this is plain fact, and the history of how we got "illegal immigration" in the first place. white people who say "well my ancestors came here legally why can't they" are full of shit; for much of this country's history there were no restrictions whatsoever on immigration and people, largely white people, were free to come over here, murder natives and enslave black people all they wanted.


Well, every country has laws regarding immigration, pretty much. They're sort of necessary on some level, even if the current and past sets have been kinda fucked. Immigration laws are mostly not about equality. They're written for the advantage of the country. Is it equal to favor rich and healthy people over the poor and hungry? Nah. Not even close.

But pretty much every country would rather have the former, and the laws reflect that.

"Stop complaining about the country this thread is about, because other countries are also shitty."

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:12 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
CorruptUser wrote:Except for the parts where we tried to keep out the Irish, Germans and Italians, the filthy Catholic scum.


Eh, racism may correlate largely with skin color now, but yeah, pretty much every immigrant group ever that was big enough to note faced racism. What is considered "white" might even vary, depending on era.

gmalivuk wrote:"Stop complaining about the country this thread is about, because other countries are also shitty."


Eh, nah, complaining is allowed.

But you probably need *some* immigration policy, and just throwing open the doors is probably economically untenable. Improvement is possible, but I don't think that's the way.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:15 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
Okay but probably you don't actually have any evidence for that beyond your gut feelings, and in any case current US policy is increasingly monstrous and I'm about finished with fuckers defending it.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:20 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Probably not a coincidence that every rich and well off country develops fairly strict immigration limitations. The EU is going through something a bit similar. If you're angling for historical examples, well, I dare say history might have turned out differently if native cultures had a strict immigration policy at Plymouth Rock.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:35 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
I think a better policy would be to say to the people "hey, we know that you had help from the coyotes (smugglers). If you were to have any information that leads to an arrest, we could grant you a green card, and if you don't cause any problems, that could be extended to resident alien..."

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:38 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
Tyndmyr wrote:
Probably not a coincidence that every rich and well off country develops fairly strict immigration limitations. The EU is going through something a bit similar. If you're angling for historical examples, well, I dare say history might have turned out differently if native cultures had a strict immigration policy at Plymouth Rock.

Funny how I don't know any Native people who support Trump's policies but there is no scarcity of white assholes willing to use them as a rhetorical bargaining chip when arguing for xenophobic immigration laws.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:43 pm UTC
by Sableagle
trpmb6 wrote:That being said, perhaps there are things we can do as a country to improve conditions in these other countries to the point that these people would prefer to stay there. And perhaps, that might even be cheaper than having to spend the money here on extra border patrol etc. I'm all for the cheaper option.
That's exactly how I told the Obama administration to sell pretty much that project to you.

I did get a reply.

They thanked me for my interest and hoped they could count on my vote.

Guess they weren't paying much attention to the snail-mail address I included.

Four and a half trillion dollars could have made one hell of a lot of improvements.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:45 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
CorruptUser wrote:
I think a better policy would be to say to the people "hey, we know that you had help from the coyotes (smugglers). If you were to have any information that leads to an arrest, we could grant you a green card, and if you don't cause any problems, that could be extended to resident alien..."

Again, that policy might make sense if the goal was to make immigration as humane and straightforward as possible. But when the goal is to eliminate as much of it as possible (and keep those who do enter in as vulnerable a position as possible so as to benefit from paying them as little as possible), something like that will never happen.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:56 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
gmalivuk wrote:Funny how I don't know any Native people who support Trump's policies but there is no scarcity of white assholes willing to use them as a rhetorical bargaining chip when arguing for xenophobic immigration laws.


I mean, wouldn't make sense for them to support Trump now, I suppose. I don't think he's offered them much. Probably not a natural political alliance.

But a large influx of people can definitely change the status quo. Probably not to that extent, mind you. Numbers just aren't there for that. Plus, yknow, different technological situation. Anyways, it's not really a bargaining chip, just an example.