HomeGroupsTalkZeitgeist
This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.
  • LibraryThing
  • Book discussions
  • Your LibraryThing
  • Join to start using.

Trump authorizes lethal force to protect the border

Pro and Con

Join LibraryThing to post.

1Carnophile
Nov 21, 2018, 9:17pm Top

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/21/white-house-approves-mil...

Wow. Excellent.

The battle here is whether Trump will hold his ground when a judge inevitably says this is illegal.

If Trump caves in, the current situation continues, but worsened.

If he holds his ground, this is the Berlin Wall moment for the US left.

Holy moly. Love it or hate it, we are living through capital-H History.

2johnthefireman
Nov 22, 2018, 3:16am Top

>1 Carnophile:

Interesting use of the word "protect". Are we talking about a mass of heavily armed foreign troops with tanks and artillery attacking the US border? Authorising lethal force against such invaders might well be justified. Or are we talking about unarmed children, women and men, civilians, impoverished and exhausted, coming in peace, seeking protection from the situation they are fleeing from?

this is the Berlin Wall moment for the US left

I don't get that reference. The Berlin Wall was built by a repressive regime to keep people in.

4johnthefireman
Edited: Nov 22, 2018, 9:11am Top

>3 Kuiperdolin:

A comparison:

A small isolated tribe who have had virtually no contact with the outside world fire arrows at a privileged young man from the most powerful, the richest and the most developed nation in the world who has chosen to come voluntarily for his own agenda of converting them to Christianity.

The most powerful, the richest and the most developed nation in the world with a population of more than 300 million authorises the unleashing of lethal force by its huge and high-tech professional military against a bunch of underprivileged unarmed civilians, including babies and children, who have come very reluctantly and indeed faced great danger and privation to seek protection from poverty, oppression and death, as they see no other alternative in their land of origin.

I see.

Edited to add: I see now that another BBC article says that the unfortunate young man was an "explorer" and "adventurer" rather than a missionary. It doesn't change the comparison. He definitely wasn't a refugee or asylum seeker - more akin to a tourist.

5margd
Edited: Nov 22, 2018, 6:01am Top

Border Patrol Agent Who Shot Mexican Teenager Is Acquitted of Involuntary Manslaughter
Julia Jacobs | Nov. 21, 2018

....In 2012, the border guard, Lonnie Swartz, opened fire into the Mexican city of Nogales, killing 16-year-old José Antonio Elena Rodríguez. A jury found Mr. Swartz not guilty of second-degree murder in April but deadlocked on manslaughter charges, prompting another trial.

In court on Wednesday, the jury found Mr. Swartz not guilty of involuntary manslaughter, but it did not make a decision on voluntary manslaughter

Next month, a judge from the United States District Court in Arizona will decide the status of the voluntary manslaughter charge, which the jury’s verdict left in question.

...the first border agent to face federal murder charges for a cross-border shooting. The prosecution’s defeat in the case comes amid a series of high-profile cases of violence by Border Patrol agents and a report documenting hundreds of charges for illegal activities.

Six years ago, Mr. Swartz emptied his .40-caliber pistol with a spray of bullets into Mexico...José Antonio was struck 10 times and collapsed on the sidewalk across from the border fence.

...Prosecutors acknowledged in court that José Antonio was throwing rocks at the time, but said that behavior did not justify his death.

After Mr. Swartz emptied his weapon, he reloaded and fired more rounds, presumably at José Antonio, who was already lying face down on the ground...

Mr. Swartz still faces a (civil?) lawsuit filed by José Antonio’s mother, who is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.

A decision by a panel of judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, allowed the mother to sue for violating her son’s constitutional rights. This decision clashed with one out of another federal appeals court involving the case of a border guard in Texas who shot and killed a 15-year-old boy who was on the other side of the border in Mexico.

The appeals court deciding the Texas case determined that the family of the boy could not sue without congressional permission. The United States Supreme Court will soon decide whether to take up that case and bring clarity to whether a Border Patrol agent can be sued after a cross-border shooting....

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/us/border-patrol-acquitted-involuntary-mansla...

__________________________________________________​

In (1990s?) a Special Agent I knew was fired by the federal government for going into Mexico without permission on some undercover work.
A Mexican woman was killed (I think by the bad guys) as a result...

6lriley
Nov 22, 2018, 9:06am Top

Some people like massacres.

7barney67
Nov 23, 2018, 3:58pm Top

There are armed guards on the Canadian border. You think they're carrying squirt guns?

Give it a try. You first. Drive to the Canadian border. Run past the guards and see if they shoot.

8KAzevedo
Nov 23, 2018, 5:31pm Top

Of course they will not shoot. What an idiotic thing to say.

9lriley
Nov 23, 2018, 6:06pm Top

#8--yeah he's being ridiculous but he just can't help himself.

10Carnophile
Nov 23, 2018, 6:50pm Top

>2 johnthefireman: Are we talking about a mass of heavily armed foreign troops with tanks and artillery...?

Ah yes, the old "It's only an invasion if they have tanks."

11Carnophile
Nov 23, 2018, 6:50pm Top

>2 johnthefireman: I don't get that reference. The Berlin Wall was built by a repressive regime to keep people in.

Think late 1989.

12barney67
Nov 23, 2018, 7:18pm Top

8> You know that with certainty? How? How do you know they won't shoot?

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Why not?

13barney67
Nov 23, 2018, 7:20pm Top

Liberals are like spoiled children who don't want to recognize limits. Sounds like a joke. How many Mexicans, illegal or legal, should there be in the U.S.?

If you say "Whoever wants to come," then let's make it easier. Annex Mexico.

14lriley
Edited: Nov 23, 2018, 9:10pm Top

#12--I've crossed over into Canada many times. If someone wants to make an ass out of themselves and skip customs I suspect they'll just chase that person down and if need be surround him/her/them. There will be some law enforcement around when you go through but they're very low profile and they're not going to shoot first and ask questions later. Or maybe you've ever heard of Americans getting shot and/or murdered by Canadian customs agents? No?---I didn't think so. Happens at the Mexican border with our Border Patrol agents now and again though, doesn't it? Yeah....it does. The Canadian customs people aren't soldiers or policemen/women either. Canada is not like Israel with soldiers all over the place. It's a civilized country like ours used to be up until this nut with the orange hair and the weird haircut got into office. Just saying.

15KAzevedo
Edited: Nov 23, 2018, 9:50pm Top

#12, What Iriley said. Sure, if you want to give me a ticket to Washington, I'd be happy to do it, right there at the border, which I have crossed many times. Are you willing to put YOUR money where your mouth is? Oh, and please post one, just one, example of a person being shot down FOR running across the border.

16barney67
Nov 23, 2018, 10:46pm Top

In Canada? I'm sure examples exist, otherwise the guards would carry squirt guns instead of real guns. Still, I encourage you to try, if you require proof, if you require an experiment before you can know something. Some people do. For me, seeing the guns is enough. I don't need proof.

I wonder how many illegal Mexicans Canada would take in before they did something about it. 10 million? Fifty million? 10? Zero?

Every stable country in the world protects its borders. Except the U.S. When the U.S. tries to do it, it's criticized for being mean, selfish, cruel, immoral by kind, compassionate liberals. Oh, such good people. They are never mean or critical or insulting or judgmental or hypocritical or stupid. It's so easy to be nice to strangers 1000 miles away who you will never meet or live with. So much harder to deal with reality closest to you.

But I guess you two are right: We do need to use force on the Mexican border more than the Canadian border. I wonder why that is.

17KAzevedo
Nov 23, 2018, 11:02pm Top

"I don't need proof", he says after failing to provide evidence of his specious claim. Enough Said.

18johnthefireman
Nov 24, 2018, 12:17am Top

>16 barney67: I wonder how many illegal Mexicans Canada would take in before they did something about it.

What's an illegal Mexican? Mexicans are Mexicans.

Every stable country in the world protects its borders. Except the U.S.

Are you joking? Have you ever tried getting a US visa, even just a tourist visa? The USA is one of the more difficult countries in the world to get into.

But your narrative assumes that nation states are a good thing, that borders are a good thing, that keeping populations isolated is a good thing, that preventing too many "different" people from entering a population (even though you freely admit in other threads that the USA is not homogenous and is very different from place to place and person to person). What's wrong with people moving freely around the world? You know, it might just lead to a better world.

20lriley
Nov 24, 2018, 7:06am Top

I can't speak for how easy it would be to enter the US but it wouldn't surprise me if it were one of the more difficult countries to get into.

Canada never seemed very complicated though after 9-11 we started bringing our passports with us--something they seemed grateful to accept and check. I'm not sure that's a requirement as before then all you had to do was answer a couple questions--purpose of your visit and how long you were planning to stay and those are the same questions now and that's about it. Canadians by the way are usually very nice but so are the Mexicans that I've met. The percentages of Americans who are assholes is a lot higher at least by my estimation.

21margd
Nov 24, 2018, 8:05am Top

I think US travelers should now carry a passport--or equivalent--to travel to Canada, but also to return to the States:
http://www.cbsa.gc.ca/travel-voyage/td-dv-eng.html
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/us-citizens/western-hemisphere-travel-initiative

I carry a US passport card in my wallet, which seems to be well-accepted on both sides.

US and Canada border guards share info about you on integrated computer system. Upside is that computers seem to speed the process if you haven't triggered some kind of alert. It took a colleague years to correct a mistaken alert, even though he was a Cdn law enforcement officer with US contacts, so you want to avoid giving border guards on either side any cause for concern. No matter how road-weary you are--don't be snarky!!

(A couple trips ago, a US border guard asked for proof that our dog is vaccinated against rabies, and he seemed to enter the certificate we presented into the system. They must have a complete profile on us by now!)

22Carnophile
Nov 24, 2018, 12:17pm Top

Why doesn't anyone on the right fall for left-wing bullshit? Hmmm.

Democrat representative Eric Swalwell threatens to nuke gun owners resisting an unconstitutional seizure of their firearms.

So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your fucking mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.
— Joe Biggs (@Rambobiggs) November 16, 2018

And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes.
— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018

File under: Lefty views about who it's okay to use lethal force on, for what reasons, to what extent.

Foreign nationals, marching under other nations' flags, crashing our border against our laws: Lefties say, not okay to use lethal force on them.

US citizens, protecting their moral right to self-defense, and exercising a legal right explicitly protected in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land: Lefties say, okay to use lethal force on them.

Concern from the left about collateral damage from a nuke to "ZOMG helpless women and babies!!!!!"

Zero.

23prosfilaes
Nov 25, 2018, 8:17pm Top

>13 barney67: Liberals are like spoiled children who don't want to recognize limits.

Because conservatives are all about limits, like gun control. Or limits on how you can further endanger endangered species on your land. Or limits on what you can do on federal lands, like large National Monuments stopping people from ranching or mining there. Or ... You know what I'd like? People recognizing limits on what they should say, so they stop with stupid generalizations of large groups of people.

24prosfilaes
Nov 25, 2018, 8:29pm Top

>16 barney67: Every stable country in the world protects its borders.

Ever heard of the EU? (More specifically, the Schengen Area?)

It's so easy to be nice to strangers 1000 miles away who you will never meet or live with. So much harder to deal with reality closest to you.

Then Trump should back the hell off sanctuary cities, who are dealing with reality closest to them. California is one of the most liberal states in the country, and Californians live on the border. Hollywood to Tijuana is 150 miles; does that mean that Hollywood knows more about the Mexican border than Trump, as DC and Mar-Lago are more than a thousand miles away from that border?

25barney67
Edited: Nov 25, 2018, 10:52pm Top

EU is dead. May it rest in peace. It was never a good idea.

I suspect there are armed guards on the borders of all sane countries. If you think those guns are not intended for lethal force, I heard about some swamp land in Florida you might be interested in.

Why do you ask me dumb questions when you know they are dumb? Do you think I'm dumb? I'm not.

26johnthefireman
Nov 25, 2018, 11:19pm Top

>25 barney67:

In both the UK and Ireland the police, including the border force, are routinely unarmed, and there are a number of other nations in the world where the same is true. A small number of specialist armed police are present in case they are needed to deal with an armed suspect.

Ever watched those border security programmes on the so-called "reality" channels on TV? Hours of footage from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and not a firearm to be seen. Watch the US version and you'll see gun-toting officers from the very first minute.

The US model of security is not the only one which works.

27johnthefireman
Edited: Nov 26, 2018, 12:19am Top

>3 Kuiperdolin:, >4 johnthefireman:, >19 johnthefireman:

In terms of comparisons, it's also worth noting that "Officers in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, a remote Indian territory, are trying to determine whether the body of John Allen Chau can be retrieved, and whether any tribespeople can be charged for killing him after he trespassed on North Sentinel Island". In other words, the use of lethal force to prevent someone from entering their territory is legally suspect.

Police stake out area where American killed by Andaman tribespeople (Guardian)

28mamzel
Nov 26, 2018, 3:07pm Top

>4 johnthefireman: and >27 johnthefireman: He may not have been carrying much more than a Bible but he very well could have been harboring germs for which the people would have no immunity. Just as lethal! He could have wiped out the whole population with one sneeze.

29margd
Nov 26, 2018, 3:31pm Top

Tear gas fired across the border. Guess okay after border guard was acquitted of involuntary manslaughter for shooting Mexican teen on Mexican side 10 times. Self defense--yeah, right. TEN times. "Projectiles" this time, if any, might include flipflops? Maybe one of the little ones popped her binky? If it values its reputation, military would be wise to stay as far away as possible from Border Patrol.

‘These children are barefoot. In diapers. Choking on tear gas.’
Tim Elfrink and Fred Barbash | November 26

A little girl from Honduras stares into the camera, her young features contorted in anguish. She’s barefoot, dusty, and clad only in a diaper and T-shirt. And she’s just had to run from clouds of choking tear gas fired across the border by U.S. agents.

A second photograph, which also circulated widely and rapidly on social media, shows an equally anguished woman frantically trying to drag the same child and a second toddler away from the gas as it spreads.

The three were part of a much larger group, perhaps 70 or 80 men, women and children, pictured in a wider-angle photo fleeing the tear gas. Reuters photographer Kim Kyung-Hoon shot the images, which provoked outrage and seemed at odds with President Trump’s portrayal of the caravan migrants as “criminals” and “gang members.”

Trump officials said that authorities had to respond with force after hundreds of migrants rushed the border near Tijuana on Sunday, some of them throwing “projectiles”* at Customs and Border Protection personnel...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/26/these-children-are-barefoot-dia...

__________________________________________________​

“(Syria's) evil and despicable (chemical) attack left mothers and fathers, infants and children, thrashing in pain and gasping for air,” Trump said in a brief televised statement... “These are not the actions of a man. They are crimes of a monster instead.”

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17236862/syria-strike-donald-trump-chemical-attack...

30lriley
Nov 26, 2018, 3:37pm Top

#26-- I was in the US Coast Guard back in the 80's---did a 4 year hitch. In all that time I never saw a Coastie--not even the Shore Patrol walking around packing a weapon. We had guns on board ship--we had a 5 inch cannon on the ship I was on along with mountable heavy caliber machine guns but it wasn't regular practice for any of us to be walking around with a weapon. All that shit was locked up until it was needed which hardly ever happened. Apart from boot camp I only fired a weapon once after that in my 4 years. It wasn't a gun happy service.

But anyway my wife and I visited my daughter Tara who was working with the Forestry Service this summer in Oroville California and living in Chico and we even stayed in Paradise one night which was right up the road--maybe 10 miles away. But on that trip we went down to San Francisco and took the ferry over to Alcatraz and on the ferry were Coasties and they were all armed. So my thought was what the fuck happened to us? And of course part of the answer is 9-11 and subsequently the Coast Guard being incorporated into Homeland Security. Now I guess it's regular business but I don't think I would have enlisted if I was expected to walk a line between the military and law enforcement. Wouldn't be for me.

31margd
Edited: Nov 26, 2018, 4:17pm Top

The US and Canada have a 2009 agreement that allows joint law enforcement operations across the border in common waters. There have been a few on the Great Lakes addressing persistent Canadian commercial fishing incursions into US waters, etc. (Smuggling, too, no doubt.) A treaty was needed because US Coast Guard is military. Note, however, that "All designated officers are subject to Canadian laws while operating in Canada and would be subject to criminal prosecution for any criminal wrongdoings" though "any necessary disciplinary action will be taken by the designated officer's agency".

Integrated Cross-border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations (ICMLEO)

...Canadians need to be aware that if they are approached by a United States Coast Guard vessel in Canadian waters, they need to comply with their request as they would with an RCMP vessel.

...How the Canada-U.S. Shiprider Works

Canada-U.S. Shiprider involves vessels jointly crewed by specially trained and designated Canadian and U.S. law enforcement officers who are authorized to enforce the law on both sides of the international boundary line. Working together, armed Canadian and U.S. law enforcement officers are able to transit back and forth across the border to help secure it from threats to national security, as well as prevent cross-border smuggling and trafficking.

Specific enforcement activities consist of detecting, monitoring and potentially boarding vessels in either Canadian or American waters.

In Canadian waters, Canada-U.S. Shiprider operations are subject to Canadian laws, policies and procedures and all operations are undertaken under the direction and control of the RCMP. RCMP vessels designated as Canada-U.S. Shiprider vessels have a member of the USCG on board and are able to enter U.S. waters to enforce U.S. laws under the supervision of the USCG member.

Likewise, USCG vessels designated as Canada-U.S. Shiprider vessels have a member of the RCMP on board and are able to enter Canadian waters to enforce Canadian laws under the supervision of the RCMP officer.

By authorizing these officials to operate on either side of the border, the USCG and RCMP have developed a more efficient means of securing both sides of the border without violating the sovereignty of either nation.

...How will complaints involving law enforcement officers from the 'visiting' country be addressed?

Designated officers from the U.S. will be subject to the same public complaints mechanisms (Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP) as Members of the RCMP.

In addition, the Commissioner of the RCMP, or his delegate, has the ability to revoke the appointment of a designated officer. The 2009 Canada-U.S. Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations (Shiprider) stipulates that any necessary disciplinary action will be taken by the designated officer's agency.

All designated officers are subject to Canadian laws while operating in Canada and would be subject to criminal prosecution for any criminal wrongdoings.

Will the USCG or RCMP vessels be equipped with mounted guns?

Although the USCG does arm many of the vessels in its fleet with mounted guns, none of the vessels used during Canada-U.S. Shiprider operations will be equipped with mounted guns.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ibet-eipf/shiprider-eng.htm

32prosfilaes
Nov 26, 2018, 10:14pm Top

>25 barney67: EU is dead.

That's false. I don't know how we can communicate if you're going to deny basic obvious facts of reality. The EU may be losing a member (which the Schengen Area is not; the UK was never a part of that), but there's 27 other members, none of which look particularly quick to follow. Neither of us know the future, but the present is clear; the EU lives.

(Even if Brexit is a sign of the total collapse of the EU, I'd expect it to take decades; large, complex unions don't dissolve quickly, and several of the nations have seen nothing but good things from the union.)

Why do you ask me dumb questions when you know they are dumb?

You made a false statement; I made a response with a rhetorical question pointing out a counterexample. Why do you make that personal?

Why don't you show off your intelligence by responding to what people say? Californians live on the Mexican border; Trump lives a thousand miles away. Why do you think that Trump has a better idea about what to do with this issue if proximity to the issue is so important to you?

33johnthefireman
Nov 26, 2018, 11:58pm Top

>28 mamzel:

Definitely. That's why I think it is important to note as in >19 johnthefireman: the dangers of so-called 'tribal tourism', and why this is not a direct comparison as >3 Kuiperdolin: suggests.

34margd
Nov 27, 2018, 5:47am Top

Who you gonna believe? :/

Contradicting border chief, Trump claims 3 officers ‘very badly hurt’ by migrants
QUINT FORGEY | 11/26/2018

...Speaking with reporters in Mississippi, where he held two rallies for Republican Sen. Cindy-Hyde Smith, the president claimed that three border patrol officers “were very badly hurt, getting hit with rocks and stones” Sunday during a melee with migrants attempting to enter the United States at a border crossing in San Diego.

“We’ve had some very violent people and frankly we don’t want those people in our society,” Trump said, according to a pool report. “We don’t want those people in our country. We have tremendous violence.”

Trump’s account contradicted U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan, who said in a statement Monday that agents and officers “effectively managed an extremely dangerous situation involving over 1,000 individuals,” adding: “They did so safely and without any reported serious injuries on either side of the border.”...

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/26/trump-border-migrants-violence-1017366

__________________________________________________​

Mexico presents diplomatic note...

November 26, 2018 / 7:14 PM / Updated 8 hours ago
Mexico asks U.S. to investigate use of tear gas at border

Mexico’s foreign ministry presented a diplomatic note to the U.S. government on Monday calling for “a full investigation” into what it described as non-lethal weapons directed toward Mexican territory on Sunday, a statement from the ministry said.

U.S. authorities shot tear gas canisters toward migrants in Mexico on Sunday near the border crossing separating the Mexican city of Tijuana from San Diego, California, after some of them attempted to cross into the United States.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-diplomacy/mexico-asks-us-to-i...

35barney67
Nov 27, 2018, 1:53pm Top

>32 prosfilaes: How can you say that? I respond to what people say all the time. I've been doing it for ten years! Please stop uttering gibberish. I don't have the time to respond to stupidity like that anymore. You are applying something I said in a different context.

You missed that point, but Trump does have experience with illegal immigration if only as someone who owns hotels. I've been to hotels in Vegas where most of the maids speak Spanish. I know a little, and I hear what they say. Are they all illegal? I don't know. My guess is some are. Nevada is close to the border. Vegas is notorious for shady activity. Maybe a shooter was able to haul suitcases of weapons into his hotel room day after day because the illegal aliens who worked there were too afraid to say anything about what they saw. That would be a case of people dying due to illegal immigration.

Anything with the word "illegal" in front of it should not be one of your causes, no matter who you voted for or what you beliefs are. Your compassion is abstract and selective.

A Democrat like Harry Truman would never have said "I'm on the side of the criminals". You should be siding with legal immigrants and legal citizens, all 320 million of us, not the criminals who break the law simply because they can. This shouldn't even BE an issue. Decades ago it was the Democrat Bill Clinton warning us about illegal immigration, but he did nothing to solve it. What happened to Democrats since then? Trump says "day" and they say "night". So stupid. An alarm was sounded by Pat Buchanan, breaking from the Republican Party, joining the Reform Party with Ross Perot, criticizing George Bush. Trump comes from that foundation, not from the Republican Party. And Buchanan was called, what? A Nazi? This is a man who suffered a heart attack while running for president. Nazi? How can any adult engage in such childish name-calling, such small-mindedness? Crazy, fascist? Anyone who talks this way, who writes this way, destroys the debate, ruins it for the rest of us, doing untold amounts of damage.

So cut it out. All of you. You're filling the air with a poison that all of us inhale.

There are powerful people in California and elsewhere in America who want illegal aliens to continue to come here and provide cheap labor. I don't know why any left-wing, Democrat, socialist, or do-gooder would defend that. I can be a better liberal than most liberals. I didn't even vote for Trump.

I won't ask rhetorically, I'll state it: Trump has a better sense of what's going on in America for the very reason that he was a businessman involved with it, moving around in it, interacting with it, with people all over the world, not an armchair quarterback sitting in Washington passing laws without regard for the consequences. Abstracted from the situation.

There it is again.

36prosfilaes
Edited: Nov 27, 2018, 9:04pm Top

>16 barney67: When the U.S. tries to do it, it's criticized for being mean, selfish, cruel, immoral by kind, compassionate liberals. Oh, such good people. They are never mean or critical or insulting or judgmental or hypocritical or stupid. It's so easy to be nice to strangers 1000 miles away who you will never meet or live with. So much harder to deal with reality closest to you.

>35 barney67: You are applying something I said in a different context.

Again, Mexican immigrants will never meet or live with Trump, who is 1000 miles away. Californian liberals will meet and work with Mexican immigrants, who are part of reality closest to them.

Anything with the word "illegal" in front of it should not be one of your causes

Ever heard of Oskar Schindler? The law does not define right.

not the criminals who break the law simply because they can.

They break the law because they want to give their children a better life.

How can any adult engage in such childish name-calling, such small-mindedness? Crazy, fascist? Anyone who talks this way, who writes this way, destroys the debate, ruins it for the rest of us, doing untold amounts of damage.

#42, elsewhere: I wonder what conclusions can be drawn about people who run to administrators with complaints. The ones who snitch and rat on other people. The ones who point fingers. These were the pimply little losers in school who were always running to the teacher. The ones who couldn't catch a ball or dribble a basketball. Budding little fascists.

I'm bewildered.

Trump has a better sense of what's going on in America for the very reason that he was a businessman involved with it, moving around in it, interacting with it, with people all over the world, not an armchair quarterback sitting in Washington passing laws without regard for the consequences. Abstracted from the situation.

That's moving from the idea that things should be handled locally. Californians live with immigrants from Mexico and know the consequences. Now you're saying that moving around in it, being cosmopolitan, that's an advantage.

Trump's understanding of the consequences of his actions is up for question, but even beyond that, understanding the consequences is not good enough. Does he care about the poorest Americans, the migrants, the environment, or does he just care about his ratings and how high the stock market gets?

37barney67
Nov 28, 2018, 11:04am Top

You have completely missed the point, skewed it hopelessly. You're trying to apply an argument I made elsewhere in a different context. I said that already, but you didn't get that point either or you are ignoring. You don't respond to what I'm saying. You don't read it correctly and you don't understand it.

But the way you're wrong is interesting because it shows how Democrats oversimplify, look for templates and one-size-fits all solutions.

Democrats used to believe in localism. Whatever happened to that? They used to believe in diversity and individuality. What happened to that? They're not even Jeffersonian anymore. They're just nothing. They believe nothing. They're not even good liberals. My sister believes the biggest division in America is between those who can solve problems, and who therefore voted for Trump, and those who are mentally ill, and they usually vote for Democrats. Socrates bemoaned the difficulty of turning non-thinkers into thinkers. It can't be done.

Obviously protecting the border isn't a local problem. Why? How many reasons do you want? It concerns all states, people in every state. When a crime is committed across state lines, it becomes federal. It concerns national security, which makes it a federal problem. Only the federal government has an army. Or are you suggesting we empower states to raise their own armies? I would have to think about that.

Your assertion that Trump has never met Mexicans and never will is so dumb, so wrong, that it prevents the discussion from going forward. It is easily proven false and annihilated. You need to think about this stuff rather than trying to "win" or choose "the right side", otherwise there's no point in my saying anything to you. I'm not Jesus. I can't wipe mud from people's eyes to make them see.

38madpoet
Nov 28, 2018, 7:31pm Top

Well, here's an issue that most moderate people can see both sides of. On the one hand, every nation has the right-- even the duty-- to determine who can or cannot cross its border. That's what borders are for. On the other hand: what the hell? Shooting teargas at children? How can anyone be OK with that?

There has to be a more humane way to handle the situation. The refugees themselves share some of the blame: you can't try to force your way across a border or throw rocks at police and not expect things to end badly. The Border Patrol obviously needs to be reigned in and get some training on how to react to these situations less lethally.

This is a problem which should be addressed at the source, though. The U.S. intervened heavily in Central America in the last century, propping up corrupt regimes; now it should try to repair some of the damage through trade and aid. Not all countries in South America are sending refugees to the U.S. Costa Rica is not, for one. Maybe Honduras and other countries can learn from Costa Rica (no army, democratic system, good social services and a more equitable society).

39barney67
Nov 28, 2018, 8:36pm Top

It's the parents who have endangered the children. Illegal immigrants turning their families into criminals. If they don't want to risk their children, they shouldn't break the law.

Too many people don't take borders seriously. Esp. in America.

40Carnophile
Nov 28, 2018, 10:44pm Top

>29 margd: There’s a lot to address in that post and that mostly will have to wait until I have more time. But for now:

Under Obama, tear gas was used at the border more than once a month during 2012-2016.

Even leftist Snopes is forced to concede this:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-tear-gas-border-migrants/

No deafening shrieks of outrage from liberals then.

41prosfilaes
Nov 29, 2018, 4:48am Top

>37 barney67: You're trying to apply an argument I made elsewhere in a different context.

>16 barney67: is this thread, it's talking about the Mexican border and says that "It's so easy to be nice to strangers 1000 miles away who you will never meet or live with." It still makes no sense to complain about liberals in Southern California as if they're 1000 miles away from Mexican immigrants.

But the way you're wrong is interesting because it shows how Democrats oversimplify, look for templates and one-size-fits all solutions.

How do you write these things? How do you go from my comments to all Democrats in the very same sentence you complain about oversimplifying and looking for templates?

Democrats used to believe in localism. ... Obviously protecting the border isn't a local problem.

There was a court that just overturned federal laws about female genital mutilation on the grounds that it's not within the power of Congress, and the responses immediately complained that that makes any state that has no laws against that the destination for parents who want to engage in FGM. Few problems are entirely local.

As I mentioned, sanctuary cities are a purely classic local matter. States have the right to order their police as they will, and cities are only bounded by the laws of their state.

It concerns all states, people in every state.

Which is pretty much the argument for unbridled federalism. Actually, 61% of illegal immigrants live in 20 metropolitian areas, in just 13 states.* With the exception of Arizona, Texas and Georgia, and partial exception of purple Nevada and Florida, these are all liberal states. There's actually only four states on the Mexican border.

We are all interconnected, but if you want to support localism, you need to discourage that type of thinking. In this case, the federal government could not stress about sanctuary cities, and could minimize its involvement on the border. The local police could handle a lot of it.

I don't see nearly as much real opposition to federalism as people who use federalism to attack things they disagree with. If you don't like federalism, then there's lots of ways we could handle the border in less federal ways, and certainly shouldn't be stressing about sanctuary cities.

* http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/09/us-metro-areas-unauthorized-immi...

It concerns national security, which makes it a federal problem. Only the federal government has an army.

Huh? You don't need an army unless there's an military on the border. Handling a few civilians, maybe even a mob, is something that the police are fine at.

They used to believe in diversity and individuality. What happened to that? ... My sister believes the biggest division in America is between those who can solve problems, and who therefore voted for Trump, and those who are mentally ill, and they usually vote for Democrats.

I'd have to have more details about why you think that Democrats don't believe in diversity and individuality to really respond to that, but... calling Democrats "mentally ill" doesn't support diversity and individuality and it discourages Democrats from trying to treat the other side seriously. Someone, in this thread, said that "Crazy, fascist? Anyone who talks this way, who writes this way, destroys the debate, ruins it for the rest of us, doing untold amounts of damage." Works like Treason and How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) are national best-sellers from a major conservative that discourage liberals from talking to conservatives or worrying about their issues. If you think we should be polite to Buchanan, what about calling a half dozen US Presidents traitors?

42barney67
Nov 30, 2018, 2:08pm Top

>41 prosfilaes: "How do you go from my comments to all Democrats in the very same sentence you complain about oversimplifying and looking for templates?"

Are you suggesting that whenever I say "all Democrats" I'm oversimplifying? What if I say "most"? If you disagree with the point, you should analyze the point, not me. That's what the TOS is all about. Some of you have taken me to task for complaining that posters rat on me to the moderators. But flagging isn't balanced. Ratting isn't balanced. If it were, I wouldn't bring it up. If I ratted on people, it wouldn't be a problem, but I don't.

To your point, I could mention many examples of Democrats marching lockstep as models of conformity and one-size-fits-all thinking. Sure, I could call it fascism, but that term belongs to the 1940s. It doesn't really apply to our world in any serious way that's a threat to anyone. Certainly not America.

How many Democrats have supported Trump on anything? A few. How many supported the Kavanaugh nomination? None. How many supported Trump in health care? None? How many Democrats supported Obama's health care plan when he was president? All of them? It's such an obvious point that I don't feel the need to list example after example. You would just change the subject like you always do and turn it back on me.

You remember what Lindsay Graham said? "You say hello to Ginsburg and Kagan and Sotomayer, because I voted for them". Why do Republican vote for Democrats, but Democrats never vote for Republicans? I've been watching this my whole life and it's only gotten worse. There is far more uniformity among Democrats than Republicans. There are many reasons for that.

Not everyone has to be polite to be Buchanan. It would be nice. But what I said was they shouldn't have called him a Nazi and a fascist for wanting to build a wall and protect the border. That's all. Why can't people do that? Why can't Democrats disagree with the president, with a candidate, with anyone, and say WHY they disagree rather than fall back on personal attacks like he's crazy, racist, sexist, fascist? It treats life like a Marvel comic book movie where the Democrats are always the good guys. I hope no one really believes that if you are a moral person you vote for Democrats, and if you are an immoral person then you vote Republican.

People who are not living life with their five senses are mentally ill. They have literally taken leave of their senses. People who think the world is flat, that we never went to the moon, and that 9/11 was a plot by the U.S. government are mentally ill because they refuse to be persuaded by overwhelming evidence.

When someone tells me the sky is falling, all I have to do is look out my window and check. Many Democrats need to be told by the Guardian, the New York Times, the TV networks, Huffington Post, the Atlantic.

43Carnophile
Nov 30, 2018, 5:09pm Top

>42 barney67: they shouldn't have called him a Nazi and a fascist for wanting to build a wall and protect the border

Indeed. In the 1940s, Nazis invaded other countries. Now "Nazis" are those who object to invasions, apparently.

"Dude! If you think about it, objecting to invasions is totally the same thing as carrying out invasions!"

Leftists love saying stuff like this. I've never been able to understand the psychology behind it.

44jjwilson61
Nov 30, 2018, 5:12pm Top

>43 Carnophile: Apparently you've forgotten about the Jews in Germany.

45Carnophile
Edited: Nov 30, 2018, 5:49pm Top

>44 jjwilson61: ...who were trying so desperately to get into Germany, but were denied.

46jjwilson61
Nov 30, 2018, 6:04pm Top

>45 Carnophile: Exactly my point.

47Carnophile
Nov 30, 2018, 6:26pm Top

Your point is interesting to me. I didn't realize Jews were desperate to get INTO Nazi Germany. Fascinating.

48Carnophile
Nov 30, 2018, 6:30pm Top

Border Patrol agent killed by rock throwers in ambush attack near US-Mexico border in Texas

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5100891/Border-Patrol-agent-killed-rock...
a National Border Patrol Council official told KTSM the assailants were 'undocumented immigrants' who used likely used rocks to beat the agents.
All this while margd laughs in #29: "Projectiles" this time, if any, might include flipflops?

492wonderY
Edited: Nov 30, 2018, 7:58pm Top

>48 Carnophile:. Nothing on the news to verify that story, but Snopes reports that photo connects to a November 2017 story where the agent died from a fall during a night patrol.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/border-patrol-officer-death/

Eta: Appears the inquiry is still open:
https://www.kvia.com/news/el-paso/a-year-later-agent-martinez-s-death-still-unso...

50prosfilaes
Nov 30, 2018, 8:39pm Top

>42 barney67: Are you suggesting that whenever I say "all Democrats" I'm oversimplifying?

Duh. Whenever you say "all Democrats", you're oversimplifying. Whenever you generalize from one person to an entire group, you're overgeneralizing.

Why do Republican vote for Democrats, but Democrats never vote for Republicans?

How many Republicans voted for Merrick Garland? Zero. For the first time in history, one party blocked any sort of hearing for a Supreme Court nominee.

WHY they disagree rather than fall back on personal attacks like he's crazy, racist, sexist, fascist? ... People who are not living life with their five senses are mentally ill.

As always, whining about how your opponents do something while doing it yourself isn't impressive to anyone who isn't already a partisan on your side.

I hope no one really believes that if you are a moral person you vote for Democrats, and if you are an immoral person then you vote Republican.

My sister believes the biggest division in America is between those who can solve problems, and who therefore voted for Trump, and those who are mentally ill, and they usually vote for Democrats.

----

Why do Republican vote for Democrats, but Democrats never vote for Republicans? I've been watching this my whole life and it's only gotten worse. There is far more uniformity among Democrats than Republicans. There are many reasons for that.

Show the evidence. That's a huge claim that might be convincing if you could find a neutral or at least convincing group that's actually done a study. Here's an example:

http://www.rollcall.com/heard-on-the-hill/two-presidential-hopefuls-rank-as-leas... points out that Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders were the least two bipartisan senators on the hill at the time. A Republican and someone who is so extreme he usually identified as an Independent, not a Democrat.

Their numbers come from http://www.thelugarcenter.org/ourwork-Bipartisan-Index.html. There's lots of interesting numbers there, but it's clear that it's not just one party.

If you want to look at something else, show a link to a full data set.

----

It's such an obvious point that I don't feel the need to list example after example. You would just change the subject like you always do and turn it back on me.

Examples are worth shit, especially cherry-picked partisan examples. Let's take one of yours:

How many {Democrats} supported the Kavanaugh nomination? None.

The final vote was 49 Republicans and 1 Democrat for, 48 Democrats against.* Even on this one example, more Democrats crossed lines than Republicans. Kavanaugh is arguably an atypical process, given the way it focused on Kavanaugh's bald partisanship and #MeToo, instead of normal issues. It certainly doesn't support one party being partisan and the other not.

It looks like https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00118.x is the best source, but you need a library subscription to access; can anyone give us a summary? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/is-the-hyper-partisan-supreme-court-confirma... has some details; it says "Chief Justice John Roberts, who was confirmed in 2005, was the last nominee to receive 70 or more votes."

* NYT: "Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska announced that she would have voted no, but withdrew her vote as a courtesy to Senator Steve Daines of Montana. Mr. Daines, who would have voted yes, was attending his daughter’s wedding. Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia was the only Democrat to vote yes."

The plural of anecdote is not data, and your cherry-picked examples aren't going to be convincing to your opponents. Get a bunch of data, entire Congressional voting records across multiple Presidents, and then we can talk.

51Carnophile
Dec 3, 2018, 11:47pm Top

>49 2wonderY: Different sources say or emphasize different things. The NYT emphasizes the "FBI has not concluded there was foul play" angle. Fox notes that an FBI agent swore out an affadavit opining that Martinez was murdered.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/border-patrol-agent-was-murdered-fbi-agent-contends-i...

Whatever. My point in 48 is that rocks are no joke. It's not like no one has ever been stoned to death.

The military says the people threw rocks. Margd can believe they're lying. She believes a lot of things. *I've seen video* of people throwing things that definitely aren't shoes or "flip flops."

52Carnophile
Edited: Dec 13, 2018, 10:48pm Top



If you don't catch the reference put "Elian Gonzalez" into a search engine.

53margd
Edited: Dec 14, 2018, 9:34am Top

There they go again, those liberals, reunifying families again!

Meanwhile: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/7-year-old-migrant-girl-t...

54Carnophile
Dec 14, 2018, 11:02pm Top

>53 margd: There they go again, those liberals, reunifying families again!

Excellent, then you support deporting DACA illegals so they can be reunified with their families. Glad to hear it.

RE: Girl dies while in custody:

That’s why you Don’t. Bring. Children. On. An. Invasion.

Since you want to talk about deaths and illegals, how about nurder?
A Massachusetts teen facing charges in the killing of a 17-year-old boy had been allowed to remain in the country despite being identified by police as an active member of MS-13...

But the judge deemed the information against Gutierrez inconclusive and ordered him released on June 30, just weeks before the Somerville resident and five other alleged MS-13 members stabbed Herson Rivas to death...

"Straight into his ribs, dude," Gutierrez told a fellow inmate of Rivas' killing, according to the prosecutor's filings. "And when I pulled out the knife, it was warped. Not just on the tip, but it came out kind of twisted."

55johnthefireman
Dec 15, 2018, 12:14am Top

>54 Carnophile:

It's not an invasion. It's ordinary people who are pretty desperate trying to get their children to safety. We used to welcome them, as with the Kindertransport, for example.

56Carnophile
Dec 15, 2018, 10:12pm Top

>55 johnthefireman:

You are the most intellectually dishonest person I know.

57johnthefireman
Dec 15, 2018, 11:53pm Top

>56 Carnophile:

Is that your way of saying that your opinion is different from mine on this topic?

60Carnophile
Jan 22, 4:18pm Top

So-called “refugees” reject offer of sanctuary in Mexico.

They’re not refugees desperately fleeing terrible conditions. They’re literally tourists, refusing offers of refuge in a country that doesn’t measure up to their standards.

61Carnophile
Jan 22, 4:21pm Top

More from the foregoing article:
...the flimsiness of their asylum claims lies not just in their statements of wanting 'a better life' in the U.S., but in their disdain for a generous benefit package that Mexico has ready to offer them.

Mexican authorities are urging the migrants to cross the border legally and offering expedited "visitor cards" that let them work and access basic health care in Mexico.

So far, 969 migrants from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua have been registered under the program... But hundreds more migrants ignored the offer and crossed illegally...

"Our goal is to reach the United States,"
said Alma Mendoza...
Not only does this refute the propaganda stories about “poor desperate refugees fleeing violence,” it also apparently violates “international law”:
Which raises questions about 'first country of refuge' and 'safe country of refuge' in international law, which calls on refugees to accept the first country of refuge. The generous offer from Mexico suggests that Mexico is trying to be a first country of refuge and offer the migrants a safe space... Mexico offered refuge to every one of the migrants, and at least some are turning up their noses at it.

62Carnophile
Feb 1, 3:56pm Top



Invaders, marching under foreign flags, advancing on the US border.

63StormRaven
Edited: Feb 1, 9:51pm Top

Which raises questions about 'first country of refuge' and 'safe country of refuge' in international law, which calls on refugees to accept the first country of refuge.

This is simply a lie. There is nothing in either the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or U.S. law that calls on refugees to accept the first country of refuge.

64lriley
Feb 1, 11:29pm Top

#62--you have a picture of people on a bridge and you don't cite a source for the picture--when or where or by whom it was taken--no for real information in fact (kind of like I would expect from our nitwit of a president who continually leaps to all kinds of assumptions and accusations in pursuit of this or that agenda and who thinks that he can make facts out of thin air) apart from your own fear mongering caption underneath this picture and it is hard to take it or you seriously.

652wonderY
Feb 2, 9:55am Top

>62 Carnophile: I see humans and flags; Mexican, Honduran and possibly Guatemalan. No weapons.

Arriaga bridge between Guatemala and Mexico, last fall.

https://www.dw.com/en/migrant-caravan-members-refuse-mexicos-offer-of-temporary-...

Mexican federal officers abandoned a blockade they had set up on a bridge in the south of the country on Saturday. Mexico's Human Rights Commission told police that a rural stretch of highway without shade or water was no place to hold talks.

According to organizers, some 5,500 men, women and children are in the caravan, while authorities put the number at 3,630.

The group had turned down an offer by Mexico to help them find shelter and work in the country on Friday night but said they may be willing to discuss the offer again when they reached the Mexican capital. That is a further 800 kilometers (500 miles) to the north.

66StormRaven
Feb 2, 11:08am Top

65: The picture in 62 is from last October, which makes one wonder why Carnie thinks it is relevant now.

67johnthefireman
Edited: Feb 2, 11:19am Top

>65 2wonderY:

Well, those who believe fake news are by definition usually not very good at sifting the fake from the real, so to give Carnophile the benefit of the doubt maybe s/he doesn't even realise that it is a four-month old photo which has no real relevance whatsoever to this conversation? Or maybe Carnophile can explain to us ignoramuses (ignorami?) the relevance?

682wonderY
Feb 2, 11:36am Top

Well, that volume of people does look intimidating. But the reality is that you could wade into that crowd and be safe. Their intention was not mayhem, but applying for refugee status.

71johnthefireman
Feb 3, 1:43am Top

>68 2wonderY: you could wade into that crowd and be safe

I've waded into more than one protest by mistake and been safe. When Numeiri was being overthrown in 1985 I pitched up in Khartoum off an overnight lorry across the desert and walked straght into the tear gas. Police with riot shields thought it was the funniest thing they'd ever seen and pointed out a side street where I could escape. And in 1991 I accidentally drove into an anti-US protest against the Iraq war, and the demonstrators parted politely and waved me through. Looks can be deceptive.

72johnthefireman
Feb 3, 1:56am Top

>69 RickHarsch:

Thanks, Rick. Excellent song, and what a gravelly voice. Some of the themes in it remind me of Billy Bragg's The marching song of the covert battalions from an earlier era of protest songs.

73margd
Feb 3, 2:57am Top

>69 RickHarsch: "This song is ten years old... Any resemblance of any contemporary political figures to the King of the Underworld is purely coincidental."
- Anaïs Mitchell

!

74Carnophile
Feb 3, 6:17pm Top

>63 StormRaven: "Which raises questions about 'first country of refuge' and 'safe country of refuge' in international law, which calls on refugees to accept the first country of refuge."

This is simply a lie. There is nothing in either the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or U.S. law that calls on refugees to accept the first country of refuge.


In fact, Canada and the US have a “Safe Third Country” agreement which means Canada often sends "refugees" from the US straight back to the US.
The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association joins many other civil society and refugee-serving organizations in calling on the Government of Canada to suspend the “Safe Third Country” agreement with the United States. The agreement allows Canada to turn away most refugee claimants who are transiting through the United States to Canada via the land border, based on the premise that the United States is a safe country in which they can make their asylum claim.
If we have such an agreement with Canada, I want to know why the fuck we don’t have it with Mexico.

75Carnophile
Feb 3, 6:20pm Top

More importantly, this should be a feature of “international law.”

Someone says, “I’m a refugee, fleeing starvation!”
The country he’s currently in says, “Okay, here’s some food, settle here.”
Then he says, “No, this country isn’t good enough for me.”

Then he’s not really a “refugee,” fleeing starvation. He is in fact house shopping. And being damned picky about finding a place that’s good enough for his upscale standards.

The only reasonable response to that is "Fuck you."

76Carnophile
Feb 3, 6:24pm Top

Alright kids, the Superbowl starts in less than 10 minutes, so I'm out for now. Back later.

77RickHarsch
Feb 3, 6:53pm Top

>75 Carnophile: Sometimes a feller has to strain to appear a fool, I guess. I would figure most people would understand the problem with, for example, a country like Italy, taking all the refugees that make the shortest crossing of the Mediterranean east of Algeria; or the problem with Greece and Macedonia taking all the Syrian refugees that come from the Levant.
But I understand that some people might lack the imagination to comprehend a migratory world, especially given the vagaries of the human species as opposed to those more consistent migrants, the birds. But even then, the (now) US landmass has been a consistently popular destination for migrants for over 400 years, so the desire for people to go there should not be shocking. Nor should anyone be shocked that the relations of migrants tend to want to migrate to where their relatives are.

'Someone says, “I’m a refugee, fleeing starvation!”
The country he’s currently in says, “Okay, here’s some food, settle here.”'

I love this part, as it formulates rather precisely the response most knowledgeable of US history would call for, and thus reveals that this Carnophile is actually in agreement with those of us who oppose the wall and all the idiocy behind the urge for it.

78KAzevedo
Feb 4, 12:53am Top

Carnophile:... there's this international law...

Stormraven:... No there isn't, that's a lie.

Carnophile:... Well then there should be.

The only reasonable response to this is, Fuck you.

79proximity1
Edited: Feb 4, 9:36am Top

>63 StormRaven: "There is nothing in either the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or U.S. law that calls on refugees to accept the first country of refuge."

And, of course, there's no such thing as a reasonable definition of "refugee", and, even if there were one, it would be totally independent of the normal linguistic consequences of "logic" operating on it--

For example:

Subject, flees his home nation for reasons clearly accepted as grounds which qualify him as a refugee under international treaties (here, assumed to apply to all countries concerned in this hypothetical case except those neighboring-country exceptions mentioned expressly).

The subject's immediately-neighboring state(s) are all just as dangerous to him and he cannot remain in any one of these and find sanctuary there. So, he continues his perilous journey until he arrives at the first country in which he can find safe haven and apply, qualifying as a legal refugee.

But, for various reasons which are mainly or wholly economically-based, he prefers not to remain there and apply for refugee status since, by going on, he has a very reasonable chance of reaching an even more desirable country. So he continues his journey.

QUESTION: How, arriving at last at this more desirable country, can he either logically or honestly continue to present himself as a person in immediate danger, qualifying him to persist in claiming a refugee's status under treaty?

It would seem that, no matter what the treaty does or doesn't explicitly state about the subject's obligations to 'seek sanctuary in the first country he comes to which could reasonably afford that sanctuary,' logic would indicate that, once in that first-sanctuary country, where he's literally a bona fide refugee, if he then chooses to leave it for another country, then, on arriving there, he's no longer honestly able to describe himself as a "refugee" according to the treaty's terms---
either that, or words' meanings simply are of no indicative value.

80johnthefireman
Edited: Feb 4, 9:56am Top

>79 proximity1: 'seek sanctuary in the first country he comes to which could reasonably afford that sanctuary,'

Whereas in reality the vast majority of refugees in the world seek sanctuary in countries which can't afford that sanctuary - but which give it anyway. Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Jordan, Lebanon, etc. The refugee "crisis" in the rich countries such as the USA and European states doesn't seem like such a crisis when you compare the numbers with refugees hosted by poor countries.

if he choose to leave it for another country

There are many reasons apart from economic why people move on from the first country of refuge to one which is more appropriate to their circumstances. One is safety and security - the reach of many oppressive regimes is longer than one might think. Another is language - if you come from an English-speaking country and you're beyond the age at which new languages come easily, you will try and get to an English-speaking country of refuge. Likewise cultural links - you'll try to get to a country which has a similar education system, where your professional and academic qualifications might be recognised, where you can navigate the complexities of life more effectively. And family - if your relatives or people from your community are in a particular country, you'll try and join them, which will also help to ease your passage into the new culture. Remember also that many of these people are hghly traumatised and may simply be trying to get as far away as they can from the source of that trauma regardless of how safe the intervening countries are.

Your assumptions are also contradicted by the fact that many governments actually seek out refugees from the first country of refuge. Australia, Canada and the USA have had large programmes which brought large numbers of South Sudan's so-called "lost boys" as well as many Somalis from refugee camps in Kenya (especially Kakuma and Dadaab).

81Carnophile
Feb 4, 10:49pm Top

>78 KAzevedo:

KAzevedo, hon, you've got toilet paper on your shoe.

82Carnophile
Edited: Feb 4, 11:10pm Top

>63 StormRaven:

Here's the Norwegian Refugee Council:
The so-called ‘first country of asylum’ principle often justifies the decision to return asylum seekers to another country. It means that a country can reject a person’s asylum application if they have already been granted protection by another country. It is also often referred to as ‘safe third country’ principle. This broader term includes other relationships between an asylum seeker and a third country where they are deemed safe.

These two principles are central to the Dublin Regulation... The Dublin Regulation aims to streamline asylum management in Europe by only allowing an asylum application to be processed by one country; normally the country where the person first arrives in Europe. It seeks to avoid ‘asylum shopping’...

...the two previous principles are based on an interpretation of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and hence applicable to all countries that have acceded to it. The principles are not directly mentioned in the Convention, but derived from Article 31, which states that a refugee should not be punished for illegally entering a country if they are arriving directly from a country where they were under threat.

83Carnophile
Feb 4, 11:01pm Top

And Wikipedia, source of all knowledge, on the Dublin Regulation:
The Dublin Regulation... is a European Union (EU) law that determines which EU Member State is responsible for the examination of an application for asylum... (It) aims to "determine rapidly the Member State responsible (for an asylum claim)" and provides for the transfer of an asylum seeker to that Member State. Usually, the responsible Member State will be the state through which the asylum seeker first entered the EU.

...The Dublin III Regulation (No. 604/2013) was approved in June 2013, replacing the Dublin II Regulation, and applies to all member states except Denmark. ... It is based on the same principle as the previous two, i. e., that the first Member State where finger prints are stored or an asylum claim is lodged is responsible for a person's asylum claim.

In July 2017, the European Court of Justice upheld the Dublin Regulation... giving EU member states the right to deport migrants to the first country of entry to the EU.

84Carnophile
Edited: Feb 4, 11:12pm Top

So there are (at least) two precedents for this (common-sense, sane) requirement, that if you're claiming to be a poooooooor, desperate "refugee," you can't window shop for a country that meets your Tuxedo Junction standards:

A treaty between the US and Canada, and a Regulation that applies to some large number of countries in Europe.

The principle is recognized by international agreements, as it damn well should be.

85Carnophile
Feb 4, 11:21pm Top

>65 2wonderY: Arriaga bridge between Guatemala and Mexico, last fall.

They were from Guatemala headed into Mexico in that pic... but they announced their intention to head to the US. And they did.

86Carnophile
Feb 4, 11:33pm Top

>64 lriley:
>65 2wonderY: bridge between Guatemala and Mexico, last fall.
>66 StormRaven:
>67 johnthefireman: fake news

You all make a good point. The photo is inaccurate... because it UNDERSTATES the invasion that is currently underway.

Per #65, The Guatemala-Mexico “caravan” was somewhere between 3,630 and 5,500 people.

The caravan - er, one of the caravans - currently headed toward the US is estimated by the DoD at more than 12,000. As CNN notes:
The Department of Homeland Security is "tracking" three caravans en route to the United States, "one of which is over 12,000 people in the latest estimate," Under Secretary of Defense for Policy John Rood told the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday.
So if you all are accusing me of minimizing the problem, and you want to argue that it’s actually worse than #62 suggests, well, yes, it is worse.

87Carnophile
Edited: Feb 4, 11:36pm Top

Also, I couldn’t find a good wide shot of the current caravan, displaying the estimated more-than-12,000 people. Not that I looked that hard, tbh. But if anyone in this thread wants to post one, that would be great. Or if you don’t know how to, then tell me the url if you like, and I’ll do it.

88StormRaven
Feb 5, 1:48am Top

It would seem that, no matter what the treaty does or doesn't explicitly state about the subject's obligations to 'seek sanctuary in the first country he comes to which could reasonably afford that sanctuary,' logic would indicate that, once in that first-sanctuary country

This typical proximity - if the world doesn't say what he wants it to, he just screams that it should, and than proceeds as if his desires are actually reality despite the fact that they are not.

89StormRaven
Feb 5, 1:50am Top

If we have such an agreement with Canada, I want to know why the fuck we don’t have it with Mexico.

Because we don't, and since we don't that's not the way the rules work.

None of the other material that you have posted is applicable to the United States, and none of it applies to any of the people currently seeking refugee status in the United States.

In other words, you started with a lie, and now you are desperately trying to justify that lie.

90Carnophile
Feb 5, 10:49pm Top

>65 2wonderY: No weapons.

“Invasion” means “invasion.” It doesn’t mean “Invasion with weapons.”

>68 2wonderY: you could wade into that crowd and be safe.

Even if that were true, a guy doesn’t have the right to crash my pad and hang out on my couch. It’s not OK just because he’s not trying to assault me.

It’s even less okay if he intends to stay for the rest of his life.

And bring his family with him.

And it’s not true anyway.
A Tijuana official gave an update on the recent increase in the local crime rate during an interview with Tucker Carlson on Thursday night.

Genaro Lopez was on Carlson’s show about two weeks ago and shared that there were 6,200 migrants staying in Tijuana at that time.

“There have been like 280 arrests. Before it was only for drug possession and being drunk in the streets. Now it’s for breaking and entering into the homes. People have made citizens arrests,” Lopez stated.

91Carnophile
Feb 5, 10:56pm Top

>77 RickHarsch: “Sometimes a feller has to strain to appear a fool, I guess.”

Whereas others do it effortlessly. Mexico isn’t analogous to your example of Italy; Mexico is not claiming to be overcrowded. It’s offering to let the migrants stay there.

It’s the migrants who are saying, “This isn’t good enough for us.”

92Carnophile
Feb 5, 11:25pm Top

>80 johnthefireman: There are many reasons apart from economic why people move on from the first country of refuge...

This is simply a blast of bullshit and moving the goal-posts.

First you’re supposed to be starving. Then we get a bunch of horseshit like, “Wah, I don’t speak the language!”

(1) Too bad; if you’re worried about that then you’re obviously not fleeing imminent death.

(2) Are you seriously making a language argument for a bunch of migrants from South or Central America, rejecting Mexico in favor of the US?! REALLY!?

(Exception: Belize has English as official! How those refugees from Belize tug on my heartstrings!)

you'll try to get to a country which has a similar education system

As I said: Tourists, shopping for a place they find acceptable.

93johnthefireman
Edited: Feb 5, 11:35pm Top

>92 Carnophile: First you’re supposed to be starving

No, this is only one reason why people flee their homes. Some people are at risk of violence but are not starving, for example. Don't focus on only one issue.

if you’re worried about that then you’re obviously not fleeing imminent death.

No, you are fleeing imminent death, but once you are out of the country where they are trying to kill you, you still have options as to where is the most appropriate place to head for.

Tourists, shopping for a place they find acceptable.

No, desperate people who have already suffered things that most westerners probably can't even imagine, just trying to find the most appropriate place to settle down and experience some of the things which most westerners take for granted, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

94Carnophile
Feb 5, 11:44pm Top

>80 johnthefireman: safety and security - the reach of many oppressive regimes is longer than one might think.

You’re transparently rationalizing to try to get to the conclusion that the US is obligated to take these people in.

How is getting into the US supposed to help them, anyway? Following your desired policies, all an assassin pursuing them has to do is say, “I’m a refugee,” and we should admit him!

That kind if situation has actually happened with gang violence. There’s at least one case in which a person entered the US claiming to be “fleeing gang violence,” and then attacked someone with a baseball bat.

95Carnophile
Feb 5, 11:55pm Top

>89 StormRaven:

Me: “If we have such an agreement with Canada, I want to know why the fuck we don’t have it with Mexico.”

StormRaven: Because we don't...

Bloody brilliant.

None of the other material that you have posted is applicable to the United States...

Yes it is. I specifically mentioned the US-Canada agreement, in #74.

Stop lying.

96RickHarsch
Edited: Feb 6, 11:41am Top

>91 Carnophile: Not the point at all, but I guess as the honest feller who calls others liars you legitimately believe that if I expand the discussion to other countries you have made a point regarding Mexico. It's true that you can't be called a liar for misrepresenting the thoughts and imagined words of migrants--you may simply not know how far off base you are. You may genuinely know nothing about migration patterns throughout history, even recent history. You may not know that people migrate to various target countries for a variety of reasons, and you may not know that throughout history people generally only choose to leave their homelands in number under duress. Hard to fathom how little you know.

97Carnophile
Feb 6, 8:32pm Top

>93 johnthefireman: "Tourists, shopping for a place they find acceptable."

No, desperate people


No, tourists, shopping for a place they find acceptable.

98Carnophile
Feb 6, 8:33pm Top

>96 RickHarsch: leave their homelands in number under duress.

Defined as shopping for a place they find acceptable.

99proximity1
Edited: Feb 7, 7:59am Top

>97 Carnophile:

I can personally cite an instance (in Italy) --during lunch at a charity soup-kitchen--when, in amiable conversation with an African-immigrant to that country--this fellow volunteered some of the details of his peregrinations--and, yes, that term has to be in the plural--around Europe. He opined about having visited--in no particular order-- and stayed for some time in Stockholm, Oslo, Copenhagen, Amsterdam,Madrid, Barcelona, Berlin, Paris or other places in France, and even one or two places in Switzerland. He was speaking of which places he'd enjoyed more or enjoyed less among the list.

I asked him how he first came to enter Europe at all and learned that he first arrived in Europe aboard a commercial flight and, on arriving, claimed refugee status--which, he admitted--he got via a ruse. Once in, he made a tour of towns and cities he'd wanted to see.

100johnthefireman
Feb 7, 8:10am Top

>99 proximity1:

Ah yes, the anecdote.

101RickHarsch
Feb 7, 10:01am Top

>98 Carnophile: Well, that's just plain ignorance.
>99 proximity1: Living near the Italian border and spending parts of at least two days a week there, usually more, over the last several years, I've come to know a little about the situation of immigrants there, and Mr. Proximity's fellow is far from representative. He might do better to visit refugee centers outside Roma, or the morgue in Macerata. A stop at the Chamber of Deputies might be instructive as well.

102StormRaven
Edited: Feb 7, 2:18pm Top

Bloody brilliant.

Apparently it is too complicated for you to understand. The U.S. has no specific agreement with Mexico, and that means that the rules that you really wish were in effect are not. Reality doesn't bend to your wishes. The rules are what the rules are. Good luck getting Mexico to agree to change them just because you really really want them to.

Yes it is. I specifically mentioned the US-Canada agreement

I see. You're simply not observant enough to notice I said that none of the other material you posted applies to the United States.

As in, the material other than the U.S.-Canada agreement that I mentioned directly before the part you quoted.

Leaving that part out of your quote is called a "lie by omission", which means the only one lying here is you.

103StormRaven
Feb 7, 2:10pm Top

First you’re supposed to be starving.

Once again, this is not a requirement that appears anywhere in either U.S. or international law concerning refugees. Stop making shit up. It just makes you look like you are clueless on this subject.

104johnthefireman
Feb 8, 3:34am Top

The image of the scapegoat powerfully mirrors the universal, but largely unconscious, human need to transfer our guilt onto something or someone else by singling that other out for unmerited negative treatment. French philosopher and historian René Girard (1923–2015) demonstrated that the scapegoat mechanism is foundational for the formation of most social groups and cultures. We need another group to be against to form our group! For example, many in the United States scapegoat refugees who are seeking asylum, falsely accusing them of being criminals. This pattern is seen in many facets of our society and our private, inner lives...

We humans largely hate or blame almost anything else rather than recognize our own weaknesses and negativity. “She made me do it.” “He is guilty.” “He deserves it.” “They are the problem.” “They are evil.” We seldom consciously know that we are scapegoating or projecting. It’s automatic, ingrained, and unconscious...

We hate our own imperfections in other people...


From Richard Rohr

105margd
Edited: Feb 8, 7:19am Top

This message has been deleted by its author.

106Carnophile
Edited: Feb 10, 8:22pm Top

>102 StormRaven:

Me: "I specifically mentioned the US-Canada agreement"

StormRaven: I see. You're simply not observant enough to notice I said that none of the other material you posted applies to the United States.
As in, the material other than the U.S.-Canada agreement that I mentioned directly before the part you quoted.


So your argument was,

“Sure, Carnophile mentioned something that applied to the US. But none of the other things he mentioned - aside from the one that applies to the US - applies to the US.”

Uh-huh.

107Carnophile
Feb 10, 8:26pm Top

>102 StormRaven:

Me: “Yes it is. I specifically mentioned the US-Canada agreement”

StormRaven: I see. You're simply not observant enough to notice I said that none of the other material you posted applies to the United States...

Leaving that part out of your quote is called a "lie by omission"


First you claim I’m *not observant enough to notice* what you said.

Then you claim I’m *lying* by omission.

You can’t even get your own story straight.

108Carnophile
Feb 10, 8:27pm Top

>102 StormRaven:

Me: “First you’re supposed to be starving.”

StormRaven: Once again, this is not a requirement that appears anywhere in either U.S. or international law concerning refugees. Stop making shit up.

I never said that it was a requirement in law. You’re telling a brazen, outright lie about what I said.

109Carnophile
Edited: Feb 11, 9:30pm Top

>99 proximity1: I can personally cite an instance (in Italy)... in amiable conversation with an African-immigrant to that country... I asked him how he first came to enter Europe at all and learned that he first arrived in Europe aboard a commercial flight and, on arriving, claimed refugee status--which, he admitted--he got via a ruse.

>100 johnthefireman: Ah yes, the anecdote.

Asylum seekers lose status over home visits.

“Almost 200 asylum seekers lost their official status in Switzerland last year (2015) after travelling back to their homelands...”

The problem is also being discussed elsewhere in Europe.

Immigrants are behaving exactly as one would expect them to behave given the incentives. Told that "refugee" is the magic word to get them into a western nation, they, not surprisingly, say that magic word at the border.

110proximity1
Edited: Feb 12, 6:44am Top

>109 Carnophile:

"Immigrants are behaving exactly as one would expect them to behave given the incentives. Told that 'refugee' is the magic word to get them into a western nation, they, not surprisingly, say that magic word at the border."

Of course they are. What's most amazing is that there are so many among the liberal left who are so divorced from reality as it is lived by millions of people--millions of people who, given their circumstances, regard it as insane not to take full advantage of moronic liberal sentimentality. That sentimentality is driven, it seems beyond doubt, by what is, very bluntly, liberals' misplaced guilty-consciences-- especially over what occurred generations ago-- of gross inequality, oppression and greedy rapacious profiteering on the misery of others; these outrages are things which most liberals love to feel guilty about but, frankly, intend to do nothing serious to challenge or end in their present-day forms.

(ETA) Liberals, at length, no longer really believe in the responsibility of those living in failed nation-states to reform their societies—yes, at great mortal risks!, that is what such work always has and always shall entail. Instead, the short-circuit 'solution' is to import these people by the millions into supposedly 'safer,' more 'civilized' nations, namely, the U.S., Canada, Britain, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France, or the states in which their leaky-boats first land: Italy or Spain. This predictably creates the conditions which foster a multi-billion dollar industry in people-trafficking.

What they do want to rectify are so many of the most marginal and superficial of inequalities, things which least threaten the established power's order. So, first, let us have absurd (and falsely-claimed and defended) "equal-pay" targets for women in the upper end of mid-management at huge multinationals, "Fortune 500" companies, and so on; or let's have more 'people of color' recognized in theatre and film awards--they're too often taking second-place to White people, men or women.

111johnthefireman
Feb 12, 6:29am Top

>110 proximity1:

Interesting only in that it reveals the fantasy world of those who believe in these caricatures about the "liberal left".

112RickHarsch
Feb 12, 8:14am Top

Where else can one find such pretense of intelligence and at the same time thwarted ability to think through even anecdotes.

200 Swiss immigrants lose status over home visits:

1. So the law is working, why complain?
2. Even for Switzerland 200 is not a large number.
3. Switzerland is the easiest country for an immigrant to become financially successful in.
4. Albanians comprise the greatest number of immigrants in Switzerland over the last 30 years.
4a. 30 years means generations raised in Switzerland.
5. Albanians from Kosovo were the most desperate of Albanian refugees.
6. Albanians are very clannish compared to most refugee groups and succeed in 'making it' more easily than those from other countries.
7. Albanians have an extensive mafia throughout Europe and are among the most likely to have the means to abuse any system.

113Kuiperdolin
Feb 12, 10:11am Top

Kosovo says everything

1142wonderY
Feb 12, 1:51pm Top

Researching the author Todd Miller, I came across this article from last spring:

Over 7,000 Bodies Have Been Found at the US-Mexican Border Since the ’90s

- Along the US border with Mexico, 7,000 corpses have been found since the early 1990s; a reasonable estimate of the actual death toll is triple that number.

- Those 650 miles of walls and barriers ( authorized by the Secure Fence Act of 2006) cost an average of $3.9 million per mile to build and additional millions to maintain, money that went into the coffers of the military-industrial complex.

- In 2011, for example, CBP granted the former Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (a company known for its profiteering in Iraq) a three-year, $24.4 million contract for border-wall maintenance. And you can multiply that so many times over since, year after year, bigger and bigger budgets have gone into border and immigration enforcement (and so into the pockets of such corporations) with little or no discussion. In 2018, the combined budgets of CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement amount to $24.3 billion, a more than 15-fold increase since the early 1990s, and a $4.7 billion jump from 2017.

- The monoliths of the military-industrial complex—companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Elbit Systems—have long been tailoring their technologies to homeland-security operations. They are now deeply involved in the increasingly lucrative border market. As one vendor told me many years ago, “we are bringing the battlefield to the border.”

So, in those desert borderlands, that soldier was really looking at a market, a profit zone.

- Such forces (the Border Patrol) operate in 100-mile jurisdictions beyond US international boundaries (including the coasts), places where they essentially have extra-constitutional powers. As one CBP officer told me, “We are exempt from the Fourth Amendment.”

115johnthefireman
Feb 12, 11:23pm Top

>114 2wonderY: that soldier was really looking at a market, a profit zone

Billy Bragg - The marching song of the covert battalions

116Carnophile
Edited: Feb 14, 10:31pm Top

>112 RickHarsch: So the law is working, why complain?

Oh, okay. Problem solved!
(/sarc)

117RickHarsch
Feb 15, 1:00am Top

>116 Carnophile: Thanks for the parenthetical.

Group: Pro and Con

421 members

127,319 messages

About

This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.

About | Contact | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 132,537,074 books! | Top bar: Always visible