Manufactured Crisis

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Try to follow me here...

If our border is actually secure, they will know they can't get in, so less of them will try to make the trip, so less will get raped.

I agree with you, it's not brilliant, it's too simple to be brilliant.

The wall the fence the minefield none of it’s going to matter people who live in desperate situations are going to continually come to America no matter how hard it is and till the situations in their home countries are stable and can put food on the table and they don’t live in fear And until any of that happens they are still going to be coming to try to better themselves in United States ..

You got a love Trump there is no global warming humans didn’t cause it ... but a wall Is going to fix all of Americas immigration problems simple solutions for simple minds
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Try to follow me here...

If our border is actually secure, they will know they can't get in, so less of them will try to make the trip, so less will get raped.

I agree with you, it's not brilliant, it's too simple to be brilliant.

You do realize they’re fleeing murder and rape in their home countries right? You do realize most want to seek asylum at legal entry points rights.

Hope that wasn’t too simple to be brilliant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

That was written in 2016, so how did that become the basis of the current crisis in the speech written by Stephen Miller for Trump?

While I'm convinced that problems exist, again, just how did it become the issue of the day in the last 3 weeks and not in the two previous years?

According to the date listed at the top of the article, it was written in May 2017. When it was finally disseminated into a large enough population of politicians, bureaucrats, President, "important" people and the general population, it wouldn't have become persuasive and well known very much before the mid terms.

Did you know about this article in 2016 (not possible), or 2017 (half of which was gone by the time it was written) or in 2018?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Nope. Not in this climate. The democrats won't allow him to get a win, unless he has the shutdown as leverage. They'd rather let people continue to suffer, than let him enjoy a win. It's horrible, but it is what it is. If the democrats compromised today, he'd open the government tomorrow. If he opens the government today, they will never agree to the wall. Their hatred of him outweighs their obligations to serve us.

I guess Obama should have held the government hostage, apparently that is how you think our political system works.

I have yet to see anything that comes close to an explanation of what they plan to do from this administration.
Here is the previous administration's proposal
I'll gladly look at Trump's but I don't think it exists

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov..._blueprint.pdf

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

You do realize they’re fleeing murder and rape in their home countries right? You do realize most want to seek asylum at legal entry points rights.

Hope that wasn’t too simple to be brilliant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You do know that if they come through legal entry points legally there is no problem, right?

Hope that wasn't to brilliantly simple for you

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You do realize they’re fleeing murder and rape in their home countries right? You do realize most want to seek asylum at legal entry points rights.

Hope that wasn’t too simple to be brilliant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fear of being raped is not a valid reason for seeking asylum under the accords that the US signed. Neither is fear of being murdered, unless their government is mass murdering its citizens or is illegitimately trying to execute the asylum seeker.

The vast majority of illegal migrants are coming here for economic reasons, also which are not legitimate reasons for seeking asylum.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

According to the date listed at the top of the article, it was written in May 2017. When it was finally disseminated into a large enough population of politicians, bureaucrats, President, "important" people and the general population, it wouldn't have become persuasive and well known very much before the mid terms.

Did you know about this article in 2016 (not possible), or 2017 (half of which was gone by the time it was written) or in 2018?

You are correct, I misread the footnote
I think it became important when one side was looking for justification to sell this as a humanitarian crisis, but you'd have to ask Jim what the source was for his original claim as the first three words in this thread are: "Doctors Without Borders"

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You do know that if they come through legal entry points legally there is no problem, right?

Hope that wasn't to brilliantly simple for you

this is correct...it is the ILLEGAL entries that are the problem...why is this so hard for stupid liberals to understand?

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You do know that if they come through legal entry points legally there is no problem, right?

Hope that wasn't to brilliantly simple for you

Read the post I was responding to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You do know that if they come through legal entry points legally there is no problem, right?

Hope that wasn't to brilliantly simple for you

Face: meet egg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Fear of being raped is not a valid reason for seeking asylum under the accords that the US signed. Neither is fear of being murdered, unless their government is mass murdering its citizens or is illegitimately trying to execute the asylum seeker.

The vast majority of illegal migrants are coming here for economic reasons, also which are not legitimate reasons for seeking asylum.

This isn’t really true. Fear of being killed or raped by a gang because of your social group certainly could qualify.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You do know that if they come through legal entry points legally there is no problem, right?

Hope that wasn't to brilliantly simple for you

The federal asylum statute specifically says that anyone who arrives in the United States “whether or not at a designated port of arrival…may apply for asylum.”

Why they bypass the POE from DHS
Office of Inspector General's report dated 9/27/18

DHS was not fully prepared to implement
the Administration’s Zero Tolerance Policy
or to deal with some of its after-effects.
Faced with resource limitations and other
challenges, DHS regulated the number of
asylum-seekers entering the country
through ports of entry at the same time that
it encouraged asylum-seekers to come to
the ports. During Zero Tolerance, CBP also
held alien children separated from their
parents for extended periods in facilities
intended solely for short-term detention.
DHS also struggled to identify, track, and
reunify families separated under Zero
Tolerance due to limitations with its
information technology systems, including
a lack of integration between systems.
Finally, DHS provided inconsistent
information to aliens who arrived with
children during Zero Tolerance, which
resulted in some parents not
understanding that they would be
separated from their children, and being
unable to communicate with their children
after separation.

Feel free to read the whole report
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/defaul...8-84-Sep18.pdf

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Face: meet egg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To be fair I think he just got a little excited and didn’t read Jim’s post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

To be fair I think he just got a little excited and didn’t read Jim’s post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don’t take it personally Jeff. You are usually right and just missed this one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Don’t take it personally Jeff. You are usually right and just missed this one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess the same goes for you as well. Scroll up, you’re not going to pull a muscle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

This isn’t really true. Fear of being killed or raped by a gang because of your social group certainly could qualify.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What does an asylum seeker have to prove?

Those seeking asylum must prove that that they are escaping their homeland because of persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.[9] The Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly provides these five bases for granting asylum,[10] having been heavily influenced by the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees.

Though the first three bases are self-explanatory, persecution due to political opinion and membership in a social group are less clear. Persecution based on political opinion means that the asylum seeker holds political views that his homeland’s government doesn’t tolerate. An asylum seeker must provide evidence that his expressed political views have opposed those of his government. He can achieve this by providing evidence of speaking publicly in opposition to the government, publishing opposition literature, taking part in political activities on an opposing side, or joining an opposition political party.

Persecution due to membership in a social group is even more difficult to define and prove. Judges and asylum officers analyzing social group-based claims play close attention societal perceptions of the group to which the asylum seeker belongs.[11] As such, social group can vary in definition and interpretation. In one case, the Board of Immigration Appeals defined a particular social group as a “a group of persons, all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic.”[12] Additionally, the group must be “particular” and “socially distinct.”[13] Examples of social groups that satisfy the United States’ government’s definition include:

· Tribes;

· Ethnic groups;

· Social classes like laborers and labor union leaders; and

· Those persecuted for sexual preference[14]

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

What does an asylum seeker have to prove?

Those seeking asylum must prove that that they are escaping their homeland because of persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.[9] The Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly provides these five bases for granting asylum,[10] having been heavily influenced by the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees.

Though the first three bases are self-explanatory, persecution due to political opinion and membership in a social group are less clear. Persecution based on political opinion means that the asylum seeker holds political views that his homeland’s government doesn’t tolerate. An asylum seeker must provide evidence that his expressed political views have opposed those of his government. He can achieve this by providing evidence of speaking publicly in opposition to the government, publishing opposition literature, taking part in political activities on an opposing side, or joining an opposition political party.

Persecution due to membership in a social group is even more difficult to define and prove. Judges and asylum officers analyzing social group-based claims play close attention societal perceptions of the group to which the asylum seeker belongs.[11] As such, social group can vary in definition and interpretation. In one case, the Board of Immigration Appeals defined a particular social group as a “a group of persons, all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic.”[12] Additionally, the group must be “particular” and “socially distinct.”[13] Examples of social groups that satisfy the United States’ government’s definition include:

· Tribes;

· Ethnic groups;

· Social classes like laborers and labor union leaders; and

· Those persecuted for sexual preference[14]

I want to seek asylum in the 51st state called Liberty

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You do realize they’re fleeing murder and rape in their home countries right? You do realize most want to seek asylum at legal entry points rights.

Hope that wasn’t too simple to be brilliant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and if i ever claimed that mexico had eliminated crime, you would have a point!! but i didn’t, so you don’t.

where was your criticism, when the democrats voted to fund a wall in the last, we all wonder?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

This isn’t really true. Fear of being killed or raped by a gang because of your social group certainly could qualify.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Certainly could? No, it is the responsibility of the government in the country where gang rapes and murders occur to solve the problem. National sovereignty requires national responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the US to solve the gang, or rape, or murder problems of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, or any country other than the US. Sovereignty issues is one of the reasons that the UN pact avoided diminishing the normal responsibility of nations to secure the rights of their own people. Not only would it ease a nation's responsibility to protect its people if the alien citizens had to be accepted by another nation because their government didn't do its job, it would force the burden, wanted or not, on other nations to accept the transfer of the economic and social costs of whole populations into their territory

Social group? Are the gangs comprised of a different "social group" than those they prey upon? Even if they were, it would still be the problem of their government to solve. It is the responsibility of a sovereign nation to secure the safety of its citizens. When sovereign nations fail, if they are UN members, the UN assembly can order some method to set them right. In cases of uncontrollable mass genocides, as have occurred in Africa, UN troops can be sent to stop the killing.

The latest UN migration pact, which the US, thankfully, did not sign, would have made it far easier for migrants to cross borders without having to ask for asylum to do so.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

I guess the same goes for you as well. Scroll up, you’re not going to pull a muscle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am almost giggling again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and if i ever claimed that mexico had eliminated crime, you would have a point!! but i didn’t, so you don’t.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

where was your criticism, when the democrats voted to fund a wall in the last, we all wonder?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't recall democrats ever voting for Trump's wall. They've voted for various border security bills some of which have contained bits of wall or fence or barricade. Not everything is so black and white like you make it out to be.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Certainly could? No, it is the responsibility of the government in the country where gang rapes and murders occur to solve the problem.

If the government in question is unwilling or unable to provide protection there historically has been the provision for asylum assuming the standards can be met. Trump has changed some of this to make it much more restrictive but I believe challenges to this are still working through the courts. That being said it doesn't look great for the Admin ... "the new credible fear policies are arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of the immigration laws."

[wdmso]

Not to worry!!!! Pompeo Says Era Of 'American Shame Is Over'

What American did he live in where he felt shameful? Or how about another Trump showing how he thinks presidents should act

Trump says China’s leaders are “more honorable” than the Democratic leaders of Congress.

MAGA
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Not to worry!!!! Pompeo Says Era Of 'American Shame Is Over'

What American did he live in where he felt shameful? Or how about another Trump showing how he thinks presidents should act

Trump says China’s leaders are “more honorable” than the Democratic leaders of Congress.

MAGA
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don’t you remember the former First Lady who was ashamed of our country? Parallel universe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Don’t you remember the former First Lady who was ashamed of our country? Parallel universe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you speaking of this statement? That some claim means ashamed?
As true as Trump saying MAGA means he thinks America sucks

"For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback … not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

If the government in question is unwilling or unable to provide protection there historically has been the provision for asylum assuming the standards can be met.

This sounds like your slick con artistry at work. What do you mean by "can be met"? Are you referring to some verbal manipulation to circumvent protocol text? Either the standards are met by the asylum claimant or they are not. Why would any provisions be necessary if the asylum standards are already met?

If a government is "unwilling" to provide protection from gangs and rapes, then the government is complicit and responsible for the persecution. In that case, asylum is met under the rubric of political persecution. It has to be proven that the government is deliberately not protecting the claimant.

Should the citizens of the South side of Chicago, under UN protocols, be granted asylum into Switzerland because of the persistent threat of gang violence?

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Are you speaking of this statement? That some claim means ashamed?
As true as Trump saying MAGA means he thinks America sucks

"For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback … not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess that is what happens when the country is hungry for change...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Are you speaking of this statement? That some claim means ashamed?
As true as Trump saying MAGA means he thinks America sucks

"For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback … not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quite frankly, I honestly don't know what she is trying to say in that sentence. Maybe other sentences in her statement clarifies it. Is she saying that for the first time as an adult she is truthfully proud of her country, not just the perfunctory, obligatory, but insincere show of pride she may have displayed in her adult past? And is so because her country had no hope during her adult past but now has? And that people were not hungry for change in her adult life until Barack was elected? Does she mean by "my country" that place where the special personal concerns of her adult life were for the first time being met? Because, surely there were millions who had already, before her coming of age and all along believed that "my country" gave them hope, and who, before she became an adult, either were hungry for change or didn't want any. Was she trying to tell us that her personal, particular "hope and change" materialized with the election of her husband, but before that the country was hopeless? Is that something the rest of us should applaud her for.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Quite frankly, I honestly don't know what she is trying to say in that sentence. Maybe other sentences in her statement clarifies it. Is she saying that for the first time as an adult she is truthfully proud of her country, not just the perfunctory, obligatory, but insincere show of pride she may have displayed in her adult past? And is so because her country had no hope during her adult past but now has? And that people were not hungry for change in her adult life until Barack was elected? Does she mean by "my country" that place where the special personal concerns of her adult life were for the first time being met? Because, surely there were millions who had already, before her coming of age and all along that "my country" gave them hope, and who, before she became an adult, either were hungry for change or didn't want any. Was she trying to tell us that her personal, particular "hope and change" materialized with the election of her husband? Is that something the rest of us should applaud her for.

Perhaps you try too hard.
I am typically proud of my children, sometimes they disappoint me or themselves and sometimes I am really proud of them. Does that make me ashamed of them?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

I am sure the cupboard is full of participation trophy’s.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device