What SHOULD be done with caravan migrants? (1 Viewer)

[southwest88]

Those structures were erected @ enormous cost

It seems odd to me that you'd prefer to sell out American sovereignty rather that give (unproven) offense to the UN or some other voluntary organization. The US was formed to provide security, safety, well being and liberty to its people, not to please the pretend cosmopolitans who could care less about their own countrymen.

Exactly what compels you to make legal excuses for aliens trying to gain entry under false pretenses?

We have treaty obligations under provisions for refugee & asylum status. We helped found UN, NATO, WTO & other security/trade organizations to help prevent another world war. These organizations & treaties were entered into to protect & defend the US & our allies, not merely to maintain some kind of notional international pecking order.

The vast majority of the caravan members will not be granted asylum - because they likely don't qualify; that's how the system works, whether it's splashed across the media or operates in its normal anonymity.

 

[maxparrish]

Re: Those structures were erected @ enormous cost

We have treaty obligations under provisions for refugee & asylum status. We helped found UN, NATO, WTO & other security/trade organizations to help prevent another world war. These organizations & treaties were entered into to protect & defend the US & our allies, not merely to maintain some kind of notional international pecking order.

The vast majority of the caravan members will not be granted asylum - because they likely don't qualify; that's how the system works, whether it's splashed across the media or operates in its normal anonymity.

You're dodging.

a) You have provided no evidence that there are treaty obligations to keep the asylum system exactly as it is.
b) You have provided no evidence that these alleged "ghost" obligations even exist or if they do cannot be abrogated.
c) You have provided no evidence that US sovereignty over control of its borders has been sold out to a bunch of treaty organizations.
d) You have provided no evidence that security organizations gives a rat's ass about US asylum policies for central Americans, or that such concerns would have a parsley sprig of weight to affecting any other aspect of the security (or trade) relationships.

I'm guessing that you are either grasping at straws OR have some kind of fetish of deference to accommodating the whine of internationalists. Rest assured, SEATO or NATO wouldn't enter even a footnote of a protest and the EU (of which we are not a member) has its own much bigger conflicts of said policies with Eastern Europeans -- who are also fed up with demands they give up their sovereignty.

 

[iguanaman]

w

Very true.

Illegal immigration ain't gonna stop.

By the year 2100, this country "will be in the same boat."

What I fear is having to flee our country because of lawlessness and corruption in our Govt. Trump is a crook and a liar and is bringing more of the same into our Govt. Without our laws and Constitution we will be forced out.

 

[TheParser]

What I fear is having to flee our country because of lawlessness and corruption in our Govt.

I agree 100% with your FIRST sentence.

In 2100, the "lawlessness and corruption" will be so horrible that people will look back on 2018 as those halcyon days!

 

[iguanaman]

I agree 100% with your FIRST sentence.

In 2100, the "lawlessness and corruption" will be so horrible that people will look back on 2018 as those halcyon days!

By 2100 Trump and his haters will be nothing but pages in a history book that will serve as an example and a warning to future generations who might wish to compromise our Constitutional freedoms in the name of security.

 

[southwest88]

Re: Those structures were erected @ enormous cost

You're dodging.

a) You have provided no evidence that there are treaty obligations to keep the asylum system exactly as it is.
…

Here's an overview, with links to supporting information - https://www.publicintegrity.org/201...-treaties-and-asylum-obligations-what-s-legal

"U.S. treaty obligations

"Asylum seekers are supposed to be extended basic protections under international treaties created to protect refugees after World War II. The U.S. accepted refugees after World War II, and in 1968 signed onto the 1951 Refugee Convention , which diplomats created, and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

"The 1951 treaty instructs signatories not to “impose penalties on refugees who entered illegally in search of asylum if they present themselves without delay.”

"The U.S. immigration system, in keeping with these concepts, allows people to ask for a “credible fear” interview with asylum officers. Existing law allows for asylum if a case is made for persecution because of race, ethnicity, religion, political persuasion or a certain “social group” suffering persecution. If applicants pass the screening, they have a right to present their case in immigration court. If they don’t pass, they can appeal before an immigration judge. Sometimes relatively quickly, before facing deportation."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

It's a big subject, there's a lot to study, if you want to go @ it. & the US was involved in writing & negotiating these treaties, in order to preserve a peace we could live with.

 

[maxparrish]

Re: Those structures were erected @ enormous cost

Here's an overview, with links to supporting information - https://www.publicintegrity.org/201...-treaties-and-asylum-obligations-what-s-legal

"U.S. treaty obligations …

It's a big subject, there's a lot to study, if you want to go @ it. & the US was involved in writing & negotiating these treaties, in order to preserve a peace we could live with...

In other words, once you drill down through the propaganda of the "publicintegrity.org" you find nothing relevant to my challenge: there is no proof of any treaty obligation that requires the US maintain is system and policies exactly as is. In fact, the information you quote suggests a minimal scope that does not impact a number of changes that are needed.

For example, if the 1951 treaty says signatories should not "impose penalties on refugees who entered illegally (seeking asylum) if they present themselves without delay" then my recommendation to punish those illegals who do not present themselves immediately and later invoke the magic words asylum is quite within the bounds of that treaty. (Two years at a border labor camp will do nicely).

The remainder of you post merely characterizes what US immigration law is, which can and should be changed. So far you have presented no evidence that the treaties require a "credible fear" standard, that individuals have to be released into the general population, or that individuals are punishment free if crossing the border for other than immediate presentation to authorities.

Therefore, cease befogging the issue with vague claims and unsupported assumptions. Your treaty excuses are little more than your a desperate hope to avoid getting tough with border crashers and illegal aliens.

 

[MrMike]

I think I understand Trump's / right position that they should not be allowed to enter the US just because they got here. Some would get asylum / refugee status. Others won't. Somehow someone decides this based on what they believe about the arriving person standing in front of them.

What is the left position on what to do with people approaching US borders with intent or desire to settle in the US?

According to this page there is an annual ceiling on number of accepted refugees. For 2018, they (President?) set it to 1500 for those from Latin America for example. What is supposed to be done with the rest?

I think they should be offered jobs building the border wall. When the project is completed it is important that they be standing on the south side of it.

Have a nice day!

eace

 

[Mary Dunsmore]

What I fear is having to flee our country because of lawlessness and corruption in our Govt. Trump is a crook and a liar and is bringing more of the same into our Govt. Without our laws and Constitution we will be forced out.

Would I be right in saying you don'y like President Trump then ?

 

[southwest88]

Re: Those structures were erected @ enormous cost

In other words, once you drill down through the propaganda of the "publicintegrity.org" you find nothing relevant to my challenge: there is no proof of any treaty obligation that requires the US maintain is system and policies exactly as is. In fact, the information you quote suggests a minimal scope that does not impact a number of changes that are needed.

For example, if the 1951 treaty says signatories should not "impose penalties on refugees who entered illegally (seeking asylum) if they present themselves without delay" then my recommendation to punish those illegals who do not present themselves immediately and later invoke the magic words asylum is quite within the bounds of that treaty. (Two years at a border labor camp will do nicely).

…

Yep, it's a big subject. The US hasn't been interested in punitive measures to deter immigration nor people applying for refugee status nor asylum. That may change, of course, the World is subject to change. Ultimately, it rests with the voters - if the majority insist on changes to US treaty obligations (or abrogating US treaties selectively), it will happen - but slowly, & responding to sustained political pressure.

 

[iguanaman]

Would I be right in saying you don'y like President Trump then ?

I don't like his lying, racism or his profiting from his office. Selling favors to foreign Govts. while railing against "globalism" is the ultimate hypocrisy.