Trump just exacerbated a very bad situation in Venezuela by imposing sanctions that will in my estimation: 1) prolong the life of the Maduro regime rather than shorten it, 2) increase the suffering of ordinary Venezuelans (those without political connections) and 3) increase the flow of refugees to neighbouring countries.
Venezuela is a failed state. People are hungry, starving and exposed to high levels of often deadly violence (political and criminal). It is not the fault per se of the USA but once again the USA is making things worse not better.
Some of Venezuela's professional and entrepreneurial talent left a few years, the remaining are leaving now. So some of the neighbouring countries will likely benefit over the longer run from these refugees. Most will want to return to Venezuela as soon as it is safe to do so and meaningful economic opportunities return.
In the background, the USA has resumed sanctions on Cuba. Presumably this was done because a) Americans do not really believe in the power of free markets, trade and foreign investment and b) Americans love to promote radical anti-American, anti-capitalism Neo-Marxist national liberation groups because violent conflict is enjoyable and is viewed by ordinary Americans as good for the economy (despite all indications to the contrary). As long as American citizens are not directly threatened why should Americans care?
Previous regimes were not great; the Trump administration is the best thing that has happened to violence-prone, Latin American conservative leftists in a very long time. He is proof in the pudding of what radical left critics of American imperialism have been saying for decades.
The upshot of this is simply more evidence that Americans do not care about other people just like they do not care about their own under classes. I expect US multi-national companies in South America to face a chilly reception relative to multi-nationals based in other rich western countries. The American political memory may be short; it would be a mistake to assume that other people's political memories are that short. It would also be a mistake to assume that Latin Americans working in the private sector are automatically pro-American.
Sorry for the tardy reply. Had a family reunion to go to and hit an unfortunate browser button that wrecked a lot of typing. This post is impossible to quote so I have to do it a piece at a time, and I've got a life!
kurtster wrote:
Well golly gee willickers, Wally. It looks like I conflated refugees with asylum seekers. It was late and I also read your unrelated interjection of refugees into this discussion about immigration before replying. The thought stuck in my mind. I do not know why you injected refugees into this. It is indeed a separate subject with its own set of issues. And considering how nearly everyone around here openly conflates legal immigration with illegal immigration I do not feel badly about my unintended conflation of refugees and asylum seekers. So with that thought in mind I will correct my post and you can have at it again. Though please do comment on my rejection of the the notion that there are no lines for getting into this country legally. After all, some 1 million people do it every year ... You skipped right over that.
It wasn't clear which kind of immigrants you didn't want to allow into the country, but it also looked like you didn't know the difference. It's not the only thing you're confused about
Only recently was the US policy defining refugee asylum status broadened to include economic hardship, which I think is an abuse of the program. Another abuse of the program is that the refugees asylum seekers are not stopping at the first available safe place and seeking asylum. Instead they bypass countries to get to the US. That violates the very spirit of being a refugee seeking asylum. It is the first broken rule that comes before the second broken rule of crossing our border illegally.
Speaking of conflating legal and illegal immigration...I tried to explain how the current (legal) immigration system works to provide some insight into why people go around it. I'll try again, but first I want to deal with the first point.
I tried to take your repeated claim that the Obama administration added economic hardship to the qualifications for asylum seriously, so I went looking for any kind of reference to that and didn't find it, not even in a right-wing fever swamp like CIS. The conditions for asylum are set by statute (and set quite a while ago) so it seemed dubious that the executive branch could adjust them.
There is no US policy, no law, no executive order, nothing that defines refugee or asylee status to include economic hardship. I'd be happy to argue that point with you (starving people out of their homes ought to qualify, but it doesn't) but I'll just issue this challenge: find that policy and you get 11 Internet points. Here is an analysis by the anti-immigration group Center for Immigration Studies that backs that up. Here's a clip of Obama saying the opposite of what you're claiming. In fact, he sounds a lot like you.
I'm not just bringing this up to embarrass you. This isn't the only time you've fallen back on this trope (that the only reason anybody ever has to leave one country for another is economic) so I'm hoping to move this discussion in a productive direction, and that won't happen until I can bring the dispute back to the universe we actually live in.
The Rohingya are not leaving Myanmar for a paycheck. Teenagers fleeing Salvadoran gangs are not coming to start paper routes. Syrians aren't fleeing unemployment.
You don't get to define what it means to be a refugee. There is no rule that requires someone fleeing one country to not "bypass" another country on the way to safety. If you flee El Salvador by walking thru Guatemala (a country beset by very similar problems of gang violence and political strife) are you "bypassing" Honduras and Belize? How about Brazil? Didn't stop in Kazakhstan either!
The folks arriving at our southern border aren't the only people fleeing other countries. Most of them don't have the means, determination, or desperation to travel that far. We only see the seriously motivated.
Motivated, perhaps, because they have friends or family in the US who can support them while they rebuild their livesâsupport they wouldn't have in, say, Mexico. Maybe Mexico isn't dealing well with its flood of recent arrivals. Whatever: they don't need to conform to your image of a refugee. There is no such requirement (applying for asylum before you get here) in US or international law. That's an additional hoop the Trump administration is trying to make asylum seekers jump thru, and it probably won't stand up in court.
Let's look at the US immigration system. I'm going to use numbers from 2017 because I can get them; that year we saw 1,127,745 legal arrivals. The proportions don't change muchâthe number of refugees went down and the number of asylees went up, but these were always a small part of the mix. Here's how they got in:
Immigration of immediate family members of citizens is unrestricted. Start a family overseas (or marry a Slovenian model) and you will very likely be able to get visas for your spouse, unmarried children, in-laws, or orphans that you want to adopt. If you do you have to demonstrate that you can support them. These made up 46% of immigrants.
There is an additional pool of visas (480,000) reserved for extended family members and immediate families of aliens with permanent residency (on track for citizenship). There's a catch thoâthe number of immediate family visas is subtracted from this total. To ensure that immediate family members don't shrink this pool to nothing there is a minimum set by Congress in 1990 of 226,000. This number is limited by per-country caps that throttle this down further (it's immigration law! It's complicated!) so in 2017 extended family members made up an additional 21% of immigrants. So 67% (755K or so) were family members of people already here.
BTW those per-country caps result in waiting lists. For Mexico the current wait is about 20 years.
Refugees and asylum seekers made up 13%. Refugees were about 5% of total immigration (way down since 2017).
About 12% were employer-sponsored (if you're rich enough and self-employed/run a business you can self-sponsor).
There are a number specialty visas for former Iraqi translators, foreign nationals serving in the US armed forces, and a few others. These are about 2% of all immigrants.
So what's left? If you don't fit into any of those categories, just want to come here to build a better, freer life how do you do it? The remaining 5% (50K) are assigned to the Diversity Visa programâessentially a lottery. You pay your money and take your chances. Doesn't matter how long you've waited, doesn't matter how many times you've tried. Your future is down to dumb luck, and the odds suckâevery year over 20 million people apply.
So for the vast majority of the people who want to come here there is no path, and there absolutely, positively is no line you can stand in to wait for a slot. There hasn't been since at least 1990.
Worse yet is the assumption that we owe them a place in our country. This attitude explains why the countries they are leaving are failing. No one wants to make the sacrifices that are required to improve their own situation at home. Instead, they pack up and leave for greener pastures rather than fight for their rights at home. We have tried sending money to these countries to improve conditions, but as usual this money does not get to where it is supposed to go. The governments siphon off the majority of the monies via public corruption. Trump rightly cut off these funds because they were not being used to benefit the citizens. Maybe we should get the Peace Corps going down there. I have no problem with sending aid to these people /countries except when it doesn't go where intended.
About 3/4 of the refugees that make it to the US are women and children. What role do you expect them to play in fighting off Guatemalan gangs, or ISIS, or barrel bombs dropped from a helicopter, or the Venezuelan government?
How much good do you think the Peace Corps would do against Sudanese Janjaweed? Think Myanmar would let them in? Would there be room for them in Dadaab?
This isn't about spending money, at least not much and not for longâand we get to keep the people it would be spent on.
1) yeah, I'm dumber than a box of rocks because I support Trump.
I'll leave that conclusion to historians and your own conscience. I will say this: you don't know what you're talking about.
2) yes there are rules, the same rules for everyone. How can you say otherwise ?
Because I've read them. And no, they aren't the same for everybody, and there is no line.
3) yes I did read the article twice, once when it was first posted a year or so ago and again last night. I am not lying.
That isn't exactly making you look good here.
4) economic hardship was added during Obama's administration to the rules for granting asylum.
No, it wasn't. Sorry to keep answering this, but you keep repeating it.
5) as usual I'm a xenophobic and bigot for even thinking about discussing the subject of legal vs illegal immigration.
No, you're just confusing the two and talking out your ass about both.
6) that responsibility lies with FDR and his party. They effectively closed the borders to all from shortly after his election all the way through WW II.
I'm almost certain you just tried to make a point.
Oh and according to the article, I would be of the colonists. That used to be something to be proud of. Now it is viewed as being that of a racist slave owner. This is the view of this nation's founding and founders that seems to be circulating this country presently, that before the Civil War everyone either owned slaves or were slaves. So much for studying history ...
You salvage what dignity you can from any source you like. Me, I'm proud of things I did, not what my ancestors did. They get credit or blame for that. This post? That's on you.
So where has this great debate gotten us? A new $4.5b funding bill? Seems all either side knows how to do is throw $ at a problem...and the right's contention immigrants cost us $ is true, but just not the way they argue it.
trump's running total addition to natl debt is now well over $4 trillion. Nice that swamps going to get drained one way or the other.
Maybe it's the right's sense of insecurity/loss of privilege, coupled with bigotry that is costing you money (or better yet, that maybe will cost your descendants)...
In the end, because of taxes they paid, refugees and their family members contributed more than $343 billion in revenue to federal, state and local coffers. On balance, refugees contributed $63 billion more than they received in benefits from various programs.
Not to mention the money they put in the pockets of business people who rip them off on wages and benefits
So where has this great debate gotten us? A new $4.5b funding bill? Seems all either side knows how to do is throw $ at a problem...and the right's contention immigrants cost us $ is true, but just not the way they argue it.
trump's running total addition to natl debt is now well over $4 trillion. Nice that swamps going to get drained one way or the other.
Maybe it's the right's sense of insecurity/loss of privilege, coupled with bigotry that is costing you money (or better yet, that maybe will cost your descendants)...
In the end, because of taxes they paid, refugees and their family members contributed more than $343 billion in revenue to federal, state and local coffers. On balance, refugees contributed $63 billion more than they received in benefits from various programs.
So where has this great debate gotten us? A new $4.5b funding bill? Seems all either side knows how to do is throw $ at a problem...and the right's contention immigrants cost us $ is true, but just not the way they argue it.
trump's running total addition to natl debt is now well over $4 trillion. Nice that swamps going to get drained one way or the other.
Open borders also renders citizenship to be worthless. That is the ultimate goal of the globalists as I perceive it. To replace the term citizen with resident and end the national sovereignty that provides and protects the rights of its citizens. Somewhere in this ramble, the fate of private property rights also comes up in the long term reality. Easier to take property from residents than citizens.
There was one comment that disagreed with the premise that I found interesting and somewhat agree with ...
Mr. Cameron, I have read through your above article twice. I am an immigrant (my family is Irish) coming to the US as a boy, and became a US citizen through the legal channels…green card, etc., which you seem to have total disdain for. I must admit that what you are articulating here comes across smugly, and as if think there is no legitimate real reason for a legal process to citizenship in the US. Your tone suggests that it is all a sham and anyone who suggest that there should be rules and a path for citizenship is a jerk. You seem to suggest (through very poor humor) that there is no purpose or value to any of it because the laws have changed over the years, and therefore, none of the laws relating to any of it are legitimate laws. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, I think you are very wrong. Laws change, and that is okay, because situations change and merit new legislation to address those changes.
1)The article is apparently a reading comprehension test which somebody failed. Not surprising that comment resonated!
The article says about the exact opposite of "anyone who suggest that there should be rules and a path for citizenship is a jerk." The author goes into painstaking detail to explain that there is, 2)for the vast majority of people who want to come here, no rules nor path to citizenship.
It's all right there in the article, plain as day. It's delivered with a large dose of snark, which is understandable—snark pressure builds up when you spend a lot of time arguing about something (immigration law) that you've spent years mastering with people who don't know what they're talking about. A temptation I succumb to far too often, I confess—but holy mother of dog it gets tedious.There are only so many polite ways of saying "That's not how this works! That's not how ANY of this works!"
3) But then you know this, because you've read the article twice, right? Sure you have.
Economic hardship is not a qualifying situation. So in regards to us upholding our end of the agreement, we are. Only recently was the US policy defining refugee status broadened to include economic hardship, which I think is an abuse of the program. Another abuse of the program is that the refugees are not stopping at the first available safe place and seeking asylum. Instead they bypass countries to get to the US. That violates the very spirit of being a refugee.
I suppose I could go into the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker (all refugees start as asylum seekers; you cannot apply for entry to the US as a refugee at the border. That requires certification by the UN in a third country) but you know all that, avid reader that you are. No indeed, just being poor and wanting to improve your lot does not qualify you for either refugee or asylum seeker status. It should qualify you as an immigrant, but it doesn't do that either anymore.
4) No, to seek asylum in the US you need to prove a well-founded fear of persecution. The current orgy of violence going on in central and south America would certainly qualify. And as far as holding up our end of the refugee agreement we most certainly are not, and the administration is considering cutting the number of refugees to be admitted in 2020 from an absurdly low quota of 95,000 (we only let in 21,292 in 2018) to...zero. None. But what the heck, maybe this time is different. Maybe those exact words used against my ancestors (and likely yours) have suddenly become true.5) I suppose it's possible that bigotry and xenophobia are, for the first time, actually justified. Pardon me if I'm skeptical. Your track record here sucks.
But in the case of those fleeing persecution we didn't promise all those years ago to take them in to improve our country, sound an argument as that is. 6) We made that promise out of shame for not doing it in the years before WW2. We had turned away the persecuted and left them to their persecutors, and for a while we felt remorse over that. We vowed we would never again let our country be the anvil to the hammers of evil men.
Memories fade and the lessons of history have to be re-learned. We've put ourselves in the position of earning that shame again, and we are led now by people who are not only ignorant of history but have no sense of shame.
Well golly gee willickers, Wally. It looks like I conflated refugees with asylum seekers. It was late and I also read your unrelated interjection of refugees into this discussion about immigration before replying. The thought stuck in my mind. I do not know why you injected refugees into this. It is indeed a separate subject with its own set of issues. And considering how nearly everyone around here openly conflates legal immigration with illegal immigration I do not feel badly about my unintended conflation of refugees and asylum seekers. So with that thought in mind I will correct my post and you can have at it again. Though please do comment on my rejection of the the notion that there are no lines for getting into this country legally. After all, some 1 million people do it every year ... You skipped right over that.
You or someone else posted the "possible" blog when it was first written. I read it again anyway.
I have been aware of all of the realities for over 55 years. This provided me with no new insights or understanding the first time around.
There was one comment that disagreed with the premise that I found interesting and somewhat agree with ...
Mr. Cameron, I have read through your above article twice. I am an immigrant (my family is Irish) coming to the US as a boy, and became a US citizen through the legal channels…green card, etc., which you seem to have total disdain for. I must admit that what you are articulating here comes across smugly, and as if think there is no legitimate real reason for a legal process to citizenship in the US. Your tone suggests that it is all a sham and anyone who suggest that there should be rules and a path for citizenship is a jerk. You seem to suggest (through very poor humor) that there is no purpose or value to any of it because the laws have changed over the years, and therefore, none of the laws relating to any of it are legitimate laws. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, I think you are very wrong. Laws change, and that is okay, because situations change and merit new legislation to address those changes.
Yeah, about that repeating a lie thing ... The author states over and over and over and over again that "there is no line". That is patently false. There are many lines and they start at various ports of entry and embassies and consulates, if you come here legally. And somehow I million people found a line to get into and are legally admitted every year.
On the 1951 treaty obligations you cited ...
The core principle is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. This is now considered a rule of customary international law.
Economic hardship is not a qualifying situation. So in regards to us upholding our end of the agreement, we are.
Only recently was the US policy defining refugee asylum status broadened to include economic hardship, which I think is an abuse of the program. Another abuse of the program is that the refugees asylum seekers are not stopping at the first available safe place and seeking asylum. Instead they bypass countries to get to the US. That violates the very spirit of being a refugee seeking asylum. It is the first broken rule that comes before the second broken rule of crossing our border illegally.
Our country is already overwhelmed with citizens suffering from economic hardship. We have been trying to address this since the creation of The Great Society and have failed miserably. And we want to further our problems by putting our indigent citizens in competition with indigent immigrants who bring nothing to the table other than themselves looking for a handout of some kind. And in this context, a job would be a handout so don't try and go there. Because they entered illegally, they cannot work legally. Giving them a job would certainly be a handout in this context since they are prohibited from working. I have absolutely no problem with guest worker programs. Have been in favor of them for decades. (bolded this time because you glossed over it as well)
Worse yet is the assumption that we owe them a place in our country. This attitude explains why the countries they are leaving are failing. No one wants to make the sacrifices that are required to improve their own situation at home. Instead, they pack up and leave for greener pastures rather than fight for their rights at home. We have tried sending money to these countries to improve conditions, but as usual this money does not get to where it is supposed to go. The governments siphon off the majority of the monies via public corruption. Trump rightly cut off these funds because they were not being used to benefit the citizens. Maybe we should get the Peace Corps going down there. I have no problem with sending aid to these people / countries except when it doesn't go where intended. So there you have it ...
1) yeah, I'm dumber than a box of rocks because I support Trump.
2) yes there are rules, the same rules for everyone. How can you say otherwise ?
3) yes I did read the article twice, once when it was first posted a year or so ago and again last night. I am not lying.
4) economic hardship was added during Obama's administration to the rules for granting asylum.
5) as usual I'm a xenophobic and bigot for even thinking about discussing the subject of legal vs illegal immigration.
6) that responsibility lies with FDR and his party. They effectively closed the borders to all from shortly after his election all the way through WW II.
And please tell me and the 1 million immigrants that come in here legally every year that there is no line ... wasn't that the reason for your snarky linked article ?
Oh and according to the article, I would be of the colonists. That used to be something to be proud of. Now it is viewed as being that of a racist slave owner. This is the view of this nation's founding and founders that seems to be circulating this country presently, that before the Civil War everyone either owned slaves or were slaves. So much for studying history ...
There was one comment that disagreed with the premise that I found interesting and somewhat agree with ...
Mr. Cameron, I have read through your above article twice. I am an immigrant (my family is Irish) coming to the US as a boy, and became a US citizen through the legal channelsâ¦green card, etc., which you seem to have total disdain for. I must admit that what you are articulating here comes across smugly, and as if think there is no legitimate real reason for a legal process to citizenship in the US. Your tone suggests that it is all a sham and anyone who suggest that there should be rules and a path for citizenship is a jerk. You seem to suggest (through very poor humor) that there is no purpose or value to any of it because the laws have changed over the years, and therefore, none of the laws relating to any of it are legitimate laws. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, I think you are very wrong. Laws change, and that is okay, because situations change and merit new legislation to address those changes.
The article is apparently a reading comprehension test which somebody failed. Not surprising that comment resonated!
The article says about the exact opposite of "anyone who suggest that there should be rules and a path for citizenship is a jerk." The author goes into painstaking detail to explain that there is, for the vast majority of people who want to come here, no rules nor path to citizenship.
It's all right there in the article, plain as day. It's delivered with a large dose of snark, which is understandableâsnark pressure builds up when you spend a lot of time arguing about something (immigration law) that you've spent years mastering with people who don't know what they're talking about. A temptation I succumb to far too often, I confessâbut holy mother of dog it gets tedious.There are only so many polite ways of saying "That's not how this works! That's not how ANY of this works!"
But then you know this, because you've read the article twice, right? Sure you have.
Economic hardship is not a qualifying situation. So in regards to us upholding our end of the agreement, we are. Only recently was the US policy defining refugee status broadened to include economic hardship, which I think is an abuse of the program. Another abuse of the program is that the refugees are not stopping at the first available safe place and seeking asylum. Instead they bypass countries to get to the US. That violates the very spirit of being a refugee.
I suppose I could go into the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker (all refugees start as asylum seekers; you cannot apply for entry to the US as a refugee at the border. That requires certification by the UN in a third country) but you know all that, avid reader that you are. No indeed, just being poor and wanting to improve your lot does not qualify you for either refugee or asylum seeker status. It should qualify you as an immigrant, but it doesn't do that either anymore.
No, to seek asylum in the US you need to prove a well-founded fear of persecution. The current orgy of violence going on in central and south America would certainly qualify. And as far as holding up our end of the refugee agreement we most certainly are not, and the administration is considering cutting the number of refugees to be admitted in 2020 from an absurdly low quota of 95,000 (we only let in 21,292 in 2018) to...zero. None.
Our country is already overwhelmed with citizens suffering from economic hardship. We have been trying to address this since the creation of The Great Society and have failed miserably. And we want to further our problems by putting our indigent citizens in competition with indigent immigrants who bring nothing to the table other than themselves looking for a handout of some kind. And in this context, a job would be a handout so don't try and go there. Because they entered illegally, they cannot work legally. Giving them a job would certainly be a handout in this context since they are prohibited from working. I have absolutely no problem with guest worker programs. Have been in favor of them for decades.
Worse yet is the assumption that we owe them a place in our country. This attitude explains why the countries they are leaving are failing. No one wants to make the sacrifices that are required to improve their own situation at home. Instead, they pack up and leave for greener pastures rather than fight for their rights at home. We have tried sending money to these countries to improve conditions, but as usual this money does not get to where it is supposed to go. The governments siphon of the majority of the monies via public corruption. Trump rightly cut off these funds because they were not being used to benefit the citizens. Maybe we should get the Peace Corps going down there. I have no problem with sending aid to these people / countries except whenit doesn't go where intended.
We have the best economy ever! Things are booming because of these great policies making America great again! We're overwhelmed with citizens suffering economic hardship!
Can you at least pick one story and stick to it?
No? Whatever. Even if we were talking about just ordinary immigration rather than asylum seekers/refugees we could reflect back on...oh, I don't knowâthe entire history of our country, sayâfor evidence that immigrants cause economic hardship. It's been a frequent rallying cry for those afraid of new people but it has never proven true. Immigrants tend to be highly motivated and bust their asses to improve their lots. They end up making the rest of us better off as well as making the country a stronger, more-interesting place to live.
But what the heck, maybe this time is different. Maybe those exact words used against my ancestors (and likely yours) have suddenly become true. I suppose it's possible that bigotry and xenophobia are, for the first time, actually justified. Pardon me if I'm skeptical. Your track record here sucks.
But in the case of those fleeing persecution we didn't promise all those years ago to take them in to improve our country, sound an argument as that is. We made that promise out of shame for not doing it in the years before WW2. We had turned away the persecuted and left them to their persecutors, and for a while we felt remorse over that. We vowed we would never again let our country be the anvil to the hammers of evil men.
Memories fade and the lessons of history have to be re-learned. We've put ourselves in the position of earning that shame again, and we are led now by people who are not only ignorant of history but have no sense of shame.
I really don't what type of response there can be from that, other than; "Yeah, I guess I just don't like immigrants."
There was one comment that disagreed with the premise that I found interesting and somewhat agree with ... Mr. Cameron, I have read through your above article twice. I am an immigrant (my family is Irish) coming to the US as a boy, and became a US citizen through the legal channelsâ¦green card, etc., which you seem to have total disdain for. I must admit that what you are articulating here comes across smugly, and as if think (sic) there is no legitimate real reason for a legal process to citizenship in the US. Your tone suggests that it is all a sham and anyone who suggest that there should be rules and a path for citizenship is a jerk. You seem to suggest (through very poor humor) that there is no purpose or value to any of it because the laws have changed over the years, and therefore, none of the laws relating to any of it are legitimate laws. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, I think you are very wrong. Laws change, and that is okay, because situations change and merit new legislation to address those changes.
You certainly seem to share the fondness for (classic) straw...
There was one comment that disagreed with the premise that I found interesting and somewhat agree with ...
Mr. Cameron, I have read through your above article twice. I am an immigrant (my family is Irish) coming to the US as a boy, and became a US citizen through the legal channelsâ¦green card, etc., which you seem to have total disdain for. I must admit that what you are articulating here comes across smugly, and as if think there is no legitimate real reason for a legal process to citizenship in the US. Your tone suggests that it is all a sham and anyone who suggest that there should be rules and a path for citizenship is a jerk. You seem to suggest (through very poor humor) that there is no purpose or value to any of it because the laws have changed over the years, and therefore, none of the laws relating to any of it are legitimate laws. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, I think you are very wrong. Laws change, and that is okay, because situations change and merit new legislation to address those changes.
The article is apparently a reading comprehension test which somebody failed. Not surprising that comment resonated!
The article says about the exact opposite of "anyone who suggest that there should be rules and a path for citizenship is a jerk." The author goes into painstaking detail to explain that there is, for the vast majority of people who want to come here, no rules nor path to citizenship.
It's all right there in the article, plain as day. It's delivered with a large dose of snark, which is understandableâsnark pressure builds up when you spend a lot of time arguing about something (immigration law) that you've spent years mastering with people who don't know what they're talking about. A temptation I succumb to far too often, I confessâbut holy mother of dog it gets tedious.There are only so many polite ways of saying "That's not how this works! That's not how ANY of this works!"
But then you know this, because you've read the article twice, right? Sure you have.
Economic hardship is not a qualifying situation. So in regards to us upholding our end of the agreement, we are. Only recently was the US policy defining refugee status broadened to include economic hardship, which I think is an abuse of the program. Another abuse of the program is that the refugees are not stopping at the first available safe place and seeking asylum. Instead they bypass countries to get to the US. That violates the very spirit of being a refugee.
I suppose I could go into the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker (all refugees start as asylum seekers; you cannot apply for entry to the US as a refugee at the border. That requires certification by the UN in a third country) but you know all that, avid reader that you are. No indeed, just being poor and wanting to improve your lot does not qualify you for either refugee or asylum seeker status. It should qualify you as an immigrant, but it doesn't do that either anymore.
No, to seek asylum in the US you need to prove a well-founded fear of persecution. The current orgy of violence going on in central and south America would certainly qualify. And as far as holding up our end of the refugee agreement we most certainly are not, and the administration is considering cutting the number of refugees to be admitted in 2020 from an absurdly low quota of 95,000 (we only let in 21,292 in 2018) to...zero. None.
Our country is already overwhelmed with citizens suffering from economic hardship. We have been trying to address this since the creation of The Great Society and have failed miserably. And we want to further our problems by putting our indigent citizens in competition with indigent immigrants who bring nothing to the table other than themselves looking for a handout of some kind. And in this context, a job would be a handout so don't try and go there. Because they entered illegally, they cannot work legally. Giving them a job would certainly be a handout in this context since they are prohibited from working. I have absolutely no problem with guest worker programs. Have been in favor of them for decades.
Worse yet is the assumption that we owe them a place in our country. This attitude explains why the countries they are leaving are failing. No one wants to make the sacrifices that are required to improve their own situation at home. Instead, they pack up and leave for greener pastures rather than fight for their rights at home. We have tried sending money to these countries to improve conditions, but as usual this money does not get to where it is supposed to go. The governments siphon of the majority of the monies via public corruption. Trump rightly cut off these funds because they were not being used to benefit the citizens. Maybe we should get the Peace Corps going down there. I have no problem with sending aid to these people / countries except whenit doesn't go where intended.
We have the best economy ever! Things are booming because of these great policies making America great again! We're overwhelmed with citizens suffering economic hardship!
Can you at least pick one story and stick to it?
No? Whatever. Even if we were talking about just ordinary immigration rather than asylum seekers/refugees we could reflect back on...oh, I don't knowâthe entire history of our country, sayâfor evidence that immigrants cause economic hardship. It's been a frequent rallying cry for those afraid of new people but it has never proven true. Immigrants tend to be highly motivated and bust their asses to improve their lots. They end up making the rest of us better off as well as making the country a stronger, more-interesting place to live.
But what the heck, maybe this time is different. Maybe those exact words used against my ancestors (and likely yours) have suddenly become true. I suppose it's possible that bigotry and xenophobia are, for the first time, actually justified. Pardon me if I'm skeptical. Your track record here sucks.
But in the case of those fleeing persecution we didn't promise all those years ago to take them in to improve our country, sound an argument as that is. We made that promise out of shame for not doing it in the years before WW2. We had turned away the persecuted and left them to their persecutors, and for a while we felt remorse over that. We vowed we would never again let our country be the anvil to the hammers of evil men.
Memories fade and the lessons of history have to be re-learned. We've put ourselves in the position of earning that shame again, and we are led now by people who are not only ignorant of history but have no sense of shame.
I'd settle for "possible" for now, at least for purposes of immigration/asylum.
Go click that link. Read it. Once you have absorbed the information you will begin to have an idea why people enter the country illegally.
Would fair and easy mean that meaningful identification documents are optional and we take your word as to who you are why you are coming here ? I say that because asking that of US citizens when they show up to vote is now considered racist and hateful.
Also come January 2020 anyone who tries to board a commercial plane in the US will have to prove their identity with a certified Federal ID. It will require having your birth certificate as proof of who you are. The freedom of travel is now formally restricted within our borders. Thought that by the time I reached my present age I would never need to have my birth certificate to prove who I am anymore. Seems that the state issued DL I have had for over 40 years is not considered valid enough. Silly me ...
Silly you indeed.
For most of our lives you could cross our northern or southern border without a passport. A driver's license and oral declaration of citizenship sufficed. I never had to do it as a Mexican or Canadian citizen (maybe someone in the audience could help with that) but I was able to travel in both countries pretty painlessly.
That all changed in 2001, but for most of the county's history the papers required to travel to the US if arriving by land were minimal.
You're asking about this because it's an easy distraction from having to defend your position. Our rights to travel (or vote) being violated don't even justify themselves, let alone justify further violations. The fact that it changed is not rustication for the change.
What else would be part of a fair and easy and enforceable solution ?
It is unreasonable for me to expect a reply based upon my mostly rhetorical question. Somewhere, sometime, someone has to be the bad guy and say no, you cannot come in because ...
Until we agree on what because is, there will be no solution(s).
It's likely that the only reply I'll get is a Trump-rally slogan chanted over and over. Pro tip: repeating a lie doesn't make it truer. Getting all your friends to repeat it doesn't make it truer. Riding that lie to en election victory doesn't make it truer.
Solutions have been held hostage to overcoming ignorance and bigotry. For now ignorance and bigotry are winning.
You or someone else posted the "possible" blog when it was first written. I read it again anyway.
I have been aware of all of the realities for over 55 years. This provided me with no new insights or understanding the first time around.
There was one comment that disagreed with the premise that I found interesting and somewhat agree with ...
Mr. Cameron, I have read through your above article twice. I am an immigrant (my family is Irish) coming to the US as a boy, and became a US citizen through the legal channels…green card, etc., which you seem to have total disdain for. I must admit that what you are articulating here comes across smugly, and as if think there is no legitimate real reason for a legal process to citizenship in the US. Your tone suggests that it is all a sham and anyone who suggest that there should be rules and a path for citizenship is a jerk. You seem to suggest (through very poor humor) that there is no purpose or value to any of it because the laws have changed over the years, and therefore, none of the laws relating to any of it are legitimate laws. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, I think you are very wrong. Laws change, and that is okay, because situations change and merit new legislation to address those changes.
Yeah, about that repeating a lie thing ... The author states over and over and over and over again that "there is no line". That is patently false. There are many lines and they start at various ports of entry and embassies and consulates, if you come here legally.
On the 1951 treaty obligations you cited ...
The core principle is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. This is now considered a rule of customary international law.
Economic hardship is not a qualifying situation. So in regards to us upholding our end of the agreement, we are. Only recently was the US policy defining refugee status broadened to include economic hardship, which I think is an abuse of the program. Another abuse of the program is that the refugees are not stopping at the first available safe place and seeking asylum. Instead they bypass countries to get to the US. That violates the very spirit of being a refugee.
Our country is already overwhelmed with citizens suffering from economic hardship. We have been trying to address this since the creation of The Great Society and have failed miserably. And we want to further our problems by putting our indigent citizens in competition with indigent immigrants who bring nothing to the table other than themselves looking for a handout of some kind. And in this context, a job would be a handout so don't try and go there. Because they entered illegally, they cannot work legally. Giving them a job would certainly be a handout in this context since they are prohibited from working. I have absolutely no problem with guest worker programs. Have been in favor of them for decades.
Worse yet is the assumption that we owe them a place in our country. This attitude explains why the countries they are leaving are failing. No one wants to make the sacrifices that are required to improve their own situation at home. Instead, they pack up and leave for greener pastures rather than fight for their rights at home. We have tried sending money to these countries to improve conditions, but as usual this money does not get to where it is supposed to go. The governments siphon of the majority of the monies via public corruption. Trump rightly cut off these funds because they were not being used to benefit the citizens. Maybe we should get the Peace Corps going down there. I have no problem with sending aid to these people / countries except when it doesn't go where intended.
I'd settle for "possible" for now, at least for purposes of immigration/asylum.
Go click that link. Read it. Once you have absorbed the information you will begin to have an idea why people enter the country illegally.
Would fair and easy mean that meaningful identification documents are optional and we take your word as to who you are why you are coming here ? I say that because asking that of US citizens when they show up to vote is now considered racist and hateful.
Also come January 2020 anyone who tries to board a commercial plane in the US will have to prove their identity with a certified Federal ID. It will require having your birth certificate as proof of who you are. The freedom of travel is now formally restricted within our borders. Thought that by the time I reached my present age I would never need to have my birth certificate to prove who I am anymore. Seems that the state issued DL I have had for over 40 years is not considered valid enough. Silly me ...
Silly you indeed.
For most of our lives you could cross our northern or southern border without a passport. A driver's license and oral declaration of citizenship sufficed. I never had to do it as a Mexican or Canadian citizen (maybe someone in the audience could help with that) but I was able to travel in both countries pretty painlessly.
That all changed in 2001, but for most of the county's history the papers required to travel to the US if arriving by land were minimal.
You're asking about this because it's an easy distraction from having to defend your position. Our rights to travel (or vote) being violated don't even justify themselves, let alone justify further violations. The fact that it changed is not rustication for the change.
What else would be part of a fair and easy and enforceable solution ?
It is unreasonable for me to expect a reply based upon my mostly rhetorical question. Somewhere, sometime, someone has to be the bad guy and say no, you cannot come in because ...
Until we agree on what because is, there will be no solution(s).
It's likely that the only reply I'll get is a Trump-rally slogan chanted over and over. Pro tip: repeating a lie doesn't make it truer. Getting all your friends to repeat it doesn't make it truer. Riding that lie to en election victory doesn't make it truer.
Solutions have been held hostage to overcoming ignorance and bigotry. For now ignorance and bigotry are winning.
Well if Obama had not built those concentration camps in the first place, we wouldn't have this problem. No one complained while he built and used them. It was a good idea at the time ...
Thanks, Lazy
