Photo of drowned migrants triggers fight over Trump asylum clampdown

[simple1]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't understand why refugees should be allowed to work, or receive benefits- they are not citizens. Far as I understand, all they are entitled to is safety from death in their own country.

Illegal economic migrants of course are not ENTITLED to anything in another country, except a return ticket to their own country.

 

I was not allowed to work or receive benefits in Thailand, but no one is protesting that.

So far as I know illegal economic migrants are not provided support in Mexico. However, Mexico has signed and ratified Refugee Conventions.

 

https://cis.org/Luna/Mexicos-Refugee-Law

 

Mexico is obliged to provide protection and legal processes for assessment of refugee status. However, under international law asylum seekers are not bound to apply in Mexico, they can apply for asylum at the US border, but trump has put a number of roadblocks some of which I understand are still before the Courts for ruling whether they are comply to the law / Constitution. Providing permit to work whilst waiting for completion of the refugee assessment process, which can take a considerable amount of time, enables some dignity, initial integration, reduces exploitation, lowers costs to government and so on. Some countries provide additional humanitarian benefits such as schooling for children, medical care etc. To provide some understanding one of the major push factors for the asylum seeker flood into the EU in 2015 was asylum seekers had run out of funds to support themselves in Turkey as not permitted to work. Turkey now permits work.

 

Given that you are a frequent poster on asylum seeker topics one would assume you are already familiar with the above content. Additional easy enough to research further rather than constantly claim ignorance.

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

Of course you're quite right....

 

There should be no reason at all why illegal immigrants should not be allowed entry....

 

And this applies even more particularly to those claiming 'refugee' status.....

 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

Of course you're quite right....

 

There should be no reason at all why illegal immigrants should not be allowed entry....

 

And this applies even more particularly to those claiming 'refugee' status.....

 

By law asylum seekers have to be assessed whether their claims are factual or not. Only after a negative assessment process can they be declared 'illegal'. Your rhetoric is the equivalent to the abandonment of the Rule of Law.

[simple1]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I have as much right to post within the rules as you do.

 

Sure. However, repeatedly claiming ignorance when facts have been provided on a number of occasions in similar topics in which you have engaged, you're not the only member doings so, when info has already been repeatedly provided regards asylum seekers / refugees, IMO lacks honesty.

[marcusarelus]

Rio Grand river, in case you all never seen it.  https://bigbendgazette.com/2018/04/12/rio-grande-named-one-americas-endangered-rivers/

[jany123]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I was pointing out that it's illogical to allow refugees to work and ban legal visitors in Thailand from doing so. Neither side are citizens.

 

I'm surprised. I understood that as soon as a refugee is determined to be an economic migrant rather than a genuine refugee they are sent home. Am I wrong?

Yes... it’s wrong to equate refugees rights to tourist rights, and illogical to dump them in the same basket by any metric.

[Ozman52]

46 minutes ago, simple1 said:

By law asylum seekers have to be assessed whether their claims are factual or not. Only after a negative assessment process can they be declared 'illegal'. Your rhetoric is the equivalent to the abandonment of the Rule of Law.

And that law is what is causing problems for much of the developed world as literally millions decide to improve their lot by forcing themselves on others. Does it surprise you that many people would like to see it revoked, that are sick to death of fortune seekers looking for a handout?

We both know that those declared illegal immigrants are very hard to remove once they are in country. Legal processes take many years, and in many countries simply having a child born there negates the deportation process. The rest of the world knows it too, and are ready to exploit our weakness.

[Mansell]

On June 27, 2019 at 10:21 AM, AgMech Cowboy said:

How do you come up with that?

Because of his policies migrants realized there was a window of opportunity before Trump closed the border completely, which he has threatened to do.

[jany123]

4 hours ago, Ozman52 said:

Haven't you read the earlier posts? Jany thinks that just because illegal immigrants don't show up in court they shouldn't be arrested and deported even if that is the court decision, because......well there might be mitigating circumstances, and human rights, and, and .......

555... nice one... slipadictome while I’m not watching... you sly dog, you.

 

but... what Jany really thinks is that laws should be implemented fairly.... to wit... nab the ‘illegals”, have a hearing as to why they did not turn up as required, establish if the reason is valid, then proceed from that point....eg... couldn’t attend court because I was in hospital having a broken leg put in a cast... maybe give that one another chance, ay?

 

that was a mitigating circumstance showing that immediate arrest and deportation lacks due process.

 

heres another....couldn't attend because I was wasted on some primo crystals.... mmm... maybe kick that one out, ay?

 

the police forces of the United States of America do not need to act like jackbooted fascist organizations... or do they?

[simple1]

23 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

And that law is what is causing problems for much of the developed world as literally millions decide to improve their lot by forcing themselves on others. Does it surprise you that many people would like to see it revoked, that are sick to death of fortune seekers looking for a handout?

We both know that those declared illegal immigrants are very hard to remove once they are in country. Legal processes take many years, and in many countries simply having a child born there negates the deportation process. The rest of the world knows it too, and are ready to exploit our weakness.

Rule of Law

[Ozman52]

2 hours ago, jany123 said:

555... nice one... slipadictome while I’m not watching... you sly dog, you.

 

but... what Jany really thinks is that laws should be implemented fairly.... to wit... nab the ‘illegals”, have a hearing as to why they did not turn up as required, establish if the reason is valid, then proceed from that point....eg... couldn’t attend court because I was in hospital having a broken leg put in a cast... maybe give that one another chance, ay?

 

that was a mitigating circumstance showing that immediate arrest and deportation lacks due process.

 

heres another....couldn't attend because I was wasted on some primo crystals.... mmm... maybe kick that one out, ay?

 

the police forces of the United States of America do not need to act like jackbooted fascist organizations... or do they?

TYVM, you have re-posted exactly what I stated you posted earlier, ie that even after a court has made a decision the process should be dragged out indefinitely.

 

Can you tell us just how many court hearings an illegal alien should be allowed before being deported? Just how many rights do you think criminals have?

 

 

[Ozman52]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

Rule of Law

You are adept at handing out minimal word evasions of the questions put to you.

Laws are made to fit the circumstances; when those change so can the laws. The sooner, the better.

[Thainesss]

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

By law asylum seekers have to be assessed whether their claims are factual or not. Only after a negative assessment process can they be declared 'illegal'. Your rhetoric is the equivalent to the abandonment of the Rule of Law.

 

I love it. Apparently to some here we (I mean Americans) should house, clothe, feed, provide medical assistance, and finance anyone who decides to cross our borders and says “asylum” no matter how many hundreds of billions of dollars it takes - and do it indefinitely. 

 

You can can apply for asylum at a port of entry or from within the USA, but illegally crossing the border to do so is a crime, and thus they are ILLEGAL. We DO NOT have to release them into the USA and we DO NOT have to cater to hundreds of thousands of people. 

 

Heres youre court date, here’s the numbers for some lawyers and advisors. Off you go back to your homeland to wait for processing. 

 

 

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.

 

[simple1]

8 hours ago, Ozman52 said:

You are adept at handing out minimal word evasions of the questions put to you.

Laws are made to fit the circumstances; when those change so can the laws. The sooner, the better.

Sure. Until new laws enacted then current Rule of law applies. IMO nations who have signed and ratified relevant humanitarian Conventions cannot have it both ways i.e. holding themselves as wonderful examples of Human Rights advocates, then at the same time attempting to reverse Human Rights by implementing contrary domestic laws. Can't have your cake and eat it too...

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, simple1 said:

Sure. However, repeatedly claiming ignorance when facts have been provided on a number of occasions in similar topics in which you have engaged, you're not the only member doings so, when info has already been repeatedly provided regards asylum seekers / refugees, IMO lacks honesty.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

16 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Of course you're quite right....

 

There should be no reason at all why illegal immigrants should not be allowed entry....

 

And this applies even more particularly to those claiming 'refugee' status.....

 

There is no such thing under US law as an ‘illegal immigrant’.

 

You seem to know even less about the legal standing of people claiming ‘refugee status’.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

14 hours ago, simple1 said:

By law asylum seekers have to be assessed whether their claims are factual or not. Only after a negative assessment process can they be declared 'illegal'. Your rhetoric is the equivalent to the abandonment of the Rule of Law.

Agreed with the caveat that a failed asylum applicant is not declared ‘illegal’.

 

There is no such thing under US law as an ‘illegal person’.

 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Agreed with the caveat that a failed asylum applicant is not declared ‘illegal’.

 

There is no such thing under US law as an ‘illegal person’.

 

OK. So what is the legal definition / term under US law of an asylum seeker whose application for refugee status is declined? 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, simple1 said:

OK. So what is the legal definition / term under US law of an asylum seeker whose application for refugee status is declined?

The law does not apply a term to the applicant (other than applicant).

 

The process of application is fist considered by Immigration officials, an ‘administrative’ decision, an application that has failed at the ‘administrative’ level may be appealed to the immigration court, an application that is denied by the immigration court may be appealed to a federal court.

 

At no time is the applicant termed an ‘illegal’.

 

That term comes from the language of the right wing.

[Ozman52]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The law does not apply a term to the applicant (other than applicant).

 

The process of application is fist considered by Immigration officials, an ‘administrative’ decision, an application that has failed at the ‘administrative’ level may be appealed to the immigration court, an application that is denied by the immigration court may be appealed to a federal court.

 

At no time is the applicant termed an ‘illegal’.

 

That term comes from the language of the right wing.

Section 1252(c) of the "Aliens and Nationality" laws is titled: "Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens." The section authorizes state and local law enforcement officials "to arrest and detain an individual who— (1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction."

Section 1365, titled "Reimbursement of States for costs of incarcerating illegal aliens and certain Cuban nationals," applies to any alien convicted of a felony who’s in the country unlawfully and whose most recent entry "was without inspection, or whose most recent admission to the United States was as a nonimmigrant and whose period of authorized stay as a nonimmigrant expired, or whose unlawful status was known to the government." https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2018/may/09/steve-mccraw/illegal-alien-legal-term-federal-law/

[Thainesss]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There is no such thing under US law as an ‘illegal immigrant’.

 

There IS such a thing as “illegal alien” and it’s mentioned several times in state and federal law. 

 

So, technically, you’re very much wrong. 

[dick dasterdly]

Why side-track this topic on semantics?

 

The father and daughter died because they were trying to enter the US illegally.

 

That's very sad - and is precisely why laws need to change to make it very clear to those hoping to use this route, that it's not an option.

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Why side-track this topic on semantics?

 

The father and daughter died because they were trying to enter the US illegally.

 

That's very sad - and is precisely why laws need to change to make it very clear to those hoping to use this route, that it's not an option.

Incorrect. They decided to cross illegally because of the "trump" disgusting inhumane policy to make them wait two months to have their LEGAL ASYLUM application considered in horrible conditions in massive heat. They wanted to apply legally. Xenophobic demagogue "trump" under the direction of villain Stephen Miller designed this system. "trump" isn't responsible for all aspiring immigrant unnecessary deaths -- but these ones he is and all that support "trump" in this are complicit. This "metering" policy is cynical, evil, and intentional. It's white nationalist and fascist. Americans should be better but right now under our illegitimate president, we aren't. This is a very dark phase in American history. Hopefully we can emerge from it intact.

[Thainesss]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Incorrect. They decided to cross illegally because of the "trump" disgusting inhumane policy to make them wait two months to have their LEGAL ASYLUM application considered in horrible conditions in massive heat. They wanted to apply legally. Xenophobic demagogue "trump" under the direction of villain Stephen Miller designed this system. "trump" isn't responsible for all aspiring immigrant unnecessary deaths -- but these ones he is and all that support "trump" in this are complicit. This "metering" policy is cynical, evil, and intentional. It's white nationalist and fascist. Americans should be better but right now under our illegitimate president, we aren't. This is a very dark phase in American history. Hopefully we can emerge from it intact.

 

This.... Is quite a post. 

 

So the thousand or so illegal aliens that died attempting to cross the border over Obama’s 2 terms. Guess you and every democrat is complicit in all those deaths too. 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

This.... Is quite a post. 

 

So the thousand or so illegal aliens that died attempting to cross the border over Obama’s 2 terms. Guess you and every democrat is complicit in all those deaths too. 

Reread the post. Your baiting question is not worthy of any response. Do NOT bother again.

[Ozman52]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Incorrect. They decided to cross illegally because of the "trump" disgusting inhumane policy to make them wait two months to have their LEGAL ASYLUM application considered in horrible conditions in massive heat. They wanted to apply legally. Xenophobic demagogue "trump" under the direction of villain Stephen Miller designed this system. "trump" isn't responsible for all aspiring immigrant unnecessary deaths -- but these ones he is and all that support "trump" in this are complicit. This "metering" policy is cynical, evil, and intentional. It's white nationalist and fascist. Americans should be better but right now under our illegitimate president, we aren't. This is a very dark phase in American history. Hopefully we can emerge from it intact.

Try not to let your hyperbole off its leash. How is Trump (whom I despise) responsible for "horrible conditions" in either El Salvador or Mexico? Or for the "massive heat", which if anything would be hotter in el Salvador than the US-Mexico border, given their respective latitudes?

 

Just how far does the responsibility of target country's citizens for the welfare of uninvited migrants extend? Is it total right back to their front door when they first conceive a way to enrich themselves, or does it start at zero and gradually increase with each step of the way? The latter would seem logical in this case, reaching maximum in the middle of the river, where all personal responsibility is relinquished.

As for metering, do you know that many countries set a total level of immigrant intake, and that those who just arrive reduce the intake of those who did the right thing and lodged an immigration application from home. How dare they take upon themselves the right to control immigration, eh?

[Jingthing]

13 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

Try not to let your hyperbole off its leash. How is Trump (whom I despise) responsible for "horrible conditions" in either El Salvador or Mexico? Or for the "massive heat", which if anything would be hotter in el Salvador than the US-Mexico border, given their respective latitudes?

 

Just how far does the responsibility of target country's citizens for the welfare of uninvited migrants extend? Is it total right back to their front door when they first conceive a way to enrich themselves, or does it start at zero and gradually increase with each step of the way? The latter would seem logical in this case, reaching maximum in the middle of the river, where all personal responsibility is relinquished.

As for metering, do you know that many countries set a total level of immigrant intake, and that those who just arrive reduce the intake of those who did the right thing and lodged an immigration application from home. How dare they take upon themselves the right to control immigration, eh?

Please post again after you take the time to educate yourself about the actual specific details of this case and how the metering policy for LEGAL ASYLUM APPLICATIONS directly led to their deaths. No point in any further reply to such a misinformed post. 

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Incorrect. They decided to cross illegally because of the "trump" disgusting inhumane policy to make them wait two months to have their LEGAL ASYLUM application considered in horrible conditions in massive heat. They wanted to apply legally. Xenophobic demagogue "trump" under the direction of villain Stephen Miller designed this system. "trump" isn't responsible for all aspiring immigrant unnecessary deaths -- but these ones he is and all that support "trump" in this are complicit. This "metering" policy is cynical, evil, and intentional. It's white nationalist and fascist. Americans should be better but right now under our illegitimate president, we aren't. This is a very dark phase in American history. Hopefully we can emerge from it intact.

Don't forget his budget cuts for aid to the countries involved, a budget that was used to stem the flow of immigrants.

[Thainesss]

11 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Reread the post. Your baiting question is not worthy of any response. Do NOT bother again.

 

You just accused people like me of being complicit in migrant deaths when your very own party mocked Trump calling it a “manufactured crisis” and made a galactic show of cutting funds and hamstringing every effort to confront this issue and NOW you guys have the audacity to allege that the right is at fault...

 

Thats completely bonkers. 

 

Its such joke and the left knows it. That’s why they passed funding to aid the issue almost unanimously and without showboating.