• Almost a week in and the Red Hen is being harassed by protesters repeatedly.
    153 replies, posted
Well I did not know either of those things, both of which are fucked up. So then nevermind, these camps in particular then are fucked up, but I still believe the detainment of an illegal immigrant is perfectly acceptable, even if it has to be in a larger communal-type holding facility. They just can't be doing the shit that. This is why private prisons are a bad idea.
Allow me to describe why it's farcical to call some of them 'illegal immigrants' simply because ICE would like you to think they're all universally 'breaking the law by crossing across America's borders at not-legal-points-of-entry (which I will remind yet again is not illegal and is in fact required to seek Asylum as you must be in the United States to seek Asylum status). You go down the bridge, you are refused to cross it by a border guard (which is a violation of international law regarding Asylum as you are not allowed to deter people from seeking Asylum in your country by threatening legal action against them if they do, which is exactly what that guard is posted to do). So, instead, you take a boat a few tens to hundreds of feet away from the bridge to reach the other side and still seek out the processing center which is what the bridge was leading to to begin with. You are called an 'illegal immigrant' and are charged with 'entering into the US at a non-legal port of entry'. It is a farce. Do not allow yourself to be tricked into thinking this is 'perfectly acceptable'. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/133737/a271a09b-99cc-451f-a8a7-c99e5c84ef74/image.png
Why isn't the focus on this? It's something that is actually clearly going against the laws and worldwide agreements, and is something I actually believe people could get widespread support in condemning.
Because the focus was on the irrational suffering of children for no good reason. There's plenty of injustice here to go around - but the children must come first.
This applies in a situation where someone is attempting to seek asylum, but aren't the vast majority of Central American migrants just trying to get into the US illegally?
And why are they trying to get into the US? And who is telling you that they're 'just trying to get into the US illegally'?
They're usually doing so under duress, and under previous administrations could usually get asylum status.
And if they didn't gain such status immediately, they were ankle-cuffed (same way we track people who are out on bail and considered high flight risk) and then allowed to pass into the US. If they didn't gain their Grant and don't succeed in their refile/appeal, they were then immediately deported. At all stages, they were allowed to stay with their children because they weren't halted and prosecuted.
Right, that's why I said you go to Mexico and record them. We're talking about a guard on a bridge outside the facility. I've been to Mexico and I've been to multiple ports of entry from Mexico to the US. They aren't hard to get to and it wouldn't be a problem at all to stand around recording from the Mexican side. Hell, the people who own businesses around the ports of entry would probably be fine if you set up on the roof overlooking the border crossing. Record the asylum seeker being turned away and interview them afterwards, preferably with a long single take so no one could argue that context was removed. Do it for a couple dozen people and you'd have a pretty indomitable argument. Do it for a week to show that no one is being let in.
It's easy to record people being sat at a gate and being told that 'the queue is full'. It is hard to show through footage that people have been there for months in a visual sense. The reporting still points that out but people are far more outraged by the children (as they rightly ought be). The trouble is people are being allowed in -- but at a rate which is surely vastly and intentionally underneath how many they could process a day or even a week.
Is there any sort of legal recourse regarding the President or SHS tweeting the Red Hen then vandalism occuring? I feel like that is an obvious ethical concern that no one is talking about.
Yes. Impeachment.
Decades of illegal immigration from a poorer country to a richer country not because of an immediate threat to the person's life in their original country but a desire to perhaps live a better life perhaps?
So you have no source for that?
They're running out of fear and out of danger. When Deportation Is a Death Sentence | The New Yorker It's very hard to give a fuck when you're just repeating hollow lies dude.
In fairness, he's only repeating these lies because he's been misinformed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#cite_note-autogenerated5-66 The vast majority, by numbers, are from Mexico itself, which again, unless they're being chased down by a cartel there's no real reason that a Mexican would get asylum in the US.
No reason? No 'real reason'? The New Yorker article above shows no real reasons either? Come now. What is your actual source that 'there is no real reason a Mexican would get asylum in the US'?
You are aware literaly figure heads are being assassinated in broad daylight by cartel members. Or the bus full of children that were abducted by the local police, given to cartels, and set on fire. All for the kids going to a town to start a fund raiser for a trip, which the cops feared would take business away from the cartels. Shits fucked over there, and there's lots of reasons to flee rather than hope you're not randomly targeted to get raped/murdered.
The fact that the vast majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico are doing so for economic purposes, but could be tempted to claim asylum in order to extend their stay in the US or to give them enough time upon release to flee ICE. Canada has a huge issue right now with a massive number of illegal immigrants coming across the US-Quebec border and trying to claim asylum despite having no grounds to do so. And while it is tragic having 200 LGBT killed over a 3-year period, Mexico's official stance on LGBT rights, as well as the fact that these acts would, in a nation of 123 million people, not likely be considered to be at crisis-levels, and the fact that in the last 2 years it seems that rights and conditions for LGBT have begun to improve dramatically there, would mean that being gay in and of itself would not be sufficient to grant a Mexican asylum in America. It would have to be done based on a specific credible threat against the individual, rather than as a blanket thing.
Not enough to grant it, absolutely, for the majority of cases. That doesn't mean they don't have the right to argue their case for Asylum. It also doesn't diminish all the cartel behavior and corruption in the Mexican government, which many of these people are fleeing from after receiving visits from 'La Policia'.
Note that also, this entire time, I have been saying "the vast majority." Which doesn't deny that such asylum seekers exist, but asserts that they are the exception to the general trend of a desire for a more prosperous life in America being the main driving factor behind illegal border crossings. The US government/ICE also can't just straight-up say "Yes the Mexican government/police are too corrupt to run their country or keep their people safe" because that's a political landmine that, before Trump at least, is something nobody in the actual government would want to step on.
Absolutely they can. In fact, by the accords we signed to we should in fact be the ones stating it - and by rights should mean we should grant Asylum en masse to those who would flee from Mexico in regards to it. 1.       Every person lawfully in the territory of a State Party has the right to move about in it, and to reside in it subject to the provisions of the law.  2.       Every person has the right lo leave any country freely, including his own.  3.       The exercise of the foregoing rights may be restricted only pursuant to a law to the extent necessary in a democratic society to prevent crime or to protect national security, public safety, public order, public morals, public health, or the rights or freedoms of others.  4.       The exercise of the rights recognized in paragraph 1 may also be restricted by law in designated zones for reasons of public interest.  5.       No one can be expelled from the territory of the state of which he is a national or be deprived of the right to enter it.  6.       An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to this Convention may be expelled from it only pursuant to a decision reached in accordance with law.  7.       Every person has the right to seek and be granted asylum in a foreign territory, in accordance with the legislation of the state and international conventions, in the event he is being pursued for political offenses or related common crimes.  8.       In no case may an alien be deported or returned to a country, regardless of whether or not it is his country of origin, if in that country his right to life or personal freedom is in danger of being violated because of his race, nationality, religion, social status, or political opinions.  9.       The collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited. Source: OAS
The only part of that that could be construed as relevant to the corruption of some Mexican police forces is persecution based on social status. America also has to have a certain expectation that Mexico's Federales are able to handle matters of policing and protection of its citizens from corruption within its own borders. Corruption within police forces is predominantly regional, and there is a certain expectation that refugees from these areas that are affected by cartels and corruption are able to be assisted by the Mexican government itself first. Americas also enjoys a great degree of political influence over Mexico, something that could be greatly hampered (moreso than Trump's actions are already doing) and see Mexico seek other allies, such as China, if America were to just straight-up say "Yeah, the entirety of Mexico is currupt and can't handle anything by itself."
All political corruption is inherently political. Ergo, anyone fleeing from Mexico as they fear the corrupt police and have credible reason to do so (which just means they've witnessed that corruption or have been nearby it) should be a valid reason in and of itself.
FULL OF DEMONS if this wasn't so sad, it would be pretty damn funny
Mexico as a country is under going serious civil strife. The idea people are only fleeing for economic reasons is absolutely false. Some are, yes, not all. The country is in genuine turmoil, politicians are cut down like grass, the people are afraid and the cartels are literal paramilitary forces unstoppable by even the state military. You are wrong.
Immigrants from Mexico do often come for economic reasons. And then they leave. Or rather they USED to leave when the season for migrant labor was over. Reagan fucked us by dramatically upping border security because reasons. Now they have to stay because it is the only way they can provide for their families. They provide for a family that they can no longer see. As a result, the amount of undocumented workers has dramatically increased in the US. Even if you are right, the Republicans are still the human garbage who made it happen IN THE FIRST PLACE. Here is a fucking news flash: Immigrants aren't causing problems of any consequence. They have pretty much never caused any issues of consequence. It is fear mongering bullshit.
This thread is justifying double standards after the second post accused the right of being hypocrites lol
I'm sorry I can't hear you from that high horse you're sitting on. You mind explaining that position to the rest of us or are you just gonna gloat?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.