You guys are seriously trying to compare Jews in WWII with people from
Guatemala? That is not even close to the same circumstances. Also you are
ignoring the first safe country rule. People are not allowed to cherry pick
destinations. We cannot help everyone. That is unfortunate but the truth.
Just wanting a better job and an American lifestyle is not a legitimate reason
to claim refugee status.
The question, in part, is how much can you involuntarily stick it to U.S.
taxpayers without a revolt to pay for everyone trying to get in the U.S.?We have spent billions and billions of dollars at the border and on
immigrants. How many realistically can we afford to take in? Our immigration
system is at the breaking point as it is. We should be a
compassionate nation but we must balance this with reality. We are not the only
nation on earth who can take in Central and South American immigrants. As Washintion discusses how we can pay for 2+ trillion in critical
infrastructure repairs/needs in our own country, some are discussing higher
taxes which would likely come on the backs of the middle class or in cuts to
services for U.S. citizens. At the same time we have just spent 7 trillion
dollars in the Middle East the past 19 yrs. Tired of the U.S.
taxpayer being the answer to everyone's problems. Let's focus on
affordable housing, heath care, education, and infrastructure needs of our own
people. Let's make sure our elderly, vets, disabled, and children are
looked after. Let's lower taxes for the middle and lower middle class.
Lying about the reasons asylum is being applied for should be automatic
rejection.Coaching migrants to lie about their reasons should be a
crime.Nations which facilitate the movement of illegal immigrants to the
U.S. border should have all aid from the U.S. terminated.We have an
excessively generous legal immigration system, but its rules are fair and should
be followed. Illegal immigration, including false "genocide" claims
cannot be tolerated and any one making them should be punished harshly and
There is no bar for asylum not sought in a neighboring country. There is a
discretionary bar if an opportunity to live permanently in a third country has
been refused, application for asylum is submitted after more than a year in
country, or previous denial of asylum. There are some mandatory bars such as
for felony conviction and terrorism. Most applications for asylum
are eventually denied. More immigration judges would thus move more seekers out
of the country faster.
genocide? That's hyperbole.The majority of asylum seekers to
the US and and the EU are people coveting another persons way of life. Let them
apply in the first country, and block those who attempt to enter ours after
passing through another country.
Re: "Right to asylum prevents the US from being complicit in
genocide"True. But some people don't care if the U.S. is
complicit in genocide. Trump is apparently one of them. And he panders to the
very people who would love to see America commit racial genocide.“Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!” – Richard
Spencer, leader of the Alt Right
And from Mosiah 4:16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand
in need of your succorThere's a massive difference between
"ye yourselves" acting voluntarily and taxpayers who are coerced by the
force of government under threat of incarceration. Please share a reference in
the standard works that implies it's ethical to force someone else to
"succor those that stand in need of your succor."The
scriptures tell us to be personally generous. However, when we force others to
do what we want, that's called tyranny. It is unethical to conflate those
concepts in order to pursue a partisan political agenda.
A reader posting on a previous article claimed that this international agreement
about asylum requires that asylum be sought at the border with their country of
origin. Thus Guatemalans could seek protection in Mexico, Belize, Honduras, or
El Salvador. Does anyone have a reference for this protocol? If that
is the case, the Guatemalans who were offered asylum by Mexico and refused it
because the U.S. was their desired destination, would lack authority twice; once
for not having a common border, and once for refusing the legitimate offer.If the common boarder requirement is to be met, it would be reasonable
once they cross that border to make all applicants from south of Mexico to make
their application at the US Consulate in Mexico where they can wait in Mexico to
be processed.Cuba, on the other hand, has a common border at
Guantanamo Bay where the Cubans could seek asylum with the U.S. They probably
could not travel to Mexico and make the same claim as they are not crossing at
the US border without first crossing the border into Mexico.
With respect to the southern border, following the first country of asylum
principle, I guess the article is talking about Mexican refugees? Are there
really that many of them? And isn't the term "genocide" a little
inflammatory for a group that claims to care about ethics?If the
subject is central American migrants, then the comments ought to be directed at
Mexico. As a signatory to the U.N. Convention, Mexico has an affirmative
obligation to accept and make a judgment about central Americans' asylum