Trump

[Mktavish]

 

 

Because face it, when you have THOUSANDS of folks coming en masse to our borders, that is not immigration, that is Invasion. Treat them just like any other enemy combatant. Shoot first, ask questions later. They are in the midst of committing a crime, the slap on the wrist they are getting now, simply is not a deterrent.

Yep, that's pretty callous. But, I bet we wouldn't have to resort to that for very long before folks got the hint..... and we would see FAR fewer folks trying to cross illegally.

 

Did that work in East Berlin? No. No, it did not.

 

 

Pretty sure that wall was meant to keep people in , in that case.

 

But point taken ... walls were made to be breached.

And if you want to build one , you better be ready to accept its limitations upon yourself.

[HeyYou]

 

 

Because face it, when you have THOUSANDS of folks coming en masse to our borders, that is not immigration, that is Invasion. Treat them just like any other enemy combatant. Shoot first, ask questions later. They are in the midst of committing a crime, the slap on the wrist they are getting now, simply is not a deterrent.

Yep, that's pretty callous. But, I bet we wouldn't have to resort to that for very long before folks got the hint..... and we would see FAR fewer folks trying to cross illegally.

 

Did that work in East Berlin? No. No, it did not.

 

Actually, it worked fairly well. They did not have nearly the problem with border-jumpers that we do here.

[Mktavish]

Border jumpers which way ? Or are you saying they are pretty much the same ?

[HeyYou]

Border jumpers which way ? Or are you saying they are pretty much the same ?

I don't think there were many folks attempting to get in to Russian controlled territory. :) There were, however, a fair few trying to get OUT. A significant percentage of them had a very bad experience with that..... which discouraged further attempts.

[Mktavish]

And look what they did to keep people in. Which was easier than keep out.

 

either you want to stop the black market flow ... or you are helping it .... then culpable ?!??!

 

Whats it gona be ?!?!

[Deleted67195711User]

According to the international law I referenced earlier (the 1951 Convention on Refugees), there are no 'illegal immigrants' at America's southern border, only refugees. But labeling refugees as 'illegal immigrants' gives them the air of criminals, which is exactly the desired effect. It is okay to keep criminals from entering your country, but is is much harder to keep fleeing refugees out. Denying fleeing refugees entry to your country gives a country the aspect of Switzerland, England, Spain and America in the 1940's when they refused admission to hundreds of thousands of fleeing Jews and forced them to return to Germany and that regime.

 

And that is exactly why the 1951 Convention on Refugees was written and ratified, to bind countries to ethical treatment of refugees. So why is America now ignoring it's early commitment to the 1951 Convention on Refugees and abandoning it's commitment to the ethical treatment of refugees? Is it that these refugees do not bring enough wealth with them to bribe their way to respectability? Or is it perchance that they were not adequately educated in their dirt-floor school house? Or could it simply be that these refugees are not Europeans, but are instead Central and Southern Americas?

 

What ever the reason, American needs to stop criminalizing being a refugee and start living up to the International treaty they ratified in 1954.

 

Edit - Why did America deny admission to these thousands of Jews? National Security. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/

Now refugees from Central and Southern America are a threat to National Security. The more things change ...

[HeyYou]

According to the international law I referenced earlier (the 1951 Convention on Refugees), there are no 'illegal immigrants' at America's southern border, only refugees. But labeling refugees as 'illegal immigrants' gives them the air of criminals, which is exactly the desired effect. It is okay to keep criminals from entering your country, but is is much harder to keep fleeing refugees out. Denying fleeing refugees entry to your country gives a country the aspect of Switzerland, England, Spain and America in the 1940's when they refused admission to hundreds of thousands of fleeing Jews and forced them to return to Germany and that regime.

 

And that is exactly why the 1951 Convention on Refugees was written and ratified, to bind countries to ethical treatment of refugees. So why is America now ignoring it's early commitment to the 1951 Convention on Refugees and abandoning it's commitment to the ethical treatment of refugees? Is it that these refugees do not bring enough wealth with them to bribe their way to respectability? Or is it perchance that they were not adequately educated in their dirt-floor school house? Or could it simply be that these refugees are not Europeans, but are instead Central and Southern Americas?

 

What ever the reason, American needs to stop criminalizing being a refugee and start living up to the International treaty they ratified in 1954.

 

Edit - Why did America deny admission to these thousands of Jews? National Security. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/

Now refugees from Central and Southern America are a threat to National Security. The more things change ...

Refugees? Perhaps. They may call themselves that, but, what are they running from? A third world country, with a corrupt government? Gee, plenty of those around. (plenty of FIRST world countries with corrupt governments as well)

 

Some of them may have a legitimate beef, but, on average, 4500 of them PER DAY?????? That MAKES it a national security issue. We simply don't have the facilities/staff/ability to hold and process that many folks. We don't even have the ability to warehouse them while they are waiting to be processed. But, according to you, we MUST accept them???? I think that is a treaty we need to pull out of as well. It is NOT our problem that their country of origin sucks. WE don't make it that way. Them leaving isn't going to change anything. Why don't THEY FIX THEIR OWN COUNTRY?

[Deleted67195711User]

 

According to the international law I referenced earlier (the 1951 Convention on Refugees), there are no 'illegal immigrants' at America's southern border, only refugees. But labeling refugees as 'illegal immigrants' gives them the air of criminals, which is exactly the desired effect. It is okay to keep criminals from entering your country, but is is much harder to keep fleeing refugees out. Denying fleeing refugees entry to your country gives a country the aspect of Switzerland, England, Spain and America in the 1940's when they refused admission to hundreds of thousands of fleeing Jews and forced them to return to Germany and that regime.

 

And that is exactly why the 1951 Convention on Refugees was written and ratified, to bind countries to ethical treatment of refugees. So why is America now ignoring it's early commitment to the 1951 Convention on Refugees and abandoning it's commitment to the ethical treatment of refugees? Is it that these refugees do not bring enough wealth with them to bribe their way to respectability? Or is it perchance that they were not adequately educated in their dirt-floor school house? Or could it simply be that these refugees are not Europeans, but are instead Central and Southern Americas?

 

What ever the reason, American needs to stop criminalizing being a refugee and start living up to the International treaty they ratified in 1954.

 

Edit - Why did America deny admission to these thousands of Jews? National Security. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/

Now refugees from Central and Southern America are a threat to National Security. The more things change ...

Refugees? Perhaps. They may call themselves that, but, what are they running from? A third world country, with a corrupt government? Gee, plenty of those around. (plenty of FIRST world countries with corrupt governments as well)

 

Some of them may have a legitimate beef, but, on average, 4500 of them PER DAY?????? That MAKES it a national security issue. We simply don't have the facilities/staff/ability to hold and process that many folks. We don't even have the ability to warehouse them while they are waiting to be processed. But, according to you, we MUST accept them???? I think that is a treaty we need to pull out of as well. It is NOT our problem that their country of origin sucks. WE don't make it that way. Them leaving isn't going to change anything. Why don't THEY FIX THEIR OWN COUNTRY?

 

 

WOW!! That's like 1,642,500 people a year.

 

But wait, Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection says there were less then 0.5 million refugees arriving at Americas southern border in 2017. And the average per year over the ten year period 2008 to 2017 has been just a bit over 0.5 million. Your number is like three times higher than the government is reporting.

 

According to the Homeland Security, FBI National Crimes Statistics for 2018, refugees commit almost 80% less crimes than the overall American Average.

 

Those arriving at the southern border may indeed call themselves refugees. But so does the UN. Those migrating to the southern border of the United States were classified as refugees by UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency. UNHCR describes the situations causing these folks to flee their homeland a "humanitarian crisis".

 

Finally, the only real National Security Risk posed by refugees from Central and Southern America is to the national melanin level. There refugees are described as a National Security Risk simply because they are contributing to the what Russ Limbaugh called "the browning of America".

 

Edit - despite your histrionics, they cannot fix their country any more than we can fix ours. Our country is documented to be a racist nation and all the intelligence, hard work and scientific evidence of the non-influene of melanin will not change the fact that Americans are generally racist. I would love to fix that.

[RGMage2]

What if the situation were reversed? What if America were a dirt poor nation, with a largely illiterate population scratching out a meager living, and dreaming of a better life in wealthy Central American countries? Do you think the citizens of those wealthy Central American countries would welcome poor American migrants claiming refugee status, or would they be fearful of seeing their nations overwhelmed by foreign peoples speaking foreign languages, fearful of seeing their culture usurped, fearful of surrendering the heritage they had hoped to bequeath their children?

[Deleted67195711User]

What if the situation were reversed? What if America were a dirt poor nation, with a largely illiterate population scratching out a meager living, and dreaming of a better life in wealthy Central American countries? Do you think the citizens of those wealthy Central American countries would welcome poor American migrants claiming refugee status, or would they be fearful of seeing their nations overwhelmed by foreign peoples speaking foreign languages, fearful of seeing their culture usurped, fearful of surrendering the heritage they had hoped to bequeath their children?

 

You're right. Deny other human beings their humanity, simply because they are different. It's okay to let them die on our doorstep, they're different. It's okay to return them to be killed by their government, they're different. It's okay to summarily put them in prison without trial, they're different. It's okay to take their children from them, they're different.

 

Sounds eerily familiar. It's okay to put them in prison camps, they're different. It's okay to take their property, they're different. It's okay to kill them, they're different.