Nationality and ethnicity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Londoner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kind of like Puerto Rico. We have really treated those good folks well over the years.
 
JoeShlabotnik said:
Whether it be communist thugs or drug lord thugs, what difference does it make to folks trying to flee for their lives?
Click to expand...
It makes all the difference whether it’s a local thug or the govt that might be persecuting someone. Only people fleeing govt persecution qualify for asylum.

If gang violence was enough, half of Chicago would be collecting welfare in Canada.
 
Come on, Theo, the drug lords run some of those Central American countries.
Just because those drug lords have no political affiliation, I don’t see the difference. Asylum is asylum.
 
JoeShlabotnik said:
Come on, Theo, the drug lords run some of those Central American countries.
Just because those drug lords have no political affiliation, I don’t see the difference. Asylum is asylum.
Click to expand...
It’s no different than my reference to Chicago. Where there exists a functioning govt, they are responsible for their citizens. That’s how international order operates. We only get involved when the govt has failed or there is natural disaster. That’s why we accepted refugees after earthquakes but not just because their govt is kina crappy.
 
repentant2 said:
I just don’t care letting the mob dictate government policy, I’m a bit of an elitist.
Click to expand...
And why do you consider yourself apart from the “mob”? What makes you qualified to be a member of the “elite”?
 
But wouldn’t this cause huge problems similar to Israel with the Jews/Palestinians?
 
Actually, two Democratic candidates for President, Julian Castro of San Antonio and Beto O’Rourke of El Paso, have suggested exactly what you are talking about.
In their respective immigration reform package, Castro and O’Rourke suggest aiding those countries in ousting the drug lords who are causing folks to flee to this country.
I agree with what you are saying. It makes good sense.
 
Agreed…however not in this case.

Spanish American War. Castro. Bay of Pigs. Cuban Missile Crisis.
The “oppressor” doesn’t really matter to those trying to escape however, there are certain things that will get you pushed to the head of the line…communism was number 1 for years. Prefect example is the “Feet Wet/Feet Dry” policy.
The color makeup shouldn’t but it does and it has.

You are preaching to the choir here…my name ends in a vowel and I’m of mixed heritage.
 
My name ends with a vowel, but I have a lot of different blood running through my veins. 🙏
I live in Texas and I embrace peoples of all ethnic backgrounds and cultures. 🙂
There is nothing quite as tasty as bratwurst wrapped up in a tortilla.
 
jrgmercado said:
Doesn’t explain when Cuba.
Click to expand...
?
People from Cuba qualify for refugee status when they enter the US,
they are fleeing an oppressive govt, the official position.

I suspect many Venezuelans who supported the opposition were able to get asylum status, though not all.
 
But the government, in these countries we speak of, has failed. If not, the people fleeing would not be seeking asylum here.
How many Haitians were allowed into the US after the earthquake that happened there several years ago.
What about the people of Puerto Rico, actually Americans, following the devastating hurricane, have been allowed into the mainland for permanent residence?
 
wasn’t that how the United States was founded? By a bunch of immigrants who’s native land wasn’t good enough.
 
JoeShlabotnik said:
But the government, in these countries we speak of, has failed. If not, the people fleeing would not be seeking asylum here.
Click to expand...
Not sure which country you are referring to, you need to drop your generalities and be specific.
JoeShlabotnik said:
How many Haitians were allowed into the US after the earthquake that happened there several years ago.
Click to expand...
Yes, we gave a number of Haitians refugee status after the earthquake. That is as it should be and in accordance with UN refugee policy. Now many are going back to their homes. They were given refugee status because virtually the whole country was devastated.

Another example would be after an earthquake in Mexico, where we would respond with aid but wouldn’t take them in as refugees, since the Mexican govt has the ability to provide first line support while we assist from behind.
JoeShlabotnik said:
What about the people of Puerto Rico, actually Americans, following the devastating hurricane, have been allowed into the mainland for permanent residence?
Click to expand...
? they already have the right to live and work in the USA.

You really should read up on Subsidiarity and how it’s intended to work. It’s a very good approach to giving real help.
 
Last edited:
Londoner said:
I am wondering, are these ideas common among Catholics in the US? Or common among people in the US?
Click to expand...
No it is not common among Catholics.

It is common among Christian Reconstructionists who advocate for a theocracy and believe the right to vote should be restricted to landowning men and restricting women to the private sphere with a male guardian.

Of course not all who are against a representative democracy are Christian Reconstructionists.
 
Yes, you hit the nail on the head right there. It’s a rejection of the values of the Enlightenment. We don’t get a lot of that in Britain, probably mainly because we tend not to be very interested in ideology. We are a very old country and we are happy to live with a lot of contradictions. For example, we have a monarch who claims to be anointed by God, but she exercises no power. We have a House of Lords, but most of the lords who sit in it are commoners by birth who have been elevated to the ranks of the nobility for their lifetime. We have an established Church, but barely more than 1 percent of people worship in its churches. We don’t have a written constitution, but the speaker of the House of Commons recently prevented the House from voting on a government bill because to do so would have been contrary to Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice.
Sarcelle said:
It is common among Christian Reconstructionists who advocate for a theocracy and believe the right to vote should be restricted to landowning men and restricting women to the private sphere with a male guardian.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I need to find out more about this. I think I have been reading a lot of Christian reconstructionist views without realising it. From Wikipedia: ‘They also allegedly have influence disproportionate to their numbers among advocates of the growth of the Christian homeschooling’. I have definitely read Americans saying things like schools are prisons for children and schools only exist so that the government can use them to indoctrinate children.
 
Last edited:
Yes

Please look up Kinism.

It has close ties to Christian Reconstructionism.
 
While there is a strain among homeschoolers like that, homeschoolers are about as varied as the general population.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top