A
Augustinian
Guest
Good question here. Why aren’t these individuals just asking for passage across America to apply at the Canadian border? America is violent place with all the school and newspaper and gay nightclub shootings.
USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families
- Thread starter blackforest
- Start date
- Status
blackforest
Well-known member
It is legal to to enter a port and petition for asylum. The name for such a personis asylee.
ICE has been breaking the law. But you won’t hear any outrage in this thread over those criminals, will you?
T
Theo520
Guest
That’s your criteria, not mine. I know crossing the border illegally is very dangerous, many deaths and rapes.
Far safer to just seek refugee protection in southern Mexico, Mexico will provide them with Govt shelter and aide.
P
Pup7
Guest
It is NOT legal to illegally enter and THEN ask for asylum.
And no - the CLAIM is that ICE is breaking the law. Not that they are, but that someone is claiming they are.
Statistically speaking, most of these people are not asylees. Your link says people legally seeking asylum are that. These folks aren’t. And per the Immigration website, there is a VERY specific process for declaring asylum.
What they are until proven otherwise is illegal immigrants.
And no - the CLAIM is that ICE is breaking the law. Not that they are, but that someone is claiming they are.
Statistically speaking, most of these people are not asylees. Your link says people legally seeking asylum are that. These folks aren’t. And per the Immigration website, there is a VERY specific process for declaring asylum.
What they are until proven otherwise is illegal immigrants.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That sounds like a command from the thread police.LeafByNiggle:
This is a thread to which I will respond with anything that I see as relevant.
You’re not the thread police, so stop it.
P
Pup7
Guest
Clearly pedantism and immaturity, when you have absolutely no other valid point to make, is your fallback.
Leave me alone unless you want to discuss what’s in the thread. That’s a pointed statement from an adult, not thread cops.
P
PetraG
Guest
I am not saying the Trump Administration has committed kidnapping. I am saying it is theoretically possible for a government to be guilty of kidnapping in the course of enforcing immigration law. Are you denying this?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Actually the sex trafficking fake mommy is the one who endangered the child. We are not culpable for every act that takes place without our knowledge. That is where we have to apply reasonable statistically-based judgement, not assume the worst in everybody.LeafByNiggle:
If you assume that mommy’s a good person and she turns out to be NOT the mommy but a sex trafficker, you just endangered a child.
P
PetraG
Guest
Well, there is a difference between faulty interpretation of the law by a government body and willful violation of certain interpretation provided by the courts.
P
PetraG
Guest
Some have connections here. For instance, when my grandparents immigrated from Europe, all the families immigrated to one of the places where others from their hamlet had already settled. There was a little bit of home there.
In the case of immigrants from Mexico, some people have family connections that pre-date the annexation of the Southwest by the United States. California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona, about half of Colorado and even some of Wyoming belonged to Mexico before 1848. Albuquerque was founded in 1706; it was a very old settlement before it was transferred to the US government. Settlement by aboriginals started maybe 8000 years ago, so who knows how long the rough area has been considered home. It is pretty rich for those of us with families who got here maybe 100 years ago to be asking why they want to come here.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Did you just accuse me of lying about feeling compassion for these families? Is this what you’re accusing the bishops of as well?
Explain the purpose of the recent Family First Prevention Services Act, by the way.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
If statistics are showing that 92 % of those who showed up a few years ago weren’t qualified to enter wouldn’t it be appropriate to expect that the vast majority of those applying now should be carefully screened?
S
Sarcelle
Guest
Right.
I keep trying to say what you are saying but the point seems to get ignored.
I keep trying to say what you are saying but the point seems to get ignored.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This is a case of applying the wrong statistic. The question we were discussing was whether it was safe to assume that most mommies with children really were mommies with children and not fake mommies engaged in sex trafficking. That is where I suggested that we need to apply reasonable statistically-based judgement.LeafByNiggle:
If statistics are showing that 92 % of those who showed up a few years ago weren’t qualified to enter wouldn’t it be appropriate to expect that the vast majority of those applying now should be carefully screened?
The statistic you mention relates to how many asylum claims were rejected. That means their claim of fleeing persecution was denied. That is quite a different thing from being a sex-trafficking fake mommy. The statistic we need, in order to ramp up the assumption that mommies may be fakes, is the statistic that says that how many claiming to be mommies actually are sex traffickers. If you can find statistics on that, that would be appropriate to the argument that you commented on.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Just wait a few more years. AT one time there were basically no protestants in Guatemala. Now it’s about 40%.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Wouldn’t you rather have protestants than atheists?LeafByNiggle:
Just wait a few more years. AT one time there were basically no protestants in Guatemala. Now it’s about 40%.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Hi Leaf,
I was thinking that the statistic might be a way of thinking about validity of claims. if 92% of the claimant have invalid claims, then there seems to be an issue of trustworthiness.
Short of DNA testing, I think it is going to be pretty difficult to verify parental status or to prove that kids aren’t being pressured to claim adults as parents.
I was thinking that the statistic might be a way of thinking about validity of claims. if 92% of the claimant have invalid claims, then there seems to be an issue of trustworthiness.
Short of DNA testing, I think it is going to be pretty difficult to verify parental status or to prove that kids aren’t being pressured to claim adults as parents.
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
Speaking of Protestants in Latin America - - did anyone hear this on NPR - - interesting. Apparently the (former?) gangsters can get out of their gang lifestyle by joining a Protestant church, but the Catholic Church doesn’t inspire them the same way? Or something?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I would have preferred that the illegal immigration proponents in the U.S. had not, by their actions, caused the infection of Protestantism to spread to formerly Catholic countries.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Forget that.
Not long ago, one of the illegal immigrant advocacy groups that raises millions to pay its lawyers to tie up our courts (RAICES) was offered FREE DNA testing by “23 and Me”. They turned it down. They don’t want to know what the results would be.
- Status