And why are the Democrats suddenly pro-leprosy?
So your reputation that you were ever an exceptional nation is a lie? Okay, I could buy that.
For what it’s worth, I’ve been on a military response to an asylum-seeker inrush (Operation ELEMENT). It was all very Canadian and civilized as as far as I know, the only casualty was a white-tail deer that I personally kablammoed (I was, ironically, also in a caravan at the time - a Dodge Grand Caravan, to be precise).
Stupid deer. It could have done literally nothing and I would have blithely driven past, unaware of its existence and without playing an inadvertent and unwanted role in its demise. But I digress.
Anyway, the chickenshittery of America is on the rise, and has been it seems for quite some time.
I think one of us is lost. I don’t think I’ve said anything about who comprises the caravan. You seem to think I was “casting doubt on this caravan being comprised of primarily such people”. Where did you get that impression? And who are “such people”?
I want (well, “wouldn’t particularly mind” is probably a better description) to build a wall to keep people from illegally entering the country. I don’t expect that the wall would substantially impact people who are following the laws to request asylum.
More imagined emotions attributed to me. Where did I say I was “bothered” by them?
In the interest of literal precision, since that seems to have become particularly important of late, do you mean a literal actual physical wall across the U.S./Mexico border? If you’re using the term “wall” as a placeholder for “more aggressive and comprehensive border security policies”, fine, but an actual wall is just stupidly impractical and a person who believes it to be a feasible solution is deserving of having their intelligence questioned.
I support increased border security / enforcement. I was just riffing off of Ravenman’s “You want to build a wall” in that post, but in his defense I have at times, I’m sure, used some variations of “wall” as shorthand for “more aggressive and comprehensive border security policies”. I don’t think that must take the form of a literal wall 1,954 miles long, although I wouldn’t have any particular object if some sections of the border had walls built as part of a comprehensive enforcement strategy. Does that answer your question?
You asked how anyone knows they are asylum seekers.
Do you believe they are asylum seekers? If yes, then do your pedantic questions serve some other purpose than to advance this debate?
To that end, if the Government tries to make it impossible for a person to assert the recognized right of a person, under U.S. and international law, to make an asylum claim, would you say the Government is acting improperly?
Okay, great. You aren’t bothered by the caravan. Just cut to the chase and say you support letting them in the country so the people can make their asylum claim.
I have very little solid information about what their plans are. I heard one little snippet of video where one of them, presumably a spokesperson of some sort, said they wanted to get to America. Just guessing, I suspect that a bunch of poor Hondurans know very little about the finer points of our immigration laws and probably don’t have a detailed plan like “enter border crossing point at San Ysidro and request form I-589”, and I doubt all of them are going to act in the same identical manner either. Some may try to sneak in, some may try to push through the gate like they did in Mexico, some may request form I-589 and fill it out and submit it, others may meet end up carrying drugs through the desert for a coyote. I doubt “asylum-seeker” will be the best label to describe ALL of them by the time everything is said and done, but I do suspect it will accurately describe SOME of them.
Sure, just taking your question at face value. I’m a little fuzzy on the details of what the US.gov is accused of doing improperly, and “international law” is enforced about as well as “Somali law”, but far be it from me to disagree with a claim that the government is acting improperly. They do that shit all the time, in all sorts of ways.
Again, I’m a bit fuzzy on the proper rules and procedure, but I don’t have any objection to it being followed in their case. If that means they all end up with asylum, fine. If that means they all get shipped back to Honduras, that’s fine with me too.
You cannot expect me to find responses you made in other threads in order to determine what you are saying in this thread.
In this thread you have defended the use of the word “invasion” to describe the caravan.
In the other thread it sounds like you do not think it is an invasion (although not stated explicitly).
So why, in this thread, have you not stated, clearly and succinctly, that “invasion” is hyperbolic of the right to describe what this caravan is? Why keep dancing around it?
I don’t. I just expect you to read what I write in this one and not imagine things that I didn’t say. It doesn’t feel like I’m asking too much there.
I’ve said I thought the caravan fell within some of the definitions supplied. To the extent that that’s “defend[ing]”, I feel comfortable knowing I have Banquet Bear as company.
Well, nobody asked me. The question in the OP was “Is there any way to justify labeling the caravan an invasion?”. I answered that and people started imagining I said things I had not (see post #69 for some good examples) and I had lots of work to do defending myself from false attributions. For the record, let me state that I don’t think “invasion” is the best word to describe the caravan of Honduran migrants.
So you’re arguing from a position of ignorance.
The US is part of a treaty, and has statutes, both constituting the supreme law of the land, recognizing the right to file asylum claims.
Recently the US has been closing ports of entry for the specific purpose of not allowing people to make such a claim.
This is inconsistent with your statement: “Arrest them and deport them back to Honduras. Build a wall to keep them out.”
Did you change your mind?
Yes…your favorite fallback. I have read many of your, “I never said that” dodges. So here is where you said that:
So yeah, you are down with the use of “invasion”. Said so yourself.
Banquet Bear can answer for himself. You can answer for yourself.
I refuted your reasoning in post #42 in this thread which you never responded to and just carried on.
I refuted you in post #42. You ignored it.
And if you do not think “invasion” is a good word to use then why don’t you condemn its use instead of carrying on here and defending it?
I don’t think I’m “arguing” anything at all, at least on that subject. You asked “Do you believe they are asylum seekers?” and I shared what I had heard. Is there some place they’ve posted their detailed plan of action so that I may review it?
Does that treaty specify numbers or hours of operations for ports of entry?
In this thread, the hypothetical under consideration is “if they do make it across the border, the bulk of these migrants are surrendering to authorities in order to make their asylum claim” (those were your words).
In that other thread, the hypothetical under consideration was quite the opposite (“migrant who simply refused to stop walking forward”).
Is it any surprise that I might prefer different responses to diametrically opposed actions?
It’s not my favorite, nor is it a dodge. I wish very much that I didn’t almost-constantly have to refute things falsely attributed to me by patiently explaining to (often the same) Dopers over and over again that I didn’t say what they imagine I said.
Thank you for using an actual quotes of mine. See below for a further explanation.
I read it. There weren’t any questions to me and it seemed like a rather stupid argument that I didn’t feel needed to be responded to. I trusted that our readers would see it for what it was. YMMV.
I literally just posted “I don’t think “invasion” is the best word to describe the caravan of Honduran migrants.”
Here is my view of this thread: there are basically two conversations going on at once. The first one, from the question posed in the OP, is whether the definition of “invasion” can be applied to the caravan. As the purely semantic exercise that I took that to be, I can see how some definitions appear to fit. I’m not alone in that view.
The second one, a bit more nebulous, is whether we should call them that / is Trump an asshole for using the word “invasion” / why don’t we all stand around and condemn it / etc. On that matter, I personally, don’t have any great interest in using the label, but I’m not terribly offended by it either, at least not to the point that I feel the need to “condemn its use”, nor do I have such an inflated opinion of my own self-importance that I think it would matter.
What you do is exactly analogous to conservative dog whistles. “I didn’t say “X”” (when you clearly meant “X” without using those exact words). You are, by defending calling the caravan an “invasion”, using hyperbole to make the whole thing seem dangerous to Americans yet pretending you never said the caravan was actually dangerous to anyone. You are straddling the rhetorical fence and landing on whatever side suits you at the moment.
Wow…you neglected what you saw as a BS response because you thought other readers would take care of it for you? In short, you think the post was crap and let it be for others to deal with and yet no one did?
You’ve been around long enough to know that never happens here. If my post was shit you and everyone else would pounce. I doubt you held off to spare my feelings.
More fence sitting to try and have it both ways.
I disposed of this argument in post #42. You never refuted it, supposedly in the hopes someone else would which no one did. So it stands that your point is done with.
This goes to the dog whistle aspect. You are using charged language and then shrugging your shoulders and suggesting you didn’t say anything bad.
You are clearly not a dumb person so I submit you know exactly what you are doing and how disingenuous and misleading it is. The only thing I cannot figure out is why you persist with this. What is in it for you?
I did not think anyone would “take care of it” or “deal with it”. I think they will recognize it for the BS it is and move along, as I did. I was so confident that it was self-evidently stupid, that I didn’t feel the need to add anything to help them along to reach that conclusion. It may come as a surprise to you, but I ignore a whole bunch of posts that I think are dumb. I don’t have the patience (nor the time that would be required) to address the sheer volume of all the idiotic things posted on the SDMB on an individual basis. I have to triage.
I’m not using it. We’re discussing President Trump’s usage of it, and whether it is accurate or not. Some of us think it was technically accurate, but perhaps not the nicest thing to say. That’s not the same thing as “using charged language” ourselves.
Fighting ignorance is a reward all on its own.
Yes, and your post 87 demonstrates that you can recognize the value of the distinction between SOME and ALL, at least SOME of the time.
Now, do you feel Trump’s reaction to the caravan is a wise application of American military power?
QFT
This pretty much sums up my viewpoint on immigration, and it’s not one that I hear often enough.
I’m wondering how zero-sum viewpoints reconcile immigrant-hatred. If the U.S. loses by admitting refugees, how do their home countries correspondingly gain?
:dubious:
This statement is brazenly racist. Please cite where the Chinese have used force to promote their endeavors. You act as if the Africans are naive mental midgets who cannot handle negotiating with the cunning Chinese. I believe Africans are smart, and if they do business with the Chinese, they understand what they are getting themselves into.
[pats LAZombie on the head]
That’s nice, kid.