Sec. Pompeo, commemmorating World Refugee Day yesterday:
Actions speak louder than words, and the Administration’s actions rewrite that last sentence as “The United States will continue to tell refugees to go fuck themselves."
He defined refugees pretty clearly there and Central Americans don’t qualify. Central American countries are stable democracies and are not enduring civil wars.
He didn’t say, “fleeing civil wars,” he said, “flee[ing] . . . persecution and conflict.” According to that standard, many, many of the refugees coming here qualify.
Nope. They are all democracies and the only conflict is crime. By that standard, a lot of our people are eligible for asylum in Canada.
You are deeply uninformed on this subject. Consider doing some basic research, like reading the Wikipedia article on asylum.
That’s correct. What’s not correct is that one cannot claim asylum from persecution in a democracy. Nor is it correct that being the target of private violence is never a basis for asylum.
That’s correct too. If someone is specifically targeted for death, that could be an asylum claim. Fleeing crime in general is not an asylum case
You’re backtracking now. Your claim was that no one coming from these countries could be a refugee because they are democracies and the only conflict is crime.
In reality, there are lots of valid asylum-seekers from these countries. And often crime is the justification, as when people are targeted for gangs because of their personal characteristics and the government fails to take meaningful action to protect them.
Sessions has tried to narrow these categories, and that will be litigated in court, but even the new (probably illegal) guidance doesn’t foreclose all such asylum claims.
I’ll confess to a slight goalpost move: for the vast, vast, majority, they will not be successful in their asylum claim. A few may be able to credibly claim that if they go back they will be killed because they spoke out against the gangs or testified or something like that. Or maybe they were targeted for being gay or trans? That works too.
But people just fleeing “high crime rates” is not a thing, and if our standards slip that much than literally anyone from a third world country is eligible for asylum and some people from Western countries too.
I don’t know very much about the statistics here, but it looks like about 30% of all people granted asylum in the US in the last several years have been from Guatemala, El Salvador, or Nicaragua. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Refugees_Asylees_2016_0.pdf
Saying that the “vast, vast majority” won’t be successful doesn’t seem to square with recent practice; but I’m interested to hear why I’m understanding this incorrectly.
The total numbers from those countries in the peak year, 2015, was about 5000. And this was a sudden development, despite there not being a sudden change in those countries. 2014 features very few successful asylum cases from those countries. But i can buy that maybe 5000 people out of 25K or so would be granted asylum. Still means the bulk of them are going home. What concerns me is that Chinese people are being rejected for asylum, I would think all one billion would have a claim.
Really? Because I’m not aware that the average Chinese person is at risk of death from their government, or criminal gangs. China certainly has its share of problems, but I’m not sure that one billion of them are suffering from levels of oppression worth of asylum.
Everyone in China risks death for their political views if they are not the views of the government. That’s open and shut.
…can’t link to the WP because its paywalled, but this just happened.
https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1009834055045648386
Catch and release is back.
They’ve run out of fucking space. They don’t have a system to track and match the children with the parents. And I bet people like Kirstjen Nielsen didn’t even know this because these guys don’t know what the fuck they are doing. And the only way to stop the problem from literally spiralling out of control (and its pretty fucking bad at the moment) is to put a halt to everything.
(Of course, this came from an “official.” So maybe when I wake up in the morning the policy will be reversed again. Who knows?")
How does it not violate equal protection to prosecute people simply because they don’t have children? If you let people with children go you need to let them all go.
This also creates a HUGE incentive for people to traffic kids in order to get across the border.
If the incentive is so fucking huge, then there should be examples for you to cite. Since repeated requests to show examples when this claim has popped up have yet to be honored we can only assume that this “HUGE incentive” exists only in the minds of those looking for excuses to ban refugees.
Be serious. If it’s common knowledge that crossing with a kid gets you set free and not crossing with a kid gets you jailed, what do you think is going to happen?
So say the one that told us that the numbers were few even before the “crisis”.
Republicans will demonize certain nationalities and/or races, claiming they have such low morals that of course it is likely they will kidnap children? The next time you want to smear people that are different from you, do try to come up with some weak examples at the very least.