Her recent declarations to Guatemalan media sounded surprisingly un-Democrat to me?
“Don’t come”
“We’ll turn you back”
“We’ll seure the border”
“Illegal migrants”
Is Biden ok with that stance?
She’s a Law & Order Democrat. The key word in her quote is illegally.
US Vice President Kamala Harris has urged would-be migrants in Guatemala not to try to enter the United States illegally.
Biden probably is OK with the stance, but we’ll have to wait and hear from him.
Let me guess, you believe all Democrats are in favor of “open borders”?
This is perfectly in line with Biden’s position throughout the campaign – those who enter the country illegally should be treated humanely and should be afforded due process, but if they do not meet the standards for asylum they will be returned to their home country.
No, I don’t. But Democrats are, as a group, much more ammenable to illegal immigrants than Republicans, aren’t they?
I guess she could’ve punched that in a bit better and it might be the point to take away.
Still “you’ll be turned back” didn’t sound like “we’ll process your asylum request quickly”.
They’re not generally more amenable to the idea of people coming in illegally - it’s much more of a difference in how they want to treat people once they have already entered illegally.
This was a policy speech, not an off-the-cuff remark. Biden almost certainly knew about and approved of her statements in advance.
Most of it was unhinged propaganda coming from republicans and amplified by right wing media.
It was unhinged on a lot of other issues, and it still is.
Most of what the right wing sources looked at the democrats just being human, and they declared that “being amenable” is an evil thing.
It needs to be recognized asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. It is a major concession to right wingers to even agree with that terminology. Someone who sneaks into the country and attempts to settle here undocumented, is indeed here illegally and it’s fair to call them an “illegal immigrant”, i.e. they have immigrated to the country, and did so against our laws.
Asylum seekers as a class, generally have not done that. Most of the wave of Gautemalan migration in the last 5 years falls into the asylum category.
I mentioned this to a lot of my old Republican friends during Trump’s administration. A core issue Trump had is he hated our laws on asylum and refugees, and his response was to do legally questionably stuff at the border to try as hard as he could to not live up to the spirit of those laws, and sometimes to deliberately break them. There was zero push to actually change the law in any way. The one structurally smart thing he did was the agreement with Mexico to try to keep asylum seekers who transit Mexico as first refugees in Mexico, not the United States.
And some portion (half? more than half?) of “illegal immigrants” are people from various countries who overstayed their visa. So they came in on a tourist or business visa but did not leave when they were supposed to.
Not even that was as “smart” as Trump told his followers.
All governments are obligated to respect the customary international law principle of nonrefoulement – the prohibition on returning a person to a country where they are at risk of persecution, torture, or other cruel or inhuman treatment. Governments are also obligated to extend specific protections to children, whether traveling alone or with families, including by giving primary consideration to their best interests.
The US government should immediately terminate the MPP program and cease all returns of non-Mexican asylum seekers to Mexico. Instead, it should revert to the global norm of allowing asylum seekers to remain in the country where their claims are heard. The government should safeguard asylum seekers’ right to a fair and timely hearing by establishing an adequately resourced, independent immigration court system with court-appointed legal representation for asylum seekers who are members of particularly vulnerable groups.
“‘Remain in Mexico’ is putting at risk families who are already facing desperate situations,” said Dr. Nancy Wang, professor of emergency medicine at Stanford University Medical Center. “It’s inexcusable for the US government to subject children and families to crowded, unsanitary, insecure conditions with inadequate protection from infectious diseases – whether in US immigration detention or in overstretched shelters in Mexico.”
This thread was started in MPSIMS, where it obviously did not belong. I have moved it to a more suitable forum, and also corrected the spelling of “Kamala” in the title.
RickJay
Moderator
That ridiculous statement by Trump is just par for the Trumpian course. Just unhinged bullshit.
“More ammenable” doesn’t mean “100% open border”, I think it was clear. I don’t give a flying fuck about what the right-wing media said about this issue, they’ll spin in it a million ways.
I’m just saying the incredibily uncontroversial statement that as a group, Democrats have a more open-mind view on the plight of illegal immigrants than Republicans.
I can’t see how the answer to that is “Glenn Beck hates brown people!!!”
Democrats are usually much more amenable to making it possible to immigrate legally; which is not the same thing.
Some are also amenable to making it possible to immigrate legally if one is already inside the USA. That is also not the same thing.
And this is also accurate:
Well, I think the key word here is, “illegal”. As long as it is illegal, we have to be against it, don’t we? Personally, I do not now or ever will believe in open borders any more than I believe in taking the door off my home and leaving an empty space for just anyone to enter. There is a process for immigrating into this country, and I believe people should abide by it.
My statement and both your statements can be true simultaneously, they are not exclusive and I fully concede that they are all true.
Also, there is a clear difference between an asylum seeker and the run-of-the-mill, illegall border-crosser or visa-overstayer.
Just saying, what the right wing has been saying is something that can’t be ignored, and it is just as doreen said, “it’s much more of a difference in how they [Democrats] want to treat people once they have already entered illegally.”
Sure, but, let’s focus on Harris. Righ-wing media can be properly bashed in several other threads.
I fully accept the truthfullness of what Doreen said while also accepting it doesn’t contradict what I said. I can be, however, more relevant and pertinent on the human aspect, definitely.
Her take also raises the question of what will happen to those immigrant who are rejected at the border.
Are the Mexico’s problem now? Who’s gonna take care of them?
Will it prompt the Mexican government to toughen up, even more, its not-really-nice treatment of immigrants coming through THEIR south border?