You are wrong. Do you accept it?
Explaining the difference between categories is important and helpful. Just saying “cite” makes it seem like you are being purposely unhelpful. If you have knowledge just give it freely.
I know some of what the government does for refugees from friends who helped out with Afghanistan refugees. You have more knowledge so use it.
The federal government does not pay for asylum seekers. That’s a bigger issue than mislabeling.
Thank you for correcting the OP’s misunderstanding here. So we now have a common understanding that:
- The federal government isn’t busing anyone around.
- Nobody’s making states do extra work. Some nonprofits are picking up slack.
- We’re not talking about refugees here.
Let’s acknowledge and table the obvious fact that many people are offended by the very existence of immigrants, and feel this is a burden to share. Nothing can be done for that, except busing these people to other cities, which we agree is wrong.
Setting that issue aside, I’m still not connecting the dots of what’s wrong with someone getting a court date for asylum and then being released in TX and AZ, given that we’ve acknowledged the state isn’t doing much if anything, and nonprofits are handling most of the (unspecified) burden. Asylum applicants can get a work visa, and the economy is starved for laborers, are we suggesting these people are public charges?
Is this the thread where we talk about how the US government destabilized legitimately elected leaders of Central and South American countries because they were thought to be too friendly to Communists? Or how the Reagan administration directly trained and armed Nicaraguan terrorists? Discuss the possible involvement of the CIA in cocaine trafficking during the mid-eightes?
The USA has some responsibility for the economic and political crises that are causing so many people to seek asylum here, so it makes moral and practical sense for us to turn more efforts towards ameliorating those conditions at the same time we’re trying to deal with the influx.
What’s the point of me sharing knowledge about refugees? At this point it seems clear that this thread about “refugees” has nothing to do with refugees, nor does anyone in this thread think that the difference matters, nor is anybody interested in breaking down what the actual problem is, other than people in TX feel strongly that their share of immigrants is unfairly high.
I came into this thread legitimately thinking I missed some major story about a change to US refugee admissions or funding. I guess it’s on me for not spending enough time in the RW news bubble to know that “refugee” is currently shorthand for “the whole border thing” and nobody cares about the difference.
I did suspect that might be the case, but rather than assume, I thought surely if the problem was so critical and obvious, then surely to God one person could manage to cough up a cite to establish whether we’re even talking about the same thing.
Why is it a trick? Do they have any reason to believe that by refusing to get on the bus they will be treated better?
What do the refugees see at the border crossing where they are first processed/arrested ? Do they see a residential shelter that looks so inviting that they don’t want to leave?
My guess is that being given a free bus ride to a big city like NY or Chicago would seem preferable to being stuck in a small town on the Arizona border.
For a scared and helpless newcomer, a big city would seem like it offers more opportunity and hope…
Just so we’re clear here, just kind of a baseline, the governor of Texas, and sometimes the governor of Florida are the ones shipping migrants around.
Are we all on the same page?
“send” is a vague word. Is Arizona working with the leadership in other states to identify openings for housing and work, then getting these people successfully to those places? Or… is Arizona dropping them off at a random bus station in the middle of the night?
The red states are choosing #2, specifically to bother Democrats in blue states, with the happy side effect of treating migrants as poorly as they can get away with. They could choose #1, but that would require them to have empathy for fellow human beings.
I’m with you. Somone from Nicaragua would be overjoyed to sleep on a sidewalk in Chicago in January. Dream come true.
For the sake of arguement let’s say yes. But still doesn’t address the OP of why the Feds are not financially supporting the cities where the migrants eventually end up. At this point does it matter how they got here and who sent whom where?
But that raises another issue. What are the Feds allowing states to move migrants to other states?
Why would the work of evil kidnapping Republicans cost the Dems votes??
The Republican towns and states that are sending the refugees are doing it.
There is little need to other than an asylum bill allowing them citizenship after many hoops are jumped thru.
The refugees would normally just get jobs, mostly in AG or cleaning ro something, and merge into the population. Its the fucking GOP kidnapping them and moving them around that is the issue.
It’s not an argument, it’s the truth. It is what is.
This has already been discussed as well.
“Let me tell you, I’m not willing to do too damn much right now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden’s approval rating,” Rep. Troy Nehls, a Texas Republican, told CNN. “I will not help the Democrats try to improve this man’s dismal approval ratings. I’m not going to do it. Why would I?"
It’s 100% a political stunt
Can the Federal government actually stop it? The Federal government is more limited than most people realize, and much of what they “do” is actually done by individual states under threat of losing funding for some related purpose. In this case, that might not work - Texas/Florida/wherever might be fine losing the funding as long as they move people out of the state.
Leaving aside your “For the sake of argument”(It just isn’t argument at all), what can the Feds legally do about stopping this? You keep trying to shift the blame away from those who are shipping people in the middle of the night to random bus stops out of vindictive politics.
A bus (sent from Texas by Gov. Abbot, mind you) pulled in to Kankakee, Il., two counties south of Chicago (in December) and unloaded the migrants, then drove off. Tell me how the federal government could have stopped that?
101st airborne taking over Texas and arresting the Governor?
I’ll take it!
"The Kankakee County Sheriff’s Office said they discovered 30 to 40 people walking along the side of the highway wrapped in blankets around 7:30 a.m.
After talking with the people, officers determined they were Venezuelan migrants were dropped off at a gas station at 4:30 a.m.by a bus that came from El Paso, Texas."
(On my phone, trying to paste a link…)
Let me reverse my stubbornness here for a moment and explain a bit, even though there seems to be little interest as to why “refugee” is important.
Both refugees and asylees are people who are fleeing violence or war in their home country. The home country’s government can’t or won’t protect them, so they have to leave for their own safety. The difference is that you apply for refugee status in your home country, and you apply for asylee status once you’ve fled to the destination country.
If you’re granted refugee status in the US, then you can come to the US and get a work permit and qualify for all sorts of federal aid programs. If you successfully get asylum status, then some but not all of those problems are available to you. And to be clear, many of these people legitimately are fleeing war and violence and should be legitimate candidates for refuge and/or asylum.
Ironically enough, if these people were refugees then that would solve many of these problems. They would apply and get approved in their home countries, not at the US border. They would arrive at the various resettlement hubs distributed across the US. They would qualify for significant federal aid (not lavish, but adequate to start a new life). If they were actually refugees, there would be no border crisis at all!
The fact that they can’t get refugee status is because the refugee ceilings are too low. They were decreasing for decades, then Trump gutted them, now Biden has partially restored them. In fact Biden has done great here, he’s increased the ceiling to the highest in 30 years. Could he do more? Technically he can act without congressional approval, but he can’t make Congress approve the aid, and he can’t make nonprofits come up with the donations needed to help to absorb them.
But all of this is beside the point. Granting refugee status and funding would solve this problem, but given that we have people in this thread screaming about “the refugee” problem, and proclaiming that they don’t really care if these people are refugees, asylees, or migrants… are these people interested in raising the refugee ceiling and passing the accompanying aid? No, of course they’re not going to vote for more refugee status, and they’ll punish any politician who supports this. They want fewer refugees, not more, for reasons that have nothing to do with funding or legal status.
This has been asked and answered many times. Federal law would have to be passed, Texas would oppose it, because the root of the problem is that they simply hate migrants.
Are you seriously asking if the Federal government allowed Greg Abbott to bus migrants to Illinois in the middle of the night? Really, honestly, are you serious with this question? If that’s not what you meant, I have to do the boring thankless job of asking for a cite to understand exactly what on earth you think is going on, since apparently everybody else is happy to just take your word for it.