Is this a Common Sense Solution to the Southern Border?

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (79 posts)
  1. Valeant profile image97
    Valeantposted 4 weeks ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/14603840.jpg
    On the same day Trump confirms to the whole world that he's truly a racist, his administration comes up with a policy that mirrors international norms.  In it, those seeking asylum must make their claims in the first country they arrive in.  It does have exceptions, which we all know this administration would likely deter people from using.  This policy could appease the rabid Trump supporters while also not spending billions that could be used for our own infrastructure.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-immigr … 12511.html

    Thoughts?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      It seems in line with international law and with our agreements.  It might help take us off the pedestal of the world's caretaker.  It will stop the fiasco at the border with people fleeing poverty being trained to ask for asylum in the US in an effort to exploit loopholes in our system.

      All in all it seems quite reasonable.

    2. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
      JAKE Earthshineposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      The common sense solution to the southern border is to REMOVE and Imprison the 73 year old mentally warped orange abomination in our oval office:

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        That makes perfect sense. I can see the headlines now,  across Central American newspapers.

        'Trump ya no es presidente de los Estados Unidos. Desembale sus bolsas. Todos pueden quedarse en casa ahora.'

        1. GA Anderson profile image93
          GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          English damn it, English. Damn foreigners.

          GA

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            lol

        2. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
          JAKE Earthshineposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          https://hubstatic.com/14603997.jpg

          It sure does make perfect sense, REMOVE the disgusting orange cancer that caused the humanitarian crisis to begin with and ship him and his entire grifter family back to RUSSIA where they belong: Let Vladimir Putin kick em around a little before he sends them to the gulag, if they're lucky:

          1. Valeant profile image97
            Valeantposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            https://hubstatic.com/14604008.jpg

            We all know your position, Jake.  If you're going to post the same thing over and over again without providing much in terms of information, I'd prefer you did it in other people's threads.

            1. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
              JAKE Earthshineposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              To my knowledge, these are public forums Valeant, try not to complain just because you disagree with a comment:

              1. Valeant profile image97
                Valeantposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                You make a false assumption that I disagree that Trump should be removed.  When you post your childish insults, repeatedly, you get annoying fast.

                1. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
                  JAKE Earthshineposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Not nearly as annoying, childish or boring as the white nationalist alt right hate that is spewed around here daily: Talk about repetitious: There was actually some weirdo in here earlier who said immigrants should be stopped by constructing a crocodile filled moat: Where were you when this Trump follower said that ??

                  But I guess you still don't understand who caused the CRISIS at the border which of course was Bozo Trump and how it will NEVER be addressed in a realistic way until he's IMPRISONED: There is no solution until he's OUT:

                  1. Valeant profile image97
                    Valeantposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    You act like the constant inflow of immigrants across the southern border is not an issue to many Americans.  It's been a problem since long before Trump took office.  The point of this post was to discuss a new policy initiative that might be some middle ground between both sides of the aisle.  All you did was come in here, throws insults at Trump, and hijack the topic to talk about impeachment.  If you're going to vent, please do it somewhere else is my point.  If you want to to talk this topic, great.

                2. profile image60
                  mopakarim4300posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  It will stop the fiasco at the border with people fleeing poverty being trained to ask for asylum in the US in an effort to exploit loopholes in our system.

    3. GA Anderson profile image93
      GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      ". . .  a policy that mirrors international norms."

      Does that indicate you support this new rule?

      I do. In effect, it is the same as the insertion of "directly from" into our immigration laws that would also comply with international law.

      hard sun introduced this announcement in the solutions to concentration camps thread.

      GA

      1. Valeant profile image97
        Valeantposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        It certainly helps stem the flow of people wanting to present themselves to our southern border and shifts that burden to Mexico, according to international guidelines.  So, I do support this one.

    4. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      This rule should help cut down on migrants that do not have a legitimate claim. It may work as a deterrent, and give our government a chance to handle the growing backlog of asylum claims. I am for it.

      Although, it will never see the light of day, now will it? Trump has put forth several good concepts that would help with our current crisis, all have been pretty much shot down quickly. Trump has been trying for two years to express the cost of the problem at the border and the costs of our failing immigration laws.  Perhaps, it's time to listen and respect the changes needed.

      " rabid Trump supporters "... Why the need to make such a derogatory comment?  I guess it's OK for some to make such remarks, but not others.  One asks why the divide?

      1. Valeant profile image97
        Valeantposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Rabid (adj.) - having or proceeding from an extreme or fanatical support of or belief in something.  Considering the entirety of the GOP just jumped on board with Trump's racism, it seemed more than appropriate.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Rabid (of an animal) affected with rabies.
          synonyms:    rabies-infected, mad, foaming at the mouth, hydrophobic
          "she was bitten by a rabid dog"

          I have never noted the president to say or do anything that could be considered racist? I guess we have a different concept in regards to what racism is.

          1. Jean Bakula profile image94
            Jean Bakulaposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Trump told the four freshman Congresswomen of color to "go back where they came from." That is racist. They are American citizens. He is showing his age, maybe in his Father's time people still spoke like that.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              I don't approve of the president's statement. I did not find the context racist. I found it baiting. I don't think Trump would have put it any other way, lets' say one of the congresswomen were from England or Germany. I think he was pointing out your countries are in need of change, go help your countries of origin. he even then said, and then come back.  I think he did insult them by inferring they need more experience. And yes, in that way he was showing his age.

              I respect your opinion and certainly can see many have adopted your view.

              1. Jean Bakula profile image94
                Jean Bakulaposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                I believe these women are US citizens. So why point out the countries of their ancestry are in need of change? How does that help us? I'm just curious, I respect your opinion too.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Thank you for asking that question... I in no way condone or appreciate those tweets. They were uncalled for, insulting to the women and their countries of origin. I was sickened by the chants "send them back". In this situation, I believe both the four women and the president were at fault. They have been baiting each other for weeks. In my opinion, they were all playing in the mud.  And it is very apparent they all have come out dirty. I can see no possible way to defend the president or these women.

                  I did not find Trump's comments racist, and I am just downright tired of the race card being played. His comments were insulting, and I am sure we can agree no one wants to hear such rhetoric from the president.

          2. Valeant profile image97
            Valeantposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Clearly you need a new dictionary to understand that rabid has a variety of definitions.  I'm sorry my use of such big words was beyond your comprehension.

            And apparently you lack any minority friends.  If you had any, you could have asked one if that recent tweet by trump was a racist attack.  You could ask if birtherism is racist.  You could ask if his refusal to accept that the Central Park 5 are innocent is racist.  All would get an affirmative.

    5. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      I understand the principle, but I'm confused about the details.

      Presumably Guatemala would be one of the countries people from Central American countries like Honduras, El Salvador etc. travel through to get to the US, but:

      "Thousands of Guatemalans migrated to the USA through Mexico in an effort to escape the high levels of inequality and violence affecting marginalized groups. UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, said that between January and October 18,764 Guatemalans sought asylum in other countries. Unaccompanied children from Guatemala comprised the biggest group of arrivals apprehended at the US border."

      https://www.amnesty.nl/content/uploads/ … pdf?x32866

      So thousands of people from "marginalized groups" are fleeing Guatemala because of violence, but people fleeing from Honduras and El Salvador must seek asylum in Guatemala? How does that work?

      1. hard sun profile image87
        hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        People fleeing Honduras and El Salvador would not have to seek asylum in Guatemala according to this rule:

        "an alien who demonstrates that he or she applied for protection from persecution or torture in at least one of the countries through which the alien transited en route to the United States, and the alien received a final judgment denying the alien protection in such country."

        So, this also gives them Belize and Mexico to apply for asylum on there way to the US.

        1. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          I'm still confused. And the fact so many people are saying this seems like a sensible solution makes me think I'm missing something. What am I missing?

          The population of Belize is around 374,681. It's GDP per capita is around $4,905. The population of the US is around 322 million. It's GDP per capita is around $59,531(1)(2)

          The US government doesn't want to take any more asylum seekers because it costs too much. And the number of people being detained in the immigration system outstrips current capacity, leading to appalling conditions in detention facilities.

          So the proposed solution is to divert asylum seekers to a country with ten times less resources available, and a population almost a thousand times smaller?

          To put that into perspective, if next month 1,000 people went to Belize to request asylum, that would represent a 0.3% increase in the county's population. That's the equivalent of 966,000 hitting the US border in a month. For comparison the number of people the CBP made enforcement actions against on the border for the whole of FY2018 was 683,178 (3)

          Relative to population size, it would only take 62 people per month for Belize to get to the equivalent level the US is currently dealing with, which is overwhelming the country's immigration system.

          So isn't it obvious that diverting asylum seekers to Belize in any significant numbers would cause a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions there, as that country's immigration system has even less resources available than ours?

          Again what am I missing?

          Also, the State Department's own report on Belize from 2018 says:

          "Human rights issues included allegations of unlawful killings by security officers; allegations of corruption by government officials; crimes involving violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) persons; trafficking in persons; and child labor."(4)

          So marginalized groups fleeing violent persecution in Honduras, El Salvador etc. are to first seek asylum in a country where marginalized groups are being violently persecuted?

          Again, is there some important aspect to this I have misunderstood?

          I'm struggling to see how creating a humanitarian disaster in a country less able to cope, is a sensible solution, unless "sensible solution" is defined as anything that moves the problem somewhere else.

          If there is some vital component to this plan I have missed that makes it all makes sense, I'd be grateful if someone could shared it.

          (1) Belize and US Populations
          https://www.google.com/publicdata/explo … ;ind=false

          (2) Belize and US GDP per Capita
          https://www.google.com/publicdata/explo … ;ind=false

          (3) CBP Enforcement Statistics
          https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp- … statistics

          (4) State Department report on Belize
          https://www.state.gov/reports/2018-coun … practices/

          1. hard sun profile image87
            hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            What about Mexico? I'm thinking Mexico could likely have some areas for asylum seekers. At any rate, we simply cannot be responsible for every Central or South American that wants or needs to flee there nation. Germany finally realized this and thus garnered an agreement with Turkey. The rise of nationalism/isolationism is fueled by over-immigration of the type that happened in Europe. So, anything that reduces the flow of  illegal immigration into the US could be said to have far-reaching harm reduction. Sometimes the lesser of two evils must be determined, and sometimes putting America first is what may be best for the world. I hate using that phrase, but, it fits here. These matters are not going to be morally black and white, as so many aren't.

            1. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              [EDIT]". . . sometimes putting America first is what may be best for the world"

              Is creating a humanitarian disaster in Mexico, Belize and Guatemala putting America first? Or is it a sure-fire way to increase the number of migrants trying to flee from those places?

              "What about Mexico? I'm thinking Mexico could likely have some areas for asylum seekers."

              But that implies Mexico isn't already doing something. Don't buy-in to that false narrative.

              "Mexico’s immigration enforcement data says that from January to April 2019, Mexico sent around 37,000 Central Americans back to their countries, mostly to El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala . . . In 2018, Mexican authorities returned close to 110,000 Central Americans to their countries. That number was 78,300 in 2017; 151,000 in 2016; and 177,000 in 2015."(1)

              A Congressional Research report in 2018 said that Mexico:

              " . . . implemented a Southern Border Plan that established naval bases on Mexico’s rivers, security cordons north of the country’s borders with Guatemala and Belize, and a drone surveillance program. Unarmed agents from the National Migration Institute (INM), the only Mexican agency with authority to detain migrants, increased operations along train routes and at bus stations. INM improved the infrastructure at border crossings and created mobile highway checkpoints"(2)

              President Obrador has announced plans to . . .

              ". . . invest $25 billion in southern Mexico that would create jobs for migrants. He has also pledged $30 million to support a U.N. regional development plan for Central America; Mexico and others have long maintained that the best way to stop illegal immigration from Central America is to address the insecurity and lack of opportunities there".

              Also, remember Trump's Migrant Protection Protocol that force people to wait their asylum decisions in Mexico:

              ". . . as of June 2019 15,000 migrants have been returned to Mexico under the Migrant Protection Protocols to await their immigration decisions".

              So the idea that Mexico isn't already playing a significant part part reducing migration to the US is just not true. But negative effects are already starting to be re seen:

              "With U.S. border officials limiting the number of migrants accepted daily for asylum screening at U.S. ports of entry, Mexican border cities, some of which have high rates of violent crime, are now sheltering thousands of migrants with little support from either federal government".

              Again swamping Mexico with even more people to deal with will only create a humanitarian disaster.

              The problem is not that Mexico is not doing enough. The problem is that we are currently mismanaging the situation. Surely the most sensible solution would be to stop doing that.


              (1) What Mexico has done to curb illegal immigration to United States, a look beyond Trump’s tweets
              https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … tion-unit/

              (2) Mexico’s Immigration Control Efforts
              https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10215.pdf

              1. hard sun profile image87
                hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                I think America has a duty to get Mexico to do all it can just as Mexico has a duty to get the US to do all it can. This seems to be how it worked out in Europe .

                In fact, it seems to be how things work with humans in general. Of course, we attempt to be fair in our dealings, but, at the same time we also want to get the best deal we can get while treating everyone at least as fair as possible. That's how I haggle anyway. We cannot go so far into being the savior of the world that we do the other's jobs for them, even if they are allies, and especially if they are not so much allies.

                There is a balance to everything. I see this similar to when the uber wealthy get the under-privileged to make their arguments for them. It throws off the balance.

                As Jim Davin agrees though, once again, there are no easy answers.

                1. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  It's not so much about being the "savior of the world". I think it's in the the country's interest not to create a massive humanitarian disaster in countries right next to the border. It think it's a recipe for more people crossing the southern border not less.

                  Could Mexico do more? Perhaps, but surely not much. What would be more helpful is if we stopped mismanaging the issue and started doing what needs to be done.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Do you really believe that if we enforce our, and international, law, effectively closing the border to illegal traffic, the result will be additional traffic, legal or not, across that border?  Can you expand on that though?

                    As far as Mexico doing more, how about closing  their own southern border, coupled with refusal to encourage/support those that make it across?

                    And finally, how did this Massive humanitarian disaster go from being caused by massive numbers of people attempting to violate our laws to being OUR fault?  What have WE done to create it (outside of following our as well as international laws)?

                  2. hard sun profile image87
                    hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I don't think I'd say we'd bear sole responsibility for any humanitarian crisis right next to our border. I'm also not saying we can't do more...like just stop the war on drugs, maybe send people to act as liaisons to help other nations take in refugees. We could do such things at less of a price tag than what we do now, and they would likely be more effective IMO. I don't have the immigration issue panacea. I'm just stating I think this proposal is realistic and a step in the right direction for America.

            2. Jim Davin profile image68
              Jim Davinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              Hard Sun ,You're right there are no easy answers to this problem.

    6. crankalicious profile image91
      crankaliciousposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      By God, that is a common sense solution. I like it.

    7. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      How about we fix the deplorable conditions our American homeless live in, and then turn to save the world? Just a thought, not sure how we as a nation can turn a blind eye to this kind of problem, and focus on creating a new more pressing problem of taking into many asylum seekers. With a huge growing backlog of cases, do we need to take on more? Are the American citizens that live in the streets less important than immigrants? Are we not letting them live in "concentration camp conditions"? Actually living in far worst conditions than the border facilities... Seems some are being hypocritical not recognizing our homeless, and putting immigrants? ahead of our own.

      The solution the Dems have used to help the homeless, there is none. Actually, they have declared many of the cities that house the majority of our homeless as sanctuary cities, that only work to invite in more homeless.

      https://www.facebook.com/DiamondandSilk … 020699057/

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyxCCGMz5pw

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1yCTL5dJro

      1. Valeant profile image97
        Valeantposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        'The solution the Dems have used to help the homeless, there is none.'  As usual, you make an accusatory partisan statement devoid of any factual basis, bordering on a complete lie.

        Since 2007, the year HUD began collecting this data, homelessness decreased by 15 percent. This number masks more substantial subgroup progress over this time period. Most notably, veterans’ homelessness has dropped by 38 percent since 2007. Among people in families, there has been a 23 percent decrease. And chronic homelessness among individuals has fallen by 19 percent.

        Between 2017 and 2018, however, homelessness increased slightly by 0.3 percent or 1,834 people.

        Under Democratic administrations, homelessness decreased.  Under GOP administration, it has risen.  These are what are known as conclusions based in factual reality.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          Numbers are well and good to know. But what are we doing now, at this point in our history to end homelessness?  My point was to point out that perhaps we could take care of this problem before adding a new one. I for one would rather see my tax dollar spent on Americans that are in dire need of help. Many of these homeless are vets, and the mentally ill.  You can give all the stats you feel necessary, but my link speaks loudly.

          1. Valeant profile image97
            Valeantposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            And yet, with the actual data, I proved that the issue was being addressed at the same time that the Obama administration deported more undocumented immigrants than any previous administration in history, without being so negligent that children were dying while in their care.  God forbid we have a party elected that can actually multitask and get the results that the American people are hoping for while doing so in a humane manner.

          2. Don W profile image84
            Don Wposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            Numbers are not just good to know, they can be the difference between fact and opinion.

            You said 'The solution the Dems have used to help the homeless, there is none.'

            Valeant gave you figures which indicate homelessness fell during the last administration, and rose slightly during the current administration.

            If you want sources to verify the figures, fine, but it's unreasonable to ignore data that contradicts what you have said.

            I can confirm those figures are accurate. Here is the source: https://files.hudexchange.info/resource … Part-1.pdf

            Homelessness did in fact drop almost every year of the last administration. So clearly the Democrats the last administration was doing something sensible there. Perhaps you should find out what that was and recommend it to the current administration.

            To your broader point, people are trying to enter the US because it's better than wherever they are fleeing from. If you don't think it's in our interests to do as much as we can to help Central America be as safe and as prosperous as possible, then you're not paying attention.

      2. Valeant profile image97
        Valeantposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Trump administration helping the poor again....

        https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-admini … 00068.html

        ...by cutting access to food stamps.  So much help.

  2. Onusonus profile image77
    Onusonusposted 4 weeks ago

    Ever notice how the solution always requires spending a ton of money to solve our problems at the border?

    How about politicians simply stop giving tax payer money to illegals who cross over our border and the problem will solve itself.

  3. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 4 weeks ago

    The requirement is nothing new.  It's been on the books for years.

    Here is an article on it from 2017. 

    “The problem is that here in the United States this international principle of demanding that migrants claim asylum or refuge at the first safe country they reach is mostly honored in the breach. Everyone pays lip service to it, but no one, least of all our pusillanimous political or government leaders, really expects America to demand that the international convention be scrupulously adhered to, either by those who are allegedly seeking shelter from harm, or by the countries those migrants use as doormats en route to America as the nation of economic choice.”

    https://cis.org/Cadman/Why-Shouldnt-Cen … lum-Mexico

    This is currently the law in Europe.

    “To avoid abuses, European law and the Dublin Regulation, requires that asylum seekers have their asylum claim registered in the first country they arrive in,[4] and that the decision of the first EU country they apply in, is the final decision in all EU countries.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_shopping

    1. hard sun profile image87
      hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      This is all true, with the difference being, if Trump's order is not overturned, previously it has always been the first "safe country," and what is "safe" is determined by  agreements between nations.

      Since First Country agreements were already part of the process this isn't too much of a stretch. We have one with Canada but not with Mexico, otherwise there would be no need for this rule. And, my understanding is that these agreements really have little to do with the conditions in the respective nations, and everything to do with the leaders of said nations abilities to cooperate.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Not sure if it's true, or I misunderstood, but I did hear that we now have an agreement with Mexico.  For what it's worth.

        1. hard sun profile image87
          hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          I don't think so...it seems this order would be irrelevant if we did.

          Here's an NPR discussion from June 7 2019 discussing what it would mean if we had such an agreement with Mexico. It clears a few things up in terms of how the agreements work and what they are now. It's interesting that Sarah Pierce of the Migration Policy Institute states an agreement would likely help the border situation but not necessarily the migrants' situation. In reference to Trump. "He just wants them off his doorstep." Well, why should we have to have to be responsible for so many? Burden sharing is good.
          https://www.npr/2019/06/07/730758930/wh … uld-entail

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            It could well be that WE don't consider Mexico as "unsafe", not that Mexico has an agreement with us that they are safe.  I'm really not positive at all; I only throw it out there if anyone is interested in researching it.  As far as I'm concerned it is OUR call, not that of Mexico.

            Yes, we should all share the burden.  We've taken Mexicans crossing our border for years and years, with Mexican authorities actively approving and complaining that we had to do for Mexico's sake; let Mexico take care of those that cross their southern border.

            1. hard sun profile image87
              hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              The effects of this order we are discussing are EXACTLY the same as having an agreement! The results are any immigrants coming through Mexico must stop in Mexico to apply for asylum. TBH, this is getting a bit frustrating as this was thoroughly discussed in the Solutions to the Immigration Detention Camps thread  where I posted this:
              https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … mps?page=8

              The DHS and DOJ just issued a new rule bypassing any need for an agreement for those who cross into the US through the Southern Border. It is to be published in the Federal Registry on July 16.

              "1) an alien who demonstrates that he or she applied for protection from persecution or
              torture in at least one of the countries through which the alien transited en route to the United
              States, and the alien received a final judgment denying the alien protection in such country; (2)an alien who demonstrates that he or she satisfies the definition of “victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons” provided in 8 CFR 214.11; or (3) an alien who has transited en route to the United States through only a country or countries that were not parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the CAT.
              In all cases the burden would remain with the alien to establish eligibility for asylum
              consistent with current law,
              ---Nations that are parties to the convention include Mexico, Belize, Venezuela, Brazil, Columbia, Costa Rica, Hounduras, etc.

              Actual Rule: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … ntral.html

              A list of nations bound to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugess: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ShowMTDSG … rticipants

              Story about the rule: https://politicallydc.com/2019/07/15/tr … ng-asylum/

              As GA pointed out, whether it will be our call in the end, will likely be decided by the courts in the end, but the Justice Department and DHS already made the call.

  4. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 4 weeks ago

    To all advocates of open borders. A recent Gallup poll guesstimated that the number of people who would flood into our country, by responses to the poll, would be (including an estimate on the children accompanying adults) 386-703 million.

    We currently have an estimated 327 million citizens. So, if we tripled our population with the 'tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of the teeming shores, the homeless, tempest-tost" how would that affect our budgets for social services?

    Where would we find the funds to maintain current social programs? How would that affect our ability to implement other social programs many on the left advocate? How would that affect our ability to help those citizens already here and in need of help?

    1. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      To all advocates of open borders . . .

      Such as? Who on this thread, or in the forum advocates completely open borders? I haven't seen any.

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        If you don't advocate open borders then why respond to the comment? It specifically said 'to those who advocate open borders'.

        1. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          If you don't advocate open borders then why respond to the comment?

          Because I haven't seen any advocates of open borders on the forum, and I'd like to know if there are any. Seeing as that's who you addressed your comments to, I assumed you know people on the forum who do hold that view. Is that not the case?

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            You seem oddly offended and argumentative.  I was just throwing out numbers. If you have a problem with those,  please proceed.  Otherwise, you are just sounding oddly offended and argumentative.

            1. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              Offended? No. I'd have no qualms letting you know if I was offended. Just curious. You addressed your comment in an oddly narrow and specific way. I just wondered if that was because you knew of anyone on the forum who holds that position. Apparently you don't, as I thought. My curiosity is satisfied.

  5. GA Anderson profile image93
    GA Andersonposted 3 weeks ago

    No Don, I didn't get the memo. But no worries I will join your rebellion.

    And I didn't infer anything like your extreme; "I must therefore think everything the three previous presidents did was sensible."
    I felt that your "sensible" comment was simply an indication that you thought we have had a sensible helmsmen.

    My point in this exchange was that when I looked back at the Clinton/Bush/Obama immigration stances and policies I found that with the exception of that inhuman Zero Tolerance Separation policy, Pres. Trump was following/enforcing the same illegal immigration policies of those three previous presidents.

    All three previous presidents also made speeches containing the same points Pres. Trump is making - except theirs were more rhetorically acceptable.

    And . . . all three were also criticized by one segment or another for their immigration policies.

    But I didn't see any instances where the criticism was as broad or vitriolic as that being thrown at Pres. Trump.

    Hence my "sensible helmsman" question. Consider it answered and we can move on to something more sensible. ;-)

    GA

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)