*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

Maybe they thought their kids were at less risk than they would be staying in their own country?

So you're in favour of taking in an entire population?

do you not think you have a responsibility to at least try to feed and wash them?

Yes, no argument here.

so they don't have to face whatever horrors exist in their home country

Why do only the ones that show up at the border have these problems? And if they don't, why take in the ones who try to cross illegally at the expense of those who attempt to do so lawfully?

Better yet would be to follow international law

International law does not dictate that a nation must admit migrants.

France goes under in a civil war.

Are Mexico in a state of civil war? Or are you referring to the people who have fled various parts of Central and South America, and travelled through a peaceful Mexico, to get to USA?

Let's do this a different way... the UK becomes embroiled in civil war. Do I think I have the right to waltz to whichever country I can get to? No I don't. At the moment, I have the right to go to France, and French people have the right to come here. But let's fast forward a year or two and assume we're out of the EU, and we no longer have freedom of movement. I no longer have the right to go anywhere else.That might not stop me trying, but if I got politely told to fuck off, I wouldn't think I was being treated unfairly. I mean, why should I be allowed in but not the rest of the population? What makes me special? In fact, if I turn up at the border with a backpack, I'm less special than the people who actually apply for asylum before arriving.

[Poopadoop]

So you're in favour of taking in an entire population?

Not sure what you mean by 'take in' here or 'an entire populaton'. I'm in favour of looking after people who show up at your border, whether they do so legally or not. By 'looking after', I mean managing their basic hygeine and nutrition needs, not giving them all their own house and a beamer.

Yes, no argument here.

Good, then you're in agreement with basic human decency. That isn't what appears to be happening at the US border, however.

Why do only the ones that show up at the border have these problems?

Relevance? Are you suggesting the government is equally responsible to go into a war-torn country and feed and clothe people, as it is to do the same with refugees that show up at its border?

And if they don't, why take in the ones who try to cross illegally at the expense of those who attempt to do so lawfully?

First, they're not all trying to cross illegally. Many are presenting at the border to seek asylum. They're also being put in 'camps.' Second, if some are crossing illegally they should be given low priority for asylum status, but they still need to be fed and housed in appropriate conditions.

International law does not dictate that a nation must admit migrants.

Not sure exactly what the laws are, but there seems to be an international consensus that you need to deal humanely with refugees dragging themselves to your border. And I'm fairly sure the humane treatment of prisoners is guarded by international law.

Are Mexico in a state of civil war? Or are you referring to the people who have fled various parts of Central and South America, and travelled through a peaceful Mexico, to get to USA?

The latter.

Let's do this a different way... the UK becomes embroiled in civil war. Do I think I have the right to waltz to whichever country I can get to? No I don't.

Why not? If you can get to the country of your choice, what does geography have to do with it?

At the moment, I have the right to go to France, and French people have the right to come here.

That's not how it works lol. There's no 'you can go to a country your native country is part of an economic union with, but that's it.' Otherwise why would the Syrian refugees be getting asylum all over the world? No-one in Canada or most of Europe (including the UK fwiw) said 'sorry fuck you, we don't have a trade deal with Syria. You can't come here.'

But let's fast forward a year or two and assume we're out of the EU, and we no longer have freedom of movement. I no longer have the right to go anywhere else.That might not stop me trying, but if I got politely told to fuck off, I wouldn't think I was being treated unfairly. I mean, why should I be allowed in but not the rest of the population? What makes me special? In fact, if I turn up at the border with a backpack, I'm less special than the people who actually apply for asylum before arriving.

You can argue this if you want; I'm just saying what the international consensus is. If you're fleeing a dangerous situation where you live, you have a right to asylum in the country of your choice. If you're in Sierra Leone and want to escape the child killer gangs with your family, you aren't expected to go to the nearest border (say Nigeria) and apply for asylum. You can go anywhere in the world you can get to, and by international agreement they have to take you afaik.

But this isn't about the behaviour of the people showing up at the US border and whether they're doing things the right way or not; surely some of those showing up at the border aren't. The question is how the US is treating these people regardless of whether they're doing things the right way or not, and I think we've already agreed the US is out of line in that respect.

[OngBonga]

If you're fleeing a dangerous situation where you live, you have a right to asylum in the country of your choice.

This isn't quite true, either. You have a right to asylum in the first "safe country" you can get to. You can't simply pick any country in the world. Doing so is a matter of economics.

[Poopadoop]

This isn't quite true, either. You have a right to asylum in the first "safe country" you can get to. You can't simply pick any country in the world. Doing so is a matter of economics.

Ong.jpg

So, let's see if I got this straight. Canada accepted something like 25k Syrian asylum seeking refugees a couple years ago. Are you saying those refugees had such bad luck that every country they went through on their way from Syria to Canada was unsafe?

Stop. Talking. Shit.

[OngBonga]

So, let's see if I got this straight. Canada accepted something like 25k Syrian asylum seeking refugees a couple years ago. Are you saying those refugees had such bad luck that every country they went through on their way from Syria to Canada was unsafe?

Stop. Talking. Shit.

No, you didn't get that straight, and once again demonstrate you can't read. I'm saying that Canada had no obligation to take them in. Those that went to Canada chose to go there, and Canada chose to accept them. For the migrants, it was an economic choice. I can't blame them, I'd rather live in Canada than Turkey.

[Poopadoop]

No, you didn't get that straight, and once again demonstrate you can't read. I'm saying that Canada had no obligation to take them in. Those that went to Canada chose to go there, and Canada chose to accept them. For the migrants, it was an economic choice. I can't blame them, I'd rather live in Canada than Turkey.

You keep trying to make the argument about immigration and who you should let live in your country.

My point was regardless of whether you want these people, they're there. This isn't the first time in world history where large numbers of people show up at a border somewhere. You have a responsibility to feed, clothe, and wash them. Give them a cot, a blanket and a toothbrush. Keep the kids with the parents. Process any asylum claims in a reasonable amount of time.

The US is not doing this and you can't defend this by saying 'but hurr durr some % of the immigrants are bad people', as if that makes it ok to house them in cruel conditions. You can't even treat a serial baby killer waiting for trial as badly as they're treating these people.

[OngBonga]

You keep trying to make the argument about immigration and who you should let live in your country.

We were talking about rights, weren't we? You're trying to tell me that migrants have the right to go where they like. I'm pointing out this isn't true.

My point was regardless of whether you want these people, they're there.

The migrants who are already in a given country, yes the host nation has responsibilities. That includes feeding, cleaning and processing. I agree with you there. But a nation does not have an obligation to admit migrants from a safe country, and Mexico is a safe country.

[Poopadoop]

No blankets, no toothbrushes, no chance to bathe.

Forget about the fact that some of these people are immigrants and/or asylum seekers for a minute. Assume they're all in killer gangs caught bringing fentanyl across the border with their kids in tow 'cause they couldn't get a babysitter. There's still no way to justify this. None. It's fucking cruel, end of story.