*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[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.