Then you surely know that “applying for asylum from abroad and waiting for approval before coming” is not a viable option for many people facing the immediate realities of violence and persecution.
Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking the conservatives taking a hard line against asylum seekers in 2018 would have been on the right side of history if they’d been born a few generations earlier.
“I don’t understand why there’s hunger in america. I mean, there’s plenty of food at the grocery store. They should just buy that food”
Also, from the Old Testament / Torah:
Exodus 22:20
You must neither wrong nor oppress a foreigner living among you, for you yourselves were foreigners in the land of Egypt.
And Exodus 23:9
You are not to oppress a foreigner, for you know how a foreigner feels, since you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.
And Leviticus 19:33-34
If a foreigner stays with you in your land, do not do him wrong. Rather, treat the foreigner staying with you like the native-born among you — you are to love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt; I am Lord your God.
The law states that this is not possible - by definition.
" What Is Asylum?
Asylum is a protection granted to foreign nationals already in the United States or at the border who meet the international law definition of a “refugee.” The United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol define a refugee as a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country, and cannot obtain protection in that country, due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Congress incorporated this definition into U.S. immigration law in the Refugee Act of 1980."
from - Asylum in the United States
Stephen Miller is too busy masturbating to issue a comment presumably.
You have some good points. But if someone qualifies, why should that person be denied just because he doesn’t have a hookup to people smugglers? And you are right, the walk to the border and the people smugglers is a type of filter. I agree 100%. My point is, it’s exactly the filter we don’t want. It selects people who are aggressive risk takers, likely with some resources and some connections to these smuggling cartels. That’s not necessarily people who are most needy.
I seriously can’t believe that anyone on this site is defending, in any way, people smuggling as a legitimate part of our immigration system. These people are horrible gang members who charge thousands of dollars per person, and it’s usually financed, with a “lien” on family members and future earnings (ie, slavery) and a mandatory “arbitration” agreement and a usurious interest rate. And they are criminal cartels, and they also traffic drugs, children, weapons, and sex workers. That’s all ok so long as it helps certain people get from Guatemala to the US?
I can say, there is ZERO people smuggling going on on Israel’s borders, because the only way to enter is through the legal asylum or immigration process. There was smuggling before they built a wall, now there is none. Same is true in any country that has effective border and work controls.
Trump knows that this latest incident only brings happiness to his base.
Israel is about 33 times smaller than Texas. And 473 times smaller than the US. It’s population is smaller than NYC.
And not a lot of people wish to immigrate to Israel. The comparison is about as inapt as one can make.
Shall we discuss Rhode Island Next? Perhaps Monaco or Sealand?
Not really. Those are reprehensible things that we all know about. Once you’re in their “care,” I think most people would still accept medical aid if they were in distress.
I was more thinking that the daily treatment of those in custody is likely far worse than what we already know about to get a parent to refuse medical attention for their sick child. CBP is lying about offering additional medical help, or the conditions are such that the parent felt even the doctors involved wouldn’t provide any real aid.
It’s also surrounded by hostile neighbours that want it destroyed, in contrast (despite Il Douche’s claims about Mexicans) to the U.S.'s neighours.
Because people desperately fleeing the country of origin have easy access to the internet?
Who is going to fly them here?
Plus we already know the current administration has no regard for the due process of Asylum claims. Trump has taken to abducting and ransoming children to get parents to waive their rights to make such claims.
Its morally wrong to make lame excuses for policies meant to maliciously and deliberately harm people looking to come to this country in a legal fashion, such as asylum seekers and refugees.
We’re facing an existential risk from Grenada.
Smuggling is what happens when asylum seekers face significant legal and logistical barriers for entering the country legally. You want to end smuggling? Then create more legal pathways to immigration.
A child died. how about fuck off.
Strangely enough, this sounds eerily similar to personalities within the administration, all the way to the top. Pot, meet kettle.
If you support the border wall, you’re racist. Why? Because nobody is seriously floating a wall with the country where a lot of immigration scofflaws come from, possibly even the majority (if you count single country of origin). One with massive amounts of smuggling.
Why? Because the Canadians coming down to steal your jobs look like you and sound like you, so you don’t even notice. That white, English-speaking guy with a neutral accent who says he’s from Seattle? He could be from Vancouver, or Edmonton. Your buddy from Alaska could actually be from the Yukon.
And don’t tell me you suddenly care about all illegal immigration now that I am bringing it up. We all know who gets stopped at the border, and it’s Sukhinder and Mei, not Gord and Tracey. Especially not in their tricked-out motorhome or plane tickets to their winter property in Arizona that they somehow never leave.
I’m not surprised that somebody thinks “a web page” would fix everything here when they’ve previously posted that they thought racial discrimination in employment would be great as long as it was performed by inscrutable computer programs 
For someone who’s Jewish you’re remarkably ignorant about the history of Jewish immigration to the U.S. and to Palestine and Israel during the late 19th century and first half of the 20th century.
The “aggressive risk takers” were (and are) exactly the kind of people who decided to uproot their lives, leave family support systems and guaranteed careers or marriages behind, and travel thousands of miles on little to no money to a completely alien country and culture. Risk-averse and passive people don’t do that – they stick with the bad they know.
The “aggressive risk takers” were the ones who avoided the purges and pogroms and the genocides of the 20th century because they pre-emptively said “f*ck this BS” and rolled the dice before things got worse. Risk-averse and passive people don’t do that – they stay put and hope for the best.
The “aggressive risk takers” who were immigrants who became American entrepreneurs who built brand-name corporations and entire industries from pocket change and pushcarts, and the Jewish ones became the people who built the modern state of Israel from a desert. Risk-averse and passive people don’t do that – given the choice, they prefer the job security of steady wage slavery and a country where they can get by despite not being considered citizens in full.
America is a successful immigrant nation because, from its colonial days, it wanted the aggressive risk takers. Same went for Israel before Likud and its Orthodox fundie allies decided that a religious ethnostate was the better choice.
I’ve seen those reports. Which makes it even more unlikely, in my opinion, that the father in this case would have refused medical care. It seems more likely that CBP is lying when they say the father refused additional medical treatment.
