Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The ambivalence of being an immigrant kid

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Thought this was pretty interesting:
    • The number of credible fear cases has skyrocketed since the procedure was implemented—in FY 2009, USCIS completed 5,523 cases. Case completions reached an all-time high in FY 2016 at 92,071 and decreased to 79,977 in FY 2017.
    https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...-united-states
    So in 10 years the number of cases has increased by over 1400%

    There's some other interesting information at the link.

    Individuals who are placed in expedited removal proceedings and who tell a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official that they fear persecution, torture, or returning to their country or that they wish to apply for asylum should be referred for a credible fear screening interview conducted by an asylum officer.

    If the asylum officer determines that the asylum seeker has a credible fear of persecution or torture, it means that the person has proven that he or she has a “significant possibility” of establishing eligibility for asylum or other protection under the Convention Against Torture. The individual will then be referred to immigration court to proceed with the defensive asylum application process.
    So I think siimpleman and I are both correct. An asylum officer makes an initial determination, but then it goes to immigration court after that. Both are significantly backlogged.
    "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
    "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by dubs View Post
      The spirit and intent of the law is exactly what I said.
      Nope.

      The word "asylum" means to seek protection, for example protection from political persecution.
      It means what the law says it means... you want to change the definition? write to your congressman.

      This "protection" is the first safe place you can stop running for your life.
      Nope.

      Not, "we have to keep going to the US, they give more money."

      At that point this is no longer running for your life, this is economic migration.
      You don't get it.

      And "Asylyum" becomes "backdoor immigration."
      If you dislike the laws for asylum, you will hate the ones for refugee... LOL

      All of this is very simple, very clear, very easy to understand.
      Yet you struggle so bad... it is actually sad.

      Cut and pasting blocs of legal verbiage is a dishonest attempt to obfuscate the meaning/intention of "Asylum" with red herrings.
      YOu are the one that started lecturing me on the law and telling me that they should follow what the law says... all I did is show you what the law actually says... so you can see that they are following what the law says... you are the one that started with the legal stuff, when you don't even know what the law actually said... It is not my fault that your ignorance was so abysmal that the law says the exact opposite of what you wish it say...

      All this said. I must point out that I have never meet a man that make up so mush crap as you... only women are on that much deep level of self delusions... for that reason I am now convince that you are not really a man, but a woman.

      At this point, Simpleman, you are not an honest actor.
      I am not honest? how is it my fault that you fail to understand the system???

      I could paste you the laws in Mexico... so you can maybe understand what is going on there... but probably you think that it doesn't mater what laws are in Mexico... maybe you think that they rule their country accordingly to your feelings... or your claims of what is the "spirit of the law"...

      But I am goign to give you a clue... The laws in Mexico are different to the laws in US. and the laws on both countries are the opposite of what you wish they are...
      Last edited by simpleman; 11-14-2018, 12:30 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Mifune View Post
        So I think siimpleman and I are both correct. An asylum officer makes an initial determination, but then it goes to immigration court after that. Both are significantly backlogged.
        Ah I see... so basically the officer serves as first filter, and the ones that convince him made it one step further... that is interesting.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by simpleman View Post
          ... I am now convince that you are not really a man, but a woman ...
          Hey, hey, hey ...!
          There's no call for that kind of insult, not even to dubs.


          only women are on that much deep level of self delusions...
          Nah. Men still get married. I rest my case.

          M

          Comment


          • #35

            Abusing the spirit and intent of immigration law is not respecting the law.

            Overall I'm disappointed, not only in the positions, but the lack of reasonable responses.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Manalysis View Post

              Hey, hey, hey ...!
              There's no call for that kind of insult, not even to dubs.
              My intention was not to insult but to make an observation.

              Dubs is very emotional driven, and he considers that his emotions are his reasons and probably see himself as rational instead of emotional. Typical women behavior.

              Nah. Men still get married. I rest my case.
              M
              Impeccable logic... I can't argue against this.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by dubs View Post
                Abusing the spirit and intent of immigration law is not respecting the law.
                What constitute an abuse of the law?

                The law for Asylum clearly explains that the person need to be physically inside US or at an entry point. Regardless of how they enter the country.

                A person that enters illegally and then apply for the status is using the law as intended.

                It is literally impossible to apply for Asylum while being out of the country... in that case the application is for refugee... and this is the actual legal difference between the 2 status, Asylum is for people that is already in, refugee is for people that is not in US... thee is not other difference between the 2.

                For some reason it appears that you consider that refugee is accordingly to the "spirit of the law" but asylum is not.. and that makes me wonder.. why they make a law that is so much in transgression of what Dubs consider the spirit of the law???

                Anyway, I am sure that if we explore the option of application while outside (refugee status)... you will find your way to say that this is also wrong...

                Because you are weaponizing the laws... you don't care for them as much as how you can use them to advance your agenda. If you can use them, then laws are sacred and people that break them deserve to die... but if the laws are not working for your liking... then they are just legal wordings that don't mean anything...

                You have the moral core of a lady... all talk about virtue but such a whore... LOL.

                Overall I'm disappointed, not only in the positions, but the lack of reasonable responses.
                You have not say anything reasonable by any metrics of the word.

                Comment


                • #38

                  Economic migrants applying for asylum are tying up resources and ruining it for people who are actually in danger and on the run.

                  ie what asylum was designed for in the first place.

                  None of that is an emotional argument, but you know what is?

                  Arguing that we should "have a heart" and let in your fellow latino bros who don't respect US sovereignty (I mean, hey, neither do you, birds of a feather and all that.)

                  But what all of this boils down to is globalism/reconquista/sticking-it-to-the-man which is all that drives you in the first place.

                  And now here you are, cursing me and using ad homs because you think it makes you sound more genuine.

                  Any semblance of a real argument you had died about 3 pages ago, but continue, I am watching you fall apart.

                  Last edited by dubs; 11-15-2018, 10:40 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by dubs View Post
                    Economic migrants applying for asylum are tying up resources and ruining it for people who are actually in danger and on the run.
                    This is the thing...

                    I see about 10k people, but I consider them on individual bases... I think there is some people there that are actually eligible for the asylum, and I think there is people in there that are not... few messages ago I estimate that about 60% to 70% are not really eligible...

                    I am aware that media will show a picture accordingly to their own agenda... so liberal media will show a woman with 3 kids saying that the husband got killed and the gang leader want to married her 7 years old daughter... then they will make the case that this caravan is 10k people that really need the help... all women and children that are victim of wars and the so.,..

                    In the other hand, the right media will show some guys talking about no making enough money, and wanting to go to US to make dollars... then they will make the case that the 10k people are all economic migrants.

                    I do no consume a lot of media, but at least I consume some balance doses from all sides and try to get independent sources... so to try to get a more accurate picture of what is going on.

                    The problem with what you do, is that you are closing the door to people that is fundamentally good and are in a dare situation that need the help.

                    The problem with what the liberals do, is the opposite, they want to open the door to people that should be knocking a different door, if they want in.

                    My argument have being to let them present their applications, then expedite the decision, on individual bases.

                    If US can't really take that many people, there is resources for us... we can for instance declare a humanitarian crisis (I think UN already did this?) and in that matter we can get in the pool friend countries that can take in numbers of people...

                    This of course means that we need to admit we have friend countries, and that is the total opposite of Trump's philosophy... he will never admit that US is friends with another country... he much rather act illegally to the people in the caravan and risk international sanctions.

                    Declaring humanitarian crisis is a good solution too, because we can get UN money to help pay for the cost of the whole deal too...

                    ie what asylum was designed for in the first place.

                    None of that is an emotional argument, but you know what is?
                    It is emotional in the respect that you are putting a label on 10K people, claiming that they all are the same, when you are choosing to be totally ignorant of the individual circumstances of each one of them.

                    The fundamental reason why you are doing this is emotional.

                    Arguing that we should "have a heart" and let in your fellow latino bros who don't respect US sovereignty (I mean, hey, neither do you, birds of a feather and all that.)
                    You are the one that claimed to have a heart... I just prove it to you that you don't... you just like to think you do because that makes you feel good and righteous.

                    But what all of this boils down to is globalism/reconquista/sticking-it-to-the-man which is all that drives you in the first place.
                    ???

                    And now here you are, cursing me and using ad homs because you think it makes you sound more genuine.
                    Accordingly to you... more passionate... LOL

                    Any semblance of a real argument you had died about 3 pages ago, but continue, I am watching you fall apart.
                    I don't think this is an argument... that will take 2 knowledgeable people for it...

                    This feel more like a lecture or the so... It is like I am just clearing out some of the BS you irresponsible spread around.

                    Comment


                    • #40

                      Therein lies my ambivalence.

                      Without immigration, I wouldn't be here, so what right have I got to deny someone else?

                      On the other hand I see nothing good coming from this.

                      People show up, "I have 5 kids, the father is dead" expecting the rest of us to pick up the bill.

                      Is that a long-term solution? What's the long-term plan?

                      Comment


                      • #41


                        Another source of ambivalence I admit.

                        My disdain for Anglo/Western culture.

                        With high taxes, work slavery, and 10,000 page regulations, it is also completely soul-less, like a mini-me version of Japanese culture where they work 16 hours a day and drink with the boss until they committ suicide.

                        Anyone who has traveled and been around the world knows how much more laid-back life is outside of the west.

                        I generally much prefer hanging around a bunch of mexicans or south americans.

                        Feminism is a good example of how soulless western culture is, and how power hungry, that a bunch of white women (and men) think white women don't have enough power. What a joke. The truth is that feminism is like "rebels in paradise" where people who have everything going for them want moar. It's not about equality, it is not enough and it will never be enough.

                        I will temper this assessment by saying, most cultures are pretty fucked up and the world in general is a pretty fucked up place.

                        All I'm saying is that "western culture" isn't that great and America was never that great, certainly nowhere near ancient Rome or Greece or Mesopotamia.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by dubs View Post
                          Economic migrants applying for asylum are tying up resources and ruining it for people who are actually in danger and on the run.
                          ie what asylum was designed for in the first place.
                          This is the dialectic expressing itself through the law of unintended consequences. A rule (like the asylum institution) skews peoples' behaviour, often in unexpected ways.
                          And sometimes in all too obvious ways.

                          Anyhow, most European political parties are now aware - and agreed - that institutions like that, which were rational and benign 50 - 60 years ago, are now outdated and harmful. The present "immigration debate" is how to come up with measures that work for all involved - solving the problems of the, let's say unfortunate, while being politically acceptable for various electorates.

                          IIRC, you yourself pointed out the key issue, that low birth rates in the West made immigration economically necessary, if one presupposes that most people want to maintain their quality of life on the same or possibly better level than today. With top heavy age distribution pyramids, no immigration is not going to work, like it doesn't in Japan.

                          M

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by simpleman View Post
                            I see about 10k people, but I consider them on individual bases...
                            My argument have being to let them present their applications, then expedite the decision, on individual bases.
                            I'd just like to point out that information processing also consumes resources, both materially, and wrt. time.
                            Non-individual treatment is a way to expedite certain processes at the cost of precision of the whole process. A cost/benefit analysis, really.

                            The fundamental reason why you are doing this is emotional.
                            Depends on your def. of "emotional".
                            Most people I know are rational thinkers. Very few will make mistakes in simple syllogisms.
                            But the quality of their premises, oh my ... !
                            And of course some adopt weird beliefs because of, let's say "psychological necessity", but the majority of people are just ignorant.
                            How do you expect e.g. Usanians to know the difference between their life and the life of the average African, when 60 % of them don't even have a passport?
                            And those who do, mainly go to Mexico?

                            M

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by dubs View Post
                              Therein lies my ambivalence.
                              Without immigration, I wouldn't be here, so what right have I got to deny someone else?
                              I don't follow ... That's like saying that because you took one free sample, you can't argue against the lady who helps herself to 250 of them.
                              If one can't argue outside one's own situaton, one is forever committed to only praising the virtues one has oneself. That's a bit meagre, I think, for all of us.
                              Go ahead, be against immigration, if immigration is bad. It's about being for what is good, not for (or against, as the case may be) e.g. immigration per se?

                              On the other hand I see nothing good coming from this.
                              Some people actually, and perhaps there is something good coming from it, too.
                              Which is not to say that even taking in something good does not mean that you sometimes have to give up some other good for it. Cost/benefit.

                              People show up, "I have 5 kids, the father is dead" expecting the rest of us to pick up the bill.
                              Is that a long-term solution? What's the long-term plan?
                              To make it unecessary for anyone, anywhere to e.g. migrate in order to have a chance to forge a better life.
                              That's the only thing that works.

                              M

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by dubs View Post
                                Another source of ambivalence I admit. My disdain for Anglo/Western culture.
                                With high taxes, work slavery, and 10,000 page regulations, it is also completely soul-less ...
                                Anyone who has traveled and been around the world knows how much more laid-back life is outside of the west.
                                Agreed.
                                "Stampeding, the horses of modern civilization have broken the (thing that connects the horses to the wagon ... yoke?), and we, hands entangled in the reins, are being dragged to death behind them."
                                Osweld Spengler, I believe; but anyway quoted from an increasingly dim memory, so ... caveat emptor.

                                Feminism is a good example of how soulless western culture is, and how power hungry, that a bunch of white women (and men) think white women don't have enough power. What a joke. The truth is that feminism is like "rebels in paradise" where people who have everything going for them want moar.
                                Again, people who have no idea what the world actually looks like. Provincialism, narrow horizons, navel-gazing ... call it what you will.

                                All I'm saying is that "western culture" isn't that great and America was never that great, certainly nowhere near ancient Rome or Greece or Mesopotamia.
                                Well, in the USA they have 139 brands of toothpaste, while Rome had none.
                                By that measure, USA has a huge lead over Rome (and wrt. foreign policy, Rome was the USA of its day, anyway ...).

                                American greatness was, AFAICS, a brand-building excercise by the new powers in order to create, out of thin air, an ideal that would make people join the USA project back in the day. A clean break with the Old World, no kings, no armies, no alliances, no banks, lots of toothpaste ... salesmanship ... peace, love and cake for everyone ... early hippies, if it hadn't been for how they treated anyone off-white.

                                M

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X