• Tb0n3
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    51
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don’t try to cross the dangerous border that warns you that it’s a dangerous border and you don’t have to worry about dying. Even without the buoys telling you that it’s dangerous people have drowned before.

      • ZodiacSF1969
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Many of these immigrants are crossing other countries where they would be safe if they stopped there. Instead they choose to continue on to the US. At that point they are economic migrants, who are trying to skip the queue.

        It’s the same here in Australia. Instead of stopping in a safe country in SEA, they make dangerous boat voyages because they believe they’ll be better off financially. We turn those boats around or keep them offshore, where at anytime they could go somewhere other than Australia but they don’t want to because they want to try and seek welfare here.

        I have no sympathy for them. Let in the people who apply properly to come here. Not those who try to sneak in.

        • atomicorange@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Some have other options. So your solution is to condemn all of them? No sympathy, even for those who are fleeing death? You’ll let them all die because you think some people might take advantage?

          Why not have a system where you let people in, give them temporary safety, and evaluate their situation before deciding whether to admit them or return them to their country of origin?

          Maybe you like that some of them die? Is that a benefit of the current system?

        • archiotterpup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          See, this is how I know you don’t know what you’re talking about because they’re not safe if they “just stop there”.

        • protist@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Quick, somebody get this guy a “source” for the US repeatedly destabilizing Latin American governments and supporting paramilitary guerrilla groups over the course of decades

          • Tb0n3
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            And why don’t they just stop in Mexico? If they’re fleeing Honduras they’ve already achieved their goal.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because the U.S. has always taken in asylum seekers. Why are Hondurans any different from Somalis or Hmong?

              • Tb0n3
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                15
                ·
                1 year ago

                We can only take so many and crossing the border illegally should mean they are sent back. Do it right or go home. We have the right and the responsibility to protect our borders.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  How many exactly? Give me a number and explain why.

                  And crossing the border and surrendering is legal. Which is what they do.

                  • Tb0n3
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Since when? They can do that at a legal border crossing they don’t need to risk their lives swimming across a river. If they’re crossing at a fence or at a river they’re not going to go with a legal route ever.

                  • Tb0n3
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Which part? The one that claims we don’t have infinite resources because that’s impossible? Or the claim that a sovereign nation has the right to defend its borders? Both of those things seem pretty fucking obvious to me.

    • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re not stupid. Their other options are worse, or they wouldn’t come here. If drug cartels (largely funded by American consumers) came for your family, are you telling me me you wouldn’t go wherever you needed to to protect them?

      • Tb0n3
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They’re not designed for cruelty and murder they’re barriers in the water that’s it. If you have trouble swimming and you drown because you cannot get past the barrier in the water designed to keep you from getting past it, that’s your goddamn fault.

        • VerdantSporeSeasoning@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The blades between the buoys and netting underneath do in fact indicate that they’re designed for cruelty at the bare minimum. Also, the Rio Grande doesn’t just belong to Texas. It’s a federal border with another sovereign nation. Texas can’t just act cruel there unilaterally.

          • Tb0n3
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The "blades"between the bouys are no different than barbed wire, and the nets are obvious to allow marine life to move but keep people from easily swimming under. It’s designed as a barrier and so it includes basic barrier designs.

              • Tb0n3
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                If you called it what it is you would be calling it correct. There was no trolling or bigotry. Merely explaining reality.

          • Tb0n3
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            They were not saw blades. They’re pointy disks that were intended to prevent people climbing through the low places, and nets designed to allow marine life through but not people are not “designed to entangle”. It was fit for purpose and that purpose was keeping people from illegally crossing the water border. And what fundamental rights? They basically threw their own lives away trying to do something expressly forbidden.

    • archiotterpup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The destabilization of Mexico and Central and South America is our fault. It’s our moral responsibility to help these people flee the problems we created.

      • Tb0n3
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you own your own house? Because I do. A nice two-story home on four acres of land that is mine.