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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
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?
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”.
Removed by mod
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
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/06/994145471/what-kind-of-violence-causes-some-people-to-flee-honduras-for-the-u-s
And why don’t they just stop in Mexico? If they’re fleeing Honduras they’ve already achieved their goal.
Because the U.S. has always taken in asylum seekers. Why are Hondurans any different from Somalis or Hmong?
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.
How many exactly? Give me a number and explain why.
And crossing the border and surrendering is legal. Which is what they do.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Big difference between infinite resources and enough room for more of these refugees, no? One is a finite number after all.