USA refugees Huh?
#76
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,900
Re: USA refugees Huh?
After your post, I went back and read paw339's posts and see no bigotry there either. I find it bizarre you are attacking people who support the migration and refugee process and are rightly pointing out risks that may lead to political winds winding these programs back, which neither myself nor paw339 wants to happen.
You want Trump to win again in 2020, and Le Pen to win at the next French election? Keep handing a microphone to posters who wrongly, falsely and immorally accuse others of racial hatred over political disagreements and non-racial/ethnic vocabulary choices like a crazy person.
You want Trump to win again in 2020, and Le Pen to win at the next French election? Keep handing a microphone to posters who wrongly, falsely and immorally accuse others of racial hatred over political disagreements and non-racial/ethnic vocabulary choices like a crazy person.
Last edited by carcajou; Aug 28th 2017 at 12:18 am.
#77
Re: USA refugees Huh?
Is there a legal pathway to residence that they have not taken advantage of? If so, put them on that and leave them alone.
If there is no legal pathway to residence, then they should be returned to Mexico. If there is no legal pathway - they should not be rewarded for illegally entering the country and avoiding detection for x number of years.
No country in the world has an obligation to give residency to anyone who asks for it, and it would be insanity to go down that route.
Why should Mexican undocumenteds get special treatment, compared to other nationalities?
Or, more to the point, is this a pressing issue that the United States should be prioritising? I would argue it is not and resources should go into other things, and I also did not vote for Trump (I have a US passport) nor will I vote for him in 2020. But he did win and we have to live with that, for at least another three years.
If there is no legal pathway to residence, then they should be returned to Mexico. If there is no legal pathway - they should not be rewarded for illegally entering the country and avoiding detection for x number of years.
No country in the world has an obligation to give residency to anyone who asks for it, and it would be insanity to go down that route.
Why should Mexican undocumenteds get special treatment, compared to other nationalities?
Or, more to the point, is this a pressing issue that the United States should be prioritising? I would argue it is not and resources should go into other things, and I also did not vote for Trump (I have a US passport) nor will I vote for him in 2020. But he did win and we have to live with that, for at least another three years.
#78
Re: USA refugees Huh?
No, they don't have that information - not if you just show up and say "no papers" and/or give false information. That is NOT an urban myth. The authorities will then let you into the community rather than inter you and you can be gone/disappeared.
As you put it so well - "claim" to come from.
UN processing centres are places of safety with food and shelter where processing of legitimate refugees can be done. If you do it the other way like Merkel - where the vast, vast majority of people entering Europe are not refugees at all - the number of actual refugees making it through is far smaller.
Then as the other poster said that vast majority of fake refugees make it enormously tougher for the legitimate ones.
Australia's centres are not inhumane. Fake refugees don't like getting stopped on their way to Australia and then, after refusing to provide authentic documents, have to wait there while the authorities find out who they really are rather than just enter into the community and disappear like in Europe.
I have no problem letting in legitimate, bona fide refugees - I do have a problem with letting in 100 fake ones for every legitimate one, which is the road Trudeau is going to go down, and is going to result in the same backlash as Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, and so on. Only I think the stakes in Canada are a lot higher because the epicentre of this is a province with two independence referendums already under its belt.
As you put it so well - "claim" to come from.
UN processing centres are places of safety with food and shelter where processing of legitimate refugees can be done. If you do it the other way like Merkel - where the vast, vast majority of people entering Europe are not refugees at all - the number of actual refugees making it through is far smaller.
Then as the other poster said that vast majority of fake refugees make it enormously tougher for the legitimate ones.
Australia's centres are not inhumane. Fake refugees don't like getting stopped on their way to Australia and then, after refusing to provide authentic documents, have to wait there while the authorities find out who they really are rather than just enter into the community and disappear like in Europe.
I have no problem letting in legitimate, bona fide refugees - I do have a problem with letting in 100 fake ones for every legitimate one, which is the road Trudeau is going to go down, and is going to result in the same backlash as Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, and so on. Only I think the stakes in Canada are a lot higher because the epicentre of this is a province with two independence referendums already under its belt.
#79
limey party pooper
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,979
Re: USA refugees Huh?
You are completely and totally wrong (again). You say you read my previous post but it's clear it didn't sink in. Go back and re-read the part where it says a "bigot" is someone with intolerance/hatred to racial or ethnic groups, not someone who disagrees with you about something or isn't sufficiently left wing for you. The use of the word "swamped" indicates nothing ethnic or racial and it's ludicrous you would even go there.
Please check the meaning of bigotry as you haven't quite got the hang of it, the meaning that is, you've obviously got the hang of the action.
#80
Re: USA refugees Huh?
I always have to smile when noting that those that use the word "bigot" are usually those that are exhibiting bigotry themselves; not unlike the present situation.
#81
Re: USA refugees Huh?
Merriam Webster has
Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
It's pretty weird to describe the disapproval of hatred and intolerant bigotry as bigotry.
I must admit to being surprised at the Oxford English definition though.
I've never heard anyone described as a bigot for strongly taking a different opinion to others. Or even being intolerant of that opinion. In my experience it's an intolerance of the person that's demonstrated not that person's opinion.
Last edited by BristolUK; Aug 28th 2017 at 3:55 pm.
#82
Re: USA refugees Huh?
#83
Re: USA refugees Huh?
That's really not the common definition though.
Merriam Webster has
That's obviously the context used here.
It's pretty weird to describe the disapproval of hatred and intolerant bigotry as bigotry.
I must admit to being surprised at the Oxford English definition though.
I've never heard anyone described as a bigot for strongly taking a different opinion to others. Or even being intolerant of that opinion. In my experience it's an intolerance of the person that's demonstrated not that person's opinion.
Merriam Webster has
That's obviously the context used here.
It's pretty weird to describe the disapproval of hatred and intolerant bigotry as bigotry.
I must admit to being surprised at the Oxford English definition though.
I've never heard anyone described as a bigot for strongly taking a different opinion to others. Or even being intolerant of that opinion. In my experience it's an intolerance of the person that's demonstrated not that person's opinion.
Could you please show me where the poster referred to has demonstrated either of the definitions.
#84
limey party pooper
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,979
Re: USA refugees Huh?
Actually I agree with AC's definition and I'm quite willing to accept that I can be bigoted I try and fight it which is why I normally ignore ACs's posts.
#86
Re: USA refugees Huh?
I'm going to make myself very unpopular yet again.
When I read some of these posts, I have to ask myself whether their owners are long for this world given their rising levels of blood pressure. I picture puffed up red faces and imagine heads exploding.
Too many have fixed views on too many subjects and an inability to consider other points of view and far too many just don't read the posts as they are intended preferring to read into them what isn't there.
It really is a shame that a forum for discussion descends far too often into insults.
Calm down and have a glass of the red stuff... and I don't mean blood.
When I read some of these posts, I have to ask myself whether their owners are long for this world given their rising levels of blood pressure. I picture puffed up red faces and imagine heads exploding.
Too many have fixed views on too many subjects and an inability to consider other points of view and far too many just don't read the posts as they are intended preferring to read into them what isn't there.
It really is a shame that a forum for discussion descends far too often into insults.
Calm down and have a glass of the red stuff... and I don't mean blood.
#87
Re: USA refugees Huh?
I'm going to make myself very unpopular yet again.
When I read some of these posts, I have to ask myself whether their owners are long for this world given their rising levels of blood pressure. I picture puffed up red faces and imagine heads exploding.
Too many have fixed views on too many subjects and an inability to consider other points of view and far too many just don't read the posts as they are intended preferring to read into them what isn't there.
It really is a shame that a forum for discussion descends far too often into insults.
Calm down and have a glass of the red stuff... and I don't mean blood.
When I read some of these posts, I have to ask myself whether their owners are long for this world given their rising levels of blood pressure. I picture puffed up red faces and imagine heads exploding.
Too many have fixed views on too many subjects and an inability to consider other points of view and far too many just don't read the posts as they are intended preferring to read into them what isn't there.
It really is a shame that a forum for discussion descends far too often into insults.
Calm down and have a glass of the red stuff... and I don't mean blood.
This is an interesting article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/o...tolerance.html
#88
Re: USA refugees Huh?
Okay AC, so there's the assumption that they are all system abusers, queue jumpers and that they will all disappear. Aside from that blanket approach to the adults, there are children involved too, who have no say. Send them all back is the clear attitude.
In another post the assumption that there will be "hundreds and thousands" pretending to be Haitians.
"100 fake refugees for every genuine one"
The negative slant this puts on the group of people concerned seems to fit reasonably well with an intolerance of a group of people.
The word 'swamped' is well used by racists. To use it in reference to foreign people wanting to move to a country can't just be waved away as innocent. That's a bit like walking through an area of the UK with a largely immigrant populace, waving a union jack and claiming you're just showing love for your country.
The other definition of being intolerant of those with a different opinion? How about this one?
Now that might be relatively mild but it's identifying, stereotyping and belittling a group of people with a different opinion.
In another post the assumption that there will be "hundreds and thousands" pretending to be Haitians.
"100 fake refugees for every genuine one"
The negative slant this puts on the group of people concerned seems to fit reasonably well with an intolerance of a group of people.
The word 'swamped' is well used by racists. To use it in reference to foreign people wanting to move to a country can't just be waved away as innocent. That's a bit like walking through an area of the UK with a largely immigrant populace, waving a union jack and claiming you're just showing love for your country.
The other definition of being intolerant of those with a different opinion? How about this one?
Oh my goodness another one of "those" posters.
#89
Re: USA refugees Huh?
Oh, no - not at all. Australia's offshore detention centres are the picture of health and happiness, I'm sure. That's why Amnesty International conducted this investigation https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...gees-on-nauru/ and many other international media organizations (who have typically smuggled reporters in, as the Australian government has banned media from these "camps") have reported on the appalling conditions.