Giantaxe

No, it merely moved the problem to Mexico with it seems far worse consequences for asylum seekers.

SpoogleDrummer

I guess it depends on how unique the name is. Joe and Donald could be any of the old farts in Congress. I imagine there's several Harris' in there too. I've heard McConnell be called Mitch a lot (often followed by 'The Bitch') and Nancy Pelosi called Pelosi. Maybe women's first names or more unique in Congress because there's so few of them? Or maybe people are sexist.

scrubbedexpat099

There is only one Kamala.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/02/polit...-vp/index.html

Worn out by what they see as entrenched dysfunction and lack of focus, key West Wing aides have largely thrown up their hands at Vice President Kamala Harris and her staff -- deciding there simply isn't time to deal with them right now, especially at a moment when President Joe Biden faces quickly multiplying legislative and political concerns.

robin1234

It is definitely a thing in America and it pisses me off. My Congress Critter is Elise Stefanik and in an election, her lawn signs and all other advertising just say “Elise.” I think it’s an especially strong trend with the GOP bimbo contingent who often win their primaries because of a realistic perception that old, white republican voters like to slaver over their gun-toting pin-up girls.

Anyway I always make sure to refer to her as Stefanik, not Elise.

morpeth

Could it well be that Biden was very well aware of the consequences : He stated he didn't want migrants/asylum seekers languishing on the Mexican side, and equally ( for whatever reason) was/is comfortable with a more open border. How could anyone with his much vaunted "experience" ( I am unaware any executive managerial experience in a large organization he has had, just an almost lifelong politician) not be aware of the possible/probable consequences? Shouldn't he be credited to a degree with sticking to his principles ?

The issue that seems quite incomprehensible if news reports accurate, is covid-related restrictions/policies that apply to residents, or international travellers nor applied to all those coming across Southern border.

Hiro11

If a person has left another country due to persecution or oppression and reached Mexico but they want to continue on to the US, are they truly "asylum seekers" or simply someone who desires to live and work in the US? I think this is a very important distinction and one that is glossed over too frequently. After all, about half of those arrested on the southern border of the US are not from Mexico. I'll ignore the idea that Mexico is a fairly stable and fairly wealthy country (Mexico ranks exactly average on the OECD Better Life index) and Mexicans claiming "asylum" or "refugee status" from Mexico is potentially specious as well.

For example: I read an article recently in the Times with an interview from a man originally from Haiti. He had spent several years in South America and Mexico, was arrested in Texas and deported back to Haiti after coming across the border illegally. He complained that this was "unfair" and "inhumane" as he saw himself as a refugee. To me, if you're originally from Haiti but have been out of that country for years I think it's pretty hard to argue that you're a Haitian refugee. To me, this man simply preferred to live in the US. That's not a very compelling argument for asylum, again in my opinion. This is not an uncommon situation.

Again, I'm not arguing for or against immigration in general, I'm trying to draw a distinction between "refugees" or "asylum seekers" and those who simply desire to live in the US.

scrubbedexpat099

I am not sure what the principles could be, the whole situation seems totally random.

Haitians are of course a small percentage of those at the southern border, some let in some deported without being able to apply for asylum, which seems a clear breach of UN Conventions. It seems most fled 10 years ago to S America and then change of policies, economic conditions persuaded them to continue their journey. And then Biden deported them to Haiti. All very weird.

Former Lancastrian

Refugee : Someone who has registered with the UNHCR and is living in a camp hoping that there name will be picked and given a new life in a country that picks them.
Asylum Seeker : Someone who doesn't register with the UNHCR or live in a camp and finds the ability to travel across multiple countries eventually to the one of their choosing and hoping that they will believe their story and grant them asylum/protection.
Simply desire to live in the US : Those who have spent a week at one of the Disney resorts and then ask and apply to live in the US.

morpeth

Biden said before the election he would stop the stay in Mexico policy because of the treatments of those handled under that policy, so that was his principle- the consequences clearly were not a priority. The rest of his policy resulting in the virtual open border the consequences were not hard to predict or see over the last few months- simply the consequences clearly not an issue for him as opposed to creating a different image for himself, or he actual believes in an economy struggling with low real wages the past twenty years it is somehow beneficial to bring in more lower skilled workers.

The idea he was unaware the probable consequences or considered them a priority simply seems illogical, if he were concerned he has had ample time to change policy , or let the wall keep being constructed.

The Haitian situation either one consider whether they were truly refugees is one question; the other is simply so many concentrated in one place in such a visible manner considered a potential image disaster.

scrubbedexpat099

I remember reading that the French Government was talking about a safe and legal route to claim asylum and there are certainly voices in the UK wanting the same thing.

US, well the Remain in Mexico policy just slows things down, how much it slows things depends on what systems are brought in to speed up the process.

If the safe and legal route was brought in there would be no need for the UNHCR Refugee programme. People could just go the asylum route.

Jerseygirl

Biden and Putin are due to have a conversation on Tuesday regarding the Ukraine. Sorry but I can’t help but think verbally, Putin will tie Biden up in a thousand knots.

scrubbedexpat099

The military build up in Ukraine?

Now Biden may not be familiar maskirovka but I am pretty sure his Military Advisors would be.

Jerseygirl

Yes and I agree. It’s the thought of Biden and Putin in verbal conversation that I find fascinating. Biden can barely string 2 words together unless the Q & As are written down for him to read, even then he is errr…robotic.

DaveLovesDee

Do you have evidence of that? Other than the edited Youtube videos and claims made by the likes of Faux News?

Jerseygirl

I don’t watch or read Fox News, or look at YouTube vids. 2 words may be an exaggeration…but Biden only takes pre approved questions and answers from the press. Do you think he is a match for a verbal spar with Putin?