Politics And Current Events

[tifosi77]

Again, there is NOTHING in the governing document of the US government which requires the US government to allow people to cross it's borders.

Except for the fact that there is.

[Guinness]

I agree with Guinness in a lot of ways, and specifically on this issue. But the idea of the border being 'arbitrary' or 'imaginary' is such a huge hurdle to discourse that I don't even know where to begin. Like, if it was a jersey barrier the whole length of the border would that make you feel better? Just not sure what you're trying to do here. Until we have a One World Order these are the parameters we work with, saying they don't exist in a meaningful way is just subterfuge.

You're right that my view that borders are arbitrary/imaginary are hurdles to discourse... I get that.

I've made the case here before, and I don't really have the energy to make it again. States don't really exist. I mean, they obviously do in practical terms, but in terms of the reality of actual human interaction, they don't. What is real and true is individual human beings, and the product of their efforts and their interactions with other human beings.

There are "crimes", for sure. Violations of another human beings life, liberty and/or property... those are "crimes" (sic). "Illegal border crossings" aren't crimes. Owning verboten plants isn't a crime... Just look at alcohol Prohibition, for heaven's sake. The state deemed the production, sale and consumption of alcohol to be a crime for a period of time, during which thousands of people died, were incarcerated, separated from their children even!

Borders? Just throwing out a WAG here, but I would say that before 1948, the borders of the US changed every 10 years on average. Doesn't get much more arbitrary than that, especially when those borders changed considerably via force. May people cross those arbitrary borders? Depends on the needs of the state at the time.

Everything the state does is arbitrary, because it's an entity founded entirely upon unprovoked violence. Anything that it does that is just is an absolute coincidence, or furthers its ends.

[grunthy]

Are they arresting asylum seekers or those rejected asylum that then cross illegally?

They are physically preventing people from setting foot on US soil at the ports of entry where they can make the asylum claim.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy ... um-illegal

But in most cases, asylum seekers in the suit report being told that there wasn’t room for them to be processed at the port of entry. And that might very well be true. That’s what CBP agents initially told the few hundred asylum seekers who made up the remnants of the Central American “caravan” when they presented themselves to a port of entry in California — then proceeded to process most of them over the next few days, presumably as resources became available. And it’s the same thing the Trump administration told the Guatemalans on the El Paso bridge.

So usually it seems they “turn” them away bc of ability to process at that time, yet they eventually do get processed.

[dodint]

I agree with Guinness in a lot of ways, and specifically on this issue. But the idea of the border being 'arbitrary' or 'imaginary' is such a huge hurdle to discourse that I don't even know where to begin. Like, if it was a jersey barrier the whole length of the border would that make you feel better? Just not sure what you're trying to do here. Until we have a One World Order these are the parameters we work with, saying they don't exist in a meaningful way is just subterfuge.

You're right that my view that borders are arbitrary/imaginary are hurdles to discourse... I get that.

I've made the case here before, and I don't really have the energy to make it again. States don't really exist. I mean, they obviously do in practical terms, but in terms of the reality of actual human interaction, they don't. What is real and true is individual human beings, and the product of their efforts and their interactions with other human beings.

Borders? Just throwing out a WAG here, but I would say that before 1948, the borders of the US changed every 10 years on average. Doesn't get much more arbitrary than that, especially when those borders changed considerably via force. May people cross those arbitrary borders? Depends on the needs of the state at the time.

Everything the state does is arbitrary, because it's an entity founded entirely upon unprovoked violence. Anything that it does that is just is an absolute coincidence, or furthers its ends.

I'm with you on victim-less crimes, no argument at all.

I think when the first nomads stopped one day to do some planting and formed the first static tribe, surely they looked at the horizon and saw another group of folks doing the same. Their leadership, informal or otherwise, certainly drew a line in the sand marking off their claim so as not to have their crops pilfered by other tribes that didn't do the gruntwork to generate resources. Those interactions begat those boundaries and they are the product of their effort and interactions with other groups of human beings.

A simplified case but it illustrates the point. The only difference now is with time and technology those boundaries are mostly hardened; but they're still the product of collective human interaction.

[tifosi77]

Are they arresting asylum seekers or those rejected asylum that then cross illegally?

They are physically preventing people from setting foot on US soil at the ports of entry where they can make the asylum claim.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy ... um-illegal

But in most cases, asylum seekers in the suit report being told that there wasn’t room for them to be processed at the port of entry. And that might very well be true. That’s what CBP agents initially told the few hundred asylum seekers who made up the remnants of the Central American “caravan” when they presented themselves to a port of entry in California — then proceeded to process most of them over the next few days, presumably as resources became available. And it’s the same thing the Trump administration told the Guatemalans on the El Paso bridge.

So usually it seems they “turn” them away bc of ability to process at that time, yet they eventually do get processed.

A selection of other quotes from that same Vox article:

In the past, this wasn’t a huge deal. If an immigrant got too worried about being held up on the Mexican side of the border, she could cross into the US illegally and seek asylum afterward. Many of the asylum seekers interviewed for the advocacy lawsuit admitted that they’d done just that after one or more failed attempts to seek asylum the “right” way. And in many parts of the border, Border Patrol agents have a lot more capacity to process asylum seekers who’ve entered illegally than CBP agents at ports of entry do to process asylum seekers trying to enter legally.

The federal government doesn’t appear to have any plans to increase processing capacity at ports of entry.

The Texas bridge confrontation offered proof of a new tactic: “screening” would-be border crossers before they got to the official port of entry — i.e., when, or before, they first set foot in the US at all.

Instead, border agents appeared to be targeting people with “the dark skin and threadbare clothing that is typical of many Central American migrants” — in other words, potential asylum seekers.

The minute someone steps onto US soil, she gains the legal right to ask for asylum here. That can pose an obstacle for agents trying to tell asylum seekers to come back later — at least when the asylum seeker is accompanied by a lawyer who insists that they have a right to seek asylum now. (This is why the Guatemalans on the bridge who’d gone a few steps past the US side of the line were ultimately able to enter the port of entry, despite initially being told there was no room.)

People who are skittish about border security — including, notably, the president of the United States — don’t make distinctions between people entering to seek asylum at ports of entry and people crossing illegally.

[shafnutz05]

Do we have a moral responsibility to accept every single person that comes to the border claiming asylum, and provide for their shelter, food, healthcare etc? If the answer to that question is yes, then for how long? Permanently?

In a perfect world we could take care of everyone that wanted to come live here, but how is that remotely sustainable? I just wonder how some of the more vocal of you in terms of advocating for migrant rights would handle this long term.

Because I can tell you right now that the EO Trump signed yesterday, which is essentially reinstating catch and release for any migrant w/child, will almost certainly lead to another spike in traffic down there.

[Guinness]

I agree with Guinness in a lot of ways, and specifically on this issue. But the idea of the border being 'arbitrary' or 'imaginary' is such a huge hurdle to discourse that I don't even know where to begin. Like, if it was a jersey barrier the whole length of the border would that make you feel better? Just not sure what you're trying to do here. Until we have a One World Order these are the parameters we work with, saying they don't exist in a meaningful way is just subterfuge.

You're right that my view that borders are arbitrary/imaginary are hurdles to discourse... I get that.

I've made the case here before, and I don't really have the energy to make it again. States don't really exist. I mean, they obviously do in practical terms, but in terms of the reality of actual human interaction, they don't. What is real and true is individual human beings, and the product of their efforts and their interactions with other human beings.

Borders? Just throwing out a WAG here, but I would say that before 1948, the borders of the US changed every 10 years on average. Doesn't get much more arbitrary than that, especially when those borders changed considerably via force. May people cross those arbitrary borders? Depends on the needs of the state at the time.

Everything the state does is arbitrary, because it's an entity founded entirely upon unprovoked violence. Anything that it does that is just is an absolute coincidence, or furthers its ends.

I'm with you on victim-less crimes, no argument at all.

I think when the first nomads stopped one day to do some planting and formed the first static tribe, surely they looked at the horizon and saw another group of folks doing the same. Their leadership, informal or otherwise, certainly drew a line in the sand marking off their claim so as not to have their crops pilfered by other tribes that didn't do the gruntwork to generate resources. Those interactions begat those boundaries and they are the product of their effort and interactions with other groups of human beings.

A simplified case but it illustrates the point. The only difference now is with time and technology those boundaries are mostly hardened; but they're still the product of collective human interaction.

I get it. I understand how that state came into existence. I'm not arguing against history; I'm arguing in favor of the reality of human existence, and actual human progress. There is no collective; there are humans who've chosen (or, in many if not most cases, have been compelled) to associate collectively. There is no collective mind. There is no collective action. There are human beings... individuals, with their own thoughts, wants, desires, loves, hates, etc... The state is a product of both fear and ignorant pride.

I'm not talking about what is; I'm talking about what should be; not only what should be but what should be as it conforms to the reality of human existence.

[Guinness]

Again, there is NOTHING in the governing document of the US government which requires the US government to allow people to cross it's borders.

Except for the fact that there is.

k

[grunthy]

Are they arresting asylum seekers or those rejected asylum that then cross illegally?

They are physically preventing people from setting foot on US soil at the ports of entry where they can make the asylum claim.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy ... um-illegal

But in most cases, asylum seekers in the suit report being told that there wasn’t room for them to be processed at the port of entry. And that might very well be true. That’s what CBP agents initially told the few hundred asylum seekers who made up the remnants of the Central American “caravan” when they presented themselves to a port of entry in California — then proceeded to process most of them over the next few days, presumably as resources became available. And it’s the same thing the Trump administration told the Guatemalans on the El Paso bridge.

So usually it seems they “turn” them away bc of ability to process at that time, yet they eventually do get processed.

A selection of other quotes from that same Vox article:

In the past, this wasn’t a huge deal. If an immigrant got too worried about being held up on the Mexican side of the border, she could cross into the US illegally and seek asylum afterward. Many of the asylum seekers interviewed for the advocacy lawsuit admitted that they’d done just that after one or more failed attempts to seek asylum the “right” way. And in many parts of the border, Border Patrol agents have a lot more capacity to process asylum seekers who’ve entered illegally than CBP agents at ports of entry do to process asylum seekers trying to enter legally.

The federal government doesn’t appear to have any plans to increase processing capacity at ports of entry.

The Texas bridge confrontation offered proof of a new tactic: “screening” would-be border crossers before they got to the official port of entry — i.e., when, or before, they first set foot in the US at all.

Instead, border agents appeared to be targeting people with “the dark skin and threadbare clothing that is typical of many Central American migrants” — in other words, potential asylum seekers.

The minute someone steps onto US soil, she gains the legal right to ask for asylum here. That can pose an obstacle for agents trying to tell asylum seekers to come back later — at least when the asylum seeker is accompanied by a lawyer who insists that they have a right to seek asylum now. (This is why the Guatemalans on the bridge who’d gone a few steps past the US side of the line were ultimately able to enter the port of entry, despite initially being told there was no room.)

People who are skittish about border security — including, notably, the president of the United States — don’t make distinctions between people entering to seek asylum at ports of entry and people crossing illegally.

You can find truth and journalistic exaggeration in every article.

[Guinness]

Do we have a moral responsibility...

Nope... you don't get to speak in terms of moral responsibilities... you've accepted the terms of the game. Too bad for you.

[dodint]

Do we have a moral responsibility to accept every single person that comes to the border claiming asylum, and provide for their shelter, food, healthcare etc? If the answer to that question is yes, then for how long? Permanently?

If yes; doesn't Mexico have the same moral responsibility to setup facilities to house those turned away? I know why it's impractical but as a philosophical question I'm curious.

On an actual practical level it seems wrong that the illegals themselves have no accountability here. They can organize and withstand these trips through all of Latin America but once they hit the border they're dumbfounded and helpless. I have a hard time seeing them as victims of anything other than their blind faith and/or ignorance. It's a crass position, I know, but it's worth mentioning given the complete absence of that accountability mentioned anywhere, ever.

[tifosi77]

Do we have a moral responsibility to accept every single person that comes to the border claiming asylum, and provide for their shelter, food, healthcare etc? If the answer to that question is yes, then for how long? Permanently?

We don't just have a moral responsibility, we have a legal obligation.

[Freddy Rumsen]

I'd rather just invade Central America, kill their ruling class, and install a colonial government.

Would be cheaper and easier for everyone.

[dodint]

I'm not talking about what is; I'm talking about what should be; not only what should be but what should be as it conforms to the reality of human existence.

Alright.

Say we colonize...Mars...and have a chance to start correct from the beginning. You think given the advancement in technology, social science, politics, etc. we could/should do the right thing and not form any social contract?

[Lemon Berry Lobster]

Do we have a moral responsibility to accept every single person that comes to the border claiming asylum, and provide for their shelter, food, healthcare etc? If the answer to that question is yes, then for how long? Permanently?

We don't just have a moral responsibility, we have a legal obligation.

What about having a legal obligation to give asylum to the men, women, and children that are homeless. Thousands of veterans that were willing to give their lives for our country live on the streets.

[shafnutz05]

Do we have a moral responsibility to accept every single person that comes to the border claiming asylum, and provide for their shelter, food, healthcare etc? If the answer to that question is yes, then for how long? Permanently?

If yes; doesn't Mexico have the same moral responsibility to setup facilities to house those turned away? I know why it's impractical but as a philosophical question I'm curious.

Remember, Mexico has no culpability in any of this. As a matter of fact, their president is really cool because he used the F word to describe Trump that one time.

It amazes me that Mexico somehow always escapes condemnation for helping to transport Central Americans to their northern border, and then get indignant because we turn them away. It is one of the most bizarre cases of tunnel vision I've ever seen.

[grunthy]

Do we have a moral responsibility to accept every single person that comes to the border claiming asylum, and provide for their shelter, food, healthcare etc? If the answer to that question is yes, then for how long? Permanently?

We don't just have a moral responsibility, we have a legal obligation.

By all accounts they will be given asylum as long as they don’t cross illegally. So...

[tifosi77]

Do we have a moral responsibility to accept every single person that comes to the border claiming asylum, and provide for their shelter, food, healthcare etc? If the answer to that question is yes, then for how long? Permanently?

We don't just have a moral responsibility, we have a legal obligation.

What about having a legal obligation to give asylum to the men, women, and children that are homeless. Thousands of veterans that were willing to give their lives for our country live on the streets.

At this stage, your counterpoint is a policy debate. There is no existing law that requires that kind of accommodation.

There is an existing international treaty to which the US is a signatory that obligates acceptance of refugees/asylum seekers.

[Guinness]

I'm not talking about what is; I'm talking about what should be; not only what should be but what should be as it conforms to the reality of human existence.

Alright.

Say we colonize...Mars...and have a chance to start correct from the beginning. You think given the advancement in technology, social science, politics, etc. we could/should do the right thing and not form any social contract?

I don't agree to the supposition that the state equals a social contract.

I would suggest that the social contract means that people agree to basic, self-evident truths - that all people are created equal (that there are no people endowed with "special powers", like the "authority" to murder outside of self-defense, or to commit theft, or to enslave other people), that they are entitled to the fruits of their labor (their property), their life, and their liberty.

You can't create an entity within human society with the authority to violate these truths and expect harmony within that society. The very existence of such a state inaugurates conflict, before the first person violates another person's rights.

People WILL violate other people's rights, by the way. That is a given. The answer to that is NOT to create an entity within society which has that authority from the get-go.

[shafnutz05]

There is an existing international treaty to which the US is a signatory that obligates acceptance of refugees/asylum seekers.

What do you know...Mexico signed on in 2000. So explain again why Mexico is organizing caravans of migrants and shipping them north? Why do they get a free pass for their horrific abuses of migrants from Central America? I haven't checked, but I'm sure migrant rights groups have not had much to say about them.

[tifosi77]

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday in Carpenter v. United States that the acquisition of cell-site data is a Fourth Amendment search.

This is a major privacy ruling that indicates perhaps maybe kind of the Court is dragging itself into the 20th century wrt tech and privacy. I mean, we're two decades into the 21st century, but I'll take what I can get.

[tifosi77]

There is an existing international treaty to which the US is a signatory that obligates acceptance of refugees/asylum seekers.

What do you know...Mexico signed on in 2000. So explain again why Mexico is organizing caravans of migrants and shipping them north? Why do they get a free pass for their horrific abuses of migrants from Central America? I haven't checked, but I'm sure migrant rights groups have not had much to say about them.

Perhaps if I lived in Mexico I could be held to account for the actions of Mexico. But I do not, so I don't really care.

[dodint]

Thanks, Guinness, I enjoy the reading.

What do you know...Mexico signed on in 2000. So explain again why Mexico is organizing caravans of migrants and shipping them north? Why do they get a free pass for their horrific abuses of migrants from Central America? I haven't checked, but I'm sure migrant rights groups have not had much to say about them.

The answer is clearly to continue the caravan to Canada.

[tifosi77]

I would also argue that part of the reason is that when one can pick asylum in the United States or Mexico, the choice is manifestly clear.

[grunthy]

There is an existing international treaty to which the US is a signatory that obligates acceptance of refugees/asylum seekers.

What do you know...Mexico signed on in 2000. So explain again why Mexico is organizing caravans of migrants and shipping them north? Why do they get a free pass for their horrific abuses of migrants from Central America? I haven't checked, but I'm sure migrant rights groups have not had much to say about them.

Perhaps if I lived in Mexico I could be held to account for the actions of Mexico. But I do not, so I don't really care.

So you don’t care that other countries get to say **** it, let someone else deal with these people?