• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Migration of South to North

Buzz62 said:
That's a nasty story, and I know the stupidity of the Americans when it comes to communism. But let's face it. All this is a reflection of the desires of the military-industrial complex. Greed-driven capitalists who had/have no allegiance to anything other than money and power. Life...anyone's life...means little to these monsters. But doesn't this sort of support the premise that Central and South America...for the most part...always seems to be a willing participant in the destruction of their own societies? It seems that, no matter who comes to power, the result is dictatorship and eventually the wholesale murder of anyone who dare stand-up to said dictatorships?

Capitalism does indeed have a very nasty underbelly, and its always justified by the 'free enterprise' argument. But America does not turn its military power on its own people. In the south, they do it like clockwork. So again...are these the types of people America want flooding into their nation?

IMO these caravan people should be forced to claim refuge in Mexico. Then they can freely apply for migration north to the USA. Each individual's merit will be examined, and those who bring value to the USA, should be admitted.
Click to expand...

Couple of comments. Much of Latin America has had strong traditions of democratic rule. I don't know much about Brazil, but Costa Rica, Uruguay, Chile, Peru and Argentina have long, albeit imperfect histories in this regard, as do we. But some countries were helped along into dictatorships by US actions: Guatemala's dictator flew into his capital to take office on a US embassy plane. US policy towards Chile during the elected government of Allende was "to make the economy scream" (it's words, not mine) in hopes of provoking a coup. US actions at times supported the dictators even before the Iron Curtain fell on Europe. FDR said of Somoza, dictator of Nicaragua (father of the guy the Sandinistas overthrew) that he was "a son of a bitch, but OUR son of a bitch," something Nicaraguans still remember that never came up here when we funded the Contras.

With respect to the migrants heading our way, one, there is little to be concerned about them bringing their history with them. We didn't find that the Irish were loyal to the Pope as many feared. We also tend to be a bit self absorbed as a nation at times. Thus, I have seen little reporting on Hondurans going to other countries in the region, or moved within Honduras to shelter in place.

I used to work with asylum seekers and things might have changed since I stopped in 2001-2, but the decisions guaranteeing them access to a process have some stuff that allows them to transit countries and not be disqualified from applying. And with respect, "bring value" is an innacurate concept in this area. Immigration regulations do give some advantage to people with skills that might be needed here, but asylum/refugee law does not. Anyway, my advice to the migrants might be to walk slowly, as they will disappear from news cycles after Election Day.
 
Rich2018 said:
Perhaps you can elaborate ?
Click to expand...

Uruguay, Costa Rica, Chile, Argentina, Guatemala before the 1954 coup. All of these countries have had dictatorships as well, except Costs Rica, I believe, some of them installed by the US.
 
Nickyjo said:
Couple of comments. Much of Latin America has had strong traditions of democratic rule. I don't know much about Brazil, but Costa Rica, Uruguay, Chile, Peru and Argentina have long, albeit imperfect histories in this regard, as do we. But some countries were helped along into dictatorships by US actions: Guatemala's dictator flew into his capital to take office on a US embassy plane. US policy towards Chile during the elected government of Allende was "to make the economy scream" (it's words, not mine) in hopes of provoking a coup. US actions at times supported the dictators even before the Iron Curtain fell on Europe. FDR said of Somoza, dictator of Nicaragua (father of the guy the Sandinistas overthrew) that he was "a son of a bitch, but OUR son of a bitch," something Nicaraguans still remember that never came up here when we funded the Contras.

With respect to the migrants heading our way, one, there is little to be concerned about them bringing their history with them. We didn't find that the Irish were loyal to the Pope as many feared. We also tend to be a bit self absorbed as a nation at times. Thus, I have seen little reporting on Hondurans going to other countries in the region, or moved within Honduras to shelter in place.

I used to work with asylum seekers and things might have changed since I stopped in 2001-2, but the decisions guaranteeing them access to a process have some stuff that allows them to transit countries and not be disqualified from applying. And with respect, "bring value" is an innacurate concept in this area. Immigration regulations do give some advantage to people with skills that might be needed here, but asylum/refugee law does not. Anyway, my advice to the migrants might be to walk slowly, as they will disappear from news cycles after Election Day.
Click to expand...

Asylum/refuge. I think its being used as an excuse to enter the US without proper immigration processes.
 
Buzz62 said:
Asylum/refuge. I think its being used as an excuse to enter the US without proper immigration processes.
Click to expand...

No offense, but "Duh", there are scams galore, phony marriages, etc.

In my experience, asylum is a tougher, more complicated one, widespread fraud easy for me and others to sniff out. But marriages to foreigners are valid, as are asylum claims.
 
Nickyjo said:
...Chile, Argentina...
Click to expand...

Does the name Augusto Pinochet mean anything to you ?

How about the Argentine Junta of Leopoldo Galtieri and its "Dirty War" with its tens of thousands of "disappeared" ?
 
Buzz62 said:
North America was, for the most part and originally, colonized primarily by the English and the French.
South America was, for the most part and originally, colonized by the Spanish and the Portuguese.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are missing a huge chunk of the reasoning behind this.

In the Treaty of Tordesillas, Spain and Portugal divided the Americas roughly just above the body of South America. This demarcation was determined by Pope Alexander VI in 1494.

The French and English did not get involved in the American Colony business until over 100 years later. After many failed colonial attempts by Spain in North America, and the ignoring of the treaty after the Protestant Reformation.
 
Rich2018 said:
Does the name Augusto Pinochet mean anything to you ?

How about the Argentine Junta of Leopoldo Galtieri and its "Dirty War" with its tens of thousands of "disappeared" ?
Click to expand...

As I noted, theirs was an imperfect record on democracy, tho the two countries mentioned went waaay beyond imperfection in their dictatorships. I worked back in the day with exiles from both places.

I once translated for the “Grandmothers of the Disappeared” from Argentina, whose work was to find kids of their pregnant daughters who were killed by the military. Movie about one family involved is called “The Official Story.” Funny story: there was a dance after the grandmothers’ speech on a Sat nite. A friend saw them sitting alone and suggested we ask them to dance. We did, and it was at that time that the band decided to play the “hokey pokey.” So I had to translate “put your left foot in, put your left foot out”, etc. As they left the floor one commented to the other, “this must be one of their folk dances.” Great experience.
 
Last edited:
Nickyjo said:
No offense, but "Duh", there are scams galore, phony marriages, etc.

In my experience, asylum is a tougher, more complicated one, widespread fraud easy for me and others to sniff out. But marriages to foreigners are valid, as are asylum claims.
Click to expand...

OK so...I've read your posts but nothing in them convinces me that;
A. People in these countries created ****-holes and shouldn't be allowed to freely migrate to the US and bring their penchant for creating ****-holes to the nation.
B. If they need refuge from the ****-holes they created, Mexico is the closest free nation. Enjoy the Tequilia.
 
Buzz62 said:
OK so...I've read your posts but nothing in them convinces me that;
A. People in these countries created ****-holes and shouldn't be allowed to freely migrate to the US and bring their penchant for creating ****-holes to the nation.

++ They are not ****holes. That’s our kind-hearted president’s term. And the US helped create some of the problems in those countries. They don’t carry a disease, ****hole-ism. Did Jews create ****holes in the US, as the KKK and Know-Nothings claimed they would happen. Did the Irish, Cubans, Italians?

B. If they need refuge from the ****-holes they created, Mexico is the closest free nation. Enjoy the Tequilia.
Click to expand...

++ Some have sought and obtained protection in Mexico and elsewhere. I know Trump is president, but that still doesn’t mean everything is all about us. And we don’t get to decide whether they can seek asylum here or not. The law does.
 
Nickyjo said:
++ Some have sought and obtained protection in Mexico and elsewhere. I know Trump is president, but that still doesn’t mean everything is all about us. And we don’t get to decide whether they can seek asylum here or not. The law does.
Click to expand...

Sure. IF they cross at a REAL border crossing AND apply LEGALLY. If they do not...they are already criminals and can go home.
 
Buzz62 said:
Sure. IF they cross at a REAL border crossing AND apply LEGALLY. If they do not...they are already criminals and can go home.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that’s not what the law and binding treaty say.
 
Nickyjo said:
Sorry, that’s not what the law and binding treaty say.
Click to expand...

Actually I believe the law does say that. If a person does not enter the country legally, that person has broken the law.
 
Buzz62 said:
Actually I believe the law does say that. If a person does not enter the country legally, that person has broken the law.
Click to expand...

They have committed a misdemeanor. Are here illegally. The law says they can apply for asylum, “irrespective of status”. Doesn’t mean they haven’t broken the law. I participated in thousands of cases like this. Doesn’t mean they cannot obtain protection here. Both facts exist side by side.
 
The migrations are currently about economics, crime, corruption, and/or radicalism.

Migration will increase exponentially when climate change makes their countries uninhabitable due to heat, desertification, and a lack of fresh water.

We're seeing this phenomenon already in Yemen.
 
Nickyjo said:
They have committed a misdemeanor. Are here illegally. The law says they can apply for asylum, “irrespective of status”. Doesn’t mean they haven’t broken the law. I participated in thousands of cases like this. Doesn’t mean they cannot obtain protection here. Both facts exist side by side.
Click to expand...

And if they are here illegally, should they not be deported? What makes people think they can just sneak in, or crash the gates, and get away with it? This is a dangerous idea.
 
Rich2018 said:
If the North is so good...how come people never move from Georgia to Michigan to retire ?
Click to expand...

The answer is simple, economics. It's far less expensive to live in Georgia than Michigan where homes need to be heated for most of the year, that's a very costly expense for retirees. Not only is Social Security not taxed in Georgia but the state also provides a $65,000 tax deduction on all types of income for those over the age of 64 that work while collecting Social Security, which is very enticing for people on a fixed limited monthly income. Georgia property and homes are much cheaper than almost in any city in the North and that is also a big consideration.

I've traveled the country from East to West and back and even spent 3 months living in Mexico. The only other place more expensive to live than the Northeast is the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas. Everything costs more $. Food, taxes, gasoline, cigarettes, auto registration, home insurance, etc. (pack of smokes in NY -$17.00)
 
Last edited:
Buzz62 said:
And if they are here illegally, should they not be deported? What makes people think they can just sneak in, or crash the gates, and get away with it? This is a dangerous idea.
Click to expand...

Interviewer (Carl Reiner) to 2000 year old man (Mel Brooks): what was the main means of transportation 2000 years ago?

2000 year old man to interviewer: Fear

Not much has changed. What made Raoul Wallenberg think he should forge all those documents to help Jews escape? Necessity. If they are not legit asylum seekers, deport them. If they are, we are obliged not to return them under the treaty we ratified decades ago. There is a sense I get from reading this forum on this topic that some posters believe that before migrants dropped everything and split when they were told to join drug gangs or they (and perhaps their families) would die, they then:

- went to their public library and researched legal standards for asylum
- picked up leaflets dropped by air by democrats urging them to come to the US because the party needs their votes 5-10 years from now
- went back to the library to find out what "democrats" are
- got their check from George Soros
- did some research on US immigration law so they would know that it was illegal to cross our border without inspection

And went on their way.

The real world doesn't work that way. ICE knows this, US immigration judges know this, the UN High Commission for Refugees knows this, and US courts know this. That is why the system is set up the way it is.
 
Nickyjo said:
They have committed a misdemeanor. Are here illegally. The law says they can apply for asylum, “irrespective of status”. Doesn’t mean they haven’t broken the law. I participated in thousands of cases like this. Doesn’t mean they cannot obtain protection here. Both facts exist side by side.
Click to expand...

But that is now what Asylum means.

Let's start with the very definition of that word:

Asylum: a person persecuted by one's own country may be protected by another sovereign authority, such as another country or church official, who in medieval times could offer sanctuary.

Now what about these waves of immigrants from Mexico and other countries falls under that definition?

Well, damned few to be honest. They are seeking a better life economically, not because they are under any kind of threat.

That does not qualify them for asylum. And to qualify for that definition, they have to apply for it before they enter the country.

Out of the millions that enter illegally, only around 40,000 qualify for asylum. The rest are just trying to game the system for their own advantage.

And yes, I not only know one that qualified for asylum, I have been married to her for over 30 years. She fled Argentina during the Dirty War, with her entire family under a sentence of detainment and death if they had remained. Her parents and sister made it to the US, her brother did not.

But yes, anybody can "apply" for asylum. But there is a reason the vast majority of them are denied and ultimately deported.
 
Nickyjo said:
Interviewer (Carl Reiner) to 2000 year old man (Mel Brooks): what was the main means of transportation 2000 years ago?

2000 year old man to interviewer: Fear

Not much has changed. What made Raoul Wallenberg think he should forge all those documents to help Jews escape? Necessity. If they are not legit asylum seekers, deport them. If they are, we are obliged not to return them under the treaty we ratified decades ago. There is a sense I get from reading this forum on this topic that some posters believe that before migrants dropped everything and split when they were told to join drug gangs or they (and perhaps their families) would die, they then:

- went to their public library and researched legal standards for asylum
- picked up leaflets dropped by air by democrats urging them to come to the US because the party needs their votes 5-10 years from now
- went back to the library to find out what "democrats" are
- got their check from George Soros
- did some research on US immigration law so they would know that it was illegal to cross our border without inspection

And went on their way.

The real world doesn't work that way. ICE knows this, US immigration judges know this, the UN High Commission for Refugees knows this, and US courts know this. That is why the system is set up the way it is.
Click to expand...

The UN? To hell with the UN.
Look...if these people are incapable of making their own country into anything but a ****hole run by criminals, then why should they be allowed up here? If its so bad down there, why doesn't the governments of these counties use the military to clean it up? Are they completely incapable? Do they have so little respect for themselves and their own nation, that they just allow these animals to run things? Why on Earth should anyone want people like that in their country?
 
Buzz62 said:
Hi all,

I've begun this thread here because to me, it seemed like the appropriate place, and...I'm hoping to avoid input from the loud and wildly partisan. I'm really quite curious about how level-headed people feel and think about the current mass migrations from the southern hemisphere to the northern in both Europe and the Americas. We can, I hope, start with this;

Historically...Europe has either been fighting with the Arab and African nations, or have been a serious imposition on the people of those 2 regions.
And historically...Europe and North America have been doing about the same to South America.
In both cases, a good argument can be made that the northern peoples helped create the circumstances that exist in the southern lands, but is this idea completely correct? Is that all there is to it? I'm not sure.

North America was, for the most part and originally, colonized primarily by the English and the French.
South America was, for the most part and originally, colonized by the Spanish and the Portuguese.
Both had, shall we say, slightly different reasons and methods for this colonization.
The northern nations produced huge advances in technology and prospered well. They enjoy a solid, yet imperfect, democracy and a strong sense of law and order. While there has always been a criminal element, it too has been conducted, for the most part, with a sort of begrudging respect for democracy and the law. For the most part...
The southern nations produced exploding populations and leaderships that are either ineffective or just openly corupt to the core. Oh and they produced allot of illegal drugs. They do not really display much in the way of respect for democracy or the law.
QUESTION: Do the cultures of the Spanish and the Portuguese, have a real influence of the cultures and societies built in South America? And if they do, which I suspect, then that poses a rather obvious question which is;
Why would the northern nations even want these people in their societies?
A very crass and tough question but, one that I think needs asking right about now.

Europe is the seed of the caucasian race of humans. They brought the world the Renaissance, modern science and technology, exploration and colonization. They too have an inherent respect for democracy, and law and order.
The Arab nations and African nations produced dictators and poverty. Desperate poverty. They also produced what appears to be absolute chaos.
QUESTION: To what degree can European influence be blamed for the state of affairs in Arabia and Africa?
Why should Europe allow hundreds of thousands of people from these regions, to migrate freely to Europe?

In both cases, are the northern populations "wise" to allow and/or invite this migration and how will it alter the societies, if these southern peoples are allowed to do so? Will it be "better"? Will there be an effect similar to that of what we now see in their homelands?

A final and parting thought on Africa...in particular. The northern peoples are currently in the process of trying to deny the African (and others) peoples a clear path to industrialization. The excuse used is climate change. Is this wise...at all???
Click to expand...

Interesting idea.
Africa is quite diverse. I lived there for twelve years. Lots of different factors in play.

This is a good place to start for the Arab world.

[h=3]The Roots of Muslim Rage - The Atlantic[/h]
[url]https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/.../the-roots-of-muslim-rage/304643/
[/URL]



Sep 1, 1990 - Why so many Muslims deeply resent the West, and why their bitterness will not easily be mollified.


 
Oozlefinch said:
But that is now what Asylum means.

Let's start with the very definition of that word:

Asylum: a person persecuted by one's own country may be protected by another sovereign authority, such as another country or church official, who in medieval times could offer sanctuary.

Now what about these waves of immigrants from Mexico and other countries falls under that definition?

Well, damned few to be honest. They are seeking a better life economically, not because they are under any kind of threat.

That does not qualify them for asylum. And to qualify for that definition, they have to apply for it before they enter the country.

Out of the millions that enter illegally, only around 40,000 qualify for asylum. The rest are just trying to game the system for their own advantage.

And yes, I not only know one that qualified for asylum, I have been married to her for over 30 years. She fled Argentina during the Dirty War, with her entire family under a sentence of detainment and death if they had remained. Her parents and sister made it to the US, her brother did not.

But yes, anybody can "apply" for asylum. But there is a reason the vast majority of them are denied and ultimately deported.
Click to expand...

First, I think that you are confusing illegal migrants from Mexico here for economic reasons with asylum seekers from other places. Almost all of these are deported rather quickly. The current caravan from Honduras contains lots of young men, if we are to believe the president. Based on my visit to Mexico at a group that shelters these people in 2017, the story was that they are told by drug gangs to join or die, with some threats against their families as well. The group that sheltered them said many move on to northern Mexican industrial cities like Monterrey, while others head to the US. Some of those in the caravan will qualify for asylum, some will not.

Asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum before they enter the country. As I said, in my message, I reviewed thousands of cases and gave opinions on scores of cases of people who applied for asylum here in the US either affirmatively, by walking into an immigration office, or as a defense against deportation, in immigration court. The could have come on a visa, overstayed a visa, or crossed illegally. The Refugee Act of 1980 is the law that governs this. The US also brings refugees here from other countries, often after their cases have been examined by the UN and then reviewed by US authorities overseas. Both asylum seekers and refugees have to meet the definition of a refugee taken from international and US law. When I was doing the work, the asylum approval rate overall was about 30-40%.

I am familiar with the Dirty War in Argentina. It was my pleasure to translate for the "Grandmothers of the Disappeared" at an Amnesty International conference. I even danced with the ladies at a party during the conference, which is another story. I also translated for Adolfo Perez Esquivel, who won the Nobel Peace prize for his work. It is my opinion that some of the stuff done in Argentina was among the most cruel I had read of during my 20 years with Amnesty, especially to pregnant women who were "disappeared," whose kids the grandmothers were trying to find. There was a movie on that sad chapter called "The Official Story."
 
Buzz62 said:
The UN? To hell with the UN.
Look...if these people are incapable of making their own country into anything but a ****hole run by criminals, then why should they be allowed up here? If its so bad down there, why doesn't the governments of these counties use the military to clean it up? Are they completely incapable? Do they have so little respect for themselves and their own nation, that they just allow these animals to run things? Why on Earth should anyone want people like that in their country?
Click to expand...

Your words echo the fine tradition of the part of US politics that demonizes foreigners. Today's Hondurans are yesterday's Italians, the Jews of the day before, the Irish before that, and Germans before them.

To answer you, Emma Lazarus and the Statue of Liberty have wanted people like that in our country. Read the inscription. Also the UN treaty was ratified by the US so it is US law, despite your view of the UN. My father came here from Sicily, a supposed ****hole that you might have heard was run by criminals. Did ok, as did the rest of our family. And Sicily is quite a place. Check it out sometime if nearby.

Finally, they are allowed up here if they qualify for asylum because that is the law. Relax, this is not a zombie apocalypse, despite Trump treating it as such. Expect to hear less fear-mongering after the election, but keep the lights on til then if you are afraid. But we can handle this.
 
Nickyjo said:
Your words echo the fine tradition of the part of US politics that demonizes foreigners. Today's Hondurans are yesterday's Italians, the Jews of the day before, the Irish before that, and Germans before them.

To answer you, Emma Lazarus and the Statue of Liberty have wanted people like that in our country. Read the inscription. Also the UN treaty was ratified by the US so it is US law, despite your view of the UN. My father came here from Sicily, a supposed ****hole that you might have heard was run by criminals. Did ok, as did the rest of our family. And Sicily is quite a place. Check it out sometime if nearby.

Finally, they are allowed up here if they qualify for asylum because that is the law. Relax, this is not a zombie apocalypse, despite Trump treating it as such. Expect to hear less fear-mongering after the election, but keep the lights on til then if you are afraid. But we can handle this.
Click to expand...

In 1886 the inscription on the Statue of Liberty was relevant. Today there are over 20,000 illegals in the USA. Everyone's family came from somewhere. My grandfather came from Slovakia, worked 10 years before he could afford to by a small farm and send for his wife and kids. When he came, he went to where Canada needed people, Alberta. Today's migrants show up, claim asylum, and go on welfare in big cities. Toronto is full of baby-making machines. My own kids have been mugged twice by these poor refugees. I can only assume its worse in the States.
My daughter was just in San Francisco. She said the streets are littered with homeless and junkies and cars with the windows smashed out. Italy is now turning Soros refugee boats away. Western Europe is a freaking mess. Is that what you want for the USA? No-Go zones where the police don't even want to enter? Should the US let this caravan into the nation, more will follow. I understand there's 2 more in the making as a follow-up. Just what do you propose the US do with all these people? And at what cost?
 
Jack Hays said:
Interesting idea.
Africa is quite diverse. I lived there for twelve years. Lots of different factors in play.

This is a good place to start for the Arab world.

[h=3]The Roots of Muslim Rage - The Atlantic[/h]
[url]https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/.../the-roots-of-muslim-rage/304643/
[/URL]



Sep 1, 1990 - Why so many Muslims deeply resent the West, and why their bitterness will not easily be mollified.
Click to expand...

Islam...one of 'The Dirty Three', as I call them. As a young man in Collage, I took philosophy as a minor. I found it interesting and challenging. But it pushed me to understand the absurdity of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. However I was, and still am to this day, unwilling or unable to shake this belief in the existence of a supreme being. As a result, I formed my own beliefs which I hold to.
The Dirty Three, IMO, are not based on matters of the spirit but rather they are concerned with matters of power. Which nicely and simplistically explains why they are constantly at each other's throats. Today Islam is being blamed for all sorts of nasty atrocities. But this is a veil to hide the real problem. Human greed. The Middle East and much of Africa are lead by power mongering little tyrants who hide behind this veil like cowards. When one is deposed, another, just as power hungry and cowardly, takes his place.
Knowing the historical blood bath that Christianity and Islam have waged over the centuries, is it wise to allow hundreds of thousands of people from the Islamic regions, into western civilization?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom