Refugee Status

[Rikurzhen]

umh...well...so is this German family. What gives? Why the hypocrisy?

And the German family is pawing the US taxpayers' pockets for a handout? As I understand their situation, they are not even a burden to our (failing) educational system.

No one is pawing for a handout - kids are a special category. Most immigrants come here to work and they work hard - legal or illegal. They are no different from this German family.

So why the hypocrisy? Why grant assylum to a family that has no real need but refuse it to children fleeing real violence and persecution?

No real need by what standard?

The Germany family stood to lose custody of their children. That's very real. There's no "Maybe, maybe not" about it. The hispanic kids are not facing that certainty. Lots of people grow up in poor conditions. That's not good enough to qualify as a refugee. If their lives are really in danger, there are other locations in their country where they can find safety. That should end the debate right there. Moreover, there is safety in neighboring countries. There is no need to make an extended trek, in the company of paid coyotes, to find refuge is a rich country. That really should end the matter because this is a direct flouting of the principles of refugee treaties.

 

[Coyote]

And the German family is pawing the US taxpayers' pockets for a handout? As I understand their situation, they are not even a burden to our (failing) educational system.

No one is pawing for a handout - kids are a special category. Most immigrants come here to work and they work hard - legal or illegal. They are no different from this German family.

So why the hypocrisy? Why grant assylum to a family that has no real need but refuse it to children fleeing real violence and persecution?

No real need by what standard?

The Germany family stood to lose custody of their children. That's very real. There's no "Maybe, maybe not" about it. The hispanic kids are not facing that certainty. Lots of people grow up in poor conditions. That's not good enough to qualify as a refugee.

You don't know that. Many are fleeing violence - uncontrolled violence in countries with some of the highest murder stats and gang violence rates and child trafficking. That's not good enough?

If their lives are really in danger, there are other locations in their country where they can find safety.

Not necessarily.

That should end the debate right there. Moreover, there is safety in neighboring countries. There is no need to make an extended trek, in the company of paid coyotes, to find refuge is a rich country. That really should end the matter because this is a direct flouting of the principles of refugee treaties.

If that is the case, than the German family had no business coming here - they could have found safety in one of many neighboring countries without making an extended trek to find refuge in a rich country. Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

 

[gallantwarrior]

No one is pawing for a handout - kids are a special category. Most immigrants come here to work and they work hard - legal or illegal. They are no different from this German family.

So why the hypocrisy? Why grant assylum to a family that has no real need but refuse it to children fleeing real violence and persecution?

You are advocating child labor? Just which jobs will they be working hard at doing? There is a great difference between them and the Germans.

Where do you get that idea? I said kids are a special category.

How are these "unaccompanied minors", many who are in fact accompanied by adults, even more who would not be considered minors under our laws, or would be prosecuted as adults here for the crimes they perpetrated in their previous "employment" in their home countries, even remotely eligible for refugee status? The responsibility for caring for them, for ensuring they have a safe environment and proper supervision belongs to the parents who gave such a shit for their well being that they sent them here in the first place.

These are unaccompanied children up to 17 years old: Southwest Border Unaccompanied Alien Children | U.S. Customs and Border Protection

They are still considered minors under our laws. So you punish them for having bad parents?

"Most immigrants come here to work and they work hard - legal or illegal."
Your words. So these illegals are going to work hard at what jobs? Maybe we could establish carpet factories here?

I would not punish them for their parents, but I would not reward them for their criminal invasion. I would impound them, feed them, and put them on a bus back to their point of origin.

I question why none of you who advocate giving these illegal invaders carte blanche are asking about our children? You all seem to want to ignore the impact an invasion of this magnitude has on those who were born here? Or should be all just pack up and move someplace we like better?

 

[Ernie S.]

So...who merits refugee status?

According to the political Right, this family's "travails" galvanized vociferous actions to grant them refugee status. And for what reason? They weren't politically or economically oppressed. They weren't persecuted for religious reasons. Their lives weren't in danger. Their home country had a law against home schooling. That was it.

German home-school family can stay in U.S. indefinitely - Washington Times


Then, you have the plight of thousands of children fleeing atrocities in Central America: murder, gangs, human trafficking and child rape.

The awful reason tens of thousands of children are seeking refuge in the United States - Vox

Children are uniquely vulnerable to gang violence. The street gangs known as "maras" — M-18 and Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13 — target kids for forced recruitment, usually in their early teenage years, but sometimes as young as kindergarten. They also forcibly recruit girls as "girlfriends," a euphemistic term for a non-consensual relationship that involves rape by one or more gang members.

These are the people that the Republicans want to alter our laws so that we can more quickly deport them back to the violence from which they fled.

It's crazy.

Immigration poll reveals partisan rift over Central American refugees | World news | theguardian.com
70% of Republicans believe these children should NOT be treated as refugees and granted assylum. But this home-schooling family should. WHY?

I've been following this story for a while...It's not that Germany bans home schooling (their public schools are among the best in the world btw), it's that this family wasn't allowed to teach their children an evangelical lying extremist curriculum in Germany.

Lying extremist curriculum.... See?? That's the closed minded crap they were dealing with. These are people of faith. What you call "lies" are their truth. They are not interested in converting you or the German people. They simply want to educate THEIR children the way they believe.

Does one more Christian family in the world threaten you that much?

You can't be very secure in your atheism if it does.

 

[Jughead]

So...who merits refugee status?

According to the political Right, this family's "travails" galvanized vociferous actions to grant them refugee status. And for what reason? They weren't politically or economically oppressed. They weren't persecuted for religious reasons. Their lives weren't in danger. Their home country had a law against home schooling. That was it.

German home-school family can stay in U.S. indefinitely - Washington Times


Then, you have the plight of thousands of children fleeing atrocities in Central America: murder, gangs, human trafficking and child rape.

The awful reason tens of thousands of children are seeking refuge in the United States - Vox


These are the people that the Republicans want to alter our laws so that we can more quickly deport them back to the violence from which they fled.

It's crazy.

Immigration poll reveals partisan rift over Central American refugees | World news | theguardian.com
70% of Republicans believe these children should NOT be treated as refugees and granted assylum. But this home-schooling family should. WHY?

Good for the Romeike family. They went through the process, and obtained asylum.

They were here illegally. If they were Mexican or Latin American - people would be clamoring for them to be deported.

However, they had to demonstrate the following...

1. Was the punishment that the Romeikes would have faced upon being deported back to Germany sufficiently severe enough to count as persecution?

2. Was the motive of the German government marked, at least in part, by a desire to repress the family’s exercise of their religious beliefs?

For the first question, it was agreed that if the family returned to Germany and continued to homeschool their kids, they would face the threat of losing custody of their children and going to jail. As a parent, you can't get anymore severe punishment than losing your child.

In regards to the second question, a government should not be permitted to force a parent to have their children attend a school that violates their religious beliefs. Everyone has a right to religious freedoms. They made the choice to homeschool because of teaching in public schools on homosexuality, abortion and other issues that violated the family’s Christian faith.

The illegals that are currently showing up in huge numbers at the border, for the most part do not satisfy the above two criteria for asylum.

How do you know?

AND - if the Republicans change the law to allow more rapid deportation - how will we have a chance to know?

One example I read was a woman who's two young teenaged daughters were demanded by a gang for sex - she fled one city, only to be located by them and fled again until she was finally forced to leave the country to keep her daughters safe. The authorities could not or would not do anything. Talk about losing your children.

If these folks were denied their religious freedoms and faced persecution because of their faith, then I would be the first to agree to let them stay.

 

[gallantwarrior]

And the German family is pawing the US taxpayers' pockets for a handout? As I understand their situation, they are not even a burden to our (failing) educational system.

No one is pawing for a handout - kids are a special category. Most immigrants come here to work and they work hard - legal or illegal. They are no different from this German family.

So why the hypocrisy? Why grant assylum to a family that has no real need but refuse it to children fleeing real violence and persecution?

No real need by what standard?

The Germany family stood to lose custody of their children. That's very real. There's no "Maybe, maybe not" about it. The hispanic kids are not facing that certainty. Lots of people grow up in poor conditions. That's not good enough to qualify as a refugee. If their lives are really in danger, there are other locations in their country where they can find safety. That should end the debate right there. Moreover, there is safety in neighboring countries. There is no need to make an extended trek, in the company of paid coyotes, to find refuge is a rich country. That really should end the matter because this is a direct flouting of the principles of refugee treaties.

I am interested in knowing how all these impoverished families can afford to pay the coyotes to "escort" their spawn through Mexico to the US? Another question left unasked by the "refugee" advocates.

 

[Coyote]

Good for the Romeike family. They went through the process, and obtained asylum.

They were here illegally. If they were Mexican or Latin American - people would be clamoring for them to be deported.

However, they had to demonstrate the following...

1. Was the punishment that the Romeikes would have faced upon being deported back to Germany sufficiently severe enough to count as persecution?

2. Was the motive of the German government marked, at least in part, by a desire to repress the family’s exercise of their religious beliefs?

For the first question, it was agreed that if the family returned to Germany and continued to homeschool their kids, they would face the threat of losing custody of their children and going to jail. As a parent, you can't get anymore severe punishment than losing your child.

In regards to the second question, a government should not be permitted to force a parent to have their children attend a school that violates their religious beliefs. Everyone has a right to religious freedoms. They made the choice to homeschool because of teaching in public schools on homosexuality, abortion and other issues that violated the family’s Christian faith.

The illegals that are currently showing up in huge numbers at the border, for the most part do not satisfy the above two criteria for asylum.

How do you know?

AND - if the Republicans change the law to allow more rapid deportation - how will we have a chance to know?

One example I read was a woman who's two young teenaged daughters were demanded by a gang for sex - she fled one city, only to be located by them and fled again until she was finally forced to leave the country to keep her daughters safe. The authorities could not or would not do anything. Talk about losing your children.

If these folks were denied their religious freedoms and faced persecution because of their faith, then I would be the first to agree to let them stay.

So religious freedom is, in your opinion, the only valid reason for refugee status?

 

[Rikurzhen]

You don't know that. Many are fleeing violence - uncontrolled violence in countries with some of the highest murder stats and gang violence rates and child trafficking. That's not good enough?

Chicago has a high murder rate. Nearby Evanston, doesn't. There's no need to seek refugee status in Canada when you can simply move to Evanston.

If their lives are really in danger, there are other locations in their country where they can find safety.

Not necessarily.

If they can afford to travel 2,000 miles to the US, then they can afford to look around for a safe haven within their own country by traveling 5 miles to the next village or next suburb.

If that is the case, than the German family had no business coming here - they could have found safety in one of many neighboring countries without making an extended trek to find refuge in a rich country. Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

Neighboring countries sided with Germany. You're permitted to find a country that agrees that you're being persecuted.

 

[Coyote]

You are advocating child labor? Just which jobs will they be working hard at doing? There is a great difference between them and the Germans.

Where do you get that idea? I said kids are a special category.

How are these "unaccompanied minors", many who are in fact accompanied by adults, even more who would not be considered minors under our laws, or would be prosecuted as adults here for the crimes they perpetrated in their previous "employment" in their home countries, even remotely eligible for refugee status? The responsibility for caring for them, for ensuring they have a safe environment and proper supervision belongs to the parents who gave such a shit for their well being that they sent them here in the first place.

These are unaccompanied children up to 17 years old: Southwest Border Unaccompanied Alien Children | U.S. Customs and Border Protection

They are still considered minors under our laws. So you punish them for having bad parents?

"Most immigrants come here to work and they work hard - legal or illegal."
Your words. So these illegals are going to work hard at what jobs? Maybe we could establish carpet factories here?

There are apparently no shortage of jobs that they are willing to do that Americans are not.

Just like the illegal German family.

I would not punish them for their parents, but I would not reward them for their criminal invasion. I would impound them, feed them, and put them on a bus back to their point of origin.

That is punishing them. You've already made it clear how you feel about their parents. Sending them back into the same dangerous situation they fled from is punishing them.

Why not punish the German family for being here illegally?

I question why none of you who advocate giving these illegal invaders carte blanche are asking about our children? You all seem to want to ignore the impact an invasion of this magnitude has on those who were born here? Or should be all just pack up and move someplace we like better?

We are all immigrants or descendents of immigrants who at one time faced the same attitudes. Now we're here and have it made, so close the door.

 

[Ernie S.]

No one is pawing for a handout - kids are a special category. Most immigrants come here to work and they work hard - legal or illegal. They are no different from this German family.

So why the hypocrisy? Why grant assylum to a family that has no real need but refuse it to children fleeing real violence and persecution?

You are advocating child labor? Just which jobs will they be working hard at doing? There is a great difference between them and the Germans.

Where do you get that idea? I said kids are a special category.

How are these "unaccompanied minors", many who are in fact accompanied by adults, even more who would not be considered minors under our laws, or would be prosecuted as adults here for the crimes they perpetrated in their previous "employment" in their home countries, even remotely eligible for refugee status? The responsibility for caring for them, for ensuring they have a safe environment and proper supervision belongs to the parents who gave such a shit for their well being that they sent them here in the first place.

These are unaccompanied children up to 17 years old: Southwest Border Unaccompanied Alien Children | U.S. Customs and Border Protection

They are still considered minors under our laws. So you punish them for having bad parents?

Or you reward them for having bad parents... Why don't their home countries clean up the mess they have allowed to grow all over Central and South America?? Could it be profit?

 

[Coyote]

You don't know that. Many are fleeing violence - uncontrolled violence in countries with some of the highest murder stats and gang violence rates and child trafficking. That's not good enough?

Chicago has a high murder rate. Nearby Evanston, doesn't. There's no need to seek refugee status in Canada when you can simply move to Evanston.

Not necessarily.

If they can afford to travel 2,000 miles to the US, then they can afford to look around for a safe haven within their own country by traveling 5 miles to the next village or next suburb.

If that is the case, than the German family had no business coming here - they could have found safety in one of many neighboring countries without making an extended trek to find refuge in a rich country. Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

Neighboring countries sided with Germany. You're permitted to find a country that agrees that you're being persecuted.

And there is nothing closer to them than a nation across the Atlantic ocean? Really? I think your hypocrisy is showing.

 

[Jughead]

They were here illegally. If they were Mexican or Latin American - people would be clamoring for them to be deported.



How do you know?

AND - if the Republicans change the law to allow more rapid deportation - how will we have a chance to know?

One example I read was a woman who's two young teenaged daughters were demanded by a gang for sex - she fled one city, only to be located by them and fled again until she was finally forced to leave the country to keep her daughters safe. The authorities could not or would not do anything. Talk about losing your children.

If these folks were denied their religious freedoms and faced persecution because of their faith, then I would be the first to agree to let them stay.

So religious freedom is, in your opinion, the only valid reason for refugee status?

I thought we were discussing asylum, not refugee status. The Romeike family was granted asylum, not refugee status. The criteria for both are different. For asylum, you general need to apply from within the US, whereas for refugee status, the application is usually filed from the applicant's country of legal residence.

 

[Coyote]

You are advocating child labor? Just which jobs will they be working hard at doing? There is a great difference between them and the Germans.

Where do you get that idea? I said kids are a special category.

How are these "unaccompanied minors", many who are in fact accompanied by adults, even more who would not be considered minors under our laws, or would be prosecuted as adults here for the crimes they perpetrated in their previous "employment" in their home countries, even remotely eligible for refugee status? The responsibility for caring for them, for ensuring they have a safe environment and proper supervision belongs to the parents who gave such a shit for their well being that they sent them here in the first place.

These are unaccompanied children up to 17 years old: Southwest Border Unaccompanied Alien Children | U.S. Customs and Border Protection

They are still considered minors under our laws. So you punish them for having bad parents?

Or you reward them for having bad parents... Why don't their home countries clean up the mess they have allowed to grow all over Central and South America?? Could it be profit?

You aren't rewarding them - children have no choice, they don't choose to be born, they don't choose their parents.

I do agree - something needs to be done to fix the problems in their home countries - but that is a long term problem and the current immigrant crisis is an immediate one.

Profit? How so?

 

[Ernie S.]

No one is pawing for a handout - kids are a special category. Most immigrants come here to work and they work hard - legal or illegal. They are no different from this German family.

So why the hypocrisy? Why grant assylum to a family that has no real need but refuse it to children fleeing real violence and persecution?

No real need by what standard?

The Germany family stood to lose custody of their children. That's very real. There's no "Maybe, maybe not" about it. The hispanic kids are not facing that certainty. Lots of people grow up in poor conditions. That's not good enough to qualify as a refugee.

You don't know that. Many are fleeing violence - uncontrolled violence in countries with some of the highest murder stats and gang violence rates and child trafficking. That's not good enough?

If their lives are really in danger, there are other locations in their country where they can find safety.

Not necessarily.

That should end the debate right there. Moreover, there is safety in neighboring countries. There is no need to make an extended trek, in the company of paid coyotes, to find refuge is a rich country. That really should end the matter because this is a direct flouting of the principles of refugee treaties.

If that is the case, than the German family had no business coming here - they could have found safety in one of many neighboring countries without making an extended trek to find refuge in a rich country. Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

EU countries bound by treaty to extradite them back to Germany??? Yeah that's smart. Or maybe they could have moved to Palestine or Iran? Russia?

 

[Coyote]

If these folks were denied their religious freedoms and faced persecution because of their faith, then I would be the first to agree to let them stay.

So religious freedom is, in your opinion, the only valid reason for refugee status?

I thought we were discussing asylum, not refugee status. The Romeike family was granted asylum, not refugee status. The criteria for both are different. For asylum, you general need to apply from within the US, whereas for refugee status, the application is usually filed from the applicant's country of legal residence.

My mistake - I conflated the two and did not realize there was a difference

 

[gallantwarrior]

Where do you get that idea? I said kids are a special category.



These are unaccompanied children up to 17 years old: Southwest Border Unaccompanied Alien Children | U.S. Customs and Border Protection

They are still considered minors under our laws. So you punish them for having bad parents?

"Most immigrants come here to work and they work hard - legal or illegal."
Your words. So these illegals are going to work hard at what jobs? Maybe we could establish carpet factories here?

There are apparently no shortage of jobs that they are willing to do that Americans are not.

Just like the illegal German family.

I would not punish them for their parents, but I would not reward them for their criminal invasion. I would impound them, feed them, and put them on a bus back to their point of origin.

That is punishing them. You've already made it clear how you feel about their parents. Sending them back into the same dangerous situation they fled from is punishing them.

Why not punish the German family for being here illegally?

I question why none of you who advocate giving these illegal invaders carte blanche are asking about our children? You all seem to want to ignore the impact an invasion of this magnitude has on those who were born here? Or should be all just pack up and move someplace we like better?

We are all immigrants or descendents of immigrants who at one time faced the same attitudes. Now we're here and have it made, so close the door.

Speak for yourself.

You know, if we would stop paying people for sitting on their asses, stop or curtail all the government administered, taxpayer funded "free" programs, you might be surprised how many Americans would suddenly want the jobs your mythology tells us these people are coming here to take. Are you ignoring the "fact" that the majority of these "refugees" are minor children who would not be permitted to work under our laws? So I ask, are we planning on reclaiming our former manufacturing glory by employing child labor?

 

[Jughead]

So religious freedom is, in your opinion, the only valid reason for refugee status?

I thought we were discussing asylum, not refugee status. The Romeike family was granted asylum, not refugee status. The criteria for both are different. For asylum, you general need to apply from within the US, whereas for refugee status, the application is usually filed from the applicant's country of legal residence.

My mistake - I conflated the two and did not realize there was a difference

I do agree that it's right to grant asylum if anyone in the country has a legitimate reason not to return back to their home country due to fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group, or political opinion.

 

[westwall]

So...who merits refugee status?

According to the political Right, this family's "travails" galvanized vociferous actions to grant them refugee status. And for what reason? They weren't politically or economically oppressed. They weren't persecuted for religious reasons. Their lives weren't in danger. Their home country had a law against home schooling. That was it.

German home-school family can stay in U.S. indefinitely - Washington Times


Then, you have the plight of thousands of children fleeing atrocities in Central America: murder, gangs, human trafficking and child rape.

The awful reason tens of thousands of children are seeking refuge in the United States - Vox

Children are uniquely vulnerable to gang violence. The street gangs known as "maras" — M-18 and Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13 — target kids for forced recruitment, usually in their early teenage years, but sometimes as young as kindergarten. They also forcibly recruit girls as "girlfriends," a euphemistic term for a non-consensual relationship that involves rape by one or more gang members.

These are the people that the Republicans want to alter our laws so that we can more quickly deport them back to the violence from which they fled.

It's crazy.

Immigration poll reveals partisan rift over Central American refugees | World news | theguardian.com
70% of Republicans believe these children should NOT be treated as refugees and granted assylum. But this home-schooling family should. WHY?

Pretty much ALL of Latin America is beset by official corruption and violence. Most of it derived from the drug trade. The best possible thing to do would be to legalize drugs. That would take the money out of the trade and with it 90% of the violence we see every day.

Secondly the people need to rise up and depose their corrupt governments. The US has been used as a pressure valve by the elites in Latin America for far too long. Mexico for instance is mineralogically one of the wealthiest countries on the planet. There is no reason for it to still be a third world country. None.

So long as the US accepts the unwanted and un-needed from the south, nothing will change until even the US tips under the weight of corruption.

That's just reality. No country can open its borders and maintain sovereignty.

 

[Coyote]

No real need by what standard?

The Germany family stood to lose custody of their children. That's very real. There's no "Maybe, maybe not" about it. The hispanic kids are not facing that certainty. Lots of people grow up in poor conditions. That's not good enough to qualify as a refugee.

You don't know that. Many are fleeing violence - uncontrolled violence in countries with some of the highest murder stats and gang violence rates and child trafficking. That's not good enough?



Not necessarily.

That should end the debate right there. Moreover, there is safety in neighboring countries. There is no need to make an extended trek, in the company of paid coyotes, to find refuge is a rich country. That really should end the matter because this is a direct flouting of the principles of refugee treaties.

If that is the case, than the German family had no business coming here - they could have found safety in one of many neighboring countries without making an extended trek to find refuge in a rich country. Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

EU countries bound by treaty to extradite them back to Germany??? Yeah that's smart. Or maybe they could have moved to Palestine or Iran? Russia?

They can choose to move to any EU country. Why would they be extradited if they chose to move?

There are also closer non-EU countries: Russia, Belarus, Serbia etc - it was already pointed out that they aren't allowed to be picky.

 

[Ernie S.]

Where do you get that idea? I said kids are a special category.



These are unaccompanied children up to 17 years old: Southwest Border Unaccompanied Alien Children | U.S. Customs and Border Protection

They are still considered minors under our laws. So you punish them for having bad parents?

Or you reward them for having bad parents... Why don't their home countries clean up the mess they have allowed to grow all over Central and South America?? Could it be profit?

You aren't rewarding them - children have no choice, they don't choose to be born, they don't choose their parents.

I do agree - something needs to be done to fix the problems in their home countries - but that is a long term problem and the current immigrant crisis is an immediate one.

Profit? How so?

There has to be some reason why Central American governments are allowing these children to face such severe hardship that they would need to leave. Does the Honduran government want to clear out the barrios, or are they getting kickbacks from organized crime.

9 times out of 10, there is a profit motive for corrupt leaders that allow such horrid conditions.