Fuck that. If my kids were in dire need of food or medicine, and no one would help, well daddy's knocking over a Walgreens. Who the hell would let their kids suffer and die just so they didn't break the law? Fuck the law when it comes to human survival.
Someone can apply for asylum status in the way I've described, but you're right: someone can apply from within the U.S. regardless of their legal status. I think that part should be changed. There should only be lawful ways to enter the country without consequences. I am.
Do what you gotta do, but if you get shot and your kids become orphans, it's all on you. Your needs--compelling as they are to you--do not give you license to threaten or initiate violence on others. I believe survival is not at stake for the vast majority of these "refugees" in the caravan.
I'd "go for broke" and try to get to the UK! That place must really have it goin' on! If wordforge is any way to tell, the brits are smarter than the rubes in the US, they have way less guns, way more tolerant liberals, free medical care, etc.etc. I believe it's such a paradise that the whole place has a 15 feet tall razor wire fence angled outward just to stem the tide of humanity rushing in to what can only be described as "heaven on earth." Any thoughts?
At least I won't be the guy shooting another man for trying to keep his kids from starving or dying from illness. I guess as long as you've got the law on your side, what happens to other people doesn't matter. Me? I'll risk my life to save kids. You can get a few cages for some, I guess. Also, don't use scare quotes on refugees. They're going through more shit than you ever will.
@oldfella1962 you claim that trump is not sending troops to the border in order to shoot the immigrants in the face and promote a violent confrontation? Never ever stand on trump for balance in your arguments. https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-refuse-asylum-rights-those-164047482.html So Trump is saying that if a person throws a rock it will be treated by the military as if they have shot a firearm at the military. American police forces are equipped to deal with thrown objects with non lethal weapons and protective equipment. Throwing a rock is not the same as shooting and this is why we do not use military for police issues. Trump wants a violent confrontation where the troops are forced to use lethal weapons on the civilian and unarmed migrants. Now he has exposed himself through his inability to shut the fuck up. Who predicted this? Certainly not our resident elderly twitlerista oldfella.
Trump can say this all he wants but the military does not significantly change they way they train, equip, or manage their members (their doctrine if you will) depending on who is temporarily HMFIC. Any changes take a long time to put into effect and a sitting president will likely be gone before the changes even take effect. And US military forces are trained and equipped just like the police to deal with civilians throwing objects and physically attacking us. I went through this in Bosnia and some of our unit in Korea had to assist the Korean cops in confronting violent demonstrators. A lot of units had to deal with this in Iraq and other sandbox locations. Definitely in Somalia! Those dudes were buck wild insane - I'm sure you've seen Black Hawk Down. Well when the military was not in actual no-shit combat they had to use non-lethal force against hungry mobs and take their lumps doing it. So you and Trump are more alike than you know - neither of knows what you are talking about here. Granted Trump draws a paycheck to talk shit - he should give you half of it. No, I think a 60-40 split in your favor is better - you are at least mildly entertaining.
It's shit like this that smashed me out of my brief dalliance with Libertarianism. One of my core morals is, I have no desire to harm people who haven't harmed me. Oh, I keep having to re-up this point, I'm not a hippie, if you fuck with my life, I'll turn your face into a Halloween pumpkin, and if you were especially naughty, say goodbye to your reproductive plumbing being useful to you. But people who have nothing to do with me, and aren't diddling kids or punching grannies, or something else egregious? Let it be. I got no beef. I got too much of my own shit to deal with to go looking for fucking enemies. Enemies are for the goddamned playground, it's for kids. Someday, I might have one again, but you're gonna have to drag me kicking and screaming towards it. All branches of conservatism ask you to hurt people that are no harm to you. Or, at least to stand by with your hands in your pockets whistling while someone does it in your name. The underclass "because they're losers". Scam victims, because "you can't fool an honest man". The elderly "because they're gonna die anyway". The black community "because they'll just spend those food stamps on malt liquor anyway". Hispanics, because "beaners are lazy". Innocent people during war because "you gotta break a few eggs". Wait a minute, you fucking people preach "leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone", but you've got a fucking loophole excuse for fucking around with absolutely everybody. Didn't take me long to realize how full of shit it all was. Sadly, it took longer than it should have. Conservatives think they're so fucking logical, but there's nothing logical about starting shit with people just trying to live. The more honest evil ones will pull out the "law of the jungle", bullshit on ya. Last I checked, cheetahs don't turn their prey into veal for 60 years with cigarettes and soda pop. Nope, they're full of shit on that one too. There isn't a single conservative value that holds up to a microscope, and I gotta suffer these fucking people telling me how fucking smart they are. It got old for me a long fucking time ago. But, y'know, sometimes I find a funny new way to say it, and my brain needs the exercise, so....
Like always you change the point when you are wrong. My claim is that trump wants to force a military incident with unarmed civilians which results in shooting them in the face. I am pretty sure most US military people would have moral problems with this and be in an uncomfortable position if ordered to defend the border with lethal force from an unarmed civilian crossing. None of that has changed with me despite you entirely changing your argument and removing trump from the equation. To go further it is dangerous to place a person in this situation only armed with lethal force and not protected by shielding like we have for law enforcement, and training to deal with non combatant civilians who are not invading to take over the US. When these people do come within rock throwing distance this puts our troops in a situation where their choices are to take it and flee, or respond with lethal force. Trump knows this is a great way for violence to erupt. This is why the military should be limited in it's scope for assisting law enforcement. If they are going to fly around in helicopters or set up fencing before the people get here those activities keep them out of contact with the civilian crossers and the manpower could increase the effectiveness of law enforcement. However the military is not trained for law enforcement purposes and are limited in use for a reason. Feel free to keep on running from the truth.
I'm not so sure this is necessarily Refugee Convention compliant. Where the UK is concerned we accept applications at diplomatic posts because, of course, embassies and consulates are technically home soil. But upon a quick Google it does indeed seem that the US doesn't entertain applications at diplomatic posts, which I have to say disturbs me.
A great many do exactly that, in fact the level of immigration we have is a serious political hot potato and has been for years. The abomination that is Brexit can only make the controversy worse. But no, we're far from being a paradise and I'm far more critical of my own country than you might believe. The issue you're having though is I don't buy into this "greatest country in the world" nonsense about the US or American exceptionalism in general. Those assumptions are more deeply embedded in a lot of the dialogue around US politics that it's hard to be hyperbolic about it frankly. That's really dangerous. World powers come and go and there really isn't anything which marks the US out from the British Empire, the French, the Romans, the Greeks. It isn't about the being the smartest, the most advanced, the most sophisticated, being "the land of the free" or having the "checks and balances" which inevitably are given as a reason the US couldn't possibly be subject to the same issues and concerns which affect every other human nation. All those other nations and empires have had cultures imbued with the same sense of infallibility and fell all the more spectacularly because of it. They were no more special than you are, they were simply the products of history, geography and the vagaries of economic and social forces few could possibly have understood except in retrospect. The offence you're taking is entirely indicative of that, I've not been any harsher on the US than I am do anyone else, but there's a conventional assumption in all this dialogue that the US is "the best" in some ill defined manner, despite all the evidence and it's almost a shock to the system when someone suggests that actually no, you're just one country amongst many.
You can apply for refugee status at embassies...but not asylum status. It's not a whole lot of a difference, but it is a difference.
Ah, well over here it's not the same. There is no distinction, because there is none in the Refugee Convention. We only grant asylum to people who qualify for refugee status. I only mention this because I have seen it knocked around on social media the past couple of days that you can't claim asylum at a US diplomatic post, and that didn't make sense to me. If you can apply for refugee status at a US diplomatic post then it is Refugee Convention compliant. So it would be legal presumably for these people to claim refugee status at a US diplomatic post, no? What I have Googled suggests the difference is based on where you are and that an "asylee" (a term we do not use) and a refugee are essentially one and the same, save that an "asylee" is inside the US at the time they claim status in line with the Refugee Convention. So really, the idea they can't claim Convention protection at a US diplomatic post is a bit of a bullshit as it's premised on the technicality of location. Asylee and refugees both still must meet the Convention definition in order to qualify for initial residence in the US. It's just a matter of one term for people who apply outside the US for Convention protection and one term for those who apply from within. In other words, the American liberal argument that they can't claim unless they get to the US seems disingenuous as they can indeed still claim Convention status at a diplomatic post. I say this for the sake of legal accuracy. The other points I have made above about choice and motivation behind destinations still stand, and the practical reality is that it is a lot harder to claim in a third country and survive there than it is to travel to the country you are going to claim in. But I do think Paladin's claim they can seek Convention status is correct based on what I have read and based on the US's international treaty obligations.
When these people do come within rock throwing distance this puts our troops in a situation where their choices are to take it and flee, or respond with lethal force. - Tererun No there is third option: take it and stay. Flee is not an option. Yes that is how we are trained and that is standard doctrine - been there done that. If you have more military experience & training than I do, please share it with the class. Otherwise just keep shaking your tail feather. I'm not "running from the truth" I'm running from your uninformed speculation, and trying to explain the truth to you or others who may be interested. It would be like me telling you about paintball, cosmetology, telemarketing or anything else you are experienced in. If you are way off base you are way off base, period. A president can tell the military what to do "LET'S ROLL!" but not specifically how to do it at the command/unit level.
Well, I'm going by how it works in the US, because that's where this "caravan" is going. You can apply for Refugee status at an embassy or a consulate, but you can't apply for asylum at one. These people are going the latter route because this is more or less a big PR stunt.
this is more or less a big PR stunt. - MAOHS no, the big PR stunt was last year's hurricane. The caravan people are mostly Central Americans. I learned this in my Hispanic culture identification brochure!
It’s funny that you cite your experience, and yet when others opine on areas of knowledge where they are more experienced than you, you ignore it. I think you might want to revise that attitude if you want people to account for your vast military experience Colonel.
Which is something that needs done anyway, because the average U.S. citizen has no idea what the fuck is going on in Central America, much less that we had a hand in fucking over the countries there time and time again.
They're doing well if they know that 1) there are other parts of America other than the US and 2) the US isn't the centre of America, or indeed the universe.
The old alpha dogs like Storm used to brag they'd put one between the eyes of anyone from the fedgov who came for their guns. How did you feel about that? Did you rep that stuff?
They would have been within their rights to do so, absent a repeal of the Second Amendment. So yeah, I probably did. Not that that has anything to do with my post, but . . .
Trump's backed off. If this is because you fucked his wife and daughter and then told him you'd do it again - and they'd let you - if he didn't back down, then more power to you. But I think it's more likely there are still a few adults in the GOP who at least realized he might lose moderate voters with this shit: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/02/politics/donald-trump-rock-throwing-migrants/index.html Of course, them being on US soil at the taxpayers' expense "for a very long time" shouldn't be a plus point with his base, but I bet the fuckers are too dumb to realize that.
Looks like the Pentagon told him to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up as well... https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/02/politics/white-house-pentagon-troops-border/index.html
