Can you admit that you don't know a goddamned thing about him and his story?”
This is a great question. Really two. The answers are none and yes. But it raises some other questions as well.
What objective probable evidence (witnesses, forensics, etc.) do you have that objectively proves the “gentlemen” is telling the truth?
Can you admit that you don’t know (in any objective, factual, supported by independent data sense) an thing about him and his story?
Can you explain why this story would exempt him from the normal, legal, channels for people fleeing from danger to receive asylum?
Why should anyone accept this second hand story as being accurately presented?
Why would this story be presented in a forum and manner that actively obscured any possibility of verification?
Why would one not consider the fact that the storyteller has a vested interest in his story being believed because he thinks that he’ll get some advantage because of it?
Why wouldn’t we consider the benefit that the storyteller believes he’ll gain when evaluating his story?
Should we really always believe everything everyone says? Especially someone we’ve just met?
33 comments:
I have a testimony of this man, his sister, his brother-in-law. There is also the validation of the physical wounds that match his story. There's also the support of his Pastor and his church to attest to the validity of the story.
The people who can make the decision would also have the ability to check into the hospitals in places where he's coming from to validate the story. There's also the evidence that we know what is going on in Honduras, all the violence is happening there and this man story isn't fitting with a known stories happening in Honduras.
On the other hand, I have no serious reason to doubt his story.
So, Craig, if you were in this conversation with this man, someone you know a little bit from the sister Church you meet with regularly... a church whose Pastor you know very well and who is a good and honest person, if you hear his story if he asks you can you come to This Nation, what would you tell him? Yes? No? Go to hell?
Thank you for providing some of the information you chose to omit.
If I was to make the huge assumption that I had all of the information that you say you have, and assuming a long and trustworthy relationship with the people, I would be inclined to help in anyway I could with walking this person through the legal process of the immigration system.
The reality, is that I have none of those things, what I have to consider is your poetic propaganda which left out some significant details. I further have to consider the fact that I’m dealing with second and third hand information from someone who has given me no reason to trust him.
Easy answer, is that I would trust and help while trying to verify the actual facts of the situation.
Or, to answer your question another way, I would tell him that I will gladly do anything I can for him as long as he is 100% honest and upfront with me. It’s the exact same thing I’ve told my children.
Some of your other questions...
Can you explain why this story would exempt him from the normal, legal, channels for people fleeing from danger to receive asylum?
Because oftentimes, when one goes through the "normal, legal channels," one gets sent back or stopped from entering in the first place. The system is broke.
Or, even when one enters the "normal, legal" way, one might find one's self separated from their children, their children may die or be molested and/or they may all end up locked up somewhere "waiting" for the "right way" to work. Having gone through all they've gone through already, sometimes, the "right way" is wrong, because the system is broken.
Why should anyone accept this second hand story as being accurately presented?
Because it's not just my story, nor is it just the story of this one man I talked with. It's these same stories, repeated over and over thousands of times. If one isn't turning a blind eye to the people entering the nation seeking refuge, one knows that these stories are not at all uncommon. Indeed, they are way too common.
IF we lived in a world where this was wholly unheard of, where there was no violence in other nations, THEN one might be suspicious. But we don't live in that world.
Or perhaps more correctly, THEY don't live in that world. I suspect that one reason that so many gringos can turn a blind eye or pretend like these people are all "invading criminals" is precisely because they don't live in that world and have chosen to ignore the reality that so many people live within. Privilege can be a blinding cocoon.
Why would one not consider the fact that the storyteller has a vested interest in his story being believed because he thinks that he’ll get some advantage because of it?
? Of course he has a vested interest in being believed. The reality is that the vast majority of refugees almost certainly don't want to be here. They'll tell you that over and over... they HATE leaving their homelands, their families, their culture. They come because they seek refuge.
Now, is it POSSIBLE that some percentage of all these refugees are coming for nefarious reasons? Yes, of course, that's a reality, too. But there is zero evidence that I've read that suggests it's anything like a common occurrence. By all the evidence I've read from the experts, as well as what I hear coming from the people on the ground, these are seriously, honestly people seeking refuge from real dangers at home.
Should we really always believe everything everyone says? Especially someone we’ve just met?
If we have no real reason to doubt someone and if they are reporting escaping danger, then we should BEGIN by believing what they say.
If a woman knocks on my door at night looking scared and breathless and reports running away from an attacker, I begin by believing her and taking her story seriously. I would suggest that all decent, moral, rational non-cowards should do the same.
It's not like we don't have ways of vetting stories. Rather than invest in more and more military solutions to refugees seeking refuge, let's invest more in investigators and people to do vetting. If you treat it like an invasion, you've demonstrated a bias that is irrational and not based on the reality on the ground, and removed resources for doing the right thing.
that I will gladly do anything I can for him as long as he is 100% honest and upfront with me
1. How do you know he's being 100% honest with you?
2. If he's afraid that you're going to deport him back to a dangerous situation if you don't believe him, does it not make sense that they might stretch the story to make the strongest case possible? Being 100% honest may not be the most rational thing for someone honestly seeking refuge, you see?
Dan,
It’s so refreshing to get responses from you when I ask questions, it’s so rare I want to express my appreciation.
1. I don’t. But what I do know is that it’s much harder to fix lies that have been told than to work with the truth.
2. I don’t have the ability to deport anyone, so that fear would be irrational. If the vetting process discovers that he’s been lying about his circumstances then, it would follow that the consequences might be a problem. The only reason being dishonest would be a problem is if the story can’t be verified if it’s a false story.
“But even if your motivation for lying or using false documents at U.S. entry was to escape persecution, you will need to act carefully going forward. Be up front and honest about what you did when it comes time to apply for asylum or interact with U.S. immigration authorities. You will also need to stop using the false cards or documents for any purpose, such as working in the United States. (See Used a Fake Passport to Enter U.S.: Can I Still Apply for Asylum? for more guidance.)
The issue here is that your asylum case will rest largely on your own word—your story of what happened to you in the country you fled, and why you are too afraid to go back.
If the judge can't trust your word—that is, if you have acted in a way that makes the judge deciding your asylum case believe you are not “credible,” then the judge might disbelieve everything else you claim regarding your need for asylum, or find that you don’t deserve asylum as a matter of discretion. In such a situation, the judge is unlikely to grant your asylum case (which may lead to deportation).“
The above is a passage from an online legal resource.
As you can see, being “less than honest” can actually hurt ones chances of gaining asylum. Given that reality, why would you encourage behavior that could jeopardize (even potentially) someone’s chance at asylum?
"I have a testimony of this man, his sister, his brother-in-law. There is also the validation of the physical wounds that match his story. There's also the support of his Pastor and his church to attest to the validity of the story."
None of this is compelling on its own. First, the wounds could match any story he told where gun play was involved. He might have been the one who started the shooting, but he wasn't as good with a gun as those whose shots hit their mark. His sister and bro-in-law could be a part of whatever scam he may be pulling. His pastor might be as stupid and gullible as Dan. Worse, they might be willing to do anything to get people here, rather than the first country they come to that where they're supposed to make their asylum request. That would be Mexico at the very least, where asylum law is far more lenient than here. Even if he had family here already, that doesn't mean he can pass through Mexico to claim asylum here. So it's one or the other...either he's claiming asylum, which should be done before he reaches this country, or he's using an asylum claim to enter and meet up with his sister, in which case he should simply be applying as an immigrant with her as his sponsor.
"The people who can make the decision would also have the ability to check into the hospitals in places where he's coming from to validate the story."
If you're referring to immigration officials, then it's a done deal, isn't it, and this whole thing was unnecessary and the system worked as it should. That is, provided that info from the hospitals in Honduras is actually available and reliable. So you're doing little but muddying the situation, not providing more that confirms your version of events regarding this guy's story...assuming he even exists.
"So, Craig, if you were in this conversation with this man, someone you know a little bit from the sister Church you meet with regularly..."
In Honduras? You go there regularly? Or is this just some other Kentucky church who is no more or less gullible about such things as you and your church is. Assuming the pastor you know so well is truly good and honest, that doesn't mean he isn't a complete idiot, helping the wrong people instead of notifying authorities. And really, if he's doing anything to get around the law, he's neither good NOR honest.
"Because oftentimes, when one goes through the "normal, legal channels," one gets sent back or stopped from entering in the first place. The system is broke."
This doesn't at all indicate a "broke" system. To suggest there's a problem because things don't go your way is infantile.
"Or, even when one enters the "normal, legal" way, one might find one's self separated from their children, their children may die or be molested and/or they may all end up locked up somewhere "waiting" for the "right way" to work. Having gone through all they've gone through already, sometimes, the "right way" is wrong, because the system is broken."
Also not indicative of a "broke system". Not in the least. The system is overwhelmed due to people like Dan Trabue whose activism encourages more and more people to come here, to sneak in, to claim asylum when there is no legitimate claim to make or do whatever necessary to get in and hope they can get away with it. Had the Dan Trabues of the country cared more about their country and its laws, they actually could better insure that legitimate claimants are served. Instead, he prefers to blame America, it's a laws and president, for the trouble he helped to create. Typical of the leftist.
"If one isn't turning a blind eye to the people entering the nation seeking refuge, one knows that these stories are not at all uncommon. Indeed, they are way too common."
But you turn a blind eye to the false claims that our laws and procedures are attempting to thwart. Because of your idiocy, that's now extremely harder to do.
"I suspect that one reason that so many gringos can turn a blind eye or pretend like these people are all "invading criminals" is precisely because they don't live in that world and have chosen to ignore the reality that so many people live within. Privilege can be a blinding cocoon."
Yeah, I'm sure it helps to believe that. Once again, foreigners are angels and fellow Americans are frightened rubes who hate foreigners. That's crap. No one is turning a blind eye to anything except for you and those like you. The rest of us are seeing things as they truly are. You think a bullet wound and a good story indicates complete honesty. Normal people know it only indicates a bullet wound and a story. But worse, you turn a blind eye to all the very common stories of illegal aliens committing heinous crimes in this country because people like you made it easier for them to be here committing those crimes.
It comes down to the fact that we need to have an immigration system that is designed to treat individuals as individuals and to do the best possible job at verifying claims of persecution and asylum requests.
Having said that, perfection is impossible and there will be mistakes made in both directions.
I’m having trouble understanding how “trust but verify” is a bad starting place.
Dan bristles at the suggestion that he simply is willing to believe every sob story before swinging wide the gates. But I can't see any evidence in anything he says, aside from the most token of gestures, that he has any other alternative in mind.
Marshall...
This doesn't at all indicate a "broke" system. To suggest there's a problem because things don't go your way is infantile.
There's a problem because people DIE with the system as is. That, to me, is a sign of a broke system.
Again, the question you should be prepared to answer is: What if it were you and your family?
Would you want to be sent back to a death sentence? Sent back to watch your children starve?
Of course you wouldn't. The Golden Rule (and basic reason) dictates that we create policy that is the policy WE would want if it were us.
Being sent back to your death is NOT what any rational person wants and you almost certainly don't, not for yourself.
it is the height of white US male privilege to say the system is not broken because it doesn't disturb your sleep.
What you do for the least of these, you do unto Jesus.
And what you fail to do for the foreigner, for the hungry, the poor...?
"Depart from me, for I never knew you! Depart into the fires of hell!"
Craig...
I’m having trouble understanding how “trust but verify” is a bad starting place.
This is what I'm advocating, but with an eye towards assistance and justice, not leaning against justice. If we have no reason to doubt the claim that they are suffering and in danger, then we have no reason to turn them away.
That they can't find the drug cartel to get them to admit that a refugee is on their hit list doesn't mean that we send them back.
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom:
She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned;
they did not help the poor and needy.
They were haughty and did detestable things before me.
Therefore I did away with them as you have seen"
Your idea of advocating something is a little strange. You say you advocate verifying, then immediately start making excuses not to verify.
I’m not sure what’s more bizarre, your inconsistency or your use of the prooftext. Of course you trying to pull a rule out of a book of myth and “revenge fantasies” that doesn’t contain rules is strange. The fact that your offering God wiping out two cities because they didn’t allow unlimited immigration, as a good thing is icing on the cake.
It’s also interesting that I’ve actually provided the text from a legal resource that suggests that your course of coaching people to lie actually makes things worse, yet you ignore it.
Here's a test Craig, quote me where I suggested that I would coach someone to lie. Point that line out for me.
Alternatively and realistically, admit that I didn't do that and never suggested I would coach someone to lie. Rather I acknowledge the reality that people have reasons to lie.
It's the difference between what I would say and what I would listen to. For instance, if I found out someone had lied to me and exaggerated the story to make a better case I would not reject them because they weren't 100% truthful. Rather I recognize the reality on the ground that causes someone to exaggerate a situation.
Do you understand the difference? I would suggest it's the difference between legalism and Grace. It's also the difference between life and death, sometimes.
You say you advocate verifying, then immediately start making excuses not to verify.
Except, of course, I didn't. We can easily verify that this person was shot, that he went to a hospital with wounds, what the doctor had to say about it, that his nation has a problem with violence by drug cartels and an inability to rely upon the police. ALL verifiable. Now, if you want to force the EXTRA measure of getting a confession from the drug cartel that yes, they DO plan to kill him... AND without that extra ridiculous "proof," he will be returned... THEN he would be returned IN SPITE of the vetting that could be done and his life will be at risk, and the life of his family.
I've said all along we can vet... we can verify that they're not wanted for murder or rape and that they are who they say they are and from where they say they're from... we can verify that the conditions there are as reported. That IS a reasonable amount of vetting. But, by and large, that degree of vetting is insufficient to gain refugee status.
Your sort of people are holding out for an unreasonable amount of vetting that results in people deliberately not entering through "the right ways" because "the right ways" don't work very well or at all and have their own risks.
Step on to the right side of history, humanity, morality and human rights and support refugees, Craig.
What you fail to do for the least of these (especially when hiding behind a coward's mask, a la Marshall, at least) you fail to do for Jesus. That doesn't go so well for anyone.
"If he's afraid that you're going to deport him back to a dangerous situation if you don't believe him, does it not make sense that they might stretch the story to make the strongest case possible? Being 100% honest may not be the most rational thing for someone honestly seeking refuge, you see?"
If you'd advise someone that it's a "good idea" to "stretch" their story (lie), you're literally encouraging an action that puts the granting of asylum in jeopardy.
"Do you understand the difference? I would suggest it's the difference between legalism and Grace. It's also the difference between life and death, sometimes."
I'd suggest that when dealing with federal law, you are by definition dealing with legalism. Failing to advise someone about the risks they take when they lie, even if you're doing it to be understanding, is allowing them to put their asylum at risk. So the difference just might be that lying to the immigration judge gets you deported. That's some good advice.
Look, excuses not to verify.
". If we have no reason to doubt the claim that they are suffering and in danger, then we have no reason to turn them away.
That they can't find the drug cartel to get them to admit that a refugee is on their hit list doesn't mean that we send them back.".
"Your sort of people are holding out for an unreasonable amount of vetting that results in people deliberately not entering through "the right ways" because "the right ways" don't work very well or at all and have their own risks."
Who are my "sort of people"?
What specific level of vetting am I advocating?
Define "don't work very well"?
Define specifically what "work(ing) very well" looks like?
Explain why you should be allowed to make unchallenged, unproven assumptions and state them as if they are facts?
"Step on to the right side of history, humanity, morality and human rights and support refugees, Craig."
If you're going to make claims like this, prove them.
In all the times we've discussed this issue, you've never actually been able to articulate any sort of specific standards that you favor. So, how about you start out by either linking to where you've done so, or do so now. It's not enough to say things don't "work well", without defining what things specifically and what it means for things to "work well".
Feo, wouldn't provide his magical plan to virtually eliminate gun violence, let's see if you can do what he won't.
You quote me as saying it's a good idea to lie, but I literally did not say that. That quote you literally just made up. I was asking you do you not see how it's reasonable/understandable how somebody might stretch the truth... that's different than me saying I'm advising them to lie. Do you understand?
Seeing as how I've already explained this once, and seeing as how you just made up a quote I did not say, it does not appear you do understand. I'm done. Fight against protecting people if you want, side on the side of racists and xenophobes if you want. Not me. When Jesus gathers me in front of the throne I don't want him to say to me what you failed do for the least of these you failed to do for me.
I literally quoted your o men words from this very thread. I further said that if you encourage someone to “stretch” his story, your encouraging a behavior that will be harmful in the quest for asylum.
I’d ask you to show me what quote I made up, but I’ll just add it to the rest of your unsupported claims.
Craig, I literally already pointed out to you the quotes and claims you falsely attributed to me.
But one more time. You said, and I quote...
If you'd advise someone that it's a "good idea" to "stretch" their story (lie)...
1. I never said that I'd advise someone to lie or stretch they're stories. That's just the reality of it all, I never said that. I never suggested that I believe that. Do you understand that reality and that you can't support that claim because it is a stupidly false claim?
2. I never said it's a "good idea" to lie. You're the one who put those words in quotes and associated them with the suggestion that I was encouraging lying. Do you recognize that reality?
Do you see now where you made up a false claim from me which was not based on my words but on your own words?
In case it's not clear by now, I'll just point out again that I was responding to your words that you would demand 100% honesty. I was asking you if you recognize the reality that they may not trust you and us may not want to respond with 100% honesty and that they might stretch their story some, but that would not mean that the underlying claim of seeking Refuge was a lie... do you understand?
And this is why I'm mostly giving up on trying to communicate with you, Craig. You consistently misunderstand me, as in this case leaving misquoting me entirely and missing the point entirely. And that in spite of me coming back and pointing out the error oh, you still didn't understand it. If I have to repeat myself and clarify myself three or four times for each sentence I make, conversation just becomes too unwieldy. I can't hold your hand through understanding everybody outside of your little circle.
Good luck.
"There's a problem because people DIE with the system as is. That, to me, is a sign of a broke system."
But they are NOT dying because of the system, but because the system is overwhelmed by the hundreds of thousands who believe, because of people like you, that they have a good chance of playing the system in a way that allows them some form of entry they can exploit to their advantage. They die trying to get here. They die as a result of those among them taking advantage of them. They die because can't prove they should be allowed in, must return whence they came and just as someone who can't move out of the 'hood, run afoul of some scumbag. None of that is an indictment of the system, or else there is nothing that can't be blamed on the system should things not turn out as one insists it should. Hence, "infantile".
"Again, the question you should be prepared to answer is: What if it were you and your family? Would you want to be sent back to a death sentence? Sent back to watch your children starve?"
The question isn't relevant to the issue of whether or not the system is broken. If it were my family, no doubt my family would be under the same risks. But it still doesn't mean the system is "broken" or even the reason for any suffering my family might experience.
"Of course you wouldn't. The Golden Rule (and basic reason) dictates that we create policy that is the policy WE would want if it were us."
We have that. But no rule or law can survive the level of dismissal by such massive numbers of people. Go ahead. Think of any law and then imagine thousands of people ignoring it daily and see if it doesn't lead to serious problems.
"it is the height of white US male privilege to say the system is not broken because it doesn't disturb your sleep."
It is the height of idiotic, leftist dishonesty to suggest racism is in any way the source of the position I defend, or to suggest that I'm ambivalent about the suffering of even those who don't have a legitimate asylum claim but only want to come here. In fact, you're an asshole for attempting such a weak-assed ploy. Note that people of all races, ethnicity and religion and both sexes are among those who believe as I do. But you keep embracing grace, there, Danny-boy. Shame on you.
"What you do for the least of these, you do unto Jesus."
Now you're going to lie about what Christ said? Who do you think you are? feo? You pervert His teaching by blaming the consequences that befall these people on others not at all responsible...people who are doing their lawful, legitimate and righteous jobs. Those consequences are the responsibility of those breaking our laws and you who enable them...not the rest of us, you fake Christian!
We don't fail to do anything for the foreigner, as we welcome hundreds of thousands of new legal immigrants every year, and thousands of refugees despite cuts in the number of them. But you're going to ignore all that and pretend we're evil, or system is broken and all that crap should one person be denied who "claims" is fleeing violence.
So all of your token blatherings about vetting and such is bullshit. It wouldn't matter what changes were made, how many more people were hired for the purpose...so long as some sob story is told, you're going to pretend there's something wrong on OUR side of the issue.
But let's go back to your little tale of the guy with the bullet scars. You're saying there are people who can verify his story. How do you know? It sounds like he was vetted and thus, why bring him up? OR, are you just taking the word of someone who says there are legitimate people who can back his story without having any way of knowing if they can be trusted...you just insist their word is good so the US must as well. Who the hell are you?
And again, why is he here and not in Mexico through which he had to pass to get here? He should be seeking asylum there. Is there no law, national or international (of God or man), that you respect?
Dan,
I realize your problem. In the statement of mine that has you so hot and bothered, you got so bent out of shape that you missed the first word.
That word is “if”. The presence of “if”, means that it’s by definition note a quote of you, nor is it a claim. I’m pointing out the obvious that if you “understand” why someone would “stretch” their story, then it’s not beyond possibility that you might encourage them to tell the “stretch”ed version to the immigration officialdom. Or, more likely, that you might not tell them that “stretch”ing could cause them significant problems.
In any case, you’ve clearly gotten worked up about nothing. But I’m glad to point out your errors.
I’m simply point out that less than 100% honesty, is going to reflect negatively in a legal process where an immigration judge based his findings on the honesty of the asylum seeker.
But you keep on understanding why lying might be acceptable.
FYI, “stretch”=lie in court.
Apparently you never heard honesty is the best policy. The very thought that an expectation of honesty is a bad thing is bizarre.
Art, great question. “Are people really dying “because of the system?”. That’s not saying people in the system don’t die, but is the “system” 100% responsible.
It looks like Dan has come up with his expected excuse to head back to his safe space now that he’s been asked to do something. But, on the off chance that he doesn’t run away, a little notice.
I’m getting on a big boat tomorrow and am too cheap (or living simply) to buy the internet package. Given that I’ll probably have limited opportunities to do anything here until Friday or Saturday.
I have to make this clear, because Dan has a history of getting pissy when he thinks he’s being ignored.
It’s clear that the crush and dismember crowd isn’t interested in accurately portraying the position of those they disagree with. It’s another great way to obfuscate the real issues by arguing about defining the undefinable and against straw men.
There must be an easier way to deal with idiotic comments that end up on the wrong blog.
I can’t imagine how many burning straw men it takes to generate that much of a smoke screen.
Craig...
It’s clear that the crush and dismember crowd isn’t interested in accurately portraying the position of those they disagree with. It’s another great way to obfuscate the real issues
Unless he's speaking of himself (and he almost certainly lacks the humility to do so), the irony is very rich with old man Craig.
In Craig's (et al) defense, they're almost certainly too blinded to recognize the irony or that this is precisely what they do, nor the arrogance with which they do it.
Dan,
Thanks for providing one more demonstration of the point I was trying to make. The fact that you can’t or won’t engage with the actual positions of those you disagree with just continues to add to the smoke screen you so desperately need in order to protect yourself.
Dan,
An example of your latest charge would be helpful. How does Craig, or anyone on the right if that makes it easier for you, inaccurately portray the position of their opponents? If you're referring to yourself, keep in mind how many have insisted what you regard as false representations of your positions are no less than conclusions your words provoke.
Art,
Dan’s positions are all simply opinions. Anything said about them is a misrepresentation because they’re so fluid and inconsistent.
Post a Comment