In Dan's recent post where he expresses his dislike of the current Biden administration border policy, he closes with this statement. "Seeking asylum is a basic human right"
While I might agree that "seeking asylum" might be a "basic human right", I would note that recieving asylum is not a "basic human right".
29 comments:
That's an important distinction. Thanks for mentioning it. But as you may have noticed, Dan tried to put us in refugee shoes to make it a "Golden Rule" issue. That's pretty lame, as Dan is trying to reject our laws on the basis that some simply claim to be persecuted, when among those who are now gathering at the border to cross illegally, there's no way to know who is or who isn't truly victims needing protection. The truth is that really doesn't matter to Dan and his open border allies.
So, a person's right to life IS a basic human right, but other people have NO obligation to honor that right...?
How do you square that circle?
Dan
Put another way: a universal human right that no one is obliged to honor is not a universal human right.
What's your fancy when it comes to human rights?
Do you affirm that all humanity has a right to life? Liberty? Self-determination?
Dan
"So, a person's right to life IS a basic human right, but other people have NO obligation to honor that right...?"
According to the US Constitution, the right to life is an inalienable right. Clearly people don't honor that right on a daily basis.
"How do you square that circle?"
In the US, asylum is granted or denied based on the circumstances the asylum seeker left. It is not automatic. There is nothing in the US constitution or law that requires the US to grant unlimited asylum to everyone who wants to immigrate to the US. Asylum is NOT simple immigration, and is NOT guaranteed.
Is asylum in the US a "basic human right"?
Art,
Dan likes to pretend that the vast majority of people who enter the US improperly are refugees or asylum seekers. He likes to pretend that Juan from Mexico who wants to come to the US so he can earn more $$ than he can in Mexico is really seeking asylum. He also likes to pretend that there is some human right that allows individuals to wander freely throughout the world and to live wherever they want to without regard for the laws of the country they want to live in. Finally he likes to pretend that some random declaration of human rights superseded US law and is binding on the US.
I think that most of us have few problems with accepting refugees fleeing specific, dangerous circumstances for temporary or permanent asylum in the US provided they go through the process to do so.
"Put another way: a universal human right that no one is obliged to honor is not a universal human right."
If you say so.
"What's your fancy when it comes to human rights?"
As a US citizen, I'm good with life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
"Do you affirm that all humanity has a right to life? Liberty? Self-determination?"
I guess it depends on what you mean by those terms, You clearly don't apply the right to life equally to all living humans. Self determination is a pretty vague and undefined term.
Self determination is a pretty vague and undefined term.
Hm. Okay. Sorry I wasn't more clear. By
SELF-
DETERMINATION
I mean that every human SELF
can determine for THEMSELVES
what THEY do with THEIR lives.
That is, they can choose to apply for work here or to work there (and the employer's own self can choose to hire or not hire them). The point being, no one can dictate to a free human WHERE they must work, or what TYPE of work they do.
They can choose if they want to live here or there. If "here," is a place that they do not believe to be safe enough for their comfort, they can move THERE to a place they believe may be more safe. It's up to THEM, THEY can determine that.
They can determine, Do I want to marry or NOT marry - no one can force them. They can determine WHO they want to marry, no one can force them to marry this or that particular person, THEY are free to determine that for themselves, because, human rights.
It means they can decide whether to try to have a family or not, they can decide if they want to adopt or not, they can determine whether or not they want to ride a bike, drive a car or ride mass transit.
It means the individual choose for themselves their daily decisions within the means they have accessible so long as they're not inflicting harm on someone ELSE.
What do you think self-determination means?
Look: IF you lived in a nation that wanted to tell you you can't marry the person of your choice, would you want to move to somewhere else or be forced to stay there? Would that not be a matter of human rights?
If you lived in a nation where you didn't believe your family was literally safe, wouldn't you want to move somewhere else where YOU determined it might be safer? AND if you were given an option, "Okay, you can leave this unsafe nation but you can only move to ANOTHER nation that you ALSO think is unsafe..." is that not denying you a basic human right?
Also, isn't it rather indecent of a safe nation with resources to tell the hungry or threatened "alien" - "NO, you can NOT move here."..? How is that not immoral?
A clarification.
If this right to asylum does exist, it is not unlimited, it is not carte blanche for someone to live in a specific place of their choosing.
Which raises the question. If the US is such a shitty place to live, full of racism, and devoid of opportunity, why do people risk so much to live here?
1. I haven't said the US is a shitty place to live. Indeed, in many ways, it IS a great place to live precisely because we have put a tamp down on our racists and homophobes... although they're certainly trying to resurge to "take their country back" from the rest of us.
2. Just because the US has some bad elements doesn't mean that other countries may not be worse. Clearly, in spite of modern GOP policies, many people feel this is still a land of opportunities. Would you tell them they can't come here?
If so, why?
And especially if they are physically at threat where they live, would you deny them asylum? If so, Why?
Dan
"If this right to asylum does exist, it is not unlimited, it is not carte blanche for someone to live in a specific place of their choosing."
I would agree, primarily for reasons of health/not causing harm. For instance, arid places with water shortages probably SHOULD place limits on how many people can live there. But then, that comes down to harm, sustainability. But a place with room, who desperately need more working age people... then there's not a rational reason to say - at least to asylum-seekers: you're not welcome here. Those states' wishes to keep foreigners out for no good reason doesn’t override a world citizen and fellow human the right to self-determination. What rational, just reason IS there for that kind of restriction?
"Because We don't want Them here" isn't rational or just.
"Because we hear Those people are dangerous rapists and drug dealers!" Is likewise, neither rational or just.
"Because we said so!" Is just childish.
What is a good reason to restrict human rights of self-determination?
Dan
As a US citizen, I'm good with life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
And does Self-determination fit under pursuit of happiness? Or are you fine with the State or some Church assigning you your marriage partner (or partner parameters) and your work assignment and faith tradition... your states you can and can't live in, your decisions you must affirm about abortion, your medical decisions, etc, etc?
I'm guessing you would hate it if your freedom of self-determination was removed from you. The more serious question is: Are you okay if it's taken away from others, as long as it doesn't impact you?
Oh, Dan thinks he had a good response to my bringing up his kind crapping on us as racist nation. He's wrong.
This "right of self-determination" is similar, if not the same, as the right to pursue one's happiness. It doesn't require anyone to help succeed in that endeavor. Dan wants us to subordinate our self-determination to that of foreigners without any spelled out plan for determining who is worthy and who isn't. We're just to open wide the doors and say "Welcome! C'mon in!"
When Dan can prove he's removed all locks from the doors of his house...if not removed them entirely...then he can pretend he's not a pandering hypocrite.
"What do you think self-determination means?"
What I think is irrelevant. I am not the one asserting a "right to self determination", you are. Therefore what you think it means is critical, what I think irrelevant.
"Look: IF you lived in a nation that wanted to tell you you can't marry the person of your choice, would you want to move to somewhere else or be forced to stay there? Would that not be a matter of human rights?"
Look, my initial response to difficulty isn't to cut and run because something might be easier somewhere else. But if I did decide to cut and run, I wouldn't presume that I had some sort of right to go wherever I chose, and flout the laws of the place I wanted to go. You say that it is a matter of human rights, but I haven't seen objective proof of that fact.
"If you lived in a nation where you didn't believe your family was literally safe, wouldn't you want to move somewhere else where YOU determined it might be safer? AND if you were given an option, "Okay, you can leave this unsafe nation but you can only move to ANOTHER nation that you ALSO think is unsafe..." is that not denying you a basic human right?"
See above.
"Also, isn't it rather indecent of a safe nation with resources to tell the hungry or threatened "alien" - "NO, you can NOT move here."..? How is that not immoral?"
Not when the "safe" nation doesn't have the resources to give away. Not when the "safe" nation is not providing for it's own citizens first. No "safe" nation has the resources to be able to absorb unlimited numbers of new people, it's absurd to think so. Prioritizing the well being of the actual citizens of a nation over others, is not immoral.
Wouldn't it make more sense for the "safe" nation to do whatever is necessary to make the "unsafe" nation "safe" for that nation's citizens? What if allowing this unlimited, unregulated influx of people to the "safe" nation actually makes the "safe" nation, less "safe"?
"1. I haven't said the US is a shitty place to live. Indeed, in many ways, it IS a great place to live precisely because we have put a tamp down on our racists and homophobes... although they're certainly trying to resurge to "take their country back" from the rest of us."
Yeah, because a tiny minority of "racists and homophobes" is the only problem that the US has to worry about. Inflation, recession, unchecked federal borrowing, DA's taking the law in their own hands, major cities becoming unlivable, riots, etc, those are nothing compared to some tiny group of "racists and homophobes".
"2. Just because the US has some bad elements doesn't mean that other countries may not be worse. Clearly, in spite of modern GOP policies, many people feel this is still a land of opportunities. Would you tell them they can't come here?"
Given that every immigrant family I built a home for was convinced that hard work and education would give them a better life, I'd say it's axiomatic that those who come here by following the rules feel that there are opportunities here. I've never suggested that people "can"t come here", so I wouldn't tell anyone that now.
"If so, why?"
See above.
"And especially if they are physically at threat where they live, would you deny them asylum? If so, Why?"
Again, I wouldn't automatically deny anyone asylum.
"Because We don't want Them here" isn't rational or just."
It may be simplistic, but depending on the why it might not be unjust.
"Because we hear Those people are dangerous rapists and drug dealers!" Is likewise, neither rational or just."
Really, allowing criminals, rapists, terrorists, and those carrying communicable diseases is something to be celebrated. When you do stuff like this, twist other people's words, it just points out how little you care about anything but making your point. Of course it would be wrong to allow gang members, drug smugglers, rapists, and the like to simply waltz across the border. Haven't we seen enough examples of innocent people being harmed or killed by criminals who've crossed the border illegally or who have been deported and returned multiple times? What's a few more bodies to the body count as long as it doesn't stop unlimited immigration?
"Because we said so!" Is just childish."
Well, other than virtually every law on the books comes down to "because we say so", as does your subjective moral code, I'm not sure how much you want to cling to this one.
"What is a good reason to restrict human rights of self-determination?"
When it conflicts with the established rights of others, not doing so would cause damage.
"And does Self-determination fit under pursuit of happiness?"
As you've defined it, probably not. You don't seem to be arguing for the right to pursue "self determination", so much as for the right to virtually unrestricted "self determination".
"Or are you fine with the State or some Church assigning you your marriage partner (or partner parameters) and your work assignment and faith tradition... your states you can and can't live in, your decisions you must affirm about abortion, your medical decisions, etc, etc?"
Where exactly is there an example of a "state" who acts in this manner? Muslim countries where Sharia law is in effect, probably. Communist countries, probably. Countries with a caste system, probably?
"I'm guessing you would hate it if your freedom of self-determination was removed from you. The more serious question is: Are you okay if it's taken away from others, as long as it doesn't impact you?"
My "freedom of self determination" is limited by a number of factors, both internal and external. As I've said repeatedly, my first response to difficulty is to face it and fight it, not cut and run. I'm not advocating taking anything away from others.
Given that you haven't proven that this "right of self determination" as you've tried to explain it, is actually a right "endowed by our Creator" and enshrined in the constitution, I see no purpose in speculating about a right that you can't demonstrate objectively exists.
I will say that the "right" of self-determination is just the pursuit of happiness expressed differently. How can it not be? But the point is this: does the right to "pursue happiness"/or "self-determination" require that our government ensure one achieves that goal? Clearly the answer is a resounding "NO!". If it were not so, the founders wouldn't have settled merely for the right to pursue happiness, but the right to have it. They didn't do that because, not being fake Christian morons from Kentucky, the knew such a pursuit is beyond the ability of any government to provide, given one's "happiness" or "self-determination" is as unique as and varied as the number of people on earth. The government's job is to protect it's own people first, and every effort to regulate immigration must be a manifestation of that prime obligation. As such, demanding all enter through specific ports of entry is a must. Demanding some way to prove one is fleeing danger is a must. Simply wanting a better gig does NOT justify ignoring our laws under the pretense of seeking asylum...that one is a refugee from some danger...and crossing wherever one chooses and then, should they be confronted with even a stupidly tolerant lefty, blow off court dates for hearings regarding their entry. No. Dan's a moron simply trying to posture as morally superior to those he chooses to regard as motivated by racism or other such crap, simply because we care about the safety of our own people and nation.
But then, Dan's a liar, so...
Art,
I agree that there is some overlap, but if you read what Dan meant by the term, it seems clear that he's talking about more than just the pursuit of "self determination". The point of the pursuit of happiness is that everyone has the right to pursue happiness, not to achieve happiness. Further, one of the ways the govt ensures the right to pursue happiness is that it guarantees the right to private property. If one considers that a nation, withing it's borders, is essentially private property, then it seems reasonable that the step from open borders to open living rooms isn't a big leap. I completely agree that while offering asylum is a reasonable thing to do, I also agree that there must be a process to vet the asylum seekers, and that asylum isn't always permanent.
What I do think is interesting, is that if one truly cares about the citizens of "unsafe" nations, is to remove whatever it is that makes them "unsafe". This would allow the citizens of the formerly "unsafe" nation to have the opportunity to pursue happiness in their own "safe" nation. Ultimately it seems like this would be a letter long term solution from a global perspective. Instead, Dan simply wants to open the US borders to whomever wants to come in, regardless of how it negatively affects US citizens.
I'll try to find the link, but I saw a news story that detailed how NYC is spending millions to succor immigrants, while longtime residents are ignored. I think it's clear that Dan doesn't understand, or care, about the fact that that the US does not have unlimited money to spend and that the US is technically bankrupt. Obviously the train wreck of the Biden economy isn't helping.
Obviously, race plays virtually zero role in this conversation, but it's such a convenient, weapon to use against those who disagree.
"What I do think is interesting, is that if one truly cares about the citizens of "unsafe" nations, is to remove whatever it is that makes them "unsafe". This would allow the citizens of the formerly "unsafe" nation to have the opportunity to pursue happiness in their own "safe" nation. Ultimately it seems like this would be a letter long term solution from a global perspective. Instead, Dan simply wants to open the US borders to whomever wants to come in, regardless of how it negatively affects US citizens."
1. As I've been clear, I support the US being a good neighbor and doing what we can to aid (in a non-patronizing manner) nation's that struggle AND not engaging in actions that harm other nations, and that might involve foreign aid payments and even reparations in cases where our policies in the past caused harm. In short, I support investing in other nations. You?
From what I hear, most immigrants want to remain in their home nations, but it needs to be safe for them to do so. That should be a primary goal.
Agree, disagree?
2. By and large, immigration does not negatively impact US citizens. It tends to be either a net benefit or, at least, neutral impact. According to the data.
Dan
Re: "train wreck of Biden economy..."
The basic story of the Biden economy is that America has experienced a remarkably fast and essentially complete job market recovery. This recovery was initially accompanied by distressingly high inflation; but inflation, while still high by the standards of the past few decades, has subsided substantially. The overall situation is, well, not so bad.
About jobs: Unless you’ve been getting your news from Tucker Carlson or Truth Social, you’re probably aware that the unemployment rate is hovering near historic lows. However, I keep hearing assertions that this number is misleading, because millions of Americans have dropped out of the labor force — which was true a year ago...
The current inflation rate is lower than it was at the end of Ronald Reagan’s second term.
Or consider the “misery index,” the sum of unemployment and inflation — a crude measure that nonetheless seems to do a pretty good job of predicting consumer sentiment. Using six-month inflation, that index is currently about 7, roughly the same as it was in 2017, when few people considered the economy a disaster."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/27/opinion/joe-biden-reelection-economy.html
Dan
I think you meant to say trainwreck of Trump economy.
Benefits of immigration (note that the first link is to George W Bush...)
https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/north-american-century/benefits-of-immigration-outweigh-costs
https://casefoundation.org/blog/immigrants-we-create-jobs/?gad=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwvJyjBhApEiwAWz2nLQU7xFHzE5Yy2T17a918UoaAeUaR0KczZB05a4i36WrPiYUu7YEh8xoCSrEQAvD_BwE
https://www.cato.org/blog/14-most-common-arguments-against-immigration-why-theyre-wrong?gclid=CjwKCAjwvJyjBhApEiwAWz2nLaGScEuS5BvNrxd6sYuIBDDLFOaWDtKQR4HnJ_iOMQaYU-zT4ERcLBoCSp8QAvD_BwE
Dan
"Agree, disagree?"
the very fact that you "asked" this inane question makes it clear that you either don't read, or don't understand what I write.
The problem with your "benefits" of immigration, is that they aren't based on the effects of record numbers of immigrants, record numbers of immigrants not going through proper channels, and increases in terrorists/criminals/gangs. The reason why it doesn't, is because we have no precedent for the free for all we've seen over the past few years. What we ARE seeing is border towns and cities being unable to cope with the massive numbers of immigrants, and cities like NYC taking resources away from their citizens in need to give to immigrants.
By all means, let's just ignore the massive supply chain disruptions, recession, mortgage interest rates more than doubling, continued rise in Fed rates, and the like, while pretending that people going back to work after the Trump/Biden overreaction to COVID is some miracle on Biden's part. Let's also not forget that the last 2 years of the Trump economy were 100% related to the draconian and unnecessary measure taken to "deal with" COVID. The fact that you can pretend that the Trump economy pre COVID was anything but excellent and that '20 and '21 weren't totally affected by COVID, is just your bias showing through.
In all fairness, I (in my ignorance) agreed with much of what was done in the name of COVID protection. I know that Dan was also a big supporter of the steps taken re COVID. I'll admit that I made the mistake of believing "the experts" and that the course the US took was likely wrong. Having said, that I fully support Trump's decision to allow states to set their own COVID protocols instead of imposing a one size fits all national solution. The flip side to trump doing the right thing in this instance, is that it allowed too many folx to blame Trump for things that should rightly be blamed on various governors.
An overly lengthy way to point out that this simplistic "Trump economy bad", "Biden economy good" mentality results in misleading and cherry picked conclusions.
In other words, Dan's intentionally lying yet again. I'll give Dan this: he's always true to form.
In other words, Marshal's making an observably stupidly false claim again. He can't point to ONE SINGLE lie that I've said in these comments, because there are no lies to point to. The difference is, I can support it. Marshal said I've intentionally lied again and that claim is demonstrated objectively to be false because he can't point to one single lie.
Daring to hold a difference of opinion from the GOP party line is not a lie.
Being decent enough to want to welcome immigrants, especially refugees, is not a lie.
Noting the data that shows that immigrants tend to make good citizens is not a lie.
It's all either objective data, reasonable opinion or just opinion, but not a lie.
The lie, Dan, is in your eagerness to accept anything presented as a positive where it regards the invaders without reservation of any kind, without any serious, objective scrutiny and that we all should as well. But we're not morons nor lacking in concern for our own as if our own should be subordinate to those promoted solely as sad, fearful refugees, which do not account for the vast, vast majority of those entering illegally. So yeah, you lie constantly whenever you defend the practice of illegal entry and the accuracy and factual quality of "studies" by "experts" who simply are activists for the cause like you are.
"The lie, Dan, is in your eagerness to accept anything presented as a positive where it regards the invaders without reservation of any kind, without any serious, objective scrutiny and that we all should as well."
And the quote where I said this?
WHERE IS THE SPECIFIC LIE?
Just admit you misspoke.
Dan
I didn't. You're a liar. But as is your way, you demand exact words expressed in exactly a specific way in order for a charge or allegation...or point of view...to be true. That in itself is dishonest...a lie...since you could easily argue against the charge if it was indeed false. Good luck with that.
And once again, Marshal repeats the false claim that I'm insisting upon specific words (I'm not) WHILE failing to even try to support his initial false claim WHILE accusing me of making a false claim.
Come on, boys. Anybody can see this perverse Trump-like open dishonesty.
Dan
Nothing I've said is false. If that were not true, you'd respond directly to the charges with something more substantive than your typical, "Nyuh uh". When do you ever say anything less than lauditory or praise-like when speaking of illegals? They're all innocent angels in stark danger to you.
Post a Comment