There’s a picture floating around of a father and daughter who died while trying to cross the Rio Grande into Texas.
This has been used as anti-Trump propaganda, but is the narrative accurate.
We know that the family had applied for asylum, but were lower on the list than they thought they should be. What were they seeking asylum from? Low wage food service jobs. They wanted to come to the US for a few years, save cash and move back to El Salvador. I’d agree that they had a laudable goal, but is that what asylum is intended for?
The reality is that they were impatient and willing to take risks because they were in too much of a hurry.
The bigger reality is that their asylum claim was taking away time and resources from people actually fleeing literal danger. Based on their situation they’ve should have been lower on the list, and they probably didn’t meet the criteria for receiving asylum status.
I guess this is less about compassion than about not wasting a good tragedy.
6 comments:
Fuck you. Damn you to hell, you petty-assed princess.
Its white privileged sacks of shit like you that lead to the deaths and oppression of immigrants, minorities and LGBTQ folk. Damn this diabolical nonsense to hell.
Barring repentance and admission of your elitist priviledged sins, I'm entirely done with you.
Wow, it’s strange to see how upset the reporting of the facts of the story as they are known makes you.
But incredibly Christlike response, very classy and mature.
But it’s good to know that you think restaurant jobs are the same level of threat as narcos.
Your true colors keep seeping through no matter how hard you try to hide them.
While I don’t repent of my sins as often as I should, I most certainly do so regularly.
Im glad God isn’t as vengeful, bitter, and petty as you are.
Really. Unfortunately, there have been multiple reports, based on actual, filmed interviews with migrants seeking entry, of those who are simply looking for a better gig. And while I would agree with the grace-embracing Dan that such is a good and legitimate reason for seeking entry into a country with more opportunity, it doesn't qualify as a reason to simply open the gates. And to hold up the consequences of the risky choices they made for the better gig as an example of something wrong with OUR country and OUR laws and requirements is a special kind of irrational. Profanity doesn't make the bad argument any stronger.
I completely agree that seeking a better life is a good reason to immigrate. However, it does not constitute a good reason to grant someone asylum. Asylum is a specific status that is to allow immigrants who are in certain specific conditions to enter the country based on actual threats. I also agree that offering asylum to those at risk is an appropriate thing to do.
The problem in this case, is that these folx were applying for asylum when they faced not threat. They were impatient with the process and decided to "jump the line" to get ahead of other families. I'd suggest that had they been successful in gaining asylum, that their efforts would have deprived others who have more dire circumstances of their appropriate place in the system.
Unfortunately for these folx, I believe that the folx who are advocating for virtually unlimited immigration along with access to privileges in the US, encourage the impatient behavior we see in this story. In that limited sense, the folx who are trying to open the doors wider bear a degree of responsibility for the conditions that we currently see.
Immigration is an important part of our country's past, present, and future. But we must maintain a process that allows for proper screening and vetting of those who want to immigrate. We've seen plenty of evidence of human traffickers posing as families to bring children across the border. We certainly would want to screen for infectious diseases and criminal history, wouldn't we?
Again, I know of virtually no one who is advocating closing the borders. All most of us want if for people to come in through the door, not the window. After that, the US government should provide accommodations that meet or exceed basic levels of livability and safety for the folx who are going through the screening process. This should include keeping actual families together in all but the most compelling circumstances. It should include appropriate food, water, and medical care during the temporary detention period. There also must be some attention paid to appropriate levels of staffing and resources to make the process of vetting as effective and timely as possible.
This is truly one of the few situations where compromise is possible and can come in a form that satisfies pretty much everyone but the radicals.
I, for one, would love to see congress actually legislate on this issue.
Only the left and businesses looking to exploit illegals for the cheap labor would disagree. But legislation and the implementation of new laws won't fix what's happening now RIGHT now. That is, there's still the problem of the masses of humanity seeking entry and overwhelming the system. They will continue to overwhelm the system for quite some time thanks to the grace-embracers who thoughtlessly opposed action for political purposes.
Will we force Americans to work for the cause...border workers, detention facility workers, medical personnel...will we commandeer warehouses or materials to build them to comfortably accommodate hundreds of thousands of hopefuls...??? We still need to keep them ALL out in order to funnel them through legal entry points for vetting and such. Can this be done without the left and Trump-haters exploiting the ongoing misery of the hopefuls that WILL continue regardless of what we do? And will any of it...ANY OF IT...truly stop those who wish to exploit weaknesses in whatever well intended plan is devised in order to expedite their own, which will surely result in more grace-embracers blaming those who enforce our laws for whatever tragedy results? All this is the future regardless.
Legislation must follow the same priorities laid out by those who have been thinking rationally all along. It begins with sealing the border, to whatever extent it truly can be, enforcing existing laws with extreme prejudice and THEN considering changes to those laws to serve America first (for whom else should American law benefit if not America) and THEN those who wish to enter.
Post a Comment