what is our position on the Caravan

[halconero]

42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Have those “planned” migrations materialized or are they still in planning? 

Materialized. You can see the 2017 Haitian wave and the 2018 Nigerian wave below:

Quote

From your description, it appears the groups are in the US legally and plan to enter Canada illegally. Is Canada making any appeals to the US in light of the threatened encroachment? 

Yeah sort of. Immigration Minister Ahmed Husseing travelled to the US Embassay in Nigeria and asked them to stop handing out US tourist visas like candy.

Quote

Can you compare the total numbers of illegal immigrants in Canada with those in the US? 

Approximately 500,000 in illegal immigrants in Canada, or 1% of the population. This is compared to about 3.4% of the US population. Canada makes it both easier to become a legal immigrant, and harder to be an illegal immigrant. The latter primarily due to hiring practices more than law enforcement.

Quote

Mexican police attempted an action blocking the caravan crossing their country illegally, but it ended in them being overrun and with injuries. Would this happen if a group 5000 illegal migrants were crossing 3000 km into Canada heading for the US? 

Depends on how they were trying to cross. The Safe Third Country Agreement complicates Canada and the United States' asylum claimant process. People who entered Canada cannot legally claim asylum at an American port of entry, and vice versa. But due to the complexity of domestic and international law regarding asylum claims, both Canada and the United States have to process inland claims.

Edited October 29, 2018 by halconero

[Vance]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

Actually an extremely thoughtless peace.  

The authors are making the mistake that anyone that not understanding and not being able to apply  US immigration law is somehow should disqualify people from living here.

By that standard most of the people on this board should pack up and go.

Did you even read the article?  Your comment indicates that you didn't.  Either that, or your reading comprehension needs some work.

[Vance]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Something about "when I was a stranger, you took me in."

 

 

Inviting the needy in is not the same as letting an uninvited thug in.

[halconero]

42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have to smile. 

Why?

[Vance]

50 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On the contrary, everything you say lines up perfectly with the agitation & propaganda efforts of authoritarian and corrupt regimes worldwide.  If it walks, quacks, and looks like a duck, maybe it's a duck.

B.S. 

The advocating of obedience to the law is not " the agitation & propaganda efforts of authoritarian and corrupt regimes worldwide".

[Bernard Gui]

I live in Washington and am often reminded of Canada’s superiority by friends and associates from the Great North. 

[why me]

48 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I sincerely believe that the remark was given by our Savior and I take it seriously.  

How we as individuals treat each is reflected in the laws that we create.  Laws are created by individuals, and are enforced by individuals.  

Although I do not know what the motives of every member of this caravan is, I believe many are desperate and need help.  

I do not think we as a country can make laws that hurt people and then just hide behind "I was just obeying the law". In the US, we have a responsibility to righteously influence the laws. 

The immigration laws in the United States are evil and go against the many of the laws of god.

 

 

There are many deserate people in the world. I do believe that 33 percent of the population of Guatemala are now living in the USA.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/15/hispanics-of-guatemalan-origin-in-the-united-states-2013/

Perhaps the USA should just tell all Guatemalans to come to the USA if they wish to because Jesus told us so. And I am not joking about this at all. Why not? Likewise for every desparate person in the world. Just invite them all to the USA. This will solve the problem for desperate people. However this is an interesting video about gum balls and immigration:

 

[Vance]

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That's what phony Mitch McConnell would say, and get nothing for it.  McCain, smart man that he was, realized that only the real thing is worth having.  You can keep your imaginary legislation.  It has no value in the bush.

McCain was the phony in this situation.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/obamacare/mccain-hated-obamacare-he-also-saved-it-n904106

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/07/27/promise-broken-sens-mccain-murkowski-and-collins-tank-obamacare-repeal-bill/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/flashback-rino-john-mccain-campaigns-repealing-obamacare-video/

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/john-mccain-obamacare-arizona-224622

 

[Bernard Gui]

12 minutes ago, halconero said:

Yeah sort of. Immigration Minister Ahmed Husseing travelled to the US Embassay in Nigeria and asked them to stop handing out US tourist visas like candy.

Hmmmmm. AFAIK Mexico isn’t handing out visas to the caravanistas. But it does appear Canada would like a little consideration from the US. 

Thank you for the info. I would assume immigration is a political hot potato in Canada as it is in the US? I think it is despicable how these folks are being used on all sides. 

[halconero]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I live in Washington and am often reminded of Canada’s superiority by friends and associates from the Great North. 

No superiority implied. It's just the simple reality that the total number of resettled refugees has dropped below Canada's for the first time in history this year, and is due to maintain its downward trend next year.

Whether or not I think this is good humanitarian policy or foreign policy, or even a matter of comparative morality, has little to due with that fact.

Edited October 29, 2018 by halconero

[halconero]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Hmmmmm. AFAIK Mexico isn’t handing out visas to the caravanistas. But it does appear Canada would like a little consideration from the US. 

For sure. Canada and the United States have a somewhat unique agreement on asylum seekers, but there was little chance to renegotiate that during the NAFTA renegotiation. I have my doubts whether it would change now, beyond request to not hand out tourist visas to people likely to make claims, and unlikely to be accepted. Sadly enough, many would have qualified under one of the economic streams. Many spoke English, were professionals in Nigeria, and would have probably been able to immigrate under that stream. It's not even a long wait compared to the U.S. system. I've seen waits as short as 1.5 months, and average 4-6 months to immigrate permanently to Canada under the points system.

Quote

Thank you for the info. I would assume immigration is a political hot potato in Canada as it is in the US? I think it is despicable how these folks are being used on all sides. 

Not really. Support for current or increased levels of immigration remains at ~60%. ~80% believe immigration has a positive economic impact. There's been some hardening since the increase in border crossings, and it may change more in the future, but not as much as I expected it would. The Conservative Party has been throwing a few more immigration noodles at the wall, but Michelle Rempel, the Immigration Critic, has been fairly supportive still, and pressed the government to resettle the Yazidis.

Maxime Bernier, who won the popular vote for the Conservative Party leadership, but lost because they have a wonky proportional-points-geographic system for leadership, recently split from the CPC to form his own party, the People's Party of Canada. He's throwing out more explicitly anti-immigrant rhetoric, but the latest polling shows him at 1-2%. Whether Scheer (the actual winner of the CPC leadership race) defends his ideological flank against Bernier by increasing anti-immigrant rhetoric remains to be seen. He's toyed with it, but not dived in. It was a conservative Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, who established the post-Cold War consensus on immigration in concert with Ronald Reagan.

Edited October 29, 2018 by halconero

[Bernard Gui]

30 minutes ago, why me said:

There are many deserate people in the world. I do believe that 33 percent of the population of Guatemala are now living in the USA.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/15/hispanics-of-guatemalan-origin-in-the-united-states-2013/

Perhaps the USA should just tell all Guatemalans to come to the USA if they wish to because Jesus told us so. And I am not joking about this at all. Why not? Likewise for every desparate person in the world. Just invite them all to the USA. This will solve the problem for desperate people. However this is an interesting video about gum balls and immigration:

 

Thanks for pointing this out. It is a monumental problem....possibly civilization-ending, at least as we know civilization. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, halconero said:

No superiority implied. It's just the simple reality that the total number of resettled refugees has dropped below Canada's for the first time in history this year, and is due to maintain its downward trend next year.

Whether or not I think this is good humanitarian policy or foreign policy, or even a matter of comparative morality, has little to due with that fact.

Yep. The facts, ma’am, just the facts. 

I see nothing humanitarian in the caravan method of immigration. 

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, halconero said:

Many spoke English, were professionals in Nigeria, and would have probably been able to immigrate under that stream. It's not even a long wait compared to the U.S. system. I've seen waits as short as 1.5 months, and average 4-6 months to immigrate permanently to Canada under the points system.

As the above video pointed out, accepting the best only makes it worse for those who stay or are sent back.

From my point of view, Canada is now catching up with the long-term problems  faced by the US with such large numbers of immigrants - legal and illegal. In our politics, both sides use the issue in hopes of embarrassing the opposition. It’s a sparking point that no one really wants to resolve because it is useful in scoring political points and igniting discord among the voters.

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It’s a sparking point that no one really wants to resolve because it is useful in scoring political points and igniting discord among the voters.

I agree whole-heartedly with this. Both sides want to use immigration to score points so the chance of things getting fixed are pretty slim, which is a huge indictment of the lack of morality in our political system. Whatever happened to compromise, I wonder *sigh*

[halconero]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yep. The facts, ma’am, just the facts. 

I see nothing humanitarian in the caravan method of immigration. 

I don't see anything humanitarian or non-humanitarian in it. Some might have valid claims. Some may not. Both the American and Canadian systems allow for these claims to be weighed against the balance of evidence. As far as it relates to Church policy, I think the best we can advocate for is that family's remain together if/when they cross, that the law be enforced or that the law be reformed so that those who are currently not obeying it may "square themselves with the law and continue to work." I personally lean towards enforcement for the violent criminals, and reform for the non-criminals, but that's just me.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

I sincerely believe that the remark was given by our Savior and I take it seriously.  

How we as individuals treat each is reflected in the laws that we create.  Laws are created by individuals, and are enforced by individuals.  

Although I do not know what the motives of every member of this caravan is, I believe many are desperate and need help.  

I do not think we as a country can make laws that hurt people and then just hide behind "I was just obeying the law". In the US, we have a responsibility to righteously influence the laws. 

The immigration laws in the United States are evil and go against the many of the laws of god.

 

 

Did something I say something that would suggest to you that I felt like the words of the Savior were not meant to be taken seriously? Also, "our laws", are not meant to "hurt people", but "our laws", are written for U.S. Citizens, and those here legally, they are not written for those in other Nations, nor are they binding to those in other Nations. The immigration laws in the United States are more "liberal", that almost every other Nation, they ARE NOT "evil", and they are not in violation of God's laws. But, I can see from your comments that "rationality", is not a possibility.   

Edited October 29, 2018 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[Bernard Gui]

Just now, MiserereNobis said:

I agree whole-heartedly with this. Both sides want to use immigration to score points so the chance of things getting fixed are pretty slim, which is a huge indictment of the lack of morality in our political system. Whatever happened to compromise, I wonder *sigh*

And the posturing and virtue-signaling that always go with it just irritates the heck out of me. 

 

[halconero]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

As the above video pointed out, accepting the best only makes it worse for those who stay or are sent back.

The existing data is more nuanced. High-skilled immigration is correlated with an injection of foreign capital (more valuable US and Canadian dollars) in countries of origin, and eased burdens on social services. It's had tremendous effect in the Philippines and India.

Quote

From my point of view, Canada is now catching up with the long-term problems  faced by the US with such large numbers of immigrants - legal and illegal. In our politics, both sides use the issue in hopes of embarrassing the opposition. It’s a sparking point that no one really wants to resolve because it is useful in scoring political points and igniting discord among the voters.

Perhaps. It remains to be seen as far as Canada goes. It's not the highest we've seen immigration. The 1897-1914 period still holds the record in both raw numbers and as a percentage of population, and that included immigrants from "less desirable" areas of the world such as Eastern Europe, Japan, China, and India. I'd agree that the rhetoric is more amplified now by social media.

I agree though that there are sides both in Canada and the US that want to amplify this for political gain.

Edited October 29, 2018 by halconero

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, halconero said:

I don't see anything humanitarian or non-humanitarian in it. Some might have valid claims. Some may not. Both the American and Canadian systems allow for these claims to be weighed against the balance of evidence. As far as it relates to Church policy, I think the best we can advocate for is that family's remain together if/when they cross, that the law be enforced or that the law be reformed so that those who are currently not obeying it may "square themselves with the law and continue to work." I personally lean towards enforcement for the violent criminals, and reform for the non-criminals, but that's just me.

I seem to be the only one here who has addressed the issues of organization, funding, exploitation, trafficking, abuse, violence etc. involved in caravans and other every-day illegal entries. If we really are concerned with the humanity of the situation, we would provide public and private support and do away with the traffickers. If they truly pay thousands of dollars to the organizers and traffickers, why are we not clamoring for humane treatment through public conveyance? A lot does not add up for me. 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"The best they can do" being . . . the use of violence against law enforcement, molotov cocktails, use of children as human shields, etc.

The rule of law has to mean something.  "Times are hard in my country, ergo I am justified in violently attacking the law enforcement of a neighboring country and use children as human shields"-style reasoning is not very persuasive.

Thanks,

-Smac

Again you are using they to collectively condemn people for actions of individuals.  Under US law. people are punishable for their own actions, not for the actions of others. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Again you are using they to collectively condemn people for actions of individuals. 

I am using "they" to describe the self-selected members of a violent that is using molotov cocktails and other weapons to attack law enforcement, that is using children as human shields, that are using violence to literally invade another country.

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Under US law. people are punishable for their own actions, not for the actions of others. 

Broadly, yes.  But co-conspirators can be found culpable for the acts of their associates.  RICO.  Felony murder.  That sort of thing.

Again, this is a self-selected group.

Thanks,

-Smac

[halconero]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I seem to be the only one here who has addressed the issues of organization, funding, exploitation, trafficking, abuse, violence etc. involved in caravans and other every-day illegal entries. If we really are concerned with the humanity of the situation, we would provide public and private support and do away with the traffickers. If they truly pay thousands of dollars to the organizers and traffickers, why are we not clamoring for humane treatment through public conveyance? A lot does not add up for me. 

Where did I say I was against any of those things? I was remarking on whether determining caravan's asylum status was humanitarian or not.

A Western hemispheric model for refugees based primarily on the Ugandan model and secondarily on the Jordanian model would be ideal IMO. Colombia seems to following it with regards to Venezuelans, but in a much less organized manner. Partnering the OAS with the UNHCR would go miles here.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

And Sarah Root.

 

-Smac

 

Would it have somehow been OK had Sarah Root been struck by a US citizen and killed (as many are), it would have somehow been better?

Would the crime had been less serious?

Would she not have been as dead?

When someone who is here illegally is killed by a drunk american is that somehow a better crime?

I usually respect your posts but this video is awful.  I sincerely hope you are not advocating what I think you are.  

There are people who are killed by LDS drunk drivers, drivers who have been cited for traffic infractions.  Do we want to make a video that replaces the word "Illegal" and "person from honduras" with the word "Mormon"?

 

 

 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

You don’t need to include the insults, thank you.

Sounds a lot like what we do with the millions of folks who enter the country legally.

What would those background checks look like? If they can pay thousands of dollars to the coyotes, should they be expected to contribute to the cost of their asylum? Would you propose quotas, or free for all comers?

Entering legally is not as easy as you seem to think

Its amazing how people say they are in favor of a free market readily embrace quotas when it comes to labor supply.