US pulls out of UNHRC

You do realize their parents are also wrong for willingly trying to enter a country (mine) illegally. You also realize that parents have a responsibility to not use their children as pawns when they are committing said crime...
Of course - but that doesn't excuse what was being done. I haven't looked at every country, but according to the links (and nobody's contradicted it when I asked) no other country's had a similar policy so this isn't hypocritical or just 'Trump bashing' as some like to see it but genuine disgust.
If the world is so concerned about this situation then Mexico should be held just as accountable for this dilemma. it is their country that allows these people to be trafficked to the United States. Oh wait sorry they want to dump their social and finical problems on the United States while reaping the reward from their own citizens who use the US as their cash cow.
Sorry, I can't see that Mexico has any sort of parity of responsibility here. The US (Trump) could and did change the policy at a stroke; Mexico couldn't. There's no logic there at all, just the same flailing round for someone else to share the blame.
 
Last edited:
I
Of course - but that doesn't excuse what was being done. I haven't looked at every country, but accirding to the links (and nobody's contradicted it when I asked) no other country's had a similar policy so this isn't hypocritical or just 'Trump bashing' as some like to see it but genuine disgust. Sorry, I can't see that Mexico has any sort of parity of responsibility here. The US (Trump) could and did change the policy at a stroke; Mexico couldn't. There's no logic there at all, just the same flailing round for someone else to share the blame.
You do realize that the vast majority of illegals from Central America, have to journey through Mexico to take a crack at the border.
 
Punishing little children? They are there days, until a relative can be found or they go into a temporary foster system.
An average of 45 days according to your link, so months actually. If you look at the report below he's still there after 10 months, and the previous links show it can be as much as two years.
. If the parents go to any border crossing and turn themselves in with an asylum claim - no arrest.
That all sounds very fair, civilised and humane. Unfortunately it also appears to be not only far from the full picture but incorrect - doubly unfortunate since you were at pains to stress the importance of your 'being there' to know what was going on.

'An added problem may arise if you come to the southern U.S. border. You might be affected by the “zero-tolerance” policy for unlawful immigration that the Trump Administration instituted in early 2018. Reports have surfaced that asylum seekers who hadn’t even crossed the border yet, but merely approached an official point of entry, were placed into detention as supposedly unlawful migrants and separated from their children.'

The report in the TexasTribune is as sad in indictment of every aspect of an immigration / refugee policy gone wrong as you can get, on a par with all that was wrong with Windrush. The difference being that at least some of those responsible for Windrush accepted responsibility for it and apologised.

Applying at a border crossing also has two distinct drawbacks you forgot to mention. Firstly, while the application can't be considered and approved it can be rejected by just one member of the CBP if he decides, without investigating any further, that he doesn't find the application credible. No USCIS, no board, no immigration judge. Secondly there's the Catch 22 that you need a visa before you can apply - if you mention that you intend applying for asylum you're less likely to get a visa, but if you don't mention it then you can be deported for making a false representation in your visa application and banned from applying for a visa or asylum for five years. Catch 22.
Same goes for any of the 12 consulates in Mexico.
The USCIS / US government don't agree with you, as they state very clearly that this is not possible at any US Consulate and that's confirmed on numerous other websites which make it very clear that "U.S. embassies and consulates cannot process requests for this form of protection because, under U.S. law, asylum seekers can apply only if they are physically present in the United States (or at least at a U.S. border or other point of entry)."

Given your "first hand experience" it's a tad disappointing that you're so misinformed and making claims that are so clearly not just mis-leading but totally incorrect.
 
You do realize that the vast majority of illegals from Central America, have to journey through Mexico to take a crack at the border.
Yes, I did realize that, though I'm not sure what your point is.

The vast majority of illegals going to the UK have to journey through other parts of Europe to take a crack at the British border, but that doesn't mean that those countries are responsible for British immigration policy or, for example, the excesses and wrongs of Windrush.

It's not only irrational to try to share the blame for US policy by saying that Mexico should be "held just as accountable" as the US, but it's rather sad when people don't have the guts to admit they made a mistake.
 
An average of 45 days according to your link, so months actually. If you look at the report below he's still there after 10 months, and the previous links show it can be as much as two years. That all sounds very fair, civilised and humane. Unfortunately it also appears to be not only far from the full picture but incorrect - doubly unfortunate since you were at pains to stress the importance of your 'being there' to know what was going on.

'An added problem may arise if you come to the southern U.S. border. You might be affected by the “zero-tolerance” policy for unlawful immigration that the Trump Administration instituted in early 2018. Reports have surfaced that asylum seekers who hadn’t even crossed the border yet, but merely approached an official point of entry, were placed into detention as supposedly unlawful migrants and separated from their children.'

The report in the TexasTribune is as sad in indictment of every aspect of an immigration / refugee policy gone wrong as you can get, on a par with all that was wrong with Windrush. The difference being that at least some of those responsible for Windrush accepted responsibility for it and apologised.

Applying at a border crossing also has two distinct drawbacks you forgot to mention. Firstly, while the application can't be considered and approved it can be rejected by just one member of the CBP if he decides, without investigating any further, that he doesn't find the application credible. No USCIS, no board, no immigration judge. Secondly there's the Catch 22 that you need a visa before you can apply - if you mention that you intend applying for asylum you're less likely to get a visa, but if you don't mention it then you can be deported for making a false representation in your visa application and banned from applying for a visa or asylum for five years. Catch 22.
The USCIS / US government don't agree with you, as they state very clearly that this is not possible at any US Consulate and that's confirmed on numerous other websites which make it very clear that "U.S. embassies and consulates cannot process requests for this form of protection because, under U.S. law, asylum seekers can apply only if they are physically present in the United States (or at least at a U.S. border or other point of entry)."

Given your "first hand experience" it's a tad disappointing that you're so misinformed and making claims that are so clearly not just mis-leading but totally incorrect.
Detained for not crossing the border? Hahaha - give me a break. And Consulates can assist those who are going to claim asylum. It’s in your own link... it says they can’t process asylum cases - but refugees can.


Can I Apply for Asylum at an American Embassy?

Refugees: Asylum for Those Located Outside the U.S.
If you are a refugee, you may contact the American embassy for assistance in submitting an application for resettlement to the United States. They will assist you in completing your application and gathering your supporting documentation. They can also help arrange loans to pay for any relocation expenses

But hey - keep trying John.
 
Detained for not crossing the border? Hahaha - give me a break
Why should I give you a break? You're now not just being misleading but telling blatant porkies.
And Consulates can assist those who are going to claim asylum. It’s in your own link... it says they can’t process asylum cases - but refugees can.
Yes, they can "assist" them in preparing paperwork, etc, but what they can't do is what you claimed in your previous post, that "If the parents go to any border crossing and turn themselves in with an asylum claim - no arrest. Same goes for any of the 12 consulates in Mexico." They can't make an "asylum claim" at "any of the 12 consulates in Mexico" so it isn't the "same".

Being generous, you made a mistake and simply embellished what you thought was correct; being rather less generous you knew you were wrong and you simply lied, hoping your bluster about "first hand experience" would pay off (and, knowing some of the board buffoons posting here, it probably has).

Maybe you've been in the States too long, associating with the sadder types who refuse to acknowledge that they were wrong and have to find someone else to blame, preferably loudly. Thank God they're in a small if vocal and powerful minority.

Grow a set of balls and admit you made a mistake - once you've mastered that new experience you may even be able to recognise what's true and what's simply a lie, particularly when you're the one making it.
 
Last edited:
They can go to any border crossing as well.. they don’t have to cross the entire country of Mexico if they are valid Refugees. There is no asylum for domestic violence anymore..

What you can’t do is cross the border illegally as you will be arrested.
 
Last edited:
Why should I give you a break? You're now not just being misleading but telling blatant porkies.
Yes, they can "assist" them in preparing paperwork, etc, but what they can't do is what you claimed in your previous post, that "If the parents go to any border crossing and turn themselves in with an asylum claim - no arrest. Same goes for any of the 12 consulates in Mexico." They can't make an "asylum claim" at "any of the 12 consulates in Mexico" so it isn't the "same".

Being generous, you made a mistake and simply embellished what you thought was correct; being rather less generous you knew you were wrong and you simply lied, hoping your bluster about "first hand experience" would pay off (and, knowing some of the board buffoons posting here, it probably has).

Maybe you've been in the States too long, associating with the sadder types who refuse to acknowledge that they were wrong and have to find someone else to blame, preferably loudly. Thank God they're in a small if vocal and powerful minority.

Grow a set of balls and admit you made a mistake - once you've mastered that new experience you may even be able to recognise what's true and what's simply a lie, particularly when you're the one making it.
Being right on the Internet.

Nothing comes close.
 
They can go to any order crossing as well.. they don’t have to cross the entire country of Mexico if they are valid Refugees. There is no asylum for domestic violence anymore..

What you can’t do is cross the border illegally as you will be arrested.
To clarify, what @SOCALSapper is talking about are those who have been granted formal refugee status by the UN.

Nothing whatsoever to do with those applying for asylum and nothing to do with anything being previously discussed in this thread.

FWIW, since the point has been raised, the US has traditionally led the way in accepting refugees but in Jan 2017 it slashed the numbers it would accept by half , so far this year accepting a grand total from Syria of 11; the only increase, up 37%, is unsurprisingly from the Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
To clarify, what @SOCALSapper is talking about are those who have been granted formal refugee status by the UN.

Nothing whatsoever to do with those applying for asylum and nothing to do with anything being previously discussed in this thread.

FWIW, since the point has been raised, the US has traditionally led the way in accepting refugees but in Jan 2017 it slashed the numbers it would accept by half , so far this year accepting a grand total from Syria of 11; the only increase, up 37%, is unsurprisingly from the Ukraine.
It’s clear you are trying to confuse the issue with half truths and word games - you don’t really have a point, you just make a claim and then get all verbose describing your unwanted opinion. Valid refugees could get asylum - that’s what’s it’s called. You can also claim asylum at legitimate border crossing, although around 90% are rejected. If you cross illegally you will be arrested.

I don’t need your response - they are the facts. No wonder no one listens to you...
 
It’s clear you are trying to confuse the issue with half truths and word games - you don’t really have a point, you just make a claim and then get all verbose describing your unwanted opinion. Valid refugees could get asylum - that’s what’s it’s called. You can also claim asylum at legitimate border crossing, although around 90% are rejected. If you cross illegally you will be arrested.

I don’t need your response - they are the facts. No wonder no one listens to you...
No, I think that's your little game along with a couple of others who've tried to confuse the whole issue of separating accompanied minors from their parents with that of unaccompanied minors whose parents aren't even there, and now to confuse asylum seekers with UN-approved refugees.

Man up, stop whingeing, grow a pair of balls and admit you made a mistake / deliberately lied.

As for the rest, it's increasingly clear that although you're supposed to be able to claim asylum at legitimate border crossings that the present policy is designed to make even that difficult / impossible:

Asylum seekers reportedly denied entry at border as Trump tightens 'zero tolerance' immigration policies

At the U.S. border, asylum seekers fleeing violence are told to come back later

Protection agents are systematically violating U.S. and international law by blocking immigrants at international ports of entry on the southern border

Central American migrants hoping to get asylum in U.S. denied entry at-Mexico border point due to congestion

No Asylum Here

While not 'facts', although it's unlikely to all be 'fake news', the articles are a lot more accurate than you are. ... As for no-one listening to me, that's never worried me too much here but I'm pleasantly surprised by those whom I may have crossed swords with elsewhere who've had the courage of their convictions to say that despite that they agree with what I'm saying here - that takes balls.
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
Except it hasn't been in existence for years ... just since the policy started in April.Except the increase hasn't been "steady" at all and there have been peaks and troughs that even a child could relate directly to events.
The April event, was a minor item, which was low on the radar and then massively blown out of proportion (June), at a very convenient time, following pretty much the first good headlines in the UK and foreign press about Trump. If you can't see the link, then fine.

On migrant flows, you are NOT looking at Causality.. In the past, a Syria type conflict would have seen the majority camped over the Turkish/Lebanese/Jordanian Borders hoping to ride out the conflict and assisted by the UN Agencies to settle in those camps. With a minority with money managing to get to Europe/US.. Event driven spikes, the flows are still lower, what has made peoples reasoning, to take such a fundamental shift in behaviour ?? Then widen that, to elsewhere, particular Africa, where there are serious ecological and resource problems around population growth.

My conclusion; Is an outside agent is encouraging population transfers for humanitarian reasons. The UN are involved in the conspiracy, NGOs have already been shown to be directly involved. I am not arguing the rights/wrongs, only looking for a cause.
 
...what has made peoples reasoning, to take such a fundamental shift in behaviour ?
Communication and social media.

The UN's simply incapable of that sort of organisation even if they wanted to do it - look at any of their operations for examples of an utter shambles and total, mind-numbing incompetence. You're giving them way too much credit.
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
Communication and social media.

The UN's simply incapable of that sort of organisation even if they wanted to do it - look at any of their operations for examples of an utter shambles and total, mind-numbing incompetence. You're giving them way too much credit.
Imagine your a poor kid from Somalia or Kenya, you are told, why don't you move to Europe, as there is nothing for you here.. That nudge, comes from the Government, or an NGO. Of course the UN aren't carrying out an overt plan, that is tinfoil hat stuff, but they collaborate with the movement and elements within the UN, especially those who hail from the developing world OR social justice types do more and are actively involved.

Now imagine the poor kid, he needs to be sure, so yes social media and Comms gives him that reassurance. Human rights law will protect him, feed him, once he gets there. The journey is perilous and exploitative, but if he can make it, then his dreams will come true.

The flow can't be switched off, because at either end is someone promoting it and supporting it. Human Rights law and its expansion was the final piece of the puzzle which stops anyone from interfering and thus cause.
 
Of course the UN aren't carrying out an overt plan, that is tinfoil hat stuff, but they collaborate with the movement and elements within the UN, especially those who hail from the developing world OR social justice types do more and are actively involved.

Now imagine the poor kid, he needs to be sure, so yes social media and Comms gives him that reassurance. Human rights law will protect him, feed him, once he gets there. The journey is perilous and exploitative, but if he can make it, then his dreams will come true.

The flow can't be switched off, because at either end is someone promoting it and supporting it. Human Rights law and its expansion was the final piece of the puzzle which stops anyone from interfering and thus cause.
Have you ever worked with / for the UN?
 
The ironic thing is that being a British Army forum is the number of lefties on it.
Most of what you see is not true leftism, it is people under the influence of the media narrative. The Overton Window has shifted so far to the left that even Centrist politics are regarded as Far Right these days.

It is not really their fault, they have grown up in a world where the media is considered a news source.

If you want to see the full effects of this then go an read some of the comments in the Tommy Robinson thread, people who have never read, watched or listened to a word he has said write him off as a far right nazi or a racist. When asked if they have ever read anything that he has said they say ¨no, i dont waste my time reading what a racists has written¨ but then think that they are genuinely informed.

As the Overton WIndow now sits firmly over the Left / Far Left boundary, anyone with views to the right of Corbyn or Chairman Mau sound like a racist to them.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top