It kind of does. It shows that their main goal is seeking a better economic situation, not merely getting out of where they were. It's like saying that you desperately need winter clothing because you are freezing to death, but you won't take a KMart hoodie right away, you'll hold out for the $1000 Louis Vuitton hoodie you can force someone to buy you next month. It pretty much shows what your true intentions are.
It doesn't show their main goal. It shows that in choosing between different places for asylum they chose the greatest country on the planet. That doesn't make economics their main goal ahead of asylum. Once again, you just start making up crap.
I don’t think it is a big deal from a US citizen perspective. They are not likely to reach the US border in any large numbers and they are not going to be allowed into the USA in any large numbers. The immigration of South Americans into the USA was an issue 20-35 years ago. There are other issues far more important but it is a political football appealing to some.
It really does, if you can be picky, you aren't really a refugee that deserves asylum. I understand they want to be allowed into the US, so do millions of people across the globe who are trying to get in the right way. They should seek asylum in Mexico so that they are out of danger and start the paperwork to immigrate to the US.
Once they are out of the danger that lies in the country of origin they will have the freedom to choose the best option for their asylum. The desperation comes in getting out of the nation where they are in danger. Once that is done, there isn't the same desperation anymore. It's funny you said that nobody was taking away their choice, but if they choose someplace other than Mexico you are disqualifying them from being asylum seekers, so you are actually taking away their choice.
Again, I get that you only look at this as a massive influx of new Democrat voters a few years down the line, but it really is terribly unfair to any immigrants trying to do things the right way. Like you said, there's no desperation, so they shouldn't be granted asylum. They can stay in Mexico and apply like anyone else, there's no reason to let them skip the line.
I don't know if anyone of the people would qualify as an asylum seeker. I have no idea. However, the fact that they choose to try and make it to the United States in no way shows that they aren't legitimate asylum seekers. You keep posting crap that has nothing to do with what I've said. I already mentioned that nobody should be able to enter the country illegally. Furthermore, a few thousand extra folks might someday be able to vote doesn't really qualify as a massive influx of new Democratic votes. LOL.
Well my point is that none of them should seeing as how they passed up many opportunities for asylum on the way here. Again, that suggests that their intention was migration, not asylum. In fact, I think they should change the policy to where any person that applies for asylum in the US that passed up opportunities to apply for asylum along the way are immediately rejected out of hand. If you walked here from Honduras, you passed up SEVERAL opportunities to seek asylum so clearly that's not your main intention. Seeking economic advantages is not a valid reason to grant asylum.
It isn't clear that asylum wouldn't be my main intention. It only shows that I'm going to seek asylum in the best possible place as I'm free to choose to do. Why would I seek asylum in a place that wouldn't be as good? Once I make it out of the danger of my country of origin, I will choose the best place possible for my family and I seek asylum. You might settle for whatever, but that's you. You don't know the motivation of anyone in that caravan or anyone else who comes to live here.
You are cheering for people to exploit the system in order to gain immediate entry into the US and subvert the immigration system....weren't you the one saying that our friends on the left aren't anti-borders? Better watch out, you might accidentally show your true colors. Also, if you knew more legal immigrants, you might feel differently about assholes subverting the system which only punishes the people who try to do things the right way.
If you knew legal immigrants, you would know that majority of legal immigrants are in totally different types of lines, lines that are not often available to most people in this caravan.
I think the point is that if they are now out of danger, they don't need to seek asylum specifically in the US. I'm not sure it is a given right to choose the best possible place for you and your family if you are jumping ahead of other potential immigrants who have been waiting for their shot longer.
I'm not cheering for people to exploit anything. You never stop making up crap. When I say (which I've done twice now) that nobody should enter the country illegally, that means I'm not in favor of open borders. I know and work with legal immigrants every day. I think that process needs to be revamped to make it easier and cheaper.
No, there are no stipulations that mandate a lack of choice in where an asylum seeker seeks asylum. If an abused child is seeking asylum from an abusive parent and they can choose an uncle who lives in a stable community with a home, and a steady supply of food as opposed to another non-abusive uncle who is homeless and lives inside of his car, they will choose the uncle with the home and stability. Both uncles would have the child out of danger.
You wouldn't believe how this caravan thing resonates. Even my Democrat co-worker is afraid of "what those people will do when they get to the United States, I'm scared to death". You've already got nearly a half million illegals in the Houston area. You're not afraid of them. Unless you think an undocumented cook at Denny's will attack you if you don't tell the waiter to pay your compliments to the chef. Paranoia is real. Pretty sad, too. Few of the caravaners will arrive here anyway. A bunch of starved, desperate asylum seekers. And these goddamned political ads about immigration. "Bringing their brand of evil. Rape. Kill. Control." Wake me up after election day. Or if we get Jimmy Butler.
They can choose, but that doesn't mean the country has to grant them asylum. Of course, one would always "choose" the preferred situation for yourself. I'm not sure there is a moral imperative for a country to grant asylum if the one seeking it is no longer at risk.
The one seeking asylum is at risk if they are forced to go back to their native country. They are only temporarily out of danger while they are allowed to be out of their country of origin. If not granted asylum they might be right back in danger. I agree they don't have to be granted asylum. I'm not saying that everyone should be granted asylum. What I am saying is that seeking asylum doesn't mean you can't choose where you are seeking that asylum.
This actually happens. Many families have ended up settling in Mexico. Many choose to continue here since they have relatives that can help them though.
