Spooked by Trump

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,996
Criminal Mexi Midget
Central American immigrants turn to Mexico
https://www.yahoo.com/news/spooked-trump-central-american-immigrants-turn-mexico-135848994.html
TENOSIQUE, Mexico (Reuters) - Cradling her newborn son in a steamy migrant shelter near the Guatemalan border, Concepcion Bautista says she still plans to reach the United States, but will linger in Mexico to see how U.S. President Donald Trump's immigration policies play out.

Bautista fled Guatemala after gang members threatened to kill her and seized her home, demanding money to give it back.

Her ultimate goal is to reunite with her father and two sons up north, but for the time being, she believes applying for asylum in Mexico is smarter than trying to break into Trump's United States.

"I'm not going back to Guatemala," the 39-year-old said at the shelter in the southern Mexican city of Tenosique. "I have faith that we'll be able to cross but for now, at least, I'm staying in Mexico."

The Trump administration has pointed to a sharp decline in immigrant detentions in the first few months of this year as a vindication for the president's tough immigration policies, which have sent shudders through immigrant communities across the continent.
making a difference w/o the stupid wall. still feel sorry for this woman but her state needs to step in to help their own citizens.
 

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,329
10,254
Scotland
I might be wring, but asylum seekers are supposed to apply for refugee status in the first country they come to, which wouldn't be the US in this case. I am OK with that, but I think we should help the countries accepting refugees so that the burden is shared fairly. Fat chance of that happening with Mr. Bad Hombre POTUS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eraserhead

ibookg409

Suspended
Apr 20, 2016
612
7,356
Portsmouth, NH
I might be wring, but asylum seekers are supposed to apply for refugee status in the first country they come to, which wouldn't be the US in this case. I am OK with that, but I think we should help the countries accepting refugees so that the burden is shared fairly. Fat chance of that happening with Mr. Bad Hombre POTUS.
Feel free to send Mexico a check.
 

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,329
10,254
Scotland
We can't handle any more here.
Yes, because the US, a nation of 321+ million people can't absorb the 50,000 or so successful refugee applicants each year, for we can't handle an annual increase in our population of 0.015%. We prefer people who arrive illegally...
[doublepost=1494012858][/doublepost]
Feel free to send Mexico a check.
My donations go to the Red Cross... :)
 

ibookg409

Suspended
Apr 20, 2016
612
7,356
Portsmouth, NH
Yes, because the US, a nation of 321+ million people can't absorb the 50,000 or so successful refugee applicants each year, for we can't handle an annual increase in our population of 0.015%. We prefer people who arrive illegally...
[doublepost=1494012858][/doublepost]

My donations go to the Red Cross... :)
Well until you start sending money to Mexico maybe you shouldn't be criticizing POTUS for not doing it either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fancuku and BeeGood

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,329
10,254
Scotland
I would prefer the US does this through the UN and funds it by progressive taxation. That way rich people can't weasel there way out of their responsibilities to their fellow human beings. You seem like a compassionate person (at least when the potential of of a fertilised egg is considered), so perhaps your advice applies to you as much as it does to me. There are plenty of refugees who need prenatal care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe

ibookg409

Suspended
Apr 20, 2016
612
7,356
Portsmouth, NH
I would prefer the US does this through the UN and funds it by progressive taxation. That way rich people can't weasel there way out of their responsibilities to their fellow human beings. You seem like a compassionate person (at least when the potential of of a fertilised egg is considered), so perhaps your advice applies to you as much as it does to me. There are plenty of refugees who need prenatal care.
Let's worry about our own. **** the rest. Let's stop being the world police and the world welfare office and the world child protective services.
 

BeeGood

macrumors 68000
Sep 15, 2013
1,801
4,840
Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
I would prefer the US does this through the UN and funds it by progressive taxation. That way rich people can't weasel there way out of their responsibilities to their fellow human beings. You seem like a compassionate person (at least when the potential of of a fertilised egg is considered), so perhaps your advice applies to you as much as it does to me. There are plenty of refugees who need prenatal care.
"Their responsibility"?

How is it that someone else suddenly has a monetary obligation to take care of someone you have compassion for?
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,228
quae tangit perit Trump
I might be wring, but asylum seekers are supposed to apply for refugee status in the first country they come to, which wouldn't be the US in this case. I am OK with that, but I think we should help the countries accepting refugees so that the burden is shared fairly. Fat chance of that happening with Mr. Bad Hombre POTUS.
From the UNHCR:

...Simply put, the term “safe country” has been applied, in the refugee context, to countries which are determined either as being non-refugee-producing countries or as being countries in which refugees can enjoy asylum without any danger.
It's important to understand that for many refugees leaving Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, Mexico may not be best place for them to stop. While Mexico has a pretty good system for asylum and refugees, it's also very dangerous, especially in places like Veracruz, where criminal gangs attempt to exploit refugees and asylum seekers.

Moreover, while the Trump administration likes to argue that their policies have blunted the flow, there are a few other causes.

First, Frontera Sur, a program to lock down Mexico's southern border, has been successful. U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel, along with members of the military, traveled to Mexico over the last two years and worked to install a stronger border system in the country, along with millions for security officials.

Second, most of the people who wanted to leave already did so and were traveling through Mexico throughout the election and through January.

Third, Mexican states, especially those in the north have strengthened Betos Grupos, and the Mexican Migration Institute has begun helping other migrants, offering them services and work visas. This is especially true with a large number of Haitians, who left Brazil last fall and traveled north for work. Oddly, the state of Sonora is refusing to do this, but the state of Baja, were most of the Haitians are, is trying to push forward.

Fourth, the route has become so dangerous, and the plaza system so strong along the U.S.-Mexico border that people cannot cross for fear that they will be murdered in the desert, or left to die by their guides.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,070
USA
Let's worry about our own. **** the rest. Let's stop being the world police and the world welfare office and the world child protective services.
Honestly - I don't think our government has it in them. Look how they are completely screwing up healthcare because they care more about a "win" and some arbitrary timeline. I agree - let's worry about our own. Perhaps members of Congress should focus on ways they can actually DO that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: satcomer

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,996
Criminal Mexi Midget
From the UNHCR:



It's important to understand that for many refugees leaving Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, Mexico may not be best place for them to stop. While Mexico has a pretty good system for asylum and refugees, it's also very dangerous, especially in places like Veracruz, where criminal gangs attempt to exploit refugees and asylum seekers.

Moreover, while the Trump administration likes to argue that their policies have blunted the flow, there are a few other causes.

First, Frontera Sur, a program to lock down Mexico's southern border, has been successful. U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel, along with members of the military, traveled to Mexico over the last two years and worked to install a stronger border system in the country, along with millions for security officials.

Second, most of the people who wanted to leave already did so and were traveling through Mexico throughout the election and through January.

Third, Mexican states, especially those in the north have strengthened Betos Grupos, and the Mexican Migration Institute has begun helping other migrants, offering them services and work visas. This is especially true with a large number of Haitians, who left Brazil last fall and traveled north for work. Oddly, the state of Sonora is refusing to do this, but the state of Baja, were most of the Haitians are, is trying to push forward.

Fourth, the route has become so dangerous, and the plaza system so strong along the U.S.-Mexico border that people cannot cross for fear that they will be murdered in the desert, or left to die by their guides.
Mexico might be just as bad as the country they left :(
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,228
quae tangit perit Trump
This all assumes that this country can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Now, considering our last election, in which a substantial part of the electorate fell for an obvious con by a vulgar talking yam running against a consummate, if flawed candidate, this might actually be true.

However, the idea that we cannot accept 50,000 refugees without collapsing as our country is a false choice promoted by people who just don't like refugees and have bought into garbage from the likes of Le Pen, UKIP, and Steve King.

This country is massively wealthy. Stupidly, fantastically wealthy, but we spend all our money on the latest and greatest in military hardware, while ignoring our people and our infrastructure.
What other country could burn through $5 to $6 trillion in combat operations and still have a national budget of $1 trillion, which includes a $54 billion increase in military spending because we need more ships in our naval fleet.

Increasingly, the problem is that we have two nations existing in parallel. We have the first world nation of the United States, driven by finance and tech. And, we have a developing nation, where infrastructure is cracking apart, and were opportunities are distant and difficult.

But, this didn't happen because the United States allowed asylum seekers to rest easy. This happened because of policy decisions made over the last three decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LizKat

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,329
10,254
Scotland
But the roles aren't reversed and I don't want America to turn into a 3rd world country.
Neither do I. I suppose my reasons for concern are different than yours, but in any case I believe we are taking giant steps backward.
 

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,329
10,254
Scotland
I'm being "compassionate" when I expect people to help me? o_O
Sorry, I think I misunderstood your post. Anyway,the point I was trying to make is that a person in a position to help you has a responsibility to act compassionately. Because civilisation and all that...