Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Gavagai]

I do not dispute any factual claims made by asylum seekers from Central America. In that sense, I am not claiming that they are "faking" anything. I say that even every single thing they claim about their circumstances is true, they are still engaged in abuse of the right to asylum, this is why I used qualifiers "obviously" and "blatantly". The right to asylum is meant to protect victims of oppressive political regimes, not victims of private criminals. For protection from private criminals, they need to appeal to governments of their home countries.
Consequently, I do not believe that they are "not worthy of being treated the way international law says they should be treated". I just have a different opinion of how they should be treated under international law.
I hope that this is clear. I really feel like I have wasted time on explaining the obvious.

[Bacchus]

Obviously and blatantly (read: they are brown)

[T-hawk]

That they are brown has nothing to do with it. I would assume Gavagai would hold white immigrants from anywhere else like Canada or Norway to the same standards.

That a policy affects more brown people, because the people that self-select to disobey the policy are brown, does not make the policy racial in nature.

[Bacchus]

Amazing how transporting, housing, feeding, servicing and paying 140,000 odd people for the Iraq campaign was just something that had to be done, but dealing with 85,000 applicants at home is apparently a logistical undertaking of an insurmountable scale.

[AdrienIer]

Hungarian refugees (like my grandfather) were welcomed by the west in 56. Refugees are treated differently if they're neither white nor christian

[Gavagai]

Hungarian refugees (like my grandfather) were welcomed by the west in 56. Refugees are treated differently if they're neither white nor christian

I assume you are aware of events which happened in Hungary in 1956...

[AdrienIer]

Of course. I'm not saying they didn't deserve to be welcomed. Just that when it's white people fleeing death it's a lot easier to let them in...

[scooter]

That a policy affects more brown people, because the people that self-select to disobey the policy are brown, does not make the policy racial in nature.

Oof. I get the point you're trying to make, but this is flat-out wrong. The US has a long, distinguished history of crafting policies that are specifically setup in a way that targets non-whites. The textbook way in recent history has been to enact policies that harm people of lower socioeconomic backgrounds which just so happen to be largely non-white.

[AdrienIer]

Also there's the fact that the Trump administration is drastically reducing its funding of organizations like OECD. If Honduras etc doesn't develop their economy the flow of immigrants won't stop.
The republicans need a coherent immigration policy.

[Gavagai]

The textbook way in recent history has been to enact policies that harm people of lower socioeconomic backgrounds which just so happen to be largely non-white.

A question: if I want to harm people of "lower socioeconomic backgrounds" and do not care about their skin color but happen to live in a society where these people are largely non-white - how should I design my policies to avoid accusations of racism? Also, if I believe that harming the poor is a good thing - shouldn't I support such policies, even if I am not a racist?