Trump signs executive order to stop family separations at border

Look another country enriched



Those that want open borders, there are regions in these countries heavily enriched, you can go live there and enjoy what you're promoting. If not, that's clear hypocrisy.

a reply to: Aazadan

They can go to any US Embassy or Consulate to start the asylum request. If they decide not to then they can come to the US thru a port of entry and make the asylum claim. Skipping the port of entry and illegally entering is against the law not to mention undermining the asylum position.

Finally every single person seeking Asylum by coming to the US from Central America are violating international law. The requirement is to seek asylum in the first foreign country you come to.

That would be Mexico.

You dont get to nation shop and even after all of that the receiving country is not required to take them. The only caveat is the country should try to send them to a country other than their own who is willing to take them.

Italy has blocked a boat containing foreign nationals. Spain said they would take them and their vessel was diverted.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The requirement is to seek asylum in the first foreign country you come to.

Whose requirement?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

The requirement is to seek asylum in the first foreign country you come to.

Whose requirement?

United Nations - first country asylum.

a reply to: Xcathdra
First asylum country?

That seems to apply to a country which first accepts someone for asylum. I see no requirement that anyone must apply for asylum in the first country "you come to."
definitions.uslegal.com...

Can you elucidate?

Interesting refutation of one of the nonreproducible, non replicatable, studies producing leftist cough cough pseudo cough scientists that tries to refute the iq group differences.

Although the source is a bit questionable, and makes a few mistakes, the video is mostly sound.


Also good commentary on how many of the atrocities of the past, the communists' massacres of the last century were in large part due to erroneous view of everyone as equal in capacity and unequal outcomes as unjust, justifying forceful theft of wealth and redistribution.

That is part of the problem some don't get, import massive amounts of individuals with low potential that vote socialist, and will on average end in the bottom of society, and you're just asking for trouble. The universities are filled with Marxists, pro communist professors, now get the votes, and you get the results, history would repeat.

a reply to: Aazadan

Crossing the border isn't criminal--doing it illegally is.

That's the point that many of us make: There are legal ways to enter our country.

And for the most part, if one is willing to do it the illegal way (sometimes repeatedly), I'm not certain that is the type of person that should be embraced into our country (generally speaking, of course).

Your response to Xcathdra about making people wait in unsafe countries is an appeal to emotion--see, we've gotten so far away from the problem when we're talking about "unsafe countries."

Just because these people live in unsafe countries does not entitle them to flood our nation or to seek asylum, as there are specific reason for seeking asylum, and as I've noted many times on threads like this one, that does not include "because my country sucks."

And I relatively disagree with your desire to overly control people entering the country--if they are here legally, they should be allowed freedoms granted everyone and not need to necessarily be controlled by government. That's a little too heavy-handed to me, and more or less gives the government power to control an individual's money, and I would never want that power granted to the government.

And for the record, work without a work permit and hiring people who are here illegally are already crimes--they just need better enforcement. Also, I fail to see the veracity in your claim that the hypothetical situation that you proposed would "completely eliminate the human trafficking market to the US."

a reply to: Phage

First country asylum and 3rd safe country asylum protocols are used by the US, Canada, Spain and S. Africa and are based on the 1951 convention on the rights of refugees and the 1967 protocols that were added to the convention. The European union also has the 1st/3rd country protocols, meaning if you apply for asylum in 1 EU country you cant go on to the next EU country and apply again.

If you come to the US to request asylum you cant go to Canada and apply and vice versa. Mexico ratified the conventions in early 2000's.

The application of the 2 asylum systems (first and third) is not specifically required by the convention nor the added protocols however it doesnt prohibit their use and defers to domestic law in those cases where a signatory nation adopts either 1st or 3rd country asylum.

The US had discussed in the past, with Mexico, first and third country agreements and Mexico has refused any agreement on the topic. Since the US recognizes both and uses both it was only a matter of time before Mexico's luck ran out.

Finally the convention and protocols does make it clear a person cannot "country shop".

* - UNHCR convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees***PDF***
* - THE SAFE THIRD COUNTRY CONCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS ON REFUGEE PROTECTION ASSESSING STATE PRACTICE
* - UNHCR - Affirmative asylum
* - UNHCR - 1951 refugee convention

how nice I love to hear this

a reply to: SlapMonkey

And we don't let nearly enough in through legal methods. Demand for legal immigration far outpaces the supply of visas.

originally posted by: Xenogears

Interesting refutation of one of the nonreproducible, non replicatable, studies producing leftist cough cough pseudo cough scientists that tries to refute the iq group differences.

If we don't tolerate low iq foreigners, why should we tolerate low iq citizens?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Xenogears

Interesting refutation of one of the nonreproducible, non replicatable, studies producing leftist cough cough pseudo cough scientists that tries to refute the iq group differences.

If we don't tolerate low iq foreigners, why should we tolerate low iq citizens?

Do you see the human body? Do you know how it operates properly? By regulating the reproduction of its component cells. When cells reproduce outside of regulation, the uncontrolled reproduction of a subset of cells can lead to the death of the body. That is the disease called cancer.

We should provide care for existing individuals. But to be frank if all your progeny cannot operate in society and can only exist thanks to welfare as they are unemployable, you must understand what happens if rapidly reproducing individuals dependent on welfare are allowed to continue reproducing rapidly, that is exponential growth.

People can reproduce but their reproduction should be limited such that their population diminishes. This includes all, as automation will eliminate the need for employment. But the restrictions must be more stringent on the less capable.

Nature did this inhumanely by killing the less fit, we humans do not need to kill to reduce reproduction and thus population, we can even allow reproduction below replacement level. But the resources of the world are finite, and only a few can live well off off of them.

We see from the body the results of unregulated reproduction, same happens to the state if the load of those that cannot support themselves but are a burden on the state grows beyond a certain limit. This limit, the result of finite resources, is a PHYSICAL INEVITABILITY, an inevitable consequence you must understand cannot be avoided. Regulation is a necessity.

a reply to: Xenogears

You seem to be flirting with, if not advocating for, eugenics.

Only the right people should be allowed to reproduce?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xenogears

You seem to be flirting with, if not advocating for, eugenics.

Only the right people should be allowed to reproduce?

Ahhh, notice I said all can reproduce, but below replacement. Human population needs to be reduced. edit: If you show fitness you can have slightly above replacement or replacement level reproduction to allow for your progeny to compose a larger percent of future population.

That said, if you have a dormant genetic condition and you and your wife will produce a child that will suffer massively from an incurable condition and die in early childhood perhaps that's not too ethical. Or say Incestual reproduction? How about that doesn't sound too ethical. For the same reason reproduction that has high chance of serious disabilities is not too different in terms of being problematic from incestual reproduction. If you allow one what would be the argument against adult incestual reproduction?

You must know I speak in facts. Physical law cannot be undone by an activist judge or liberal congress. The system has limited carrying capacity, limited resources, only a limited number can live in luxury, only a limited can be middle class, only a limited number of those less well off can be maintained by welfare. It doesn't matter what people feel, reality doesn't care, we have limited resources and we have to make the best use of these.

To increase the wealth per individual, specially in a world with increasing automation, the population must be reduced.

edit 2:

Also not everyone can normally reproduce.

Will add that some individuals are also infertile, sterile. Should we provide them with expensive treatments to allow them to reproduce? How about people without partners, unable to find partners, say highly autistic individuals unable to interact socially? Should we provide ovum, sperm, and wombs if needed?

a reply to: Xenogears

If you show fitness

Who decides?

That said, if you have a dormant genetic condition and you and your wife will produce a child that will suffer massively from an incurable condition and die in early childhood perhaps that's not too ethical.

Cool a genetic database. Just think of the possibilities!

A Brave New World?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xenogears

If you show fitness

Who decides?

How about the market, we place a price to per child reproduction after the first one, increasing ever more?

edit
Natural selection won't go away because you dislike it.

If we provide incentives for those less capable to reproduce ever more while we disincentivize the more capable from reproducing that is a path towards the collapse of the system.

If we do the contrary and the more capable are incentivized to reproduce while the least capable are disincentivized that has a positive effect on the system.

It is pretty simple.

Genetic engineering, can allow many to produce capable offspring free of disease, but still that doesn't change the limited resources issue.

a reply to: Xenogears

A child tax?
So the rich can have more kids. That will ensure an improvement of the race.

I think I said it before. You're scary. And on ATS, that means something.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xenogears

A child tax?
So the rich can have more kids. That will ensure an improvement of the race.

I think I said it before. You're scary. And on ATS, that means something.

Up to a point, the price can be made prohibitive. It would also destroy the wealth of the individual if the price was high enough or hypothetically scaled appropriately at wealth extremes, and they wanted a large number of children, reducing wealth concentration.

Obviously the concentration of wealth presents a problematic issue, as wealth that is self growing irrespective of performance, creates a population that can potentially be inefficient yet have the means through no merit of their own.

So measures would be needed to combat it. We should ensure wealth accrues on those that contribute to society, and have high performance, not simply wealth begetting wealth generation upon generation.

EDIT:

In the end I envision aging disease and accidents eventually becoming negligible in terms of their effect on the death rate. Which will mean birth rate must reach near zero. Otherwise there would be growth which would eventually collapse the system. I imagine severe penalties to murder, as well as genetic engineering to make such actions extremely unlikely, and environment safety measures making it virtually impossible.

Maybe there will be lotteries, and you can buy tickets, at such a time genetic fitness can be guaranteed through engineering, so anyone can be allowed to freely reproduce to the extent possible. But birth rate must balance with death rate unless to allow for growth temporarily on a mission to colonize solar system or another solar system.