The ambivalence of being an immigrant kid

[JamesNunya]

The law for Asylum clearly explains that the person needs to be physically inside the US or at an entry point. Regardless of how they enter the country.

A person that enters illegally and then apply for the status is using the law as intended.

It is literally impossible to apply for Asylum while being out of the country... in that case the application is for refugee... and this is the actual legal difference between the 2 status, Asylum is for people that is already in, refugee is for people that is not in US

Mostly true. A person can apply for asylum however they enter the US. But, a person who enters illegally and then applies is not following the intent of the law but, rather, the letter of the law. From USICS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services):

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum

Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

• Meet the definition of refugee
• Are already in the United States
• Are seeking admission at a port of entry

See, "seeking admission at a port of entry" means they want you to come up to the officer at that port and request asylum there. Where as, "already in the United States" is ambiguous on its own (hence the legal wiggle room in the letter of the law) but taken in context with the other part (referring to people just driving/walking to the US, riding a boat, or flying in a plane) then it would seem to imply people who are already here through Visa's or other normal means. This is the intent of the law.

... there is no other difference between the 2.

Not true. Refugees and Asylees have slightly different rights during the application process.

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo...fferences.html

Rights of Refugees in the U.S.

Refugees have the right to remain in the U.S. indefinitely (at least until conditions in their home country return to normal). They receive a work permit, and various forms of government support during their first months in the United States. After a year of entry, they can apply for U.S. permanent resident status (a green card). Four years after that, they can apply for U.S. citizenship. Rights of Asylees in the U.S.

Asylees have the right to remain in the U.S. indefinitely (at least until conditions in their home country return to normal). They can apply for a work permit as soon as their asylum is approved -- but not while they're still in the asylum application process, except in rare circumstances where their case takes too long to process.

After a year of approval for asylee status, they can apply for U.S. permanent resident status (a green card). Four years after that, they can apply for U.S. citizenship.

Let me highlight the difference.

Refugee: They receive a work permit, and various forms of government support during their first months in the United States.
Asylee: They can apply for a work permit as soon as their asylum is approved -- but not while they're still in the asylum application process, except in rare circumstances where their case takes too long to process.

Anyway, hope that clarifies a few things.

PS. To the best of my knowledge, no one in my family is an immigrant because as far as I can tell, my family tree goes back before official census records. At least, direct lineage anyway. I've been idly doing genealogy for a few years now and have exhausted birth certificates, death certificates, SS numbers, and census records. I'm already into the 1820's, 2 generations from the start of the US, and have followed my family from Louisville, Ky down to the border and into Tennessee. But records are getting harder to find. I'm considering tax records to verify and maybe advance my research. Does anyone have any other suggestions?

[Manalysis]

Does anyone have any other suggestions?

Church records, if any affiliation is known ...?

M

[simpleman]

Mostly true. A person can apply for asylum however they enter the US. But, a person who enters illegally and then applies is not following the intent of the law but, rather, the letter of the law. From USICS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services)

I see you are presenting an hermeneutic problem... however we have being running this laws for a while so I am sure they already have figure all this out while implementing them... LOL.

The thing here to consider is that the person is running for dear life, so obtaining access into US by whatever means you can, in those circumstances, is OK... that is the real intent of the law... not to have you working paperworks while someone is chasing you down... fist be safe then do the paperwork... this is also why it is important that as soon as you can you have to file for the application...

Not true. Refugees and Asylees have slightly different rights during the application process.

I was not referring to the rights they have but to the requirements to obtain them...

Look at it this way... an asylum application takes about 3 months to process... a refugee application takes about the same... when the refugee land in US he is already approved for the status, but he did the waiting time and the interview and everything else in another country.

PS. To the best of my knowledge, no one in my family is an immigrant because...

I guess after Elizabeth Warren fancy herself a native american, then everybody is going to follow the trent...

[JamesNunya]

I guess after Elizabeth Warren fancy herself a native american, then everybody is going to follow the trent...

Actually, I was referring to the fact that this wasn't a country until 1776 and in order to be an immigrant you have to move to an established country. Otherwise, you're a settler or a native.

As for calling myself a native? I might actually have the right to do so. In my family there was supposedly a Native American who'd escaped the trail of tears, that my family took in, and who'd eventually married into my family. Under such circumstances it wasn't uncommon for Native Americans to take on christian names to help hide themselves. So, doing my ancestry research, I have come across one dead end. Unfortunately, it's a Christian name so I can't be certain as the natives weren't registered until they made it to the reservations, alive; and even then it was their native names that were registered. So I don't have their possible native name and even if I did, there wouldn't be a registration of that name. But the info I have on this person fits the time, location, and sex of the native taken in. So if this is true, I'm 1/16th native from that ancestor. Combine that with the other lineage links I have that ARE proven to be true and I'm just a hair over 1/8th. Enough to claim being Native American by both US and Native American laws. I'm considering a genealogical DNA test to see if my DNA agrees with the story. But given the facts I have at hand, there is a certain amount of probability that I could claim to be Native American if I wanted to.

[simpleman]

Actually, I was referring to the fact that this wasn't a country until 1776 and in order to be an immigrant you have to move to an established country. Otherwise, you're a settler or a native.

I don't know your DNA... it is just that line about no being an immigrant but a settler sounded a bit weird... your family either travel lands and oceans to get here or they spontaneously sprough here...

Or how much you think it worth that argument that your family immigrated to the land before the politicians named the land with it's current name???

[JamesNunya]

Just because an ancestor of yours traveled here (argumentatively speaking) doesn't make you the descendant of an immigrant. You can either accept that fact as a fact, or not. Insofar as I can tell, I'm not the descendant of an immigrant. I only brought that up because most people in the US have at least one ancestor who is. But, so far, my entire lineage (paternal and maternal) is not. Granted, I've only gone as far back as the late 1820's to early 1830's or about 2 generations from the start of this country. If the trend continues to hold then that would be pretty amazing (in my opinion), at least from a statistical point of view.

[dubs]

The present "immigration debate" is how to come up with measures that work for all involved - solving the problems of the, let's say unfortunate, while being politically acceptable for various electorates.

Is that an emotional argument?

Western "welfare" is often framed in terms of business/insurance, give others a hand up out of poverty enabling them to someday pay taxes, also a safety net in case you yourself someday need it.

We all know it's bullshit and you might as well flush that money down a toilet.

You're framing immigration as a charity, which while refreshingly honest for a change, begs the question of what are the benefits of this globalist agenda.

IIRC, you yourself pointed out the key issue, that low birth rates in the West made immigration economically necessary, if one presupposes that most people want to maintain their quality of life on the same or possibly better level than today. With top heavy age distribution pyramids, no immigration is not going to work, like it doesn't in Japan.

Leftists created low birthrates, now offering "immigration" as a "solution."

In reality it's just replacing one ethnic group with a "mixed" group, which was their goal all along.

I'm not against mixing, I'm against forced mixing and racial mixing agendas, I'm for free-association.

If one can't argue outside one's own situaton, one is forever committed to only praising the virtues one has oneself. That's a bit meagre, I think, for all of us.
Go ahead, be against immigration, if immigration is bad. It's about being for what is good, not for (or against, as the case may be) e.g. immigration per se?

Thank you for the magnanimous resonse but it feels a bit like a hypocrite to use a program yourself and then exclude others from it.

I'm not against immigration, I'm for selective and small-scale immigration.

Some people actually, and perhaps there is something good coming from it, too.
Which is not to say that even taking in something good does not mean that you sometimes have to give up some other good for it. Cost/benefit.

Requiring high standards for immigration gets all the benefit and removes the cost.

We want the world's best, not their worst.

To make it unecessary for anyone, anywhere to e.g. migrate in order to have a chance to forge a better life.
That's the only thing that works.

That's like saying, "We have to make sure everyone has the same quality house to keep them from trying to break in."

Let's just not bother having anything nice.

Instead of having Jaguar's and Fords let's all drive a Lada and live in a commie block, that will surely eliminate crime.

Agreed.
"Stampeding, the horses of modern civilization have broken the (thing that connects the horses to the wagon ... yoke?), and we, hands entangled in the reins, are being dragged to death behind them."
Osweld Spengler, I believe; but anyway quoted from an increasingly dim memory, so ... caveat emptor.

Again, people who have no idea what the world actually looks like. Provincialism, narrow horizons, navel-gazing ... call it what you will.

Well, in the USA they have 139 brands of toothpaste, while Rome had none.
By that measure, USA has a huge lead over Rome (and wrt. foreign policy, Rome was the USA of its day, anyway ...).

American greatness was, AFAICS, a brand-building excercise by the new powers in order to create, out of thin air, an ideal that would make people join the USA project back in the day. A clean break with the Old World, no kings, no armies, no alliances, no banks, lots of toothpaste ... salesmanship ... peace, love and cake for everyone ... early hippies, if it hadn't been for how they treated anyone off-white.

/sigh

Ambivalence, ambivalence, ambivalence.

"We have the highest standard of living in the world, if only we could afford it!"

[dubs]

The thing here to consider is that the person is running for dear life, so obtaining access into US by whatever means you can, in those circumstances, is OK... that is the real intent of the law...

The intent of the law is to consider asylum to a person that is running from being persecuted.

The fact that some nations are richer and poorer than others means there is always someone somewhere who is desperate, nobody is chasing you or trying to catch you, you're just hungry or sick or both.

In my opinion this is misuse and perversion of "Asylum" principles.

"My kids are starving!"

Who told you to have kids? You were starving even before you had them, now you have all these mouths, and the father got killed in some drug deal or whatever.

It's a sad world but there's limited seats on the USS Sugardaddy.

[simpleman]

The intent of the law is to consider asylum to a person that is running from being persecuted.

The fact that some nations are richer and poorer than others means there is always someone somewhere who is desperate, nobody is chasing you or trying to catch you, you're just hungry or sick or both.

In my opinion this is misuse and perversion of "Asylum" principles.

"My kids are starving!"

Who told you to have kids? You were starving even before you had them, now you have all these mouths, and the father got killed in some drug deal or whatever.

It's a sad world but there's limited seats on the USS Sugardaddy.

We are talking about 10k people here... you keep cherry picking examples that you like and ignoring everything else... I don't even know if your examples are even real...

People trying to abuse the system is a thing, and there is legal ways to deal with it... there same law that explain Asylum talks about frivolous applications and the punishment for those cases...

They are coming from a highly violent place, so the idea that they are victims of violence does not sound so impossible to me.

[Manalysis]

Is that an emotional argument?

No, it is a description of political reality. All the West is debating immigration, with various gummints trying to sell (economically necessary, yet culturally abhorrent) immigration to national electorates that more and more desert the standards of established parties in favour of more or less rabulist "populist" or "right-wing" movements.

Western "welfare" is often framed in terms of business/insurance, give others a hand up out of poverty enabling them to someday pay taxes, also a safety net in case you yourself someday need it.

Yes. Clever chap, this Fürst von Bismarck.

We all know it's bullshit and you might as well flush that money down a toilet.

"We all know" = "Talking out of your ass".

You're framing immigration as a charity, which while refreshingly honest for a change

No. It's a consequence of the claim that the only way to prevent mass migration is to make shitholes into Elysian Fields no one wants to leave.

begs the question

Raises the question. Begging the question, aka petitio principii, is a technical term of logic.

of what are the benefits of this globalist agenda.

For whom? For migrants, a jungle with more food. For Western industry, a jungle with more animals. And so on. I.e., it depends who you ask.

Leftists created low birthrates

Bullshit.

now offering "immigration" as a "solution."

No, the impetus comes from economic globalists, alsways chasing the lowest minimal wage.
The leftists embrace is the old "give me your poor, your huddled masses" strain of do-goodery.

In reality it's just replacing one ethnic group with a "mixed" group, which was their goal all along.

Yeah, yeah ...

Thank you for the magnanimous resonse but it feels a bit like a hypocrite to use a program yourself and then exclude others from it.

?

That's like saying, "We have to make sure everyone has the same quality house to keep them from trying to break in."

Exactly. Now you're getting it.

Let's just not bother having anything nice.

Quite the opposite. Everyone thinks having a quality house is nice.

Instead of having Jaguar's and Fords let's all drive a Lada

Or let's all have Jaguars and Fords. And Ladas for those who are into it.

and live in a commie block, that will surely eliminate crime.

No, there'll probably be lots of crime, like violence and murder; but it will certainly reduce economically motivated crime.


M

[dubs]

I acknowledge that the traditional "left vs right" doesn't really work anymore, at this point I'm saying "lefties" out of habit.

Whatever you want to call them.

Call it "GloboHomoMultiplex."

The confluence of Globalism, Feminism, anti-heteronormativity, and their various political bedfellows ranging from Hypercapitalists (globalism to drive down wages, import cheaper labor, etc.)

The agenda is to cut down birthrates, import more, cut that down, import more, cut that down, ad infinitum - seems to be the plan.

It's a nice plan but it won't work.

Once you get rid of the docile white people who pay their taxes, then you bring in the guys who chase the cops out of their neighborhood, or put them on payroll a la Escobar, then the whole "globalism" shtick fails and you get Idiocracy.

In the meanwhile all the white yuppies suddenly discover their Jewish heritage and Israel becomes Fort Apache.

Thus the best laid plans of mice and men go awry.

[JamesNunya]

Or let's all have Jaguars and Fords. And Ladas for those who are into it.

M

Sounds awfully diverse and interesting. Let's all give all of our money to our global government so they can give us all our government issued homes where we park our government issued cars which we drive to Gov'Donalds to get our government issued food and live out our government issued lives just so we all have the same thing and so no one can be tempted by our things, relieving them of the burden of controlling their baser instincts. Sounds like a dream to me! /sarcasm

Personally, I believe in individuality, personal freedom (up until it infringes on others) and the expectation that everyone will have a level of integrity that will keep them from fucking with other people and their stuff. I also believe that once you violate the rights of others, you should lose yours. So if you don't have enough integrity to keep from fucking with my stuff, you lose your rights, and my rights no longer infringe on yours (since you don't have any) and, ipso facto, I now have the right to fuck up your face with my 9 iron. That's not to say that if you trip and fall accidentally break my car mirror I get to beat you within an inch of your life. That's an accident. But, if you intentionally throw a rock through my window then I have the right to throw my knife through your gut. And so does anyone else who witnessed you doing it. Of course, proof that you did throw the rock will be required.

Instead of "trying to understand" a person or "figure out their motives" we simply need to hold people accountable. You committed a crime? OK, you're going to be punished. Their 'story' should only be a factor in the harshness of their punishment and, even then, only if it can be 100% proven.

I'm sure that all seems hardcore conservative, but there's a difference. They want you labeled with a criminal history for the rest of your life. I say, you took the punishment? OK, you're forgiven; slate's clean. Have a nice day. It shouldn't follow you for the rest of your life, everywhere you go. It's done and over with.

Expect people to hold themselves with integrity. If they don't, hold them accountable and punish them harshly. Once punished, release them and forgive them as they've taken their punishment.

[Manalysis]

Sounds awfully diverse and interesting. Let's all give all of our money to our global government so they can give us all our government issued homes where we park our government issued cars which we drive to Gov'Donalds to get our government issued food and live out our government issued lives just so we all have the same thing and so no one can be tempted by our things, relieving them of the burden of controlling their baser instincts. Sounds like a dream to me! /sarcasm

Is it worse than leaving it all to Google and Facebook?
The Apple-selected home w/car is much more probable than any govt. takeover. If you had told Americans that the govt. wanted them to carry a device with a chip so they could at all times monitor where you are, whom you speak to, what your browse and what you buy, there'd be Long Rifles in Washington DC again in no time, but call it a cell phone, and it's just grand, why not buy two?
You think your freedom is guaranteed if you're not ruled by one big corporation, but two ...?

Personally, I believe in individuality, personal freedom (up until it infringes on others) and the expectation that everyone will have a level of integrity that will keep them from fucking with other people and their stuff. I also believe that once you violate the rights of others, you should lose yours. So if you don't have enough integrity to keep from fucking with my stuff, you lose your rights, and my rights no longer infringe on yours (since you don't have any) and, ipso facto, I now have the right to fuck up your face with my 9 iron.

Sounds so salt-of-the-earthy, but I'm not going to wait for your Day of Reckoning with the nominal CIC of a certain nation who runs a murderous global drone assassination progam that infringes the rights of others on an unprecedented scale, am I? IOW, your thinking may at best be relevant for pickpockets or jaywalkers; but the problem has larger dimensions than that. Petit bourgeois indeed

we simply need to hold people accountable

Again, depends on the crime. Some get million dollar bonuses from tax payer money for fucking up the world's finances.

I'm sure that all seems hardcore conservative, but there's a difference. They want you labeled with a criminal history for the rest of your life. I say, you took the punishment? OK, you're forgiven; slate's clean. Have a nice day. It shouldn't follow you for the rest of your life, everywhere you go. It's done and over with. Expect people to hold themselves with integrity. If they don't, hold them accountable and punish them harshly. Once punished, release them and forgive them as they've taken their punishment.

Oh, you soppy old sentimental. If you can't cope with all the crime, Bagheera and Baloo will come and help you out, yeah?

M

[JamesNunya]

Is it worse than leaving it all to Google and Facebook?
The Apple-selected home w/car is much more probable than any govt. takeover. If you had told Americans that the govt. wanted them to carry a device with a chip so they could at all times monitor where you are, whom you speak to, what your browse and what you buy, there'd be Long Rifles in Washington DC again in no time, but call it a cell phone, and it's just grand, why not buy two?
You think your freedom is guaranteed if you're not ruled by one big corporation, but two ...?

Never said it was. I think people's desire for i-everything is fairly retarded. As for cellphones, I use an unregistered burner phone. $20 every 3 months gets me all the service I need. My standard setting is for my phone to be in airplane mode with wifi, data, gps, and the phone itself all turned off. Not because of some anti-gov conspiracy type stuff but because it keeps me from recharging it so often (I'm lazy like that).

Sounds so salt-of-the-earthy, but I'm not going to wait for your Day of Reckoning with the nominal CIC of a certain nation who runs a murderous global drone assassination progam that infringes the rights of others on an unprecedented scale, am I? IOW, your thinking may at best be relevant for pickpockets or jaywalkers; but the problem has larger dimensions than that. Petit bourgeois indeed

Not looking for any "day of reckoning" here.
Nominal CIC? Afraid I don't know that abbreviation.
My way of thinking could work with any type of crime. I never said what form the punishment HAD to take; only that it be harsh.
As for drone assassinations done by governments... the same governments you want to have allocate everything?
Petit bourgeois? Calling yourself haute bourgeois then?

Again, depends on the crime. Some get million dollar bonuses from tax payer money for fucking up the world's finances.

Of course the punishment depends on the crime. The bailout was, ostensibly, a well intended, idiotic endeavor. The companies (and/or their CEO's/board members) which used the bail out appropriately deserve no punishment. The ones who used it to go on vacation... They should pay back triple the amount they received, have their legs broken, and thrown in a gen. pop. cell for a while.

Oh, you soppy old sentimental. If you can't cope with all the crime, Bagheera and Baloo will come and help you out, yeah?

I can cope with any crime and any criminal. You mock my approach but haven't explained what you think is wrong with it (other than you think it won't work for complex crimes and even then you haven't really said why) nor have you given any indication of what you think would be more appropriate.

What's wrong with the bear necessities?