Quote:El Salvador and Honduras aren't Tyrannical governments. 

No their governments too weak to protect their people from the tyranny of the criminal elements that are integrated into them .

Quote:They are basically non-functioning states. The people traveling north are escaping poverty by and large. 

Nope their escaping the government  who can't protect them from criminal elements overrunning their state and directly integrated into said government  

Quote:Otherwise they'd just go to another country in central America, not the US.

Their clearly going to go for an optimal country in terms of safety etc

They a refugees end of story

(November 5, 2018 at 4:46 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 5, 2018 at 3:32 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Let's just highlight a key passage here..


Those five reasons being:

race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion,

What's your reasoning that gangs are persecuting them for one of those reasons? I don't see any evidence of that. Gang violence in your country is not a prerequisite for refugee status. Every country has gangs in it.

I don't know that they necessarily are refugees according to that definition, but there is support for the idea that they may be given that some district courts hold that they are. You claimed that they 'clearly' don't satisfy the UN Protocol's definition of a refugee. You need something to support such an opinion and so far you haven't provided anything of merit.

(November 5, 2018 at 3:32 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: My reasoning for why it's obviously economic I already laid out. You simply would go to Costa Rica or Nircaragua if you wanted to escape violence. They are less violent countries than the US and speak the same language.

If you were escaping violence and given the option of a 5000 mile walk, or a 200 mile walk. The 200 mile walk ended in a safer country that spoke the same language and the 5000 mile one in a more dangerous one that spoke a different one. Which would you chose?

The only reason to walk all the way to the US is an economic one.

That's not true. If a tsunami is coming do you not seek the highest ground. If violence is rampant in Mexico and Central America, then you would logically seek the place where you would be most protected. It's not clear that they are likely to be better supported in their claims of asylum in those former countries than they would be in the U.S., or think that such is the case, so if you think you are more likely to be granted asylum in the U.S., you would have an independent reason for seeking the U.S. and not simply remaining in one of the other countries. I posted an article in another thread which explained that many countries are doing their best to evade their responsibilities to refugees. And it's possible that they are both persecuted for the reasons outlined as well as seeking to evade economic oppression. Being motivated by one doesn't mean you are not motivated by the other. Moreover being homeless in Mexico is no better than being homeless in the U.S. aside from the fact that being homeless in the U.S. may be materially better. Maybe that's a reason for seeking out the U.S. in particular which simply modifies their reasons and plans for dealing with being a refugee. If they are seeking to start a new life, they have reason to seek the best conditions possible for doing so. Regardless of whether they are or are not persecuted as much as they were in their home countries in the country they are currently passing through. So your argument that they are not refugees because they obviously are not fleeing persecution simply doesn't hold water. The plain fact of the matter is that if they are a relevantly persecuted group, their not stopping until they get to the U.S. does not necessarily mean they aren't refugees, which is your main argument.

Except that violence isn't rampant in all of central America. So everything that follows that falls apart.

As I pointed out, there are countries there less dangerous than the US.

Work and wages are the only thing that makes America a more attractive option than Costa Rica or Nircaragua.

To me it's amazing to hear people who have never been to any of these countries speak as though they know anything about them.

(November 5, 2018 at 3:47 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Says the person why isn't in the caravan and has never talked any of them .....

You were?? You know these people personally?


No??


So how does that make your opinion valid?

(November 6, 2018 at 10:08 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: Except that violence isn't rampant in all of central America. So everything that follows that falls apart.

As I pointed out, there are countries there less dangerous than the US.

Work and wages are the only thing that makes America a more attractive option than Costa Rica or Nircaragua.

To me it's amazing to hear people who have never been to any of these countries speak as though they know anything about them.

Except for the fact that the latter part doesn't depend upon that, and the first part doesn't depend upon violence being rampant, only upon conditions being worse in central America than in the U.S. So, your argument still fails. And I still have yet to see a valid argument beyond this as to why they aren't refugees. So, no, you still haven't provided a valid argument.

Additionally, as pointed out in the article quoted earlier, there are reasons for joining and staying with a caravan which don't have to do with the economics or the existence of especially dangerous conditions. Being a part of a caravan becomes something that has its own inertia for reasons having nothing to do with what you've stated. So, on that score, your "there are better alternatives" argument, which doesn't lead to the conclusion that they aren't refugees anyway, simply fails for yet another reason.

There are plenty of safer countries in South America that Hondurans could reach if they didn't mind walking through crime-infested Nicaragua to get to them.

(November 5, 2018 at 3:47 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Says the person why isn't in the caravan and has never talked any of them .....

Neither have you. That doesn't bolster your point in the least.

But you know the difference between you and me.

I lived in central America, I speak Spanish, some of my family are Mexican. My father lives in Mexico. I've spent a total of a year and a half in Latin America. I've spoken to hundreds, if not thousands of people in central America in my life. Many of them talked about wanting to go the the United States and I never heard, not even a single time, that they wanted to go there for reasons of safety. It's almost universally economic reasons.

I know this sounds insulting, and it's not meant that way, but the position that these people would come all the way up here by foot for safety reasons is an ignorant one.

I mean it in a literal sense, not as a slur to imply stupidity like people on the forums do. Only someone ignorant of central America, Mexico, and the view of America by central Americans, and the long history of people caravaning to the US (I actually saw one in 2011 at the Guatemala/Mexico jorder), could believe that this caravan is motivated by saftey over economics. It just doesn't make sense on a number of levels that I've already covered. I genuinely don't understand why you guys are so insistent in sticking to this fable, when you don't even know basically anything about the region.

Yes I haven't talked to anyone in the caravan, but unlike you I have talked to tons of people, I their own language and in their own country about the US. I'd throw out a wager that you haven't done either, and if you've even been to a Latin American country, it was on a gringo style vacation in a resort.

So I'm just going to urge you and jorg to sit back and consider what you actually know. Not what you've heard lately in the media, but what you actually know about the situation.

---

(November 6, 2018 at 11:27 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 6, 2018 at 10:08 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: Except that violence isn't rampant in all of central America. So everything that follows that falls apart.

As I pointed out, there are countries there less dangerous than the US.

Work and wages are the only thing that makes America a more attractive option than Costa Rica or Nircaragua.

To me it's amazing to hear people who have never been to any of these countries speak as though they know anything about them.

Except for the fact that the latter part doesn't depend upon that, and the first part doesn't depend upon violence being rampant, only upon conditions being worse in central America than in the U.S. So, your argument still fails. And I still have yet to see a valid argument beyond this as to why they aren't refugees. So, no, you still haven't provided a valid argument.

Additionally, as pointed out in the article quoted earlier, there are reasons for joining and staying with a caravan which don't have to do with the economics or the existence of especially dangerous conditions. Being a part of a caravan becomes something that has its own inertia for reasons having nothing to do with what you've stated. So, on that score, your "there are better alternatives" argument, which doesn't lead to the conclusion that they aren't refugees anyway, simply fails for yet another reason.

Well I already gave the reasons they aren't refugees. They don't meet the conditions for it.

My argument doesn't fail at the least because you ignored the key element. Costa Rica is 5000 miles closer and speaks the same language. Nobody is like "let's walk an extra 5000 miles to go to a more dangerous country, where the army may shoot at us at the border wall"

That makes no sense at all.

---

If you wanted to say they were economic refugees, in the sense that their economies are so bad for the working class, that they have to come to the US. That's fair, and I think we should take them. There is pretty much a labor shortage in the US, so we could use them.

But the idea that they are refugees in the way the U.N. defines it is total nonsense. It just doesn't line up with logic. As in the 'what would you do in that situation?' if violence was the key element to their plight.

Certainly not walk an extra 5000 miles. It's actually sort of insulting to them, to think that they aren't acting rationally.

Minimum wage in most of these countries is around 10 dollars a day by the way. That's why you'd walk 5000 miles. Not to mention Mexicans won't hire people from central America anyway. Its the only rational reason, you'd make that walk.

---

(November 6, 2018 at 11:48 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: There are plenty of safer countries in South America that Hondurans could reach if they didn't mind walking through crime-infested Nicaragua to get to them.

Nicaragua is a safe country. I hitchhiked through there. They have as low a murder rate as the US. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostong...I/amp.html

An El Salvadoran told me 'there is no crime in Nicaragua'

(November 6, 2018 at 10:20 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(November 5, 2018 at 3:47 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Says the person why isn't in the caravan and has never talked any of them .....

You were?? You know these people personally?


No??


So how does that make your opinion valid?

I never said i was or i did 

And what opinion was that again ?

---

Quote:But you know the difference between you and me.

I lived in central America, I speak Spanish, some of my family are Mexican. My father lives in Mexico. I've spent a total of a year and a half in Latin America. I've spoken to hundreds, if not thousands of people in central America in my life. Many of them talked about wanting to go the the United States and I never heard, not even a single time, that they wanted to go there for reasons of safety. It's almost universally economic reasons. 

I know this sounds insulting, and it's not meant that way, but the position that these people would come all the way up here by foot for safety reasons is an ignorant one.

I mean it in a literal sense, not as a slur to imply stupidity like people on the forums do. Only someone ignorant of central America, Mexico, and the view of America by central Americans, and the long history of people caravaning to the US (I actually saw one in 2011 at the Guatemala/Mexico jorder), could believe that this caravan is motivated by saftey over economics. It just doesn't make sense on a number of levels that I've already covered. I genuinely don't understand why you guys are so insistent in sticking to this fable, when you don't even know basically anything about the region. 

Yes I haven't talked to anyone in the caravan, but unlike you I have talked to tons of people, I their own language and in their own country about the US. I'd throw out a wager that you haven't done either, and if you've even been to a Latin American country, it was on a gringo style vacation in a resort. 

So I'm just going to urge you and jorg to sit back and consider what you actually know. Not what you've heard lately in the media, but what you actually know about the situation.

1. I have lived in Mexico city and and have been throughout central America my second girlfriend is from Mexico. And i have meet plenty who say the opposite . But that 's just clash of antidotes .

2.And actually you refute the concept of them going by foot to safety you just assert it it's wrong .

3. You can urge me till you tongue bleeds you have no case . 

So you can take your presumptions about me and shove em .

---

Quote:Except that violence isn't rampant in all of central America. So everything that follows that falls apart.

In the majority of central america it is 

Quote:As I pointed out, there are countries there less dangerous than the US.

And great many of them have other safety issues 

Quote:Work and wages are the only thing that makes America a more attractive option than Costa Rica or Nircaragua.

Nicaragua is suffering civil unrest and Costa Rica crime rate has shot up since 2017 

Quote:To me it's amazing to hear people who have never been to any of these countries speak as though they know anything about them

So people like you then how can't even spell Nicaragua correctly

You know that just quoting me and saying 'no it isn't' to a point isn't a refutation.

You aren't even making an attempt.

I've made my points, I'm right, you aren't attempting to refute them. That's it, I'm done, I've won the argument in every sense.

(November 6, 2018 at 7:52 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(November 6, 2018 at 11:48 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: There are plenty of safer countries in South America that Hondurans could reach if they didn't mind walking through crime-infested Nicaragua to get to them.

Nicaragua is a safe country. I hitchhiked through there. They have as low a murder rate as the US. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostong...I/amp.html

An El Salvadoran told me 'there is no crime in Nicaragua'

The US Embassy has a different take: 'Reconsider travel to Nicaragua due to crime, civil unrest, limited healthcare availability, and arbitrary enforcement of laws.'

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/...isory.html

Quote:Over the last few years, increasing numbers of individuals fleeing gang violence in Central America, and specifically El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico, have fled to the United States in search of protection. UNHCR has worked to understand this refugee crisis, publishing reports in 2014 and 2015 examining why children and women are fleeing the region. These reports, Children on the Run, Uprooted and Women on the Run, all found that individuals fleeing El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras (a region collectively referred to as the Northern Triangle of Central America (“NTCA”)), and Mexico faced startling degrees of violence presenting a clear need for international protection.

http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/claims-from-c...erica.html

So, since they are refugees..both as the UN defines them and as economic refugees.........what?

Not only is the un commission for refuges weighing in on this issue and our policies, so is the un commission for human rights, the world food program, the un childrens fund, the world health organization, and the un development program.

Then there's this, from the brookings institute....(in case the un seems too blatantly leftist and politically motivated to know what the UN position on something -really- is, those fuckin commies! )

Quote:t is an outdated notion that people from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are primarily looking for economic opportunity in the United States and, therefore, should wait in line for a visa. For people fleeing these countries, waiting for a visa can result in death, rape, or forcible recruitment into crime.

Author

Sarah Bermeo
Associate Professor of Public Policy and Political Science; Faculty Affiliate, Duke Center for International Development - Duke University
SarahBBermeo
A recent report from Doctors Without Borders (MSF) states that these Northern Triangle countries are experiencing “unprecedented levels of violence outside a war zone” and that “citizens are murdered with impunity, kidnappings and extortion are daily occurrences. Non-state actors perpetuate insecurity and forcibly recruit individuals into their ranks, and use sexual violence as a tool of intimidation and control.”

These countries rank in the top 10 in the world for homicide. White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, as leader of U.S. Southern Command in 2014, said that cartels and gangs, fueled by the U.S. demand for drugs, “have left near-broken societies in their wake.”

The U.S. government argues that people fleeing these places do not fit the technical definition of a refugee, so the U.S. is not obligated to offer them asylum. Yet they fit the spirit of agreements on refugees adopted after World War II. The U.N. refugee agency has concluded “that a significant percentage of those fleeing… may be in need of international protection, in line with the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.”

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-de...l-america/