Caravans

[Angrboda]

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.

You have argued basically ex culo that they can't be refugees because they have an economic motive for seeking asylum in the U.S. Since they can both be refugees as well as desire asylum in the U.S. for economic reasons, their seeking asylum in the U.S. is not by itself evidence that they are not refugees. Additionally, I have pointed out that their are reasons beyond the promise of economic benefit for joining and staying with a caravan. So even your primary piece of evidence doesn't hold up. That argument of yours, besides being ex culo, is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. As noted, courts have ruled that some migrants from Honduras and Central America are refugees, so obviously actual judges who know the law and how to apply it disagree with you. Unless you've got something more than the lame argument you've presented, then you haven't supported your claim that they are not refugees with anything beyond your incredulity that a person who is a refugee would seek asylum in a country that is difficult to reach when one that is not difficult to reach isn't persecuting them. Your argument fails because they don't need additional reasons beyond the persecution in their own country, regardless of where they are, and having additional reasons doesn't negate their reasons for leaving their country, which is the sole criteria for being a refugee. Continuing to be persecuted in a foreign country isn't required for refugee status. Your sole argument is that they can't be refugees because they have motives to seek asylum in the U.S., and that argument, as I've shown, is a non sequitur.

[Amarok]

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.

Too bad that's not what i did .

Actually i clearly did and refuted your points .

Yup and i  counter those  arguments and refuted the  points  you presented.I'm right and i have refuted what you presented ,And yes you are done because you lost this argument in every sense .

---

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.

You have argued basically ex culo that they can't be refugees because they have an economic motive for seeking asylum in the U.S.  Since they can both be refugees as well as desire asylum in the U.S. for economic reasons, their seeking asylum in the U.S. is not by itself evidence that they are not refugees.  Additionally, I have pointed out that their are reasons beyond the promise of economic benefit for joining and staying with a caravan.  So even your primary piece of evidence doesn't hold up.  That argument of yours, besides being ex culo, is nothing more than an argument from incredulity.  As noted, courts have ruled that some migrants from Honduras and Central America are refugees, so obviously actual judges who know the law and how to apply it disagree with you.  Unless you've got something more than the lame argument you've presented, then you haven't supported your claim that they are not refugees with anything beyond your incredulity that a person who is a refugee would seek asylum in a country that is difficult to reach when one that is not difficult to reach isn't persecuting them.  Your argument fails because they don't need additional reasons beyond the persecution in their own country, regardless of where they are, and having additional reasons doesn't negate their reasons for leaving their country, which is the sole criteria for being a refugee.  Continuing to be persecuted in a foreign country isn't required for refugee status.  Your sole argument is that they can't be refugees because they have motives to seek asylum in the U.S., and that argument, as I've shown, is a non sequitur.

But Jorm he's already "won" and this refutation is clearly just  saying" no it isn't " even thou it directly addresses his points .