Notice how Dolly constantly says that she sympathizes, she recognizes the liberal point of view, but at the same time, we can’t handle having every one who claims to be in fear or claims to be an orphan or is an orphan to be able to come here. Dolly is pointing out, very politely so as to dodge the banhammer, the absolute insanity of mass immigration.
Good trolling! Take note!
Dolly Cinders • 10 hours ago
Arguing in favor of letting these Central Americans stay is like arguing for something close to unrestricted immigration from the poorest and most lawless nations, because huge numbers of people around the world can point to hardship and violence around them. And arguments for unrestricted immigration certainly can be made; I just think it’s important for advocates of accepting unlawfully present migrants to realize that they are arguing for mass immigration.
If we accept this surge of migrants, then every orphan in the Third World could be shipped to the USA and become our responsibility, as long as someone is motivated to pay human traffickers to make it happen. In cases of children not in the care of their parents, the guardians sometimes would be inclined to send the children to America, both to offload the burden and to give the kids a better living standard. The number of children we’d have to care for would be enormous, potentially.
Also, a significant percent of the adults in Guatemala and some other countries could likewise claim to be in fear. The number of people we would have to admit would be overwhelming.
I’m sure the gang violence is real, and I sympathize. These migrants (or their parents) don’t want to join the gangs, and they’re unwilling to go (or haven’t considered going) to war against the gangs.
But if we accept that as reason for adults and kids to migrate, we would encourage fraudulent use of this reason. These Central American street gangs could be paid by the parents to fabricate a threat, so the child (or entire family) has an excuse that their immigration lawyer will use. The threats and supporting documents all could be faked; there is no way to verify it. There is not much penalty for them to try this, and much for them to gain.
Is it unreasonable to expect the NGOs (charities, etc.) and Central American governments to build and staff children’s shelters in those countries? It would cost much less money than sheltering/raising them in the USA, it would create jobs down there, and it wouldn’t encourage fraudulent claims.
If we must back out of international treaties requiring accepting refugees, that might be worth it, even though it would not apply retroactively to the kids already here. We don’t have to accept the consequences of all the world’s injustice and other problems.