ADVERTISEMENT

The Honduran Caravan

A cost benefit analysis here would probably have been good. Would the caravan have sapped $92M from the country if they were allowed in? If so, this expense was worth it. If not, maybe it wasn’t. Although I guess you have to also factor in the repercussions, if the caravan was freely allowed to enter, would others have then followed and in total cost the country more than $92M?

If you think of the long-term repercussions, $92M sounds cheap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chickenhunter
BTW, Mexican corporations say they have a need for 200k workers and have offered jobs to these people in the caravans. If these people are really just immigrating to find a better life, then why not take the jobs? Why claim that you can't feed yourself if you have no will to work?
 
Link wouldn't open for me. Cliff notes please?
One of the kids from the caravan got a respiratory infection in the dentition center. Mom claims the kid didn't receive proper care. ICE released them so they could get outside care from a doctor. Child ended up dying.
 
Come to the US and use the legal system to sue for an exorbitant amount of money for something that was your own fault in the first place.

Well, I guess these immigrants are pursuing the American Dream after all.

A woman was attempting to climb over fencing on the border and she fell and impaled herself on rebar. And America citizens are pissed at America for it because her kids watched it happen. This shit is so absurd that it couldn’t even be dreamt up.
 
What’s next? I’m seriously expecting a member of ISIS to sue us after we blow up his home. And the worst part is that there would be people on his side.
 
Come to the US and use the legal system to sue for an exorbitant amount of money for something that was your own fault in the first place.

Well, I guess these immigrants are pursuing the American Dream after all.

How was it her fault? The child got an infection that could have easily been treated if she was provided basic healthcare. She couldn't get that because ICE prevented her from going to a hospital. Sounds pretty open and shut to me.
 
How was it her fault? The child got an infection that could have easily been treated if she was provided basic healthcare. She couldn't get that because ICE prevented her from going to a hospital. Sounds pretty open and shut to me.

Or maybe if she hadn’t attempted to trek 1000 miles the child wouldnt have gotten an infection at all.
 
How was it her fault? The child got an infection that could have easily been treated if she was provided basic healthcare. She couldn't get that because ICE prevented her from going to a hospital. Sounds pretty open and shut to me.

If she wasn't illegally entering the country, while contributing to the delinquency of a minor by forcing her to also enter the country illegally, then she never would have been in that facility in the first place.

The child died 6 weeks after they left, she couldn't get to a hospital in those 6 weeks either?

If I break into someone's house and they shoot and kill me.... well that's my own damn fault for breaking in somewhere I didn't belong.
 
If she wasn't illegally entering the country, while contributing to the delinquency of a minor by forcing her to also enter the country illegally, then she never would have been in that facility in the first place.

The child died 6 weeks after they left, she couldn't get to a hospital in those 6 weeks either?

If I break into someone's house and they shoot and kill me.... well that's my own damn fault for breaking in somewhere I didn't belong.

Requesting asylum isn’t illegal. I’m assuming that’s what they were doing. I’m open to being corrected though.

The article didn’t say it took her 6 weeks to seek care. She died in a hospital so obviously she had gotten to a hospital in less than 6 weeks. And she had been transferred to a children’s hospital so it definitley didn’t take that long. The point is she should’ve gotten adequate care from day one.
 
Requesting asylum isn’t illegal. I’m assuming that’s what they were doing. I’m open to being corrected though.

It's not, and if that's what they were doing then I'm open to being corrected as well. I was reading the article on CNN because the Yahoo one wouldn't open for me. In it they said "Immigration officials detained the mother and daughter in March after they came from Guatemala and crossed into the US via the Rio Grande". Since they were detained in a river, I assumed that meant they were entering illegally.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28/health/texas-ice-yazmin-juarez-child-lawsuit/index.html

The point is she should’ve gotten adequate care from day one.

Her attorney made a similar claim: "The US government had a duty to provide this little girl with safe, sanitary living conditions and proper medical care"

I disagree with both of you. I don't even think the US should be responsible for funding healthcare of US citizens, nevermind non-citizens.
 
Her attorney made a similar claim: "The US government had a duty to provide this little girl with safe, sanitary living conditions and proper medical care"

I disagree with both of you. I don't even think the US should be responsible for funding healthcare of US citizens, nevermind non-citizens.
If she and her child were in detainment where was she supposed to get healthcare?
 
It's not, and if that's what they were doing then I'm open to being corrected as well. I was reading the article on CNN because the Yahoo one wouldn't open for me. In it they said "Immigration officials detained the mother and daughter in March after they came from Guatemala and crossed into the US via the Rio Grande". Since they were detained in a river, I assumed that meant they were entering illegally.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28/health/texas-ice-yazmin-juarez-child-lawsuit/index.html



Her attorney made a similar claim: "The US government had a duty to provide this little girl with safe, sanitary living conditions and proper medical care"

I disagree with both of you. I don't even think the US should be responsible for funding healthcare of US citizens, nevermind non-citizens.

I'm pretty sure that international law states that you are required to provide adequate healthcare to someone if you detain them. We can't just lock people up then deny healthcare to their toddlers. That's obviously a fukked up thing to be doing. I don't think we should be in the business of turning away sick kids at the border, but we definitely shouldn't detain them, and also not provide them with healthcare. It's not like she was free to head down to Mexico to get her kid healthcare. She was detained.

I'm not familiar with asylum laws, but can you not cross the border then request asylum once you encounter ICE? Do you have to go request asylum at a legal point of entry? Seems like there would be an issue there, especially if a cartel wanted to prevent someone from getting asylum in the US. They could just monitor the roads leading to the points of entry on the southern side.
 
I'm pretty sure that international law states that you are required to provide adequate healthcare to someone if you detain them. We can't just lock people up then deny healthcare to their toddlers. That's obviously a fukked up thing to be doing. I don't think we should be in the business of turning away sick kids at the border, but we definitely shouldn't detain them, and also not provide them with healthcare. It's not like she was free to head down to Mexico to get her kid healthcare. She was detained.

I'm not familiar with asylum laws, but can you not cross the border then request asylum once you encounter ICE? Do you have to go request asylum at a legal point of entry? Seems like there would be an issue there, especially if a cartel wanted to prevent someone from getting asylum in the US. They could just monitor the roads leading to the points of entry on the southern side.

I'd argue it's obviously a fukked up thing to be doing to try to enter a country illegally. I do sympathize with the kid though, it's not her fault that her mother doesn't give a fuk about rules and is trying to hit up the US for money and services that she doesn't deserve.

I wouldn't be surprised if international law requires healthcare for the detained, or if you could attempt to enter illegally and then decide to claim asylum if caught.

This seems like further evidence that it's in the country's best interest to just "eliminate the problem" prior to getting gummed up in all the red tape of detaining/deporting.
 
I'd argue it's obviously a fukked up thing to be doing to try to enter a country illegally. I do sympathize with the kid though, it's not her fault that her mother doesn't give a fuk about rules and is trying to hit up the US for money and services that she doesn't deserve.

I wouldn't be surprised if international law requires healthcare for the detained, or if you could attempt to enter illegally and then decide to claim asylum if caught.

This seems like further evidence that it's in the country's best interest to just "eliminate the problem" prior to getting gummed up in all the red tape of detaining/deporting.

Why is it a fukked up thing to do? I’m curious about your ethical argument here. If someone is genuinely fleeing circumstances that justify the risk, and they are confident the current administation will deny their request for asylum, then it could literally be a question of life and death. I certainly wouldn’t argue that’s the case for every person crossing the border, but I would argue that it’s the case for some positive number of people that do so. That possibility means you cant just make the blanket statement that it’s a fukked up thing to do, unless you want to argue that people trying to protect their kids is fukked up if they have to break the law to do so.

You assume the mother doesn’t give a fuk about the rules. That seems like quite a leap to me. For all you know, she was horribly ashamed of crossing illegally, but was fleeing some terrible situation that made it worth the risk/shame. Or maybe she doesn’t care about the rules. I just wouldn’t assume either way. I don’t think you’re a racist, but this is why many people think that immigration arguments are racist, because they hear people making blanket moral assumptions about immigrants that they don’t know anything about.
 
Why is it a fukked up thing to do? I’m curious about your ethical argument here. If someone is genuinely fleeing circumstances that justify the risk, and they are confident the current administation will deny their request for asylum, then it could literally be a question of life and death. I certainly wouldn’t argue that’s the case for every person crossing the border, but I would argue that it’s the case for some positive number of people that do so. That possibility means you cant just make the blanket statement that it’s a fukked up thing to do, unless you want to argue that people trying to protect their kids is fukked up if they have to break the law to do so.

You assume the mother doesn’t give a fuk about the rules. That seems like quite a leap to me. For all you know, she was horribly ashamed of crossing illegally, but was fleeing some terrible situation that made it worth the risk/shame. Or maybe she doesn’t care about the rules. I just wouldn’t assume either way. I don’t think you’re a racist, but this is why many people think that immigration arguments are racist, because they hear people making blanket moral assumptions about immigrants that they don’t know anything about.

I didn't realize that the US shared a border with Guatamala.
 
Why is it a fukked up thing to do? I’m curious about your ethical argument here. If someone is genuinely fleeing circumstances that justify the risk, and they are confident the current administation will deny their request for asylum, then it could literally be a question of life and death. I certainly wouldn’t argue that’s the case for every person crossing the border, but I would argue that it’s the case for some positive number of people that do so. That possibility means you cant just make the blanket statement that it’s a fukked up thing to do, unless you want to argue that people trying to protect their kids is fukked up if they have to break the law to do so.

Yes, the key point here is "justify the risk". I honestly don't have a problem with people trying to enter illegally, just like I don't have a problem with people skydiving/doing excessive hard drugs/etc, as long as they're aware of the risks. I have respect for people that are willing to "risk it all" to get into the US. But with any risk, sometimes it comes up snake eyes. Getting detained and not having access to the healthcare you need and having your child die is apparently one of those risks.

You assume the mother doesn’t give a fuk about the rules. That seems like quite a leap to me. For all you know, she was horribly ashamed of crossing illegally, but was fleeing some terrible situation that made it worth the risk/shame. Or maybe she doesn’t care about the rules. I just wouldn’t assume either way. I don’t think you’re a racist, but this is why many people think that immigration arguments are racist, because they hear people making blanket moral assumptions about immigrants that they don’t know anything about.

This is fair. I was on a roll, and her not giving a fuk about the rules suited my argument. But you're right that we really have no idea how she felt about the rules. Although we know that she valued getting into the country more than the rules, maybe she had good reason.
 
Bottom line: Some people here have no problem denying healthcare for a sick child, locked up by ICE on US soil. That's disturbing......
 
Yes, the key point here is "justify the risk". I honestly don't have a problem with people trying to enter illegally, just like I don't have a problem with people skydiving/doing excessive hard drugs/etc, as long as they're aware of the risks. I have respect for people that are willing to "risk it all" to get into the US. But with any risk, sometimes it comes up snake eyes. Getting detained and not having access to the healthcare you need and having your child die is apparently one of those risks.



This is fair. I was on a roll, and her not giving a fuk about the rules suited my argument. But you're right that we really have no idea how she felt about the rules. Although we know that she valued getting into the country more than the rules, maybe she had good reason.

But it should it be one of the risks? That’s not really a good luck for us as a country.
 
Bottom line: Some people here have no problem denying healthcare for a sick child, locked up by ICE on US soil. That's disturbing......

Some people here have no problem taking hard working American taxpayers money, money that may have been needed to feed/clothe/shelter themselves, and just giving it away to anyone that comes knocking at the door.

This is a fun game.
 
There were no other countries in between in which she could have seeked asylum?
That is absolute international law. Asylum seekers are required to take asylum in the first safe country they enter. In this case of the Honduran caravan, that is Mexico. Period.

Not US. Mexico has offered them asylum. The immigrants have largely refused it from Mexico.

True asylum seekers don't get to pick and choose which country they seek asylum in.
And if Mexico is not a safe country for Honduran asylum, then that means Mexico is not safe for its citizens, and all Mexican citizens could claim the need for asylum into the US. Where does this end? Who is ever denied entry to the US?
 
This looks as bad as us turning away european jews during WW2.
so you're equating an entire race / religion of people, women, children, etc. 6 million plus, getting gassed solely because of their race / religion...... with a few thousand people (mostly male able bodied) under no physical danger in Mexico, but looking for a better job and standard of living, getting turned away? Gotcha. Yep, exactly the same. Great take.
 
so you're equating an entire race / religion of people, women, children, etc. 6 million plus, getting gassed solely because of their race / religion...... with a few thousand people (mostly male able bodied) under no physical danger in Mexico, but looking for a better job and standard of living, getting turned away? Gotcha. Yep, exactly the same. Great take.
Did we or did we not turn European Jews away during ww2? Don’t you think we should have learned from that mistake?
 
Did we or did we not turn European Jews away during ww2? Don’t you think we should have learned from that mistake?
I’m not being a smart ass.... I seriously am not informed enough on where and how US turned away Jews during WW2. Did we turn away Jews arriving to US by boat or plane? If so I agree that is bad. But why didn’t they seek asylum somewhere closer like Russia? I will admit that there is legitimate debate regarding US military not making liberating Jews as their number 1 priority during WW2 strategic ops. But it was US that liberated the death camps.

Still - the Hondurans should take asylum in Mexico. As asylum seekers that is what is required of them. First safe country. Why don’t they do that? Why shouldn’t US uphold international law?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT