Comment by ltbarcly3
8 months ago
I can't reply directly so I'll reply here:
It's not that they should be assumed to be liars, I never meant that.
It's that there is no reason to listen to what they say. Either they can provide evidence that they deserve asylum or not. Everyone would say they should get asylum.
If they were not in danger: they say they were in danger
If they were in danger: they say they were in danger
Since they say the same thing either way, it is pointless to even factor in what they say. Some people are telling the truth, some people are lying, they all say the same thing so what someone says has no information value.
When making the initial determination on whether to allow someone to stay in the country, they do not have to show evidence, they just have to make a credible claim, and about 85% of those claims are accepted. Then later they have to show evidence at their interview and hearing. Of the people who pass the bar for the initial claim about 90% are not actually granted asylum, but about 80% drop out of the system (although the numbers don't prove they were lying because there are other factors). So initially 85% are approved (like the person in question here) and then later only 10% of those people actually show sufficient evidence of a credible fear. This doesn't prove that most of them are lying, but of all the people that claim they are in danger to be allowed to enter/stay 90% don't back it up with evidence, and 80% don't even complete the process, which I think is very strong evidence that a substantial majority are lying (even if you give the benefit of the doubt and think that maybe 50% of them can't complete the process because they don't understand it, lack resources, etc, that is still 50% that were lying).
It's notable that during covid, when claiming you were in danger did not give you an easy way to enter the country immediately, people also stopped claiming they were in danger.
Finally, it is probably important to quantify what 'danger' actually means. Is it a 10% chance of being killed? 1%? 1/1000? Does going home have to be more dangerous than the transportation to get there? Does it have to be more dangerous than riding a motorcycle? The murder rate in El Salvador is currently lower than Baltimore, a LOT lower. It's beyond unreasonable to defer deportations to a place if it's safer than where the person is staying now.
You've said he's "almost certainly committing <criminal> perjury". Based solely on the category of immigrant that he is. I think that is abhorrent, un-American, and violates the Constitution. In the USA 'all men' are created equal, and our rights apply to 'people' not just 'citizens' (a class that the current regime now wants to redefine to not include natural born Americans, forget slippery slope we're now on a water slide).
You keep trying to justify your claim with 'we need to categorize/make determinations on these groups because reasons' but not engaging with that you think we should categorize a class of immigrants as perjures simply because of the class they fit in' because to do otherwise makes immigration policies hard/able to be abused'. We used to believe as a nation in the theory we would rather that 10 criminals go free if it prevents one innocent person from going to prison. I get it's hard, and it has negative impacts to follow our Constitution and what our nation believes in. It's so hard that people have had to die to secure those things. It's so hard that my grandfathers faced crippling life long injuries fighting for their belief in it in WW2. My understanding it's hard doesn't mean I think we should just throw it away. Blanket 'xyz people are criminal liars' has no place in the United States of America. Systems that are aware of the incentive to lie, sure. But that is why we have courts and a rule of law, not labels on entire groups of people. That Democrats allowed abuse doesn't mean we give up on what America is. You can keep giving me bullet points but your basic premise is so flawed to me they don't matter.
Imagine you were talking about the Chinese in the U.S. in the 1800s. You’d have the same kinds of bullet points,claims about fraud, about them being impossible to integrate, claims it just too many people, about systems being overwhelmed. That’s how we got the Chinese Exclusion Act. A whole race of people labeled suspect by default, stripped of legal protections, barred from citizenship, and assumed to be lying just to get in. It was wrong then, and it’s just as wrong now. Policies built on fear and group guilt erode everything we claim to stand for. If we don’t push back against that, we’re not protecting our country we’re abandoning it.
I'm going to keep it very simple for you:
I said I think it's unfair and cruel that he is being forced to leave at all. I think it's immoral. I also think he told the story that let him stay with his family rather than the truth, and I don't fault him if he did do that. Anyone would do that.
I think you should, for practice and because it would help you be a better person, try to have a disagreement with someone without thinking they must be racist. I think it would be new for you but I think it would be healthy to try it.
Remember when you said you didn't go low? Look at your last paragraph.
I don't think you are racist, I never called you racist, but I think what you are saying is wrong and is the type of group guilt assignment that has been used for very f'd up stuff in the past and not how we do things in the US. Again, your entire premise is he's lying because of the class he is in. That is the slippery slope that I am calling out. Your own words. You didn't judge him unfairly you say, you just said he committed criminal perjury based on your knowledge that he's a foreigner seeking asylum. I said that the system should be structured to recognize the incentives to lie, but we shouldn't judge people based on their class, you continued to say all foreigners seeking asylum are probably liars, especially your original example individual, based SOLELY on that he is a foreigner seeking asylum.
I explained my reasoning. And I even said I agreed that the Democrats have broken the system, and that the courts needed to be structured to account for the incentive to lie. But I didn't like classifying a group/class of people liars based on their class. 'All poor people steal because they are poor and have incentive' is basically what you are saying. 'All people in Alabama are dumb, Bob is from Alabama, Bob's dumb'. Nah, I refuse all of that, labeling a group, assigning a characteristic because Bob's a member of a group. I never just tried to shout you down saying 'racist', I responded in way too many words :)
And again you resort to the low, personal attacks. Super lame, basic internet dig you gave there too. Because I quoted your words back at you and I don't think in the USA we should classify groups as guilty.
3 replies →