Manufactured Crisis

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

This isn’t really true. Fear of being killed or raped by a gang because of your social group certainly could qualify.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Certainly could? No, it is the responsibility of the government in the country where gang rapes and murders occur to solve the problem. National sovereignty requires national responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the US to solve the gang, or rape, or murder problems of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, or any country other than the US. Sovereignty issues is one of the reasons that the UN pact avoided diminishing the normal responsibility of nations to secure the rights of their own people. Not only would it ease a nation's responsibility to protect its people if the alien citizens had to be accepted by another nation because their government didn't do its job, it would force the burden, wanted or not, on other nations to accept the transfer of the economic and social costs of whole populations into their territory

Social group? Are the gangs comprised of a different "social group" than those they prey upon? Even if they were, it would still be the problem of their government to solve. It is the responsibility of a sovereign nation to secure the safety of its citizens. When sovereign nations fail, if they are UN members, the UN assembly can order some method to set them right. In cases of uncontrollable mass genocides, as have occurred in Africa, UN troops can be sent to stop the killing.

The latest UN migration pact, which the US, thankfully, did not sign, would have made it far easier for migrants to cross borders without having to ask for asylum to do so.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Certainly could? No, it is the responsibility of the government in the country where gang rapes and murders occur to solve the problem.

If the government in question is unwilling or unable to provide protection there historically has been the provision for asylum assuming the standards can be met. Trump has changed some of this to make it much more restrictive but I believe challenges to this are still working through the courts. That being said it doesn't look great for the Admin ... "the new credible fear policies are arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of the immigration laws."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

If the government in question is unwilling or unable to provide protection there historically has been the provision for asylum assuming the standards can be met.

This sounds like your slick con artistry at work. What do you mean by "can be met"? Are you referring to some verbal manipulation to circumvent protocol text? Either the standards are met by the asylum claimant or they are not. Why would any provisions be necessary if the asylum standards are already met?

If a government is "unwilling" to provide protection from gangs and rapes, then the government is complicit and responsible for the persecution. In that case, asylum is met under the rubric of political persecution. It has to be proven that the government is deliberately not protecting the claimant.

Should the citizens of the South side of Chicago, under UN protocols, be granted asylum into Switzerland because of the persistent threat of gang violence?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This sounds like your slick con artistry at work. What do you mean by "can be met"? Are you referring to some verbal manipulation to circumvent protocol text? Either the standards are met by the asylum claimant or they are not. Why would any provisions be necessary if the asylum standards are already met?

They still have to meet the individual evidenced requirements obviously.

If a government is "unwilling" to provide protection from gangs and rapes, then the government is complicit and responsible for the persecution. In that case, asylum is met under the rubric of political persecution. It has to be proven that the government is deliberately not protecting the claimant.

Should the citizens of the South side of Chicago, under UN protocols, be granted asylum into Switzerland because of the persistent threat of gang violence?

The citizens of Chicago are under the protection of the Chicago police and the FBI. Most all the gang violence is gang on gang. If the gangs are prosecuting non-gang members or threatening prosecution of non-gang members the police will intervene.

It's an absurd comparison.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

They still have to meet the individual evidenced requirements obviously.

Then no special "provisions" as you stated are necessary.

The citizens of Chicago are under the protection of the Chicago police and the FBI. Most all the gang violence is gang on gang. If the gangs are prosecuting non-gang members or threatening prosecution of non-gang members the police will intervene.

It's an absurd comparison.

The citizens of the countries south of our border are under the protections of their police and military forces. Neither Chicago's police nor those country's police can stop gang violence, rapes and murders. The solution to local crimes is not amnesty into another country. Nor does the Un protocol say it can be.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The citizens of the countries south of our border are under the protections of their police and military forces.

Nope
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Nope
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yup