The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

>. . .

>We do need to be careful here since there are different systems for
>immigrants and refugee claimants. I would argue that a genuine refugee
>claimant puts themselves into the hands of authorities as quickly as
>possible versus the fake variety who only say 'refugee' once placed in
>custody.

A refugee is a displaced person due to war or a natural or manmade
disaster. He is not an immigrant. Once the disaster has ended, he's
supposed to return to his home country. He's not making an asylum claim.
But he can work in the United States, if he's being hosted here.

Anything is possible but I don't see how refugee claimants are doing so
fraudulently in any huge numbers. Yeah, you hear of people lying about
their nationality who aren't truly refugees from that specific disaster.

An asylum seeker wants to be paroled into the host nation and is
essentially an immigrant. He must prove government oppression or
persecution that's part of some systematic effort to oppress a large group.

The people allegedly making false claims in huge numbers are asylum
seekers, not refugees.

>. . .

On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 22:52:32 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>>. . .
>
>>We do need to be careful here since there are different systems for
>>immigrants and refugee claimants. I would argue that a genuine refugee
>>claimant puts themselves into the hands of authorities as quickly as
>>possible versus the fake variety who only say 'refugee' once placed in
>>custody.
>
>A refugee is a displaced person due to war or a natural or manmade
>disaster. He is not an immigrant. Once the disaster has ended, he's
>supposed to return to his home country. He's not making an asylum claim.
>But he can work in the United States, if he's being hosted here.

Obviously you know that if you make a citizenship path open to a
refugee that's the path that will be followed and few will return home
if + when things stabilize back home.

How many eastern European ex-refugees returned after 1991? I know the
Hungarian fellow I referred to previously didn't. (In his case he came
in about 1980 and was well established as a municipal engineer making
more money than >I< could imagine as a small businessman Don't know
how it is in your area but if you are a civic employee and a manager
in a technical field, salaries are EXTREMELY generous in the public
sector. Since he made more than $75k/year (in our jurisdiction
salaries over that level are in the municipal annual report) I looked
up what he was making around $220k. Bench they don't pay too many
salaries like that in Budapest these days!

>Anything is possible but I don't see how refugee claimants are doing so
>fraudulently in any huge numbers. Yeah, you hear of people lying about
>their nationality who aren't truly refugees from that specific disaster.

Part of the problem is that you get a lot of claimants from northern
Mexico claiming to be fleeing not from the government but the drug
lords. It is obviously much harder to document such bad guys than the
government.

>An asylum seeker wants to be paroled into the host nation and is
>essentially an immigrant. He must prove government oppression or
>persecution that's part of some systematic effort to oppress a large group.

I think there's a legitimate public interest in making sure the
claimant turns up for their hearing and isn't simply wanting to
disappear forever once he's made his claim without ever bothering to
show up for his hearing.

>The people allegedly making false claims in huge numbers are asylum
>seekers, not refugees.

What in your opinion is the difference between an asylum seeker and a
refugee claimant? (As opposed to a refugee who is one who has had
their clearing and been accepted as a refugee which is the legal
definition of a refugee? Until their hearing they're only entitled to
be called a refugee claimant not a refugee)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Thu, 1 Dec 2022 22:52:32 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

>>>. . .

>>>We do need to be careful here since there are different systems for
>>>immigrants and refugee claimants. I would argue that a genuine refugee
>>>claimant puts themselves into the hands of authorities as quickly as
>>>possible versus the fake variety who only say 'refugee' once placed in
>>>custody.

>>A refugee is a displaced person due to war or a natural or manmade
>>disaster. He is not an immigrant. Once the disaster has ended, he's
>>supposed to return to his home country. He's not making an asylum claim.
>>But he can work in the United States, if he's being hosted here.

>Obviously you know that if you make a citizenship path open to a
>refugee that's the path that will be followed and few will return home
>if + when things stabilize back home.

Canada may do that but that's not generally true of the United States.

>How many eastern European ex-refugees returned after 1991?

I never read that large numbers of either Hungarians or Czechoslovakians
were given refugee status the United States after the two invasions from
the USSR. Surely they'd have been granted asylum, not refugee status.

>I know the Hungarian fellow I referred to previously didn't. (In his case
>he came in about 1980

Then I don't see how he could have been a refugee. I thought you were
getting at refugees from the Soviet invasion of 1956 or 1968 in
Czechoslovakia.

>and was well established as a municipal engineer making
>more money than >I< could imagine as a small businessman Don't know
>how it is in your area but if you are a civic employee and a manager
>in a technical field, salaries are EXTREMELY generous in the public
>sector. Since he made more than $75k/year (in our jurisdiction
>salaries over that level are in the municipal annual report) I looked
>up what he was making around $220k. Bench they don't pay too many
>salaries like that in Budapest these days!

Then he must have been an asylum seeker.

>>Anything is possible but I don't see how refugee claimants are doing so
>>fraudulently in any huge numbers. Yeah, you hear of people lying about
>>their nationality who aren't truly refugees from that specific disaster.

>Part of the problem is that you get a lot of claimants from northern
>Mexico claiming to be fleeing not from the government but the drug
>lords. It is obviously much harder to document such bad guys than the
>government.

As we've discussed in the past, fleeing from criminal gangs isn't
adequate to establish an asylum claim and I've never heard of it for
refugee status. The asylum claim would have to be based on fleeing from
the Mexican government in aid of drug cartels.

>>An asylum seeker wants to be paroled into the host nation and is
>>essentially an immigrant. He must prove government oppression or
>>persecution that's part of some systematic effort to oppress a large group.

>I think there's a legitimate public interest in making sure the
>claimant turns up for their hearing and isn't simply wanting to
>disappear forever once he's made his claim without ever bothering to
>show up for his hearing.

Yes.

>>The people allegedly making false claims in huge numbers are asylum
>>seekers, not refugees.

>What in your opinion is the difference between an asylum seeker and a
>refugee claimant?

It's not my opinion. An asylum seeker is claiming to be a victim of
systematic oppression by government against an identifiable population
group. A refugee is a person displaced by natural or manmade disaster,
or war. An asylum seeker, who wishes to be paroled into the host nation,
is essentially seeking to immigrate. A refugee isn't an immigrant and
would return home after the disaster has been mitigated.

>(As opposed to a refugee who is one who has had
>their clearing and been accepted as a refugee which is the legal
>definition of a refugee? Until their hearing they're only entitled to
>be called a refugee claimant not a refugee)

I have no idea how anyone has any particular status if he's not pursuing
his claims.

On 12/3/2022 4:02 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 22:52:32 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> . . .
>>
>>> We do need to be careful here since there are different systems for
>>> immigrants and refugee claimants. I would argue that a genuine refugee
>>> claimant puts themselves into the hands of authorities as quickly as
>>> possible versus the fake variety who only say 'refugee' once placed in
>>> custody.
>>
>> A refugee is a displaced person due to war or a natural or manmade
>> disaster. He is not an immigrant. Once the disaster has ended, he's
>> supposed to return to his home country. He's not making an asylum claim.
>> But he can work in the United States, if he's being hosted here.
>
> Obviously you know that if you make a citizenship path open to a
> refugee that's the path that will be followed and few will return home
> if + when things stabilize back home.
>
> How many eastern European ex-refugees returned after 1991? I know the
> Hungarian fellow I referred to previously didn't. (In his case he came
> in about 1980 and was well established as a municipal engineer making
> more money than >I< could imagine as a small businessman Don't know
> how it is in your area but if you are a civic employee and a manager
> in a technical field, salaries are EXTREMELY generous in the public
> sector. Since he made more than $75k/year (in our jurisdiction
> salaries over that level are in the municipal annual report) I looked
> up what he was making around $220k. Bench they don't pay too many
> salaries like that in Budapest these days!
>
>> Anything is possible but I don't see how refugee claimants are doing so
>> fraudulently in any huge numbers. Yeah, you hear of people lying about
>> their nationality who aren't truly refugees from that specific disaster.
>
> Part of the problem is that you get a lot of claimants from northern
> Mexico claiming to be fleeing not from the government but the drug
> lords. It is obviously much harder to document such bad guys than the
> government.
>
>> An asylum seeker wants to be paroled into the host nation and is
>> essentially an immigrant. He must prove government oppression or
>> persecution that's part of some systematic effort to oppress a large group.
>
> I think there's a legitimate public interest in making sure the
> claimant turns up for their hearing and isn't simply wanting to
> disappear forever once he's made his claim without ever bothering to
> show up for his hearing.
>
>> The people allegedly making false claims in huge numbers are asylum
>> seekers, not refugees.
>
> What in your opinion is the difference between an asylum seeker and a
> refugee claimant? (As opposed to a refugee who is one who has had
> their clearing and been accepted as a refugee which is the legal
> definition of a refugee? Until their hearing they're only entitled to
> be called a refugee claimant not a refugee)
>

I think it's more a difference in wording between your country and ours,
based on a legal definition.

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>On 12/3/2022 4:02 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>Thu, 1 Dec 2022 22:52:32 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

>>>>. . .

>>>>We do need to be careful here since there are different systems for
>>>>immigrants and refugee claimants. I would argue that a genuine refugee
>>>>claimant puts themselves into the hands of authorities as quickly as
>>>>possible versus the fake variety who only say 'refugee' once placed in
>>>>custody.

>>>A refugee is a displaced person due to war or a natural or manmade
>>>disaster. He is not an immigrant. Once the disaster has ended, he's
>>>supposed to return to his home country. He's not making an asylum claim.
>>>But he can work in the United States, if he's being hosted here.

>>Obviously you know that if you make a citizenship path open to a
>>refugee that's the path that will be followed and few will return home
>>if + when things stabilize back home.

>>How many eastern European ex-refugees returned after 1991? I know the
>>Hungarian fellow I referred to previously didn't. (In his case he came
>>in about 1980 and was well established as a municipal engineer making
>>more money than >I< could imagine as a small businessman Don't know
>>how it is in your area but if you are a civic employee and a manager
>>in a technical field, salaries are EXTREMELY generous in the public
>>sector. Since he made more than $75k/year (in our jurisdiction
>>salaries over that level are in the municipal annual report) I looked
>>up what he was making around $220k. Bench they don't pay too many
>>salaries like that in Budapest these days!

>>>Anything is possible but I don't see how refugee claimants are doing so
>>>fraudulently in any huge numbers. Yeah, you hear of people lying about
>>>their nationality who aren't truly refugees from that specific disaster.

>>Part of the problem is that you get a lot of claimants from northern
>>Mexico claiming to be fleeing not from the government but the drug
>>lords. It is obviously much harder to document such bad guys than the
>>government.

>>>An asylum seeker wants to be paroled into the host nation and is
>>>essentially an immigrant. He must prove government oppression or
>>>persecution that's part of some systematic effort to oppress a large group.

>>I think there's a legitimate public interest in making sure the
>>claimant turns up for their hearing and isn't simply wanting to
>>disappear forever once he's made his claim without ever bothering to
>>show up for his hearing.

>>>The people allegedly making false claims in huge numbers are asylum
>>>seekers, not refugees.

>>What in your opinion is the difference between an asylum seeker and a
>>refugee claimant? (As opposed to a refugee who is one who has had
>>their clearing and been accepted as a refugee which is the legal
>>definition of a refugee? Until their hearing they're only entitled to
>>be called a refugee claimant not a refugee)

>I think it's more a difference in wording between your country and ours,
>based on a legal definition.

As "refugee" and "asylum" are legal terms from the same international
treaties both the United States and Canada are parties to, that's just
not possible. A refugee is a displaced person who isn't immigrating.
An asylum seeker is fleeing government oppression. They are different.

On 12/3/2022 7:46 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>> On 12/3/2022 4:02 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> Thu, 1 Dec 2022 22:52:32 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>>>>> . . .
>
>>>>> We do need to be careful here since there are different systems for
>>>>> immigrants and refugee claimants. I would argue that a genuine refugee
>>>>> claimant puts themselves into the hands of authorities as quickly as
>>>>> possible versus the fake variety who only say 'refugee' once placed in
>>>>> custody.
>
>>>> A refugee is a displaced person due to war or a natural or manmade
>>>> disaster. He is not an immigrant. Once the disaster has ended, he's
>>>> supposed to return to his home country. He's not making an asylum claim.
>>>> But he can work in the United States, if he's being hosted here.
>
>>> Obviously you know that if you make a citizenship path open to a
>>> refugee that's the path that will be followed and few will return home
>>> if + when things stabilize back home.
>
>>> How many eastern European ex-refugees returned after 1991? I know the
>>> Hungarian fellow I referred to previously didn't. (In his case he came
>>> in about 1980 and was well established as a municipal engineer making
>>> more money than >I< could imagine as a small businessman Don't know
>>> how it is in your area but if you are a civic employee and a manager
>>> in a technical field, salaries are EXTREMELY generous in the public
>>> sector. Since he made more than $75k/year (in our jurisdiction
>>> salaries over that level are in the municipal annual report) I looked
>>> up what he was making around $220k. Bench they don't pay too many
>>> salaries like that in Budapest these days!
>
>>>> Anything is possible but I don't see how refugee claimants are doing so
>>>> fraudulently in any huge numbers. Yeah, you hear of people lying about
>>>> their nationality who aren't truly refugees from that specific disaster.
>
>>> Part of the problem is that you get a lot of claimants from northern
>>> Mexico claiming to be fleeing not from the government but the drug
>>> lords. It is obviously much harder to document such bad guys than the
>>> government.
>
>>>> An asylum seeker wants to be paroled into the host nation and is
>>>> essentially an immigrant. He must prove government oppression or
>>>> persecution that's part of some systematic effort to oppress a large group.
>
>>> I think there's a legitimate public interest in making sure the
>>> claimant turns up for their hearing and isn't simply wanting to
>>> disappear forever once he's made his claim without ever bothering to
>>> show up for his hearing.
>
>>>> The people allegedly making false claims in huge numbers are asylum
>>>> seekers, not refugees.
>
>>> What in your opinion is the difference between an asylum seeker and a
>>> refugee claimant? (As opposed to a refugee who is one who has had
>>> their clearing and been accepted as a refugee which is the legal
>>> definition of a refugee? Until their hearing they're only entitled to
>>> be called a refugee claimant not a refugee)
>
>> I think it's more a difference in wording between your country and ours,
>> based on a legal definition.
>
> As "refugee" and "asylum" are legal terms from the same international
> treaties both the United States and Canada are parties to, that's just
> not possible. A refugee is a displaced person who isn't immigrating.
> An asylum seeker is fleeing government oppression. They are different.
>
The usage appears to be different though.

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>On 12/3/2022 7:46 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/3/2022 4:02 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> Thu, 1 Dec 2022 22:52:32 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> . . .
>>
>>>>>> We do need to be careful here since there are different systems for
>>>>>> immigrants and refugee claimants. I would argue that a genuine refugee
>>>>>> claimant puts themselves into the hands of authorities as quickly as
>>>>>> possible versus the fake variety who only say 'refugee' once placed in
>>>>>> custody.
>>
>>>>> A refugee is a displaced person due to war or a natural or manmade
>>>>> disaster. He is not an immigrant. Once the disaster has ended, he's
>>>>> supposed to return to his home country. He's not making an asylum claim.
>>>>> But he can work in the United States, if he's being hosted here.
>>
>>>> Obviously you know that if you make a citizenship path open to a
>>>> refugee that's the path that will be followed and few will return home
>>>> if + when things stabilize back home.
>>
>>>> How many eastern European ex-refugees returned after 1991? I know the
>>>> Hungarian fellow I referred to previously didn't. (In his case he came
>>>> in about 1980 and was well established as a municipal engineer making
>>>> more money than >I< could imagine as a small businessman Don't know
>>>> how it is in your area but if you are a civic employee and a manager
>>>> in a technical field, salaries are EXTREMELY generous in the public
>>>> sector. Since he made more than $75k/year (in our jurisdiction
>>>> salaries over that level are in the municipal annual report) I looked
>>>> up what he was making around $220k. Bench they don't pay too many
>>>> salaries like that in Budapest these days!
>>
>>>>> Anything is possible but I don't see how refugee claimants are doing so
>>>>> fraudulently in any huge numbers. Yeah, you hear of people lying about
>>>>> their nationality who aren't truly refugees from that specific disaster.
>>
>>>> Part of the problem is that you get a lot of claimants from northern
>>>> Mexico claiming to be fleeing not from the government but the drug
>>>> lords. It is obviously much harder to document such bad guys than the
>>>> government.
>>
>>>>> An asylum seeker wants to be paroled into the host nation and is
>>>>> essentially an immigrant. He must prove government oppression or
>>>>> persecution that's part of some systematic effort to oppress a large group.
>>
>>>> I think there's a legitimate public interest in making sure the
>>>> claimant turns up for their hearing and isn't simply wanting to
>>>> disappear forever once he's made his claim without ever bothering to
>>>> show up for his hearing.
>>
>>>>> The people allegedly making false claims in huge numbers are asylum
>>>>> seekers, not refugees.
>>
>>>> What in your opinion is the difference between an asylum seeker and a
>>>> refugee claimant? (As opposed to a refugee who is one who has had
>>>> their clearing and been accepted as a refugee which is the legal
>>>> definition of a refugee? Until their hearing they're only entitled to
>>>> be called a refugee claimant not a refugee)
>>
>>> I think it's more a difference in wording between your country and ours,
>>> based on a legal definition.
>>
>> As "refugee" and "asylum" are legal terms from the same international
>> treaties both the United States and Canada are parties to, that's just
>> not possible. A refugee is a displaced person who isn't immigrating.
>> An asylum seeker is fleeing government oppression. They are different.
>>
>The usage appears to be different though.

I looked it up so I learned that the two words were not synonymous. It's
always helpful in conversation not to improperly conflate partially
unrelated concepts, otherwise you end up talking to a wall or moviePig.

On 12/3/2022 11:28 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>> On 12/3/2022 7:46 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/3/2022 4:02 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>> Thu, 1 Dec 2022 22:52:32 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> . . .
>>>
>>>>>>> We do need to be careful here since there are different systems for
>>>>>>> immigrants and refugee claimants. I would argue that a genuine refugee
>>>>>>> claimant puts themselves into the hands of authorities as quickly as
>>>>>>> possible versus the fake variety who only say 'refugee' once placed in
>>>>>>> custody.
>>>
>>>>>> A refugee is a displaced person due to war or a natural or manmade
>>>>>> disaster. He is not an immigrant. Once the disaster has ended, he's
>>>>>> supposed to return to his home country. He's not making an asylum claim.
>>>>>> But he can work in the United States, if he's being hosted here.
>>>
>>>>> Obviously you know that if you make a citizenship path open to a
>>>>> refugee that's the path that will be followed and few will return home
>>>>> if + when things stabilize back home.
>>>
>>>>> How many eastern European ex-refugees returned after 1991? I know the
>>>>> Hungarian fellow I referred to previously didn't. (In his case he came
>>>>> in about 1980 and was well established as a municipal engineer making
>>>>> more money than >I< could imagine as a small businessman Don't know
>>>>> how it is in your area but if you are a civic employee and a manager
>>>>> in a technical field, salaries are EXTREMELY generous in the public
>>>>> sector. Since he made more than $75k/year (in our jurisdiction
>>>>> salaries over that level are in the municipal annual report) I looked
>>>>> up what he was making around $220k. Bench they don't pay too many
>>>>> salaries like that in Budapest these days!
>>>
>>>>>> Anything is possible but I don't see how refugee claimants are doing so
>>>>>> fraudulently in any huge numbers. Yeah, you hear of people lying about
>>>>>> their nationality who aren't truly refugees from that specific disaster.
>>>
>>>>> Part of the problem is that you get a lot of claimants from northern
>>>>> Mexico claiming to be fleeing not from the government but the drug
>>>>> lords. It is obviously much harder to document such bad guys than the
>>>>> government.
>>>
>>>>>> An asylum seeker wants to be paroled into the host nation and is
>>>>>> essentially an immigrant. He must prove government oppression or
>>>>>> persecution that's part of some systematic effort to oppress a large group.
>>>
>>>>> I think there's a legitimate public interest in making sure the
>>>>> claimant turns up for their hearing and isn't simply wanting to
>>>>> disappear forever once he's made his claim without ever bothering to
>>>>> show up for his hearing.
>>>
>>>>>> The people allegedly making false claims in huge numbers are asylum
>>>>>> seekers, not refugees.
>>>
>>>>> What in your opinion is the difference between an asylum seeker and a
>>>>> refugee claimant? (As opposed to a refugee who is one who has had
>>>>> their clearing and been accepted as a refugee which is the legal
>>>>> definition of a refugee? Until their hearing they're only entitled to
>>>>> be called a refugee claimant not a refugee)
>>>
>>>> I think it's more a difference in wording between your country and ours,
>>>> based on a legal definition.
>>>
>>> As "refugee" and "asylum" are legal terms from the same international
>>> treaties both the United States and Canada are parties to, that's just
>>> not possible. A refugee is a displaced person who isn't immigrating.
>>> An asylum seeker is fleeing government oppression. They are different.
>>>
>> The usage appears to be different though.
>
> I looked it up so I learned that the two words were not synonymous. It's
> always helpful in conversation not to improperly conflate partially
> unrelated concepts, otherwise you end up talking to a wall or moviePig.

Hey Adam, is it okay with you if I sublet my living space in your head?

On 12/3/22 1:27 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 12/3/2022 11:28 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> suzeeq  <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/3/2022 7:46 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/3/2022 4:02 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>>> Thu, 1 Dec 2022 22:52:32 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman
>>>>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>
>>>>>>>> We do need to be careful here since there are different systems for
>>>>>>>> immigrants and refugee claimants. I would argue that a genuine
>>>>>>>> refugee
>>>>>>>> claimant puts themselves into the hands of authorities as
>>>>>>>> quickly as
>>>>>>>> possible versus the fake variety who only say 'refugee' once
>>>>>>>> placed in
>>>>>>>> custody.
>>>>
>>>>>>> A refugee is a displaced person due to war or a natural or manmade
>>>>>>> disaster. He is not an immigrant. Once the disaster has ended, he's
>>>>>>> supposed to return to his home country. He's not making an asylum
>>>>>>> claim.
>>>>>>> But he can work in the United States, if he's being hosted here.
>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously you know that if you make a citizenship path open to a
>>>>>> refugee that's the path that will be followed and few will return
>>>>>> home
>>>>>> if + when things stabilize back home.
>>>>
>>>>>> How many eastern European ex-refugees returned after 1991? I know the
>>>>>> Hungarian fellow I referred to previously didn't. (In his case he
>>>>>> came
>>>>>> in about 1980 and was well established as a municipal engineer making
>>>>>> more money than >I< could imagine as a small businessman Don't know
>>>>>> how it is in your area but if you are a civic employee and a manager
>>>>>> in a technical field, salaries are EXTREMELY generous in the public
>>>>>> sector. Since he made more than $75k/year (in our jurisdiction
>>>>>> salaries over that level are in the municipal annual report)  I
>>>>>> looked
>>>>>> up what he was making around $220k. Bench they don't pay too many
>>>>>> salaries like that in Budapest these days!
>>>>
>>>>>>> Anything is possible but I don't see how refugee claimants are
>>>>>>> doing so
>>>>>>> fraudulently in any huge numbers. Yeah, you hear of people lying
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> their nationality who aren't truly refugees from that specific
>>>>>>> disaster.
>>>>
>>>>>> Part of the problem is that you get a lot of claimants from northern
>>>>>> Mexico claiming to be fleeing not from the government but the drug
>>>>>> lords. It is obviously much harder to document such bad guys than the
>>>>>> government.
>>>>
>>>>>>> An asylum seeker wants to be paroled into the host nation and is
>>>>>>> essentially an immigrant. He must prove government oppression or
>>>>>>> persecution that's part of some systematic effort to oppress a
>>>>>>> large group.
>>>>
>>>>>> I think there's a legitimate public interest in making sure the
>>>>>> claimant turns up for their hearing and isn't simply wanting to
>>>>>> disappear forever once he's made his claim without ever bothering to
>>>>>> show up for his hearing.
>>>>
>>>>>>> The people allegedly making false claims in huge numbers are asylum
>>>>>>> seekers, not refugees.
>>>>
>>>>>> What in your opinion is the difference between an asylum seeker and a
>>>>>> refugee claimant? (As opposed to a refugee who is one who has had
>>>>>> their clearing and been accepted as a refugee which is the legal
>>>>>> definition of a refugee? Until their hearing they're only entitled to
>>>>>> be called a refugee claimant not a refugee)
>>>>
>>>>> I think it's more a difference in wording between your country and
>>>>> ours,
>>>>> based on a legal definition.
>>>>
>>>> As "refugee" and "asylum" are legal terms from the same international
>>>> treaties both the United States and Canada are parties to, that's just
>>>> not possible. A refugee is a displaced person who isn't immigrating.
>>>> An asylum seeker is fleeing government oppression. They are different.
>>>>
>>> The usage appears to be different though.
>>
>> I looked it up so I learned that the two words were not synonymous. It's
>> always helpful in conversation not to improperly conflate partially
>> unrelated concepts, otherwise you end up talking to a wall or moviePig.
>
> Hey Adam, is it okay with you if I sublet my living space in your head?

Good line, I wish I'd thought of it!

On Sat, 3 Dec 2022 14:50:05 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>Thu, 1 Dec 2022 22:52:32 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>A refugee is a displaced person due to war or a natural or manmade
>>>disaster. He is not an immigrant. Once the disaster has ended, he's
>>>supposed to return to his home country. He's not making an asylum claim.
>>>But he can work in the United States, if he's being hosted here.
>
>>Obviously you know that if you make a citizenship path open to a
>>refugee that's the path that will be followed and few will return home
>>if + when things stabilize back home.
>
>Canada may do that but that's not generally true of the United States.
>
>>How many eastern European ex-refugees returned after 1991?
>
>I never read that large numbers of either Hungarians or Czechoslovakians
>were given refugee status the United States after the two invasions from
>the USSR. Surely they'd have been granted asylum, not refugee status.
>
>>I know the Hungarian fellow I referred to previously didn't. (In his case
>>he came in about 1980

Again this fellow came in 1980 - while I have known some Hungarians
who came in 1956 this fellow definitely didn't. One suspects his
English teacher was a German since that's what his accent sounds like.
I >believe< he learned his English before he came not in this country.

>Then I don't see how he could have been a refugee. I thought you were
>getting at refugees from the Soviet invasion of 1956 or 1968 in
>Czechoslovakia.

He was quite insistent that was his status so the correct answer is
'Gawd only knows'. I will say that so far as I know at least in Canada
a refugee is someone who flees their home country out of some
justified fear while asylum is what having your refugee claim accepted
gets you. I'm otherwise unclear on the difference.

>>and was well established as a municipal engineer making
>>more money than >I< could imagine as a small businessman Don't know
>>how it is in your area but if you are a civic employee and a manager
>>in a technical field, salaries are EXTREMELY generous in the public
>>sector. Since he made more than $75k/year (in our jurisdiction
>>salaries over that level are in the municipal annual report) I looked
>>up what he was making around $220k. Bench they don't pay too many
>>salaries like that in Budapest these days!
>
>Then he must have been an asylum seeker.

As stated above at least in Canada asylum is what a refugee claimant
seeks. If there's a distinction in the US I'm all ears.

>>>Anything is possible but I don't see how refugee claimants are doing so
>>>fraudulently in any huge numbers. Yeah, you hear of people lying about
>>>their nationality who aren't truly refugees from that specific disaster.
>
>>Part of the problem is that you get a lot of claimants from northern
>>Mexico claiming to be fleeing not from the government but the drug
>>lords. It is obviously much harder to document such bad guys than the
>>government.
>
>As we've discussed in the past, fleeing from criminal gangs isn't
>adequate to establish an asylum claim and I've never heard of it for
>refugee status. The asylum claim would have to be based on fleeing from
>the Mexican government in aid of drug cartels.

Surely that woudl be considerably harder to prove than simply fear of
the cartels?

>>>An asylum seeker wants to be paroled into the host nation and is
>>>essentially an immigrant. He must prove government oppression or
>>>persecution that's part of some systematic effort to oppress a large group.

That's always been the textbook definition I knew but others have
claimed different and if the standards have changed I need to hear the
"new + improved" version.

>>I think there's a legitimate public interest in making sure the
>>claimant turns up for their hearing and isn't simply wanting to
>>disappear forever once he's made his claim without ever bothering to
>>show up for his hearing.
>
>Yes.
>
>>>The people allegedly making false claims in huge numbers are asylum
>>>seekers, not refugees.
>
>>What in your opinion is the difference between an asylum seeker and a
>>refugee claimant?
>
>It's not my opinion. An asylum seeker is claiming to be a victim of
>systematic oppression by government against an identifiable population
>group. A refugee is a person displaced by natural or manmade disaster,
>or war. An asylum seeker, who wishes to be paroled into the host nation,
>is essentially seeking to immigrate. A refugee isn't an immigrant and
>would return home after the disaster has been mitigated.

OK there's the difference - Canada equates the two terms though on the
whole both during the Cold War and present day they don't deport to
Communist countries. Which is all well and good but things have gotten
out of hand and something like 30+% of those entering Canada via the
immigrant track (not as refugees) come from the Peoples' Republic of
China and that is having social impacts since they almost entirely
settle in specific areas of Vancouver and Toronto and are having a
drastic effect on the real estate market in these countries. Which
implies criminal activity since the PRC onlly allows money transfers
of about $50k/year (not sure which currency) out of China.

It is well documented that extensive money laundering has taken place
through casinos usually in the form of hockey bags stuffed with
bundles of $20 and $50 bills. (This would be about $200-250k per
hockey equipment bag)

>>(As opposed to a refugee who is one who has had
>>their clearing and been accepted as a refugee which is the legal
>>definition of a refugee? Until their hearing they're only entitled to
>>be called a refugee claimant not a refugee)
>
>I have no idea how anyone has any particular status if he's not pursuing
>his claims.

Exactly. Which is why I and a LOT of locals were so frustrated about
that KGB man (who claimed he was only a translator and not at all
engaged in espionage) who was given 'sanctuary' in a church for 5
years before his deportation.

One would THINK having been told he was not eligible to apply for
refugee or immigration status that would be the end of it but......

On Sat, 3 Dec 2022 15:46:12 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>I think it's more a difference in wording between your country and ours,
>>based on a legal definition.
>
>As "refugee" and "asylum" are legal terms from the same international
>treaties both the United States and Canada are parties to, that's just
>not possible. A refugee is a displaced person who isn't immigrating.
>An asylum seeker is fleeing government oppression. They are different.

That said Canada has been giving citizenship to all sorts of people
that originally came as refugees and that includes Czechs, Hungarians
and Poles in 1967-8, 1956 and 1980 respectively.

(Now to be fair there were plenty admitted as immigrants before that
using the usual route - for instance my father-in-law's family who
left Poland for Canada in July 1939 having taken the train via Germany
to Holland and then to Britain and only arrived in Britain after war
started. Similarly Canada got 2+ million Ukrainians in the decade
before WW1 from both Austria-Hungary and Russia. Given they mostly
settles in AB, SK, MB and given that those provinces are prime
recruitment locations for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 3
generations later there are a lot of RCMP officers with Ukrainian
names.)

On Sat, 3 Dec 2022 16:28:18 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>> As "refugee" and "asylum" are legal terms from the same international
>>> treaties both the United States and Canada are parties to, that's just
>>> not possible. A refugee is a displaced person who isn't immigrating.
>>> An asylum seeker is fleeing government oppression. They are different.
>>>
>>The usage appears to be different though.
>
>I looked it up so I learned that the two words were not synonymous. It's
>always helpful in conversation not to improperly conflate partially
>unrelated concepts, otherwise you end up talking to a wall or moviePig.

So if I understand you correctly the difference is the person's
intention if and when things "settle down" in their homeland
afterwards. With respect to those originating in Czechoslovakia,
Hungary and Poland I know personally a fair number of those whose
parents and grandparents came here not really expecting the Soviets
would EVER leave their homelands. And of course were proven wrong
during 1988-91.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Sat, 3 Dec 2022 14:50:05 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

>>>>. . .

>>>Part of the problem is that you get a lot of claimants from northern
>>>Mexico claiming to be fleeing not from the government but the drug
>>>lords. It is obviously much harder to document such bad guys than the
>>>government.

>>As we've discussed in the past, fleeing from criminal gangs isn't
>>adequate to establish an asylum claim and I've never heard of it for
>>refugee status. The asylum claim would have to be based on fleeing from
>>the Mexican government in aid of drug cartels.

>Surely that woudl be considerably harder to prove than simply fear of
>the cartels?

I keep telling you: Fear of crime in and of itself, despite being an
absolutely legitimate fear, will not sustain an asylum claim. If that's
all the claimant says, he'll be sent back.

>>>>An asylum seeker wants to be paroled into the host nation and is
>>>>essentially an immigrant. He must prove government oppression or
>>>>persecution that's part of some systematic effort to oppress a large group.

>That's always been the textbook definition I knew but others have
>claimed different and if the standards have changed I need to hear the
>"new + improved" version.

Dude. It's a WWII-era definition. It's not new and improved.

>>>>. . .

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> writes:

> On 11/30/2022 1:51 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>> I still say we need to process asylum claims and quickly reject
>> fraudulent or specious claims. The possibly legitimate claims that
>> may not fit neatly into categories should get thorough consideration
>> and those people should be helped somehow.
>
> What would help would be hiring more people at Immigrations. I was
> very surprised to hear there were only a few thousand people who
> process immigrants and decide if they should have court dates. Of
> course some of those in Congress wouldn't pass the funding for that
> for one various BS reason or another.

This. Exactly this. There are other issues, of course, but all of them
are exacerbated by insane delays and the political unwillingness to be
seen to be spending money on the problem.

>> Micky has me kill filed, yet it's oddly coincidental that she's
>> repeated arguments I already made on Usenet close to word for word.

Please. I've credited you where I've known you to say something first
in the past. If you won't buy the "great minds think alike" idea, then
at least allow that if I were going to plagiarize, I'd do a very good
job of paraphrasing and window dressing it.

-Micky

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> 0On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 12:26:40 +0000 (UTC),
> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 07:08:46 +0000 (UTC),
>>> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

>>>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 03:37:56 +0000 (UTC),
>>>>> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>> It's not like the immigration courts have been sitting on their
>> hands. There aren't enough people allotted to the problem. More
>> judges and more advocates on both sides would be a start.
>
> I think a lot of folks decrying 'illegals' would support that isnce
> they would argue you want these folks either free to work and become
> productive members of society as quickly as poissible or failing that
> deported.

<sigh> But that would be sensible.

The advantage to employers of hiring illegal immigrants is that they can
underpay them and mistreat them, and the illegals don't dare go to the
police.

>> There are horror stories of people being railroaded without being
>> allowed to show extenuating circumstances, and once deported, there
>> is no means of appeal.
>
> I'm sure there are. Though I'm equally sure those are outliers and not
> public policy.

Oh, certainly not official policy, but the devil's in the enforcement.

>> "This restriction on movement substantially interfered with the
>> Migrants' liberty in several respects. It interfered with their
>> ability to attend scheduled hearings relating to their immigration
>> status, which were set to take place in Texas thousands of miles
>> away."
>>
>> <https://www.justsecurity.org/83232/was-desantis-shipping-migrants-to-marthas-vineyard-a-crime/>
>
> That just plain flat out shouldn't have been allowed to happen.

It certainly seems illegal, but I doubt charges will be brought.

>>>>> Since I deny these folks have the right to mix in the general
>>>>> population prior to their hearing I wouldn't support that.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that's your position, but it's not currently the
>>>> position of the U.S. government. Using taxpayer money to move
>>>> people from point A to point B under false pretenses (and then
>>>> releasing them, which I understand you to be opposed to) is fraud
>>>> and human trafficking. It's a political stunt using the powerless
>>>> as pawns, and frankly a felony.
>>>
>>> Yup and I bet it won't be repeated much AFTER the elections right?
>>
>> Dunno, but DeSantis has signalled his intention to do so.
>
> That wo uld definitely surprise me but I have definitely been
> surprised before.

It may just have been posturing, or he cooled off after someone in Texas
said he was going to look into the legal ramifications.

>>> Australia has an agreement with one of the Pacific Island nations to
>>> house their claimants outside Australian territory making the
>>> deportation process easier for failed claimants. Would you support
>>> that?
>>
>> I'm leery. There's an out-of-sight-out-of-mind jurisdictional
>> problem that promotes abuses, e.g., Guantanamo Bay. Maybe the
>> Aussies and their partners are above reproach, but when it comes to
>> the U.S., if an abuse doesn't happen on American soil, it's hard to
>> hold anyone accountable.
>
> Am not aware Gitmo was ever used for immigrants or refugees.

I'm just talking more broadly about Americans not caring enough about
human rights abuses committed by Americans abroad. It's hard to hold
anyone accountable when it happens.

> Again I didn't say this originally but no question if a state declares
> they are not going to enforce federal law there's a serious problem.
> No one really wants two police forces operating in the same geographic
> area.

Do you really think that if the feds decided to send U.S. marshals to
arrest a state or local official that had declared "Sanctuary!" that
that official would try to use state or local police to shoot their way
out? That's not the point at all. Neither state nor local officials
hunger for the power to administer immigration law. No one is making a
states' rights argument re immigration.

>>>> So you do disagree with Florida Gov. DeSantis moving migrants
>>>> around the country, but not because he perpetrated a fraud against
>>>> them as human beings, but because as a state governor he usurped
>>>> what should be thought of as a federal right?
>
> If he did in in response to a federal request no problem. If (as I
> think) he did it as a ploy to advance either state policy or his own
> federal ambitions then that's out f bounds.

It was red meat for the base and his presidential ambitions. He was
sure that Martha's Vineyard residents would respond to the stunt by
recoiling at the ooh, stinky brown people instead of what they actually
did, which was set up aid stations for them.

>>> Florida's problem is of course that virtually the entire state is
>>> adjacent to international waters which is a preferred way for
>>> migrants to enter illegally other than by recognized points of
>>> entry.
>>
>> So that makes it O.K. for DeSantis to usurp what you see as a federal
>> right, even if he wasn't transporting migrants out of Florida, but
>> out of Texas (thereby failing to consult with not only federal
>> authorities, but also with Texas state authorities and the local
>> county authorities)?
>
> Why would a Florida governor be involved in transporting people out of
> Texas?

Because he was sure that the MAGA base would love it (it did), and that
it would embarrass the well-off majority-Democratic Martha's Vineyard
(it didn't).

>>>>>> When first tier actions fail, the second tier is nonviolent civil
>>>>>> disobedience. In order for this to work, the people doing the
>>>>>> disobeying need to be willing to suffer the penalties for the
>>>>>> disobedience in order to directly challenge the moral authority
>>>>>> of the system, such as individuals being willing to go to jail,
>>>>>> including "rogue" officials at another level of government.
>>>>>> Interestingly, the Trump administration did not seek out such
>>>>>> "rogues" in city or state governments, I suspect because the very
>>>>>> existence of Sanctuary Cities or migrant-friendly states served
>>>>>> too conveniently as a lightning rod for vilification in the
>>>>>> culture war.
>
> This is where you and I would radically part ways since there is civil
> disobedience where people intelligently knowing what they're doing and
> being willing to pay the price can non-violently do something as
> opposed to actively subverting the course of justice.

I think the state and local officials' position is that human rights
abuses are already subverting the course of justice, and since the
officials are breaking the law in plain sight, they're challenging the
federal government to either arrest them and air the country's dirty
laundry in public court, or else (preferably) clean up its act.

> The whole point of 'civil disobedience' is that when apprehended you
> take the consequences peacefully.

You've singled out Gov. Newsom as an example. You think that if the
federal government tried to arrest Newsom that he would violently
resist? If you do think this, then I think you're way off base.

>> If nothing else, it's a lot harder to manipulate and bamboozle legal
>> immigrants with the money to hire lawyers. (Migrants seeking asylum
>> are not legally entitled to court-appointed counsel in the U.S.,
>> leading to such absurdities as a non-English-speaking three-year-old
>> being required to defend himself at his hearing.)
>
> Well if a minor is not in the care of an adult family member (either
> US citizen or otherwise) their return home should be expedited as soon
> as a relative can be located - a minor doesn't have the right to claim
> refugee status on their own behalf. They need to have a sponsor and
> this has to be clear.

At the least, though, any such child needs to be represented by an adult
who speaks both English and the child's language, and who understands
the system. It's an extreme example, but it just stands to reason that
anyone trying to navigate a complex system should at least have a
knowledgeable assistant who speaks their language.

In article <tnfj4d$q5s$1@pcls7.std.com>,
MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> >> "This restriction on movement substantially interfered with the
> >> Migrants' liberty in several respects. It interfered with their
> >> ability to attend scheduled hearings relating to their immigration
> >> status, which were set to take place in Texas thousands of miles
> >> away."
> >>
> >> <https://www.justsecurity.org/83232/was-desantis-shipping-migrants-to-marth
> >> as-vineyard-a-crime/>
> >
> > That just plain flat out shouldn't have been allowed to happen.
>
> It certainly seems illegal, but I doubt charges will be brought.

Probably not, DuPree, since that would require them to also charge
Democrats, like Chicago Mayor Lightfoot and the mayor of El Paso, who
have done their own share of busing illegals to other parts of the
country.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

>>>>"This restriction on movement substantially interfered with the
>>>>Migrants' liberty in several respects. It interfered with their
>>>>ability to attend scheduled hearings relating to their immigration
>>>>status, which were set to take place in Texas thousands of miles
>>>>away."

>>>>https://www.justsecurity.org/83232/was-desantis-shipping-migrants-to-marthas-vineyard-a-crime/

>>>That just plain flat out shouldn't have been allowed to happen.

>>It certainly seems illegal, but I doubt charges will be brought.

>Probably not, DuPree, since that would require them to also charge
>Democrats, like Chicago Mayor Lightfoot and the mayor of El Paso, who
>have done their own share of busing illegals to other parts of the
>country.

Hey! Lori merely bused them to a motel in Elk Grove Village, a nearby suburb.
She didn't bus anybody outside the metropolitan area, let alone to
another state.

Micky DuPree <MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 12:26:40 +0000 (UTC), Micky DuPree wrote:

>>>It's not like the immigration courts have been sitting on their
>>>hands. There aren't enough people allotted to the problem. More
>>>judges and more advocates on both sides would be a start.

>>I think a lot of folks decrying 'illegals' would support that isnce
>>they would argue you want these folks either free to work and become
>>productive members of society as quickly as poissible or failing that
>>deported.

><sigh> But that would be sensible.

>The advantage to employers of hiring illegal immigrants is that they can
>underpay them and mistreat them, and the illegals don't dare go to the
>police.

Why aren't employment laws being enforced against employers, DuPree?
There are minimum wage and overtime laws at both the state and federal
level, and industrial hygiene/occupational safety and workman's comp laws,
all of which protect workers' rights regardless of green card status.

I don't know what violation you think would be a criminal law violation
but these are all issues enforced by state and federal labor standards
bureaucrats.

It's very odd that the day the employer has arranged with INS and now
CBP to round up the illegals (typically pay day so they are all on the
job site and the employer doesn't pay the outstanding wages), all those
labor law violations just never get enforced, nor is there enforcement
versus the employer for having hired all those undocumented workers.

It's like federal immigration authorities have been conspiring with
certain major employers to look the other way for decades.

How do you explain that laws don't get enfored even though federal and
state regulators know about the violations, DuPree?

>>>There are horror stories of people being railroaded without being
>>>allowed to show extenuating circumstances, and once deported, there
>>>is no means of appeal.

>>I'm sure there are. Though I'm equally sure those are outliers and not
>>public policy.

>Oh, certainly not official policy, but the devil's in the enforcement.

What enforcement would that be? It's just so odd that all those states
with governors who want to use National Guard troops (illegally) to
enforce immigration law violation could LEGALLY crack down on the most
serious labor law violations and that would probably be enough to get
major employers entirely out of the business of hiring illegal aliens.

It's really like these state governors are all just posturing.

>>>. . .

>>. . .

>I'm just talking more broadly about Americans not caring enough about
>human rights abuses committed by Americans abroad. It's hard to hold
>anyone accountable when it happens.

Defense contractors are subject to UCMJ under appropriate circumstances,
and they have been and will be prosecuted for extreme violations. It
doesn't truly matter whether the public cares about law enforcement for
prosecutors must NEVER act on public sentiment, only on actual criminal
law violations. You know, without favor or prejudice. I think they take
an oath to that effect or something.

>>. . .

In article <tnfvg5$35gck$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
> >>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>
> >>>>"This restriction on movement substantially interfered with the
> >>>>Migrants' liberty in several respects. It interfered with their
> >>>>ability to attend scheduled hearings relating to their immigration
> >>>>status, which were set to take place in Texas thousands of miles
> >>>>away."
>
> >>>>https://www.justsecurity.org/83232/was-desantis-shipping-migrants-to-marth
> >>>>as-vineyard-a-crime/
>
> >>>That just plain flat out shouldn't have been allowed to happen.
>
> >>It certainly seems illegal, but I doubt charges will be brought.
>
> >Probably not, DuPree, since that would require them to also charge
> >Democrats, like Chicago Mayor Lightfoot and the mayor of El Paso, who
> >have done their own share of busing illegals to other parts of the
> >country.
>
> Hey! Lori merely bused them to a motel in Elk Grove Village, a nearby suburb.
> She didn't bus anybody outside the metropolitan area, let alone to
> another state.

The distance doesn't matter. She bussed them for political purposes,
targeting a heavily Republican area, just like Abbott and DeSantis did.
If they're guilty of crimes or moral bankruptcy, then so is she.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>>>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

>>>>>>"This restriction on movement substantially interfered with the
>>>>>>Migrants' liberty in several respects. It interfered with their
>>>>>>ability to attend scheduled hearings relating to their immigration
>>>>>>status, which were set to take place in Texas thousands of miles
>>>>>>away."

>>>>>>https://www.justsecurity.org/83232/was-desantis-shipping-migrants-to-marthas-vineyard-a-crime/

>>>>>That just plain flat out shouldn't have been allowed to happen.

>>>>It certainly seems illegal, but I doubt charges will be brought.

>>>Probably not, DuPree, since that would require them to also charge
>>>Democrats, like Chicago Mayor Lightfoot and the mayor of El Paso, who
>>>have done their own share of busing illegals to other parts of the
>>>country.

>>Hey! Lori merely bused them to a motel in Elk Grove Village, a nearby suburb.
>>She didn't bus anybody outside the metropolitan area, let alone to
>>another state.

>The distance doesn't matter. She bussed them for political purposes,
>targeting a heavily Republican area, just like Abbott and DeSantis did.
>If they're guilty of crimes or moral bankruptcy, then so is she.

I was amused when Abbott sent them to Congress.

On 12/15/22 12:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <tnfj4d$q5s$1@pcls7.std.com>,
> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>
>>>> "This restriction on movement substantially interfered with the
>>>> Migrants' liberty in several respects. It interfered with their
>>>> ability to attend scheduled hearings relating to their immigration
>>>> status, which were set to take place in Texas thousands of miles
>>>> away."
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.justsecurity.org/83232/was-desantis-shipping-migrants-to-marth
>>>> as-vineyard-a-crime/>
>>>
>>> That just plain flat out shouldn't have been allowed to happen.
>>
>> It certainly seems illegal, but I doubt charges will be brought.
>
> Probably not, DuPree, since that would require them to also charge
> Democrats, like Chicago Mayor Lightfoot and the mayor of El Paso, who
> have done their own share of busing illegals to other parts of the
> country.

Well shitposted! Which Oath Keepers email blast was that in?

On 12/15/22 3:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <tnfvg5$35gck$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>> Hey! Lori merely bused them to a motel in Elk Grove Village, a nearby suburb.
>> She didn't bus anybody outside the metropolitan area, let alone to
>> another state.
>
> The distance doesn't matter. She bussed them for political purposes,
> targeting a heavily Republican area, just like Abbott and DeSantis did.
> If they're guilty of crimes or moral bankruptcy, then so is she.

Now I know why you never post any cites for your lies: pure shitposting.
Let's take a peek at what's going on:

https://www.journal-topics.com/articles/elk-grove-village-mayor-provides-update-on-texas-migrants/
Search for:

Contact Us
About Us

Log In
Account
Bill Pay
Subscribe

Journal & Topics Media Group

Log In
Account
Subscribe
Speak Out!
Forms
E-Town Business Directory
Special Sections
Classifieds
Submit Event
eEdition
News
Arlington Heights
Buffalo Grove
Des Plaines
Elk Grove
Glenview
Mount Prospect
Niles
Palatine
Park Ridge
Prospect Heights
Rolling Meadows
Rosemont
Wheeling
Business
Sports
Opinions
Lifestyle
Travel
Obituaries
Legal Notices

Journal & Topics Media Group

Journal & Topics Media Group | Serving Chicago's Great Northwest Suburbs

Thursday, December 15, 2022

Breaking News: State Tells Des Plaines That NW Hwy. S-Curve Will Reopen
To Traffic Next Week

News
eEdition
Business
Sports
Opinions
Lifestyle
Obituaries
Legal Notices

E-Town Business Directory
Event Calendar
Classifieds
Special Sections
Forms
Archives
Speak Out!

Elk Grove Village Mayor Provides Update On Texas MigrantsFree Access

By Tom Robb | on September 14, 2022
Appoints Village Coordinator For Donations; Makes Peace With Lightfoot,
Directs Ire At State Officials
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Messenger
Copy Link
Print
Share

Elk Grove Village Mayor Craig Johnson (center) and village trustees at
their Tuesday, Sept. 13 village board meeting. (Tom Robb/Journal photo)

Elk Grove Village Mayor Craig Johnson gave a detailed timeline update on
how a bus load of 90 Venezuelan migrants, who arrived in Chicago Friday,
sent from the Texas border by Gov. Greg Abbott, ended up in Elk Grove
Village and how the village is working to help them.

The village designated Marty Vela, a senior clerk with the village, to
coordinate donations for the migrants. Johnson said the group was made
up of 81 men, six or seven women, and at least one woman who is eight
months pregnant.

“These migrants are human beings,” Johnson said, adding that President
Joe Biden declared them legal migrants, meaning they are able to work in
the United States.

“This village takes pride in welcoming and working with every person,”
Johnson continued. “These migrants have a right to be treated with
dignity. We care about them as we care about everyone else who comes to
this village.”

Over the weekend, Johnson directed much of his ire at Chicago Mayor Lori
Lightfoot, as migrants arrived on Chicago CTA buses, having been told by
Illinois state officials that because of next month’s Chicago marathon,
the city needed the hotel rooms.

Johnson said Lightfoot called him at home Sunday afternoon. “Mayors work
well together, we talked it through,” said Johnson. “She said, ‘I’m as
frustrated as you.’” Johnson said Lightfoot said she was unaware CTA
buses were used to bring the migrants to Elk Grove Village and was also
frustrated with state officials. He said village officials are working
closely with Chicago officials. but said he is still having difficulty
getting anyone from the state of Illinois to return calls or emails.

Johnson said Gov. JB Pritzker said, “Xenophobia has no home here.” By
here, Johnson said he took that to mean suburban communities, including
Elk Grove Village, that are taking migrants in. He demanded an apology
from the governor both at Tuesday’s village board meeting and on a
national news broadcast Wednesday morning.

The Journal was unable to reach Pritzker’s spokeswoman for comment
before press deadlines Wednesday. A state official familiar with the
situation, speaking with the Journal on background, confirmed the
governor made the statement but said it was directed at Texas Gov.
Abbott, not suburban mayors.

Johnson said he is aware of many Elk Grove Village residents wanting to
help the migrants in any way they can.

A Facebook group, Elk Grove Village Migrants – Offering Our Support, was
formed over the weekend. As of Wednesday, the group had 370 members.

Church groups, including officials with the Elk Grove Presbyterian
Church, said they and their parishioners want to give, but do not have
clear direction on how to give and do not have resources for much
storage. Linda Mueller of the church said Monday that she had found
places to purchase clothing for the migrants wholesale, but said she was
lacking information.

Johnson said three of the migrants have already secured jobs in Elk
Grove Village. He said he wants to work with the state to find more jobs
for the migrants, but has been hampered in efforts to do so thus far.

Marissa Kollias, communications director for the Illinois Dept. of Human
Services, said finding the migrants work is part of the package of
services the state is trying to provide and was encouraged to hear the
mayor wanting to facilitate that.

Rumors on Facebook and with others seeking to help have said 40 more
migrants are expected to arrive within Elk Grove Village in the coming
days. Kolias said she is not aware of any more migrants bound for Elk
Grove Village or how long the current migrants might stay in the
village, adding, “This is a rapidly evolving situation. We’re making
decisions on the hour.”
Support local news by subscribing to the Journal & Topics in print or
online.

Wow, nothing nefarious here. Maybe you're talking about a different Elk
Grove run by actual elks? That can't be, elk are too smart to be
Republican. Who knows what the fuck you're talking about, it sounds
like you're just a shitposting bot preprogrammed by the Oath Keepers. I
know, you have no explanation for your shitposting here, no need to
worry about it. Maybe one of your sockpuppets or sycophants can help?

On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 16:48:13 +0000 (UTC),
MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>> When it's a local or state government actively (and on this point so
>> far is succeeding) subverts the federal government in administering an
>> area that none dispute is an area of federal authority it's a very big
>> deal indeed.
>>
>> It's not the same but both do do violence to the body politic.
>
>Embarrassment and even shame do not rise to the level of violence. Ask
>yourself why aren't those state and local officials under arrest?
>
For the same reason that in Canada there's no pipeline to the east
coast for the sole reason the Premier (in your terms governor) of
Quebec has said he'd do whatever he could to prevent a pipeline being
built across Quebec which given pipelines are an area of federal
jurisdiction is nothing BUT if the Prime Minister doesn't want the
Premier making trouble for him at election time he'll acquiesce.
Political suasion in other words notactual authority.

Right now being able to ship oil nd gas to Europe would be extremely
useful both financially and in terms of preventing Europe being
blackmailed by Putin.

The old 'politics trumps legal authority" (no pun intended)

>
>> While Ghandi himself preached non-violence the separation of Pakistan
>> and India was one of the most violent acts of the 20th century with
>> roughly 10 million dead and 60+ years of low level warfare between
>> them (particularly after Pakistan and China allied).
>>
>> While individual politicians (and make no mistake about it MLK was
>> one) may preach non-violence all too often their followers DO ignore
>> their teachings.
>
>All too true, but I recall that Gandhi was heartbroken at the partition.

On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 20:38:56 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Why aren't employment laws being enforced against employers, DuPree?
>There are minimum wage and overtime laws at both the state and federal
>level, and industrial hygiene/occupational safety and workman's comp laws,
>all of which protect workers' rights regardless of green card status.
>
>I don't know what violation you think would be a criminal law violation
>but these are all issues enforced by state and federal labor standards
>bureaucrats.
>
>It's very odd that the day the employer has arranged with INS and now
>CBP to round up the illegals (typically pay day so they are all on the
>job site and the employer doesn't pay the outstanding wages), all those
>labor law violations just never get enforced, nor is there enforcement
>versus the employer for having hired all those undocumented workers.
>
That's the $64000 question isn't?

Before the pandemic I had hired an Irish young lady who I knew was in
the country on a 3 year temporary work visa. At roughly the 3 year + 1
once point on her visa I got a letter advising me that her visa was
up. I tossed the letter as she had left us 3 months earlier and I had
had a Christmas card from her postmarked Dublin. (And was of course
prepared to let immigration know when she had left us - ie 3 weeks
before her Visa expired) I had also given her some help on her
Canadian taxes before she left and given her some useful URLs for
ensuring she did so before the deadline.

In other words, she wasn't an illegal but would have been had she
worked for us two more months. We understood the rules when we hired
her and made sure we did it right. But then while she was with us she
was on our regular payroll with nothing secret or under the table.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Thu, 15 Dec 2022 20:38:56 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>Why aren't employment laws being enforced against employers, DuPree?
>>There are minimum wage and overtime laws at both the state and federal
>>level, and industrial hygiene/occupational safety and workman's comp laws,
>>all of which protect workers' rights regardless of green card status.

>>I don't know what violation you think would be a criminal law violation
>>but these are all issues enforced by state and federal labor standards
>>bureaucrats.

>>It's very odd that the day the employer has arranged with INS and now
>>CBP to round up the illegals (typically pay day so they are all on the
>>job site and the employer doesn't pay the outstanding wages), all those
>>labor law violations just never get enforced, nor is there enforcement
>>versus the employer for having hired all those undocumented workers.

>That's the $64000 question isn't?

>Before the pandemic I had hired an Irish young lady who I knew was in
>the country on a 3 year temporary work visa. . . .

You've told this story before, but that's nothing to do with DuPree's
accusation that illegal aliens are hired by employers that take
advantage of workers they believe won't complain about serious
violations of labor laws. I assume you paid her wages as agreed and that
the wages met minimum wage and overtime standards in law, and that your
workplace wasn't unsafe.

My point is that DuPree's complaints, which I agree apply to certain
employers at certain worksites, could all be dealt with by enforcing
existing state and federal labor laws versus unscrupulous employers,
who will undoubtably have hired illegally illegal aliens as well. States
that refuse to enforce worker protection laws against the worst
employers are rather hypocritical if their governors regularly scream
and shout about the harm caused by illegal aliens.

I'm just pointing out the obvious that they already have the legal means
to crack down on these campaign contributors, I mean, employers
operating job sites with dangerous conditions who don't pay all wages
legally owed.