The US should only accept asylum seekers from adjacent countries

[Dragonlady]

Why should the US accept asylum seekers who pass thru safe countries to get here?
They should stay in the first safe country, if they are accepted.
Otherwise the US would be the "asylum" destination for half the world.

No it wouldn’t. The USA offers little to those seeking asylum, compared to other countries. You don’t have resettlement programs, provide ESL courses, or financial assistance to resettlement. Once in the country, the amount of aid or assistance offered in the USA is paltry.

Refugees who successful escape dangerous and oppressive situations are generally determined, hard working and resourceful, which means they will find a way to thrive, just as they found a way to escape. These are EXACTLY the kind of people you want in your country but Americans only see the colour of their skin.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why should the US accept asylum seekers who pass thru safe countries to get here?
They should stay in the first safe country, if they are accepted.
Otherwise the US would be the "asylum" destination for half the world.

So we never should have taken Jews fleeing Hitler's Germany?

Your knowledge of history is failing you again. We didn't!

Stop being stupid! It's habit-forming!

 

[Hossfly]

Why should the US accept asylum seekers who pass thru safe countries to get here?
They should stay in the first safe country, if they are accepted.
Otherwise the US would be the "asylum" destination for half the world.

So we never should have taken Jews fleeing Hitler's Germany?

Which countries took in Jews escaping Hitler?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why should the US accept asylum seekers who pass thru safe countries to get here?
They should stay in the first safe country, if they are accepted.
Otherwise the US would be the "asylum" destination for half the world.

This is the sort of ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right; clearly being this stupid and ignorant is a prerequisite for being conservative.

 

[Thinker101]

Why should the US accept asylum seekers who pass thru safe countries to get here?
They should stay in the first safe country, if they are accepted.
Otherwise the US would be the "asylum" destination for half the world.

This is the sort of ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right; clearly being this stupid and ignorant is a prerequisite for being conservative.

Well, thanks for posting your stupidly ignorant comment.

 

[kyzr]

Why should the US accept asylum seekers who pass thru safe countries to get here?
They should stay in the first safe country, if they are accepted.
Otherwise the US would be the "asylum" destination for half the world.

This is the sort of ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right; clearly being this stupid and ignorant is a prerequisite for being conservative.

Stop whining and post something that makes sense.
Why should the US allow anyone in who claims asylum?
That's bullshit.

 

[Indeependent]

Why should the US accept asylum seekers who pass thru safe countries to get here?
They should stay in the first safe country, if they are accepted.
Otherwise the US would be the "asylum" destination for half the world.

So we never should have taken Jews fleeing Hitler's Germany?

You mean all the educated Jews who came here who had sponsors and then either got jobs or started businesses?
From where do Liberals get this asinine comparison?
Not to fret; even my mentally retarded Liberal relatives continuously blather out this bullshit question even though their parents are the professionals who came here.

 

[Seawytch]

Why should the US accept asylum seekers who pass thru safe countries to get here?
They should stay in the first safe country, if they are accepted.
Otherwise the US would be the "asylum" destination for half the world.

So we never should have taken Jews fleeing Hitler's Germany?

Your knowledge of history is failing you again. We didn't!

Stop being stupid! It's habit-forming!

We didn't take in Jewish refugees? You sure about that?

In 1939, the United States admitted at least 43,450 Jews, almost all from Europe. But we know the number of Jews only because immigrants arriving here had to list their own “race,” and until 1943, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now split into two different Department of Homeland Security agencies) considered “Hebrew” a race. Plenty of people being persecuted by the Nazis as Jews didn’t self-identify as Jewish and would have listed themselves as “German” (for example), so the actual number of refugees fleeing Nazism that year was clearly higher than 43,450. Although the United States did not have a substantive refugee policy — those fleeing persecution had to follow the same steps as other immigrants — Jewish refugees alone constituted more than half of all immigration to the United States.
​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-s-promised-to-protect-refugees-were-failing/

 

[bripat9643]

Why should the US accept asylum seekers who pass thru safe countries to get here?
They should stay in the first safe country, if they are accepted.
Otherwise the US would be the "asylum" destination for half the world.

No it wouldn’t. The USA offers little to those seeking asylum, compared to other countries. You don’t have resettlement programs, provide ESL courses, or financial assistance to resettlement. Once in the country, the amount of aid or assistance offered in the USA is paltry.

Refugees who successful escape dangerous and oppressive situations are generally determined, hard working and resourceful, which means they will find a way to thrive, just as they found a way to escape. These are EXACTLY the kind of people you want in your country but Americans only see the colour of their skin.

Meanwhile, Americans will suffer from lower wages and higher taxes.

We don't need them, so why should we accept them? Let them fix their own countries rather than fucking up ours.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why should the US accept asylum seekers who pass thru safe countries to get here?
They should stay in the first safe country, if they are accepted.
Otherwise the US would be the "asylum" destination for half the world.

So we never should have taken Jews fleeing Hitler's Germany?

Your knowledge of history is failing you again. We didn't!

Stop being stupid! It's habit-forming!

We didn't take in Jewish refugees? You sure about that?

In 1939, the United States admitted at least 43,450 Jews, almost all from Europe. But we know the number of Jews only because immigrants arriving here had to list their own “race,” and until 1943, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now split into two different Department of Homeland Security agencies) considered “Hebrew” a race. Plenty of people being persecuted by the Nazis as Jews didn’t self-identify as Jewish and would have listed themselves as “German” (for example), so the actual number of refugees fleeing Nazism that year was clearly higher than 43,450. Although the United States did not have a substantive refugee policy — those fleeing persecution had to follow the same steps as other immigrants — Jewish refugees alone constituted more than half of all immigration to the United States.
​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-s-promised-to-protect-refugees-were-failing/

What happened in September, 1939?

Also your article does not address German Jews, but Jews in general.

Also, check out this link:
MS St. Louis - Wikipedia

 

[Seawytch]

Why should the US accept asylum seekers who pass thru safe countries to get here?
They should stay in the first safe country, if they are accepted.
Otherwise the US would be the "asylum" destination for half the world.

So we never should have taken Jews fleeing Hitler's Germany?

Your knowledge of history is failing you again. We didn't!

Stop being stupid! It's habit-forming!

We didn't take in Jewish refugees? You sure about that?

In 1939, the United States admitted at least 43,450 Jews, almost all from Europe. But we know the number of Jews only because immigrants arriving here had to list their own “race,” and until 1943, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now split into two different Department of Homeland Security agencies) considered “Hebrew” a race. Plenty of people being persecuted by the Nazis as Jews didn’t self-identify as Jewish and would have listed themselves as “German” (for example), so the actual number of refugees fleeing Nazism that year was clearly higher than 43,450. Although the United States did not have a substantive refugee policy — those fleeing persecution had to follow the same steps as other immigrants — Jewish refugees alone constituted more than half of all immigration to the United States.
​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-s-promised-to-protect-refugees-were-failing/

What happened in September, 1939?

Also your article does not address German Jews, but Jews in general.

Also, check out this link:
MS St. Louis - Wikipedia

Seriously? Come on man, you're supposed to be a teacher. Yes, we turned away a boatload of Jewish refugees...that doesn't mean we continued to turn away Jewish refugees. And what happened in September 1939? Oh gosh, I dunno...The start of WWII maybe?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why should the US accept asylum seekers who pass thru safe countries to get here?
They should stay in the first safe country, if they are accepted.
Otherwise the US would be the "asylum" destination for half the world.

So we never should have taken Jews fleeing Hitler's Germany?

Your knowledge of history is failing you again. We didn't!

Stop being stupid! It's habit-forming!

We didn't take in Jewish refugees? You sure about that?

In 1939, the United States admitted at least 43,450 Jews, almost all from Europe. But we know the number of Jews only because immigrants arriving here had to list their own “race,” and until 1943, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now split into two different Department of Homeland Security agencies) considered “Hebrew” a race. Plenty of people being persecuted by the Nazis as Jews didn’t self-identify as Jewish and would have listed themselves as “German” (for example), so the actual number of refugees fleeing Nazism that year was clearly higher than 43,450. Although the United States did not have a substantive refugee policy — those fleeing persecution had to follow the same steps as other immigrants — Jewish refugees alone constituted more than half of all immigration to the United States.
​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-s-promised-to-protect-refugees-were-failing/

What happened in September, 1939?

Also your article does not address German Jews, but Jews in general.

Also, check out this link:
MS St. Louis - Wikipedia

Seriously? Come on man, you're supposed to be a teacher. Yes, we turned away a boatload of Jewish refugees...that doesn't mean we continued to turn away Jewish refugees. And what happened in September 1939? Oh gosh, I dunno...The start of WWII maybe?

Now process that information and see why your conclusion is based on factors where you did not connect the dots. Come on! You can do it! Refugees and those seeking asylum are two different animals.

 

[Seawytch]

So we never should have taken Jews fleeing Hitler's Germany?

Your knowledge of history is failing you again. We didn't!

Stop being stupid! It's habit-forming!

We didn't take in Jewish refugees? You sure about that?

In 1939, the United States admitted at least 43,450 Jews, almost all from Europe. But we know the number of Jews only because immigrants arriving here had to list their own “race,” and until 1943, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now split into two different Department of Homeland Security agencies) considered “Hebrew” a race. Plenty of people being persecuted by the Nazis as Jews didn’t self-identify as Jewish and would have listed themselves as “German” (for example), so the actual number of refugees fleeing Nazism that year was clearly higher than 43,450. Although the United States did not have a substantive refugee policy — those fleeing persecution had to follow the same steps as other immigrants — Jewish refugees alone constituted more than half of all immigration to the United States.
​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-s-promised-to-protect-refugees-were-failing/

What happened in September, 1939?

Also your article does not address German Jews, but Jews in general.

Also, check out this link:
MS St. Louis - Wikipedia

Seriously? Come on man, you're supposed to be a teacher. Yes, we turned away a boatload of Jewish refugees...that doesn't mean we continued to turn away Jewish refugees. And what happened in September 1939? Oh gosh, I dunno...The start of WWII maybe?

Now process that information and see why your conclusion is based on factors where you did not connect the dots. Come on! You can do it! Refugees and those seeking asylum are two different animals.

Ah, I see...you think the vehicle for violence makes a difference as to whether asylum seekers should be able to seek asylum. Murder is still murder whether you use a knife or poison. Violence is still violence whether the war is legally declared or not.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Your knowledge of history is failing you again. We didn't!

Stop being stupid! It's habit-forming!

We didn't take in Jewish refugees? You sure about that?

In 1939, the United States admitted at least 43,450 Jews, almost all from Europe. But we know the number of Jews only because immigrants arriving here had to list their own “race,” and until 1943, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now split into two different Department of Homeland Security agencies) considered “Hebrew” a race. Plenty of people being persecuted by the Nazis as Jews didn’t self-identify as Jewish and would have listed themselves as “German” (for example), so the actual number of refugees fleeing Nazism that year was clearly higher than 43,450. Although the United States did not have a substantive refugee policy — those fleeing persecution had to follow the same steps as other immigrants — Jewish refugees alone constituted more than half of all immigration to the United States.
​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-s-promised-to-protect-refugees-were-failing/

What happened in September, 1939?

Also your article does not address German Jews, but Jews in general.

Also, check out this link:
MS St. Louis - Wikipedia

Seriously? Come on man, you're supposed to be a teacher. Yes, we turned away a boatload of Jewish refugees...that doesn't mean we continued to turn away Jewish refugees. And what happened in September 1939? Oh gosh, I dunno...The start of WWII maybe?

Now process that information and see why your conclusion is based on factors where you did not connect the dots. Come on! You can do it! Refugees and those seeking asylum are two different animals.

Ah, I see...you think the vehicle for violence makes a difference as to whether asylum seekers should be able to seek asylum. Murder is still murder whether you use a knife or poison. Violence is still violence whether the war is legally declared or not.

Keep working it out! You aren't there yet! I know you can do this!