Vilander Posted June 23, 2018 Author Share Posted June 23, 2018 9 hours ago, beetle said: In most western countries the govt has the right to seperate children from parents if they are at risk. Parents pushing children across borders ( unless there is oppression ) are putting their children in danger. Besides this, illegal migrants are the a pain for any country. These people do not have any respect for rules( hence have no issues breaking such serious ruled) and no respect for life. They enter a country without any job and place to stay. They bring down the living standard of the host country. Every country has a right to protect their borders from such irresponsible rule breaker. If this woman was a drug mule travelling with a child...would the authorities not seperate the child from her or she should be a more child friendly jail because she put the child in danger. May not be the same crimes but the issue is the same. Don't put your child in a situation where the child will be put in danger. But till the adult is under reasonable suspicion it's not OK to separate a child from the mother. India does not do this either to rohyngias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted June 23, 2018 Author Share Posted June 23, 2018 3 hours ago, surajmal said: jihadi hordes The 2 year old Honduran kid whose dad is legally working in US is not a jihadi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted June 23, 2018 Author Share Posted June 23, 2018 9 hours ago, beetle said: In most western countries the govt has the right to seperate children from parents if they are at risk. Parents pushing children across borders ( unless there is oppression ) are putting their children in danger. Besides this, illegal migrants are the a pain for any country. These people do not have any respect for rules( hence have no issues breaking such serious ruled) and no respect for life. They enter a country without any job and place to stay. They bring down the living standard of the host country. Every country has a right to protect their borders from such irresponsible rule breaker. If this woman was a drug mule travelling with a child...would the authorities not seperate the child from her or she should be a more child friendly jail because she put the child in danger. May not be the same crimes but the issue is the same. Don't put your child in a situation where the child will be put in danger. Till the time you do not determine if they are rightfully seeking asylum or are to be deported a govt can not separate kids from a parent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted June 23, 2018 Share Posted June 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Vilander said: The 2 year old Honduran kid whose dad is legally working in US is not a jihadi. Read what I typed again. and maybe a third, fourth or fifth time. I used plain english diction, not hindi. sscomp32 and randomGuy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted June 23, 2018 Share Posted June 23, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Vilander said: Its never OK to violate human rights. If you do it's crime against humanity Who decides what are Human Rights? Do Human Rights exist outside of agreed upon pieces of paper? What if one country disagrees with what are considered Human Rights: say a country thinks Free Speech is a Human Right, but doesn't think accepting asylum seekers into their country is a Human Right? If opinions differ between people/countries/cultures on what are human rights, then is imposition by some of what they view as "Human Rights" also a violation of human rights of a different people/countries/culture? If these "Human Rights" don't exist outside of a piece of paper, what exactly will happen to the US, for example, if it reneges on all aspects of "Human Rights" that it finds unfavorable and starts to violate Human Rights, in this case rejecting all asylum seekers? Edited June 23, 2018 by Tibarn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted June 24, 2018 Author Share Posted June 24, 2018 3 hours ago, Tibarn said: What if one country disagrees with what are considered Human Rights: This is what happened with thw Nazis too. They dis agreed with the human rights that Jews had and Romas ( romas are like present day economic assylum seekers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted June 24, 2018 Author Share Posted June 24, 2018 8 hours ago, surajmal said: Read what I typed again. and maybe a third, fourth or fifth time. I used plain english diction, not hindi. Yeah you are better off writing in Hindi than your school boy English, but that aside your point it utterly irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted June 24, 2018 Author Share Posted June 24, 2018 3 hours ago, Tibarn said: If opinions differ between people/countries/cultures on what are human rights, then is imposition by some of what they view as "Human Rights" also a violation of human rights of a different people/countries/culture? This is a good point. Its a matter of perspective very clearly. If life of US citizens is threatened by certain groups of people then preventing open immigration from those societies is within the rights of a country in a globalised world.but then if people are fleeing threat to their life and the act of deporting them puts them back in the very same threat they are trying to escape, then that is where basic human rights come into picture. Nation states are really just a recent human invention, compassion however is the basis of morality. Again assylum seekers are not immigrants. UrmiSinhaRay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 The other problem with the administration is that it isn't handling the communication properly at all. You don't give out soundbytes like these and not expect vicious reactions: The left also went cuckoo and the country continues to grow apart over outsiders this time: https://www.rt.com/usa/430308-nielsen-dhs-mexican-protest/ https://www.ft.com/content/d01e2292-778c-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d UrmiSinhaRay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 12 hours ago, Vilander said: Yeah you are better off writing in Hindi than your school boy English, but that aside your point it utterly irrelevant. Says something about you doesnt it? That you are having trouble with school boy english. Don't let your inner lemurian be the reason for chewtiyapa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 (edited) 18 hours ago, Vilander said: This is what happened with thw Nazis too. They dis agreed with the human rights that Jews had and Romas ( romas are like present day economic assylum seekers) One doesn't need to go back all the way to the Nazis, there are numerous cases even today, including people sitting on the UNHRC... Even countries like the US/Canada have recent histories of facilitating or actively supporting the suppression of human rights! Why would the US refusing "human rights" for asylum seekers be any different than what they already do? 18 hours ago, Vilander said: This is a good point. Its a matter of perspective very clearly. If life of US citizens is threatened by certain groups of people then preventing open immigration from those societies is within the rights of a country in a globalised world.but then if people are fleeing threat to their life and the act of deporting them puts them back in the very same threat they are trying to escape, then that is where basic human rights come into picture. Nation states are really just a recent human invention, compassion however is the basis of morality. Again assylum seekers are not immigrants. Nation-states may be a recent invention, but tribes are as old as can be seen methinks. Edit: Here is an example of a different view on a "human right" http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/elecciones-2018/amlo-urge-epn-detener-actos-racistas-e-inhumanas-de-eu-migrantes Here a candidate for President of Mexico is saying that it is a Human Right for South Americans to migrate to the United States. Edited June 24, 2018 by Tibarn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted June 25, 2018 Author Share Posted June 25, 2018 13 hours ago, surajmal said: Says something about you doesnt it? That you are having trouble with school boy english. Don't let your inner lemurian be the reason for chewtiyapa. Lemur chewtiya whatever man you type the same things everywhere man. Our conversations are done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted June 25, 2018 Author Share Posted June 25, 2018 11 hours ago, Tibarn said: One doesn't need to go back all the way to the Nazis, there are numerous cases even today, including people sitting on the UNHRC... Even countries like the US/Canada have recent histories of facilitating or actively supporting the suppression of human rights! Why would the US refusing "human rights" for asylum seekers be any different than what they already do? Nation-states may be a recent invention, but tribes are as old as can be seen methinks. Edit: Here is an example of a different view on a "human right" http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/elecciones-2018/amlo-urge-epn-detener-actos-racistas-e-inhumanas-de-eu-migrantes Here a candidate for President of Mexico is saying that it is a Human Right for South Americans to migrate to the United States. I could not translate the article in the Android browser but it's an interesting perspective I have read somewhere that movement of people can not be restricted as in free unfettered immigration, that's not agreeable. Asylum seeking is different it has a compassionate ground this does not I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts