Tumah
Veteran Member
Can you paste the relevant legal code that describes their status?Then don't call them "illegals".
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can you paste the relevant legal code that describes their status?Then don't call them "illegals".
Shouldn't you at least have some knowledge of the laws regarding refugees and/or asylum seekers before you make any personal judgement as to whether they are illegal?No, I'm saying I don't know the answer to your question.
If one enters the country illegally but with intent to seek asylum is one legally defined as an illegal alien or an asylum seeker or both?
I do not know.
Why? You just admitted you didn't know. As such, you shouldn't be calling them illegals. It's not up to me to do your homework for you.Can you paste the relevant legal code that describes their status?
I see.Children, Tumah. This thread focused upon children, and treatment of children.
At this time treatment of children is being reviewed most closely. FGM where I live is now an Indictable Offence. I mentioned this to you are then added that 'Boys could be protected next'.
Attitudes are changing. It's true.
Google is at your fingertips.Can you paste the relevant legal code that describes their status?
Then maybe you should find out before slapping dehumanising labels on children?No, I'm saying I don't know the answer to your question.
If one enters the country illegally but with intent to seek asylum is one legally defined as an illegal alien or an asylum seeker or both?
I do not know.
I'm not sure that I'd have said I'm making a personal judgement as this is a question of their legal definition. But you're right, I did assume that if the government is holding them, it must hold that legally they are illegal aliens. I guess that doesn't have to be the case.Shouldn't you at least have some knowledge of the laws regarding refugees and/or asylum seekers before you make any personal judgement as to whether they are illegal?
It sounds like you're trying to accuse me of the 9th commandment, so I'll just point out that you can't bear false witness outside a legal situation in Judaism. You have to be testifying about something, not simply presenting an argument.I am not going to say this is bearing false witness but it seems to me like you have been bearing false witness by saying they are illegal.
Sure. Sleeping on cold concrete floors with pillows and blankets in cold weather in slightly crowded conditions. And no toothbrushes and soap.
People do this all the time as a recreational activity when they go camping or hunting. ..............................
Google is at your fingertips.
Is there something you find dehumanizing about being made to do something illegal or having an illegal status?Then maybe you should find out before slapping dehumanising labels on children?
Of course not. Go back to my earlier posts in this thread.Tumah! Are you actually supporting such treatment of children today?
Sleeping on concrete is very very bad for any body. Not only is it very uncomfortable but it saps all warmth straight out of a body. And all and any children need to be given provsion for cleaned teeth and bodies.
The thing is, that where people try to support or justify such treatment of minors, this can be a gauge on their attitudes to child protection in all and other areas.
Don't sleep on concrete, Tumah. Just..... don't. You could regret it very much, even if you are a fine example of tough manhood.
So you're saying that you think "illegals" is dehumanizing...but not because you think doing something illegal or being of illegal status is less human.
Are you sure that's your position?
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Not playing, sorry.Is there something you find dehumanizing about being made to do something illegal or having an illegal status?
I assume the irony of a "Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox J(ew)" enabling and apologising for this stuff is lost on him.The above was sent to another.
In the context of any young children, the term 'Illegals' is a total and absolte contradiction of any Western Legislation that I know of.
It is impossible for a child to be 'illegal' since all young children are incapable of any illegal, unlawful or criminal behaviour. Young children are considered to be in a condition of 'high risk' when not with their parents or guardians, and in a foreign country, alone, frightened, insecure and seeking refuge/protection/succour they certainly cannot be considered as 'Illegals' in any way.
This kind of treatment reminds me of stories about the Nazis and their treatment of children that were disabled, or gypsies, or blacks, or Jews, or Eastern Europeans etc
Empathy is required here, strong voices and the strong opinions of that country's more decent people.
Of course not. Go back to my earlier posts in this thread.
Why? You just admitted you didn't know. As such, you shouldn't be calling them illegals. It's not up to me to do your homework for you.
Well, see, the fix there is, stop humanising them with terms like "father" or "daughter", and start using dehumanising terms like "illegals", or "animals", or "cockroaches", and before you know it, everyone will stop caring. Problem solved!The Independent in the UK is headlining with this story...
Are these your ‘animals’, Mr Trump? Graphic photo of drowned father and daughter at US border prompt outrage
That reads callousWell, see, the fix there is, stop humanising them with terms like "father" or "daughter", and start using dehumanising terms like "illegals", or "animals", or "cockroaches", and before you know it, everyone will stop caring. Problem solved!
It's all about controlling narrative. Killing children by neglect in concentration camps during ethnic cleansing? People are outraged. Illegal dies while at a processing facility during a law enforcement operation targeting criminals? Increase in popularity ranking. Exact same event, described two different ways. And guess what? It's working. Just look at our resident Trumpettes and Usual Suspects actively cheering on the creeping fascism. People are already dying, and these useful idiots and enablers want to debate semantics rather than admit there's a problem.
Yeah,it is in red. Looks like those poor people awaiting the government to determine their status aren't illegalUnauthorised arrival into another country may be prompted by the need to escape civil war or repression in the country of origin. However, somebody who flees such a situation is in most countries under no circumstances an undocumented immigrant. If victims of forced displacement apply for asylum in the country they fled to and are granted refugee status they have the right to remain permanently. If asylum seekers are not granted some kind of legal protection status, then they may have to leave the country, or stay as illegal immigrants.
According to the 1951 Refugee Convention refugees should be exempted from immigration laws and should expect protection from the country they entered.[55] It is, however, up to the countries involved to decide if a particular immigrant is a refugee or not, and hence whether they are subject to the immigration controls. Furthermore, countries that did not sign the 1951 Refugee Convention or do not attempt to follow its guidelines are likely to consider refugees and asylum seekers as illegal immigrants.
-source
Do you have something more relevant?