Funny Events of the "Woke" world

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,317
6,824
118
Country
United States
Asylum seekers deserve an asylum hearing, not housing and food and so on.
Asylum Hearings only happen in country. You cannot get one before you are in country. Crossing the border under any circumstances to apply for asylum is not illegal.

How you want the asylum system to be run is not how the asylum system actually runs
 

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
2,717
912
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
Asylum Hearings only happen in country. You cannot get one before you are in country. Crossing the border under any circumstances to apply for asylum is not illegal.

How you want the asylum system to be run is not how the asylum system actually runs
That didn't address what I said.

Just because you applied for asylum doesn't mean you don't have to feed yourself and house yourself.
 

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,552
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
You can seek asylum from outside the country,
No, generally no. And demanding them to is, in practice, simply a way to reject the notion of asylum without daring to express it. It's an excuse, like many others, to make asylum impossible while presenting it as some clean hands rationality.
 

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,459
2,746
118
Just because you applied for asylum doesn't mean you don't have to feed yourself and house yourself.
Asylum seekers aren't allowed to work in the UK, and it looks like they aren't in the US unless the government fails to process your asylum claim on time (and then they can apply to be allowed to work after about six months).
 

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
2,717
912
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
Asylum seekers aren't allowed to work in the UK, and it looks like they aren't in the US unless the government fails to process your asylum claim on time (and then they can apply to be allowed to work after about six months).
Yeah so they would have to finance their trip and pre-approval stay before departing to account for that. If these are not economic migrants but regular people fleeing some sort of catastrophe, surely they have some savings.

Like if you don't have enough fuel to make the trans-atlantic flight you don't depart anyways and then ask to be refueled mid-air by your purported destination country at their expense. No destination would agree do that. Departing and emotionally blackmailing your destination cause you will crash if not refueled shouldn't be promoted, and just because you chose out of your own volition to head somewhere, that doesn't make you the destination's responsibility even when you are within other jurisdictions.
 

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,459
2,746
118
Yeah so they would have to finance their trip and pre-approval stay before departing to account for that. If these are not economic migrants but regular people fleeing some sort of catastrophe, surely they have some savings.

Like if you don't have enough fuel to make the trans-atlantic flight you don't depart anyways and then ask to be refueled mid-air by your purported destination country at their expense. No destination would agree do that. Departing and emotionally blackmailing your destination cause you will crash if not refueled shouldn't be promoted, and just because you chose out of your own volition to head somewhere, that doesn't make you the destination's responsibility even when you are within other jurisdictions.
It is good that you've made it clear you know so little about this.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,094
5,821
118
Country
United Kingdom
The fact that they are inside the country and need housing while being asylum seekers (meaning they haven't been granted it yet) is proof that they have entered illegally.
This is just complete bollocks. That's not how it happens, even with all legal procedures followed.
 

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
2,717
912
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
Yeah. They should just stay where they are and die, out of a desire not to inconvenience you.
There's a right and a wrong way to move from one country to another. I know cause I did it myself. If someone's actually in danger, then by merely getting to mexico they no longer risk death, they can just stay there and they won't die. They're mexico's responsibility.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,094
5,821
118
Country
United Kingdom
There's a right and a wrong way to move from one country to another. I know cause I did it myself. If someone's actually in danger, then by merely getting to mexico they no longer risk death, they can just stay there and they won't die. They're mexico's responsibility.
So... why should they head to Mexico rather than the US? Why is Mexico by default higher on the list of options than the US?

If we're talking about the ability to provide for refugees, then the US is far wealthier and able to accommodate. And the US was also itself involved in creating/exacerbating many of the conflicts around the world from which people are now having to flee-- and the one who creates a bad situation, or makes it worse, is usually considered to have greater responsibility to ameliorate its impact.
 

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
2,717
912
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
So... why should they head to Mexico rather than the US? Why is Mexico by default higher on the list of options than the US?

If we're talking about the ability to provide for refugees, then the US is far wealthier and able to accommodate. And the US was also itself involved in creating/exacerbating many of the conflicts around the world from which people are now having to flee-- and the one who creates a bad situation, or makes it worse, is usually considered to have greater responsibility to ameliorate its impact.
If the US is closer they should head here but if Mexico's closer they should stay there, it's about getting to safety, not to wealth.

We're not talking about the ability to provide for them (clearly there's no ability to provide for our citizens with all the homeless btw), we're talking for the ability to remove them from life-threatening-circumstances.


The US isn't responsible that another country is unable to withstand its influence, that failure lies solely on the shoulders of that country's leadership. Those people were failed by their own governments, not by the US, the US is just doing its best for its citizens and doesn't have any responsibility for the citizens of other countries. If we are to say otherwise then we should just gobble up all those states and have them pay taxes.
 

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
2,717
912
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
The ability is there. Just not the desire amongst those that have the ability.
This is semantics at this point but I define as "ability" the capacity to generate an outcome, whatever that may entail. If there's a way but there's no will, we don't have that capacity, and the thing lacking is purpose and feeling as opposed to materials.

Countries will vie for influence, power, resources, all that. A country's responsibility is to fend off other countries' interests while asserting its own. Failure to do so is the fault of the one failing, not of the others who did not fail and managed to exert influence to their benefit and the detriment of the country who failed.
 
Last edited:

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,094
5,389
118
Australia
Yep, what's illegal is to enter the country instead of seeking asylum first, being approved and then entering. If you're legit running for safety, once you reach mexico you have attained safety, so you can just hang out there while we process you, instead of in new york. There legit is no reason why someone would be housed in the house of a new yorker as opposed to the house of a mexican when they're already in mexico. The mayor of new york should pay mexicans to house the immigrants, the money would go a lot further in mexico too.

Think about it, we all know most of those people would be rejected since they're economic migrants and not war refugees or political prisoner escapees. Why bring them all the way over from the border to new york, only to bring them back from new york to the border, when they can just be at mexico so that when they are rejected they don't need to be moved that far to go back to whence they came.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, you realise New York is a port city, right? One of the most famous in the world in fact. So it’s not inconceivable that he may be referring to those who arrive by ship in New York City Harbour.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,485
929
118
Country
USA
Ice ages last millions and millions of years. If you think artificially raising the temperature over the course of >200 years is functionally comparable to the globe transitioning out of an ice age, then you have absolutely zero grasp of climatology.
That's actually the pattern, Silvanus. Glacial periods set in slowly for long periods of ice, then the globe heats rapidly back towards thaw. The term is Dansgaard Oeschger events. When the most recent glacial period receded, the temperature in Greenland is estimated to have spiked 8 degrees C over just 40 years.

That describes interglacials within an ice age, but our best understanding of ice ages on the full geological time scale have a similar pattern of slow cooling periods descending into ice ages and relatively rapid heating periods ending them.
As we're talking about evolutionary timescales here, I'm just going to suggest that saying "everything will be fine in a million years" is not necessarily very comforting to a species that only has a few thousand years of civilisation. It's even getting towards the logic of arguing humans should be made extinct to protect the rest of the world from us.
You, like Silvanus, have a serious misunderstanding of how quickly the world can change. It doesn't take millions of years for everything to change. The variations in people and domesticated animals across the globe are from the last few millenia. The food you eat didn't exist in the form it is now a few centuries ago. Huge swaths of nature are being challanged by "invasive species", with whole ecosystems being overturned within a decades. Nature does not move slowly.
Even during the cretaceous period, an extremely short time ago in geological terms, summer temperatures in what is now the temperate northern hemisphere would have routinely reached levels humans cannot survive.
To the best of our knowledge, that isn't true. High temperatures for much of the Earth were not terribly different than they are now (caveat, this is all best guesswork, obviously history isn't truly knowable), the big temperature difference was the ocean was much warmer and the poles were unfrozen, I've never seen any suggestion that the land was getting death-valley hot. Also, I wouldn't call 2% the entire age of the planet "extremely short".
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,910
1,775
118
Country
United Kingdom
The variations in people and domesticated animals across the globe are from the last few millenia. The food you eat didn't exist in the form it is now a few centuries ago. Huge swaths of nature are being challanged by "invasive species", with whole ecosystems being overturned within a decades. Nature does not move slowly.
So, you're fine with catastrophic global biodiversity loss and the collapse of all existing ecosystems because you don't see the difference between biodiversity and a bunch of slightly different looking cows?

Nature does not move slowly because we live in the middle of an extinction event, which is on the verge of becoming the sixth mass extinction in earth's history. Mass extinctions occur when conditions change so quickly that the great majority of species on the planet cannot adapt and die out. The impact of humans on the planet resembles a catastrophic cosmic or tectonic event more than the normal state of affairs.

To the best of our knowledge, that isn't true. High temperatures for much of the Earth were not terribly different than they are now (caveat, this is all best guesswork, obviously history isn't truly knowable), the big temperature difference was the ocean was much warmer and the poles were unfrozen, I've never seen any suggestion that the land was getting death-valley hot.
Think about this one for a second. Where, in this scenario, do you imagine that the energy to heat the oceans (and only the oceans) was coming from?

It takes a lot more energy to heat water than to heat air.
 
Last edited:

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,317
6,824
118
Country
United States
This is semantics at this point but I define as "ability" the capacity to generate an outcome, whatever that may entail. If there's a way but there's no will, we don't have that capacity, and the thing lacking is purpose and feeling as opposed to materials.

Countries will vie for influence, power, resources, all that. A country's responsibility is to fend off other countries' interests while asserting its own. Failure to do so is the fault of the one failing, not of the others who did not fail and managed to exert influence to their benefit and the detriment of the country who failed.
Arguing that asylum seekers should be starving and homeless if they don't have months worth of savings from their home country where everything costed dramatically less than it does in the United States (cost of living goes both ways, everything is just way more expensive here) while arguing the USA doesn't have a responsibility for the lives in the countries we devastate because they didn't have the power to resist our sheer economic might lands you pretty solidly in Blatant Gundam Villain territory
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,094
5,821
118
Country
United Kingdom
If the US is closer they should head here but if Mexico's closer they should stay there, it's about getting to safety, not to wealth.
Geographical closeness to their original country is a ridiculous metric to judge by. It means bugger all. The only reason you want to focus on that-- rather than on the ability of the country to accommodate, which is far more pertinent-- is convenience for the US (at the cost to anyone who isn't the US).

We're not talking about the ability to provide for them (clearly there's no ability to provide for our citizens with all the homeless btw), we're talking for the ability to remove them from life-threatening-circumstances.
LOL. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the US has more than enough resources to tackle homelessness. It opts not to bother.

The US isn't responsible that another country is unable to withstand its influence, that failure lies solely on the shoulders of that country's leadership.
"The perpetrator of the crime isn't responsible for the fact the victim was unable to avoid being mugged. That failure lies solely on the shoulders of the victim".

Give me a break.