Migration

[PaulS]

Just for something different, I wonder how people feel about migration and more to the point, control of migration.

Like The US (and I guess every country), Australia has rules in place around who we will and won't accept into the country and under what conditions.  The issue for Australia is the arrival of people from developing countries by boat.  There is also a large number who arrive by air and then overstay their visas. 

Thankfully I was born here, so much like the Queen of England and her royal birthright, for no other reason than my fortune in being born in the right place, I get to live in this lucky country.

Although we don't have the same National Emergency with illegal migration that the US apparently suffers, we nonetheless have our moments about how to control the influx of arrivals.

I completely understand the practical and logistical implications and why they might be required in order to maintain the high living standards we have.  It make sense from a "this is our country and we will decide who gets to live here" pov.  The other extreme, an uncontrolled inlfux of anybody and everybody, would seem problematic.

But I can't help but feel that is completely opposite to any notion of love and self-sacrifice for others.  "I'm alright Jack" is definitely a notion that pops into my head.  To be honest, selfishly I don't really want my quality of life or that of my kids to suffer due to uncontrolled immigration, but how do others reconcile such with not being prepared to share everything with others much less fortunate?  How Christian is it that we draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough for others?

Your thoughts?

[thormas]

8 hours ago, PaulS said:

Just for something different, I wonder how people feel about migration and more to the point, control of migration.

Like The US (and I guess every country), Australia has rules in place around who we will and won't accept into the country and under what conditions.  The issue for Australia is the arrival of people from developing countries by boat.  There is also a large number who arrive by air and then overstay their visas. 

Thankfully I was born here, so much like the Queen of England and her royal birthright, for no other reason than my fortune in being born in the right place, I get to live in this lucky country.

Although we don't have the same National Emergency with illegal migration that the US apparently suffers, we nonetheless have our moments about how to control the influx of arrivals.

I completely understand the practical and logistical implications and why they might be required in order to maintain the high living standards we have.  It make sense from a "this is our country and we will decide who gets to live here" pov.  The other extreme, an uncontrolled inlfux of anybody and everybody, would seem problematic.

But I can't help but feel that is completely opposite to any notion of love and self-sacrifice for others.  "I'm alright Jack" is definitely a notion that pops into my head.  To be honest, selfishly I don't really want my quality of life or that of my kids to suffer due to uncontrolled immigration, but how do others reconcile such with not being prepared to share everything with others much less fortunate?  How Christian is it that we draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough for others?

Your thoughts?

This is a loaded issue. I didn't really think much about immigration until Trump. It was always there, had to be controlled or regulated (and seemed to be) but it seems it is, now, always in our face. It seems reasonable that the US should help countries 'downstream' to improve conditions (without bankrolling a number of countries) and be humane (rather easily defined) in the 'care and detention' of those at our border. 

I'm not sure of some Dem's positions to decrimilize illegal immigration and make it a civil offense: seems we should have the option of civil or criminal prosecution. I have not followed closely the idea of health benefits or care for illegals. Certainly if a child or adult, in our care, is ill, we should provide care but if they actually mean 'health care for all illegals' that is both, seemingly, unfair to the many US citizens who can't afford it and not a smart issue against Trump. I think we should have 'secure' borders but I favor a mix of technologies and manpower and am against a wall - especially if it is a vanity project.

Think we should crackdown of those who overstay visas and try to attract the brightest but also very open to the 'salt of the earth' people who build the country and continue to come.

Even with our immigration problems, the quality of life has not declined and if we remain reasonable, this will continue. I am against the Trumpian mantra that it is (always) America first and carrying it out at the expense of the world. In addition, America has traveled the path of isolationism and it didn't work: to know history is hopefully being smart enough not to repeat its mistakes. 

[JosephM]

I don't think it is the governments job to bankroll those less fortunate as it forces all to pay and  some against their will to give. Personally i handle charity to the less fortunate as an individual through organizations and sometimes personally. Giving the power to government to take from all and to give where it see fit is to me dangerous and tempts corruption in high places.        Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a useful servant but  a fearful master.   (George Washington ???)

 

Paul said:

Quote

But I can't help but feel that is completely opposite to any notion of love and self-sacrifice for others.  "I'm alright Jack" is definitely a notion that pops into my head.  To be honest, selfishly I don't really want my quality of life or that of my kids to suffer due to uncontrolled immigration, but how do others reconcile such with not being prepared to share everything with others much less fortunate?  How Christian is it that we draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough for others?

To me, Love is neither letting all enter the country unchecked nor limiting those who can enter. Self sacrifice for others is an individual thing. It seems to me, there is nothing stopping one that is able to assist others by self-sacrifice from doing so except oneself. If one feels an unction to share everything with others much less fortunate there are many communes and other ways to accomplish such.

Christian is not a term to judge another's  choices but rather a walk or journey or process one strives toward. I have only had glimpses of understanding on why the poor are with us always but i can with some surety tell you that if everyone divided up their assets and shared all with everyone else at this time ... the poor and less fortunate will still be with us. In other words sharing all is not the answer for the poor or less fortunate .  It seems to me good to be thankful for what one has and do what is in your fortitude and ability to do to the best of your understanding and let the other do the same.

 

[thormas]

43 minutes ago, JosephM said:

I don't think it is the governments job to bankroll those less fortunate as it forces all to pay and  some against their will to give. Personally i handle charity to the less fortunate as an individual through organizations and sometimes personally. Giving the power to government to take from all and to give where it see fit is to me dangerous and tempts corruption in high places.        Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a useful servant but  a fearful master.   (George Washington ???)

If we're talking about people coming to our borders, only the government is big enough (and it is their responsibility to protect the American people, that's why god made taxes) to deal with these men, women and children - in a humane manner, befitting and symbolizing American law and fairness/compassion. 

If we're talking about the less fortunate who are US citizens then I support a mixture of charity and government assistance - along with the opportunities and encouragement to work and thereby or in combination with assistance, obtain housing, food, education and health insurance. Our taxes sometime goes places that are probably against the will of many - but that is the reality. I am not a socialist and I believe people like Warren and Sanders could cost us a fortune but there is a vast difference between their proposals and assistance for our citizens when needed and appropriate.

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

How Christian is it that we draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough for others?

This begins to bring us to the separation of state and church. As an example, I might feel one way about abortion but I don't believe it is right to impose that belief on all US citizens by making abortion illegal or unduly restricting it. So too, it seems responsible as citizens of a county to have boundaries and monitor or restrict immigration (this goes to things like protection,  the imposition of taxes, the limits of resources and quality of life). I agree that beyond this one is free to practice and extend their religious charity in a way that suits them. 

I disagree to a degree on Christian and judgement. If one touts their Christianity, then we should be able to hold them to it and to the standard of what is truly Christian (sometimes difficult but sometimes rather obvious). 

I do not believe nor do I think it is fair or right (for any and all non-Christians) to call the US a Christian nation or impose Christian values on all. However, all religions aside, there still seems a responsibility to provide some governmental assistance to our citizens in times of need. 

 

[JosephM]

Taxes were not  meant for welfare in the US. Here is a short great writing on welfare and the use of taxes compiled from a speech in Congress by the famous American Davy Crockett.  It seems to me to be worth reading by every American to the very end.

http://www.101bananas.com/library2/crockett.html

[thormas]

44 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Taxes were not  meant for welfare in the US. Here is a short great writing on welfare and the use of taxes compiled from a speech in Congress by the famous American Davy Crockett.  It seems to me to be worth reading by every American to the very end.

Thanks, I will read it when time permits.

However, it depends what we are calling welfare and, in itself, limited welfare assistance can be both necessary and acceptable. 

[romansh]

21 hours ago, PaulS said:

… for no other reason than my fortune in being born in the right place, I get to live in this lucky country.

Fundamentally … How does being born somewhere (or ones forbearers being somewhere) give a 'right' to that plot of land. 

My forbearers came from the plane Earth. I claim my right to live on Earth.

[PaulS]

11 hours ago, JosephM said:

Christian is not a term to judge another's  choices but rather a walk or journey or process one strives toward. I have only had glimpses of understanding on why the poor are with us always but i can with some surety tell you that if everyone divided up their assets and shared all with everyone else at this time ... the poor and less fortunate will still be with us. In other words sharing all is not the answer for the poor or less fortunate .  It seems to me good to be thankful for what one has and do what is in your fortitude and ability to do to the best of your understanding and let the other do the same.

I just find it hard to imagine, that the Jesus many of us think we understand these days, would be prepared to say 'No' to a family of immigrants trying to escape abject poverty and make it to a far better place to raise their children.  It just strikes me as selfish and an unwillingness to maybe suffer some reduction in our lifestyle - a lifestyle which largely we have simply because we were luckier than the other family to be born in a better country.

Don't get me wrong, I do it too so I am not pointing the finger at anyone, Christian or not.  Just questioning how it all fits in with the idea that Jesus was love, that we want to emulate Jesus, but then go and so "I'm not sharing with you".  It just seems so hypocritical of us, but what do you do.  Harden your heart and satisfy yourself that you're doing 'enough' anyway?  As Rom points out, who are we really to say another cannot share in the goodness of our countries.

[PaulS]

23 minutes ago, romansh said:

Fundamentally … How does being born somewhere (or ones forbearers being somewhere) give a 'right' to that plot of land. 

My forbearers came from the plane Earth. I claim my right to live on Earth.

Yes, but obviously nobody gets to live like that.  Laws and power and people prevent you form living where you want, when you want, how you want.  But I can't help but think those laws are in place to selfishly protect what one has and are designed to prevent sharing.

[PaulS]

10 hours ago, thormas said:

If we're talking about people coming to our borders, only the government is big enough (and it is their responsibility to protect the American people, that's why god made taxes) to deal with these men, women and children - in a humane manner, befitting and symbolizing American law and fairness/compassion. 

Yes, in our modern world that is the structures we have in place.  But I'm trying to get past the politics of it and try to understand how others 'feel' about saying 'No' to those in need when it is plainly clear we have so, so much more and largely because of pure luck (the luck of being born in the better country in the first place).

I just try to imagine that if I was a father struggling to raise and protect his wife and children in a violent, poverty-stricken country, and I wanted to make it to a better country just so my kids could grow up safer and with a little hope, that to be rejected by others who say that to love others is their highest priority, just seems so crap.  To me it seems we are sort of saying "I love you so much that I don't want to lose my 4 bedroom house with a pool, 2 x cars, and a very comfortable lifestyle because to share means my quality of life will diminish, albeit probably not as poorly as your life currently is now".

Again, I'm not pointing fingers because I am just as guilty as anybody else, and the way I probably deal with it is some little self-satisfying thoughts about contributing to charity and not being able to help everyone, but really, that just seems so hollow.

[thormas]

9 hours ago, PaulS said:

Yes, in our modern world that is the structures we have in place.  But I'm trying to get past the politics of it and try to understand how others 'feel' about saying 'No' to those in need when it is plainly clear we have so, so much more and largely because of pure luck (the luck of being born in the better country in the first place).

I just try to imagine that if I was a father struggling to raise and protect his wife and children in a violent, poverty-stricken country, and I wanted to make it to a better country just so my kids could grow up safer and with a little hope, that to be rejected by others who say that to love others is their highest priority, just seems so crap.  To me it seems we are sort of saying "I love you so much that I don't want to lose my 4 bedroom house with a pool, 2 x cars, and a very comfortable lifestyle because to share means my quality of life will diminish, albeit probably not as poorly as your life currently is now".

Again, I'm not pointing fingers because I am just as guilty as anybody else, and the way I probably deal with it is some little self-satisfying thoughts about contributing to charity and not being able to help everyone, but really, that just seems so hollow.

You make a good point. On one hand, we can say the world has changed drastically since the time of Jesus, on the other, has it changed that much in terms of fear of potential violence from the 'other' and the desire to protect one's own? Of course, being ruled by an outside force (Rome) took most or all of these decisions out of the hands of the people.

I do believe that we, in the USA, should let others seek asylum for various reasons, however, there is a responsibility and obligation to vet people in order to protect present citizens. It would seem also that this should fall equally across all civilized democracies (with an eye to the size of each country). In addition, we (the USA) should continue to allow and increase 'legal' immigration - and not just so called merit immigration. For these legals and for illegals who are not seeking asylum, it seems obvious and it is responsible that there should be a 'line.' 

The 'I don't want to lose my lifestyle' seems a poor excuse to block those who are in fear and in need. 

I found it telling in last night's debate that a good deal of consideration was given to correcting the systemic racism in the USA which has adversely  and historically affected one's ability to live in certain areas and therefore go to 'better' schools and have greater access to the greater society.

 

[JosephM]

Quote

Again, I'm not pointing fingers because I am just as guilty as anybody else, and the way I probably deal with it is some little self-satisfying thoughts about contributing to charity and not being able to help everyone, but really, that just seems so hollow.

Paul,

Not all say No to those in need but we have no right to force others to say yes that are unwilling. We know not exactly why we were born into what people consider more favorable conditions than the other and while i have compassion and do what i can willingly to help  those who live in poverty,  feeling guilty for that which i have no control over is not an option with me. You are welcome to feel guilty if you wish but i see no benefit for you nor the other in doing so.

Also we do allow those who are seeking a better life into our country but as Thomas said they have to be vetted and it done in a legal and orderly fashion. Many are saying they are seeking asylum here and we cannot handle effectively handle the large droves of them and are finding they are using that loophole in our system as an excuse. They are coming from Honduras and Guatemala and we are now requiring them to seek asylum in the other countries they must pass through first since they use the asylum card to enter.

 Immigrants and their U.S.-born children now number approximately 89.4 million people, or 28 percent of the overall U.S. population, according to the 2018 Current Population Survey (CPS).  So , you see we are not turning our back on those seeking a better life. Our infrastructure can only handle so many at a time or everyone loses.

[PaulS]

I agree with you both on what is a completely practical way of dealing with the matter.  I'm definitely pro-vetting so that there is some sort of control to stop terrorists and criminals, but when Jesus says (allegedly) in Matthew 6 that we shouldn't worry about food or clothing, is that not a contradiction to the 'everyone loses' approach if we did allow unrestrained immigration? I can't help but think restricting immigration because it will negatively impact on our living conditions (criminal and terrorist vetting aside) as not aligned with the value of love that Jesus was preaching.

[Burl]

6 hours ago, PaulS said:

I agree with you both on what is a completely practical way of dealing with the matter.  I'm definitely pro-vetting so that there is some sort of control to stop terrorists and criminals, but when Jesus says (allegedly) in Matthew 6 that we shouldn't worry about food or clothing, is that not a contradiction to the 'everyone loses' approach if we did allow unrestrained immigration? I can't help but think restricting immigration because it will negatively impact on our living conditions (criminal and terrorist vetting aside) as not aligned with the value of love that Jesus was preaching.

All nations have legal restrictions on immigration.  It is an essential part of being a nation.  

The US legal policy is by far the kindest and most liberal policy in the world.  We certainly do not dump all illegal immigrants off on an isle of the damned like Australia.

[JosephM]

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

I agree with you both on what is a completely practical way of dealing with the matter.  I'm definitely pro-vetting so that there is some sort of control to stop terrorists and criminals, but when Jesus says (allegedly) in Matthew 6 that we shouldn't worry about food or clothing, is that not a contradiction to the 'everyone loses' approach if we did allow unrestrained immigration? I can't help but think restricting immigration because it will negatively impact on our living conditions (criminal and terrorist vetting aside) as not aligned with the value of love that Jesus was preaching.

BTW Burl -    Nice video ... short and to the point.

Paul,

I think it would be safe in context to read that as ....   Don't be overly concerned with what you shall eat or drink or wear. There are much more important things in life that need to be addressed. Worrying about such things won't add time to your life. Rather seek the kingdom of God which is within you.

If we were overwhelmed with people here that our infra structure wouldn't support we would all lose and not be able to do the good we  are presently doing . Also i don't believe Jesus would have forced people to give or force people to allow unrestrained immigration. The United States is often considered the most generous country in the world. Why? Because Americans donate a lot of money. Its people, its foundations and its companies donated roughly $410 billion in 2017 -- or about 2.1% of its own GDP. In fact, the amount Americans donated was more than the entire GDP of all but about 40 countries in the world.

Austrailia is also a most generous country ( in the top 5)  and if they opened their borders (unlimited) to all who wished to come, i don't believe it would remain so for long.

[PaulS]

10 hours ago, Burl said:

The US legal policy is by far the kindest and most liberal policy in the world.  

That sounds like a very 'Trumpian' claim Burl.  What data can you refer to that demonstrates that 'US legal policy' is by far the kindest and most liberal in the world?

[PaulS]

6 hours ago, JosephM said:

If we were overwhelmed with people here that our infra structure wouldn't support we would all lose and not be able to do the good we  are presently doing . Also i don't believe Jesus would have forced people to give or force people to allow unrestrained immigration. 

I agree and that is a fair point.  Perhaps it is the bit that trumps having an open heart and letting anybody and everybody share in what we have.  It is completely practical and I agree.  

But still, it niggles at me and makes me feel like we are only saying that because we are the ones on the right side of the fence.

[Burl]

44 minutes ago, PaulS said:

That sounds like a very 'Trumpian' claim Burl.  What data can you refer to that demonstrates that 'US legal policy' is by far the kindest and most liberal in the world?

Any child born in the US is automatically a citizen. They can leverage this citizenship to get legal immigrant status for their family (anchor babies).  

Any refugee who can put their feet on US soil is granted refugee status.  

I do not believe any other country is this liberal in immigration.  

That is long-standing law.  The US also has huge resettlement projects in response to emergencies such as rescuing the entire Hmong people from Pol Pot and the Haitian earthquake which brought in so many people Florida had to add Creole as an official language. 

 

[thormas]

8 hours ago, JosephM said:

If we were overwhelmed with people here that our infra structure wouldn't support we would all lose and not be able to do the good we  are presently doing . Also i don't believe Jesus would have forced people to give or force people to allow unrestrained immigration. 

Our infrastructure is overwhelmed right now, even without the issue of immigration, because the powers that be never, ever do anything about upgrades. However, if the upgrades and maintenance were in place, I wonder if the USA would ever really be overwhelmed. Have you seen all the land across the country that is just there? Plus, the idea of getting immigrants to move to certain areas that have needs seems like it has possibilities. With some reasonable effort I don't see how we would lose much of anything. And more people paying taxes is attractive.

As for Jesus, my guess is the exact opposite. I can't imagine Jesus saying no to anyone. As for forcing people, he certainly tore into the established powers (and preached to the everyday Jew) of Judaism when he saw how the poor, the sick, the outcasts and the different were treated. His expectation seemed to be to give, to love no matter the cost, no mater the expense. 

[thormas]

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

But still, it niggles at me and makes me feel like we are only saying that because we are the ones on the right side of the fence.

I suspect you are right. I doubt that Jesus would let any of us off the hook.

[PaulS]

2 hours ago, Burl said:

Any child born in the US is automatically a citizen. They can leverage this citizenship to get legal immigrant status for their family (anchor babies).  

Any refugee who can put their feet on US soil is granted refugee status.  

I do not believe any other country is this liberal in immigration.  

That is long-standing law.  The US also has huge resettlement projects in response to emergencies such as rescuing the entire Hmong people from Pol Pot and the Haitian earthquake which brought in so many people Florida had to add Creole as an official language. 

So no specific data but just opinion?  Fair enough.

Yes, any child born in the US is automatically a citizen but I understand your President would like to change that - see this article: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/does-constitution-guarantee-citizenship-all-born-here-n411451.  Also, there is nothing in your legal system that guarantees citizenship to the parents of a baby born in the US if they are in fact an undocumented illegal immigrant - citizen baby or not.

Also, there is a lot of misunderstanding associated with the derogatory term 'anchor babies' with investigations suggesting mixed evidence to support the idea that citizenship is not the motivating factor for people having these children.  Here's a snip from Wikipedia for your info:

"Some critics of illegal immigration claim the United States' "birthright citizenship" is an incentive for illegal immigration, and that immigrants come to the country to give birth specifically so that their child will be an American citizen. The majority of children of illegal immigrants in the United States are citizens, and the number has risen. According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, an estimated 73% of children of illegal immigrants were citizens in 2008, up from 63% in 2003. A total of 3.8 million illegal immigrants had at least one child who is an American citizen. In investigating a claim by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, PolitiFact found mixed evidence to support the idea that citizenship was the motivating factor.[26] PolitiFact concludes that "[t]he data suggests that the motivator for illegal immigrants is the search for work and a better economic standing over the long term, not quickie citizenship for U.S.-born babies."

As for refugees being granted refugee status, the US is not unique in this regard.  Australia, and the other 145 countries that have ratified the Refugee Convention, also are obliged to grant refugee status to any genuine refugees.  

So of the two factors you claim make the US the kindest and most liberal when it comes to 'US legal policy', one is no greater than anyone else and the other looks like going down the path that every other European country has done in the last 2 or so decades.  But for now, the US does allow any child born in the US to be granted citizenship (but not their parents).

I think if you look at any of the available measures and data concerning a country's ranking for immigration, you'll see that whilst up there in the top 10 or so, the US doesn't ever rank as number one on a comparative basis.  For instance, Australia is much more liberal in immigration whereby 33% of its population are born outside of Australia, whereas in the US less than 15% of your population are born outside of the US.  Some other countries that are better than the US for hosting migrants as a % of population include Saudi Arabia (37%), United Arab Emirates (88%) & Canada (21%).  This is just one of many measures that indicate to me that the US isn't the kindest and most liberal, but at least they're doing something.

[PaulS]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

I suspect you are right. I doubt that Jesus would let any of us off the hook.

I think for me what further complicates the matter is that it shouldn't just be a case of 'us and them'.  We are privileged by nothing other than birthright, others are not.  But adding to this, many other countries are disadvantaged due largely to interference from other countries, wars they never asked for, and natural tragedies such as drought and starvation.  How do you explain to a child born into misery and poverty in say Zimbabwe, that is is simply his bad luck for being born there and now he has to live with it? 

Honduras I think is a classic example where other country interference, although not solely responsible, has helped create and environment that neither you or I would want to raise our children in, so I can't blame them for wanting to get to a better place such as the US - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/19/central-america-migrants-us-foreign-policy

I wonder how people would feel about American Indians if they had said no to British illegal immigrants way back when!  

[Burl]

44 minutes ago, PaulS said:

So no specific data but just opinion?  Fair enough.

Yes, any child born in the US is automatically a citizen but I understand your President would like to change that - see this article: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/does-constitution-guarantee-citizenship-all-born-here-n411451.  Also, there is nothing in your legal system that guarantees citizenship to the parents of a baby born in the US if they are in fact an undocumented illegal immigrant - citizen baby or not.

Also, there is a lot of misunderstanding associated with the derogatory term 'anchor babies' with investigations suggesting mixed evidence to support the idea that citizenship is not the motivating factor for people having these children.  Here's a snip from Wikipedia for your info:

"Some critics of illegal immigration claim the United States' "birthright citizenship" is an incentive for illegal immigration, and that immigrants come to the country to give birth specifically so that their child will be an American citizen. The majority of children of illegal immigrants in the United States are citizens, and the number has risen. According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, an estimated 73% of children of illegal immigrants were citizens in 2008, up from 63% in 2003. A total of 3.8 million illegal immigrants had at least one child who is an American citizen. In investigating a claim by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, PolitiFact found mixed evidence to support the idea that citizenship was the motivating factor.[26] PolitiFact concludes that "[t]he data suggests that the motivator for illegal immigrants is the search for work and a better economic standing over the long term, not quickie citizenship for U.S.-born babies."

As for refugees being granted refugee status, the US is not unique in this regard.  Australia, and the other 145 countries that have ratified the Refugee Convention, also are obliged to grant refugee status to any genuine refugees.  

So of the two factors you claim make the US the kindest and most liberal when it comes to 'US legal policy', one is no greater than anyone else and the other looks like going down the path that every other European country has done in the last 2 or so decades.  But for now, the US does allow any child born in the US to be granted citizenship (but not their parents).

I think if you look at any of the available measures and data concerning a country's ranking for immigration, you'll see that whilst up there in the top 10 or so, the US doesn't ever rank as number one on a comparative basis.  For instance, Australia is much more liberal in immigration whereby 33% of its population are born outside of Australia, whereas in the US less than 15% of your population are born outside of the US.  Some other countries that are better than the US for hosting migrants as a % of population include Saudi Arabia (37%), United Arab Emirates (88%) & Canada (21%).  This is just one of many measures that indicate to me that the US isn't the kindest and most liberal, but at least they're doing something.

Illegal immigrants in Australia get no trial life sentences on a deserted island in Papua.  

I think that is disgraceful, and I doubt it is even a mild deterrent.  
 

[PaulS]

5 hours ago, Burl said:

Illegal immigrants in Australia get no trial life sentences on a deserted island in Papua.  

I think that is disgraceful, and I doubt it is even a mild deterrent.  
 

You need to do a bit more research Burl. 

Anybody who arrives in Australia without a visa or stays in the country when their visa is expired, gets detained.  The circumstances concerning how they arrive in Australia determines the processing method.  As of June 2019,  14,507 people who had sought asylum in Australia by boat were living in the community on what is called a Bridging Visa.  None have been sent to PNG for several years now.  Another island detention centre (Nauru) currently houses about 250 illegal arrivals.

If the person is seeking asylum, they don't get a 'trial' but rather their claim is assessed to consider if it is genuine or not.  There is no sentencing.

During this process, certain asylum seeker groups are detained so that they don't disappear in the community, never to be located again.  Does the US detain illegal arrivals?

In 2001 the Australian Government made a deal with the PNG Government and set up a detention center on an island in PNG with a population of about 45,000 - Manus Island.  One was also setup with the agreement of the Government of Nauru.  The Manus Island centre was wound down between 2003-2008 but cranked back up again in 2010 with a significant increase in irregular maritime arrivals.  The centre was closed in 2017 (see further below for what has happened to those non-refugees that refuse to go home).

This detention strategy has been proven and the point is not argued by either side of politics here in Australia - it significantly stemmed the flow of illegal boats coming to Australia.  Part of the reason for wanting to stem the flow was the number of people dying in unsafe boats and seas in attempts to make it to Australia where they thought they would be safe (some 400-500 people died in the 4 years leading up to the implementation of Manus Island Detention Centre).  Probably also like the US's concerns, these arrivals had to pass by or through several countries before arriving at their country of choice, so in part the strategy was to encourage our neighbors to do more to stem boats and arrivals also.

As an aside, typically our Liberal Party (currently in government) are the ones regarded as hard on border security and our Labor Party as soft.  In our recent Federal Election all money was on Labor winning government but amazingly they didn't.  Within weeks of the election date at least 6 boats from Sri Lanka were blocked from illegal entry - people smugglers had started up again in th elead up to the Federal Election presuming that Labor would likely weaken the laws and allow more boat entrants (the last time Labor were in power the boat arrival numbers went through the roof).  So all in all, everyone (except you) agrees it has been an exceptionally strong deterrent.

As I mentioned above, the Manus Island Detention Centre was closed in 2017, when the PNG Supreme Court found that the Centre breached the PNG constitution's right to personal liberty.  So although the PNG government had previously agreed, 16 years later their courts disagreed with that decision and the center was promptly shut down.

Many of the asylum seekers who were present at that time, and who's claims had been rejected, refused to leave Manus Island and so they were offered other housing on the island (non-detention).  They of course are free to leave if they wish, but they are not free to visit Australia. 

Is being held in detention whilst your claim is being assessed disgraceful?  In isolation I don't think it is but in this bigger picture of how we handle immigration in general and that which I am raising in this thread, I am questioning all aspects of how we prohibit and treat those wishing to seek a better future for their children and themselves, and why we think it is okay to do so.  In regards to 'life sentences' on Manus Island, the 

My questioning of your claim that "the US has by far the kindest & most liberal policy in the world" concerning 'legal policy' (whatever you mean exactly by that term) wasn't to encourage you to debate the US vs Aussie approach, but rather to see if you had anything to substantiate your claim (I called it Trumpian because it seems to be a pretty common mistake of your president to make a bold claim without any supporting evidence and even in fact where there is evidence to the contrary).  It seems to me that your patriotic claim cannot be substantiated in any sort of empirical way as all of the evidence available (try doing some research on refugee numbers, treatment, policies and some very good UN reports) would suggest the US isn't the best in the world concerning refugees and/or immigrants.

But hold fast to that if you feel the need to be right.

[Burl]

5 hours ago, PaulS said:

You need to do a bit more research Burl. 

Anybody who arrives in Australia without a visa or stays in the country when their visa is expired, gets detained.  The circumstances concerning how they arrive in Australia determines the processing method.  As of June 2019,  14,507 people who had sought asylum in Australia by boat were living in the community on what is called a Bridging Visa.  None have been sent to PNG for several years now.  Another island detention centre (Nauru) currently houses about 250 illegal arrivals.

If the person is seeking asylum, they don't get a 'trial' but rather their claim is assessed to consider if it is genuine or not.  There is no sentencing.

During this process, certain asylum seeker groups are detained so that they don't disappear in the community, never to be located again.  Does the US detain illegal arrivals?

In 2001 the Australian Government made a deal with the PNG Government and set up a detention center on an island in PNG with a population of about 45,000 - Manus Island.  One was also setup with the agreement of the Government of Nauru.  The Manus Island centre was wound down between 2003-2008 but cranked back up again in 2010 with a significant increase in irregular maritime arrivals.  The centre was closed in 2017 (see further below for what has happened to those non-refugees that refuse to go home).

This detention strategy has been proven and the point is not argued by either side of politics here in Australia - it significantly stemmed the flow of illegal boats coming to Australia.  Part of the reason for wanting to stem the flow was the number of people dying in unsafe boats and seas in attempts to make it to Australia where they thought they would be safe (some 400-500 people died in the 4 years leading up to the implementation of Manus Island Detention Centre).  Probably also like the US's concerns, these arrivals had to pass by or through several countries before arriving at their country of choice, so in part the strategy was to encourage our neighbors to do more to stem boats and arrivals also.

As an aside, typically our Liberal Party (currently in government) are the ones regarded as hard on border security and our Labor Party as soft.  In our recent Federal Election all money was on Labor winning government but amazingly they didn't.  Within weeks of the election date at least 6 boats from Sri Lanka were blocked from illegal entry - people smugglers had started up again in th elead up to the Federal Election presuming that Labor would likely weaken the laws and allow more boat entrants (the last time Labor were in power the boat arrival numbers went through the roof).  So all in all, everyone (except you) agrees it has been an exceptionally strong deterrent.

As I mentioned above, the Manus Island Detention Centre was closed in 2017, when the PNG Supreme Court found that the Centre breached the PNG constitution's right to personal liberty.  So although the PNG government had previously agreed, 16 years later their courts disagreed with that decision and the center was promptly shut down.

Many of the asylum seekers who were present at that time, and who's claims had been rejected, refused to leave Manus Island and so they were offered other housing on the island (non-detention).  They of course are free to leave if they wish, but they are not free to visit Australia. 

Is being held in detention whilst your claim is being assessed disgraceful?  In isolation I don't think it is but in this bigger picture of how we handle immigration in general and that which I am raising in this thread, I am questioning all aspects of how we prohibit and treat those wishing to seek a better future for their children and themselves, and why we think it is okay to do so.  In regards to 'life sentences' on Manus Island, the 

My questioning of your claim that "the US has by far the kindest & most liberal policy in the world" concerning 'legal policy' (whatever you mean exactly by that term) wasn't to encourage you to debate the US vs Aussie approach, but rather to see if you had anything to substantiate your claim (I called it Trumpian because it seems to be a pretty common mistake of your president to make a bold claim without any supporting evidence and even in fact where there is evidence to the contrary).  It seems to me that your patriotic claim cannot be substantiated in any sort of empirical way as all of the evidence available (try doing some research on refugee numbers, treatment, policies and some very good UN reports) would suggest the US isn't the best in the world concerning refugees and/or immigrants.

But hold fast to that if you feel the need to be right.

I can easily be out of date about Australia because I don’t live there.  
 

If one wants to discuss legality, they look at the laws.