But they are a problem. One that the host country needs a solution to before accepting them in and letting them loose. Whether that is by having a long term plan to hold and then return them home, or having a system in place to acclimate them in.
Migrants are absolutely a problem, and a host country does need to solve that problem before brining them in. There's no reason to return a migrant home, you just don't take them if they might not assimilate.
All migrants without proper paperwork are illegal immigrants and are criminals.
It's not that hard. You go to an embassy, doesn't even have to be in your home country. You do some paperwork. You wait until you get your green card. If you can't do that you are a criminal.
Unless this is criminal law 101 that's not a very useful statement. Criminality is an arbitrary societal categorization that is eminently malleable. Whiskey drinkers weren't criminals, until suddenly they were, then suddenly they weren't again.
Treating what the rule is as what the rule should be is the role of obedient followers. With reliable, well intentioned leaders that can work out smoothly and efficiently but, looking at the leaders currently available, now is not a good time to be an obedient follower.
All asylum seekers could be criminals if leadership willed it. They could work mandatory prison labor from the moment they cross the border and refuse to leave, and their sentencing could be inversely proportional to how valid their claims turn out to be, it could be as short as the application processing time and as long as decades. And being on actual probation by default lets the legal protections for regular citizens stand untouched whilst also putting asylum seekers under the extra scrutiny cases like this make a strong argument towards justifying.
As citizens thinking about how you want your country to be run, legal and illegal shouldn't be you polestar, right and wrong should be. Then you back the leader willing to mold the legal system to most closely support that.
That's all fine and dandy from a philosophical perspective. But that's not even where we are at. We're still at the Left asserting that it's not possible for a migrant to be a criminal. We're not operating in reality yet, because the Left is too busy asserting what they want to be true, rather than what is.
I guess, but I figure most people here already know that. You're either preaching to the choir or falling on deaf ears with stuff like that.
Plus the globalist cult capos who are the biggest problem know what they're doing, they make statements that are technically factually true like "seeking asylum isn't illegal", just used as non-sequiturs against complaints about illegal immigrants designed to let the stupid fill the gaps and have the useful idiots start believing the implication that asylum seeking precludes being an illegal immigrant.
I'm of the opinion that you can't cure the stupid at this point, and it's maybe more practical to just close that cognitive loophole since making asylum seeking illegal but with a large discretionary range actually seems to have more silver linings than can cons.
Migrants are neither criminals nor innocent.
Illegal Immigrants are criminals.
Rapists are criminals.
Asylum Seekers are not criminals, unless they fall into the two above categories.
This is a criminal.
But they are a problem. One that the host country needs a solution to before accepting them in and letting them loose. Whether that is by having a long term plan to hold and then return them home, or having a system in place to acclimate them in.
Which is the issue most are failing to achieve.
Migrants are absolutely a problem, and a host country does need to solve that problem before brining them in. There's no reason to return a migrant home, you just don't take them if they might not assimilate.
A two-fer.
All migrants without proper paperwork are illegal immigrants and are criminals.
It's not that hard. You go to an embassy, doesn't even have to be in your home country. You do some paperwork. You wait until you get your green card. If you can't do that you are a criminal.
Unless this is criminal law 101 that's not a very useful statement. Criminality is an arbitrary societal categorization that is eminently malleable. Whiskey drinkers weren't criminals, until suddenly they were, then suddenly they weren't again.
Treating what the rule is as what the rule should be is the role of obedient followers. With reliable, well intentioned leaders that can work out smoothly and efficiently but, looking at the leaders currently available, now is not a good time to be an obedient follower.
All asylum seekers could be criminals if leadership willed it. They could work mandatory prison labor from the moment they cross the border and refuse to leave, and their sentencing could be inversely proportional to how valid their claims turn out to be, it could be as short as the application processing time and as long as decades. And being on actual probation by default lets the legal protections for regular citizens stand untouched whilst also putting asylum seekers under the extra scrutiny cases like this make a strong argument towards justifying.
As citizens thinking about how you want your country to be run, legal and illegal shouldn't be you polestar, right and wrong should be. Then you back the leader willing to mold the legal system to most closely support that.
That's all fine and dandy from a philosophical perspective. But that's not even where we are at. We're still at the Left asserting that it's not possible for a migrant to be a criminal. We're not operating in reality yet, because the Left is too busy asserting what they want to be true, rather than what is.
I guess, but I figure most people here already know that. You're either preaching to the choir or falling on deaf ears with stuff like that.
Plus the globalist cult capos who are the biggest problem know what they're doing, they make statements that are technically factually true like "seeking asylum isn't illegal", just used as non-sequiturs against complaints about illegal immigrants designed to let the stupid fill the gaps and have the useful idiots start believing the implication that asylum seeking precludes being an illegal immigrant.
I'm of the opinion that you can't cure the stupid at this point, and it's maybe more practical to just close that cognitive loophole since making asylum seeking illegal but with a large discretionary range actually seems to have more silver linings than can cons.
We're pretty much all speaking to the choir at this point.