Human traffickers knowingly dump migrants in a location with inadequate facilities for supporting them

[Yuwipi Woman]

*i sense some people here dont think they asked but ive seen no evidence of this beyond this thread so if someone has info on that i'd be interested.

I think you've missed the point of discussion boards. If you make an assertion, it's your job to provide evidence and sources to back it up. Otherwise, one risks coming off as someone who doesn't know his ass from a whole in the ground. Perhaps if you posted some sources, we'd be interested.

 

[bored@work]

I think you've missed the point of discussion boards. If you make an assertion, it's your job to provide evidence and sources to back it up. Otherwise, one risks coming off as someone who doesn't know his ass from a whole in the ground. Perhaps if you posted some sources, we'd be interested.

I've made no assertion either way - hence the use of the word 'IF'. However others seem to be implying it without the evidence -maybe they have missed the point?
I also think whatever I posted as evidence would be dismissed -regardless of its veracity. As for coming off a certain way...i think if someone's looking to think the worst of me due to my posts I suspect they'd find another way to do it regardless of the citations...

And ultimately none of it impacts my original question - aren't these people better off where they are now in a place they are wanted and can be taken care of. Why does no one want to discuss that - either to agree or show how its not the case?

 

[Nylock]

I've made no assertion either way - hence the use of the word 'IF'. However others seem to be implying it without the evidence -maybe they have missed the point?
I also think whatever I posted as evidence would be dismissed -regardless of its veracity. As for coming off a certain way...i think if someone's looking to think the worst of me due to my posts I suspect they'd find another way to do it regardless of the citations...

And ultimately none of it impacts my original question - aren't these people better off where they are now in a place they are wanted and can be taken care of. Why does no one want to discuss that - either to agree or show how its not the case?

Are they better off where they are now?
Yes.

Is where they are now the same place as where they were left when they were dumped off the bus?
No.

Where they are now is not where they were left so your open question of:

aren't these people better off where they are now in a place they are wanted and can be taken care of

Is glossing over the nasty agenda that resulted in their transportation across country and subsequent dumping outside a politician's home in order to make some sort of tawdry political point.

HTH

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I've made no assertion either way - hence the use of the word 'IF'. However others seem to be implying it without the evidence -maybe they have missed the point?
I also think whatever I posted as evidence would be dismissed -regardless of its veracity. As for coming off a certain way...i think if someone's looking to think the worst of me due to my posts I suspect they'd find another way to do it regardless of the citations...

And ultimately none of it impacts my original question - aren't these people better off where they are now in a place they are wanted and can be taken care of. Why does no one want to discuss that - either to agree or show how its not the case?

This is just a cop-out. You wouldn't be arguing the point with us if you didn't have an opinion.

And yes, many of them will be worse off. If they filed asylum paperwork at the border, they'll have to go to a hearing. Being moved halfway across the country made it much more likely they will miss their asylum hearing. And that's in addition to being bused across the country, in the middle of the worst nationwide storm in decades without so much as a winter coat. You might reject the claim of trafficking, but I'm pretty sure that reckless endangerment works too.

My personal view is that you're a rightwing troll who is trying to normalize this bullshit. I'm all for spreading asylum seekers further inland, but in a way that is best of them and manages the influx in an orderly way.

 

[B.I.G]

This is just a cop-out. You wouldn't be arguing the point with us if you didn't have an opinion.

And yes, many of them will be worse off. If they filed asylum paperwork at the border, they'll have to go to a hearing. Being moved halfway across the country made it much more likely they will miss their asylum hearing. And that's in addition to being bused across the country, in the middle of the worst nationwide storm in decades without so much as a winter coat. You might reject the claim of trafficking, but I'm pretty sure that reckless endangerment works too.

My personal view is that you're a rightwing troll who is trying to normalize this bullshit. I'm all for spreading asylum seekers further inland, but in a way that is best of them and manages the influx in an orderly way.

I had heard that in one of the cases the sheriff or equivalent signed the papers for everyone that they had been a victim of a crime by being shipped across the USA thus making them eligible to apply for a particular type of visa that eventually leads to a green card.

It was from who I thought was quite a reliable source so I was pleased for them.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I had heard that in one of the cases the sheriff or equivalent signed the papers for everyone that they had been a victim of a crime by being shipped across the USA thus making them eligible to apply for a particular type of visa that eventually leads to a green card.

It was from who I thought was quite a reliable source so I was pleased for them.

Yes, that did happen. The visa was for victims of human trafficking, basically acknowledging that they were trafficked by these public officials.

 

[bored@work]

Are they better off where they are now?
Yes.

Is where they are now the same place as where they were left when they were dumped off the bus?
No.

Where they are now is not where they were left so your open question of:

Is glossing over the nasty agenda that resulted in their transportation across country and subsequent dumping outside a politician's home in order to make some sort of tawdry political point.

HTH

thank you for your response. i guess they aren't outside the specific spots but they are hopefully in more friendly cities/states.

i didn't feel i was glossing over an agenda- depending on 'your' view 'you'll' either think this is wrong or right. There probably isn't a middle way on this one and I'm guessing that's a gap that isn't going to be closed . So I thought discussing the outcome might be more fruitful/useful.

 

[bored@work]

This is just a cop-out. You wouldn't be arguing the point with us if you didn't have an opinion.

And yes, many of them will be worse off. If they filed asylum paperwork at the border, they'll have to go to a hearing. Being moved halfway across the country made it much more likely they will miss their asylum hearing. And that's in addition to being bused across the country, in the middle of the worst nationwide storm in decades without so much as a winter coat. You might reject the claim of trafficking, but I'm pretty sure that reckless endangerment works too.

My personal view is that you're a rightwing troll who is trying to normalize this bullshit. I'm all for spreading asylum seekers further inland, but in a way that is best of them and manages the influx in an orderly way.

I wasn't aware I was arguing a point, I asked a question. As for right wing - well my politics are complicated but compared to you as a generalisation...maybe.. Troll - well I've insulted no one here and I've expressed no view on this process at all.

I think you're being hyperbolic about endangerment but the point you make about paperwork is a reasonable one I hadn't considered. And that's exactly why I made my post to learn, so thank you.

 

[bored@work]

I had heard that in one of the cases the sheriff or equivalent signed the papers for everyone that they had been a victim of a crime by being shipped across the USA thus making them eligible to apply for a particular type of visa that eventually leads to a green card.

It was from who I thought was quite a reliable source so I was pleased for them.

I'm a bit confused. Can you explain further - do you mean the sheriff that put em on the bus...or in the place they were left?
And - does that then resolve the issue Yuwipi mentioned in that they can now process in the state they are in? Cos that would be good. ta.

 

[B.I.G]

I'm a bit confused. Can you explain further - do you mean the sheriff that put em on the bus...or in the place they were left?
And - does that then resolve the issue Yuwipi mentioned in that they can now process in the state they are in? Cos that would be good. ta.

In the place that they were dropped off. I don’t know how it resolves the situation about the hearing they would have been expected to attend.

I don’t know anymore about I afraid.

 

[bored@work]

In the place that they were dropped off. I don’t know how it resolves the situation about the hearing they would have been expected to attend.

I don’t know anymore about I afraid.

thanks. i guess i was hoping the new paperwork would 'over ride' whatever else was already in train as it changed their circumstances...

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

thanks. i guess i was hoping the new paperwork would 'over ride' whatever else was already in train as it changed their circumstances...

They had lawyers at their destination who volunteered their time that people worked to arrange for them. That isn't going to happen in many cases, with both money and language barriers an issue as well.

 

[Nylock]

thank you for your response. i guess they aren't outside the specific spots but they are hopefully in more friendly cities/states.

i didn't feel i was glossing over an agenda- depending on 'your' view 'you'll' either think this is wrong or right. There probably isn't a middle way on this one and I'm guessing that's a gap that isn't going to be closed . So I thought discussing the outcome might be more fruitful/useful.

But the outcome is the easy part that completely ignores the shitty circumstances that led up to it. You can't just discuss the "happy ending" in isolation. That's, at best, dishonest.

 

[bored@work]

But the outcome is the easy part that completely ignores the shitty circumstances that led up to it. You can't just discuss the "happy ending" in isolation. That's, at best, dishonest.

you'll be unsurprised (and probably unbothered ) to learn i disagree.
It's perfectly reasonable to discuss things in isolation. Otherwise who decides where the shitty circumstances started - was the original poster being dishonest they started it at the bus journey? should it have started at the processing centre at the border? When the border was crossed? when the journey to the border was started? At their country of origin which has presumably problems that need to be escaped? At the crossers birth?

I'm being 'expansive' to make the point - but i guess what I'm saying is it's no more dishonest for one person to speak on one part of a situation than it is for another. Nor for the record does it imply any agreement (or otherwise) with whats gone on inbetween.

They had lawyers at their destination who volunteered their time that people worked to arrange for them. That isn't going to happen in many cases, with both money and language barriers an issue as well.

It's a shame they've had to rely on volunteers. I suppose I'd have to ask those recieving states/cities why they can't support this more effectively. I'm not in the US so i don't know for sure but i figure states can fund things independant of the federal govt? Here that couldnt happen but why aren't they doing more to support people they've claimed they're there to help (i dont expect you to answer this btw and im sure the inevitable answer is money. but thats another thread entirly)

thankn you both. apologies for the delay, as the name implies im only here when I'm at work and its quiet and its been hectic.

 

[B.I.G]

you'll be unsurprised (and probably unbothered ) to learn i disagree.
It's perfectly reasonable to discuss things in isolation. Otherwise who decides where the shitty circumstances started - was the original poster being dishonest they started it at the bus journey? should it have started at the processing centre at the border? When the border was crossed? when the journey to the border was started? At their country of origin which has presumably problems that need to be escaped? At the crossers birth?

I'm being 'expansive' to make the point - but i guess what I'm saying is it's no more dishonest for one person to speak on one part of a situation than it is for another. Nor for the record does it imply any agreement (or otherwise) with whats gone on inbetween.


It's a shame they've had to rely on volunteers. I suppose I'd have to ask those recieving states/cities why they can't support this more effectively. I'm not in the US so i don't know for sure but i figure states can fund things independant of the federal govt? Here that couldnt happen but why aren't they doing more to support people they've claimed they're there to help (i dont expect you to answer this btw and im sure the inevitable answer is money. but thats another thread entirly)

thankn you both. apologies for the delay, as the name implies im only here when I'm at work and its quiet and its been hectic.

Probably best not to skip past criminal acts by elected officials tbh.

 

[bored@work]

Probably best not to skip past criminal acts by elected officials tbh.

Agreed, but my point remains the same -it's not unreasonable to look at specific elements of a situation. Especially when trying to find somewhere to align, as opposed to just finding places to disagree.

Also doesn't seem relevant in this situation - this has been going on for months and other than some accusations and think pieces I can't find anything linked to an investigation or prosecution other than that of the DC AG and that seems to have gone quiet. I believe you mentioned a sheriff signing paperwork so those involved could have visa's. Whether someone agrees/likes or otherwise with the practise is for debate sure - but so far no criminality seems to be proven. If this is illegal why the hell isn't someone doing something meaningful about it?

If I've missed something (I rechecked google, the guardian and CNN before posting this) I'd be interested to hear of it.

As an aside, when i was searching earlier i found this story - i liked the theme of people resolving issues politicians on both sides are are failing to address.

The Truth About Busing Migrants from the Border to DC: A Story of Welcoming

The narrative cycling around conservative media outlets is that Governors Abbott and Ducey have "stuck it to the Dems" by "bringing the border crisis" to their front doors. In reality, mutual aid and solidarity groups have safely welcomed thousands of asylum seekers with dignity.

www.commondreams.org