Trump Consciousness

I am claiming that the proportion of various religions granted asylum from 2008 - 2017 were disproportionate to the global asylum seeker population distribution of those same statistics.
Could you please be more specific as to where you are getting your figures from? Links or data tables would be helpful.
 
Could you please be more specific as to where you are getting your figures from? Links or data tables would be helpful.
I cited the primary source in each case (3 of them through our discussions). But these numbers are not mere table regurgitations - a lot of work went into database construction and deriving intelligence from several disparate places (Migration Policy Institute, Department of State - Refugee Processing Center Database, CIA World Factbook, USCIS, World Migration Report, etc.). They do not just publish facts on bigotry, for all to examine.

To wit: The 'religion question' is in essay form on the I-589, unlike all other objective stats which are check-box entries... as a result, it cannot be tracked in a reporting database. This was by design. One must do some persistent and hard work in order to find these numbers.

One must do their own sleuthing before making a conclusion. Perhaps the best place to start would be the Annual Flow Report - Refugees and Asylees: 2017. Here you can see the dominance which preferred cultures play inside our RA program.
 
Last edited:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/depar...nounces-end-to-catch-and-release_3092861.html

Department of Homeland Security Announces End to ‘Catch and Release’
...
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is ending the policy known as “catch and release” next week, as announced by Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan on Monday, Sept. 23, at a Council on Foreign Relations event in Washington.

“What we’re doing with Central American families now that’s ending the catch and release process is that if they don’t have a fear or claim, they’re going to be repatriated in a streamline fashion, or if they do have a fear or claim, asked to wait under the Migrant Protection Protocols in Mexico,” he said.

“So they will not be currently held on the U.S. side of the border, even in the family residential centers, because we’re not able right now to complete an immigration proceeding, while in the 21 days we have by court order,” McAleenan added.

 
I cited the primary source in each case
Yes, but non-specifically. In any case, I'm not motivated to dig through the figures. I'll just point out with respect to this...

We favored Iraq, Syria and Somalia by a factor of ten to one over all other nations.
...that you also engaged in wars in Iraq and Syria - wars which displaced people, and therefore it could be seen as fair to privilege displaced people from those locations in your intake given that you were in large part responsible for their displacement.

In any case, your claim that "hatred" was the basis for any skew in the religions of accepted refugees seems unusually shrill for you - again, I wouldn't have expected it from you.
 
Perhaps the best place to start would be the Annual Flow Report - Refugees and Asylees: 2017. Here you can see the dominance which preferred cultures play inside our RA program.
And with respect to that link, it notes: "Generally, any foreign national present in the United States or arriving at a POE may seek asylum regardless of immigration status". I think I am right in interpreting this to mean that those who seek asylum in the USA will not necessarily be represented in the same proportions as global refugees; it is simply a matter of whoever happens to show up in the country or arrive at a POE - so the fact that (per your claim) the refugees admitted to the USA are (were, in the Obama era) in a different proportion to those globally is not especially relevant, is it? [Edit: relevant to any potential presidential bias, that is]
 
Yes, but non-specifically.
I cited the specific source with each table and figure, you just did not want to read it.

...that you also engaged in wars in Iraq and Syria - wars which displaced people, and therefore it could be seen as fair to privilege displaced people from those locations in your intake given that you were in large part responsible for their displacement. In any case, your claim that "hatred" was the basis for any skew in the religions of accepted refugees seems unusually shrill for you - again, I wouldn't have expected it from you.
No, this is not correct in the least. Capped off with another meaningless rhetorical personal aspersion. Sigh...
 
And with respect to that link, it notes: "Generally, any foreign national present in the United States or arriving at a POE may seek asylum regardless of immigration status". I think I am right in interpreting this to mean that those who seek asylum in the USA will not necessarily be represented in the same proportions as global refugees; it is simply a matter of whoever happens to show up in the country or arrive at a POE - so the fact that (per your claim) the refugees admitted to the USA are (were, in the Obama era) in a different proportion to those globally is not especially relevant, is it? [Edit: relevant to any potential presidential bias, that is]
No, you are not correct in this inference (it is not just an 'interpretation') - this is a leap of judgement, grasping at anything which will support your a priori notion. The Somali progressions alone, across the 2008 and beyond period, and at face value, substantiate my case.

You need to show me - that these refugee numbers are unbiased, with objective analysis. Because the bias is manifest even in the face value numbers.

No more propaganda, insults and plausible excuse rhetoric. I wanna see some integrity, acumen and work. Otherwise you are wasting my time.
 
Last edited:
Given your mere negative assertions and absence of argument or counter-point (edit: other than "Somali progressions", which you should feel free to explain or elaborate on), I'm going to let this drop. It is also not that interesting to me how the US divisions up its refugee intake. What is interesting to me is that you somehow see hatred in these figures. Go figure...
 
Given your mere negative assertions and absence of argument or counter-point (edit: other than "Somali progressions", which you should feel free to explain or elaborate on), I'm going to let this drop. It is also not that interesting to me how the US divisions up its refugee intake. What is interesting to me is that you somehow see hatred in these figures. Go figure...
The 'Somali progression' is in the data cited at the reference I gave you for the Somali data in post #302, the Annual Flow Report - Refugees and Asylees: 2017. You can examine the whole history there and in the report series published at the root URL. Generally what I do is extract the sum of US refugee entries for that period along with the top 10 countries of origin, and create a table which compares that to the UN World Migration Report. This allows me to see anomalies in the data. You saw an extract of that pivot table in an earlier post.

Below is the Department of State Historical Arrivals by Region Data - against which you must match the reference I gave above, which shows the Obama Administration bias blip and the Trump correction of that bias, the contention I made earlier.
Dept of State Refugee Data.png

The 'hate' is a well known practice inside one Congressional District who has sponsored the Somali influx. You would need to live here to know about it, or have worked in that District - I have. There is no question - it is hate, plain and simple. Skepticism never demands that one be stupid. It is a big problem, and perhaps you don't get coverage of it where you live.

But what really flags something which concerns me. If you don't

1. Have any knowledge about the subject and
2. Don't bear interest in it
3. Don't care to follow any of the analytical references I gave you
4. Use canned deflection rhetoric and pre-cooked propaganda based conclusions
5. Resort to personal aspersions.

Then what the hell are we doing having a discussion in the first place???????
 
Last edited:
The 'Somali progression' is in the data cited at the reference I gave you for the Somali data in post #302, the Annual Flow Report - Refugees and Asylees: 2017. You can examine the whole history there and in the report series published at the root URL.
I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. This is what I mean by lack of specificity. Are you referring to Table 3 on page 5? If so, it covers three years, and the numbers of Somali refugee arrivals go from 12.7% in 2015, to 10.6% in 2016, to 11.4% in 2017, which represents a dip rather than a straight progression, but in any case represents too few data points to infer much. If that's not what you're referring to, then please let me know what exactly it is. I'm not motivated to read through the entire report trying to work out what you mean when you could simply clue me in.

The 'hate' is a well known practice inside one Congressional District who has sponsored the Somali influx.
Perhaps you can elaborate on that. Who is practicing the hatred, who do they hate, and why are they hating? More importantly, how do you know this?

what the hell are we doing having a discussion in the first place?
You brought up religious bias, based on hatred, in "illegal" entries in relation to my comment to Eric that "Seeking a better life is not an invasion". I was interested enough to try to work out what you meant, but I am finding that difficult given that you don't make your sources easily accessible, and so I have stopped trying.

By "not making your sources easily accessible", let me provide an example. In post #277, you shared an image of a table. The sole reference you provided for the table, whose meaning is not all that clear to me, is "Department of State - Refugee Processing Center stats on refugee entries under the Obama Administration". I am not sure how, based on that quoted reference, I am supposed to locate the source of the table. If I put that phrase into a DuckDuckGo search, I get a variety of results, but clicking on the top few doesn't lead me to a page which seems to contain the table. So... where is it, and how was your reference supposed to help me to find it? Presumably, you sourced the table in an online page - so, why not simply link to it?
 
The sole reference you provided for the table, whose meaning is not all that clear to me, is "Department of State - Refugee Processing Center stats on refugee entries under the Obama Administration". I am not sure how, based on that quoted reference, I am supposed to locate the source of the table.
Because you are not listening. From post #302

But these numbers are not mere table regurgitations - a lot of work went into database construction and deriving intelligence from several disparate places (Migration Policy Institute, Department of State - Refugee Processing Center Database, CIA World Factbook, USCIS, World Migration Report, etc.). They do not just publish facts on bigotry, for all to examine.
I did the table I cited. Drawing inference here requires some work. I have substantiated well my original response to you in Post #296, which you challenged.

Asylum seeking is legitimate, as long as it is not used as a tool of bigotry, as it was from 2008 until 2017.
Below is the Department of State Historical Arrivals by Region Data (using the Annual Flow Report for 2017) which substantiates this.
Dept of State Refugee Data.png
 
Last edited:
Bullshit. Your every step of arguing has been canned feckless rhetoric. Including this.
I haven't been arguing so much as trying to (1) understand what exactly your claim is in specifics, and (2) question its basis, although admittedly some of this questioning could be seen as argumentation in its own right. And it's not bullshit - I really do think there are plenty of open questions, at least from my side. Perhaps you know all the answers to them already and they are closed in your mind.
 
A

Aliceinunderland

Bullshit. Your every step of arguing has been canned feckless rhetoric. Including this.
This rude, abusive and labelling. Also untrue. I am used to it from Eric, but I too am surprised at you for resorting to this. What's up with you guys?
Remember a pointing finger has three pointing back.
 
This rude, abusive and labelling. Also untrue. I am used to it from Eric, but I too am surprised at you for resorting to this. What's up with you guys?
Remember a pointing finger has three pointing back.
This is not labeling (???) - it was clear in citing method and behaviour. Labeling is unfair categorization based upon who someone is, and for what they believe. He was just making sure that no one in the forum expressed a view which did not conform to his cocooned political correctness. But did not demonstrate the skill or even genuine interest in the subject, sufficient to pull that off.

One must also gain enough maturity to grasp the difference between honest directness (what you call rudeness) - and the clever, insincere shtick of condescension (true rudeness). Not everyone who gets onto you is bad, and not everyone who appears polite, is sincere. This is a basic lesson of life.

I would urge you as well to question the singular set of answers you have been handed. It is very easy to decide on behalf of people half way around the globe, concerning something about which you have zero knowledge, have done zero reseach and for which you will bear little of the consequence.

The discussion is over, because there was never one underway to begin with. You don't like my work, because it goes against what you believe. Just say that. I will respect that a great deal more. I am not here to condemn your beliefs ;;/?. I just don't appreciate being played - I am not your fool.
 
Last edited:
Alice. Please. You know better than to waste this man's time with pertinent questions.
And we continue with the condescension. Well done Laird.

I answered this several times. In fact, every question you asked, I went to extensive lengths to try and answer. Please re-read this thread.

Let me know when you have an actual objective and not rhetorical question - or that you will actually read my response. Two of those little tell-tales which reveal sincerity.
 
Last edited:
Top