Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Gerben42]

A question:

"It states that refugees entering the EU shall be registered in the country where they arrive. "

On the face of it, this is not the same as saying that the country where they arrive then assumes long term responsibility for them. Sequence:

They leave their home country and arrive somewhere, in country X

They register in country X.

There is an evaluation of their request for refugee status.

If they are accepted as refugees, they are place somewhere.

 

Am I correct in assuming that the evaluation is done by some international body rather than only by country X? And am I correct in assuming that when/if they are accepted their placement could and often would be someplace other than in country X?

 

The above are honest questions, I try not to ask cute questions. I really don't know just how this all goes, or was planned to go. And I understand that with the number of people involved the best laid plans....

 

Added: A follow-up occurred to me. It's been a long time since I have gone from one country to another in Europe. Then, passports were produced at border crossings. Now I gather that it is much easier. So if a refugee was given legal refugees status in Greece he could easily (maybe legally) move to Paris?

If someone is legally entitled to be in the US, then he is legally entitled to be in the state of his choosing. I think it is not quite that way in the EU but I am unclear about what is the case.

 

If they Register in Italy (Greece is a special case) then the law says their case is evaluated in Italy. Then afterwards they have a legal status in Italy but not everywhere.

It is true that you can travel without borders in the Schengen region however you are obliged to carry valid ID and there are still random checks (for example to catch criminals and people without papers). Greece is special since it is not geographically connected to the rest of the Schengen area. Politicians want Bulgaria and Romania in but they are not even close to ready in my opinion.

 

Therefore refugees in Greece first try to get OUT of the EU without registration and then get in to the main Schengen area (Hungary or Slovenia).

[Gerben42]

Do you understand the sheer size of the refugee problem?

 

Well over three million Syrians have fled their country.

One out of every four people in Lebanon is a Syrian refugee.

 

These are poor countries. What magic wand are their supposed to wave to create housing, jobs, and infrastructure?

 

The real scandal is that the rich Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE , Oman, Qatar) don't take any refugees.

 

About Europe with their head in the ground: The EU is not there to police the world. It is not a military Union and the vast majority of member states want as little military action as possible. The 2% national budget rule for NATO states is too much for most citizens, Increasing military spending is a good way to be voted out of office. Maybe in the US the line "our freedom is defended in Afghanistan or Iraq pulls, in Germany for example it does not.

[Al_U_Card]

Why do you think your definition of the term is more valid than that of the UN (or any other for that matter?)

Emigrees could stay (with the economic means to do so) and "fight" for their rights. Refugees can only get in the way of a bullet (or a machete or poison gas...).

[Al_U_Card]

So, if you have designer clothes and money to buy train tickets you are supposed to stay in Syria and get killed, because if you have money you are clearly not a refugee?

 

And if you wear a T-shirt and jeans and can't afford to flee then ... well ... err ... then it is not a problem for the rest of the world that you get killed.

 

Rik

Every situatiom is unique.Many left Quebec when the "separatists" took control. (We are a country of means so therefore no refugees were created no matter how loudly the english minority complained about leaving being a necessity). Those of us that stayed are generally glad we did and stood up for and maintained our rights.

[Zelandakh]

Emigrees could stay (with the economic means to do so) and "fight" for their rights. Refugees can only get in the way of a bullet (or a machete or poison gas...).

Why do you think your definition of the term is more valid than that of the UN (or any other for that matter?)

[Al_U_Card]

Why do you think your definition of the term is more valid than that of the UN (or any other for that matter?)

Because as I defined both, they retain their individual meanings and apply appropriately to the actual situation. Had I referred to them as tourists, that would be harder to justify.

[Zelandakh]

Because as I defined both, they retain their individual meanings and apply appropriately to the actual situation. Had I referred to them as tourists, that would be harder to justify.

And the UN (as well as other bodies) has also defined the term refugee. Why do you think your definition is more valid?

[kenberg]

If they Register in Italy (Greece is a special case) then the law says their case is evaluated in Italy. Then afterwards they have a legal status in Italy but not everywhere.

It is true that you can travel without borders in the Schengen region however you are obliged to carry valid ID and there are still random checks (for example to catch criminals and people without papers). Greece is special since it is not geographically connected to the rest of the Schengen area. Politicians want Bulgaria and Romania in but they are not even close to ready in my opinion.

 

Therefore refugees in Greece first try to get OUT of the EU without registration and then get in to the main Schengen area (Hungary or Slovenia).

 

This is quite helpful to me, here on this side of the Atlantic. I wish the best for everyone involved but I follow it only a bit and tend to lose track.

 

I have been wondering just why all this comes to a head in Hungary and Croatia and so on. I see a bit of that from what you say. Also, it seems to me that Italy is in a terrible spot. I have no idea of how they can work their way through this.

 

About the only thing that I am sure of is that I understand too little to have any sort of useful suggestion or opinion.

[Al_U_Card]

And the UN (as well as other bodies) has also defined the term refugee. Why do you think your definition is more valid?

Asked and answered. Do go on.

[Zelandakh]

Asked and answered. Do go on.

Answered about as directly as the questions asked in the CC thread. I guess it was pointless engaging in this sub-thread debate.

[kenberg]

Back for a moment to the OP topic, has democracy been Trumped? I watched the first R debate and I found it interesting. I watched the first hour of the second debate and I just could not stand to watch another minute of it. I recorded (one of those "Ireally am supposed to watch this so I will record it and watch it later" moves) and last night I brought up the recording of the CNN post-debate discussion. It was worse than the debates. Wolf Blitzer and the three moderators congratulating each other on how great they were. Donald Trump is derided as a self-promoting entertainer. Some of these people need to look in a mirror.

[PassedOut]

I recorded (one of those "I really am supposed to watch this so I will record it and watch it later" moves) and last night I brought up the recording of the CNN post-debate discussion. It was worse than the debates. Wolf Blitzer and the three moderators congratulating each other on how great they were. Donald Trump is derided as a self-promoting entertainer. Some of these people need to look in a mirror.

I can't stand watching either the pre- or post-analysis of any debate no matter what channel it's on, but I do record and watch the debates themselves. Except that I fell asleep during the third hour of the last one, woke up, and erased the whole thing. What a waste of time...

[y66]

Back for a moment to the OP topic, has democracy been Trumped? I watched the first R debate and I found it interesting. I watched the first hour of the second debate and I just could not stand to watch another minute of it. I recorded (one of those "Ireally am supposed to watch this so I will record it and watch it later" moves) and last night I brought up the recording of the CNN post-debate discussion. It was worse than the debates. Wolf Blitzer and the three moderators congratulating each other on how great they were. Donald Trump is derided as a self-promoting entertainer. Some of these people need to look in a mirror.

You and Bernie Sanders lasted longer than I did. He live tweeted the debate until 10:30, got bored and went home early.

[Al_U_Card]

Answered about as directly as the questions asked in the CC thread. I guess it was pointless engaging in this sub-thread debate.

What would you expect, peer-reviewed studies concerning the various meanings of the words, their origins and uses as well as justifications and examples? I stated the difference between the two terms and how they apply to my point of view (perspective on what I am seeing in the news). This sub-thread is not a dissertation, after all, just sharing of differing opinions unless you consider it to be something else.

As for the climate change thread, the settled science has more questions than answers and those answers are almost always controversial and convoluted. I prefer to present opposing and differing information as subject for discussion, same as here, that is all.

[Al_U_Card]

You and Bernie Sanders lasted longer than I did. He live tweeted the debate until 10:30, got bored and went home early.

It is a "political" debate after all. Should they actually say something controversial or innovative it would likely be by mistake and a really newsworthy point. That it was predictably boring is kind of obvious from the git-go.

[kenberg]

It is a "political" debate after all. Should they actually say something controversial or innovative it would likely be by mistake and a really newsworthy point. That it was predictably boring is kind of obvious from the git-go.

 

Yes and no. As I mentioned, I found the first debate interesting. May not highly informative, but interesting. The second was beyond awful. the only thing dumber than Donalt Trump commenting on Carly Fiorina's face is a moderator asking Carly Fiorina what she thinks of his comment. Her answer was wisely dismissive but still.

 

Mommy, mommy, Donald is being mean to Carly..

 

This cannot be called adolescent, we were above that as adolescents.

 

So "yes" in that one should not expect a lot, of course, but good grief!

[Al_U_Card]

Yes and no. As I mentioned, I found the first debate interesting. May not highly informative, but interesting. The second was beyond awful. the only thing dumber than Donalt Trump commenting on Carly Fiorina's face is a moderator asking Carly Fiorina what she thinks of his comment. Her answer was wisely dismissive but still.

 

Mommy, mommy, Donald is being mean to Carly..

 

This cannot be called adolescent, we were above that as adolescents.

 

So "yes" in that one should not expect a lot, of course, but good grief!

Very often it is a question of the lowest common denominator... such as it is often comic relief, a sad commentary on the political process.

[mike777]

Yes and no. As I mentioned, I found the first debate interesting. May not highly informative, but interesting. The second was beyond awful. the only thing dumber than Donalt Trump commenting on Carly Fiorina's face is a moderator asking Carly Fiorina what she thinks of his comment. Her answer was wisely dismissive but still.

 

Mommy, mommy, Donald is being mean to Carly..

 

This cannot be called adolescent, we were above that as adolescents.

 

So "yes" in that one should not expect a lot, of course, but good grief!

 

 

Yes and compare it to the two democratic debates so far?

 

In any event keep in mind you are not a voter in the republican primary.....

 

Few of us are

[barmar]

Donald Trump is derided as a self-promoting entertainer. Some of these people need to look in a mirror.

The commentators aren't vying to be Leader of the Free World, they don't have to be held to the same standard. They're news anchors, which these days is just a small step away from being just an entertainer.

[Al_U_Card]

"Circus maximus" anyone?

Perhaps indicative of the decadent state of the American republic.

[blackshoe]

Sir Isaac Newton, a Venerian dragon, to Jubal Harshaw: So how did your "noble experiment" go?

Jubal Harshaw: You mean Prohibition? We repealed it.

Sir Isaac: I was referring to your form of government.

---- Robert Heinlein, The Number of the Beast.

[Gerben42]

I somehow fail to grasp the sheer size of the US election for president. What confuses me most are two things:

 

• lower middle class and below voting republican

• the huge willingness of people to give their hard earned money to support the campaign of their preferred candidate.

[Zelandakh]

I somehow fail to grasp the sheer size of the US election for president. What confuses me most are two things:

 

lower middle class and below voting republican

the huge willingness of people to give their hard earned money to support the campaign of their preferred candidate.

There is a long tradition in the Southern states of voting for the GOP. I think it is a combination of doing what the parents did, religion and fear/intolerance of other groups. There is a reason why this part of the country is known as the Bible Belt. Note that one could say similar things about the voting pattern in Bavaria concerning the CSU. This is something that seems to happen in almost every democratic country.

 

In America there seems to be no stigma attached to money buying political influence. If an oil company donates a few million they can expect to get that back many times over in relaxed regulation and tax breaks. Similarly for other groups. They just seem to have a different mentality on this to us.

[kenberg]

I somehow fail to grasp the sheer size of the US election for president. What confuses me most are two things:

 

• lower middle class and below voting republican

• the huge willingness of people to give their hard earned money to support the campaign of their preferred candidate.

 

Let me take a stab at the first. It's important because the Dems haven't come up with an answer either.

 

 

Let me create a fantasy family, fairly common, and not worry too much about whether this is middle class or lower middle class.

Fantasy: Husband, wife, two kids in elementary school. The guy works full time, sometimes with overtime. The woman has a part time job and takes care of the kids after they get home frfom school. They are renting, but saving hoping maybe to buy a house. Vacations are infrequent, and consist of camping in a state park or driving to and staying with relatives. The kids sometimes act up, sometimes don't do their homework, but they haven't failed anything (yet). And, no doubt relevant, they are white.

 

 

OK, The Dems explain that we really have to help the poor single mother. We have to close the achievement gap and sometimes it sounds as if they really don't care whether this is done by blacks doing better or whites doing worse. (Not a complete fantasy, I was once at a talk about data showing boys had done worse than in the past on a standardized math test and the guy mentioned that this had narrowed then boy-girl achievement gap. I don't think he was joking.). Also we have to help the gay community and the trans-gender community. We have to help Latinos. The sub-text is that the white working class, married and bringing up their kids, are the enemy.

 

You might say this is a mis-perception on their part and perhaps it is, but mis-perceptions are usually based on at least some reality, stretched out a bit. The American liberal base has changed a lot since I was a child and there are a lot of votes out there for the party that figures out how to address the needs, hopes and frustrations of the fantasy family described above. Portraying them as selfish, or stupid, because they are enjoying some modest success that others have not achieved is not the way to their vote.

 

 

I vote Dem, or at least usually. There are a lot of reasons for this but economic self-interest is not paramount, I am not rich, not at all, but I do not foresee any financial problems. I don't need, or even want, a yacht. I probably would head off to Paris for a while if I had some spare cash but hiking in the Shenandoah is fine. So, at this time of life, I vote mostly on what seems best for the country. I think Dems are more aligned with my values, although there are times that I wonder. I expect the fantasy family above would wonder about this alignment, or lack of it, more often.

 

This is the best I can offer but I think that there is something to it.

[Al_U_Card]

I somehow fail to grasp the sheer size of the US election for president. What confuses me most are two things:

 

• lower middle class and below voting republican

• the huge willingness of people to give their hard earned money to support the campaign of their preferred candidate.

European society comes from a legacy of structure (autocratic, land-owning legacies), compression (many living in limited space) and negotiation (rules and regs.)

US society comes from a legacy of "freedom" (wild west syndrome), expansion (there is always a frontier into which you can grow) and coercion (might makes right and I have a gun...)

 

The "American Dream" explains both of your questions to a certain degree. It is, as you state, a case of mentality and what the individual believes in rather than a rational (and sensible) weighing of alternatives and repercussions.