Lunatic Asylum

I don’t know if this is true:

If so, it’s insane. Firstly, domestic violence is an extremely complex issue at the best of times, so much so that police in every country avoid it like the plague. By its very nature it is something to be handled as locally as possible, preferably by other family members  or the immediate surrounding society. Failing that, local authorities and police are the next-best placed to intervene, then the national government who one would hope understands the societal nuances surrounding domestic relations in whatever country we’re talking about. The idea that the US government is in a position to evaluate claims of domestic violence in Guatemala is ludicrous.

But that’s not all. If the conditions for asylum have widened to women who are “unable to leave their relationships” you might as well do away with the borders altogether. There was a time when wealthy, organised societies granted asylum to those fleeing war, famine, and appalling persecution; now it appears to include women who’ve made poor relationship choices (one wonders if men fleeing punitive alimony payments can also seek asylum in the US). Any society taking this approach is not going to remain wealthy and organised for very long, after which it won’t be in a position to take in asylum seekers of any sort. Perhaps that’s why Trump’s administration is looking to change it?

Share

19 thoughts on “Lunatic Asylum

  1. “conditions for asylum have widened to women who are “unable to leave their relationships””

    Er, what?

    If they are unable to leave their relationships, how the fucking fuckitty fuck do they manage to get to US soil in order to actually claim asylum? Can they do it by post? DM the consulate on Twitter?

    This is utterly meaningless.

  2. one wonders if men fleeing punitive alimony payments can also seek asylum in the US

    Like, err…Robin Williams you mean?

  3. Surely the point is to bring about the collapse of Western society.
    Apparently everything will be peachy after that.

  4. How long before an “abused” woman gets residency and then brings her “abusive” husband over under family reunion rules?

  5. Hope it goes well tonight, I can’t make it for family reasons but would enjoy a beer another time.

  6. As crazy as it is to give asylum to victims of domestic violence, giving asylum to victims of gang violence is at least an order of magnitude crazier, since so many gang violence victims are themselves violent gangsters.

  7. Funny how the people who want those women to be able to freely enter the US don’t want to do anything to prevent the abusers from freely entering the US either.

  8. A little off topic, but since Tim’s brought attention to the subject a small word of warning.
    “Firstly, domestic violence is an extremely complex issue at the best of times, so much so that police in every country avoid it like the plague. ”

    Not in Spain they don’t. Know several people who’ve fallen foul of this. If the police are called to a domestic disturbance, the guy is arrested. And this can simply be a loud argument has disturbed a neighbour with an axe to grind. And “domestic” can be loosely interpreted as “within the home”. The two people do not even have to be a couple. Just a woman & a man will suffice. Doesn’t even matter who was doing the shouting. Or whether violence was involved, the level or who on who. It’s always the man’s fault.
    So guys, be warned. A bit of a tiff with the missus could see you dragged off to the nick in cuffs, a night or two in the cells & an appearance before the beak. Where you will be found guilty, on the evidence of the police. The court having rejected any other evidence.
    So if you’re unfortunate enough to find yourself in the position, do NOT trust the reasonableness of the court, or the process of impartial justice. Or even the evidence of the other party. Get yourself a decent lawyer, fast.

    Reason; From what I gather the feminists have cut a wide swath through what passes for the family courts, down here. They’ve waged war on machismo, whether real or imagined. It’s not that men are guilty unless proven innocent. Innocence isn’t even on the table.

  9. Once granted asylum, can they can apply for family reunion?

    Heh, I’m certain of it.

  10. giving asylum to victims of gang violence is at least an order of magnitude crazier, since so many gang violence victims are themselves violent gangsters.

    Which I imagine is the reason they want them here. The worse, the better, the sooner the Revolution.

  11. The Domestic Violence thing is part of the feminist approach to human rights. The HR mob has claimed that historically asylum was very male gendered in its approach.

    It’s a conflict of expectations about what the asylum system is meant to achieve. Should it protect those who the state is not protecting based on western norms? Is FGM grounds? DV?

    Effectively it boils down to the question of what crimes should make someone eligible for asylum. State torture of dissidents? Yes. DV? Many people would say no – they could move within their own country – they might be destitute, but they would be safe. The feminists think that the West should give these people aid.

    To some extent it reflects the relative wealth of the West that we can afford to widen the definition in this fashion. We see this in the activism of the European Court of Human Rights, which has twisted the original ECHR to prevent the deportation of those who should not be in the country, but are seriously ill.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *