And Mexicans have no legitimate reason to apply for asylum.

Moreover, there are no refugees anywhere in Mexico or South America.

There is no war.

Asylum can be applied for if and only if there is reason to believe that the individual is being specifically targeted, or is being persecuted based on race/religion/politics, etc

i wouldn't say there is no legitimate reason to apply for asylum, unless the cartels level of violence is a myth. However, i don't think that is the current majority

"Less welcome to Mr Lopez Obrador’s team, perhaps, was the swift congratulations send by Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro – leader of a country which Mr Lopez Obrador’s critics said would be his model."

obviously it's his "critics" saying this but he does seem to align himself with Corbyn too

the cartels are not a legitimate reason to apply for asylum if i remember the catalogue of reasons correctly

really? a target for a criminal/terrorist organization does not count? Or from a government? i mean, lets face it, they are probably the government of parts of mexico

government yes, criminal organisation no (again: from memory)

They need to be a specific target.

Not merely being negatively affected by crime.

and yes... specifically targeted

Like if a cartel specifically has a hit out on them they can apply for asylum, but if they just live in a shithole with cartels it's not our problem.

does the cartel count?

well like i said, there is a legit reason to claim asylum, but that is not true of the majority of those people.

you said there is no legitimate reason coming from mexico

Dude, be realistic. 99.9999999% of people coming from Mexico are not coming because the cartel specifically wants them dead.

economic migrant is not a valid claim to asylum

like i said, the majority

Just turn the rest of the world into nuclear glass. Problem solved.

okay... the wording is "well-founded fear of being persecuted..." - sounds like government yes, cartel no to me?

In a society of 95% producers and 5% parasitic free-riders, is it morally justified for the producers to wield a level of coercive force over the free-riders?

I don't understand why more of them don't claim refugee status at the US Embassy first

Or maybe I do understand and don't want to say because it's a theory

@Atkins Yes. This is why Capitalism works. People who do work, specialize in needed fields, or take smart risks can and should earn more than others.

So only the producers earning more is justified? What about being able to wield some form of coercive power over non-producers?

Anyone who does any sort of work in exchange for money is a producer.

Yes.

But this *hypothetical* society has 5% who do nothing.

Parasitic free-riders.

I'd say it depends on what forms of coercion you're suggesting.

Gulags are out.

But one might say that the refusal of certain services due to a lack of money would be coercion alone.

I believe rock bottom should be survivable, but uncomfortable.

Also, depending on what portion of this 5% are invalid,

those who legitimately CANNOT work, especially those in that situation due to things beyond their control, should be given a bit more comfort.

Without getting into the specifics of precisely what type of coercive force or who comprises the 5%, you're still comfortable saying that the situation could be moral?

Like there exist some specific cases where it IS, even if there are some specific cases where it ISN'T

Absolutely. In the same way that I'm okay with people who perform higher in their job obtaining managerial positions as opposed to people who just show up for their shift.

OK, let me switch it up a little: