Should Americans be granted asylum in Europe?

[SnowLabrador]

I think they should. We will be in the throes of a second civil war soon, and it’ll be way worse than the first one.

[Torrain]

Is there any board on this forum you won’t concern-troll on?

[Lord Halifax]

Setting aside that you're clearly trolling I'm in favor of a regionalized asylum system, so if need be Americans should apply for asylum in other countries in the Americas. Europe has millions of Ukrainian refugees, a steady stream of boat refugees from Africa and long distance migration from Asian countries like Bangladesh to deal with so I don't see any hypothetical refugee problems in the US as their responsibility.

[CumbrianLefty]

Apart from anything else, the OP suggests he has little idea how bad the 1861-65 war actually was.

[SnowLabrador]

Apart from anything else, the OP suggests he has little idea how bad the 1861-65 war actually was.

It was horrific, but there was a clear geographic division in terms of which side was which. A second civil war would be more like what we see in Syria or Yemen.

[Del Tachi]

Asylum should in general be a more regulated process, with asylum claims only adjudicated from countries with known human rights abuses.  AFAIK this isn't the case in the U.S., but it may be in Europe. 

[Good Habit]

Apart from anything else, the OP suggests he has little idea how bad the 1861-65 war actually was.

It was horrific, but there was a clear geographic division in terms of which side was which. A second civil war would be more like what we see in Syria or Yemen.

Double plus wrong... the [civil?] wars in Syria or Yemen would be long over, if not for foreign (pro-western) intervention - In Syria - either the opposition would have held together without external support for ISIS et all - and thus might have won - OR - Assad would have won long ago, if not for the meddling of Erdogan and the US... / In Yemen - the Houthi would have won long ago, if not for the massive Saudi- and Emirati intervention, without sufficient boots on the ground to really win...

But in a future US civil war, the blood-toll might be horrible, but most likely, one side would start to dominate in some areas - so it would become a failed state with regional powers - or one side would emerge dominant and thus might become victorious... It's - given the size of the country - however -unlikely that foreign powers would try to oppose the victorious side by propping up regional resistance... (unlike the US did in the case of Taiwan, when Mao won the Chinese Civil war // rather more like no foreign power continued to support the "whites" after they lost the Russian Civil war...)

[Aurelius]

No, but you specifically should be deported and stripped of your citizenship for being annoying. That should give you a good asylum case.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

No, but you specifically should be deported and stripped of your citizenship for being annoying. That should give you a good asylum case.

Only if you get the same treatment.

[Hope For A New Era]

Ask me again on January 20, 2025.

[Continential]

Sure, if Wulfric and you can leave America.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Prior to how the 2022 elections actually turned out I think I would have shared in your hyperbole but, for now at least, this would be an overreaction.

[HillGoose]

lmao no Europe is way worse off than AMERICA ever will be

[dead0man]

Apart from anything else, the OP suggests he has little idea how bad the 1861-65 war actually was.

It was horrific, but there was a clear geographic division in terms of which side was which. A second civil war would be more like what we see in Syria or Yemen.

who is fighting who?  For a battle to wage on, you need two sides that are at least near peers.  Whomever is fighting the US military in this civil war is going to lose, real quick.  Maybe the military stays out of it and it's just red counties vs blue counties?  But even then, one side has 80% of the guns, 85% of the food and 75% of the veterans.  That's not how you get a very balanced war.

[CumbrianLefty]

And there was a "geographic division" in the Civil War, yes - but there was a bit more to it than that.

In reality, communities and families were split asunder. And there was significant pro-South sentiment in the North, whilst even in the Confederacy every state save South Carolina provided a non-negligible (and in some cases quite significant) number of troops for the Union.

[Lord Halifax]

Apart from anything else, the OP suggests he has little idea how bad the 1861-65 war actually was.

It was horrific, but there was a clear geographic division in terms of which side was which. A second civil war would be more like what we see in Syria or Yemen.

who is fighting who?  For a battle to wage on, you need two sides that are at least near peers.  Whomever is fighting the US military in this civil war is going to lose, real quick.  Maybe the military stays out of it and it's just red counties vs blue counties?  But even then, one side has 80% of the guns, 85% of the food and 75% of the veterans.  That's not how you get a very balanced war.

A long low level armed conflict between multiple irregular forces like The Troubles in Northern Ireland is far more likely than a conventional war and it would be very difficult to contain.

[dead0man]

Apart from anything else, the OP suggests he has little idea how bad the 1861-65 war actually was.

It was horrific, but there was a clear geographic division in terms of which side was which. A second civil war would be more like what we see in Syria or Yemen.

who is fighting who?  For a battle to wage on, you need two sides that are at least near peers.  Whomever is fighting the US military in this civil war is going to lose, real quick.  Maybe the military stays out of it and it's just red counties vs blue counties?  But even then, one side has 80% of the guns, 85% of the food and 75% of the veterans.  That's not how you get a very balanced war.

A long low level armed conflict between multiple irregular forces like The Troubles in Northern Ireland is far more likely than a conventional war and it would be very difficult to contain.

so, something far less deadly than a civil war, got it.

[Vosem]

Millions more Europeans immigrate to the United States than the reverse — which only makes sense, given how much higher the standard of living is in the United States relative to typical Western European countries.

[Lord Halifax]

Millions more Europeans immigrate to the United States than the reverse — which only makes sense, given how much higher the standard of living is in the United States relative to typical Western European countries.

most European immigrants to the US are from Eastern Europe

[President Johnson]

This is a SnowLabrador threaf

[Lord Halifax]

Apart from anything else, the OP suggests he has little idea how bad the 1861-65 war actually was.

It was horrific, but there was a clear geographic division in terms of which side was which. A second civil war would be more like what we see in Syria or Yemen.

who is fighting who?  For a battle to wage on, you need two sides that are at least near peers.  Whomever is fighting the US military in this civil war is going to lose, real quick.  Maybe the military stays out of it and it's just red counties vs blue counties?  But even then, one side has 80% of the guns, 85% of the food and 75% of the veterans.  That's not how you get a very balanced war.

A long low level armed conflict between multiple irregular forces like The Troubles in Northern Ireland is far more likely than a conventional war and it would be very difficult to contain.

so, something far less deadly than a civil war, got it.

what constitutes a civil war is a matter of definition, and The Troubles is considered a borderline case. It wasn't "far less deadly" than an average civil war in the early 70s when it was at its peak, and a similar conflict in the US would have a higher death toll

in this context what matters is how bad things would have to be before a significant part of the population started to flee and that level could probably be achieved by a death toll similar to NI in the early 70s.

[lfromnj]

Apart from anything else, the OP suggests he has little idea how bad the 1861-65 war actually was.

It was horrific, but there was a clear geographic division in terms of which side was which. A second civil war would be more like what we see in Syria or Yemen.

Yemen has a pretty clear divide.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Yemen

Its just the old country division.

[dead0man]

what constitutes a civil war is a matter of definition, and The Troubles is considered a borderline case. It wasn't "far less deadly" than an average civil war in the early 70s when it was at its peak, and a similar conflict in the US would have a higher death toll

in this context what matters is how bad things would have to be before a significant part of the population started to flee and that level could probably be achieved by a death toll similar to NI in the early 70s.

sure, but my point is that a "Troubles" level event in the US would have a far lower death count than a "civil war" level event.  And a "civil war" level event is impossible now or anytime soon because the military will be on one side or the other and you have to have two sides to have a civil war.

[Lord Halifax]

what constitutes a civil war is a matter of definition, and The Troubles is considered a borderline case. It wasn't "far less deadly" than an average civil war in the early 70s when it was at its peak, and a similar conflict in the US would have a higher death toll

in this context what matters is how bad things would have to be before a significant part of the population started to flee and that level could probably be achieved by a death toll similar to NI in the early 70s.

sure, but my point is that a "Troubles" level event in the US would have a far lower death count than a "civil war" level event.  And a "civil war" level event is impossible now or anytime soon because the military will be on one side or the other and you have to have two sides to have a civil war.

and my point was that something with a lower intensity and death toll than a conventional civil war (but not "far lower") could be enough to unleash a refugee wave, and that such a conflict could easily have more than two sides and could not be fully contained by the military, at least not without using very heavy-handed counterinsurgency tactics which in itself would cause many people to leave the country if it happened nationally. But there'd still be far more internally displaced persons than international refugees in all but the most far-fetched scenarios, the US is too big and diverse for a conflict to easily go truly national and Canada would obviously get the vast majority of international refugees not Europe.

[Mr. Smith]

Millions more Europeans immigrate to the United States than the reverse — which only makes sense, given how much higher the standard of living is in the United States relative to typical Western European countries.

The typical WE country has more vacation time, a greater safety net, longer lifespans, higher education rates, and consistently trade between each other for "happiest nation", and no gun deaths, and you don't hear much about homeless encampments.

There are certainly reasons for the lack of American expats, but living standards ain't it.