Canada should really do more in this regard.
It's not clear how long Canada can fend off the far right, both internally and from the USA. I hope we can survive but there are too many damn Conservatives around.
~~Conservatives~~ fascists
They’ve been the same for my entire life now. What do you think Nixon and his pals (some of whom are still in politics) were?
We need to ban American media entirely. Québec is lucky in that Americans haven't figured out how to spew their propaganda in French yet. Sometimes I think we'd be better off as a country if we were all francophone
France has its own far-right problem. As do Germany and other countries. Language isn't a barrier to fascism.
Unfortunately, many of us know English well and some are happy to consume that propaganda, so the infection has vectors to spread.
Would be a win win if we can do some citizenship exchange with those that really want to split off to US.
This is actually part of my weekly letter writing campaign. Canada signed onto the Canada US Safe Third Country Agreement in 2002 which basically means Americans cannot seek refugee status in Canada because wherever you land on the combined territory is where you seek asylum. This means because Americans set foot in America first they cannot seek refugee status in Canada under the legal agreement. The agreement has some room for "exceptions " but it takes a lot of looking into from legal scholarship and has held a risk of American diplomatic retaliation...
Rainbow Railroad ,a Canadian based queer refugee charity, and a number of legal civil rights action groups have been campaigning for the past two years to start the process. A number of us have been writing to our MPs but with a lot of the crisises Canada has been dealing with from economic shocks and diplomatic wheeling and dealing to gain greater economic and security independence after a crash out with the US it seems to be ranked low on the agenda.
We should do more... But we're also going through a political alliance shift the likes of which would have seemed unthinkable five years ago. It's a shit situation and nobody seems to want to draw more agro.
Which is fucking killing me cuz I have so many trans American friends and I just want them to be actually safe 😭
Increasingly as I look around, there are no safe places. Everywhere has it's own brand of problems, and many places are shutting doors rather than creating new paths.
Thank you for all of your efforts.
I read last month that Ireland has reconsidered the US as a safe country. They are more willing than most to buck the neolibreral dogma. But they are not better than most for conditions for refugees. The leftist cooks made a video about trans asylum seekers in Ireland.
They are not having a good time, and it's not clear to me that they are definitely safer either.
We should garbage Bill C-2 then.
I wish I could flee this shitheel country. Issue is that there's currently nowhere progressive that accepts the US as a valid country to flee from.
same, but i'm disabled and there's nowhere anywhere that accepts disabled anyone.
😥
I fucking hate borders, just seeing all these arbitrary lines drawn on a map, it's so fucking infuriating.
People's fates are determined long before they're born, from conflicts long ago.
The only "sin" committed being born on the wrong side of a border
The wild thing is the American southwest. California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas . . . all of that was literally Mexico.
People drew imaginary lines and said "You're an American citizen if you're born here, but not if you're born there". When it's the same goddamned people.
We call Dine people in El Paso Navajo Native Americans. We call the exact same ethnic group 20 miles south in Cuidad Mexican foreigners.
I have disabilities, too. Being trans, older, disabled, and poor is shit. It sucks being seen as the "undesirables" globally.
There are, however, lots of places where you can chain tourist visas, many of which even have a visa exemption scheme for US citizens. Some places even have "working holiday" visas that you can chain if you're under a certain age.
You can juggle visas until the US is recognized as a place to be a refugee from, until you find a legal avenue to permanent residence (like marriage), or until you have the contacts necessary to disappear into the undocumented migrant world.
Or do you still think the US won't get as bad as that?
I think this misses how horrifically expensive this avenue would be. I'm not trying to dismiss that this is a viable avenue for some people, but those people have more financial, social, physical, and mental capital than the majority of trans persons.
When you are given a route to asylum, you have protections and can apply for assistance. You can't do that as a tourist.
So many of us live paycheck to paycheck and, if we sold everything that won't fit in a suitcase, we could barely afford the plane ticket.
We have to make day-by-day analyses and weigh the options. Right now, I'm choosing a semi-stable roof over my head and saving every penny I can manage. My only alternative at this point is to choose homelessness in a foreign country, hoping that I don't get deported back here with no means to rebuild what I've lost.
Being homeless and marginalized in the US is not a viable option. I've literally done that before.
Congratulations to the far-right. You're winning.
Problem: They would take that unironically and agree.
Well, I'm not exactly being ironic. It's unfortunate... they're winning.
I won't stop fighting, and I hate that they're winning. And I believe, as progress always does, that those of us who oppose the far right will eventually win.
Unfortunately, her case will almost surely be denied since the US has been designated a safe country by Dutch officials, and the trend in most of Europe, under pressure from racist voters and the surging popularity of fascism, is to make the already extremely strict asylum rules even stricter. In some cases (e.g. Denmark) refugee asylum has been all but abolished, in an egregious violation of treaties on assisting refugees (and preventing genocide).
The good news for people like Arc is that for US citizens it is overwhelmingly easier to obtain residency status legally in the EU in countries like the Netherlands, compared to getting a Green Card in the US. She probably should have figured that out before panicking and booking that flight.
The Dutch authorities are also very wary about declaring the US an unsafe country and provoking Trump, said Shrover. They think: ‘How will it look? How will the Americans respond to that? We can’t do this to our most important ally, saying that they don’t have a functioning democracy.’”
Important? Very
Ally? At this point, it's our enemy
I know it's a tough time but I have trouble imagining it being that bad in SF. I know the situation isn't ideal but there are only so many places available for refugees each year and some people applying are actually expecting death or worse if they go back.
Seems to be a bit tone deaf imo, we aren't at that point yet, at least not in San Fransisco. I would be livid if I was from somewhere with an actual civil war, where whole villages are getting wiped, and see my spot get taken by someone from Cali.
I want to be clear I think there is a problem with how transgender folk are being treated, but I think the asylum system has a lot of bigger ones to deal with and its already struggling with those. I wish other countries stepped up and offered easier immigration if you're transgender or something. This just feels like the wrong way to do it.
Some Jewish folk left Germany right when the Nazis started gaining ground. I imagine there were plenty of versions of you saying the same thing.
Fair point. I guess I don't consider the war on Christo-fascism to be lost and can't really imagine it getting that bad but you're right, it could very well come to that.
Humans have been wiping out slightly different humans since before we had words to name them. It's the most normal thing humans do.
but I have trouble imagining it being that bad in SF.
Why? Los Angeles last year had the largest number of hate crimes reported against trans people since they started tracking in 1980, and 90% of them were violent. California isn’t a queer utopia with no bigots.
and some people applying are actually expecting death or worse if they go back.
You would expect to live if someone succeeded in running you over with a truck, as was attempted on the woman the article is about?
we aren’t at that point yet, at least not in San Fransisco.
Unless you’re trans and in SF, you’re pulling this out of your ass.
If you are gay and get sent back to Saudi Arabia, you get killed by your own government. SF isn't at that point yet. I'm just being realistic, although the signs are there that it could head that way, as others pointed out.
Didn’t realize you were less dead if you’ve been killed by roving fanatics on the street instead of the government. Clearly less deserving to live.
PS: ‘it’s only asylum worthy if the government is trying to kill you’ would invalidate a gigantic number of legal asylum claims in the US and Canada from people fleeing gang violence made worse by US intervention in the Central and South America. So that maybe isn’t the best line of reasoning to go down to determine who is ‘deserving’ of asylum.
It's not that you're less dead, it's that there are less chance of it happening in San Fransisco than in Saudi Arabia. Stop twisting my words please.
Same for your PS. I never said only. It does augment the chances of it happening if it's your government thought, since you would be handed to them. Most gangs are deeply embedded in the government in Latin America, I would say it's essentially the same.
It isn't black and white and these things do need to be taken into account. Right now, it sounds like your are saying sending this person back to SF and sending the person next to them back to Saudi Arabia are the same.
It sucks that we have to pick who deserves to have asylum. Its a shitty system but how likely that person is to die or worse if they go back should definitely be part of the thought process.
Right now, it sounds like your are saying sending this person back to SF and sending the person next to her back to Saudi Arabia is the same.
No, you are demanding that I say that in order for her to ‘deserve’ asylum. I’m saying ‘are they literally in Saudi Arabia?’ is a shit standard.
If someone’s life is threatened because of where they live, they should be able to apply for asylum.
Its a shitty system but how likely that person is to die or worse if they go back should definitely be part of the thought process.
Again, do you believe that someone is likely to survive being run over by a truck? Her life has already been endangered, you just don’t take that danger seriously because it happened in San Francisco.
I believe the chances of getting run over by a truck are less than the certainty of getting executed.
I was pretty clear. How deadly the truck is has no importance, it's how likely it is to happen.
The standard is a gradient depending on how likely you are to lose your life or come to serious harm imo. How likely, not if it's remotely possible.
‘Oh well I just don’t believe it could happen’ is the extent of the evidence you’ve given, while I’ve shown violent hate crimes are rising against transgender people in CA and that this specific woman had a murder attempt made against her. Stop wasting my time unless you have something more substantial to say than ‘well it’s not Saudi Arabia you know.’
Your stats about hate crimes (102 anti-trans hate crimes in a city of 3.9 million) don't amount to much when taking into account the 3/4 of the middle east that encourages them, and their hate crimes usually end up in a hate mob hate burning someone to death.
She was also frightened the person was going to run her over, there is never a clear mention of an attempt. You can't compare that to Sudan and their civil war for example.
Idk, when I hear refugee, fleeing the country comes to mind and there's a clear danger. I just don't see it at this time. Like, there's a problem but there's also trans hotlines and help groups, resources and ways to escape inside the country from even the worst of places. There's no gay hotline in Iran. There's no "I snitched on the cartels" help groups in Mexico. We are talking about vastly different worlds and dangers here.
I think the tone deaf thing here is you telling trans people, who are being actively targeted by an increasingly fascist goverment and conservative media, that it's not bad enough yet for them to leave.
Any person who wants to leave and has the means to leave should absolutely leave by whatever means, and your judgment of them is of no value.
If you have a problem with worldwide asylum quotas, maybe take that up with a foreign government or something. People who are just trying to survive and make the best decisions they can in an increasingly high-stakes situation should disregard everything you've said and continue doing whatever they want, and you should support their ability to do so.
Well I do have a problem with worldwide quotas and immigration in general, I wish our borders were much more open. Look, I'm just saying that someone from San Fransisco probably has other options available and shouldn't lean on a system that's already strained. There's genocides and civil wars going on. Being gay is a death sentence in 8 countries. A lot of displaced women and girls have asylum or sex trade as a choice, they simply don't have options.
I don't think it's wrong to say we need to triage and prioritize certain problems because of lack of resources. It doesn't mean the ones not chosen don't exist or that the whole system shouldn't have more resources.
We agree that the problem is that countries would deny asylum to those in need, but sounds like your solution that those in need should preemptively disqualify themselves based vibes or something.
I think anyone who wants to should apply for asylum. If they are rejected and choose to migrate anyway, more power to them.
sees people choosing to live in camps rather than the US
"But I'm having a tough time imagining it being that bad"
Yeah bro, people typically give up their entire lives and move halfway across the world for minor inconveniences. You would have criticized gays for leaving Germany in 1934.
I wish I could afford to flee to California. It's night and day from this shithole state I'm stuck in.
I'd still prefer to be out of the US entirely.
What are your issues specifically with California (in comparison to other U.S. states), and which state(s) would you consider to be better?
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/