221
‘No other option’: inside the refugee camp for trans Americans fleeing Trump
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2026
221 points (99.1% liked)
World News
52127 readers
3361 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
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. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating 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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
q="trans beat up california ice raid"
remember, choosing to ignore facts is your choice
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?
I don't have issues with California when compared directly to other states. I don't consider any to be "better". Maybe Hawaii, since it's off the continent.
Maybe you misinterpreted my comment? Out of every state in the US, I'd prefer to get to Hawaii or California. I can't afford either. BUT, given the option, I'd rather leave this whole country.
Upvoted for the good faith argument and conversation.
I don't entirely agree or disagree with you. I think they have basically no chance of getting asylum because the dutch government doesn't see the US as an unsafe place and so in a way this is taking away time and resources from people who, like you said, are fleeing from things like civil wars.
Also as an american you can move to the Netherlands legally relatively easily! You need money, yes, but it's waaaaaay easier for an american than for basically any other non European. You can start your own company here, invest not even that much and you get a residency permit. I know multiple Americans here who have done this, including a non binary person (irrelevant but for them it was a reason to leave the US).
At the same time I can't blame anyone from wanting to escape a threatening and dangerous situation. Just getting on a flight is the quickest way to safety, so of course I empathise (and clearly so do you, just to make that clear).
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.
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?
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 her back to Saudi Arabia is 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.
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.
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 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.