What Should The U.S. Do When The Coming Immigrant Caravan Arrives
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
0Jake thinks that those of us opposed to open borders are as phony out -outraged as he and the representative left is , they're suffering typical phony outrage and political hysterics as a game , laughing at the authouritive constitution law from Obama's disrespect that they learned first hand.
Rip our constitution to shreds , that's the lefts full intent politically . I heard a comment I loved today, about immigrants in thecoming caravan. Something to the effect of 'are they the huddled masses, yearning to be free or is it more truthful to call them economic opportunists.' It's estimated 70% are single adult men. Wouldn't a humanitarian crisis precipitating massive attempts at asylum status include a higher percentage of women and children?
Is there a source for that estimate?
"An estimated 2,300 children [are] traveling with the migrant caravan. . ." (UNICEF)(1)
That's 32% of an estimated 7,000 people.
If 70% of the caravan are "single adult men", that would mean the number of women in the caravan is 0.
(1) https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/e … ection-andSomeone's figures are fudged or maybe young adult men are being categorized as children? Of all of the video footage I've seen across multiple networks I don't see what you are claiming of (if estimates of no more than 5000 are correct) 1/2 are children.
Sifting through multiple source and comparing it to video footage. You say 2300 of the 4 to 5 thousand are children. Another source says 50 % are women. Another source says 75-80% are young men. Video footage across all the outlets, no matter their political leaning, shows a majority of young men. All young men on the transports. No men helping women or children boarding trucks and trailers. You see some women and children, you see the occasional man pushing a stroller, but the lion's share of the caravan shown, and that's when the camera rolls through the extent of the crowd marching, are adult men.
Someone is fudging. Why?
I get the why. To change hearts and minds. I, personally, have nothing against economic opportunism. That's who we, as Americans, are. Legal is all I demand. Almost half a million were caught sneaking across the border last year. How many weren't caught?
Secure our borders. Reform our immigration laws, giving priority entrance to our neighbors to the south. Once we do that I believe a path to citizenship should be there for all law abiding hard working adults who are here illegally and anyone who grew up here. There should be a statute of limitations for deportation. A legal timeline in which the government must act to challenge citizenship so that a kid who grew up in America is a citizen. No questions asked. And so that every person living in this country has the same opportunity. No one has to live in the shadows, in fear.
But, legal is all I believe anyone in the majority of America is looking for. I abide by the law as I hope you do. I expect no less of those who want to live among us."Someone is fudging. Why? "
You understate the case rather badly.
lie verb (2) <Mirriam Webster>
\ˈlī \
lied; lying\ ˈlī-iŋ \
Definition of lie (Entry 3 of 6)
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
She was lying when she said she didn't break the vase.
He lied about his past experience.
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
The statements are lies, then. The impression being given when showing mostly photos of women and children are lies. The intent in both cases is to "create a false or misleading impression": a lie. It isn't "fudging": it is a flat out lie.So, I'm trying to be nice about it. But, honestly, they all shove their opinions in our faces searching for agreement. They all lie, to some extent.
"They all lie, to some extent."
LOL You got that right! No one - no one - seems able (or at least willing) to simply give all the information available and let the reader make their own conclusions.
I DID get a mailer from the state of Idaho this year about 2 propositions to the public rather than the legislature, and it did just that, though. Gave pros and cons from both sides, and the rebuttals, without any overt attempt to affect the vote. Of course, that was from the state - presumably D and R VIP's provided the pros and cons.
"Sifting through multiple source and comparing it to video footage."
Multiple sources, such as?I had to think. I've seen reports on CNN, CBS, Fox news. I've listened to some opinion pieces from Prager U, Ben Shapiro, that jerk Don Lemon, I've read articles on my Smart News, but they pull from all over so I can't necessarily name the source, although I have read something on it by the New York Times, the Center for Immigration Studies and PBS.
Without an actual source for the claim that "70% [of people in the caravan] are single adult men", it's not possible to evaluate the reliability of the source and how that figure was determined.
The claim that, as of October 26, there were an estimated 2,300 children travelling with the caravan is from a verifiable, reliable source (UNICEF)(1). Therefore I deem that information to be more reliable than the 70% claim.
If you do remember the exact source (or sources) for the 70% claim, I'd be happy to re-evaluate.
https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/e … ection-andI wonder why they are not shown in the many photos we see? Those pics are obviously staged, and one would think that children would be a high priority. Like you I don't really have an opinion, but unlike you I don't put nearly as much weight on a source that is designed and works for children and immigrants. Not that that is an automatic sentence, but they DO have a very vested interest here and make no bones about it.
Perhaps they have mostly left the caravan already?Don, I don't care. You are not a reliable source, in my opinion, so what we have here is a Mexican standoff.
How is Don the source and not his sources? It's getting deep around here. Post-truth world.
Sorry. Don asks and asks and asks..while always refusing to answer a question in response. His agenda, while conversing with me, has never been open dialogue. I don't care what his sources are. We all have the ability to read and research. I am interested in honest and open dialogue. I can't get that from him so I honestly don't care to converse with him.
". . . I don't care."
And you're not alone in that mentality.
Most of the anti-immigrant arguments I've seen in this thread are a combination of rhetoric, speculation and conjecture, with little factual information.
I don't think we should base our views about immigration on rhetoric and conjecture.
Repeating that it's estimated "70% [of people in the caravan] are single adult men" without offering any verifiable sources for that information, merely feeds into the negative rhetoric. If you want to do that, it's your choice.
But trying to focus mainly on factual information from reliable sources, is my choice and I'll stick with that choice, thanks.
346 posts and hardly a one dealing with the hard realities, and the fact that this one group is nothing... more immigrants will cross into America in the next week, than are in that 'caravan'.
1986 - Reagan gives over 3 million illegal immigrants amnesty.
Nearly three decades ago, there was barely a peep when Reagan and Bush used their authority to extend amnesty to the spouses and minor children of immigrants covered by the 1986 law.
In 1986, Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country.
https://www.businessinsider.com/reagan- … rs-2014-11
1996 - Same Issues, Americans overwhelmingly didn't want to let the 'refugees' in... and the government let them all in anyways.
Those political situations included tens of thousands of Haitian and Cuban refugees who fled their countries in 1993 and 1994 to seek asylum in the United States. And in California in 1994, as anti-immigrant sentiment crested, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 187, a ballot measure intended to deny benefits, including public schooling, to illegal immigrants. The proposition has not gone into effect because of legal challenges.
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/26/us/m … ation.html
Our government, Republican or Democrat, has continued to take illegal aliens in, and time and again give them pathways to full social support and services as well as citizenship.
THIS IS THE REALITY
The American people were overwhelmingly against this in the past, and the government/politicians didn't care, they never do.
Not in 40 years.
So instead of allowing so many to come in without any verification or identification at all. How about the government build an actual functioning wall/border, and then build safe, sanitary, processing stations (like these FEMA camps that can take in thousands of people) so that we can process ALL people crossing into the country.
Weed out the murderers, child traffickers, repeat felon types.
Treat those with diseases, so that they are not allowed into our populace to spread disease.
And while they are there, document, educate, and climatise them to the laws and expectations of American society.
They don't want to fix the problem because it would be one less political topic to agitate the masses with during elections... and their corporate donors like Toll Brothers and Tyson don't want it because they want the cheap 'illegal' labor.Do we simply close those FEMA like centers when the yearly quota has been met? I don't see that happening; our government will continue to accept as many as come. We have, after all, made provisions for doing exactly that!
As far as those who we're caught - the estimate used to be 1 being caught for every 8 that tried to sneak in. That ratio might be slightly better now than it was 7-8 years ago.
Don, I looked at the link you provided. The red flag that came to me was it didn't explain how it determined that number. There is no explanation of how they determined the number of children with the caravan. How did they come up with this number for children? Nobody knows. They do have reports, but none like this. If I knew the method they used to collect the information, I would trust the information more.
They must be using the same standards used in Europe, where any male refugee below age 40 is considered a child.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Maybe someday EVEN democrats would worry themselves beyond increasing voting roles to care enough for immigrants to insure that they ARE NEVER again exploited by the assorted illegal trades of immigration to prevent up to 80% of females being raped by their illegal mules , that hispanic children aren't entering into trafficking of drugs , sex and slave labor . that thousands of people a year don't die in the deserts !
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
"Look up how illegals pay taxes ......"What a joke Hard sun , you are kidding yourself , illegals don't pay taxes , because they don't have anything but shadow employment jobs , dairy farms , crop raisers , landscaping co.s , dishwashing , cleaning service jobs ,............Discretionary petty cash pays their labor , ever heard of "under the table " ? Do you not understand the word --Illegal ?
The CBO, federal government and every state government begs to differ. And, since you like anecdotal evidence, I've worked alongside illegals that paid taxes right out of their checks just as I did. --This issue is not complicated, or even difficult to learn about.
http://immilaw.com/FAQ/Information%20fo … Aliens.htm
Well, I hate to break it to all these ultra-sensitive, "Emotionally Distraught" right wingers around here who seem to be frightened to death of a few Honduran women and children, but even Fox News knows Bozo Trump's cowardly fear of the Honduran Parade is a big fat farce perpetrated by a big fat liar, and who knows, perhaps even concocted by filthy rich conservative donors:
Sheppard Smith of Fox News says "There is no invasion", "No ones coming to get you"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaB4Az08tJw""Sheppard Smith of Fox News says "There is no invasion", "No ones coming to get you"." Of course no one's coming to get me.....geeze. He went out of his way to downplay thousands of people making their way to our border so they can assert their "right' to come in.
I'll grant that Trump is using the caravan a political tool, and there's too much hype over this - the caravan may not make it here! If not, great.
The US needs to make it clear that people don't have a right to come to America. We invite you.That's just plain false, but too bad that wasn't true when the Trump Family arrived here and began to degrade the USA, maybe we could have STOPPED them from entering this once great nation and if we did way back when, perhaps the country wouldn't be in the dire state of collapse that we unfortunately now find ourselves in because of this insane, under developed lineage:
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Democrats who're for allowing illegals into US borders should take a hard look at the dangers associated with illegal immigrants , thousands of people die each year crossing from Mexico alone , does that count ? Apparently It counts about the same to Mexican authorities as it does to the liberal party here . What women and children alone endure is a black stain of illegal immigration , a blacker stain YET on the liberals in America and on the moral fiber of all that ignore it .
Democrats own the entire body bag count ! what will happend with the police knows about you and you are under 18 you take red bull and they said don't come back will they call the cops
How nice.
Illegals bring in 13 billion and yet cost the United States $135 Billion a year.
"State and local governments are getting ravaged by the costs, at over $88 billion. The federal government, by comparison, is getting off easy at $45 billion in costs for illegals."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/reco … -000-in-nyThank you for providing a source, so people can evaluate the information for themselves.
The article you linked to quotes from a report called "The Fiscal Burden Of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers".
A number of fact-checking sites, and organizations, have found the conclusion of that report to be "mostly false" and "fatally flawed"(1)(2)(3).
An example criticism: the report counts US born children of unauthorized immigrants, as unauthorized immigrants. By doing so it artificially increases the number of unauthorized immigrants from just over 11 million (pew research) or 12 million (DHS figures) to 16 million. It then goes on to add the cost of services that those children are eligible for because they are US citizens, to the cost of unauthorized immigration.
But aside from the report itself, the organization that published the report is called the "Federation for American Immigration Reform" (FAIR)(4).
FAIR has been classified as a hate group(5)(6).
The founder of FAIR is quoted as saying:
"As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion?"(7)
and
"I’ve come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that."(8)
FAIR’s western regional coordinator, Rick Oltman spoke on an immigration panel sponsored by the Council of Conservative Citizens. The CofCC is a white supremacist organization(9)(10)(11).
FAIR is funded by, among others, the Pioneer Fund, a eugenics group also considered a hate group(12)(13)(14)
Based on the information above, I believe both the report, and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, are unreliable sources of information.
If you want an objective, unreliable source of information about the cost of immigration, try the National Academy of Sciences report called "The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration"(15).
(1) https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/pol … 691997002/
(2) https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … n-costs-1/
(3) https://www.cato.org/blog/fairs-fiscal- … lly-flawed
(4) https://fairus.org/issue/publications-r … -taxpayers
(5) https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate … ion-reform
(6) https://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-ru … ccounter=1
(7)(8) https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate … ion-reform
(9) https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/us/1 … l&_r=0
(10) https://www.adl.org/news/article/extrem … ;xpicked=3
(11) https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … of/396467/
(12) https://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/18/opin … erica.html
(13) https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate … mainstream
(14) http://ferris-pages.org/ISAR/archives/race-reason.htm
(15) https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23550/the-e … mmigration
- Onusonusposted 5 years ago0
Apparently ICE is beginning to use more practical methods to handle illegal migration.
https://www.theonion.com/ice-agents-hur … sRIn0zPkMk I think all the little right wing, high anxiety conservative rascals need to find a safe little comfortable space, lay down and take a deep breath and try to relax, rid yourself of ALL the pent up fear you have of people and things: Try to wash your mind free of terrifying images of Honduran women and children with stones in their hands, a thousand miles away assembled in a parade walking on the highway without water, or even a bed to sleep in:
Just Relax relax Relax: Let your fear of bronzed skin women and children dissolve into thin air while your tension is relieved:
Instead of thinking about that, think about that big fake phony deal Donald said he made with Mexico a few weeks ago because guess what my little MAGAs ???? He finally got the Mexicans to pay for that WALL !!
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Democrats love to tax and spend and now they're alleging ILLEGAL immigrants actually DO pay taxes ? Sure they do and the easter bunny collects these taxes , you can spin the numbers any way you wish , I'm telling you ,as a self employed contractor , neither the illegal immigrant nor the people that hire them pay taxes !
And you guys believe whoevers telling you that they DO , the government ? the small or large employers of the illegal ?You sound like a Jim Jones follower or something. Please, get help, deprogramming services are available. That's my PSA for the day. I don't want open borders, I don't know anyone in Antifa, and I've seen illegals with paychecks where taxes were taken out. I'm sorry that doesn't fit your worldview. I wish you all the best.
You got that right hard sun: I've never seen so many frightened little right wing conservative rascals in one room in all my life, frightened of women and children in a parade walking down the street and who will end up who knows where, without water, without a soft bed and without a warm home:
What happens to Mr. Trump and his flock when we are faced with a REAL Invasion from say Russia or China? We all know Donald will run and hide under his bed like he apparently did when asked to grab a rifle and join our military decades ago, if he can fit underneath and that's a very big 'if', but how frightened will his flock be and how will they react ???? BIG Question:
And BTW, in addition to payroll taxes, undocumented workers also pay millions if not billions in sales taxes, property taxes etc etc which support our economy which is unfortunately collapsing like a shoddily built rusty old bridge right now, but that's Mr. Trump's fault, not theirs:It's surreal Jake. And, Trump wimpers at the sight of blood.
"So what happens is, this guy falls off right on his face, hits his head, and I thought he died. And you know what I did? I said, ‘Oh my God, that’s disgusting,’ and I turned away,” said Trump. “I couldn’t, you know, he was right in front of me and I turned away. I didn’t want to touch him… he’s bleeding all over the place, I felt terrible. You know, beautiful marble floor, didn’t look like it. It changed color. Became very red. And you have this poor guy, 80 years old, laying on the floor unconscious, and all the rich people are turning away. ‘Oh my God! This is terrible! This is disgusting!’ and you know, they’re turning away. Nobody wants to help the guy. His wife is screaming—she’s sitting right next to him, and she’s screaming.”
Thank God for the Marines. “What happens is, these 10 Marines from the back of the room… they come running forward, they grab him, they put the blood all over the place—it’s all over their uniforms—they’re taking it, they’re swiping [it], they ran him out, they created a stretcher. They call it a human stretcher, where they put their arms out with, like, five guys on each side,” shared Trump.
“I was saying, ‘Get that blood cleaned up! It’s disgusting!’ The next day, I forgot to call [the man] to say he’s OK,” said Trump, adding of the blood, “It’s just not my thing.”"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-time- … ont-of-himI shared this Trump story when he was still just a candidate. He's a coward and a disgusting human being.
Yeah, it's crazy that this info been out there that long and people still worship him.
"TWD" "Trump Worship Disorder" just like "MAWD" "Marshall Applewhite Worship Disorder" and "JJWD" "Jim Jones Worship Disorder":
It all proves a point we've known since the beginning of time: Give a crazy wack job megalomaniac a microphone and platform, regardless of how ugly inside and out he is, how corrupt and self absorbed he is, and regardless of the never ending spewing of pathological lies, and there will always be a flock of gullible little frightened sheep to follow him:
Just the way it goes only this wack job polluting our oval office has power to destroy our lives and country and what a splendid job he's doing so far:
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
You're obviously so insulated from the presence of illegals , their jobs , their residences , their incomes and explorations that you don't know anything but to post bias info about that which you think you know !
Amazing .
On the dairy farms around here illegals "hot bunk " rotating sleep bunks in 3 shifts , are being bussed to super markets in unmarked vans , being paid cash "under the table ", so they don't ]can't] open a bank accounts .
Come on Hard sun ,catch up.I grew up across the street from a migrant camp.. I detassled corn with Hispanic immigrants/legal and illegal, I worked in factories with them .
Like I said, it doesn't fit your worldview. Many are under table, some aren't...I'm sorry that it hurts your sense of order or some such. I'm about a century ahead of you horsey.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Herdsome *, Most if not the mass majority of ILLEGAL employment is either under the table or paid under discretionary cash spending avoiding everything to do with payroll taxes , FICA , OSHA standards , SS benefits .....etc....yet , you ignore that constantly and care little about personal exploitation of labor laws , job safety , women's rights , underage children's labor laws ................
Congratulations , you're a liberal and care only about what ?........increasing democratic voting roles .
* Care to end the childish , sarcastic name calling ? I have a question for all the people who are so pro illegal immigration. Why don't YOU sponsor some of them so they can be here legally? If you sponsor them, it will be your responsibility to make sure they have a place to stay and a job. Then, they're here legally. So, why aren't any of you doing this?
Go down to the immigration authority or go online or meet meet with an immigration attorney and get a Form I-864 Affidavit of Support. Find an illegal immigrant and sponsor them. Easy to come onto Hub Pages and talk. This is action. I've sponsored people into the United States. They were relatives and here legally because I sponsored them. So, you too, can sponsor an illegal alien and make them here legally. You can also just talk. Democrats and liberals seem to prefer doing that as opposed to doing something.Wow. Not demonizing asylum seekers doesn't make one "pro illegal immigration." My position is they should be processed according to our laws, and I haven't seen anyone here say they are "pro illegal immigration. "
By not speaking voting against illegals , you are pro illegals , in other words ,the silent affirmation of increasing liberal voter roles.
I can here the Twilight Zone theme in the background of most of his posts. It's like a badly produced episode with no real point other than...I hate you cause I'm angry and scared.
It's crazy and hilarious at the same time hard sun, and now we have someone above asking if we'll 'sponsor' an undocumented worker: WHAT ?? A peaceful Honduran or Mexican or Irishman or German who comes here, gets a job and pays taxes doesn't NEED a sponsor: UNREAL:
But you know who are in desperate need of sponsors? All the poor unfortunate people who try to survive in the 5th poorest state of Kentucky who have been driven into poverty by Wall Street owned republican senators Mitch McConnell and space dude Rand Paul:
It's funny, I've also noticed that the right wingers who are scared the most and who are crying the biggest tear drops over women and children in a parade walking down the highway, seem to live in places where undocumented immigrants NEVER even go,places like Wyoming, N Dakota etc because there are no jobs there: They've probably never seen an undocumented immigrant in their life time yet are frightened to death of them because of how they're depicted on Fox Fake Channel etc: ABSURD
I encounter undocumented humans every single day of my life, they mow and maintain my neighbors yard and I just watched a few install a brand new roof on another neighbors house, they clean the tables when we eat out and they work very hard, pay taxes and are as peaceful as can be because they prefer a low profile: Their prices are very reasonable as well, maybe $35 per month to mow a lawn 4 to 8 times per month etc:"Their prices are very reasonable as well, maybe $35 per month to mow a lawn 4 to 8 times per month etc". You understand that the only reason they work for less is because they have to? In other words, they're being exploited. In the process, they suppress wages paid to citizens that are doing like work.
It kills me how so many on the left, and of course those on the radical left, have no issue with the 1) violation of US sovereignty 2) exploitation of those here illegally 3) costs imposed on states by illegal immigrants. It's as though they're living on a different planet.
I'm for reasonable immigration laws..and I'm not getting into a hypothetical false equivalency because some people are scared out of their minds. I sponsor my family and ensure my kids grew up to be successful taxpayers, which helps pay for all the things we all enjoy.
I think we all need to take care of us and ours rather than worry so much about others. White Americans are not often representing themselves so well these days and Trump doesn't help. We need to compete, get our culture off the dump file and step up to the plate as opposed to running scared.
Liberals, blah blah..they can do whatever the hell they want to do.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Want to see the success story of illegal immigration employment ? Go to the back lots of the North Carolina cotton fields , tobacco fields , fruit and vegetable fields , salvage yards , say nothing about the hidden from view construction and farm equipment sheds etc......
Check out the third hand rusting 1960's mobile homes with the dirt lawns , broken down vehicles , broken appliances on the front yard , plastic tarps over the leaking roofs , broken families in the back .....................
THIS is what Democrats are promoting !That's right here in the heartland because so many whites stopped working and gave into drugs. I can get some pictures for you...nothing hidden about it.
There's many economic factors involved here not just immigration. I'll say it again...I'll trade the tweekers down the road for hard working immigrants..we need productivity no matter where it comes from.Well I can't help where you live but your reasoning is a false one , you are speaking for the company that wants cheep unaccountable laborers , got some of your own or something ?
I appreciate paying $7 plus a small tip to get my car washed weekly, and without undocumented immigrants doing the work I'd pay around $25 or $30 for the same service: I appreciate paying about $7 plus a small tip at my local restaurant for a lunch special and without undocumented immigrants that same meal would cost about $30 to 35$: I appreciate the fact that an undocumented immigrant will mow my lawn 4 to 8 times per month for a flat rate of about $35, God knows what kind of additional financial distress Americans would be in if not undocumented immigrants:
BTW: ALL undocumented immigrants pay taxes and I'm confident many pay more than the cowardly corrupt cheat in our oval office does:Oh? And what taxes do they pay in Montana? Gasoline tax for when they drive illegally?
I think I'll become a waiter in your state, where illegal aliens are earning $28 for 5 minutes work. Where was that again? You know - the state that doubled their gas prices recently?
I'm not too lazy to wash my own car, make my own lunch or mow my own lawn, so those things don't bother me.lol: What are you complaining about wilderness ?? undocumented immigrants don't even go to your state, or Montana or N Dakota, they go where the PEOPLE and JOBS are: Geeez:
Have you ever even seen an undocumented immigrant in person ?? I mean aside from the Irish Illegal operating the pub on your corner with that Irish flag floppin' all over the place ??Unfortunately, yes. Worked alongside them on many a job...until ICE shows up and the employer finds himself hiring legal, union workers at double the wage.
And it is because of people like you, who take advantage of cheap labor where people can't get regular jobs (because they are illegal) that the illegal immigration should be stopped. Profiting off of human misery is not something you should openly brag about.
So, you make sure every item you purchase is made by legal American laborers? I'm sure you don't use cell phones made in inhumane Chinese factories or shoes made in Asian sweatshops?
Unless you're a consumer who takes care to never buy such products, your holier-than-thou attitude is hypocritical.
Also, as soon as I hear your President advocate jailing the employers of illegal immigrants instead of the workers who merely want a better life for themselves and their families, I'll take seriously his anti-immigration stance. They are the ones who take advantage of cheap labor. Otherwise, he is just another fear mongering right-wing politician catering to his fearful base. And y'all just lap it right up and regurgitate it right back out.What do cell phone makers or shoemakers in Asia have to do with illegal aliens in the US? Just another thing to rant about?
People working in foreign sweatshops are not illegal aliens in the US.
If you knowingly take advantage and brag about it, that's a problem.
I agree with you on one point: we need to require employers to verify that they're hiring citizens or folks here on work visas. Some states have this requirement in for large employers.
We already do. Unfortunately the laws are not enforced; businesses and politicians like having lots of cheap labor around and about. And Jake, of course.
As to your last line, about regurgitating. I think you know what makes me regurgitate.
Sorry, but I'll take $7 car washes all day long from undocumented workers:
When "Stubby" Trump and his corrupt little conservative weasels decide to Repeal that corporate welfare tax cut scam they gave to filthy rich elitists and instead RAISE the minimum wage, maybe then those who wash cars will be paid a higher salary and then I'll be more than happy to pay said worker a little more for their services:
Until then, I like paying less and for many Americans it's a necessity to pay less for services and products:Paying less, at the expense of other human beings and adding to their misery. Not surprised, coming from you,
I love where I live. It's cheap...I get to have a lifestyle most people of my income dream about. Besides, economics aren't everything..I love the culture here..there's a university with lots of Chinese, Hispanics and Middle Easterners.
We can bring people in legally if we're absolutely destitute of Americans willing to do the work. We do not, under any circumstances, need people here in the US working illegally to support our economy.
Agreed. I'd rather they be legal and we have a sensible system to help make them so. At least those that prove they are here for the right reasons. Gang of Eight Bill..I've repeatedly stated my support for something similar, but just because I'm not scared of a caravan and don't put disproportionate blame on immigrants, it's assumed by many here that I support illegal immigration.
Three primary issues I have with ANY type of amnesty. 1) We reward people for ignoring our laws 2) We penalize people who're striving to come here legally by working through our system 3) We encourage more folks to come here illegally, expecting that we will again ignore our own laws.
Many on the left, and particularly on the far left, disregard these arguments. But there's reality staring back at them via The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.The Gang of Eight bill was not exactly amnesty. Provisional legal status till border patrol states 90% of illegal crossings stopped, pay fines, etc., etc. They would certainly have to work hard for any citizenship or even semi-permanent legal status under that bill.
I've wrote about it here a couple times before. I don't think anyone could present a more comprehensive solution that doesn't violate American rights and the human rights of illegals and/or collapse our economy.It was too close for comfort. Let the border patrol tell me FIRST that 90% of illegal crossings have been stopped, and then we can talk. Otherwise, it looks and sounds too much like the 1986 debacle.
In this case, if that bill passed and the border was never 90% (or so) secured, we'd be stuck. Suddenly we'd have all these folks who cheated their way into the country, and have legal status, while folks who've obeyed our immigration laws are still waiting patiently for permission to come here. We'd be about where we are now anyway.
This is where the Gang made it's mistake, and it's something that many conservatives, including myself keep insisting on. Instead of floating this bill that gave legal status FIRST, they needed to float a bill that secured the border FIRST. After that, I would have been fine with entertaining something else. Security first.Yeah I agree with this "make sure the border is secure, but not use it as a barrier to prevent the 11 million from eventually gaining a path to citizenship."
I don't know if the matter would hang me up on voting though if I were actually in Congress. That would take some thinking, and, of course, analysis of my constituency, lol.I get it. But the barrier to preventing 11 million people from gaining a pathway to citizenship is their own lawlessness. If they're offered a pathway to citizenship, it's a gift, and entirely undeserved. To look at it as though they deserve the pathway to citizenship when they violated our laws is, for lack of a better word, lawless.
The core of this is a desire to actually SOLVE a problem rather than "kick the can down the road" as Obama liked to say. If we "solve" the problem of what to do with illegals (when the proper solution is to deport them) by giving them the path, but we haven't dealt with any aspect of how they got here in the first place (many via a weak border) then we haven't solved the problem.
It's this kind of one-ended thinking that dominates the left, and especially the far left. They don't want a wall for example, but they want to do something to help the illegals to "come out of the shadows". Well, many of them are in the shadows because the came here across one of our borders illegally. But they don't want to address it, and their insincerity in this is mind warping stuff. Can't wrap my head around it, and in fact, I'm left with the belief that they don't want secure borders.
You can understand, I think, why some conservatives have nothing but derision to deal out to liberals/progressives who don't want to secure our borers - it demonstrates their insincerity.I think people that have been here for years, paid into the system, paid fines, etc. as the Gang of eight Bill stated deserve permanent legal status.
I don't think most Democrats are in the not wanting to secure our border camp but I do agree that those people exist. I think Trump wants Americans to believe that camp consists of all Democrats as it fits his agenda.
I also don't want a bigger and longer border wall. There are much better ways, drones, more guards, etc. Walls cut off wildlife migratory paths, cut through people's land, and just don't work as well as people want to think. At any rate we will NEVER stop all illegal border crossings. Hell, some from ICE or the DEA, etc will bring them in if offered enough cash. I don't think that should stop us from using the smartest ways to prevent illegal border crossings at all of our entryways though.I'm fine with the tech stuff - it will be more effective. And we won't shut down illegal immigration entirely.....so I wonder then, was the Gang of Eight bill just a lie? If there's no way, necessarily, to verify 90% or whatever the figure, secure border, how was that bill going to be effective?
That most Dems don't want a secure border can be demonstrated, I think, in that no Dem, to my knowledge, has offered a comprehensive bill that includes actually committing substantial resources to securing the border along with giving illegals a pathway. Correct me on that.
"I think people that have been here for years, paid into the system, paid fines, etc. as the Gang of eight Bill stated deserve permanent legal status."
"Deserve" means they've done something to earn it - it means we owe it to them. We don't. If we can get away from language that tells people you can come in anytime you want, and eventually, if you're really good, we'll give you citizenship, then there's a lot more room for discussion. Otherwise it makes a mockery of our immigration laws, and as I said earlier, is painfully unfair to those going through our system. It's lawlessness.
Again, securing the borders to a substantial degree, AND committing resources to enforce our laws (a beefed up ICE and Homeland Security for Visa monitoring) go along with a pathway- there won't be one without the other. We did that in 1986, and now we have a freakin' mess. Conservatives, on the whole, don't want to go that route again. Deal with the entire package, or it won't get done.Some of these things such as "deserve" are purely opinion oriented and are tough to argue.
The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 Bill was offered by four Rs and four Ds. It was serious about border security, no matter how serious we could arrive at that 90% number. I think that may have been introduced by Rs anyway.
"program
Path to Citizenship
Most of the 11 million people who are in the country illegally could apply for a green card after 10 years and citizenship three years after that.
Applicants must pay a $1,000 fine, pay back taxes, learn English, remain employed and pass a criminal background check.
Immigrants must have arrived in the United States before Jan. 1, 2012, to be eligible.
Dream Act youth can obtain green cards in five years and citizenship immediately thereafter.
The path to green cards and citizenship is predicated on a “trigger” related to border control measures that must first be implemented.
Border Control
The Department of Homeland Security will receive $3 billion to improve border security through surveillance drones and 3,500 additional customs agents; $1.5 billion for fencing.
Within five years, DHS must achieve 100 percent surveillance of the southwest border with Mexico and apprehend 90 percent of people trying to cross illegally in high-risk sectors (areas where more than 30,000 people are apprehended annually).
If DHS does not meet the metrics, a border commission composed of governors and attorneys general from border states would be given five more years and additional funding to implement more stringent measures.
U.S. companies must implement the “E-verify” computer tracking system that aims to ensure that workers are legal residents within five years. All non-citizens will be required to show "biometric work authorization card" or "biometric green card."
The government must implement an exit/entry tracking system at ports of entry to determine whether foreign visitors or workers overstay their visas."
And, Obama wasn't exactly soft on the borders.
At this point, with all the rhetoric from Trump, will any Democrat want to ...IDK. Trumpism is killing any chance at a comprehensive package. You see, in general, I'm too conservative to like Trump--minus abortion rights-- and I voted for Obama.
You can be against illegal immigration and not be "blaming immigrants". The idea that most conservatives don't like immigration is a lie.
Yup. But the consensus here seems to be "disproportionate blame" of America's problems an on illegal immigrants and fear of illegal immigrants. This is, after all, a major portion of Trump's mid term strategy...stoke the flames of blame. Going out on a limb here...lol.
I don't see diehard Trump supporters as conservative at all."But the consensus here seems to be "disproportionate blame" of America's problems an on illegal immigrants and fear of illegal immigrants."
I'm interested in seeing if you can give me some concrete examples!You can find them if you want to...the title of the thread is a bit of a tip off, lol
Here's one to help you out though..and no, I'm not arguing as to whether this fits your definition of disproportionate blame. We could find many more examples, if that's what you really wanted to do..I don't think that's in the cards though.
"Want to see the success story of illegal immigration employment ? Go to the back lots of the North Carolina cotton fields , tobacco fields , fruit and vegetable fields , salvage yards , say nothing about the hidden from view construction and farm equipment sheds etc......
Check out the third hand rusting 1960's mobile homes with the dirt lawns , broken down vehicles , broken appliances on the front yard , plastic tarps over the leaking roofs , broken families in the back .....................
THIS is what Democrats are promoting !"No tip off for me in the title. It's a large group of people who, seemingly, are intent on coming here even though they weren't invited. I don't see "blaming immigrants" in this title: What should the US do when the coming immigrant caravan arrives.
Sorry, I saw only one part of your response.... as to Ed comments, well, I don't consider him typical of who's commenting here on this thread. Trump's comments are, indeed, designed to appeal to his base; and yes, I agree that Trump IS blaming illegals for anything he can blame them for.
Trump's often ugly rhetoric doesn't change the fact that we need to finally deal with illegal immigration in a lawful and effective manner.We do need to deal with it in the best and most humanitarian way possible. The problem to me is that Trump's rhetoric is driving the left further left and the right further right on immigration. This makes it next to impossible to get a comprehensive bill passed. As I see it, Trump is only adept at firing up his base, division and scare tactics. It worked before for him, but it's not going to work for America.
You don't have faith in the American people. Don't listen to the rhetoric and assume the worst about people. Most people want a fair and sustainable immigration policy. Most people want to have a policy where most of the people from our southern neighbors, who want to go through the process legally, to have the opportunity to enter, can.
The problem is the left thinks the worst they possibly can of the right's stand. And vice versa.No, I don't have faith in Trump. Please don't attempt to change my mind on Trump because I'm not for open borders as most Democrats are not. I think Trump is driving the left further left and making it harder to come to any sort of reasonable immigration deal. Trump is simply not qualified in any way as a leader and the results of that are tearing at the fabric of our nation.
I don't think the worst of the right's stand. I think the worst of Trump and his tactics and don't think he will get any results. If he does, the damage in is wake will more than cancel out any good. I think that's already evident.
I agree that Trump's approach isn't making him any friends. But there's been no progress in a comprehensive bill in recent past, before Trump, in large part because there seemed to be no desire on the part of most Democrats (and some Republicans to boot) on dealing with ALL aspects of illegal immigration.
With the most of the left not interested in securing the borders, how can there be any sincere discussion on a comprehensive bill? I think that Trump's rhetoric is, in part, a reaction to the lame attempts over the years to solve one aspect of this problem while ignoring the other. Giving illegals a pathway while ignoring the borders is not a solution."With the most of the left not interested in securing the borders,...."
That is simply not true. We just spend so much time countering irrational ideas like a massively expensive border wall and scary invasions of disease-carrying rapists that you wrongly assume we are the opposite extreme.Perhaps in the current environment it's more difficult to offer a package that will satisfy both conservatives and the left. However, I don't recall seeing such a package in the years before Trump, a package that's actually comprehensive, dealing with ALL aspects of illegal immigration.
If it's not dealt with entirely, there won't be a deal.
"Giving illegals a pathway while ignoring the borders is not a solution."
I agree. And a President offering racists statements, divisive rhetoric, etc., is not going to bring anyone closer together on this. Leftist extremists create rightist extremists and vice versa.
Right now, Trump is emboldening both the right and left extremist ideologies. In addition, he's creating a bigger and scarier leftist extremist group, in the minds of his supporters, than there even is.
That's how he's dividing the country. If he's not doing it intentionally, than he's even dumber than I thought.
Edit: The results are evident with the meme belowCan't deny much of what you've said. But Trump is in office partly because sensible, truly comprehensive solutions weren't brought to the table when there WAS opportunity. Instead we had the Gang of Eight bill.
"And a President offering racists statements, divisive rhetoric, etc., is not going to bring anyone closer together on this. Leftist extremists create rightist extremists and vice versa."
Let the extremists do their own thing. There's been, and really there still is, opportunity to do it properly. What I've stated in these posts, is, I believe, the position of most conservatives regards a comprehensive bill. Regardless of the current environment, without the elements I outlined, there won't be a true solution. Trump is evidence of it!After reading that summary, you're correct, that bill WAS comprehensive. There were flaws, and Pelosi touched on it; that being once illegals had a legal status, that removing that status if the border security measures were never met would be, uh, impossible.
It was a far better attempt than I was aware.They would have registered provisional immigrant (RPI) status that legally would be relatively easy to remove. Agreed, not easy to remove physically, but that's definitely not any worse than where we are at now.
I'm a bit biased as I worked my tail off writing in attempt to get that bill passed. If any tweaks needed to be made, they should have made them. I agree that failure to get something done helped create Trump.
"Agreed, not easy to remove physically, but that's definitely not any worse than where we are at now."
And this was, at the time, my problem with the bill. Legitimizing the presence of illegals, even with temporary status, was the poison pill, for that's what the RPI status would have done. Once they had that status, the group would have become a political chess piece, and we ultimately would have had to fully legitimize them even if we didn't follow through with the border and the other measures.
The far better move was to place ICE on a leash, allowing it do detain only illegals with criminal records during the surge period, where everything possible was being done to secure the SW border. We would have turned a blind eye to the presence of illegals for a time. Then once BP claimed 90% success (say for 3 maybe 6 months) then illegals, minus criminals, would have officially been on their way to citizenship, if they wanted it.
As I claimed earlier, the Gang of Eight bill as designed was too close to the design of the 1986 disaster. Too bad the crafters didn't or wouldn't see it.Ah, seize on that and say the entire bill was bunk. Citzenship would not happen for like 12 years, if ever.
Criminals would have been deported under the bill if I remember right. Either way, we had a framework of an excellent and comprehensive bill.
I'm worn out on immigration now and more concerned about healthcare, which has a much more immediate and real impact on my family
When i first read this, it said that 7-8thousand were en route. Sounds like many like mexico better. Or that most were not as advertised.
On the road with the migrant caravan
(The Guardian)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLkbOOIwlFMIf things are so bad in their country, why don't they go there and fix them? Why is running away to another country helping their nation at all? This is not the United State's problem, this is their problem. Why is it people from these countries are not willing to do what is necessary to make their country free and a better place to live? Why do they have to run away like children and become a problem to another country? That's the only thing they are right now. A problem.
I wonder if that's what people think of all migrants? i.e. Jews escaping Germany prior to WWII, Irish escaping the famine, etc.
I wonder why they didn't just make their own countries better? Ah, all they are is a problem.You don't seem to grasp the concept of there being a difference between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants. Jews, Irish and others were invited here. Factories were expanding and needed workers. Have you heard of Ellis Island? Steel companies invited both of my grandfathers to come here in the early 1900s and that is how my family got here. Legally. The Irish and Jews etc. didn't just one day form massive human lines and run into the United States with no regard to immigration law.
Are you able to comprehend there is a difference?You are not understanding.
In the past, most of the caravans have used the legal process for those claiming asylum. Those who don't are subject to arrest. If we had an Ellis Island set up now maybe they would use that too.
And, doesn't this explanation of the mass Irish immigration sound familiar?
"Driven by panic and desperation, a flood of emigrants left Ireland in 1847. Many left dressed in rags with not enough food to last the 40-day journey across the Atlantic and not enough money to buy food sold on board. Some went to Great Britain and to Australia, but most intended to go to America. Because fares on the Canadian ships were cheaper, many emigrants went by way of Canada and walked across the border into Maine and then south through New England."
http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-i … erica.html
The point I was making is they had nowhere to turn where they were so they left. And, just because I don't support Trump doesn't mean I don't support sensible immigration reform that decreases illegal immigration.
The matter is not that simple as to simply scream at someone they don't understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration. My "family" arrived here in many different ways..,most recently my great grandpa by boat from France. Most Americans have a very varied family tree and have stories as to how the various branches arrived. So?
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
The gang of eight has done nothing , It will take Trump as usual , to break through the mold of D.C. , immigration , like the economy ,like the wall , like North Korean nukes , like trade tariff imbalance , like energy , like the Supreme court's , like political correctness , the middle east , like Jerusalem, all of the apathy and inactivity in Washington to date .........you guys are just not "getting it " that business as usual is over with , Trump's voters are not his followers ,in fact we are his leaders .
And this is a prime example why I think Trump is so damaging. If Dems take the House, are his followers or leaders or whatever they call themselves going to support any type of comprehensive, common sense reform?
You could ask the same of the Dems as well. After all the Trump rhetoric, and that of the extremist left he fuels, will liberals be OK with increasing border security at all?
Trump's rhetoric is not sustainable when it comes to actual governing.Trump fuels radical leftists....Well, I guess you can say that; they were already radical leftists, and the rhetoric of numerous Democrats has emboldened them.
I'm not interested in a tit for tat they say this and they say that. My point is that radical leftists are responsible for what they do whether inspired by Trump dude or done without his inspiration. In other words, I'm not interested in why someone engages in lawlessness -i t simply needs to be shut down. If one of these comes before me in a courtroom and say "Well, Trump is so obnoxious, and his rhetoric so inflammatory, that I simply had to do this" (whatever it is), I'd make sure that person could spend some time behind bars to reconsider.
Same goes for radical left policies. Any politician who says, "Well, I'm offering this far left bill because Trump is blah blah blah", I can't take him/her seriously.Well, yeah we are all responsible for our own behavior. Every judge I've seen in action punishes offenders for excuse making and not taking responsibility for their own behavior.
But, leaders lead. And Trump leads people to radical thoughts and actions. Personal responsibility, or lack thereof, doesn't change that at all.
I guarantee you there were NO social safety nets when the Irish arrived like we have today. $18.5 Billion in healthcare for illegals? American citizens don't get this good of care. Trust me, these people coming here are going to be a huge financial burden. Unlike the Irish who came here. That's just healthcare. We won't even get into education, housing and other things that should be spent on American citizen AND legal immigrants. We have homeless veterans who should be taken care of first and more. We didn't make their country a shithole, we just seem to have to pay for it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothec … 7b6dd712c4That's all fine, I'm addressing immigration and the fact that you stated I did not even understand the difference between illegal and legal immigration. You were clearly proven wrong about that and how some past immigrants arrived here .
There are numerous studies earlier in this thread that have copious amounts of information as to how immigrants, illegal and legal, affect the economy. You can read through those and form your own opinion though it seems that opinion is not likely movable. This issue, too, is more nuanced than Trump wants people to think.
Edit..Just another thought, I'm sure all those destitute Irish had so much to offer the moment they crossed into America. Many would argue they offer a lot now. I do understand that the flood gates to illegal immigration must be closed as much as possible and I think we were doing a little better at that..under Obama even. The migrant caravan can go through the regular legal process we have in place."The migrant caravan can go through the regular legal process we have in place."
I agree. They had absolutely no respect for Mexico's immigration laws and asylum process. What makes you think they'll have any respect for ours? They've thrown rocks & bottles, torn down fences and taken over areas where they've camped and more. This is behavior you find acceptable and want to occur in our country? I don't.As links in this thread show..something like 70% of those in past caravans did show up to court and follow through with the process. I'm not looking back through that right now but the number is close to that. Is that good enough? Can we do better? likely. Is throwing rocks, etc. acceptable, no. Are they likely to be arrested in the States if they do such, yes, as they should be.
My point is, the fear factor is ramped up way out of control on this by Trump. Oooh...some migrants may throw some rocks!! The evidence of that is right here. It's not going to get us anywhere but worse with true immigration reform. Sending thousands of active duty forces is a waste of money and time for our troops. He is using the armed forces for a political tactic. Yes, it's been done before.Let's just say I think with our troops on the boarder they will be more inclined to follow our immigration laws. Many of the people in the caravan have previously been deported. There are too many unknown factors with this caravan.
"Part of the confusion also stems from a lack of clarity around how the migrants intend to cross the border. There are a few options for them, and each presents its own set of challenges:
The migrants could choose to cross illegally and remain undetected, though a large group of migrants would be hard for Border Patrol agents to miss.
They could follow the example of the caravan last spring, whose members legally presented themselves at a port of entry and requested asylum. This may present problems for those migrants who fled Central American countries for reasons like poverty and lack of job opportunities; under US law, those are not valid reasons to base an asylum claim on.
They could try a mix of both tactics, crossing the border illegally, but immediately requesting asylum from US authorities once they're caught. They are legally entitled to make an asylum claim no matter how they cross the border, but Trump said Thursday he intended to bar migrants from requesting asylum if they cross illegally.
Another unknown is what role the military will eventually play if the caravan reaches the US border. Troops are forbidden under the Posse Comitatus Act from enforcing domestic law, and therefore cannot directly detain or deport immigrants.
Instead, the troops are expected to play a support role for Border Patrol agents, though the amount of support they'll need may depend on how many migrants actually reach the border.
https://www.businessinsider.com/migrant … xt-2018-11Yup. Agreed, it's not an easy thing to deal with. This is why it would be good to have someone in the White House who truly does hire only the best and understands how government works.
I just think massive overkill as a political ploy here by Trump.
From your link, Ill reiterate this: "They could follow the example of the caravan last spring, whose members legally presented themselves at a port of entry and requested asylum."
As far as costs go, the Pentagon is getting estimates ready I believe and it's not sure where the funds will come from.
I remember someone else stating something about the costs involved in military support operations.
Readmikenow:
"As someone who spent time in the military, I can tell you the logistics involved with meeting the needs of 7,000 individuals on a daily basis is quite a task. Doing this requires food, sanitation, water, sleeping needs as well as medical needs and more for thousands of people every day. So, who is making all of this possible? How are they eating? Where are they sleeping? I think the news just shows up arranged footage. There is MUCH more to this story than we know."Hard Sun,
Good play...BUT...I was actually referring to everything involved with people in the caravan and not our military. A little out of context. The daily needs of these thousands of people is tremendous and some way they are being met. Who is paying for it? How are they being supplied? I've searched the web and can't find answers to these questions. I see women with children and strollers. Where are they getting diapers? Who is paying for it? Some how this caravan was financed and I want to know who is responsible. Nobody seems to have the answers. I've seen allegations, but no proof.
"He is using the armed forces for a political tactic. Yes, it's been done before.
Troops are being used due to unrest at the border. These people broke through Mexicos border illegally, and intend to do the same here. No one has the right to enter America without going through our border security. Do you really think it wise to let people just walk into our country without due process? This is a very common sense problem. We have laws, weak as they are, they still are in place to prevent people from entering illegally. We just have not had a president that enforced our laws.Do you really think it wise to let people just walk into our country without due process?
No..and that's not what's been happening with the caravans in general. I just stated they should follow the laws we have in place. We just don't need thousands of active military troupes for them to do so. Some sneak across but not most.
I've thoroughly discussed my views on illegal immigration and my support for something akin to the "Gang of 8" bill.
Illegal immigration decreased under Obama."Illegal immigration decreased under Obama.".
That is very true. However, not true now.
"No..and that's not what's been happening with the caravans in general." Yes, is what's happening today. This caravan has made their intentions very clear by crossing illegally into Mexico breaking their laws.
It is not as of yet known if they will rush our borders as they did there? However, hopefully by facing the possibility of the problem Trump was prudent to act as he did. It could certainly divert an uncontrollable situation at the border. Not sure if two other caravans have formed and are headed our way, could be fake news... Although, if true hopefully they will disperse when they hear how the first caravan was met.
"Troops are being used due to unrest at the border."
Under the Posse Comitatus Act, it is illegal for active duty military forces to engage in domestic law enforcement activities(1).
The Act does is not applicable to the National Guard.
As per the Military Times, this means:
". . . [active duty] troops will not be allowed to detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping a migrant caravan that is still about 1,000 miles from the nearest border crossing"(2).
(1) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385
(2) https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your … er-can-do/"domestic law enforcement"
This problem is international and poses a possible threat to our border. This is in no way domestic???
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mad … beb983556b
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi … er-n862891If we are stupid enough to allow them to cross the border then they are on American soil, and the laws are American laws. Domestic, then.
Give that it is illegal to shoot someone in this country, one must wonder if the army could repel an armed invasion during war time...Once they hit the border (or are in our airspace, as in Pearl Harbor) can the military then take no action?We certainly should be able to defend our borders with force if necessary. If threatened with weaponry we by law can defend our borders with weaponry. I would very much doubt the people in the caravan will use weapons? Hopefully not. I also believe if they start to destroy border fencing to enter illegally they will be pushed back with manpower force.
Certainly we can defend our borders, and with force if necessary. Armed or unarmed, against armed or unarmed invaders. We have both a legal and ethical right to do this.
Unfortunately, many in this country will have a hissy fit if a single invader is harmed, and repelling a horde of people, especially people using their children as shields, without harming any of them is a difficult task. Heaven help the soldier that hurts someone, especially a child. It requires truly overwhelming manpower to do that, which is a very good reason that we are massing just that at the border.
I see people crying about the number of personnel we are putting there, and wonder why we're doing it so early (with the caravan just one day's hard drive from the border), but can only assume that those people complaining don't want the caravan stopped. At least without hurting anyone - it would make an absolutely wonderful rallying point for unlimited immigration if some of the invaders die in the attempt or are even seriously injured.
The nationality of the people involved makes no difference. Stopping asylum seekers crossing the border at an improper time or place is still domestic, civilian law enforcement.
The law that makes it illegal is a federal (domestic), civilian law. Specifically, Title 8, Section 275 of the Immigration and Nationality Act(2) or Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. Code(3)
The DoD lists the Posse Comitatus Act under "statutory restrictions" in a DOD instruction about providing support for civilian law enforcement agencies:
"The primary restriction on DoD participation in civilian law enforcement activities is the Posse Comitatus Act"(1).
That is also likely the reason General Joseph Dunford (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) said:
"There is no plan for US military forces to be involved in the actual mission of denying people entry to the United States(4)".
(1) http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docum … 02521p.pdf (p.15)
(2) https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB … #0-0-0-332
(3) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
(4) https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/11/05/poli … index.htmlWell Don, I wish you were around to give that information to Bill Clinton, who deployed the Army, Navy and Marines to handle the Cuban & Haitian Migrant Crisis back in the mid-90s.
Would have saved me many months of my life from dealing with them, it would have also saved quite a few lives, as they rioted more than once (of course the 'official' story will never inform of those riots or who died and how).
This went on for many months, they went from an island of Panama to Gitmo Cuba. There weren't many women or children among a group that swelled to 25,000 either, those unfortunate enough who were, often were raped repeatedly and by so many men, they had to be medically evacuated.
CNN never told the truth back then either. They were mostly young men that had been thrown out of the prison system of Cuba who were told if they came back to Cuba they would be killed.
Reality is always more difficult and complex than anything the likes of lying CNN will say.
These people cannot be allowed to simply cross the border and go wherever they like... and that is exactly what will happen if the military is not deployed to deal with them... a few hundred border agents spread across thousands of miles of border cannot contend with a group of people thousands strong.I'm simply stating current law and DoD policy.
If the Executive, members of Congress, or the public, believe those laws and policies need to be changed, there are processes for repealing and/ or amending them.
Unless that happens, active duty military forces are, in fact, prohibited from providing the following forms of direct civilian law enforcement assistance, without an Act of Congress:
"(a) Interdiction of a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other similar activity.
(b) A search or seizure.
(c) An arrest; apprehension; stop and frisk; engaging in interviews, interrogations, canvassing, or questioning of potential witnesses or suspects; or similar activity. . . "(1)
In the case of violence, the situation is more complex, as the doctrine of inherent self-defense comes into play, but that's moot (assuming the statements by the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is accurate):
"There is no plan for soldiers to come in contact with immigrants or to reinforce the Department of Homeland Security as they conduct their mission . . .
. . . There is no plan for US military forces to be involved in the actual mission of denying people entry to the United States(2)(3)(4)(5)".
(1) http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docum … 02521p.pdf (p.17)
(2) https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4150 … ntact-with
(3) https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 … ravan.html
(4) https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … -invasion/
(5) https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2 … y-into-u-s
I have on thing to offer. Do you really believe General James Mattis does not know the law and would deploy his Military to a sight where he would be breaking the law? And do you feel Congress would also ignore their duty in upkeeping the law? All these armchair opinions are becoming somewhat ridiculous. The troops have been ordered to guard the borders and keep the peace while it is determined who is actually in need of asylum. My comment was referring to the right for the troops to be deployed to the border over and above. A caravan that is possibly intending to break the law by crossing our borders is not a domestic problem. It is a group of people that have made it very clear by busting through Mexico's borders and continuing to head toward our borders that they are approaching to obtain entrance into the USA. Will they make an attempt at legal border entries or storm the border as they did in Mexico? We have no way of determining this... It is clear it is better to be prepared to keep the peace than have any form of lawbreaking. The president has stated many times he will not let them in illegally and provide some form of housing for them to wait until they can be heard. This appears a very sensible plan! We have over 11 million illegals we know of some numbers reach as high as 23 million. Thank God we have a president that is at least making an attempt to solve this horrendous problem.
I am so tired of seeing this man ripped up one side and down the other for trying to help solve problems. Especially this one. It is our tax dollar that supplements many of the illegals citizens. Give me a break... All this blaming is getting old. Ho to state it simply - We have a problem we no longer should sweep it under a rug, it needs solving. We now have a president that has stepped up to try to solve it! All the other bandaids did not work. Get behind your president on this one."Do you really believe General James Mattis does not know the law and would deploy his Military to a sight where he would be breaking the law? "
No
"And do you feel Congress would also ignore their duty in upkeeping the law?"
Yes. After decades of doing exactly that, there is no reason to think they will suddenly change their mind and enforce our laws to the best of their ability.
Don, "The nationality of the people involved makes no difference. Stopping asylum seekers crossing the border at an improper time or place is still domestic, civilian law enforcement". You are incorrect...
The U.S. Border Patrol Agent (as opposed to Officer) is a federal law enforcement agent actively patrolling a U.S. border to prevent persons from entering or leaving the United States without government permission. The United States Border Patrol (USBP) is a U.S. federal law enforcement agency whose mission is to detect and prevent illegal aliens, terrorists, and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, and prevent illegal trafficking of people and contraband. I am not sure why you feel it is up to domestic law enforcement to handle anyone coming into this country illegally? The Federal Government have several divisions that handle any and all immigration problems.
Pos·se Com·i·ta·tus Act
/ˌpäsē ˌkämiˈtādəs ˌakt/Submit
nounLAW
a federal statute prohibiting the use of the military in civilian law enforcement.
This law has nothing to do with anyone that crosses our borders illegally. It was made for civil discourse within our country. These people have not set foot in the country and will be handled as lawbreakers if they become combative with weapons they would be met as invaders, combatants. You are misinterpreting Posse Comitatus Act. You might want to do further research into the Act.the federal agencies that enforce immigration laws are civilian law enforcement agencies.
The DoD explicitly prohibits active duty military forces from providing direct civilian law enforcement assistance, without an Act of Congress. Activities that fall into this category include:
"(a) Interdiction of a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other similar activity.
(b) A search or seizure.
(c) An arrest; apprehension; stop and frisk; engaging in interviews, interrogations, canvassing, or questioning of potential witnesses or suspects; or similar activity. . . "(1)
It cites the Posse Comitatus Act as one of the reasons for this prohibition.
Military units and personnel always retain the right of inherent self-defense, but this is moot because according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
"There is no plan for US military forces to be involved in the actual mission of denying people entry to the United States . . .
. . . There is no plan for soldiers to come in contact with immigrants or to reinforce the Department of Homeland Security as they conduct their mission(2)(3)(4)(5)".
Also, in case you are unaware, it is not illegal to enter the country to seek asylum. In fact you have to be physically present in the country to apply for asylum:
"To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States"(6).
It is only illegal to enter the country at an "improper" entry point(7).
Even if someone is apprehended entering the country illegally, they can still have the right to claim asylum under federal law, and must not be prosecuted while their claim is being processed(8)(9).
(1) http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docum … 02521p.pdf (p.17)
(2) https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4150 … ntact-with
(3) https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 … ravan.html
(4) https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … -invasion/
(5) https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2 … y-into-u-s
(6) https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu … ted-states
(7) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
(8) ibid
(9) http://www.unhcr.org/uk/3b66c2aa10 (Article 31, p.29)"It is only illegal to enter the country at an "improper" entry point(7). "
This is true. If a person hopes to get asylum they present at a legal border crossing, they are interviewed, and at that point, up until now, we would let them enter while they waited for a decision on their asylum. At this point, Trump has claimed anyone in this caravan can apply for asylum but will be held in a compound until their case is heard. This seems for the time being to be very fair. Our immigration laws need fixing, and it's time to change them to benefit America.
And you feel that the caravan will make an attempt to enter at legal border crossings? Once as stated our military is legally allowed to protect our borders and able to use weaponry if confronted with weaponry.
" . There is no plan for soldiers to come in contact with immigrants or to reinforce the Department of Homeland Security as they conduct their mission(2)(3)(4)(5)"."
This is true, however, if met with force, our military can and will protect our laws.
I am not sure why you believe that our border agents are a civilian organization? Our border agents are federal agents hired and paid by the Federal Government. And I can assure you their deployment to the border is legal. I have provided a link that might help you become acquainted with customs and border protection.
https://www.cbp.gov/"I am not sure why you believe that our border agents are a civilian organization?"
The DoD defines a law enforcement agency as:
"Any of a number of agencies (outside the Department of Defense) chartered and empowered to enforce US laws in the United States, a state or territory (or political subdivision) of the United States . . ."(1)
And a civilian law enforcement official as:
"An officer or employee of a civilian Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency with responsibility for enforcement of the laws within the jurisdiction of that agency"(2).
Therefore, according to DoD definitions, Customs and Border Protection (CPB) is a law enforcement agency, and CPB officers are civilian law enforcement officials.
(1) https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp1_02.pdf (p.139)
(2) http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docum … 02521p.pdf (p.42)
"As links in this thread show..something like 70% of those in past caravans did show up to court and follow through with the process."
And those that were turned down - where are they now? Still in the US? Waiting at the border for a dark night? Working in Mexico? Those in this caravan have stated they will enter illegally if necessary...asylum is just an easier path to get in.
Total costs for illegal immigration are estimated at something over 115 Billion per year. That will build a lot of wall!
https://www.fairus.org/issue/publicatio … -taxpayersSure. And we don't need a wall in each spot on the border. There are places where more wall will be helpful, and that much should be done.
wilderness, you have questioned almost every factual source of information provided in this thread, including reports by the CBO, DHS and Natural Academies of Sciences. None of those reports agree with your opinion.
Why haven't you questioned a single aspect of the report you linked to above?
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Liberdweebs apparently don't even understand legal , illegal , at least not as it pertains to immigration .
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
NEWSFLASH , Soldiers and operations have to be paid anyway , whether at the border or on "active duty " in the middle east . There is NO additional cost to protecting America's borders by the military .
I love pointing out facts that libbers ignore !
Why do they ignore facts?
No I won't say it . 
The Unprecedented Vitriolic NEVER Ending Flow of Blatant LIEs, Unprecedented Level of Corruption and Unabashed HYPOCRISY that is Spewed from the Trump Family is far Beyond STUNNING:You need to do research before posting your comments.
According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a person can gain citizenship if “at least one parent, including an adoptive parent, is a U.S. citizen by birth or through naturalization.” If Trump were to take away birthright citizenship, the Trump children would still be citizens because their father is a U.S. citizen. His children became citizens the moment they were born due to their father being a citizen. Birthright citizenship is very different. If a child is born in the here their parents do not have to have citizenship. They are made citizens just because mom gave birth to her... Do you post nonfactual statements? Do some research before commenting on a complicated subject. Your comment is why ridiculous untrue rhetoric spreads like wildfire. There are always those looking for feed.
https://apnews.com/afs:Content:2449102499That's just false Sharlee01 but in any event, you're missing the point:
I certainly addressed the point. Your comment was not based on any form of factual information. I would think you could have ascertained that just by reading my resource.
WHY wasn't Ivana Trump harassed, threatened or deported when she was an illegal alien and who knows, without looking at documentation, she may still be illegal and WHY weren't her children caged? If they were deported as they should have been, this country would absolutely be better off today:
Jake I provide a link that explained how and when Ivan became a citizen. She was never here illegally? Her children were upon birth citizens due to their father being a citizen. This is much different from illegal citizens coming into the country and having a child. The mother or father are not citizens, there should be no law that makes their child a citizen due to just being born here. Now if one or the other parent is a legal citizen such as in Trump's case yes the child would be a citizen. Hope this clears this up for you...
To my knowledge, Ivana Trump was UNDOCUMENTED which means according to rabid republicans she should have been deported before her lovely children were born:
You do realize their father is an American don't you?
If your question is for me the answer is NO, I don't know if their father was an American at the time his wife was illegal, or if he now is an American without seeing documented proof and if you're asking me to simply believe him without said proof, I'd choose to believe the Earth is flat first and given Donald's unprecedented proclivity for serial lying, I'd probably be right:
You are wrong on one point. Most are "anti ILLEGAL immigrant." Yes, there is a difference between a legal and illegal immigrant.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
The phenomenon of Trumpism hasn't fueled any new radicalism on the left , his speeches haven't divided , his remarks haven't created a movement of leftists regurgitating Trump . It is wholly the meltdown OF THE LEFT in reaction to this entire grass roots American movement that is frying leftist brains .
Two years of shock for the left is a short time , It amazes me just how much success that the left HAS TO TOTALLY IGNORE in this Trump movement in order to still see this grass roots movement-- away from established DC politics-- as a failure !
There is no party in American history that has so blatantly bared naked the desires of a nanny state government for itself ,--as the modern day Democrat . The same thing they usually do when people come to the border.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Debt ; Definition .
This is the majority of what America gets at the massively porous southern border , Debt ! Single parented fatherless families with multiple fathered children of mothers who don't know anything about and can't afford birth control, The economic liability of a 15th century culture injected into the 21rst century America .
And guess what they recieve when they get here , a birth certificate because they don't know what a paper record is , free medical care , welfare ,education , essentially a free lunch for life , affirmative action , Why , because they are a minority invited here by the shortage of DNC voter roles . - Onusonusposted 5 years ago0
Question: If capitalism is evil and Socialism is the answer, why isn't the caravan headed towards Venezuela? It's less than half the distance.
Good question. I'll be interested in hearing some answers from the liberal socialists here.
I don't think any "ism" is evil or good. I don't think people can even stick to an "ism." Is our corporate crony capitalism really the free enterprise "ism" many Americans see it as? Could it ever be that way, and stay that way, considering the natural inclination for the wealthy to rig the game to keep others away from their stack? The same holds true for socialism, communism, any ism.
It's more about the little guys fighting for their little slice and being taken advantage of as least as possible. All these isms amount to BSism.A little (a lot) off topic of illegal aliens, but have you heard the term "bread and circuses"? From Robert Heinlein, noted author and philosopher, in one of his novels:
"A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’
‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.”
IMO, we are nearing that point, where democracy will either begin the long slide down or we will do something about the bleeding of the "haves" to satisfy the needs and wants of the "have nots".
We are at the point where half the country, contributing little to nothing towards the needs of the nation, is voting to determine how much of the production of the other half they will take, and how it will be spent. That tendency, and the requirement that the "haves" provide not only for the nation but for the personal needs and desires of the "have nots" as well, has been growing for many decades and shows no indication that it is slowing; if anything the rate of growth is accelerating. Those that contribute towards the nation's needs are indeed being bled unmercifully and it cannot continue much further without major, negative, results. IMO.
There is a middle ground where everything can work, but we have passed that point (witness the amount of wealth transferred out of the country, out of the reach of the "plebs") with no indication that it will ever stop or even slow. Whether it be purely pork barrel spending for museums or a new library, or for Obamacare to save lives, the demand on the pocketbooks of those that actually contribute and support our nation must end. Heinlein is right; when the "plebs" have the power to take whatever they want from those that worked for and earned it, the nation is in trouble and cannot long endure.
And all the crying, hand wringing, and cries of compassion will not change it. Empathy will change nothing, nor will tears (guess you could throw in empathy and tears for immigrants here and call it on topic
). Whether we call them "rich", "evil" or just "the big guys", demonizing them as an excuse to forever bleed them for our wants WILL destroy all of us in the long term. IMO.Interesting but a little skewed IMO. I've read some Heinlein but not familiar with that exact term.He is a little Ayn Rand-ish. I don't entirely disagree about the inevitable demise of democracy. However, I don't think attempting to get a bigger share of the pie and stating those that have the biggest share want to keep the biggest share is demonizing. In fact, isn't that inherent i democracy?
There's nothing wrong with have nots wanting a little more. And many of us are willing to work very hard for that little more. If democracy dies because people like my family work to get more of the pie, then so be it.
"Those that contribute towards the nation's needs are indeed being bled unmercifully "
These are the very people that need to work to get more...the middle and lower middle class. It says something about your lens that you automatically jump to think I'm referring to some sort of welfare state.Perhaps I misunderstand your thrust.
"Is our corporate crony capitalism really the free enterprise "ism" many Americans see it as? Could it ever be that way, and stay that way, considering the natural inclination for the wealthy to rig the game to keep others away from their stack? The same holds true for socialism, communism, any ism.
It's more about the little guys fighting for their little slice and being taken advantage of as least as possible. All these isms amount to BSism."
I took all of these (bolded) to indicate demonization of the rich. Was I wrong? Do you find them to be complimentary? Is it wrong, somehow, to want to keep ownership of what you built? And I DID take it all to be about the rich not giving enough to the poor - was I wrong?
"There's nothing wrong with have nots wanting a little more. And many of us are willing to work very hard for that little more."
But working hard for what you get was never the topic; it was voting to simply take what is wanted because you can (not you personally, understand). Are we talking about different things here?
I WILL say that the Doctor was wrong in one thing - there IS a self-correction...available to the very rich. They leave and/or they protect what they have in different ways as well. The middle class does not have the resources to do that and end up suffering the brunt of the "gimme" crowd.
"These are the very people that need to work to get more...the middle and lower middle class."
Why? So they can give more to the lower classes? I would have said that if the lower class wants more then work for it, not the middle class. (Of course, if the middle class wants more they, too, should work for more).You are misunderstanding and making assumptions about most everything I'm stating here...trying to make an argument against something that's not there.
So, back to the basics. Those with money will do what it takes to keep it. Those without money will do what they can to get it. This is the case no matter the system of government. Is it wrong for those with the money to rig the system in their favor? Well, I guess you can determine that however you wish. I know it's being going on since the beginning of human economic systems.
You're attempting to make way more out of what I said here and taking the conversation where you want it to go, which is not reflective of my points.
"But working hard for what you get was never the topic; it was voting to simply take what is wanted because you can (not you personally, understand). --Really???
The topic was capitalism, socialism, etc. I responded to this question
"Question: If capitalism is evil and Socialism is the answer, why isn't the caravan headed towards Venezuela? It's less than half the distance."
My response was all isms are equally evil, or equally unevil, however you want to look at it. They are all BS as they may look good on paper but never end up true to what they are supposed to be. I was very much on topic of the question I responded to and it's not that complicated. We could see people running from capitalism at some point...you essentially agreed on thatOK - we're talking different things then. My apologies if it upset you - it certainly wasn't meant to. I gave that quote as something to think about and consider, not something to start an argument.
But I will respond to "Is it wrong for those with the money to rig the system in their favor?". Yes and no. It is wrong to rig the system in your favor...but it is equally wrong to have to rig the system in order to protect yourself from those that would take what you have built. Back to socialism, I know, but that's my thought on it.It didn't upset me at all just trying to get my point across. I don't see much disagreement here and there was much more than the quote in your response.
But, I'm a bit confused about this: "it is equally wrong to have to rig the system in order to protect yourself from those that would take what you have built."
Isn't free enterprise about the potential to lose what you have to someone else. So, wouldn't rigging the system thus go against free enterprise? Maybe if we ever had true free enterprise there would be no need for rigging.
I just think true free enterprise, on a nation-state scale, is entirely impossible. Perhaps this is your main point as well? .
Back to socialism? It never works out as it should...just like any ism.If you have a level playing field, and that field is such that you will have what you have produced taken from you as a result, then you "rig the system" to protect yourself. Sad that you have to do that just to protect what you have built from those that will take it for their own use. (Clearer now? I'm not always so good at explaining my thoughts)
No, completely free enterprise does not work. That's pretty well accepted everywhere. The trick is to find that halfway point where incentive to produce still exists, yet sweat shops and corpses do not. Give to much and there is no incentive to work and produce, allow virtual slavery and production falls as does standard of living for all but a very few.
Well, the middle class here works VERY hard to get what we can. My family is not going to stop just as those with the means are not going to stop attempting to amass more. That's reality, not demonizing. I'm not speaking about a welfare state. There always has been and always will be a struggle between haves and have nots no matter how hard the have nots are working, or not working. If the have nots working to get their fair share destroys democracy than so be it. You could just as easily flip that on its head and say the same about those with the means..if only they would stop trying to amass more. The struggle will continue. We don't lay around in these parts...not my family.
We don't give up and just say..here please just pay me as little as you want and forget the lube. I used to read Heinlein as a teenager. He is a bit Ayn Randish
"Those that contribute towards the nation's needs are indeed being bled unmercifully and it cannot continue much further without major, negative, results. IMO." Yup, the middle class who have to struggle to just get any kind of decent healthcare.
Looks like the liberals fell silent on this one. Guess they'll have to keep on expanding government until big brother is in everyone's lives to figure it out.
- PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago0
What do you wanna bet that the military will not be deployed?
It was a ruse to fire up his invasion-fearing base. Shall we start a pool on what date he will even mention the caravan again??? It is already deployed. And if that deployment succeeds in convincing that caravan not to enter, we're all ahead.
Clearly he will not.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/se … th-n930751
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Does anyone here realize that entering America illegally automatically means for the applying person ,"political asylum " is out of the question ?
I don't think that is quite right Ed. I won't quote that part of our immigration law to you, but it is easily found if you are interested.
GAToday Trump signed a proclamation denying the right to claim asylum to those who enter the country illegally(1)(2)(3)(4).
That proclamation violates Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act:
"Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b)"(5)(my emphasis)
If asylum seekers who enter illegally are not allowed to claim asylum, there is no way to know if they qualify for refugee status. Prosecuting people who qualify for refugee status would be a violation of Article 31 of the UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, to which the US is a signatory:
"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization . . ."(6).
If people who qualify for refugee status are returned to the country they are fleeing from (an act called "refoulement") that also violates Article 33 of the Convention:
"No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion"(7).
(1) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential … ed-states/
(2) https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-m … d=59068944
(3) https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nat … story.html
(4) https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/poli … 933051002/
(5) https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB … -1687.html
(6) http://www.unhcr.org/uk/3b66c2aa10 (p.29)
(7) ibid (p.30)Looks like another court challenge. It seems a 'Proclamation' like this would require some type of Congressional authority. At least that is what good ol' Wiki says.
But since I didn't look any further than what Wiki and my gut says, maybe Ed is right.
GA
The law on immigration and related matters favors the President.
Legal precedents have traditionally accorded the chief executive complete and nearly unchecked power to deny foreigners permission to enter the United States.
"The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power," the Supreme Court said in 1950. And lest there be doubt, Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president "may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants" whenever he thinks it "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."Damn Ken, now I have to either accept that interpretation and flip-flop, or dig deeper, (and maybe still flip-flop). "I'll be back..."
GAAnd yet it took a SCOTUS decision to bar travelers from terrorist laden countries that do not vet their people.
Technically the proclamation does not suspend or restrict entry. Entering the country at an improper place is already fully prohibited. You can't suspend or restrict something that is already fully prohibited.
Instead the proclamation suspends the right to claim asylum for those who enter the country at an improper place, i.e. people who will have already entered the country.
". . . aliens who enter the United States unlawfully through the southern border in contravention of this proclamation will be ineligible to be granted asylum under the regulation promulgated by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security that became effective earlier today."(1).
Those people will be, by definition, physically present in the country.
There is no provision or legal precedent (that I am aware of) that supports the suspension of the right to claim asylum for people who are physically present in the country.
The authority conferred on the president by the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes suspension of entry, not suspension of the right to claim asylum once already entered. That right also comes from the Immigration and Nationality Act:
"Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 235(b)"(2)(my emphasis)
(1) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential … ed-states/
(2) https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB … -1687.htmlThat didn't take long Ken. A quick $29.99 for my internet Law Degree, and a few Google links, and I have reached a verdict: You and Ed appear to be right about the validity of Pres. Trump's proclamation - relative to this specific 'Refugee', (the caravan immigrants), instance, to deny entry. However, illegal entry is already illegal. So that part is moot.
But unless we have a "Safe Third Country" agreement with Mexico, I don't see how his proclamation can have its stated legal authority on immigrants that do make the crossing. Without that Mexico agreement, I think his Proclamation contravenes the law, and will lose in court.
If you think Pres. Obama's DACA order was an unconstitutional abuse of power - ignoring the law, how can you not think Pres. Trump's Proclamation is not also ignoring the law?
Maybe you see this as a Lincoln Habeas Corpus moment. The courts will have to see it that way for the Proclamation to pass muster.
GA
Related Discussions
- 46
Elderly man who couldn't afford health care kills wife, then himself
by Don W 4 years ago
"The Whatcom County Sheriff's Office is treating the deaths of the 77-year-old man and his 76-year-old wife as a suspected murder/suicide. . .The husband and wife were found dead from suspected gunshot wounds. Officers found several notes which cited "severe ongoing medical problems with...
- 10
A Simple Honest Look At Biden's Immigration Executive Orders
by Sharlee 2 years ago
A simple, and honest look at Biden's immigration changes. Soon after Biden entered the Oval Office he had a quest to signed one executive (EO) order after another that would cancel out Trump's immigration policies. 11 million undocumented immigrants will be offered an 8-year path to...
- 115
Caravan of Central American migrants reaches U.S. border
by Ken Burgess 5 years ago
A vanguard of the thousands of Central American migrants, who have been traveling for more than a month, has reached the U.S.-Mexico border where they hope to seek asylum. What have you heard, what do you think?
- 172
Who supports illegal immigration?
by Eric Dierker 9 years ago
I cannot find a group that supports illegal immigration. Yet we cannot stop it. Now that is pathetic. So we must conclude that without saying it, some - many in America support it and do what they can to stop control of it. It would seem that this should be a target for midterm elections. Who does...
- 74
Migrants Coming To A City Near You - If You Offer Sanctuary
by Sharlee 6 months ago
A Texas mayor is sounding the alarm amid a dramatic spike in migrants crossing the U.S. border, saying his city has reached a "breaking point.""The city of El Paso only has so many resources and we have come to... a breaking point right now," El Paso Mayor Oscar Leeser, a...
- 271
Will the Trump Wall keep us safe?
by Lela Cargill 5 years ago
Explain how Trump's Wall will be different from the Berlin Wall or the Wall in Israel. How will it "keep us safe"?