In the news: a 4000 - 5000 person immigrant caravan is heading for the U.S. border - determined to enter the United States.
"TAPACHULA, Mexico (Reuters) - Defying the efforts of four governments to break them up, thousands of mostly Honduran migrants rose at dawn on Sunday from the shores of a river between Guatemala and Mexico and continued their trek northward."
Here is one source for the story: Reuters - Thousands of Hondurans in U.S.-bound migrant caravan head into Mexico
It appears Mexico is not ignoring the caravan, but it is unclear what they may do.
The immigrants, (their leaders), have acknowledged their planned entry is illegal, and that Pres. Trump is fighting illegal entry.
These immigrants do not appear to qualify as legitimate asylum seekers, and several thousand have circumvented Mexico's efforts to register them. (Mexico has asked the U.N. for help - Blue helmets at our Southern border?)
Can it be denied that this is a blatant announcement, from the caravan, that they don't care about our laws, their plight takes precedent?
So what to we do, (the U.S.), if they make it to our border? Is there a choice other than military reinforcement of the Border patrol?
Or, should we just let them in?
It seems logical to follow our own laws. According to Wikipedia:
"A specified number of legally defined refugees who either apply for asylum from inside the U.S. or apply for refugee status from outside the U.S., are admitted annually."
I had the impression Mexico is doing little to stop the caravan. Its government and voters are quite unhappy with our current President, so I'm not surprised they aren't stopping it.
More details on the law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in … ted_States
I followed your link promisem, but I am not sure of your point.
We have a quota for refugee and asylum seekers. We have laws and processes to make those determinations.
It appears the caravan plans to ignore both our laws and our processes.
It also appears, by their, (caravan participants), own words, that they are not fleeing persecution, but are fleeing poor, (terrible?), national conditions. And, by their own words, they intend to flout both our processes and laws.
Is your point that we should let them in, then sort it out?
I'm saying we should let in anyone who fits the existing laws of the country for people seeking asylum.
That means we let in anyone in that caravan who fits the laws and keep out anyone who doesn't.
As is said ... That's easy for you to say ...
How do you propose we handle them? They have already declared, by words and actions, that they do not intend to abide by our laws. If their current actions in Mexico are an indicator, they will not abide by our registration processes either.
So, we see a horde coming. We know the horde has intentions of acting illegally. Data suggests that in the past, our immigration process releases, (on their promise to return), around 98%, of processed immigrant applicants. Data also suggests that around 70% - 80% of that 98% just stay in the U.S. - and never return to the processing centers - as they promised.
I would suggest that we view this incident specifically, and not as generally applicable to our laws. This caravan intends to purposely break our laws - yet you want to let them in, all the while understanding the above numbers.
That doesn't work for me. I would offer them every benefit of our laws - only if they abide by our laws. Set up a processing center, especially for them, like Mexico did, but immediately deport every single person that attempts to circumvent* that process, (and our laws) - which Mexico didn't.
*How do you feel about the folks that determined they didn't have to wait to be processed in Mexico because it was taking too long? Or the ones that didn't enter the processing line because they knew they weren't eligible? (both of these examples came from the words of caravan members)
I don't think our laws demand we 'let them in', I think they demand we must offer them the chance to get in - legally via our immigration processes.
Line up the buses. Everyone that that leaves the caravan and tries to enter illegally - board them and drive them back to Mexico - which I understand has agreed to accept them back.
Then, if Mexico doesn't deport them, they can try again via the processing line. However, that first illegal entry strike might be a deal breaker.
You grossly misunderstand my answers. Nor do I understand the hostile tone of your reply.
"Yet you want to let them in." I made no such generalization. I clearly said we should follow the law and let in only people who qualify for asylum.
I also don't see how your 5th paragraph and final 3 paragraphs are any different than what the law provides, which I fully supported in my comments.
Holy cow promisem!
I did misunderstand your intention. I took your reply as we should let them come on in and sort them out after that.
But ... there was no hostile tone intended, nor, on rereading my response did I see one. I saw a firmly stated response directed at what I perceived was your position. Even though that perception turned out to be wrong, I still don't see anything hostile about it. Challenging maybe, but not hostile.
Could your perception be as wrong as mine was?
Perhaps you could clarify the first sentence in your previous response.
I'll remove the last sentence of mine.
"...easier said than done?" I don't think you mean this one, but if so, it speaks for itself. Look at how overloaded our processing system is now. Imagine hitting it with 5000 more at one shot.
"How do you propose we handle them?" If you meant this one, considering the inference of the lead sentence, (as explained above), and my miss-perception that you meant we should let them in and sort them out later, that also seems clear - I was asking just what the sentence said.
Yes, it was challenging, because my obvious inference was that I didn't see any other logical solution to the approaching problem. But I don't think that inference should be legitimately taken as hostile.
If Mexico won't or can't stop them then there isn't much we can do except reinforce our own borders.
The answer is not to ignore our laws...again...and once more tell others that anyone that wants in can come in. That's been done over and over with the inevitable result that more show up. A policy, then, that has failed multiple times.
That is, in essence, the way I see it too Wilderness. The biggest problem I see, and also the biggest negative against the caravan, is their stated intention to ignore our laws and processes.
I believe this to be a direct, and serious national challenge. I do not see any way we can allow this caravan to succeed - by their measure. I would have less of a problem if they queued-up in Mexico and honored our ways - but that doesn't seem to be their intent.
So I say they must be stopped from illegally entering the U.S.
How is your final sentence any different from what I said that you seemed to find objectionable?
"It seems logical to follow our own laws."
"That means we let in anyone in that caravan who fits the laws and keep out anyone who doesn't."
As you will have seen by now, I wasn't upset. You misunderstood my original response.
We have laws, they should be enforced to the letter. No one should be allowed to enter without going through our vetting procedures, as well as our immigration procedures. They should be met by the military. We have a right to protect our borders. Our government has looked the other way for many years, time to stop this blatant disregard for our immigration laws. We now have a president that is making an effort to fix our immigration laws. It's time he is given the support he needs to stop illegals from pouring across a very porous border.
I agree with your first two sentences. But illegal immigration was dropping long before Trump took office.
Actually, I was addressing the question posed. "Chronological Threaded
What Should The U.S. Do When The Coming Immigrant Caravan Arrives"
Not sure why you feel I was blaming any one person for the immigration problem and the 14 million illegal immigrants that currently live in America? My statement was very clear - "Our government has looked the other way for many years," and yes I do stand behind my statement in regards to President Trump I do feel he will handle the problem, as he has many problems that have plagued the country. 14 million illegal immigrants in America. Yes, it's well overdue that our government does something about such a blatant problem. Many of us want immigration laws changed to favor America, and American's, some prefer open borders. We all have a right to an opinion on the subject. I have made my opinion very clear, and I am sorry if it offends anyone.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illeg … tatistics/
I'm not sure why you think I'm accusing you of blaming anyone for anything. I agreed with an important part of your comment.
Otherwise, you stated, "It's time he is given the support he needs to stop illegals."
My response is related to the fact that the number of people who are trying to get into the country illegally is dropping. So has the total illegal population.
They have both dropped because the federal government increased support for the fight against illegals years ago starting with the peak in 2008.
Otherwise, kudos for using a good source of information for our debate.
We should obviously shoot them. These are rapists and murderers. We can't let them in and should do everything in our power to stop them.
Just a thought... Would it be fair to say we need to not only look at our immigration laws being ignored daily at our borders but also the financial burden illegal as well as some legal immigrants pose to America? First, the very shock of our national debt should make one stop and think (over 21 trillion dollars). Second, the fact that much of the money that is owed has been borrowed from SS, the fund we all paid and are paying into. Do we not also give billions in aids to the very countries these people come from?
I ask the question simply can we afford to take in millions of immigrants per year, let alone an undisclosed number of illegal immigrants? One must ask, will this influx of illegal immigrants bog down our growing economy? Are we willing to tip the delicate economy balance due to the fact some want open borders and perhaps don't want to face the problems that as a rule occurs with open borders? Also, there is the problem of anchor babies, chain migration, and the lottery that further the problem of illegal immigration.
It should be very apparent we have a problem, and laws need changing, and to be enforced. It astounds me how the financial end of this problem is not being looked at by all the pundits. Yes, many espouse the humanitarian accept, and the fact that laws need changing, but the financial end is covered very little. Maybe my common sense is working overtime. I have to ask can we afford open borders, are we not being charitable by providing aid to countries that need our help? Yes, we need to always consider those that need asylum. However, it asylum seekers must present a case, and not just walk in and break our laws.
Thousands of military-aged, mostly Honduran males breached the Guatemala border gate [two weekends ago] and stormed the Mexican border bridge; Mexican authorities ultimately let the caravan through.
A second caravan of 2,000 migrants formed on Sunday and started marching to Guatemala with a plan to reach the U.S. as their final destination.
According to a Univision correspondent, Bangladeshis joined the migrant caravan before it crossed from Guatemala into Mexico.
"A Spanish language reporter who has spent weeks embedded with the migrant caravan said in a Friday report that people from Bangladesh had joined the mass of people trying to cross from Guatemala into Mexico.
The Bangladeshis, he said, were detained in an immigration facility, though it’s not clear what happened to them after their detention."
"Mostly men now crossing the #Guatamalen border - rehearsed answer “this is not politics - this is about poverty.” There were women and children but they were at the front of the caravan (smaller numbers). None would say who the organizers are but several said it was organized."
"Guatemalan intelligence discovered people from India, Bangladesh, Africa had also joined in with the caravan -I bumped into a number of young MS 13 gang members." 5:17 PM - Oct 22, 2018
We have no idea who these people are. There could be ISIS fighters, MS-13 gang members and people with dangerous diseases, to not thoroughly process who they are, and treat those who are sick, is unconscionable.
The media outlets that try to paint this as mostly women and children are outright deceiving and lying. The majority are desperate or dangerous young men, from various parts of the world.
I believe I stated on here my experiences with this type of situation before, I do not believe for one second that they will be turned away, that the majority will not eventually gain entry. We have not done this in decades, if ever, so a better alternative than lies and deception should be used... build the wall, build sanitary and safe processing centers, and deal with the reality that they are coming, and its never going to stop, unless and until our own economy collapses and their are better places in the world for them to try and get to.
What kind of stupid question is this? What should we do? This caravan is filled with terrorists from the Middle East, rapists, and murderers. We should just drop a small, tactical nuclear weapon on it.
It is pretty simple , Trump should divert the foreign aid of perhaps all central and south American nations and create a refugee camp on the Mexico side of our border , label it an international refugee camp , let the blue helmets man and cycle the refugees back top their respective nations .
I can see the resemblance. (the eyes, the eyes Ed!)
I seriously doubt anyone looks like this where you're from Ed Fisher:
Yeah right Ed Fisher aka ahorseback, I seriously doubt anyone looks like this where you live:
Re staging, this weekend a quick look at a liberal news report showed a hispanic reporter interviewing a supposed boy getting off a raft supposedly trying to get to America. She asked him his age and he replied 14...who knows? After much of her own chatter, she supposedly asked him why he wanted to go to America. He gave a short reply. It was notable that he and his clothing were very clean and his teeth were Hollywood white. He looked amused, was given a backpack, and moved away from cameras. She lied about what his reply to her question was, treating listeners to a longish soliloquy that anyone knowing anything about the language the boy spoke could recognize as a lie. If she had been honest the piece could have been poignant, but she lied. Casually listening to the garbage reports is allowing oneself to be emotionally manipulated. Americans need to be observant instead of being blind followers.
If you think this meme isn't agenda-driven and inflammatory right-wing rhetoric, you are not paying attention.
Does that mean its message isn't worth considering?
I can see this being staged by Trump. It looks like we really need to toughen up the border, better vote red to clamp it down. Is this what people are getting out of this? If not, I guess I don't get it. How can the caravan be good for Democrats?
I took just the opposite message hard sun. I read it to infer a Democrat ploy to energize Democrat and Independent voters - a la the past "kids in pens" imagery and emotional levers, to come out and vote against Republicans.
Now, I wonder which was the intended message?
Wait, you didn't bait me with more sarcasm did you?
Pssst, Democrats don't get riled up about immigration the way Republicans do. The jailing of children added more passion than is typical, but nowhere near the emotion thinking and talking about immigration engenders in the Republican base. Not even close. Any time immigration is in the forefront of the national psyche, Republicans (the politicians) are happy.
Psst, see my reply to hard sun. The issue that I thought might rile up someone's voters was the chaos I imagine happening at the border when the caravan arrives - likely near the mid-terms.
However, if they won't be arriving by mid-terms, then maybe hard sun's take on the meme might be the right one.
Ha..no, I didn't bait you though I kind of wish I could honestly say I did! I just genuinely saw it as a way to scare people into voting red to stop the mass invasion and missed the slant where it's good for the Dems.
Maybe that has something to do with where I live. This stuff fires up Trump voters. I think most of the people I know would see it as I did.
As per the issue, I don't have the answer other than act according to the law. I know that I wish there were someone in the White House who I felt had a good team around him/her, knew how to listen to that team, evaluate the situation, and make the best possible decision given what he/she has to work with. That someone could be Republican or Democrat.
I just sincerely think Trump is only good at self promotion, playing the media and his followers, and misinformation. I don't think he has what it takes to run anything efficiently, only destroy things efficiently.
I think we are looking at different angles hard sun. I can see your point about immigration issues firing up 'the base', but when I saw the meme I was thinking about the arrival timing. From the perspective of what the administration's response would be to their physical arrival - and I don't see it as being a pleasant image. I see it as a potentially upsetting to folks opposed to stopping illegal immigration - generally described by 'others' as "The Left."
Maybe we are both right, and the Illuminati posted the meme to play both sides...
I definitely see your angle now GA. If it's as Promisem states, and it appears to be:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 … ugees.html
it's a beautiful piece of right-wing propaganda. "The left wing is encouraging the invasion." Then again, the back story could all be made up and it's the Russi...I mean Illuminati playing us against each other as you said. RT is one of the main pushers of the Soros conspiracies. If Soros really is behind this, then he's either dumb as a box of rocks, or a double agent who is truly advancing Trump's cause.
The thing is, I don't think many of us are as far off on immigration as are the two extremes. I think most Americans want reasonable policy that allows for legal immigration and taking in of refugees. There are differences in nuances but the goal is the same. I think that in forums, such as these, the differences are often amplified, just as they are in the media and FB memes and such.
Are these people immigrants or refugees? I know the difference between the two, but what is the real reason as to why they are coming here? Does it go beyond economics? I don't think we will ever know the truth on that.
"I think most Americans want reasonable policy that allows for legal immigration and taking in of refugees. "
I don't know - when we have large cities and even states refusing to accept federal law, and doing what they can to assist illegals in violating that law, I'm not so sure that they really DO want a reasonable policy. Just open borders.
"what is the real reason as to why they are coming here? "
Because they have been told it is a land of milk and honey, where the "good life" is had by all. And because they don't want to make the effort to change their own country, of course.
Regarding your last point hard sun, multiple members of the caravan have spoken to the media, and in their own words, they are leaving their countries for better and safer living conditions - not fleeing persecution or targeted threatened violence - which are the conditions for asylum or refugee status.
"A 20-year-old named William said he left Honduras looking for work. There is no work back home," he said. "No future."
"One of the migrants marching to Ciudad Hidalgo, Luis Miguel Martinez, 30, also said his goal was to find work in the United States so he could feed his family, including two daughters he left behind in Honduras."
"And then there were the deportees. Many of the migrants here had previously lived in the United States... ‘It’s time for me to go back’: Deportees join migrant caravan to return to U.S.... "
"... He said he had returned to Guatemala when his visa expired 14 years ago. He found a job at a call center for Metro PCS, the cellular service provider, where he could make the most of his fluent English. But he earned at most $500 per month. Each time he received a call from a customer, the name of the American city where the client lived flashed on his screen. He searched the names of the cities on the Internet and stared at the monitor.
“When I heard about the caravan, I knew it was my chance,” he said. He called his cousin and uncle in California and told them he was on his way."
"Imner Anthony Fuentes, 29, had the same reaction. He had been deported five months ago from Birmingham, Ala. His son was still living there, with his U.S. citizen girlfriend, not far from the framing store where Fuentes had worked for six years. He was used to the back-and-forth: He said he had been deported six times.
“That’s just how it is,” Fuentes said. “They catch you, and you try to get back.”"
"Evin Mata, 21, said he was deported three months ago from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where he worked in construction not far from the city’s airport.
“We are workers. What are we supposed to do in Honduras if there’s no work?” he said"
"The deportees and returnees were clear about their intentions to cross the border illegally, hoping to slip between patrol officers.
“It’s the only way,” said Nestor Reyes, 34"
There were also quotes indicating they were fleeing the violence of their nations, some claiming political asylum, and more saying they were just looking for a better life for their families. But I could find no quotes indicating they were asylum seekers.
I can see all to be good reasons to apply for immigration permission, but they do not appear to meet the bar for asylum and refugee status.
Yet to many of the folks here, those are good enough reasons, regardless of our laws, policies, or the reality of our current illegal immigrant crisis.
For the sake of balance:
"They are walking in this mass exodus because they cannot live in their country anymore due to extreme violence,"
“We brought our daughters with us because we could not leave them behind. If I left them in Honduras, they would face much danger there because of criminals.”
"The 18th Street Gang set up a checkpoint, and every entering driver was asked: Where are you from? Where are you going? Anyone with wrong answers was shot on the spot. "
"The migrants and refugees are mostly fleeing a toxic mix of violence, poverty and corruption"
"I made the decision to join because there is no other alternative. I was overwhelmed by fear,"
“Honduran migrant caravan is not a security threat, but an act of survival by 100s of people escaping extreme violence, poverty, exclusion, and the inability of their government to protect their rights.”
"On June 26, 2014, members of the Ponce gang grabbed 13-year-old Andrea Abigail Argeñal Martínez because her family couldn’t afford the “war tax” the gang imposed on its tiny store. They raped Andrea for several days in that house, and called her mother so she could hear the girl’s screams as they cut her to death."
"Girls and boys are at risk of recruitment, whereas women can experience intimidation and sexual violence as a means of control by gang members. Families under threat are coerced into abandoning their homes with no hope of return. Many flee their homes because of fear."
"Endemic violence and crime have significantly compounded humanitarian needs in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, known as the Northern Triangle of Central America. Close to three million people rely on humanitarian assistance, nearly ten per cent of the total population. A total of 667,000 people have been internally displaced in these three countries."
"According to displaced people’s testimonies, internal displacement is often the starting point for a series of journeys with no end and no return in sight. Without adequate assistance and protection in their countries of origin, today’s internally displaced people become tomorrow’s refugees, asylum seekers or migrants."
"The Northern Triangle of Central America is one the most dangerous region for women. Seven of the ten countries with the world's highest murder rates for women are located in Central and Latin America."
“In El Salvador and Honduras, violence is often a widespread daily occurrence, where families routinely face extortion, and where gangs recruit children by force or make them participate in violent initiation rituals”
That is fair balance to add Don. I doubt many of us are unaware of those circumstances, and although I gave the motive of escaping violence short-shrift, I did mention it.
My point was to illustrate, by their own statements, why many were in the caravan.
As a guess, I would suppose that the majority of the women and children were coming to escape the violence of their nation, and to grab a chance for a better life for their kids. But I would also guess that most of the males were in the caravan for the reasons of my response.
I would also guess that many of the U.S. folks that are supportive of the caravan, like PrettyPanther, (just an illustration, not a jab), view the caravan as an entity of violence escapees - which I don't think is a true picture.
And judging from the media photos of those that crossed the river instead of abiding by Mexico's processing - which included some of those women and children, they have no intention of following our immigration processes either.
I still say line up the buses. Any that don't enter the registration and processing lines - from the Mexican side of the border, get immediately bused back to Mexico.
The reality is that they are on their way here, whether they are asylum seekers or not, so we must deal with them in some way. What would you do if you were the decider?
Hopefully you have seen 'my decision' by now ;-)
Agreed. The issue is a real one, and it is only going to escalate into hundreds of thousands more if they are not dealt with, and allowed to just walk in... we see this in CA which has in essence been over run by almost ten million illegal aliens according to some counts, impacted far more than any other state.
We had a Cuban Migrant Crisis back in the 90s, thousands of Cubans and Haitians that were trying to gain entry into the U.S.
Eventually they were allowed in, all of them, and received 7 years of Immigration Welfare, Housing, etc.
Our politicians are clearly uninterested in dealing with this issue, for a variety of reasons... the Democrats because they believe it is bringing in new voters who will vote for them, the Republicans because they answer to those large National corporations like Tyson and Toll Bros. who hire them by the thousands for half of what it would cost them to hire American citizens.
The prudent thing to do would be:
A) Build the damned wall so that you actually have a border.
B) Set up LARGE processing camps, at least one in each state along the Southern Border. In these camps you MUST do the following:
1) Separate families from non-families.
2) Women from Men where families are not clearly evident.
3) Women and Children from Men where abuse is evident
4) Recognized gang members and repeat offenders to be isolated from all others, to be repatriated back to their countries.
There are many problems with such waves of migrants, not the least of which is that the countries that they are from may be un-cooperative and refuse to take them back.
There are a variety of diseases they may bring with them.
During the Cuban Migrant Crisis there was a significant portion of the population that had TB and others with HIV. They needed to be identified and treated before being allowed to roam as they please throughout the U.S.
There was also a significant portion of that population that were dangerous criminals (murderers and rapists), the worst of humanity, as many were people that had been released from Cuban prisons and told make it to America or die trying.
Often the worst most reprehensible acts were done by the criminals within thousands that were detained first on an island off of Panama, and then at Gitmo.
While at Panama, they rioted, commandeered vehicles, burned down their tents, killed more than 20 Air Force and Panamanian soldiers (which was never reported and never made official) put more than 200 other people in the hospital.
It got so bad, it took efforts of the Panamanian military and Army Rangers who were there for JWT to restore control and keep them from reaching the mainland.
Their riots while in Gitmo were never so severe, but the restrictions placed on them and the precautions taken were more substantial. The deciding factor to their remaining relatively civil during their time there rested on the promises that they would soon be allowed into the states... as they eventually were.
There were minor riots, as well as assaults and rapes while they were detained in those camps however.
The shame of the 'Lefts' attack on the current processing of illegal aliens at our borders today is that they ignore the realities of how predacious some people can truly be, and if that the precautions being taken were not being done... many children and women would suffer horribly.
I question the wisdom of setting up enormous processing camps to house, feed and care for people trying to enter the country illegally.
Better, I think, to allow them in, one or two at a time, to file what documents are needed for whatever it is they want and send them back across the border to wait until their case is heard and judged. Mexico allowed and encouraged this caravan and they will do so with more...unless Mexico is paying the price for their complicity.
When you have 10,000 migrants crossing the border in one group, and you have no wall built to stop them, what exactly are you going to do?
Your 'solution' sounds very much like something that would come from the disconnected politicians in D.C..
As someone who has seen firsthand the disconnect between those making the policies and decisions in D.C. and the realities that are actually transpiring... whether we are dealing with a crisis in Somalia or a crisis on our borders, the 'solutions' are often impractical if not impossible to enact.
So while it may be a nice idea to process them properly one or two at a time, as suits our laws and customs... the reality is we have thousands that are marching together about to cross in mass.
So what do you do with them?
Are you going to fly them back to a country that does not want to accept them?
If so, what is to stop them from trying again, and again, and again?
I guess we will see what is done when they get to the border... I hope they come up with a good method of processing them because this will happen again, and again, if they do not.
With a large wall, with sensors and cameras, and a large enough border force you can enforce the border. We don't have that, so the border cannot be controlled.
"When you have 10,000 migrants crossing the border in one group, and you have no wall built to stop them, what exactly are you going to do?"
Don't let them cross. It IS illegal to do so, after all. We have a large standing military to protect our people and our borders; use it if necessary.
"I hope they come up with a good method of processing them because this will happen again, and again, if they do not."
If we don't process them quickly it will result in others learning they will be the "guests" of Mexico for a long period of time - something that isn't very desirable.
On the other hand, if we DO let them in, house, feed and support them while we fill out the paperwork to put them at the head of the citizenship line it will most certainly encourage others to do the same.
Which is in the best interests of the country? More caravans or none? Which is in our best interests: controlling our borders or opening them to anyone that wants in?
Exactly what are the orders you are going to give to the military?
How are they going to stop them from crossing?
Are you going to deploy them into Mexico to stop them there?
Are you going to order them to engage Mexican authorities in Mexico that oppose them?
How are the soldiers supposed to stop them without using brute force?
Concertina wire can make the crossing more painful, but eventually if they are determined they will get through it... what then?
Imagine the field day the media will have with this.
Imagine the American protesters that will likely try and interfere with the soldiers trying to do as they are ordered.
You have come up with a solution that is no solution, one that is not enforceable without using violence, or without occupying Mexican territory and conducting operations across the border.
You have thousands coming across together, in one massive group, the whole world is watching, and there will be Americans (maybe thousands) trying to stop your border patrol agents from doing their jobs.
Give me something resembling a real solution... that tackles at least some of the issues that will arise.
"How are the soldiers supposed to stop them without using brute force?"
Use whatever force is necessary to control our borders. "Brute force" as necessary. They ARE our borders, not those of Hondurans.
You seem to think that control is some sort of political "game" ("the whole world is watching"): well, it isn't. It is a matter the security of a sovereign nation that has every right to protect it's borders, up to and including killing 7000 people or 70,000. It is a matter of ownership of our country, and protecting that ownership from people that would steal it from us. I would hope that non-lethal methods would work (tear gas, pepper spray, high pressure water, etc.) but if it doesn't then do what is necessary.
"one that is not enforceable without using violence"
If those people insist they will come unless violence is used against them, then use violence...and if Americans are present with them, aiding them in violating our borders, then use it against those Americans as well. We will NOT be the dumping ground that Europe has turned itself into, and encouraging ever larger caravans of people will only result in larger bloodbaths.
Border walls have a long, long history of precedence, from the Great Wall of China to walls in current use in the Middle East. Nations have an inviolate right to stop entry of anyone they wish to, and there is no possible reason to let those people in as they wish. Not humanitarian reasons, not children, not being pregnant. The world has seen, for millenia, the results of not protecting borders from invasion, and this one is no different.
That 'solution' would not be acceptable by today's America.
If you were President, and you instructed the military to use force, up to and including killing those trying to cross into the country, you would be denounced and removed from office if not as soon as you gave the order, then as soon as one person died after those orders were carried out.
At least, that is my perception of the current state of our nation at this time. Considering that Judge's have repeatedly stalled the President's executive orders, and we have politicians that have been calling for his impeachment since before he was sworn in... if Americans were to see on tv our soldiers killing migrants trying to cross into our country, the outcry would be so severe and swift, Trump wouldn't last three days.
You have to deal with current realities... currently our society is trending towards open borders, non-nationhood, giving up freedom and liberty for security and safety (safe spaces, safe internet, etc.)...
This country may have been built on the 'might makes right' mentality, of taking the country from who-ever stood in our way, be it Britain, France, Mexico or Native Americans... but the mindset and moral compass of today's Americans are 180 degrees opposite of those who fought for and forged this nation.
Again, a workable solution is needed, what you proffer is not viable in today's America, and will not come to pass.
A compromise needs to be found, one where they are not allowed simply to cross into the country as they want... one where they are processed, documented, treated, and the dangerous criminal element barred from entry.
"That 'solution' would not be acceptable by today's America."
I know. The only thing truly acceptable by "today's America" (or at least the more liberal people there) are open borders. We see that in sanctuary cities that openly assist in violating our laws against illegal entry.
Of course, that leaves a very large number, a majority, in favor of closing that border...
"This country may have been built on the 'might makes right' mentality, of taking the country from who-ever stood in our way"
Interesting that you're trying to make a comparison between invading another country and preventing the invasion of our own.
"Again, a workable solution is needed, what you proffer is not viable in today's America, and will not come to pass. "
Then you are free to make your own suggestion...as long as it does not include open borders in any manner. As long as it protects the sanctity of our laws regarding immigration.
"A compromise needs to be found, one where they are not allowed simply to cross into the country as they want... one where they are processed, documented, treated, and the dangerous criminal element barred from entry."
Great! I made one suggestion: let them stay in Mexico until they can be processed with resources available. You may make another, as long as it does not include massive financial outlays to satisfy the wants of foreign citizens that desire to feed off our generosity. I have to say, though, that I don't see anything there about denying entry to any and all that do not meet our laws. Again, we are NOT the nanny for the world and will NOT accept any and all that wish to enter.
They are not going to stay in Mexico because we do not control Mexico.
If we came to terms with Mexico to hold them (highly unlikely) or if we chose to ignore Mexico's sovereignty and occupy the required territory in Mexico (even more unlikely) they could be held there.
Otherwise, they will cross the border, and will be detained in America... or they will escape being detained.
America has not 'enforced' the border in our lifetimes. If they had, there would not be millions of illegals now residing in California alone.
This, after Reagan gave millions of illegals citizenship in the 80s. The Immigration Control and Reform act, sponsored by Reagan and the GOP gave citizenship to over 3 million illegals in 1986.
Nothing has happened to slow the incoming immigrants, not in the 30 years since.
Ken, here is a solution I offered earlier in the thread, and it meshes with Wilderness' thought.
The first point that bears on my solution is the news that there is an agreement with Mexico - primarily relative to this caravan - for the U.S. to be able to immediately deport illegal crossers back into Mexico.
Then, my solution:
Create a special intake processing center for this caravan - at the border.
Get the word to the caravan that anyone that tries to cross our border in any other place than the intake center, (or our other established intake centers), will be immediately bused back into Mexico, and that such an action will place them in jeopardy of ever being approved for admittance to the U.S..
Bring in enough National Guard or military personal to seal the border for miles on either side of this intake center. They don't all have to be heavily armed.
Line up the buses. Anyone caught crossing illegally will be immediately put on a bus and bused back into Mexico. Where? That can be determined, but not just back across the immediate border.
I understand this will require some type of 'camp' set-up near the intake center, but, it must be located in Mexico, not the U.S., and that's on Mexico, (although we could lend support). They let the caravan cross their country, so they can bear that responsibility.
Process the seekers in an orderly fashion, and then send them back to the camp in Mexico to await a decision. We could even send them out of the intake center with some sort of humanitarian 'care package' of food and water.
These caravan folks showed their contempt for the rule of law in their actions at Mexico's southern border when they ignored and circumvented Mexico's efforts to process them legally.
I think my solution satisfies our U.S. immigration laws, and, deals with these folks in a manner matching their own actions.
Unless I badly misunderstood the question is what to do when the caravan simply does not stop in Mexico but proceeds through the border station into the US. Without any use of violence it would require thousands and thousands of police/border patrol/military/whatever to stop them if they simply keep coming and a great many Americans will be hurt or killed.
That's were I said "Do whatever is necessary to stop entrance". I can go with your suggestion (assuming no massive increase in personnel to process them in a timely manner)...but ONLY if they stay in Mexico.
That was central to my thoughts Wilderness; they must be processed from the Mexican side of the border.
As for the number of military personnel ... I wasn't applying my solution to the entirety of our southern border, but just the area relatively adjacent to my proposed intake center, which would be at the probable end point of the caravan. So maybe not thousands and thousands, but probably a thousand personnel would be needed. But remember, this is a temporary placement to deal with a specific instance.
The timing of this (as with the "radical right wing bomber") is near perfect for the ultimate political capital prior to the elections.
If Trump uses military force to deter them, that will have poor optics.
If he allows them in, that won't go over well with his supporters.
If he finds some middle ground, his detractors will make it seem far worse and far more sinister than what it actually is, that shouldn't shift votes much, but may, as I don't know how this is impacting specific races on those border states...
Interestingly, it shows the value Trump's 55 foot wall (with cameras) could have. If that wall existed, they might not find access into this country, other than at designated entry points.
I think we dodged that bullet Ken. Estimates I have seen put them here well past the mid-terms.
I think most, including myself to some degree, really don't understand the scope of what is happening, and while this caravan is a focal point for the media and politics of the situation... it is less than a drop in the bucket of the constant flow of immigrants entering our country.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-mig … story.html
In El Paso, the nonprofit Annunciation House shelter expected to take in 1,200 migrants this week and 1,500 more next week.
“We’re in effect receiving a caravan a month,” said Ruben Garcia, the shelter’s director, after serving pizza to immigrant families staying in 70 hotel rooms his group rented this week at a nightly cost of $3,500.
The Border Patrol caught a record 16,658 immigrant family members crossing illegally in September, a White House spokesman said this week. More than 161,000 immigrant family members were caught or turned themselves in during the fiscal year that ended last month, 42% more than in any previous year, the spokesman said.
----- end quote -----
On the one hand, I am actually thankful for a few things. Not the least of which is that the flow of immigration coming up from Central and South America is far preferable to what Europe is facing.
Having spent some time abroad, being exposed to various differing cultures and regions of the world, I can say with some certainty that the ability and willingness of Central/South American immigrants to assimilate into our civilization and become productive citizens is leaps and bounds more profound than what Europe will be contending with, as time/history will prove.
Truth is our politicians do not have the intestinal fortitude to enforce the laws on the books, let alone create new ones to strengthen how we handle immigration.
The major power brokers in the world, from the U.N., W.B., IMF, WTO, to the international and national corporations are all against border control... they want free flow of cheap, easily accessible labor force.
President Donald Trump and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban are currently the only two national leaders to stand against the United Nations' Global Compact for Migration, which is scheduled for formal adoption on December 10 2018.
As it now stands, 191 nations are set to sign on to the agreement, but countries like Poland, Austria, Italy, and Australia are also likely to drop out of the controversial pact.
So we can expect a steady barrage of globalist propaganda in the weeks ahead aimed at demonizing President Trump and his “heartless inhumanity” for refusing to join the UN’s push for a borderless world.
The push to enshrine the UN Global Compact in “international law” is accelerating. It took its first major push forward on September 19 2016, with the UN’s first ever Summit for Refugees and Migrants.
President Obama then followed up that mega-event by hosting an additional spectacle of his own the following day called the Leaders’ Summit on the Global Refugee Crisis.
One of the very reasons for toppling Libya was to open up the floodgates for the very 'immigration crisis' Europe has been contending with for years now. But this is another matter...
Out of that two-day globalist extravaganza came forth the UN’s New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. It also launched the two-year negotiation process to produce the Global Compact for Migration, which culminated on July 11, 2018 with the production of the final draft of the document.
In December 2017, President Trump directed the U.S. State Department to leave the Global Compact negotiations, overruling his UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, who wanted the U.S. to remain, I happen to believe this is one of the key reasons she has resigned from the UN... but this too, is another matter...
Trump was blasted by the Democrats, globalists, the professional compassion lobby, and of course his fanclub (CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc), for pulling out, much as he was for withdrawing the United States from the UN’s Paris climate accord, UNESCO, and other UN programs.
Trump is true to his campaign promise of putting America, and Americans first, by pulling out of these agreements he has not bound America to agreements which subjugate the U.S. of A. to the U.N. or other International bodies of power.
Its only a matter of time before he is replaced and a puppet who will do so is put in as President... but again, this is another matter...
This “migrant caravan” that marches closer to the U.S. border, with its supporters of blatantly anti-American, flag-burning activists demanding that their “rights” as migrants and refugees to enter the United States on their own terms about to get major face time from the 'news media' will bring the issue to the forefront for this November election.
So what is in the Declaration you ask?
“Large movements of refugees and migrants must have comprehensive policy support, assistance and protection, consistent with States’ obligations under international law.”
Criminalizing Opponents of Mass Migration:
The Declaration warns that “we are witnessing, with great concern, increasingly xenophobic and racist responses to refugees and migrants.”
In “progressive” parlance, that means anyone who, for any reason, opposes the globalist schemes for mass migration must be singled out for defamation as a racist, then marginalized, and then prosecuted under “international law.” In essence anyone who is a 'Nationalist' (correct definition of the term only) and who wants secure borders.
“We strongly condemn acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against refugees and migrants,” the Declaration states. It then goes on to proclaim that “we deplore all manifestations of xenophobia, racial discrimination and intolerance. We welcome the global campaign proposed by the Secretary-General to counter xenophobia and we will implement it in cooperation with the United Nations and all relevant stakeholders, in accordance with international law.”
No more Nations, no more borders, one world, one International Conglomerate, where your rights to liberty and freedom as an American can no longer be protected or guaranteed... because America will be subordinate to a higher authority.
I understand the situation is concerning, but maybe we could stop fear-mongering.
This is not the Mongol hordes sweeping across the Mongolian steppes or the Vandals at the gates of Rome.
It's a bunch of men, women and children who have walked hundreds of miles because they want to live in a place that's objectively safer and more prosperous than the place they've come from.
And the UN declaration you refer to consists of 23 objectives(1). I prefer reading things directly from source rather than rely on someone else's interpretation, so I've read all 23. None gave me cause for concern. In fact they all seem very sensible.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. Which of these objectives do you believe threatens the sovereignty of the country?:
"(1) Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based
(2) Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their
country of origin
(3) Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration
(4) Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation
(5) Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
(6) Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work
(7) Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration
(8) Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants
(9) Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants
(10) Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international
(11) Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
Strengthen certainty and predictability in migration procedures for appropriate
screening, assessment and referral
(13) Use migration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
(14) Enhance consular protection, assistance and cooperation throughout the migration
(15) Provide access to basic services for migrants
(16) Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion
(17) Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to
shape perceptions of migration
(18) Invest in skills development and facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and
(19) Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable
development in all countries
(20) Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion
(21) Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as
(22) Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned
(23) Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly and
(1) https://www.un.org/pga/72/wp-content/up … ration.pdf
Not the Mongol Hordes, but some similarity to the Vandals in the sense that they were migrants and on the move.
Massive influx of migrants into an otherwise stable civilization causes destabilization and economic hardships that would otherwise not be incurred.
Anyways, just wrote a Hub about it, so if you would like to continue the debate there I'd be happy to discuss it further.
Isn't that a little racist? If you're not mongol you can violate our laws with impunity, and are always welcome to enter without permission. But only if you're not Mongol.
What possible difference does it make who they are or where they are from? What part of "illegal" are you not understanding?
I honestly find it hard to tell if people are being sarcastic these days. If you were, please skip the following paragraph.
"Mongol hordes" refers to the historical army of the Mongol empire that swept south in the 13th century to invade China, and reached as far west as Hungary. "Horde" was a term used to describe a khanate (a political entity ruled by a Khan). "Mongol horde" is commonly used to refer to a large number of people that are characterized as being threatening.
I think it's important to challenge people who are portraying the caravan as being filled with "significant" numbers of criminals, HIV carriers and Middle Eastern terrorists. It's more likely that these people are no more threatening or dangerous than any other group of ordinary human beings.
People have also talked about deploying the Marines. I would have questions about the role they would play here. If they were to play a supporting and logistics role, then that makes sense. But it would be unlawful for active service military personnel to carry out law enforcement duties.
I fully understand how concerned people are about it, but a group of 5000 men, women and children seeking asylum does not equate to an "invasion". I don't know about you, but a caravan full of asylum seekers including children being met with 7000 marines in battle dress, is something I never want to see.
So I'm hoping I have just misunderstood the suggested role of the marines in previous comments.
Yes, it was more than a little sarcastic. But it also carried a message that it doesn't matter where they are from or who they are; it remains illegal to cross the border uninvited.
As I understand the military's task, it is indeed to play a supporting role; not to take the "front lines" of the upcoming riot. And I forget how many, but think it was less than a thousand.
5000 people certainly DO constitute an "invasion". It doesn't matter what they have drummed up as an excuse; it is an invasion of our country and territory.
I hope I don't see it either. I truly hope that those people decide not to invade us; that they turn around and go home. But if they do not, then I fully support whatever it takes to prevent them from entering. My country will not be the "promised land" for anyone wanting in; the 20 million already present here already are more than is acceptable.
(of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it.
enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.
"demonstrators invaded the Presidential Palace"
They are invaders if they enter without permission. The "large numbers" might exclude a single person, but most definitely includes numbers in the thousands. Notice as well that no exception is made for sex, age or anything else. You can be invaded by cows, cockroaches or people of any age or sex. Nor is there any mention of self determined validation or excuse; it doesn't matter if they actually believe they qualify for asylum, if they are merely using it as an excuse or have every intent of sneaking across the river at night. They are still an invasion and we expect and demand that our government and president protect us and our borders from invasion.
I suspected it was sarcasm, and I'm glad it was.
The thing that comes across most from your comment is that you seem very angry at the people in the caravan.
I understand why you would be concerned. But I don't understand what's generating anger towards those people.
They want a better life. The US is objectively safer and more prosperous than where they're from, so they are trying to get to the US.
But assuming I haven't misinterpreted your tone, why does their trying generate anger in you?
If you and I were in a place that was terrible, and there was somewhere better, we too would try to get ourselves and our families to that better place. That's perfectly normal and understandable.
I could understand if your anger was directed at the Honduran government which has failed to protect its people, or the criminal gangs who have driven these people from their homes. But I don't understand anger towards men and women trying to get themselves and their children to a better place.
The reality is, the majority of the people in the caravan will likely not qualify for refugee status under the domestic and international laws applicable to the US. Most will likely approach the border, be processed in some way, then be deported.
Inevitably some will try to enter the country illegally (some will undoubtedly lose their lives in the process). Some will succeed. Of those who succeed, some will be caught. They'll probably claim asylum, and again most will likely not qualify for refugee status. So they'll probably be prosecuted, jailed and/or deported. Some will avoid getting caught and will remain at large.
That's all that's going to happen. Society is not going to collapse. The White House will not be razed to the ground. Life will go on.
I thought you were implying it was like a military invasion, because I misunderstood the comments about deploying the marines.
But I'm also at risk of misunderstanding this comment now: "I fully support whatever it takes to prevent them from entering". I'm almost afraid to ask, and it's a shame I have to, but does that mean you support the use of lethal force against unarmed men, women and children?
I truly hope your anger doesn't run that deep.
I am not angry at those people. Or at least not much.
I am angry at the people organizing that caravan. The ones providing it with fuel, food and water. The ones encouraging it to come to the land of milk and honey. While it is possible those people are again from Russian, fomenting discontent and division in America, I find it MUCH more believable that it is Americans doing it. It is THOSE people that are responsible for this. People that will hide illegal aliens, will warn them when ICE is around, that actively promote the support and feeding of citizens of foreign countries that are flaunting our laws - there are those that will do these things and would not hesitate to use the lives of the caravan folk to further their political objectives.
Those Hondurans have been told America is a land of milk and honey, that if they can just get across the border the world will be pink and rosy. They believe it. They are coached on what to say, what lies to tell, and they believe it will get them into this wonderful land where unlimited money is available from the government and everybody loves everybody. And they believe it; it never occurs to them that they are demanding that a working stiff somewhere give them what they want, that a single mother provide for their needs or that any community they settle in will go downhill.
But they also know that what they plan is illegal. They know that if caught they will be deported. And they don't care. That brings up the "not much" part of my anger.
Not sure it was marines, but yes, the military has been dispatched. Because it could be a true invasion, where people simply refuse to stop and continue walking, with or without a gun in their hands.
Don, the left half of this country appears to think that illegal aliens in our country does not harm and that unlimited legal immigration does no harm. Even the idiots that can see it in their own city/state continue to believe that.
It does. It does massive harm when unlimited immigration of people without the means to provide for themselves live here. We have provided leniency and forgiveness before; the result was more coming in. We must stop the practice.
So when you say "society is not going to collapse" all you can point to is the 7,000 on the road, not the 700,000 that will watch and decide to do it themselves if it is allowed to proceed. You are ignoring, or trying to ignore, both past history and future expectations. If they simply march forward, what should we do? Hand to hand combat with pregnant women and 5 year old kids? How many Americans will be injured or die if we do that? What solution would you suggest, bearing in mind that it would take at least 3 times as many "soldiers" as there are marchers to do it without people getting injured, and even that provides no guarantees. What is your suggestion if 7,000 people simply storm the border crossing and keep coming? Let them come and thus teach a million more how to get in?
If it comes to that point - simply marching forward and refusing to stop - I certainly support non-lethal means. Tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, tazers, water cannons - anything and everything we have. And yes, I understand that they are using their children as bargaining chips in their efforts - they are being told to do just that. And I also understand that if we do that people WILL be hurt. Doesn't change that it is necessary if we wish to have a country.
And that is the heart of the matter.
The goal is to dissolve the borders and the sovereignty of the Nation State. So if you want to understand why Nationalism and right-wing populism have grown so strong so quickly, why politicians like Trump are riding a wave on unprecedented support, you must start by looking at the actions of the globalists (most of our politicians in D.C. fit this mold as do those who fund/support them).
The globalists strongly support open borders and high levels of immigration while (often) opposing efforts to encourage assimilation of the new arrivals. They want to dilute the cultural norms of any given nation, so that they no longer have a common history, common ideals, or even a common language.
This enables them to more easily break down resistance to globalization, and also helps them focus the populace into 'warring factions'.
Ultimately why this is so painful, and while it will continue to be an issue we 'war' over is because Globalists see Nationalists as narrow-minded, illiberal, intolerant, in fact when they say 'conservative' they mean all those definitions and more. They have no respect for those who want to concern themselves with their town, their church or temple, or their nation... they in essence despise those 'quant' ideals.
It is true, however, that neo-Nazis and others who focus on preserving the genes, blood, or race of the host country, rather than its culture and values, are always nationalists, never globalists. It is also true that the Globalists all happen to be liberal/progressive and love to label anyone opposing their positions as Nazis.
Most definitions of patriotism refer to positive feelings about one’s country (love, devotion, pride) and a sense of duty or obligation to support or protect it. An extension of family, or for some, their devotion to country is in place of family. So when Globalists (progressives) trample on the idea of Nation, they are trampling on the very pillars of what patriotic Americans believe in.
Calling a patriotic person a racist, a Nazi, or some other form of insult is a sure way to make them detest you, even if they are otherwise very liberal minded in most of their positions.
It is a problem, and because it is being politicized, and because those with the power and riches who are pushing the globalist agenda do not respect 'the people' but rather are determined to force their way upon them because 'they know better' they are the 'intellectual elite', and they have the power to do so... so this is going to be a huge fiasco for years to come, and will likely delay humanity's move to a 'one world' 'one society' existence.... because the 'intellectual elite' are out of touch idiots who do not know how to approach this with the populace in the right way.
From what you've said, you're mostly angry at people who organize and encourage this type of mass migration, and a little angry at the people in the caravan too.
That reiterates the what and the who you are angry at. I'm trying to understand why those things generate anger. You seem to answer that question here:
"It does massive harm when unlimited immigration of people without the means to provide for themselves live here"
Clearly for you (correct me if I'm wrong) this caravan is harmful. You care about the country, so naturally you are angry at those you perceive as causing that harm.
This seems to be accompanied by the thought that its a slippery slope:
'So when you say "society is not going to collapse" all you can point to is the 7,000 on the road, not the 700,000 that will watch and decide to do it themselves if it is allowed to proceed'
So, dare I say, there is an element of fear in there as well. You contrast my comment about society not collapsing, with the idea of 700,000 more people arriving as if to show that it's not an unrealistic possibility.
Well I promise you wilderness, even if they managed to organize 700,000 people, and every one of them got over all the hurdles in their way to get here, and they all qualified for refugee status, society will not collapse.
And that raises a question for me: how much of your reaction is based on what you feel, and how much is based on what you know to be true? How much of that fear is speculative?
I've seen people saying that a significant number of people in the caravan are criminals, have leprosy, TB, HIV, smallpox (a disease that was eradicated in 30 years ago). I don't believe any of it, because I have seen no evidence to support it.
As a result, although I too see this type of migration as extremely challenging, I'm not experiencing the anger you evidently are. I'm apprehensive, even a little fearful for the future, but I don't believe this group can cause significant harm to society.
I think the immediate issue of the caravan can be addressed within existing federal and international law. We have the capability and resources to do that with ease.
GAs suggestion of makeshift processing centres to deal with increased traffic etc, makes sense. Obviously additional border control staff to monitor the border also makes sense. Using the military to provide logistics and support might be helpful too (though I think 5,000 is ludicrous and is just a political stunt).
In the medium and long term there is work to be done to address the issue, but this is a global phenomenon. And it's challenging yes, but not insurmountable.
What I find worrying is that you've asked "If they simply march forward, what should we do? Hand to hand combat with pregnant women and 5 year old kids?"
Do you think that a pregnant woman and a 5 year old child crossing the border would be so catastrophic to the country, that if they weren't stopped, hand to hand combat would be the only viable alternative? Again, how much of that is based on how you feel and much is based on what you know to be true?
I understand all this. You look at 7,000 people intending to enter illegally and scoff at the possibility of ten times that...while I look at the 20 million that have come across illegally AND managed to elude capture.
You look at illegals working jobs and declare that Americans won't work them...while I watch a business suddenly losing it's workforce to ICE and filling it with American union workers the next day. A business that then fails because it has to pay union wages rather than "illegal wages" to meet its contractual obligations.
You say they don't get entitlement programs...while I sit in the welfare office and watch person after person speaking no English do just that.
You say they don't use our resources...while I see border hospitals closing and towns going without medical care because illegals use those hospitals but don't pay. And I see our disabled vets unable to get a prosthetic or care because the money is gone.
You cry out that surely one pregnant woman with a 5 year old won't cause any harm...while I see schools overrun with illegal children, requiring more teachers, special English classes and the American children going without school books because there is no money. I see millions of DACA kids (and yes, I fully support an easy citizenship math for them) using state subsidized colleges and whining that they need to be free while our own children struggle mightily and come out of it with tens of thousands of debt.
You say they are law abiding people...while I sit in a courtroom and watch as a line of people, with their court supplied translators, plead guilty to traffic offenses and are released with a small fine. People often with multiple offenses, sometimes 10 or more, but they have no license to rescind so it doesn't matter.
You say they cause no harm to society...while I watch whole cities and states not only refuse to enforce the law but actively aid criminals in avoiding capture. I watch as thousands (millions?) of employers violate the law in hiring them and no one says anything. What - laws don't matter?
You say they pay their own way...while I look at whole communities of illegals so poverty stricken that they cannot possibly be paying enough taxes to educate their children, let alone participate in funding the rest of the needs of the state.
You say they pay their taxes...while I wonder where that SS number they report their income on comes from.
So yes, Don, we have a very different perspective on what illegal aliens using the US people to support them are doing to the country. From my perspective you live in a fantasy world, refusing to look around you and see what has and continues to happen. You pretend there is no harm, and you are happy to attempt to support the world's poor, assuming that govt. pockets are endless and that nothing untoward will ever happen. I disagree.
I didn't say a lot of those things, so I can only assume the "you" refers to "The Left".
In terms of harm, there a gap between what you seem to feel is happening and what is actually happening. And while I don't doubt your sincerity, anecdotal evidence often doesn't give an objective picture.
So I'm going to try to deal with verifiable information as much as I can.
In terms of the intimidate situation:
Reports suggest the caravan is around a thousand miles from the US border. Estimates vary, but numbers have been reported between 3 to 7 thousand people(1)(2)(3)(4)(5). Assuming Mexican authorities make contact with the group at various points along the way, I think it's reasonable to believe it will take at least 4 weeks before it reaches the US.
So the arrival of the caravan is not imminent. No need to be concerned about not being prepared.
We also know (at least I hope we do) that we have the capability and resources to manage the situation, even if it means bussing in additional legal staff to speed up processing. Likewise, in terms of logistics, I don't think this challenge rises beyond business as usual in terms of difficulty for the US military.
So no need to be concerned about not being up to the task.
In relation to your worst case scenario (a pregnant woman and a 5 year old refusing to stop at a border crossing). To make an affirmative asylum claim you have to surrender to the relevant authorities at a border crossing. That's the whole point of going to a border crossing. If someone did not want to surrender to authorities, approaching a guarded crossing is likely not something they'd do. And anyone who crosses illegally is subject to being apprehended by law enforcement.
If the woman did surrender to authorities and was not allowed to apply for asylum though, that would be a violation of international and federal law.
Any lessons to learn from the last caravan?
The last caravan reached the border in May. At its peak it had around a thousand people. Of those, 403 were referred by authorities for "credible fear" interviews(6)(7). Of those, I don't know how many were granted asylum and how many were deported. No significant harm or damage as far as I can tell.
There is no evidence to suggest the current caravan will be significantly different, in terms of impact, to the last one.
In relation to the longer term situation:
The number of people apprehended for crossing the border illegally has seen a steady downward trend for multiple decades, from a high of around 1.7 million in 2000, to a low of around 311 thousand in 2017 (the lowest since 1971)(8).
This is still an issue, but it's no more of an issue than it has been previously. In fact the government's own statistics show it's less of an issue (in terms of numbers) than it has been.
Likewise, the number of unauthorized immigrants in the country has remained mostly steady (with a slight downward trend) at 11.8 million in 2007 and 11.1 million in 2014. The DHS say the increase of 0.5 million from 2010 to 2014 reflects "relative stability"(9).
Again, this does not suggest to me that there is a "crisis" of illegal immigration. It's certainly an issue, but it's not more of an issue now than it was in 2007. Again, the government's statistics shows it's slightly less of an issue.
There is a backlog of asylum cases in the system waiting to be processed. As of June 2018 there were around 320 thousand cases on the books(10). This is an administrative issue though (perhaps also flying in an army of legal professionals would be of benefit).
I know we've only touched on the issue (perhaps that's all we can reasonably do in this medium) but I think there are clear indications of a disconnect between what you feel to be the case about this situation, and what is objectively true.
Your feelings are still valid obviously, because we feel what we feel, but I believe your hostility is based on mistaken beliefs. It would be interesting to find out how you came by those beliefs.
(1) https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/29/poli … index.html
(2)(3) https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/poli … 773182002/
(4) https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this- … 2018-10-26
(5) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/wh … ar-BBOMO0p
(6) https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/ … der-881006
(7) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/us/m … order.html
(8) https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files … FY2017.pdf
(9) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … 2014_1.pdf
(10) https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/fil … ne2018.pdf
First, nothing about the caravan has anything to do with my "feelings" on illegal aliens in the country. The reverse may be true (it is) but that's all.
Second, nothing you've said here even tries to address the points brought out. Saying the numbers haven't changed much in quite a while does not say anything at all about what damage to our country/society is being done as we sit and allow it to happen.
I come by my beliefs by watching and realizing the tales we're being told, like illegals only work jobs Americans refuse to do, or do not get welfare entitlements are false to fact. Some come from simple common sense, like the claim illegals pay their own way when they haven't the income to pay more than a tiny portion of it. And some come from watching government officials actively aid illegals in violating the law.
(Your figures are a bit off - the link states that in 2014 there were 12.1 illegals, not 11.1. It is not fallen, then, but risen to it's highest level of any year in the study.)
(Am I reading you right that we don't need to do anything until the "crisis" point is reached? I would not agree with that thought at all.)
The picture being painted is that the caravan represents an imminent and significant threat, and illegal immigration in general is getting worse. The facts don't support either of those things, and I think it's important to show that.
You talk about the "damage to our country/society . . . being done as we sit and allow it to happen".
But in support of that, I only see worried speculation, conjecture and anecdote. I see no facts. So it just comes across as fearfulness.
If that fearfulness is based on hard facts, then I'm hoping you'll share some of them here, so I and others might get a better understanding of where you're coming from.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to say everything's rosy, but unless the picture we see is painted with facts, then it's not an accurate picture.
You say "I come by my beliefs by watching and realizing the tales we're being told, like illegals only work jobs Americans refuse to do, or do not get welfare entitlements are false to fact." But how did you come to realize that?
Give me an example of what brought you to that realization.
For example, in my case, I read a paper by the CBO that said:
"over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use."(1)
(thanks for the correction, I was looking at two different sources. Pew Research has the figure for 2014 at 11.1 million. Either way the figure is relatively stable. http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/u … zed-02.png)
(I'm not saying we don't need to do anything. I'm just saying there's no need to act as if the caravan is some pending catastrophe. It's not. Likewise no need to act as if illegal immigration has suddenly gotten worse. It hasn't. We have some breathing room)
(1) https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files … ration.pdf (p.1)
"The picture being painted is that the caravan represents an imminent and significant threat, and illegal immigration in general is getting worse. The facts don't support either of those things, and I think it's important to show that."
Only in your mind, not in mine. There is no "imminent and significant threat", not from 7,000 (mostly) unarmed people with children. The threat is what it will encourage in the future. And yes, illegal population is growing; your own figures show that.
"But in support of that, I only see worried speculation, conjecture and anecdote. I see no facts. So it just comes across as fearfulness"
Do children of illegals occupy a seat in our schools? Of course they do, and that is damaging to the country and it's people. It costs (unless you're prepared to state that teachers and schools are a free gift from God).
"Give me an example of what brought you to that realization."
I did. I gave several. When I said "I see <fill in the blank> I meant exactly that. I saw, with my eyes, what I described.
You can believe your CBO report if you wish. I don't. There is no possibility, IMO, that they included ALL costs or that they did not exaggerate the taxes paid. Let me repeat the question? Where do illegals get the SS number they use to file taxes with?
Did they include welfare/unemployment costs for those that don't have a job due to illegals working cheaper (you said they will do that)? The loss of taxes from those same people? The loss of purchases (more taxes, more jobs, etc.)? How about increased road maintenance from another 5 million vehicles on the road? More teachers and more schools, with special classes for illegals? Increased health insurance costs to cover the unpaid bills of illegals? The cost of providing more police, jail cells and court interpreters? Cost of deportation? How about the loss of housing value when the neighborhood is overrun by illegals (and the poverty that goes with it)?
I doubt it.This is a figure that can be spun enormously, simply by leaving out most of the costs.
Beyond that, the only thing the CBO looked at was the effect on govt. budgets...and then only in education, health care and law enforcement. As noted, there are a lot more costs than that - intentional or not the "spin" is there. Finally, everything I saw in skimming the CBO article was an "estimate". Understanding that that's all that is available due to the nature of the problem, I do think that additional studies, from both sides of the immigration aisle, are required. (Would you accept an "estimate" from a sanctuary city as to how many illegals are in the city as even close to being factual?)
"Either way the figure is relatively stable. <number of illegal aliens in the country>"
Only if you wish to say that an increase of 10% in just 4 years is "relatively stable". We would disagree on that.
Of course we have breathing room. We can wait until the economy is in tatters and no one in the country can earn more than $5 per hour, while govt. takes enough from them to support two more families. No one will die (except for lack of hospital facilities), though our standard of living will fall considerably. It would take a long time and many more millions of illegals, but it will happen. Or we can take steps to end the drain on our resources now.
Good to see we agree the caravan is not an imminent or significant threat.
"Do children of illegals occupy a seat in our schools? Of course they do, and that is damaging to the country and it's people. It costs (unless you're prepared to state that teachers and schools are a free gift from God)"
I have no doubt there is a cost, but "cost" does not automatically mean "damage". That's the part that's speculation and conjecture.
"When I said "I see <fill in the blank> I meant exactly that. I saw, with my eyes, what I described."
There's two issues with anecdotes: 1. there's no way to verify the information, so it has to be taken on good faith; 2. anecdotes are specific to your personal and local circumstances. So someone else may have had different experiences that lead them to a different conclusion. So it's unwise to draw conclusions about complex national social issues on the basis of local anecdotes.
If your beliefs about immigration are formed only on anecdotes and your own deductions, then your beliefs on the subject are likely to be unreliable.
"You can believe your CBO report if you wish. I don't. There is no possibility, IMO, that they included ALL costs or that they did not exaggerate the taxes paid. Let me repeat the question? Where do illegals get the SS number they use to file taxes with? . . . "
So presumably you've seen a report that does look at those things and demonstrates the CBO report is factually incorrect? Or you have done original research that proves the CBO report is factually incorrect? If neither is true, we'are back to "worried speculation and conjecture".
Again, this is more to do with how you arrived at your conclusions, rather than what they actually are. I'm gaining a much better understanding of how you have arrived at yours.
What jumps out at me is the fact that your beliefs on this subject seem to be based on, what you believe, are common sense deductions; conjectures and anecdotes. But I'll stick with the point I originally made, that there seems to be a gap between your conjectures etc. and the factual information available. And there seems to be a reluctance on your part to accept any information, no matter how factual, that contradicts the beliefs you have already formed.
"Only if you wish to say that an increase of 10% in just 4 years is "relatively stable". We would disagree on that."
That was a paraphrase from the Department of Homeland Security report in 2017, which said:
"The increase of 0.5 million from 2010 to 2014 (125,000 per year on average) reflects relative stability"(1).
And the figures from Pew Research are 12.2 million for 2007 and 11.1 million for 2014 which is a drop of 10%(2). Again, either way the figure is stable relative to the years from 1990 to 2007, which saw a steep upward trend.
"Of course we have breathing room . . . "
"Breathing room" doesn't mean I think nothing should be done. There's lots that can and should be done to manage the issue. And yes, I do believe it is an issue. I also believe (and this is my own bit of worried speculation and conjecture) the effects of climate change could make things worse.
But I think the country has successfully overcome greater challenges than this, and will overcome greater challenges in the future. Maybe I'm less worried about the issue because I rely on factual information rather than my own personal experiences and conjectures. Either way, the sense of panic that some people seem to feel around this issue is unwarranted, and the hysteria some people are trying to whip up is irresponsible.
(1) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … 2014_1.pdf (p.1)
(1) http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/u … zed-02.png
"I have no doubt there is a cost, but "cost" does not automatically mean "damage". That's the part that's speculation and conjecture."
Not by me; if my meager wealth is taken to pay for somebody else's wants, I have been "damaged". Still, I seem to detect a misunderstanding between us here.
"So presumably you've seen a report that does look at those things and demonstrates the CBO report is factually incorrect?"
Actually, I have seen reports in the past that do address at least some of them. And every single one ended with a conclusion that illegal aliens inhabiting the country are costing us (harming us) Billions each year.
"there seems to be a gap between your conjectures etc. and the factual information available"
Only when you include only part of the costs. Or deny that aliens receive welfare benefits (like medicaid and food stamps). Of course, one must be careful to choose which "factual information" they wish to use...
"And the figures from Pew Research are 12.2 million for 2007 and 11.1 million for 2014 which is a drop of 10%(2). "
Umm One of us has made an error here: I read the opposite. I could be wrong, of course.
"the effects of climate change could make things worse."
If the dire projections for change turn out to be even half true, you certainly have that right. Half of Mexico and most of central America will disappear under the waves. Along with at least 3 states that support unlimited immigration.
"But I think the country has successfully overcome greater challenges than this, and will overcome greater challenges in the future."
The civil war, maybe, and perhaps WWII. Other than that, it's hard for me to think of anything worse than an invasion of 20 million people that we make virtually no effort to eject.
New subtopic: have you considered "harm" from a social or philosophical standpoint? Is it "harm" when school systems ban the American flag for fear of upsetting illegal aliens, for instance? Is it "harm" when our government officials intentionally assist criminals in avoiding prosecution because they don't like the law? Is it "harm" when the president of the US instructs law enforcement to ignore the law for some people?"
"Still, I seem to detect a misunderstanding between us here."
I detect it too, and it seems to relate to the idea that financial cost is the same as damage. I don't think it is. At least, I think it depends greatly on the circumstances. To show damage being done requires factual information.
"Actually, I have seen reports in the past that do address at least some of them. And every single one ended with a conclusion that illegal aliens inhabiting the country are costing us (harming us) Billions each year."
Please share them.It would give me a better understanding of how/why you are making the connection between "cost" and "damage".
"Only when you include only part of the costs. Or deny that aliens receive welfare benefits (like medicaid and food stamps). Of course, one must be careful to choose which "factual information" they wish to use..."
Yes, but that works both ways. You have to consider all the benefits too. It wouldn't be very objective to insist on a comprehensive rundown of costs, but not a comprehensive rundown of benefits. For example, in 2006 the Missouri budget project found that:
"Undocumented workers may also have Social Security and Medicare taxes withheld from their paychecks. When these taxes are withheld, the undocumented workers are contributing to programs that provide income support and health care for elderly American citizens. Undocumented workers are not eligible for Social Security and Medicare".(1)
Analysis by Standard and Poor found that:
"While unauthorized immigrants worked and contributed as much as $13 billion in payroll taxes to the OASDI program in 2010, only about $1 billion in benefit payments during 2010 are attributable to unauthorized work. Thus, we estimate that earnings by unauthorized immigrants result in a net positive effect on Social Security financial status generally, and that this effect contributed roughly $12 billion to the cash flow of the program for 2010. We estimate that future years will experience a continuation of this positive impact on the trust funds"(my emphasis)(2).
So there continues to be a gap between the factual information available, and your conjecture. Are Standard and Poor and the CBO at fault? Suggesting so starts to stretch the limits of reasonableness.
"Umm One of us has made an error here: I read the opposite. I could be wrong, of course."
I think we both did, but I've doubled checked.
The Pew Reasearch figures definitely shows 12.2 in 2007, 11.1 in 2014 (a 10% drop)(3). The DHS shows 11.8 in 2007 and 12.1 in 2014 (a 2.5% increase)(4). Again, either way the figure is relatively stable.
"New subtopic: have you considered "harm" from a social or philosophical standpoint? Is it "harm" when school systems ban the American flag for fear of upsetting illegal aliens, for instance? Is it "harm" when our government officials intentionally assist criminals in avoiding prosecution because they don't like the law? Is it "harm" when the president of the US instructs law enforcement to ignore the law for some people?""
I would need reliable sources of factual information for each of those specific claims to respond appropriately, as I'm not familiar with some of them.
In general though, it seems to me it's a bit hypocritical to complain about one president (allegedly) not complying with the law, while supporting another who seems willing to break both federal and international law in relation to asylum seekers; and who has attacked a law enforcement agency for doing its job investigating a matter of national security; and who thinks the Constitution can be amended with an EO; and who has had several members of his staff (including a security advisor) indicted/ convicted for criminal activity.
The rule of law is probably not the best way for you to make a point about immigration, especially with the current administration.
http://www.mobudget.org/files/Undocumen … e%2006.pdf
(3) http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/u … zed-02.png
(4) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … 2014_1.pdf
"I detect it too, and it seems to relate to the idea that financial cost is the same as damage. I don't think it is."
As far as I'm concerned, cost=damage. It might be financial, it might be physical, it might be social or even philosophical. But in the specific case where money is required of Americans as a result of illegal aliens in the country they have been "damaged". Definition, semantics, whatever, that is my opinion (and that of courts as well; to the court "damage" is always financial). I'm not sure at all how it could be otherwise; when our pocketbook lightens we have been damaged.
I find it interesting that an employer will with hold SS taxes from a paycheck. Without an SS#, how will they remit it to government? I've asked this several times, but to date you have refrained from giving any sort of answer. Without identity theft, how to illegals pay federal taxes?
I have to say that one of the links is incorrect. I also have to say that they have a strange idea of "relatively stable"; US population increased from 309M in 2010 to 318M in 2014. An increase of 9M, or 2.9% - no one would consider our population "stable" (although the rate of growth might be), so how is the same percentage growth "stable" for illegals? In any case a minor matter that has zero to do with the harm caused by illegal aliens residing withing our borders
" In addition, OCACT estimates that 0.7 million unauthorized workers in 2010 obtained fraudulent birth certificates at some point in the past and these birth certificates allowed the workers to get an SSN. Combining these two groups with the 1.3 million current visa holders
with temporary authorization, we estimate 2.7 million
other immigrants have SSNs in their name and thus can
work, pay taxes, and have earnings credited to their
record for potential benefits in the future.
OCACT estimates 1.8 million other immigrants worked
and used an SSN that did not match their name in 2010.
Their earnings may be credited to someone else’s record
(when the SSN and name submitted to the employer
match Social Security records) or may be credited to the
Earnings Suspense File (when submitted with nonmatching SSN and name). "
If I'm understanding this quote from your link correctly, it shows that about 2.5M illegals paid an estimated 13B in SS taxes. That's $5200 per person: at 7.5% it comes to $70,000 per person income. I might point out that it also assumes that if illegals were not here that money would not have been paid; that it is assumed the work would not have gotten done. That's a really suspect assumption, don't you think?
Beyond that, I find the idea that the average illegal is earning $70,000 per year to be ludicrous. As you point out; illegals will work for whatever they can get, even less than minimum wage. I don't doubt that some earn that much, but suspect that most of those that do are "working" on the wrong side of the law (dealing drugs, etc.).
So, "factual" information? I doubt it. Not only is it an estimate, it flies in the face of common sense. In addition to that, there is the small matter of whether it would have been paid (probably at substantially higher rates) if the illegals weren't here.
"In general though, it seems to me it's a bit hypocritical to complain about one president (allegedly) not complying with the law, while supporting another who seems willing to break both federal and international law in relation to asylum seekers"
Won't argue the evils and how terrible Donald Trump and anyone remotely connected to him is. But I will say that if the illegals were not here Obama's illegal action and your claims about Trump would both be moot; it seems harm has been done.
"A California high school principal has apologized for telling five students they couldn't wear U.S. flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo, the local superintendent said Friday.
Tensions at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill had risen in the wake of the decision to forbid the shirts, as the students who wore the shirts defended their right to show their patriotism -- even on a Mexican holiday -- while a large group of Hispanic students staged a walkout Thursday in protest."
https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-p … an-holiday
"A South Carolina principal banned the American flag at his high school’s Friday night football game, claiming it could be used to offend the opposing school’s Hispanic community.
The principal in question, Lou Lavely, demanded that Travelers Rest High School student’s not fly American flags at the school event because he said they were being used to “taunt” the school they were playing, Berea High School, and could lead to “confrontations.”"
https://www.dailywire.com/news/8730/hig … leb-ecarma
"For the life of me I simply cannot understand the logical calisthenics that liberals must go through to come to their conclusions. The latest exampling of their “dizzying display of intellect” comes to us from Fruita, Colorado where a public school decided that it made sense to ban the flying of American flags on their campus parking lot."
https://freedomoutpost.com/american-pub … eeing-red/
To continue, estimates range from 116B per year for illegals to as low as 57B. Whatever figure is used, there is a cost and it is large. I don't believe that either study took into account that some illegals DO receive means tested welfare, which will raise both estimates. Your link indicates that some 2.5 familes have a wage earner with an SS# and usually with a birth certificate. That will enable those means tested bennies like food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/opin … st-us.html
https://www.fairus.org/issue/publicatio … -taxpayers
I'm not saying there is no cost. I'm saying there is a threshold at which cost becomes significant, and yes even harmful. But you seem to be suggesting that threshold has been met. Factual information suggest that is untrue.
To be clear, I do believe Illegal immigration is an issue that needs to be addressed. But my point is that while we figure out the best way to do that, the sky isn't falling.
That's not an argument for inaction though. It just means that morally dubious decisions currently being made in the name of the illegal immigrant "crises" are unjustified.
What's interesting is that, for you, a non US citizen costing the country anything is totally intolerable. I think that's unrealistic. Because to achieve zero illegal immigration, we'd have to sacrifice our moral values.
You can't overcome the power of human hope with reasonable measures. Hope is often unreasonable, that's why it's so so powerful. It's the thing driving people to the border. It's what drives people to risk crossing from North to South Korea. It's what drove people to risk trying to cross the Berlin wall (past the dogs, spotlights, barbed wire, and guards that would shoot to kill).
So if you can't overcome that human drive, and given the extremes that others have historically gone to and failed, how far are you willing to go to try?
"I have to say that one of the links is incorrect."
They all seem to be working ok for me.
"I also have to say that they have a strange idea of "relatively stable""
Obviously the DHS is comparing the rate of growth in 2014 to the rate of growth up to 2007. But we don't need to guess that. Its in the report:
"[the increase between 2010 and 2014] reflects relative stability, especially when contrasted against the increases of 0.5 million per year in the years leading up to the previous peak of 11.8 million in 2007"(1).
And that report was published by the DHS in July 2017 under Trump's own administration.
And a report from the National Academy of Sciences also concludes that:
"Since 2009, the unauthorized immigrant population has remained stable, with about 300,000 to 400,000 new unauthorized immigrants arriving each year and about the same number leaving."(my emphasis)(2)
And the Pew figures show a 10% drop.
And apprehensions for illegal border crossings have seen a downward trend for multiple decades, from 1.7 million in 2000, to a low of around 311 thousand in 2017 (the lowest since 1971 in fact)(3).
So while some people may want us to believe there is a worsening crisis of illegal immigration and illegal border crossings, factual information tells us that is not the case.
"If I'm understanding this quote from your link correctly, it shows that about 2.5M illegals paid an estimated 13B in SS taxes. That's $5200 per person: at 7.5% it comes to $70,000 per person income. I might point out that it also assumes that if illegals were not here that money would not have been paid; that it is assumed the work would not have gotten done. That's a really suspect assumption, don't you think?"
The point is not that the money would not be there otherwise, the point is that illegal immigrants are paying more into the social security fund than they are taking out, resulting in a net gain of $12 billion. So the money contributed by people you claim are damaging the country is, in fact, currently helping to take care of elderly US citizens.
At the very least I think that warrants a deduction of $12 billion from your list of "damages", don't you?
You're now suggesting we should ignore reports from the CBO, the DHS and Standard and Poor, in favor of your personal "common sense". I'm sorry wilderness but I trust the information in those reports more than I trust your gut feelings. And claiming the information in these reports is wrong without any factual information to support it, is unreasonable.
". . . But I will say that if the illegals were not here Obama's illegal action and your claims about Trump would both be moot; it seems harm has been done."
I think the less said about Trump and the rule of law, the better. I have much to say on the subject and it would probably fill another thread.
"Tensions at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill had risen . . ."
I don't see how this relates to illegal immigration. Seems a bit of a tangent to me. And as far as I can see a federal court found that that the school acted properly(4). And the (majority conservative) supreme court, rejected an appeal. I think the facts of the case and the findings of the courts speak for themselves.
"A South Carolina principal banned the American flag at his high school’s Friday night football game . . ."
Snopes found this story to be "mostly false"(5), but again I don't know what it has to do with illegal immigration.
And the sources you are linking to, like the Daily Wire are giving some insight as what is shaping your views.
"The latest exampling of their “dizzying display of intellect” comes to us from Fruita, Colorado where a public school decided that it made sense to ban the flying of American flags . . ."
American flags were not banned. All flags were banned: "They said we can't fly a Mexican flag, Confederate flag, American flag, any flag at all," said FMHS senior Paxton Streeter"(6)
And again, I fail to see what all this has to do with unauthourized immigrants.
And feedomoutpost appears to be a right-wing, tabloid blog site purporting to be a "news" outlet. Not a reliable source of information.
"To continue, estimates range from 116B per year for illegals to as low as 57B . . . "
Thanks for the link to that article. Rather than rely on the article though I went to the source it was referring to directly, a study by the National Academies of Science called "The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration". The findings include:
"When measured over a period of 10 years or more, the impact of immigration on the wages of native-born workers overall is very small . . .
There is little evidence that immigration significantly affects the overall employment levels of native-born workers. . . " (but the report includes some caveats here about the number of hours teens work).
"Some evidence on inflow of skilled immigrants suggests that there may be positive wage effects for some subgroups of native-born workers, and other benefits to the economy more broadly"
"Immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S." (7)(all my emphasis)(8)
Again, this is factual information, from a reliable source that does not support the view that immigration is causing significant damage to the country on the contrary it concludes there
I trust your response won't be that the National Academy of Sciences is also wrong.
(1) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … 2014_1.pdf
(2) http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpin … rdID=23550
(3) https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files … FY2017.pdf
(4) https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ … -17858.pdf
(5) https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/high- … all-games/
(7) http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpin … rdID=23550
Indeed, perhaps there are some net costs. I found this interesting
"The amount that state and local governments spend
on services for unauthorized immigrants represents a
small percentage of the total amount spent by those
governments to provide such services to residents in
Also, "Although it is difficult
to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of
the unauthorized population on state and local budgets
(see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest."
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files … ration.pdf
Some antectdotal references on here just for balance. The valedictorian at our local high school this year is the son of illegal immigrants. Meanwhile, a good portion of whites here are raising drug addicted criminals who leach off they system. This is a predominately red Midwestern area.
Maybe we should kick out the tweekers in exchange for the valedictorians if we really want to start measuring people by their worth? What if a family gets food stamps and raises kids who end up being high wage earners/tax payer?
Compare that to high-wage earners now who get no food stamps and raise drug addicted moochers. This is just an example of long-term financial and cultural impacts that are not easy to measure.
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.
As far as how illegals pay taxes: Look up Individual Tax ID Numbers..
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar … es/499604/
According to your link, 1.8 million illegals paid 13B in SS taxes, using stolen ID's or fraudulent SS #'s. That's 7200 per illegal, which means an income of $58000, given a total payment of 12.4% (half by employer, half by employee).
As the average illegal only earns round $24,000, you can believe that or not. I choose to see the truly massive flaw in the estimation.
First, the link was an afterthought. My point is you can easily Google how illegals can, and do, pay taxes without SS #s, which is what you kept implying could not happen.
Second, I think you're misunderstanding and or misrepresenting what the link says.
It never states "1.8 million illegals paid 13B in SS taxes, using stolen ID's or fraudulent SS #'s."
You stated that.
"Workers who are paid illegally in cash can still pay their taxes with an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN), filing a return just like any other taxpayer; having a history of paying taxes can be an important step in securing legal status. In 2010, about 3 million people paid over $870 million in income taxes using an ITIN, and according to the IRS, ITIN filers pay $9 billion in payroll taxes annually|"
Then later in the article:
"He calculates that undocumented immigrants paid $13 billion into the retirement trust fund that year, and only got about $1 billion in benefits."
So, if we take the $9 billion in taxes paid in with the ITINs, we only need $4 billion with fraudulent SS#s. The article doesn't state the $13 billion is all from fraudulent SS#s.
OK, so illegals paid 13B in SS taxes, indicating an average income of $58,000. With fake ID's, legal ITIN #'s or just strolled in and dropped cash on the counter top.
Did you intend to skip over that part of what I said, not fitting in what you wish to prove?
You're not understanding the article, my response, or the math.
Show the math then. Show, with basic arithmetic, how much the average illegal family pays (of those that DO pay) and what it says about their income. Then show best estimates of what their actual average income is.
And finally, show how you explain the difference.
Here is your error. You keep stating that the link states this:
"According to your link, 1.8 million illegals paid 13B in SS taxes, using stolen ID's or fraudulent SS #'s." ---IT DOES NOT STATE THAT.
It does state they paid 13B but not JUST by the 1.8 million paying with stolen SS#s. This 13B is from "undocumented immigrants" in general, which includes the unnamed number of those paying through ITIN numbers.
" Stephen Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, estimates that about 1.8 million immigrants were working with fake or stolen Social Security cards in 2010, and he expects that number to reach 3.4 million by 2040. He calculates that undocumented immigrants paid $13 billion into the retirement trust fund that year, and only got about $1 billion in benefits."
I'm not making any sort of case for or against immigration here. It seems you are though. I joined the conversation to state the simple fact of how people pay taxes without SS numbers. Now, I'm simply replying to you
Gross is talking about illegals using fake SS cards. And he expects the number to reach 3.4 million. He calculates... . And you're going to assume that the calculation is about something totally different than the topic of discussion - illegals using fake SS cards? I see that as quite a jump.
What indication is there that the topic of conversation has changed, and then, in the same sentence, changed right back to illegals with a SS# (ITINs cannot be used to get that 1B in benefits)?
I'm not assuming anything. I'm reading the paragraph, and I'm correct as the primary source shows.
Gross et. al., Page 4:
"We estimate $13 billion in OASDI payroll
taxes from unauthorized immigrant workers
and their employers in 2010. This number reflects
earnings for those with no recorded SSN, those
who have obtained an SSN with fraudulent identification,
and those with legitimate SSNs who have
overstayed temporary visas."
"OCACT estimates 1.8 million other immigrants worked
and used an SSN that did not match their name in 2010.
Their earnings may be credited to someone else’s record
(when the SSN and name submitted to the employer
match Social Security records) or may be credited to the
Earnings Suspense File (when submitted with nonmatching
SSN and name). Finally, OCACT estimates
3.9 million other immigrants worked in the underground
economy in 2010.
Eliminating the current visa holders with temporary
authorization (1.3 million other immigrants with legal
work authorization), and those in the underground economy
(3.9 million unauthorized workers), we estimate
that there are about 3.1 million unauthorized immigrants
working and paying Social Security taxes in 2010. With
the average amount of OASDI taxable earnings for these
immigrants assumed to be about 80 percent of the average
level for all workers, we estimate $13 billion in payroll
taxes from unauthorized immigrant workers and
their employers in 2010."
OK, let's see. I'd have to question the assumption that the average illegal wage is 80% of the average for all workers to start with. Average income in the US is about $45,000, and 80% of that is $36,000. Personally, I find that figure really hard to swallow as an average income for an illegal alien - that's $18 per hour, and a figure hard to accomplish nearly anywhere without at least a high school education. So I find that assumption very suspect, and doubly so as it isn't even a rational estimate, but mere assumption. More reasonable, seems to me, is 80% of the $27000 figure for all workers without a high school education. That way we leave out the illegal engineers, college professors and CEO's while including the farm worker, nanny and yard worker.
So let's use that, shall we? 80% of 27,000 is $21600. And 6.4% of that (SSI taxes on employee) is 1382: times 3.1 million illegals is a total contribution from all illegals of 4,284,200,000. That's only about a third of the "estimated" sum of 13 Billion.
(I did have a hard time dissecting the portion of that verbiage you are supplying; it was not complete in the report I read. And I still do: does the 13B in "payroll taxes" include income taxes? The last sentence says "yes" the rest of it says "no".)
Don W, I'm not seeing you've wrote an article on immigration/this caravan situation, but maybe I'm missing it. Other than reading a couple statements from immigration attorneys, I haven't seen anyone put the research and thought into this that you have. You should write a piece on this. I'd share it all over the place.
Sorry - I didn't make myself clear. If 7,000 people simply march down the road into the US, and we are to stop them without violence (bullets, tear gas, etc.) it will take far more than 7,000 marines to do it. Even one marine to one illegal won't be sufficient as marines will be hurt or killed that way. It will require overwhelming force to do it without hurting illegals or marines.
It is illegal for active service military personnel to carry out law enforcement duties without an act of Congress:
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, wilfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. "(18 U.S.C. § 1385)(1).
So active duty military personnel can only provide logistics and support services, but that should be the extent of their involvement.
"Get the word to the caravan that anyone that tries to cross our border in any other place than the intake center, (or our other established intake centers), will be immediately bused back into Mexico"
Not sure what you mean here. How do you transport someone without taking them into custody? How do you take them into custody without bringing them into the country? How can you deny someone already in the country the right to claim asylum without violating federal law?
"Sec. 208. (a) Authority to Apply for Asylum.-
(1) In general. - 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).
https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB … -1687.html
Picky, picky Don. ;-)
Thanks to our last exchange, I was familiar with that point. Relative to that last exchange, and concerning that point, I most thought about the terminology that spoke of aliens from waters, both national and international - but the point is the same.
The next question could be whether busing them back to the proposed 'application' camp in Mexico could be determined to fulfill the requirement to allow them to file for entry. If that question could be satisfied, then the point of taking them into custody to do so would also be answered.
In essence, we would still be allowing them to apply. Which could be one reading of the law. I just need to modify one part of my solution that would have bused them to someplace other then that "application" camp.
Just keeping everyone on the right side of the law :-)
I hate to throw another wrench in the works, but asylum seekers who have entered the country are legally authorized to stay in the country while their application is pending(1).
"You may live in the United States while your application is pending before USCIS. If you are found ineligible, you can remain in the United States while your application is pending with the Immigration Judge. Most asylum applicants are not authorized to work"(1).
And if it takes longer than 150 days to process an application, the asylee may apply for authorization to work:
"You may apply for employment authorization if:
150 days have passed since you filed your complete asylum application, excluding any delays caused by you (such as a request to reschedule your interview) AND No decision has been made on your application"
Under what authority would these rules be rescinded? And could that be done in time to address the current situation?
(1) https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu … ted-states
(2) https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu … lum/asylum
Like Pres. Trump's travel ban, I think we might be headed for the courts, (or legislative 'quick fixes'), Don. I don't see the president backing down from this caravan challenge. And in this case, I don't want him to.
I am pro-immigration. I think they bring something, (or maybe even many things), needed to our nation, but I see caravans like the issue of this discussion as a different matter.
Just as our laws have to quick-step to keep up with technological breakthroughs, I think they must now "quick-step" to cope with this new immigration phenomenal.
I agree GA, that Trump's not likely to back down here..his base is too fired up now. Mainly, I just wanna say thanks for the research and discussion here to both Don W and GA. No matter how you feel about the issue, I think this is the meat and potatoes of the matter and this saved me some work in order to feel somewhat educated on the matter.
Indeed, it seems some executive action or other "quick-step" or perhaps side-step of the law would have to be made to get the outcome here that some Americans want.
I appreciate your concerns, and the circumstances of the current situation. I think a word of caution is advisable though.
If someone (including the president) believes current laws are not suitable for dealing with the situation, or similar future situations, the appropriate action is to manage as current laws allow, then try to amend or repeal existing legislation, and/or introduce different legislation. That process requires the consensus and consent of Congress, which means The People are represented in that discussion.
There may be some scope to use an Executive Order, but EOs cannot amend or overturn laws, which is what would need to happen in this case. Presidential "emergency power" could be invoked, but I think that would be very controversial and almost certainly challenged in court. So I think you're right when you say "we might be headed for the courts".
Given the current conservative majority, it is likely a ruling from SCOTUS would be in the government's favor, but it would take months to get there, and a lower court judge could (probably would) stay the execution of any order Trump gives in the meantime (as happened with the travel ban). So such an order may not be able to address the current situation.
Let me be clear about my position on this. Trying to find practical solutions to address the current situation is absolutely the right thing to do. Those considerations must be underpinned by a very simple principle though: the government must abide by the law.
The rule of law is a core part of the country's culture, traditions and values, and is fundamental to our democracy. As important as it is to manage the current situation, I think using it to justify actions that violate international and federal law would be a grave mistake. As concerned as I am about this, the government should not have carte blanche to pick and choose which laws it adheres to, based on what's convenient for it at any given time.
Under current legislation, I see no issue with setting up reception centres as you suggest, then processing each asylum seeker's claims on its merits. Of course that would need to be scaled to meet the number of people.
For those people who choose to enter the country illegally though, international and federal law is very clear. They cannot be denied the right to apply for asylum on the basis of their illegal entry, and they cannot be prosecuted for entering the country illegally while their application for asylum is pending. If the government does either of those things, then it is breaking the law.
So I don't see any (lawful) alternative to simply transporting those who enter the country illegally to one of the processing centres at the first opportunity, so they can begin the process of claiming asylum with the other asylees.
In the pamphlet Common Sense, published in 1776, Thomas Pain wrote:
"But where says some is the King of America? . . . in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other" (Thomas Pain, 1776)(1):
And in writing the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1780, John Adams famously ended the document by stating its purpose was to ensure government is: "a government of laws and not of men" (John Adams, 1780)(2)
I think we need to stay true to those principles, even (especially) in the face of current challenges.
(1) https://www.learner.org/workshops/prima … _Sense.pdf
(2) https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitu … achusetts_(1780)
"I think we need to stay true to those principles, even (especially) in the face of current challenges."
That would be my hope too Don.
But it is also my hope that some action, perhaps something like the mentioned DACA EO, can be found that would address both the immediate problem, and, comply as much as is feasible, (considering what I see as the magnitude of the need), with our current laws.
As has been pointed out, we have been experiencing the cumulative impact of a 'caravan' every month, it is just the optics impact of this caravan that has sharpened the focus.
The laws must be changed. Our legislators have acknowledged this, yet refuse to do the work.Perhaps the result of this is that both our hopes will suffer for an interim period. There are valid situational and historical examples of this possibility.
Obama rescinded the legal requirement that DACA kids be ejected with nothing more than an executive order. Perhaps Trump could do the same.
A sound plan if Mexico is willing to cooperate.
A map I saw for but a moment made it look like they had moved to the West Coast of Mexico and were heading to CA.
I guess it won't matter much if CA absorbs a few thousand more... I'm assuming in another decade or so English won't even be the native language of CA, it might even be its own independent nation... we can hope.
Be nice Ken, California is still a nice place to visit. At worst, it might become two Californians - North and South. Or maybe California and New Califa.
I'm sure the matter is a little more complicated than that as I've known people from a couple of these nations...human rights not a high priority. But, I'm not saying this isn't the case, at least for some. There are likely many reasons for the exodus and I'd bet some of them do meet the refugee criteria.
This is why it would be good to have an adult in the White House to deal with the matter. He's too busy trying to ban transgender people from being transgender...,you can even do that in Iran. It's another attempt to fire up his base and is one repeatedly done by dictators. What about those born XXY? What about conservatives staying out of people's business. Another topic, but just shows why I don't like Trump being in charge of situations like this.
Edit, I see Don W pulled out some other examples. The issue is just too complicated for someone like Trump who's specialty is divide, conquer, and bully.
Don did offer another valid perspective. But relative to qualifying for refugee status; exempting the probable few that meet one of the requirements - other than the "social group" one, I would think that, regarding this caravan, only the women - possibly with "women" being designated a social group, might qualify for refugee status.
But that is only a guess of course. I haven't read anything that would indicate more than a select few - of the thousands, might qualify under the other conditions; race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
I just want to reiterate: This is why it would be good to have an adult in the White House to deal with the matter.
Without doing more research than I have time to do--on immigration law, human rights, these particular people, etc. I don't think I can definitively state what should be done with them. I know we shouldn't be calling them an "infestation" and scaring people all to hell, to the point they are saying they'll take their own guns to the borders to stop them.
This is the problem with Trump. And, yes, Dems will try to use this as well for political reasons. This has been going on forever it seems but Trump has shown he'll take the game beyond where others have...to the point where it harms our nation perhaps irrevocably, and he doesn't seem to care one bit. In fact, it's clear that his purpose is to divide us. Everyone is the enemy except for those that support him. That attitude alone would lose my support, even if I agreed with all his policy and everything else he said.
That is the real story-- that people, who aren't immigration attorney's, or more intimately involved in this matter should take from all this IMO. Trump took our politics from the gutter all way down to the sewage treatment center, It's up to the voters to start actually treating the sewage in November.
Has it occurred to you that, just maybe, Trump has a larger purpose? That his actions are an attempt to highlight the fact that reasonable immigration reform must be enacted? He is upholding laws on the books. If we don't like what's going on, it's time to look at the laws. I see Congress as the culprit, not the president.
Trump's larger purpose is to help Trump at all costs. The need for immigration reform has been acknowledged by both parties for years. The Gang of Eight almost got a decent reform package passed that would have included cash for more border patrol agents, drones, etc.
I worked for a firm that lobbied for the bill ...it was a good compromise IMO that could have worked. The extremists, pandering to their bases, just couldn't pull the trigger.
Some more background:
Seeking asylum in another country is not a criminal offense. The US recognizes the right to seek asylum, in alignment with with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."(1)
This declaration is not legally binding.
The US is a signatory of the 1951 UN Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (as amended in 1967)(2). This is legally binding, and sets out minimum standards for the treatment of people who qualify for refugee status.
In June 2018, the Attorney General Jeff Sessions ruled that the DoJ will not generally deem victims of domestic violence or gang violence to be refugees, under the definition in Article 1 of the UN protocol:
"Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum . . . The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes—such as domestic violence or gang violence—or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim"(3).
Based on that determination by the AG, it's likely that a high proportion of the asylum seekers in the caravan would not qualify as refugees.
But the government can only know who qualifies for refugee status by systematically processing the claims of each asylum seeker. Such a process is therefore an implicit requirement of the UN refugee protocol. A blanket refusal to allow asylum seekers to claim asylum could result in refugees being turned away, or even refoulement (the forcible return of a refugee to a country where they are liable to be subjected to persecution). Both are illegal under international law.
(1) http://www.un.org/en/universal-declarat … an-rights/
Right on. I think you put up the two most useful posts on this thread. I learned a lot from the links in your first post and expect I will here when I have the time. The insanity, and conspiracy theories, over this caravan are too much.
"Such a process is therefore an implicit requirement of the UN refugee protocol."
Just curious, but do you think the French have followed UN refugee protocol and checked all the "refugees" sitting at the French end of the chunnel? I see they're now considering a second camp as well - think they'll check those in a reasonable time?
And now we have a second caravan heading north. Looks to me like we're going to have a permanent camp in Mexico of people trying to get into the country...and they aren't going to be limited to getting on a specific train, either.
" . . . do you think the French have followed UN refugee protocol and checked all the "refugees" sitting at the French end of the chunnel?"
I have no idea.
I know that "right to asylum" (or more accurately the right to seek asylum) is part of the French constitution:
"Considering that the respect of the right to asylum, a principle of constitutional value, implies in a general way that the alien who claims this right is authorized to remain temporarily in the territory until a decision has been taken on his request"(1)
So France could not violate the implicit requirements of the UN refugee protocol, without also violating its own constitution. I don't know whether it has or not.
(1) https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/ … 3325DC.htm
I don't know either, although one would think that if they had the camp would no longer be there, one way or the other. But I very highly doubt that the flood of refugees Europe is seeing/has seen have all been afforded those "rights" the UN took it upon itself to guarantee. Of course, France could be looking at one every month, too - using the resources they have available.
Somehow, only the US is held to the fire. And yes, I know the US signed on...before there were caravans of thousands of individuals showing up at once.
Countries that signed up to the UN refugee protocol are at liberty to renounce the treaty, or ask for a convention to discuss amendments.
Unless/ until one of those things happens, signatories are obliged by the rule of law, to comply with the treaty.
The French government is much more exposed to legal challenges than the US government in relation to how it receives asylum seekers, so I don't think "only the US is held to the fire".
And I don't think the US is alone in dealing with the challenges of mass migration and asylum seekers. It's something multiple countries are currently having to manage.
Some further background:
Sending asylum seekers away without assessing whether they qualify for refugee status would also be contrary to federal law.
Immigration and Nationality Act, section 208:
"(1) In general. - 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)"(1).
US Citizen and Immigration Services:
"You may apply for asylum if you are at a port of entry or in the United States. You may apply for asylum regardless of your immigration status and within one year of your arrival to the United States"(2).
(1) https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB … -1687.html
(2) https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu … plications
I don't see the problem, then. Stop them at the border, outside the US. Examine their claims one by one, as resources come available.
The law doesn't seem to state we must either hire an additional 1,000 lawyers and judges nor that we must support them while they wait. They may apply while still in Mexico. Of course, that could have been done from their home country as well...
An affirmative application for asylum (as opposed to a defensive one) is contingent on the asylum seeker being physically present in the country:
"To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status"(1)
"You may live in the United States while your application is pending before USCIS. If you are found ineligible, you can remain in the United States while your application is pending with the Immigration Judge"(2)
Edit: I don't believe the above represents a requirement to allow people to enter the country to claim asylum. There seems to be two processes in place: one for people claiming asylum while already in the country (whom the UCIS calls "asylum seekers") and one for people claiming asylum from outside the country (whom the UCIS calls "refugees")(3).
The latter process (as far as I can tell) allows the US government to satisfy it's explicit and implicit legal obligations towards people who may qualify for refugee status, without the need to allow them to physically enter the country.
But this raises the question, is preventing someone from seeking asylum from within the country, a legally valid reason to stop someone crossing the border? I suspect it is not, and lack of capacity at the port of entry will likely be given as the reason for stopping entry.
(1) https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu … ted-states
(3) https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu … m/refugees
Just for discussion, that "...within one year of your arrival ..." seems completely nuts. If you are fleeing persecution it seems logical that you would seek asylum immediately, not just whenever you felt like getting around to it.
What might be the reason for that time frame?
That requirement was introduced as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 1996(1), but there are exceptions stipulated within the Act.
I'm speculating but while a year may seem a long period of time to take for such an important application, I can imagine if someone seeking refuge enters the country with no support network, no money, little English, possibly little education, is scared, distrustful of authority, isolated, depressed (as may be the case if they have just fled violent persecution) it might take them longer to get to the point of being able to make that application than someone who speaks fluent English, is well-educated, has money, family or friends already in the country etc.
In that situation, I'm guessing "logic" doesn't really come into it
So the 1-year-bar seems to be an attempt to balance the issue of people making disingenuous defensive applications years after entry, with the fact that some people may genuinely take longer to be able to process the whole situation.
(1) https://www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/iir … pdf?n=7780
Don, I bet you were smiling when you referenced that link, just imagining what you set me up for!
179 pages of bureaucratic legalese of; Title 1, sub-title A, Section 203 sub section B paragraph 1 sub-paragraph C, not subject to (i) or (ii), but subject to revision as amended in —Section 161(c)(3) etc. etc. etc. Geesh!
After more than an hour bouncing back and fourth between three open tabs of the same document trying to follow the trail of those bureaucratic up and down, back and fourth word mazes...
And finally, on page 146 there was this:
"Asylum in the United States.
‘‘(B) TIME LIMIT.—Subject to subparagraph (D), paragraph
(1) shall not apply to an alien unless the alien
demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the
application has been filed within 1 year after the date
of the alien’s arrival in the United States"
But of course, for thoroughness, I had to finish the next 33 pages of word salad - only to find... That's it, the only reference in the whole document!
(imagine my angst when another search revealed multiple sources leading with that same blurb in human speak - Geesh!)
No wonder you could only offer speculation relative to that "1 year" thing.
But, I had already put in too much effort to stop there, So it was off to another hour or so, and a dozen or two links - to see if I could find out why asylum seekers had one year to file.
In the end, I can only offer some speculation of my own, and that is that it might be a confusion of terms. It strongly appears that, where the government is concerned, "file" is not synonymous with 'submit.' In this case it appears that "file" means that some government action on the 'submitted' form is taken.
My first clue was this blurb from the American Immigration Council web site:
"The immigration courts’ unprecedented backlogs are creating procedural and substantive challenges for attorneys trying to comply with the One-Year Filing Deadline (OYFD) in asylum cases. These difficulties are most prevalent in scenarios where an asylum applicant is running up against the OYFD and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has issued a charging document, but not yet filed it with the immigration court. "
It appears, to me, that an asylum speaker does need to submit an asylum application as soon as possible after entering the U.S., (or after a visa expires) - in order for their "submission" to be "filed" within that 1-year time frame.
It seems filing and submitting may mean different things in this instance.
Of course that could be as wrong as most speculation is, (like your reasoning, maybe?), but, without finding any government rational for that year, it seems to make sense. Maybe "logic" does have a place in discussion of this issue.
I had the same issue. Should have given the section number to save you the trouble.
I think there probably is a distinction between submitting (handing an application to a relevant authority) and filing (an application being registered within the relevant system) but both terms are used synonymously in information issued by the government, which is confusing e.g:
"If you live in . . . Then file your application with . . . " (instructions to asylum seekers)(1).
But you got me sufficiently intrigued as to the origin of this stipulation to take make a "deeper dive". This may or may not answer some of your questions about its origin, but I found it interesting anyway.
According to the congressional record for the Senate, May 1, 1996:
Sen. Simpson (R): "What you are seeing is, when you have a country that is your leading source of illegal immigration, they are picking them up, and they have been here 2, 3 years, and they say, ‘‘I am seeking asylum’’ because they know that these procedures are interminable. . . There is a balance to be struck between granting asylum to those who are qualified and preventing this country’s traditional hospitality being taken advantage of in a most extraordinary way. "(2)
In addition to this, there was also some concern about those who genuinely qualify for asylum being turned away due to a strict interpretation of the time limit and its exceptions.
According to the congressional record for the Senate, September 30, 1996:
Sen. Hatch (R): "Let me say that I share the Senator’s concern that we continue to ensure that asylum is available for those with legitimate claims of asylum. The way in which the time limit was rewritten in the conference report—with the two exceptions specified—was intended to provide adequate protections to those with legitimate claims of asylum.
I expect that circumstances covered by the Senate’s good cause exception will likely be covered by either the changed circumstances exception or the extraordinary circumstances exception contained in the conference report language. The conference report provision represents a compromise in that, unlike the Senate provision, it applies to all claims of asylum, whether raised affirmatively or defensively".
Senator Abraham (R): "If the time limit and the exceptions you have discussed do not provide sufficient protection to aliens with bona fide claims of asylum, I will be prepared to work with my colleagues to address that problem. Is my understanding correct that you too will pay close attention to how this provision is interpreted?"
Sen. Hatch: "Yes. Like you, I am committed to ensuring that those with legitimate claims of asylum are not returned to persecution, particularly for technical deficiencies. If the time limit is not implemented fairly, or cannot be implemented fairly, I will be prepared to revisit this issue in a later Congress."(2)
This comment from Sen. Simpson indicates the source of this concern. Providing refuge to those who qualify for protection was considered a serious and important duty:
"I remind our colleagues of one other item that has sprung from the debate. Our laws and treaties prevent our Government from returning any person to any country where their life or freedom may be in danger. That is the law of the United States. It is the law of the United Nations. It is the sacred law. It is called nonrefoulment: You cannot return a person to a country where their life or freedom may be in danger. That is not done. We do not do it, and that is the law of the United States. That is the law of the United Nations."(3)
In general, my speculation about the possible reasons for a delay in applying for asylum differs somewhat to what was considered by Congress. There doesn't seem to be any consideration of an individual's personal capacity to claim asylum. Instead Congress focused on delays caused by unforeseen events, e.g. 11 months after arrival a regime change in the country of origin; or technical issues outside the control of the asylum seeker preventing their application being filed etc..
But based on the above, I think I stand by my view that the 1-year-bar was an attempt by Congress to balance the issue of disingenuous applications made years after entry, with the fact that some applications may take longer to be submitted/ filed through no fault of the asylee.
On a side note, can you imagine a Republican Senator making the following comment today?:
Sen. Hatch: "On a related point, the Clinton administration has recently announced its plans to cut refugee admissions next year to 78,000. I oppose this cut. In fiscal year 1995, the level was 110,000. Last year, the level of refugee admissions was set at 90,000. I believe we should set the same level of 90,000 refugee admissions for next year. A further cut is unwarranted, especially with the renewed steps against alien immigration embodied in the bill. Moreover, I think it sends the wrong signal to the world".
How times have changed.
(1) https://www.uscis.gov/i-589 (under "Where to file")
(2) https://www.congress.gov/crec/1996/05/0 … senate.pdf (p.S4468, para. 4)
(3) https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1996 … S11838.pdf (p. S11840, para. 1)
(4) https://www.congress.gov/crec/1996/05/0 … senate.pdf (p.S4467, col. 3, para. 8)
Nice work Don. I am jealous that you thought to go to the Congressional record and I didn't, and am chastising myself for the laziness of a broad term search. I should had drilled down more specifically. I will next time.
I'll let this one go as a compromise understanding. I still don't think it had very much to do with your first speculation. And judging from your quoted statements, it didn't have anything to do with my American Immigration Council blurb about government process either.
It looks like your Sen. Simpson quote explains it; a sense of fairness in consideration of the seriousness of the issue. The point of his words - a balance between the harsh necessity of law and human nature.
Now that does make sense to me.
Yes, a Democratic ploy is the alleged message. Democrats went to Honduras, hired 7,000 people to march 2,000 miles through Mexico and managed to keep all of them from telling anyone about this massive liberal conspiracy.
Sarcasm aside, either party could be contributing to the caravan in some way for the sake of political advantage. But reality gets in the way of that idea.
It's also useless to make such an accusation because it changes nothing. The real issue is what to do with illegal immigrants in general and this caravan in particular.
Inflammatory, one-sided memes simply divide people even more and solve nothing.
Absolutely hard sun, I watched a very brief film clip of the last Bozo Trump hate gathering, you know, the so called rallies which the media no longer covers live because apparently the ratings are WAY Down, and it looked like the 20 or so individuals directly behind him on camera were paid 'Extras" from a casting agency:
I would agree. Seems like a Republican plot to get people in Texas and Arizona riled up about illegal immigration. We should definitely investigate. How exactly does a caravan like this get going at this particular time? I'd guess the Koch brothers funded it.
I think we should house and feed them while we humanely process them according to our existing laws. Bring in more workers to get it done quickly and efficiently but also fairly and legally.
That sounds like your emotions, (heart), speaking PrettyPanther. Does your reason, (your head), agree with it?
I feel confident you are aware of the past year's illegal immigrant processing crisis. The child separations, the transnational holding placements - from Maine to Missouri, Delaware to Oregon, the major judicial manpower relocations, (all those emergency judges pulled from their already overloaded dockets and shipped to the border) to process the current backlog of application processes that were generated by an influx that came in groups typically around 8 to 10 people...
... and your response to deal with a one-time impact of 4000 - 7000 is to house and feed them until we can process them too?
At the rate these immigration numbers are mounting, your solution would almost need to turn a state, say New Mexico or Arkansas, or even Texas, into a holding state. At least they could all remain united and in one place, rather than being scattered throughout the nation.
What does your reason say to that solution?
And what would your emotion say to the security processes that would have to be implemented to maintain that those in-the-process immigrants stay in those holding states and don't start just slipping out to disappear among the nation's populace - as some of those caravan participants say is their intention? With your reason taking a back seat would your emotion then label such security actions as police state actions?
The in-the-process immigrants are entitled to a judicial review process, but as has been noted, we don't have enough judges assigned to that process. Do we have enough extra judges nationwide to pull them into that "holding state" to handle the new workload, or would those immigrants have to just stay there until we generate enough new judges to handle that workload, and, the normal judicial workload that is our nation's requirement?
My "reason" tells me that your "house them and feed them" solution isn't at all a reasonable solution.
GA, if we, one of the wealthiest and most civilized and advanced countries in the world, cannot handle 5000 people with advance notice, then we are incompetent and stupid. We have the means and the talent to deal with this. Yes, it would be a logistical nightmare. Yes, it would require massive deployment of resources and people. Yet, that is what we do in times of crisis, whether it's a massive earthquake or hurricane or a response to an attack like 9/11. A competent leader would prepare for it and deal with it. Yes, it would be messy and imperfect but if these people are met with food and water and help, they will likely respond in kind. If they are met with force and fear, they will likely respond in kind.
And therein lay the liberal solution to the illegal immigration problem present for decades , Stop the problem, control or contain , limit the problems in percentages , end the human trafficking , the sexual exploitation of innocent women and children , the drug trafficking , solve the problem ?
No ,simply open the faucet to full capacity .
We ARE incompetent and stupid, for we keep making the same mistake over and over and over when it comes to illegal border crossings. Rather than shut it down, we let them in with a promise not to do it any more...and then do it again. Stupid and incompetent; if we were not we would have learned from the European countries that have had large groups of "immigrants" camp on their shores and what happened when they let them in.
That's funny. Arguing from a stance as if this is an isolated incident. I'd agree, if it was an isolated incident. What this caravan represents is a statement. Basically it says we are aware of a national dialogue north of the border and we want Americans to hear loud and clear that open borders is what we demand.
The foolish idea that our response should be millions (perhaps billions, if such an idea were put into action) spent to somehow appease all parties makes no sense, at all.
That's the point. We somehow aren't learning from our own history.
So, what is your suggested response to the arrival of 5000 nen, women, and children en masse at the border? How do you propose to physically stop them?
We have been dealing with this illegal immigrant processing problem through multiple administrations for decades. And now we are faced with a potential simultaneous surge of 5000 -10,000 in one hit. So either your thoughts are emotional rather than reasoned, or we all are incompetent and stupid.
Obviously, I think reality disagrees with your thought that we can just house and feed them, and that they will wait patiently at the border while we do so.
As for them returning our kindness with kindness, Mexico tried that with shelters, food, and water, at the Guatemala border bridge, and the caravan did not return that kindness. They ignored the process and the Mexican's plea for patience and surged across the river.
Does you head, (reason), think they will do differently at our border?
So, what is a better solution? I can think of nothing other than with guns and tanks. Do you think that is better?
Their destination was not Mexico, which is why they continued on. I don't see any other way than what I described, plus the security to back it up, but maybe you have a better solution? I personally do not think guns and tanks alone is a good idea, but I'm sure plenty of people do.
Edited to add: I'm guessing you don't mean to be condescending when you say (twice) I am only using my emotions to consider what should be done when this caravan hits the border, but you are mightily wrong, regardless. We should be firm about not letting them in, but we should also maintain the peace by providing for their basic needs until they are all processed according to our existing laws. That is quite a rational position. Simply turning them away is irrational, in my opinion, as it is clear that if 5-10,000 people want to resist, they will find a way, and what would be the result of that, do you think? If these people are properly processed and the vast majority are refused entry (which would be the case if you are right that the vast majority do not qualify for asylum), it will deter future caravans from coming. I know you think we can't do it, but we can.
I don't want to see guns and tanks either PrettyPanther. And I did offer a a possible course of action.
Do what Mexico tried to do. Set up a registration and processing entry point specifically for this caravan. Get the word about it, and our other existing legal points of entry, to the caravan.
Then line up the buses, border patrol, and National Guard - if needed, and they all don't need their guns. I thinking of a catching wall not an armed one. Kind of like a riot squad action.
Any that line up at these points - from the Mexican side of the border, get food and water, and a chance to request entry - for whatever their reason is. Any that try to circumvent these entry points get immediately bused back into Mexico - with a strike against them against future legal entry efforts.
They have stated they are coming with intentions of contravening our laws. We can be humanitarian to those that are willing to make the effort to comply, but to the others - I think we should be firm and stand behind our laws. Lawbreakers get immediate deportation. From the desert or the river bank, to the bus, to the Mexican authorities. Done.
I don't want to house and feed them in the U.S. And I don't want to process any - of this caravan - that don't enter the legal processing points.
We are closer than you think. I stated they should not be allowed to cross the border until they are processed according to our existing laws.
Of course, I'm only thinking with my emotions....
Nah, now you're thinking with your head. And look, it only took a little kindly nudging to get you on the right track.
But I have to go now. My wife says my apron is tied wrong, and I still have dishes to do.
No, I did not mean to be condescending at all PrettyPanther. My repetition was to reinforce my perspective that you were listening to your heart and not your head.
Probably surprising to you, I can agree with your [added edit] points, with the added condition that they be processed from the Mexican side of the border, as I explained in my last response to your comment. If Mexico allows them to flout their laws - all the way to the U.S. border, then let Mexico handle the responsibility of sheltering them while they await processing. We could even kick in on needed supplies.
So the report we saw said up to 7000 are in the caravan now. It's a long way to the American border. I'd say those numbers can swell.
I will say that the left's rhetoric is probably emboldening those headed our way. And, if the left doesn't consider the possibility of over 7000 people crossing the border illegally being a problem, we've got bigger problems. If this all ends well for these people we'll see larger and larger groups ignoring our laws.
I sympathize with the stories told by these people but if you are going to claim you are fleeing lawlessness, then flaunt the law in the process, it's hard to sympathize enough to shrug my shoulders and say 'come on in.'
"And, if the left doesn't consider the possibility of over 7000 people crossing the border illegally being a problem, we've got bigger problems."
We've got bigger problems. Consider the number of sanctuary cities and states that obviously find no problem with hordes of illegal aliens crossing the border illegally...we've got bigger problems.
You can ALL count on one thing , it will be the Trump that will be the one who accomplished the most with illegal immigration , liberal "poor little unfed children" syndrome or not . Obama do anything constructive to resolve that ? Has the democratic house .............ever?
Yes it all comes down to party.
The southern border is a human sieve .
It has been "allowed" to leak profusely ,a doom to any 'normal' national economy and one that constantly affects employment -unemployment , welfare , any social securities , taxation , health care , If the US economy wasn't so generally vibrant Americans would be screaming their lungs out to stop this human tragedy .
Yet , Most Americans DO want this tragic migratory exploitation to end , If not for the perceived reasons on the right then to end the borderland suffering of these migrants ---It is unknown how extensive the actual exploitations of women , children and laborers REALLY is .
Fact , Some studies shown, about eighty percent of illegal immigrant women alone are raped in the deserts by traffickers ! Funny , that fact alone seemingly would bother even a "normal" liberal yet................silence.
So, someone here said this issue doesn't fire up democrats, like Republicans.
That's good. We have two perspectives.
Law and order vs disregard for US law.
I don't think the liberal views laws like the conservative. It could be exactly why we can't get reasonable and enforceable immigration policy. The liberal mind glorifies ideals of defying law and forcibly creating new ones to push their ideals in others. The conservative mind glorifies being a good citizen and orderly changing laws through national dialogue and already agreed upon processes.
The difference in what our tax dollars should be spent on and how much can be taken from us helps the liberal not fret over border control. The conservative worries about costs, the liberal, potential votes.
The difference in expectations of quality of life for immigrants helps the liberal mind not fret. The liberal thinks entry into the US, handing out public assistance, shows love and ends their responsibility to pay attention. The conservative wants ordered entry so those who come have a fair chance at attaining the American dream.
This is, by necessity, overly simplified. But liberals claim conservative concerns are based on racism and hatred. I think conservative concerns are rooted in a desire to ensure the American dream remains alive and those who enter legally have the ability to attain it.
I could go on, but the truth is conservatives care more deeply for a broader range of humanity and think about the ramifications of actions more completely than the liberal mind can fathom. Instead of fighting, the two views should work together to find solutions.
There's a lot of generalizations here, and we could debate them point by point but it makes no sense to me. People have nuanced views on things, and most of us don't follow party lines on every issue, let alone on how we think.
The entire diatribe here is in opposition to the final sentence ". Instead of fighting, the two views should work together to find solutions." You're stating all liberals think like this and all conservatives think like that. If only all liberals would think like all conservatives, we could work together. I don't even agree that all "liberals" think alike, let alone the rest of it.
One thing though "The conservative worries about costs, the liberal, potential votes."
Of course liberals worry about votes..conservatives don't? Ted Cruise is licking Trump's boots now after Trump insulted his family. Also, if conservatives worry about costs so much, why is the debt skyrocketing under Trump?
Good points. As I stated, generalizations. Plenty of them. But my generalizations were in response to the idea that conservatives are racist and mean spirited. I think both views have their particular merits. They should be discussed. The vote thing, though....one wants votes from people who already have a dog in the fight. Who already remit taxes to pay for government policy. It isn't a long term plan to outnumber through attrition. It's kind of like where I lived once. Little town next to a large city. Bedroom communities sprouted up, city folk wanting country life....but their way. Higher taxes resulted, leash laws, lawsuits against people who had been there for years doing business. They changed the landscape until small town life looked like big city life. Seemed a like unfair.
I'm not entirely disagreeing with everything here. Often times, at the city level, I don't like Dems as they bring to many regulations that do affect my life. Then again, the silly Republicans here mess with people as well.
The vote thing, though....one wants votes from people who already have a dog in the fight. Who already remit taxes to pay for government policy.
So, you are stating that these immigrants or refugees are going to come here and vote? I don't think that's a factor. If you think it's about years down the line after they may become citizens, I don't think politicians care one bit about votes years down the line.
Eventually, of course they will vote. In the interim, they can influence those already voting.
Your comment about democrats and Republicans. I agree. I think that is why I'm more for limiting the government than expanding it's tentacles. Whatever group is in power...Whatever groups affect change of laws...those laws will be counter to what a percentage of the population considers fair and right. More laws are a no win proposition. They are a stranglehold which will eventually suffocate more and more citizens.
I only see these migrants giving the Republicans a boost in voter excitement for November.
I agree about big government. Except, I do think we need things such as environmental regulations, worker protections, etc. They must be well-crafted to not backfire and hurt the poor though. Too many times, big businesses are allowed to pay to play and such, where the smaller guys don't even have a chance to get going. I'm more worried about government interference on a local level.
I have a big libertarian streak in me when it comes to personal freedoms, but the cause is most often used as a way to gain advantage to those who are already in power, which is not Libertarian at all. I've said I'm a left-leaning libertarian, which seems counter-intuitive. However, the political spectrum follows no rules and this is why I grow so weary of reading "your party" blah blah blah. Just because I don't like Trump doesn't mean I like everything Nancy Pelosi is about.
Very reasonable, in my opinion.
"Except, I do think we need things such as environmental regulations, worker protections, etc. They must be well-crafted to not backfire and hurt the poor though."
I think we all agree we need such protections; the days of extremely hazardous sweatshops and smokestacks pouring pollutants into our lungs must not return.
But. The only way not to hurt the poor (the small business man, for instance) is to make them exempt from the laws. The laws that provide for the clean air the poor breathe, the laws that protect the poor from hazardous work places, the laws that provide the poor with ADA ramps and bathrooms. We must tell the poor that they need not participate in actions that protect people; that they have no responsibility there. THAT hurts the poor as much or more than it helps.
A conundrum, then, that is one of the major reasons that small businesses are becoming ever more rare; it is nearly impossible for a new startup to comply with federal laws to protect us all, including the poor.
Why are we talking about votes. Immigrants legal or illegal cannot vote in Federal elections. I've been here two decades on the slow and expensive path to citizenship and I can't vote. Not just that I wouldn't, it is literally impossible as there is no way to be on the voting role and if I try I would be deported.
We are talking about rallying the citizens for votes based on the immigration issue.
However, I do know there are some out there who claim mass voter fraud, allowing non-citizens to vote, etc. That's another story of misinformation.
Apologies PsycheSkinner, I don't know, maybe some here are concerned about these immigrants voting, IDK...I'm not.
Some people believe that immigrants vote illegally in large numbers, even though there is no evidence to support this belief.
Your comment is interesting. We have been told repeatedly that millions of illegal immigrants easily voted for Hillary Clinton.
I'm surprised our government makes it so hard for you to vote but so easy for them. On the other hand, maybe we don't have millions of illegal voters.
Pardon me for bursting in here as a newbie & unsure of protocol but your comment SHOCKED me to the core & I feel compelled to respond immediately! I thought it was common knowledge that it's been PROVEN that illegals ABSOLUTELY vote in US elections because it's easily available info on the internet/Google even if MSM refuses to air it!? There are studies, interviews, video evidence, lawsuits, investigations, etc. It's even Organized Fraud by PACs, ncaap, acorn, etc. I'm posting a few links in case you'd like to broaden your knowledge on this huge and growing problem & understand the impact of illegals on ALL of our rights, benefits & privileges. If there are 100,000 in PA, how many are there in al the other States!??
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018 … d-vote-pa/
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017 … elections/
https://www.conservativereview.com/news … elections/
http://www.illegalaliencrimereport.com/ … in-texas/.
Liberal immigration policy equivalence ?
Let's eliminate speed limit laws , perhaps especially by the elementary schools , that way we won't need to have laws and of course everyone will be reasonable as they drive by ?
This how illegal immigrants in Mexico on their way to America view Trump and the rule of law ,
Let us into America the shining star on the hill or you are all Nazi's !
Tell me they aren't democrats again .................
The problem with these situations is those who are marching are not aware of what is really happening. Proper education and enlightenment are lacking.
They are not coming here because they love America , our weather , our history , our language , our people , our government , our military , they are coming here for money , free benefits and because they want what you do have .
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
We should take it down if we no longer mean it. At least we would not be lying to the world.
We're lifting our lamp by the golden door and people decide not to follow the light but to sneak through the shadows.
They are violently attacking Mexico's police , robbing markets for provisions on their way to Your Town USA according to American Thinker site . Little different than the Irish - Chinese immigrants looking for Railroad constructing jobs in 1850 no ?
That poor man. First in 2016 and now again!
https://www.la-prensa.com.mx/mexico/123 … es-galindo
https://psn.si/cnte-enfrenta-a-policia- … z/2016/06/
(Psst... Fake news!)
".......An adult in the White House .....?" Welcome to President Obama's America ...........?
Pres. Trump , Let's Build a city for the caravan that will be a shining city , we HAVE to keep liberals happy ?
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.
If anyone is paying for this, it's likely Trump firing up the base. You guys are proof of that possibility. But, Trump would have to borrow the money. I have military experience also..that doesn't mean a great deal here TBH.
You have no facts to support your allegations against President Donald Trump. One of my jobs in the military required I make certain thousands of traveling soldiers had what they needed on a daily basis. My POINT was the logistics for making this happen for thousands of people on a daily basis requires organization, supplies, supply routes, delivery methods and more. Moving these many people thousands of miles is very involved. You get low marks for reading comprehension.
No one has facts about ANYONE funding this. Ha ha, trying to hurt my feelings? Better move on to the next individual for those efforts. You get lower marks for understanding facts.It doesn't take military experience, or any experience, to understand logistics on that broad level. BTW, wouldn't soldiers need a little more equipment than immigrants?
At any rate, this is firing you all up so if anyone is funding this, it's not liberal interests IMO..my OPINION is better than yours,
Would you support not seating Democrats who win House or Senate seats?
Nobody "walks " 1,700 miles on an empty stomach without major ,major logistics in place , wonder where Soros is hiding the tents ?
Your point is well taken. Then again, maybe neither side is paying for it. How do 10,000 people all keep their massive international conspiracy so secret?
But logic doesn't stop some people from posting inflammatory memes that are meant to divide the country rather than solve our problems.
Agreed I think absolutely likely neither side is paying for this. We need real discussion about immigration policy like we did back with the Gang of Eight Bill, no it wasn't perfect, but it was solid...the extremists won't allow that discussion anymore.
Everyone is the enemy except for those that support Trump. That attitude alone would lose my support, even if I agreed with all his policy and everything else he said.
Trump and some of his supporters are claiming without evidence that George Soros is paying them.
One or more Trump supporters responded by mailing Soros a bomb.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=george+so … 8A237BD074
As someone pointed out, someone is providing trucks, fuel, food, water, etc. I refuse to believe that refugees from a third world country are able to trek thousands of miles without help.
Maybe it's Mexico. Maybe it's Russia. Maybe it's Trump, Soros or Clinton. Maybe it's a coalition of farmers near the border. Maybe it's the idiots in sanctuary cities.
I certainly don't know who it is, but someone is funding that army.
That is my point. If we find out who, we would know the real story behind this attempted invasion. If only we had journalists dedicated to discovering the truth.
There are photos and news stories of people along the way giving them food and money.
I agree with you that secret help is possible. But no matter how hard Fox News and other conservative media try, they so far can't find any proof of government involvement.
Until then, I suggest we focus more on solving the problem rather than making accusations against either side without proof.
I'll at least meet you halfway with the idea that the Mexican government is not discouraging and maybe even encouraging the caravan.
That's easy to believe because the entire country is so po'd at Trump's insults.
That's horrid..especially that our President has a good deal of culpability here. His dictatorial tendencies are extraordinary for American politics.
That's why I'm adding this to every post..this is what dicators do..divide the country, and take out the enemy, "lock her up" it's insane.
"Everyone is the enemy except for those that support Trump. That attitude alone would lose my support, even if I agreed with all his policy and everything else he said."
At the rate he keeps encouraging violence against his opponents, I won't be surprised if people start getting killed rather than assaults and bombs in the mail.
Oh, that ship sailed. Remember the shooting at the ballpark? I constantly wonder why the left doesn't hold its own rhetoric responsible for violence it causes.
Of course I remember it along with other acts of violence by disturbed people on both sides of the political spectrum.
But the difference here is that it's the President of the United States encouraging rather than condemning violence.
I don't care which party he represents (although Trump is Republican in name only). POTUS should automatically condemn violence.
Until you hold both sides to the same standard (which I do) you won't get much traction.
I agree we should hold both sides to the same standard. We should hold POTUS to the highest standard whether it's a Democrat or Republican.
I'd agree, but I don't see the left holding anyone to any standard. I haven't heard anyone condemning Waters, Holder, Hillary. So, the statement is still somewhat hypocritical.
I'm not aware that Hillary praised a Congressman for assaulting a reporter.
Waters: "Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents."
Although juvenile, I don't see how that equals applauding actual assault.
Holder: "Michelle [Obama] always says ‘When they go low, we go high,'" Holder told the crowd. "No. No. When they go low, we kick them...
"When I say we kick them, I don’t mean we do anything inappropriate, we don’t do anything illegal, but we have to be tough and we have to fight."
Again, I don't see the equivalence.
Of course you don't. Thanks for reinforcing my opinion.
Surprising reply. In what way do those quotes promote violence? Did Clinton praise anyone found guilty of assault?
To be clear. I don't think any of them are correct to make statements which can be seen in support of violence. You have made excuses for statements made which promote it, or promote creating situations which easily lead to violence. The president is wrong and so are they. If you make excuses for one or the other you are a promoting hypocrisy.
I have not made excuses for statements promoting violence. I have provided the exact quotes which your side says are promoting violence.
I am asking you to explain how "I don’t mean we do anything inappropriate, we don’t do anything illegal" is promoting violence.
I'm also asking you how that statement is equal to our President applauding a Congressman for assaulting a reporter.
This is why the problem exists. Each side attempts to quantify. Violence is violence. If you think body slamming (? I didn't read an article on it) and saying 'that's my kind of guy' is different from smashing windows and throwing food on people and spitting on them....i understand why the shooting at the ballpark of Republicans also seems better than Trump.
Apologies for jumping in here..but...can't help it. I don't think there's much difference. However, one here is being sanctioned and encouraged by the President who is supposed to represent all Americans.
The people throwing food don't represent me, the President is supposed to, by law.
Here's the real problem:
"I don't care how Trumps rhetoric sparks the left , AS LONG as the left ignores conveniently their own party's major platform of inciting violence , as far as I'm concerned Trumps just returning the favor .
So, as long as my violence Trumps your violence (pun intended) than I'm cool with it. That's not an American talking, that's a Trumpian from Cali with keyboard courage.
Keyboard courage is alive and well on both sides. Trump doesn't represent my opinion either. If we don't stand against it, unequivocally, we contribute to the problem. That's my only point.
Well yeah, it is alive on both sides. Agreed. Violence breeds violence and if it's not stopped it will spiral out of control. Unfortunately, I think this is where we are headed and what Trump wants if he doesn't have the total power he so desperately strives to get.
The above comment is stating he's OK with violence as long as it stops the violence he doesn't agree with...that's the problem.
I think we'd disagree on Trump wanting total power. I don't see that. But if I did believe that I'd probably agree with you. I saw Obama as an usurper. I don't see Trump as one.
Trump likes dictators better than leaders of the free world..I could go on forever about Trump's dictatorial statements and aspirations as can the coauthor of his autobiography, etc. etc. Almost everything he does is out of some dictator manual that they all pass around or something.
I think most Obama haters wanted a dicator, just not Obama. Also, it confuses me how it's "Obama's too weak" but then again he wants to be a dicator.
All I can do is encourage you to maybe take a look at things again and re-consider, maybe give it a thought.
Agreeing about Trump and power should have nothing to do with whether we should promote violence does it?
You are correct. They are two different conversations. But, let's think about what is going on. Trump is an ass with foot in mouth disease. The left complains trump is inciting violence on the right. There is ample evidence of violence on the left. None, to speak of, from the right. So, who is inciting violence?
I'm willing and committed to holding both sides to the fire, but, come on. Who is inciting the violence and who is giving in to violent behavior?
I have been vilified for speaking that truth , not that that bothers me , the left sure does "crayola " the truth about this though huh ?
I see your point and agree to an extent. Trump is inciting violence and we have seen at least some from his supporters...Charlottesvile, the recent Soros bomb, his rallies were not exactly models of civility, with people being charged with assault, even a guy who worked for Trump.
Now, I don't agree with antifa, or any of the food throwing, etc. either. No matter what a certain other foot in mouth disease character here says
Think about this though. You don't think that Trump being an ass with foot in mouth disease is not inciting the left? I'm not stating that it makes their actions correct, but come on, we must hold our President to a higher standard if we are going to survive as a union.
Trump's rhetoric, and that of his supporters, from the beginning, escalated this beyond where it's been in the past. They spouted hate and wore t-shirts stating things like Fuck your feelings. Trump is responsible here.
And, we can remember all the images of Obama burnt/hung, etc etc.
I never saw any effigies of Obama. I'm not saying they didn't exist, I just never saw them. I have seen videos of Trump being executed and beheaded, so I guess we can say that things progressively get worse.
The Charlottesville incident, I suppose you could look at it that way. The right unequivocally denounces those groups and it does not appear that Trump follows suit. It is reasonable to say that by not denouncing them he emboldens them. But, if we do that, then we must also denounce the left for violence coming from the left. If we don't, I'll need an explanation.
As to the 'f your feelings' I haven't seen that either. Again, I'm not saying it didn't happen. But, I've seen video of groups on the left harassing random people who aren't even involved in a protest. Not one attacked in response.
That reply doesn't answer my questions about your original comment about Clinton, Holder and Waters.
Your further replies put the support of violence and basic political opposition on the same level.
A President applauding someone convicted of assaulting a journalist is NOT the same as a Maxine Walters who says, "you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."
And again, did Clinton praise anyone who assaulted American citizens?
Not gonna happen. That has been made abundantly clear.
"One or more Trump supporters responded by mailing Soros a bomb"
Once again struggling with the concept of facts and evidence.
Your imagination does not make it true.
Imagination ; The greatest ideal of the liberal . Remember people "If we repeat the lie enough ,It eventually becomes the truth ".
Trump's paying the Hondurans , Somebody call Mueller !
Really? The police are lying?
Obviously you didn't click on the link to see numerous news sources quoting the police.
How much more deeply in denial can one go? Are the police also part of this vast left-wing conspiracy you imagine?
There is no PROOF only speculation. EVIDENCE has not revealed who is responsible.
Everyone knows there is a vast Jewish conspiracy headed by George Soros to undermine our values and our government. We must stop Soros!
Some background information:
The caravan is part of a series of caravans called "Viacrucis del Migrante" ("Migrant's Way of the Cross"), organized by a group called Pueblo Sin Fronteras (people/ towns without borders)(1)
("way of the cross" references a Catholic devotion that commemorates the ordeal of Jesus on his last day on earth).
Pueblo Sin Fronteras organizes and assists group journeys for migrants. From its website:
"For more than fifteen years, members of Pueblo Sin Fronteras have been reaching out to the most vulnerable immigrants in the United States and to migrants and refugees on the move. We are a collective of friends who decided to be in permanent solidarity with displaced peoples. We accompany migrants and refugees in their journey of hope, and together demand our human rights. We provide humanitarian aid and legal advise to migrants and refugees."(2)
2018: March 25 (Palm Sunday) a caravan of around 500 people left Tapachula. The caravan grew to around 1000 people before reaching its destination on April 29, 2018 (Friendship Park on the US/Mexico border)(3)(4)(5).
2017: April 9 (Palm Sunday) the group organized and documented a similar caravan, that reached its destination, San Ysidro port, on May 6 (6)(7)(8).
The group's website lists a series of benefits/marches/rallies/events in 2018, and has a "donate" button(9).
The group also has a Facebook page(10) and released a statement on the 2018 caravan(11).
(3) https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/poli … 56621.html
(4) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/worl … trump.html
(5) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/car … -s-n869821
(6) http://www.pueblosinfronteras.org/refug … _2017.html
(7) https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 … on-asylum/
(8) https://www.facebook.com/PuebloSF/posts … 863363674/
(11) https://www.facebook.com/PuebloSF/photo … mp;theater
Are you suggesting that ultimately the Catholic Church is behind this fiasco? It could be, I suppose - the church is not known for recognizing any authority but itself.
Wow! That really makes sense. It looks like some actual research done here. Thanks.
Why wouldn't there be organizations like this? Investigating a few links here, I think you found the funding culprits, lol.
Edit, I'll let Don W speak on this, but...just because some Catholics get together and do some things, it does't mean "the Catholic Church" is behind it. I mean, damn, the church across the street has food drives...I think even some of that food may go to illegal immigrants. Is the Protestant Church behind an invasion of America?
I truly believe for liberals this isn't even about the basic treating of humanity , this is about the wanton destruction of the America , it's traditions , it's government and opposing leadership both present and past that they despise .
Tip and tear ,rip and tear.....
How about IF it were truly about humanity ,we do something about San Francisco , LA. , Seattle, or small town USA ..... first ?
Could this be a way to help Trump to challenge the election results if Dems take the House and or Senate? Remember his commission trying to prove voter fraud that went nowhere? Is he setting it up?
There were so many accusations about Obama and how he wouldn't leave the White House but there was NO evidence of that.
How many here would support Trump in not recognizing the election results if he doesn't get the result he wants? How many here are willing to destroy America for Trump?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pa … 7dh6RLo4XQ
LOL. We've had two years of the left refusing to accept election results.
Trump is President isn't he? The piece speaks of the President actually challenging the results and not honoring the vote....not just people protesting and what not. The article shows Twitter quotes so the source doesn't matter, just an FYI.
Would you support Dems winning the House but not being seated?
Of course I wouldn't support the same shenanigans from the right that we've seen from the left. I've been quite vocal about that.
That seems good. But, the Dems weren't in a position to stop Trump from being President. What if Trump refuses to allow Dems to take their Congressional seats? I'm assuming you would not support that.
My issue is that Trump is making statements already that seem meant to invalidate the results just in case Dems win. He did this before the Residential election and he still won. It's a set up for in case he loses.
At this point, Trump has made it imperative that the US have our elections monitored by the UN or some such...that's an indication of how damaging to democracy his is.
We know that if Dems win, it's because of illegal immigrants voting, so if President Trump refuses to let them take their seats, he is only following the law.
Ah ! The Huffington Post , alt liberals at it again .......shall we raise the Mother Earth , all the other alt-left rags that just hate Trump?
Trump , if even dems do win the house , would bully , push ,cajole , twist and deform their entire message like he does now . Democrats learned to eat sleep and breath political correctness that they THOUGHT would propel them through this entire "Resistance " destruction of all the political Trumpisms . They haven't YET figured out that P.C. obstruction is naturally repelled by Trump .
This is what COULD happen . Democrats under Trump have so continuously "shot themselves in the foot " that even taking the house means little , Trump will 'executive order' his way through the political sensitivities of the Pelosi Patrol .
I thought Soros was paying them? Turn it around, and it's a lie...despite there being no evidence for either of them...and it actually making more sense for it to be someone supporting Trump.
Someone who supports violence against Americans they disagree with and the media should not be given much attention anyway.
No Trump supporter is willing to state that they would not support circumventing the Constitution by not honoring November's vote?
The size of the caravan waxes and wanes. The thousands of people in it are clustered in smaller groups stretching over hundreds of miles. People are kind and will offer food and water, and rides, as they pass through. The Mexican government is also providing food and water and medical treatment.
There is no evidence that the caravan is being funded by a political group on either side, just a bunch of partisan speculation.
http://www.startribune.com/migrant-cara … 498132181/
Well stated. I just like to turn the propaganda around on them, creating an even more likely scenario, and watch them scream about lack of facts, lol.
"We're warriors, we got to get to the place we got to get to. We're gonna keep on going and we're not gonna stop," Luis Puerto, 39, of Colon, Honduras, said in English."
This is an invasion.
I finally figured out the answer to this problem!
Call out the Army, the Marines, the Reserves!
Tens of thousands of them!
Put them on the border with 5 ton trucks (or whatever they have these days for transportation) lined up to take each and everyone.
And then put them on those trucks and drive them all the way to Canada, and make sure they don't re-enter. Canada wants all the 'refugees' it can get, their President says so all the time.
Yay, no more problem!
I mean seriously, Hondurans really don't frighten me, but what the hell are we doing about the Irish Invasion ?? Where's the freakin' wall ?? Estimated 10,000 to 50,000 Irish illegals who come from poverty stricken Ireland which is extremely violent by nature: They bring filthy habits and who knows what else from their native land ??
Anyone seen any Irish babies in cages lately ?? WHY Not ??
"FactCheck: Are there really only 10,000 undocumented Irish in the USA?"
http://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-undo … 7-Aug2017/
Just to reinforce my point about needing an adult in the White House. Trump tweets about immigration law and doesn't even have is facts straight. This is the President!!!
"Full efforts are being made to stop the onslaught of illegal aliens from crossing our Southern Border. People have to apply for asylum in Mexico first, and if they fail to do that, the U.S. will turn them away. The courts are asking the U.S. to do things that are not doable!
"To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status."
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu … ted-states
I don't care how Trumps rhetoric sparks the left , AS LONG as the left ignores conveniently their own party's major platform of inciting violence , as far as I'm concerned Trumps just returning the favor .
I always find letting the evidence speaks for itself is the best truth there is when debating the naivete - NO deliberate bias of the left .
You DO Realize that the lefts political violence has been around since the nineteen sixties right ?
I mean .......Right ?
So what? Are you holding me accountable for things that happened when I wasn't born? What about Trump now..what about you NOW, with your advocating of violence?
You made it clear you would not mind violence toward those who don't support Trump thus you threatened me, and most everyone I converse with.
Or, we can agree that violence against one another, no matter our views, is uncalled for...I tried that once before and you didn't want to go with that. Otherwise, I'll take your comments and lack of a non-violence pact as nothing but keyboard courage.
Those on the right could openly and vocally support all of Trump's rhetoric and still not be as supporting of violence as the absolute defending the left does daily by your conveniently ignoring the point of this conversation .
THE MAJORITY OF VIOLENCE IS FROM THE LEFT !
You can't even state you don't advocate violence toward me. What does that say? Keyboard courage? In real life, words, or even a lack of them, have consequences.
" Hard Sun ", first at least I use my real name . Second , I admit
I am one of those conservatives who's evolved in genetics from the revolutionary war here in America who believes today that YES let's all on the right hand it back to the left as they wish it . Let's give them what they wish for , an equal revolutionary leftist rhetoric towards violence ....................Is that what you want me to say ?
No , I don't promote any of that , anywhere near the violence that your party daily promotes , from the lead spokespeople , Nancy Pelosi , down to the actual democrat on the street .
Liberals today would love that ........No ?
Your real name? How many names do you have ahorseback?
Ok..the name thing again? All my info is right there for anyone to look at horsey, you know that..name and all. You've displayed enough info where you can easily be found as well so we are on even ground there. I can't even have a conversation with someone who refuses to even acknowledge basic facts.
If you ever want do want to stop the keyboard courage, and attempt to follow through on your wishes for harm to come to people like me...just let me know.
Or, you could just state that you wish no harm to me and end the silliness now. I wish all the best to you.
I have revolutionary war, civil war (South and north) WWII, Vietnam vets, all in my direct line and served in the military myself...that means nothing in this conversation.
Just a reminder of the disrespectful tone set from the beginning by Trump supporters. No, this isn't violence, but this type of discourse is not conducive to peace or a strong union.
.F your feelings about what? Everything. The guy looks a lot like horsey...is that you?
Not sure what point you were hoping to make, but this photo is violence on the left, the ones you posted, no violence on the right.
This is a link to violence caused by the new social media left, please note that violence followed a post that turned out to be mostly a lie.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/10/2 … rstanding/
I told you my point "Just a reminder of the disrespectful tone set from the beginning by Trump supporters. Just needs some balance in the discussion
'Potential explosive devices' sent to Clintons, Obama and CNN just one day after bomb found in Soros' mailbox
Law enforcement officials said a device sent to former secretary of state Hillary Clinton in New York is thought to be the work of the person who sent a similar device to billionaire George Soros. A package sent to former president Barack Obama’s home in Washington was also intercepted.
The device sent to Time Warner Center was constructed with a pipe and wires, according to an NYPD source. Law enforcement authorities are treating the device as a real explosive.
The device was discovered in the mailroom of Time Warner Center.
Yep, there's plenty of evil to go around isn't there?
Wow. It's getting out of control. This is why I can definitely and quickly say that I wish no harm upon those who disagree with me politically.
We need a President that doesn't call the press and the Dems the enemy of the people. He is the leader...it starts with him.
I wish we could all get past the point of 'adding balance', accept the situation is out of hand on all fronts, stop laying blame and agree on how we will all conduct ourselves civilly from here on out.
I've already done that. I've stated I wished the best to someone who could not say the same back to me. And I did it again, and I'll do it again now. There's no reason for violence or wishing harm upon anyone. I wish everyone the best.
Civility must be returned and respect is a two-way street.
Indeed, Trump HAS set a disrespectful tone all along. He wasn't my choice for Republican nominee. However, I do long to see the gross tidal wave of liberal policies held off for as long as possible.
I can see that as I am really a moderate. I don't likely agree with you on everything but likely more than we realize.
I simply don't think Trump should have been anywhere near the White House...but he is and now we watch what happens. I hope things turn out for the best.
As many can see HERE the left is acting out it's true ANTIFA on the street , all across our country wearing there antifa masks ? Do you have a brick in hand , a molotov cocktail ? I am glad for this coming caravan for the good that will come of it , The Wall . Believe me there will likely come a permanent refugee camp and thus an end to human trafficking and associated crimes against humanity !
The violence is and was already here and we ALL know where that originates from , from the left . Hard sun , I don't have to announce or denounce violence against you or anyone --------I don't belong to the party that breeds , promotes or perpetuates violence ! ------- Your party , in it's childish reaction to political defeat, has acted shamefully for two full years . Time for democrats and especially for you to get over it !
Isn't it time to politically mature , time to accept political defeat and move into the future in a wiser frame of mind and not resort to throwing rocks in a crowd , burning the pavement down , calling for the next stage after a defeat , Did the right act like your party after Obama took office ? No .
Fess' up Hard sun ',.... The left thinks they want this civil war that they cannot have without an opposing force in the street , at best that's very psychologically interesting but it won't be up to me whether it happens , in fact it won't happen at all until the right becomes as enraged and senseless as the left is.
This caravan is but one more tool to use against a Trump administration , a weaponization of the existing rule of law and order , all turned into bricks , rocks , fire to throw and all likely organized from the left .
Democrats and their organised government leaderships have had EVERY chance to do something about the problem on our southern border and did nothing ???????..........Now , like all of Trump's major accomplishments , Let Trump deal with what YOU couldn't and wouldn't do , Why ?
Because he can and will do it !
For someone who claims no party affiliation it's kinda strange , you're sure acting out your inner Antifa but either way . It is the left that acts out those violence inciting tendencies by the majority and you know that . It is also obvious that which Antifa is attempting to do , going around in crowds of like minded , civil order destroyers challenging only the individual . In restaurants , in front of media entrances , on elevators while surrounded by the safety of the crowd , how cowardly .
Similarly , you challenge me from behind your blue glow keyboard to declare what ? My violent tendency to you ? Dream on ...... My advice ; face the truth . If there actually is a definition to Antifa your insults would bare close comparison to them. As yet the Antifa from your party doesn't quite dare to symbolically step into the personal space of anyone on the right .
Congratulations that symbolism fits you all very well.
Hard sun , I fear nothing , not Antifa , the left or their activism lately turning quite violent . Fear is for old ladies and children ..........I fear for the future of a once great nation that BOTH parties once understood , accepted and manifested for the better of mankind in world wide proportions. I do fear and believe that there is an equal and opposing force on the right however waiting in the wings. One that is harder to ignite but just as volatile in it's capabilities , unless Live To Learn is right about those grenades .......;-}
Cool, but I know a number of children and "old ladies" with no fear. Kids are often the least fearful and thus the most dangerous...thus using them for suicide bombers, etc. The elderly often have less fear as they figure they are closer to death anyway.
First of all, we still don't know what the true origin of the 'Honduran Parade' is and for all we know, it's just a staged event produced and financed by Bozo Trump's and repugnantkin's donors:
But let's say for arguments sake that this is actually a Parade of Honduran's marching 1600 miles toward the USA and let's say some of them actually make it to our door step:
To answer the question: "What Should The U.S. Do When The Coming Immigrant Caravan Arrives"
Here's a thought, WHY not do what Jesus would do and all good, genuine Christians would do and I think we all know what that is right?: And I'm talking about REAL Christians, not phony fake charlatans like Jerry Falwell Junior:
Let's not be hasty here...when Jesus found people making money in what he considered his house he threw them out on the spot. Maybe that's what Jake means.
Well Hxprof with no picture, I'm not aware of any who have broken any laws and of course a "Honduran Parade" marching down the highway is not illegal and Jesus knew no boundaries: read your bible, try not to listen to charlatans like Jerry Falwell Junior who is obviously just fleecing his flock of followers for everything they have:
LOL. Now you're speaking for Jesus? I've heard it all.
Hxprof mentioned 'lawlessness' and I simply informed him of the fact that nobody has broken any laws by marching in a parade down the highway unless a permit is needed which I doubt, and yes, I've read the REAL Holy Bible, not a charlatan's guide to 'fleecing a flock' like obviously Jerry Falwell Junior has read:
I have a funny feeling pretty soon Jerry FJ will be peddling worthless "Trump University Diplomas" and cheap, meaningless $2.00 MAGA hats to his flock:
Using Christ to justify your social justice agenda, which involves theft and coercion, won't make it right.
In the same vein, Falwell Jr. using scripture to fleece God's people is foul stuff.
"nobody has broken any laws by marching in a parade down the highway unless a permit is needed which I doubt"
It is illegal to stand on a freeway. It is illegal to impede traffic. It is illegal to intentionally put children in danger. And it is most definitely illegal to march across the border on a highway.
lol: Are these the laws in South America? If South American laws have been infracted, then why hasn't anyone in the Honduran Parade been fined? Perhaps because it's really a BIG Staged Show by Republican Donors to try and deflect attention away from Bozo Trump's justice department suing to terminate 'pre-existing conditions' which will severely DEGRADE your healthcare and from republican Mutt McConnell's plan to CUT social security and medicare:
So you acknowledge and agree that this group is lawless.
I never said that and you know it Hxprof, stop making things up out of thin air like 'stubby' Trump does almost every single putrid day: Anyone with a semblance of a brain can go back and read my last comment
But I do know this is an orange cowardly traitor who appeases our enemies like Vladimir Putin and he must be punished for his betrayal of the USA:
The REAL Holy Bible? Sounds cultish Jake. That's what crazies say when they come door knocking.
Trump says " Maybe we need to stop ALL migrants and immigration at the southern borders " Homeland Security , Border Patrol , the military , End it now Trump and end the aid to these national exporters of their excess overbred humanity .
Forget the "Honduran Parade", if we really wanna' "MAGA" we need to deport about 10 Trump's instead:
Don W, Mongolian hordes ? The laws of sovereignty and constitutional directives to the executive branch don't care if they are catholic nuns on donkeys , the moment mass migrations illegally cross our borders as up to 25,000,000 million people seriously affect our health , our economy ,our job numbers , our crime statistics etc ...................
Why do you think that it's IN the constitution for ?
Why do you think the executive branch has that power ?
I.C.E. Federal budget , Six Billion [ 6,000,000,000 ] dollars a year , interesting that Trump is expanding that budget in 2019 by almost another bIllion dollars . Interesting that liberals are fighting a brain- melt over the "costs " of building the wall .
So much for any fiscal responsibility talk ?
Trump has every right and a legal , constitutional obligation to stop this caravan and the one[s ] following it , It should be abundantly clear to the the "open border brigade" here that the southern border is not only gong to close but end these migrations of criminal immigrants , obviously it won't stop but merely put a threshold on the legal migrations as well .
One phase of illegals will be entirely closed off , they will still come in on student visas , work visas , migrant work visas , HBI , HVI , and remain herelong after their visas expire, so worry not about a continuing population of "unfortunates to defend , illegals will always be there .
In the mean time immigration laws will be obeyed by all , quotas will be more exact , actually they will even begin to be known and so more effectively managed . At present our population growth is unknown , unmanageable , uncountable , our census and population numbers dynamics unknowable .
I was just listening to a beautiful African American family who went to the white house by invite last week , who started a "go fund me" site to raise money for the trip . The real parallels in my mind between this family and the caravan was interesting , what did this family use their 'go fund me' money for --,"...... to purchase nice enough clothes to attend their incredible white house visit.........".
On the other hand who is funding the busses for the caravan , who is paying for the trucks ,the semi's , the trailers and diesel engines hauling people , food , water , concessions , supplies , housing , who's really paying for the *Nikes for this caravan ?
Why do you mention that they were an "African American " family? Would you have mentioned it if they had been Scandinavian Americans or British Americans?
Good question...as to who is likely paying for the caravans, It think that's bee addressed on the forums here before. Organizations such as the one linked below and other volunteers seem to be the most obvious answer but conspiracies are more fun I guess.
http://www.pueblosinfronteras.org/press … 0Nxre3epi4
Uhhhh .... Because they ARE an African American family ..................?
Seem strange to anyone else that there was another president who was focused on immigration to the point of increasing I.C.E , border patrol costs , manpower and apprehensions ? Obama must be laughing at all of you focusing on Trump's acts and rhetoric .
Does any obstructionist study any [even recent ] history?
"Tomorrow the migrants, according to Fox News reporting, are more than two months away, if any of them actually come here...
"But tomorrow is one week before the midterm election, which is what all of this is about," he added. "There is no invasion. No one’s coming to get you. There’s nothing at all to worry about...
When they did this to us, got us all riled up in April, remember?" Smith said. "The result was 14 arrests. We’re America, we can handle it. But like I said, a week to the election." - Shep Smith
Are you actually pointing out and using a Fox News anchor and opinion that liberals are always screaming foul about ?
Oh my !
Not the first time. I read different news outlets all the time.
I'm not obsessed. Oh my!
I watched a report on immigration where border agents caught an average of 200 people attempting to cross, per night, on one farm. Only one farm. From what I understand from main stream news caravans are nothing new.
Invasion may be an alarmist term, but it isn't an unreasonable one. And highlighting the situation is an important one for an election cycle. Two month, two days, two years...it's all the same. We need reasonable, sustainable and fair immigration policy and Congress has sat on its hands too long.
When he mentioned the time, he was making reference to Trump's decision to send 5000+ troops to the border, days before the election, when the caravan is months away from the US.
In other words:
“It’s a craven misuse of the U.S. armed forces for an obvious political stunt, and I’m surprised [Defense] Secretary Mattis agreed to it, given the range of real national security threats our military has to deal with,” said Kelly Magsamen, who served on the National Security Council and in the Pentagon during the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
A costly, craven political move from a guy we're repeatedly told is not a politician.
I suspect part of the reason for sending troops is to frighten, if possible, many of those who are coming via the caravans. The best time to send troops to accomplish that is now, so that some of them turn back.
Don't know that they should be afraid of anything actually! But placing troops on the border will probably give some in folks in the caravan the they're not getting into the country. Using the military does give border security different optics.
Well, I'm glad to hear that, after thinking about it, you decided they shouldn't have anything to fear from our military. I was concerned that you thought our military would be more harmful to them than the violence and conditions they are fleeing, conditions so bad that they are willing to trek thousands of miles with their children to another country.
Unless our military intends to inflict violence on them, I don't see why they should be afraid of them.
I think they should despair of making that trek, and then discovering that they've no hope of breaking in. So my desire is that the presence of our military will persuade them that we're serious about protecting our borders, and convince some if not many to give up right now before they reach the border.
Drudge , "Canada to substantially increase deportations ".
The EU , regurgitating refugee requirements ..............But "Trump is a racist "......................Oh Sure !
Let them in. Some of my ancestors were stolen and bartered for items and brought here against their wills. I am glad they suffered through that so that I can be born here free.
I welcome them to this land. We have enough room and this is supposed to be the land of the free. Why stop letting people in now. No one said that when the Europeans flooded over here to help make this nation great.
Let them in and help them make America stay Great as it is. When we start keeping people out of this country, it will start to crumble. History has shown us that people from all over helped make this nation great, a nation of immigrants.
We don't and we won't , Why , because it's against the laws ..............remember laws ?
How many will you put up on your home? How many families out of that 7,000 will you provide food, shelter and clothing for?
The Indians welcomed immigrants, too. It didn't turn out too well for them.
Of course its both party's that have failed to bring immigration reform over the years , however we all know who's been in obstruction by party affiliation and who opposes ANY change in present conditions on the border ; Perhaps we need a body count like in any conflict recorded nightly on the national news ?
Of all the" humanity" in the party of the left ..............
GW Bush was a HUGE border insecurity stooge, and he was supposedly a conservative. If conservatives and Republicans were, on the whole, serious about shutting down 95% of illegal immigration, they'd pass an E Verify bill. They'd also beef up immigration services so we can better track people here on visas. They'd also beef up the border with Mexico significantly, and put in place additional security in places where necessary along the Canadian border. Oh, and they'd increase the size of ICE.
They're lame, all of them.
So remind us again who opposes the border wall , who's defending the caravans ?
To your point, illegal immigration reaches the highest point during the Bush administration. He did little to stop it.
Trump apparently says . Militarize the border , put up tent cities , make them sit in the desert, No more unlimited crossings..............
Sounds like what we all want .
Wonderful point. Another thing to consider... If immigrants do rush the border and enter illegally do we have the ability to really check their background, health, and criminal records? So, one could also add to the equation, do you want neighbors that might spread disease, and threaten the very safety of your family? These are factors that get lost until they become a problem... I would also like to add, our national debt is huge. Would it not just make better sense to decide where our tax dollars be spent for a while? It seems some don't even think about affording new citizens that come in illegally and don't pay taxes but take from our coffers. It much appears once again hysterical rhetoric is clouding common sense. Yes, we need workers due to our good economy, but in my opinion, it just seems wiser that we use the merit systems to fill employment needs.
How is this lawsuit valid? Non-citizens should not have standing to file a lawsuit. This is crazy.
“A dozen migrants traveling by foot from Honduras to the U.S. to seek asylum filed a class-action lawsuit Thursday against President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security and others, claiming a violation of their due process under the Fifth Amendment.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/migran … nal-rights
lol, My God, I don't think I've ever seen so many republican snowflakes gathered in one room melting like butter in the balmy autumn air: I wish all the emotional right wingers in here would just find a little safe space, calm down and get a grip, I mean come on, they're only Honduran women and children marching in a parade searching for salvation and a job, just like your ancestors did decades ago, it's not this guy approaching our border God forbid: Now this would actually be SCARY, well deserving of military intervention: lol
That's a lie Jake. Folks that came here in the 1800's and early 1900's, primarily through Ellis island, came here because they were invited here, legally, by law....so they came lawfully. The caravans are intent on coming here even though we've not invited them. They don't give a rat's butt about what America wants.
You don't know that and without proof I don't believe it: I don't even know how my ancestors got here and whether or not they have photographic evidence or a paper trail to indicate their migration route and I'll bet the majority of right wingers' around here who seem to be scared of everyone and everything including their shadows and that includes the orange coward perched in our oval office, don't know exactly how their ancestors got here if they indeed live in the USA:
Well Hxprof, everyone around here knows I tell the truth but if you're looking for the most dishonest weakling on the planet, here ya go:
"President Trump has made 6,420 false or misleading claims over 649 days"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … 9580f3d8b3
Now Jake, there are more people here than just you.
by Don W 3 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...
by Ken Burgess 4 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?
by Eric Dierker 8 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...
by Sharlee 19 months 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...
by Lela Cargill 4 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"?
by Sharlee 12 months ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.htmlhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN2B81M5Migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border are at a 21-year high.Through the first nine months of this year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has reported it “encountered”...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|