Caravan

[Dahobbs 17407]

34 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's about as perfect an example of "begging the question" as I could ever think of.  WTF?

Yay! Someone correctly used that phrase! My heart rejoices.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Dahobbs

[Brisketexan 104226]

6 minutes ago, elfenix said:

(in that the inclusion of some rights in a bill of rights would make people think that it's an exclusive list)

And Madison's fear has proven to be spot-on.  "Oh yeah, where is that right in the Constitution?" is a question I've heard a jillion times, and it makes me want to skewer the questioner with a broadsword every time.  It's like the 9th amendment doesn't even exist:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[hayden_horn 11358]

37 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That makes no sense, either.  Amendments, once adopted, aren't something different, or something aside and apart from the Constitution.  The are part of the whole.  The First Amendment is just as much a part of the Constitution as Article I.  That's how it works.

see? i said someone would correct me. posrep. i'm the idoit

[DixonHur 11017]

Too lazy to go back, when, where and how did the discussion about migrants turn I to a debate about the limits of free speech?  

[Brisketexan 104226]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Too lazy to go back, when, where and how did the discussion about migrants turn I to a debate about the limits of free speech?  

Owen Wilson.

Tree fiddy.

Or something like that.

[Mole 4318]

8 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Too lazy to go back, when, where and how did the discussion about migrants turn I to a debate about the limits of free speech?  

We were all calling each other nazi trolls but some folks found that impolite;  it was rightly pointed out that since nazis had a great fashion sense and a clearly defined aesthetic, most high class clothing choices were a step towards putting people in gas chambers as well as nazi cultural appropriation; out of respect or disrespect to the nazis, depending on your view of marginal tax rates, some vows of slovenliness were made, although it seemed a little like the tail wagging the dog considering this crowd; then it was pointed out you can actually yell fire in a crowded theatre, although it’s unclear if it matters who started the fire, whether you’re trying to fight it, or what this has to do with Leonard Bernstein; a logical fallacy was discussed with unusual accuracy; and now we’re here; also speech is now spelled speach.

[Kyle 207]

On 11/28/2018 at 2:17 PM, Brisketexan said:

They want asylum in a safe place.  The US is (for now) significantly safer than Mexico.  That's not exactly a shocking conclusion for a person to make.  I know that if I was running from my life from, say, Syria, the fact that I am relatively safer in Iraq doesn't exactly make Iraq a place I want my family to end up if their long-term safety is my goal.

That doesn't render the asylum argument "phony."  It actually bolsters it.

Wait - I thought America was full of racist national socialists killing and persecuting all non-white, non-straight, non-male, non-Christians? How could this possibly be safer than Mexico? They would face no persecution from Trump attack squads that continue to terrorize Americans daily. 

By your logic, they should be seeking asylum in Singapore.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Kyle

[Brisketexan 104226]

20 minutes ago, Kyle said:

Wait - I thought America was full of racist national socialists killing and persecuting all non-white, non-straight, non-male, non-Christians? How could this possibly be safer than Mexico? They would face no persecution from Trump attack squads that continue to terrorize Americans daily. 

By your logic, they should be seeking asylum in Singapore.

I imagine that many of them would prefer Canada.  But that's another 1,000 miles.  And kinda cold for folks used to a semi-tropical climate.  And while the US most certainly ain't what it used to be....it's still light years better than present-day Honduras.  But, you know, other than that, your hyperbole of "all" and your logic is spot-on.  You should apply for a position in the administration.  Slots are opening up daily.

[Kyle 207]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I imagine that many of them would prefer Canada.  But that's another 1,000 miles.  And kinda cold for folks used to a semi-tropical climate.  And while the US most certainly ain't what it used to be....it's still light years better than present-day Honduras.  But, you know, other than that, your hyperbole of "all" and your logic is spot-on.  You should apply for a position in the administration.  Slots are opening up daily.

So now asylum is about weather? Geez - you move goalposts more than the refs in the LSU-aggy game. You're still avoiding the obvious point that Mexico is much safer than the national socialist run U.S. where Trump mobs are killing brown, non-Christian, non-straight, non-males in the streets every day? So tell me why they should not accept the win-win-win of Mexican asylum? (BTW - your ad hom shows your true snowflake cred ... just call me a racist national socialist and get it over with Prof. Godwin) 

[Brisketexan 104226]

Just now, Kyle said:

So now asylum is about weather? Geez - you move goalposts more than the refs in the LSU-aggy game. You're still avoiding the obvious point that Mexico is much safer than the national socialist run U.S. where Trump mobs are killing brown, non-Christian, non-straight, non-males in the streets every day? So tell me why they should not accept the win-win-win of Mexican asylum? (BTW - your ad hom shows your true snowflake cred ... just call me a racist national socialist and get it over with Prof. Godwin) 

I don't have to call you anything.  The fact that you think that this post is clever says more than enough.

[EMAWesome 101]

33 minutes ago, Kyle said:

Wait - I thought America was full of racist national socialists killing and persecuting all non-white, non-straight, non-male, non-Christians? How could this possibly be safer than Mexico? They would face no persecution from Trump attack squads that continue to terrorize Americans daily. 

By your logic, they should be seeking asylum in Singapore.

Plus if all it takes to claim asylum is wanting to leave a country with it's head up its ass everyone in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua would be marching through Mexico to get here.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

18 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

That makes no sense, either.  Amendments, once adopted, aren't something different, or something aside and apart from the Constitution.  The are part of the whole.  The First Amendment is just as much a part of the Constitution as Article I.  That's how it works.

Actually, amendments are more a part of the Constitution than Article 1 because they could completely nullify all or parts of Article 1 if that was their intention.

Would it be constitutional to have an amendment that bans amendments?

[Kyle 207]

29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't have to call you anything.  The fact that you think that this post is clever says more than enough.

I hope Watson, Ingram, Ehlinger, and LJ have as much luck dodging ousux Saturday as you do. To my point earlier, many just prefer emotion, which is cool. No harm, no foul. I don't take it personal.

[Brisketexan 104226]

Just now, Kyle said:

I hope Watson, Ingram, Ehlinger, and LJ have as much luck dodging ousux Saturday as you do. To my point earlier, many just prefer emotion, which is cool. No harm, no foul. I don't take it personal.

If OU trots out childish logical fallacies instead of a defense like you have above, I think we'll be quite successful. 

[Kyle 207]

27 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Plus if all it takes to claim asylum is wanting to leave a country with it's head up its ass everyone in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua would be marching through Mexico to get here.

According to many here, that is all it should take, and we should be obligated to accommodate. Feels like Singapore should start sending planes: its tropical, safe, and lacks the mobs of national socialists terrorizing all brown people daily like here. It meets all of the criteria.

[Kyle 207]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

If OU trots out childish logical fallacies instead of a defense like you have above, I think we'll be quite successful. 

The straw man defense! Sweet! I hope ousux employs it as well.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Kyle

[Brisketexan 104226]

2 minutes ago, Kyle said:

The straw man defense! Sweet! I hope ousux employs it as well.

You don't get to accuse folks of logical fallacies while obviously employing them.

 

[Kyle 207]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You don't get to accuse folks of logical fallacies while obviously employing them.

 

Straw Man II: Electric Bugaloo.

Scattershooting while wondering why accepting Mexican (#noracist) asylum is a bad idea? 1. Better climate (weather) ; 2. Better climate (political); 3. Better climate (cultural). Why is it a bad idea? Rather than emoting about national socialists I'm actually trying to explore solutions. 

Edited November 30, 2018 by Kyle

[Nivek 16771]

"Sounds like a lot of money and resources, plus expecting the government to be able to track anything is a reach, but commendable." - People coming over here are paying a coyote $5k to get them across.  Imagine if they just paid $1k each to secure a proper work permit.  There's a hunk of revenue right there.  Now, reduce the costs of immigration enforcement, because we won't have as many folks crossing illegally.  Cost savings to boot.  Tracking is simple: your work permit is for a set period of time.  Before it expires, you need to present it to immigration officials verifying that you are leaving the country, or present it in person to an immigration official for renewal (depending on how renewable we make them, under what conditions, etc.).  Failure to do so results in 1) non-renewal of the work permit and 2) a bar to any further re-entry and work permit, ever again.
"Finding these folks jobs, commesurate with skillset will be a challenge which will lead to an increase in costs."  Wait...I thought the problem was that they are taking all of our jobs?  And, to look around, I can tell you that the brown folks aren't having a problem finding work.  Go to any new subdivision being built.  Go to the back of the house in a restaurant.  They're plenty employed.  Seriously, even the least employable are generally pretty employable.  Hell, we have helped an illiterate Afghani single mom, and after a year, she was fully self-supporting of her and her two kids.  And she's about as "least employable" as you can get.
"The stabilization part will cost a ton too, espeically for the crowd that already hates on us for being involved in the middle east for the last 10000 years."  It doesn't have to be perfect, just better than it is.  The best part is, the easiest step is one that SAVES us billions -- just end the war on drugs.  Take away the value of the black market for narcos, and Mexico and Central America would improve by leaps and bounds in short order.  As for the amount of assistance, it really doesn't take a lot.  And again, a dollar of prevention saves two dollars of enforcement.  It's going to be the more cost-effective path.
What folks fail to realize is that we have had a functional immigration system and southern border in the recent past (seriously, in my lifetime).  It pre-dated the war on drugs - that's a biggie.  We're actually at that strange place where doing the decent/humane thing and doing the fiscally and security responsible thing are THE SAME THING.  Which actually means that it can't get done -- because unless it makes people suffer, than it doesn't satisfy those folks who wanna be "TOUGH ON IMMIGRATION!"  It's myopic and simplistic, but fuck, at this point, we might as well print "myopic and simplistic" on all our coinage.  Cause we sure as shit don't "in God we trust."
 

This is nice and all, but how am I gonna charge the government $200,000 a month to feed and house 20 Mexican kids in tents with this plan?

[Fozzz 152]

The idea that deploying the military to the border will have a deterrent effect on future migrants is about as plausible as that Iranian "jet fighter" having a deterrent effect on the US military.  Both are simply propaganda for domestic consumption and nothing more.   

[wildcat09 29146]

48 minutes ago, Kyle said:

I hope Watson, Ingram, Ehlinger, and LJ have as much luck dodging ousux Saturday as you do. To my point earlier, many just prefer emotion, which is cool. No harm, no foul. I don't take it personal.

Adverbs are hard.

[Dahobbs 17407]

40 minutes ago, Kyle said:

Straw Man II: Electric Bugaloo.

Scattershooting while wondering why accepting Mexican (#noracist) asylum is a bad idea? 1. Better climate (weather) ; 2. Better climate (political); 3. Better climate (cultural). Why is it a bad idea? Rather than emoting about national socialists I'm actually trying to explore solutions. 

Again, what is the point to your nonsense? Yes, they could accept aslyum in Mexico. But they are not required to. If they claim aslyum here, we have to process the claim under our laws. One of the results of that process may be that we decide that Mexico is an acceptable third party nation that would grant aslyum and send them there. But, we still have to process the individual claims to reach that point. 

And, no one has said the us is more dangerous than Mexico or other countries that could offer aslyum. But our politics are degrading down a dangerous path. It is possible to believe both of these things. They are not mutually exclusive. But go ahead, trot out more bullshit arguments that have nothing to do with what is actually being discussed. 

[Dahobbs 17407]

23 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Was reading an interesting article this morning.

A lot of the members of the caravan were shocked/surprised at the feelings/stance of the border and American's and very surprised at the response (gas, etc.). If this is the case, then the song and dance and dog and pony show of having troops at the border and making a big hoopla of making them do the regular process and not giving them special treatment or expedition, is doing what they want it to do. Namely, educating them and giving the economic refugees (e.g. not "real" refugees as defined by law and such) a pause and deterrent to come and try to gain asylum, get denied, and then illegally come anyways.

No one said the deterrent wouldn't work. We could start executing everyone on sight and I guarantee people would stop coming. The point is that the deterrent is morally and legally repugnant, duh. Maybe you missed that? Oh, and show me where any of these people have been denied aslyum yet. We haven't even attempted to process their claims. 

[Fozzz 152]

Even if they were aware before beginning their journey that they could be potentially teargassed at the American border, why would you think that would be a deterrent?  I think they are already aware that the journey will present dangers to their physical safety.  Why do you think they travel in caravans?

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Fair point, I didn't know that it was understood the deterrent would work. In fact, I didn't even realize (cynical as I am) that people still considered America in an idealized and idyllic way that is marketed as a wonderful place where the jobs and opportunity and equality flow like wine. But hearing these people comment, they were of that impression and were genuinely surprised to be met with racism and hesitancy and even possibly obstructionist/avoidance of legal process.

Also interesting was the comments from some in the caravan calling their peers idiots and being upset for being impatient and ruining their good names by association.

The jobs are still here if they make it to them. The rhetoric, and even the tear gas and child prisons, just reflect poorly on us. They don't discourage migration. Migrants have seen much worse. And once they make it to the other side, they can even get a job working at a Trump construction site because zero employers actually give a shit, even the ones that ratchet up the rhetoric. 

The issue is that we don't have to race to the bottom, but we continue to do so. Our bar for our behavior shouldn't be set by the behavior of gangs and gov't in Honduras. Just like our bar in the Middle East shouldn't be being slightly better than the Saudis or al qaeda. 

Imagine if we treated people like human beings, and rejected their asylum claims when applicable like they were human beings?  Nobody would have anything to complain about. 

[Sgt Hulk 13617]

The surfing, the food and scenery in central america is quite magnificant compared to here, i'm not sure what the big fuss is about and why they are leaving.  Get a good long board, and share the stoke.  

[bad_teammate 13115]

3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Even if they were aware before beginning their journey that they could be potentially teargassed at the American border, why would you think that would be a deterrent?  I think they are already aware that the journey will present dangers to their physical safety.  Why do you think they travel in caravans?

OatmealRAHOWACookie doesn't understand who these people are or why they are leaving. He is parroting the line of calling these people "economic" migrants in a purposeful attempt to distract from the reality of their situations.

[zork 629]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I imagine that many of them would prefer Canada.  But that's another 1,000 miles.  And kinda cold for folks used to a semi-tropical climate.  And while the US most certainly ain't what it used to be....it's still light years better than present-day Honduras.  But, you know, other than that, your hyperbole of "all" and your logic is spot-on.  You should apply for a position in the administration.  Slots are opening up daily.

same shit up there, rules and all:

[Foosters 17688]

1 minute ago, zork said:

same shit up there, rules and all:

who wants to explain it to him?

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

3 minutes ago, Foosters said:

who wants to explain it to him?

Is this for getting into Matt Canada's house?

[Brian Fantana 6652]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

OatmealRAHOWACookie doesn't understand who these people are or why they are leaving. He is parroting the line of calling these people "economic" migrants in a purposeful attempt to distract from the reality of their situations.

He's a wad of chewed bubble gum church choir boy who's never suffered in his entire life, how could he possibly understand?

Edited November 30, 2018 by Brian Fantana

[zork 629]

On 11/26/2018 at 12:43 PM, zork said:

Just seeking asylum, that's all:

These people are fighting each other and breaking down the border wall to report, as they would in Canada.  Like they did when they broke through the Southern Mexico gates. /s

Quote

...

Almost everyone who immigrates to Canada has to first apply from overseas, and before they’re granted entry they’re subjected to extensive vetting by Canadian authorities. Those who make the cut have to wait months or years for their turn in line before being let in. Over the past 20 years, about 5 millionimmigrants chose Canada. But the vast majority only entered the country after Canada also chose them.

 

As for illegal and irregular immigration, Canadian governments from both ends of the political spectrum have worked—quietly—to ensure there is as little of it as possible. The unspoken underpinning of Canada’s otherwise welcoming immigration policy is a giant and assiduously maintained border wall.

Wait, what? Yes, Canada has a border wall—in a sense. In fact, it has five of them. Four are geographic, the fifth is bureaucratic. All have been extremely effective in sustaining the legitimacy and popularity of Canada’s immigration policy.

Three of the walls are the dumb luck of geography: the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic oceans. You can cross the Aegean from Asia to Europe in a dinghy, but unless you can get your hands on a ship and a crew trained in navigating thousands of miles of difficult water, you aren’t sailing to Canada. So far in 2018, Canada has received exactly 10 asylum applications at sea ports.

The fourth wall is Canada’s southern border with the U.S. The world’s leading economy has historically been a magnet for people, not the reverse. In the late 19th and early 20th century, the volume of emigrants from Canada to the U.S. was at times so high that Canadians actually feared for the future of their country. The strength of the American economy long meant that few immigrants would think to use the U.S. as a back door into Canada.

 

The fifth wall is the bureaucratic barrier that Canadian governments, both Conservative and Liberal, have meticulously maintained to cover any gaps in the other defenses.

Toronto’s Pearson International Airport is one of North America’s busiest hubs, with direct flights from nearly every continent. But if you want to come to Canada, it’s obviously not as simple as buying a plane ticket. Visitors from a long list of countries need to apply in advance for a visa, and if they’re coming from a place that has recently sent Canada more than a certain number of asylum applicants or vacation over-stayers, that visa may suddenly become difficult to get. And without a visa, the airline won’t let you on the plane.

...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/canada-immigration-success/564944/

 

[Dahobbs 17407]

5 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

I will.  You see there really shouldn't be borders.  If your situation sucks in your country you have a right to come to any country and them to allow you in.  After all, we have the jobs and it will drive down the cost of things I think.  American citizens just wont do some jobs. 

To an extent, yes. Congress passed laws requiring us to give aslyum where appropriate.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

To an extent, yes. Congress passed laws requiring us to give aslyum where appropriate.

Economic immigrants aren't those folks.. And yes there are a shit load of them in "the caravan".  I'd love to know how they all had the money to get here.

[Tom 2959]

3 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

 

Unlike most people here, I typically try to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just are a victim of the Fox News influence and don't have bad intentions.  You're just misled like many Americans by insidiously corrupt actors. 

I guess I was wrong.  You're truly a troll or a complete moron if you believe this.

[Kyle 207]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, what is the point to your nonsense? Yes, they could accept aslyum in Mexico. But they are not required to. If they claim aslyum here, we have to process the claim under our laws. One of the results of that process may be that we decide that Mexico is an acceptable third party nation that would grant aslyum and send them there. But, we still have to process the individual claims to reach that point. 

And, no one has said the us is more dangerous than Mexico or other countries that could offer aslyum. But our politics are degrading down a dangerous path. It is possible to believe both of these things. They are not mutually exclusive. But go ahead, trot out more bullshit arguments that have nothing to do with what is actually being discussed. 

It is not nonsense or bullshit when no one can really answer. Anyone intellectually honest knows that they're not actually seeking asylum as defined in our law, and it is a waste of our time and resources processing them. It feels odd on one hand we complain we need more funding for this, that, and the other, but we want to waste money processing a bunch of people who are not being persecuted? I liken it to the city of Dallas, which does not have money to fix potholes or provide key social services to the poor but can find $5M to remove an obscure statue in response to a special interest group. I mean if those are priorities, but I would rather spend money differently.

In addition, we do not exactly have a great track record of processing and keeping track of illegal immigrants whether they entered legally or not. If they were truly seeking asylum, they would be tickled to stay in Mexico for the reasons many of described: weather, no national socialist mobs, and culture. The fact they are not underscores what is really going on. So why not have an honest conversation about it. The best solution for everyone seems to be for the caravans to settle in Mexico - still cannot get a clear answer why anyone objects to that.

[zork 629]

1 minute ago, Tom said:

 

Unlike most people here, I typically try to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just are a victim of the Fox News influence and don't have bad intentions.  You're just misled like many Americans by insidiously corrupt actors. 

I guess I was wrong.  You're truly a troll or a complete moron if you believe this.

That picture reminded me of the negative Mack Brown toned curse photo.  It is sarcasm like:  Soros  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA /evil laugh .  Lighten up.

[Brisketexan 104226]

3 minutes ago, Kyle said:

Anyone intellectually honest knows that they're not actually seeking asylum as defined in our law, and it is a waste of our time and resources processing them. It feels odd on one hand we complain we need more funding for this, that, and the other, but we want to waste money processing a bunch of people who are not being persecuted?

Other than the fact that this is false, sure.

Some are just economic migrants, and have their applications denied.  Many are actually persecuted and under threat of violence/death, and their applications are granted.  There is a process.  They should follow it, and they should be allowed to follow it.

And for any who want to stay in Mexico, more power to them.  Apply there, see what Mexico does.  We should all follow our basic treaty obligations.

Oh, and we actually have a very good record of tracking asylum applicants.  And we can make it even better with some simple steps.  But they are much more valuable as demagogue issues, so there you have it.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, Tom said:

 

Unlike most people here, I typically try to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just are a victim of the Fox News influence and don't have bad intentions.  You're just misled like many Americans by insidiously corrupt actors. 

I guess I was wrong.  You're truly a troll or a complete moron if you believe this.

Somebody or some organization has been providing funds. Who knows maybe it's the Russian s(Hugo just got a boner). 

The logistics of that journey and that number of people requires money, and organization.  If those folks are as poor as they've been portrayed to be, they ain't got it.

[Huckleberry 32660]

Somebody or some organization has been providing funds. Who knows maybe it's the Russian s(Hugo just got a boner). 
The logistics of that journey and that number of people requires money, and organization.  If those folks are as poor as they've been portrayed to be, they ain't got it.

Maybe they have come across actual Christians and not Fox News Christians during their journey.

[retread 2951]

Or maybe it demonstrates how bad the conditions are in their country that mothers would hoof it several hundred miles with their children to get to a better life.

[Smax 3799]

15 minutes ago, retread said:

Or maybe it demonstrates how bad the conditions are in their country that mothers would hoof it several hundred miles with their children to get to a better life.

 

poor conditions in your home country doesn't give one the right to ignore our laws. There is a process in place, follow it, those that believe their need needs trump our laws should not be allowed to enter and stay in this country.

Living in the US is not a right, it's a privilege

[seven 1366]

Hating brown people is no reason to ignore the laws of the international community, there is a process in place and the US should follow that. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

poor conditions in your home country doesn't give one the right to ignore our laws. There is a process in place, follow it, those that believe their need needs trump our laws should not be allowed to enter and stay in this country.

Living in the US is not a right, it's a privilege

immigrating to this country is a privilege not a right... Fine tuned it a bit, but your point is correct.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Onboard 2.0

[Hank Scorpio 17704]

30 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

I'm not sure or not he is.  He does funnel a lot of money to various groups which cause turmoil.  It was more of a joke but it wouldn't shock me if a group associated with him was helping out with the movement.

Remember like 6 months ago when no one knew you were insane? And then after 2 posts disagreeing with some stupid shit you said you completely lost your mind and starting eating leaves out of a MAGA hat. It's kind of a chicken or the egg thing. Were you always a raving lunatic who just kept it under control to appear normal, or has the internet/fox news just melted your brain? I would say it was interesting, if you weren't so incredibly boring. 

[Fozzz 152]

52 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

What is his motivation for having them come?  So he can have them vote illegally in future elections?  Is the plan to allow them to settle where they wish or are these people forcibly held in selected swing districts?

[Foosters 17688]

21 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

poor conditions in your home country doesn't give one the right to ignore our laws. There is a process in place, follow it, those that believe their need needs trump our laws should not be allowed to enter and stay in this country.

Living in the US is not a right, it's a privilege

So they should apply for asylum under current laws?

[DixonHur 11017]

Personally, I think the vast majority of these folks are economic migrants.  That said, it doesn't matter what I think.  

I agree with Brisket...process them according to the law and if they are found to meet the criteria for asylum, then provide it...if not reject their applications and send them on their way.

In the meantime, do NOT separate children from their parents.

However, if someone, tries to enter illegally, detain and deport them without considering their application, and if a group tries to overrun the border use whatever non-lethal force reasonably necessary to stop them.

Not sure why this is so hard.

Edited November 30, 2018 by DixonHur

[Huckleberry 32660]

33 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

poor conditions in your home country doesn't give one the right to ignore our laws. There is a process in place, follow it, those that believe their need needs trump our laws should not be allowed to enter and stay in this country.

Living in the US is not a right, it's a privilege

They are following the process. You're having a pretty bad week, get some sleep.

[seven 1366]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

They are following the process. You're having a pretty bad week, get some sleep.

Well attempting to follow the process and being blocked