Military Will Be Used To Protect Border

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2018, 11:18 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Having the military on the border will deter people coming towards the border just because they see the military.    That visually is enough plus they can free up BP to actively hunt anyone down who gets near the border.    

I want to make that southern border as unappealing as possible.

Hey, if enough good people get out the word that the Military can't do anything to you, then it may ease the deterrent. 

[Dill]

(04-06-2018, 11:30 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why do you want these people in our country?  

We do not need central America’s garbage.    We have our own garbage to take care of already.    Mexico needs the hammer dropped on them badly.   They are without a doubt a massive threat.   As I said before, we should have never given them back half their country.    We should had just ran them south and kept the entire country.      

Unfortunately, At some point we will need to march Troops into Mexico again to straighten them out since they are unwilling to get themselves or their Central American buddies  sorted

Well the issue at hand was whether Trump's announced deployment makes any sense. Will it stop the human beings you call "garbage" from entering the U.S.?  I think not.  And the garbage might make very good citizens, if given a chance.

Suddenly you are ready to invade Mexico. A war on our own border would fix things.  We would win and then Mexicans would be good. We would not be occupying the country at great expense and fighting an insurgency for years, not to mention fighting massive protests in our own country.  How many jobs would the US lose after taking down a major trading partner?  

Some would not be so petty as to condemn an idea like that beforehand, but I sure would.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-06-2018, 11:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hey, if enough good people get out the word that the Military can't do anything to you, then it may ease the deterrent. 

Yeah.

I still think we eventually take the military into Mexico if they refuse to curtail the Central America stuff.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-06-2018, 11:49 PM)Dill Wrote: Well the issue at hand was whether Trump's announced deployment makes any sense. Will it stop the human beings you call "garbage" from entering the U.S.?  I think not.  And the garbage might make very good citizens, if given a chance.

Suddenly you are ready to invade Mexico. A war on our own border would fix things.  We would win and then Mexicans would be good. We would not be occupying the country at great expense and fighting an insurgency for years, not to mention fighting massive protests in our own country.  How many jobs would the US lose after taking down a major trading partner?  

Some would not be so petty as to condemn an idea like that beforehand, but I sure would.

Mexico is propped up by us. They are cousins that everyone dreads when they visit at Christmas. They should be like Canada but they are terrible and can not get out of their own way. Yes we should push them back and it would make more sense than us being in the Middle East.

[Dill]

(04-06-2018, 11:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't go by news reports, I go by cause and effect so your Fox and Rush comments are fruitless. I suppose that is the disconnect.

BTW, you never answered the question of what is an acceptable number of illegals crossing that does not require additional security. Do you care to now?

Er, that's not really a semantically coherent question.

Are you just asking what is an acceptable number of illegals before the cost of interdiction is greater than the benefits?

If that is your questions I would say we are there now.  Put that at 300,000 a year.

If you don't like that then you ought to be asking what is more cost effective--using hundreds of millions of dollars to put observers on the border, using the money to hire more border agents, or using the money to put the wall in critical places.

What is an acceptable cost of capture per head for you--6,000 dollars, 8,000?  

PS without news reports, your cause and effect is blind.  Fox and Rush defend Trump in the same terms as you. I suppose that is the connect.

[Dill]

(04-06-2018, 11:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Mexico is propped up by us. They are cousins that everyone dreads when they visit at Christmas.   They should be like Canada but they are terrible and can not get out of their own way.    Yes we should push them back and it would make more sense than us being in the Middle East.

So a war and occupation of Mexico makes "more sense" than a Middle East presence.  

Chaos on our borders and an enemy there for generations to come. Refugees. Riots and protests in US cities.

Good for the economy?  or just feelgood for national identity?
 

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2018, 12:07 AM)Dill Wrote: Er, that's not really a semantically coherent question.

Are you just asking what is an acceptable number of illegals before the cost of interdiction is greater than the benefits?

If that is your questions I would say we are there now.  Put that at 300,000 a year.

If you don't like that then you ought to be asking what is more cost effective--using hundreds of millions of dollars to put observers on the border, using the money to hire more border agents, or using the money to put the wall in critical places.

What is an acceptable cost of capture per head for you--6,000 dollars, 8,000?  

PS without news reports, your cause and effect is blind.  Fox and Rush defend Trump in the same terms as you. I suppose that is the connect.

So you're good with about 300,000  immigrants invading our sovereign Nation annually. Got it. 

[Dill]

(04-07-2018, 12:12 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So you're good with about 300,000  immigrants invading our sovereign Nation annually. Got it. 

You are not?

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2018, 12:29 AM)Dill Wrote: You are not?

You answered my question so I will answer yours.

No. I am not OK with 300,000 immigrants invading this sovereign nation illegally.

Apparently this is where we differ/

[Dill]

(04-07-2018, 12:36 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You answered my question so I will answer yours.

No. I am not OK with 300,000 immigrants invading this sovereign nation illegally.

Apparently this is where we differ/

Not so fast. So far, no one has been able to wish undocumented immigrants away.

 What would you be prepared to pay/sacrifice to stop those people, mostly needed workers, from entering the U.S.?

Are you prepared to say cost is not an issue? 

LOL we differ on many things, starting with the civic responsibility to understand what our politicians are doing and hold them accountable.

[fredtoast]

(04-07-2018, 12:36 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You answered my question so I will answer yours.

No. I am not OK with 300,000 immigrants invading this sovereign nation illegally.

Apparently this is where we differ/

What if they were just "immigrating" instead of "invading"?

[*Nately120*]

(04-09-2018, 11:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: What if they were just "immigrating" instead of "invading"?

Then Trump and his ilk would have to pay them more than $4 an hour.  Duh. Again, I find it interesting that the right-wing continues to paint this picture of illegals being lawless, dangerous savage invaders even after it became clear their vaunted leader chose to employ them over honest Americans. Astounding.

[GMDino]

(04-09-2018, 11:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: What if they were just "immigrating" instead of "invading"?

What if the caravan happens every year as a political protest and they weren't marching to the border to do either?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2018/04/07/central-american-migrant-caravan-grew-big-unintentionally-may-have-backfired/496504002/

Quote:It had become an annual event.


For the past 10 years, several hundred migrants from Central America have traveled together from Tapachula, Chiapas, through Mexico toward the U.S. border, partly for protection and partly to make a political statement.

Those earlier caravans did not attract much attention, either from the media or political leaders on either side of the border.

But this year was different. When the caravan of migrants set off on foot on March 25, instead of the usual 200 to 300 people, the group had swelled to as many as 1,600 migrants.

MORE: Migrant caravan in Mexico: Many transgender migrants traveling with group, fleeing persecution

What changed this year was an explosion of migrants from Honduras, an impoverished country of 9.3 million people where gang violence has made the murder rate one of the highest in the world.

The gang violence has been compounded by a political crisis triggered in the wake of November's presidential election that many Hondurans believe was stolen by the U.S.-backed president, Juan Orlando Hernandez, who won a razor-thin victory over his main rival, Salvador Nasralla. Several days of violent protests followed.

"I expected (the caravan) to be bigger," but not this big, said Alex Mensing, an organizer with Pueblo Sin Fronteras, the group that has organized annual migrant caravans including this year's. "The percentage of Hondurans is way higher. It's been like 75 or 80 percent. ... That is way higher than it's ever been."

The size of the group caught organizers off-guard, and triggered a negative reaction from the United States far bigger than any the organizers expected, even from a president already well-known for his hard-line stance on immigration and promise to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

MORE: Migrant caravan in Mexico: Human misery driving travelers toward better lives in U.S.

After reports of the migrant caravan traveling mostly unfettered through Mexico aired on the Fox News program "Fox & Friends" and other media outlets, President Donald Trump unleashed a barrage of tweets characterizing the group as a border-security threat.

Days of tweets culminated with Trump's decision to deploy several thousand National Guard troops to assist the Border Patrol along the southwest border to stop illegal immigration and drug trafficking.

Central American migrants gathered inside and outside a church in Puebla, Mexico, on April 7, 2018, for a caravan hoped to travel to the US border drawing the ire of President Trump. (Photo: Nick Oza/The Republic)

Now organizers are left to wonder whether one of their main objectives — to draw attention to the conditions in Central America that force people to leave their countries — may have backfired.

"I don't feel bad about the caravan. (But) I do feel upset about the National Guard, definitely," Mensing said.

He said organizers are now evaluating "very carefully" whether to organize caravans in the future, "not because of the National Guard" but out of concern that the military response from the U.S. may embolden "anti-immigrant hate groups." 

'Gangs control every aspect of life'                                                    
Lisandro Efrain Guerrero Figueroa, 51, and his wife, Maria Feliciana Sosa, 46, are among the Hondurans who joined the caravan this year in Tapachula.

Guerrero Figueroa said his 17-year-old nephew was murdered about three years ago for refusing to join a gang.

Gangs control every aspect of life, his wife said. Hondurans are afraid to leave their homes in the evening for fear of being robbed or killed.

"After 9 p.m., you can't leave your house. It's just too dangerous," she said.

Sick of the violence and political instability in Honduras, the couple had been living part time in Mexico without documents in the town of Pijijiapan, Chiapas, Mexico's most southern state. 

There they ran a small bakery selling pastries to migrants from Central America passing through. 

After selling the bicycle he used to peddle pastries, Guerrero Figueroa and his wife joined the migrant caravan hoping to travel with the group more than 2,000 miles through Mexico to Tijuana, where they hoped to open a new pastry business.


"There are many more commercial opportunities there," he said.

He said he was dumbfounded by Trump's decision to send National Guard troops to the border. 

MORE: Migrant caravan in Mexico: Volunteer doctors treating fevers, chills and other ailments

In the early 1990s, he lived in the Los Angles area for a few years without documents and found Americans to be good-hearted people who valued the hard work of immigrants.

"I don't know what planet he comes from," Guerrero Figueroa said. "People go to the United States to work and because there are opportunities. It's as if he doesn't see us as human beings."

Goals of the caravan
Mensing said the annual caravan has several goals.

The first is to provide protection to migrants fleeing extreme poverty and violence in Central America.

Under pressure from the United States, Mexico has established growing numbers of immigration checkpoints to catch and deport Central American migrants. Migrants who try and circumvent the checkpoints are frequently attacked by criminals who prey on them, Mensing said.

"They are very vulnerable to being robbed, extorted and sexually assaulted," he said.

The caravan also is intended as a political demonstration to raise awareness about the conditions in Central America that force people to seek protection and economic opportunities in other countries, and the role the U.S. helps play in creating those conditions.

Central American migrants gathered outside a church in Puebla, Mexico, on April 7, 2018, for a caravan that hoped to travel to the U.S. border drawing the ire of President Trump. (Photo: Nick Oza/The Republic)

A list of demands written by migrants at the start of the caravan included calling for an end to political corruption in their home countries and an end to U.S. aid for weapons in Central America.

The caravan arrived in Puebla on Friday with about 650 migrants, largely diminished from the approximately 1,600 migrants who originally started out in Tapachula.

MORE: Migrant caravan in Mexico smaller, but not disbanded, as travelers meet with lawyers

Some migrants decided to break off and continue on freight trains toward the U.S. border.

Others have decided to remain in Mexico. In Matias Romero, a town in Oaxaca where the migrant caravan paused for nearly a week following Trump's Twitter-storm, Mexican immigration officials passed out documents for migrants to apply for transit permits allowing them to travel throughout the country freely for 15 to 30 days without being deported back to their home countries, Mensing said. 

Unclear how many migrants qualify for asylum
In Puebla, the migrants are staying at shelters, including a Catholic church, where a team of lawyers from the U.S. and Mexico are holding meetings to inform them of their rights as migrants and refugees and explaining asylum laws in both countries.

"Essentially, people have the right to arrive at the international border to have their asylum case evaluated," said Allegra Love, an immigration attorney from Santa Fe, New Mexico, who traveled to Puebla to meet with migrants from the caravan. "They don't have the right to political asylum, but they have the right to ask for it."


At ports of entry, migrants who ask for asylum meet with border agents, "and let them know they have fear of returning to their home country."

Migrants who then pass "credible fear" interviews would be allowed to open a case for political asylum, she said.

"That might be in detention, that might be out of detention. It really depends on a case-by-case basis," she said,

Central American migrants gathered outside a church on April 7, 2018, get free clothing in Puebla, Mexico, for a caravan that hoped to travel to the U.S. border, drawing the ire of President Trump. (Photo: Nick Oza/The Republic)

Love said during one-on-one meetings with migrants with the caravan she has heard "a lot of stories of violence and threats from the gang, or police."
It's hard to say how many of the migrants might qualify for asylum.

"I've met some people with extraordinarily strong asylum claims, and I've met some people who don't have asylum claims at all, and I would say the majority of people are in the middle where it would depend a lot on the judge they get, whether they get a lawyer or not, whether they are detained, how much proof they can get," she said.

She said the lawyers were also encouraging people to learn about asylum in Mexico. "For some families, requesting asylum here might be a better option," she said.

The caravan plans to continue on to Mexico City, where it will end following several planned demonstrations, including one at the Honduran embassy.
Meanwhile, Guerrero Figueroa said he had no intention of crossing into the United States once he makes it to Tijuana, even though he has a sister in Houston.

"Trump doesn't want us there," he said.

Almost as if The POTUS gets his intel from an opinion show on FOX News in the morning and then forms his policy via twitter.  Wonderful, eh?

[StLucieBengal]

(04-09-2018, 11:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: What if they were just "immigrating" instead of "invading"?

Then you would have a valid visa to enter the country because you were following the law. If you don’t respect laws then you are an invader.

[Dill]

(04-09-2018, 12:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: What if the caravan happens every year as a political protest and they weren't marching to the border to do either?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2018/04/07/central-american-migrant-caravan-grew-big-unintentionally-may-have-backfired/496504002/


In the early 1990s, he lived in the Los Angles area for a few years without documents and found Americans to be good-hearted people who valued the hard work of immigrants.


"I don't know what planet he comes from," Guerrero Figueroa said. "People go to the United States to work and because there are opportunities. It's as if he doesn't see us as human beings."

Times have changed, Senor Figueroa.  An evangelical Christian is now in charge of the US, with his vice president.

[Dill]

(04-09-2018, 03:13 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Then you would have a valid visa to enter the country because you were following the law.  If you don’t respect laws then you are an invader.

Or hungry and desperate for safety.

What if you had a choice between letting the people in the US with a chance to work or sending them to Qatar as slave labor?
Would you send them to the "scum" in Qatar?

[*Nately120*]

(04-09-2018, 03:13 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Then you would have a valid visa to enter the country because you were following the law.  If you don’t respect laws then you are an invader.

Trump hired invaders . Sounds treasonous when you put it that way. 

[StLucieBengal]

(04-10-2018, 08:02 PM)Dill Wrote: Or hungry and desperate for safety.

What if you had a choice between letting the people in the US with a chance to work or sending them to Qatar as slave labor?
Would you send them to the "scum" in Qatar?

I empathize with their plight. Mexico and other Central American countries have failed their people. I have no problem sending charity groups down to help. They do not need to come here.

I don’t control what other USC do, but I wouldn’t send my loved ones to Qatar.

I know this won’t be popular, As I have said before, if we really want to strengthen Central America we will need to just occupy part of Mexico and go hard after the corruption. We waste time occupying in the ME, we should focus on cleaning up the worst part of the America’s.....Central America.

[ballsofsteel]

Lets be real here in spite of what Drumph (faux) news or rush says. Drumph doesn't give a shit about illegal immigration. He has thousands of illegal immigrants working for him. He found (more likely was told) to find an issue that the white, scared Evangelical voters were passionate about and use this issue to secure votes and build a loyal base. Sending troops to the border like there is a problem, now that is funny.

[Dill]

(04-11-2018, 01:29 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I empathize with their plight.  Mexico and other Central American countries have failed their people. I have no problem sending charity groups down to help.  They do not need to come here.  

I don’t control what other USC do, but I wouldn’t send my loved ones to Qatar.  

I know this won’t be popular, As I have said before, if we really want to strengthen Central America we will need to just occupy part of Mexico and go hard after the corruption.  We waste time occupying in the ME, we should focus on cleaning up the worst part of the America’s.....Central America.

Lucy, were you aware that there is a connection, a cause effect relation, between some of our "cleaning up" in Central America and the influx of immigrants from Honduras and Guatemala and El Salvador--not to mention gangs like MS?

We would save some money, perhaps, if we got into a Central American quagmire instead of  Middle Eastern one, but what reason is there to suppose it would end any differently? 

Why do you suppose war on our own borders would create safety and stability?