So much for "it's a manufactured crisis"..

[SunsetBengal]

I wonder just how many Democrats are going to jump on board to get the border situation under control, now that one of their own has officially called it a crisis?


https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/obamas-dhs-chief-jeh-johnson-says-100k-border-apprehensions-in-a-month-is-a-crisis

Quote:Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told FOX Business that the large number of apprehensions at the U.S. southern border constitutes a crisis.
“By any measure 4,000 apprehensions on our southern border in one day, 100,000 in a month, is a crisis,” he said during an interview Monday on “Making Money with Charles Payne
Opens a New Window.
.” “It’s a crisis in Central America where the poverty imbalance is occurring that causes people to flee in the first place. It’s a crisis in that it overwhelms our border security personnel to deal with that volume of people coming in and it’s a crisis in these communities on the border that have to absorb these populations. So the question is what to do?”

[*bfine32*]

If one person crosses our border illegally without being vetted; then it's a crisis "a condition of instability or danger, as in social, economic, political, or international affairs, leading to a decisive change." I think the rub comes with what makes it a National emergency. Personally IDK; as I've never spent any time along the border with the intention of accessing the situation. Hopefully those that do are unbiased and not swayed by rhetoric of others that don't have a clue.   

[CJD]

I wonder if Trump will go through with his threat of shutting down the border entirely.

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2019, 07:50 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I wonder if Trump will go through with his threat of shutting down the border entirely.

Shutting down the border to stop illegal crossings makes about as much sense as passing more gun laws to stop gun violence. It's going to do nothing but make some feel better and make it harder for those intent on doing the right thing.

[CJD]

(04-01-2019, 07:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Shutting down the border to stop illegal crossings makes about as much sense as passing more gun laws to stop gun violence. It's going to do nothing but make some feel better

Oh it'll do a lot of things.

It'll raise prices for groceries in particular.

It just won't do what a lot of people are hoping it will.

I am not fully researched up on it, what is Trump's reasoning for doing so?

Is it to punish Mexico for not being harder on illegal immigration, similar to what he did to those 3 other "Mexican" countries?

Or does he think it'll actually impact illegal immigration somehow?

[NATI BENGALS]

I'll tell you what a dumbass would do. If the problem is

"It’s a crisis in Central America where the poverty imbalance is occurring that causes people to flee in the first place"

As faux would say. Trump would cut aid to 3 Mexican countries.

The great negotiator sounds like every other US politician i know about. Shits all over the bed when it comes it all those mexican countries down there.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-01-2019, 08:33 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I'll tell you what a dumbass would do. If the problem is

"It’s a crisis in Central America where the poverty imbalance is occurring that causes people to flee in the first place"

As faux would say. Trump would cut aid to 3 Mexican countries.

The great negotiator sounds like every other US politician i know about. Shits all over the bed when it comes it all those mexican countries down there.

Why keep sending aid to shithole Nations, when their government keeps it, and it never reaches the citizens who's lives that it's supposed to improve?  Those Nations don't even provide a safe environment for their citizens to live life peacefully, free from the terror of drug lords.  I understand why those people want to leave their homes.  The onus should be on pressuring their greedy governments to do the right thing, and clean things up in their own Nations.  If cutting off aid that never reaches the intended people is the way to get the ball rolling?  Then so be it.

[Belsnickel]

I think most Democrats want something done at the border, they just see a border wall as ineffective and archaic in comparison to other potential solutions.

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2019, 09:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think most Democrats want something done at the border, they just see a border wall as ineffective and archaic in comparison to other potential solutions.

Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but I think there's a fair amount against it simply because who is pushing it. Likewise there's a fair amount of GOP supporting it for the exact same reason.   

As to me I'd defer to the officers tasked with securing the border. But we hear totally different things from each side. Personally I think physical barriers help. Although I would prefer a moat filled with sharks with lazer beams attached to their heads.

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-01-2019, 08:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Why keep sending aid to shithole Nations, when their government keeps it, and it never reaches the citizens who's lives that it's supposed to improve?  Those Nations don't even provide a safe environment for their citizens to live life peacefully, free from the terror of drug lords.  I understand why those people want to leave their homes.  The onus should be on pressuring their greedy governments to do the right thing, and clean things up in their own Nations.  If cutting off aid that never reaches the intended people is the way to get the ball rolling?  Then so be it.

Why try to help when you can do nothing. Good call. 

Works every time when you were born with a silver spoon and are a master con artist. Lets see how it plays out taking the low road and giving zero shits about your fellow man. 

[BmorePat87]

Average in the 24 months of the Trump presidency prior to a declaration: 40k a month
Average after he declares an emergency: 83k a month


LOLOLOL

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2019, 10:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Average in the 24 months of the Trump presidency prior to a declaration: 40k a month
Average after he declares an emergency: 83k a month


LOLOLOL

Average what? 

[BmorePat87]

(04-01-2019, 10:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Average what? 

border apprehensions. 

[BmorePat87]

Also we'll run out of avocados if the border is closed. That'll be a pretty serious crisis.

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2019, 10:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: border apprehensions. 

I'm sure I'm going to regret this but:

Isn't that a good thing?

[BmorePat87]

(04-01-2019, 10:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm sure I'm going to regret this but:

Isn't that a good thing?

Depends, I guess? We should want fewer people crossing, which would mean less apprehensions, but we want to apprehend them all.

I was suggesting that the numbers themselves have been inflated in the last few months to give the impression of a more serious problem. My assumption is that the Trump administration is adding legal asylum seekers who report to ports of entries into the mix. Given the exponential drop in apprehensions after the Bush and Obama boost to the total number of border agents, it seems suspicious that apprehensions would more than double immediately after the crisis was declared, bordering on levels we haven't seen since Bush's first term (prior to the border reforms). 

[Dill]

(04-01-2019, 08:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Why keep sending aid to shithole Nations, when their government keeps it, and it never reaches the citizens who's lives that it's supposed to improve?  Those Nations don't even provide a safe environment for their citizens to live life peacefully, free from the terror of drug lords.  I understand why those people want to leave their homes.  The onus should be on pressuring their greedy governments to do the right thing, and clean things up in their own Nations.  If cutting off aid that never reaches the intended people is the way to get the ball rolling?  Then so be it.

There are no "shithole nations," Sunset.

Let us for a moment consider ONE of the "Mexican Nations" in question--Guatemala. 

The U.S. bears some responsibility for the unstable government there, having overturned a legitimately elected democratic government in 1954 and replaced it with a military dictatorship that would insure that United Fruit could pay workers there the wages it--not the Guatemalan government--wanted to pay.

Then that military dictatorship set about repressing peasants, especially Mayan. And when it was overthrown by another dictatorship, that one was even harder on the peasants.  Back in those days "aid" meant military training and helicopter gunships.  And the result of that policy was a civil war in which some 200,000 people died, as the U.S. backed government (also backed by Apartheid South Africa) sought to pacify the obviously Communist peasants.

When the war ended in 1995, once again a civilian government was installed.  For some 15 years, the economy was on the upswing and some justice was meeted out to the murderous leaders of government terror during the civil war. But the countryside has remained unstable, as in insecure. In 2006, the UN formed the CICG (International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala) to monitor continued abuse by still out of control provincial security forces. Since 2012, that insecurity has increased as Government corruption has surged, first under Andreas Molina, now under Jimmy Morales.  And it this insecurity and corruption which is now driving Guatemalans out of the country. And now Morales, apparently with the blessing of Trump, has ordered the CICIG out of the country.

If Trump cuts off aid to Guatemala, the fight against corruption will be over. The country will again fall into the hands of its military. I think we can expect, within  6 months, a greater surge of refugees north.  I know some hate long posts so I won't mention why the same thing will be happening in Honduras and El Salvador.  
So we were sending aid to help stabilize these countries and eliminate or at least mitigate the conditions which created refugees. And we were supporting a Un commission which has had some success in checking and rooting out corruption. When we stop aid for all that, expect a concatenation of crises in the Mesoamerican region which will spread northward.  

[SunsetBengal]

(04-01-2019, 11:00 PM)Dill Wrote: There are no "shithole nations," Sunset.

Great post, Dill.  Thanks for refreshing some history that I had forgotten about.

However, how can we expect to change a culture of the "survival of the fittest"?  Even if we wipe out the peasants current oppressors, another one will materialize to take it's place.  It's not unlike the US or Russia trying to settle anything in the Middle East.  People have been living a certain way for thousands of years, you can't just expect to change their culture by putting in cardboard leadership.

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2019, 10:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Depends, I guess? We should want fewer people crossing, which would mean less apprehensions, but we want to apprehend them all.

I was suggesting that the numbers themselves have been inflated in the last few months to give the impression of a more serious problem. My assumption is that the Trump administration is adding legal asylum seekers who report to ports of entries into the mix. Given the exponential drop in apprehensions after the Bush and Obama boost to the total number of border agents, it seems suspicious that apprehensions would more than double immediately after the crisis was declared, bordering on levels we haven't seen since Bush's first term (prior to the border reforms). 

We can guess all we want, but bottom line: More apprehensions at the border is a good thing. I would be opposed to including any asylum seekers that reported to points of entry prior to crossing illegally, but if they cross illegally and then report; they absolutely should be included.  

[Beaker]

(04-01-2019, 09:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think most Democrats want something done at the border, they just see a border wall as ineffective and archaic in comparison to other potential solutions.

Machine gun turrets.