Migrants break through Guatemala border gate !

originally posted by: CirqueDeTruth
They are not migrants. I don't understand why people keep referring to the caravan as a "migrant" caravan. It is not. They are a group of refugees that are going to declare asylum when they reach our border.

They are not walking 3500 miles to work here and then walk back home.

Some folks just don't like brown people.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: ker2010

All I read is "Mommy make them go away I'm so scared!" It's pathetic really, grow a pair of balls and help!

Yeah. There are some identifiable groups in the US that seem to get triggered and fearful. They cling to their guns and their religion.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

That's a different issue. You destroyed their homeland and they want to destroy you.

Good job Britain has a juxtaposed border then with our guards on French/Belgian soil - the rabble remain the problem of mainland EU, unlucky.
Ireland support us as well because we are keeping them out for them.
Trump should just do what Britain does, keep them out and kick them out.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

No. I believe the issue is different and the entire US of A are smart enough to see that too. Instead of welfare real programs to create jobs for example. But down there.

a reply to: Peeple
Get rid of their corrupt governments and you may have a point, but until that happens you are just pissing in the wind.

Omg, omg... should Jews in a synagogue be scared? Should democrats (and others) be scared of caravan pipe bombs? Tell ya what my fear mongering pal. I’ll take my chances with the caravan over rwnj’s any day when comes to my and my fellow Americans safety.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: CirqueDeTruth
Britain would just refuse entry because they failed to claim asylum in a prior nation. There are hundreds of migrants camped in northern France trying to into the UK, they refuse to register in France because then they lose the right to claim asylum in the UK.
Not my country so whatever the US does it is your call, but I can tell you one thing, if it was happening to Britain those people would definitely not be allowed in, force would be used if need be.

I've said this MANY times but unless you saw the exact postings it would have been hard to see. The "First country of entry" for asylum seekers is an EU thing. It is based on the Dublin agreement or Dublin convention and only pertains to the signing members of the EU and those who signed afterwards. There is no such agreement for the rest of the world that is BINDING.
Though it is common practice that true asylum seekers SHOULD apply for refugee/asylum status in the first safe country they enter, and there is a UN agreement saying such, it isn't a binding law. There have been cases where this same scenario has happened where people passed through many safe countries in search of "richer" nations, and these people were often stopped on their way and detained - I believe this was in Africa in the 70's and 80's when migrants wanted to get into South Africa and some to Nigeria IIRC (migrants from the Congo passed through many countries first).

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Simple solution short leash. Every single dollar spent needs to be accounted for with real results. Or just bypassing their gov entirely.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: rollanotherone

Help by fixing their countries. To pull out like Trump did is wrong you need more influence down there not less.

In other words damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

a reply to: soundguy
I had to google rwnj’s lol.
I'm middle of the road with lots of my politics, I pick and choose from both sides. Our right wing govt in the UK has a strict border policy keeping immigrants out with our guards actually on the continental side. Britain has spent millions on fences in France to keep them out...I support that policy.

Don't need to provide anything. I'm not the one making claims. You got nothing girl.

originally posted by: JasonBillung

The Iran–Contra affair (Persian: ماجرای ایران-کنترا‎, Spanish: caso Irán-Contra), also referred to as Irangate,[1] Contragate[2] or the Iran–Contra scandal, was a political scandal in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan Administration. Senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo.[3] They hoped, thereby, to fund the Contras in Nicaragua while at the same time negotiating the release of several U.S. hostages. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.

In violation of the Boland Amendment, senior officials of the Reagan administration continued to secretly arm and train the Contras and provide arms to Iran, an operation they called "the Enterprise".[17][18] As the Contras were heavily dependent upon U.S. military and financial support, the second Boland amendment threatened to break the Contra movement and led to President Reagan in 1984 to order the National Security Council (NSC) to "keep the Contras together 'body and soul'", no matter what Congress voted for.[16]

The following arms were supplied to Iran:[39][40] 20 August 1985 – 96 TOW anti-tank missiles 14 September 1985 – 408 more TOWs 24 November 1985 – 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles 17 February 1986 – 500 TOWs 27 February 1986 – 500 TOWs 24 May 1986 – 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts 4 August 1986 – More Hawk spares 28 October 1986 – 500 TOWs

Source

A number of writers have alleged that the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was involved in coc aine trafficking during the 1980s. These claims have led to investigations by the United States government, including hearings and reports by the United States House of Representatives, Senate, Department of Justice, and the CIA's Office of the Inspector General. The subject remains controversial. CIA involvement in trafficking is usually alleged to be connected to the Contra war in Nicaragua during the Reagan Administration, which acknowledged in 1986 that funds from coc aine smuggling had helped fund the Contra rebels, but stated that the smuggling was not authorized by the US government or resistance leaders.[1] A 1986 investigation by a sub-committee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (the Kerry Committee), found that "the Contra drug links included", amongst other connections, "[...] payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies."[2]

Source

So you are using 35-40 year old issues to claim the reason for their problems now!!?? BBUUHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! How ridiculous you are. Central America has had one of the most prosperous times of growth over the last decade, largely due to the US giving them jobs (factory jobs) through outsourcing coming from the US. The got 10,000's of jobs paying much more than the average wage and now all their criminals are coming to the US because these companies won't hire them because they have criminal records? Give us a break.

So how many of these people are you going to hire and house?

originally posted by: JasonBillung

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: JasonBillung

The Iran–Contra affair (Persian: ماجرای ایران-کنترا‎, Spanish: caso Irán-Contra), also referred to as Irangate,[1] Contragate[2] or the Iran–Contra scandal, was a political scandal in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan Administration. Senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo.[3] They hoped, thereby, to fund the Contras in Nicaragua while at the same time negotiating the release of several U.S. hostages. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.

In violation of the Boland Amendment, senior officials of the Reagan administration continued to secretly arm and train the Contras and provide arms to Iran, an operation they called "the Enterprise".[17][18] As the Contras were heavily dependent upon U.S. military and financial support, the second Boland amendment threatened to break the Contra movement and led to President Reagan in 1984 to order the National Security Council (NSC) to "keep the Contras together 'body and soul'", no matter what Congress voted for.[16]

The following arms were supplied to Iran:[39][40] 20 August 1985 – 96 TOW anti-tank missiles 14 September 1985 – 408 more TOWs 24 November 1985 – 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles 17 February 1986 – 500 TOWs 27 February 1986 – 500 TOWs 24 May 1986 – 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts 4 August 1986 – More Hawk spares 28 October 1986 – 500 TOWs

Source

A number of writers have alleged that the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was involved in coc aine trafficking during the 1980s. These claims have led to investigations by the United States government, including hearings and reports by the United States House of Representatives, Senate, Department of Justice, and the CIA's Office of the Inspector General. The subject remains controversial. CIA involvement in trafficking is usually alleged to be connected to the Contra war in Nicaragua during the Reagan Administration, which acknowledged in 1986 that funds from coc aine smuggling had helped fund the Contra rebels, but stated that the smuggling was not authorized by the US government or resistance leaders.[1] A 1986 investigation by a sub-committee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (the Kerry Committee), found that "the Contra drug links included", amongst other connections, "[...] payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies."[2]

Source

Oh boy. Lets quote wikipedia. Yup. That'll show em how smurt I is.

I see that you provide an alternative source. Not. You got nuthin boy.

Wait. Did you just pull a "Not"? Oh wow. Now I've seen it all. Hurry up kiddo. Your mom is trying to get you ready for day care.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

That's a different issue. You destroyed their homeland and they want to destroy you.

We also destroyed the Cherokee nation. I don't see them wanting nukes to destroy us back.

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: JasonBillung

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: JasonBillung

The Iran–Contra affair (Persian: ماجرای ایران-کنترا‎, Spanish: caso Irán-Contra), also referred to as Irangate,[1] Contragate[2] or the Iran–Contra scandal, was a political scandal in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan Administration. Senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo.[3] They hoped, thereby, to fund the Contras in Nicaragua while at the same time negotiating the release of several U.S. hostages. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.

In violation of the Boland Amendment, senior officials of the Reagan administration continued to secretly arm and train the Contras and provide arms to Iran, an operation they called "the Enterprise".[17][18] As the Contras were heavily dependent upon U.S. military and financial support, the second Boland amendment threatened to break the Contra movement and led to President Reagan in 1984 to order the National Security Council (NSC) to "keep the Contras together 'body and soul'", no matter what Congress voted for.[16]

The following arms were supplied to Iran:[39][40] 20 August 1985 – 96 TOW anti-tank missiles 14 September 1985 – 408 more TOWs 24 November 1985 – 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles 17 February 1986 – 500 TOWs 27 February 1986 – 500 TOWs 24 May 1986 – 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts 4 August 1986 – More Hawk spares 28 October 1986 – 500 TOWs

Source

A number of writers have alleged that the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was involved in coc aine trafficking during the 1980s. These claims have led to investigations by the United States government, including hearings and reports by the United States House of Representatives, Senate, Department of Justice, and the CIA's Office of the Inspector General. The subject remains controversial. CIA involvement in trafficking is usually alleged to be connected to the Contra war in Nicaragua during the Reagan Administration, which acknowledged in 1986 that funds from coc aine smuggling had helped fund the Contra rebels, but stated that the smuggling was not authorized by the US government or resistance leaders.[1] A 1986 investigation by a sub-committee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (the Kerry Committee), found that "the Contra drug links included", amongst other connections, "[...] payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies."[2]

Source

Oh boy. Lets quote wikipedia. Yup. That'll show em how smurt I is.

I see that you provide an alternative source. Not. You got nuthin boy.

Wait. Did you just pull a "Not"? Oh wow. Now I've seen it all. Hurry up kiddo. Your mom is trying to get you ready for day care.

My mother died several years ago. She spent several years in a hospice. Thanks for the kind words.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof
The US should just say # the UN and do what it wishes to protect its border, Britain would, and does.
We don't have that posse comitus thing you have either, if needed the army and Royal Navy can be used to keep immigrants out on a government whim.
The rest of the EU hate the stance Britain takes on immigration but there is no real support among the populace for us to let more folk in...it seems only folk in the US think it is racist to defend your border.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Yeah, and it's not like things persist in any country. Not like in the US, where we still are suffering from the racism that supposedly ended with the civil war...

a reply to: JasonBillung

O goodness gracious...you must make her so proud by arguing with every one. Bless your heart.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Simple solution short leash. Every single dollar spent needs to be accounted for with real results. Or just bypassing their gov entirely.

In who's government? Wouldn't it be nice if we would never have to ask that question and it was just a given? how do we get this policy implemented. I think that is one thing that 99.999% of the population would get behind.

That is a great idea. I could be a one issue candidate. 100% government accountability for every dollar spent complete with civilian (outside) "blind" review of the financials (meaning the politicians don't know who is reviewing spending) and the reviewers are paid for by a % of the mis-spent $ that is found. For every dollar mis-spent that department looses 3x that in spending and the accountant gets to keep a % (up to a maximum). Or something along those lines - but that would be the general idea of the policy. The mis-spending is accounted under each representatives committee, department, agency, etc so the tax payers can see who is mishandling the $$

originally posted by: CADpro
a reply to: JasonBillung

O goodness gracious...you must make her so proud by arguing with every one. Bless your heart.

Yeah, my mother is dead. Thanks again for your fine thoughts.