BREAKING: Migrants Breach Wall, Throw Rocks, Get Gassed Back To Mexico - Videos

a reply to: rollanotherone

So you don't think its an invasion now... OK then.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
the vast majority of asylum

So, Mexico offered asylum. Why did they refuse?

Because with Mexican minimum wage being what it is (about $5 US/week), it wasn't much of an offer, perhaps?

Economic distress is not a qualifier for asylum. So, that would explain why they did not accept the offer from Mexican officials. Then they are not asylum seekers, right?

Umm, they were being offered asylum by Mexico, not from Mexico.

They weren't seeking asylum from Mexico but from the Honduran and Guatemalan governments and cartels.

But the Economic Refugee clauses of the Refugee act of 1980, grants legal asylum.

I take it you you did not understand my statement. They were offered asylum by MEXICAN OFFICIALS. How does that equate to what you interpreted?

Also, you seem to not understand the difference between status for asylum and status as a refugee.

They are different statutes genius. If you mean they are seeking refugee status, then say that! Saying asylum seekers means something different.

SMH

Knowledge is your friend.

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
the vast majority of asylum

So, Mexico offered asylum. Why did they refuse?

Because with Mexican minimum wage being what it is (about $5 US/week), it wasn't much of an offer, perhaps?

So you're admitting it's all an economic issue and not a humanitarian issue? Got it. Move along now.

No, they are seeking asylum from the Guatemalan and Honduran government and cartels. They aren't running away from Mexico.

Mexico has offered them asylum but the conditions of that asylum were untenable.

They are seeking humanitarian asylum.

And the US Refugee Act of 1980 says that it can be as an economic refugee.

originally posted by: musicismagic
I don't see no videos in your post.

Click the first link. I think you may need a twitter account to watch them.

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
a reply to: chr0naut

This is where I laugh and walk away.

Cheers, I am glad you appreciate the humor.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

The President WILL Declare Martial Law along our Southern Borders . Circumstances there will Eventually Force him to .

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

The President WILL Declare Martial Law along our Southern Borders . Circumstances there will Eventually Force him to .

I know you really want him to declare martial Law, you've said as much before.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: shawmanfromny

How is this not considered an invasion?

Have any actually, like, invaded?

You know, crossed the border and stood on US soil in this desperate battle?

... and, where's the battle?

I've seen more unruly crowds going up to barriers at an air show.

The link says they breached the wall and were repelled back by tear gas.

Sounds like and invasion to me.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
the vast majority of asylum

So, Mexico offered asylum. Why did they refuse?

Because with Mexican minimum wage being what it is (about $5 US/week), it wasn't much of an offer, perhaps?

So you're admitting it's all an economic issue and not a humanitarian issue? Got it. Move along now.

No, they are seeking asylum from the Guatemalan and Honduran government and cartels. They aren't running away from Mexico.

Mexico has offered them asylum but the conditions of that asylum were untenable.

They are seeking humanitarian asylum.

And the US Refugee Act of 1980 says that it can be as an economic refugee.

Asylum seekers, per international law MUST apply for asylum in the very first country they enter. In some cases it was Mexico, in others it was another country. In this case, it was NOT the USA at all unless they are Mexican citizens. And again, seeking refugee status is NOT seeking asylum.

Let me repeat, Asylum and humanitarian refugee statuses are not the same thing. They are different with different rules and requirements.

I cannot be more clear than that. If you still claim to not understand, then I think you need to go educate yourself on actual international asylum requirements.

A “refugee” is any person who is outside his or her country of nationality (or, if stateless, outside the country of last habitual residence) and is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

Asylum Law and Procedure

Please note that economic status is NOT one of the qualifiers in this law.

a reply to: Bluntone22

They didn't breach the border. If they had done so they would have been taken into custody.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Where are the guns and bombs and flames?

All I see are families and kids and a soccer game.

I mean, they are reporting violence, they have stacks of cameras in the area, why isn't there any sign of the violence they are reporting?

It also looks like they migrants are effectively blocked from illegal entry, too. People walking up to the fence, unarmed, and with their kids aren't 'storming' the border.

If the migrants had weapons and battering rams, then they'd be a threat but this...

And if the guards used tear gas against unarmed men, women & children as some have said, then who are the aggressors here?

Attempting to illegally and forcibly cross a border of a foreign country is an act of aggression. So, who are the aggressors here? The invaders that's who. SMFH

a reply to: shawmanfromny

"We ran, but when you run the gas asphyxiates you more," she told the AP while cradling her 3-year-old daughter Valery in her arms.

Here's an idea... Don't breach the border and you won't get gassed.... lol


Idiots

a reply to: Krakatoa

Asylum seekers, per international law MUST apply for asylum in the very first country they enter.

Please cite that law.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: rollanotherone

So you don't think its an invasion now... OK then.

If it were only women and children, then no. It wouldn't be. But since we see men of military age, then you draw your own conclusion. Actions alone should tell you everything.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Waving Honduran flags, a group of mostly men opened up a gap in the wall. However, some women also pushed small children in strollers to the breach in the wall. Then, immigrants started throwing rocks and U.S. agents responded with gas.

Majority of those children do not belong to the migrant men, they are kidnapped children to be used for as poly. This is an invasion as it is in Europe.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
the vast majority of asylum

So, Mexico offered asylum. Why did they refuse?

Because with Mexican minimum wage being what it is (about $5 US/week), it wasn't much of an offer, perhaps?

Economic distress is not a qualifier for asylum. So, that would explain why they did not accept the offer from Mexican officials. Then they are not asylum seekers, right?

Umm, they were being offered asylum by Mexico, not from Mexico.

They weren't seeking asylum from Mexico but from the Honduran and Guatemalan governments and cartels.

But the Economic Refugee clauses of the Refugee act of 1980, grants legal asylum.

I take it you you did not understand my statement. They were offered asylum by MEXICAN OFFICIALS. How does that equate to what you interpreted?

Also, you seem to not understand the difference between status for asylum and status as a refugee.

They are different statutes genius. If you mean they are seeking refugee status, then say that! Saying asylum seekers means something different.

SMH

Knowledge is your friend.

Have you read the act? It quite clearly identifies that being an economic refugee is one of the grounds for being granted asylum.

There is a good definition of the word "refugee" on Wikipedia that you might find helpful.

a reply to: SgtHamsandwich

Interesting these so called migrants are using the same tactics as the African men migrants in Europe, thanks for sharing this.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bluntone22

They didn't breach the border. If they had done so they would have been taken into custody.

So the invaders failed to breach the defense's on their initial assault.
Just because they failed doesn't make it any less of an invasion.
They haven't turned around and headed home.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
the vast majority of asylum

So, Mexico offered asylum. Why did they refuse?

Because with Mexican minimum wage being what it is (about $5 US/week), it wasn't much of an offer, perhaps?

So you're admitting it's all an economic issue and not a humanitarian issue? Got it. Move along now.

No, they are seeking asylum from the Guatemalan and Honduran government and cartels. They aren't running away from Mexico.

Mexico has offered them asylum but the conditions of that asylum were untenable.

They are seeking humanitarian asylum.

And the US Refugee Act of 1980 says that it can be as an economic refugee.

From your own "wiki" link

The Act amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 by defining a refugee as any person who is outside his or her country of residence or nationality, or without nationality, and is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.[5]

Isnt that convenient. You can claim asylum because you belong to a certain social group. Even more troubling is the "political opinion" Seems like more loopholes than our tax code.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Its not a surprise news networks like CNN and MSNBC are defending such migrant waves or invasions in this case.