Liberals- I want your solutions to the migrant caravan situation.

originally posted by: roadgravel

41,000 people crossed last month, 37,000 in August. Why is this one a "National Emergy"?

It may or may not be an Emergy. It time to control it a bit better though.

You mean 'It's' or 'It is' I assume?

originally posted by: roadgravel
The more the merrier really isn't working out. Something needs to actually change and this is a place to start.

If I understand you correctly, I agree that this is the time to do something definitive. I get the idealogical concept that people should be allowed to go where ever they want, but that is not what we have at this moment. We have to work with what we have.

If folks had any idea how much it costs to provide housing, medical, food ect. for one of these people it might be a real eye opener. These are people that are disrespectful to rule of law, do we want to let them manipulate us? It's as if they come to your home and break down the door whether you want them there or not. Do you think they will be filled with gratitude or demands? Do you think they will respect our laws? Do we want to be their suckers? It is time to take a definitive stand. I am not against immigration, but there is a way to do it, legally.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: pointessa

So you want to jump on the roundabout and have the same arguments again that appear in every newspaper, on every news channel and on every political forum in the world?

Productive? Or feeding your angst? Fancied firing off a few rounds?


Go back and look at the first page of your OP as a new member, an outsider. What do you see? The same old back slapping rubbish that ensures the argument will never evolve.


I'm a proud right leaning English citizen. I love Trump and all he has done for your country. I despise the dead ended illogical left sided arguments that deal with emotions over facts.

But I also despise this. This is just as bad and will get humanity nowhere.

Enjoy the upcoming campaign, but remember, it's not a football game you're watching.

What is so bad about asking people to use reason and logic and engage in debate? Why are you so dang angry? I can almost taste your vitriol. I see it the opposite way, logical debate is good.

Has anyone seen any interviews with the people in the caravan? I was looking for something but could not find anything. I would think that would make for great news coverage.

What do these people think is going to happen? What Are they being told? Are they being paid?

How come there is no coverage?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: pointessa

The desert gets cold at night.

We could give out some "blankets" for their travels.

Also, we can send some Navy Seals into Mexico to put decoy arrows on all the signs... They'll be going in circles.

We can offer them a super long boat ride to the north part of America. We'll have tons of food on the boat so we look good, but no citrus, they'll get scurvy.

You are one funny guy... I like your humor.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: roadgravel

41,000 people crossed last month, 37,000 in August. Why is this one a "National Emergy"?

It may or may not be an Emergy. It time to control it a bit better though.

You mean 'It's' or 'It is' I assume?

Too much "is" in the illegal immigration situation so I left it out.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Has anyone seen any interviews with the people in the caravan? I was looking for something but could not find anything. I would think that would make for great news coverage.

What do these people think is going to happen? What Are they being told? Are they being paid?

How come there is no coverage?

All I have read are very short, one statement quotes. Ones that are meant to pull at the heartstrings. Mother and daughter, mother of eight children. Statements like" we are turning around, but we will come back.". Good point, I wonder why no in depth interviews? Might they spill the beans on something?

a reply to: pointessa

Might they spill the beans on something?

From the stories I've heard almost all of them have spilled the beans, right on their rice.

a reply to: pointessa

Just do what they did with the thousands that flooded in after ww2. Just vet them, and lead them to the path of citizenship. It's not rocket science.

I don't understand why this is such a big deal?
If you need to build a wall then do it. But immigration into America is about as American as you can get to be honest.

a reply to: pointessa

It does seem as though criminal acts are being rewarded. What other criminals acts can I do as an illegal and benefit? Maybe it does not make for good citizenship.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Sarcasm not in your vocabulary?
Did you care to read where I said it wasn't about poor people

Gathering by the stars you have recieve not to many people in your country understand sarcasm
Easily excused I guess

Whoopsies.. (blushes)

The problem is that there are people in the country who feel that way.

I would offer two suggestions:

1) reduce the cause of mass exodus from countries. By this I mean eliminate the cause of fear, pain, horror, destitution, etc that causes people to flee. This can be accomplished by "importing" democracy. America has a great deal of experience in this area. With chants of "borders are a social construct" and "there is no such thing as an illegal human" all talk of invasion will be quelled from an international stage. Win-win.

2) Simply "usher" the caravans through an American corridor and on to the Canadian border. Provide minimal resistance and humanitarian aid along the route, but ensure that the "refugees" continue their travels through our country and into the next. Canada has promised to be a welcoming nation to all peoples and several countries south of the United States have already ushered the convoy through. Conventions require peoples to flee to a safe nation, not to a nation of choice. If they pass up a few nations to get this far they can pass up one more to get to Canada. Win-win.

a reply to: 200Plus

Canada hasnt said such a thing and I k ow Trudeau has already retracted any statements about that.

But hey, why not just send all the illegitimate problem children that the US had a heavy hand in down south and just pass them onto the next guy.
War drugs and cia meddling caused most of those issues, so deal with the consequences.

a reply to: pointessa

If this is your idea of logical debate, and this is how you commence logical debate... and this is how you are contributing to society then ok, that's your prerogative. I cannot respect it though. Nothing in this thread is logical, educated or sensible. It's internet BS.

In my eyes you have just added another # stained piece of paper to a pile already a mile high.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: pointessa

Might they spill the beans on something?

From the stories I've heard almost all of them have spilled the beans, right on their rice.

You really are a stinker, Criticalstinker.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: pointessa

Just do what they did with the thousands that flooded in after ww2. Just vet them, and lead them to the path of citizenship. It's not rocket science.

I don't understand why this is such a big deal?
If you need to build a wall then do it. But immigration into America is about as American as you can get to be honest.

Please address some of the questions regarding the reality of this that I have addressed throughout this thread. Did the immigrants flooding the US after WW2 just barge through the gaits? A big difference I think.

Some will just stand there and have others take advantage of them. Others will at least put up a fight.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Fortunately it's a seems a minority who want open borders
I don't like Trump but he has put effort into securing your borders, a promise he made
He has to do something and I think he will be supported if he stops them

Opening borders is not an option considering his pre election platform

What can he do. That's a great question

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: pointessa

It does seem as though criminal acts are being rewarded. What other criminals acts can I do as an illegal and benefit? Maybe it does not make for good citizenship.

That is one of my major points. What about those of us that can reason? We look at the lawlessness that would be tolerated and we look at how we are supposed to tow the line. We look at folks sitting in prison for MJ possession. We look at felons that have their lives ruined by one conviction and we see that these folks can be totally lawless and disrespectful and get a free ride. I hear illegal immigrants are frequently not charged when they commit crimes. It creates resentment and lessens respect for the law.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Fortunately it's a seems a minority who want open borders
I don't like Trump but he has put effort into securing your borders, a promise he made
He has to do something and I think he will be supported if he stops them

Opening borders is not an option considering his pre election platform

What can he do. That's a great question

I think this is the pivotal point in his presidency and possibly the country as well. I hope he stands behind his conviction.

Here are some ideas about what can be done:


1- Close the Border

Vaughan said the executive branch “needs to do something in the short-term,” including consideration of shutting down crossings through the U.S.-Mexico border.

Vaughan stated, “If it gets to the point where [caravan migrants] get to the U.S. border in a group like that, which they may not, they could be broken up. Some of them are going to get to the U.S. border, for sure, because there’s just no way Mexico is going to find all those people who busted through that fence … and they may not come as a caravan, they’ll just try to cross illegally.”

Vaughan recalled how the U.S. essentially shut down the southern border in 1985 after Mexican drug cartel criminals murdered Enrique “Kiki” Camarena, a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent.

Vaughan remarked, “But if they come as a group we could shut down a border crossing or shut down a part of the border. It’s been done before in order to shut down drug trafficking and make a statement. When a DEA agent was killed in Mexico, we shut down the order to make a statement. … It could be done. … That might be what it comes to, and I don’t think Mexico wants to see that.”

2 – Refuse Bogus Asylum Claims

Mansour noted the economic reasons for caravaning migrants seeking entry to the U.S.: “The media is not even trying to pretend that these people are fleeing for anything other than economic reasons.”

News media outlets such as the New York Times and Washington Post have described caravaning migrants’ motivations for seeking entry to the U.S. as economic.

Vaughan described the openly stated economic motivations of the caravaning migrants as “[making] it harder to justify allowing these people to set foot in the United States.”

Vaughan recalled how left-wing lawyers had previously coached foreigners — providing them specific scripts to recite before border security and immigration officials — on how best to enter America via existing refugee and asylum laws and policies.

Left-wing lawyers have also previously provided pro bono legal services to asylum claimants who had entered U.S. territory.

Vaughan said, “Back on the open borders crowd, I don’t think this open admission that this is economic migration is going to stop the left from trying to rationalize their wish for us to let them all in, and they want a scene at the border where the U.S. government looks like they’re being brutal and mean to desperate migrants. They think that works for them.”

Vaughan continued, “I disagree that that’s how it plays out with American voters, but they still think this is something we should just give in to, and I think they’re still going to try to justify it in their minds and make the case, just like they did with the whole family separation issue.”

Vaughan concluded, “The president is going to have to do what is necessary, and not worry about what the New York Times thinks.”

3 – Refuse Entry to Migrants and Send Them Home

Vaughan said, “I think that the caravan itself is going to be broken up, but many of the people in it are going to make their way up to the order and try to get across, and many of them are going to succeed. “

Vaughan continued, “If they come in a big group like that, they could well shut down the border, but I have a feeling that we’re going to see it break up and people end up getting through individually, anyway, unless the president takes more bold steps to say, ‘Look, I’m stopping this. These people aren’t getting through. We’re not accepting their asylum claims, because they’re bogus.'”

Vaughan added, “[Trump must] actually send them back. That’s what it’s going to take to avoid having more of these caravans. These are not credible fear claims that are credible. They don’t meet the standard of the law, and therefore they’re going home and we’re not even going to allow them in as others have. It’s over. That’s what it’s going to take.”

Vaughan advised Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen against reliance on Congressional passage of legislation to assist DHS’s mandate to secure the homeland.

“The executive branch needs to do something in the short-term,” declared Vaughan.

“Can troops be sent down there to protect the border?” asked Mansour.

Vaughan replied, “Most people believe that they can only be used to support immigration officers like the border patrol [and] that they can’t be used to actually make immigration arrests, but there is a provision in the law that allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to deputize state and local law enforcement to assist with border security, so that’s a possibility, if it gets out hand.”

Vaughan added, “I could see Texas wanting to provide support to the border patrol. They do that already at the expense of Texas. I think there will be reinforcements who arrive if it looks like another scene like we just saw play out in Mexico.”

4 – Mandate Asylum Claims be Made in Consulates or Embassies in Home Countries, Not U.S. Ports of Entry

Both Vaughan and Mansour said migrants seeking asylum should file their claims at consulates or embassies within their own countries, not at U.S. ports of entry.

“The administration basically has to say — I don’t know if they can do this — but make a ruling saying, ‘If you want to request asylum, you need to request it at the embassy in your country,'” said Mansour, asking, “Why don’t they just request it at the consulate or embassy and not even come here?”

Vaughan agreed, adding, “Exactly, and it would still be fair. We could still accept any bona fide cases, but we don’t have them crashing the border, and we don’t have this this farce kangaroo court immigration process.”

Vaughan also recommended denying the caravaning migrants entry to the U.S. and having them wait in Mexico while federal authorities process their anticipated asylum claims.

www.breitbart.com...[edi tby]edit on 23-10-2018 by pointessa because: (no reason given)