Why do these folks want to come to the land of oppression? Just in time for elections too,nothing to see or more than coincidence:::::

How about because they’re desperate to flee violence. What would you do if it was your kids? How much Kool Aid have you drank this week?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about because they’re desperate to flee violence. What would you do if it was your kids? How much Kool Aid have you drank this week?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How many are you taking in your home since you are all for it ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about because they’re desperate to flee violence. What would you do if it was your kids? How much Kool Aid have you drank this week?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If they're seeking asylum as refugees, by UN law they must do so in the first country they enter, which, in this case, would be Mexico. They should be stopped at our border and returned to Mexico for the Asylum process. https://cis.org/Cadman/Why-Shouldnt-Central-Americans-Have-Apply-Asylum-Mexico

On the other hand, instead of being generous to 7-10 thousand at a time, we should just go ahead and import the entire populations of Honduras and Guatemala. That would finally take care of the reputedly serious problems for the millions of people that need to escape those dangerous hell holes where the people are starved and murdered and raped and enslaved (though they look pretty well fed in the photos and videos and must be in pretty good health to trek on such a long journey on foot, and they should, you know, for good and neighborly optics, wave American flags instead of those of the place from whence they are trying to escape and maybe not have signs and shouts that sound a bit threatening and demanding which might upset a little bit our fine folks here).

So doing that we would also solve our continuous problem of having to deal with caravans and coyotes and other pesky problems that politicians use as a wedge issue. And we could seriously virtue signal to the rest of the world that we are truly a compassionate people. And then the world would truly love us.

Maybe we could take in all the Mexicans too . . . and the Venezuelans . . . and

My oldest survived spring break in Mexico!

Seriously Jeff, I don’t drink kook aid. Don’t you find the timing of this spontaneous caravan curious? Do you think these folks have read about Chicago?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More conspiracy theories .. so to go along with it rather than it being a Dem plot How about a Republican plot

It seems to be a convent timing for the midterms to motivate Trumps base And give him a topic Tweet about .. and to show them how tough he is and his supports have run with it its evident here


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
The Caravans are a disgrace to the Democrat Party. Change the immigration laws NOW!

3:14 PM - Oct 21, 2018


Trump on migrant caravan: 'It's not happening on my watch'Trump claims Democrats ‘allowed’ migrant caravan


Even Fox Trumps state news network is running stories about when the will arrive near election day as if they're going to vote

Louie Gohmert: ‘Perhaps Soros’ is ‘Funding’ Caravan for Midterms

suspected letter bomb found at the home of billionaire businessman George Soros Who could have sent it? the Proud Boys ?


Again classic Republican fear mongering

More conspiracy theories .. so to go along with it rather than it being a Dem plot How about a Republican plot



this is accurate...trump and the republicans have encouraged and organized thousands of central americans to march to our southern border, funding them the entire way so that they can push their way across our border and demand acceptance regardless of how many others are waiting to enter the country through legal means....this will cause the base to turn out in big numbers in november, trump and the republicans will keep the house and senate, get a couple more supreme court judges and build a beautiful wall along our southern border....BRILLIANT!!!:cheers:

How about because they’re desperate to flee violence. What would you do if it was your kids? How much Kool Aid have you drank this week?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can't imagine the desperation some of these people feel who are born into the worst places on the planet. But the sad fact is, we cannot come close to taking in everyone whose lives would be better here, we cannot come close to doing that. Do you agree?

What we can do, and should do, is work to make their home countries, less awful. I'm pretty sure that's what the UN was supposed to be for, maybe we can remind them of that.

Once again rather than honestly admit the facts, the left (you in this case) immediately portray those who disagree with you, as being hatemongers who have no empathy for these people. It's not remotely true. Right now, there are people waiting in line in other crappy places, waiting for their chance to come legally.

I think anyone believing this is a plot and organized for the mid terms has clearly been wearing a tin foil hat far too tightly. I'd also agree Mexico should be the country stepping up to offer asylum to these people.

I can't imagine the desperation some of these people feel who are born into the worst places on the planet. But the sad fact is, we cannot come close to taking in everyone whose lives would be better here, we cannot come close to doing that. Do you agree?

What we can do, and should do, is work to make their home countries, less awful. I'm pretty sure that's what the UN was supposed to be for, maybe we can remind them of that.

Once again rather than honestly admit the facts, the left (you in this case) immediately portray those who disagree with you, as being hatemongers who have no empathy for these people. It's not remotely true. Right now, there are people waiting in line in other crappy places, waiting for their chance to come legally.

@realDonaldTrump
Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump
More
Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador were not able to do the job of stopping people from leaving their country and coming illegally to the U.S. We will now begin cutting off, or substantially reducing, the massive foreign aid routinely given to them.

5:57 AM - 22 Oct 2018

I think anyone believing this is a plot and organized for the mid terms has clearly been wearing a tin foil hat far too tightly. I'd also agree Mexico should be the country stepping up to offer asylum to these people.

By taking on thousands of refugees, however, Mexico is relieving the burden on the overloaded U.S. courts. Mexico also detains large numbers of undocumented Central Americans who are not applying for refugee status here, and deports them back to their home countries. In fiscal year 2017, Mexico deported more than 94,000 Central Americans – even more than the 74,000 deported from the United States in the same time, according to figures from the Migration Policy Institute cited by the newspaper Reforma.

Here is a fairly non partisan look at what has and is occuring in Central America and why people are fleeing.

Tens of thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans, many of them unaccompanied minors, have arrived in the United States in recent years, seeking asylum from the region’s skyrocketing violence. Their countries, which form a region known as the Northern Triangle, were rocked by civil wars in the 1980s, leaving a legacy of violence and fragile institutions.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/central-americas-violent-northern-triangle

I think anyone believing this is a plot and organized for the mid terms has clearly been wearing a tin foil hat far too tightly. I'd also agree Mexico should be the country stepping up to offer asylum to these people.

and i think if you feel this has nothing to do with politics, you have your head in the sand. who is feeding these people along the way? i don’t see anyone carrying a months supply of food.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here is a fairly non partisan look at what has and is occuring in Central America and why people are fleeing.

Tens of thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans, many of them unaccompanied minors, have arrived in the United States in recent years, seeking asylum from the region’s skyrocketing violence. Their countries, which form a region known as the Northern Triangle, were rocked by civil wars in the 1980s, leaving a legacy of violence and fragile institutions.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/central-americas-violent-northern-triangle

no one is denying that these people need help. but what liberals
don’t seem to grasp, is that we can’t take them all. we don’t have the space or the money.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

By taking on thousands of refugees, however, Mexico is relieving the burden on the overloaded U.S. courts. Mexico also detains large numbers of undocumented Central Americans who are not applying for refugee status here, and deports them back to their home countries. In fiscal year 2017, Mexico deported more than 94,000 Central Americans – even more than the 74,000 deported from the United States in the same time, according to figures from the Migration Policy Institute cited by the newspaper Reforma.

From what you say here, it is apparent that Mexico could easily send the Central American caravan back to their homes. Why does Mexico allow them in their country? I've read that sympathetic Mexicans have been helping and cheering on the growing caravan as it continues north. But their sympathy doesn't seem to extend to offering the caravan sanctuary in Mexico.

Regardless of whether this is plotted or not. One thing is for sure is we cannot let any of them in.

and i think if you feel this has nothing to do with politics, you have your head in the sand. who is feeding these people along the way? i don’t see anyone carrying a months supply of food.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's pretty interesting how it started

https://www.thedailybeast.com/forget-trump-hysteria-heres-how-the-migrant-caravan-crisis-really-began?ref=scroll

Regardless of whether this is plotted or not. One thing is for sure is we cannot let any of them in.

We could not conform with international law and treaties and domestic law. There is likely nothing the rest of the world could or would do.
But if we want to live in a world where our word and the rule of law is important, not following laws and negotiated agreements is not a good precendent.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/what-legal-obligation-does-the-us-have-to-accept-refugees-a7552621.html

Or we could just invite these hell hole countries to become new states. Then they wouldn't have to walk thousands of miles to vote.

If Guatemala and Honduras were US states, the automotive and other big industry could open factories there (in the US) paying a decent wage. If the hell holes cannot evolve into not hell holes, this problem will never end.

We could not conform with international law and treaties and domestic law. There is likely nothing the rest of the world could or would do.
But if we want to live in a world where our word and the rule of law is important, not following laws and negotiated agreements is not a good precendent.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/what-legal-obligation-does-the-us-have-to-accept-refugees-a7552621.html

"That said, a person cannot claim asylum unless they are on US soil."

that's the key, they have to be here to claim it. It's not a violation to not grant it if they aren't here.

Yep - they are safe in Mexico - otherwise they would have never taken the chance to March through it. The precedent we definitely don't want to set is letting them in. They can request permission and wait their turn - in Mexico. This is Mexico's problem.

"That said, a person cannot claim asylum unless they are on US soil."

that's the key, they have to be here to claim it. It's not a violation to not grant it if they aren't here.

So if Mexico ignores treaties and laws it doesn’t count?
Or are you suggesting that like Don the Con’s good friend in North Korea, Central American countries should prevent their citizens from leaving?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So if Mexico ignores treaties and laws it doesn’t count?
Or are you suggesting that like Don the Con’s good friend in North Korea, Central American countries should prevent their citizens from leaving?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, There's some serious word twisting there. :rolleyes:

They can leave any country they want. I'm suggesting that the US not allowing them in isn't violating any International Law. No More, No Less

Regardless of whether this is plotted or not. One thing is for sure is we cannot let any of them in.

I don't know...I'm thinking we have the military meet them at the border and airlift them to one of the many sanctuary cities and then cut off all federal aid to sanctuary cities and let them figure it out :uhuh: WIN....WIN

and i think if you feel this has nothing to do with politics, you have your head in the sand. who is feeding these people along the way? i don’t see anyone carrying a months supply of food.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If anyone's feeding them, it's likely the Mexican government, hoping they stay strong and truck right on thru to the US border so they don't have to deal with them.

Well, There's some serious word twisting there. :rolleyes:

They can leave any country they want. I'm suggesting that the US not allowing them in isn't violating any International Law. No More, No Less

International law set by several treaties we signed and ratified says that if a person on your soil applies for refugee status, you have to deal with it (it's more complicated than that, of course) not that you have to grant it.
So is what you are suggesting, much like the boatloads of refugees crossing the Mediteranian to Europe, perhaps swimming the Rio Grande or boatloads in the Caribean to other parts of the US would be preferable to walking up to the border?

I don't know...I'm thinking we have the military meet them at the border and airlift them to one of the many sanctuary cities and then cut off all federal aid to sanctuary cities and let them figure it out :uhuh: WIN....WIN
Perhaps the 5th largest GDP in the world would say ok and cut off their aid to the federal government.:fishslap:

International law set by ....

so you want to let them all in Pete?

This will be a very complex national emergency. By law it will come down to the governors of each border state to ask for federal assistance and the Posse Comitatus Act.
Here is a good article outlining scenarios of what could happen.
https://www.justsecurity.org/54529/military-mexican-border-posse-comitatus-key-takeaways/

They are either the smartest or the dumbest bulbs in the pack.

Choosing to make the trek as the weather gets colder?

Either play to public sympathy or take on public ridicule.....

My oldest survived spring break in Mexico!

Seriously Jeff, I don’t drink kook aid. Don’t you find the timing of this spontaneous caravan curious? Do you think these folks have read about Chicago?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So based on zero evidence you're willing to believe the ranting of a pathological liar. That's irrational and it makes little sense. Why would Democrats want to inflame the signature issue that got Trump's base out to vote in 2016?

So is what you are suggesting, much like the boatloads of refugees crossing the Mediteranian to Europe, perhaps swimming the Rio Grande or boatloads in the Caribean to other parts of the US would be preferable to walking up to the border?

I'm suggesting what was in the link you posted, thats where I got that quote.

"That said, a person cannot claim asylum unless they are on US soil."

Again, I'm suggesting that the US not allowing them in isn't violating any International Law. No More, No Less

I don't know...I'm thinking we have the military meet them at the border and airlift them to one of the many sanctuary cities and then cut off all federal aid to sanctuary cities and let them figure it out :uhuh: WIN....WIN

I was thinking that Trump is such a vindictive baby, he'd bus them all to Alaska as a way to thank Lisa Murkowski for voting no on Kavanaugh. But your idea is good too, let San Francisco have them.

So based on zero evidence you're willing to believe the ranting of a pathological liar. That's irrational and it makes little sense. Why would Democrats want to inflame the signature issue that got Trump's base out to vote in 2016?

It's not zero evidence that this is happening before a big midterm. Looking at it through a political lens, I don't see this as a win for the left unless the US military kills them all at the border.

Who is feeding them? The photos I see, sure don't seem to show most of them carrying a month's worth of food and water. That's a sincere question, I'm not saying George Soros is doing it. A lot of them seem to be carrying nothing.

Why would Democrats want to inflame the signature issue that got Trump's base out to vote in 2016?

because as they displayed though the Kavanaugh hearing and aftermath...they aren't very bright :kewl:

so you want to let them all in Pete?

Refugees need to be dealt with Per our laws and treaties that are in place or change the Constitution and laws
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Refugees need to be dealt with Per our laws and treaties that are in place or change the Constitution and laws
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's not an answer

So based on zero evidence you're willing to believe the ranting of a pathological liar. That's irrational and it makes little sense. Why would Democrats want to inflame the signature issue that got Trump's base out to vote in 2016?

Jeff,remind me again of how much evidence was provided against judge Kavanaugh for you to assume his guilt. Yup,thought so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't believe they are true refugees - they are not fleeing a war torn country. Trump administrations problem is they can't "legally" mobilize active duty troops into law enforcement action (Posse Comitatus) UNLESS they can cite a danger to national security which is where this report I keep seeing referenced of 100 terrorists comes into play. That may allow his administration to place troops at the border in states (California) that will not mobilize their National Guard units.

that's not an answer

I answered your question.
I have no need to change the laws or treaties.
Would you like to change the laws or just ignore them?

I answered your question.
I have no need to change the laws or treaties.
Would you like to change the laws or just ignore them?

funny coming from a guy who won't differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants :D

im surprised no one here has stated that George Soros is funding them :hihi:

I don't believe they are true refugees - they are not fleeing a war torn country. Trump administrations problem is they can't "legally" mobilize active duty troops into law enforcement action (Posse Comitatus) UNLESS they can cite a danger to national security which is where this report I keep seeing referenced of 100 terrorists comes into play. That may allow his administration to place troops at the border in states (California) that will not mobilize their National Guard units.
A little Central American history knowledge would benefit this discussion greatly.
Everyone of these countries has gone thru economic, political and civil turmoil in the last 50 years. It is not getting better.
Nicaragua, Guatamala and El Salvador had long civil wars and various forms of ineffective governments. We, the US government, were tangled up in all of them. Honduras was the training base used by the US to train rebels that fought in all the other countries.

The 1951 Geneva Convention is the main international instrument of refugee law. The Convention clearly spells out who a refugee is and the kind of legal protection, other assistance and social rights he or she should receive from the countries who have signed the document. The Convention also defines a refugee’s obligations to host governments and certain categories or people, such as war criminals, who do not qualify for refugee status. The Convention was limited to protecting mainly European refugees in the aftermath of World War II, but another document, the 1967 Protocol, expanded the scope of the Convention as the problem of displacement spread around the world.

Article 1 of the Convention defines a refugee as a person who is outside his/her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution.

im surprised no one here has stated that George Soros is funding them :hihi:

Those conspiracy theories the Right thinks up really do make me laugh. Jade helm 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

im surprised no one here has stated that George Soros is funding them :hihi:

i asked who is funding them, because it looks like someone is. from what i can see, none of them are carrying the gear you’d need to walk across mexico without outside help. where is the food? who’s carrying all that food? unless there’s a train following them, i don’t get the logistics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A little Central American history knowledge would benefit this discussion greatly.
Everyone of these countries has gone thru economic, political and civil turmoil in the last 50 years. It is not getting better.
Nicaragua, Guatamala and El Salvador had long civil wars and various forms of ineffective governments. We, the US government, were tangled up in all of them. Honduras was the training base used by the US to train rebels that fought in all the other countries.

The 1951 Geneva Convention is the main international instrument of refugee law. The Convention clearly spells out who a refugee is and the kind of legal protection, other assistance and social rights he or she should receive from the countries who have signed the document. The Convention also defines a refugee’s obligations to host governments and certain categories or people, such as war criminals, who do not qualify for refugee status. The Convention was limited to protecting mainly European refugees in the aftermath of World War II, but another document, the 1967 Protocol, expanded the scope of the Convention as the problem of displacement spread around the world.

Article 1 of the Convention defines a refugee as a person who is outside his/her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution.

What is the U.N.'s responsibility regarding nations that cannot protect their own people when they are under the conditions that you describe central America? Is it sending any U.N. troops there? Is it sanctioning those countries in any meaningful way? Are those countries members of the U.N.?

Is Mexico fulfilling its obligation by accepting the caravan's as refugees or returning them. Does the U.N. say that a country can refuse such refugees if its the first place they enter. That it can just ship them on to another country without that country's agreement to accept them?

and i think if you feel this has nothing to do with politics, you have your head in the sand. who is feeding these people along the way? i don’t see anyone carrying a months supply of food.

Who do you think are feeding them along the way?? Compassionate people would be my 1st locals churches..aid groups A hard concept for some to imagine



no one is denying that these people need help. but what liberals
don’t seem to grasp, is that we can’t take them all. we don’t have the space or the money.

Not that we should taken them all in.. but what you said not surprising is just not true ... We do have the space and the money.. not sure how that has any bearing on the topic

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
[/size]


jim Trump's response has everything to do do with politics, you have your head in the sand. when it comes to who you think is using it politically

I don't believe they are true refugees - they are not fleeing a war torn country. Trump administrations problem is they can't "legally" mobilize active duty troops into law enforcement action (Posse Comitatus) UNLESS they can cite a danger to national security which is where this report I keep seeing referenced of 100 terrorists comes into play. That may allow his administration to place troops at the border in states (California) that will not mobilize their National Guard units.

National security is forgive the pun Trumps Trump card he has used and abused it


Trump doesn't want to follow the law if he can get them to not make it to the border by physically blocking asylum seekers from setting foot on US soil — in other words, from triggering a legal right to claim asylum in the US — to begin with.

im surprised no one here has stated that George Soros is funding them :hihi:

that's a given :hihi:

can't wait till the next caravan of 70,000

jim Trump's response has everything to do do with politics, you have your head in the sand. when it comes to who you think is using it politically

we have the money to take them
in? weren’t you worrying about the debt?

of course trumps response has to do with politics, asndies the liberal claim that we should
let them in. how many is nancy pelosi going to let
live next to her, so you suppose?? it’s very easy to support open borders when you are immune to the effects.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Open borders and refugees are different issues legally, though Trump is conflating them, quite successfully with his base as is demonstrated in this thread
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why are these people waving the flag of the country they are fleeing, exactly?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Open borders and refugees are different issues legally, though Trump is conflating them, quite successfully with his base as is demonstrated in this thread
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, open borders are conflated with immigration by Social Marxists, Postmoderns, ultra-Progressives, and even some Libertarians. The first three of those view the free flow of migrations in which borders of all types from physical, psychological, or any social construct would disappear, and all constructed nation states would dissolve into a world-wide open society where all individuals would create their own identity

The Postmoderns would be free of any structured society.

The Marxists and Progressives would somehow maintain a centralized world State.

The Libertarians would not abandon social constructs but would embrace borderless societies and abandon statism.

can't wait till the next caravan of 70,000

I don’t think even Trump has balls enough for that big a lie, but he has already grown it considerably
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What is the U.N.'s responsibility regarding nations that cannot protect their own people when they are under the conditions that you describe central America? Is it sending any U.N. troops there? Is it sanctioning those countries in any meaningful way? Are those countries members of the U.N.?

Is Mexico fulfilling its obligation by accepting the caravan's as refugees or returning them. Does the U.N. say that a country can refuse such refugees if its the first place they enter. That it can just ship them on to another country without that country's agreement to accept them?

You have a lot of questions there for someone who only wants statements as replies
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have a lot of questions there for someone who only wants statements as replies
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I prefer statements that specifically reply to specific questions. You didn't ask a question. I was posing questions that arose from your statement. As usual, you deflected, and didn't answer them.

As usual, you deflected, and didn't answer them.

yep

I prefer statements that specifically reply to specific questions. You didn't ask a question. I was posing questions that arose from your statement. As usual, you deflected, and didn't answer them.

I have seen good examples lately in Trump and Kavanaugh in how to do that
Do you like beer?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have seen good examples lately in Trump and Kavanaugh in how to do that
Do you like beer?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have something in common with them.

why are these people waving the flag of the country they are fleeing, exactly?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess people need to ditch their Irish italian portuguese flags and tattoos seeing they were fleeing those countries to get here.. and that was a long time ago .. with that kind of thinking its clear why your a conservative ...

we have the money to take them
in? weren’t you worrying about the debt?

of course trumps response has to do with politics, asndies the liberal claim that we should
let them in. how many is nancy pelosi going to let
live next to her, so you suppose?? it’s very easy to support open borders when you are immune to the effects.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

only conservatives are claiming we have an open border we never have and never will have an open border .. another lie from the right for the uninformed you want to call it a porous border I'll agree with that

1 F 35 cost us $85 million please we have the money if we need it

who destabilized that region of the world 20-30 -50 years ago The united States did funny how that works

I guess people need to ditch their Irish italian portuguese flags and tattoos seeing they were fleeing those countries to get here.. and that was a long time ago .. with that kind of thinking its clear why your a conservative ...

Were they waving them on the ship as they were heading into Ellis Island.

can't wait till the next caravan of 70,000

there's another one forming in Honduras right now.

I guess people need to ditch their Irish italian portuguese flags and tattoos seeing they were fleeing those countries to get here.. and that was a long time ago .. with that kind of thinking its clear why your a conservative ...

My ancestors didn't flee Ireland for quite the same reasons these people are fleeing Honduras. And I think you know that.

Seriously, what would it take for a non-partisan answer from you, to one singe question?

only conservatives are claiming we have an open border we never have and never will have an open border .. another lie from the right for the uninformed you want to call it a porous border I'll agree with that

1 F 35 cost us $85 million please we have the money if we need it

who destabilized that region of the world 20-30 -50 years ago The united States did funny how that works

"only conservatives are claiming we have an open border we never have and never will have an open border ."

We have at least 10 million illegals. So how would you say it's closed? There's a gap somewhere. What the hell are you talking about? It's called "an expression", ever heard of that? Anyone who wants to come across, can. A few years ago, a guy running for Congress went to Mexico, and then illegally crossed back into the US, riding an elephant, and he hired a mariachi band to play alongside him, and he crossed without getting caught. Call it whatever you want, we all know what it is.

When the biggest swing you can take, is to say "the border isn't 'open', it's just 'porous' enough for a guy riding an elephant to make it across", you are really reaching.

My ancestors didn't flee Ireland for quite the same reasons these people are fleeing Honduras. And I think you know that.

Seriously, what would it take for a non-partisan answer from you, to one singe question?

Its a human answer so why are these people fleeing Honduras Seeing you seem to know the real reason?

And how is fleeing because of Famine a more noble reason ??


Try reading history Even before the famine, these people had been desparately poor, proverbially the poorest in Europe.

now its south america

"only conservatives are claiming we have an open border we never have and never will have an open border ."

We have at least 10 million illegals. So how would you say it's closed? There's a gap somewhere. What the hell are you talking about? It's called "an expression", ever heard of that? Anyone who wants to come across, can. A few years ago, a guy running for Congress went to Mexico, and then illegally crossed back into the US, riding an elephant, and he hired a mariachi band to play alongside him, and he crossed without getting caught. Call it whatever you want, we all know what it is.

When the biggest swing you can take, is to say "the border isn't 'open', it's just 'porous' enough for a guy riding an elephant to make it across", you are really reaching.


when the right uses Open borders not an expression “open borders” is not a pejorative; it’s an actual policy position: they claim the Left wants

We have at least 10 million illegals. So how would you say it's closed? There's a gap somewhere. that numbers has be constant since early 2005

who said it was closed i said it was porous I also have a understanding of size and scope that you seem to ignore in how you get to zero illegal immigration


again geography AKA Facts U.S.-Canadian border, excluding Alaska, is approximately 3,987 miles, while the length of the U.S.-Mexican border is estimated at 1,933 miles.the general coastline of the entire US is 12,383 miles, while the shoreline is 95,471 miles

Ever play red rover red rover

I am not sure what the answer is but the question has been asked Wayne so why not answer. There are a lot of unfortunate people on the planet, should the United States have an open border and help all whom ask?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nCWweaAb70

Perhaps the 5th largest GDP in the world would say ok and cut off their aid to the federal government.:fishslap:

be my guest...

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/412928-middle-class-is-disappearing-in-california-as-wealth-gap-grows

However, the Golden State remains one of the most unequal in the nation. It has both billions of dollars in Silicon Valley and rampant homelessness. Its efforts to eliminate poverty instead accentuates it, and its tax system inadvertently aids those who are already wealthy. With the middle class leaving in droves, California society represents a modern day feudal system of robber barons and the poor. It is an unsustainable mixture."

How the caravan started
TAPACHULA, Mexico—When Bartolo Fuentes speaks about migrants, the usually soft-spoken former politician gets passionate, and an encyclopedic knowledge of immigration issues shines through. Bespectacled and 54 years old with salt and pepper hair, he has the look of a professor, but he draws on a lifetime working with migrants in Honduras, and on his own personal experience.

In 1980 an older brother migrated north, and by the end of the decade Bartolo sought refuge in Mexico himself after receiving threats. Central America’s right-wing death squads were notorious and his earlier participation in protests against the U.S.-backed Contras, who used his country as a staging ground in their CIA-backed war on Nicaragua’s Sandinistas, made him a potential target.

Until recently, Fuentes lived in relative anonymity despite being a former legislator and the host of a radio show on migration called “Without Borders.” But today, depending on who you ask, he is either a hero who’s put his own life on the line to help migrants, or a cynical villain. Many in the Honduran government—concerned with the country’s image amid a mass exodus—portray Fuentes as a “coyote,” or human trafficker, who organized the migrant caravan and took advantage of the people in it with “false promises” for political purposes.

ABOUT A MONTH AGO, when Fuentes first became aware of small groups dispersed throughout Honduras that were organizing among themselves to make the trek north, he decided to help out, just as he had done with a previous migrant caravan last April—and indeed throughout his life.

At the time, all the groups combined numbered no more than 200 people, Fuentes says. As someone who had helped repatriate the bodies of many migrants who died in the journey al Norte, he was acutely aware of the dangers and wanted to help ensure the people’s safety.

“No one expected this human avalanche,” he told The Daily Beast in a phone call from the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa.

But then a report on the country’s most-watched cable news channel, HCH, painted a picture of the caravan that changed everything. The anchors interviewed a woman who was supposedly part of the caravan. The woman talked about safety in numbers, called Fuentes the organizer and mentioned foreign assistance. The anchors, without any supporting evidence, then said that Fuentes would pay for the migrants’ food and transportation.

Fuentes was later interviewed by the anchors and strongly refuted what was said, but by then the damage was done.
“After that news program I started to get hundreds of calls, then it took on a life of its own,” said Fuentes. “In Honduras, the government wants to minimize why people are leaving—they know they are going to leave and they want to say they are doing so because of lies and the opposition, not the conditions that they created. This is in line with what the United States is saying—that there are false promises being made. And this pro-government news program played into that messaging, trying to say that there is financing when really people just need to get out.”

Soon afterward, Hondurans from across the country headed west to join the caravan, which swelled by the thousands. Many were propelled to join by the HCH report, but the majority were people who had been considering migration for a long time and now saw an opportunity to head north with added safety in numbers and without having to pay a coyote, which can cost as much as $7,000.
Trump floated the idea the caravan was rife with criminals and “Middle Easterners,” only to have Guatemala’s president claim, in a burst of pure sycophancy meant to back up Trump’s claims, that several members of the so-called Islamic State had been intercepted. No evidence was presented to substantiate that statement. New York Times fact checkers rubbished it in short order. And, as it happens, for more than a century “Middle Easterners” have been a significant part of the Honduran population. They’re called Turcos because they immigrated so long ago they came with Ottoman passports.

In Honduras two-thirds of the population lives in poverty and the total number increased by roughly six percent in 2017; 80 percent of workers earn below the minimum wage of a few hundred dollars per month. On top of this, Honduras ranks among the most violent countries on the planet. Fewer than one in 10 crimes is ever solved.

And then there’s the drought. Honduras is one of the countries that has been most affected by climate change, particularly in the part of its territory that intersects with what’s known as the Central America Dry Corridor. In the past, farmers in this region could rely on two harvests annually, but now they are lucky to produce one. This year, a severe drought during the rainy season meant tens of thousands of families produced none.

do you want to let them all in Pete?

do you want to let them all in Pete?

What does how the caravan started have to do with if anyone wants open borders or a new immigration policy? I have never said that everyone can come.
Which of the central american countries do you want to use North Korean control of their people so that they don't leave, no Trumplican, except perhaps their leader who is having an admitted love affair with Kim Jong-un, has an issue with North Koreans escaping horrible conditions, though Trump brought a NK refugee to his State of the Union speech.
Do you think it will ever change if the only negotiating tool that the current administrations uses is "if you don't agree with what I propose, then you want open borders"

Perhaps you would advocate genocide to get rid of the awful brown people, or just pick anyone up who looks like that and deport them.
We rounded up all the people of mexican descent, citizens or not in the the Mexican Repatriation in the 1930s, it is remarkably similar to the current atmosphere and political behavior, though we don't have an economic depression currently to blame it on.

I find it hilarious that the Christian faith is all about love and kindness and accepting those less fortunate than you. Mary and Joseph were refuges.
Seems like the Christian faith in the US has lost its way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the big danger we face is Central Americans why doesn't Trump have a Summit with the leaders of the Central American countries?
I would expect he could also solve that in a day by just taking a meeting.

I find it hilarious that the Christian faith is all about love and kindness and accepting those less fortunate than you. Mary and Joseph were refuges.
Seems like the Christian faith in the US has lost its way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

thought that was banned from politics?...you know...separation of church and state and all of that

Mary and Joseph were not refugees stoopid.....

If the big danger we face is Central Americans why doesn't Trump have a Summit with the leaders of the Central American countries?
I would expect he could also solve that in a day by just taking a meeting.

probably...he's nailed everything else...Merkel :D

What does how the caravan started have to do with if anyone wants open borders or a new immigration policy? I have never said that everyone can come.
Which of the central american countries do you want to use North Korean control of their people so that they don't leave, no Trumplican, except perhaps their leader who is having an admitted love affair with Kim Jong-un, has an issue with North Koreans escaping horrible conditions, though Trump brought a NK refugee to his State of the Union speech.
Do you think it will ever change if the only negotiating tool that the current administrations uses is "if you don't agree with what I propose, then you want open borders"

Perhaps you would advocate genocide to get rid of the awful brown people, or just pick anyone up who looks like that and deport them.
We rounded up all the people of mexican descent, citizens or not in the the Mexican Repatriation in the 1930s, it is remarkably similar to the current atmosphere and political behavior, though we don't have an economic depression currently to blame it on.

I often read your posts and wish I hadn't bothered....:hee:

I often read your posts and wish I hadn't bothered....:hee:
I'd say the same about yours, but they have the saving grace of being short.:fishslap:

I find it hilarious that the Christian faith is all about love and kindness and accepting those less fortunate than you. Mary and Joseph were refuges.
Seems like the Christian faith in the US has lost its way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, I'm a Christian, I feel for these people. But we can't take in everyone who wants to come. We don't have the space or the money, and there is no tenet of Christianity which commands me to abandon common sense or reality in the name of good works.

I completely agree that Christianity has lost its way. This migration isn't evidence of that...but liberalism sure is.

I'd say the same about yours, but they have the saving grace of being short.:fishslap:

I've never suggested you'd advocate genocide...that's really stupid...I guess that's what happens when you go off teleprompter...get some help Pete...before it's too late

probably...he's nailed everything else...Merkel :D
You're wrong, he actually skipped the Central American Summit this April. I guess it wasn't a problem until election time.

You're wrong,.

get help pete....

I completely agree that Christianity has lost its way. This migration isn't evidence of that...but liberalism sure is.

And yet the conservative phil. Is to cut the taxes of the rich and then blame the soaring deficits on entitlement spending so they can cut benefits from the poor and less fortunate. They have no empathy or pity. At least we don't have to hear the words "compassionate conservative" any more.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Eduardo Nunez talks about his massive 3-run home run to help clinch a Game 1 win for Boston

its fine he jumped the line and wasn't in a caravan

Eduardo Nunez talks about his massive 3-run home run to help clinch a Game 1 win for Boston

its fine he jumped the line and wasn't in a caravan

Instead of intentionally posting the stupidest crap you can think of Wayne,why not just do a crossword puzzle and learn how to spell? This desperation is throwing shade on your message.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And yet the conservative phil. Is to cut the taxes of the rich and then blame the soaring deficits on entitlement spending so they can cut benefits from the poor and less fortunate. They have no empathy or pity. At least we don't have to hear the words "compassionate conservative" any more.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

do you ever get one right, even by accident? the conservative philosophy is to avoid wasteful spending to keep taxes for everyone, no higher than they need to be. try poking holes in that. if conservatives have no empathy or pity, why does the new york times admit that conservatives give more
money and time to charity, than liberals do?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

do you ever get one right, even by accident? the conservative philosophy is to avoid wasteful spending to keep taxes for everyone, no higher than they need to be. try poking holes in that. if conservatives have no empathy or pity, why does the new york times admit that conservatives give more
money and time to charity, than liberals do?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just because Arthur Brooks writes a book that says so doesn’t make it true
A 2013 MIT study found charitable giving equal between liberals and conservatives
We’ll see how the latest Republican tax reform affects charitable giving since many people will have a harder time taking deductions
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just because Arthur Brooks writes a book that says so doesn’t make it true
A 2013 MIT study found charitable giving equal between liberals and conservatives
We’ll see how the latest Republican tax reform affects charitable giving since many people will have a harder time taking deductions
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Just because Arthur Brooks writes a book that says so doesn’t make it true"

And just because you hate the findings, doesn't make it false.

"A 2013 MIT study found charitable giving equal between liberals and conservatives "

Fine. SO no difference in generosity between liberals and conservatives. Is that what you're saying? I have no problem conceding that, none. Can you concede it?

"We’ll see how the latest Republican tax reform affects charitable giving since many people will have a harder time taking deductions"

Most people saw an INCREASE in take-home pay. True or false?

"Just because Arthur Brooks writes a book that says so doesn’t make it true"

And just because you hate the findings, doesn't make it false.

"A 2013 MIT study found charitable giving equal between liberals and conservatives "

Fine. SO no difference in generosity between liberals and conservatives. Is that what you're saying? I have no problem conceding that, none. Can you concede it?

"We’ll see how the latest Republican tax reform affects charitable giving since many people will have a harder time taking deductions"

Most people saw an INCREASE in take-home pay. True or false?
I would tell you that there’s conflicting studies and it’s likely that political views are not reflected in charitable giving.
How does the increase in take home pay affect tax deductions for charitable giving?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would tell you that there’s conflicting studies and it’s likely that political views are not reflected in charitable giving.
How does the increase in take home pay affect tax deductions for charitable giving?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"it’s likely that political views are not reflected in charitable giving."

In other words, you have no basis whatsoever to claim that liberals are more generous, but you just can't bear to say it out loud.'

"How does the increase in take home pay affect tax deductions for charitable giving?"

Increases in take-home pay give us more disposable income with which to make donations. Is that really going too fast for you.

Pete, here is every single post you have ever made, boiled down to this...

liberal=good, conservative=bad.

I wonder what you'd say about why the state of CT is going bankrupt.

"it’s likely that political views are not reflected in charitable giving."

In other words, you have no basis whatsoever to claim that liberals are more generous, but you just can't bear to say it out loud.'

Would it be possible that political affiliation has no demonstrable correlation with charitable giving? Or is everything driven by politics?

"How does the increase in take home pay affect tax deductions for charitable giving?"

Increases in take-home pay give us more disposable income with which to make donations. Is that really going too fast for you.

You do understand that deductions for charitable giving increase the amount you can give without affecting your spendable income, and that changing how deductions worked greatly reduced the advantages of giving.

Pete, here is every single post you have ever made, boiled down to this...

liberal=good, conservative=bad.

I wonder what you'd say about why the state of CT is going bankrupt.
Of course it's the Liberals bankrupting CT, left to their own devices Conservatives would make it as good as Kansas.
Nothing will work well, till people work together.

Nothing will work well, till people work together.

That's why communism works so well.

Of course it's the Liberals bankrupting CT, left to their own devices Conservatives would make it as good as Kansas.
Nothing will work well, till people work together.

"You do understand that deductions for charitable giving increase the amount you can give without affecting your spendable income"

No I do not understand that, because it's absolutely false. There is a huge difference between a tax credit and a deduction. You are confusing the two.

If I donate $100 to charity, and I am able to deduct that $100 from my taxable income, and I'm in a 25% tax bracket, that means I get $25 back. I do not, not even close, get the whole $100 back. Deductions do not, not even close, restore your full disposable income. Deductions reduce the amount by which your disposable income decreases. Deductions do not make it 'free' to donate to charity.

The tax cuts give most of us more take-home pay. Many of us will give some of that to charity.

Take accounting 101. A tax credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction is taxes owed. A deduction reduces your tax liability by pennies on the dollar, not dollar for dollar.

"You do understand that deductions for charitable giving increase the amount you can give without affecting your spendable income"

No I do not understand that, because it's absolutely false. There is a huge difference between a tax credit and a deduction. You are confusing the two.

If I donate $100 to charity, and I am able to deduct that $100 from my taxable income, and I'm in a 25% tax bracket, that means I get $25 back. I do not, not even close, get the whole $100 back. Deductions do not, not even close, restore your full disposable income. Deductions reduce the amount by which your disposable income decreases. Deductions do not make it 'free' to donate to charity.

The tax cuts give most of us more take-home pay. Many of us will give some of that to charity.

Take accounting 101. A tax credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction is taxes owed. A deduction reduces your tax liability by pennies on the dollar, not dollar for dollar.

When did I say everyone gets it all back, as you say, your $100 donation costs you $75, because you are rebated $25. How does it reduce your spendable income $100

Just saw a report that the Mexican government has been passing out flyers and announcing by bull horn to the caravan that the US has the military at the border and they will not be allowing anyone to enter. Also mentioned that the number has dropped from 7000-4000 (est).

When did I say everyone gets it all back, as you say, your $100 donation costs you $75, because you are rebated $25. How does it reduce your spendable income $100

do you not even read what you post? you said that thanks to deductions, charitable giving doesn’t effect disposable income. that’s absurd, unless you are in a 100 percent tax bracket. which is something you’d probably endorse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

do you not even read what you post? you said that thanks to deductions, charitable giving doesn’t effect disposable income. that’s absurd, unless you are in a 100 percent tax bracket. which is something you’d probably endorse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You're correct, there is a fault in my wording.
I should have written: You do understand that deductions for charitable giving can increase the amount you can give, dependent on your tax situation, without affecting your spendable income.

Why would you think that I would endorse that?

do you ever get one right, even by accident? the conservative philosophy is to avoid wasteful spending to keep taxes for everyone, no higher than they need to be. try poking holes in that. if conservatives have no empathy or pity, why does the new york times admit that conservatives give more
money and time to charity, than liberals do?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We've discussed this 20 times - the conserv. give $ to their church (like I do w/about 50% of my yearly donations). Take that out and factor in the amount of poor who vote D, then it is prob different.

Any your's and my donations can't make up for what the govern. does.

Fact is that the conserv. policies always try to cut back on spending to the poor. Shows their lack of empathy.

Both Tillerson and G. Cohen said that Trump has no empathy (and pity) and Trump pretty much owns the R party now.

And you always complain that the Ds. ripped Romney apart. They did - bc he said he didn't have to worry about 47% of the country (shows his lack of empathy although I don't want to put him in the category as Trump). If Obama said he didn't care about almost 50% of the country you would have posted that 500 times.

We've discussed this 20 times - the conserv. give $ to their church (like I do w/about 50% of my yearly donations). Take that out and factor in the amount of poor who vote D, then it is prob different.

Any your's and my donations can't make up for what the govern. does.

Fact is that the conserv. policies always try to cut back on spending to the poor. Shows their lack of empathy.

Both Tillerson and G. Cohen said that Trump has no empathy (and pity) and Trump pretty much owns the R party now.

And you always complain that the Ds. ripped Romney apart. They did - bc he said he didn't have to worry about 47% of the country (shows his lack of empathy although I don't want to put him in the category as Trump). If Obama said he didn't care about almost 50% of the country you would have posted that 500 times.

" Take that out and factor in the amount of poor who vote D, then it is prob different."

Why take out church donations, much of which goes to help the poor? Can't imagine why you'd suggest to ignore that..

"They did - bc he said he didn't have to worry about 47% of the country "

He absolutely deserved criticism for that. I have no problem with fair criticism, as long as you also give credit where credit is due. There are many, many examples of Romney's empathy and generosity. The media also called him a sexist because he had women's resumes in a binder. That was asinine. But that is what CNN did, and it was a joke.

Both Tillerson and G. Cohen said that Trump has no empathy (and pity) and Trump pretty much owns the R party now.

.

So why did Trump, many years ago, donate his jet for a sick child to use, to fly all his medical equipment across the country? And how generous he has been with fallen cops? But Tillerson says he has no empathy, and by jiminy, that's good enough for you.

" Take that out and factor in the amount of poor who vote D, then it is prob different."

Why take out church donations, much of which goes to help the poor? Can't imagine why you'd suggest to ignore that.. Bc it is a little self serving. If I give $ for my church most people won't be able to benefit like I would. I can now sit in a nice new beautiful church and enjoy all the things my donation made possible (the coffee hour after church, the language classes, the sports programs, the bible study, etc).

"They did - bc he said he didn't have to worry about 47% of the country "

He absolutely deserved criticism for that. I have no problem with fair criticism, as long as you also give credit where credit is due. There are many, many examples of Romney's empathy and generosity. The media also called him a sexist because he had women's resumes in a binder. That was asinine. But that is what CNN did, and it was a joke.

I am sure he is far far more generous than Pres. Trump - esp. being a Morman. But isn't that what people do during elections - find something and blow it up to make someone look bad?

So why did Trump, many years ago, donate his jet for a sick child to use, to fly all his medical equipment across the country? And how generous he has been with fallen cops? But Tillerson says he has no empathy, and by jiminy, that's good enough for you.

Big deal - he did it many many years ago as you mentioned. There are not many examples of his being generous in NY. And I know you know how he has gotten in trouble for his foundation paying for fines and a painting out of its funds. I think NY is now suing him over more issues w/the foundation.

I am sure he is far far more generous than Pres. Trump - esp. being a Morman. But isn't that what people do during elections - find something and blow it up to make someone look bad?

you make it sound like donations to your church mostly serve the parish. that’s not how a lot of churches handle donations. the catholic church spends a ton housing, feeding, and providing medical care, for the poor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you make it sound like donations to your church mostly serve the parish. that’s not how a lot of churches handle donations. the catholic church spends a ton housing, feeding, and providing medical care, for the poor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think most donations go towards the running/mortgage of the church. No doubt most churches do all they can - soup kitchens, etc.

Church funds are interesting
You should ask, they will explain it
My wife has been a Church Treasurer for many years and not at the Church of The Ten Suggestions
:rollem:

Eduardo Nunez talks about his massive 3-run home run to help clinch a Game 1 win for Boston

its fine he jumped the line and wasn't in a caravan

Well he had a job and came on a work visa to come here, can you say the same about the caravan?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well he had a job and came on a work visa to come here, can you say the same about the caravan?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So if Hispanics were not allowed to get visas to play baseball and steal jobs paying millions of dollars from Americans then Americans would be able to get better at baseball and have those jobs
Sound familiar?
That’s one argument against immigration
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well he had a job and came on a work visa to come here, can you say the same about the caravan?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

hitting a baseball or picking avocados... seems not many Americans are willing to do or are very good at either ,, both are in High demand.... but we only want the ones that help our sports teams not our farmers

So if Hispanics were not allowed to get visas to play baseball and steal jobs paying millions of dollars from Americans then Americans would be able to get better at baseball and have those jobs
Sound familiar?
That’s one argument against immigration
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, that's an argument against illegal immigration.

Say it, I know you can. ILLEGAL Immigration
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, that's an argument against illegal immigration.

Say it, I know you can. ILLEGAL Immigration
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
But why let someone have a visa to work here legally in a job that would gladly be performed by a citizen
This person is not a citizen, but they take very good paying jobs away from Americans
If they were coming here to provide menial labor we won’t give them a visa because some Americans claim that they are taking jobs away from low income Americans but it’s acceptable if they make millions?
Why is that acceptable?
Americans don’t want or can’t do those jobs?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But why let someone have a visa to work here legally in a job that would gladly be performed by a citizen
This person is not a citizen, but they take very good paying jobs away from Americans
If they were coming here to provide menial labor we won’t give them a visa because some Americans claim that they are taking jobs away from low income Americans but it’s acceptable if they make millions?
Why is that acceptable?
Americans don’t want or can’t do those jobs?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you're suggesting we halt all immigration, how unamerican of you.

And I knew you couldn't say "Illegal"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do you think I can’t say Illegal
Illegal
Illegal
Illegal
Illegal
A well thought out immigration policy and help for the people outside our borders who live in countries that have horrible issues is the solution to illegal immigration
People with hope don’t leave home. They might go and work elsewhere but their goal is to be at home with their relatives and friends. Is that so different than yours?
We need to enable those countries to succeed and make it a win win situation.
Help businesses in Central America replace businesses that make things we import from the Far East could be a start
Perhaps if Trump had gone to the Central American Summit and said: Let’s work together to solve these issues that affect us both, we could move forward
Read a little history and see what put Central America where it is today
We should help
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do you think I can’t say Illegal
Illegal
Illegal
Illegal
Illegal
A well thought out immigration policy and help for the people outside our borders who live in countries that have horrible issues is the solution to illegal immigration
People with hope don’t leave home. They might go and work elsewhere but their goal is to be at home with their relatives and friends. Is that so different than yours?
We need to enable those countries to succeed and make it a win win situation.
Help businesses in Central America replace businesses that make things we import from the Far East could be a start
Perhaps if Trump had gone to the Central American Summit and said: Let’s work together to solve these issues that affect us both, we could move forward
Read a little history and see what put Central America where it is today
We should help
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So are we talking about our refugee policy, our immigration policy, or our illegal immigration policy. Because you are blurring them all together.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So are we talking about our refugee policy, our immigration policy, or our illegal immigration policy. Because you are blurring them all together.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
They are related
Every action has an affect on other things and that’s why governing is hard.
All those policies can be as harsh as the Constitution allows and we could build a wall
People will come as long as they perceive that they have an opportunity for a better life
Someone will fill the vacuum in those countries and the Chinese are willing to assume that role in the world including Central America
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No doubt some on this forum will consider this guy a crazy black nut job. But he makes some interesting analogies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxH61VyD3cg

Pro Legal Immigration
Against Illegal Immigration

Common denominator? Whether or not it is legal. Legal is the baseline.

You want to allow more immigrants? Stop the illegal and make the legal more efficient and less burdensome.

BTW - stop the illegal immigration and I am all OK with expanding the legal immigration.Expand the asylum seekers, and refugees. But you have to stop the illegal immigration first, and reverse those that did not come here illegally.

Military readiness at the border:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Dx1gP1DHI

Military readiness at the border:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Dx1gP1DHI


Seems the bomber and synagogue shooter has disrupted his message


Trump tweet

“Republicans are doing so well in early voting, and at the polls, and now this ‘Bomb’ stuff happens and the momentum greatly slows — news not talking politics. Very unfortunate, what is going on. Republicans, go out and vote!”

Trump’s allies had been speculating without evidence that the failed bombings — which exclusively targeted Trump antagonists — were actually part of a “false flag” leftist plot to make Republicans look unhinged.

US sends thousands of troops to border 1 week before the primaries
along with this new conference

This is what a false flag operation looks like this one is in plain view ^^^^^

Seems the bomber and synagogue shooter has disrupted his message


Trump tweet

“Republicans are doing so well in early voting, and at the polls, and now this ‘Bomb’ stuff happens and the momentum greatly slows — news not talking politics. Very unfortunate, what is going on. Republicans, go out and vote!”

Trump’s allies had been speculating without evidence that the failed bombings — which exclusively targeted Trump antagonists — were actually part of a “false flag” leftist plot to make Republicans look unhinged.

US sends thousands of troops to border 1 week before the primaries
along with this new conference

This is what a false flag operation looks like this one is in plain view ^^^^^

The "flag" looks very real to me. What is your problem with securing the border one week before the election when it is a response to a serious problem which is occurring one week before an election. Should Trump have, without warning, waited till after the election to act?

Strongest country huge military. Beacon to the free world is afraid of 3000 brown mostly women and children it’s realy Pathetic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you have any idea what deployment means how it works what’s involved. I would say no... nor does. Trump he just knows how it sounds and the optics even if false looks .. the military has no teleportation ability’s I am aware of
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Strongest country huge military. Beacon to the free world is afraid of 3000 brown mostly women and children it’s realy Pathetic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

fine. let them all live on your street. skin color
has nothing to do with it, but not suprising that you immediately went there, the last card of the desperate.

very easy for people who never have to see the effects of mass illegal immigration, to claim to be all for it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso, we can’t take everybody, which means we can only take some. is it fair to make it a land rush, to only let in those who shove their way to the front of the line? what about people in africa who patiently wait yearsbfor a chance to comenlegally.

set up a set of fair rules, and abide by those rules. Why is that unfair or racist? Please explain...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

US mid-terms latest: Trump vows to end birthright citizenship Another stunt
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Strongest country huge military. Beacon to the free world is afraid of 3000 brown mostly women and children it’s realy Pathetic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where do you get the idea that the caravan is mostly women and children? That alone should disqualify any idea you have about it or what we should be "afraid" of.

You selectively, purposefully, couch the issue in terms of fear and race, and that is what is "rally pathetic."

wdmso, we can’t take everybody, which means we can only take some. is it fair to make it a land rush, to only let in those who shove their way to the front of the line? what about people in africa who patiently wait yearsbfor a chance to comenlegally.

set up a set of fair rules, and abide by those rules. Why is that unfair or racist? Please explain...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Just saying sending the military is a stunt .. I never suggested let them all in nor would I ... just another attempt to sow misinformation and more conspiracy theorists will some how chime in on how Soros or terrorist Or disease need to be stopped.. you can’t govern by fear alone but he is trying hard
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you have any idea what deployment means how it works what’s involved. I would say no... nor does. Trump he just knows how it sounds and the optics even if false looks .. the military has no teleportation ability’s I am aware of
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What does my idea of what deployment means have to do with this. The military is handling the deployment, not me nor Trump. The military representative in the video was confident about the deployment. If you have a problem with it, argue with the military command, not with me.

Where do you get the idea that the caravan is mostly women and children? That alone should disqualify any idea you have about it or what we should be "afraid" of.

You selectively, purposefully, couch the issue in terms of fear and race, and that is what is "rally pathetic."

So cloaking it national security or invasion which it is not .., is more legitimate than calling it what it is brown people with no weapons mostly women and children . Trying to improve their lives ... is Causing the POTUS to deploy the military to defend our boarders your right it’s pathetic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where do you get the idea that the caravan is mostly women and children? That alone should disqualify any idea you have about it or what we should be "afraid" of.

You selectively, purposefully, couch the issue in terms of fear and race, and that is what is "rally pathetic."

"Where do you get the idea that the caravan is mostly women and children?"

because if he frames it that way, it makes Republicans look as ugly as possible. Who cares i fit's remotely true? Why not say that they're all UNICEF orphans?

"You selectively, purposefully, couch the issue in terms of fear and race"

Of course he does. That's liberalism.

What does my idea of what deployment means have to do with this. The military is handling the deployment, not me nor Trump. The military representative in the video was confident about the deployment. If you have a problem with it, argue with the military command, not with me.
The military do as they are told the illusion Trump want to show he is fixing it... it will take weeks to plan move and become operational.. after nov 6th he won’t care until the next election
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you can’t govern by fear alone but he is trying hard
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He's not governing by fear alone. We still have courts and the constitution to protect us from him.

It's the resistance to Trump, that I see using fear. He's Hitler! All the women will die if Kavanaugh is on the court! Trump wants to kill everybody! Who will save us???!!

Meanwhile, very quietly, back unemployment and black poverty are at the lowest levels ever recorded. Very quietly, GDP grew by 4.3% in the 2Q and by 3.5% (I think) in 3Q. And almost all of us have a little more take-home pay. As hard as you try to deny it, that's good for you.

What are you afraid would happen, if you admitted that he has been good for the economy?

Just saying sending the military is a stunt .. I never suggested let them all in nor would I ... just another attempt to sow misinformation and more conspiracy theorists will some how chime in on how Soros or terrorist Or disease need to be stopped.. you can’t govern by fear alone but he is trying hard
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How The military is handling the "stunt." The military has a history of creating successful "stunts." Even war is loaded with "stunts." If they achieve a victory, "stunts" may be less costly than actual battle.

Nice that you gratuitously throw in "misinformation . . . conspiracy theorists . . . Soros . . . terrorist Or disease" and then throw in "can't govern by fear alone but he is trying hard." Yet it is you and others on this forum who constantly stoke up fear against Trump by warning us about how dangerous he is. The mirror on the wall awaits you.

And, just for the record, Trump has done many things (good things in the eyes of "conservatives") in governing without resorting to fear. But your conspiracy laden, fear and racist inspired opinions have no room for anything other than that he is a dangerous, destructive monster.

your conspiracy laden, fear and racist inspired opinions have no room for anything other than that he is a dangerous, destructive monster.

That's liberalism. The other side can never be right on any issue, can never have a good idea. They can only be demonized.

That's liberalism. The other side can never be right on any issue, can never have a good idea. They can only be demonized.

Wait, I thought liberals are the tolerant ones?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wait, I thought liberals are the tolerant ones?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure they are the tolerant ones, just ask them, they'll tell ya.

He's not governing by fear alone. We still have courts and the constitution to protect us from him.

It's the resistance to Trump, that I see using fear. He's Hitler! All the women will die if Kavanaugh is on the court! Trump wants to kill everybody! Who will save us???!!

Meanwhile, very quietly, back unemployment and black poverty are at the lowest levels ever recorded. Very quietly, GDP grew by 4.3% in the 2Q and by 3.5% (I think) in 3Q. And almost all of us have a little more take-home pay. As hard as you try to deny it, that's good for you.

What are you afraid would happen, if you admitted that he has been good for the economy?
I think RFK put it well and he would likely be considered a centrist today.

Robert F. Kennedy put his finger on the inadequacy of gross domestic product in his March 1968 speech in Lawrence, Kan.: GDP “counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage,” he said.

And yet, Kennedy continued, GDP “does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

As far as Trump and Trumplicans are concerned, the only things that have any value are those things that can fetch a price.

As far as Trump and Trumplicans are concerned, the only things that have any value are those things that can fetch a price.

amazing, then, that no data suggests that liberals are more generous or charitable than conservatives. but you won’t let silly things like facts get in the way of ranting against those who disagree with you, will you?

so now that you hate the POTUS, we aren’t supposed to talk about the economy because that’s materialistic.

Sick in the head with hate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

amazing, then, that no data suggests that liberals are more generous or charitable than conservatives. but you won’t let silly things like facts get in the way of ranting against those who disagree with you, will you?

so now that you hate the POTUS, we aren’t supposed to talk about the economy because that’s materialistic.

Sick in the head with hate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Try a little recreational sex, it's good for you.

“Tomorrow the migrants, according to Fox News reporting, are more than two months away — if any of them actually come here,” Smith said on the air Monday. “But tomorrow is one week before the midterm election, which is what all of this is about.”
Why Surprise, Surprise, Surprise

“Tomorrow the migrants, according to Fox News reporting, are more than two months away — if any of them actually come here,” Smith said on the air Monday. “But tomorrow is one week before the midterm election, which is what all of this is about.”
Why Surprise, Surprise, Surprise
No, it's a heavily armed infantry division of MS-13 and ISIS commandos all dripping with HIV, typhus and small pox who plan to hide in a very large wooden rabbit for the border crossing where they'll sneak out at night and capture Washington DC, burn the Constitution and enslave rural Americans.

I know you're asking, but how would the rabbit get across the border?

Pelosi.

No, it's a heavily armed infantry division of MS-13 and ISIS commandos all dripping with HIV, typhus and small pox who plan to hide in a very large wooden rabbit for the border crossing where they'll sneak out at night and capture Washington DC, burn the Constitution and enslave rural Americans.

I know you're asking, but how would the rabbit get across the border?

Pelosi.

Great example of rule no. 5 in Alinsky's Rules For Radicals. Another example of extremism disguised as discussion. Brillliant contribution. Typical of you.

Great example of rule no. 5 in Alinsky's Rules For Radicals. Extremism disguised as discussion. Brillliant contribution to the discussion. Typical of you.
Actually it's just called sarcasm as witness to a political train wreck.

“Tomorrow the migrants, according to Fox News reporting, are more than two months away — if any of them actually come here,” Smith said on the air Monday. “But tomorrow is one week before the midterm election, which is what all of this is about.”
Why Surprise, Surprise, Surprise

Uhhhh . . . the "caravans" are one of the main news stories of TODAY not just what stories about them that may exist two months from now. And the reportage is crying for Trump's response. Which puts him on the defensive JUST BEFORE THE ELECTION.

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise--your gibberish is almost intelligent sounding.

Actually it's just called sarcasm as witness to a political train wreck.

Same thing as Alinsky rule no. 5. You did it again. You got anything else . . . like something that intelligently moves the conversation along?

I think RFK put it well and he would likely be considered a centrist today.

Robert F. Kennedy put his finger on the inadequacy of gross domestic product in his March 1968 speech in Lawrence, Kan.: GDP “counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage,” he said.

And yet, Kennedy continued, GDP “does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

As far as Trump and Trumplicans are concerned, the only things that have any value are those things that can fetch a price.

You use the RFK quote as a straw-mannish idiotic tautology. You set up GDP as lacking something it does not purport to measure. Then you seem to accuse it, by implication, of only doing that which it purports to do--speak of those things that involve a price. And from that you loosely slide that into meaning that Trump and Trumplicans only value things that fetch a price.

As usual, there is a vast unexplored space between your argument and your conclusion. One doesn't necessarily follow the other. Just because a Trumplican puts value in GDP, does not mean that he values nothing else.

i'm sure that Jim values other things than GDP which make "life worthwhile."

Actually it's just called sarcasm as witness to a political train wreck.

every time you predict a political train wreck for trump and the republicans it ends up turning out really well for them...keep those predictions coming :claps:

You use the RFK quote as a straw-mannish idiotic tautology. You set up GDP as lacking something it does not purport to measure. Then you seem to accuse it, by implication, of only doing that which it purports to do--speak of those things that involve a price. And from that you loosely slide that into meaning that Trump and Trumplicans only value things that fetch a price.

As usual, there is a vast unexplored space between your argument and your conclusion. One doesn't necessarily follow the other. Just because a Trumplican puts value in GDP, does not mean that he values nothing else.

i'm sure that Jim values other things than GDP which make "life worthwhile."

Right, because if I think rising GDP is a good thing, I can't simultaneously care about kids being happy and seniors being comfortable. Nope, hoping for a robust GDP, according to him, necessarily means I can't care about anything else.

Think about how stupid this is. You and I have argued multiple times about my liberal position of free healthcare for congenital conditions. And yet I also root for robust GDP, and I also foster rescue dogs. How can that be? I am excited about tax cuts, yet I also want small class sizes for schoolchildren. How is that possible?

That was a really, really dumb argument.

Try a little recreational sex, it's good for you.

You claimed that people who root for a healthy economy, cannot also care about the emotional well being of others. But I'm the one who needs to unwind? Pretty sure that's not the case.

No, it's a heavily armed infantry division of MS-13 and ISIS commandos all dripping with HIV, typhus and small pox who plan to hide in a very large wooden rabbit for the border crossing where they'll sneak out at night and capture Washington DC, burn the Constitution and enslave rural Americans.

I know you're asking, but how would the rabbit get across the border?

Pelosi.

Son-of-a-bitch you're right about something. :hihi:

No, it's a heavily armed infantry division of MS-13 and ISIS commandos all dripping with HIV, typhus and small pox

So they are sick with deadly diseases yet we are worried they are going to kill us all so we will have more troops there then we will have fighting ISIS.

"Where do you get the idea that the caravan is mostly women and children?"

because if he frames it that way, it makes Republicans look as ugly as possible. Who cares i fit's remotely true? Why not say that they're all UNICEF orphans?

"You selectively, purposefully, couch the issue in terms of fear and race"

Of course he does. That's liberalism.


Trump "Criminals and unknown Middle Easterners are mixed in." no attempt at fear ok

President Donald Trump acknowledged on Tuesday that he has "no proof" for his claim that a migrant caravan approaching the U.S. southern border includes "Middle Easterners" but suggested he could eventually back up the assertion.

his lies are acceptable to you

Pressed by reporters after signing a water bill alongside lawmakers in both parties, Trump said "there's no proof of anything,"

wow your Genius POTUS says "there's no proof of anything,"


I guess all those photos of women and children are part of the liberal media to discredit Trump .. why do you hate facts so much?

Son-of-a-bitch you right about something. :hihi:
It happens more that you think :bshake:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It happens more that you think :bshake:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know, I used the search feature and it couldn't find any either. :hee:

I don't know, I used the search feature and it couldn't find any either. :hee:

brilliant

An act of journalsism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=19&v=JIfBBOv0CPg