Human caravan

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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 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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[DZ]

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[Nebe]

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by DZ

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by DZ

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

that's a given

[scottw]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

[Pete F.]

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

[Jim in CT]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

yep

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.