[Update - John Kelly signs order allowing military to use lethal force, and take part in policing/searches] Trump says that if caravan people throw rocks at military, he is authorizing military to fire back

[osxmatt]

17 minutes ago, ALIEN-gunner said:

That's true but as I said these people don't really want asylum. If they did they would have stayed in Mexico where asylum was offered. 

 

I must have missed that among all the news the past few weeks.

 

Can you share a link where the Mexican government offered asylum to those heading to the US?

[TwinIon]

10 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

Can you share a link where the Mexican government offered asylum to those heading to the US?

My understanding is that Mexico is rather conflicted about the asylum situation. I believe that many in the caravan did apply for asylum in Mexico, though I'm not sure how many or how it went. When a previous caravan entered Mexico, "President Enrique Peña Nieto’s administration offered migrants the chance to live and work in Mexico as long as they stayed in the southern states of Chiapas and Oaxaca. Most chose not to accept this deal, because they wanted to travel to the United States."

 

Still, after Trump said that he wanted to keep all asylum seekers in Mexico, their incoming interior minister quickly responded that Mexico was not interested in becoming a "third safe country." So they're really not that interested in keeping these people.

 

Either way, it's not as if a preference to live in the US over Mexico somehow means they're not interested in asylum, or that a desire to send extra money back to relatives means they're not worthy of asylum.

[mclumber1]

18 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

Either way, it's not as if a preference to live in the US over Mexico somehow means they're not interested in asylum, or that a desire to send extra money back to relatives means they're not worthy of asylum.

 

But they aren't really asylum seekers at that point, they are economic migrants.  There is nothing wrong with moving to another country because of economic conditions, but you are effectively no longer a refugee. 

[Jason]

11 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

But they aren't really asylum seekers at that point, they are economic migrants.  There is nothing wrong with moving to another country because of economic conditions, but you are effectively no longer a refugee. 

 

If you're fleeing Honduras because of drug cartel violence, you have an extremely legitimate reason to not want to stop in Mexico.

[TwinIon]

15 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

But they aren't really asylum seekers at that point, they are economic migrants.  There is nothing wrong with moving to another country because of economic conditions, but you are effectively no longer a refugee. 

Asylum in the US can be granted if "an alien is unable or unwilling to return to her country of origin because she has suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of 'race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.'"

 

It seems very possible to me that you meet that definition and still have a preference to live in the US and/or have family that were unable to walk thousands of miles that may need financial assistance. It's not as if someone fleeing violence has an obligation to stay in the first country they step in, especially if that country itself is relatively violent.

 

Besides, we're not even talking about guaranteed citizenship, just asylum. If they don't meet the qualifications, we have a process for that. I think it's worth discussing how we handle the asylum process, but the issue at hand now is the active prevention of people attempting to legally immigrate via asylum. I certainly can't guarantee every one of these people has a valid claim, but US and international law obliges us to hear these people out and we're not.

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

If you're fleeing Honduras because of drug cartel violence, you have an extremely legitimate reason to not want to stop in Mexico.

 

If that's the case, each of these refugees need to state that when they get their hearing.  It seems that many of these people are just choosing America over Mexico because of economic reasons. 

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, TwinIon said:

Asylum in the US can be granted if "an alien is unable or unwilling to return to her country of origin because she has suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of 'race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.'"

 

It seems very possible to me that you meet that definition and still have a preference to live in the US and/or have family that were unable to walk thousands of miles that may need financial assistance. It's not as if someone fleeing violence has an obligation to stay in the first country they step in.

 

Besides, we're not even talking about guaranteed citizenship, just asylum. If they don't meet the qualifications, we have a process for that. I think it's worth discussing how we handle the asylum process, but the issue at hand now is the active prevention of people attempting to legally immigrate via asylum. I certainly can't guarantee every one of these people has a valid claim, but US and international law obliges us to hear these people out.

 

Yeah, how we are handling the asylum process is pretty shitty.  We really should be devoting more resources to processing the applicants.  At the same time, I've read that a large percentage of the applicants don't even show up for their hearing.  In their minds, why would they?  They may be undocumented at that point, but they made it to America and are likely working.  

 

Assuming the families can be kept together, I have no issue with keeping these people in camps until their case is processed.  At least then they can't slip through the cracks. 

[TwinIon]

5 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

Yeah, how we are handling the asylum process is pretty shitty.  We really should be devoting more resources to processing the applicants.  At the same time, I've read that a large percentage of the applicants don't even show up for their hearing.  In their minds, why would they?  They may be undocumented at that point, but they made it to America and are likely working.  

  

Assuming the families can be kept together, I have no issue with keeping these people in camps until their case is processed.  At least then they can't slip through the cracks. 

You are correct in that many people don't show. Politifact says it's between 24% and 43%, depending on the year.

 

However, if we were to put all asylum seekers in camps today, you'd end up with around 300,000 people for an average of 1,000 days. That doesn't seem like a good solution.

 

 

My unsubstantiated guess is that if the process was much faster, you'd end up with a higher percent of people showing up. Put an undocumented person into the country for three years, and it's no wonder that you can't find them or they don't show.

 

[PaladinSolo]

Its more than just resources, Trump also limited the number of claims each port of entry can handle a day, one is only accepting 30 a day with nearly a 1,000 migrants camped out waiting to claim asylum, but if they make it across the border they can claim asylum anywhere, so you end up with masses rushing the border, its entirely manufactured "Crisis" so they can say, "see look at these lawless people entering our country!!@!#"

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Most asylum seekers report for their hearing. This number can be increased by ankle bracelets and other monitoring devices, no need to put them in fucking camps.

 

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/26/wolf-blitzer/majority-undocumented-immigrants-show-court-data-s/

[PaladinSolo]

Geraldo with a moment of clarity.

[mclumber1]

5 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

Geraldo with a moment of clarity.

 

Geraldo: "I'm the network's pinata."

Other dude: "That's racist!"

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[Greatoneshere]

16 hours ago, ALIEN-gunner said:

That's true but as I said these people don't really want asylum. If they did they would have stayed in Mexico where asylum was offered. 

 

You clearly have no idea what is going on at San Ysidro, etc. Or how the alt-right led us to this very situation in the first place that created the altercation between people throwing "rocks" and being put down with tear gas. 

[ort]

Wow, go Geraldo.

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[Bloodporne]

15 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Geraldo: "I'm the network's pinata."

Other dude: "That's racist!"

That was one of the most awfully timed little jokes, or whatever that was, I've heard in a while. 

[SuperSpreader]

1 hour ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

Boo

 

Schumer what a twat

[CitizenVectron]

Great intelligence.

 

 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

oopsie!

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I was trying to wrap my head around Ammon Bundy's seemingly "unexpected" position when it dawned on me that someone who is "anti-government" probably does have some opposition to the notion of government-imposed national borders.  @b_m_b_m_b_m added that Bundy's strong Christian beliefs that emphasize assisting the downtrodden probably contributes to it as well.

[Snaynay1]

On 11/28/2018 at 12:10 PM, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

oopsie!

Maybe he should have said they need to just drone them instead of throwing tear gas at them. We have gone for almost two decades now droning all kinds of people around the world with nobody giving a shit. Then he wouldn't have to worry about people bringing up his association with tear gas manufacturers.

[Snaynay1]

On 11/26/2018 at 7:40 PM, Jwheel86 said:

From what I can tell it's all Army units, and US Northern Command has stated they aren't doing law enforcement, just Force Protection. What I'm asking is Force Protection a justifiable use of lethal force in the eyes of the States. If an FBI agent kills someone while doing FBI business it's up to the feds to determine if it's a good shoot or not, not the State. But the same FBI agent shoots someone breaking into his home, it's on the State to investigate. So if an Army MP isn't doing law enforcement and lights someone up, couldn't that fall on the State to investigate if it the shooting was justified under self defense laws? 

Local authorities would defer to the military to investigate it, IE NCIS, CID, or the FBI.