what is our position on the Caravan

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

In general I'm very sympathetic to people who want a better life.  Some of the conditions these people live in are appalling.

That said, I think we need to control the US borders.   The current laws are not the correct ones IMHO.  Maybe this incident will be a catalyst for a more open policy for those who want to improve their lives.  There is certainly no reason not to regularize those already in the country, after proper application and vetting.  And to at least give work visas to those of good character who want to be here for opportunity.  No welfare benefits should be available for those who want to enter.  But I see no reason that opportunity should not be extended.

You are more optimstic then I am.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Still, thousands took a chance, since a human-smuggling “coyote” charges upwards of $7,000 to take someone across the US border.

 

If you have $7000 cash in Honduras, you are not poor.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

We largely have ourselves to thank for that.  We supported them in their corruption because we were terrified they would becoming communist.  We would support any dictator regardless of their actions as long as they professed to be anti-communist.  The US and South America in the 1960s was a horrible combination.

It is not that simple. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Steve J said:

But the issue is that they are overwhelming our system with non-qualifying claims to a point where they get to stay years with work permits and then either not show up to their hearing or have qualified for a stay of removal based on having lasting connections in the US. (Eg. having a US citizen child while waiting for asylum)

A poorly designed and poorly run system is no excuse for the ridiculous anti-immigrant nonsense which we have firmly in place.  Any serious administration could streamline the process.  Pres Obama, for example, deported far more aliens than Trump, despite the lies which we are constantly told.  An efficient system to determine fact or fiction in asylum requests is not difficult to create, unless one prefers chaos and inefficiency, which is what we have right now.  Claims can be evaluated on their merits, provided the personnel are available to do it, and do it fairly and in a timely manner.  Instead we have political inertia, inaction, and sloth.

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, SteveO said:

Would you feel comfortable with say...President Trump deciding which laws were unjust and therefore not needing executive enforcement?

Since he is the chief executive, he already decides which laws to enforce. 

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They are walking across Mexico. What more evidence do you need that it sucked back there?

If I read this document correctly, one cannot legally enter Mexico without a visa if one is from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, or Nicaragua. Entering, passing through the entire length of the country, and exiting on the other side with our visas would appear to be illegal. 

https://www.inm.gob.mx/gobmx/word/index.php/paises-no-requieren-visa-para-mexico/

Quote

My family and I would like to visit Mexico. Do all members of the family need to come to the embassy? Yes. All applicants must submit their original documentation in person. If the applicant is under 18 years of age, he or she must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.

Are there any additional requirements to enter Mexico as a tourist? No fixed amount of money or return ticket is needed to enter Mexico. However, be aware that upon your entrance, immigration officers might ask to provide evidence that you have a) enough money to support yourself during your stay, and that there is b) sufficient reason to believe that you will leave the country, if entering as a tourist. Ultimately, it is the decision of the immigration officer to allow or refuse entrance to Mexico, even if you carry with you a valid visa.

What is the FMM and do I need it prior to my travel to Mexico? The Multiple Migratory Form (FMM) is a document completed by every foreigner entering Mexico that serves as a proof of their legal stay in the country.

If you are travelling by air, it will be given to you by the airline when entering the country. It can also be obtained at the counters of the airport, before passing through Migration. If you are entering by land, it will be given to you at the point of entry.

You will need to keep the FMM with you during your stay in Mexico and give it back when leaving the country, either to the airline (when leaving by air) or to the Migration authorities (when leaving by land).

If you are entering by land, when you fill your FMM you will be required to pay $500 pesos for the migratory fee. If you are entering by air, the cost is already included in your flight ticket.

https://embamex.sre.gob.mx/australia/index.php/visitorvisa

Hondureños are required to have a visa to enter Mexico.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Honduran_citizens

As are Nicaragüenses

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Nicaraguan_citizens

And Guatemaltecos.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Guatemalan_citizens

But not for Costarricenses or Panameños.

All are required to have a visa to enter the US. 

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If I read this document correctly, one cannot legally enter Mexico without a visa if one is from Guatemala, El Salvador, or Nicaragua. Entering, passing through the entire length of the country, and exiting on the other side with our visas would appear to be illegal. 

https://www.inm.gob.mx/gobmx/word/index.php/paises-no-requieren-visa-para-mexico/

 

Most of them are from Honduras.

Also, I never expected that this was an entirely lawful migration.

[Bernard Gui]

48 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Pres Obama, for example, deported far more aliens than Trump, despite the lies which we are constantly told.

Do those numbers include people simply turned away at the borders, those apprehended once in the country, or both? Does this not make Pres Obama more open to criticism than Pres Trump?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Most of them are from Honduras.

Also, I never expected that this was an entirely lawful migration.

Isn’t that the whole point....if not entirely, what part is legal? Crossing Mexico illegally with the intention of entering the US illegally seems to me to violate the laws of both countries. One can imagine this conversation at the Mexico/Guatemala border...

"Where are you coming from?"

"Someplace in Honduras or Guatemala."

"Do you have ID, a home address, a passport or visa?"

"No."

"Are you a tourist, business person, worker, student, or are you going to stay in Mexico?"

"No. I'm just passing through with 4000 of my friends on our way up to the border with Arizona so we can enter the US illegally."

"Who is that shady looking guy with you?"

"Just some fellow who said he would take me there if I gave him $7000."

"OK. Está bien. Pase adelante y tenga buen día."

Edited October 27, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[SteveO]

27 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Since he is the chief executive, he already decides which laws to enforce. 

As chief executive, he's required to enforce all of them.  Point is, nobody should be getting into the business of deciding which laws are worth obeying, and which are safely ignored.  

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This has little to no bearing on illegal immigration because it is about location. If you live in an area where there are many Spanish only speakers, a service job can easily consider speaking Spanish part of your qualifications. 

Imagine deep in the heart of Chinatown you apply at a restaurant. You speak only English. The other applicant speaks English and Chinese. All things equalish, the owner would be wise to hire the other. 

Your friend would be wise to learn Spanish if she’s gonna live in my neck of the woods (I’m just across the border in NM)

I was shopping in the Hong Kong Market in Federal Way, WA, yesterday. All the employees were Latinos except the cashiers who were Korean Americans. That is true in most of the Asian markets in our area, and increasingly the restaurants.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

They came illegally? My daughter-in-law’s family came in legally from South Korea with nothing. Her dad just retired from Boeing after 30 tears of never missing a day’s work. All 3 of their daughters are college grads and are very prosperous. They are adamant about legal migration.

I have had many Korean/Cambodian/Vietnamese/Laotian/Burmese students who immigrated legally and have excelled including graduate degrees from high-ranking universities. Legal immigration is a very good thing. Illegal immigration not so much.

This is the case with my relatives, but the first came over in the 1910's-30's, which is why they feel strongly that immigrants should go about it "the right way." Which was being sponsored by the Hawai`i Sugar Planters' Association to work in the plantations... pros and cons to that, I suppose. They worked hard and eventually moved off the plantation to where their children could witness the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and the grandchildren continued to prosper. So I truly empathize with that sentiment for fairness, but I also see an opportunity to perhaps redefine or allow another "right way" to welcome those in other trying circumstances and complex economics.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do those numbers include people simply turned away at the borders, those apprehended once in the country, or both? Does this not make Pres Obama more open to criticism than Pres Trump?

That includes only actual deportations.  Obama was considered cruel and vicious for his harsh deportation policy.  He also hired more Border Patrol agents than any previous president.  His own supporters were embarrassed by Obama's harsh and efficient policies.

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, SteveO said:

Would you feel comfortable with say...President Trump deciding which laws were unjust and therefore not needing executive enforcement?

That's not what I was responding to (so your example is a red herring). I was responding to the idea that obeying the laws and being kind to one another are mutually inclusive. Sometimes they are not -- hence, my reference to unjust laws. You know that there have been immoral and unjust laws and, depending on their severity, the correct action is to defy them in order to be kind to one another.

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, Steve J said:

Ok... so native born Americans should learn the other language when they are in their country...

1) The United States has no official language.

2) Where I live was Mexico before it was taken by force through war. In fact, because the boundaries were in dispute after the Mexican-American War, where I live was the place where those who did not want to be in the US fled. However, a new treaty put my town within the US, despite local objections.

3) If a person wants to be employable, it is to their advantage to make themselves qualified for their positions. Claiming that some linguistic and/or racial "other" is making them unqualified is really bordering on...

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

1) The United States has no official language.

2) Where I live was Mexico before it was taken by force through war. In fact, because the boundaries were in dispute after the Mexican-American War, where I live was the place where those who did not want to be in the US fled. However, a new treaty put my town within the US, despite local objections.

3) If a person wants to be employable, it is to their advantage to make themselves qualified for their positions. Claiming that some linguistic and/or racial "other" is making them unqualified is really bordering on...

Most people in the US speak English. If you don't, you are at an extreme disadvantage unless you live with relatives who speak it. The kids in Sister Gui's kindergarten class who only speak Spanish at home have a heck of a time making a success of school. I loved teaching in Australia, for one reason, because in Queensland all immigrant students had to attend an English immersion school before being admitted into a neighborhood public school. Many if not all countries have parts that were taken by force of war. That's the way of things. My grandparent's homeland, Poland, is a prime example. 

[Bernard Gui]

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That includes only actual deportations.  Obama was considered cruel and vicious for his harsh deportation policy.  He also hired more Border Patrol agents than any previous president.  His own supporters were embarrassed by Obama's harsh and efficient policies.

If you trust Snopes...

Quote

In the Obama years, all of the increase in deportations has involved people picked up within 100 miles of the border, most of whom [had] just recently crossed over. In 2013, almost two-thirds of deportations were in that category. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-deported-more-people/

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

That's not what I was responding to (so your example is a red herring). I was responding to the idea that obeying the laws and being kind to one another are mutually inclusive. Sometimes they are not -- hence, my reference to unjust laws. You know that there have been immoral and unjust laws and, depending on their severity, the correct action is to defy them in order to be kind to one another.

It’s not a red herring.  The law is what the law is, and I’m not concerned with whether or not it’s “nice”.  I can’t prevent a woman from exercising her “right to choose” if I don’t find late term abortion “nice”.  I don’t think the tax rate I pay is “nice”.  I still have to pay it.  I don’t think the Westboro Baptist’s are very “nice”.  They still get to speak their hate.  Your thinking that we can just ignore laws we think aren’t “nice” is beyond absurd.

If congress passed a law tomorrow abolishing ICE and opening the borders, you’d probably scream bloody murder if Trump ignored it.  Setting a precedent that ignores laws you think aren’t “nice” sets the precedent for whoever is in power to ignore laws they don’t think are “nice”.  You wouldn’t want to live like that.  You’d think the political left would’ve learned that lesson by now...

Your wanting to compare this to Jim Crowe laws is a false equivalency.  Jim Crowe blatantly disregarded federal law and Constitutional amendments that had been established 100 years previously.

Edited October 27, 2018 by SteveO

[bsjkki]

If the President can ignore laws he doesn’t like we no longer have a rule of law, a Republic or separation of powers. We have a “king.” 

If incoming illegal migrants feel they do not have to enter legally. They also justify breaking other laws, which leads to identity theft and tax fraud, and most do not ever turn up for their immigration hearings. How is this a good thing? 

When they overwhelm the system, what happens to those who are waiting for their asylum case to be heard? What happens to those who are respecting our laws?

The ethical thing to do is seek for laws to change. That means the two parties should compromise but the politics are too vitriolic, it can’t happen. I would like a secure border that keeps the “bad guys” out and incredibly generous immigration laws.

Do those in support of the caravan, feel we should have completely open borders and abolish ICE? I’m not really seeing where the middle ground is. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Isn’t that the whole point....if not entirely, what part is legal? Crossing Mexico illegally with the intention of entering the US illegally seems to me to violate the laws of both countries. One can imagine this conversation at the Mexico/Guatemala border...

"Where are you coming from?"

"Someplace in Honduras or Guatemala."

"Do you have ID, a home address, a passport or visa?"

"No."

"Are you a tourist, business person, worker, student, or are you going to stay in Mexico?"

"No. I'm just passing through with 4000 of my friends on our way up to the border with Arizona so we can enter the US illegally."

"Who is that shady looking guy with you?"

"Just some fellow who said he would take me there if I gave him $7000."

"OK. Está bien. Pase adelante y tenga buen día."

If I understand correctly they plan to ask for asylum. It is not illegal to enter the US and ask for asylum. Also, if some terrorist or criminal is trying to smuggle themselves into the country going with a group that is plastered all over the news and is almost certainly going to be greeted by part of the military is probably not how you would do it.

Also, why is the military moving forces into the area? I mean, is there a reason other then the President thinking we are about to be invaded by Mongol hordes before he could build the Great Wall?

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, SteveO said:

As chief executive, he's required to enforce all of them.  Point is, nobody should be getting into the business of deciding which laws are worth obeying, and which are safely ignored.  

No, he is not required to do so.

If you want to enforce every law you need to go through the federal, state, and local codes of jurisdiction and clean out all the old garbage laws that make no sense any more before you insist they enforce every law. Done just a few decades ago it would have required the governor of Missouri by law to kick out or kill all the Mormons.

Edited October 27, 2018 by The Nehor

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, he is not required to do so.

If you want to enforce every law you need to go through the federal, state, and local codes of jurisdiction and clean out all the old garbage laws that make no sense any more before you insist they enforce every law. Done just a few decades ago it would have required the governor of Missouri by law to kick out or kill all the Mormons.

True.

You should tell ICE that their enforcement of immigration law is outdated and no longer needed then. We could save $5.7 billion a year shutting them down.

Edited October 27, 2018 by SteveO

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That includes only actual deportations.  Obama was considered cruel and vicious for his harsh deportation policy.  He also hired more Border Patrol agents than any previous president.  His own supporters were embarrassed by Obama's harsh and efficient policies.

Not entirely accurate. He had more border patrol agent then any previous President. Some Democrats touted that number as proof that Obama was tough on border security but most of the bump came from bipartisan legislation (which Obama signed). The biggest increase in Border Patrol agents came under George W. Bush though the ramp up began under Clinton.

Deportations are down but arrests and removal orders are reportedly up.

But yeah, Obama was not a pro-immigration president and attempts to portray him as such are disingenuous. Attempts to paint Trump as “not as bad as Obama” on immigration are also disingenuous.

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

My thoughts are we should live up to the poem we mounted on the Statue of Liberty:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Thanks for sharing!

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

It’s not a red herring.  The law is what the law is, and I’m not concerned with whether or not it’s “nice”.  I can’t prevent a woman from exercising her “right to choose” if I don’t find late term abortion “nice”.  I don’t think the tax rate I pay is “nice”.  I still have to pay it.  I don’t think the Westboro Baptist’s are very “nice”.  They still get to speak their hate.  Your thinking that we can just ignore laws we think aren’t “nice” is beyond absurd.

If congress passed a law tomorrow abolishing ICE and opening the borders, you’d probably scream bloody murder if Trump ignored it.  Setting a precedent that ignores laws you think aren’t “nice” sets the precedent for whoever is in power to ignore laws they don’t think are “nice”.  You wouldn’t want to live like that.  You’d think the political left would’ve learned that lesson by now...

Your wanting to compare this to Jim Crowe laws is a false equivalency.  Jim Crowe blatantly disregarded federal law and Constitutional amendments that had been established 100 years previously.

Your stupid scenario about ICE is not legitimate. If legislation opened the borders (abolished all law against entering the country) and the President still tried to keep people out that would not be choosing whether to enforce a law because the law no longer exists. It would be making up a law. The President could, in your inane scenario, mobilize the military and put the border under martial law without congressional approval but if Congress wanted to stop the President all they have to do is stop paying for it.

14 minutes ago, SteveO said:

You should tell ICE that their enforcement of immigration law is outdated and no longer needed then. We could save $5.7 billion a year shutting them down.

Why would I do that? I would not want to. Immigration control serves a valuable purpose. The President could order ICE to allow people to cross the border without question though if he chose to.

 

If you believe all laws must be enforced do you believe the FBI and other federal agencies should start arresting all marijuana growers, users, and dispensaries in states where it has been made legal under state law? All of that is still illegal under federal law and federal trumps state law. So, should we grab the prescription lists and haul all the medical marijuana users into federal court under possession charges? That would be the only consistent position I could see with your “enforce all laws no matter what” philosophy.

On a more local level should traffic cops issue citations to everyone going as much as 1 mph over the speed limit? Should we take away their ability to issue warnings? I doubt you have thought your position through all the way.

Edited October 27, 2018 by The Nehor