Caravan with Central Americans heading to border

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus the amount of unformed idiocy on this board in the realm of immigration law is staggering.

Trump can't get rid of the Asylum process sorry.

Asylum...economic asylum....free higher education....free medical care...free/reduced cost housing....stipend for limited amount of time....free college consortium benefits...free college boards fees....free dental care...free job training...free furniture...free food bank...free mattresses...free (reduced cost) computers...don’t even get me started on the financial deals...hmm hmm hmm...where do I send my unemployed family members who are put at the end of the line because employers in their area get kick-backs for hiring refugees?

Asylum seekers have been determined to be allowed to stay due to humanitarian issues. It is an immigration status that arose as a result of WWII.

They are also as a group put far more back into the country than they take. And they are required to pay back all kinds of stuff.

Refugees are not asylum seekers. Although have similar ROI for the country.

If you have unemployed family members in an economy with 4% unemployment they're doing something wrong.

I totally agree. I can’t make people leave where they grew up.

That didn’t stop the last admin from dropping refugees there and the governor from dropping tax breaks there and the mayor from giving breaks the citizens couldn’t afford. Karma hit one of them and it is solidly Trump Country. The refugees will leave the area and the insanely high property taxes also. I have already run into a few in this area.

Was it worth it is going to be the question Blue States are going to have to ask themselves when the Red Counties turn Blue and a humanitarian crisis spreads from sea to shining sea.

REFUGEES ARE NOT ASYLUM SEEKERS. THERE IS A LEGAL DIFFERENCE IN THEIR STATUS AND HOW THEY APPLY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus the amount of unformed idiocy on this board in the realm of immigration law is staggering.

Trump can't get rid of the Asylum process sorry.

Asylum...economic asylum....free higher education....free medical care...free/reduced cost housing....stipend for limited amount of time....free college consortium benefits...free college boards fees....free dental care...free job training...free furniture...free food bank...free mattresses...free (reduced cost) computers...don’t even get me started on the financial deals...hmm hmm hmm...where do I send my unemployed family members who are put at the end of the line because employers in their area get kick-backs for hiring refugees?

Get a better job, heifer. Maybe then you won’t envy dirt-poor migrants. I mean, damn.

Try re-reading the post. Not me. My family members. If I recall you assholes are the ones angry about people helping their families secure jobs. Make up your mind. Get outside the beltway and out of this area. Some nationalities NEVER got an extra dot on their admissions file but were fully expected to pay for every group of newcomers to become well-educated to the point the census categories have changed multiple times to reflect changes. Trust me...Trump will win again - no problem.

I know they get so much free stuff, it’s crazy and wrong. While our working class families suffer and get nothing. It’s so wrong. I hear “refugees” even get a bigger SNAP allotment than actual
Americans. Can you believe that nonsense?

[Anonymous]

Why does everything overthink this? Why can't US border patrol and/or US military simply say "no" to all of them and turn them away just as Australia, Israel, Japan, China, and every other strong sovereign nation would do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only in Liberalville are people who object to illegal immigration called bigots. In other circles, they're called people who have respect for the law.

As a former R now I, you realize that hearing this from a R right now is like hearing an illegal immigrant say, "One should follow the law".

In case you don't get what I'm saying, let me spell it out for you - Rs these days are turning a blind eye to the corruption in the WH for the sake of 1. kicking out those people who break our immigration laws 2. controlling women's bodies 3. fear of Muslims.

You're ok with rich white people being corrupt and breaking laws, but not poor brown people.

So, it's kind of hard to listen to you Rs spout the whole "respect our laws" line.

Whether you're in favor of current abortion laws or against them, it's not about controlling women's bodies. It's about aborting or giving life to the growing baby within the mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does everything overthink this? Why can't US border patrol and/or US military simply say "no" to all of them and turn them away just as Australia, Israel, Japan, China, and every other strong sovereign nation would do?

Liberals. Because liberals.

[Anonymous]

When you dismember babies as you abort them, it becomes more than about the mother's 'desires'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you dismember babies as you abort them, it becomes more than about the mother's 'desires'

Agree. I'm a moderate conservative and usually socially liberal, and I have donated to PP in the past. After I saw that horrendous video in which the PP callously talked about saving "tissue" because she needs a new Ferrari, I will never give them another red cent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everything overthink this? Why can't US border patrol and/or US military simply say "no" to all of them and turn them away just as Australia, Israel, Japan, China, and every other strong sovereign nation would do?

Liberals. Because liberals.

I don't get what that means.

When we lived in Vermont we tried to drive to Montreal once just for a day trip, food/shopping. Forgot husband's passport, but had all other forms of American ID. We were not allowed into Canada. Just to shop and eat. Literally "no, you have to turn around."

I'm super confused why US border patrol can't just tell these people no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everything overthink this? Why can't US border patrol and/or US military simply say "no" to all of them and turn them away just as Australia, Israel, Japan, China, and every other strong sovereign nation would do?

Liberals. Because liberals.

I don't get what that means.

When we lived in Vermont we tried to drive to Montreal once just for a day trip, food/shopping. Forgot husband's passport, but had all other forms of American ID. We were not allowed into Canada. Just to shop and eat. Literally "no, you have to turn around."

I'm super confused why US border patrol can't just tell these people no?

It means that they SHOULD be turned around legally but liberals help and support broken laws.

Trump is right about having the military back up border patrol and if needed, the National Guard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you dismember babies as you abort them, it becomes more than about the mother's 'desires'

Agree. I'm a moderate conservative and usually socially liberal, and I have donated to PP in the past. After I saw that horrendous video in which the PP callously talked about saving "tissue" because she needs a new Ferrari, I will never give them another red cent.

The dark side of abortion is hidden. I'm not against early abortions and cases where the child has Tay Sachs, etc. I AM against late term and the barbaric procedures. And leaving babies to die when born alive after abortion. That's just plain murder

[Anonymous]

What exactly is the military needed for? To tell people no louder? It seems these people want to push buttons and get arrested/processed so they end up in US court system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everything overthink this? Why can't US border patrol and/or US military simply say "no" to all of them and turn them away just as Australia, Israel, Japan, China, and every other strong sovereign nation would do?

Liberals. Because liberals.

I don't get what that means.

When we lived in Vermont we tried to drive to Montreal once just for a day trip, food/shopping. Forgot husband's passport, but had all other forms of American ID. We were not allowed into Canada. Just to shop and eat. Literally "no, you have to turn around."

I'm super confused why US border patrol can't just tell these people no?

They can, but if they even put one foot over the border, they then have to be “processed” or whatever the term is for let into the country, be given a court date, then disappear to never show up for said court date. Also, if the person coming claims to be seeking “asylum” (as many have been coached to do), there is another process.
This, of course, is all dependent upon our border agents seeing them coming. If they enter at a point of our border that is unsecured, they are free to flee to a sanctuary city.

[Anonymous]

It’s simple.
We invade Mexico and start a border war and only leave if they pay for THE WALL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the caravan a yearly activist stunt? Did no one bother to inform Trump about this fact?

Maybe, it is. But, I have never seen it reported before. Do they always have reporters with them?

It started in 2010. The previous admin had no problem with it. Some say they encouraged it.

The new sheriff in town is letting them know, stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What exactly is the military needed for? To tell people no louder? It seems these people want to push buttons and get arrested/processed so they end up in US court system?

To back up and enforce the law, because liberals don't respect the law, even those in office. And when you have people in government who won't enforce the law, you need do it for them.