Border at ‘Breaking Point’ as More than 76,000 Migrants Cross in a Month

[Anonymous]

^ The right constantly changes its narrative and pretends the previous narrative never happened or that everyone else got it wrong. Maybe they think they can gaslight us with this bullshit, that we have a short memory or something. Not.
They only insult everyone's intelligence with their nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ The right constantly changes its narrative and pretends the previous narrative never happened or that everyone else got it wrong. Maybe they think they can gaslight us with this bullshit, that we have a short memory or something. Not.
They only insult everyone's intelligence with their nonsense.

Or maybe they think the rest of us are just supposed to go along with their rationalizations as they contort themselves into pretzels to explain things away when they are busted for falsehoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is one to talk. He has been hiring illegals for years and more keep coming out of the woodwork everyday.

We will never get anywhere if every time one side is presented with facts the response is "but Trump!" And then they ignore literally mountains of data to focus on an anecdote.

Geez. Yes he hired illegal immigrants. Now let's move on to solutions for this crisis of illegal immigration that both liberal leaning, illegal immigration supporting, prominent newspapers have acknowledged.

The hypocrisy is strong with this one.

Again no actual solutions. Just one off quips (that aren't clever)
Okay. Prosecute to the fullest every employer for hiring illegal immigrants. Now what is your solution to the crisis of 76k+ per month at the border?

Practice what you preach, honey. It's hard to take you seriously when you give your Dear Leader a pass on what you accuse Democrats of.

Fantastic. No ideas.

The president sn't my dear anything.

What great ideas do you have?

There is a lot we can do or at least try:
-Implementation of a safe third country agreement with Mexico
-Put judges on the border/have them conduct the initial interview instead of BP. Most fail to get asylum so if they make the initial interview more stringent we will spend less money for these people moving through an asylum system they will ultimately fail
-no release into the interior of the country while your case is being heard, no granting of work visas unless you are granted asylum
- if they have been released previously, have law enforcement check on them at the address listed. Chances are they are staying with their illegal aunt/uncle/cousin/sibling/parent
- drones, facial recognition at the border

And finally... a physical barrier to keep them out in the first place

- Mexico already offered them asylum. They refused and rushed the US border - watch the footage.
- Do you really think that those whose asylum claim was rejected will turn around and walk back to their country of origin? Really? No, they will go look for a hole in the fence and get in the US. Watch the footage.
- There are not enough facilities to keep them in. Thousands were released in Texas just <> a month ago. Watch the footage.

You know what your problem is?
You are assuming that you deal with law abiding people who respect the law of this country. They don't. They don't have any respect for the US law or for citizens of this country who have to pay for them. They don't respect YOU.

Agree with your last sentence. We need to keep them out in the first place.

If we had a safe third country with Mexico, it wouldnt matter if they turned down asylum in Mexico. Just the fact that they touched Mexican soil first would be all that is needed to send them back to Mexico or deport them home.

We do have enough space to hold them if build more facilities and utilize the ones we already have.

This problem needs more than one solution. They will crawl under or jump over the fence. We also need to be able to send them back quickly when they do that. Fine/Jail employers who knowingly hire them. Track people who come here on visas to ensure they leave. Expand facial recognition at airports and land crossings so that we know who is coming in and that they left. All these things need to happen, not just one thing

Correction to the posters above. The "Mexico offered them asylum but they refused" is not true. There were many journalists who looked into this, along with many lawyers who were trying to advocate on behalf of the migrants who found that the narrative and reality were worlds apart. The migrants were getting stonewalled by Mexican officials and could not get anywhere with the asylum process.

Not surprised.
Economic migrants are not eligible for asylum.
You are right. Liberal narrative of letting them all in and reality are worlds apart.

LMAO! When proven wrong you try to just change your own narrative?

"They were offered asylum by Mexico but turned their noses up at it" - turns out to be false
"Well they weren't eligible for asylum in Mexico because they are economic migrants" - suddenly your own narrative has changed, but also not entirely true as many are fleeing serious criminal violence...

And you want to talk about liberal narrative? Too funny.

Not PP you're responding to but:

You have yet to provide any links proving that Mexico has not actually provided asylum. They have offered asylum applications and work permits to the caravans. That has been reported on extensively.

Offering to allow people to apply for asylum =/= granting them asylum. Mexico probably has standards that asylum applicants have to meet as well (crazy, I know!) Again, you have yet to back up your claim that Mexico did not do this.

[Anonymous]

Offering to allow people to apply for asylum =/= granting them asylum.

See the problem there?

Still doesn't fix the problem that it's false of conservatives to keep saying "Mexico offered the caravans asylum but the caravans refused."
The caravans didn't refuse. They would have been happy to get asylum in Mexico.

Still a broken GOP narrative.

[Anonymous]

15:19 seems confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The vast majority of people entering illegally do so at points of entry or get caught nearby. Very few actually cross successfully unnoticed. At least this is what I've heard from advocates and providers working in south Texas in the immigration advocacy community for the last two decades. So, why invest in a wall that isn't needed?

This makes no sense. The illegal entry goes down where there is a wall. They tell us most illegal DRUGS come through the ports of entry--but, not people.

Reading is fundamental:

"At points of entry or get caught."

Very few people make it in undetected...so why build a wall? They either come to the entry point or get caught by border patrol. That system works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The vast majority of people entering illegally do so at points of entry or get caught nearby. Very few actually cross successfully unnoticed. At least this is what I've heard from advocates and providers working in south Texas in the immigration advocacy community for the last two decades. So, why invest in a wall that isn't needed?

This makes no sense. The illegal entry goes down where there is a wall. They tell us most illegal DRUGS come through the ports of entry--but, not people.

Reading is fundamental:

"At points of entry or get caught."

Very few people make it in undetected...so why build a wall? They either come to the entry point or get caught by border patrol. That system works.

Even John Kelly said a border wall would be a waste of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The safe third country agreement with Canada has been in place since 2004. We needed this with Mexico like yesterday. No idea why it wasn't done at the same time. This would be a huge step to stop this crisis at our border.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The safe third country agreement with Canada has been in place since 2004. We needed this with Mexico like yesterday. No idea why it wasn't done at the same time. This would be a huge step to stop this crisis at our border.

But wait... there's no wall in that Canada agreement.

They don't need a wall. They have us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The safe third country agreement with Canada has been in place since 2004. We needed this with Mexico like yesterday. No idea why it wasn't done at the same time. This would be a huge step to stop this crisis at our border.

But wait... there's no wall in that Canada agreement.

Yeah because we are the wall. It's much easier to be gracious and pretend to be open to all refugees when you have a safe third country agreement with your only neighbor who happens to be just as prosperous as you are. You'll notice that as soon as Haitian refugees started flooding their border once Trump was elected, Canada started sending dignitaries to Florida and other Haitian communities in the US to persuade them not to come to Canada. If Canada bordered Mexico they'd probably have a wall already.

EXACTLY THIS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is one to talk. He has been hiring illegals for years and more keep coming out of the woodwork everyday.

We will never get anywhere if every time one side is presented with facts the response is "but Trump!" And then they ignore literally mountains of data to focus on an anecdote.

Geez. Yes he hired illegal immigrants. Now let's move on to solutions for this crisis of illegal immigration that both liberal leaning, illegal immigration supporting, prominent newspapers have acknowledged.

The hypocrisy is strong with this one.

Again no actual solutions. Just one off quips (that aren't clever)
Okay. Prosecute to the fullest every employer for hiring illegal immigrants. Now what is your solution to the crisis of 76k+ per month at the border?

Practice what you preach, honey. It's hard to take you seriously when you give your Dear Leader a pass on what you accuse Democrats of.

Fantastic. No ideas.

The president sn't my dear anything.

What great ideas do you have?

There is a lot we can do or at least try:
-Implementation of a safe third country agreement with Mexico
-Put judges on the border/have them conduct the initial interview instead of BP. Most fail to get asylum so if they make the initial interview more stringent we will spend less money for these people moving through an asylum system they will ultimately fail
-no release into the interior of the country while your case is being heard, no granting of work visas unless you are granted asylum
- if they have been released previously, have law enforcement check on them at the address listed. Chances are they are staying with their illegal aunt/uncle/cousin/sibling/parent
- drones, facial recognition at the border

And finally... a physical barrier to keep them out in the first place

- Mexico already offered them asylum. They refused and rushed the US border - watch the footage.
- Do you really think that those whose asylum claim was rejected will turn around and walk back to their country of origin? Really? No, they will go look for a hole in the fence and get in the US. Watch the footage.
- There are not enough facilities to keep them in. Thousands were released in Texas just <> a month ago. Watch the footage.

You know what your problem is?
You are assuming that you deal with law abiding people who respect the law of this country. They don't. They don't have any respect for the US law or for citizens of this country who have to pay for them. They don't respect YOU.

Agree with your last sentence. We need to keep them out in the first place.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or, jut maybe, it shows how precarious their home country situation is, and how desperate they are to leave, you know, the way your grandparents or great grandparents where when they came to the US?

Why is that so many fail to meet the requirements for asylum? If you want to let more millions in, do you really still expect to provide government programs to cover all of their needs? How exactly will that work?

Asylum is rightly a very narrow definition and should remain that way

But international law requires that we let everyone make their case, so they are coming. What we really need is more detention facilities and a rapid adjudication system. That will be more effective and more humane deterrent than a wall.

No, it doesn't. There has to be a documented knowledge of a military conflict or political/sex minority/religion minority oppression BEFORE asylum seekers are let in. That's how foreign countries' citizens get asylum quotas.
Otherwise the whole world will be here claiming asylum and living in the US until their case is processed.

Not true. All they need to do is show up at the border and say the magic words (coached by their coyote) in the initial interview. After that we have to let them in until their case is processed but of course they vanish before that happens.

This is why we need judges at the border conducting this initial interview or at least upping the standards for how easy it is to get through it. something like 90% ultimately fail to get asylum so all of the time spent on law enforcement, court, etc. is wasted tax payer dollars when we couldve cut this off at the pass

I completely agree. It's astounding how much money the U.S. spends on all of the above, as well as shelter, medical care, food, etc. If they were required to stay in Mexico until their cases were heard, then Mexico would be responsible for all of this, not us.

And I'm repulsed when people (liberals) blame border patrol for deaths of immigrants - when those very immigrants are showing up on death's doorstep. Exactly how are we responsible for their choice to make an arduous, dangerous, and unhealthy journey? Mexico needs to step up and treat them, not us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or, jut maybe, it shows how precarious their home country situation is, and how desperate they are to leave, you know, the way your grandparents or great grandparents where when they came to the US?

And there's nothing anyone wants to do to help their home countries deal with the problems, so as to make them more safe and stable so that there would be less people fleeing. The refugees showing up at our border are a symptom, but instead they are treated as the disease, and that approach will never solve anything, because people desperate to flee will continue to do so. It's like there's broken glass on your kitchen floor and you're complaining about how many band-aids you've used and how you need shoes with thicker soles instead of even giving any consideration to sweeping the glass up. Instead we should be looking to help those countries. But we don't even want to, because they are "shitholes" not worthy of further consideration, per brilliant Trump foreign policy.

Uhh did you 2 forget about mexico who wanted to give them residency? They also had the option to travel to closer countries which are just as safe. We have central americas gangs in the US too but then again we also have the almighthy dollar that attracts them. So its greed bringing them here plain and simple.

Nope, that "Mexico offered to take them in" narrative was utter and complete bullshit. Numerous reporters and others tried following up on that and even went with refugees as they tried getting visas and legal asylum in Mexico and saw that they were getting absolutely nowhere with Mexican officials. There were many reports on this, video accounts of their attempts to get papers, et cetera. Mexico was refusing them.

Even if so, why should we except hundreds of thousands of economic dead weight migrants who don't even speak that language that they need to get employed in the US?

Your great grandparents quite likely came to America as economic migrants unable to speak the language.

You missed. I am the first generation of my family living abroad. I came here legally loaded with high potential - high education, clean criminal record, no socially dangerous diseases.
An this is how it suppose to be.
And if my grandparents would be blessed to immigrate to this country they would not have a dime of freebies that ''refugees'' get plenty of these days. They would have survives on their own the best they could - just like millions of others who immigrated back in a day. You missed again.

Wow, you are so full of bogus talking points. Illegal immigrants are ineligible for federal "freebies" and as far as diseases we have a far bigger problem with nutty US citizen antivaxxers than we do with migrants.

DP. Are migrants vaccinated? Doubtful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ The right constantly changes its narrative and pretends the previous narrative never happened or that everyone else got it wrong. Maybe they think they can gaslight us with this bullshit, that we have a short memory or something. Not.
They only insult everyone's intelligence with their nonsense.

Interesting. Are you saying the Washington Post and NYT are reporting fake news? Still waiting for one of you to actually come out and say this. You're calling the reports "lies" - yet the sources are your usual go-to's. So who's lying here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ The right constantly changes its narrative and pretends the previous narrative never happened or that everyone else got it wrong. Maybe they think they can gaslight us with this bullshit, that we have a short memory or something. Not.
They only insult everyone's intelligence with their nonsense.

Or maybe they think the rest of us are just supposed to go along with their rationalizations as they contort themselves into pretzels to explain things away when they are busted for falsehoods.

Again: you are challenging what the NYT and WaPo reported? Or you just don't like that the rest of us know what's really going on at the border, thanks in large part to their reporting?