The people marching to the boarder ???

[DC Tom]

24 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I can't disagree with you but in the meantime our lack of immigration reform is killing us. What about the judge's ruling last year re DACA that took away any leverage Trump had to come up with some real reform? So now it's a "temporary" injunction for a month and then to rule on a permanent injunction. How long will this take to reach SCOTUS? They may rule that requiring the illegal aliens to enter through a port of entry is no more than the administration creating rules to insure an orderly process.

 

It's only right that we fix this immigration mess and not make sneaking into our country a viable way to become a resident. The courts have systematically ruled to take any reason away for any democrat cooperation. What do we need, a civil ***** war?

 

The DACA decision was *****.  A president can't rescind a department memo from a previous administration?  There was absolutely no legal basis for that decision.  It was strictly "Rescinding DACA is not nice, and Trump is a racist."

 

And ultimately, it's not the court's job to provide the president with leverage against Congress.  It is their job to rule on the law...which delegates the authority to the president to make the decisions Trump is making.  If the courts are going to judge that Trump shouldn't make those decisions, they should be ruling the law is unconstitutional, not Orange Man Bad.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

The DACA decision was *****.  A president can't rescind a department memo from a previous administration?  There was absolutely no legal basis for that decision.  It was strictly "Rescinding DACA is not nice, and Trump is a racist."

 

And ultimately, it's not the court's job to provide the president with leverage against Congress.  It is their job to rule on the law...which delegates the authority to the president to make the decisions Trump is making.  If the courts are going to judge that Trump shouldn't make those decisions, they should be ruling the law is unconstitutional, not Orange Man Bad.

It's not the court's job to take away leverage that is constitutionally in the President's purview.

[BeginnersMind]

21 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

That's some real weakshit right there. The dems were willing to give Trump what he wanted re the wall, chain migration and the lottery. Trump was willing to give the dems DACA protection for nearly 3 times the amount that they originally wanted. It was a done deal until a judge ruled that Trump couldn't rescind Obama's illegal EO. Don't forget about the 60 votes needed in the Senate and the fact that the R's were split in the House. Keep up playing stupid though, it seems like it comes natural.

 

Do you think Congress did it’s job? I don’t. 

 

I blame both parties. Both. The Ds refuse to be reasonable. The Rs are divided. Compromise is a curse word. So Trump tried to overstep in order to get something done and a court rapped his knuckles. 

 

Congress doesn’t get it: There is only us. Not them. 

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Do you think Congress did it’s job? I don’t. 

 

I blame both parties. Both. The Ds refuse to be reasonable. The Rs are divided. Compromise is a curse word. So Trump tried to overstep in order to get something done and a court rapped his knuckles. 

 

Congress doesn’t get it: There is only us. Not them. 

No, you just don't understand. The court ruled on something that they had no right to rule on. Congress was not controlled by the R's. I explained that to you already.

[IDBillzFan]

41 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

If only one party had controlled Congress and the executive for two years.

 

And chose to deal with immigration instead of ass-f+ckling the country with the Affordable Care Act.

 

What could have been, I guess.

[DC Tom]

26 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

It's not the court's job to take away leverage that is constitutionally in the President's purview.

 

It's not the court's job to worry about anyone's leverage over anyone else either way.  The court's DACA decision was wrong on its face, for reasons having jack ***** to do with the balance of powers between Congress and the Executive.

[outsidethebox]

So, what does this new order by the judge actually mean? Will they have to let everyone in now?

[keepthefaith]

This "situation" is one of the most ridiculous political clusters of my lifetime.  Utterly ridiculous. 

[leonbus23]

On 10/18/2018 at 10:21 AM, mead107 said:

Who is supplying all the water and food that they need for the long march?  

 

No one saying anything about it. 

You don’T see them walking with wagons or carts of water or food. 

 

I realized you asked this a month ago, but I just noticed the thread. 

 

First of all, I live about 15 minutes from Tijuana and do work with three groups (Border Angels, SOLACE, and Desert Eagles), which provide various types of support for migrant workers. I have traveled a lot along the California and Arizona border to collect data (formally and informally) about this situation. If you are interested in knowing about migration, travel to Ajo or Arivaca, Arizona and talk to the Border Patrol and long time residents. Finally, just to interject a quick opinion, the coverage of this issue from both liberal and conservative media is inaccurate, propagandist, and sensationalized, to say the least. 

 

To answer your question:

 

1. The groups of migrants who travel together NEVER exceeds 50-75 people.

2. These small groups are generally disorganized. So, the media image of an organized group of migrants carrying a flag, etc. is complete and total misinformation. 

3. This has been happening for decades. This is nothing new or unprecedented.

4. Simply put, migrants from Central America and Mexico have been regularly migrating to the US since the early 20th century, but more specifically since, neoliberal economics became powerful in the 1980s. 

5. There are two ways to enter the US from Latin America. 1) Through the desert. 2) By getting asylum. The five other legal ways, besides asylum, are simply impossible for 99.9% of migrants. So, asylum is the ONLY LEGAL WAY. 

6. Those who decide to go to a border crossing seek asylum. 

 

With that background, to answer finally answer your question:

 

Migrants generally save up money, usually about $2000-3000 and follow established routes led by coyotes  (human smugglers or traffickers). Most of the money is paid to the coyotes, who guide the migrants to established "safe houses" for food, etc. and mainly to the train route through Mexico, to the border and through the desert. So, the food and water is paid for by the migrants. There are also church groups and other charity groups that provide food and beds to migrants along the path. Those who go through the desert much be far more secretive and rely on the coyotes (who are generally awful people that exploit the migrants).  Whereas the groups seeking asylum can be more overt about movement, since they attempt to cross legally. It is a long and treacherous journey, particularly for those who plan to cross the desert. 

 

What the media misses or distorts:

 

1. The media never discusses who benefits most from migrant labor. Corporations in meat, agriculture and construction profit tremendously because of undocumented labor. Tyson chicken even closed its plants on the day that undocumented workers organized to stay home from work. Obviously, this major savings in labor benefits ordinary consumers. But these giant multinationals benefit the most.

2. US neocolonialism and military involvement in Central America. This is one of the direct reasons why migrants leave Central America. The US has basically taken their resources over the past two centuries and transformed their economies, and cultures from subsistence farming to single crop farming and from mainly rural dwellers to city factory workers. Every attempt to nationalize or transform their economies to benefit the nation and its people have met US military or economic interference. Thus, Guatemala, Salvador,  Nicaragua, and Honduras, (not to mention Panama), have no real autonomy over their own economy. The US starved these nations and now the only real option is to head North. 

3. The guns and drugs. The US supplies the guns to the drug cartels and gangs in Central America and Mexico. We manufacture about 13,000,000 guns a year and 3/4 of the guns used in the drug wars are US weapons. We are the consumers of the drugs manufactured in these nations. Since the US starved out this population and made opportunities for legal and safe labor almost impossible, people survive through the black market economy. Hence, people seek asylum and work in the US because the US is responsible for the guns and drugs. 

4.  Since 9/11, the US created stricter enforcement of entering the country legally and illegally. It may surprise many that deportations increased tremendously during the Obama administration and the presence of border patrol increased tremendously during the Obama admin. It seems that the Liberal media wants to keep this quiet to safeguard Obama's reputation and the Conservative media keeps this quiet to attach Obama to "open boarders". Also, since 2005, more Mexicans leave the US then enter. 

 

Anyway, I thought I would provide this information to you. I urge people who want to actually know about this issue to come to the border region and talk to the people and the Border Patrol. 

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/31/u-s-immigrant-deportations-declined-in-2014-but-remain-near-record-high/

 

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-dilemma-reconciling-tough-humane-enforcement

 

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/

 

 

[3rdnlng]

14 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It's not the court's job to worry about anyone's leverage over anyone else either way.  The court's DACA decision was wrong on its face, for reasons having jack ***** to do with the balance of powers between Congress and the Executive.

The court's DACA decision was not only wrong but its consequences took away Trump's leverage to get a deal done.

[Buffalo_Gal]

47 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

It's not the court's job to take away leverage that is constitutionally in the President's purview.

I agree. 

[DC Tom]

19 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

The court's DACA decision was not only wrong but its consequences took away Trump's leverage to get a deal done.

 

And it's not something the court should have concerned itself with either way.  

 

Really...you're arguing that the court should have sided with Trump to force Congress to legislate?  That's progressive-level stupid.  

[3rdnlng]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

And it's not something the court should have concerned itself with either way.  

 

Really...you're arguing that the court should have sided with Trump to force Congress to legislate?  That's progressive-level stupid.  

No, I'm not arguing any such thing. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm simply stating that the consequences of the court decision was to take away Trump's leverage. Now, with that said, they very well may have known what the consequences would be.

[DC Tom]

10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

No, I'm not arguing any such thing. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm simply stating that the consequences of the court decision was to take away Trump's leverage. Now, with that said, they very well may have known what the consequences would be.

 

Yes, it was.  So what?  

[Cinga]

3 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

The ruling is, however, an entirely accurate and appropriate reading of immigration law and Constitutional law.

 

Immigration law is broken, it's not the courts' responsibility to fix it.  You can't simultaneously support the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations and be against this ruling without being hypocritical.

Say what?

So you're arguing that for Trump to issue an EO declaring only crossing at LEGAL checkpoints to seek asylum was ILLEGAL? And that now we have to LEGALLY consider asylum to anyone who crosses our border ILLEGALLY?

 

Does anyone else recognize the insanity of all this?

[DC Tom]

33 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Say what?

So you're arguing that for Trump to issue an EO declaring only crossing at LEGAL checkpoints to seek asylum was ILLEGAL? And that now we have to LEGALLY consider asylum to anyone who crosses our border ILLEGALLY?

 

Does anyone else recognize the insanity of all this?

 

I'm not saying that.  8 USC 1158 says that:

 

Quote

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

 

Trump can't override that with an EO.  That's a crystal-clear written statute, and the judge's order was entirely correct.

 

And yes, that means your illegal crossing can retroactively become legal by claiming and being granted asylum.  

[Cinga]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'm not saying that.  8 USC 1158 says that:

 

 

Trump can't override that with an EO.  That's a crystal-clear written statute, and the judge's order was entirely correct.

 

And yes, that means your illegal crossing can retroactively become legal by claiming and being granted asylum.  

Thank you for giving me the code so I didn't have to look for it.... Here is the part of it we tend to ignore....
 

Quote

 

(2) Exceptions

(A) In general

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that—

(i) the alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion;

(ii) the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of the United States;

(iii) there are serious reasons for believing that the alien has committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States prior to the arrival of the alien in the United States; (iv) there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States;

(v) the alien is described in subclause (I), (II), (III), (IV), or (VI) of section 1182(a)(3)(B)(i) of this title or section 1227(a)(4)(B) of this title (relating to terrorist activity), unless, in the case only of an alien described in subclause (IV) of section 1182(a)(3)(B)(i) of this title, the Attorney General determines, in the Attorney General’s discretion, that there are not reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States; or

(vi) the alien was firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States.

(B) Special rules

(i) Conviction of aggravated felony For purposes of clause

(ii) of subparagraph (A), an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony shall be considered to have been convicted of a particularly serious crime.

(ii) Offenses

The Attorney General may designate by regulation offenses that will be considered to be a crime described in clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A).

(C) Additional limitations

The Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph (1). (D) No judicial review There shall be no judicial review of a determination of the Attorney General under subparagraph (A)(v). 

 

 

The code specifies a number of rules here, but I love the bolded part I think for obvious reasons... We know Sessions when AG declared crossing the border illegally would not be tolerated and a violation of the law.

My favorite part is (D) though.... Yes... The Judge overstepped his authority... 

[B-Man]

 

They were 'misled' , in every sense of the word.

Conditions worsen at shelter as more migrants approach Tijuana by Rafael Carranza

Original Article

TIJUANA, Mexico — Migrants stranded in Tijuana are complaining about cramped living spaces, exposure to the cold at night, limited access to food and safety concerns. The makeshift shelter they´ve been living in for almost a week is nearing capacity, and more migrants are on the way to this border community. More than 2,500 migrants, hailing mostly from Honduras and to a lesser extent from other Central American countries and Mexico, are staying at Unidad Deportiva Benito Juárez, a sports complex in Tijuana´s north end. Another 3,400 are in nearby Mexicali, about 90 miles away, according to the state officials.

[Chef Jim]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

They were 'misled' , in every sense of the word.

Conditions worsen at shelter as more migrants approach Tijuana by Rafael Carranza

Original Article

TIJUANA, Mexico — Migrants stranded in Tijuana are complaining about cramped living spaces, exposure to the cold at night, limited access to food and safety concerns. The makeshift shelter they´ve been living in for almost a week is nearing capacity, and more migrants are on the way to this border community. More than 2,500 migrants, hailing mostly from Honduras and to a lesser extent from other Central American countries and Mexico, are staying at Unidad Deportiva Benito Juárez, a sports complex in Tijuana´s north end. Another 3,400 are in nearby Mexicali, about 90 miles away, according to the state officials.

 

Cry me a ***** river..........

[keepthefaith]

20 hours ago, Cinga said:

Thank you for giving me the code so I didn't have to look for it.... Here is the part of it we tend to ignore....
 

 

The code specifies a number of rules here, but I love the bolded part I think for obvious reasons... We know Sessions when AG declared crossing the border illegally would not be tolerated and a violation of the law.

My favorite part is (D) though.... Yes... The Judge overstepped his authority... 

 

Solid work.