U.S. military may send up to 1,000 troops to Mexico border

[nausea]

Not so many and, after Mexico's offer, not a leg to stand on. Turn them around, send them home. I wouldn't deny anyone asylum who was in genuine fear but these guys are economic migrants. The problem is that they are flooding the market, and the guys and gals who have a real problem (apart from being poor) are geting overlooked.

[Scott]

5 hours ago, nausea said:

Not so many and, after Mexico's offer, not a leg to stand on. Turn them around, send them home. I wouldn't deny anyone asylum who was in genuine fear but these guys are economic migrants. The problem is that they are flooding the market, and the guys and gals who have a real problem (apart from being poor) are geting overlooked.

There is no law that says a person cannot travel through one country to get to another to apply for asylum.   It is strongly encouraged that they go to the first safe country and apply for asylum, but not doing so does not deny anyone the right to apply.  

 

Many countries are violating their own laws in allowing people to enter and travel the country without a proper visa.   Hondurans need a visa.   Guatemalans, with some exceptions, need a visa.   I don't know how easy or difficult or how long it takes, but I wonder what the legal status is of many of those traveling through Mexico.  

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

A wall is unnecessary, impractical, hugely expensive, and also an environmental problem for some animals such bears and jaguars. And don’t start with the posse commitatus rubbish it does not prevent the military from protecting the border. The caravans of economic migrants can present themselves at checkpoints or ports of entry as allowed by law to be evaluated for their false (mostly) asylum claims. Meanwhile everything sneaking in on two legs to face anything up to and including deadly force without further notice.

USA already has the most capable and overfunded Military in the world why not use it?

I thought the US military was busy defending western Europe because Europe doesn't want to pay for its own military, besides, who would want to join up if all they were going to do was chase illegal immigrants on the border. Seriously, soldiers are trained to kill people, not round up people that can't be shot. That is why they have an actual border force to do that, but it's probably lacking in numbers to do the job.

 

BTW, if walls are so unnecessary, why does Israel have one?

 

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

if walls are so unnecessary

A wall won't stop this:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

I thought the US military was busy defending western Europe because Europe doesn't want to pay for its own military, besides, who would want to join up if all they were going to do was chase illegal immigrants on the border. Seriously, soldiers are trained to kill people, not round up people that can't be shot. That is why they have an actual border force to do that, but it's probably lacking in numbers to do the job.
 
BTW, if walls are so unnecessary, why does Israel have one?
 

Who said they can’t be shot? Israel’s problem border areas are not comparable to a 3145km frontier covering vast deserts and Mountain regions.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[metisdead]

A troll post has been removed. 

[55Jay]

3 hours ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

Who said they can’t be shot? Israel’s problem border areas are not comparable to a 3145km frontier covering vast deserts and Mountain regions.
 

No, they can't be shot, at least not under existing law and use of force RoE.

 

Israel's border isn't really a comparable scenario, but that wasn't the point being made.   The point was a wall/fence is a Line of Demarcation (LOD) which serves several purposes.

 

The US Military is made up of all sorts of talent and ability beyond trigger pulling.  It is the "Go To" Org for for all sorts of missions and tasking, up to and including political kabuki theater - which is what this is.

 

DHS/Border Patrol already has non-sworn logistics/infrastructure support staff of their own.  If DHS really needed the extra help, they could simply short-term SAP contract it in.   But that's not the point.  The point is to create a big Dog and Pony show about this on television and Twitter and screw over 800-1,000 active duty US military personnel for total bulls**t; some of them may even be on their USA/Home time between overseas deployments.

[55Jay]

Shit! 

 

Maybe it^ conceded to both sides a bit too much, so it threw everyone off? 

 

I mean really, if you're not a blue blooded hard core lefty, or a racist, homophobic religitard with an AR-15 -thus you don't belong in either tribe- then you are NOT keeping up with society's requirements.  Especially FaceBook. 

[mcambl61]

On 10/29/2018 at 6:19 AM, Srikcir said:

A wall won't stop this:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

deportation. penalties and jail for felony Identity fraud will.

an estimated 20+ million illegals are in the country and the congress

has let it pass for decades.

set the number to be pardoned, allow them to join the armed services 

for those who want to really be here legally. all others, out

[mcambl61]

19 hours ago, 55Jay said:

No, they can't be shot, at least not under existing law and use of force RoE.

 

Israel's border isn't really a comparable scenario, but that wasn't the point being made.   The point was a wall/fence is a Line of Demarcation (LOD) which serves several purposes.

 

The US Military is made up of all sorts of talent and ability beyond trigger pulling.  It is the "Go To" Org for for all sorts of missions and tasking, up to and including political kabuki theater - which is what this is.

 

DHS/Border Patrol already has non-sworn logistics/infrastructure support staff of their own.  If DHS really needed the extra help, they could simply short-term SAP contract it in.   But that's not the point.  The point is to create a big Dog and Pony show about this on television and Twitter and screw over 800-1,000 active duty US military personnel for total bulls**t; some of them may even be on their USA/Home time between overseas deployments.

Providing logistical and surveillance support will be very helpful, as will building tent cities to detain, feed and deport the illegal entries. no reason we could not set up additional Judges there for immediate case decisions.

 

So i see it as a very useful short term solution and more importantly, a deterrent to more abuse.

[Scott]

A post violating Fair Use Policy has been removed along with replies.  

 

[bristolboy]

 

 

46 minutes ago, NaamGin said:

If you really wanted to know where he got his information, it only takes a few seconds to get thousands of search results.

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/nearly-20m-illegal-immigrants-us-ex-border-patrol/

https://www.cairco.org/issues/how-many-illegal-aliens-reside-united-states-elbel

https://www.capsweb.org/press-releases/illegal-aliens-estimated-20-38-million

 

Some estimates are that there are close to 38 million illegals residing in the US. None of these estimates are accurate, as illegals are likely to not answer the question correctly when asked about their residency status. 

 

As far as your reference to the Pew Research Center, they, like every other poll regarding the 2016 elections were wrong for a variety of reasons. At this point, I don't trust any of them. 

 

The long and the short answer is that there are too many illegals in the US, for whatever reason, regardless of your politics. I only wish the US was as tough on visa violations and illegals in the country as Thailand. 

 

 

Nice reliable sources you got there. The cairco says says it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume 40 million!

But of course, what lies behind your position is neatly summed up by this: 

"The long and the short answer is that there are too many illegals in the US... for whatever reason, regardless of your politics. I only wish the US was as tough on visa violations and illegals in the country as Thailand. "

Why are there too many? Does the harm outweigh the benefit? by any rational Illegal immigraton has long since stablized in the USA after the surge in the late 90's. And this was the time when crime rates were plummeting in the USA.

And then there's the question of resources. All sorts of ilegal activities take place in the USA. Why devote so many resources to this particulara class which is not a crime against persons or property?

[bristolboy]

14 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

yeah Bristolboy gets emotional and irrational. 

a conservative estimate in 2016 was 16.7 Million according to this study:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201193

 regardless, the entire system has been abused and the congress has failed

to make policies to make it any better, in fact, worse.

 

some people want to pretend this is ok, proves the country's sympathy and heart, and they will never tell you how much Legal immigration should be set and controlled and why. 

 

 

 

In the age of the internet you can find whatever answers you like. The question is how many resources were employed to come up with an estimate. And I love the chart they had which cites 22.7 million as the average estimate. I guess if include all the right wing offthe-cuff "analyses" you could come up with a number like that.

And as for being "emotional and Irrational", is that how you describe someone who uses evidence and logic to back up assertions? Sure you're not projecting?

[nick]

5,200 active duty acc. to the latest.

 

[billd766]

36 minutes ago, nick said:

5,200 active duty acc. to the latest.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46026050

[NanLaew]

On 10/26/2018 at 2:15 AM, webfact said:

The U.S. border wall with Mexico is seen from the United States in Nogales, Arizona September 12, 2018.

You're gonna need a bigger wall.

[NanLaew]

On 10/28/2018 at 4:16 PM, Scott said:

There is no law that says a person cannot travel through one country to get to another to apply for asylum.   It is strongly encouraged that they go to the first safe country and apply for asylum, but not doing so does not deny anyone the right to apply.  

Yeah... and the caravan ultimately wants to go to Canada anyway so why the 'merican hissy fit?