Millions of Illegal Aliens From All Over The World Head For U.S. Border

#1,301
#1,301
davethevol said:
Which just goes to show that this is incredibly organized and has very powerful people backing it. Our school systems are currently maxed out with funding due to hiring teachers specifically for working with children with special needs and those that don’t speak English. In Knoxville alone where our immigrant community is relatively small compared to other areas, the school system is financially at its limit. These children and their families will put a huge financial strain on the communities they move to should they get into the US.
Click to expand...


Its wealthy Jewish liberals. I heard about it from Trump and the GOP.
 
#1,302
#1,302
RockyTop85 said:
I guess I’d feel better about the tremendous expense of all of this if somebody other than Fox News and Donald Trump/Sarah Huckabee Sanders would actually make an argument for it being necessary. Admittedly, I’m not sure there’s anybody in this administration Washington that I’d really trust on something that’s become so politicized.

I can see sending them there now, that makes sense to me. But I’ve seen reports of 10,000 troops being deployed... it seems plausible that taxpayers are funding the republican midterm propaganda machine, which would irritate me.
Click to expand...


Plausible?

I'd call it dead certain.
 
#1,305
#1,305
lawgator1 said:
Plausible?

I'd call it dead certain.
Click to expand...

Well, there’s a difference between “I don’t agree with this” and “this is totally a taxpayer funded political stunt,” ala Mike Pence’s NFL walkout.

Since 911, the government has an unquestionable interest in controlling the flow of people into the country. Trump ran on the Wall and it helped get him elected, he just hasn’t managed to break ground, despite having control of the House and Senate... I’ve got no problem with him cracking down on illegal immigration since he promised his voters he would. I don’t even disagree with it, in moderation.

So, deploying troops is potentially warranted if there’s legitimate intelligence that this group could be a problem. Beginning that deployment now also makes sense to me as you probably need to get an idea of where you’re operating and what the mission is. So that’s why I used “plausible.”

The problem is that “legitimate intelligence” and this administration is a non sequitor (works on multiple levels). Most of the reports that this is some kind of armed MS-13 militia are coming from Fox News, which is close to Baghdad Bob levels of credibility at this point, or other partisan operatives. I saw a Chuck Grassley quote from the senate judiciary Twitter earlier, which was pretty savvy since I’m sure that account’s followers blew up, recently... but it also doesn’t pass the smell test in terms of credibility.

I’d like to hear from someone without a vested interest in the midterms that this expense makes sense.

FWIW, I’m sure there are some weapons in the group, they’re not traveling through the safest parts of the world and large groups of people in a foreign lands have historically been easy targets for bandits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeecherVol
#1,306
#1,306
RockyTop85 said:
Well, there’s a difference between “I don’t agree with this” and “this is totally a taxpayer funded political stunt,” ala Mike Pence’s NFL walkout.

Since 911, the government has an unquestionable interest in controlling the flow of people into the country. Trump ran on the Wall and it helped get him elected, he just hasn’t managed to break ground, despite having control of the House and Senate... I’ve got no problem with him cracking down on illegal immigration since he promised his voters he would. I don’t even disagree with it, in moderation.

So, deploying troops is potentially warranted if there’s legitimate intelligence that this group could be a problem. Beginning that deployment now also makes sense to me as you probably need to get an idea of where you’re operating and what the mission is. So that’s why I used “plausible.”

The problem is that “legitimate intelligence” and this administration is a non sequitor (works on multiple levels). Most of the reports that this is some kind of armed MS-13 militia are coming from Fox News, which is close to Baghdad Bob levels of credibility at this point, or other partisan operatives. I saw a Chuck Grassley quote from the senate judiciary Twitter earlier, which was pretty savvy since I’m sure that account’s followers blew up, recently... but it also doesn’t pass the smell test in terms of credibility.

I’d like to hear from someone without a vested interest in the midterms that this expense makes sense.

FWIW, I’m sure there are some weapons in the group, they’re not traveling through the safest parts of the world and large groups of people in a foreign lands have historically been easy targets for bandits.
Click to expand...

I’m sure we have some agents mixed in with them gathering intel.
 
#1,307
#1,307
RockyTop85 said:
Well, there’s a difference between “I don’t agree with this” and “this is totally a taxpayer funded political stunt,” ala Mike Pence’s NFL walkout.

Since 911, the government has an unquestionable interest in controlling the flow of people into the country. Trump ran on the Wall and it helped get him elected, he just hasn’t managed to break ground, despite having control of the House and Senate... I’ve got no problem with him cracking down on illegal immigration since he promised his voters he would. I don’t even disagree with it, in moderation.

So, deploying troops is potentially warranted if there’s legitimate intelligence that this group could be a problem. Beginning that deployment now also makes sense to me as you probably need to get an idea of where you’re operating and what the mission is. So that’s why I used “plausible.”

The problem is that “legitimate intelligence” and this administration is a non sequitor (works on multiple levels). Most of the reports that this is some kind of armed MS-13 militia are coming from Fox News, which is close to Baghdad Bob levels of credibility at this point, or other partisan operatives. I saw a Chuck Grassley quote from the senate judiciary Twitter earlier, which was pretty savvy since I’m sure that account’s followers blew up, recently... but it also doesn’t pass the smell test in terms of credibility.

I’d like to hear from someone without a vested interest in the midterms that this expense makes sense.

FWIW, I’m sure there are some weapons in the group, they’re not traveling through the safest parts of the world and large groups of people in a foreign lands have historically been easy targets for bandits.
Click to expand...
Would be nice. Im not sure where you find that tho.
 
#1,311
#1,311
SpaceCoastVol said:
They get put to work building the wall.
Click to expand...

Really, though. We detain them, and put them in compounds. What's the next move? Do we spend even more taxpayer dollars shipping them back? That'll be tremendously expensive. Do we give them an opportunity to apply for citizenship? Do we ****in' kill 'em?
 
#1,312
#1,312
DinkinFlicka said:
Really, though. We detain them, and put them in compounds. What's the next move? Do we spend even more taxpayer dollars shipping them back? That'll be tremendously expensive. Do we give them an opportunity to apply for citizenship? Do we ****in' kill 'em?
Click to expand...
Put them to work earning their citizenship. I am guessing lots of masons in that group.
 
#1,314
#1,314
GAVol said:
So, now some of the refugees have filed a class action lawsuit against the US government for violation of the 5th amendment. Remarkable that an impromptu caravan of migrants walking across Mexico found an attorney like that.
Click to expand...

What? Can someone please explain to me how non-citizens can claim the rights of a citizen? That makes no sense.
 
#1,320
#1,320
RockyTop85 said:
Well, there’s a difference between “I don’t agree with this” and “this is totally a taxpayer funded political stunt,” ala Mike Pence’s NFL walkout.

Since 911, the government has an unquestionable interest in controlling the flow of people into the country. Trump ran on the Wall and it helped get him elected, he just hasn’t managed to break ground, despite having control of the House and Senate... I’ve got no problem with him cracking down on illegal immigration since he promised his voters he would. I don’t even disagree with it, in moderation.

So, deploying troops is potentially warranted if there’s legitimate intelligence that this group could be a problem. Beginning that deployment now also makes sense to me as you probably need to get an idea of where you’re operating and what the mission is. So that’s why I used “plausible.”

The problem is that “legitimate intelligence” and this administration is a non sequitor (works on multiple levels). Most of the reports that this is some kind of armed MS-13 militia are coming from Fox News, which is close to Baghdad Bob levels of credibility at this point, or other partisan operatives. I saw a Chuck Grassley quote from the senate judiciary Twitter earlier, which was pretty savvy since I’m sure that account’s followers blew up, recently... but it also doesn’t pass the smell test in terms of credibility.

I’d like to hear from someone without a vested interest in the midterms that this expense makes sense.

FWIW, I’m sure there are some weapons in the group, they’re not traveling through the safest parts of the world and large groups of people in a foreign lands have historically been easy targets for bandits.
Click to expand...

from DHS, take it for what it's worth: Myth vs. Fact: Caravan
 
  • Like
Reactions: ETV and RockyTop85
#1,321
#1,321
DinkinFlicka said:
Really, though. We detain them, and put them in compounds. What's the next move? Do we spend even more taxpayer dollars shipping them back? That'll be tremendously expensive. Do we give them an opportunity to apply for citizenship? Do we ****in' kill 'em?
Click to expand...
Why not?
 
#1,323
#1,323
DinkinFlicka said:
Really, though. We detain them, and put them in compounds. What's the next move? Do we spend even more taxpayer dollars shipping them back? That'll be tremendously expensive. Do we give them an opportunity to apply for citizenship? Do we ****in' kill 'em?
Click to expand...
If we deny asylum or they accept voluntary deportation we already foot the bill to send them back Dink. Involuntary too for that matter.

And the only reason we would detain them is if they violated our border laws. Finally applying for citizenship isn’t just walking up and filling out a form.

As many have said, myself included, any individual that approaches a US CBP agent and makes an asylum claim should be honored and researched. And that’s our process. But we won’t automatically grant asylum just because they claim it.
 
#1,325
#1,325
NorthDallas40 said:
If we deny asylum or they accept voluntary deportation we already foot the bill to send them back Dink. Involuntary too for that matter.

And the only reason we would detain them is if they violated our border laws. Finally applying for citizenship isn’t just walking up and filling out a form.

As many have said, myself included, any individual that approaches a US CBP agent and makes an asylum claim should be honored and researched. And that’s our process. But we won’t automatically grant asylum just because they claim it.
Click to expand...

I am aware of our laws and processes, but we haven't exactly encountered this sort of situation before. You saw how they crossed orders on their way to here. I imagine there will be a mass detainment. My question is what is to be done afterwards.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top