OHH the POOR Migrants in the Caravans! Look what their countrymen say about them!

They can walk thousands of miles but are just in awful place of evil and are so afraid.....Hate to say it but they are gonna have a hard time getting a job in retail...Retail jobs are dying. Anyone knows some have stolen babies and some have crimes on them.I believe the majority would be kind people.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
Here's what I do know: seeking asylum isn't a crime, and -- by law -- it must be sought at a designated port-of-entry. In other words, people who knock and apply to come in via the asylum system might be an expensive PITA, no doubt, but that's the system we put in place.

And that's why we need to rethink this.

"if we claim asylum they have to let us in!"

"No more crossing the border and running from La Migra!?"

"No!"

originally posted by: AtlasHawk
a reply to: Bloodworth

No doubt the Weed Man Brotha Justin Trudeau would welcome them with open arms

Canada nearly ran out of pot that first day, so at the very least he's welcome the ones bringing more with them.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Yeah send some of 'em up to the East Coast we're goin' dry.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The left don't care that the majority of these "ILLEGAL immigrants" are career criminals...
They don't care that there are barely any children in this caravan...
They don't care that the majority of these "ILLEGAL immigrants" will increase the debt of the U.S. which will leave less money for our own citizens and legal aliens who do need help right here at home...

The left only cares that these "majority CRIMINALS" will vote democrat in the future, and if they were to be allowed in the country they would be counted for the census of whatever Liberal state that receives them, and this gives those democrats more money to spend on these criminals, which also enriches criminal democrats like Pelosi, Waters, etc, who somehow make more money than what they actually make as Senators/representatives...

The democrat leadership doesn't have to see these "majority CRIMINALS" illegals in their multi-millionaire neighborhood. Instead the regular Joes, and Janes will be the ones who will pay for this, and will suffer the increase in crime in their neighborhoods...

a reply to: Jobeycool

Yeah...because "kind people" break fences, destroy private property, attack police officers, forcefully and illegally enter countries just because they want... If the majority of these people are more than willing to break the law of a country and enter it illegally, they are more than likely to also commit "break and entering" in people's houses, and other crimes...

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Yawn. Your anti-immigrant rhetoric is subversive to the Constitution of the United States of America. You can’t preach freedom and then have the cajones to try to deny it.
The caravan and the asylum is going to happen and it will continue to happen. There isn’t # you can do about it, either.
In two years, we’re going to elect a different President and start making laws that offend people like you.
I can’t wait.

a reply to: ColdChillin
Not that I'm for the amending/updating of the Constitution (mainly due to the fact that we don't have anyone remotely close to being on par with them and it's pretty close to perfect as is) - but I'm quite confident in my opinion that the founding fathers that wrote it would themselves be willing to concede that it could do with a servicing to accommodate for the context of today (if they were around).

I mean let's be real... what was the population back then when the Constitution was written? We're talking about two completely different worlds, that's changing ever more, especially with the saturation of more and more illegal immigrants that have no respect for the Constitution or the values the nation was founded upon.

You can't honestly expect to just keep letting everyone in and not have a degradation of society. There's got to be an optimal point at which - perhaps not a complete closure of borders - but at the least a start at properly enforcing the existing border/immigration laws and stemming the influx of illegals just waltzing right over at their leisure.

The Constitution was written by men that considered a lot of possibilities - but there was no way they could have foreseen all that has come to pass. At some point amendments will have to be made. I just hope when the time comes, the decisions will not be dictated by partisan politics -- lest it becomes a bad habit.

I thought ALL LIVES MATTER lol

I thought ALL LIVES MATTER lol

a reply to: Navieko

I just hope when the time comes, the decisions will not be dictated by partisan politics -- lest it becomes a bad habit.

The process seems pretty well proofed against such.

when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof,

High standard. But in these times, who knows.

originally posted by: ColdChillin
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Yawn. Your anti-immigrant rhetoric is subversive to the Constitution of the United States of America. You can’t preach freedom and then have the cajones to try to deny it.
The caravan and the asylum is going to happen and it will continue to happen. There isn’t # you can do about it, either.
In two years, we’re going to elect a different President and start making laws that offend people like you.
I can’t wait.

Keep dreaming pinky. I've never seen a political party in my life as whack and lacking depth as the democratic party currently is. I'm guessing you would fall into the category of left of center (within your own party that is), meaning you are more liberal than the center line of your party, is that correct or not?

You do know that there are more and more people from your party who are right of center (again, within your party) leaving every day, some leave for the libertarian or republican parties and others claim independent. The thing is that when it comes to presidential elections the vast majority (who left) will most likely vote Republican if for no other reason than a vote against the Democrats. Sure there will be some that vote 3rd party, but it matters not as long as they don't vote Dem.

The same thing described above happened after Bush, where we had Obama thrust upon us. People have learned the dirty tricks the dems pull all while claiming victimhood. Maybe you don't yet see it, I know it took me some time to wake up to the lies of the party - and I by no means am saying the other side doesn't lie, there are just different issues they lie about.

I've never been against allowing immigrants into the US, only a more moderate/conservative approach with certain groups/countries when there is legitimate fear of infiltration by foreign enemies - OR when they do it illegally.

So what would you say if 45 million immigrants crossed the border illegally, 95% with a 4th grade education or less, from a violent culture, 30-40% with felony records, and about 25% being women planning to have as many babies as possible as soon as they get here? Is that OK to you? do we owe them entry? If not, what is the number where it becomes not OK, or if that number is OK, then what about 145 million people all at once?

originally posted by: LtFluffyCakes96
I'm from California, I'm 21 and I vote. I can confirm with what you say.
We don't need this caravan coming here, we already have enough # to deal with.

Yeah but if you'd actually read the OP, right at the very start it says the CA they are referring to here in Central America! Looks like you just read the title.


To the OP
Do you have any screenshots of the Google translated comments? Not saying I don't believe you in the slightest. My Internet connectivity is shady just now and it would tKe me hour to find anything.

I figured there would be at least a criminal element in among them.

What are the other comments saying? The ones who aren't against the caravan, for reference.

originally posted by: ColdChillin
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Yawn. Your anti-immigrant rhetoric is subversive to the Constitution of the United States of America. You can’t preach freedom and then have the cajones to try to deny it.
The caravan and the asylum is going to happen and it will continue to happen. There isn’t # you can do about it, either.
In two years, we’re going to elect a different President and start making laws that offend people like you.
I can’t wait.

No, this caravan will get Trump re-elected. Book it.

a reply to: LtFluffyCakes96

My condolences that your vote barely matters in California, even in local matters.

I lived the first 19 years of my life in Kern County, which is a "red" county, and still, when it comes to state and national elections, the will of these people (and most of the people in the San Joaquin Valley) is drowned out by the highly-concentrated liberal coastal regions. It's a sad reality, because the lifestyles, needs, concerns, and desires of the two different areas differ substantially, but only one voice generally gets heard.

It's sad watching California shoot itself in the foot while on a boat and not realize that the bullet when through the boat, too.

originally posted by: ColdChillin
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Yawn. Your anti-immigrant rhetoric is subversive to the Constitution of the United States of America. You can’t preach freedom and then have the cajones to try to deny it.

Actually, you can, and that's how amendments to the Constitution were born and ratified. Not everything in the Constitution embraces free

The caravan and the asylum is going to happen and it will continue to happen. There isn’t # you can do about it, either.

Actually, it is specifically spelled out in immigration regulations that the president can stop immigration for any person or group of people for any reason that he deems fit. And there isn't sh*t that you can do about it, either.

In two years, we’re going to elect a different President and start making laws that offend people like you.
I can’t wait.

Yay! I have encountered a real-life psychic. Tell me my future, Mr. Psychic Man...I trust everything that you say!

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
I have no idea what to believe about anyone outside of my own monkeysphere, but...

It *feels* like such a compelling argument, but I find it odd that those who believe in a "deep state" and "complicit media" in their own country are so quick to believe propaganda from another. Especially when they openly consider those countries to be "s-holes" in the first place.

Here's what I do know: seeking asylum isn't a crime, and -- by law -- it must be sought at a designated port-of-entry. In other words, people who knock and apply to come in via the asylum system might be an expensive PITA, no doubt, but that's the system we put in place.

It feels weird to get so worked up about it, to be honest, but I recognize my monkeybias driving that feeling. I wonder if the other monkeys recognize that too?

This is a purely semantic game you've been sold by people who don't care about the facts.

One applies for asylum in order to be granted refugee status. That's what asylum is. Applying in person at the border of said country for refugee status. That's the definition.

What it completely ignores is that one can also seek refugee status from an embassy or UNHCR site. There are multiple sites and embassy in Central America/Mexico. It just isn't "asylum", because by definition, is the process of seeking status while you're already here.

"Let's go to a restaurant and get pizza."
" We could have them deliver instead of going out. "
"You can't go out to eat to have pizza unless you actually go to a restaurant"
" Well, sure, because 'going out to eat' by definition means 'going to a restaurant', but we can still get the same pizza delivered"
"Everyone knows you need to go to a restaurant to go out to eat"


It's just a semantic game to confuse people who don't know what asylum is.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
Here's what I do know: seeking asylum isn't a crime, and -- by law -- it must be sought at a designated port-of-entry. In other words, people who knock and apply to come in via the asylum system might be an expensive PITA, no doubt, but that's the system we put in place.

It's only not a crime when it's done legally, as you point out. That said, a group of thousands of people seeking asylum are obviously employing the whole safety-in-numbers mentality. Here's the thing--this is a group of people who have already broken immigration laws in at least two other countries on their way here.

To think that they are suddenly going to become law-abiding angels once they hit our border is naïve at best, and criminally negligent at worst (if that mentality were to be used by those tasked with protecting our borders).

Furthermore, the POTUS has the enumerated authority to deny immigration to any person or group as he deems appropriate per our immigration laws, so while you cite one small part of our immigration system, there is more to it than that.

It feels weird to get so worked up about it, to be honest, but I recognize my monkeybias driving that feeling. I wonder if the other monkeys recognize that too?

This monkey has lived in an area of California (and have family in even more southern areas nearly touching the Mexican border) and have seen what an influx and overflow of immigrants--legal or not--can do to these places, and generally speaking, it's not a good thing.

You can pretend that our opinions are derived or dependent upon biases, but some of us monkeys have researched pretty deeply the pros and cons of immigration and what large influxes of these people do to our border states and beyond.

Just for an example: Say that a group of just a few hundred are let through at a relatively similar date. Many of these hundreds of people who have just made that massive trek through Central America are now in need of some form of health care or medical attention, so they go to the emergency rooms of the nearest hospitals to seek treatment with the understanding that our emergency rooms cannot turn away patients.

These people have no jobs, presumably no money (that they have to disclose), and no medical insurance, so now the hospital is out hundreds of thousands of dollars in a very short amount of time...not to disregard the trickle of similar instances that will follow as more may be let into the country.

This is a small example, but a very big issue in border towns and states, where emergency rooms are abused by illegal immigrants (amongst other people as well). There are myriad more issues that I could bring up, but I doubt that it's necessary.

ETA: And please don't get me started on the exploitation of the desperate, immigrant worker. I have seen with my own eyes how terribly many/most of these workers are treated. It's akin to indentured servitude, which is illegal.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
What it completely ignores is that one can also seek refugee status from an embassy or UNHCR site. There are multiple sites and embassy in Central America/Mexico. It just isn't "asylum", because by definition, is the process of seeking status while you're already here.

You have your information slightly wrong: An individual cannot apply for asylum nor refugee status at U.S. embassies abroad--I know, because I recently researched that exact question.

At U.S. Embassies, they CAN apply for temporary refuge from immediate danger associated with things for which one can seek asylum, and from there they can possibly be referred to the U.S. Refugee Admission Program. However, embassies do not have the authority to grant refugee status proper. This only happens, though, under extreme circumstances.

Unfortunately, U.S. embassies and consulates cannot process requests for [asylum] ...

...

However, this does not mean that embassy personnel cannot offer any help at all to people who are in danger and seek their protection. In extreme or exceptional circumstances, U.S. embassies and consulates may offer alternative forms of protection, including (in most countries) temporary refuge, a referral to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, or a request for parole to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

nolo.com

I know that some web sites claim that they offer refugee status, but they do not--they are misconstruing temporary refuge with actual refugee status.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

At U.S. Embassies, they CAN apply for temporary refuge from immediate danger associated with things for which one can seek asylum, and from there they can possibly be referred to the U.S. Refugee Admission Program. However, embassies do not have the authority to grant refugee status proper. This only happens, though, under extreme circumstances. 

The "referral" is what gets you an application for your information being submitted to USRAP for refugee status. That's applying for refugee status. The State Department does this at embassies and other locations. You can also be "referred" by UNHCR locations. You can be referred by numerous NGO's and nonprofits at locations abroad (RSC's) who coordinate with State. USCIS does the processing and handles the actual applications, but you can absolutely get submitted into the program through an embassy, UNHCR office, or other RSC site. The embassy just doesn't process you or grant you immediate protection. You have to be processed through USCIS (and Homeland), but you can get that train rolling all number of places that are not in the US.