An 8-year-old migrant has died in U.S. custody on Christmas Day

a reply to: chr0naut

What an idiotic statement.


You think you're being altruistic and helpful with someone else's borders. It's unbelievable that you are ok with the US not screening anyone, not controlling our borders, not dealing with child sex trafficking.

Your message is "if you dont open your borders you are haters".

You have no vested interest in what we have to deal with. Until you do your opinion on this matter is just more bloviating from a leftist loon from overseas, nothing you say is valid at all.

It's easy to talk when the consequences of what you advocate for are thousands of miles from your border.

a reply to: odzeandennz

You know what's really sad about the little girl? She was seriously, dangerously dehydrated when they found her, but her father needed no treatment for dehydration at all and he was with her the whole time.

Why do parents put their kids through this? Why not go through the legal process which would be safer?

a reply to: Xtrozero

he was in custody a week before he died...

Throughout Felipe and his father’s week in detention, CBP maintains that both were provided showers, food, and water, and were given regular welfare checks. As border reporter Bob Moore notes, however, Felipe was held in custody for more than 130 hours — which is nearly twice as long as legally permitted.

www.thecut.com...

a week where he was provided showers, food, water and.... welfare checks...
you'd think that someone would have noticed in that time that the kid if the kid came in sick.
someone should have!!

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

What happens when you build a wall and the numbers wishing to cross start to number in the millions of desperate people?

Why would they come if there was a huge wall and no job? Your assumption is Mexico does nothing and then we do nothing...
We could do a lot...we could move into Mexico and create a buffer on their side of the border...what would they do go to war with us? A war would be great as it wouldn't take long to win then we could occupy and not only secure the borders on the other end, but wipe out the cartels with military might...Win Win...

You are assuming that the cartels are based entirely on the other side of the border. The US is their market, which implies distribution channels are also US based. My guess is that those who run the cartels are all US residents who see neither the privations of drug production nor have any direct contact with the drugs themselves.

You may also have forgotten that large parts of Texas and California were once considered to be part of Mexico by the Mexicans.

If the US were to cross the border belligerently, it would be met with force.

Mexico could raise an army of about 48,000,000 combatants (it carries enough armory to support such a fighting force) and has air force, navy, marines, coast guard, rural defence force, military police, special forces, parachute brigades, cartilla (a weekend trained drafted defence force) and mechanized divisions.

It would also be likely to ally with other South American nations that would be similarly threatened by active US expansionism. The US would also be in contravention of UN statute and the UN would be legally obligated to engage legislation which would ally many nations with Mexico and against the US.

While it is likely that the US would win if they attacked unprovoked, such a conflict would quickly escalate to produce unacceptable losses for both sides (the likely deaths on the US side from a counterattack would number in the tens of millions).

a reply to: dawnstar

There's a whole list of things that manifest with cold/flu-like symptoms and could get very serious, very quickly, and if you have a kid, you know they can go from healthy to ill very quickly also, even with a cold. Flu takes you down even more suddenly.

A lot of these people have been coming across ill with all kinds of things. This may not have been a protracted illness.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

It's a shame you aren't capable of critical thought anymore, but here you are, displaying zero thought.

What do you suppose this wall will do? Will it kill any and all who wish to cross it? Or, (this is the part you don't seem capable of realizing) will it make it harder for those who would cross ILLEGALLY, and hopefully direct them to the appropriate crossing stations, where they can be processed and if found acceptable, enter the country?

It's like when you subscribe to the CNN way of thinking, you relinquish all your grey matter. that is a pitty.

Trump has tried a few times to close the border entirely and repeal the legislation by which people can legally enter the US or seek asylum.

He has referred to all the potential migrants as illegals, even when the majority are seeking legal entry.

Will the wall take away the reasons these people want to enter the US? Nope.

Will their desperation and need increase? Yes.

Will they just pack up and return over thousands of miles, to the situations they ran from? No.

How do you think it will play out?

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

Says the guy who doesn't have to deal with our immigration issue. You see it on the internet. What's your interest in our border issues anyway?

Oh yeah, leftists.

I dont care about your head in the clouds BS.

We have a border, we intend to enforce our laws, and help where we can.

No, there is a humanitarian issue.

It has little to do with party politics.

originally posted by: chr0naut


How do you think it will play out?

They will wait until their turn comes up at the designated border crossings, and they will present their case for Asylum or whatever they want. Do it by the rules that we have established. Yea, I think with Trump in the White House, there is a good chance that is exactly how it will play out.

Anarchy might be how you like situations to be like, but here in the nasty US, not so much.

The child traffickers and Coyotes will keep crossing where there ins't proper barriers. Oh and those nice unlicensed pharmacists.

oh look:

Immigration Act 2009
The 'Immigration Act 2009' (the Act) is the fundamental source of New Zealand immigration law. The Act:
sets out who needs a visa to travel to or stay in New Zealand provides for the certification of immigration instructions, and the rules and criteria for the grant of visas places responsibilities on people when they first arrive in New Zealand

provides a legal basis for New Zealand to meet its international responsibilities under the Refugee Convention, the Convention Against Torture, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights sets out

the requirements that visitors, migrants, students, employers and educators must meet and the information they must give to Immigration

New Zealand provides the grounds for deportation and creates criminal offences relating to immigration

establishes the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, an independent tribunal which hears residence appeals, refugee and protection appeals, and appeals against deportation.

www.immigration.govt.nz...

So rather than having a "come as you are" policy, it seems the oppressive dictatorship you live in has some rules as well.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

Says the guy who doesn't have to deal with our immigration issue. You see it on the internet. What's your interest in our border issues anyway?

Oh yeah, leftists.

I dont care about your head in the clouds BS.

We have a border, we intend to enforce our laws, and help where we can.

No, there is a humanitarian issue.

It has little to do with party politics.

It becomes a humanitarian issue when they pick up with nothing and decide to traipse across hundreds/thousands of miles and then try to sneak across a desert to enter a country illegally.

There is a perfectly legal process for this rather than making yourself a humnitarian crisis. I am tired of feeling sorry for them. They put themselves in this position. It's not like they are even coming from someplace like Syria or an African country ravaged by warlords. Nope, they're just coming because ... fat benefits.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: seattlerat

It is obscene that children are in custody in the first place.

It is obscene that people who don't understand the issue or its complexities find it appropriate to pretend that they have some sort of moral high ground from which virtue signaling should occur.

The unjust laws need to be overturned.

The injustice that has occurred here is by parents putting their children in these dangerous situations.

Unjust parenting needs to be overturned--the laws are just fine. The enforcement of said laws may be suspect, but the laws are perfectly reasonable for a nation that must deal with these issues on a daily basis.

Firstly, for most of the caravan's journey, they weren't crossing any desert. It is only near the Texas border (where most of the 'caravaners' got rides on trucks or cars) or far away to the North East that there is desert. The whole "crossing the desert" bit is pure BS. Just like calling them illegals when they have not attempted to cross the border, is BS used to justify bigotry.

If you had the choice of staying in a situation where the lives of your children were threatened by gang violence and crime, which the government ignores, or saving them crossing some countryside (not desert) with your family (which, by the way, they actually crossed safely), I'd take the journey as a responsible parent.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: odzeandennz

You know what's really sad about the little girl? She was seriously, dangerously dehydrated when they found her, but her father needed no treatment for dehydration at all and he was with her the whole time.

Why do parents put their kids through this? Why not go through the legal process which would be safer?

I would have expected the parents to have turned up dehydrated to keep their children healthy.

Dunno what kind of monster you have to be for the opposite to be true. Definitely not the kind you want in the country, or people who should have children in the first place.

a reply to: Ohanka

Someone who knows that you only have to grab a kid and pretend to be related in order to exploit certain laws and get into the country illegally.

a reply to: chr0naut

Truth be told, thinking of this migration issue in partisan terms is utterly pointless. Neither major US political party has clean hands when it comes to handling the problem and the US government as a whole is thoroughly incompetent to manage the problem.

See: dailycaller.com...
And we discover that only now does DHS even begin to understand the health problems of these migrations.

A DHS official told reporters that “literally dozens” of sick migrants are being transported to hospitals across the border each day and that growing numbers of children showing illness are present in border patrol custody.

“We’re doing dozens of hospital trips every single day with children that have fevers or manifest other medical conditions,” CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan told CBSNews Wednesday morning.

An official also told reporters that DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen is requesting that Mexican authorities also investigate the living conditions of migrant holding camps across the border to see if that is the source of illness.

Considering the lack of competence and/or resources on either side of the border, I would suggest it is time to call in the UN to address the problem.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

Says the guy who doesn't have to deal with our immigration issue. You see it on the internet. What's your interest in our border issues anyway?

Oh yeah, leftists.

I dont care about your head in the clouds BS.

We have a border, we intend to enforce our laws, and help where we can.

No, there is a humanitarian issue.

It has little to do with party politics.

It becomes a humanitarian issue when they pick up with nothing and decide to traipse across hundreds/thousands of miles and then try to sneak across a desert to enter a country illegally.

The majority have not snuck across a desert or tried to enter the country illegally.

There is a perfectly legal process for this rather than making yourself a humnitarian crisis. I am tired of feeling sorry for them. They put themselves in this position. It's not like they are even coming from someplace like Syria or an African country ravaged by warlords. Nope, they're just coming because ... fat benefits.

They are coming from someplace ravaged by warlords (in the guise of the cartels and gangs, who are armed, violent and dangerous). They are forced to work, at gunpoint, for a job that never pays them enough money to get a new job and relocate. That is why they grab who and what they can and walk thousands of risky miles, some of them barefoot.

You are so disconnected from the truth that it's like Marie Antoinette who, upon hearing that people were too poor to afford bread, famously said "well, let them eat cake". It is an air-head stupid response, as is the idea that they would take such risks so they could go to another country just to live on welfare.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: odzeandennz


the child did die whilst under custody. thats all.

Actually an ICE agent identified the child looked sick and they took the kid to the hospital. It seems the hospital checked the kid out and released the child back to ICE with meds. Then the child got worst....seems weird that if the child took the meds the temperature would have gone down rather quickly, it will be interesting in knowing what the child died of as bad as this is the child came into the US already sick, and I start to wonder what the dad was doing or not doing with the meds.

Isn't that what normally happens in the US when you don't have medical insurance?

The hospital declares you healthy and sends you home to die.

a reply to: network dude

This is the crux of his hypocrisy and then some.

He preaches a good game, but cares not for the reality he lives in and doesn't have to deal with the consequences of his ideas here.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

What an idiotic statement.


You think you're being altruistic and helpful with someone else's borders. It's unbelievable that you are ok with the US not screening anyone, not controlling our borders, not dealing with child sex trafficking.

Your message is "if you dont open your borders you are haters".

You have no vested interest in what we have to deal with. Until you do your opinion on this matter is just more bloviating from a leftist loon from overseas, nothing you say is valid at all.

It's easy to talk when the consequences of what you advocate for are thousands of miles from your border.

Your'e a migrant.

So, you or your family must have wanted to leave where you were, and go to the US, so you could live on welfare? - That is the argument that lots in this thread are repeating and it is bigoted BS.

Can you see that calling them illegals, when they aren't, and haven't even attempted to cross 'illegally' is a lie.

Not to mention that they have to be on US soil to claim asylum. By declaring those who come on to US soil to be automatically 'illegals', Trump is denying asylum to anyone who might seek it.

And Trump is closing off the other legal avenues for them to apply as well. He isn't dealing only with those who are genuinely illegal, he is blocking access to all immigrants.

Immigration policy of Donald Trump From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
So much hate in this thread...

...and attached to the usual suspects at that.
No room at the inn.

Yep, some of these people seem to have no soul.

a reply to: chr0naut

I am an immigrant.

Walked through the front door.

Got permission and everything.

Not just an immigrant mind you. I was here as a political refugee. Granted political asylum.

You know what we never did? Broke in to a nation that wasn't, at the time, our own.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut


How do you think it will play out?

They will wait until their turn comes up at the designated border crossings, and they will present their case for Asylum or whatever they want. Do it by the rules that we have established. Yea, I think with Trump in the White House, there is a good chance that is exactly how it will play out.

Anarchy might be how you like situations to be like, but here in the nasty US, not so much.

The child traffickers and Coyotes will keep crossing where there ins't proper barriers. Oh and those nice unlicensed pharmacists.

Well, if crime was the issue, there is less crime among the migrants than there is in the US. Perhaps the US population should be deported and the immigrants be allowed in. It would reduce crime within the US.

oh look:

Immigration Act 2009
The 'Immigration Act 2009' (the Act) is the fundamental source of New Zealand immigration law. The Act:
sets out who needs a visa to travel to or stay in New Zealand provides for the certification of immigration instructions, and the rules and criteria for the grant of visas places responsibilities on people when they first arrive in New Zealand

provides a legal basis for New Zealand to meet its international responsibilities under the Refugee Convention, the Convention Against Torture, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights sets out

the requirements that visitors, migrants, students, employers and educators must meet and the information they must give to Immigration

New Zealand provides the grounds for deportation and creates criminal offences relating to immigration

establishes the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, an independent tribunal which hears residence appeals, refugee and protection appeals, and appeals against deportation.

www.immigration.govt.nz...

So rather than having a "come as you are" policy, it seems the oppressive dictatorship you live in has some rules as well.

We have a true democracy under a modified Westminster system of government. We aren't a republic.

And I never advocated a 'come as you are policy'. I suggested open travel across borders, with complementary policing, social services and judicial agreements between the countries and special taxation of migrants to cover the costs.

The cultures, local governance and economies could remain separate and the economic slack could be offset by the migrant tax.