So an ever shrinking band of people who have been on foot for most of 2,000 miles, unarmed, made up largely of women and kids...needs to be met by 3 or 4 times as many heavily armed U.S. soldiers? and met six weeks or so before whatever is left of those people actually arrive? Or is it possible...hear me out now....that the president is burning through millions of dollars in taxpayer money to mobilize an uneeded force one week before an election for...some other reason?
When you're about to oppress an entire group of people, you need a large military force so you can soundly beat them into the ground and teach them that tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free are not welcome here. #GodBlessAmerica #SuperiorFirePower #CamouflageDickWaving
Trump's about to murder some women and kids.....but her e-mails. And her flu! Her deadly flu that she died of!
well, they aren't refugee seekers, they, save for a few, rejected Mexico's offer. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...n-in-spite-of-mexico-jobs-offer-idUSKCN1N10Q8
Those poor ragged refugees. They just barely got out of those Central American hellholes alive, with nothing but the shirts on their backs... ...and they're going to trek 1800 miles through a country they could settle in--they even speak the language--because the U.S. is their last and only hope. Bullshit. And the timing of this--to coincide with a national election in the U.S.--is prima facie evidence that this is an engineered stunt. Well, if they want to invade our country, our troops will be here to welcome them.
As an immigration lawyer I wish to point out that you’re both ignorant. It’s so one dimensional for you and your orange hero. But the reality is that people don’t just stop at the first country that offers asylum as if that’s all there is to it. They head for the place where they have a chance to build a life and where they think they and their families will have the best protections. It’s no different from why people, for instance, fleeing Syria would rather get to a safe European country rather than settle for asylum in somewhere like Iraq. Seriously. Use your heads. The inherent malice behind your sentiment that if they don’t accept asylum in Mexico they’re fakes is really quite dispecable. For once people like you should put yourself in their shoes. What would you do for the chance of a life for you or your children? I would have thought you’d choose the safest destination where you thought basic rights were respected and a future was possible.
If you were really a refugee, it would be much wiser to accept a bona fide offer than to press on hoping for--what?--the U.S. to just wave you in? Mexico is not a third world country. They've been offered opportunities there, and they're pressing on...because this isn't about escaping some hellhole. It's because they're not refugees. And, I'll say it again, they're going to trek 1800 miles through Mexico to make it to the border. How do people with nothing manage that? They're certainly not walking; it would take months to get here.
If they're not refugees....what are they? Benefit seekers? You can't really have it both ways. either they are seeking an improved quality of life or they are not, if they have the resources you suggest what reason do they have for making that trip? If not what ethical grounds could you have to deny them? In either case, none of this addresses the immediate issue that deploying those troops right now is dangerous overkill and clearly politically motivated, as is in fact the whole Mexican immigrants sham.
That's a remarkably false dichotomy. There are any number of other reasons they might not want to stay in Mexico: 1. The Central American cartels, paramilitaries, and gangs that they're fleeing don't stop at the Mexican border, but they do at the US border, more or less. (which would still make them refugees, technically, but not ones who'd have to stay in Mexico). 2. Work, even under the table, pays better in the US than it does in Mexico. That's not benefits-seeking, that's standard economics-driven immigration. Which the federal government has a legal power to regulate. 3. Some may have family and friends in the US, who, yes, should be sponsoring them (if family), but they may be illegal aliens themselves - eg the father came to the US to send money back to Honduras, but shit got real so the wife and kids want to join him in safety. 4. Some combination of the above. I can see all 3 as plausible in any combination.
You do realise non of this actually disputes my post? Obviously the "benefits seeking" was sarcastic given the limitations of the US benefits system. 1. So, refugees. 2. That legal power has no bearing on my point 3. Yes they may, but that's getting into the specifics of an hypothetical case, not an explanatory framework 4. Or any of a thousand other factors, none of which remotely affect my point that there's a massive logical tension in claiming there's a life changing incentive for making that trip whilst simultaneously insisting said trip requires a means which aren't consistent with being a "refugee", or that deployment of armed troops to deal with women and children at a point when immigration is at a long term low is overkill (probably literally - people will end up getting shot here)
okay now here's the SITREP on the border issue without pissing ourselves or going all Tererun and saying US military are going to shoot brown people in the face and AWESOME JOB CNN for actually laying out the facts without much spin. It passes muster by my military background! Looks like perfect terrain for ARMY AVIATION to do it's thing! https://www.kgun9.com/news/national...roops-to-the-border-what-they-can-and-cant-do
It's mind-blowing that the side that always pretended to worship the constitution is jaw droppingly stupid about how it works, and cheers on a president that uses it for toilet paper. Oh, wait, no, it isn't mind blowing, they did it before with Nixon and Reagan. Fuck you people.
It is an engineered stunt. It's organized by activists and politicians in Central America*. The lie is that any of this is new. These caravans have been going on for years in an effort to draw attention to the plight of migrants trying to escape the violence of the Triangle. *In the past couple of years they've been organized by Pueblo Sin Fronteras.
How is stopping a mob of thousands of people who want to cross the border illegally "oppressing" them? They aren't U.S. citizens. They're not willing to go through the established and proper channels to apply for U.S. citizenship. Their group has been infiltrated by suspicious others wanting to use it as a means of getting into the country. Mexico has already made it clear it's not willing to do anything to stop the mob's progress. Trump is doing exactly what he needs to do to secure and protect the border. Sorry that you have some fantasy pie-in-the-sky notion that we should erase our borders, but it's not going to happen. You'd be happier if you joined the rest of us in the real world.
Sadly there are people who are chomping at the bit for some deadly violence to occur - just so they can paint Trump as "the bad guy" for sending armed troops to slaughter brown people. You think he's hated now? You ain't seen nuthin' yet folks! And yes I totally get that the US is the land of milk & honey compared to Mexico but Mexico is the first safe place they entered, so that is where they must legally seek asylum. 1,200 or so have done just that already. Trump has said "you will not get in" so there are no surprises awaiting them. This should not be (but is) a liberal/conservative battle. A large group of asylum seekers are arriving at the same time and it will be a shit-storm under the best conditions. Not everyone will get their way if no corners are cut and they are handled "by the book" legally & fairly. As for infiltration by criminals I'm not concerned. The US is already flooded with criminals both foreign & domestic - what's another couple of hundred or thousand more going to do? My concern is the law of averages guarantees that if this ends up being as big as it is hyped up to be violence (provoked or unprovoked) will occur. Routine accidents and medical situations (vehicle, aviation, exposure to the elements, etc) will end up in injuries or death. Of course everything will be politicized to the extreme and blown out of proportion. I hope it fizzles out mid-stroke.
Oppressing them might be too strong a word, it might not, it all depends on what happens when contact is made but the US military doesn't really have a great track record when dealing with disempowered unarmed civilians regardless of nationality. I'm tempted to point out the US is built on illegal immigration, after all no one went through proper customs channels when displacing the indigenous people, but that would be childish and pushing a false equivalence, which of course we don't want to do, do we? So, let's move onto Mexico and wonder why exactly anyone would expect them to lift a finger? Mutually preventing mass migration is typically the preserve of allies, which the Trump administration has hardly painted itself as. Goodwill is generally a thing to be earned, not demanded and Trump would have done better to strengthen diplomatic relations with the Mexican government rather than alienating them only to then find himself deploying the military against women and children needlessly.
For me it's simple: if your response to refugees needing safe haven in your country is to deploy thousands of soldiers to your border to prevent them from getting that help, that is oppression.
Well, yes, I tend to agree to be honest but I was trying to at least consider the possibility that the troops and their command structure may actually be used to aid the refugees and not treat them as a starved and bedraggled invading zombie horde.
They're in a safe country right now. Why aren't all of them applying for asylum/citizenship in Mexico?
While unlikely, I am hoping enough soldiers put away their guns and start helping them cross safely, finding them safe places to stay in our country.
What you've just demonstrated is that you don't understand the meaning of the word or how to use it in an appropriate context.
