I don't think many here* are seriously suggesting that they should be allowed to walk across the border and disappear. The whole point of these caravans is to try to legally enter the U.S. I have no doubt that a lot of people have co-oped the situation in order to try to illegally cross and then not apply for asylum, but I doubt it's in the numbers that people on the right are screeching about. *that's not to say that there aren't any at all.
Mattis? Involving an experienced military expert sends out a heavy-handed message. All we need to send is a handful of Girl Scout reserves to pass out cookies, bottled water and a "help wanted" section of a newspaper.
I fully admit that I'm ignorant of many areas of immigration law and policy. That said, wouldn't their case be better served by showing up at the nearest consulate or the US Embassy in Mexico City? Just showing up at the border and asking nicely isn't the way for these people to legally enter the US.
Absolutely, if I were in a war zone where I needed protection against a hostile force I'd want robust but well disciplined protection. However this isn't a war zone and these people aren't a hostile force. On the contrary it's the disproportionate response to them that's looking hostile in this case.
As I said earlier. It's a publicity stunt. If they tried applying for refugee status, it wouldn't make much of a splash. Hell, these asylum caravans have been organized and moving across Mexico to the border for almost two decades, and nobody had heard of them until Trump started making a big deal. Now they're just getting bigger.
You realise this is circular thinking? The US military tends to be front and centre because they are deployed a great deal and rarely with genuine charitable intent. The question there is at the political level and the question is whether the problem lies in overzealous use of that military where many other nations are much more cautious. We have a nasty habit of following on poorly conceived ventures, there's no doubt about that, but in this case it's not UK troops being deployed so that question becomes moot.
and these people have been told that just showing up at the border will get them nowhere fast. So I would say Mexico needs to start handling the caravan or figuring out a way to handle the caravan in the weeks or months it takes to reach the border. Personally I think Mexico wants the caravan to pass through their country with a quickness and just let the US take the brunt of the world's criticism! Maybe we should do the same and fly them directly to the Canadian border then walk the fuck away from the whole shebang.
Fair enough. I have to ask though, what has been the result? If these caravans have been in action for almost two decades, what has been done in the past? Were they turned away? Were they granted entry but contained while due process was allowed to happen? Did they slip across the border illegally? I honestly don't know.
Where that is a nice thought I am pretty sure that would cause them to be tried and convicted of crimes under military law. It is one thing to disobey a illegal order and another to desert your post and start acting in opposition. Soldiers are under stricter laws than US civilians. I am thinking there are better ways like keeping their heads and not getting panicky. Maybe studying their duty under US military law and what orders might be illegal that might come about from twitler's commands. That is, of course, if this goes anywhere after election day.
Actually, I misspoke. They've only being going on since 2010, and I imagine it's been all of the above to one degree or another...remember, despite what the right likes to claim, Obama wasn't exactly known for his open border policies...but I'm pretty sure nobody mobilized the Army.
Eh, I'm one who believes the law should be disregarded in such circumstances. Laws are not inherently moral or good, but I have the capacity for judgment, and I will use it when facing a conflict between following what I consider an unjust law, and the harming of another human being.
I'm doing a little digging and it looks like every President has done it since George H. W. Bush under the auspices of Joint Task Force Six, setup by then General Colin Powell in 1989.
You're right...but didn't Obama do it in response to the unaccompanied minor fiasco when the border patrol was genuinely overwhelmed?
what part of "the military will not be interacting with the refugees and only providing support and extra security" didn't you understand? They will not be acting as trained border patrol agents. Too fucking bad if it appears to you to be a "hostile force'. And I'm quite sure most of the media will paint a very negative picture of this "hostile force" to ensure that everyone else thinks it is too.
I'm pretty sure that went out the window when they turned Mexico down. Any legalities would be citizenship based.
Unknown. I haven't gotten that far yet. But, JTF-6, now JTF-North, has been in continuous operation on the US-Mexican Border since November 13th, 1989. It's a persistent component of USNORTHCOM.
I would imagine it probably was not publicized very much because it seems like a no win battle. We have always had people crossing the border, and they did not just come from mexico. I would imagine the best way for the most people to get across the border is to overwhelm border patrol and go across in big groups. Some will get caught, but most will make it. If you go over one at a time then border patrol can focus on the small number and you get more caught. It is herd tactics. There are far fewer predators so you expect a few to be taken down and while the police are dealing with them the rest escape. This is why if trump does not violate limitations on troop use and put these thousands of troops in direct contact with the people crossing they will only increase the effectiveness of border agents to make a few more arrests, but without more predators taking down the herd you will not do much when 7000 people just start crossing against our overwhelmed crossing guards. This is also why immigration police don't just operate on the border. They operate in the places the people will settle.
and what's the difference? That was his call, just like this is Trump's call. If Obama were doing the exact same thing Trump is right now the left would eat it up and ask for seconds! They would spin it into Obama being strong/inspirational/bold/unifying/etc. etc.
Preach. Of course, the same people who will argue that living in America is a human right that shouldn't be infringed are also the same people who will sneer and turn up their noses at the idea of American Exceptionalism. Why do all these downtrodden want to come to America? Because we're the greatest nation on Earth, bitches.
No. Actually it pissed a lot of the left off when Obama did it. You don't remember people on the left calling Obama "Deporter-in-Chief"?
Yeah, this narrative you keep beating like a drum would be cute if there were ONE case of the left pointing out something awful Trump did, and instead, he was doing something nice, or at least neutral. Lemme know when you get that ONE to stand on.
For the most part you do not want a military person making their own judgments regarding orders. What you are talking about destabilizes strategy and it gets people killed more when you are considering direct contact missions. If you leave your post out of fear or moral problems you endanger the people who are relying on your presence.
Here's an article about the Caravans. https://www.bustle.com/p/pueblo-sin...-about-the-migrants-heading-to-the-us-8665157
That is true, but then I'm not a military person anyway, and I know it. A crisis of conscience on the battlefield can certainly mean life or death, but if I'm standing in front of thousands of refugees, I'm not stopping them from entering, and I'm not doing anything to them that might bring them harm. My internal ethical code automatically overrides any external agency when necessary.
