Hopefully you're right, I'm not trying to "win" some political points here, just concerned about the implications of decision making that keeps seeming....disproportionate.
do you paint a "mental picture" when you speak or write? What does "fully armed" and "stopping an invading army of children?" look like in your mind? I guarantee most of these military members would rather not be armed - it's a pain in the ass being responsible for accountability of your weapon(s) you carry, or doing your job (cooking food, driving a truck, filling sand bags, etc. ) and keep track of your weapons. I would even venture to say most won't be armed at all times even if they deploy with their weapons - they will be secured "in the rear with the gear" at their temporary headquarters. You seem to envision a combat ready force geared up for battle 24/7 - this is not the case. Granted who knows what the media will spin it as of course, but it probably won't match reality.
The caravan can save itself about 60% of its journey, by stopping at our embassy in Mexico City to apply for asylum.
And you coulda saved yourself the time it took to type that, because we know which hole your tongue is lodged up.
I don't think spot261 personally knows a lot of people who are in (or have currently been in) the military. Nothing wrong with that, I guess I'm just so used to everyone I know having members of their family, themselves, or people they work with involved in the military. This of course gives them a general feel of what actually happens during support missions like this, or combat missions, or humanitarian missions, etc.
If the idea is to apply for asylum lawfully, isn't it better to save yourself 1000 miles of travel to do it? I mean, unless your plan is to enter the United States unlawfully. But, no, I'm sure that couldn't be it.
Mexico City doesn't want that whole hassle! They probably have "closed for renovation" and "detour" signs all over the city to steer them north and onward to Los Statos Unitos!
Not sure what exactly they’ll be doing but active duty troops from Fort Hood and Fort Sam Houston are being sent to the border.
If MY plan was to provide a better life for my kids? Yeah, as fucked up as the USA is right now I'd skip Mexico. Hell, I can understand folk skipping France to get to the UK - even if France has better public transport and better food, there's the downside of it being full of the fucking French.
I can never get my head round the whole skipping France thing, it' like skipping the Carribean to get to Guantanamo
Believe it or not, we actually would prefer you NOT be a bunch of cunts, over our getting to call you a bunch of cunts. There are plenty of other cunts we could be dealing with, like those who make conditions in Central America so bad that folk decide to migrate to the US, for instance.
Wanting a better life for your kids does not make you a refugee or a candidate for asylum. And, again, Mexico's not exactly the Third World. For all its problems, its a considerable step up from the poorer central American countries.
No, it doesn't, and no, it isn't. There is still no legal requirement that refugees accept the first safe harbour. Unless that changes, your argument is moot and mine stands. They will go where they and theirs have the best shot. Congrats, despite all the BS you guys have going on, you're still the guy at the club the virgin wants to go home with instead of the fat, sweaty creep in the corner. She just doesn't know about your collection of skulls and human flesh yet.
And if you're not a refugee, you're just like anyone else who wants to immigrate to the U.S. And there are lawful ways to do that. If they didn't accept an offer of safe harbor, they're not refugees. The laws of where they're going notwithstanding? Don't spoil the surprise.
I'm not seeing the disconnect between the cunts that fuck around with central america and the cunts here that vote for them...
So you'd never consider breaking the law if it meant your children had a better chance at living a life that wasn't quite so brutish and dangerous?
That doesn't necessarily mean within the boundaries of the country, and it doesn't mean by unlawfully entering the U.S. Trump is calling for asylum seekers to apply at valid ports of entry. My response? Why isn't that already required?
How is someone in a country but not within the boundaries of the country? That's how it's supposed to work...however, another avenue is to cross illegally, immediately seek out Border Patrol, surrender, and then ask for asylum. Bottom line, you can't apply for asylum unless you are inside the country you're trying to apply for asylum to.
You can be in an embassy. You can be in an international area within a country (e.g., at an airport). You go to an embassy, or a port of entry, and you ask for it there. And don't tell me that's too difficult for someone who's already trekked across 1800 miles of Mexico. If you break our laws to get into the country, you should be automatically ineligible for asylum.
That's not how asylum works. I think you're thinking of Refugee status. It may be how you think it should be, but that's not the way it is. If you want to change the law, then push for immigration reform.
