Migrant Caravan from Honduras

[Josiah]

First of all I agree that these people should not be allowed in so lets understand that to that extent I am on your side. I just cant see spending 23 billion on a wall that will not work, there has to be a better use for that money such as a lot more border patrol and slapping Mexico with sanctions if they dont stop the flow of illegals

Spot on....


I think they show their "true colors" also by purposely REJECTING the laws and policies of the USA (and of most countries).... they KNOW that the process is to go to the local US embassy or consulate (or for assylum any us embassy or consulate or any UK one) and apply - their application will be handled FIRST and swiftly and often: the USA has FAR, FAR more legal immigrants and refugies than any other nation on the planet, a lot more than the ENTIRE POPULATION of Australia. These people - evidently with financing from a communist dictator, is purposely snubbing US law and the Rule of Law. Whether they are doing so because of some anti-American agenda (thus the communist funding them) OR simply because they realize that if they do this legally, their application will be denied since the US does not grant visas to murderers, rapists, drug dealers, child molesters, etc. - either way, they are making a mockery of the USA and of the Rule of Law. These are not people the US should permit in. If Australia wants them, it's easy as can be - come get 'em.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Here is the page from my government on seeking asylum. There is a process that refugees must follow in order to acquire it. Maybe that will help clear things up

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-united-states

To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.

You must apply for asylum within one year of the date of their last arrival in the United States, unless you can show:
Changed circumstances that materially affect your eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing

• You filed within a reasonable amount of time given those circumstances.
• You may apply for affirmative asylum by submitting Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, to USCIS. See Form I 589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal for instructions on how to file for asylum,.

If your case is not approved and you do not have a legal immigration status, we will issue a Form I-862, Notice to Appear, and forward (or refer) your case to an Immigration Judge at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The Immigration Judge conducts a ‘de novo’ hearing of the case. This means that the judge conducts a new hearing and issues a decision that is independent of the decision made by USCIS. If we do not have jurisdiction over your case, the Asylum Office will issue an I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, for an asylum-only hearing. See ‘Defensive Asylum Processing With EOIR’ below if this situation applies to you.

Affirmative asylum applicants are rarely detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). You may live in the United States while your application is pending before USCIS. If you are found ineligible, you can remain in the United States while your application is pending with the Immigration Judge. Most asylum applicants are not authorized to work.

It looks like the people coming in the "caravan" will be entitled to apply for asylum if they enter the USA regardless of how they do so.

 

[Lamb]

It looks like the people coming in the "caravan" will be entitled to apply for asylum if they enter the USA regardless of how they do so.

The problem is they normally don't because of their past histories that will deny them asylum once investigated. So they continue to be illegally in the country. One guy said he was deported 6 times and will keep coming back. He got caught through some traffic violations...meaning he doesn't care about our laws.

How many would you like to house, MC? I'll start a fund here on CH to send one your way.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The problem is they normally don't because of their past histories that will deny them asylum once investigated. So they continue to be illegally in the country. One guy said he was deported 6 times and will keep coming back. He got caught through some traffic violations...meaning he doesn't care about our laws.

How many would you like to house, MC? I'll start a fund here on CH to send one your way.

Now that your first post has been exposed as a piece propaganda and the documentation you cited proves that the people in the "caravan" are in fact permitted by USA law to apply for asylum as soon as they reach USA territory I'll just have a quiet little chuckle at the attempt to divert the topic by asking me how many people I intend to house in the USA. But carry on. I am sure some Fox News inspired piece of rhetoric will come forth in no time to smite thy enemies and prove that refugee claimants do in fact "swarm" and are "invading" the USA so they must be stopped by any means available including - as Donald suggested - shooting them if they have rocks.

 

[psalms 91]

Well, brother Psalms 91, when the people arrive at the USA border and present their claims then the second response can be used to investigate the claims about what Mexico may or may not have offered and the use or not of rocks against officers of the Mexican police. It is usually necessary to investigate claims before accepting them, as so many fine public spirited Fox News viewers insisted be done for judge Kavanaugh. Test the claims to see if they are true. That is advice that comes from the bible. Saint Paul wrote it. He wrote "make sure of everything and hold fast to what is true". That is good advice even for a Fox News viewer.

One there are pictures and video o fthem throwing rocks and rioting, two, it is fact that paers were offered and jobs also so what do they need to investigate? I think they have shown themselves to be lawbreakers and undesireables and need stopped any way they can be. You want them, come and get them

 

[Lamb]

Ah, okay, we're back to semantics again like we normally are, MC, in most conversations between us. One word and you try to derail an entire conversation.

The conversation began with questions asked about who was feeding these people? How about giving them places to toilet? Or charging their cell phones? There are endless questions I have and no I didn't get them from Fox news. Other news outlets here in the US are asking the same exact questions. So please, how about, instead of trying to derail the thread into tangents about "rhetoric" we actually talk about the issue? When people go off on tangents it's normally because they run out of facts to report.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ah, okay, we're back to semantics again like we normally are, MC, in most conversations between us. One word

Choose the words you type with some care. It's a sound principle to adhere to. Avoid inflammatory rhetoric. That is also a good principle for productive discussions. Words like "swarm" and "invade" applied to the people in the "caravan" is inflammatory so it is, in my opinion, best avoided.

and you try to derail an entire conversation.

The conversation began with questions asked about who was feeding these people?

According to the news reports on PBS and CBC and ABC as well as French and Germans English language reports the people feeding the "caravan" are Mexicans. Some food is paid for by the Mexican government, some is donated by individuals in Mexico, some is from businesses. The Water bottles are from those sources.

How about giving them places to toilet?

I imagine that they urinate by the roadside They may defecate in holes they dig near the road side or maybe Mexican people let them use town facilities and business facilities.

Or charging their cell phones?

The same would apply to use of electricity for phone chargers, though it is hard to know if many are carrying phones and how often they turn them on for use.

There are endless questions I have and no I didn't get them from Fox news.

Interestingly they are talking points on Fox News and other Fox programs. I watch them sometimes and see as well as hear those talking points. Some Fox presenters blame George Soros for the "caravan" claiming that he funds them.

Other news outlets here in the US are asking the same exact questions.

No doubt several channels ask the same questions that Fox programs ask and make the same claims as Fox programs do. They are probably dependent on one another to a degree. Making similar claims possibly because their owners (or owner) have shared editorial views.

So please, how about, instead of trying to derail the thread into tangents about "rhetoric" we actually talk about the issue? When people go off on tangents it's normally because they run out of facts to report.

The thread was started with rhetoric so it can't be derailed by referring to it. My first reply in this thread was to claims made in the thread's first post. In it you wrote

"What is a country to do when a swarm of people intend to invade with no care of the laws? Even without carrying weapons the act alone is one of aggression. "​

That's rhetoric.

 

[Lamb]

"What is a country to do when a swarm of people intend to invade with no care of the laws? Even without carrying weapons the act alone is one of aggression. "

That's rhetoric.

It's a question asked by a concerned citizen. You don't live here so it doesn't concern you at all and you haven't taken up my offer to house one of the migrants if we raise the money to send him your way. I have every right to ask questions and be concerned about the future of my homeland. You don't like my language, I get it. I don't always like the words you use either in other threads but then I don't return to those threads.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's a question asked by a concerned citizen.

I agree, that is true, you asked questions as a concerned USA citizen.

You don't live here so it doesn't concern you at all

The first part of your statement is true. I am not a USA resident. I last resided in the USA in 2001 (fully documented and fully legal too). The second part of your statement is untrue. I am a human being, a Christian, and consequently I have an interest in how other human beings are treated. People call it "human rights" among which is the right to seek asylum. The USA often castigates China for failing to properly protect the human rights of its citizens but USA politicians and officials are not Chinese citizens and only a few are resident in China at any given time. Yet it seems reasonable to me, and probably to you too, for people in the USA to express concern about human rights abuses in China. So it is wrong for you to claim I have no interest in the matter of asylum seekers travelling through Mexico on their way to the USA to claim asylum.

and you haven't taken up my offer to house one of the migrants

Can you make such an offer? No. It's not within your power. The pretence is a distraction that you introduced. I chuckled at it and I still do. It is just another piece of rhetoric without substance for you to make an offer like that.

if we raise the money to send him your way.

Even if you raised money and even if your government would permit you to play this pantomime I do not have the authority to receive an alien as a resident in Australia, you'd need to get Australian immigration clearance for that to happen, but your offer is not serious it is just rhetorical, an attempt to score a point in the discussion. It isn't working.

I have every right to ask questions and be concerned about the future of my homeland.

I agree that you have every right to ask questions and use whatever language you like no matter how inflammatory. That is a fact.

You don't like my language

That's true too, I do not like to see a Christian referring to asylum seekers as a "swam" who are intent on "invading" the USA and whose mere intent to enter the USA is "aggression". It is my right to object to the way a thing is said as well as to the contents of what is said. That too is a right that you have.

, I get it. I don't always like the words you use either in other threads but then I don't return to those threads.

You are free to go to whatever threads you want to. With some limitations I guess, such as "men only" threads, but I guess even in that you have - as administrator - authority to visit such threads. Really, if you prefer to avoid a thread where I've posted an objection to something you've written that is your right. I recognise it. I am fully satisfied with it. I do not demand that you do otherwise. It would be foolish to demand anything of another free human being. Do as you please.

 

[Andrew]

Lawlessness is not just breaking into a country illegally, its also getting free birth deliveries and hospital stays, getting away with hit and runs, not having to worry about ever paying taxes, and getting a free ride back home whenever they want.
Come on in, the right way!

IF they find that they are being persecuted in their country either by race, religion or politics they can be granted refuge.

 

[psalms 91]

Lawlessness is not just breaking into a country illegally, its also getting free birth deliveries and hospital stays, getting away with hit and runs, not having to worry about ever paying taxes, and getting a free ride back home whenever they want.
Come on in, the right way!

IF they find that they are being persecuted in their country either by race, religion or politics they can be granted refuge.

Exactly! We are not treating legal aliens in this manner, just those who have shown they have no regard for process and law. If they did they would apply in the right way or taken Mexico up on its offer. I find Lamms suggestion interesting about if you would take one in if we sent him to you. I suggest the one in the video, one of the ones, throwing rocks which according to MC needs investigated to prove its true even though there is video showing that. Wonder if he would be so quick to do that. Again we are not rtreating them wrongly, we are simply saying you will not enter this country unless you apply in the right and legal fashion

 

[MoreCoffee]

Exactly! We are not treating legal aliens in this manner, just those who have shown they have no regard for process and law.

The "caravan" people haven't reached the USA border yet so we have no facts to go by regarding how they will enter USA territory. But if they do enter USA territory the law says they can apply for asylum regardless of how they entered the USA. This is what the law says:

To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.

You must apply for asylum within one year of the date of their last arrival in the United States, unless you can show:
Changed circumstances that materially affect your eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing

• You filed within a reasonable amount of time given those circumstances.
• You may apply for affirmative asylum by submitting Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, to USCIS. See Form I 589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal for instructions on how to file for asylum,.

If your case is not approved and you do not have a legal immigration status, we will issue a Form I-862, Notice to Appear, and forward (or refer) your case to an Immigration Judge at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The Immigration Judge conducts a ‘de novo’ hearing of the case. This means that the judge conducts a new hearing and issues a decision that is independent of the decision made by USCIS. If we do not have jurisdiction over your case, the Asylum Office will issue an I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, for an asylum-only hearing. See ‘Defensive Asylum Processing With EOIR’ below if this situation applies to you.

Affirmative asylum applicants are rarely detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). You may live in the United States while your application is pending before USCIS. If you are found ineligible, you can remain in the United States while your application is pending with the Immigration Judge. Most asylum applicants are not authorized to work.​

If they did they would apply in the right way or taken Mexico up on its offer. I find Lamms suggestion interesting about if you would take one in if we sent him to you. I suggest the one in the video, one of the ones, throwing rocks which according to MC needs investigated to prove its true even though there is video showing that.

Did everybody throw rocks? What needs to be investigates is who did and the investigation ought to be handled by the Mexican authorities because the alleged rock throwing is alleged to have happened in Mexico. It seems reasonable to me to do the investigatory work so that the offenders are known and the others are not unjustly accused.

Wonder if he would be so quick to do that. Again we are not rtreating them wrongly, we are simply saying you will not enter this country unless you apply in the right and legal fashion

 

[psalms 91]

Want to talk about Australia? Seems to me you would be better suited to that. It is easy to sit back and opine on a situation that does not affect you or your country is it not. Maybe we could dig around and find some not so easy issues for Australia to discuss and then we would know that you are speaking from a position of someone who is affected.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Want to talk about Australia?

Australian law differs from USA laws on the matter of applying for asylum and being present on Australian Territory. The government here has done all sorts of strange things to deny any right to apply for asylum within Australia opting instead to remove asylum seekers to other countries and process their applications there. It's a rather shameful thing to do. It ought to be ended. Australian government and laws ought to be less cold and hostile to "boat people" (you can't walk to Australia, there's no land connection to Australia from any other country, our only border is the sea).

Seems to me you would be better suited to that. It is easy to sit back and opine on a situation that does not affect you or your country is it not. Maybe we could dig around and find some not so easy issues for Australia to discuss and then we would know that you are speaking from a position of someone who is affected.

You're welcome, brother Psalms 91, to start a thread about Australia if you want to. This one is about the "Caravan from Honduras" that is heading to the USA, or so it is said.

 

[psalms 91]

Australian law differs from USA laws on the matter of applying for asylum and being present on Australian Territory. The government here has done all sorts of strange things to deny any right to apply for asylum within Australia opting instead to remove asylum seekers to other countries and process their applications there. It's a rather shameful thing to do. It ought to be ended. Australian government and laws ought to be less cold and hostile to "boat people" (you can't walk to Australia, there's no land connection to Australia from any other country, our only border is the sea).

You're welcome, brother Psalms 91, to start a thread about Australia if you want to. This one is about the "Caravan from Honduras" that is heading to the USA, or so it is said.

Yes, it is and since we are the ones affected it seems to me that we should have the right to demand they apply properly and to deny entry.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, it is and since we are the ones affected it seems to me that we should have the right to demand they apply properly and to deny entry.

They haven't arrived at the border yet but when they do let's see what happens.

 

[psalms 91]

They haven't arrived at the border yet but when they do let's see what happens.

What should happen is that they are told to go back and apply at an embassy

 

[MoreCoffee]

What should happen is that they are told to go back and apply at an embassy

They can apply when they are on USA territory; I guess some embassies would fit that. Why not apply at the border crossing?

 

[psalms 91]

Embassts are considered the countries territory and no they should not be allowed in, if they want to camp out in Mexico while their claims are investigated then sure why not

 

[MoreCoffee]

Embassts are considered the countries territory and no they should not be allowed in, if they want to camp out in Mexico while their claims are investigated then sure why not

The law says they have to be in USA territory to apply for asylum. There's a lot of them, a couple of thousand at least, would they all fit in the USA Honduras embassy?