The so-called migrant caravan that’s slowly making its way to the U.S. from Central America is many things to many people. But one thing seems pretty certain: it’s not about seeking “asylum,” or “refugee status.” It’s about getting to the United States at all costs.
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on Sunday was blunt. She said the caravan wending its way through Mexico to the U.S. is “not getting in.”
“There a legal way to get into this country,” she told Fox New Sunday. “Those who choose to enter illegally will be stopped.”
Even so, thousands continue on their way. They know from their fellow Central Americans or from their own experience that the U.S. is notoriously lax about its border controls. It does next to nothing once you get here. Even those who are caught entering illegally get a legal slap on the wrist and an order to return to court for a deportation hearing. The vast majority never show up. We do nothing.
Americans are, perhaps understandably, squeamish about all this. After all, what other nation has ever described itself as a “nation of immigrants” with such obvious pride? To push back a group of thousands who seek come here doesn’t feel right for some.
But it should.
Caravan Of Chaos
First is the ineluctable fact that a country that doesn’t protect its borders isn’t a country at all. We’ve said this many times before, but it bears repeating. Countries that can’t defend borders cease to exist, at least in any meaningful sense.
Second, the people coming here are being abetted by outside money and aid to create an embarrassing spectacle on our border right as our midterm elections hit. Can there really be any other reason for the timing of this mass migration?
Writing for PJMedia, Rick Moran notes that “only about 1,700 of the estimated 7,000 Central American refugees in the caravan heading to the U.S. border have accepted an offer from the Mexican government for asylum.”
The offer shows Mexico is at least trying to help the U.S. to end this political travesty. Not only did Mexico’s government offer the migrants asylum in a country that speaks their language. It also offered them a host of benefits, including temporary ID cards, work permits, medical care, schooling and local housing. Only 23% took them up.
No, as repeated comments from caravan participants show, the U.S. is the promised land. It has more jobs, bigger welfare checks, and massive illegal communities just waiting to welcome the newcomers. The idea that this is about leaving political repression and gang violence doesn’t wash.
Foreign Help
So why do they keep going on their arduous trip? Obviously, they’re being aided. Vice President Pence said that Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernandez told him that the caravan had been “organized by leftist organizations and financed by Venezuela.”
Meanwhile, the U.N. is committing resources to the caravan. In essence, it uses U.S. taxpayers’ money to fund a violation of their own border. That way, the U.S. can join all the other countries with a mass immigration problem.
As the UN News service reported, “A priority for UNHCR (the UN’s refugee agency), which has mobilized extra staff and resources to help . Those making the journey in Mexico’s southern borderlands, is ensuring migrants are informed on their rights to asylum. In an agency video, a UNHCR protection associate said many migrants were simply unaware asylum was an option.”
In other words, the U.N. has set up shop in Mexico and is pushing these migrants to go to the U.S. Once again, the U.N. violates a member nation’s right to protect its own borders. Fortunately, President Trump is having none of it. He’ll send 5,200 troops to the border to stop the influx.
For those who have suggested Trump’s move is illegal under the “Posse Comitatus” Act of 1878, they’re wrong. That law’s letter and intent was to keep the U.S. from using federal military troops against its own citizens. No one intended for this law to force our borders open to those who would violate our sovereignty.
Media’s Misleading Narrative
By the way, the media’s non-stop focus on the families with children, while some of their stories are heartbreaking, is deceptive. As photos of the march clearly show, the bulk of the “asylum seekers” are young, working-age men. They’re not seeking “asylum.” They’re seeking jobs. And an unknown number are criminals, including murderous MS-13 thugs.
Well… ain’t that the point?
There is only 1 thing to do keep tabs on what this invasion is costing and cut the UN that amt. 5000 troops, tents, ect.
Perhaps a better organization, charge rent for safe cushy quarters audit every program.
October 31, 2018 — TRUMP SAYS HE PLANS TO SIGN EXECUTIVE ORDER TO TERMINATE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
I don’t think Justice Kavanaugh is going to have your back on this one, Bub. Nor any of the other eight.
@Greg: The 14th Amendment needs to be defined as what it was intended for; to provide citizenship to freed slaves (universally opposed by Democrats). The anchor baby clause is but one more detail that need to be cleared up to control illegal immigration by removing the incentivisation.
I see now where the Useless Nations is saying Trump must allow this Invasion Do we need anymore reasons to evict the Useless Nations from America? i say THROW THE BUMS OUT
@Deplorable Me, #4:
Yeah, go ahead and work on that. In the meantime, Trump is overstepping his constitutionally defined presidential authority. He does not have power to redefine the meaning of Amendments to the Constitution to suit himself. If you’re born inside the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, you are a U.S. citizen by definition. “Anchor baby” is a bullshit right wing concept that means absolutely nothing in law.
@Greg: The 14th amendment was to insure the freed slaves citizenship and the protections and rights that came with citizenship, it had nothing to do with immigration. Progressives are always trying to rewrite history. The anchor baby aspect that was twisted out of it has never been ruled on by the Supreme court.
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/man-who-wrote-14th-amendment-explains-it-liberals-are-furious/
The President has a right to clarify an existing law by executive order in this case 1965 immigration and nationality act.
The issue can then be raised to the supreme court as the 14th was never originally meant to allow people to give birth when not a permanent resident or citizen and have that child a US citizen only the country of where the parents are citizens.
Dont like anchor baby how about tourism birth.
@Greg:
He is not suiting himself. He is suiting the nation and the Constitution. The 14th Amendment was never intended reward illegal immigration with citizenship of children. So, we shall see.
But an illegal immigrant is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” because no one knows they are here… until they show up for free health care and baby delivery. So, that will be the argument and we shall see how it fares.
@kitt, #7:
And yet it wasn’t worded so as to be restricted only to those already born and currently living in the United States at the time, was it?
Do you think the people who wrote it, ratified it by two-thirds majority vote in the House and Senate, and who then debated it, voted on it, and ratified it in the legislatures of three-fourths of all the States somehow overlooked that? Particularly at a time when immigrants from Ireland and other European nations were pouring in? Birthright citizenship was an entirely intentional consequence.
It’s nothing short of amazing what hokum the right will swallow if it somehow aligns with what they want to believe. The House, Senate, and legislatures of three-quarters of all States were not somehow bamboozled. These people were not stupid. They knew perfectly well what they were doing.
@kitt, #7:
Yes he is, because no president has the power to blatantly override the Constitution. If he gives it a serious try—and I seriously doubt if he’s actually that stupid—it will be the end of his presidency. But hey, why wait for 2020 or Robert Mueller?
@Greg: Obamas Presidency did not end when he signed unconstitutional orders. Trump wont do anything until he has it examined by experts. The writers own words clarify the intent, so pissed were the Democrats the Republicans had to pass more amendments to allow blacks to vote then laws to remove all the road blocks they put in the way.
No doubt if he signs an order the SCOTUS will be taking up the issue.
FLASH BACK
Jun 29, 2014 – The “9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court voted 9-0 that Barry exceeded his authority still no impeachment, he was such an expert on the constitution but slapped down more than any other modern President.
@Greg:
Well, if they wanted Democrats to support it, they couldn’t exactly specifically say “citizenship for slaves”, could they?
At that time, the US had no social programs, no free health care, no rent subsidies, no food stamps. The people coming to the US were coming here to work for a new life, not live off the taxpayers and send their earnings home. People coming in and draining the taxpayer dry was not even an imagination then. Reality has changed and the 14th should be made to achieve what its original purpose was.
Again, a person that sneaked across our border and hides from the government in order to remain here is NOT “under the jurisdiction” of the government. Not until they are caught for a crime.
I guess you’ve been off the planet for a while, but eliminating the anchor baby lure has been under discussion for a long time. Harry Reid was pushing to revoke it in 1993.
Birthright Citizenship–Previously Tested and Confirmed by the Supreme Court
That was in the year 1898. Birthright citizenship is a long established part of what makes this country America, and what has made it truly great. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Make America Great Again has become a cover for an effort to do the exact opposite. America is already great.
The proper way to deal with an immigration problem by actually dealing with the problem, not by destroying what our nation historically stands for.
Trump lashes out at Paul Ryan over birthright citizenship comments, says he ‘should be focusing on holding the Majority’
@Greg: Both the parents of the person in question had legal residence not citizenship but LEGAL residence look it up. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that “a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China”
Close really close but clearly doesnt cover a “Tourism Birth”.
I am sorry they toss this up at persons who take their word for it and dont look further.
Today the military pointed out that the 5,200 soldiers to be deployed at the border are just the low-ball figure.
A much larger number of soldiers will be deployed.
They are bringing tons of military grade razor wire, the type that makes barbed wire look tame.
I wonder what the plan is.
Will tent cities really be up and ready to take in 100% of all who ask for asylum?
Will all the caravaners be funneled into legal ports of entry?
Paul Ryan seems to be looking further.
@Greg: Paul lost all credibility with the republican base awhile back but but but because of what he blurbed out of his piehole he is now loved by you and the MSM. Is he up for re-election? no he might want to be one of “those” republicans that get appearances on CNN and MSNBC.
Happy Halloween https://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2018/10/29
@Nan G: They were also shipping concrete road dividers. Mexico offered them asylum, they are not frightened refugees, by the rules the first border they crossed so only Mexicans in the caravan would possibly be eligible.
@Greg: Well, I know you aren’t big on answering questions that the website that provides you your opinions cannot provide, but do you think having something like citizenship for the birth of a child to illegal immigrants might serve as an unwanted lure to illegal immigrants, particularly if the birth is paid for by the host nation? I don’t think this is a phony question that is nothing more than thinly disguised statement of my own opinion. It is, like the one about media lies, merely asking if you think something is bad or not. Be brave, fearful one. Be brave and go boldly.
@Deplorable Me, #18:
Perhaps it does, but many, if not all, noble principles have their downside. “Innocent until proven guilty” no doubt allows many guilty persons to go free; freedom of speech allows many reprehensible ideas to be openly expressed and promoted that have a negative impact on society as a whole; freedom of assembly allows white supremacists to have torchlight parades; the right to bear arms has been interpreted in such a way that crazy people have too-easy access to military-style weapons. We don’t strike down our fundamental principles because of that.
No one controls the time or place where they are born, nor who their parents are, nor what their intentions might have been. If God has seen fit that you’re born in America, you’ve been blessed. If it was simply a matter of fate, then you have been fortunate. In either case, if you’re born here, you’re as much a part of the American story as anyone else. There have always been people who want to deny their own good fortune to others, and there have always been unscrupulous leaders ready to exploit that sentiment to gain personal power.
@Greg:
VERY GOOD!!!
Indeed, a policy with good intentions is noble, but when conditions change, can’t changing or more specifically defining the policy to eliminate that bad aspects of the policy be appropriate? People here legally are not the issue, nor legal immigrants. The one and only issue is that reading this Amendment to include illegal immigrants is wrong and harmful. Maybe we agree on that… maybe not.
For instance, many have, reluctantly and suspiciously, allowed there to be widespread restrictions on their 2nd Amendment Rights. These restriction have been recognized to be for the greater good, though the suspicion that one restriction merely leads to another, then another, then another has been well founded. A child born to illegal immigrants should NEVER be rewarded with citizenship. There is NOTHING good or right about that.
So, see? No tricks, no subterfuge. Can’t you answer my other question?
@kitt:
Early states also required of aliens who desired to become domiciled within their limits to first renounce any allegiances to other governments and pledge their allegiance solely to the State. Therefore, a child born to domiciled alien parents was “born within the allegiance” of the State even if the parents had not yet been naturalized would be considered a citizen of the state and a United States citizen.
Ark’s parents had been domiciled and had renounced their allegiance to China. His case came up when he had visited China after the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, an act passed after his birth. If anything, you could say the SCOTUS “grandfathered” Ark in.
But the fact remains, Ark’s parents were living in the U.S. legally, a term the left wants to ignore and were “under the jurisdiction thereof.”
Greggie Glullible takes his stance on a lack of basic knowledge about the Ark case, claiming jus solis for all, even though there are still exceptions.
@retire05: Well, if you erase the borders, EVERYONE resides here legally.
@Deplorable Me:
And that was made quite clear in the law. Anyone not legally residing in the U.S. was determined to be an “alien” and their children were not to be natural born citizens. To this day, children born in the U.S. to foreign ambassadors are NOT considered, by birthright, to be citizens of the U.S.
The clause “under the jurisdiction thereof” is quite simple, really. Is that person a citizen, or “national” of another nation? If they are, then when arrested, they are entitled to counsel from their nation who holds “jurisdiction” over them. That is why Mexican nationals, arrested on U.S. soil, are entitled to counsel with the Mexican Embassy. They are “under the jurisdiction” of their nation of citizenship.
But I imagine that is too complicated for Greggie Gullible to grasp.
@retire05: Greg just grabbed the first thing he found that he believes would get us stirred up, He didn’t say he thinks Tourism Birth should every time grant citizenship. His reference to Ryan sealed it, lol maybe I should quote Harry Reed on the same issue.
Early states also controlled immigration it was taken over by the Fed. to homogenize the terms
Trump attacks Paul Ryan, says he ‘knows nothing’ about birthright citizenship
Trump is an idiot. Paul Ryan is not.
Sending 15,000 U.S. troops to the border as Trump is presently suggesting would cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $100 million.
Can anybody explain what exactly these troops would be legally empowered to do? Presumably their Commander in Chief understands that they wouldn’t be able to legally arrest and detain anyone. U.S. military forces can’t legally do that inside the borders of the United States. I suppose they could invade Mexico and occupy a buffer zone on foreign territory—which would be an act of war.
What we’ve got here is a $100 million election stunt.
@Greg: They get paid if they protect our border or sit in the barracks, seeing what they did at the Mexican border this is an invasion. They have every right to take prisoners.
https://www.breitbart.com/border/2018/10/30/armed-migrants-in-caravan-opened-fire-on-mexican-cops-say-authorities/
Just hungry immigrants looking for a better life….
just withhold 100 mil from the UN they can fund it coming and going
@kitt, #26:
What the law actually says:
So no, on U.S. soil, they may not arrest, take prisoners, or detain people to enforce U.S. laws.
Nor can Trump legally end birthright citizenship by decree, or pass a tax cut before the election when Congress is not in session.
@Greg:
How much does 10,000 illegal immigrants cost in health care, subsidies and lives?
Isn’t it a terrible shame that some leftists organized this hoard and costs us all this money? But, that’s what leftists do, ain’t it?
If the hoard refuses to obey orders to stop at our border, they could be shot. Of course, the left would LOVE that because nothing makes liberals happier than tragedy to exploit.
Refer to post #27. No president is above the law.
@Greg: Um, using the military against a foreign invading force is what it is for. What do you think they did in 1812?
@Deplorable Me, #30:
The Posse Comitatus Act did not exist in 1812. It became effective in 1878, when it was signed into law by a republican president.
U.S. troops have been used for the enforcement of U.S. law on U.S. soil only one time since, by Eisenhower in 1957. He was only able to do this lawfully because of a specific exception to the law relating to the Enforcement Acts of 1870-1871.
@Greg: The point being, what is the military do do in the event of a foreign invasion? Call a lawyer?
We do have around 20,000 full-time Border Patrol Agents. Total fiscal year 2018 apprehensions to date total 361,993 as of August 31st. Apparently they’re pretty good at what they do.
This is actually quite sad.
The Migrant Caravan
Migrant caravan stops for rest in southern Mexico en route to U.S.
@Greg: This is not summoning the army to enforce a law, this is the CIC protecting our border from an invading horde. Just cause you heard it on tv doesnt mean its true.
The posse comitatus, in common law, is all able-bodied males over the age of 15 within a specific county, when mobilized in whole or in part by the conservator of peace – usually the sheriff – to suppress lawlessness or defend the county.
This action isnt a posse the sheriff isnt calling to protect a county. The use of that term is incorrect in its definition.
Dont you think all the military legal experts have already been consulted in this issue. We just have to wait to see what will be done cause Trump wont tell the enemy what the next move is .
He is doing his best to let them know they want to immigrate to do it legally or dont come, they are not getting in.
Piffle. The Posse Comitatus Act is very clear about what it forbids. We’re not talking about English Common Law here, but about a very particular law enacted by our own Congress in 1878, which continues to remain in full effect today. It applies specifically to our nation’s military forces.
We are not under attack by an invading foreign military force. No act of war is involved. This is purely a matter of domestic immigration law enforcement. Our troops will go wherever they’re ordered to go. The problem is what they can lawfully do once they get there.
Any U.S. president overstepping his lawful authority in the use of our military forces on American soil is headed for big trouble. If unchallenged, it would set a precedent that could threaten our entire system of government. Neither republicans nor democrats would allow this to happen. Hopefully someone is carefully explaining this to Mr. Trump.
About the caravan; who is feeding them, providing them with water? Even Greggie Gullible is [probably] smart enough to understand you can’t pack enough food and water into a back pack for a 1,500 miles trek.
Never mind that Griff Jenkins now reports they are boarding buses. Who is paying for the buses, the food, the water, etc?
They’re being fed, sheltered, and transported along the way by various municipalities, churches, and humanitarian organizations. One motive is probably humanitarian, but another is likely to speed them on their way so they don’t become a local problem. Our best strategy might be to set up refugee entry points and then require them to remain on the other side of the border while waiting their turn for processing. Mexico would likely soon grow tired of that, and respond by making entering and crossing their territory far less inviting. It wouldn’t take long for interminable stays in refugee camps south of the border to become uninviting.
@Greg: What’s sad? The way the left use and exploit human misery to achieve their goals?
Where is Greg and what have you done with him? THIS person seems to finally get it. Ending the impression that simply getting to the border means entry and residency, along with all the accouterments, will discourage future illegal immigration and if they don’t get through to our country, Mexico will quickly figure out that aiding and abetting their violation of our sovereignty is not working out very well and THEY will provide us more help.
The sooner would-be illegal immigrants figure this out, the sooner the misery, abuse, murder, rape and exploitation of them will end. If the UN views this as such a problem, they should address the governments that abuse their citizens to the point that they run away. That’s their JOB.
November 5 — Migrant caravan converges on Mexico City after three weeks on the road
Weeks of travel, the caravan is fragmenting, and they’re just reaching Mexico City. Promised transportation fell through. Look at a map. Don’t expect Trump’s predicted mass assault on the southern border of the United States anytime soon. They’re going to become Mexico’s problem. The “terrible menace” was a Trump pre-election stunt which will cost American taxpayers an estimated $200,000 by the end of December. But he’ll soon be claiming to have repelled them with his decisive actions. Once again, Trump saves America.
@Greg:
For every 1,000 illegal children enter the U.S., a new school has to be built. Ummm, let me see, does an entirely new school building, along with the expense of administration, teaching staff, utilities, maintenance, etc. cost more than $200,000.00? What is the cost to the U.S. taxpayers to pay for the delivery of one of your beloved anchor babies to an uninsured illegal mother? How much in HHS grants have been given out to agencies just to care for UACs in the last five years?
Illegal immigration is a net loss to the U.S. taxpayer and federal coffers but apparently a net gain in Democrat voters.
@Greg: Perhaps the deployment of troops on our border and the pronounced determination to deny the illegal immigrants entry has stopped the hoard (grown to 12,000) and is dissuading those supporting and promoting it from throwing good money after bad. Obviously, the promise of the same old lax border control and rubber stamping illegal immigration is what helped the hoard to form and Trump’s determination, action and leadership is dampening expectations of the free ride.
He SHOULD claim he turned them back. He did.
Now Mexico can rethink future accommodations. They get the benefit of having to deal with this liberal brainchild.
Hmmm Beto gets busted funding them and suddenly they cant find a bus or flatbed to the border? Betcha DHS infiltrated and cut off other financial sources as well.
It is their own governments responsibility to protect them from these gangs that attack their citizens. It is no wonder Bolsoaro won the election in Brazil, tough on crime.
Some sad stories from the horde, like the couple who refused medical care for their baby suffering from chicken pox and severe malnutrition, afraid they would fall behind.
@kitt:
Well, that’s because these are just some poor people seeking a better life for their families. Any bets as to whether or not this is really his child?
The left does not blink or hesitate to use such people to further their own agenda.
@Deplorable Me: We cant bring a bottle of shampoo on an airplane but are expected to take 8 to14 K strangers into the country with out vetting them.
At least they didn’t make it here in time to vote.
Oh, wait, absentee ballots…
@Greg: #38
Not an insult or a word of profanity in this post.
YAY! The old Greg is back!
Welcome back, buddy. I sure missed you!
I’ll give you a pass on #40, just to encourage you to stick around.
Please give New Greg a kick in the seat for ruining the “Greg” brand.
“But he’ll soon be claiming to have repelled them with his decisive actions. Once again, Trump saves America.”
And rightly so. He did.
@Greg:
As a person born to illegal immigrants, I really admire that you said this.
@Jenny:
Well, they damn sure do. When a man and his pregnant wife illegally cross our border with the intent to stay until she gives birth so they can get high quality, free services is most certainly in control of the location of the birth and free citizenship is most definitely a lure to using illegal activity to get it.
@Deplorable Me:
He meant from the perspective of the child. I certainly didn’t choose the circumstances of which I was born into. Yet here I am:
Grateful to be an American citizen.