Border Crisis

[mark46]

Not if one is seeking asylum, no.

So, you think that the US is forced to stop folks in the water as we have done with Cuban refugees for decades. In any case, we can process these folks in 72 hours.

I suppose one answer would be to have Mexico allow us to monitor their side of the border.

 

[mark46]

The Biden administration has held unaccompanied children for more than the 72 hour legal limit. They have refused access to the media to see the inside of the barred storage containers that hold the children. I think both the United Nations and the International Red Cross should be allowed to examine the situation.
How many of these children have been brought in by the coyotes? How many have been forced to carry in drugs? How many have been sexually abused?

And how many were held more than 72 hours in the Trump administration. Surely, the resul;ts of the UN investigation was published.

 

[Pommer]

So, you think that the US is forced to stop folks in the water as we have done with Cuban refugees for decades. In any case, we can process these folks in 72 hours.

I suppose one answer would be to have Mexico allow us to monitor their side of the border.

“Process these folks”, yes, give them an immigration court date and release them in-country.

Joint operations aside, countries don’t generally cede sovereignty over their own territory.

 

[disciple Clint]

So you agree that Biden should threaten Mexico with tariffs if they don't stop immigrates at their southern border? That's what Trump did to stop them from getting to our border.

I agree that Biden made a major mistake by ending the agreements we had with our friends to the south. I am afraid that this is just the beginning of many mistakes Biden has and will continue to make.

 

[wing2000]

The Biden administration has held unaccompanied children for more than the 72 hour legal limit. They have refused access to the media to see the inside of the barred storage containers that hold the children. I think both the United Nations and the International Red Cross should be allowed to examine the situation.
How many of these children have been brought in by the coyotes? How many have been forced to carry in drugs? How many have been sexually abused?

Yes, better to send them back to the streets of Mexico border cities....a much safer environment.

 

[Hank77]

What these camps would be is a housing area where these people would stay while waiting for their asylum claims to be processed.

The US offered to provide funding to build indoor housing for individual families? Like apartments or private rooms with shared cooking and bath facilities? What were these camps to consist of?

 

[Hank77]

I agree that Biden made a major mistake by ending the agreements we had with our friends to the south. I am afraid that this is just the beginning of many mistakes Biden has and will continue to make.

I don't know of any agreements that Biden ended with the Mexican government. Please show me where he did that. Was there ever any written agreement between Trump and the Mexican government or was it a verbal threat?

 

[Valletta]

Yes, better to send them back to the streets of Mexico border cities....a much safer environment.

The Trump administration would send them back to Guatemala or wherever they came from. Now the word is that Biden is letting people in, that's why you sometimes see the Biden signs. With the cartels controlling the border areas the cartels decide who goes through and who carries in drugs to the U.S., who gets used in human trafficking, etc. I am worried that the administration is reversing everything because it was initiated by Trump. For example, the agreement by Biden to have strict fossil fuel controls here while letting China not have such controls for the next thirty years doesn't make a bit of sense. Why not just say we are temporarily going back to the Trump border controls?

 

[Hank77]

Now the word is that Biden is letting people in, that's why you sometimes see the Biden signs

That word is disinformation. The border is closed!
Yesterday at the WH press conference that was made very clear in both English and Spanish by Ambassador Roberta Jacobson.

Getting information from Facebook, etc. where anyone who wants to cause confusion can post any crazy thing they want to isn't a good idea for any reason let alone traveling 2,000 to a border that you may never be allowed to cross.

 

[Ringo84]

At the end of the day, the "border" between Mexico and the United States is imaginary - a fabrication consisting of agreements, probably more than a century old, that Mexico ends at one point and the US begins at that same point. For all of the difference it makes in real terms, Mexico could begin at the southernmost portion of Virginia....or South Carolina.

Spending all of this time, effort and money to "defend" an imaginary line against impoverished Central Americans fleeing their broken countries - which we had a big hand in breaking - seems like a massive waste. It seems that the phenomenon of enforcing strict lines between countries and requiring visas to move between them is a fairly recent one. I am in favor of freer movement between countries, because at the end of the day, one point on the map is not terribly different than another one.

I know that's not a particularly popular point of view, but I think it's a less wasteful and more humane one than concentration camps and complaining about caravans and migrant moms trying to find a better home for their children.
Ringo

 

[ralliann]

We’re talking about paying a foreign government to detain people that they (by International Treaty) have no right to hold (save for laws broken while in Mexico). But that’s “not a prison” because prisons are called prisons and camps are called camps?
You’re down to semantics already?

No, "we" are not, you are. Let me put it this way. Whatever acceptable conditions are needed to keep illegal aliens within the borders of the country they are in (as a pass through), giving them financial incentives to enforce their own laws, is done all the time. Such as Iran being given tons of money by the Obama administration to make a deal. Yes, it is sad that some countries need to be paid off to do the right thing. The countries surrounding our border are not the only countries this is done.

 

[Ringo84]

Iran wasn't "given" "tons of money". Money that had been frozen due to sanctions was unfrozen, which is not the same thing.

Why are we expending the time and effort to defend an imaginary line?
Ringo

 

[Speedwell]

Iran wasn't "given" "tons of money". Money that had been frozen due to sanctions was unfrozen, which is not the same thing.

Why are we expending the time and effort to defend an imaginary line?
Ringo

It's just a line. I wonder if any of our conservative colleagues here have actually lived on the border? It's just a line, people cross it all the time. It runs through the middle of major metropolitan areas , Indian reservations and privately owned ranches. At El Paso/Ciudad Juarez, 10,000 commuters cross it every day, US and Mexican nationals in both directions. In Columbus/Puerto Palomas, the Luna County, NM school bus comes down to the gate every day to pick up US Citizen kids who live on the other side. There are gates all along where cows are herded through and to give access to agricultural vehicles. One of the chief objections locals had to "The Wall" was the deleterious effect it would have on commerce, industry and family life. The border is not a line, it's a zone.

 

[ralliann]

This would have been a good idea when separating families because of concern that the children were being shepherded into the country by wily human-traffickers. That would’ve been definitive proof of “who belonged with whom”, which would have come in handy after the previous administration was told to reunite these families, but that’d’ve cost money.

It was done under the previous administration.... Good grief.

 

[mark46]

The line separating Central American's from the US is hardly imaginary. The current issue is that Mexico allows folks to use its territory for thousands of miles to facilitate their entry into the US.

How many refugees we accept and how many asylum seekers is a different issue.

If their are Mexican asylum seekers, that is an entirely different issue.

BTW, are you OK with accepting millions. Millions will come if we choose to allow them to come. The situation in Central America is that bad.

In the US, we should be giving paths to citizenship to the 10 million that are already here (including DACA folk). Then we can consider millions more, if we as a people so choose.

In the meantime, our policies should be CLEAR, humane, and swift.

Obama was called the Deporter In Chief. Biden will end up deporting more per year than Obama.

At the end of the day, the "border" between Mexico and the United States is imaginary - a fabrication consisting of agreements, probably more than a century old, that Mexico ends at one point and the US begins at that same point. For all of the difference it makes in real terms, Mexico could begin at the southernmost portion of Virginia....or South Carolina.

Spending all of this time, effort and money to "defend" an imaginary line against impoverished Central Americans fleeing their broken countries - which we had a big hand in breaking - seems like a massive waste. It seems that the phenomenon of enforcing strict lines between countries and requiring visas to move between them is a fairly recent one. I am in favor of freer movement between countries, because at the end of the day, one point on the map is not terribly different than another one.

I know that's not a particularly popular point of view, but I think it's a less wasteful and more humane one than concentration camps and complaining about caravans and migrant moms trying to find a better home for their children.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

How many refugees we accept and how many asylum seekers is a different issue.

If their are Mexican asylum seekers, that is an entirely different issue.

How come?
Ringo

 

[mark46]

How come?
Ringo

because we have borders
Mexico is a bordering country.
We cannot be in the position to accept anyone who can manage to use a boat or plane to reach the US. It is US policy to try to prevent certain situations. This policy is most clear when we consider Cuba. We patrol the waterways, even intercepting folks swimming. Entering the US is not a desperate sport. If we choose, we can process asylum seekers in our embassies in other countries.

 

[Ringo84]

because we have borders

Which are imaginary.

We cannot be in the position to accept anyone who can manage to use a boat or plane to reach the US.

Why not?
Ringo

 

[mark46]

Which are imaginary.



Why not?
Ringo

Ok. You are basically proposing that should accept the many millions in the world who would prefer to live in the US, because the situation is so bad where they live.

This position is truly a open border approach.

This a policy issue. It has been put to a vote many times, in various forms. If a law is passed to that effect, it will be the law of the land. Until then, it will simply be a losing political positions, except in some 70% Democratic districts.

 

[Ringo84]

Ok. You are basically proposing that should accept the many millions in the world who would prefer to live in the US, because the situation is so bad where they live.

This position is truly a open border approach.

Yep.

This a policy issue. It has been put to a vote many times, in various forms. If a law is passed to that effect, it will be the law of the land. Until then, it will simply be a losing political positions, except in some 70% Democratic districts.

Maybe it wouldn't be if it were more apparent how much money we'd be saving from defending an imaginary line, concentration camps, processing, etc.

It's a fairly recent phenomenon that we require documents to travel between countries. The traditional way has been for free movement between places regardless of borders. I'm more in favor of that than the system we have now, which tends to hurt the poorest the most (quite deliberately, I'm sure).
Ringo