Trump administration has not settled on a plan for what to do if caravan arrives at the US border

[INVAR]

Don't be an idiot.  It is far more expensive to militarily "seal" a 2,000-mile long border than to hire additional folks to vet asylum seekers and monitor the locations and activities so they show up for their hearings.   Trump wants $25 billion for his wall.  How about YOU pay for it?   

You people are already making Americans pay in blood and plunder for the hordes of these third world invaders that are provided for by MY tax dime, while your party signs them up to vote - and they cannot speak a word of english having been in country only weeks or months.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Don't be an idiot.  It is far more expensive to militarily "seal" a 2,000-mile long border than to hire additional folks to vet asylum seekers and monitor the locations and activities so they show up for their hearings.   Trump wants $25 billion for his wall.  How about YOU pay for it?   

I don't think that's true.  "Sealing" the border is basically a red herring.  A $25B wall, backed by a reasonable number of border patrol, can reduce the flow of illegal immigrants massively.

In contrast, unless you support holding all those asylum seekers in detention where they can be prevented from moving about inside the country, trying to track everyone who came in would be far more expensive, and would be a never-ending problem.

Then, when they are released into the U.S. pending the formal asylum hearing,  I'd think they ought to be treated like folks on parole,  obliged to check in with government officials on a weekly or monthly basis,  so their locations and activities can be monitored.   Violation of such requirements should be, without more, grounds for deportation and rejection of their asylum bid.   Asylum seekers should be required to be fingerprinted and to sign agreements so as to allow expedited deportations in the event of violation of the "parole" requirement.

This is basically what happens already.  And 90% of them simply "skip parole" and disappear into the country.  They then use fake names, and that's it.  Maybe some fraction of them are eventually caught and given the boot, but the overwhelming majority aren't.  As a practical matter, it is either detention, or let them come in freely.  There is no effective middle ground possible.

The only way to perhaps prevent that is by introducing and implementing a lot more biometric scanning for employment, etc., though it would necessarily have to apply to citizens as well.  And even if you could pass that legislation tomorrow, it would takes years to implement all the technology and infrastructure to support it, which makes it an irrelevancy in terms of how we handle these people currently.

[LilLamb]

What the migrants themselves say is that they want to work.    Conditions in places like Honduras are intolerable because of drug gang violence.   These folks must be vetted carefully because once a gangster, always a gangster.  But for those who are genuinely fleeing gang violence,  I have sympathy for their courage and fortitude.  I assume most are Christians.   The alternative is paying smugglers - they travel in these caravans because there is, apparently, safety in numbers

*They are traveling through 2 countries to get here and if they are allowed in our country they will most likely live in a low rent district that has gang violence. *

[Emjay]

I don't think that's true.  "Sealing" the border is basically a red herring.  A $25B wall, backed by a reasonable number of border patrol, can reduce the flow of illegal immigrants massively.

In contrast, unless you support holding all those asylum seekers in detention where they can be prevented from moving about inside the country, trying to track everyone who came in would be far more expensive, and would be a never-ending problem.

This is basically what happens already.  And 90% of them simply "skip parole" and disappear into the country.  They then use fake names, and that's it.  Maybe some fraction of them are eventually caught and given the boot, but the overwhelming majority aren't.  As a practical matter, it is either detention, or let them come in freely.  There is no effective middle ground possible.

@Maj. Bill Martin   Thankful to see your name.  I assumed you would not go as crazy as a lot of people here have done.

They are demanding to know Trump's exact plans for handling this, which is ridiculous. 

We already have an immigrant problem here brought on largely by 8 years of Obama and now being fought by a President with a thin Republican majority, many of whom do not feel as strongly as he does.

If we can keep and maybe increase the Republican majority, Trump will have more of a bully pulpit reinforced by the fact that most people do not want to be overrun with illegals.

I just don't get the panic and stupidity being displayed here, not just by NTers but by people I previously considered sane.

[Silver Pines]

@libertybele

It seems that the fact Pompeo and Trump have agreed to allow those migrants (being kind here) who make it to Mexico to apply for asylum and then the UN will determine which host country to place them in, including the USA, has been forgotten.

They said that?

[Silver Pines]

Yes, I saw Think Progress (an extremely leftist site) used Joe Bastardi as a source for that.  Others disagree, and it's hard to know because Mexico is never honest about damage from disasters.  We will just have to wait and see.  It serves the leftist cause to believe there are 14,000,000,000 poor people "marching" on our southern border.  More proof of Trump's Fault ahead of the election.

Don't think I've ever seen the media bias this bad.  They are playing it for all its worth.

@Cyber Liberty

Yep, you're right.

I'll be honest; I think it might be a good thing that the hurricane didn't hit them head-on.  Can you imagine the screaming and the wailing?  Trump would be called on to take the victims in immediately.  What a monster and human rights abuser if he didn't.  They would probably truck more women and kids to the scene to make it more urgent. 

[Applewood]

Based on what evidence do you doubt his commitment to protect Americans.

I’ve seen no evidence to date to support your skepticism.

How about the last invasionary force which was let in because the National Guard had no authority to engage them?

How about other things he has promised -- like curbing spending, but then he signed a massive spending bill because he said he had to?

What about his campaign promises like repealing Obie care and tax reform?  We still have Obie care and so-called tax reform was just a tax tweak? 

Oh, Trump says he is going to do a lot of things, but in 2 years he has made little headway on any of them. 

Don't tell me it's congress' fault.  As the practical head of his party, he has the power to negotiate, to whip his party into shape and get congress to tackle these isdues.  Instead he whines and complains about his own party and spends all his time golfing, tweeting and touring the country on his never-ending rock star tour. 

You bet I have doubts he will really repel this invasion -- because his track record sof far shows  on this issue and so many others, he has been all talk, no action. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin   Thankful to see your name.  I assumed you would not go as crazy as a lot of people here have done.

They are demanding to know Trump's exact plans for handling this, which is ridiculous.

The sooner Trump announces a specific plan, the more able the migrants and those directing/supporting them will start figuring ways around it.  It also would enable activists lawyers to prepare pleadings, etc., to try to get injunctions.  The right approach is to have a variety of different plans depending on how this looks as they get closer to the border, and then enough flexibility to shift when they start getting really close.  Announcing it all ahead of time is counterproductive.

[Silver Pines]

What the migrants themselves say is that they want to work.    Conditions in places like Honduras are intolerable because of drug gang violence.   These folks must be vetted carefully because once a gangster, always a gangster.  But for those who are genuinely fleeing gang violence,  I have sympathy for their courage and fortitude.  I assume most are Christians.   The alternative is paying smugglers - they travel in these caravans because there is, apparently, safety in numbers.   

I'd be curious to know if there is an effective way to vet asylum seekers with government authorities in Honduras and El Salvador,  to check whether they have been arrested for violent crimes.    Those who arrive will be able to get an initial asylum interview,  and there ought to be better ways to both cross-check their claims of persecution and their own personal honesty.    Then, when they are released into the U.S. pending the formal asylum hearing,  I'd think they ought to be treated like folks on parole,  obliged to check in with government officials on a weekly or monthly basis,  so their locations and activities can be monitored.   Violation of such requirements should be, without more, grounds for deportation and rejection of their asylum bid.   Asylum seekers should be required to be fingerprinted and to sign agreements so as to allow expedited deportations in the event of violation of the "parole" requirement.

@Jazzhead

To hell with any of that.  We have an army of people demanding to be let into our country as though they have rights.  I'm not interested in vetting, interviewing, cross-checking, or any of that.  I want them stopped and turned away, period.  Sorry they're having a hard time.  In the 18th century a bunch of farmers beat the most powerful military force on earth and founded this country, so they can take a lesson and fix their own countries.  We cannot take in every sad case in the world.  Best to them.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Jazzhead

To hell with any of that.  We have an army of people demanding to be let into our country as though they have rights.  I'm not interested in vetting, interviewing, cross-checking, or any of that.  I want them stopped and turned away, period.  Sorry they're having a hard time.  In the 18th century a bunch of farmers beat the most powerful military force on earth and founded this country, so they can take a lesson and fix their own countries.  We cannot take in every sad case in the world.  Best to them.

The truth is, Trump was right when he talked about "shithole" countries.  There are a lot of countries in the world that fit that description, and where economic opportunities are few and far between.  Americans live better than 90% of the rest of the world.  At least.  If the standard for letting people into this country was "they just want a better life", we'd literally be opening ourselves up to billions.  And I have zero desire to do that.

[Jazzhead]

I don't think that's true.  "Sealing" the border is basically a red herring.  A $25B wall, backed by a reasonable number of border patrol, can reduce the flow of illegal immigrants massively.

In contrast, unless you support holding all those asylum seekers in detention where they can be prevented from moving about inside the country, trying to track everyone who came in would be far more expensive, and would be a never-ending problem.

This is basically what happens already.  And 90% of them simply "skip parole" and disappear into the country.  They then use fake names, and that's it.  Maybe some fraction of them are eventually caught and given the boot, but the overwhelming majority aren't.  As a practical matter, it is either detention, or let them come in freely.  There is no effective middle ground possible.

The only way to perhaps prevent that is by introducing and implementing a lot more biometric scanning for employment, etc., though it would necessarily have to apply to citizens as well.  And even if you could pass that legislation tomorrow, it would takes years to implement all the technology and infrastructure to support it, which makes it an irrelevancy in terms of how we handle these people currently.

Illegal immigrants and asylum seekers are different problems, requiring different solutions.    Illegals sneak in across the border - for those, a wall and increased border security in general can help.   So can increased sanctions on employers who hire those without papers to be here.   I don't really object to Trump's wall - but I had to laugh at INVAR's implication that "sealing" the border "militarily"  was an economical solution.  Don't we have better uses for our soldiers elsewhere?     

Asylum seekers come to a point of entry and announce their presence,  and seek to conform to the rules governing adjudication of asylum requests.  (If they don't, then they're just illegals)
For asylum seekers,  what is lacking is better monitoring of their location and activities during the period between their initial asylum interview and their formal asylum hearing.   One solution - an expensive one - is detention.  But in most cases, a parole-type approach should be sufficient, I'd think.   

[Emjay]

The sooner Trump announces a specific plan, the more able the migrants and those directing/supporting them will start figuring ways around it.  It also would enable activists lawyers to prepare pleadings, etc., to try to get injunctions.  The right approach is to have a variety of different plans depending on how this looks as they get closer to the border, and then enough flexibility to shift when they start getting really close.  Announcing it all ahead of time is counterproductive.

Exactly @Maj. Bill Martin and so obvious it literally amazes me how many people here are demanding to see the blueprints of 'the plan.' 

The fact is there are probably a number of plans, all subject to change as the situation changes.  To reveal every nuance and detail of all the contingencies and plans would be enabling the enemy.

I consider that we are lucky that we have a President who is determined to keep this horde of unfortunate people out of the country.  Sorry that they are poor and live in 'shit hole' countries and also that nobody knows how many terrorists are in this group.  They are mostly male with a few women with babies thrown in for photo ops.

But liberals are still criticizing Trump for his 'heartless' refusal to let them overrun our country.  Last night Tucker Carlson talked to this guy crying over them and Tucker could not get him to answer as to how many people he would personally take in if they entered.  The best this guy could do was say that he would take them all in ... if he could ... but, well, he can't actually take any.

I firmly believe this is a George Soros funded operation designed to do exactly what it is doing:  undermine Trump just prior to the election.

I would hope people are smarter than that, but after reading many posts here, I am beginning to wonder.

[INVAR]

The sooner Trump announces a specific plan, the more able the migrants and those directing/supporting them will start figuring ways around it.  It also would enable activists lawyers to prepare pleadings, etc., to try to get injunctions.  The right approach is to have a variety of different plans depending on how this looks as they get closer to the border, and then enough flexibility to shift when they start getting really close.  Announcing it all ahead of time is counterproductive.

Bullshit.

Declaring a national emergency, announcing that the border is closed, and that no one gets in period, because of not only the sheer numbers, but the amount of possible criminals and Jihadists mixed within their hordes - the pawns with children might rethink being canon fodder for the orchestrators and the only mob that makes it to the border are the American flag burning 'warriors' who intended breech it anyway.

Doing jack and saying jack means that entire wave makes it to the border with a massive hoped-for humanitarian crisis for the cameras and Trump will be pressured to let them all in.  You watch.  We've seen this exact same performance before.  Over and over again.

Trump will have again demonstrated to everyone that open borders to the welfare state is still official policy and that he is the empty suit con man many of us said he was all along.

[edpc]

The truth is, Trump was right when he talked about "shithole" countries.  There are a lot of countries in the world that fit that description, and where economic opportunities are few and far between.  Americans live better than 90% of the rest of the world.  At least.  If the standard for letting people into this country was "they just want a better life", we'd literally be opening ourselves up to billions.  And I have zero desire to do that.

The best way to keep people out is to make other countries places their citizens don't want to flee.  All the more reason the DACA ‘kids’ should be deported.  They’re supposedly educated and are in the perfect position to be the reformers and future of their native countries.

[Emjay]

Bullshit.

Declaring a national emergency, announcing that the border is closed, and that no one gets in period, because of not only the sheer numbers, but the amount of possible criminals and Jihadists mixed within their hordes - the pawns with children might rethink being canon fodder for the orchestrators and the only mob that makes it to the border are the American flag burning 'warriors' who intended breech it anyway.

Doing jack and saying jack means that entire wave makes it to the border with a massive hoped-for humanitarian crisis for the cameras and Trump will be pressured to let them all in.  You watch.  We've seen this exact same performance before.  Over and over again.

Trump will have again demonstrated to everyone that open borders to the welfare state is still official policy and that he is the empty suit con man many of us said he was all along.

That is premature and you would know it if you would think about it.  It is not a national emergency and probably won't become one.  And you are nothing but a negative NTer.

[truth_seeker]

2018-Trump administration has not settled on a plan for what to do if  caravan arrives

1986-Reagan administration has not settled on a plan for what to do if  caravan arrives, after BOTH parties raise amnesty hopes, every few years.

[Jazzhead]

The best way to keep people out is to make other countries places their citizens don't want to flee.

No argument there.

All the more reason the DACA ‘kids’ should be deported.  They’re supposedly educated and are in the perfect position to be the reformers and future of their native countries.

What native countries?   They came here when they were kids,  too young to know their native countries.   They in many cases are Americanized, in all ways but legally.   Most reasonable folks on both sides of the aisle support changes to allow the legal status of the DACA folks to be resolved.   

[Emjay]

The best way to keep people out is to make other countries places their citizens don't want to flee.  All the more reason the DACA ‘kids’ should be deported.  They’re supposedly educated and are in the perfect position to be the reformers and future of their native countries.

That is actually a decent thought, Ed, except that it would take more than a few DACA kids to reform countries seeped in poverty and corrupt leadership for many, many years.

Plus, getting them out is gonna be very, very difficult until we get a better and more conservative majority in Congress.

[edpc]

What native countries?  They came here when they were kids, too young to know their native countries.   They in many cases are Americanized, in all ways but legally.

Exactly, which means they have no standing, so they can return to the nation of their birth.  Many who are here have not even assimilated through language.  Those that have are familiar with American ideals and what could improve things greatly in areas desperately needing it. 

[edpc]

That is actually a decent thought, Ed, except that it would take more than a few DACA kids to reform countries seeped in poverty and corrupt leadership for many, many years.

Plus, getting them out is gonna be very, very difficult until we get a better and more conservative majority in Congress.

Last I heard, there were over 700K of them.  That’s hardly ‘a few.’  The thousands in the caravan are a fraction of their size and we’re hearing how they’re an invading horde that will threaten and destroy this nation.  Seems to me that hundreds of thousands would greatly improve conditions elsewhere fairly quickly, if they really wanted to.

[Sanguine]

It takes 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done. The GOP has 51 votes.

No, it doesn't.  It takes a simple majority for most things. The GOP has what it needs.

[edpc]

It takes 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done. The GOP has 51 votes.

How do you think two SCOTUS appointments were confirmed and a tax bill was passed?  You really can’t be that naïve.

[INVAR]

That is premature and you would know it if you would think about it. 

Clearly you haven't.

[verga]

The best way to keep people out is to make other countries places their citizens don't want to flee. 

When did this become our responsibility? We bailed out Germany,Japan, and most of Europe after WWII.
We built up South Korea after that little kerfuffle. How many times have we sent aid to Puerto Rico only to have them spit on us.
Screw them all. We built up our country, they can kick out here shitty leaders and do the same.

[edpc]

When did this become our responsibility? We bailed out Germany,Japan, and most of Europe after WWII.  We built up South Korea after that little kerfuffle. How many times have we sent aid to Puerto Rico only to have them spit on us.  Screw them all. We built up our country, they can kick out here shitty leaders and do the same.

I’m pretty sure I said it was incumbent upon them to correct things.