Caravan

[Dahobbs 17534]

1 hour ago, Kyle said:

It is not nonsense or bullshit when no one can really answer. Anyone intellectually honest knows that they're not actually seeking asylum as defined in our law, and it is a waste of our time and resources processing them. It feels odd on one hand we complain we need more funding for this, that, and the other, but we want to waste money processing a bunch of people who are not being persecuted? I liken it to the city of Dallas, which does not have money to fix potholes or provide key social services to the poor but can find $5M to remove an obscure statue in response to a special interest group. I mean if those are priorities, but I would rather spend money differently.

(1) We don't know each of their situations. It may be true that the majority will not have valid asylum claims. But I'm sure a good number of them do as well. Our laws and due process require us to consider each of these claims individually. Due process exists for a reason (the Constitution). Or, maybe you prefer that we assume you are a murder, not waste time with due process of law, and just execute you. You don't get to pick when to apply due process based on what is convenient for you. 

(2) We entered treaties requiring us to process asylum claims and grant were appropriate. And Congress passed laws requiring us to act in accordance with those treaties. If you don't like the law, there is a process to changing it. Ignoring laws you don't like isn't an option. 

 

[Dahobbs 17534]

16 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Personally, I think the vast majority of these folks are economic migrants.  That said, it doesn't matter what I think.  

I agree with Brisket...process them according to the law and if they are found to meet the criteria for asylum, then provide it...if not reject their applications and send them on their way.

In the meantime, do NOT separate children from their parents.

However, if someone, tries to enter illegally, detain and deport them without considering their application, and if a group tries to overrun the border use whatever non-lethal force reasonably necessary to stop them.

Not sure why this is so hard.

It isn't for many. But some people are stupid. And some people are evil. 

[retread 2951]

Quote

Before 2016, and in some cases as recently as six months ago, they would have had no problem and no delay. But for the last several months, the Trump administration has made a practice of limiting the number of asylum seekers allowed to enter the US each day — a policy it calls “metering.” It’s the counterpart of the Trump administration’s months-long crackdown on asylum seekers entering the US illegally — telling those who do try to come legally that there’s no room for them, and ordering them to wait.

They don’t say how long the wait will be. And there’s no official way for asylum seekers to hold their spot or secure an appointment, no guarantee that they’ll ever be allowed to cross.

And so asylum seekers wait, for days or weeks or (increasingly) months: sometimes in migrant shelters whose capacity has stretched to the breaking point, sometimes huddling together on bridges, sleeping on the street, in the cold, vulnerable to the violence they hoped to escape in their home countries.

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/28/18089048/border-asylum-trump-metering-legally-ports

[Foosters 17850]

7 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

Personal attacks.  Nice.

jesus christ, are you 7?

 

You spend weeks calling everyone who disagreed with you "soy boy." Do you not remember?

[ChickenSandwich 9833]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Other than the fact that this is false, sure.

Some are just economic migrants, and have their applications denied.  Many are actually persecuted and under threat of violence/death, and their applications are granted.  There is a process.  They should follow it, and they should be allowed to follow it.

And for any who want to stay in Mexico, more power to them.  Apply there, see what Mexico does.  We should all follow our basic treaty obligations.

Oh, and we actually have a very good record of tracking asylum applicants.  And we can make it even better with some simple steps.  But they are much more valuable as demagogue issues, so there you have it.

I think you mean the overwhelming majority are economic migrants Not asylum seekers. 

By your logic if I am able to breaking into your house you are obligated to take over my care. 

[Foosters 17850]

7 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

LOL that was in response to being called a nazi racist over and over.  No one seems to bring that up.  Weird.  Also, that was like 2 days but carry along.  You act like it was in a vacuum.  

Weird, I just went back and i see you throwing around the term a bunch, but no one calling you a Nazi.  Got a link?  

 

Oops, just remembered that others have asked you to provide links, but you've yet to do so.  

Edited November 30, 2018 by Foosters

[Brisketexan 105095]

4 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

I think you mean the overwhelming majority are economic migrants Not asylum seekers. 

By your logic if I am able to breaking into your house you are obligated to take over my care. 

No, not by my logic.  Rather, by treaty and LAW, if you present yourself at a US port of entry to apply for asylum, I must process and consider your application.  If your application is rejected -- and many are -- then you may not remain here and are deported.  If your asylum request is granted, then yes, you may stay here.

Like Dixon Hur stated, this really isn't that hard.  But a lot of folks seem to have a vested interest in making it so.

 

EDIT - Oh, and as to "the overwhelming majority are economic migrants," with respect to Central Americans presenting themselves for asylum here in recent years, that has not been the case.  And even further, the bar for asylum is actually quite high -- a person can certainly be fleeing a situation for reasons of personal safety and still not meet the rigorous requirements for asylum.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Brisketexan

[ChickenSandwich 9833]

Where you get this suicidal belief that anyone who can make it to the border immediately becomes the US tax payer responsiblity regardless of merit is beyond  explanation. 

We don’t even have to mention Obama changing the guild lines for asylum either. By your radical rhetoric the entire area of Mexico and Central America has the right to an Asylum hearing in the US and we must pay for it with tax money. 

 

If they stay in Mexico for a few months while waiting on asylum it simply makes them easier to deny as felling violence will have already proven to be settled or no longer a threat. That should be a quick rubber stamp and really clear the back log

[Dahobbs 17534]

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Where you get this suicidal belief that anyone who can make it to the border immediately becomes the US tax payer responsiblity regardless of merit is beyond  explanation. 

We don’t even have to mention Obama changing the guild lines for asylum either. By your radical rhetoric the entire area of Mexico and Central America has the right to an Asylum hearing in the US and we must pay for it with tax money. 

 

If they stay in Mexico for a few months while waiting on asylum it simply makes them easier to deny as felling violence will have already proven to be settled or no longer a threat. That should be a quick rubber stamp and really clear the back log

It is literally a law passed by Congress. If you want it changed, ask the Republicans why they haven't tried to change it yet despite having complete control of the government. 

[Brisketexan 105095]

2 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Where you get this suicidal belief that anyone who can make it to the border immediately becomes the US tax payer responsiblity regardless of merit is beyond  explanation. 

False premise, on multiple levels.  But the bottom line is that you are required to present your asylum claim at a US port of entry.  I'm not getting an "idea" from anywhere.  I know that things like "the law" might be beyond explanation for you, but it isn't for those of us who are literate.

Here's a quick summary in lay language, which puts the lie to your false premises:

Quote

Preferable Option: Wait Until You’re In the U.S. to Apply for Asylum

If the inspections officer allows you in to the U.S., then you can apply for asylum by mailing in an application, with supporting documentation, on Form I-589. The form and instructions are available for free download on the USCIS website (www.uscis.gov). However, if at all possible, you should get help from an attorney.

If You Must Request Asylum at the Port of Entry

The reason to avoid requesting asylum at the port of entry to the U.S. is that the inspections officers have the power to quickly find you inadmissible and deport you, in which case you will not be allowed to return for five years. This can happen if an inspector believes that you are making a misrepresentation (committing fraud), or misrepresented the truth when you got your visa, or if you do not have the proper travel or visa documents at the time you request entry.

This quick deportation procedure is known as “summary exclusion.” It can be applied to anyone except people entering the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (according to a 1999 decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals).

There is an exception to the summary exclusion process for people who fear persecution and request asylum. So, even if you do not have the proper documents or you have made a misrepresentation, you could still be allowed to enter the U.S. if you make clear that your reason is to apply for asylum and you can show that you’d be likely to win asylum.

After you have said you want to apply for asylum, you’ll immediately be given a “credible fear” interview by an asylum officer. The purpose of this interview is to make sure you have a significant possibility of winning your case. Most importantly, the officer will want to be sure that your request is based on a fear of persecution. This interview is supposed to be scheduled quickly, within one or two days, but it has been taking longer.

If the officer isn’t convinced of your fear, you must request a hearing before an immigration judge. If you don’t, you will be deported from the U.S., and not be allowed to return for five years. The judge must hold the hearing within seven days, either in person or by telephone.

If the judge finds that you have a credible fear of persecution, you’ll be scheduled for a full hearing. In that case, you should seek an attorney. This proceeding will take place in Immigration Court, before a judge, and with an attorney representing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Detention While Awaiting Your Hearing

Most asylum applicants are held in a detention facility at this point. You can and should request release, called “parole.” You’re most likely to be granted parole if you can verify your identity, have family or other contacts in the area, can post a bond (money that you give up if you don’t show up for future hearings), and can show you’ll be financially supported until a decision is made on your asylum case.

If you fail to convince the immigration judge of your credible fear of persecution, you will be deported (removed) from the United States.

 

[DixonHur 11296]

24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, and as to "the overwhelming majority are economic migrants," with respect to Central Americans presenting themselves for asylum here in recent years, that has not been the case.

Just to be clear, I'm specifically referring to the folks in the latest caravan who were offered asylum in Mexico, but turned it down in favor of going to the US.  

Contrary to popular belief, outside cartel related murders, which tend to involve rival cartel members, or folks fighting/reporting on the war on drugs, Mexico is a safer country than the US. This, my assumption is that they are seeking a better economic outcome as opposed to purely safety related concerns.

However, none of that really matters as long as they follow the proper process for seeking asylum in the US.  They could have joined the caravan for a roadtrip and a chance to visit Disneyland for all I care.  Process them and let the legal process determine the merits of their applications.

[Kyle 207]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Other than the fact that this is false, sure.

Some are just economic migrants, and have their applications denied.  Many are actually persecuted and under threat of violence/death, and their applications are granted.  There is a process.  They should follow it, and they should be allowed to follow it.

And for any who want to stay in Mexico, more power to them.  Apply there, see what Mexico does.  We should all follow our basic treaty obligations.

Oh, and we actually have a very good record of tracking asylum applicants.  And we can make it even better with some simple steps.  But they are much more valuable as demagogue issues, so there you have it.

So who is persecuting them and for what reasons listed: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, political opinions? Will Mexico persecute them for these reasons? https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum

Thanks for assuring us we have no one in the country illegally. I do apologize for the sarcasm, but it is hard to take anyone seriously that actually believes some of the national socialist emotion thrown around here.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Kyle

[Kyle 207]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

(1) We don't know each of their situations. It may be true that the majority will not have valid asylum claims. But I'm sure a good number of them do as well. Our laws and due process require us to consider each of these claims individually. Due process exists for a reason (the Constitution). Or, maybe you prefer that we assume you are a murder, not waste time with due process of law, and just execute you. You don't get to pick when to apply due process based on what is convenient for you. 

(2) We entered treaties requiring us to process asylum claims and grant were appropriate. And Congress passed laws requiring us to act in accordance with those treaties. If you don't like the law, there is a process to changing it. Ignoring laws you don't like isn't an option. 

 

Thanks for assuring me that when I got to Mexico next summer that it has to follow the Constitution. Again, I apologize for the sarcasm but hard to take so many Godwin's seriously. I'll ask the same question - who is persecuting the people of Honduras and is it for race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinions? Do you think the caravan is made up of conservatives on an American college campus?

[DixonHur 11296]

Kyle,

Do you know what the word "socialist" means?  If so, how is it applicable in this instance?

As to your first question, we don't know, that's what the application process is for. 

[Brisketexan 105095]

Just now, Kyle said:

So who is persecuting them and for what reasons listed: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, political opinions?

Do the homework yourself -- Google is your friend.  Seriously, there's a lot of information out there on the nature of the applications that end up being proper:

Quote

Central Americans who cite fear of generalized violence in their asylum applications are not making a baseless claim—courts have found that, under the very terms of U.S. asylum law, applicants fleeing gang violence and other threats qualify for protection.

U.S. asylum law applies to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Those fleeing generalized crime and violence in their home country do not easily fit into these categories. Nevertheless, at times U.S. immigration judges have interpreted this law so as to grant asylum to Central American migrants who can demonstrate “a well-founded fear of persecution”within the standards described above, or who qualify for protectionunder the UN Convention Against Torture.

Due to the way that Central American gangs operate, in many cases women and children are targeted by these criminal groups precisely because they are women and children, which U.S. courts have repeatedly interpreted as them being persecuted due to “membership in a particular social group.” - Children and young adults are particularly vulnerable to death threats, as local gangs often try to forcibly recruit them, extort them, or in the case of girls, pressure them into relationships with gang members (see this short video series featuring Central American children who fled their home countries because of threats to their lives). Women and underage youths are attractive recruits for gangs because they can draw less attention from authorities when carrying out tasks such as smuggling drugs and weapons, or collecting extortion payments. Others may face persecution from gangs on account of their sexuality or gender, their religion, their resistance to gang activity, (e.g., refusing to pay extortion fees), or because one of their family members has ties to a gang. All of this can form the grounds for an asylum petition, as applicants are not fleeing “generalized” crime and violence in their home country.

Children and families who feel threatened flee their communities, often heading for the safety of the United States, because they have little confidence that corrupt police forces or other institutions can protect them. UNHCR interviews with Central American women seeking protection in the United States found that “the women consistently stated that police and other state law enforcement authorities were not able to provide sufficient protection from the violence.”

Quote

Will Mexico persecute them for these reasons?

I dunno.  Doesn't matter.  If some/all of them want to petition for asylum in Mexico (and many have), groovy.  They can do that.  But the are not OBLIGATED to do that, by any treaty or law.

Quote

Thanks for assuring us we have no one in the country illegally.

I presume you'll be able to quote me on that.  No, you can't?  Yeah.  Didn't think so.  Great example of "straw man," though.  And don't think that we didn't get the irony of you actually having the temerity to accuse someone of that logical fallacy earlier today, and then whip it out yourself.

[Huckleberry 32851]

46 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

I think you mean the overwhelming majority are economic migrants Not asylum seekers. 

By your logic if I am able to breaking into your house you are obligated to take over my care. 

What a stupid post and completely false analogy.

Still haven't taken the time to read up on the law I guess.

[Foosters 17850]

10 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

You're going to look stupid here.  There are others but I am not going to spend the lengthy time it is going to take to dig them out of the threads.  

 

That is so weird. Because you can search the term "soy boy."  You first started calling people that back on 10/26. Before anyone called you a Nazi. 

[Huckleberry 32851]

10 minutes ago, Kyle said:

So who is persecuting them and for what reasons listed: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, political opinions? Will Mexico persecute them for these reasons? https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum

Thanks for assuring us we have no one in the country illegally. I do apologize for the sarcasm, but it is hard to take anyone seriously that actually believes some of the national socialist emotion thrown around here.

That's what the process is supposed to determine. You and I don't get to accept or deny their applications on the internet because we feel like it.

So many fools saying "FOLLOW THE LAW AND THE PROCESS" when that's exactly what they're trying to do.

[Kyle 207]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Do the homework yourself -- Google is your friend.  Seriously, there's a lot of information out there on the nature of the applications that end up being proper:

I dunno.  Doesn't matter.  If some/all of them want to petition for asylum in Mexico (and many have), groovy.  They can do that.  But the are not OBLIGATED to do that, by any treaty or law.

I presume you'll be able to quote me on that.  No, you can't?  Yeah.  Didn't think so.  Great example of "straw man," though.  And don't think that we didn't get the irony of you actually having the temerity to accuse someone of that logical fallacy earlier today, and then whip it out yourself.

Dude. Wipe to snowflakes out of your eyes. I told you I was being sarcastic. Hyperlinks also are your friend. Click on it and read. It actually is from a primary source and not a talking point.

[Brisketexan 105095]

3 minutes ago, Kyle said:

Dude. Wipe to snowflakes out of your eyes. I told you I was being sarcastic. 

You edited that in after I replied.

Quote

Hyperlinks also are your friend. Click on it and read. It actually is from a primary source and not a talking point.

Your hyperlink states the standard.  YOUR QUESTION was as to their specific cases -- are those cases viable asylum cases or not?  I cited you to a source discussing how their cases have been treated.  You don't ask a question of "is Brisket guilty of speeding in a school zone?" then answer it with "here's the statute on the school zone speed limits."  Instead, you discuss the fact of....whether Brisket was indeed speeding.

You asked if they met the criteria for asylum.  Not what the criteria were for asylum.

If you think you're being clever, you should stop.  You're not.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Brisketexan

[Kyle 207]

5 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

That's what the process is supposed to determine. You and I don't get to accept or deny their applications on the internet because we feel like it.

So many fools saying "FOLLOW THE LAW AND THE PROCESS" when that's exactly what they're trying to do.

You Mensa officers are really clearing up confusion today. Just call me a national socialist or racist or whatever and moveon.org, blame Fox News or something.

If you have any intellectual honesty, it is not hard to realize that in virtually every other instance of 20K people showing up for asylum, it is pretty easy to lay out why. The reason none of you guys can or can support them staying in Mexico is because you already know why. You're just keeping some outrage powder dry so if they are denied asylum you can chant racism, national socialism, Fox News, etc.

[Huckleberry 32851]

6 minutes ago, Kyle said:

You Mensa officers are really clearing up confusion today. Just call me a national socialist or racist or whatever and moveon.org, blame Fox News or something.

If you have any intellectual honesty, it is not hard to realize that in virtually every other instance of 20K people showing up for asylum, it is pretty easy to lay out why. The reason none of you guys can or can support them staying in Mexico is because you already know why. You're just keeping some outrage powder dry so if they are denied asylum you can chant racism, national socialism, Fox News, etc.

Your defensiveness gives away your lack of intellectual rigor and self-esteem. You know you're a fool and so you instantly jump to some sort of position where I'm calling you a Nazi or racist when that hasn't taken place in any way.

I'm calling you a fool because you're a fool, and your projection regarding your own lack of intellectual honesty is telling. The only name I have called you was completely earned, and it continues to be earned each time you post. Why don't you try addressing what I actually posted instead of jumping immediately to straw men and hypothetical talking points?

Seeking asylum at a United States port of entry is following the legal process because it is United States law. It is United States law because it is part of international treaties and agreements which the United States is bound to because the United States signed them.

Address those facts and pay attention to the part where I haven't called you anything you haven't earned.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Huckleberry

[Brisketexan 105095]

7 minutes ago, Kyle said:

You Mensa officers are really clearing up confusion today. Just call me a national socialist or racist or whatever and moveon.org, blame Fox News or something.
 

Why would I call you names when you're already thoroughly pantsing yourself?

 

8 minutes ago, Kyle said:

If you have any intellectual honesty, it is not hard to realize that in virtually every other instance of 20K people showing up for asylum, it is pretty easy to lay out why. The reason none of you guys can or can support them staying in Mexico is because you already know why. You're just keeping some outrage powder dry so if they are denied asylum you can chant racism, national socialism, Fox News, etc.

If I could decipher what you are trying to say in this paragaph, I would probably be able to demonstrate how logically fallacious and stupid it is.  But as it stands, it's so poorly worded that it seems to be an example of stupidity being a shield for stupidity.  Almost brilliant in its simplicity and perfection.  Well-done.

[wildcat09 29349]

31 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

What a stupid post and completely false analogy.

Still haven't taken the time to read up on the law I guess.

How could he read up on the law when he's so obviously illiterate?

[Dahobbs 17534]

43 minutes ago, Kyle said:

Thanks for assuring me that when I got to Mexico next summer that it has to follow the Constitution. Again, I apologize for the sarcasm but hard to take so many Godwin's seriously. I'll ask the same question - who is persecuting the people of Honduras and is it for race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinions? Do you think the caravan is made up of conservatives on an American college campus?

Mexico follows Mexican law. We follow ours. And ours says we have to process them and grant aslyum where deserved. What is so hard to understand about that? As to who they claim is persecuting them, that is what we could find out and judge at a hearing. That is why we have a hearing, as in the time to hear their claims. If you dont like the law, ask Congress to change it. 

[DDD Dad 14332]

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

That is so weird. Because you can search the term "soy boy."  You first started calling people that back on 10/26. Before anyone called you a Nazi. 

 

18 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

It isn't true.  There was one horrible post that actually led to a member to be timed out.  I am not getting sucked down this wormhole digging through large threads.  I gave a couple links already because you said I have never posted a link to people calling me a racist or nazi.  I'm done with this time waste.

 

[Foosters 17850]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

 

 

Just forget about it. He was calling people "soy boy" days before anyone called him a Nazi. He's a liar. He's been crying on this board for days about he only called people "soy boys" because everyone was being so mean to him and calling him a Nazi. That's a lie. He's a liar. And a coward. Move on.

[DDD Dad 14332]

23 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

It isn't true.  There was one horrible post that actually led to a member to be timed out.  I am not getting sucked down this wormhole digging through large threads.  I gave a couple links already because you said I have never posted a link to people calling me a racist or nazi.  I'm done with this time waste.

You should start a thread about this.

[elfenix 34230]

1 minute ago, tjhooker said:

OK, Cool

Hook 'em!

you've gone full corncob.  never go full corncob.

Edited November 30, 2018 by elfenix

[DDD Dad 14332]

38 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

I'm done with this time waste.

 

13 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

OK, Cool

Hook 'em!

And yet, you weren't.

[bad_teammate 13195]

hmm, I wonder if I should keep this person on ignore, maybe I'm missing something that would add to the conversation. after all, I don't want a filter bubble that blocks out worthwhile viewpoints

*someone quotes the poster*

lol nevermind

[Brian Fantana 6685]

Weird I thought you were done. What's up?

I'm just trying to imagine being this big of a pussy:

50 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

It isn't true.  There was one horrible post that actually led to a member to be timed out.  I am not getting sucked down this wormhole digging through large threads.  I gave a couple links already because you said I have never posted a link to people calling me a racist or nazi.  I'm done with this time waste.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Brian Fantana

[Brian Fantana 6685]

Man you are fucking creepy.

[Brian Fantana 6685]

Not really mad I just think you following around BT in every thread he posts in is really creepy obsessive stalker shit and you should probably be timed out for it.

[Brian Fantana 6685]

Lol ok bruh go start a thread about me so we can discuss it. Idiot

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

Lol at Kyle getting tag teamed.  Are all the fox idiots following what their gut tells them?  ...your gut on slim jims and ding dongs, marinating in Mountain Dew, is like your brain on crack. 

[Brian Fantana 6685]

[MissingInAction 25038]

27 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Lol at Kyle getting tag teamed.  Are all the fox idiots following what their gut tells them?  ...your gut on slim jims and ding dongs, marinating in Mountain Dew, is like your brain on crack. 

I'll be using this when I cant avoid any Trumplodites this weekend. 

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

4 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

I'll be using this when I cant avoid any Trumplodites this weekend. 

Feel free to sub in Big Macs, sweet tarts, and Coke Diesel.  

[RDCanecutter 26411]

15 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Feel free to sub in Big Macs, sweet tarts, and Coke Diesel.  

Oh dear battery acid burn of Sweet Tarts, package clutched in one hand on the handle bars while the other held the newest comic book, oh to get jacked up on chemical citrus goodness while breathing in ink and newsprint and dialogue that always ended in an exclamation point, like this!

[Fozzz 152]

Quote

The visibility of the caravan has made many Mexicans reexamine their preconceptions about Central American migration and created opportunities to show their solidarity. There is also increasing coördination with US-based organizations that can provide legal aid to people seeking asylum.

Organizations like Al Otro Lado, based in Tijuana and Southern California, work to connect asylum seekers in Mexico to resources in the US. Pueblos Sin Fronteras, which is made up of Central Americans who live in Mexico and their Mexican and American allies, is another group that bridges the gap between humanitarian organizations in both countries. As the universal right to seek asylum is under attack from the Trump administration, these networks create collective power to hold authorities accountable for their treatment of migrants and asylum seekers.

https://www.viewpointmag.com/2018/11/30/the-rebel-project-of-the-caravan-solidarities-and-setbacks/

These people rule.  I think I'll donate a dollar to Al Otro Lado for each time Kyle, zork, tjhooker, and oatmeal post itt.

https://alotrolado.org/take-action/donate/

 

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

I feel another “WhY wON’t THe ADmiNS Do WHaT’S riGHT?!?!!” crybaby victim thread coming from William Shatner and a rash of “Aw shucks, why won’t y’all see how harmless I am? I’m just asking questions!” post flood from the shitty cookie.

[Brisketexan 105095]

58 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

https://www.viewpointmag.com/2018/11/30/the-rebel-project-of-the-caravan-solidarities-and-setbacks/

These people rule.  I think I'll donate a dollar to Al Otro Lado for each time Kyle, zork, tjhooker, and oatmeal post itt.

https://alotrolado.org/take-action/donate/

 

 

This is a fantastic idea.  In.

[Burner 3]

2 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Man you are fucking creepy.

No wonder his wife cheated on him. 

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 hour ago, Burner said:

No wonder his wife cheated on him. 

I don't know what this means or is in reference to, but it sounds fucking savage, so I like it.

[hayden_horn 11362]

I stayed home tonight with my boys. I had cnn on in the background. 

Chris Cuomo took his show to the border. 

I think it's worth a watch. He goes to the migrant camp. He talks to the border patrol. It shows us how our nation is failing on this issue for both those trying to come and those at the border trying to do their job. 

It's truly heartbreaking.

I only wish this broadcast wasn't buried on a friday night. 

Edited December 1, 2018 by hayden_horn

[lemonlime 5503]

JFC.  Nothing remotely reminiscent of the 1940s at all here.

[Dahobbs 17534]

3 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

JFC.  Nothing remotely reminiscent of the 1940s at all here.

No fucking way. I honestly refuse to believe that anyone would think that is a good idea. 

[Burner 3]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't know what this means or is in reference to, but it sounds fucking savage, so I like it.

It’s in reference to tjhooker’s wife. He wouldn’t shut up about it on shaggy. He’s a weirdo. 

Edited December 1, 2018 by Burner

[bad_teammate 13195]

Coming up next...

"So these people are around waiting for their hearings and we don't know who they are. We can't tell who is a citizen and who is a migrant. So, until they have their hearing, they're going to wear these patches..."