Caravan

[Smax 3800]

18 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

We choose to treat the children and families like this as a means of deterrence.  So before they even start, they think about what they are going into.  Says a lot about what they are trying to escape.   America and the way they know they will be treated is still the lesser evil.   So they try.  What should they do?  Leave their kids behind?  Who takes care of them then?  Will they even survive?  Say they get in and accepted as asylum refugees, how long are they going to have to work to pay the travel costs of bringing their kids here to them, not to mention the legal and governmental fees for doing that?  So yeah, they don't have much choice on bringing them into this mess or not. 

 

Then you have this group who denies what they are escaping, or claims others are jumping into the caravan for an easy entry, not really asylum seekers.  Maybe there are a few.  Take them in and figure out later through due process who stays and who doesn't.

I think it is damned sad that the whole country of 300 million people is at each other's throats about this group of 8,000 unarmed people trying to make a better life for themselves and their families.  It shows a total lack of self awareness for us to be willing to gas them, instead of fixing the system that handles this.  We are no longer the nation of problem solvers. 

Nobody sane wants open borders.  Background checks, character references, personal interviews to determine education, skill, and health levels should be done.  But then I find it ironic that those who fear immigrants also fear background checks and other measures to insure responsible gun purchases.   But they need those guns to protect themselves from the immigrants, right?   MS 13 and all. 

Sorry, but it blows my mind how this admin stirs all this shit up and doesn't even attempt to find a long term solution.  Just shut the borders down, fuckall the people who make a legitimate living trading or working across the border.   No, we need to set up a spectacle so we can look strong, while Putin fucks over his neighbors.  Red herrings are this admin's specialty.

Not to mention the Russian oligarchs sending the wives of their henchmen here to have anchor babies.  But hey, they pay well, right?

what a load of horse shit

The overwhelming vast majority of people in the caravan are single men, the women/family angle is a very small portion

wanting a better life/job while commendable is not asylum eligible, get inline with the rest of them

its 8000 today who knows how many more tomorrow to join the estimated 15+ million here already 

We do fbi background checks on gun purchases  

[Smax 3800]

2 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

 

So to say that these people came up and assaulted a normally operating crossing is a bit disingenuous.   

No its not

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

Question: What type of POS loads a canister of tear gas into a gun, points it at migrant women and children, and actually fires it?

 

 

Answer: The same type of POS who herds people into gas chambers, or children into camps. 

Heartless bastard, Dixon? Yeah, I'd say supporting this shit is a little more than just being a "heartless bastard".

 

 

 

[workswithseed 2033]

4 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Question: What type of POS loads a canister of tear gas into a gun, points it at migrant women and children, and actually fires it?

 

 

Answer: The same type of POS who herds people into gas chambers, or children into camps. 

Heartless bastard, Dixon? Yeah, I'd say supporting this shit is a little more than just being a "heartless bastard".

 

 

 

Wow, cause we are totally killing them. Man you are a fucking idiot. Did you graduate from Evergreen college? Cause you are so fucking stupid and whiney.

[Celery Man 20881]

1 hour ago, zork said:

Just seeking asylum, that's all:

this outcome, every bit as manufactured as this one

[GHOSTUSER 361]

Question: What type of POS loads a canister of tear gas into a gun, points it at migrant women and children, and actually fires it?
 
 
Answer: The same type of POS who herds people into gas chambers, or children into camps. 
Heartless bastard, Dixon? Yeah, I'd say supporting this shit is a little more than just being a "heartless bastard".
 
 
 

So you’re saying our uniformed personnel following their sworn duty employing non-lethal means of dispersement are pieces of shit comparable to SS goons who volunteered to gas Jews. What a fucking idiotic thing to say. You are a shitty American if you believe that

[Chrispy 132]

4 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

this outcome, every bit as manufactured as this one

You were wrong, it’s ok, we don’t think any less of you. 

Also, whatever happened to that overly concerned woman from Alabama? 

[Sgt Hulk 13642]

19 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Question: What type of POS loads a canister of tear gas into a gun, points it at migrant women and children, and actually fires it?

 

 

Answer: The same type of POS who herds people into gas chambers, or children into camps. 

Heartless bastard, Dixon? Yeah, I'd say supporting this shit is a little more than just being a "heartless bastard".

 

 

 

people like you make aggy look like brilliant rocket scientist.  

[Captainant 27403]

Hey look! The guy who wanted to shoot the people at the border is happy that the people at the border are getting shot! Whoda thunk it? Also, it wasn't a military operation, it was being enforced by customs and border patrol. The same folks who have been diddling the immigrant children while they're in their (totally not concentration) camps.

[hayden_horn 11360]

Just now, Captainant said:

Hey look! The guy who wanted to shoot the people at the border is happy that the people at the border are getting shot! Whoda thunk it? Also, it wasn't a military operation, it was being enforced by customs and border patrol. The same folks who have been diddling the immigrant children while they're in their (totally not concentration) camps.

yeah, he got his tear gas and rubber bullet hard on going. only thing missing was the dogs and the firehose.

land of the free. 

no one has answered me. 

why don't we let them come into the country?

[David Dennison 18646]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, he got his tear gas and rubber bullet hard on going. only thing missing was the dogs and the firehose.

land of the free. 

no one has answered me. 

why don't we let them come into the country?

Because we're dicks and we got ours.

Oh, and also because they are brown.

Edited November 26, 2018 by David Dennison

[DixonHur 11154]

4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, he got his tear gas and rubber bullet hard on going. only thing missing was the dogs and the firehose.

land of the free. 

no one has answered me. 

why don't we let them come into the country?

No one has answered because it's a stupid question.

Better question.  Why WOULD we give a free pass to the US to anyone who shows up on the border?  Should we get rid of immigration at the airports too?

[hayden_horn 11360]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

No one has answered because it's a stupid question.

Better question.  Why WOULD we give a free pass to the US to anyone who shows up on the border?  Should we get rid of immigration at the airports too?

we have rules for asylum seekers. it's really not that hard. 

for some reason, we've slammed the door shut.

why not let asylum seekers in?

i don't think it is a stupid question. these people risked their lives coming here. people don't just up and do that. there is a reason they are leaving their homeland. it's fucking dangerous. 

and now we have a humanitarian crisis forming at our border.

and now we've essentially violated international law by using tear gas across an international border. that's a war crime.

but whatever.

what these people are trying to do is perfectly legal. why don't we just let them in?

[DixonHur 11154]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

we have rules for asylum seekers. it's really not that hard. 

for some reason, we've slammed the door shut.

why not let asylum seekers in?

i don't think it is a stupid question. these people risked their lives coming here. people don't just up and do that. there is a reason they are leaving their homeland. it's fucking dangerous. 

and now we have a humanitarian crisis forming at our border.

and now we've essentially violated international law by using tear gas across an international border. that's a war crime.

but whatever.

what these people are trying to do is perfectly legal. why don't we just let them in?

The rules are that you apply for asylum in the first safe country...aka Mexico.

But we are letting them apply for asylum.  They just need to wait their turn.  It's not a free for all.  If they meet the criteria,then let them stay.  It's not hard.

Edited November 26, 2018 by DixonHur

[Brisketexan 104537]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

I think you're conflating two different issues.  One is what to do with asylum seekers once they are in the system.  The other is how to treat people who are literally breaking through the border illegally.

I'm for keeping families together in the former situation, and firing tear gas, water canons, etc., for the later.

If that makes me a heartless bastard, then so be it.  

Contrary to popular Surly belief, there is an asylum system in place.  You may think it's antiquated and inefficient, to which I agree, but it does exist and should be adhered to by both the US and the asylum seekers until Congress gets off it's ass and changes it.

I generally agree with this take.  And your general take on immigration (reasonable work permits, tracking, taxing, etc.) is also very common-sense.  But also see below:

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Agreed on this to an extent. But I'm confused by one point: Trump is literally preventing people from using the legally required method of claiming asylum by, among other things, closing the points of entry. While that may not justify breaking in, it sure as hell has to be considered when judging the actions of both the asylum seekers and the boarder patrol. Of course, I also take any statements made by this administration regarding immigrants and asylum seekers with about 20 spoonfuls of salt. You don't get to start a panic and then claim credit for breaking it up, which is what appears to me happened here. 

We, the U.S., are also acting in bad-faith here.

There is a system in place.  We should operate it -- properly and humanely.  And if folks don't pass either the initial credible fear portion or the final asylum process, then back home they go.  But we shouldn't manufacture a crisis where none need exist.  Seriously, even 8,000 people isn't some huge, unmanageable crush.  This should barely be a blip in our asylum application apparatus.  But it was manufactured to get the base frothing at the mouth.  And the tensions that are breaking out now are also manufactured.  If we simply had our regular asylum mechanisms in place, and told folks that it will remain as it has been, and they'll be reached in due time (but not an artificially lengthened time), then tensions would controlled easily.

Hell, look at Hayden's chart -- in the past decade, we've averaged around 60,000 refugee admissions per year.  It's just not that big an issue - it's .00017% of the US population being let in.  It's a demographic non-issue.

But that's not the game being played here.  Brown people are being used as a prop to further a nationalist, xenophobic agenda.  Stephen Miller is an evil little shit.  We're a dick country doing dick things because we're being run by fucking dicks.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Brisketexan

[hayden_horn 11360]

Just now, DixonHur said:

The rules are that you apply for asylum in the first safe country...aka Mexico.

Quote

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

but that's just from a .gov address, not some poster:

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

[InkaUtexas 25486]

Agree we should take those who deserve to cross. But I also think it would be a good idea to set up Asylum centers in Central America. Let the people apply and be processed there. Hell of a lot cheaper for them to do it there than coming up through Mexico. 

The UN or OAS can take the lead, let any country send people there to interview and process. During the 1980's quite a few Central Americans went to Australia and this trend continues today for certain South American countries. EU nations can participate. 

Each center should be a center for Multinational corporations that want to participate in a regional Marshall plan. Mexico and the US have started development initiatives in the region. These should be pushed.

Central America needs 1- Security, 2-Jobs, and 3- the capacity to kick the shit out of the Mara's which make today hell. While we are trying to rebuild parts of the world with little connection to the US we turned our back on our closest neighbors. 

 

[DixonHur 11154]

4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

but that's just from a .gov address, not some poster:

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

We're talking about two different things.  To apply for asylum in the US you need to be in the US.  I'm talking about the asylum rules in general as defined by the UN.

[Brisketexan 104537]

2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Agree we should take those who deserve to cross. But I also think it would be a good idea to set up Asylum centers in Central America. Let the people apply and be processed there. Hell of a lot cheaper for them to do it there than coming up through Mexico. 

The UN or OAS can take the lead, let any country send people there to interview and process. During the 1980's quite a few Central Americans went to Australia and this trend continues today for certain South American countries. EU nations can participate. 

Each center should be a center for Multinational corporations that want to participate in a regional Marshall plan. Mexico and the US have started development initiatives in the region. These should be pushed.

Central America needs 1- Security, 2-Jobs, and 3- the capacity to kick the shit out of the Mara's which make today hell. While we are trying to rebuild parts of the world with little connection to the US we turned our back on our closest neighbors. 

 

What?  You mean....work to both solve the underlying problems AND perform our current role with efficiency and humanity?  GTFO.

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

 

49 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Question: What type of POS loads a canister of tear gas into a gun, points it at migrant women and children, and actually fires it?

 

 

Answer: workswithseed and Iconoclast Texan.

 

 

I guess I have an alternate answer to my question.

 

42 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Wow, cause we are totally killing them. Man you are a fucking idiot. Did you graduate from Evergreen college? Cause you are so fucking stupid and whiney.

 

33 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

So you’re saying our uniformed personnel following their sworn duty employing non-lethal means of dispersement are pieces of shit comparable to SS goons who volunteered to gas Jews. What a fucking idiotic thing to say. You are a shitty American if you believe that

 

[hayden_horn 11360]

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

We're talking about two different things.  To apply for asylum in the US you need to be in the US.  I'm talking about the asylum rules in general as defined by the UN.

i thought i was being fairly clear we are talking about people seeking asylum in the us. specifically, these people in this so-called caravan.

we should let them in and process them as efficiently as possible.

[Captainant 27403]

7 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Agree we should take those who deserve to cross. But I also think it would be a good idea to set up Asylum centers in Central America. Let the people apply and be processed there. Hell of a lot cheaper for them to do it there than coming up through Mexico. 

Hell even better, the US could have NOT destabilized those central american countries decades ago during the war on drugs and fight against communism expansion.

[workswithseed 2033]

Just now, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

I guess I have an alternate answer to my question.

 

 

 

Cause I denied that those 2 things are the same I'm a pos? If you believe that, you should do something about it.

[Brisketexan 104537]

Just now, Captainant said:

Hell even better, the US could have NOT destabilized those central american countries decades ago during the war on drugs and fight against communism expansion.

But we did.  What's done is done.

But "you break it, you bought it" comes to mind.  We have an obligation to work to cure the underlying ills that these folks are fleeing.  It's not even that expensive.  Hell, just refraining from fucking with these countries would be a strong step.  If we want to solve immigration on our southern border, it's interesting that the same thing is both the most effective AND most humane/decent option: help improve the countries people are running from so they won't flee them any longer.

[Dahobbs 17420]

6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

We're talking about two different things.  To apply for asylum in the US you need to be in the US.  I'm talking about the asylum rules in general as defined by the UN.

Is there something specific you are referring to? Can you cite it? Because, I've looked, I really have no idea what you are talking about. 

Actually, I may have found it, but it seems you are misunderstanding the rule (http://theconversation.com/a-guide-to-the-geneva-convention-for-beginners-dummies-and-newly-elected-world-leaders-72155):

 

"During debates on asylum and asylum seekers it is often suggested that no one should claim asylum in the UK because the Geneva conventions (other treaties are sometimes cited, or the more vague international law) state that those fleeing must seek asylum in the 'first safe country' they come to, which would not normally be the UK. Is this true, or what is the legal position regarding this?"

* * *

The effect of the convention is that states are required to determine asylum claims made by anyone within their territory. The principal exception to this is where there is a safe third country to which the person can be sent in order for substantive consideration to be given to their claim. Removing a person to a safe third country will not engage the removing state's obligations under the convention unless doing so exposes the person to a real risk of refoulement.

There is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country. There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state. This principle has developed so that, in practice, an asylum seeker who had the opportunity to claim asylum in another country is liable to be returned there in order for his or her claim to be determined.

 

 

[InkaUtexas 25486]

Exactly. And concerning the 1980's, you can point at both sides of the Berlin Wall. The world is not a nice place, but the least we can do is clean it up when we leave. An interesting note, the final peace accords in El Salvador required the UN/EU to assist the development of a modern civil police force. This never happened. Nor did any reconstruction or investment. Sure, some say the Balkans took the world's attention at that time, but no one engaged. And the US dumping the gang bangers who grew up in LA back into their countries during the mid 1990's just added fuel to a simmering fire. 

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

6 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Cause I denied that those 2 things are the same I'm a pos? If you believe that, you should do something about it.

OK, do you or do you not support the use of tear gas in this instance?

Asked another way:

If given the order, would you use tear gas on these people?

[GHOSTUSER 361]

yeah, he got his tear gas and rubber bullet hard on going. only thing missing was the dogs and the firehose.

land of the free. 

no one has answered me. 

why don't we let them come into the country?

None of our brave Border Patrol agents should a lose a second of sleep or have any qualms about what they have done. Just like in any civil disturbance/riot, tear gas has been used and is non-lethal and a means to disperse the crowd. The WaPo sure tried to incite people with the article and pictures they were showing today. Bastards

[Smax 3800]

10 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i thought i was being fairly clear we are talking about people seeking asylum in the us. specifically, these people in this so-called caravan.

we should let them in and process them as efficiently as possible.

what guarantees do we as a society have that these 8k people will return for their hearings after we cut them lose?

and you cant honestly believe all of those 8k have legitimate asylum claims can you?

[Smax 3800]

1 minute ago, High Plains Drifter said:

OK, do you or do you not support the use of tear gas in this instance?

Asked another way:

If given the order, would you use tear gas on these people?

 

bum rushing the border of a sovereign country ignoring its laws, border patrol and military absolutely deserves the use of non lethal force

[hobbes2702 12791]

3 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

None of our brave Border Patrol agents should a lose a second of sleep or have any qualms about what they have done. Just like in any civil disturbance/riot, tear gas has been used and is non-lethal and a means to disperse the crowd. The WaPo sure tried to incite people with the article and pictures they were showing today. Bastards

Do you lose sleep about sucking dick for meth?

[wildcat09 29213]

2 hours ago, zork said:

Just seeking asylum, that's all:

Look at those evil motherfuckers, being all brown and shit.

[hobbes2702 12791]

3 minutes ago, Smax said:

what guarantees do we as a society have that these 8k people will return for their hearings after we cut them lose?

and you cant honestly believe all of those 8k have legitimate asylum claims can you?

Asked and answered hundreds of times over. Ignorance isn’t an argument

[Captainant 27403]

1 minute ago, Smax said:

what guarantees do we as a society have that these 8k people will return for their hearings after we cut them lose?

and you cant honestly believe all of those 8k have legitimate asylum claims can you?

Well, considering that nearly 100% of families and children who have the benefit of legal counsel (a right guaranteed in our constitution, mind you) show up to their court hearings...

Quote

According to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), as of December 2017, 97 percent of represented mothers whose cases initiated in fiscal year (FY) 2014 were in compliance with their immigration court hearing obligations three years later.

Similarly, 98 percent of children in immigration proceedings whose cases initiated in 2014 and who had obtained counsel were in full compliance with their court appearance obligations as of December 2017.

TRAC data also showed, however, that 44% of mothers were not able to obtain legal counsel. Additionally, among the 57,678 cases of children that were filed before the immigration courts in 2014, 36 percent had not obtained legal representation by December 2017.

Human Rights First and other groups have noted numerous reasons that immigrants and asylum seekers often lack legal representation.

Many cannot afford legal counsel

There is only very limited government funding for legal representation.

Pro bono legal representation is scarce and over stretched.

Asylum and immigration laws are exceedingly complex, and without legal representation eligible indivuals often cannot satisfy the stringent legal and evidentiary requirements.

Statistics have shown that legal representation is the most important factor in determining whether an individual will succeed in their case.  

The Trump Administration and proponents of legislation that seeks to block funding for legal representation are trying to thwart access to counsel, which in turn will lead to lower appearance rates.

So basically, I'm arguing that the trump administration is purposely making this as impenetrable as possible so he can gin up a reason to treat this marginalized group as law breaking criminals, rather than scared helpless people.

[hayden_horn 11360]

2 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

None of our brave Border Patrol agents should a lose a second of sleep or have any qualms about what they have done. Just like in any civil disturbance/riot, tear gas has been used and is non-lethal and a means to disperse the crowd. The WaPo sure tried to incite people with the article and pictures they were showing today. Bastards

i mean, use of tear gas is illegal, except for domestic use. we just fired across our border using chemical weapons:

https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles

 

1 minute ago, Smax said:

what guarantees do we as a society have that these 8k people will return for their hearings after we cut them lose?

and you cant honestly believe all of those 8k have legitimate asylum claims can you?

well, ain't much guaranteed in life. but the vast majority of those seeking asylum show up for their trials. 

and maybe they do, and maybe they don't.

honestly, work through the process. we've intentionally created a crisis at the border by slowing down the process to 60-100 people per day.

here's a pretty good article on it:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/26/18112474/tear-gas-border-patrol-caravan-rocks

 

[wildcat09 29213]

37 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

No one has answered because it's a stupid question.

Better question.  Why WOULD we give a free pass to the US to anyone who shows up on the border?  Should we get rid of immigration at the airports too?

Because the overwhelming majority of them will be better citizens than at least half of the populations of Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, and at least 33% of the populations of Texas, Georgia, and Florida.

[Smax 3800]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Well, considering that nearly 100% of families and children who have the benefit of legal counsel (a right guaranteed in our constitution, mind you) show up to their court hearings...

So basically, I'm arguing that the trump administration is purposely making this as impenetrable as possible so he can gin up a reason to treat this marginalized group as law breaking criminals, rather than scared helpless people.

The thing is, that the 8k sitting at the border, the vast majority are not women children and families, they are according to msnbc single men

[Captainant 27403]

1 minute ago, Smax said:

The thing is, that the 8k sitting at the border, the vast majority are not women children and families, they are according to msnbc single men

Source? I like to provide that when I make my claims, I'd appreciate it if you do the same.

[Dahobbs 17420]

1 minute ago, Smax said:

The thing is, that the 8k sitting at the border, the vast majority are not women children and families, they are according to msnbc single men

We could always use ankle monitors if you are that worried about it. Solutions abound if you think for more than 30 seconds.

[Captainant 27403]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

We could always use ankle monitors if you are that worried about it. Solutions abound if you think for more than 30 seconds.

Surely you can't be insinuating that 8,000 ankle monitors is less expensive than deploying 5,000 armed service members to the border???

Edited November 26, 2018 by Captainant

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

17 minutes ago, Smax said:

what guarantees do we as a society have that these 8k people will return for their hearings after we cut them lose?

and you cant honestly believe all of those 8k have legitimate asylum claims can you?

Doesn't excuse children in camps or tear gas.

 

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Source? I like to provide that when I make my claims, I'd appreciate it if you do the same.

Rush Limbaugh, et al.

[DixonHur 11154]

31 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i thought i was being fairly clear we are talking about people seeking asylum in the us. specifically, these people in this so-called caravan.

we should let them in and process them as efficiently as possible.

My point is there shouldn't BE a caravan of asylum seekers in the US from Central America because they should have applied for asylum in Mexico.

I thought I was equally clear.  These are economic migrants, not asylum seekers.

[hayden_horn 11360]

trump out here claiming we didn't tear gas children.

uhh.

i see children in these pictures.

source:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6429561/Trump-threatens-decisive-action-Mexico-does-not-deport-caravan-migrants-hundreds-storm-border.html

 

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

24 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

None of our brave Border Patrol agents should a lose a second of sleep or have any qualms about what they have done. Just like in any civil disturbance/riot, tear gas has been used and is non-lethal and a means to disperse the crowd. The WaPo sure tried to incite people with the article and pictures they were showing today. Bastards

Brave??? Shooting tear gas across a river at unarmed civilians is brave? What exactly would constitute cowardly?

Regardless, any Border Patrol agents, brave or otherwise, who fired tear gas should be prosecuted. As should anybody who ordered them to.

 

edit: not across a river. Across a wall and fence covered in concertina wire.

Edited November 26, 2018 by High Plains Drifter

[Dahobbs 17420]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

My point is there shouldn't BE a caravan of asylum seekers in the US from Central America because they should have applied for asylum in Mexico.

I thought I was equally clear.  These are economic migrants, not asylum seekers.

But again, that is not a rule under any treaty or law. It is made up. See my post above.  Also, how do you know the second part? 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Dahobbs

[Captainant 27403]

Just now, DixonHur said:

My point is there shouldn't BE a caravan of asylum seekers in the US from Central America because they should have applied for asylum in Mexico.

I thought I was equally clear.  These are economic migrants, not asylum seekers.

Then trump should let them have their literal day in court, instead of extra-judicially short circuiting the process.

[workswithseed 2033]

Then Mexico should go to war, oh wait they're not cause it would be stupid to do such a thing over tear gas.

If I'm asked to do it then yeah, if asked to kill people then I wouldn't.

Edited November 26, 2018 by workswithseed
Somehow quoted the wrong person.

[Bama Chick 28596]

I’m right here, moron.

Did your ability to read short circuit this morning? Or did you go temporarily blind and miss my post in this very thread from earlier today?

Pull up to the second window for the attention you ordered.

[gecko 1104]