The people marching to the boarder ???

[IDBillzFan]

24 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Liberals, please take note:  These are not "brown people", as you're so keen to label them.

 

These are individuals with disparate and distinct national identities and histories.

 

 

Wowl. If you've lost Tijuana...someone needs to get Soros to the front of that stage and start making it rain.

[Nanker]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

Mexican protesters took to the streets on Sunday to protest the growing influx of Central American migrants who have made their way to the border city of Tijuana.

 

In the most recent protest, groups of Tijuana residents want to evict the migrants from a shelter where approximately 2,000 Central Americans are staying. The Tijuana government set up the shelter as the city witnessed a reported buildup of federal and state police forces while the numbers of migrants continue to climb.

 

In two videos shared online by U.S. journalist Emily Green, dozens of protesters, some wearing wrestling masks and bandanas, can be seen marching towards the makeshift shelter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Raysis protestors. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[3rdnlng]

I heard today but can't confirm it that out of the group stalled in Tijuana 500 of them are considered criminals. Obviously, take it with a grain of salt. Sea salt is preferable.

[Kevbeau]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Not sure if they used enough razor wire

[boyst]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Reports are that's at a federal prison

[3rdnlng]

16 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Reports are that's at a federal prison

What with all the sand it must be Club Med.

[Buffalo_Gal]

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Sooooo is it electrified too? 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Boyst62 said:

Reports are that's at a federal prison

 

Doesn't look like one I've ever been in...

 

...er, doesn't look like one I've ever seen.  

[boyst]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

What with all the sand it must be Club Med.

They line between the bbarriers with sand to stop weeds etc. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Doesn't look like one I've ever been in...

 

...er, doesn't look like one I've ever seen.  

Read a bunch in Twitter that it was a prison

[DC Tom]

Just now, Boyst62 said:

They line between the bbarriers with sand to stop weeds etc. 

 

 

Read a bunch in Twitter that it was a prison

 

It's the border fence at Border Field State Park in San Diego, without razor wire.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Field_State_Park#/media/File:United_States_-_Mexico_Ocean_Border_Fence_(15838118610).jpg

 

 

[B-Man]

RACISM IS EVERYWHERE, I GUESS: Shouting ‘Mexico First,’ Hundreds In Tijuana March Against Migrant Caravan.

 

“We want the caravan to go; they are invading us,” said Patricia Reyes, a 62-year-old protester, hiding from the sun under an umbrella. “They should have come into Mexico correctly, legally, but they came in like animals.” . . .

 

While the protesters numbered only a few hundred, in a city of more than 1.6 million, vitriol against the migrants has spread across social media in Tijuana in recent days.

 

“They should create concentration and deportation camps with federal funds,” wrote one commenter on the Facebook page organizing the march.

 

“Tijuana is a place that welcomes anyone, but you must have papers, you must identify yourself,” demonstrator Magdalena Baltazar said on Sunday, as she waved a Mexican flag and marched through the city. “We work hard here. We don’t get handouts. The government shouldn’t be giving things to migrants when plenty of Mexicans are in a difficult position.”

 

Most of the protesters said the migrants should be detained and deported.

 

 

It’s interesting to me that open borders are pretty unpopular everywhere except with the upper classes. But note the photo of Tijuana’s mayor in a red “Make Tijuana Great Again” hat.

 

You can also see it here.

 

[3rdnlng]

So, the 9th Circuit is once again setting up a de facto open border policy in time for the caravan people to reach the U.S. This ruling encourages violence at the border. It seems like this country is ruled by the 9th.

 

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-judge-blocks-trump-asylum-restrictions/ar-BBPRWA0?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPCOMMDHP15

 

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov 20 - A U.S. judge on Monday temporarily blocked an order by President Donald Trump that barred asylum for immigrants who enter the country illegally from Mexico, the latest courtroom defeat for Trump on immigration policy. 

 

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order against the asylum rules. Tigar's order takes effect immediately, applies nationwide, and lasts until at least Dec. 19 when the judge scheduled a hearing to consider a more long-lasting injunction.

Representatives for the U.S. Department of Justice could not immediately be reached for comment.

Trump cited an overwhelmed immigration system for his recent proclamation that officials will only process asylum claims for migrants who present themselves at an official entry point. Civil rights groups sued, arguing that Trump's Nov. 9 order violated administrative and immigration law.

[Nanker]

Trump should get a fleet of busses assembled at Tijuana and load them up with these illegals and drop them off in Judge Tigar's backyard.

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Trump should get a fleet of busses assembled at Tijuana and load them up with these illegals and drop them off in Judge Tigar's backyard.

Our laws already make it impossible to deal with illegal aliens once they gain entrance to our country. The judge's ruling is going to encourage illegals to sneak or rush into our border states creating violence. This will only encourage more caravans and massive migration.

[IDBillzFan]

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Our laws already make it impossible to deal with illegal aliens once they gain entrance to our country. The judge's ruling is going to encourage illegals to sneak or rush into our border states creating violence. This will only encourage more caravans and massive migration.

 

Or what the rest of the world calls "The DNC Official Plan For America."

[DC Tom]

33 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Our laws already make it impossible to deal with illegal aliens once they gain entrance to our country. The judge's ruling is going to encourage illegals to sneak or rush into our border states creating violence. This will only encourage more caravans and massive migration.

 

The ruling is, however, an entirely accurate and appropriate reading of immigration law and Constitutional law.

 

Immigration law is broken, it's not the courts' responsibility to fix it.  You can't simultaneously support the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations and be against this ruling without being hypocritical.

[3rdnlng]

17 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

The ruling is, however, an entirely accurate and appropriate reading of immigration law and Constitutional law.

 

Immigration law is broken, it's not the courts' responsibility to fix it.  You can't simultaneously support the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations and be against this ruling without being hypocritical.

I can't disagree with you but in the meantime our lack of immigration reform is killing us. What about the judge's ruling last year re DACA that took away any leverage Trump had to come up with some real reform? So now it's a "temporary" injunction for a month and then to rule on a permanent injunction. How long will this take to reach SCOTUS? They may rule that requiring the illegal aliens to enter through a port of entry is no more than the administration creating rules to insure an orderly process.

 

It's only right that we fix this immigration mess and not make sneaking into our country a viable way to become a resident. The courts have systematically ruled to take any reason away for any democrat cooperation. What do we need, a civil ***** war?

[BeginnersMind]

13 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I can't disagree with you but in the meantime our lack of immigration reform is killing us.

1

 

If only one party had controlled Congress and the executive for two years.

14 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

What do we need, a civil ***** war?

 

 

No. We need Congress to do its job. 

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

If only one party had controlled Congress and the executive for two years.

That's some real weakshit right there. The dems were willing to give Trump what he wanted re the wall, chain migration and the lottery. Trump was willing to give the dems DACA protection for nearly 3 times the amount that they originally wanted. It was a done deal until a judge ruled that Trump couldn't rescind Obama's illegal EO. Don't forget about the 60 votes needed in the Senate and the fact that the R's were split in the House. Keep up playing stupid though, it seems like it comes natural.

[DC Tom]

24 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I can't disagree with you but in the meantime our lack of immigration reform is killing us. What about the judge's ruling last year re DACA that took away any leverage Trump had to come up with some real reform? So now it's a "temporary" injunction for a month and then to rule on a permanent injunction. How long will this take to reach SCOTUS? They may rule that requiring the illegal aliens to enter through a port of entry is no more than the administration creating rules to insure an orderly process.

 

It's only right that we fix this immigration mess and not make sneaking into our country a viable way to become a resident. The courts have systematically ruled to take any reason away for any democrat cooperation. What do we need, a civil ***** war?

 

The DACA decision was *****.  A president can't rescind a department memo from a previous administration?  There was absolutely no legal basis for that decision.  It was strictly "Rescinding DACA is not nice, and Trump is a racist."

 

And ultimately, it's not the court's job to provide the president with leverage against Congress.  It is their job to rule on the law...which delegates the authority to the president to make the decisions Trump is making.  If the courts are going to judge that Trump shouldn't make those decisions, they should be ruling the law is unconstitutional, not Orange Man Bad.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

The DACA decision was *****.  A president can't rescind a department memo from a previous administration?  There was absolutely no legal basis for that decision.  It was strictly "Rescinding DACA is not nice, and Trump is a racist."

 

And ultimately, it's not the court's job to provide the president with leverage against Congress.  It is their job to rule on the law...which delegates the authority to the president to make the decisions Trump is making.  If the courts are going to judge that Trump shouldn't make those decisions, they should be ruling the law is unconstitutional, not Orange Man Bad.

It's not the court's job to take away leverage that is constitutionally in the President's purview.

[BeginnersMind]

21 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

That's some real weakshit right there. The dems were willing to give Trump what he wanted re the wall, chain migration and the lottery. Trump was willing to give the dems DACA protection for nearly 3 times the amount that they originally wanted. It was a done deal until a judge ruled that Trump couldn't rescind Obama's illegal EO. Don't forget about the 60 votes needed in the Senate and the fact that the R's were split in the House. Keep up playing stupid though, it seems like it comes natural.

 

Do you think Congress did it’s job? I don’t. 

 

I blame both parties. Both. The Ds refuse to be reasonable. The Rs are divided. Compromise is a curse word. So Trump tried to overstep in order to get something done and a court rapped his knuckles. 

 

Congress doesn’t get it: There is only us. Not them. 

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Do you think Congress did it’s job? I don’t. 

 

I blame both parties. Both. The Ds refuse to be reasonable. The Rs are divided. Compromise is a curse word. So Trump tried to overstep in order to get something done and a court rapped his knuckles. 

 

Congress doesn’t get it: There is only us. Not them. 

No, you just don't understand. The court ruled on something that they had no right to rule on. Congress was not controlled by the R's. I explained that to you already.

[IDBillzFan]

41 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

If only one party had controlled Congress and the executive for two years.

 

And chose to deal with immigration instead of ass-f+ckling the country with the Affordable Care Act.

 

What could have been, I guess.

[DC Tom]

26 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

It's not the court's job to take away leverage that is constitutionally in the President's purview.

 

It's not the court's job to worry about anyone's leverage over anyone else either way.  The court's DACA decision was wrong on its face, for reasons having jack ***** to do with the balance of powers between Congress and the Executive.

[outsidethebox]

So, what does this new order by the judge actually mean? Will they have to let everyone in now?

[keepthefaith]

This "situation" is one of the most ridiculous political clusters of my lifetime.  Utterly ridiculous. 

[leonbus23]

On 10/18/2018 at 10:21 AM, mead107 said:

Who is supplying all the water and food that they need for the long march?  

 

No one saying anything about it. 

You don’T see them walking with wagons or carts of water or food. 

 

I realized you asked this a month ago, but I just noticed the thread. 

 

First of all, I live about 15 minutes from Tijuana and do work with three groups (Border Angels, SOLACE, and Desert Eagles), which provide various types of support for migrant workers. I have traveled a lot along the California and Arizona border to collect data (formally and informally) about this situation. If you are interested in knowing about migration, travel to Ajo or Arivaca, Arizona and talk to the Border Patrol and long time residents. Finally, just to interject a quick opinion, the coverage of this issue from both liberal and conservative media is inaccurate, propagandist, and sensationalized, to say the least. 

 

To answer your question:

 

1. The groups of migrants who travel together NEVER exceeds 50-75 people.

2. These small groups are generally disorganized. So, the media image of an organized group of migrants carrying a flag, etc. is complete and total misinformation. 

3. This has been happening for decades. This is nothing new or unprecedented.

4. Simply put, migrants from Central America and Mexico have been regularly migrating to the US since the early 20th century, but more specifically since, neoliberal economics became powerful in the 1980s. 

5. There are two ways to enter the US from Latin America. 1) Through the desert. 2) By getting asylum. The five other legal ways, besides asylum, are simply impossible for 99.9% of migrants. So, asylum is the ONLY LEGAL WAY. 

6. Those who decide to go to a border crossing seek asylum. 

 

With that background, to answer finally answer your question:

 

Migrants generally save up money, usually about $2000-3000 and follow established routes led by coyotes  (human smugglers or traffickers). Most of the money is paid to the coyotes, who guide the migrants to established "safe houses" for food, etc. and mainly to the train route through Mexico, to the border and through the desert. So, the food and water is paid for by the migrants. There are also church groups and other charity groups that provide food and beds to migrants along the path. Those who go through the desert much be far more secretive and rely on the coyotes (who are generally awful people that exploit the migrants).  Whereas the groups seeking asylum can be more overt about movement, since they attempt to cross legally. It is a long and treacherous journey, particularly for those who plan to cross the desert. 

 

What the media misses or distorts:

 

1. The media never discusses who benefits most from migrant labor. Corporations in meat, agriculture and construction profit tremendously because of undocumented labor. Tyson chicken even closed its plants on the day that undocumented workers organized to stay home from work. Obviously, this major savings in labor benefits ordinary consumers. But these giant multinationals benefit the most.

2. US neocolonialism and military involvement in Central America. This is one of the direct reasons why migrants leave Central America. The US has basically taken their resources over the past two centuries and transformed their economies, and cultures from subsistence farming to single crop farming and from mainly rural dwellers to city factory workers. Every attempt to nationalize or transform their economies to benefit the nation and its people have met US military or economic interference. Thus, Guatemala, Salvador,  Nicaragua, and Honduras, (not to mention Panama), have no real autonomy over their own economy. The US starved these nations and now the only real option is to head North. 

3. The guns and drugs. The US supplies the guns to the drug cartels and gangs in Central America and Mexico. We manufacture about 13,000,000 guns a year and 3/4 of the guns used in the drug wars are US weapons. We are the consumers of the drugs manufactured in these nations. Since the US starved out this population and made opportunities for legal and safe labor almost impossible, people survive through the black market economy. Hence, people seek asylum and work in the US because the US is responsible for the guns and drugs. 

4.  Since 9/11, the US created stricter enforcement of entering the country legally and illegally. It may surprise many that deportations increased tremendously during the Obama administration and the presence of border patrol increased tremendously during the Obama admin. It seems that the Liberal media wants to keep this quiet to safeguard Obama's reputation and the Conservative media keeps this quiet to attach Obama to "open boarders". Also, since 2005, more Mexicans leave the US then enter. 

 

Anyway, I thought I would provide this information to you. I urge people who want to actually know about this issue to come to the border region and talk to the people and the Border Patrol. 

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/31/u-s-immigrant-deportations-declined-in-2014-but-remain-near-record-high/

 

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-dilemma-reconciling-tough-humane-enforcement

 

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/

 

 

[3rdnlng]

14 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It's not the court's job to worry about anyone's leverage over anyone else either way.  The court's DACA decision was wrong on its face, for reasons having jack ***** to do with the balance of powers between Congress and the Executive.

The court's DACA decision was not only wrong but its consequences took away Trump's leverage to get a deal done.

[Buffalo_Gal]

47 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

It's not the court's job to take away leverage that is constitutionally in the President's purview.

I agree. 

[DC Tom]

19 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

The court's DACA decision was not only wrong but its consequences took away Trump's leverage to get a deal done.

 

And it's not something the court should have concerned itself with either way.  

 

Really...you're arguing that the court should have sided with Trump to force Congress to legislate?  That's progressive-level stupid.  

[3rdnlng]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

And it's not something the court should have concerned itself with either way.  

 

Really...you're arguing that the court should have sided with Trump to force Congress to legislate?  That's progressive-level stupid.  

No, I'm not arguing any such thing. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm simply stating that the consequences of the court decision was to take away Trump's leverage. Now, with that said, they very well may have known what the consequences would be.

[DC Tom]

10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

No, I'm not arguing any such thing. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm simply stating that the consequences of the court decision was to take away Trump's leverage. Now, with that said, they very well may have known what the consequences would be.

 

Yes, it was.  So what?  

[Cinga]

3 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

The ruling is, however, an entirely accurate and appropriate reading of immigration law and Constitutional law.

 

Immigration law is broken, it's not the courts' responsibility to fix it.  You can't simultaneously support the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations and be against this ruling without being hypocritical.

Say what?

So you're arguing that for Trump to issue an EO declaring only crossing at LEGAL checkpoints to seek asylum was ILLEGAL? And that now we have to LEGALLY consider asylum to anyone who crosses our border ILLEGALLY?

 

Does anyone else recognize the insanity of all this?

[DC Tom]

33 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Say what?

So you're arguing that for Trump to issue an EO declaring only crossing at LEGAL checkpoints to seek asylum was ILLEGAL? And that now we have to LEGALLY consider asylum to anyone who crosses our border ILLEGALLY?

 

Does anyone else recognize the insanity of all this?

 

I'm not saying that.  8 USC 1158 says that:

 

Quote

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

 

Trump can't override that with an EO.  That's a crystal-clear written statute, and the judge's order was entirely correct.

 

And yes, that means your illegal crossing can retroactively become legal by claiming and being granted asylum.  

[Cinga]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'm not saying that.  8 USC 1158 says that:

 

 

Trump can't override that with an EO.  That's a crystal-clear written statute, and the judge's order was entirely correct.

 

And yes, that means your illegal crossing can retroactively become legal by claiming and being granted asylum.  

Thank you for giving me the code so I didn't have to look for it.... Here is the part of it we tend to ignore....
 

Quote

 

(2) Exceptions

(A) In general

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that—

(i) the alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion;

(ii) the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of the United States;

(iii) there are serious reasons for believing that the alien has committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States prior to the arrival of the alien in the United States; (iv) there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States;

(v) the alien is described in subclause (I), (II), (III), (IV), or (VI) of section 1182(a)(3)(B)(i) of this title or section 1227(a)(4)(B) of this title (relating to terrorist activity), unless, in the case only of an alien described in subclause (IV) of section 1182(a)(3)(B)(i) of this title, the Attorney General determines, in the Attorney General’s discretion, that there are not reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States; or

(vi) the alien was firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States.

(B) Special rules

(i) Conviction of aggravated felony For purposes of clause

(ii) of subparagraph (A), an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony shall be considered to have been convicted of a particularly serious crime.

(ii) Offenses

The Attorney General may designate by regulation offenses that will be considered to be a crime described in clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A).

(C) Additional limitations

The Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph (1). (D) No judicial review There shall be no judicial review of a determination of the Attorney General under subparagraph (A)(v). 

 

 

The code specifies a number of rules here, but I love the bolded part I think for obvious reasons... We know Sessions when AG declared crossing the border illegally would not be tolerated and a violation of the law.

My favorite part is (D) though.... Yes... The Judge overstepped his authority... 

[B-Man]

 

They were 'misled' , in every sense of the word.

Conditions worsen at shelter as more migrants approach Tijuana by Rafael Carranza

Original Article

TIJUANA, Mexico — Migrants stranded in Tijuana are complaining about cramped living spaces, exposure to the cold at night, limited access to food and safety concerns. The makeshift shelter they´ve been living in for almost a week is nearing capacity, and more migrants are on the way to this border community. More than 2,500 migrants, hailing mostly from Honduras and to a lesser extent from other Central American countries and Mexico, are staying at Unidad Deportiva Benito Juárez, a sports complex in Tijuana´s north end. Another 3,400 are in nearby Mexicali, about 90 miles away, according to the state officials.

[Chef Jim]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

They were 'misled' , in every sense of the word.

Conditions worsen at shelter as more migrants approach Tijuana by Rafael Carranza

Original Article

TIJUANA, Mexico — Migrants stranded in Tijuana are complaining about cramped living spaces, exposure to the cold at night, limited access to food and safety concerns. The makeshift shelter they´ve been living in for almost a week is nearing capacity, and more migrants are on the way to this border community. More than 2,500 migrants, hailing mostly from Honduras and to a lesser extent from other Central American countries and Mexico, are staying at Unidad Deportiva Benito Juárez, a sports complex in Tijuana´s north end. Another 3,400 are in nearby Mexicali, about 90 miles away, according to the state officials.

 

Cry me a ***** river..........

[keepthefaith]

20 hours ago, Cinga said:

Thank you for giving me the code so I didn't have to look for it.... Here is the part of it we tend to ignore....
 

 

The code specifies a number of rules here, but I love the bolded part I think for obvious reasons... We know Sessions when AG declared crossing the border illegally would not be tolerated and a violation of the law.

My favorite part is (D) though.... Yes... The Judge overstepped his authority... 

 

Solid work.