Posted on 10/24/2018 7:02:49 AM PDT by Beautiful_Gracious_Skies
It's not my favorite solution. It's certainly not a permanent one.
But if thousands of migrants are going to make a point of showing our border impotence, we need an immediate answer.
The central problem, which many don't realize, is that while our border is a leaky sieve, caravans like this aren't trying to just break in, they're perfectly happy applying for asylum at the border and then being taken into custody, before being released due to overcrowding and then told to report for their hearing.
It saves them plenty of days of rough travel.
We could stop accepting asylum applications, but to do that, we first have to do this.
United States asylum law derives from the United Nations. The 1951 UN refugee convention and the 1967 protocol, to which we became a signatory in 1968, have been baked into our legal codes. Article 3 precludes a Muslim travel ban, Article 16 mandates free legal aid for refugees, Article 17 requires allowing a refugee to work, Article 22 mandates free education, Article 23, welfare, Article 26, travel anywhere within the United States, Article 28, travel outside the country, Articles 32 and 33 make deportation very difficult, and Article 31 prohibits imposing, penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees. United States courts have debated how to interpret these articles, but a leftist Supreme Court could easily use Article 33 to open up our borders.
And we would be obligated to process and possibly take in every refugee anywhere in the world. (Here's how the USA ends.)
(Read this->) When the United States signed on to the convention in 68, LBJ and his people lied to the Senate and to Americans and assured them that it wouldnt change anything about our system. The convention however is the most damaging piece of immigration law that doesnt carry Ted Kennedys name.
"Accession to the Protocol would not impinge adversely upon established practices under existing laws in the United States," LBJ had claimed. "State laws are not superseded by the Convention or Protocol." He described it as a "symbolic element" in his message to the Senate.
Theres nothing symbolic about it. And until its gone, our borders can never be secure.
A security zone would have a number of advantages.
First, it immediately ends the asylum problem. If the migrant caravans can't reach the border, they can't apply for asylum. Individuals would still get through, but it wouldn't be the same kind of flaunting of our impotence.
Second, it helps reduce the cartel and organized crime situation that's feeding some of the border craziness. Right now border personnel are facing heavily armed drug traffickers with access to more firepower than some armies.
Third, it would avoid a number of legal issues that have come up when it comes to using the military inside the United States. Those issues are not valid, but lefty judges can exploit them.
But it would only be a very temporary answer.
And these devices shipped to leftist icons, today? Except they were all duds delivered to scare or garner sympathy as a hoax.
Its a distraction designed to knock the Southern Army of Invaders off the Front Page.
And we instantly have more uniformed armed big tough looking men marching about the streets of NYC & the hills of Chappaqua then we do protecting our vulnerable border.
Put those dedicated LEO on the Rio Grande and protect America until we get the wall.
#ShamefulHoax
Call it what you want, an invasion is still an invasion and an occupation is still an occupation. I doubt Mexico is going to be thrilled with either.
There IS a way out of this horror... Thank God... there is a way out...
Ping
Never going to happen. The 30 million or so illegals in the US would be revolutionaries in Mexico. Sending them North is the only way the ruling class has remained in power this long.
I still think the first step should be implement eVerify and require it for all current and future workers. Start starving them out and let them self-deport. Closing and securing the border is key next step. But what about these millions? Both the 30-60 million in the US, plus the millions coming or planning to come? Something needs to be done to not only repatriate them, but make them safe when we do. If we can’t shoot them, need to make sure someone else doesn’t once they are sent home.
And how will you do that? Cut any remittance going to Mexico and within a week there will be hundreds of outlets helping Mexicans route money to Mexico through Canada or the Bahamas or Panama or any number of countries.
If you are here illegally and working without a green card - You should not be allowed to work and get a paycheck. Those billions of dollars shipped abroad need to seized. They are illegal gains.
You should be able to do that without invading Mexico. But it's been going on for decades and nobody has been able to stop it yet.
Why do YOU keep using the word invading? There is NO invasion. We have helped protect borders all over the world, now we need to defend ours.
No one has wanted to stop it yet, is the problem.
I was ridiculed at a California Republican Assembly meeting probably thirty years ago, when I postulated that the cheapest solution to our problems with Mexico at that time, would be to invade and take it over. Southern Europeans, and the countries their progeny control in Central and South America, are culturally different than those who founded America and to a lesser extent, Canada (because Canada made the mistake of not kicking the French out). They simply don't have the genetics to run countries successfully. And it isn't the fault of the indigenous people in these places, it's plain and simply the European “leadership” from Spain and Portugal.
I was ridiculed at a California Republican Assembly meeting probably thirty years ago, when I postulated that the cheapest solution to our problems with Mexico at that time, would be to invade and take it over. Southern Europeans, and the countries their progeny control in Central and South America, are culturally different than those who founded America and to a lesser extent, Canada (because Canada made the mistake of not kicking the French out). They simply don't have the genetics to run countries successfully. And it isn't the fault of the indigenous people in these places, it's plain and simply the European “leadership” from Spain and Portugal.
What about Mexicos sovereignty? Are you asking for a declaration of war?
Nope, just the threat. i.e. "You stop 'em or we will come down and do your job. We'll leave when they're gone."
We enforce our sovereignty by having borders, not by keeping people from approaching them from the outside.
We enforce our sovereignty by being proactive, not hunkering down like the French at the Maginot Line.
You can say it as long as you like but its impractical and dumb and will never happen.
Not impractical - doable, but our politicians have to have some spine, so I agree that from that standpoint, it will never happen. When the Mexicans complain about our incursion, tell 'em "Now you know how we feel. Do your freaking job."
Build the damn wall!
A long term solution. For a short one, see above.
50 years ago I wrote a paper in English class suggesting that we annex Mexico. It’s not too late! By the way I was given a “F”, Teacher deemed it hateful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.