If we don’t post people in the no mans land on the south side of the wall, a fake asylum seeker could walk up to the wall and scream that he wants asylum, but who would care? Also, under new rules, he can make his application and then he has to head back to the Mexican side. Also, isn’t that an illegal entry into the US, and under new rules, asylum claims have to be made at legal ports of entry?
I don’t think Mick’s concern is a big problem.
Obama Regime Still Making Deals & Meeting World Leaders Like They Are Still In Charge
https://www.israelislamandendtimes.com/obama-regime-still-making-deals-meeting-world-leaders-like-they-are-still-in-charge/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork
The problem Mulvaney alluded to is the Law invites trouble.
His example was apt that the Wall is subject to the river bed. In some places the natural flood zones cause any barrier to be placed deeper into the US, even as far as one mile back from the river.
The Law still says that You’re in the USA when “one foot is planted on American soil”, thereby the illegal is looking for Border Patrol to catch, so then the existing immigration leniency laws are in effect.
The Ports of Entry are evidently are now authorized to return the invaders back, to wait asylum in Mexico. The wetbacks who cross the River are treated differently.