Assuming some are true asylum seekers and some are basically economic migrants, should not the true asylum seekers be granted asylum in the first country they reach- Guatemala. Why should they be entitled to exit Guatemala for asylum in Mexico? And if they do reach Mexico and Mexico allows them in, does that not constitute being granted asylum in Mexico, in which case why would they be entitled to apply for asylum in the USA?
I, for one, welcome our new Honduran overlords.
nation building. Much better to meet them with our military.
Looks more like a crusade than a caravan.
Maybe you just weren't aware. These poor people are driven out of the country they love by vicious gangs. They are suffering, miserable and scared. They do not hate their country.
(no message)
has been taken over by gangs.
Their claim is they can no longer live in their country. They decide to wave a patriotic flag. What's your advice?
1) Wave no flag at all...you are supposed to be country-less.
2) Wave the flag of the country from which you are seeking asylum. You want them to feel good about you, and less likely to turn you around.
3) Wave the flag of the country which persecuted you or declines to protect you. Make it look like a mini-invasion...wave the invading country's flag while you tear down the receiving country's border fence.
I would go with option 1. Why are they even waving a fucking flag? Most people around the world think it is weird for private citizens to be fly national flags. Option 3 is not defensible advice.
There have been hundreds of years of desperate poverty and no mass migrations.
Place is now ruled by gangs. Don’t blame them at all.
(no message)
This is not a spontaneous mass migration because of gangs. These people are being corralled up and promised economic opportunity in the US, to challenge borders and to assist Leftists in the upcoming US election. Workers in several political parties in Honduras are participating in launching these Latin American Children's Crusade.
most wont leave unless they are in desperate straits. The gangs have left them there.
By the way, however bad the people on Honduras have it, there are two billion people or so who have it worse in south Asia and in Africa. If we have to let the Hondurans in, then I guess we have to let all the others in as well.
Might be easier if we extend our borders around them, instead of making them migrate here.
On this, I agree.
That said, we should close our borders and let the economic migrants and asylum seekers know that there is no safe harbor for them at this time in the USA. Tell them they need to fix their own problems just as our "racist" founding fathers did in 1776.
As soon as we train up or encourage by ending welfare all those able bodied workers to fill the 7 million job openings in the USA by USA citizens, we don't need to bring in any more immigrants. The Democrats, Republican donors, Chamber of Commerce and employers of illegal innigrants won't like this but too bad for them- deal with it.
Along with that, we should require college or universities receiving any government subsidies, grants or other federal funds to only admit qualified US citizens. Any who discriminate against Asian Americans should be stripped of their accredititions.
We could sunset those requirements in 20 years. At that point, we can totally reopen our borders and bring in immigrants willing and able to help pay off our then $50 trillion national debt.
An ounce of prevention and all that.
Africa and Asia aren’t our neighbors connected by a land bridge. I’m sorry for what goes on there but it’s a reality. These guys are and if we can keep them there it’s clearly money well spent and in our security interest.
It just doesn’t sound as good to knuckledraggers as build that wall does.
Sure sounds like it.
I was responding to you raising their situation as a reason not to try to improve security and conditions in places like Honduras.
In other words as you seem to need things exactly spelled out for you, there is more of a security need to invest in improving conditions and security of our neighbors than nations much further away.
He was prioritizing Latin Americans and other nationalities over Arabs and a few other nations, and you guys accused him of racism. Therefore, I used your argument against you, to show you how effective the argument is...that is to say, not effective at all, except for people who already agree with you, and choose to ignore the fallacies embedded in the argument.
Nor did it have anything whatsoever to do with the point of the post.
(no message)
They are letting women and children in...wonder if that means they are separating families.
To answer your question, yes, I believe that asylum seekers are required by international law (treaty) to seek asylum in the first country they reach. They are not allowed to travel around the world.
Link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/honduran-migrants-gather-mexico-border-despite-trump-threats-164133863.html
(no message)