pg wrote on 03/31/19 at 11:24:56:

Back to the topic on hand....
Here is a legitimate question for the left.  Just how many people in a caravan would be to many for you to condone entrance into the US?  I'm serious, please quantify!   Best regards,

One person on here, regarding the law/s,
concerning entering a country illegally,
is all for applying the,
rule of law to everyone equally.

So Stopping, and/or charging the, 'sneak' in people,
with the crime they have committed,
is treating everyone, equally.

See: Re: 45 FTW!!  Reply #85  

Serowbot wrote on 03/31/19 at 12:02:38:

They are looking for asylum,

Not a problem,
Which would you agree with.
Number 1,  2,  3

1.  Someone comes to the boarder, asks for asylum.
They do what ever is done as to the vetting paperwork.
When the form/application/identification/etc is complete,
and they are approved.
Then they come accost.

2.  Someone comes to the boarder, asks for asylum.
They do what ever is done as to the vetting paperwork.
While they wait for the paperwork to be done.
They are free to go wherever they want in this country,
with the promise they will return, then go back accost,
if it is found that the application is denied, false or they lied on it.

3.   Someone comes to the boarder, asks for asylum.
They do what ever is done as to the vetting paperwork.
While they wait for the paperwork to be done.
They come accost, and are put in a place, in this country,
and all their needs are taken care of,
until they are vetted/paperwork/etc is done.

I am voting for #1.

pg wrote on 03/31/19 at 11:24:56:


There aren't "too many".  There are legal, and illegal.  Asylum seekers should all be treated the same.

Curious, did you ask these same questions when we had thousands come from Bosnia in the late 90's?

T And T Garage wrote on 03/31/19 at 14:08:42:



Another disparaging comment about people of Slavic decent.  Do you suffer from some kind of Slavaphobia?

An asylum seeker is a type of migrant and may be a refugee, a displaced person, but not an economic migrant. Migrants are not necessarily asylum seekers.  Asylum has two basic requirements. First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution in their home country.  Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group.

I contend the vast majority of the people seeking entry into the US via the southern border are economic migrants seeking a better life and do not qualify for asylum based on protected grounds.

And back to my orignal question.  Let's say 100 million people we seeking asylum and met the criteria, would you let them in?

Best regards,

pg wrote on 03/31/19 at 15:32:10:

T And T Garage wrote on 03/31/19 at 16:58:06:


It is not feasible to compare immigration from the Bosnia during the Balkan wars to current issues on the southern border.  The primary reason is the quantity of the migration and because a definitive end could be concluded.  The problem with the southern border has been transpiring for decades.  It is estimated that 12 million illegal immigrants predominantly from Mexico are in the US, I believe this is understated.  The total migration from Bosnia was 130,000.

This month we are on pace for 100,000 apprehensions on the southern border.  Jeh Johnson confirmed this and said the average  migration figure was 30k – 40k per month when he was at the helm.  It has been at this level for years.  I don’t condone these migration numbers regardless of where they come from.   I assure you if millions of Bosnians wanted to come the US, I would have not problem turning that boat around.  Henceforth, I have no problem eliminating all immigration for a short period and implementing a merit based system.  The premise of the system is to permit immigration if they applicant has a special skill set that will benefit the host country.  

I have lived on the border and I have been to Mexico.  In summary, I have first hand knowledge of problems and issues on the border.  Also, how did unmitigated migration work out for the Native American population?

Best regards,

Serowbot wrote on 03/31/19 at 12:02:38:


I'm not sure that's true. I don't recall the Constitution guaranteeing asylum, does it? Does it guarantee a hearing? I don't think so. I'm thinking this was a court case later that somehow got stretched into a few thinking the Constitution says something it doesn't. Besides, if its not mentioned specifically, wouldn't the 10th amendment apply, that this is a state's right? Granted, the 10th is routinely ignored .....

WebsterMark wrote on 04/01/19 at 05:14:42:


Once again, you ASSume far too much.  The entire Obama-era saw a dramatic increase in arrests and deportations at the southern border.

This is not a crisis.  This is a political hack job to steal money to build a pointless wall.