Jump to content
lierre

Trump wants up to 15,000 troops at border to deal with migrant caravan [merged threads]

81 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Trump wants up to 15,000 troops at border to deal with migrant caravan.

Link to complete article: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/10/31/president-donald-trump-migrant-caravan-us-mexico-border-military-troops-mexico-honduras/1834398002/

 

Excerpts:

 

...

 

”Kevin McAleenan, the head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency that the military troops will be supporting in what has been dubbed "Operation Faithful Patriot," was asked directly this week whether the deployment was a political move. The commissioner said it was not, arguing that it was an effort to ensure that the "near rioting" that occurred as the caravan crossed over the Guatemala-Mexico border is not repeated on the U.S.-Mexico border.”

 

"This is a law enforcement operation," McAleenan said. "Because of the size (of the caravan), we want to be able to handle it effectively and safely."

 

“Defense Secretary Jim Mattis maintained that stance on Wednesday, echoing Trump's comments that the caravan represents a threat and saying "we don't do stunts in this department." The Pentagon later increased the estimated active-duty troop deployment to more than 7,000.

The deployment initially raised questions over a president's ability to deploy troops within the United States. A 140-year-old law called the Posse Comitatus Act generally bars a president from using the active-duty military within U.S boundaries...”


“The fact that we are here and that I speak these words is an attempt to break that silence and bridge some
of those differences between us, for it is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence.
And there are so many silences to be broken.”

Audre Lorde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Satisfied said:

Awesome, I hope it happens, and the crowds are turned back.


The purpose of the posse comitatus law was to keep the federal government from using troops against US citizens, not defending a border from invasion.

 

The US military definitely isn't treating this as an "invasion".

 

Here are some excerpts from more articles:

Quote

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, appearing on Fox News, said her department has asked for hundreds of troops to help prevent the migrants from entering the U.S.

 

"What we've asked them to do is help to bolster our capabilities,” she said. “So, we've asked for some air support, for some logistics, some planning, vehicle barriers, engineering, ways in which we can make sure that I can protect my officers and agents."

Sources said the troops will be there to support civil authorities, but they can defend themselves if needed.

Border Patrol officers, however, will lead the effort to stop illegal immigration.

 

Complete link: http://www.wbtv.com/2018/10/26/troops-may-be-sent-halt-caravan-border/

 

And another one...

 

Quote

Gen. Terrence J. O’Shaughnessy, the head of US Northern Command, told reporters on Monday what that assistance might look like. The military will send:

  • Three helicopter companies, with night-vision capabilities, to help Border Patrol officers to reach remote locations quickly
  • Four airplanes to transport Border Patrol agents as needed
  • Deployable medical units to care for anyone that may needed attention
  • 22 miles of concertina wire to reinforce fencing along the border

While troops will be armed, they can only support Border Patrol agents, not detain anyone (more on that below).

 

Michael Fisher, the US Border Patrol chief from 2005 to 2010, gave me one example of how the partnership will work.

 

Some troops will join Entry Identification Teams, which help to spot immigrants as they cross the border. “The military would be somewhere along the border, typically in an elevated location, providing eyes and ears for Border Patrol agents,” Fisher said.

 

As Vox’s Dara Lind explains, “It is completely legal for anyone on US soil to seek asylum, regardless of whether or not they have papers. People who present themselves for asylum at a port of entry — an official border crossing — break no US law.”

 

Complete link: https://www.vox.com/2018/10/29/18026646/military-border-caravan-immigrants-trump-caravan

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by lierre

“The fact that we are here and that I speak these words is an attempt to break that silence and bridge some
of those differences between us, for it is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence.
And there are so many silences to be broken.”

Audre Lorde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course.  Military troops are not law enforcement.  They just maintain order and assist the police.  But the law is already stretched WAY too thin at the border as it is.  They will need help.

 

Nobody lays out concertina wire quite like the infantry does...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Of course.  Military troops are not law enforcement.  They just maintain order and assist the police.  But the law is already stretched WAY too thin at the border as it is.  They will need help.

 

Nobody lays out concertina wire quite like the infantry does...

 

I don't necessarily think it’s a bad idea to have military troops there. I just don’t like the rhetoric of them gunning down people. But, the US military has so much capacity for what O’Shaughnessy and Nielsen said above. I’ve heard and witnessed military activities in situations even more dire than this is predicted to be.

 

If the process can be made so that it can ease the burden on Border Patrol and facilitate the needs of the potential asylum seekers, that would be great.

 

 


“The fact that we are here and that I speak these words is an attempt to break that silence and bridge some
of those differences between us, for it is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence.
And there are so many silences to be broken.”

Audre Lorde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't potential asylum seekers accept the first location where they are safe and have the offer of settlement and assistance in resettlement,

 

 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lierre said:

 

I don't necessarily think it’s a bad idea to have military troops there. I just don’t like the rhetoric of them gunning down people. But, the US military has so much capacity for what O’Shaughnessy and Nielsen said above. I’ve heard and witnessed military activities in situations even more dire than this is predicted to be.

 

If the process can be made so that it can ease the burden on Border Patrol and facilitate the needs of the potential asylum seekers, that would be great.

 

 

Look back in history, and try to find a time when US military forces fired upon unarmed civilians for the fun of it.  I don’t think the crowd of people trying to come here are in any danger.  But the military will also help prevent that casual stroll across the border into anonymity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Randyandyuni said:

Wouldn't potential asylum seekers accept the first location where they are safe and have the offer of settlement and assistance in resettlement,

 

 

 

I think they're supposed to apply at the 1st country they go to. US has a process that could take months. If they get refused, they can apply somewhere else. The first country concept is used so that asylum seekers won't apply to multiple countries at once.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Satisfied said:

Look back in history, and try to find a time when US military forces fired upon unarmed civilians for the fun of it.  I don’t think the crowd of people trying to come here are in any danger.  But the military will also help prevent that casual stroll across the border into anonymity.

 

Or help border patrol get to those places. i imagine the military has more planes to do that.

 

 

 


“The fact that we are here and that I speak these words is an attempt to break that silence and bridge some
of those differences between us, for it is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence.
And there are so many silences to be broken.”

Audre Lorde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Satisfied said:

Military troops are not law enforcement.

Thank heaven for that.  Thank heaven even further that CBP agents don't have Peace Officer status in Texas.

7 hours ago, Satisfied said:

the law is already stretched WAY too thin at the border as it is.

Drive U.S. 83 west from McAllen to Rio Grande City and count the State Troopers, Sheriff's Deputies, Constables, and local police idling on the median every few hundred yards.  Avoid going 0.00000001 mph over the speed limit or risking their bored wrath in any other way.


06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, lierre said:

 

I think they're supposed to apply at the 1st country they go to. US has a process that could take months. If they get refused, they can apply somewhere else. The first country concept is used so that asylum seekers won't apply to multiple countries at once.

 

 

 

 

Or help border patrol get to those places. i imagine the military has more planes to do that.

 

 

 

I agree, these folks really have no basis to apply for asylum in the US since they already passed up applying for asylum in Guatemala (for the Hondurans) and Mexico (for the Guatemalans).  Regardless, they can arrive at a valid POE and attempt to claim asylum, but if they cross the border illegally, thereby committing a crime, their claim for asylum should be ignored.


Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agree, these folks really have no basis to apply for asylum in the US since they already passed up applying for asylum in Guatemala (for the Hondurans) and Mexico (for the Guatemalans).  Regardless, they can arrive at a valid POE and attempt to claim asylum, but if they cross the border illegally, thereby committing a crime, their claim for asylum should be ignored.

this ^^^^ is what I believe


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Satisfied said:

Look back in history, and try to find a time when US military forces fired upon unarmed civilians for the fun of it.  I don’t think the crowd of people trying to come here are in any danger.  But the military will also help prevent that casual stroll across the border into anonymity.

Kent State , Wounded Knee,  My Lai without even googling 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Randyandyuni said:

Wouldn't potential asylum seekers accept the first location where they are safe and have the offer of settlement and assistance in resettlement,

 

 

But of course we all know it's not really asylum they are seeking.  

 

Have you seen any of the interviews with these people?  They admit they are coming for economic reasons.


If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving is not for you.

Someone stole my dictionary. Now I am at a loss for words.

If Apple made a car, would it have windows?

Ban shredded cheese. Make America Grate Again .

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.  Deport him and you never have to feed him again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

Kent State , Wounded Knee,  My Lai without even googling 

Thank you.  Very rare.  And sadly, very deadly.

 

I was more referring to US-based incidents, which My Lai was not, but kudos on you for knowing your military history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mob should be stopped pre-border and, before potential consideration, should be required to present their vaccination certifications and sputum-test results.  The U.S. military contingent can help to collect, log, and evaluate these.

Edited by TBoneTX

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×