Trump is playing with fire...He better not mishandle this “caravan” issue.

[iceberg]

Why? Didn't your daddy ever teach ya, "Money doesn't grow on trees!"

You're a 'catch and release' fan, aren't you? Since 98% never show up for their hearings, it's cheaper in the long run keeping them on detention rather than sucking off the public teat for years and years.

LefTards like Care4all still haven’t figured out that nobody can take them serious when they talk about fiscal responsibility. They have ZERO credibility on this matter...ALL sane people know that one can not love, cherish and support the 29 million illiegal cockroaches here robbing good Americans blind and then ask to be taken seriously when they want to discuss how taxpayer funds are spent.

I bet Care4All is primarily concerned with Care4Herself. She must take in at least 10 tax dollars for every dollar she contributes...

Just kidding, I don't actually think she is contributing. But despite that, isn't it easy to appear virtuous by pretending to care for these foreigners who want to invade the country.

Norman Norman Norman....

The Democratic Party is much more fiscally conservative than Republicans any and every day of the week....

Republicans ALWAYS ADD more to the deficit as a percentage than Democrats.... Just look what is happening NOW, and we are in good times.... we should be spending much much much less in good times....and have a much much much smaller deficit in GOOD TIMES....but the Republican tax breaks for the wealthiest and deficit loving critters are going for broke.... as they ALWAYS DO.

It's laughable that Republicans try to claim they are the fiscal conservatives when they wouldn't know what being fiscally conservative is if it smacked them in the face.....

and YOU KNOW THAT.....

Neither party is fiscally conservative, Care. If either party was fiscally conservative they would address the spending.
Tax and spend is not fiscally conservative, deficit spending is not fiscally conservative. It really is that simple.
Both parties are equally pathetic, and put it all on the backs of the taxpayers.

raising taxes is not the answer.

living within our means is - and that could well mean ending programs we just can't afford anymore.

 

[bendog]

Cut the 1%'s taxes taxes and end soc sec ... that's the ticket.

 

[longknife]

You're a 'catch and release' fan, aren't you? Since 98% never show up for their hearings, it's cheaper in the long run keeping them on detention rather than sucking off the public teat for years and years.

LefTards like Care4all still haven’t figured out that nobody can take them serious when they talk about fiscal responsibility. They have ZERO credibility on this matter...ALL sane people know that one can not love, cherish and support the 29 million illiegal cockroaches here robbing good Americans blind and then ask to be taken seriously when they want to discuss how taxpayer funds are spent.

I bet Care4All is primarily concerned with Care4Herself. She must take in at least 10 tax dollars for every dollar she contributes...

Just kidding, I don't actually think she is contributing. But despite that, isn't it easy to appear virtuous by pretending to care for these foreigners who want to invade the country.

Norman Norman Norman....

The Democratic Party is much more fiscally conservative than Republicans any and every day of the week....

Republicans ALWAYS ADD more to the deficit as a percentage than Democrats.... Just look what is happening NOW, and we are in good times.... we should be spending much much much less in good times....and have a much much much smaller deficit in GOOD TIMES....but the Republican tax breaks for the wealthiest and deficit loving critters are going for broke.... as they ALWAYS DO.

It's laughable that Republicans try to claim they are the fiscal conservatives when they wouldn't know what being fiscally conservative is if it smacked them in the face.....

and YOU KNOW THAT.....

Neither party is fiscally conservative, Care. If either party was fiscally conservative they would address the spending.
Tax and spend is not fiscally conservative, deficit spending is not fiscally conservative. It really is that simple.
Both parties are equally pathetic, and put it all on the backs of the taxpayers.

raising taxes is not the answer.

living within our means is - and that could well mean ending programs we just can't afford anymore.

Which the president, in spite of DimocRAT delay and obstruction, is doing.

 

[dblack]

You're a 'catch and release' fan, aren't you? Since 98% never show up for their hearings, it's cheaper in the long run keeping them on detention rather than sucking off the public teat for years and years.

LefTards like Care4all still haven’t figured out that nobody can take them serious when they talk about fiscal responsibility. They have ZERO credibility on this matter...ALL sane people know that one can not love, cherish and support the 29 million illiegal cockroaches here robbing good Americans blind and then ask to be taken seriously when they want to discuss how taxpayer funds are spent.

I bet Care4All is primarily concerned with Care4Herself. She must take in at least 10 tax dollars for every dollar she contributes...

Just kidding, I don't actually think she is contributing. But despite that, isn't it easy to appear virtuous by pretending to care for these foreigners who want to invade the country.

Norman Norman Norman....

The Democratic Party is much more fiscally conservative than Republicans any and every day of the week....

Republicans ALWAYS ADD more to the deficit as a percentage than Democrats.... Just look what is happening NOW, and we are in good times.... we should be spending much much much less in good times....and have a much much much smaller deficit in GOOD TIMES....but the Republican tax breaks for the wealthiest and deficit loving critters are going for broke.... as they ALWAYS DO.

It's laughable that Republicans try to claim they are the fiscal conservatives when they wouldn't know what being fiscally conservative is if it smacked them in the face.....

and YOU KNOW THAT.....

Neither party is fiscally conservative, Care. If either party was fiscally conservative they would address the spending.
Tax and spend is not fiscally conservative, deficit spending is not fiscally conservative. It really is that simple.
Both parties are equally pathetic, and put it all on the backs of the taxpayers.

raising taxes is not the answer.

living within our means is - and that could well mean ending programs we just can't afford anymore.

And the only way that's going to happen is to raise taxes. People aren't going to vote to cut spending until the spending is actually costing them something.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Fear not. If the situation becomes dire the Coast Guard or Navy can be on the Rio Grande at a moments notice.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Fear not. If the situation becomes dire the Coast Guard or Navy can be on the Rio Grande at a moments notice.

Mollie Tibbetts would advise us to remain fearful of savage thirdworlders.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Fear not. If the situation becomes dire the Coast Guard or Navy can be on the Rio Grande at a moments notice.

I know you are being sarcastic, but the Coast Guard doesn't fall under the DoD during peacetime. In peacetime, they fall under the Dept. of Transportation, and can be deployed as the president sees fit.

 

[Care4all]

Those poor military guys, missing another Thanksgiving, away from their families again, after countless deployments the past 16 years to Afghanistan and Iraq... for this stunt... oh well.... whatever it takes to win the election, I suppose?

 

[iceberg]

Those poor military guys, missing another Thanksgiving, away from their families again, after countless deployments the past 16 years to Afghanistan and Iraq... for this stunt... oh well.... whatever it takes to win the election, I suppose?

16 years? damn obama for his 8!

 

[BrokeLoser]

Those poor military guys, missing another Thanksgiving, away from their families again, after countless deployments the past 16 years to Afghanistan and Iraq... for this stunt... oh well.... whatever it takes to win the election, I suppose?

Don’t worry about that, our military signed up for this shit. They hate illegal wetbacks just like any good, REAL American does. They’d love nothing more than to beat the shit out of these thirdworld savages. I bet they’d do it with Mollie Tibbetts in mind.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Fear not. If the situation becomes dire the Coast Guard or Navy can be on the Rio Grande at a moments notice.

I know you are being sarcastic, but the Coast Guard doesn't fall under the DoD during peacetime. In peacetime, they fall under the Dept. of Transportation, and can be deployed as the president sees fit.

It was described as an invasion, my bad.

 

[Care4all]

Those poor military guys, missing another Thanksgiving, away from their families again, after countless deployments the past 16 years to Afghanistan and Iraq... for this stunt... oh well.... whatever it takes to win the election, I suppose?

16 years? damn obama for his 8!

But I really don't think sending 5 to 15 thousand of them for this refugee caravan is necessary, when as I predicted the Pentagon told Pres Trump that they would not be armed and would only be sending them as logistical support... support that the National Guard is already doing.... the whole thing was simply a way for Pres Trump to appear like he was strong on this issue in the middle of a very important mid term election for him...

the Lord only knows what this campaigning of his for the Republican party is costing us with his 50 or so campaign rallies, using air force one, secret service etc....

that's crappy that we Liberals have to pay even a dime for this man to campaign against us every day and night.... it truly is not fair or just or even ethical... not to the extent this president has done it...

Then add the other political stunts like haphazardly using and sending our military for law enforcement duties at the border and inside the USA, and the COST of that, all to play the tough guy...

cha ching cha ching cha ching

 

[BrokeLoser]

Those poor military guys, missing another Thanksgiving, away from their families again, after countless deployments the past 16 years to Afghanistan and Iraq... for this stunt... oh well.... whatever it takes to win the election, I suppose?

16 years? damn obama for his 8!

But I really don't think sending 5 to 15 thousand of them for this refugee caravan is necessary, when as I predicted the Pentagon told Pres Trump that they would not be armed and would only be sending them as logistical support... support that the National Guard is already doing.... the whole thing was simply a way for Pres Trump to appear like he was strong on this issue in the middle of a very important mid term election for him...

the Lord only knows what this campaigning of his for the Republican party is costing us with his 50 or so campaign rallies, using air force one, secret service etc....

that's crappy that we Liberals have to pay even a dime for this man to campaign against us every day and night.... it truly is not fair or just or even ethical... not to the extent this president has done it...

Then add the other political stunts like haphazardly using and sending our military for law enforcement duties at the border and inside the USA, and the COST of that, all to play the tough guy...

cha ching cha ching cha ching

Again, Liberals can’t complain about how how tax dollars are spent until they complain about the billions being spent on illegal wetbacks.

 

[iceberg]

Those poor military guys, missing another Thanksgiving, away from their families again, after countless deployments the past 16 years to Afghanistan and Iraq... for this stunt... oh well.... whatever it takes to win the election, I suppose?

16 years? damn obama for his 8!

But I really don't think sending 5 to 15 thousand of them for this refugee caravan is necessary, when as I predicted the Pentagon told Pres Trump that they would not be armed and would only be sending them as logistical support... support that the National Guard is already doing.... the whole thing was simply a way for Pres Trump to appear like he was strong on this issue in the middle of a very important mid term election for him...

the Lord only knows what this campaigning of his for the Republican party is costing us with his 50 or so campaign rallies, using air force one, secret service etc....

that's crappy that we Liberals have to pay even a dime for this man to campaign against us every day and night.... it truly is not fair or just or even ethical... not to the extent this president has done it...

Then add the other political stunts like haphazardly using and sending our military for law enforcement duties at the border and inside the USA, and the COST of that, all to play the tough guy...

cha ching cha ching cha ching

ok -

so we are talking about soldiers being in Afghanistan and i address that point that seems to exist to only slam trump. i say for the 16 years in question, obama had them over there too, so lets be fair about the situation. that was my only real point. but now we shift back to the border and ignore the point i was trying to get at in the rush to slam trump?

i get it. i like to dog on trump to but i'm not going to be unfair about what he's doing if what he is doing is more or less the same thing past presidents have done. that seems very wrong to me and only doing it to satisfy our own hate when we do things like that.

when trump did the whole "we'll shot rock throwers" i was very against that in a vocal fashion. that was stupid. but not everything trump does is stupid in unless you or someone just hates him that much. by that time your optics are pretty jaded and *that* is all i was calling out.

so while trump is mouthing off on how many to send and what they will be doing, it does seem the military is correcting him and doing it differently according to their role. good for them. if the military things 5k is enough, send 5k. if trump tries to go to 15k and the generals disagree, they can sit down and talk it out.

as for appearing strong during an election - can you name me ANY candidate on ANY side that WOULDN'T do that? i would expert obama to look strong on issues important to his base as i could ANY politician / candidate. it's their job.

he's got 7k+ illegals coming at the border. should he play cards and hope they decide to turn around? how would you handle it?

 

[Care4all]

so we are talking about soldiers being in Afghanistan and i address that point that seems to exist to only slam trump. i say for the 16 years in question, obama had them over there too, so lets be fair about the situation. that was my only real point. but now we shift back to the border and ignore the point i was trying to get at in the rush to slam trump?

I truly was not trying to make a point about fighting in wars overseas nor complaining about it.... My complaint is that these military men being sent to the southern border, to act as background assistants for Border patrol, during thanksgiving....during a time of relative peace, takes them away from their families, ONCE AGAIN...only for a ridiculous reason, when Pres. Trump could have simply had them call up more National guard.

AND

Using our MILITARY in domestic issues within our border, in civil law enforcement, is illegal... and he was dancing with the Devil/lawlessness, when he tried to imply, this was what he was going to have our military do... use rifles, against rock throwers.

i get it. i like to dog on trump to but i'm not going to be unfair about what he's doing if what he is doing is more or less the same thing past presidents have done. that seems very wrong to me and only doing it to satisfy our own hate when we do things like that.

Not certain precisely what you are talking about, but no other president has used our Military, within our border as law enforcement, WITHOUT A LAW from Congress giving their approval, as the Posse Comitatus Act requires before the President can do such a thing.

when trump did the whole "we'll shot rock throwers" i was very against that in a vocal fashion. that was stupid. but not everything trump does is stupid in unless you or someone just hates him that much. by that time your optics are pretty jaded and *that* is all i was calling out.

President Trump has had accomplishments,

now here comes the 'but'

but at what expense to our Nation? Divided we fall, and that is what he promotes day in and day out, sunrise to sunset, and in the wee hours too if he wakes up. I'm sorry, but I don't call that anywhere near close, to Making America Great Again... He is just way way way too divisive, in every breath he takes, for me ever to accept him as some sort of good President simply because he accomplished some things... he's hurt our Nation more than he has helped it, imo.

ANY President given the same leeway as Trump has been given, to roughshod his policies through, could accomplish things too. but he has gone around the law, without any Congressional oversight, with Republicans in complete silence for things they shouted out from the rooftops when they thought Obama was doing them....

If other presidents were like Trump, who had put the fear of his wrath in to those in Congress that are SUPPOSE TO SERVE US, they could have gotten more done too. NOT that I want any of our previous presidents to have such free reign.... I don't.... I want Trump to face what all others have faced, it's part of our check and balance, within our government.

that's how I see it...

he's got 7k+ illegals coming at the border. should he play cards and hope they decide to turn around? how would you handle it?

Most are refugees and not "illegals", these are 2 distinctly different categories of immigrants.

by law, refugees, no matter where they cross the border and/or turn themselves in once on our soil, by LAW have the right to apply for asylum and get a court hearing. This law would have to be changed by Congress, not through an E/O, imo.

So when you and other Trumpsters call them "illegals", to me, it comes across as a dog whistle for hatred, and shuts down any ability for any Trumpster to have some itty bitty bit of compassion for the legitimate refugee that does make it through the court and hearing process, and accepted for asylum.

the Bible calls it being 'waxed over cold'... I see and hear a bunch of people that are heartless.... even if that may not really be the case....

granted, there are Mexican immigrants who would be considered as the term "illegals" that have tried to weasel their way in to the refugee Caravan from Central America, but I believe Border Patrol and their procedures and protocols, will know who is legitimately from Central America. I also believe that Border Patrol will be able to weed out gang members, and drug traffickers, and child traffickers.... AS THEY DO, every day of the week with the thousands that pass through our borders, and/or are caught crossing outside of legal crossing points.
-----------------------------------------------

From what I understand, there are 2 major Caravans heading this way.... about 3500 in each of them, which is estimated to be about 1500 in each once they actually reach our borders, but let's pretend they stay at 3500... a worst case scenario....

what I would do is use a good portion of all of Border Patrol, 16,000 to 19,000 of them, at our border crossing to process the Caravan crossers, separating the good guys from the bad guys, and the Mexicans from the Central Americans.... send those back immediately, and process the Central Americans seeking asylum by giving them a court hearing, within 2 weeks....

Because we do not have our immigration courts staffed appropriately, there is an 8 month wait for their court hearing on asylum. So I would staff the courts with immigration judges to process them. many States have offered to send their own Immigration Judges to the border to help with the influx.

This eliminates all the money we would have to spend on housing them and their children for 8 months, no need for new tent cities either. Over 90% are being rejected for asylum by these immigration judges, is my understanding....

if the temporary holding jails become over loaded, then the ones that do not fit, could be given electronic ankle monitors.... Obama ran a test program with them and the refugees showing up for their hearings had a 100% compliance rate.... no one "went missing".

 

[longknife]

Fear not. If the situation becomes dire the Coast Guard or Navy can be on the Rio Grande at a moments notice.

Texas has armed patrol craft patrolling the Rio Grand and I would not be surprised to learn that additional Coast Guard craft are standing by.

 

[iceberg]

so we are talking about soldiers being in Afghanistan and i address that point that seems to exist to only slam trump. i say for the 16 years in question, obama had them over there too, so lets be fair about the situation. that was my only real point. but now we shift back to the border and ignore the point i was trying to get at in the rush to slam trump?

I truly was not trying to make a point about fighting in wars overseas nor complaining about it.... My complaint is that these military men being sent to the southern border, to act as background assistants for Border patrol, during thanksgiving....during a time of relative peace, takes them away from their families, ONCE AGAIN...only for a ridiculous reason, when Pres. Trump could have simply had them call up more National guard.

AND

Using our MILITARY in domestic issues within our border, in civil law enforcement, is illegal... and he was dancing with the Devil/lawlessness, when he tried to imply, this was what he was going to have our military do... use rifles, against rock throwers.

i get it. i like to dog on trump to but i'm not going to be unfair about what he's doing if what he is doing is more or less the same thing past presidents have done. that seems very wrong to me and only doing it to satisfy our own hate when we do things like that.

Not certain precisely what you are talking about, but no other president has used our Military, within our border as law enforcement, WITHOUT A LAW from Congress giving their approval, as the Posse Comitatus Act requires before the President can do such a thing.

when trump did the whole "we'll shot rock throwers" i was very against that in a vocal fashion. that was stupid. but not everything trump does is stupid in unless you or someone just hates him that much. by that time your optics are pretty jaded and *that* is all i was calling out.

President Trump has had accomplishments,

now here comes the 'but'

but at what expense to our Nation? Divided we fall, and that is what he promotes day in and day out, sunrise to sunset, and in the wee hours too if he wakes up. I'm sorry, but I don't call that anywhere near close, to Making America Great Again... He is just way way way too divisive, in every breath he takes, for me ever to accept him as some sort of good President simply because he accomplished some things... he's hurt our Nation more than he has helped it, imo.

ANY President given the same leeway as Trump has been given, to roughshod his policies through, could accomplish things too. but he has gone around the law, without any Congressional oversight, with Republicans in complete silence for things they shouted out from the rooftops when they thought Obama was doing them....

If other presidents were like Trump, who had put the fear of his wrath in to those in Congress that are SUPPOSE TO SERVE US, they could have gotten more done too. NOT that I want any of our previous presidents to have such free reign.... I don't.... I want Trump to face what all others have faced, it's part of our check and balance, within our government.

that's how I see it...

he's got 7k+ illegals coming at the border. should he play cards and hope they decide to turn around? how would you handle it?

Most are refugees and not "illegals", these are 2 distinctly different categories of immigrants.

by law, refugees, no matter where they cross the border and/or turn themselves in once on our soil, by LAW have the right to apply for asylum and get a court hearing. This law would have to be changed by Congress, not through an E/O, imo.

So when you and other Trumpsters call them "illegals", to me, it comes across as a dog whistle for hatred, and shuts down any ability for any Trumpster to have some itty bitty bit of compassion for the legitimate refugee that does make it through the court and hearing process, and accepted for asylum.

the Bible calls it being 'waxed over cold'... I see and hear a bunch of people that are heartless.... even if that may not really be the case....

granted, there are Mexican immigrants who would be considered as the term "illegals" that have tried to weasel their way in to the refugee Caravan from Central America, but I believe Border Patrol and their procedures and protocols, will know who is legitimately from Central America. I also believe that Border Patrol will be able to weed out gang members, and drug traffickers, and child traffickers.... AS THEY DO, every day of the week with the thousands that pass through our borders, and/or are caught crossing outside of legal crossing points.
-----------------------------------------------

From what I understand, there are 2 major Caravans heading this way.... about 3500 in each of them, which is estimated to be about 1500 in each once they actually reach our borders, but let's pretend they stay at 3500... a worst case scenario....

what I would do is use a good portion of all of Border Patrol, 16,000 to 19,000 of them, at our border crossing to process the Caravan crossers, separating the good guys from the bad guys, and the Mexicans from the Central Americans.... send those back immediately, and process the Central Americans seeking asylum by giving them a court hearing, within 2 weeks....

Because we do not have our immigration courts staffed appropriately, there is an 8 month wait for their court hearing on asylum. So I would staff the courts with immigration judges to process them. many States have offered to send their own Immigration Judges to the border to help with the influx.

This eliminates all the money we would have to spend on housing them and their children for 8 months, no need for new tent cities either. Over 90% are being rejected for asylum by these immigration judges, is my understanding....

if the temporary holding jails become over loaded, then the ones that do not fit, could be given electronic ankle monitors.... Obama ran a test program with them and the refugees showing up for their hearings had a 100% compliance rate.... no one "went missing".

ok - i appreciate the clarification and how you presented what you are getting at. thank you. for the rest, i don't think we're too far apart.

i put them in:
Illegals - screw the system, we're coming in. those need to be stopped. period. end of story.
legals - coming in via our system, as imperfect as it is.
refugees / asylum - i think people are mixing these terms in order to not have to figure how what else to do. i still view them as illegals as this point. the terms are very specific and i don't want to keep watering down the meaning of words so we can "be nice". not to say we can do better at illegals/legals - we can. but that's where our focus needs to be, not reclassifying them to change the argument.

i think having a "caring heart" for those doing it illegally is compounding the problem because why go through our red tape if we don't enforce it? i think that enforcement needs to be there or we get 7k people daring us to stop them. we can't allow mass illegal activity to take the place of civil process and call it being "humane". that doesn't mean shoot or throw rocks at them either - so we need a better middle ground and have the extremes take a smoke break while the adults figure this out.

other than that i think you've got some ideas that could work; these would just be my concerns in how we handle it.

"anchor baby" is for the supreme court to figure out what is meant in what we have today and we go from there. we don't agree on what that means so we toss it to them and wait on their decision. i don't think we should but sooner or later we must go with what courts / people in power decide, not what we want personally.

good response. thank you.