Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Or how about they just stay out of the US. If they want 'refuge' why not pick any other country in central or southern America, why is the US their only option ?
Just existing does not give you a definite path to legal immigration, at this point the border is closed for more legal entry, as the US are entitled to do.



certain sections of the media are scrambling for pictures of only adult men, others scrambling for only women and children. The reality is a small enough percentage of that group is children, I don't think anyone is actually intentionally teargassing a child and then its the parents responsibility for bringing their children into those tension points with police.

Oh ffs.

Would you do me a favour and just once put yourself in the shoes of someone less fortunate and imagine how you would like to be treated.

You're very lucky to be borne where you are. Never lose sight of that fact. It can be quite a useful exercise when you spend your time strutting around on a high horse.

I'm sure the RUC didn't plan on killing people with rubber bullets up north but that's what happened.

If an admin can't use something safely on the public then they shouldn't use it. Period.

Imagine trapsing 2000 miles LEGALLY to apply for asylum and then meeting someone at the border with the same attitude that you have now and for that door to close.

They have left everything at home for the risk of a better life. Their numbers are microscopic compared to the population of the US and despite what the dear leader says, the system has been working perfectly fine.

If 5000 people marched twice a year into the US, it would take 525 years before they made up 1% of the population.

But no, while they are acting legally, its the government who have done no wrong despite carrying out human rights abuse.

Its all a dog whistle to racists and xenophobes. Same as the refusal to denounce Charlottesville torch bearers, the accusation that all mexicans are rapists and drug dealers, the building of the wall, detaining kids and taking no steps to find them once lost in the system, oh and of course the muslim ban.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

They were allowed in, which is one of the problems Donny T was elected to stop.

I can find no evidence that 'caravans' of any size (in the sense of comprising hundreds or thousands of people) pre-existed Trump's presidency. The 1st one I can find is one from Holy Week in 2017, labelled "The Way of the Migrants", presumably a reference to the Holy Week "Way of the Cross".

Either previous ones were ignored by the media, or migrants didn't clump together into such large groups previously.

I would welcome any correction.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

when you have a hoard of people of whom the majority are able bodied adults trying to get over an illegal border crossing and you need to disperse them, what product or weapon is more accurate and as harmful at doing that to the adults but avoids the kids ?

I'm not a security expert. I know that tear-gassing children is wrong though.

Maybe you're right. Perhaps they could try something new? Maybe separate the adults from their children and put them in different cages. Oh wait...

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Show me proof that they have a positive effect ?

South and Central American countries are some of the most dangerous places on the planet, home to numerous large violent gangs and drug cartels. Hispanic crime rates in the US are massive, lack of education and welfare receipt rate among the legal ones are higher than native population and that isn't even counting the illegal immigrants. Like it or not, anyone crossing an illegal border crossing is a criminal, and this is a country that wants to curtail the amount of people coming from central and South America.

"ohh they're teargassing a child" is awful, but not a justification to open a border to a caravan of migrants the US doesn't want and is entitled to deny entry to.

God Eric, you're making it sound like people who want a better life would have an extremely valid reason for leaving there.

Thanks for making my argument for me.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and I want a Rolls Royce , doesn't mean I'm going to get one. They might want a better life, but that doesn't mean they get free passage into the USA to get one. It certainly doesn't mean they can illegally gain entrance to the US.

Funnily enough, if 'the wall' was built, no kids would have been tear gassed.

1) they were looking for legal entry. Can you stop repeating that lie, and also can you stop with the assertion that the US can refuse asylum without acknowledging that it is in breach of historical agreements there for decades.

2) the wall would not have been built at a port of entry so that's bs too.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

how would you stop them all entering as explained so ?

I genuinely hope that Eric is just a troll who likes to wind up average Joe boards poster as it's infinitely more palatable to think that you just enjoy annoying people who are in a safe economic environment who have readily available access to work, resources, etc... than the idea that you actually believe some of the vile opinions that you post in relation to the most needy elements of society.

Everyone knows that there is some measure of welfare fraud, which of course authorities should try to stamp out & they should punish those guilty of it, but your attitude is screw the 99% who actually need help, it's their own fault they're in that situation & they're all just scroungers who aren't trying hard enough.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

everlast75 wrote: »

1) they were looking for legal entry. Can you stop repeating that lie, and also can you stop with the assertion that the US can refuse asylum without acknowledging that it is in breach of historical agreements there for decades.

2) the wall would not have been built at a port of entry so that's bs too.

what way would you conclude this scenario that doesn't involve them entering the USA legally or not ? how would you get them to turn around and pick somewhere else ?

Generally by allowing them apply for asylum like the US has agreed to do under human rights conventions. It isn't hard. Some will be told they won't be let in and some will be let in. It will lose momentum and no kids need be tear gassed.

Do you feel the US should pull back from previous human rights agreements because they are breaching them if they don't allow people to at least apply for asylum.

Ah you gotta love the liberal media. Sanctimonious hypocrisy abound.

Tear gas and pepper spray has been used many times before in response to rock throwing:

San Ysidro Border Rush Had Been Planned For A Week

Deported migrants attempted a once-common tactic of rushing the border en masse on Sunday. But Border Patrol agents met them with tear gas and rubber bullets and forced them to turn back.

Indeed, many over the years (even during Obama's administration) only wish tear gas was all that had been used on them. In the following case a Mexican teenager was shot and killed for doing so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Jos%C3%A9_Rodr%C3%ADguez

Deadly border agent incidents cloaked in silence

In the last four years, rock-throwing incidents accounted for eight of the 24 instances in which agents killed people. The Border Patrol considers rocks deadly weapons that justify lethal force, even though it is rare for agents to be injured in "rockings," as they call them, and even though, as agents' reports showed, several less-lethal long-distance weapons are highly effective against rock-throwers, The Republic found.

Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher insisted agents will continue to use deadly force against rock throwers, because rocks are potentially deadly weapons.

Eight times since 2010, Border Patrol agents killed people whom they said were throwing rocks at them, including six across the border. But in at least 160 other reported cases, agents resolved cross-border rock-throwing with less-lethal weapons that can fire, for example, balls filled with pepper spray. In those cases, no one died and almost no one was seriously hurt — including the agents.

But sure never mind all that, Donald Trump's gassing kids apparently. Or at least that's the latest stick the left are beating him with.

HDMI wrote: »

Charging the border is no way to apply for asylum. You are supposed to claim asylum in the first country you enter, these people have passed through many countries, Mexico has even offered them asylum but they refuse to accept it.

One thing I have noticed depending on where you get your news the video footage is aired differently. I watched ABC news and they barely gave a few minutes to the story and continually showed the same footage in a loop, mostly of a woman and a couple of kids. After browsing Youtube I found footage from many other news sources which show the majority of those rushing the border were males and were hurling stones. Unfortunatly they had to use gas to control the situation, is it ideal? no but the border must be protected.

There are many Americans who are seperated from their foreign spouses and children while they go through an expensive and very long immigration process. Some of those family members live in very poor and very dangerous countries and they get no special treatment, for some the process takes nearly 2 years.

Allowing this caravan to pass into the US would be a huge mistake, there are many poor countries to the south and Mexico doesn't seem to have the will to stop them coming through. If this is not stopped now the US may as well have open borders because the caravans will become more frequent and larger.

You are meant to claim asylum in the first country you enter in Europe. That is a very different deal and amounts to claiming asylum in the first 1st world country you get to in Europe. And then you have EU movement regulations allowing easier movement than Mexico to USA.

You mention many suffer under this immigration process to do it right. I am not really sure that is an argument in its favour really. Leaving people's spouses in dangerous countries for up to 2 years is not a glowing review of the American system really. That is not helping your case.

No one here has suggested simply letting the entire caravan in that I have seen. There are much more frequent calls to let them apply for asylum like they should be able to.

Again people ignore the point that the US is obligated to offer these people a legal route to asylum. Until that is addressed, other arguments are largely pointless.

I see Donnie throwing his oar into the EU/UK withdrawal agreement too.

So we know a few things;

1. He hasn't and won't read the WA
2. He hasn't and won't listen to someone else summarise the WA
3. Any "trade deal" between the UK and US is hot air, it doesn't exist.

So the only rational conclusion here is that someone else has told him to speak negatively about the WA. Probably because no WA means less stability in Europe.

I wonder who could want a less stable Europe....? Perhaps someone who is trying to annex some European countries...

seamus wrote: »

I see Donnie throwing his oar into the EU/UK withdrawal agreement too.

So we know a few things;

1. He hasn't and won't read the WA
2. He hasn't and won't listen to someone else summarise the WA
3. Any "trade deal" between the UK and US is hot air, it doesn't exist.

So the only rational conclusion here is that someone else has told him to speak negatively about the WA. Probably because no WA means less stability in Europe.

I wonder who could want a less stable Europe....? Perhaps someone who is trying to annex some European countries...

So given everything we know about Trump from his character, his temperament, his level of intelligence, his business acumen (or lack thereof), his narcissism, his misogyny, his racism, his pathological lying, his lack of empathy and compassion; at this stage is it safe to conclude that he is compromised?

Short question, from what we know of him can he be easily manipulated?

seamus wrote: »

I see Donnie throwing his oar into the EU/UK withdrawal agreement too.

So we know a few things;

1. He hasn't and won't read the WA
2. He hasn't and won't listen to someone else summarise the WA
3. Any "trade deal" between the UK and US is hot air, it doesn't exist.

So the only rational conclusion here is that someone else has told him to speak negatively about the WA. Probably because no WA means less stability in Europe.

I wonder who could want a less stable Europe....? Perhaps someone who is trying to annex some European countries...

Oh, I don't think we need to dig that deep into it.

I think Trump simply likes to cause trouble and can see that making noises will pile pressure on TM and thus make his job easier. TM played right into his hands with her desperate dash to the WH when he was elected and being so accommodating to him in terms of the Queens visit and staying schtum when his interview came to light.

Trump knows he cannot handle Macron or Merkel, so he wants to make the UK as weak as possible. I don't even think it is about trade deals, just he wants to be the big man in charge.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Oh, I don't think we need to dig that deep into it.

I think Trump simply likes to cause trouble and can see that making noises will pile pressure on TM and thus make his job easier. TM played right into his hands with her desperate dash to the WH when he was elected and being so accommodating to him in terms of the Queens visit and staying schtum when his interview came to light.

Trump knows he cannot handle Macron or Merkel, so he wants to make the UK as weak as possible. I don't even think it is about trade deals, just he wants to be the big man in charge.

I think he's making it so the UK votes down the EU Withdrawal Agreement, forcing the UK out with No Deal, then Trump holds all the cards when it comes to negotiating a deal with the UK. He doesn't care what happens in Europe, he just wants to be able to announce the US signed a great new trade deal with the UK.

Hell, you could even take it further than that and posit that such a trade deal could result in US companies making bigger strides into UK markets including telecom companies, or health insurance companies leading to a privatisation of the NHS and the healthcare system in the UK becoming more like they have in the US. If the UK crash out of the EU with no trade deal, the US will swallow them up.

I don't think Trump cares about the UK-EU relationship, and I don't think he's being encouraged by anyone to help sow discord in that relationship. I think he's just purely focused on the optics of it and what he might be able to announce where he can shout JOBS! into a microphone repeatedly regardless of how true it is (which given the loss of jobs announced yesterday, likely isn't going to be true).

And on the 'caravan'. Sure Trump is correct that every country should have a immigration policy, and the means to enforce it.

But, there is no need for him to demonise every person, to criminalise them in the eyes of all Americans and to stoke fear into people. This will spread from just those in the Caravan to all foreigners (there is little doubt that some Americans will confuse naturalised Mexicans with thse people and act accordingly).

Is this caravan a major threat to the US? Of course not. The most powerful country in the world is currently having kittens because a few thousand unarmed south Americans are walking, slowly towards them. So scared that the army needed to be sent to protect America from this threat.

Americans are armed to the teeth yet appear to be the most scared people on the planet

Geraldo seems to be slowly realising just what he has signed up to.

It has all fine and dandy having a pop at Obama and calling out the left, but if the price of winning is what Trump has brought then maybe it wasn't worth it. This is not thte first time Geraldo has had a cut off Trump.

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

No mention of first country but the ecj have their own rules

The thread referenced by Baron de Charlus should clear that up for you.