Well, they've closed the border

You are right, I neglected to read the entire article.  Sorry about that.

Unfortunately, it doesn't make your argument that providing food and water attracts migrants to those dangerous areas.  People leave out water because people will try to cross no matter what.  The people trying to cross came first, not the people leaving water.

Which demonstrates why your analogy of attracting kids to cross the highway is incorrect. A more accurate analogy would be a person handing out high visibility jackets at a dangerous crossing where school children are tempted to take a shortcut across the motorway.  No one would argue that this person should be stopped so that kids learn the hard way to stay off the road.

Your argument is actually quite similar to the people that believe migrants off the coast of Italy should not be rescued in order to teach other migrants a lesson.  Only a person without empathy could make such an argument, as those people will make the journey no matter what the risk.

They don’t actually. They cross in another place where it’s a little more likely to not die.

People don’t just randomly walk north and throw themselves across whatever point they come to. There are established crossing routes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They don’t actually. They cross in another place where it’s a little more likely to not die.

People don’t just randomly walk north and throw themselves across whatever point they come to. There are established crossing routes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That article said if I remember correctly  that people were using this route more because of recent changes in enforcement.  Not sure how your point answers what I said though.  People are going to cross, whether or not somebody leaves out water.    if people don't leave out water, more people die and that's bad.  No one learns a lesson from that and stops crossing, people cross because the alternative is worse. 

Just to clear up some of the fog here: these people have come to claim assylum.

That article said if I remember correctly  that people were using this route more because of recent changes in enforcement.  Not sure how your point answers what I said though.  People are going to cross, whether or not somebody leaves out water.    if people don't leave out water, more people die and that's bad.  No one learns a lesson from that and stops crossing, people cross because the alternative is worse.

People shift to places with less enforcement THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY CROSS. The only reason this route is possible to consider as an option is because well meaning murderers leave out supplies that entice people to put their lives at extreme risk when they otherwise would not. The alternative is move over a ways to places with little risk but a higher chance of getting caught.

People are going to try to cross the border. They WILL NOT try to cross at this point but for people leaving supplies for them. More people die BECAUSE supplies are left out than if they were not.

The people crossing have more knowledge of the potential crossing routes and strength of USBP enforcement on each than the USBP has. All of that is controlled by very bad people. No one is doing this on their own without at least paying the toll. Versus, it is free for them to walk up to a port of entry and request asylum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only reason this route is possible to consider as an option is because well meaning murderers leave out supplies that entice people to put their lives at extreme risk when they otherwise would not.

So you actually believe that this big desert was there, but was far too dangerous to cross, so nobody did.  And then some do gooder was actually stupid enough to leave water out and then communicate this to the illegal immigrants, who then in the hopes that they could find that water, tried the crossing for the first time?   

Sorry bud, that just doesn't make sense.  Obviously the crossers were there first, and will still be there no matter what.  Desperate people will do whatever they have to.  Civilized people try to help those desperate people because the correct way to deal with a desperate person suffering from heat stroke while rushing towards the border is to save their life, and then deal with them as a normal case.   I'm afraid the position that you should let those people die in order to teach them a lesson is morally repugnant.   Europe has come to that conclusion regarding the people trying to cross the med, after hundreds of dead bodies washed ashore on Europe's beaches.

So you actually believe that this big desert was there, but was far too dangerous to cross, so nobody did.  And then some do gooder was actually stupid enough to leave water out and then communicate this to the illegal immigrants, who then in the hopes that they could find that water, tried the crossing for the first time?   

Sorry bud, that just doesn't make sense.  Obviously the crossers were there first, and will still be there no matter what.  Desperate people will do whatever they have to.  Civilized people try to help those desperate people because the correct way to deal with a desperate person suffering from heat stroke while rushing towards the border is to save their life, and then deal with them as a normal case.   I'm afraid the position that you should let those people die in order to teach them a lesson is morally repugnant.   Europe has come to that conclusion regarding the people trying to cross the med, after hundreds of dead bodies washed ashore on Europe's beaches.

There are not people walking up to the border and crossing on their own. That is not a thing. If you do that, you will be killed or your extended family will be chopped up in little pieces. You cross where you’re told to cross by criminal orgs that control the routes, after you pay them. They have basically total information about what’s passable and where enforcement is going to be. It is in their interests to get people across safely cause they continue to collect money from them through extortion, they use them as direct drug mules or to screen smuggling operations, or they’re sending people across into slavery.

This route was opened by those cartels putting out supplies in an attempt to make it passable. But a lot of people either missed the supplies or didn’t but still died anyway, and that’s not really important to the people controlling the routes. With the supplies being destroyed, people were moved to other routes. Till well meaning do gooders put out more supply points and attracted traffic back to the most dangerous route.

It is USBP that saves hundreds and hundreds of people in that route every year, provides them proper medical attention, and then processes them.

No one is trying to teach anyone a lesson. The only people sending people to their deaths without caring are the bad guys on the other side who control the routes. And the only people facilitating those deaths are well meaning people who try to help and only make things worse.

Also, almost no one crossing from Central America to the US is in need of asylum. If they were, then they’re safe in Mexico. They don’t get to choose where they want to live. It is the first point of safety they reach. They are making a choice for a better economic opportunity. They are not starving at home. They can subsist there. If they’re economic migrants then they aren’t entitled to asylum, and they also have greater opportunity in Mexico than at home. These people may be desperately poor because they’re from desperately poor violent countries, but few of them are directly targeted and forced against their will to flee.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, almost no one crossing from Central America to the US is in need of asylum. If they were, then they’re safe in Mexico. They don’t get to choose where they want to live. It is the first point of safety they reach. They are making a choice for a better economic opportunity. They are not starving at home. They can subsist there. If they’re economic migrants then they aren’t entitled to asylum, and they also have greater opportunity in Mexico than at home. These people may be desperately poor because they’re from desperately poor violent countries, but few of them are directly targeted and forced against their will to flee.

This is what baffles me about you people's position: how do you know all this about these asylum seekers before they fill out their applications?  Maybe they are all lazy cartel drug miles, as you assert, but maybe not.  That's the point of the application process.

Why label these people before you have even heard their submissions?

It is the same in the med: some may be layabouts or terrorists, but get them to safety and let them fill out their forms and things.

This is what baffles me about you people's position: how do you know all this about these asylum seekers before they fill out their applications?  Maybe they are all lazy cartel drug miles, as you assert, but maybe not.  That's the point of the application process.

Why label these people before you have even heard their submissions?

Drug mules are not lazy.

I did say we are a govt contractor in areas like security, intelligence, logistics, etc. And I am personally connected with a family full of agents.

The thing is it’s a few hundred people out of a few million who legitimately deserve asylum in the US.

They can for free without messing with cartels/coyotes walk up to any port of entry and request asylum. They can buy a plane ticket with no visa & request asylum on arrival - for multiples cheaper than charged to cross illegally. Or they can pay the cost of traveling to the border, then upwards of 10x the annual household income in their country to a coyote to maybe smuggle them across, maybe just point them at a crossing route, maybe rape/rob/murder them... and if they get caught then they can still ask for asylum.

If they request asylum... it doesn’t matter if they’re suffering from communicable diseases, if they’re convicted criminals, have relatives in isis, or if its a rich white guy from England with no possible reason to request asylum... If they say the magic words that they request asylum, then they will be processed and ultimately released to live in the US for the up to 6 years while waiting for a hearing on their application. A high percentage of those, as you can imagine, don’t show up.

Yet, it is about 5% of claims or less that turn out to be legitimate. That is even artificially high because we don’t enforce the international law rule that they’re eligible for asylum only in the first country where they reach safety (ie Mexico).

So how do I know? I don’t know who is a legitimate asylum seeker and who is not. I do know statistically that it’s a low percentage. I do know you guys freaked out when we wanted to hold people in custody and accelerate a hearing on their case. And that it doesn’t seem to have gone down well that they should be forced to wait outside the country for a hearing. I do know the policy we have in place is absolutely ridiculously insane. I do know the US accepts more asylees and resettled refugees than anywhere else. I do know we have the absolutely most permissive immigration system in the world and we’re still talking about people who won’t follow those rules when it defies any logic (financial or otherwise) that they’d do otherwise unless there’s a different purpose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is the same in the med: some may be layabouts or terrorists, but get them to safety and let them fill out their forms and things.

You know that Europe doesn’t then take the form, look it over for completeness, and turn those people loose with a work permit and check in schedule without first evaluating the legitimacy of their claim & if they are a threat, right? America does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you aware of why the assylum process exists? Not the procedural parts, but the "why"?

We do awful things to each other. So we (and the US was absolutely key in the process) developed a way so that people,, including you and me, have some sort of refuge from our own terrible actions. I think it should be celebrated. And encouraged. Not looked at with suspicion.

This idea that you think we should somehow "prescreen" people, pass judgement before we even see thier submissions, I am very uncomfortable with that. I am not sure I would want to be the guy who just points at a bunch of people and says that lot over there just aren't the right sort of people for assylum.

I'm even more uncomfortable with the idea alluded to that these people are terrorists or are carrying diseases.  Does that not ring any bells?

The same thing was said about the Irish and Italians when they started to emigrate, and they came and actually did make America great.  Immigration is always a positive and I'm proud be a part of a country that can offer people asylum.  There's plenty of room for everyone.

I'm afraid with those tired old divisive arguments, Mr Texas is on the wrong side of history.