On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 12:50:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/8/2019 12:29 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 11:29:19 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 1/8/19 11:26 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 09:17:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/8/2019 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/7/19 7:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2019 18:22:38 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 13:03:14 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

John H
I found this very interesting. Probably won't see it on CNN:

The caravan invasion - Why they went where they did.
The blue path is the one that the migrants took to the San Ysidro
Port of Entry at Tijuana/San
Diego, CA. The red path is the one that they could have taken to the
Hidalgo Port of Entry at
Reynosa/McAllen, TX.
http://funkyimg.com/i/2PXvz.png
Notice the difference? The path to McAllen is approximately 1,300
miles long; whereas the path to
San Diego is approximately 2,700 miles long. So the caravan
travelled more than twice as far as it
needed to.
Why in the world would they do that? They didn't have their own
vehicles, and they weren't carrying
enough food or resources to justify the longer journey.
There are two reasons.
The first reason can be summed up in two words: Ninth Circuit. The
caravan members have been advised
by liberal immigration attorneys all along. Not only were the
migrants coached on what to say when
claiming asylum, they were also evidently coached on where to go.
Travelling the extra 1,400 miles to Tijuana/San Diego would take the
migrants to the Ninth Circuit
of the U.S. Court of Appeals, with its numerous judges willing to
minimize the President's statutory
authority to restrict entry of aliens into the United States. And
the presence of similar federal
judges at the district level in California would increase the
probability that the migrants'
attorneys would obtain an initial ruling in their favor.
And that's exactly what happened. When President Trump exercised his
authority under 8 U.S.C.
1182(f) to "impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may
deem to be appropriate," a federal
judge in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order blocking
the President's action. The
Ninth Circuit will likely agree with the district judge. Even if the
Trump Administration prevails
in any appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, it will take at least a
year to reverse the district
judge's ruling.
The second reason for travelling twice the distance is that
California is a sanctuary state with
dozens of sanctuary cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco. Those
jurisdictions will actively
seek to protect the migrants who enter illegally from deportation.
On top of that, the state may interfere more directly with federal
immigration enforcement. State
Attorney General Xavier Becerra said recently that he might sue the
federal government to stop the
use of tear gas to defend the border or to stop the federal
government from shutting down ports of
entry. His argument is full of holes, but with the right judge that
might not matter.
In contrast, in Texas, law enforcement agencies like the Texas
Department of Public Safety cooperate
with federal officials to improve border enforcement. To be sure,
there are some sanctuary cities in
Texas too; but it's nothing like California.
In short, the migrants' attorneys made sure that the caravan went
the extra mile - or extra 1,400
miles - to arrive where the rule of law is the weakest in the United
States. And their advice
appears to be paying off. Federal immigration enforcement personnel
can still prevail, but the
playing field is tilted against them.
...........


That is interesting. Especially the course of the map.Â* Thanks!


===

And if the Mexican authorities had any back bone they would have been
stopped long before reaching Tiajuana, maybe at the Guatemalan border
even.

They tried that and found themselves in a similar position as we are
in. They had a riot and were teargassing the illegals. I am not sure a
couple were not shot but the public backlash made hem stand down.
I wonder if Don would be happier in they were knocking on the Canadian
border.
Maybe we should just hold them till spring and then bus them north,
spread out across the whole 3000 miles. We would not want to do to
them what is happening in Tijuana with all of them piling in to one
city.


I notice that you right-wingers don't mention the really large illegal
immigration problem, the foreigners who enter this country on limited
term visas and overstay those visas. Oh, wait...they're mostly not
darker-skinned Latinos.


Harry hit the "racist" button again. He's been well trained.

... and as usual with his machine gun insults he hit the wrong guy. I
like the Latinos. I have said many times, if they pass a background
check, find a job and pay their taxes, I have no problem with them
being here but I am not trying to protect lazy union workers.


And as usual, Fretwell insults union workers...including those members
of construction unions where he probably would not pass muster for
apprenticeship training.

I have actually done the work of most of the trades and I answered
questions for master electricians when I was inspecting because they
simply did not know where the code was going.

But enough of the "But what aboutitus" from you.
The only places where unions accept immigrants is in union dominated
check card states where they see them as new recruiting opportunities.




Legal immigrants? No problem.
Illegal immigrants? Build a wall.


Get the illegal immigrants to build the wall and it will only cost $2
billion and get done faster.