Caravan Invasion - Why California?
 

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.

Caravan Invasion - Why California?
 

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. Thanks!

Caravan Invasion - Why California?
 

The John whines.....
......snip
"In short, the migrants' attorneys made sure that the caravan went the extra mile - or extra 1,400Â*
miles - to arrive where the rule of law is the weakest in the United States.. And their adviceÂ*
appears to be paying off. Federal immigration enforcement personnel can still prevail, but theÂ*
playing field is tilted against them."


Well, well.....arent y'all one of the posters here defending 'states rights'?
Something as important as border security should be a Federal responsibility.

Caravan Invasion - Why California?
 

True North
The John whines.....
......snip
"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."


Well, well.....arent y'all one of the posters here defending 'states rights'?
Something as important as border security should be a Federal responsibility.
........


Well, Don. I look at it this way. Yes. And while someone is breaking into my home and attempting to attack my family, I can either call 911 and wait for the authorities to show up. Or I can take matters into my own hands. Then wait for them to clean up the mess.

Now I may be wrong, but I’m thinking that’s about the same deal here. The feds can assist, but I do believe it’s the states initial responsibility first.

Caravan Invasion - Why California?
 

On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 4:16:34 PM UTC-5, True North wrote:
The John whines.....
.....snip
"In short, the migrants' attorneys made sure that the caravan went the extra mile - or extra 1,400Â*
miles - to arrive where the rule of law is the weakest in the United States. And their adviceÂ*
appears to be paying off. Federal immigration enforcement personnel can still prevail, but theÂ*
playing field is tilted against them."


Well, well.....arent y'all one of the posters here defending 'states rights'?
Something as important as border security should be a Federal responsibility.

Hey, donna the dim bulb just got a tiny bit brighter.

Yes, states do (or should) have rights... for things pertaining to the state and its operation. Yes, the federal government is supposed to deal with foreign governments and with things such as border security.

This issue is that certain states, like California, have decided to be rogue states and exert their own will regarding federal matters that aren't, or shouldn't be, in their control.

So, for once, you got it. I'm just afraid you don't realize you got it, eh?

Caravan Invasion - Why California?
 

On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 13:16:32 -0800 (PST), True North wrote:

The John whines.....
.....snip
"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."


Well, well.....arent y'all one of the posters here defending 'states rights'?
Something as important as border security should be a Federal responsibility.

Do you have any idea at all just how stupid that comment sounds? Do you understand the article at
all?

Caravan Invasion - Why California?
 

True North wrote:
The John whines.....
.....snip
"In short, the migrants' attorneys made sure that the caravan went the
extra mile - or extra 1,400Â*
miles - to arrive where the rule of law is the weakest in the United
States. And their adviceÂ*
appears to be paying off. Federal immigration enforcement personnel can
still prevail, but theÂ*
playing field is tilted against them."


Well, well.....arent y'all one of the posters here defending 'states rights'?
Something as important as border security should be a Federal responsibility.


It should be, but if you understood the article, the immigrants were doing
an end run around the Feds.

Caravan Invasion - Why California?
 

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. 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.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Caravan Invasion - Why California?
 

On Mon, 07 Jan 2019 15:07:59 -0500, John H.
wrote:

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.


I said that weeks ago but you did articulate more points, particularly
the 9th circuit aspect. I was just thinking they knew California was a
better place to be illegal.

Caravan Invasion - Why California?
 

On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 13:16:32 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

The John whines.....
.....snip
"In short, the migrants' attorneys made sure that the caravan went the extra mile - or extra 1,400Â*
miles - to arrive where the rule of law is the weakest in the United States. And their adviceÂ*
appears to be paying off. Federal immigration enforcement personnel can still prevail, but theÂ*
playing field is tilted against them."


Well, well.....arent y'all one of the posters here defending 'states rights'?
Something as important as border security should be a Federal responsibility.

I am fine with states right as long as they don't want federal tax
money to support breaking federal law.