• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

She declares there's no crisis. She removes the National Guard and now...

Superman

You may worship me
Moderator
Forefather
Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
20,992
Reaction score
24,377
Points
113
Location
Trampa, FL
Governor goes to DC to talk border issues, ask for funding

https://www.koat.com/article/govern...ss-nm-border-situation-seeks-funding/27562571

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. —

New Mexico has become a key player in the immigration and border wall debate, and now Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is in Washington,D.C., meeting with federal officials to discuss New Mexico's border situation.

According to a spokesperson for the governor's office, weeks of phone conversations between Lujan Grisham and acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan
have finally led to a sit-down meeting.

"The governor wants to continue to urge the federal government to increase its personnel on the border as a means of improving the logistical and communications output," said spokesman Tripp Stelnicki.

Our partners at the Albuquerque Journal report that the governor is also seeking federal reimbursement for humanitarian assistance, more federal staffing and other resources.

"She declares there's no crisis. She removes the National Guard and now she's there asking for money," said Steve Pearce, the chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party.

Earlier this year, Lujan Grisham said there was no crisis at the southern border and a few weeks later removed the National Guard troops. Pearce said the governor needs to acknowledge what the real problem at the border is.

"Everything in her actions indicate that she believes there's a crisis, but yet she will not dedicate the resources or request to her colleagues in Congress to start passing the laws that will change the situation there," Pearce said.

Stelnicki said one of the big problems New Mexico communities face is not knowing what's coming or when. Pearce said he doesn't believe an end is in sight.

"The border communities are going to continue to be overrun," Pearce said.

Lujan Grisham is hoping some of these conversations alleviate some of the pressure our border communities are currently facing. Stelnicki said the governor also wants to address the Otero County situation, where local officials were upset by the federal decision to pull resources away from a checkpoint.

The governor will be back Thursday evening.

--------------

New Mexico counties revolt against migrant releases
by Adam Hay
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...revolt-against-migrant-releases-idUSKCN1SS330

TAOS, N.M. (Reuters) - Two more New Mexico counties have declared their opposition to taking in migrants in a growing revolt against federal authorities dropping off a surge in Central American families in the state’s rural, southern communities.

The record influx of asylum seekers has overwhelmed border detention facilities and shelters, forcing U.S. immigration authorities to bus migrants to nearby cities and even fly them to California.

Las Cruces, New Mexico, has received over 6,000 migrants since April 12. Deming, population 14,183, gets 300 to 500 a day, according to City Administrator Aaron Sera.

Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has dismissed President Donald Trump’s claims of a border security crisis and advocated a humanitarian response. She is in Washington seeking federal funds to reimburse cities that give support.

But some New Mexico counties say they want nothing to do with sheltering migrants, with officials saying the governor’s approach may worsen the border crisis.

Sierra County, population 11,116, was one of two Republican-controlled New Mexico counties to pass resolutions on Tuesday evening opposing the relocation of migrants to their communities.

Sierra County also called on Trump to close the border to immigration to end the crisis.

“We have to take care of our veterans, our seniors, our residents, first and foremost,” said County Manager Bruce Swingle. “We’re a very impoverished county.”

Sierra County has a median annual household income of $29,690 and a 21 percent poverty rate, according to Data USA.

‘FEEDING PIGEONS’

To the east, Lincoln County passed a resolution that it was not prepared to spend taxpayer dollars on housing “illegal immigrants,” said Commissioner Tom Stewart.

“We have a tight budget and need to focus on a new hospital that we are building,” Stewart said. “As long as we continue to extend citizen benefits to unregistered aliens the flows will continue.”

The moves followed a similar May 2 resolution by neighboring Otero County.

County Commission Chairman Couy Griffin said sheltering migrants sent the wrong message to other Central Americans thinking of leaving their homes and would deepen the border crisis.

“If you begin to feed pigeons in the parking lot, pretty soon you have every pigeon in town,” Griffin said.

Lujan Grisham spokesman Tripp Stelnicki said there was no evidence humanitarian aid encouraged people to leave their homes.

“They are moving because they have no other choice and its frankly un-American to suggest we close our doors to people in need,” he said.

The border situation is taking a tragic toll on the migrants themselves. On Wednesday, the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees unaccompanied child migrants, said a 10-year-old girl from El Salvador died in its custody in September, bringing to six the number of children who have died in U.S. custody, or shortly after release, in the last eight months.

-------

Frustration boils over at border security town hall in Deming
By Algernon D'Ammassa/Las Cruces Sun-News
https://www.abqjournal.com/1290474/...r-at-border-security-town-hall-in-deming.html

DEMING – In a departure from previous border security meetings that have convened periodically in Grant, Hidalgo and Luna counties, a meeting held in Deming on Saturday featured no representatives from the U.S. Border Patrol or other law enforcement agencies. There were also no congressional staff representatives present.

Instead, the meeting at Deming’s First United Methodist Church was a venue for residents to express frustration over human trafficking, increased apprehensions of migrants at the border, and immigration policy broadly.

Hundreds packed the church’s gymnasium. When asked to call out their places of residence, attendees named counties all over New Mexico, plus many from Arizona and El Paso.

Outside the church, a lone demonstrator wore a sign that read, “What would Jesus do with refugees?” Inside, however, the talk was of “illegals,” with a consensus that border security is inadequate and immigration is out of control.

The event’s organizer, Russ Howell, is the Luna County Republican Party chair.

There were standing ovations following calls to “build the damn wall” and loud jeering of New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and the state’s congressional delegation, who are all Democrats.

A staff representative for the state Republican Party drew applause after calling on the assembly to “vote red.”

Speakers included 2018 Republican candidates Gavin Clarkson of Las Cruces, who ran for Secretary of State, and former state Rep. Yvette Herrell of Alamogordo, who has announced her second run for the U.S. House seat currently held by Rep. Xochitl Torres Small, D-N.M.

State of emergency on the border

At first, the three-hour meeting focused on public health and security concerns along the border.

A recurring complaint was the governor’s February statement that she saw no “overwhelming national security crisis” at the border.
 
Millions of uneducated, unvaccinated, unskilled illegals who speak not a word of English pouring into the country. Wow, how great is that??
 
Millions of uneducated, unvaccinated, unskilled illegals who speak not a word of English pouring into the country. Wow, how great is that??

Wonderful, just freakin' wonderful

28auzl.jpg
CIS-chart.jpg
 
Look, when there are 100,000 men, women and children just showing up at our doorstep every month and not even TRYING to enter legally through our embassies in their home countries, you have a crisis.

The crisis is exasperated by the following:

1. Our immigration laws are broken and un-executable. You can't return them. You can't catch and release. You have to somehow give them miles of rights in our court system. You can't detain them for X amount of days. You can't separate families. You literally can not do anything. Not unless you commit 5000 more judges and support staff to do it.

2. The liberal propaganda machine has told everyone in Mexico and Central America the asylum loophole and that THAT court process is more backed up than the regular illegal immigrant court process. That means you get to stay longer. That means you can't be held in detention while you wait for your court date (particularly if you have children).

3. Requesting asylum has grown something like 5000% since 5 years ago. Every illegal is now being told (via pamphlets, illegal immigrant supporters, lawyers, etc.) to claim asylum. For any reason. Doesn't matter.

4. Crossing illegally has no consequence. You get caught - claim asylum. You wait in line at the gate - claim asylum. The law treats both the same. The law doesn't allow anything to be done to actually send these people home except wait their turn in the broken court system.

5. There is literally no incentive at all to follow the legal immigration path from Mexico or Central America. Why should I visit the embassy and try to get a legal work visa when I can just claim asylum, get release into our population and go to work?

6. The system is breaking down due to the volume of people and costing us an astronomical amount of money (much more than any wall). This cost includes temporary camps, new judges, overtime, temporary National Guard expenses, ICE increases.

7. When the system is overcrowded and broken, errors happen. Kids die. Bad guys get through that should have been flagged. Contraband and drugs get through. The border is less secure. Rapes happen. Gangs exploit the chaos.


There is only one thing to do (and liberals HAVE to agree to this):

1. Change the immigration law to something that is executable by Border Patrol and ICE and Immigration courts.

2. Fix the asylum loophole and don't allow just anyone to claim asylum and make that a different "legal path" that is longer than normal.

3. Stop illegal crossings in the first place. Allow immediate deportation if you catch someone within 1 mile of the border or something similar like when you SEE them cross over you can send them right back home rather than make some exclusion that they all of a sudden get legal rights without going through the normal path of entry.

I mean, I have asked time and time again from ANY liberal what laws you want, how to execute them and what to do with people that don't follow the laws you want and I get crickets. Nada. Nothing.
 
Last edited:
I mean, I have asked time and time again from ANY liberal what laws you want, how to execute them and what to do with people that don't follow the laws you want and I get crickets. Nada. Nothing.
it's like you'er literally Hitler for even suggesting that we have immigration and asylum laws.
 
Notice how my post has been up for 24 hours and not one liberal has said a thing.

It's a very simple question. What do liberals want for immigration law and what would you do with someone that breaks that law and crosses illegally.

Crickets.
 
Notice how my post has been up for 24 hours and not one liberal has said a thing.

It's a very simple question. What do liberals want for immigration law and what would you do with someone that breaks that law and crosses illegally.

Crickets.

That's easy. The would do what happens now. They would give them EBT cards, free healthcare, free education, sanctuary when they commit crimes and a D card to vote illegally.
 
Notice how my post has been up for 24 hours and not one liberal has said a thing..
I'm pretty much in agreement with your suggestions. With an added emphasis on the humanitarian treatment of women and children in particular. We must act like a civilized nation and take into consideration human rights and refugee rights issues, where applicable. Even as we carry out enforcing the laws on the border. Overall, I don't have a magic wand or any alternative ideas to solve immigration. You listed some thoughful, reasonable suggestions.
 
Look, when there are 100,000 men, women and children just showing up at our doorstep every month and not even TRYING to enter legally through our embassies in their home countries, you have a crisis.

The crisis is exasperated by the following:

1. Our immigration laws are broken and un-executable. You can't return them. You can't catch and release. You have to somehow give them miles of rights in our court system. You can't detain them for X amount of days. You can't separate families. You literally can not do anything. Not unless you commit 5000 more judges and support staff to do it.

2. The liberal propaganda machine has told everyone in Mexico and Central America the asylum loophole and that THAT court process is more backed up than the regular illegal immigrant court process. That means you get to stay longer. That means you can't be held in detention while you wait for your court date (particularly if you have children).

3. Requesting asylum has grown something like 5000% since 5 years ago. Every illegal is now being told (via pamphlets, illegal immigrant supporters, lawyers, etc.) to claim asylum. For any reason. Doesn't matter.

4. Crossing illegally has no consequence. You get caught - claim asylum. You wait in line at the gate - claim asylum. The law treats both the same. The law doesn't allow anything to be done to actually send these people home except wait their turn in the broken court system.

5. There is literally no incentive at all to follow the legal immigration path from Mexico or Central America. Why should I visit the embassy and try to get a legal work visa when I can just claim asylum, get release into our population and go to work?

6. The system is breaking down due to the volume of people and costing us an astronomical amount of money (much more than any wall). This cost includes temporary camps, new judges, overtime, temporary National Guard expenses, ICE increases.

7. When the system is overcrowded and broken, errors happen. Kids die. Bad guys get through that should have been flagged. Contraband and drugs get through. The border is less secure. Rapes happen. Gangs exploit the chaos.


There is only one thing to do (and liberals HAVE to agree to this):

1. Change the immigration law to something that is executable by Border Patrol and ICE and Immigration courts.

2. Fix the asylum loophole and don't allow just anyone to claim asylum and make that a different "legal path" that is longer than normal.

3. Stop illegal crossings in the first place. Allow immediate deportation if you catch someone within 1 mile of the border or something similar like when you SEE them cross over you can send them right back home rather than make some exclusion that they all of a sudden get legal rights without going through the normal path of entry.

I mean, I have asked time and time again from ANY liberal what laws you want, how to execute them and what to do with people that don't follow the laws you want and I get crickets. Nada. Nothing.

I would only add that immigration status should be based on a merit system. Have something to offer, great, here just for the government assistance, wait at the back of the line. The policy of releasing basically all of them into the general population is insane.
 
3. Requesting asylum has grown something like 5000% since 5 years ago. Every illegal is now being told (via pamphlets, illegal immigrant supporters, lawyers, etc.) to claim asylum. For any reason. Doesn't matter.
Asylum claims started to climb around the time the Mexican cartel wars were ramping up, around 2007, 2008 (at the time, the new high numbers were alarming, but nothing compared to the astronomical numbers of mostly Central Amercians coming in caravans in the last year or so).

I'll tell you where the problem lies. A person claiming asylum has a multi-step process to take. First, his/her claim is made to the arresting agency, whether CBP or Border Patrol. That agency then processes the case as any other violation, with the exception that the asylum claim is forwarded to USCIS, where a trained Asylum Officer (AO) will conduct an interview. The violation is lodged under a charging document (say, an Expedited Removal), but the charges is stayed until the AO does the asylum interview. Here's where it goes to crap...

AO interviews are determined under a very low threshold. At around the time of the increased claims due to the Mexican cartel wars, an expanded "defintion" of one of the criteria for qualifying for a filed claim was set forth.

The standard grounds are: Suffered persecution or fear suffering persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or member of a particular social group (further research will show courts to have limited the "persecution" to acts perpetrated by a foreign government, govt. official, or, if by a non-govt. individual, perpetrated AND the government knew/witnessed but did nothing). Focus now on the fifth ground: member of a particular social group. This article, although written by an immigration defense lawyer, breaks down some case law and reveals that the "expanded" defintion of "social group", where once limited to say, a social group like a tribal clan, or social fraternity group, or others like it, it can now include a run-of-the-mill-family member. In other words, let's say a guy belonged to the Turkish Knights of Columbus and was being threatened by a government official to shut down their meetings, or else. Guess what, this guy would normally qualify to file an asylum claim.

Now let's say this same guy lived with his brother in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. His brother one day walking in front of their home and was shot to death by a street gang. This guy witnessed his brother's shooting, and believes the street gang saw him witness the shooting. So this guy packs up his family of 5 and comes to the U.S. to request asylum.

More asylum law background:
... remember that the persecution must be connected to one of five grounds—race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group, or political opinion. For example, violence directed against gays and lesbians is recognized as persecution connected to membership in a social group. But violence against an individual who happens to have angered a local criminal does not have the necessary connection to one of the five grounds, so the victim wouldn't be eligible for asylum or refugee status from the U.S. government.

These day, however, in both these scenarios, the USCIS Asylum Officer will find a "reasonable" claim (once again, because the "threshold" is very low at their level) and forward the case to the immigration courts where an immigration judge will ultimately rule on the claim

As a matter of law, the first scenario, if proven, may lead to the immigration judge finding that there is a legitimate claim and grant asylee status to that individual and his immediate family. In almost every single case, though, the individual in the second scenario will have an order denial by the immigration judge and follow with an order of removal from the U.S. The problem is this: It may take several (3, 4, 5 or more) years before the case comes before the immigration judge.

Liberal Circuit Courts and their expanded "definitions" have led to this crisis.

I can tell you that "word of mouth" has always served as an excellent deterrent. Get the word out that the U.S. now: (1) will be applying the "limited" definition of "social group" to ALL claims; (2) has hired several thousand asylum officers to adjudicate claims using the limited definition, and (3) built detention centers to house all asylum claimants, with NO RELEASE until their case is fully adjudicated. Do all this, and word of mouth will stop these caravans immediately. Guaranteed.
 
The sad part is that we are going to have to change asylum to a stricter definition because Mexicans and Central Americans have abused the system. And there will be a time in the future where legitimate asylum seekers might be excluded because we have to change the law for all these bad apples (and their pawns/supporters) that purposely abused the system until it is broken.

Liberals never think long term. If there is a way to exploit the system to their globalist, liberal, communist agenda, they will do it to the Nth degree. If there is a way to cheat welfare or get something free from the government, they will exploit it. They have no conscience when it comes to taking something free. They have been programmed to think free stuff is a "right" of living in America. It is never enough.

Its sad how far the welfare state has changed America's values and expectations of government.
 
The merit based system makes a TON more sense. And (unlike what Trump says) it will allow low-skilled workers into America to fill vital low paying jobs (at least they will be paid above the table legally).

What will be rewarded is simple questions:

Are you capable of work? Do you have any physical limitations to work?

Do you speak English?

Do you have any injuries or illnesses?

What is your education?

Are you vaccinated?

How much money did you bring with you?

These same questions were used to filter people coming through Ellis Island (which liberals seem to think of as a panacea of immigration). They need to be asked now. And it needs to be used to put one person above another on the list.

When you have 1,000,000 people that want to come in and you only want 250,000, you HAVE to make choices. Every liberal knows this.
 
The merit based system makes a TON more sense. And (unlike what Trump says) it will allow low-skilled workers into America to fill vital low paying jobs (at least they will be paid above the table legally).

What will be rewarded is simple questions:

Are you capable of work? Do you have any physical limitations to work?

Do you speak English?

Do you have any injuries or illnesses?

What is your education?

Are you vaccinated?

How much money did you bring with you?

These same questions were used to filter people coming through Ellis Island (which liberals seem to think of as a panacea of immigration). They need to be asked now. And it needs to be used to put one person above another on the list.

When you have 1,000,000 people that want to come in and you only want 250,000, you HAVE to make choices. Every liberal knows this.

Have you ever raped anyone?
Have you ever killed anyone?
Are you on drugs?
 
Sounds like Trump admin should propose comprehensive immigration reform. What's standing in the way? Maybe golfing too much.
 
We must act like a civilized nation and take into consideration human rights and refugee rights issues, where applicable.

Refugee rights. I would argue all humans have rights, regardless of nationality. But that phrase is full of problems.

It's used very liberally to describe every illegal alien crossing the border. It's used in the same way Liberals use the rape claim to justify abortion when only 1% of all abortions are due to rape. They find the tail and wag the dog.

What % of illegal aliens crossing our borders ILLEGALLY are refugees? I suspect it's the "tail." They have been taught, all of them, to claim they are refugees. Not all of them are.

MS13 members are not refugees. Those simply seeking a better economic life are not refugees. Drug dealers are not refugees. Those illegals crossing the border for the purpose of joining their families here in the USA are not refugees.

Liberals and the MSM call all of them refugees...for political reasons.
 
Definition of Refugee

"a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution or natural disaster." (emphasis by me)

Criminality and a country that refuses or is too corrupt to stop it does not create "refugees". A person that flees inner city Detroit because her husband beats her, there are frequent gang shootings in her neighborhood and the schools suck is NOT a refugee. We all agree on that, correct?

There are no civil wars occurring in Central America or Mexico right now. I would argue if you come from Venezuela, you have claim as a refugee and should be granted temporary asylum.

Is there criminality? Is there gang violence? Yes. But that is not a basis for asylum. The Obama administration sent billions of dollars to Central America to fight their gangs and all the money was used for was corruption and payoffs. I would argue 10 cents of every dollar MIGHT have gone to something good.

The governments of Honduras, Mexico, Guatamala and El Salvador must know that we will not work with them until their police and military start enforcing their laws, eliminate the gang violence and restore law and order. They have the money to do it. They have the military to do it. They don't because it is too lucrative (with kickbacks) to look the other way. We must FINANCIALLY, as a country, make it worth their while to claim law and order back. Sending MORE money to these corrupt governments is the exact OPPOSITE thing to do (which is why Obama's policy was such a failure). Those governments were having their cake and eating it too. Its a joke.
 
New Mexico counties revolt against migrant releases
by Adam Hay
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...revolt-against-migrant-releases-idUSKCN1SS330

TAOS, N.M. (Reuters) - Two more New Mexico counties have declared their opposition to taking in migrants in a growing revolt against federal authorities dropping off a surge in Central American families in the state’s rural, southern communities.

The record influx of asylum seekers has overwhelmed border detention facilities and shelters, forcing U.S. immigration authorities to bus migrants to nearby cities and even fly them to California.

Las Cruces, New Mexico, has received over 6,000 migrants since April 12. Deming, population 14,183, gets 300 to 500 a day, according to City Administrator Aaron Sera.

Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has dismissed President Donald Trump’s claims of a border security crisis and advocated a humanitarian response. She is in Washington seeking federal funds to reimburse cities that give support.
But some New Mexico counties say they want nothing to do with sheltering migrants, with officials saying the governor’s approach may worsen the border crisis.
Shoot, all this is in my backyard.

But keep on voting blue, New Mexico. Of the last 7 presidential elections going back to 1992, New Mexico's 5 electoral votes have gone to the Democratic candidate 6 times.
 
Sounds like Trump admin should propose comprehensive immigration reform.

One of the most recent attempts to "reform" immigration law (1986, IRCA: Immigration Reform and Control Act) gave amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Then, all that happened after that was that illegal alien numbers ballooned, very likely because of the possibility of a new amnesty in years to come. Prophetic, eh?

I want to ask liberals/Dems: are you willing to play the quid-pro-quo game to get the "reform" you want? Are you willing to give as well as take? Because that 1986 law also strengthened laws against the hiring of illegals. Then, in 1996, the next amended part of the INA was enacted by Congress and signed by Clinton. That law expanded definitions of certain crimes that made it easier for the government to deport someone. It created the 287(g) program that permits local law enforcement officials to perform immigration enforcement duties. It brought about the Expedited Removal program that allows for certain illegal crossers to be deported immediately without the need to put them before an immigration judge.

Something tells me that this time, the Left won't play ball and will only accept an amnesty deal with no give on enforcement. (Wasn't it not too long ago that Trump was ready to give the DACA/Dreamers legalization if only Congress would fund his wall, and the Dems balked?) Perhaps this new breed of liberal is the proverbial petulant child on the playground who'll take his ball and go home if he doesn't get his way.
 
We don't need "comprehensive" immigration reform. We need congress to change the immigration laws so that anchor babies aren't allowed, asylum seekers must stay in their countries or they are automatically rejected, and make it a federal crime to hire illegals. Then we need congress to build a massive border wall. Anyone caught twice entering the country illegally spends 5 years in federal prison. Anyone caught using a fake SSI number is given 5 years in federal prison. I would stop all transfer payments to Mexico and Central American countries.

That would be a good start.
 
We don’t need any immigration at all. Our population is over 300 Million. We are full.
 
Sounds like Trump admin should propose comprehensive immigration reform. What's standing in the way? Maybe golfing too much.

why? the immigration laws we have work when they're allowed to work as expected and written. bastardizing them to add feels is what ***** them up.
 
We do need immigrants because without it our population would decrease. Economically, that's not really ideal or good.

In a perfect world, you want about 1-2% population growth and 3-4% economic growth. That's "humming" in an established economy like ours. You want 4-5% interest rates. You want people to have some degree of savings and low short-term debt. You want home ownership. You want manufacturing to be 20%+ of the workforce.

I mean, this isn't hard. In a free market economy it often happens on its own with little to no government intervention and solid regulations and enforcement. You just can't rock the boat.

I've been around now watching and being part of the economy for 30+ years. It shocks me how many bad decisions happen on a macro-economic scale with our government. How much they "try to help" and it just really makes it worse (or helps much to little for the amount spent).

I love Trump and his economy (its much better than anything under Obama) but there are kinks in the armor. We need to control fed spending. The top tax bracket didn't need to be lowered. With more income and less spending, the fed can raise interest rates to more healthy levels. We need to cut social programs. When the economy is good you need to CUT fed spending. The people can take care of themselves. Jobs are there. States are making good revenue to make things work.

But immigrants are an important point of economic growth. The key is more growth than population increase.
 
Top