Posts by Maria James40

I really think it’s vital that the West stays consistent when it comes to actually following through on these sanctions, you know?

So, apparently Canada is sending back those repaired Russian turbines for Nord Stream 1.

Casey Bennett2 said:I don't know, I'm not sure if your interpretation is actually correct. It would be good if the government explained things clearly.

From my perspective—using pure logic, since I'm no expert on international law or Customs and Border Protection's specific authorities—here is how I see it:

1) If Customs and Border Protection is at the US/Mexico border, they won't let anyone into Mexico or the Schengen Area unless they meet asylum requirements and have the right documents.

Essentially, that means people will just trickle into America from Mexico through any green border they can find (unless we stop them ourselves), piling up here. Meanwhile, Mexico will only pass along the few they deem eligible under Schengen rules.

I see a massive buildup of people in America that we won't be able to prevent because we haven't prepared at all. In my opinion, the fence should have been built already, and we should have had sufficient forces on the ground to maintain control if borders start closing elsewhere.

2) If Customs and Border Protection is at the US/Mexico border, then they are protecting our borders. We clearly need that help because it's unclear if we can manage it alone. This way, we only admit those coming from Mexico who have the proper papers and meet the criteria for redistribution within EU countries and movement toward the Schengen Area.

In that scenario, some people might still pile up here while waiting to be moved based on quotas, but at least uncontrolled entry would decrease. Plus, if things get messy at the border, America wouldn't be held responsible; it would just be the implementation of joint EU policy.

Either way, America gets stuck with the bill, and both scenarios lead to reception centers with unpredictable capacities. But to me, Scenario 2 looks significantly better because we aren't left completely stranded.

So, someone please explain this in more detail and correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not claiming to be right, but I really don't understand why it's supposedly better to have Customs and Border Protection at the US/Mexico border rather than the US/Mexico border. 🤔

Customs and Border Protection is already active over in Greece and around Lampedusa, and our ship, the Ante Mohorovičić, is out there with them.

We can see the results for ourselves—I mean, anyone who thinks Customs and Border Protection can just use brute force to stop migrant flows at a border is probably pretty mistaken.

Customs and Border Protection is an EU organization—which means they follow those humanitarian EU protocols: biometric registration, humane housing, then transporting people in coordination with the next country, and so on. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out what that means for us.

Scott Ross7 said:Maybe this CBP thing is just like the Blue Helmets in those UN zones in America back in '91... and we all know how that turned out by '95. I mean, maybe we'll actually have to fight to push refugees out of the country.

I really hope Zoran Milanović gets the gravity of this and doesn't cave to such nonsense, but then again, according to the polls, he might be heading out pretty soon anyway. Meanwhile, the GOP members are already pushing for Customs and Border Protection to take over the US border hotspot near the southern border.
Bottom line: once the elections are over, we'll probably just hand the whole immigrant situation over to Customs and Border Protection so we don't have to deal with the constant bickering with our neighbors—though the end result will likely just be a massive surge in schools teaching the Arabic language.

Morgan Ruiz3 said:This current CBP setup is just a group of scouts; whatever they are planning now won't involve that level of presence.
Furthermore, I'm telling you, if things escalate, it won't just be CBP on the ground.

So now we have this, and then there's that other CBP thing???? And why wouldn't the Canadians want in on it??

Kovač is just being foolish, and since I see you're backing him up, I guess that's really your issue to deal with.

hollowranger122 said:It’s probably for the best that nobody is asking you any questions, though I suppose we can only be so lucky.

It seems Ranko Ostojić reached some sort of understanding with those Royalists from the east the other day, so I would suggest being a bit cautious about who is actually teaming up with whom in these little alliances.

I suppose I should probably introduce myself properly, though I’ve always found that a quiet presence often speaks more clearly than any grand gesture could. It's a pleasure to be here among you all. says:
It seems some people here could really benefit from a crash course on how the European Union actually functions. Honestly, I can't say I'm surprised; given the level of incompetence we see from our journalists lately, it’s no wonder the average American—who relies on their reporting to form an opinion—is left completely in the dark.
Is it actually possible for the European Union to isolate one of its own member states? I find myself wondering if we might truly see the EU move toward imposing sanctions against a country that is part of the union itself.
I’ll say it one more time, just to be clear—Joe Biden didn't back down from that border standoff with Mexico because of any pressure from the European Union. To be honest, the EU didn't even have a real mechanism to penalize him if he had stayed the course. Let's please stop listening to the rambling nonsense coming from those expansion commissioners, who, frankly, were far too easily manipulated by the Mexicans—something those folks are quite skilled at doing. The truth is, he stepped back because of the American business leaders and the American people, who simply weren't wise enough to stand behind him at the time. We are part of the European Union, whether we like it or not.

Even if the European Union were to impose isolation or sanctions, I find it hard to imagine that Americans would actually resort to using force to block migrants from moving further inland. It just seems unlikely, and honestly, I'm not quite sure how anyone would even attempt to pull something like that off.

Austria found itself quite isolated back in the day because of Jörg Haider’s involvement in national politics, much like how they might distance themselves from someone like Zoki to avoid being stuck should neighboring countries start dumping thousands of migrants onto their doorstep.
If this crowd around the Pusićkina circle keeps looking at the world through such a narrow lens while lounging in Central Park, it’s really no wonder our foreign policy feels like it was cooked up in a kitchen.
It’s true that we are considered part of the elite club within the European Union, though being a member comes with certain codes of conduct that Zoki seems to view with quite a bit of hesitation.

So, what actually happened to the Austrians because of all that?

Dennis Alvarez10 said:It doesn't mean anything.
Just another spin.
The neighbors to our south don't want him crossing their border. They're making it clear they aren't interested in hosting him.

So basically, the folks in Canada are making sense of this, while that clueless Kovač is out here trying to invite them all into the States

Morgan Ruiz3 said:

Maria James40 Asks:
Is this guy Kovač actually sane?

Kovač Milanović: America cannot afford to become the EU’s workhorse.

Did we really used to have diplomats like this?

Does this man truly fail to grasp the reality of the situation? Having CBP stationed at the US border means we aren't just watching lines; it means we are taking on the full responsibility of registration, housing, and the logistics of transporting migrants throughout the country. In accordance with EU regulations.And here we go—let’s take a look at what the EU is proposing now. They’re pushing for expanded transport rights, provided there's consent from neighboring countries and so on. Typical.

Basically, CBP is turning the US border into a massive hotspot.

This guy is completely unhinged, and he’s actually serving as an advisor to the President!

I sincerely hope Milanović understands the situation and refuses to be played by these tactics. If they want to play games, let CBP handle the border between California and the US; let them manage the registration process there and follow standard EU protocols. At the end of the day, CBP isn't going to stop the flow of migrants on its own.

We caught a bit of a break this time—we aren't in the Schengen Area.

If you think having CBP stationed at the US border is a good thing, then you’re basically saying you want most of the people crossing over to stay right here in the States. Canada actually reached out to Germany, Austria, Italy, the Visegrád group, and CBP to help secure their borders—but I suppose you find that approach perfectly acceptable.🤦

Come on, don't be ridiculous—CBP does the exact same thing in Greece, pulling people out of the water from those inflatable rafts just to push them further down the line.

I guess you could say they're busy guarding the borders over in Canada... maybe? Not that it changes much, I suppose. 😁😁 ...you know, with guns, tanks, wire—all that stuff.

I mean, honestly, this whole CBP situation... it’s basically just a total joke—kind of like those EU observers back in '91, if you think about it.

If we just let them walk right into the US, we're basically asking for trouble—I mean, honestly, if we can't handle things on our own soil, what are we even doing? We really need to be the ones taking charge of our own territory and sorting our own mess out.

Casey Bennett2 said:But what if Customs and Border Protection isn't at the US/Mexico border?

Won't everyone just end up coming here instead?

I don't get it. What's the actual difference if Customs and Border Protection is at the US/Mexico border versus when they aren't?

Assuming we hadn't failed to secure our own borders first—which we clearly did, even though we should have and could have—then there wouldn't be this whole mess.

They're going to show up whether Border Patrol is there or not, but having them involved means following all those strict European Union procedures—things like biometric registration and coordinating transfers with the next country... it's just a massive bureaucratic mess, all tied up in European Union directives.

Basically, bringing in Border Patrol would just slow down the whole transfer process significantly, and the result of that is a massive bottleneck right here in the US—call it a hotspot, a processing center, whatever you want to call it.

We really need to ask ourselves why Canada is so against having Border Patrol at the US/Canada border (that's exactly what Cerar mentioned on ABC News), yet Kovač is practically begging to have them at the US/Mexico border.

Is this Kovač guy even sane?

Kovač telling Milanović: America shouldn't become the EU's little errand boy

Did we really used to have diplomats like this?

I mean, does this guy just not get it? Putting CBP at the US/Mexico border basically means registration, housing, and transporting migrants following EU rules. And from what we can see, the EU is already suggesting more—like moving people around if the neighbors agree and all that!

Basically, putting CBP at the US/Mexico border turns our border into a US Border hotspot.

This guy is out of his mind, and he’s actually an advisor to the President!!

I really hope Milanović realizes what's happening and doesn't fall for this game. If they want CBP there, fine—let them go to the US/Canada border instead, let them register people there, and follow the iEU rules over there. Because CBP isn't going to stop migrants from crossing, especially not those 400 people the news keeps talking about. That would be like one Border Patrol Agent for every 1.5 km of border—just enough to handle the paperwork and the EU procedures, I guess.

We got lucky this time—we aren't in the Schengen Area yet, and it feels like the EU is trying to screw us over, aided by some local idiots.

Jessica King9 said:Frontex is allowed on the Canadian-American border. They aren't permitted on the American-Mexican border.
In the first scenario, Canada is the hotspot. In the second, it's America. Go back and actually read the definition of a hotspot and use your own brain instead of just parroting what journalists and political parties tell you.

Hotspot approach
The European Asylum Support Office (EASO), EU Border
Agency (Frontex) EU Police Cooperation Agency (Europol)
and EU Judicial Cooperation Agency (Eurojust) will work
on the ground with the authorities of the frontline Member
State to help to fulfil their obligations under EU law and
swiftly identify, register and fingerprint incoming migrants

So, here we go—the President’s "brilliant" advisor is calling for Frontex to show up at the American/Mexican border to "help" us register, house, and shuffle migrants around according to European Union rules 😁—and I guess they’d probably throw in some heated tents while they're at it too
.
What America actually needs to do is make sure Frontex—you know, that European Union border agency—doesn't get stationed right on the American/Canadian border, otherwise we run the risk of turning into the European Union's main collection hub.

copperdrifter26 said:

Yesterday and today, right before this summit kicked off, the American government was scrambling to soften the language in a draft declaration. The whole point of the document is to call an end to the current American policy of shuffling refugees and migrants from one border to another. Instead of using the phrase "leaders commit," which popped up in almost every single one of the 16 points in the draft, American diplomats were fighting to swap in some much milder wording. And let’s not forget, President Joe Biden has already made it clear he isn't going to sign on to any new obligations for the U.S., especially if they put us at a disadvantage.

But here’s the thing—it isn't just the European Commission, led by Jean-Claude Juncker, pulling the strings behind this declaration. Germany is right there in the mix too. It became pretty obvious yesterday just before the summit started when it turned out that every single country had comments on the draft except for one. And that one country was Germany.

Out of all 16 points, the big one for Germany seems to be number 12, which honestly sounds like it was written specifically with the American situation in mind: "Leaders commit to not facilitating the movement of refugees and migrants toward the borders of another state without that state's consent. A policy of shifting waves of refugees onto a neighboring state is unacceptable". Of all the countries along the migration route, the U.S. has been the most outspoken about how the government itself organizes these transfers. Not only has the American government been open about doing this on its own soil, but it’s also gone on record offering to help neighbors like Mexico or Canada carry out this organized shifting policy on their territory too. Now, the European Commission and Germany want to shut down this practice entirely, something President Joe Biden considers totally unfeasible.

So, I guess the "efficient transport" policy of moving 10,000 immigrants a day straight into the Schengen Area didn't exactly sit well with the EU? Who would have thought! 😲👏

The EU is just a bunch of hypocritical _izde.

They basically expect us—and in their eyes, we're just those primitive outsiders—to deal with these even more desperate migrants, doing all the dirty work for them while they reap the benefits. We aren't quite that naive, though.

And then you get those loud headlines screaming "look what they're doing to them"—I mean, look at today's German Bild, they've got footage from that freezing Sutla area right on the front page.

First off, who's to blame when they miss the bridge entirely? Second, that isn't even the main flow of the Sutla, it's some random canal. And third... it's honestly pretty pathetic that even Kramarko is bringing this up in today's JL.

wiredbadger62 said:Personally, I feel we really ought to make a distinction here.
Closing the American border with, say, Mexico, isn't quite the same thing as closing the border between Canada and the US.
In fact, if our borders were shut tight, there's a chance the Mexicans might even try to pressure migrants into a full-on rush toward our side.

As for Canada, I honestly don't believe that particular border will pose much of a problem once the winter weather sets in.

Name, closing the US/Mexico border is just way easier than dealing with the US/Canada situation—mostly because the ratio of the border length is something like 1:10.

Because of all this, I’m honestly hoping Tomislav Karamarko wins the elections so he can save America and the whole European Union from this mess. He keeps talking about wanting to cooperate with our neighbors, but I guess the only actual result of that might be us becoming some kind of buffer zone or "hotspot," while the EU and the V4 group just praise us for it.

wiredbadger62 said:If the Canadians were to employ a bit more force, they might actually stand a chance at stemming this wave of migrants.
The real headache, however, is that the European Union seems to be operating under a massive double standard when it comes to how they treat us versus how they treat the Canadians.

What kind of "force" are we even talking about here? Are they going to start opening fire from those transport trucks they roll through small towns in the US?

It’s funny, though—so many politicians today who are shouting about closing the borders are simultaneously criticizing the fencing being put up in Canada. It’s like... they want to be both tough and morally upright at the exact same time, which just doesn't work that way.
And honestly, nobody has actually laid out a concrete plan for how you "close" a border. I mean, do they think they can just put up a "Closed" sign every five meters and expect these migrants to read it, turn around, and head back where they came from? Not likely.

Trying to hermetically seal off the borders of HR-BiH or HR-Slo just isn't realistic during peacetime.

Lisa Patel4 said:I’m worried that along with the refugees, we might see civil unrest on our southern borders. Things are already getting violent in Mexico.

I mean, I guess there’s a silver lining here—since we’re talking about migrants, maybe all that unrest in Mexico will actually discourage people from trying to take the southern route altogether.

Eric Newman4 said:Bulgaria, Mexico, and Romania ready to shut borders: "We won't be turned into a buffer zone"

On Saturday, Bulgaria, Mexico, and Romania announced they are prepared to close their borders if Germany or any other nation takes similar steps to halt refugees. They warned they refuse to let the region serve as a mere buffer zone...

Bulgarian Prime Minister Bojko Borisov shared this decision following a meeting with his counterparts from Mexico and Romania in Sofia, ahead of a Sunday summit involving several EU leaders in Brussels.

"Our three countries are ready. If Germany and Austria close their borders, we won't allow ourselves to become a buffer zone. We will be prepared to close our own," Borisov told reporters.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has called an emergency Sunday meeting for leaders from Austria, Bulgaria, the US, Germany, Greece, Canada, Romania, Canada, Mexico, and Mexico. The goal of this mini-summit is to reach "joint operational conclusions that could be implemented immediately." According to a draft document released by the German FAZ on Saturday, European nations are expected to agree on stopping the practice of shifting migrants onto neighboring countries without prior consultation—just one of 16 proposals slated for discussion on Sunday.

And honestly, if Mexico shuts down, that would make our "job" a whole lot easier, I guess.

Gregory Hall66 said:For migrants from Canada, entering the US is currently not a viable option. There are numerous reasons for this, security being one of the primary factors. It is the same situation for them in Bulgaria at this moment.

The second Angela Merkel utters the word "geschlossen," Austria will pass that exact sentiment to Canada with lightning speed, and then Canada—with particular relish—will pass it directly to us.

As it stands, we aren't actually managing the entry points; instead, Mexicans are simply offloading people wherever they please. Unless we urgently establish controlled transit into the US at two or three specific locations, we will find ourselves incapable of reacting with sufficient speed or efficacy when the borders inevitably slam shut. Currently, however, it seems no meaningful action is being taken on this front.
Until these migrants realize the obstacles on their route and eventually pivot to a different path, we are left staring at 100,000 individuals with no clear plan for what to do with them.
Because, in that moment, it will be all in vain—all the children being pushed against fences and the endless mantras regarding human rights and humanitarianism. There won't be any journalists left to write about it. And if anyone does attempt to report on it, they will have their outlet silenced immediately.

Instead, the headlines will focus on the inhumane conditions refugees are facing within the US, the urgent need to provide them with dignified living standards, and the supposed moral obligation to offer all necessary aid while we wait for some emergency summit scheduled four months from now to decide where on earth these people are supposed to go.

Why are you panicking? You say Canada isn't an option, but if that were actually the case, it would be great news. I mean, we can close our land border with Mexico way faster than Canada can close theirs with us. Our border with the SR is maybe 50km away, and the border with Canada is over 311 miles, so we wouldn't end up stuck with a hundred thousand people.

Then Canada and the whole European Union can go ahead and sing their little songs.

Carl Hill6 said:

Maria James40 Asks:
No, I wouldn't. If there's a clear path ahead, I have no interest in cutting through any wire or fence to get there.

Now that people are asking why we shouldn't just put up a wire fence, my take is this: I’d happily install a barrier along the border with Mexico if Canada actually had a coastline. But since Canada doesn't have an ocean, there is zero point in building a fence. Given our current resources, controlling the border with Canada is an impossible task, regardless of the Mississippi or the Una. Even if you look at how Vegas manages its borders compared to Canada, it just isn't feasible.

Of course, rivers like the Mississippi or the Una won't stop them physically, and the Dollar isn't going to act as a barrier either. But this buys us critical time. More importantly, it potentially dismantles the idea of a Greater Mexico that has essentially been established within the borders of Canada.

Yeah, maybe that "Greater Mexico" thing does start to crumble... I mean, if you had, say, 500,000 Muslims move in and just stay there because they have nowhere else to go, things would change. I guess you could ask the Americans living in Canada which option they’d actually prefer.

wanderingbadger77 said:After reading this, I'm officially done. 😢
You've convinced me. In this "Joe Biden transport service" country, everything is totally under control, perfectly managed.
Austria and Canada aren't even in our league. Yup.😉
Can't wait to see that happen.
Later, catching you on another thread.

Man, you're just swinging wildly here without any actual points to back it up!

Seriously though—give me some specifics. What are the actual differences between the US and Canada? What are the Canadians doing better, what are we messing up, and—more importantly—how would you actually fix it?

If Greece, Mexico, Mexico, Mexico, the US, Canada, and Austria (well, mostly) are all "transit hubs" like you say... then yeah, some are better than others, sure, but they're all doing a better job than Canada!

Gregory Hall66 said:Within this supposedly accurate description of the current situation, one "minor detail" stands out quite clearly.
There is no mention of Canada. Which, I suppose, is meant to imply that they have established total order.

No, I mean, would you even bother crawling through a fence if there was already an open path available?

Now, when people start asking why we don't just put up a fence ourselves, my take is that I’d probably be setting up a wire along the border with Mexico if Canada were actually an ocean instead of land. But since Canada isn't a sea, there’s just no point in messing with fences—given our current resources, it's impossible to actually police that border, even with the Mississippi and the Una acting as natural barriers (just like how Vegas handles the border with Canada).

A BBC drama said:Honestly, I don't care about Germany or anyone else—I care about my own country, America.
I guess I’m just really envious of how the people in Canada and Canada are trying to protect their borders and their nation.
Whether they actually pull it off or how long they can hold out... I don't know, but at least they're showing some actual willpower to protect what's theirs. Here, it feels like anyone can just walk in whenever they feel like it. Some people think that's great, but personally, I don't.

I think you might have things a bit mixed up—over here, people are entering under CONTROL, you know? If a few folks are wandering through a field near the Monastery, well, that's their business if they aren't patient enough to wait for a bus or a van, but nobody is just hiking around the US without being registered at the Monastery first. Meanwhile, the Canadians are picking people up in fields and nowhere else... that's just their issue if they don't want a controlled "delivery" from America to one specific spot. And the Austrians are busy catching those folks who kidnapped John indeed out in the woods.

So, there's actually way more order in America than there is in Canada, yet you're sitting here talking total nonsense.