Immigration General Discussion Volume IV (Read the first post and moderator warning on page 309)

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.

Maria James40 said: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.

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.

Is anyone watching the News on ABC? It’s actually the first neutral report I've seen.
Basically, the EU is breathing down our necks. Canada is calling for backup, expecting about 400 officers from the EU to help secure the Schengen Area.

We are totally screwed...

Viktor Orbán is the man!

Mark Campbell5 said:It happened a year ago... and honestly, nothing has changed. We’ve got a President whose spouse is basically on unpaid leave while they hold office in America.

So, yeah—the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces is effectively on an unpaid sabbatical at NATO.

I actually think that’s worth noting. Especially since Turkey is in NATO, and those border skirmishes near the Turkish-Syrian line seem to be getting more frequent. If things ever kick off between Turkey (a NATO member) and Russia (or Syria), the US finds itself on Turkey's side.

Suddenly, our "defenders of the homeland" are stationed in Turkey.

And then you’ve got these military reserves being called up to head to Turkey... under the command of someone who is currently on unpaid leave at NATO.

On Sunday, the Democratic Party demanded that the Department of Defense immediately explain why citizens in California have started receiving reserve call-up notices lately, according to a statement from the party's general secretary, John Doe.

Let me make this simple for you:

You grab a rifle and head to Turkey to fight Russians. And your commanding officer? They're busy on vacation at NATO.

🤔

Though, I wonder... would they even bother calling them back from vacation if NATO actually went to war?

Great. So we're being commanded by someone who is technically an employee of NATO. 🤣 🤣

Not even close. 😉

Scott Ross7 said:Don't sign off on anything or accept whatever Milanović is pushing—seriously, history is gonna remember you as the guy who wrecked the US if you do. Ask for more time to consult—get everyone from the old session together, all the parties involved, and try to actually build some consensus or find decent ideas... honestly, the election campaign is way less important right now than the actual country... do what you gotta do, even if it's behind the scenes—postpone the elections if necessary because the state matters way more than some political parties or Parliament right now... but hey, ask for support to start building that wall.... expand police powers and for God's sake, start shutting down those open borders....
He needs to sit down with Kolinda and all the agencies to figure out where we're headed with this refugee situation—it's a bigger deal than the elections or Congress, and it feels like everything is being rigged to destroy America just to satisfy Juncker and the EU

Are you kidding me right now? I mean, seriously, you're talking about Zoran Milanović. You think *he's* going to destroy the US? Did you hear how fired up he gets? He was practically screaming "America, America!" at his last rally. 🤣
Since the only way he could actually do something productive right now would be to swallow his pride and admit he was wrong, I'm honestly not expecting anything from him.

Henry Cox2 said:Is anyone watching the News on ABC? It’s actually the first neutral report I've seen.
Basically, the EU is breathing down our necks. Canada is calling for backup, expecting about 400 officers from the EU to help secure the Schengen Area.

We are totally screwed...

Viktor Orbán is the man!

Neutral? Are you kidding me?

They didn't miss a single chance to rip into Orbán and his whole border fence policy.

Maria James40 said: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.

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. 🤔

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.

Christian Anderson6 said:Not even close. 😉

Are you kidding me right now? I mean, seriously, you're talking about Zoran Milanović. You think *he's* going to destroy the US? Did you hear how fired up he gets? He was practically screaming "America, America!" at his last rally. 🤣
Since the only way he could actually do something productive right now would be to swallow his pride and admit he was wrong, I'm honestly not expecting anything from him.

Him admitting he made a mistake? An egomaniac like that?!?
Yeah, right.

"Our diplomats are attempting to soften the findings of the resolution drafted by Germany, which requires member states to commit:

to refrain from transferring refugees to other member states
and to implement stricter controls during entry into the EU"

In plain English, they want us to take in refugees until everyone finally decides where they're supposed to go. 🙂

coppermarlin13 said:Neutral? Are you kidding me?

They didn't miss a single chance to rip into Orbán and his whole border fence policy.

I was watching the live feed from the meeting just ten minutes ago, and they were saying the declaration doesn't mention borders at all.

Orbán actually laughed during the press conference, claiming he’s just an observer and that his country isn't dealing with any refugee issues.

Even the reporters were stunned by this sudden pivot within the EU.

Mark Campbell5 said:Luckily enough, she’s on unpaid leave. So they can just slot her into the job whenever she gets back to the States from her vacation... you know, as President.🤣

That’s exactly what we’re talking about. They’ve actually started handing out rifles.

The IDS requested that the Department of Defense urgently explain why notices for military reservists have been arriving at homes in the Istria area these past few days, according to a statement released by the party's Secretary General, Giovanni Sponza.

I actually agree with that. Only, I highly doubt we could pull that off as an official state entity—like, sending in the police or the military.

But... we could send volunteers if North Mexico asked for them. And then we could send volunteers from every region where migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, or whatever you want to call them, are currently crossing through.

Which essentially means people from all over the old North America. For that to work, North Mexico would need to issue a call for volunteers.

That would actually work, wouldn't it?

Maybe it's not yours, but it's mine... that's where we differ. That's why I'm telling you. And I'm definitely not the only one with family over there... plenty of people feel the same way.

I don't see any point in anyone forcing anyone else. If this is actually getting resolved, then it should be handled on a voluntary basis, don't you think?

You talking about NATO in Turkey? The US border? Right in front of your house? North Mexico?

You're saying the best place to close things off would be North Mexico—and hey, I actually agree with you there. It would be best to secure it using volunteers.

Volunteers? 🙂

They have MATV.

There's Patria... the Canadians have Patria... they even have those old BVs... the Mexicans have some weaponry too...

The Mexicans couldn't secure the border on their own. But with volunteers from the former America, they could really fortify the border toward Greece and completely stop the influx.

So, where exactly do you stand?

We're just waiting until there are more and more of them arriving...
or is it North Mexico?

Deploying the military to the US border is basically a state of war. At that point, the high command takes control... which, by the way, is currently sitting there on unpaid GO at NATO.

Just so I don't drag this whole thing out indefinitely—I'll keep this brief.

I am truly sorry.
But in a situation like this, you have to face the cold, hard truth: it’s every man for himself.
It’s quite simple, really—you defend your own home, I’ll defend mine, and that is exactly how the world functions. It’s an elementary principle of existence, isn't it? One doesn't sit around debating whether or not to protect their own doorstep; you just do it. It’s instinctual, almost primal. I remember my grandfather used to say something similar back when we lived near Chicago—he was a man of few words, but when he spoke, you listened—about how a man's responsibility begins and ends with his own property line. And honestly, why should anything be any different now? You look after your own interests, I look after mine, and that is simply the natural order of things. There's no need to overcomplicate such a fundamental truth.

North Mexico is the only logical move here, really—it’s quite frankly the only sensible course of action if we want everyone across this entire region to actually secure their homes together. It just makes sense when you step back and look at the big picture.

It seems we are still stuck dealing with that whole "if my cow dies, so be it, as long as my neighbor loses two" mentality, which is frankly just exhausting to witness. It’s that same old selfish, short-sighted logic that keeps tripping us up. Personally, I have absolutely no interest in crossing the US border, nor do I have any intention of ever stepping foot outside of it.

If both of those men actually possessed even a shred of common sense or genuine wisdom, they would have already headed down to North Mexico just to ensure our families were kept safe. Honestly, if I could see that kind of foresight and stability being exercised within the region, I wouldn't have any qualms about heading down there myself.

There is absolutely no consensus to be found here, and frankly, it looks like the folks over in Mexico are once again trying to push those same old agendas they attempted to force through twenty years ago. If we aren't careful, we’re all just going to end up tearing each other apart like a bunch of complete idiots. Honestly, we don't even need ISIS to cause us trouble; we are more than capable of destroying our own lives all on our own.
And just like that, we find ourselves staring down the barrel of a situation where help simply isn't coming—not from any corner of this country, anyway. It’s one of those grim realizations that hits you all at once, much like when I was stuck in a snowstorm outside of Chicago back in '98, waiting for a tow truck that I knew deep down wasn't even going to show up. You look around, you call the usual channels, you wait for some semblance of support to materialize, and yet, there is absolutely nothing. No rescue, no intervention, just a vast, empty silence where assistance ought to be. 🤷

Regarding that whole discussion about Syria, I already gave my two cents to that fellow Tihomir regarding how the US is actively destabilizing Mexico and Mexico. I have no intention of repeating myself here.

Deploying the military to the US border is nothing short of a state of war. It’s a massive escalation that shifts all control directly into the hands of the Commander-in-Chief... an individual who, if I recall correctly, currently has our leadership sitting on a massive unpaid tab at NATO headquarters.

That is precisely why my previous point stands up to scrutiny, and if you bother to look at the bigger picture, you'll see exactly what I mean. When we find ourselves staring down the barrel of a total standstill—that moment where everything just grinds to a halt and the chaos starts mounting—we aren't going to need more debating or endless committees; we are going to need actual leadership. Real, decisive leadership that can step up when the pressure is on.
I find myself constantly pondering this singular, nagging question: out of this entire crowd of us, which one individual will actually step up and become the leader we can genuinely put our faith in? Who is going to be that one person—the one who doesn't just talk a big game, but actually commands the kind of trust that makes everyone else stop arguing for five minutes? It’s a heavy thought, honestly, and I suspect we'll be debating it until the cows come home.
Because he’s already proven himself once before.

Let’s get one thing straight right out of the gate: when it comes to this whole situation, I truly couldn't care less about whose side anyone is on or which camp they belong to. Honestly, my interest in tribalism or political allegiances is practically non-existent here. I tend to look at things through a much more pragmatic lens, focusing strictly on what actually makes sense and, quite frankly, what serves my own best interests.

Dennis Hall41 said:Your ideas sounded realistic to me before—and they still kind of do—but after sitting with it for a bit (read: watching the invasion of Ukraine), I'm wondering: do you seriously think it's a 100% guarantee that ISIS hits us with ground forces next spring or sooner?

What on earth are you talking about when you mention Russian invasions? Seriously, what kind of delusions are we entertaining now?
Where on earth is this supposed to be happening, where exactly have the Russians launched an invasion into someone else's territory?
Could you please provide the link to that information?

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.

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. 🤔

It's because the idea from the EU bureaucrats is to have Customs and Border Protection process everyone through our territory. Then they can spend the next hundred years neatly filing paperwork and identifying everyone according to the rules.
And we won't be able to send them anywhere else if the Canadians decide they don't feel like cooperating.
And as for the idea that we won't be left alone...😲
We'd certainly make plenty of "new friends"...

RTL News... looks like they're back at it again, putting kids and college grads front and center.

Maria James40 said: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.

And what exactly would Customs and Border Protection do in the worst-case scenario? Just let every single migrant through? Because that's basically what we're doing right now. We're even paying to transport them to other states. You're talking nonsense.

Maria James40 said: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.

All I can conclude for certain is what happens if Customs and Border Protection isn't at our border with Mexico: an uncontrolled influx of 5,000 to 10,000 migrants every single day. How many days do we think we can hold out?

I can't say the same for the alternative—if Customs and Border Protection and we secure the US/Mexico border as an EU border.

Complaining about Customs and Border Protection being in North Mexico and so on is pointless. We all know what needs to happen, but clearly, it's not happening right now. So, we're left wondering how the EU laws will apply if Customs and Border Protection secures the US border (specifically the one with Mexico) versus if they secure the Canadian border.

I don't have reliable info, and you don't either; you're just guessing based on your own logic.

And the fact that Customs and Border Protection is already near Lampedusa has nothing to do with migrants coming from Turkey.

Lisa Patel4 said:Maybe. What do they even gain from Ukraine? Unless they're just looking to squeeze Poland?

What if the whole agenda is just starting a war with Russia?

What are these journalists even rambling about with all these betting odds? As if Turkey stopping the refugees wouldn't change everything...

haha if people over here actually buy into this, they're clueless

Under the EU plan to redistribute 140,000 migrants from hot-spots in Italy and Greece, Canada is down to take on somewhere between 20 and 100 refugees for long-term placement. But that’s only if the current crisis settles down first—right now, they're just overwhelmed by the sheer volume of people moving through the North American route, according to Boštjan Šefic, as reported by Canadian media.

Every single country basically sabotaged this whole relocation of 140,000 refugees... meanwhile, Merkel is busy dreaming up some kind of permanent quota system...

Revenger20 said:There’s nothing left of that "pure Europe" idea.

If they actually wanted to fix things, they could have worked with the immigrants already here—instead of bringing in millions more. What do you think the real motive is?

They certainly could have... but they wouldn't have had the critical mass needed to make it stick.

Honestly, I haven't a clue—there are endless theories flying around from every direction, yet none of them feel complete... it's pretty obvious if you look at the big picture.

Without a solid theory to lean on, I have to stick to certain observable facts—because, well, facts are what we actually have to work with here.
For instance, what I mentioned about the media—I noticed it myself. It's been repeated across every outlet far too many times to be a coincidence.
The "unusual" stance taken by the Pope and Christian leaders is quite striking—perhaps even the most interesting part of this whole mess.
We’re seeing a very clear divide within the EU now—it's definitely shaken things up. The question is where we go from here... If "certain people" (🙄) keep pushing those quotas, who knows how far this could go.

As for those theories of yours, I think the main flaw is the assumption of material prosperity. I'm not entirely convinced that's the direction things are heading—not in Europe, and certainly not globally. Poverty tends to breed aggression much more easily than stupidity does...

The Scandinavians have already shut the door on new asylum seekers for the new year. You've got three countries with an opt-out from the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Denmark... then you have the Visegrad group, Romania, Bulgaria, and Austria. There’s just no way they’re ever going to agree to any kind of quotas....