Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Migrant Caravan, Part Deux: This time, it's Timed to the Election

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Migrant Caravan, Part Deux: This time, it's Timed to the Election

    Does any rational person believe this latest migration of Hondurans is coincidental? That it is only by chance they decided to head north just 3 weeks (now 2 weeks) before our mid-term elections? Does anyone still doubt George Soros and his billions are behind it?

    BTW, Enrique Pea Nieto, President of Mexico, initially stopped them from entering Mexico from Guatemala, but he didn't allow them before he DID allow them. The National police stopped their progress on a bridge over the river that separates the two countries but, then, magically, the national police withdrew just a few days later, the caravan that HAD disbanded, regrouped and grew to [5000,7000,10000 ... depending on which outlet you consume) and continued on their way towards the city of Hidalgo.

    CNN has this story on the caravan:
    The caravan formed October 13 in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, and arrived in Guatemala on Monday.
    Its slow procession north has prompted US President Donald Trump to threaten to cut aid to Central American nations and to send troops to the US border if Mexico fails to stop the surge.
    "Full efforts are being made to stop the onslaught of illegal aliens from crossing our (southern) Border," Trump tweeted Sunday. "People have to apply for asylum in Mexico first, and if they fail to do that, the US will turn them away. The courts are asking the US to do things that are not doable!"
    This is what I figure...
    • Caravan arrived at the Mexico/Guatemala border on Wednesday;
    • Trump threatened to withdraw financial aid (or reduce financial aid) on Thursday so Enrique Nieto stopped the caravan;
    • Sometime on Friday or Saturday, Soros contacted Nieto and promises to make up the difference; so
    • National Police withdraw and the Caravan enters Mexico on Sunday


    My personal opinion, if not hope is, the democrats and Soros have overplayed their hand(s): This move is too blatant, too obviously timed for even the mindless drone liberals to NOT notice.

    The last article I read suggested Trump is considering sending troops to the border (which I believe would be a mistake).

    There was a video that surfaced recently showing men passing out money to migrants in the caravan. Those posting the video claim it was Soros henchmen handing out the money. The New York times posted an article on Saturday they believe disproves this ... but the article not only validates that people WERE GIVEN money (albeit in Guatemala and not in Honduras), but it doesn't disprove that the money came from Soros.

    What are your thoughts? Coincidence? Or well planned invasion?

  • #2
    Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
    Does any rational person believe this latest migration of Hondurans is coincidental?
    Of course not.

    America has NEVER, until very recently, experienced these "caravans" of invaders.

    This is just another test of how weak and ready America is for a complete invasion.

    Will we sit around and whine and argue with one another about these peoples "rights" etc ?

    Or

    Will we do the right thing ?

    Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
    That it is only by chance they decided to head north just 3 weeks (now 2 weeks) before our mid-term elections? Does anyone still doubt George Soros and his billions are behind it?
    Someone is funding & encouraging it.

    Besides ourselves of course.

    It IS a test to see how dumb and ready to be completely invaded America is.

    Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
    BTW, Enrique Pea Nieto, President of Mexico, initially stopped them from entering Mexico from Guatemala, but he didn't allow them before he DID allow them. The National police stopped their progress on a bridge over the river that separates the two countries but, then, magically, the national police withdrew just a few days later, the caravan that HAD disbanded, regrouped and grew to [5000,7000,10000 ... depending on which outlet you consume) and continued on their way towards the city of Hidalgo.

    CNN has this story on the caravan:
    Thousands of people marching en masse about a thousand miles to "come to America."... "for a better life" ...

    Wrong.

    This is a mass invasion, it is a test.

    America will pass or fail.

    Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
    This is what I figure...
    • Caravan arrived at the Mexico/Guatemala border on Wednesday;
    • Trump threatened to withdraw financial aid (or reduce financial aid) on Thursday so Enrique Nieto stopped the caravan;
    • Sometime on Friday or Saturday, Soros contacted Nieto and promises to make up the difference; so
    • National Police withdraw and the Caravan enters Mexico on Sunday


    My personal opinion, if not hope is, the democrats and Soros have overplayed their hand(s): This move is too blatant, too obviously timed for even the mindless drone liberals to NOT notice.
    I hope so too. There are only two choices.

    1. If America is ripe and ready for the invasion and destruction of what gave her her greatness, then it's happening and will continue happening.

    2. If we are still a strong nation of people who want to remain free, we will stop it at this point.

    Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
    The last article I read suggested Trump is considering sending troops to the border (which I believe would be a mistake).

    There was a video that surfaced recently showing men passing out money to migrants in the caravan. Those posting the video claim it was Soros henchmen handing out the money. The New York times posted an article on Saturday they believe disproves this ... but the article not only validates that people WERE GIVEN money (albeit in Guatemala and not in Honduras), but it doesn't disprove that the money came from Soros.

    What are your thoughts? Coincidence? Or well planned invasion?
    Only an imbecile cannot see that this is another in a series of large invasions that have already taken place. These mass invasions are new.

    As I pointed out above, never before have we had massive "caravans" of people from other countries marching toward America intent on invading.

    Calling these masses of invaders "caravans" is a way to fool us into thinking they are something other than massive invasions.

    Word games played on us.... are we so dumb we don't see it ?

    That is the question

    ?


    • #3
      Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
      Does any rational person believe this latest migration of Hondurans is coincidental? That it is only by chance they decided to head north just 3 weeks (now 2 weeks) before our mid-term elections? Does anyone still doubt George Soros and his billions are behind it?

      BTW, Enrique Pea Nieto, President of Mexico, initially stopped them from entering Mexico from Guatemala, but he didn't allow them before he DID allow them. The National police stopped their progress on a bridge over the river that separates the two countries but, then, magically, the national police withdrew just a few days later, the caravan that HAD disbanded, regrouped and grew to [5000,7000,10000 ... depending on which outlet you consume) and continued on their way towards the city of Hidalgo.

      CNN has this story on the caravan:


      This is what I figure...
      • Caravan arrived at the Mexico/Guatemala border on Wednesday;
      • Trump threatened to withdraw financial aid (or reduce financial aid) on Thursday so Enrique Nieto stopped the caravan;
      • Sometime on Friday or Saturday, Soros contacted Nieto and promises to make up the difference; so
      • National Police withdraw and the Caravan enters Mexico on Sunday


      My personal opinion, if not hope is, the democrats and Soros have overplayed their hand(s): This move is too blatant, too obviously timed for even the mindless drone liberals to NOT notice.

      The last article I read suggested Trump is considering sending troops to the border (which I believe would be a mistake).

      There was a video that surfaced recently showing men passing out money to migrants in the caravan. Those posting the video claim it was Soros henchmen handing out the money. The New York times posted an article on Saturday they believe disproves this ... but the article not only validates that people WERE GIVEN money (albeit in Guatemala and not in Honduras), but it doesn't disprove that the money came from Soros.

      What are your thoughts? Coincidence? Or well planned invasion?
      I was wondering when someone would post on this issue. My take on the caravan is: It's a poorly planned invasion. The initial booster was an ex-"diputado" (congressperson) from Honduras' lefty alliance, who got in way over his head. Bartolo Fuentes started the ball rolling a little over a week ago, or maybe it was 20 years ago. Link:
      Bartolo Fuentes afirm que su involucramiento en la lucha por los derechos de los migrantes no es solo de ayer ni de este ao sino desde hace 20 aos con la organizacin de caravanas de madres en busca de sus hijos.
      (translation/Google): Bartolo Fuentes said that his involvement in the struggle for the rights of migrants is not only yesterday or this year, but (since) 20 years (ago) with the organization of caravans of mothers looking for their children.
      http://www.primiciahonduras.hn/barto...-de-migrantes/

      To Bartolo's credit, he mentioned something about legal asylum status. However, he can be criticized for failing to make that "legal status" the most important qualification for participating in the caravan. Mysteriously, Fuentes was removed from Guatemala a few days ago, because he lacked proper documents. "Mysterious", because Honduras has a tourism/commerce agreement with El Salvador and Guatemala, that allows passage between those 3 countries upon presentation of one's national ID card. What was he doing without his ID card, and how did he enter into Guatemala (at a legal checkpoint no less) without said card? The rumor I favor on that count is that he asked one of his companions to "rat him out", so he could bail on a situation that was spiraling out of control.

      My take on the "Soros connection" is that while the Democrats proceed with their underdog-protector schtick, the money being handed out (on video) is debatable as to it's origin. That ranges from the political left to the right in Honduras (how convenient that the cameras were rolling during payout), or the private concerns ranging from organized crime ("you belong to me now"), to charities. Unless that money can be traced with solid evidence about the origin, count on those rumors to be chosen depending on one's bias, rather than established facts. Soros -unless he was doing a international spy thing- became aware of this latest caravan after the payouts started; he and other big money Dems will try to capitalize on the crisis, but they didn't start it.

      Short story on the US political angle: This will be exploited by the GOP, as well as the Dems. The GOP will use it as a "border invasion" scenario to scare up more votes, while the Dems will put their wonderfullness for the poor/downtrodden on parade. Both parties are way off base -not even close.

      This pretty much leaves the caravan - a mix of legitimate asylum seekers, economic refugees, criminals and young adventurers. We don't know what portion should get a legal audience for asylum, or what percentage are organized crime. About the only thing for sure is the caravan system was designed to get poor people to our southern border with minimal cost to their pocket and a high level of protection (against organized crime and corrupt gov't. officials). It's been going on for some time, but now they have publicity on their side. It's about time, because publicity just might expose the entire house of cards that is Latin America, it's relation with the USA, and the epidemic of drug abuse.

      "Remittance" economies -more than 10% of a nation's economy propped up by people sending money to their home country. High unemployment -more than 20% unemployed (a lot more underemployed), which is the principle reason gov't. leaders excuse decades of "safety valve" policy. The nation that was supposed to be the adult in the room struggling for decades with drug abuse (add alcohol to the list). The percentages make me curious why we still exist as a nation (or why a lot of the American hemisphere is still intact).

      For anyone who is interested, a link to an economist specializing in this issue. He was not impressed with the "safety valve" policy and proposes we wind down the false hope of sending money home. https://blogs.worldbank.org/team/dav...udour-cast-ras

      ?


      • #4
        That "remittance" economy as you have now named it for us is nothing new. It has literally been going on for decades: I first became aware of it back in the 80's when I was running restaurants out in Southern California: Virtually all of my back-of-the-house employees were Hispanic (ahem ... ALL with proper, legal documentation, I assure you) and all of them were sending most of their income "home" (usually to Mexico, but one or two further south). We didn't start being concerned about it until organizations like FAIR started proclaiming it such, from a "illegals don't contribute to our economy because they don't pay taxes and send most of their income back to Mexico..." perspective.

        That aspect aside for the moment, you don't mention the timing of this caravan and all the media coverage of it (with almost no mention of the ... last figure I heard ... 100 ISIS culled out of the movement). I do not believe in coincidences and this one timed as it is to coincide with our mid-term elections is one huge coincidence if it "just happened."

        This timing, the passing out of money, the coordination (meals, places to sleep, safe conduct across sovereign nations), the media coverage, Nieto's about-face on Sunday suddenly allowing the caravan to cross is all circumstantial and not what you would call "established" factual connections, but it all still points to [some central connection point] to money, which I do interpret as Soros.

        ?


        • #5
          I'm not a particular fan of World Net Daily: They tend to be more than a little alarmist for my tastes. However, this particular article is also cited in American Thinker (which publication I do appreciate) so, in my opinion, the connection of Soros money to the Caravan is a little stronger: BORDER CARAVAN? CALL IT THE GEORGE SOROS EXPRESS
          Billionaire's deep pockets linked to 3 of 4 groups behind 'refugee' invasion coalition


          The caravan is organized by a group called Pueblo sin Fronteras. But the effort is supported by the coalition CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project, which includes Catholic Legal Immigration Network, the American Immigration Council, the Refugee and Immigration Center for Education and Legal Services and the American Immigration Lawyers Association - thus the acronym CARA. At least three of the our groups are funded by George Soros' Open Society Foundation...

          The CARA coalition was formally announced last week.

          Other support groups are funded by the MacArthur Foundation, Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation.

          Alex Mensing is one of the organizers of the Pueblo sin Fronteras group, serving as an official spokesman at the border. While identifying himself as a paralegal at the University of San Franciscos Immigration and Deportation Defense Law Clinic, he also works with CARA. He regularly briefs leftist website and magazine Mother Jones, also a major recipient of Soros grants.
          Link to the American Thinker article: Illegal Caravans Encouraged by Honduras and Soros

          So, again, not precise evidence of a connection, but more support for my belief.

          ?


          • #6
            Like I said - This is a test. Others are seeing it..

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

            When asked whether Americans want a group of 7,000 migrants to enter the U.S., he replied, "no, because then it will be 50,000 next time and 100,000 the time after that."

            ...

            https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/a.../22/id/887483/



            ?


            • #7
              Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
              I'm not a particular fan of World Net Daily: They tend to be more than a little alarmist for my tastes. However, this particular article is also cited in American Thinker (which publication I do appreciate) so, in my opinion, the connection of Soros money to the Caravan is a little stronger: [h=1]B[SIZE=11px]ORDER CARAVAN? CALL IT THE GEORGE SOROS EXPRESS
              [B]

              Link to the American Thinker article: Illegal Caravans Encouraged by Honduras and Soros

              So, again, not precise evidence of a connection, but more support for my belief.
              I would be surprised if some Soros funds didn't make it down to the orgs supporting migration out of afflicted countries. That's part of the Big Schism picking sides in the "fight" around immigration, and I sleep fine despite the hand wringing on both sides. Big money will "win" a given reform to open up immigration one year, while big money opponents will "win" a reform to tighten up immigration a couple years later.

              I like to imagine what would happen if both sides spent half that yearly funding on employment projects to improve a long list in their target country, from public infrastructure to tourism projects. Urban rehabilitation to rural agricultural cooperatives. Why, if they could attach a forensic public accountant from the Organization of American States to each funding project, and string along the inevitable group of crooks that divert large chunks of international funds, we could have an entertaining crime show after the first five years, It would originally be in Spanish, but I'm certain it would draw ratings in Europe and the US. We could call the show, "Going Up the River", and since it is based on private funding and collection of evidence in a criminal trial, a LOT more might be accomplished than previous attempts at international prosecution. Couldn't repeat that trick (retire-in-Switzerland types skimming Big Aid learn quickly), but removing even 20% of crooks from 6 countries would go a long way toward improving economies and employment in those countries supplying the most "irregular" immigration. Especially if the ruling class accepted a merit-based system to choose replacements for that 20%, for ever after.

              Anyway, back to reality. Each of those countries have what their citizens call "the X (number) families". El Salvador folks call them the "14 families", Honduras has their "12 families". Major business deals go thru these families. Most political and economic leaders either come from these families or are vetted by these families. These families -to the surprise of some- split along political lines. Money greases palms for the left and right, hence the entrenched corruption. Money from the likes of Soros or Kochs are certainly welcome in those countries, but it's just icing on the cake. The families that bake that cake know best how to use their in-country connections, and where to spend money (from any source) to get the most leverage. They feel that the fate of their country is nearly identical to the fate of the ruling class, and that justifies basing gov't. operations on their authority. In short, the rule of law and meritocracy take a back seat on many occasions. Why do I think this is so important to the immigration debate? Because the immigration crisis will continue until these countries place the ruling class interests second, while law and order within their country comes first.

              All the other stuff -US Billionaires who think they pull all the strings, GOP or Dems believing they can impose a fix or ignore the problem, Big Companies who promise to employ large numbers in those countries... Those are external, dreams that outsiders pretend will repair the broken systems that inspire so many people in poverty to leave. So, if we can't ignore the problem, and we can't just "fix it" from the outside, what do we do? It's already started, I noted it in another thread, and it's gearing up in two of the countries involved. CICIG and MACIH, the roving band of international prosecutors sending corrupt politicians up the river. They just got started, but it's a wonderful idea. Maybe my imagination isn't so far off target, after all.

              ?


              • #8
                You will first have to do something about the self-interested, corrupt politicians

                ...and probably do something about them in those other countries, as well.

                ?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                  You will first have to do something about the self-interested, corrupt politicians

                  ...and probably do something about them in those other countries, as well.
                  Exactly. Political leaders are the principal speed bump that slows employment, especially when they are from the same group that leads major portions of the economy.

                  Solution? End the model that depends on political programs (and major companies) as the primary driver of employment and prosperity. Instead, support the primary sources of employment -self, small & medium sized companies, and non-profits. "Non-profits" include gov't., and private sector, all should distinguish between permanent and temporary employment. It is possible to guarantee employment, which insulates that issue from political exploitation.

                  On the left, struggling against low wages -from high underemployment- would be a thing of the past. On the right, maintaining an oversupply of labor (aka high underemployment) would be a thing of the past. Gov't. involvement in the economy would be limited to regulation, their own suppliers, and unbiased support for the sectors that supply most employment.

                  The current ruling class might panic (where are they going to skim their cut, or get election votes???), but guaranteed employment should be pitched as a way to lower gov't. costs and stabilize the cost and supply of labor. Further, the strategy should depend mostly on the private sector -gov't. only leads in economic crashes -to maintain guaranteed employment. Employment then becomes a given for all able-bodied adults, rather than a political football. The able-bodied that are mentally/emotionally "other-abled" stay with mediocre jobs that pay subsistence wages. The rest use education and other training programs to move up to a level that suits their motivation and abilities. Minimal pressure from incompetent politicians or large companies pulling the rug out, as far as jobs go. The principle obstacle to this -from the countries involved in this crisis- is a ruling class that prefers the current way of doing things. Once they are convinced the negatives (worst case - civil war) are too costly, and the new model can benefit them, it could be done.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    What you didn't say, but inferred, (and should be stated outright) is that part about employment being a given for all able-bodied adults. Too many able-bodied adults sit on their collective keesters complaining that they can't find "the" job and let "not 'the'" jobs sit idle. Way too many have become content to collect unemployment checks that the government has been only too happy to extend into their next lives.

                    So to your process/program, I would add, all able-bodied adults MUST have gainful employment or receive $0 subsistence from the government.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Democrats are dumb, they prove it every day.

                      Every day it's a new kind of idiocy no one normal would have even thought of.

                      Now we have these "caravans"

                      - masses of invaders actually -

                      but we'll refer to them as "caravans" to help make it seem more palatable. - says a democrat

                      This is democrats in self destruct mode

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

                      First, notice what was not said as the army [ He means caravan ! ] approached Mexico and Mexican authorities pledged to prevent it from entering their country. Whether this was possible was an open question but what was never questioned was the right of Mexico to stop them. Every leftist in Congress and in corporate media silently affirmed the right of the Mexican government to stop the army [ He means caravan ! ] . The Democrats' immigration message is finally crystal-clear: other nations have a right to control their borders, but we do not, even in the face of foreign invasion. That is a politically untenable position.

                      Second, as more invading armies get underway, regardless of the fate of the first one, questions will invariably be asked of the left and every question undermines the Democratic Party.

                      - How many are too many? There can be no real answer to that question from the left if the first massive army proceeds into the interior of the country. The left has welcomed the first army; consistency demands that they apply the same standards to those that follow. The Democrats have shown that they're bluffing. To fold will admit their error, wound their pride, and compromise their racialist creed.

                      Racialism is the new creed and currency of the left, so anything that swells the numbers of minorities in the United States is assumed by Democrat leaders to be a net benefit to the Democratic Party. With the advent of invading armies, the democrats could not be more mistaken.

                      Do Democrats really believe that all or even most of the invading migrants face political, ethnic, or religious persecution? Those are the standards for asylum. The army comes from a region where ethnicity and religion are essentially uniform; there is no Latin American version of the Hutus and Tutsis. People fleeing economic depression and criminal violence are not eligible for asylum, yet Democrats welcome them all with open arms.

                      - Assuming that we decide to stop the tenth, or twentieth, or fiftieth army, is there any legal way to do so without physical resistance? The Democrats' silence on this issue insures that our laws will be changed, and not in ways that will benefit their party. The wall is the most obvious but hardly the limit of these changes; immigration based upon merit will be the final defeat of the Democratic Party's desire to replace the American population with a largely illiterate and dependent foreign underclass. The Democrats will resist every change, but their support for the current invasion has cut their credibility off at the knees.

                      Third, the left and its corporate media allies have misjudged Latinos. The left's childish and simplistic view of minorities leads leftists to believe that all Latinos think alike and are uniformly elated by anything that grows the sheer number of Latinos in the country. There are radical elements in the Latino community who do think that way, and naturally, they are drawn to active participation in the racialist Democrat mob. But most Latinos are like the rest of us: they are concerned about their families first and foremost. It doesn't benefit Latinos whether here legally or illegally to have endless waves of people arriving from outside the country, willing to work for lower and lower wages. Shrewd Latinos also recognize that the less legitimate foreign arrivals appear to be, the greater the chance that large-scale deportations will eventually occur. Most Latinos do not desire a place on the Democrat welfare plantation and the destruction of the family unit which such a place requires. Note that there is no European analogue for the word "machismo" among the various races, only Latinos use and celebrate such a term, defined as "aggressive masculinity." The Democrat plantation is the home of emasculation.

                      Having already set in motion plans to limit or eliminate foreign aid to El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, President Trump has already done more to fight this foreign invasion than Obama did in eight years. Should the migrant army simply keep walking when it meets resistance, that will not be the victory many Democrats seem to anticipate. It will not demoralize the Republican base, which recognizes that short of military resistance and the public relations nightmare a military confrontation may produce, Trump's hands are largely tied by our current immigration laws. Instead, the human wave will be the punctuation mark on the end of the sentence, "Build the wall."

                      Months ago, Trump offered to trade legitimacy for DACA recipients for the wall. The Democrats refused, as Trump surely knew they would. Instead, Democrats dug their greedy hands ever deeper into the immigration candy jar. Before all is said and done, they'll curse their greedy hands and wish they'd opted for amputation.


                      https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...rats_fate.html

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                        What you didn't say, but inferred, (and should be stated outright) is that part about employment being a given for all able-bodied adults. Too many able-bodied adults sit on their collective keesters complaining that they can't find "the" job and let "not 'the'" jobs sit idle. Way too many have become content to collect unemployment checks that the government has been only too happy to extend into their next lives.

                        So to your process/program, I would add, all able-bodied adults MUST have gainful employment or receive $0 subsistence from the government.
                        Pretty much how public assistance should work. A few exceptions, fe training/education (fe, 20 hours school/practice, with 20 hours work) that qualifies for a subsidy. The other advantage of guaranteed work is defining "able bodied" adult. A person claims disability, chooses their own physician. The state chooses their physician. If there is a large difference between the two, the medical board investigates the disagreement. If there isn't a large difference, the abled/disabled condition applies. At that point, there is no backing out. A qualified person will work indoors (if they have a minor disability fe sensitive to sunlight), or outdoors. Ex-convict doesn't matter, either; they too are guaranteed a legitimate job. No more excuses to go back to their "old habits", no more local "informal" codes to punish ex-cons with a lifetime of underemployment.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                          Democrats are dumb, they prove it every day.

                          Every day it's a new kind of idiocy no one normal would have even thought of.

                          Now we have these "caravans"

                          - masses of invaders actually -

                          but we'll refer to them as "caravans" to help make it seem more palatable. - says a democrat

                          This is democrats in self destruct mode

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

                          First, notice what was not said as the army [ He means caravan ! ] approached Mexico and Mexican authorities pledged to prevent it from entering their country. Whether this was possible was an open question but what was never questioned was the right of Mexico to stop them. Every leftist in Congress and in corporate media silently affirmed the right of the Mexican government to stop the army [ He means caravan ! ] . The Democrats' immigration message is finally crystal-clear: other nations have a right to control their borders, but we do not, even in the face of foreign invasion. That is a politically untenable position.

                          Second, as more invading armies get underway, regardless of the fate of the first one, questions will invariably be asked of the left and every question undermines the Democratic Party.

                          - How many are too many? There can be no real answer to that question from the left if the first massive army proceeds into the interior of the country. The left has welcomed the first army; consistency demands that they apply the same standards to those that follow. The Democrats have shown that they're bluffing. To fold will admit their error, wound their pride, and compromise their racialist creed.

                          Racialism is the new creed and currency of the left, so anything that swells the numbers of minorities in the United States is assumed by Democrat leaders to be a net benefit to the Democratic Party. With the advent of invading armies, the democrats could not be more mistaken.

                          Do Democrats really believe that all or even most of the invading migrants face political, ethnic, or religious persecution? Those are the standards for asylum. The army comes from a region where ethnicity and religion are essentially uniform; there is no Latin American version of the Hutus and Tutsis. People fleeing economic depression and criminal violence are not eligible for asylum, yet Democrats welcome them all with open arms.

                          - Assuming that we decide to stop the tenth, or twentieth, or fiftieth army, is there any legal way to do so without physical resistance? The Democrats' silence on this issue insures that our laws will be changed, and not in ways that will benefit their party. The wall is the most obvious but hardly the limit of these changes; immigration based upon merit will be the final defeat of the Democratic Party's desire to replace the American population with a largely illiterate and dependent foreign underclass. The Democrats will resist every change, but their support for the current invasion has cut their credibility off at the knees.

                          Third, the left and its corporate media allies have misjudged Latinos. The left's childish and simplistic view of minorities leads leftists to believe that all Latinos think alike and are uniformly elated by anything that grows the sheer number of Latinos in the country. There are radical elements in the Latino community who do think that way, and naturally, they are drawn to active participation in the racialist Democrat mob. But most Latinos are like the rest of us: they are concerned about their families first and foremost. It doesn't benefit Latinos whether here legally or illegally to have endless waves of people arriving from outside the country, willing to work for lower and lower wages. Shrewd Latinos also recognize that the less legitimate foreign arrivals appear to be, the greater the chance that large-scale deportations will eventually occur. Most Latinos do not desire a place on the Democrat welfare plantation and the destruction of the family unit which such a place requires. Note that there is no European analogue for the word "machismo" among the various races, only Latinos use and celebrate such a term, defined as "aggressive masculinity." The Democrat plantation is the home of emasculation.

                          Having already set in motion plans to limit or eliminate foreign aid to El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, President Trump has already done more to fight this foreign invasion than Obama did in eight years. Should the migrant army simply keep walking when it meets resistance, that will not be the victory many Democrats seem to anticipate. It will not demoralize the Republican base, which recognizes that short of military resistance and the public relations nightmare a military confrontation may produce, Trump's hands are largely tied by our current immigration laws. Instead, the human wave will be the punctuation mark on the end of the sentence, "Build the wall."

                          Months ago, Trump offered to trade legitimacy for DACA recipients for the wall. The Democrats refused, as Trump surely knew they would. Instead, Democrats dug their greedy hands ever deeper into the immigration candy jar. Before all is said and done, they'll curse their greedy hands and wish they'd opted for amputation.


                          https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...rats_fate.html
                          If Trump cuts aid to these countries, and they change for the better as a result, that would be wonderful. If instead they go down the rat hole of communism or some other form of dictatorship, that would be bad. Countries that have a consistent underemployment rate above X% (20%? 30? 40?) will be unstable, and will be much easier prey for organized crime and corrupt political regimes. Not "may be" unstable. Will be unstable.

                          Also, keep in mind that when your next door neighbor is constantly shooting AK-47's, and they have an endless supply of high-velocity rounds, you have 3 choices: Constantly intervene in your neighbor's business, take over running your neighbor's home, or tolerate the occasional high velocity round passing through your home.

                          The point is, this is gonna cost us money forever, unless and until we help the neighbors get their act together. They'll need to do most of the heavy lifting, and we'll need to change our strategy and objectives, but to simply cut funding won't achieve your objective of ending large numbers attempting to cross the border.

                          Last point: The "caravan" is not an invention of the Democrats. The Dems are trying to make political mileage off of the current caravan, like the GOP. International involvement in caravans from Mexico and central america basically started with Pueblo Sin Fronteras (roughly, People without Borders) about 15 years ago.
                          Here is their link: http://www.pueblosinfronteras.org/re...avan_2017.html

                          -Apparently it's based on Catholic/Christian beliefs, maybe some hippie thrown into the mix. Don't know what this organization wants to do about the cause of irregular migration, hopefully it won't be what the Dems and GOP want to do (one of two bad choices -Crickets or throw money at it). It is doubtful that George the Billionaire or Dems were masterminds behind this slightly less closterflockian, "run away" strategy. That would just be a third bad choice, along with "do nothing" and "throw money at it".

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                            If Trump cuts aid to these countries, and they change for the better as a result, that would be wonderful. If instead they go down the rat hole of communism or some other form of dictatorship, that would be bad. Countries that have a consistent underemployment rate above X% (20%? 30? 40?) will be unstable, and will be much easier prey for organized crime and corrupt political regimes. Not "may be" unstable. Will be unstable.

                            Also, keep in mind that when your next door neighbor is constantly shooting AK-47's, and they have an endless supply of high-velocity rounds, you have 3 choices: Constantly intervene in your neighbor's business, take over running your neighbor's home, or tolerate the occasional high velocity round passing through your home.

                            The point is, this is gonna cost us money forever, unless and until we help the neighbors get their act together. They'll need to do most of the heavy lifting, and we'll need to change our strategy and objectives, but to simply cut funding won't achieve your objective of ending large numbers attempting to cross the border.

                            Last point: The "caravan" is not an invention of the Democrats. The Dems are trying to make political mileage off of the current caravan, like the GOP. International involvement in caravans from Mexico and central america basically started with Pueblo Sin Fronteras (roughly, People without Borders) about 15 years ago.
                            Here is their link: http://www.pueblosinfronteras.org/re...avan_2017.html

                            -Apparently it's based on Catholic/Christian beliefs, maybe some hippie thrown into the mix. Don't know what this organization wants to do about the cause of irregular migration, hopefully it won't be what the Dems and GOP want to do (one of two bad choices -Crickets or throw money at it). It is doubtful that George the Billionaire or Dems were masterminds behind this slightly less closterflockian, "run away" strategy. That would just be a third bad choice, along with "do nothing" and "throw money at it".
                            Good points you make.

                            The main point in the article above is how foolish democrats have been, and are, concerning this.

                            Their open borders ideas are going to hurt them. Even the simple understand that you don't have a country if you don't have borders and laws.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                              If Trump cuts aid to these countries, and they change for the better as a result, that would be wonderful. If instead they go down the rat hole of communism or some other form of dictatorship, that would be bad. Countries that have a consistent underemployment rate above X% (20%? 30? 40?) will be unstable, and will be much easier prey for organized crime and corrupt political regimes. Not "may be" unstable. Will be unstable.
                              My family and I had a vacation home in Mexico. We were there all the time, at least monthly and for a few weeks in the Summer. Our parents pretty much paid us no mind while we were down there. They knew where we slept at night and they knew where we ate dinner ... but other than that, we were pre-teens with zero supervision. We would be killed if that was the case today... or arrested, or kidnapped into child prostitution or worse. So, it is my observation that at least Mexico has already been the easier prey for both organized crime AND corrupt political regimes.

                              Originally posted by radcentr
                              Also, keep in mind that when your next door neighbor is constantly shooting AK-47's, and they have an endless supply of high-velocity rounds, you have 3 choices: Constantly intervene in your neighbor's business, take over running your neighbor's home, or tolerate the occasional high velocity round passing through your home.

                              The point is, this is gonna cost us money forever, unless and until we help the neighbors get their act together. They'll need to do most of the heavy lifting, and we'll need to change our strategy and objectives, but to simply cut funding won't achieve your objective of ending large numbers attempting to cross the border.
                              This was EXACTLY the point of the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico: It was SUPPOSED to lift them up by encouraging U.S. and Canadian (mostly manufacturing) businesses to relocate there for the lower taxes and lower labor rates while also promoting the free (er) flow of goods north across the border without tariffs or other export costs.

                              The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been in place since January of 1994: 24 1/2 years and it has done zip to lift up the economy of Mexico and, in fact, has almost enabled those first two take-overs you mentioned: Greater drug cartel presence and one corrupt political regime after another, each more corrupt than the one before and seemingly each more resistive to cooperating with the U.S. than the one before.

                              My point is, we DID change our strategy, but they didn't hold up their end of the bargain. I do agree with you, however, simply cutting funding to Mexico (et al) won't resolve the problem and neither will building a wall ... if those are the ONLY solutions implemented. It will take those AND other measures like enforcing the laws already in the U.S. once the illegals get here. I recall Arizona started cracking down on employers hiring illegals to the point most jobs became unavailable to them ... and the illegals all went to California and elsewhere. Those laws are already on the books: It is about time all states (and the federal government) enforce them...

                              What if those here illegally suddenly have no income. What if they HAVE to return home and instead of focusing all their energies on trying to get into the U.S., they use that energy to fix their own homes... their own countries?

                              UNFORTUNATELY however, those states controlled by liberals and democrats want the votes so those states are not likely to cooperate.

                              Originally posted by radcentr
                              Last point: The "caravan" is not an invention of the Democrats. The Dems are trying to make political mileage off of the current caravan, like the GOP. International involvement in caravans from Mexico and central america basically started with Pueblo Sin Fronteras (roughly, People without Borders) about 15 years ago.
                              Here is their link: http://www.pueblosinfronteras.org/re...avan_2017.html

                              -Apparently it's based on Catholic/Christian beliefs, maybe some hippie thrown into the mix. Don't know what this organization wants to do about the cause of irregular migration, hopefully it won't be what the Dems and GOP want to do (one of two bad choices -Crickets or throw money at it). It is doubtful that George the Billionaire or Dems were masterminds behind this slightly less closterflockian, "run away" strategy. That would just be a third bad choice, along with "do nothing" and "throw money at it".
                              You are right, the democraps did not invent these caravans. But I will guaran-freaking-tee you their money is behind it. I've even found a direct connection between Pueblos Sin Fronteras and George Soros' "Open Society Foundations" money.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X