Yeah but they are usually traveling 1-2 or truckload at a time, not "small town" at a time.
The San Ysidro Port of Entry is the largest land border crossing between San Diego and Tijuana, and one of the busiest land border crossings in the world with 70,000 northbound vehicles and 20,000 northbound pedestrians crossing each day, in addition to southbound traffic
Are they all going at once in a single massive push? This is like comparing a flash flood to the usual rise of a river during a rainstorm. New York transports millions through its subway system but I bet you if suddenly a 1200 people bum rushed one station they would have problems.
Maybe, for ~half an hour or so. Don't really want to track down MTA stats, but for he CTA red line subway, State/Lake: December 2014, Lake had an average of 20,482 weekday passenger entries. So a ~6% increase over a typical Tuesday. It is also directly under the Chicago Theater and so gets habitual crushes of people when concerts get out. A standard empty 5000 series 8 car train holds roughly 1k people when uncomfortably full, so it usually just takes a handful of regular ones to clear it. (Which is why I board at Monroe)
I guess I just really don't see 1,200 people as some impossible eye popping number and do not understanding why other people are acting as though it is.
Because we aren’t talking about a large group of people leaving a concert or even legally crossing the border at a border crossing checkpoint?
The US does not have an open border so an organized effort the size of this one trying to get people into the country raises eyebrows. We aren’t really sure what they plan to do once they get closer yet, and that will dictate a lot. Will they get here and request refugee status and entrance? Split up and come in at different points? Or just try to come in as a large group (the group is apparently called “People without borders” per the WaPo article so this isn’t really a stretch).
If it’s #1 it may highlight the need for something to be done in that region to make it less hostile to the innocent people that live there and are being forced to flee. The other two options are more of an issue from a closed border standpoint. Whereas it creates a more organized pipeline for illegal entry into the country.
Yeah but they are usually traveling 1-2 or truckload at a time, not "small town" at a time.
The San Ysidro Port of Entry is the largest land border crossing between San Diego and Tijuana, and one of the busiest land border crossings in the world with 70,000 northbound vehicles and 20,000 northbound pedestrians crossing each day, in addition to southbound traffic
Are they all going at once in a single massive push? This is like comparing a flash flood to the usual rise of a river during a rainstorm. New York transports millions through its subway system but I bet you if suddenly a 1200 people bum rushed one station they would have problems.
Maybe, for ~half an hour or so. Don't really want to track down MTA stats, but for he CTA red line subway, State/Lake: December 2014, Lake had an average of 20,482 weekday passenger entries. So a ~6% increase over a typical Tuesday. It is also directly under the Chicago Theater and so gets habitual crushes of people when concerts get out. A standard empty 5000 series 8 car train holds roughly 1k people when uncomfortably full, so it usually just takes a handful of regular ones to clear it. (Which is why I board at Monroe)
I guess I just really don't see 1,200 people as some impossible eye popping number and do not understanding why other people are acting as though it is.
Because we aren’t talking about a large group of people leaving a concert or even legally crossing the border at a border crossing checkpoint?
The US does not have an open border so an organized effort the size of this one trying to get people into the country raises eyebrows. We aren’t really sure what they plan to do once they get closer yet, and that will dictate a lot. Will they get here and request refugee status and entrance? Split up and come in at different points? Or just try to come in as a large group (the group is apparently called “People without borders” per the WaPo article so this isn’t really a stretch).
If it’s #1 it may highlight the need for something to be done in that region to make it less hostile to the innocent people that live there and are being forced to flee. The other two options are more of an issue from a closed border standpoint. Whereas it creates a more organized pipeline for illegal entry into the country.
Yes, the broader issues are very concerning and need to be addressed. Though given our current government I can only imagine the proposals being worse than the status quo, assuming anyone even proposes something. But those are the broader issues. Border Patrol having to specifically deal with an extra 1,200 people just... doesn't seem like that particularly impossible a task. Even at a remote, off road crossing.
I do not understand what you mean by "The other two options are more of an issue from a closed border standpoint. Whereas it creates a more organized pipeline for illegal entry into the country."
The options you laid out are:
- 1200 people request (and are inevitably denied) refugee status, fleeing from incredible violence
- 1200 people attempt to enter at different points and just make it into the US and scrape out some kind of life, having given up on refugee status as a safe haven possibly because they've seen any news since mid-2016.
- 1200 people attempt to enter at the same point, same reason. Weird choice, since it would seem to just make it easier to track them all down and abuse them before definitely denying them any sort of protected status.
I just don't understand how this can possibly be twisted into something that means we should be afraid of them instead of for them.
Edit: Like it seems as though 'creating a pipeline' would amount to "It's slightly easier to survive this brutal journey in a larger group"
It doesn't seem like the issue there is that the US is in danger.
Yeah but they are usually traveling 1-2 or truckload at a time, not "small town" at a time.
The San Ysidro Port of Entry is the largest land border crossing between San Diego and Tijuana, and one of the busiest land border crossings in the world with 70,000 northbound vehicles and 20,000 northbound pedestrians crossing each day, in addition to southbound traffic
Are they all going at once in a single massive push? This is like comparing a flash flood to the usual rise of a river during a rainstorm. New York transports millions through its subway system but I bet you if suddenly a 1200 people bum rushed one station they would have problems.
Maybe, for ~half an hour or so. Don't really want to track down MTA stats, but for he CTA red line subway, State/Lake: December 2014, Lake had an average of 20,482 weekday passenger entries. So a ~6% increase over a typical Tuesday. It is also directly under the Chicago Theater and so gets habitual crushes of people when concerts get out. A standard empty 5000 series 8 car train holds roughly 1k people when uncomfortably full, so it usually just takes a handful of regular ones to clear it. (Which is why I board at Monroe)
I guess I just really don't see 1,200 people as some impossible eye popping number and do not understanding why other people are acting as though it is.
Our cities mass transit is hot garbage and we regularly handle upwards of 70k people leaving our football stadium after an event without significant issue.
I don't think the logistical difficulties are a concern so much as what the arrival of 1200 people as a single symbolic unit might prompt from the government
Just after the election, the United States certified Honduras was making progress on human rights, paving the way for the country to receive millions in aid, despite corruption scandals and human rights abuses that occurred under Hernández.
1200 people crossing the border into the US is a rounding error. What it means for human migration is what people should be paying attention too, and stabilizing the regions they're fleeing from would be the smart solution, but you guys elected a cheeto for president.
I don't think anyone in either party or on either side of the border is actually talking about us stabilizing the regions they're fleeing from. They don't want US involvement. The people here don't want to get involved. So, here we are....
Hell, the word desertification has been used in this thread more times than the word cartel. We are not a serious people.
Actually cartel activity has been referenced twice as much a desertification
Both are very serious though. Climate change increases the power of the cartels since drugs are easy to grow and require little water or fertilizer. Whereas other cash crops (coffee, chocolate etc) require much better conditions.
Eh, growing actual 'stuff to eat' in some of these places is kinda silly. If you can grow chocolate, you should grow chocolate and then use the profits to buy rice and beans from the USA and europe, rather than growing your own rice and beans. Chocolate is worth more than rice and beans. That's how the economy is supposed to work.
These countries don't have problems because they can't grow food (well, Syria and north africa is different there). They have problems because all the 'power' (AKA money) in the countries comes through the cartels who grow illegal drugs. The cartels then have more power than the government and effectively periodically enslave groups of the population to grow their crops. The government would like to seize back the monopoly on power, but the smart way to do that would be to just legalize drugs. And they can't do that, because if they did then the USA would declare war on them.
They can't incentivize the people to just grow other cash crops instead, because US drug policy effectively creates an automatically scaling subsidy to the drug cartels which means that the US will transfer money directly into their pockets at the EXACT rate required to make them more profitable than other cash crops.
Oh I get that, but a lot of places the food crops even are being drove out and nothing is being brought in. If you can't import food then growing your own is your ownly option.
Most farms are in debt. They have to cash crop or they will lose their farm and equipment when they can't make their payments.
So it isn't as simple as switching to subsistence agriculture to survive. The bank will repossess the farm and sell it to someone else to make a profit off of.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Most farms are in debt. They have to cash crop or they will lose their farm and equipment when they can't make their payments.
So it isn't as simple as switching to subsistence agriculture to survive. The bank will repossess the farm and sell it to someone else to make a profit off of.
And, if you are a subsistance farmer with no money living in the wilderness and somehow DONT have debt, then the cartels will roll up, Steal your land and kidnap you to work on your own farm growing drugs. So you have to move to the city where there is some remaining government authority (because the cartels need the government to some extent to keep their money safe from each other)
Drugs remove authority from the government. No government power means that you can't safely be a subsistance farmer. Only someone who grows a cash crop which is valuable enough to warrant protection can survive. In addition, drug cartels make an absurd amount of money, and some aspects of that cartel will USE that money to buy US food crops and re-sell them. But, because they are criminal gangsters if you attempt to undercut them in that business they will just come and kill you.
There's no way that Trump doesn't order the Governor of whichever state that they end up at to call out the National Guard, or just send the army in.
Over a thousand migrants is going to be spun as "invasion" in his media circles.
I was intrigued by the desertification talk. I tried to find articles but the most recent one I could find (still 2 years ago) mentioned deforestation and over grazing as primary factors in desertification. Climate change is also mentioned as they have seen 25% less rainfall each year. Just a guess but usually those 2 factors are linked to over population (no sources, just remembering articles on Amazon deforestation).
Combined with cartels and who knows what else, I'm sure this is an incredibly complex issue that I'm not sure I'd trust even our most competent presidents to be able to handle, let alone one of our least.
I was intrigued by the desertification talk. I tried to find articles but the most recent one I could find (still 2 years ago) mentioned deforestation and over grazing as primary factors in desertification. Climate change is also mentioned as they have seen 25% less rainfall each year. Just a guess but usually those 2 factors are linked to over population.
Combined with cartels and who knows what else, I'm sure this is an incredibly complex issue that I'm not sure I'd trust even our most competent presidents to be able to handle, let alone one of our least.
The frustrating thing is that its not actually complicated. We know exactly what we need to do. It's just a horrible mash up of moralistic nonsense and business interests. The answers are 100% clear, just implementing them takes courage.
Reading this makes me ask what people should be doing ahead of time. If we know that a situation is coming in which a lot of people may be mistreated or, at least, suffering health issues from an incredibly difficult journey, what can be done ahead of time to help?
Should we be calling senator and reps to start working on a plan to focus on this? Are humanitarian agencies prepared to provide aid to people on the other side of the border while the government figures out what to do?
Not really relating to Honduras specifically, but the newly elected President of Costa Rica seems a decent fellow. Hopefully he can succeed in making improvements in the region overall that impact more than just the rich.
Not really relating to Honduras specifically, but the newly elected President of Costa Rica seems a decent fellow. Hopefully he can succeed in making improvements in the region overall that impact more than just the rich.
Eh Costa Rica has always been a light spot in the region but that never has really carried over to surrounding areas for a number of reasons.
Reading this makes me ask what people should be doing ahead of time. If we know that a situation is coming in which a lot of people may be mistreated or, at least, suffering health issues from an incredibly difficult journey, what can be done ahead of time to help?
Should we be calling senator and reps to start working on a plan to focus on this? Are humanitarian agencies prepared to provide aid to people on the other side of the border while the government figures out what to do?
Caravans like this happen every day. This one is marginally larger than usual, and marginally more organized due to some media attention. Sad as it is, this wouldn't even provoke a response from the border patrol agency.
If you want to do something, call your senators and advocate for an absolute end to the war on drugs and public provision of them to addicts.
Posts
Because we aren’t talking about a large group of people leaving a concert or even legally crossing the border at a border crossing checkpoint?
The US does not have an open border so an organized effort the size of this one trying to get people into the country raises eyebrows. We aren’t really sure what they plan to do once they get closer yet, and that will dictate a lot. Will they get here and request refugee status and entrance? Split up and come in at different points? Or just try to come in as a large group (the group is apparently called “People without borders” per the WaPo article so this isn’t really a stretch).
If it’s #1 it may highlight the need for something to be done in that region to make it less hostile to the innocent people that live there and are being forced to flee. The other two options are more of an issue from a closed border standpoint. Whereas it creates a more organized pipeline for illegal entry into the country.
Yes, the broader issues are very concerning and need to be addressed. Though given our current government I can only imagine the proposals being worse than the status quo, assuming anyone even proposes something. But those are the broader issues. Border Patrol having to specifically deal with an extra 1,200 people just... doesn't seem like that particularly impossible a task. Even at a remote, off road crossing.
The options you laid out are:
- 1200 people request (and are inevitably denied) refugee status, fleeing from incredible violence
- 1200 people attempt to enter at different points and just make it into the US and scrape out some kind of life, having given up on refugee status as a safe haven possibly because they've seen any news since mid-2016.
- 1200 people attempt to enter at the same point, same reason. Weird choice, since it would seem to just make it easier to track them all down and abuse them before definitely denying them any sort of protected status.
I just don't understand how this can possibly be twisted into something that means we should be afraid of them instead of for them.
Edit: Like it seems as though 'creating a pipeline' would amount to "It's slightly easier to survive this brutal journey in a larger group"
It doesn't seem like the issue there is that the US is in danger.
Our cities mass transit is hot garbage and we regularly handle upwards of 70k people leaving our football stadium after an event without significant issue.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Actually cartel activity has been referenced twice as much a desertification
Both are very serious though. Climate change increases the power of the cartels since drugs are easy to grow and require little water or fertilizer. Whereas other cash crops (coffee, chocolate etc) require much better conditions.
Eh, growing actual 'stuff to eat' in some of these places is kinda silly. If you can grow chocolate, you should grow chocolate and then use the profits to buy rice and beans from the USA and europe, rather than growing your own rice and beans. Chocolate is worth more than rice and beans. That's how the economy is supposed to work.
These countries don't have problems because they can't grow food (well, Syria and north africa is different there). They have problems because all the 'power' (AKA money) in the countries comes through the cartels who grow illegal drugs. The cartels then have more power than the government and effectively periodically enslave groups of the population to grow their crops. The government would like to seize back the monopoly on power, but the smart way to do that would be to just legalize drugs. And they can't do that, because if they did then the USA would declare war on them.
They can't incentivize the people to just grow other cash crops instead, because US drug policy effectively creates an automatically scaling subsidy to the drug cartels which means that the US will transfer money directly into their pockets at the EXACT rate required to make them more profitable than other cash crops.
So it isn't as simple as switching to subsistence agriculture to survive. The bank will repossess the farm and sell it to someone else to make a profit off of.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
And, if you are a subsistance farmer with no money living in the wilderness and somehow DONT have debt, then the cartels will roll up, Steal your land and kidnap you to work on your own farm growing drugs. So you have to move to the city where there is some remaining government authority (because the cartels need the government to some extent to keep their money safe from each other)
Drugs remove authority from the government. No government power means that you can't safely be a subsistance farmer. Only someone who grows a cash crop which is valuable enough to warrant protection can survive. In addition, drug cartels make an absurd amount of money, and some aspects of that cartel will USE that money to buy US food crops and re-sell them. But, because they are criminal gangsters if you attempt to undercut them in that business they will just come and kill you.
Over a thousand migrants is going to be spun as "invasion" in his media circles.
Combined with cartels and who knows what else, I'm sure this is an incredibly complex issue that I'm not sure I'd trust even our most competent presidents to be able to handle, let alone one of our least.
The frustrating thing is that its not actually complicated. We know exactly what we need to do. It's just a horrible mash up of moralistic nonsense and business interests. The answers are 100% clear, just implementing them takes courage.
Should we be calling senator and reps to start working on a plan to focus on this? Are humanitarian agencies prepared to provide aid to people on the other side of the border while the government figures out what to do?
PSN: ShinyRedKnight Xbox Live: ShinyRedKnight
And is Trump that we are talking about, so guess how that's going to go.
PSN: ShinyRedKnight Xbox Live: ShinyRedKnight
Eh Costa Rica has always been a light spot in the region but that never has really carried over to surrounding areas for a number of reasons.
Phew, that avoids the warm reception that they were going to get:
(These fucking people)
Caravans like this happen every day. This one is marginally larger than usual, and marginally more organized due to some media attention. Sad as it is, this wouldn't even provoke a response from the border patrol agency.
If you want to do something, call your senators and advocate for an absolute end to the war on drugs and public provision of them to addicts.