The caravan is in Oaxaca. They are 2100 miles from Tijuana, which is where they are headed. Their numbers are dwindling. Many have applied for asylum in Mexico and many have turned back already.
I toss around “the vast majority” because that is what happened to all the previous caravans. Every single one. Caravans which have occurred once a year or more for about a decade.
Not really seeing it since for it to be an invasion they need to have actually invaded. They have not done so. Maybe they are planning to invade but that is not an invasion. Just like a forecast of rain does not mean it is raining.
Further, unless they storm the border and disappear into the US, I cannot see it as any definition of “invasion” if they stop at the legal border crossing and ask for asylum. If we grant it to them then we are inviting them in so not invasion. If we deny them and send them packing they likewise have not invaded…by any definition.
As pointed before already, for this particular issue, it is way out of proportion and used to inflame right wingers. Also out of proportion in relation to how normal people should react.
Lance Turbo, did you even read the cite you posted?
It said absolutely nothing about previous caravans numbers dwindling. But it did say this:
“During a similar caravan in the spring, migrants who reached the U.S. border applied for asylum. NInety-three percent passed the first test on the path toward asylum, demonstrating they had a “credible fear” of returning home.”
No, actually, he is correct. There’s more than 100,000 applications for asylum in the United States each year, and usually something like 10% of those make it all the way through the system.
Also, it doesn’t really matter if the proportion of granted asylum requests is 99% or 1%. If they legally ask to come in and we legally grant them access, it’s not an invasion.
That is a good question. I recall there was some kind of kerfvl at the Mexican border, but I can’t say how it played out. I will look into it after work if no one beats me to it.
Nonetheless, HD, I think others have answered for me. Asylum seekers simply aren’t invaders.
To the point about the other 11 million people who entered the country illegally, I think that is a different case. I will point out that for every one of them, there was a willing American employer welcoming them with open arms. Members of Operation Barbarossa were not, in contrast, crossing the border to get jobs mowing Russians’ lawns but rather to literally kill them all. Pretty big difference IMHO.
As others have said, Trump is using the word ‘invasion’ (plus stating that US troops are needed to stop it) to get his base believing that an terrifying army is approaching the US border with intent to attack.
It is typical of his appalling style - using lies to create fear and hatred.
I saw a truly worrying TV interview with a Trump supporter recently:
Interviewer: What is the most important issue in the upcoming elections?
Voter: The invasion from Mexico!
Well, by talking to them. There’s lots of people doing that, from journalists to the UN and so on.
Why, what do you think they are doing? And do you realize that if they do make it across the border, the bulk of these migrants are surrendering to authorities in order to make their asylum claim? And again, that the vast majority of asylum claims do not result in it being granted? And for those claims that don’t work out, the applicants are deported? Seriously, what are you afraid of?
Very few of them will reach our border and they will not try to force their way into our country. That’s a spooky Halloween story for scaring children.
‘There is no invasion. No one’s coming to get you. There’s nothing at all to worry about.’
Shepard Smith
It can’t be an invasion until they actually invade – cross the border or at least attempt to do so. I guess you could call it an invasion of Mexico if you wished.
Now trump bumped it up to 15,000 troops, saying “Nobody’s coming in. We’re not allowing people to come in.” thus breaking international treaty and national law by disallowing people to apply for asylum.
Yet people will still argue that this isn’t racially based xenophobia or at least a dog whistle to the alt-right.