"Caravan"... What To Do?

[herbu]

We understand the Constitution and 14th Amendment. No question. But as someone stated, this birthright thing was made law by an amendment. We can still do amendments. Do we still think it's what we want? If so, why? If so, what are the conditions under which a child of non-citizens should be a citizen? When a parent or parents come into this country illegally, why do we think their offspring should automatically be citizens? I'm curious about the reasons for this practice, not its legality or the methods by which it could be changed.

 

[TheWarrior]

what about all the children that have shown up at the border alone? Majority of kids being held are just that, alone, who do they get released to? Toss them on the streets in the states or toss them back to Mexico?
families at the border can be sorted out and joined together, and it is happening. Those that can answer and prove identity are allowed in via the process in play. The big issue is with people who cannot provide any form of identification. Does the US 'tag' them, give them a name, a ssn, make up a story, own them?

As of August, there were still hundreds of children that remained separated from their parents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/still-separated-nearly-500-separated-migrant-children-remain-in-us-custody/2018/08/30/6dbd8278-aa09-11e8-8a0c-70b618c98d3c_story.html?utm_term=.ee5779ad53da

I don't know where you are hearing that a 'majority' of the imprisoned children arrived unaccompanied, but please do not forget we do have a foster care system in this country.

I also do not know anything of this 'big issue' as these are not the first poor and desperate immigrants to come to this country. If someone arrives with exactly nothing, I see no reason why they should not be entitled to the exact same procedures to allow them to be lawful immigrants working towards citizenship. If they want a new name, great, but no one gets an SSN without being a citizen, first.

We understand the Constitution and 14th Amendment. No question. But as someone stated, this birthright thing was made law by an amendment. We can still do amendments. Do we still think it's what we want? If so, why? If so, what are the conditions under which a child of non-citizens should be a citizen? When a parent or parents come into this country illegally, why do we think their offspring should automatically be citizens? I'm curious about the reasons for this practice, not its legality or the methods by which it could be changed.

It was amended because Everyone is Equal.

But I am not so sure you actually believe that. Otherwise I think the question of why children born on our soil should be granted citizenship wouldn't need to be asked in the first place.

 

[Drunkpenguin]

When a parent or parents come into this country illegally, why do we think their offspring should automatically be citizens? I'm curious about the reasons for this practice, not its legality or the methods by which it could be changed.

If you ban birthright citizenship I think you open up a whole new can of worms. At that point, whats to stop the government from some day saying people can only have X amount of kids? Only the first 2 are citizens?

I'm not a history buff, but I would imagine the constitution was written this way to insure that the "original" immigrants could not be thrown out of the country once they started establishing families here. Americans like to forget that their family originated elsewhere as well, unless youre Native American of course.

 

[pewternhrata]

As of August, there were still hundreds of children that remained separated from their parents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/still-separated-nearly-500-separated-migrant-children-remain-in-us-custody/2018/08/30/6dbd8278-aa09-11e8-8a0c-70b618c98d3c_story.html?utm_term=.ee5779ad53da

I don't know where you are hearing that a 'majority' of the imprisoned children arrived unaccompanied, but please do not forget we do have a foster care system in this country.

I also do not know anything of this 'big issue' as these are not the first poor and desperate immigrants to come to this country. If someone arrives with exactly nothing, I see no reason why they should not be entitled to the exact same procedures to allow them to be lawful immigrants working towards citizenship. If they want a new name, great, but no one gets an SSN without being a citizen, first.



It was amended because Everyone is Equal.

But I am not so sure you actually believe that. Otherwise I think the question of why children born on our soil should be granted citizenship wouldn't need to be asked in the first place.

I wouldn't use the term imprisoned, that's nonsense liberal scare tactics, that any non US citizen is treated like a wild animal. If the immigrants understood and RESPECTED the process to gain entry, this would not be happening. What happened to obeying the effing laws? Do we take away any form of consequence and let every roam free?

No it's not the first time immigrants came to this country, again research Ellis island, it was not a glorious occasion. They are entitled to the exact same procedures BUT they cannot be the ones to declare those procedures.

This is possibly theeeee dumbest nonsense issue I have seen. Immigrants want in on their own terms, really? That's a joke, trump might be child's play but this is just plain stupidity.

 

[Alex2507]

no one gets an SSN without being a citizen

You get the ssn after becoming a permanent resident alien (green card). After 5 years you can apply for citizenship. Players choice though.

Everyone is Equal

Not at all. Resident aliens, citizens and foreigners are all treated differently, or have different rights. Like I can't vote and you have to do jury duty but I can't (just an example). Also I can't be a mail man. To be a federal employee, you have to be a citizen. And they raised the price of being a citizen ... it's really not a free country. So without a door prize or something, I'm not doing the citizen thing anytime soon.

 

[highfigh]

@ The Warrior-

You wrote "People are allowed to approach our border to seek asylum. Period.

That means they are detained and their identity confirmed and criminal history checked, and hopefully a medical check up to!

While the above is normal AND constitutional, you fail to realize you are still advocating for and supporting the indefinite holding of these people. Trump has made zero effort to reunite these families, and it is very dehumanizing for you to even question these family relations, AFTER they were forcibly separated.

So what that means is after they have been checked out, YES, they should absolutely be allowed in the country."

Yes, they are allowed to seek asylum but most countries require asylum requests at the first border crossed, not just where they want to go. I never wrote anything about holding them indefinitely. The immigrants at Ellis Island were sometimes turned away for 'reasons' that were offensive, stupid and meaningless but we now have different criteria for them. While most may be very nice people, the problem of criminals returning DOES exist and people are dying because of them. How do we stop them from returning?

You prefer that the US just let everyone in and deal with the problems later? Let us know how that works.

TW wrote-
"I'm so confused... I thought the problem originally was that immigrants are taking jobs from Americans...."

Many of the jobs "taken" by the majority of Central American immigrants are low paying and not highly skilled but, as I heard two guys mention at the local Spectrum store (formerly Time-Warner),they're taking jobs Americans don't want to do. OK, that being the case, they're taking jobs that don't: pay well, provide benefits, create a path for advancement. I would think the immigrants who DO have specialized skills come in via different methods, but I don't know- maybe they have a different channel to use for this, rather than paying 'coyotes' and gangs that will come after them later for more money. PHX is the kidnapping capital of the US because of this.

This leads me to ask-"How can they survive on these jobs when Americans "can't"? What makes Americans unable to do these jobs, or do they just feel so superior that they WON'T.

Many people who are worried that they'll take our jobs don't seem to have much going on WRT their own job skills, so that threatens them, as it should.

TW wrote-
"I said Columbus needs to take a more ACCURATE and RESPECTFUL place in our history. Accuracy because, you are right, he never set foot on the continent. And Respectful, because while we BS ourselves with his greatness by celebrating a national holiday, the reality is he decimated indigenous populations and was more a murderer, than a great explorer!"

I mistook your use of 'respectful'- I think you could have just kept it at 'accurate' since I agree with your details.

And for you and @herbu it is called the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Did I write about a different amendment, or did you think that immigration laws and the 14th aren't intertwined?

BTW- this is only covered in Section 1 of the 14th and if you keep reading, the last section seems to make Sanctuary Cities or zones fall under the heading of 'unconstitutional' because they give aid to people who are here illegally.

 

[TheWarrior]

You get the ssn after becoming a permanent resident alien (green card). After 5 years you can apply for citizenship. Players choice though.

I exaggerated, thank you for the correction!

I wouldn't use the term imprisoned, that's nonsense liberal scare tactics, that any non US citizen is treated like a wild animal. If the immigrants understood and RESPECTED the process to gain entry, this would not be happening. What happened to obeying the effing laws? Do we take away any form of consequence and let every roam free?

No it's not the first time immigrants came to this country, again research Ellis island, it was not a glorious occasion. They are entitled to the exact same procedures BUT they cannot be the ones to declare those procedures.

This is possibly theeeee dumbest nonsense issue I have seen. Immigrants want in on their own terms, really? That's a joke, trump might be child's play but this is just plain stupidity.

No sir, a scare tactic is what our Traitor In Chief used when trying to claim that terrorists are a part of the caravan. The law states people can cross our border and seek asylum, they will be detained, and vetted. I have no idea where you are getting the 'immigrants want their own terms'.

I am horrified that our country is literally keeping children in cages. Apparently, you are not. Glad we got that sorted!


@highfigh I focus on the 'respect' issue simply because of the lack of respect various groups of humans are receiving. I find it absolutely disgusting.

But we keep going back over the the difference between vetting, and 'just letting everyone in.' So, I would say our debate has concluded.

 

[highfigh]

I exaggerated, thank you for the correction!




No sir, a scare tactic is what our Traitor In Chief used when trying to claim that terrorists are a part of the caravan. The law states people can cross our border and seek asylum, they will be detained, and vetted. I have no idea where you are getting the 'immigrants want their own terms'.

I am horrified that our country is literally keeping children in cages. Apparently, you are not. Glad we got that sorted!


@highfigh I focus on the 'respect' issue simply because of the lack of respect various groups of humans are receiving. I find it absolutely disgusting.

But we keep going back over the the difference between vetting, and 'just letting everyone in.' So, I would say our debate has concluded.

First, you use the word 'cages' as if they're in a kennel. They're not, but we're not going to build homes or apartment buildings for them, either. Not sure any country does that, even with the much smaller numbers they receive.

I think the lack of respect issues could, and maybe should, be discussed.

One of the reasons I don't want to just let everyone in is because here in MKE, we have a lot of problems with crime (for a variety of reasons, starting with the judicial and city/county government), where illegals who have been deported come back and continue to be criminals. MKE isn't a particularly large city, yet we have a lot of problems that aren't as severe in other places.

 

[pewternhrata]

I exaggerated, thank you for the correction!




No sir, a scare tactic is what our Traitor In Chief used when trying to claim that terrorists are a part of the caravan. The law states people can cross our border and seek asylum, they will be detained, and vetted. I have no idea where you are getting the 'immigrants want their own terms'.

I am horrified that our country is literally keeping children in cages. Apparently, you are not. Glad we got that sorted!


@highfigh I focus on the 'respect' issue simply because of the lack of respect various groups of humans are receiving. I find it absolutely disgusting.

But we keep going back over the the difference between vetting, and 'just letting everyone in.' So, I would say our debate has concluded.

You say not a scare tactic, yet you believe cages are being used, that every lone child was stripped from their family. Again, the issue is quite simple, come here, process, come in. When there are thousands demanding entry without process, yea that's a problem. The problem is not the US.

 

[TheWarrior]

First, you use the word 'cages' as if they're in a kennel. They're not, but we're not going to build homes or apartment buildings for them, either. Not sure any country does that, even with the much smaller numbers they receive.

I think the lack of respect issues could, and maybe should, be discussed.

One of the reasons I don't want to just let everyone in is because here in MKE, we have a lot of problems with crime (for a variety of reasons, starting with the judicial and city/county government), where illegals who have been deported come back and continue to be criminals. MKE isn't a particularly large city, yet we have a lot of problems that aren't as severe in other places.

I appreciate your effort for discussion!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/12/us-immigration-detention-facilities

First off, the above link shows current images of the 'cages' these people are being held in. No, they are not the size of a bird cage, per se, but given that they are not allowed to leave, I maintain that these people are imprisoned, and the care they have received has raised further red flags about our country's human rights abuses.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EVACANTUSQ176N

We have no need to build homes for immigrants, we have millions of unoccupied dwellings!

On the subject of respect, consider your own words: "where illegals who have been deported come back and continue to be criminals."

You just lumped the crime of illegal immigration in with local crime such as theft and murder. Illegal immigration has largely been ignored by our law enforcement for decades. While I am not in support of illegal immigration, the reality is that the cost of forcibly removing the number of people already in the country, while our deficit has exceeded $1 Trillion and our debt surpassed $20 Trillion, is so absurd I don't know how anyone could support it.

Why?

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17229018/undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes

According to the IRS in 2015, immigrants without an SSN paid in over $23 Billion in taxes.

More citizens = more tax revenue!



@pewternhrata I do not have any references to 'thousands demanding entry without process'.

To further understand the problem that the US has created, please see above!

 

[pewternhrata]

I appreciate your effort for discussion!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/12/us-immigration-detention-facilities

First off, the above link shows current images of the 'cages' these people are being held in. No, they are not the size of a bird cage, per se, but given that they are not allowed to leave, I maintain that these people are imprisoned, and the care they have received has raised further red flags about our country's human rights abuses.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EVACANTUSQ176N

We have no need to build homes for immigrants, we have millions of unoccupied dwellings!

On the subject of respect, consider your own words: "where illegals who have been deported come back and continue to be criminals."

You just lumped the crime of illegal immigration in with local crime such as theft and murder. Illegal immigration has largely been ignored by our law enforcement for decades. While I am not in support of illegal immigration, the reality is that the cost of forcibly removing the number of people already in the country, while our deficit has exceeded $1 Trillion and our debt surpassed $20 Trillion, is so absurd I don't know how anyone could support it.

Why?

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17229018/undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes

According to the IRS in 2015, immigrants without an SSN paid in over $23 Billion in taxes.

More citizens = more tax revenue!



@pewternhrata I do not have any references to 'thousands demanding entry without process'.

To further understand the problem that the US has created, please see above!

They are not allowed to leave? Umm didn't they want to come here while understanding the process at play? Again, lack of respect and understanding

Where are we supposed to hold them? Send them back, they return. These are temporary facilities, chain link corridors, would you prefer closed off walls? Were supposed to supply them with houses? Wheres my damn house? I'll move to Central America then back to the states as an immigrant if I can get a damn house. That's messed up. Those that choose to pay taxes do. I got hit by an undocumented immigrant years ago, no license, no insurance. Who paid? I did. Why? Because I had a valid license and insurance. If that was me with no license or insurance I'd be thrown in jail, they got to walk away and left me with tab. I wasn't at fault. They pay taxes good for them, look further into it for the costs they rack up.
Simplicity of the 'headline' articles you refer to do nothing to show actual cause and effect.

 

[KEW]

Edit:
I wanted to focus on the last ~90 seconds of this discussion where they are mentioning what makes this current election situation so unique.
This is the same clip, but set to start at that place:

Original post:
I think this 12 minute discussion of the caravan and it's role in Trump's campaign strategy is pretty useful.
IMHO, a very significant point is that Mark Shields thinks Trump has given up on keeping the House and is focusing on shoring up the senate to ensure the Republicans maintain control over it - that is why Trump is going all-out on the caravan instead of focusing on the economy (which may be a stretch, but generally presidents have successfully been able to claim as their credit by mid-term with most of the population)!
Yes, it is PBS and I agree that they are left leaning.
However, while Fox shows the right what the extreme left is saying/thinking, I'm not sure the right has much understanding of where the mainstream left really is.
For example, I have the sense that the right-wing people here were a bit surprised that all (I think?) of the left-wing people here endorse establishing and maintaining border security (unlike the extreme-left who might say that we should have open borders - I have not heard that, but I'm sure those people are out there and can be found to suit a narrative).

 

[Hobbit]

I talked to someone who was extremely for the wall. Apparently my life as I know it is going to change immensely if we don't stop the caravan. Yes, violent crime, drugs, and most importantly, our tax bill will skyrocket! Even more than the cost to build the wall. To add to all this madness Kelly was in my state even saying the opiate problem is caused by Mexican immigrants. Honestly, if we gave the entire caravan asylum I doubt I'd notice a difference in my life. I'm in a border state too.

Funny thing, back in the 80's when I was in college I did a report on workplace drug testing. I concluded that it was ridiculous. If they're going to check, the should check for all drugs. Licit (mostly opiates even back then) drug use accidents, od's, and deaths so outnumbered illicit drugs it was almost unbelievable. But anytime some pothead got in an accident it was front page news. Conversely, if someone on prescribed opiates went the wrong way down the freeway and killed a complete family it's an accident and quickly became second page news.

Similarly, you're more likely to have something bad happen to you from someone who's at least a second generation born and raise American than an any immigrant. Which one makes the news, however? I guess it's easier to villainize a minority of some sort. All the living presidents have spoke out against this tactic.

@KEW - Once a senator is in office and survives a couple of terms, they're hard to vote out. We had Pete(R) for 36 years and Jeff(D) for 30. I don't expect a big change in the senate. Also, every president in recent history wanted immigrant reform. I even agree. But building a wall and villainizing people is draconian.

I also consider PBS middle of the road. Usually they have people from both sides of the aisle to represent an issue. They also call them out when they're spouting nonsense. To me that's not left or right. Well, I suppose it is, one way or another, if you have a belief and all of a sudden it's not making that much sense. But, you'll stick to your belief anyway. There's a stations which will have plenty of poster children to back it up. However, for me, it's opened my mind and changed my opinion many times.

Thank you for letting me rant

 

[mtrycrafts]

I talked to someone who was extremely for the wall. Apparently my life as I know it is going to change immensely if we don't stop the caravan. ...

Thank you for letting me rant

My life changed back in the 80s, I think when that 11 million received amnesty and became citizens. I lived and life went on as usual.

 

[rnatalli]

Ever notice how when politicians (democrat or republican) speak about growing the economy, they always say it isn't a zero-sum game, but when something like this happens, it's all about how an immigrant will take someone's job, etc. I thought it wasn't a zero-sum game? A few points:

1. The people in the caravan are like any other group. There will be hard workers and a few bad apples.
2. Sending the military to the border in mass is foolish and expensive. What are they going to do, fire on unarmed people? I doubt military commanders would follow that order as it wouldn't be lawful. The military's function is to defend the country and I don't think a few thousand people escaping inhuman conditions qualifies as a real threat.
3. Walls don't work; they haven't worked for centuries.
4. I believe the law as it stands is these folks may apply for asylum at the border. In doing so, I think they're allowed to enter and required to appear before a judge. I'm not sure if the executive branch can limit this.

Governments fall, countries fall, empires fall; what really bothers me about this whole situation is how we as a species still have an us vs. them mentality using imaginary lines on a map. Imagine what we could do if we all banded together.

This whole situation is nothing more than a smoke screen and will likely vanish in short time after the election.

 

[herbu]

Funny. I ask for reasons and the logic behind birthright citizenship, and all responses are basically, "Because it's constitutional and the law". Yet we're talking about illegal aliens. Why does the law not matter for the parents, yet does for the children? Someone accused me of not believing all people are equal. I believe all people are created equal in God's eyes. All people are not equal in the laws of man. I do not have the same rights as someone born in France, and vice versa. Is that wrong? Are you proposing a One World Order?

 

[highfigh]

First off, the above link shows current images of the 'cages' these people are being held in. No, they are not the size of a bird cage, per se, but given that they are not allowed to leave, I maintain that these people are imprisoned, and the care they have received has raised further red flags about our country's human rights abuses.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EVACANTUSQ176N

We have no need to build homes for immigrants, we have millions of unoccupied dwellings!

On the subject of respect, consider your own words: "where illegals who have been deported come back and continue to be criminals."

You just lumped the crime of illegal immigration in with local crime such as theft and murder. Illegal immigration has largely been ignored by our law enforcement for decades. While I am not in support of illegal immigration, the reality is that the cost of forcibly removing the number of people already in the country, while our deficit has exceeded $1 Trillion and our debt surpassed $20 Trillion, is so absurd I don't know how anyone could support it.

Why?

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17229018/undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes

According to the IRS in 2015, immigrants without an SSN paid in over $23 Billion in taxes.

More citizens = more tax revenue!

Illegal immigration has never been ignored, it was treated differently because they weren't coming here in droves. Look it up.

Here's part of the puzzle and CA still wants to let illegals in by the carload.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/220582.pdf

Here's more, written by a former detective who happens to be Hispanic-

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/crime/329589-the-truth-about-crime-illegal-immigrants-and-sanctuary-cities

But wait, there's more-

https://cis.org/Huennekens/DOJ-26-Federal-Prisoners-Are-Aliens

You want to spread these people all over the country like peeper being sprinkled on food? That's ridiculous!

Did you know that after Hurricane Katrina, people who were left without homes in New Orleans were handed bus passes and airplane tickets, then told to move onto a new life? Look at crime stats in Phoenix, AZ- they have problems that started around that time because of the influx and those people were, apparently, legal US citizens.

It's not just about tax revenue and $23B doesn't cover the losses and lost lives from car chases, shootings, rapes, robberies, arson and other crimes.

Having said that, it's not fair to accuse all immigrants of being violent or criminals, but at least let the country try to weed out the bad ones. With the huge number coming in, should they just open the gates? NO! What country would or should do that? Where does the money come from when these people need aid? Mostly, "from the government", which means "from tax payers".

This isn't a binary situation and as I have been seeing, the government hasn't kept tabs on the data the way they probably should. Then, there's the treatment by the media. I'm not a devoted follower of any media outlet because I haven't found one that just reports, rather than spins the events.

 

[highfigh]

Funny. I ask for reasons and the logic behind birthright citizenship, and all responses are basically, "Because it's constitutional and the law". Yet we're talking about illegal aliens. Why does the law not matter for the parents, yet does for the children? Someone accused me of not believing all people are equal. I believe all people are created equal in God's eyes. All people are not equal in the laws of man. I do not have the same rights as someone born in France, and vice versa. Is that wrong? Are you proposing a One World Order?

If you use the "All people are born equal in God's eyes" example, wouldn't that constitute grounds for a 'One World Order'?

The fact that I asked that question makes me shudder because it could be inferred by some that it means everyone should have the same amounts of everything, but that's not what 'In His Eyes' means. The Bible doesn't say it's bad to have more than someone else, but that it's good to share. I believe the other major religions teach the same. The problem is that someone always wants to be in charge of the money and they always take more for themselves and add others so they can get the 'Friends and family' deal. The Party always gets more while the rest starve.

A guy on local radio made a great point, one day- he said "I have a big problem listening to billionaires tell millionaires what the Middle Class needs".

 

[KEW]

If you use the "All people are born equal in God's eyes" example, wouldn't that constitute grounds for a 'One World Order'?

The fact that I asked that question makes me shudder because it could be inferred by some that it means everyone should have the same amounts of everything, but that's not what 'In His Eyes' means. The Bible doesn't say it's bad to have more than someone else, but that it's good to share. I believe the other major religions teach the same. The problem is that someone always wants to be in charge of the money and they always take more for themselves and add others so they can get the 'Friends and family' deal. The Party always gets more while the rest starve.

A guy on local radio made a great point, one day- he said "I have a big problem listening to billionaires tell millionaires what the Middle Class needs".

And there we have it!
Despite our party/tribal differences*, I agree with everything you said here! On the large scale, we mostly are just people with the same objectives. It is the spin and discontent that is introduced by politicians and press that makes things get murky.
* I generally consider myself an independent. In recent years the Republicans have lost moderation in favor of "Tea Party values". I was leaning towards voting for McCain over Obama until he seemed to lose his independent streak and brought on Palin. I still don't know what happened to him then! While my values have not changed, I have effectively become a Democrat because the Republican Party has changed so much. If the Republicans go back to moderation and bipartisanship, I could go back to voting for the person instead of the party!

From Wikipedia:

Illegal entry

"There are an estimated half million illegal entries into the United States each year. "

Main article: Illegal entry § United States
The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 6–7 million immigrants came to the United States via illegal entry, accounting for probably a little over half of the total population of those residing in the U.S. illegally (the rest entering via legal visas allowing a limited stay, but then not leaving when their visa period ended).[38] There are an estimated half million illegal entries into the United States each year.[38][62]

A common means of border crossing is to hire people smugglers to help them across the border. Those operating on the U.S.-Mexico border are known informally as coyotajes(coyotes).[62]

So we have 500,000 illegal entries per year and all this hoopla is about 7,000 people (who are not being very sneaky)?

Obviously, 500,000 illegal entries per year indicates that our borders are not well controlled and is a realistic concern that should be addressed but sending troops to meet this well-publicized caravan "Tiananmen Square style" is not appropriate. Fortunately, I believe our Army/troops have too much honor to start firing into crowds.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I can get behind much of the objectives Trump has, but instead of improving border security in a well reasoned and thoughtful way, he has chosen to pretend like these 7,000 are an immediate crisis of monumental proportions. And he is pretending! Trump is not dumb about these things, he understands that fear/emotion drives his base because they believe he is the only one who "understands and will take action against these 7,000" (as another 493,000 cross the border with subtlety). Just to be clear that is an average of ~42,000 people (or 6 times as many as the 7000 caravan) every month!

If he had requested proposals for advanced surveillance systems and better measures to control illegally smuggling immigrants, I am certain he would have gotten the votes from congress, but even with the majority party in the House and Senate, "the wall" does not make enough sense to be approved.
I don't understand why he is so set on a physical wall unless he want to further promote the image of him diligently fighting "Washington".

As I've said before, this is an interesting time in history to be alive. Trump is many things, but boring is not one of them!

herbu, I realize I am off topic, but I hope you can appreciate that I am attempting to gain my own perspective as well as sharing it with those interested. I don't claim to have any special insight, only to have given it enough thought to attempt to make sense out of so many "superficially irrational" actions of Trump. I believe his actions are rational, but not very easy to understand. He is playing a game using a strategy that is difficult to understand. Things make more sense if you recognize his objective is simply "to win". Anything else is secondary to that. "winning" for him is maintaining the adoration of his base and staying in power.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
2. Sending the military to the border in mass is foolish and expensive. What are they going to do, fire on unarmed people? I doubt military commanders would follow that order as it wouldn't be lawful. The military's function is to defend the country and I don't think a few thousand people escaping inhuman conditions qualifies as a real threat.
....

There was an "Official Use" document by the military leaked, a threat assessment of the group marching north. The military just doesn't support any of the claims of criminals, etc. And, they will not, cannot enforce laws, illegal. So, not sure what this political stunt will do. And, as said, the cost is high. Aircraft hours are very expensive, especially the C17, along with all the other support costs, etc.
But then, what is a few hundred million more deficit spending. Hope the Chinese will bite and loan the $$$$$.