I agree with your conclusion and your concern about whack-a-mole. I think the situation has become for too political for anyone to act reasonably, and that is by design. Both sides want to whip up the electorate.
I agree with your conclusion and your concern about whack-a-mole. I think the situation has become for too political for anyone to act reasonably, and that is by design. Both sides want to whip up the electorate.
Where are they planning to attempt crossing? If they are going for California, it's going to be awhile before they get there.
Even though I support more open borders, I understand that they can't claim asylum until they are on US soil and they aren't covered by the Constitution until they are on US soil. I have no problems with that, in fact I think it's a very fair policy. I do think this is going to be a big game of Whack-a-Mole now that the "coyotes" are breaking off with their groups, who knows where they will actually cross.
The lawsuit should be thrown out because they aren't on US soil and can't claim any violation of Constitution rights until they are. Also US troops can't cross the border unless they are asked by the Mexican government because it would be considered an act of war. Mattis doesn't seem to be interested in starting a war although Bolton sure as hell wants one with someone. I don't see how Trump can justify invading Mexico to stop a small group migrants under the current AUMF for terrorism either.
In conclusion,I think we'd be better served to let the caravan step on US soil and claim asylum, examine their claims for validity, and go from there. The current solution isn't going to deter any other caravans and if anything it will make them try riskier ways to cross.