New tent cities being built to house migrants at U.S.-Mexico border

By MIREYA VILLARREAL CBS NEWS
May 2, 2019, 6:35 PM

New tent cities being built to house migrants at U.S.-Mexico border

Donna, Texas — Just feet from Mexico, the government has built a tent city in an effort to handle the flow of migrants along the border.

Border Patrol agent Carlos Ruiz said they need a facility like this because they're "over capacity."

The air-conditioned tent and another in El Paso will hold up to 500 men, women and children at a cost of nearly $37 million dollars. There are showers and bathrooms on site, with cameras in the common areas always watching.

Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan asked for more money to handle the influx of migrants along the southwest border, including children potentially being used as pawns.

"Young children are being put into the hands of smugglers coming all the way to our border with the promise that they'll be allowed to stay," he said.

To combat what DHS calls fraudulent families, immigration officials are planning to collect DNA at two undisclosed locations. The rapid DNA tests involve a cheek swab that within a couple of hours will help prove whether an adult and child are actually related. In the past two weeks, investigators say nearly 30 families were allegedly fraudulent.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-ten...er-2019-05-02/

Government to House More Immigrants in Tents at the Border

The tents are set to operate through the end of the year, at a cost of as much as $37 million

By Cedar Attanasio and Nomaan Merchant

Published 3 hours ago


About 50 asylum seekers stood this week in a circle near a bridge between the U.S. and Mexico to hear an American attorney explain what would happen to them when they entered U.S. custody.

The attorney, Jodi Goodwin, told them they would probably end up at one of the Border Patrol's smaller stations, which migrants call "la hielera" -- Spanish for icebox because of their cold temperatures.

Goodwin advised them to wear their heaviest clothing or borrow clothes from someone else, and to eat a hearty meal before crossing the bridge. In a carrying voice, she repeated in Spanish, "Eat well and dress well."

The advice reflects reality on the border, where a lack of space means some immigrants must sleep on floors in Border Patrol stations, while others are held in military-style tents. One tent facility is next to an El Paso bridge, and the government will soon open two more.

The newest tent cities -- in El Paso and in the Rio Grande Valley -- will hold 1,000 parents and families, expanding the Border Patrol's capacity to hold and process the surge of immigrants who have arrived in recent months and overwhelmed immigration authorities.

The tents will offer portable showers, recreation areas and sleeping quarters that are divided by gender and by families and children traveling alone. Detainees will sleep on mats.

The tents are set to operate through the end of the year, at a cost of as much as $37 million. A contractor in Rome, New York, obtained the bid to build the tents, which the government calls "soft-sided" shelters.

The Border Patrol's El Paso sector has become the epicenter of the influx of immigrant families from Central America.
On Tuesday alone, agents arrested around 1,100 migrants in the El Paso sector, including 424 who crossed in Sunland Park, New Mexico, according to Border Patrol spokesman Ramiro Cordero. In March alone, the agency apprehended more than 100,000 immigrants, including 53,000 family members.

The situation has drawn agents away from their traditional duties of patrolling the border and forced Immigration and Customs Enforcement to refuse to hold immigrants because it does not have enough detention space. ICE is dropping large groups of immigrants at bus stations and cities, including Phoenix, San Antonio, Texas and Albuquerque, New Mexico.

But before the immigrants are handed over to ICE or released, the Border Patrol must process them, and the agency is struggling to keep up.

In recent weeks, immigrants have been forced to sleep in hastily constructed tents on top of gravel under a bridge in El Paso.

Critics decried the conditions as inhumane and corroborated accounts of migrants who said that they were held too long and did not have access to bedding while sleeping in the cold.

"For far too long, El Paso - America's new Ellis Island, has lacked adequate temporary processing facilities to address the increase in the number of asylum-seeking families arriving at our doorstep," said El Paso Rep. Veronica Escobar, who took fellow Democrats on tours of the bridge setting.

To some critics, the new tents in El Paso and Donna, Texas, are an improvement.

Besides providing extra space, the tents also offer a better setting for agents to process immigrants. The data entry at Border Patrol processing centers can take one to two hours per migrant, as agents enter names, take fingerprints and run background checks. Agents also record the addresses where migrants will live in the U.S., and emergency medical technicians perform cursory health screenings.

In March, the Border Patrol closed down checkpoints around El Paso used for drug enforcement. Agents now bring migrants to Border Patrol offices near the checkpoints and use the computer terminals there to process migrants.

In a statement, the Border Patrol said the tents were built "to support efforts to process, care for and transfer the unprecedented number of families and unaccompanied children crossing the border illegally each day in a humane way, consistent with our border security mission and our American values."

The Border Patrol is supposed to keep people in custody for no more than three days, but migrants are sometimes detained for longer. Goodwin said she had spoken in the last week to a Guatemalan man who had been in a "hielera" for 12 days. The Border Patrol stations that house the "hieleras" will continue being used.

In some ways, the tents are better than the iceboxes, Goodwin said. "But that's not saying much."

Tent facilities previously used to detain migrants in Texas have often lacked adequate space or facilities, said Goodwin, a longtime attorney in Harlingen, Texas.

A separate tent city near El Paso housed more than 2,700 migrant children before being shut down in early January amid security concerns.

It's unlikely that the new tent facilities will allow the Border Patrol to reopen the checkpoints or to stop reliance on the "hieleras" or the more hastily constructed, smaller tents.
The new 500-person tent in El Paso will only help the Border Patrol keep up, Cordero said, and the checkpoints can only be reopened if the flow of migrants slows down.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Go...509397071.html

Bus tickets are cheaper!

Process them and deport them within 48 hours!

Get them out quickly and stop them coming here!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Government to House More Immigrants in Tents at the Border

The tents are set to operate through the end of the year, at a cost of as much as $37 million

---

Expensive band-aids----what do they do with the 1,000 when another 3,000 are waiting in line to get. Nice expensive place to stock up on diapers and baby formula before they are bused all over the country within hours.

Two New Tent Cities Along U.S.-Mexico Border Operating As 'Band-Aid' For Surge Of Immigrants, Border Patrol Agent Says

https://www.newsweek.com/two-new-tent-cities-along-us-mexico-border-operating-band-aid-surge-1415320

Another Trump LIE..."I will not warehouse millions of illegal aliens on our border"!!!

FILL THOSE BEDS AND MILLIONS MORE COME!

Bus them back!

If the tents cities are used to stop catch & release, I'm all for it. Set up a million tents if that is what it takes to completely desist with the very idiotic act of releasing illegals on our streets! I say keep them at the border within spitting distance of where they entered until the can be processed and deported. NO MORE CATCH & RELEASE!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

If the tents cities are used to stop catch & release, I'm all for it. Set up a million tents if that is what it takes to completely desist with the very idiotic act of releasing illegals on our streets! I say keep them at the border within spitting distance of where they entered until the can be processed and deported. NO MORE CATCH & RELEASE!

---

I'm for Keep them Out

then you do not have to worry about

Catch and Release

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

This nation can not afford a million tents for millions of people and give them free everything for the next 7 years while their asylum case winds its way through the court. In addition it is humiliating to see our military sent to cook and chauffeur invaders around.

Why would anyone want a million tents when they can be prevented from entering?

BOOT THEM OUT WITHIN 48 HOURS INCLUDING THEIR UAC'S!!!

UNLESS Trump sends the military into Mexico to set up a BUFFER ZONE, you have to have detention space on the US side of the border for the invaders. Daniel Horowitz of Conservative Review has been through the protocals of how these invaders SHOULD BE TREATED according to EXISTING IMMIGRATION LAW, if Traitor Trump decided to enforce it.

A. Invaders request asylum? Invaders are then given a credible fear interview. If they are denied credible fear, as just about 100% should be, they are detained and then given an appeal. If they loose the appeal, they are sent into EXPIDITED REMOVAL STATUS and they are GONE as soon as they can be sent back.

B. Invaders do not request asylum. They should be sent into EXPIDITED REMOVAL STATUS and are given 1 WEEK to change their minds and request asylum.

THAT'S HOW IT WORKS with OTM, "Other than MExicans" at the border. We need the detention space and lots of it, but Trump has to follow the law!!!!! Unfortunately, according to that TREASONOUS Budget deal Trump signed in Feb. , the law get clouded up as reguards to unacompanied minors and families, but there's still a TON of single men that could be BOOTED FAST but Trump is just letting them go because CBP claims there's no detention space available to hold them. EVEN IF THIS SPACE BECOMES AVAILABLE, it's up to Trump to BOOT PEOPLE and not just hold them a little longer and then stick them on a bus to the destination of their choice and given EBT.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on this?

FUTHERMORE, there's 100% LEGAL PRECEDENT for Trump to deny all asylum claims to any Central American by nation. There would obviously be lawsuits if he took this action.
ALSO, there's 100% LEGAL PRECEDENT for Trump to declare all asylum claims by any Central Americans must be submitted in Central America or in Mexico somewhere at our embassy in Mexico City or at one of our counsulates in Mexico. So far he's not declaring this and I wouldn't hold my breath that he ever makes this move. There would also be legal action against him on this plan but he could probably could eventually WIN in both instances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonyklo

UNLESS Trump sends the military into Mexico to set up a BUFFER ZONE, you have to have detention space on the US side of the border for the invaders. Daniel Horowitz of Conservative Review has been through the protocals of how these invaders SHOULD BE TREATED according to EXISTING IMMIGRATION LAW, if Traitor Trump decided to enforce it.

A. Invaders request asylum? Invaders are then given a credible fear interview. If they are denied credible fear, as just about 100% should be, they are detained and then given an appeal. If they loose the appeal, they are sent into EXPIDITED REMOVAL STATUS and they are GONE as soon as they can be sent back.

B. Invaders do not request asylum. They should be sent into EXPIDITED REMOVAL STATUS and are given 1 WEEK to change their minds and request asylum.

THAT'S HOW IT WORKS with OTM, "Other than MExicans" at the border. We need the detention space and lots of it, but Trump has to follow the law!!!!! Unfortunately, according to that TREASONOUS Budget deal Trump signed in Feb. , the law get clouded up as reguards to unacompanied minors and families, but there's still a TON of single men that could be BOOTED FAST but Trump is just letting them go because CBP claims there's no detention space available to hold them. EVEN IF THIS SPACE BECOMES AVAILABLE, it's up to Trump to BOOT PEOPLE and not just hold them a little longer and then stick them on a bus to the destination of their choice and given EBT.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on this?

---

Have you see this from Daniel Horowitz
Bombshell from a top border agent: Just 6% of illegal aliens in one sector even claim asylum

some highlights....
Yet, we are still processing them as if they are legitimate asylees instead of immediately placing them into expedited removal, as required by law.

This revelation means that our government has essentially vitiated the entire Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and has declared a de facto open border

So why is this administration not placing every single person who comes to the border into expedited removal?

The only excuse the government has left is that it doesn’t have enough suitable facilities to hold the family units in order to comport with the Flores settlement. But the administration has had months to muster all of its logistical assets and diplomatic prowess with Guatemala and Honduras to begin an airlift to Central America for expedited removal.

https://www.conservativereview.com/n...-claim-asylum/

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

Why not go for expedited removal instead of a million tents to house these people for years?

Only 6% claiming asylum, yet they are turning them loose instead of removing, and if we had tents they would be placed in tents with maid service, instead of being removed.

Better yet, treat this as an invasion, not a slumber party.

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

After he suspends the entry then put the full military on the border with orders to keep them out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonyklo

UNLESS Trump sends the military into Mexico to set up a BUFFER ZONE, you have to have detention space on the US side of the border for the invaders.

---

Why is it necessary to send troops into Mexico? Why can't they operate on our side of the border? Simply stop them from entering instead of being a welcoming committee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

Have you see this from Daniel Horowitz
Bombshell from a top border agent: Just 6% of illegal aliens in one sector even claim asylum


some highlights....
Yet, we are still processing them as if they are legitimate asylees instead of immediately placing them into expedited removal, as required by law.

This revelation means that our government has essentially vitiated the entire Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and has declared a de facto open border

So why is this administration not placing every single person who comes to the border into expedited removal?

The only excuse the government has left is that it doesn’t have enough suitable facilities to hold the family units in order to comport with the Flores settlement. But the administration has had months to muster all of its logistical assets and diplomatic prowess with Guatemala and Honduras to begin an airlift to Central America for expedited removal.

https://www.conservativereview.com/n...-claim-asylum/

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

Why not go for expedited removal instead of a million tents to house these people for years?

Only 6% claiming asylum, yet they are turning them loose instead of removing, and if we had tents they would be placed in tents with maid service, instead of being removed.

Better yet, treat this as an invasion, not a slumber party.

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

After he suspends the entry then put the full military on the border with orders to keep them out.

---

I'VE READ JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING on this issue. We need a ton of detention space EVEN if you send a ton of them back FAST because they don't go back THAT FAST!!!!! They're going to be hanging out a week or 2 at a minimum. Exidited removal means they still hang out for a few weeks. MEXICO WON'T TAKE BACK ANYBODY EXCEPT MEXICANS.

Here is an example of why they need to be kept out----not caught and released or caught and held forever in tents.....

Here is the far left bragging about how our government dropped the case against 2 asylum seekers trying to smuggle more in...
Many of the Immigration Enforcement System’s Biggest Flaws, All Rolled Into One Case

The government touted one couple’s arrest in a splashy press release. But the case against them fell apart in court, for reasons that have become common in criminal prosecutions of migrants seeking asylum in the United States.



When Edy Giovanni Fuentes-Alvarado, his wife Kenia Yamileth Gomez-Caballero and their 9-year-old daughter presented themselves at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in October to seek asylum, the family from El Salvador probably thought the hardest part of their ordeal was over.


The family passed an interview with asylum officers, who evaluated their fear of returning to their country – the first step in the asylum process. The couple was then allowed in to the United States, and went to live with family in Lake Elsinore – with ankle monitors for the adults – as they awaited their asylum proceedings in Los Angeles.


But in February, a far more routine interaction with immigration enforcement officials landed them in criminal custody and threw a major wrench in their asylum claim.


According to court documents, around noon on Feb. 24, the couple – along with a U.S. citizen friend – was stopped at a Border Patrol checkpoint on State Route 94. They said they were on their way back from having breakfast with friends in Dulzura, California.
Fuentes-Alvarado and Gomez-Caballero told the agent that they were citizens of El Salvador, and provided identification cards showing they had permission to be in the country.


The agent sent them to secondary inspection to verify their story. Indeed, the additional searches showed that they had pending asylum cases.


The couple was eventually arrested on human smuggling charges.


But what happened in the hours following the initial stop differs between agents and the asylum-seekers.


The agents, in court documents, say Fuentes-Alvarado told them he was on his way to pick up a cousin, who he acknowledged was undocumented. They say they received his permission to search his phone, where they eventually were able to use the cousin’s messages and GPS coordinates to find two individuals from El Salvador hiding in brush nearby who did not have permission to enter the country.


Later, the people found in the brush indicated that they had been in the car earlier that day, according to the agents’ reports.


But the couple says that only happened after their rights were violated many times. In court documents, they argue they were held for more than eight hours with disregard for their constitutional rights, pressured into phone searches and interrogations by agents after invoking their right to counsel. The couple’s attorneys have held that most of the statements and evidence being used against them in the case was obtained illegally.


The government even sent out a press release touting their arrest, which was picked up by the likes of Breitbart and the Washington Examiner. It was an example of what the administration has been trying so hard to show: that Central American asylum-seekers are criminals.


But less than two months later, the government quietly dismissed the case.


What may have started as an attempt to publicly criminalize asylum seekers from Central America wilted in federal court, but the repercussions for the family are long-lasting and leave their asylum claims – and their lives – hanging in the balance.
The case exemplifies many of the concerns that have become a hallmark of criminal arrests of migrants at the border.
The constitutionality of the stop, the couple’s detention and the search of their devices at a Border Patrol checkpoint were all called into question in court. The day before an evidentiary hearing in which Border Patrol agents were supposed to testify to clear up discrepancies between the various accounts of the arrests, prosecutors moved to dismiss the case.


Concerns about due process in the case extend beyond Fuentes-Alvarado and Gomez-Caballero: the individuals found in the brush after were deemed to be material witnesses in the case, and were detained for a month without bond though they themselves were not charged with any crimes. It’s not the first time witnesses have been detained for extended periods in criminal immigration cases in San Diego.


Fuentes-Alvarado and Gomez-Caballero were charged with human smuggling, which is puzzling when compared to other human smuggling cases often filed in the federal criminal courts along the border. There was no one actually found being smuggled in the car.


“It does seem like a pretty weak case,” said Andrew Nietor, who does criminal defense and immigration work in San Diego. Nietor did not represent either client, but briefly reviewed some of the court filings at Voice of San Diego’s request.


The U.S. attorney’s office and attorneys representing the asylum-seekers declined to comment.


Human smuggling is a broad charge. According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, criminal penalties for human smuggling or “bringing in and harboring certain aliens,” can result from knowing someone is undocumented and encouraging them to enter the United States illegally, helping them do so, transporting them across the border or housing or hiding them in the United States. Commercial gain isn’t required to be charged with the crime.


Federal agencies that investigate human smuggling, like Homeland Security Investigations, have previously told Voice of San Diego that though the crime is technically broad, they focus their investigative resources on large transnational smuggling organizations that exploit people for profit.


Officials say they use administrative channels, with less severe punishments, for smaller cases they come across, like someone who helped a family member enter the country illegally.


“For HSI, the question becomes one of whether or not a particular human smuggling or trafficking event is associated with a wholesale, large-scale, high-volume transnational criminal organization,” James Plitt, the San Diego deputy special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations, told VOSD last year. “Law enforcement resources are limited, so we ask, ‘Does this deserve a larger investigative commitment or can it be addressed another way?’ The consequences have to match the true nature of the event.”
But it’s a charge immigration attorneys have noted is often used against immigrants, even when it’s not proven in a federal criminal court.


The couple’s asylum case is now split, since for unknown reasons, Gomez-Caballero has remained in immigration detention, while her husband was released. That means that a family with the same asylum claim could end up with different outcomes. And while the charges against them were ultimately dismissed, the government can still bring them up as a reason to reject their asylum claims.

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topi...into-one-case/

They need to ALL be deported and apply from their home country.

They are coached LIARS with forged documents and then their illegal family comes here and THEY are complicit in human trafficking of MORE illegal aliens.

GET THEM ALL OUT!

THE WHOLE FAMILY TREE IS FULL OF LIES AND CRIME!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonyklo

UNLESS Trump sends the military into Mexico to set up a BUFFER ZONE, you have to have detention space on the US side of the border for the invaders. Daniel Horowitz of Conservative Review has been through the protocals of how these invaders SHOULD BE TREATED according to EXISTING IMMIGRATION LAW, if Traitor Trump decided to enforce it.

A. Invaders request asylum? Invaders are then given a credible fear interview. If they are denied credible fear, as just about 100% should be, they are detained and then given an appeal. If they loose the appeal, they are sent into EXPIDITED REMOVAL STATUS and they are GONE as soon as they can be sent back.

B. Invaders do not request asylum. They should be sent into EXPIDITED REMOVAL STATUS and are given 1 WEEK to change their minds and request asylum.

THAT'S HOW IT WORKS with OTM, "Other than MExicans" at the border. We need the detention space and lots of it, but Trump has to follow the law!!!!! Unfortunately, according to that TREASONOUS Budget deal Trump signed in Feb. , the law get clouded up as reguards to unacompanied minors and families, but there's still a TON of single men that could be BOOTED FAST but Trump is just letting them go because CBP claims there's no detention space available to hold them. EVEN IF THIS SPACE BECOMES AVAILABLE, it's up to Trump to BOOT PEOPLE and not just hold them a little longer and then stick them on a bus to the destination of their choice and given EBT.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on this?

FUTHERMORE, there's 100% LEGAL PRECEDENT for Trump to deny all asylum claims to any Central American by nation. There would obviously be lawsuits if he took this action.
ALSO, there's 100% LEGAL PRECEDENT for Trump to declare all asylum claims by any Central Americans must be submitted in Central America or in Mexico somewhere at our embassy in Mexico City or at one of our counsulates in Mexico. So far he's not declaring this and I wouldn't hold my breath that he ever makes this move. There would also be legal action against him on this plan but he could probably could eventually WIN in both instances.

---

That's pretty much my read on things right now too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

I'm for Keep them Out

then you do not have to worry about

Catch and Release

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

This nation can not afford a million tents for millions of people and give them free everything for the next 7 years while their asylum case winds its way through the court. In addition it is humiliating to see our military sent to cook and chauffeur invaders around.

Why would anyone want a million tents when they can be prevented from entering?

---

What do you think is happening right now? We're already releasing oodles and boodles of asylum claimants in our interior as we speak. To actually see things operate as you would like, we would need to see a change in actual immigration law.

Saying what we would like to see and understanding the reality of actual law are two very different things. I'm sure we would all like to see them kept out. However, the reality of the situation and law dictates that is not going to happen.

Yep, we certainly need more detention space, a lot more! I'd much rather feed and house them in tents at the border than release them into our interior to eventually take jobs, enroll their children in our schools, birth more children, get food stamps, crowding our ER's at hospitals, commit criminal acts on American citizens, etc., etc. The cost of keeping them in detention at the border will be far cheaper and safer for our communities in the long run vice releasing them into our interior. Trust me, if we start retaining them in detention, it will force our government to find a solution to processing the quicker. The way things are now, there is no rush because all they have to do is release them in our interior until whenever ... even though many of them will never even show up for their court date. Once the get in, they're in for the long haul!

CATCH AND RELEASE MUST STOP! Hold them all in detention until their asylum claims are approved or they are denied and deported! The biggest mistake we're making is releasing them because we'll never see most of those released again.

I'd rather have these invaders sitting in a tent on the Texas border than being bused up to Maine to destroy that state. These Africans are being flown into Mexico by the UN and Soros and they're an EBOLA RISK. WHAT A SCAM THIS ALL IS!!!!! WHAT THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE DOING IN MEXICO IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!! ZERO of them have the $$$$ for that kind of airfare ticket. The dumbed down cowards up in Maine should be going NUTS over this and hitting the streets in DROVES.

Texas shelter buses asylum seekers to Portland to make room

Posted 4:00 AM
Updated at 7:33 PM

More asylum seekers arrive in Portland from southern border as city debates assistance

Portland's human resources director criticizes comments by Mayor Ethan Strimling welcoming the arrival of more immigrants.

BY RANDY BILLINGS STAFF WRITER

https://multifiles.pressherald.com/u...3-1024x683.jpgA mother and son sleep on mats at the Salvation Army gym in Portland in December. Press Herald photo by Brianna Soukup


A nonprofit shelter in Texas recently informed city officials that it was buying bus tickets to Portland for some asylum seekers who entered the U.S. at the Mexican border.

“I’m so sorry,” Jennifer Long, executive director of La Casa Marianella in Austin, Texas, wrote to a Portland official in an email about the bus tickets. “We are in such a serious crisis at Casa that I had to call the mayor for backup.”

RELATED HEADLINES

• Asylum seekers travel to Portland in droves, overwhelming city services
• Conservative critics target Portland for its support of asylum seekers

While Long’s email said the Texas shelter bought bus tickets for three families to come to Portland, nearly 50 people seeking asylum arrived in Maine’s largest city seeking shelter in the three weeks that followed. City officials have said the arrivals are further straining a shelter system that is already overcrowded, in part because of immigrants arriving through the southern U.S. border and seeking to make their way to Portland.

The latest wave of arrivals comes as Portland is debating whether to continue a support program for immigrants that has added to its reputation as a welcoming community.

Last year, Portland officials warned that its family shelter was reaching a crisis level, in part because of an influx of families from African countries such as Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo who have applied for asylum and are prohibited from working. The city shelter can hold about 146 people. Another 35 floor mats can be set up at the shelter and an additional 80 floor mats can be set up at the Salvation Army gym to accommodate overflow.

The Maine Sunday Telegram reported on the increasing numbers of sub-Saharan African families making the long and dangerous journey through Central America to the southern border. At the time, Long told the paper that many families staying at the Texas shelter were asking to come to Portland because of the support the city provides and because of the immigrant community that has taken root here.

Long wrote in an April 19 email to the city that she had 50 people in overflow at the shelter built for only 38 people. She said people were sleeping in living rooms and classrooms, there wasn’t enough space for new arrivals, and she felt compelled to buy the bus tickets to Portland.

Like those who flowed to Portland last year, the recent arrivals also are families who left sub-Saharan Africa before traveling through Latin America to reach the southern border, according to the city. They applied for political asylum and are legal residents of the U.S. while authorities assess claims that the families face violence or persecution in their homelands, a process that typically takes years.

Asylum applicants are not allowed to work for at least six months after filing, but also do not qualify for the same federal assistance that supports people who come to the U.S. as official refugees.

Long was not available to comment Friday about the situation in Texas. It’s unclear which mayor she was referring to in the email as the person she called for help. The shelter is based in Austin, Texas, but a spokesperson for Austin’s mayor said they were not involved in any relocation efforts.

Portland’s policy of supporting asylum seekers has sparked mixed reactions. It became the target of conservative critics after The Wall Street Journal picked up on the story, but was defended by Mayor Ethan Strimling and others.

While critics often point to the cost of immigration and the burden on social services when people arrive without incomes or resources, a reportcommissioned by Portland’s Office of Economic Opportunity and the Portland Regional Chamber of Commerce came to a different conclusion about the long-term impacts.

That report said immigrants contributed $1.2 billion to the Greater Portland metro region’s gross domestic product, paid $133 million in federal taxes and $62 million in state taxes; contributed $57.3 million to Social Security and $14.7 million to Medicare; and helped create or preserve over 1,100 local manufacturing jobs.

City officials have said that supporting the increased number of asylum seekers until they become self-sufficient continues to stretch city resources, and that tension played out publicly during a city meeting last Thursday.

Portland Human Resources Director Gina Tapp spoke up at a budget-setting meeting to criticize Strimling, who has said Portland welcomes new Americans such as those arriving at the southern border.

“I’m feeling like I need to speak up for my staff, who are so well-meaning and trying to do the best they can,” Tapp said of recent comments by the mayor. “When you say ‘bring them on,’ it’s bringing them to a place that is overcrowded and they’re on mats. You’re putting them in a terrible position. Please think about what you’re asking of our staff.”

Strimling was clearly taken aback, calling it a “curious exchange.” He said he was voicing what he believes is the will of the people.

“I believe the people of this city want us to welcome immigrants without question,” Strimling replied.

In March, 23 families, totaling 71 people, arrived at the family shelter, the city said Friday, with 18 families coming from the southern U.S. border. In April, another 20 families, totaling 71 people, arrived in Portland, among them 13 families from the southern border.

Thirteen families, totaling 49 people, were sleeping on floor mats at the Salvation Army gym, which is used when the shelter reaches it’s 146-person capacity, the city said.

City Manager Jon Jennings said he understands the frustrations of staff members as they struggle to meet demand, but called Tapp’s comments “out-of-bounds and unacceptable.” He said he spoke to Tapp about her comments and no further disciplinary action was warranted.

“I think we’re all concerned about the volume we have to deal with,” Jennings said Friday. “I do apologize to the mayor for what was said. It is something that city staff can complain to me and voice their concerns about, but that was not appropriate for a public setting.”

The exchange comes as city councilors are discussing the future of social service programs such as the Portland Community Support Fund, which city officials and some immigrant advocates believe is the only such fund in the U.S. that provides local financial aid to some immigrants.

The fund covers asylum seekers who are ineligible for the state’s General Assistance program, which is available to immigrants with valid visas or to those who have filed an application for asylum. GA provides vouchers for housing, food, medicine and other basic needs.

City officials are hoping that Gov. Janet Mills will take action to relieve pressure within the city. They’re asking the administration to expand the GA program to cover the gap between when someone’s visa expires and when the person files an application.

A Mills spokesman did not respond Friday to a request for comment.

Immigration advocates have said that asylum applications take a long time to compile. It involves filling out forms and collecting evidence to prove that an individual faces persecution in his or her home country. And even the slightest inconsistency can result in a denial and force people to return to dangerous situations.

If the Mills administration doesn’t act, Portland councilors will have to decide the future of the Community Support Fund.

Councilors allocated $200,000 to the fund in the current budget. Through March, the fund was $36,000 over budget, but the city received $46,000 in private donations to continue paying rent for those already enrolled.

Jennings has proposed phasing out the program over the next two years. He noted that the program was originally designed in 2015 to provide temporary assistance to asylum seekers who expected to be kicked off General Assistance under Gov. Paul LePage.

So far, councilors have asked a lot of questions about the fund, but have to debate its future.

But some councilors, including the mayor, have made it clear that they want the city to continue providing the assistance to all newcomers.

Kristen Dow, the city’s interim director of Health and Human Services, said staff is looking to strike a balance that is acceptable to councilors and local taxpayers.

“In Health and Human Services as a whole the rule is to support our staff, who are amazingly compassionate and want to help, but also doing it in a fiscally responsible way.”

https://www.pressherald.com/2019/05/...es-assistance/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

What do you think is happening right now? We're already releasing oodles and boodles of asylum claimants in our interior as we speak. To actually see things operate as you would like, we would need to see a change in actual immigration law.

Saying what we would like to see and understanding the reality of actual law are two very different things. I'm sure we would all like to see them kept out. However, the reality of the situation and law dictates that is not going to happen.

Yep, we certainly need more detention space, a lot more! I'd much rather feed and house them in tents at the border than release them into our interior to eventually take jobs, enroll their children in our schools, birth more children, get food stamps, crowding our ER's at hospitals, commit criminal acts on American citizens, etc., etc. The cost of keeping them in detention at the border will be far cheaper and safer for our communities in the long run vice releasing them into our interior. Trust me, if we start retaining them in detention, it will force our government to find a solution to processing the quicker. The way things are now, there is no rush because all they have to do is release them in our interior until whenever ... even though many of them will never even show up for their court date. Once the get in, they're in for the long haul!

CATCH AND RELEASE MUST STOP! Hold them all in detention until their asylum claims are approved or they are denied and deported! The biggest mistake we're making is releasing them because we'll never see most of those released again.

---

I see and know what is happening right now.

That is the reason I said this......

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

The high court noted that the president’s delegated authority under 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) override any asylum considerations and that the president had full authority to exclude anyone from our shores. This case was cited by Chief Justice Roberts in the travel ban case of Trump v. Hawaii last year. This should be the end of the story as it applies to today’s problem.

How does the law dictate that can not happen?

We are past the point of tents, tents, and more tents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

Trust me, if we start retaining them in detention, it will force our government to find a solution to processing the quicker.

---

Would it? or would it cause the media, the ACLU, the judges, and our government to go spastic because someone in tent city did not have A1 Steak Sauce for their Rib-Eye.

Of course, my suggestion of suspending all aliens would cause them to go spastic also, but lets get this over with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

I see and know what is happening right now.

That is the reason I said this......

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

The high court noted that the president’s delegated authority under 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) override any asylum considerations and that the president had full authority to exclude anyone from our shores. This case was cited by Chief Justice Roberts in the travel ban case of Trump v. Hawaii last year. This should be the end of the story as it applies to today’s problem.

How does the law dictate that can not happen?

We are past the point of tents, tents, and more tents.



Would it? or would it cause the media, the ACLU, the judges, and our government to go spastic because someone in tent city did not have A1 Steak Sauce for their Rib-Eye.

Of course, my suggestion of suspending all aliens would cause them to go spastic also, but lets get this over with.

---

If what you're seeking was going to happen, I'm sure it would have already been a topic of discussion by the Trump administration and would have leaked out. Unfortunately, wishing for a pie in the sky isn't going to make it materialize and no, we're never beyond the point of detention. There are refuge detention camps all over the world. If we need to make one along the border as an alternative to catch & release, I'm all for it. CATCH & RELEASE NEEDS TO END NOW!

You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on the need for more, much more, detention space. Honestly, I can't see why you're against detaining them when the only other alternative is to continue releasing them into our interior. Unfortunately, shutting down the border to all immigrants is only something that is going to happen in our dreams.

PROCESS THEM ON THE BUS BACK HOME!

GET THEM OUT WITHIN 48 HOURS AND SHUT THE DAMN PROGRAM DOWN!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

If what you're seeking was going to happen, I'm sure it would have already been a topic of discussion by the Trump administration and would have leaked out. Unfortunately, wishing for a pie in the sky isn't going to make it materialize and no, we're never beyond the point of detention. There are refuge detention camps all over the world. If we need to make one along the border as an alternative to catch & release, I'm all for it. CATCH & RELEASE NEEDS TO END NOW!

You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on the need for more, much more, detention space. Honestly, I can't see why you're against detaining them when the only other alternative is to continue releasing them into our interior. Unfortunately, shutting down the border to all immigrants is only something that is going to happen in our dreams.

---

It is not the only alternative, there is another and that is stopping them before they enter. I have posted the laws, but you do not acknowledge those laws when you reply about more tents.

Why is shutting down the border to invaders only something that is going to happen in our dreams?
When did it become the norm to say that protecting our border is only something that is going to happen in our dreams?

You did get one thing right in a previous post------Once they get in, they're in for the long haul!-----and that is why, they need to be stopped before they enter.

Honestly, I can't see why you are against stopping them before they enter, and put a stop to all this drama, expense, and destruction of our country.

I do agree that this is probably not going to happen, not with the President, Congress, and Pentagon we have now, but that is not to say, that it is acceptable that it is not happening.

The same applies to tents for millions is not going to happen, and I don't think it is any more unrealistic to ask for Stop them before they enter, than it is to ask for tents for millions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

It is not the only alternative, there is another and that is stopping them before they enter. I have posted the laws, but you do not acknowledge those laws when you reply about more tents.

Why is shutting down the border to invaders only something that is going to happen in our dreams?
When did it become the norm to say that protecting our border is only something that is going to happen in our dreams?

You did get one thing right in a previous post------Once they get in, they're in for the long haul!-----and that is why, they need to be stopped before they enter.

Honestly, I can't see why you are against stopping them before they enter, and put a stop to all this drama, expense, and destruction of our country.

I do agree that this is probably not going to happen, not with the President, Congress, and Pentagon we have now, but that is not to say, that it is acceptable that it is not happening.

The same applies to tents for millions is not going to happen, and I don't think it is any more unrealistic to ask for Stop them before they enter, than it is to ask for tents for millions.

---

You're missing the very obvious here. Unfortunately we can't stop everyone of them before they enter. All a person has to do is get across the border to claim asylum. So exactly how do you propose we stop everyone? Stop them here, there, or over yonder only means they'll continue to attempt crossing until they're successful. That's been proven by the many returning deportees we're faced with on a daily basis. As we know, our border is far from secure. It's not like we can go into Mexico and turn them back before they attempt their sneak across our border. The "sneak" is going to happen and once they're on our soil the law gives them the right to claim asylum. As unfortunate as that is, it's a fact. Additionally, current law requires we take asylum application from those claiming asylum at our port of entries. You don't like it, I don't like it, nor does anyone on ALIPAC like it but it's the law.

We need the tent cities and we need the CBP and immigration judges to REJECT these bogus credible fear claims from the invaders and fly their lying asses home before the 20 day max detention for children from that Flores Settlement kicks in. I keep on forgetting about that deal. Even this Flores settlement deal you always hear/read about is a BIG FRAUD. The DHS could rewrite the rules on how underaged invaders are handled and the Communist Nation Wrecking SCUM would have to RE-SUE and get a new settlement of some kind on this.

Bottom Line is: TRUMP IS BASICALLY STILL DOING NOTHING TO STOP THE INVASION because there's a PLAN that's being EXECUTED on this nation and on us as individual Americans to destroy our lives and nation.

"None of the Border Patrol facilities, including the one in Donna, are meant to be a long term detention centers,” said Chief Rodolfo Karisch."


7,000 illegal crossers held in custody, unprecedented numbers says Border Patrol

https://www.alipac.us/f12/7-000-ille...patrol-372122/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

You're missing the very obvious here. Unfortunately we can't stop everyone of them before they enter. All a person has to do is get across the border to claim asylum. So exactly how do you propose we stop everyone? Stop them here, there, or over yonder only means they'll continue to attempt crossing until they're successful. That's been proven by the many returning deportees we're faced with on a daily basis. As we know, our border is far from secure. It's not like we can go into Mexico and turn them back before they attempt their sneak across our border. The "sneak" is going to happen and once they're on our soil the law gives them the right to claim asylum. As unfortunate as that is, it's a fact. Additionally, current law requires we take asylum application from those claiming asylum at our port of entries. You don't like it, I don't like it, nor does anyone on ALIPAC like it but it's the law.

---

I have never said anything about going into Mexico.

Put the full military on all 1954 miles of the border (you know like we do in North/South Korea) our side not the Mexican side.

First step----military (standing on US soil) sees one or a group heading our way. He/She says "Hello this is the US Military, you can't cross here it is illegal, Port of Entry is 53 miles That-A-Way".

Then we will deal with Port of Entry, but why is it wrong to ask for military on our side of the border?

They will stay no longer than 72 hours---average stay is less than 48 hours.
Migrant Tent City- An Inside Look At The Donna Texas Facilities

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQaU6n1hCt8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

I have never said anything about going into Mexico.

Put the full military on all 1954 miles of the border (you know like we do in North/South Korea) our side not the Mexican side.

First step----military (standing on US soil) sees one or a group heading our way. He/She says "Hello this is the US Military, you can't cross here it is illegal, Port of Entry is 53 miles That-A-Way".

Then we will deal with Port of Entry, but why is it wrong to ask for military on our side of the border?

---

You're sounding like our ole friend Judy now. She used to say the same thing, which was to deploy a wall of military along our almost 2,000 mile border. You and I both know that is not a realistic expectation ..... not to mention that it is cost prohibitive. The illegals would just wait that out and/or keep trying until successful because we can't have a mass deployment of military along our border indefinitely. Nope, we still need quality walls to aid our border patrol in securing our border.

Nothing you've said so far convinces me that we don't need more long term detention facilities along our border. I'm talking about facilities where the folks can be processed, detained, and have their cases heard all in the same place. Now if we can make asylum claimants wait in Mexico, I'm fine with that too. However, that is not the answer for the many illegals crossing our border that aren't eligible for asylum. Their objective is to sneak across and disappear into our interior. The ones we catch have to be processed and detained prior to their cases be adjudicated. Those caught deep in our interior from places like Chicago, New York, etc. can be shipped to the border detention camps until their cases are heard and disposed of.

NO MORE CATCH & RELEASE, NOT FOR ASYLUM CLAIMANTS OR ILLEGAL ALIENS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

You're sounding like our ole friend Judy now. She used to say the same thing, which was to deploy a wall of military along our almost 2,000 mile border. You and I both know that is not a realistic expectation ..... not to mention that it is cost prohibitive. The illegals would just wait that out and/or keep trying until successful because we can't have a mass deployment of military along our border indefinitely. Nope, we still need quality walls to aid our border patrol in securing our border.

Nothing you've said so far convinces me that we don't need more long term detention facilities along our border. I'm talking about facilities where the folks can be processed, detained, and have their cases heard all in the same place. Now if we can make asylum claimants wait in Mexico, I'm fine with that too. However, that is not the answer for the many illegals crossing our border that aren't eligible for asylum. Their objective is to sneak across and disappear into our interior. The ones we catch have to be processed and detained prior to their cases be adjudicated. Those caught deep in our interior from places like Chicago, New York, etc. can be shipped to the border detention camps until their cases are heard and disposed of.

NO MORE CATCH & RELEASE, NOT FOR ASYLUM CLAIMANTS OR ILLEGAL ALIENS!

---

I have been saying put the military on the border ever since I started posting here.

From June 2018

https://www.alipac.us/f9/posse-comit...border-359930/

You might think it is unrealistic but I do not.

It is not cost prohibitive, we are already paying our military and they already have equipment, so no added expense there at all. We simply pull them from fighting some of these useless wars and protect our own nation.

So please explain how that would be more expensive than building tents for millions and free everything for years.

I didn't say we didn't need a wall, and I am still for a wall, but not as long as the invaders wave from the other side of that wall and BP goes around and lets them in. That makes the wall useless. If a wall is built that has to change.

Your only concern seems to be catch and detain even if it is millions, and when anyone post that we do not want that, you try to make it sound as though we want them released all over the US. No, we do not, we are just trying to point out, military to keep as many out as possible, then catch and detain the few who might slip through.

I am all for detainment of the few that might slip through with the military on the border. What I am against is this idea that we can let millions waltz in, welcome them even, and then go through the dang drama and expense of millions of tents and free everything for years.

Our concern should be to keep as many out as possible and catch and detain the rest.

We're going in circles here and it's is absurd to think I don't won't to keep as many out as possible. However, we're not able to keep them all out so we must have the facilities to detain them!

Your own words:

Quote:

---

Our concern should be to keep as many out as possible and catch and detain the rest.

---

You made my point for me .... thanks.

Just like our ole friend, you seem to insist on having the last word .... so go ahead an take it. ;)

Build 3,000 beds and 30,000 come here

Build 5,000 beds and 50,000 come here

Build 100,000 beds and 500,000 come here

Build 500,000 beds and 1,000,000 come here!

There is a never ending supply of the world's corrupt countries wanting to DUMP their overbreeding, disease infected, poor people on us! We are not the solution to their problems or their ATM machine.


KEEP THEM ALL OUT AND TURN THEM AWAY!

PROCESS THEM WITH BIO-METRICS, FINGERPRINTS, DNA AND DEPORT WITHIN 48 HOURS!!!

NO WAREHOUSING MILLIONS OF FOREIGN CITIZENS ON OUR BORDER!

FAST TRACK THEM ALL BACK INCLUDING THEIR UAC'S.!


We are on Amnesty #8...no more Amnesty for these criminal trespassers! Get them out.

No Dream Act...more come!!! Get them out!

Send the U.N. to go solve their problems on their soil or defund the U.N. and boot them off our soil too!

We cannot continue to ALLOW the President's of these countries to shirk their responsibilities to their people and continue to dump their citizens on us. They have land, they have resources, they CAN build America on their soil.

NYT Claims White House Weighing 120,000-Troop Deployment to Middle East

JOSHUA CAPLAN14 May 20191,157 2:39
The New York Times claimed in a report citing anonymous sources Monday that Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented the Trump administration with a military proposal that could see the Pentagon send up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East.

https://www.breitbart.com/national-s...l-troops-iran/

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

It is devastating to see headlines like this when we have people saying it is unrealistic and cost prohibitive to put the military on our own border to protect our country from invasion.

Although I am sometimes ridiculed when I post about troops to the border, apparently I am not alone in wanting troops on the border

Top comment from the article...



..... "proposal that could see the Pentagon send up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East"---
No, no, no.

120,000 troops to our southern border!
-----------------------------------
and I am not asking for 120,000 not even 40,000----I believe 5,000 troops with orders to keep them out---not leave gates open---not go around fences and help them in, but to guard the border and not allow them to enter would make a very big difference. I have no idea why anyone would be against that unless they own stock in a Pampers factory or are reaping benefits from this invasion in some manner.

U.S. military to build 6 tent cities near border for migrants