You're going to have to point out to me where the lawbreaking is here.
It is unreasonable to state that being asked for information is the exact same thing as being accused of a crime and found guilty. OP comment stated unequivocally that these journalists are criminals.
That's just False as far as we can tell. Being asked for information has nothing to do with actually being a criminal, but you are conflating the two.
When you're at a border crossing, the protections that you believe that you have are actually lessened or non-existent.[0]
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
Feck it, have an upboat, anyways, just on principle.
When people re-enter the country, I can see it as a bit different and investigation could be more warranted, but I still don't agree with it. The fact these border zones are not considered US soil and you, as a citizen, immediately have some subset of rights is absurd and I doubt the founders of this country would agree with as being legal at all. I understand how such measures are justified through the idea of increased security, but it does so at the cost of liberty, which is never a good trade off.
Frankly, the US immigration services I've interacted with at the airport make you really feel like you're entering a police state when you return. Japan for example was a breeze and not at all intimidating and they have far stricter immigration policies than the US.
Bold move there, Cotton, got anything to back this claim up? As far as anyone's aware, these are just reporters who were reporting on the story.
I didn't say anyone was a criminal or what is a crime, what I am saying is that if you follow this particular train of thought:
1) You consider the action of Person A to be a crime. Note: The situation at hand at the border is so controversial, that many people DO consider it a crime, and many people consider their act as a RIGHT. I'll let you decide whether it is a crime or a right. But lets say you consider it a crime for the sake of this thought exercise. 2) You consider that the actions of Person B has aided Person A in the act in ANY way. 3) You reason from this that Person B has taken a partial role in the criminal act in 1) based on the legal doctrine that is Aiding and Abetting, which means: "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures"
So can we agree that a person who believes it is a crime, and believes that journalists HELP the ones performing the acts, that that someone would also reason that those journalists are committing a crime?
This dodges the point: The journalists were suspected of political activism, not of intelligence gathering for a foreign power.
Is this the fox news talking point? This exact sentiment is slathered all over those hateful vile Facebook comments at the bottom of the article.
By whom? I've never heard this!
> (at a minimum, conspiracy to commit a crime)
What crime? What are you talking about?
> Is this hard to grasp?
Yes, because none of it is true. It looks like it's all made up to me and you have offered no evidence of your claims. You just state that you are "very obviously" right, but I think you are lying.
What law is so obviously being broken, that would lead to individual people being very obviously accused of breaking it? Having "ties" to something is not a criminal accusation anyway, so I'm really super confused about this.
AFAIK, none of the journalists or activists are accused of committing any crimes, much less convicted of it already as suggested by OP.
Participating in the illegal transport of a person from one country to another is called human trafficking. These people are suspected of participating in human trafficking under the guise of journalism, so they are being questioned even though there is not enough evidence to officially accuse/charge them.
Even the BBC acknowledges that members of these caravans openly admit their intention to enter the country illegally.
I assume you're talking about this quote, because it's the closest thing I can find to saying that? I would suggest a closer reading, because nowhere does it have anyone saying they plan to do something illegally. It say that they plan to do something (that there are, in fact, legal ways to do), and have been threatened over doing it illegally.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/migrant-caravans-prove-a-succe...
- has multiple specific examples
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/at-the-us-border-migran...
>The caravan also includes single men who say they will attempt to cross the border illegally and others who plan to stay in Mexico.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/11/09/migrant...
> but 122 quit waiting and entered the country illegally to request asylum, according to data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/28/migrant-car...
“The standard wisdom [that] it’s all about violence could not be supported by our data,” said Detlof von Winterfeldt, a researcher at CREATE.
It's not obvious at all. Presenting oneself at a port of entry is the legal way to seek asylum. What's your evidence that they planned to enter illegally? How is that even possible when there is so much attention on them?
The BBC reports here that:
>Many of them say their goal is to settle in the US despite warnings by US officials that anyone found entering the country illegally will face arrest, prosecution and deportation.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45951782
They openly acknowledge their intent to break the law.
With regards to your last question, my understanding is that historically as these caravans near the US border many people disperse and find various illegal ways across the border. Yes, many also apply for asylum in an orderly fashion.
Citation need. I think it is the exact opposite situation, so regardless of the final truth, it's clearly not obvious that the people in caravan were intending to break the law. I've literally never heard of that accusation and I've been following this story.
The idea that these people are all intent on crossing the border illegally is a lie.
> Entering the country illegally is itself a crime. It's a misdemeanor, but a crime nonetheless.
Did any of these people do this? Did this happen already? Did they state they were planning on it? It is my understanding that they stated the opposite! That they were coming to apply for asylum completely legally.
> Participating in the illegal transport of a person from one country to another is called human trafficking
Okay but how is this relevant? Who is travelling illegally? This is literally the first time I've heard this was a potential issue here; the caravan is operating legally and its members were asking for legal asylum.
> These people are suspected of participating in human trafficking under the guise of journalism, so they are being questioned even though there is not enough evidence to officially accuse/charge them.
By whom? Where is this stated? I find absolutely no evidence to support this claim.
I'll go out and say it: This whole thing reeks of racism to me, of racist policies and racist prejudices all playing out in the real world. The reason so many comments are buried here is because there is so much racist dog-whistling on HN. It's so loud here it hurts my ears.
---
I'm no longer allowed to post on HN this morning, the site has some (temporary?) ban placed on me. But I can edit this post to say that you are LYING about the post below with the BBC link. That articles does not state that anyone has admitted to illegal things. You are lying, please stop.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45951782
>Many of them say their goal is to settle in the US despite warnings by US officials that anyone found entering the country illegally will face arrest, prosecution and deportation.
Since the basis of your argument is demonstrably false, please try again.
Edit: Parent post accused me of lying, so I added the specific quote. Members say their goal is to settle in the US despite warnings that they may face arrest, prosecution, and deportation. If they were all going to apply for asylum in an orderly fashion they would not face arrest or prosecution.
You're conflating the word "goal" with the idea of "malicious intention".
Let me give an example: I have a goal to travel to space but I'm not building my own unlicensed rockets with unlicensed materials to do it. This doesn't implicitly mean that I mean or intend to break the law, whatsoever.
Secondarily, as another post already pointed out, asylum can be granted for people who enter illegally, as codified in the US Code[0]:
Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
If you're going to argue the merits of violating the law as reasons to deny them asylum, (and deport them) then you should, at the very least, be aware of the law's allowance of such action, which they're leveraging to seek asylum, yeah?
In other words, your argument is specious because it entirely discredits the "law of the land", as it were. Not mention, of course, that you fail delineate betwixt "goal" and "intent".
"Since the basis of your argument is demonstrably false," indeed.
More than likely, I suspect the evidence would support this study out of the University of Southern California who found that the asylum narrative is largely a myth and most caravan members are economic migrants:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/28/migrant-car...
“The standard wisdom [that] it’s all about violence could not be supported by our data,” said Detlof von Winterfeldt, a researcher at CREATE.
Second, let's please remember that we (the US) fucked those countries up profoundly, to the point that people are fleeing en masse and forming migrant caravans. Fearing for your fucking life because of a puppet government who massacres dissenters is unambiguously grounds for asylum, as far as I'm aware.
Finally, economically-motivated migration and asylum-seeking are absolutely not mutually exclusive. Anyone who has ever tried to claim that these people's motivations are strictly one or the other is selling a narrative, not studying the phenomenon.
EDIT: Also: I don't know the letter of the law in this area...
Then maybe educate yourself before applying fingers to keyboard. You have access to every single source I do on this matter, including the relevant treaties and statutes. Those are the primary source material here, not an opinion piece in a rag whose own masthead proclaims, "The Right Opinion..."