[cloudsinthesky]

> The migrant caravan is very obviously being accused of breaking the law

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.

[jcriddle4]

Crossing the boarder without going through customs is illegal. As an example from a news report on one of the migrants "... the man traveled from Honduras and had MS-13 gang tattoos, as well as a felony conviction for weapons misconduct in Maricopa County...". However we should be careful not to condemn the entire group do to just few criminals being present. That being said reporters should be allowed to report on crimes or criminal behavior, that is an essential part of their job. Unless there is specific data pointing to a reporter being engaged in helping a criminal then this reporter profiling is something that is in poor taste. The stopping at the boarder for extra questioning may constitute harassment which might be getting closer to illegal behavior. I would ask you when you say "...I'm really super confused about this". Is that really the case or do you just very strongly disagree or strongly disagree with the writers "facts"? A great way to win someone to your views is to make sure they understand that the are being listened to even if you disagree with them. Pretending not to understand, as an argument style, may be really unhelpful.

[Consultant32452]

I feel like this is mostly a pedantic argument around being a suspect vs being officially accused. The migrant caravans are obviously intending to violate US law by entering the country illegally. Entering the country illegally is itself a crime. It's a misdemeanor, but a crime nonetheless.

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.

[InitialLastName]

If historical patterns have anything to show us, it's that the migrant caravans intend to show up at the US border and apply for asylum in the legally proscribed process. It's only because certain factions in the US government have, through defunding and Kafkaesque regulation, made it virtually impossible to apply for asylum without already being in the US that people already at the border find themselves desperately seeking to cross into the US illegally.

[Consultant32452]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45951782

Even the BBC acknowledges that members of these caravans openly admit their intention to enter the country illegally.

[InitialLastName]

> 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.

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.

[Consultant32452]

If they aren't planning to do something illegal, then the threat doesn't apply to them. Are you just arguing that the BBC is doing sloppy writing here? Here's some more examples that have the explicit language you seem to be looking for.

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.

[tacomonstrous]

>The migrant caravans are obviously intending to violate US law by entering the country illegally.

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?

[Consultant32452]

Do you remember the reports/videos a while back that showed caravan members being gassed as they broke through the Southern Mexico border? Many of these people are not even legally in Mexico, so they're already criminals and anyone helping them is already participating in human trafficking even if the caravans never got to the US border.

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.

[cloudsinthesky]

> The migrant caravans are obviously intending to violate US law by entering the country illegally.

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.

[sctb]

This account is rate limited, like your other one, because you keep breaking the guidelines. Eventually we ban accounts that do this, so could you please review them and start posting only civilly and substantively?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[Consultant32452]

Even the BBC acknowledges that many of the people in these caravans openly admit their plan is to enter the country illegally.

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.

[renholder]

>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.

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".

[0] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

[rosser]

It is black letter law that, if you are seeking asylum, your place or method of entry are irrelevant. Asylum claims can even be offered as a defense at criminal immigration hearings.

"Since the basis of your argument is demonstrably false," indeed.

[Consultant32452]

I will say quite plainly that if I were on a jury where a person is on trial for human trafficking, and the person reasonably believed they were only helping asylum seekers, I would find them not guilty. I don't know the letter of the law in this area, but I would find them not guilty regardless of the letter of the law (jury nullification).

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.

[rosser]

First, the Washington Times is a notably biased source.

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..."