Trump speech and press conference on the caravan and illegal immigration
I was out all afternoon and as I drove home I happened to turn the radio on while Trump was giving a speech and then answering questions about the caravan and illegal immigration policy. And so I listened to it.
So far I haven’t been able to find a transcript of its text—I wanted to be able to refer to it for this post. But having heard about a half-hour of his remarks, and then thought (while I sat in traffic) about how the press would cover them, I was not surprised by this CNN headline: “Trump says he will restrict asylum, claims troops will shoot at rock throwers.”
Did he, now?
Actually, I didn’t hear him do either. On the first point, I heard him say he would apply the asylum laws in a timely and more efficient manner, by detaining arrivals rather than releasing them into the general population to disappear by the time their hearings come about. I heard him say that at present most people who do show up for their hearings are denied asylum, and that he believes the bulk of the new arrivals will also be denied asylum under the system that will be implemented. He did not say the rules for asylum itself would change, and he said people will still get hearings but that the hearings will occur sooner than before.
On the second point, he said that people who throw rocks at soldiers or police in order to injure them, as recently occurred in Mexico at the hands of some in the caravan, will be treated as though these people had firearms, because hurled rocks can do grievous and serious injury.
Here are some quotes from the CNN article:
President Donald Trump on Thursday claimed he would sign an executive order “next week” aimed at restricting US asylum rules, as he seeks to use a group of Central American migrants heading for the US border as part of his midterm election closing argument.
He also suggested that the US troops he dispatched to the US-Mexico border could fire on someone in the migrant caravan if the person threw rocks or stones at them.
Compare that “could” to the headline’s “will” as in “claims troops will shoot at rock throwers.” Quite a difference.
But in addition, if you look at what Trump actually said rather than CNN’s paraphrasing of what he said, you’ll find this quote from Trump much further down in the CNN article:
Asked if he envisions US troops firing on anyone in the groups of migrants, Trump told reporters at the White House: “I hope not. I hope not — but it’s the military.”
“I hope there won’t be that,” Trump said, but added that anybody throwing rocks or stones at the military service members will be considered to be using a firearm, “because there’s not much difference when you get hit in the face with a rock.”
So again, that—which was in response to a question by the press in the first place—gets translated into “claims troops will shoot at rock throwers.”
Later on in the CNN article you can see this:
A White House aide had said earlier Thursday that Trump would unveil an executive action requiring migrants to request asylum at legal points of entry and preventing them from claiming asylum if they are caught crossing the border illegally. Although the President referenced such a policy in his speech, he offered no defense of how such a plan, once finalized, could be legal, given laws presently allowing migrants the right to claim asylum once they are on American soil.
Well, perhaps the reporters might have actually, you know, looked it up to have found the answer to their question. The rule is this (an excerpt from a long article):
The European Court of Justice (ECJ), supreme court for the European Union (EU), has ruled that would-be migrants must seek asylum in the first country they reach.
CNN, one of the many media outlets reporting on the ruling, says this: “The European Union’s top court has ruled that refugees must continue to seek asylum in the first European country they reach, even in exceptional circumstances like the migrant crisis of 2015.” What they should have said is “especially in exceptional circumstances like the migrant crisis of 2015”, because it is during crises that having bright-line guidelines to follow become most important…
Mexico has an affirmative obligation to accept and make a judgment about the Hondurans’ claims to asylum because it, too, is a signatory to the U.N. Convention. Just as surely, the aliens themselves had an affirmative obligation to seek safe haven there. Consider that San Diego ports of entry are on the extreme west coast of the continent, whereas Honduras sits considerably east and south. A quick look at a map shows that this family spent considerable time traversing nearly the whole of Mexico and had plenty of time and opportunity to seek out Mexican officials to seek asylum. That they didn’t do so is notable.
How distressing that the Europeans, who have made such a muddle over their own illegal mass migration responses, have gotten this issue right while the leaders in our homeland security organizations still don’t seem to get it.
The problem is that here in the United States this international principle of demanding that migrants claim asylum or refuge at the first safe country they reach is mostly honored in the breach. Everyone pays lip service to it, but no one, least of all our pusillanimous political or government leaders, really expects America to demand that the international convention be scrupulously adhered to, either by those who are allegedly seeking shelter from harm, or by the countries those migrants use as doormats en route to America as the nation of economic choice.
So, that would be the legal basis for saying that people in the caravan must “request asylum at legal points of entry” and be prevented “from claiming asylum if they are caught crossing the border illegally.” But since I actually heard Trump discussing the fact that their asylum claims would be heard after a border crossing, I wonder if CNN isn’t also wrong about the idea that Trump was saying that people in the caravan wouldn’t be able to claim asylum once here.
This type of muddled and/or mendacious coverage is typical; there’s nothing particularly special about CNN.
At this point, reading and interpreting news articles is a something of a full-time job—minus the pay, of course, and no commute. First there’s the article and its point of view. Then there’s the research to see what the actual facts might be. With a speech and/or press conference, that usually involves getting a transcript (although in this case I haven’t found one yet) to check on what a person really said versus what the article reports that he or she said. And after that there’s usually a lot more to do in order to fact check everything as best as one can.
Who has time for all of that? Even bloggers like me want to leave the computer every now and then to do more than pee.
And so the research always remains incomplete. But oh, wouldn’t it be nice if neutral and intelligent reporters did their jobs as they’re supposed to be done? Ah, but then the reporters wouldn’t be able to change the world in the direction they wish.
ADDENDUM: I found a video of the speech and press conference. I’ve cued up one of the most relevant parts, but of course you can watch the whole thing:
I saw some of that press conference and saw him say what you heard. The whole “caravan” thing is going to hurt the left in the elections and, I think, they realize it by now. The Media is the crazy uncle of the Democrats. Some Democrat senior types know this is hurting but the Media can’t stop them selves. It’s the old Intsy phrase. “All they have to do is not act crazy for X months and they can’t even do that.”
I learned midway through the 2016 presidential campaign that “news” reports often misquoted Trump. When I looked at the transcript, what he really said was less inflammatory and more reasonable than what the MSM claimed he said.
Activism has superceded journalism.
America was safer before so-called journalists sobered up.
It is simple and cost effective. ME and northern Africans invading Europe, sink a few boats and the message is delivered. Invaders crashing our southern borders, airstrikes with napalm, message delivered. Harsh, yes. But any country has the right to defend its’ sovereignty. I am beyond caring about the son stories of invaders from Mexico and the sh#tholes of Central America, China, Pakistan, or wherever.
There is a legal process for seeking entry to the USA, follow that process or expect lethal force if you do not.
Let me get this straight.
The legal basis for preventing migrants from claiming asylum on US land is a European Union court ruling that “refugees must continue to seek asylum in the first European country they reach.” (emphasis mine)
Your argument is that stupid CNN fails to understand that this means Trump can legally require those on US soil to seek asylum in Mexico, even though Mexico is not a European country.
Nor did Mexico sign the law upon which the ruling is based, the Dublin Agreement. After all, it’s a European Union law and Mexico is not a EU member state.
But somehow the Dublin Agreement overrides US law, which gives migrants on US soil the right to seek asylum. US law is now superseded by a European agreement that neither the US nor Mexico signed…based on a ruling that only applies to European countries.
Something doesn’t quite add up.
New:
The sad thing about having the MSM report dishonestly is that their version becomes accepted truth. The frequent refrain that Trump is racist is based on just this kind of sloppy (or dishonest) reporting from the 2016 campaign. It has become accepted truth, and Trump supporters don’t even bother responding to it, thinking there are more important issues to address.
“wouldn’t it be nice if neutral and intelligent reporters did their jobs as they’re supposed to be done?”
Neutral and intelligent reporters DO perform their jobs as they’re supposed to be done. As do the unicorns. (Yes I know what you meant, neo, I think we are saying the same thing. You could probably even change “and” to “or”)
Here’s a question: Does anyone think reporters/journalists WEREN’T doing this before Trump came around?
I think the answer is pretty clear. It’s just more obvious with Trump because he jumps up and down on all the precious norms that previously governed our political discourse.
Mike
Kate on November 1, 2018 at 8:03 pm at 8:03 pm said:
I learned midway through the 2016 presidential campaign that “news” reports often misquoted Trump. When I looked at the transcript, what he really said was less inflammatory and more reasonable than what the MSM claimed he said.
* * *
I noticed this first during GWB’s tenure, to the point that I began to wonder if we had even watched the same speech. I’m sure it was true about Reagan and Nixon and every other GOP president in the modern era; I’m certain it was true about Lincoln. However, at that time, there were newspapers on BOTH sides of the ideological divide.
At least now we have the internet so people could listen for themselves, until YouTube et al decide to ban President Trump from the webz completely.
Manju,
I’ve added another excerpt to the part Neo quoted, which should assuage your concerns. The clue was “Mexico..UN” — thus indicating that there was some connection other than just the EU’s Dublin rules.
It usually pays to read Neo’s linked articles.
* * *
“The ruling surprised many because the EU’s advocate general had recommended otherwise, but it should not have, because it is founded on something called the “Dublin Regulation” which embeds the premise of seeking asylum in the first point of entry into EU law. The Dublin regulation itself, though, is merely the EU’s codification of an already established principle of international law that is reflected in the United Nations Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
…
Mexico has an affirmative obligation to accept and make a judgment about the Hondurans’ claims to asylum because it, too, is a signatory to the U.N. Convention. Just as surely, the aliens themselves had an affirmative obligation to seek safe haven there. “
Watching different speeches…
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/11/is-this-what-they-call-a-dog-whistle.php
“Adam Kredo’s Washington Free Beacon account of the speech prompted me to track it down and transcribe the president’s opening remarks:
…[Trump’s remarks on the Pittsburg shooting, very complimentary to the rabbi & first responders] They were incredibile. As bad as it was, it could have been far worse and they got there fast. We pledge our resolve to remove the vile poison of anti-Semitism and so many other problems from our world and we reaffirm our unbreakable solidarity with the Jewish people.
…
That was in the first five minutes. More of interest follows, including a comment or two about Israel, but I wanted to get that down for the record. The AP’s running account of Trump’s rally last night — posted here by the New York Times — somehow omits any mention of the remarks, as does the Times’s own account of the event by Katie Rogers.”
via PowerLine
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/migrant-caravan-buses/
“Do a google search for “caravan buses” and there’s a dearth of coverage on this. The media would rather portray the caravan as people (mostly women and children) marching on foot, rather than an organized group (which is 50%+ male) receiving transportation to their destinations. The question still remains as to who organized the migrant caravan, who arranged for those buses to pick them up, who provided them, and who funded them.”
“…somehow omits…”
It’s called “evil”.
Pure and simple.
On a national scale.
On a global scale.
Oh, and these are the same people preaching—boasting!—morality to all the deplorables; the deplorables, who in 2016 finally understood what was really going on. (Actually, they began to understand already by the 2014 mid-terms….)
The same people who are telling the British (and the Italians and the Hungarians and the Poles and the Czechs, etc.) that they have no right to decide for themselves who gets into their countries.
The same people who are telling Jews who don’t happen to see eye to eye with them politically that they can go jump in the lake.
The same people who are telling Israelis, who are trying to figure out a way to co-exist with people whose goal it is to destroy Israel, that Israel is THE impediment to peace in the M.E. (though here, those people are on firmer ground—since all Israel has to do for peace to break out all over the region is to agree to disappear or be destroyed; and for some inexplicable reason it hasn’t decided to do this. At least, not yet.)
Delusion and fantasy—and evil—dressed up, with all the serousness and earnestness that these clowns can muster, as morality and ethics.
To be sure, we’ve seen this before, but the scale—and the loci—of the infection is shocking. Or ought to be.
Though, once again, Orwell understood (as well as the writer of the Psalms….).
A fascinating post describing just how—and why—the US, led by its political and media elites (not that one might wish to forget the universities) has basically transformed into an Arab country.
https://nyunews.com/2018/11/1/an-emirati-abroad-uae-freedom-of-expression/
(One might add that the EU, with its recent—official—banning of any and all (perceived?) criticism of a certain historical personage, is already on this bandwagon.)
Bonus points:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/sick-and-tired-of-trump-heres-what-to-do/2018/10/31/72d9021e-dd26-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html?utm_term=.dda2150b2ba7
AesopFan….allow me to elaborate…
Under US law…and you can see the law with your own two eyes here…”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…” (emphasis mine)
But the propaganda piece being linked to would have you believe that a treaty overrides US law. To make his case, he references European law, then assures us that the US has signed a treaty saying the same thing.
Well that’s kind of a roundabout way to make an argument. One would’ve thought y’all would’ve picked up on the ruse…what self-respecting conservative, never mind nationalist, cites foreign law as a guide to US behavior!!
Long/short…the propaganda being referenced cited EU law because the circumstances are different. Austria and Slovenia do not have the US law in question on the books. Therefore they would like to deport the refugees. Their International agreement allows them to do so.
The net result is that refugees must seek asylum in the first nation they entered.
Presumably, the US has a treaty that allows them to do the same. But there is a world of difference between what laws allow and what they require.
The US is required by (US) law to grant migrants on US soil the right to seek asylum. If we choose to rescind that law, International law allows us to send them back to the first county they entered, as long as that country signed the agreement.
But since we have not rescinded the law in question, we cannot legally do so. CNN was right to treat Trump’s word salad as Birtherism.
Heh:
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2018/11/01/wait-what-group-of-migrants-in-caravan-file-lawsuit-against-trump-alleging-shockingly-unconstitutional-border-policies/?utm_campaign=twitchywidget
From “U.S. Code § 1158 – Asylum” (referenced above by Manju) “https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158 :
As I understand it (and I’m certainly no lawyer), it does appear that under US law an alien to the US has the RIGHT to apply for asylum in the US unless that “…alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection….”
(From Section a.2.A in: “U.S. Code § 1158 – Asylum”)
The key phrase being: “…pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence)….”
This seems to be the crux: if such a “bilateral or multilateral agreement” can be said to exist (though at this point, it doesn’t appear that it truly does), then this agreement may serve to override the right to request asylum. But once again I’m not sure that such an agreement exists.
= = = = =
On the other hand, it also seems, under Section b.2.C that once an alien requests asylum, that such a request may be rejected almost immediately by the Attorney General.
Nonetheless, the thrust is that any alien, no matter how that alien reached the US, is legally granted the RIGHT to request asylum.
= = = = =
If this is indeed the case, then the next (seemingly logical) questions might be:
1. Does the law, as it currently stands, need to be changed? And if so, who is currently championing for it to be changed?
2. Given the law, as it currently stands, applies to “any alien”, does it therefore apply to an—organized—ARMY of aliens (many of whom may not be true “aliens” according to the original meaning of the term), whose unmistakable—POLITICAL—intention it is to storm the US border, to create havoc, to overpower the system, to crush existing institutions meant to deal with granting asylum to aliens, to create huge expense and to foment chaos. In other words, to weaken and demoralize and destabilize the USA….
…timed precisely at the cusp of a crucial mid-term election?
Which leads to a further set of questions:
1. Is it believed by the anti-Trump forces that this politically-inspired, politically-orchestrated, politically-explosive theatrical event will help them to defeat Trump in this Tuesday’s elections?
2. Do they believe that this piece of theater is a good thing for the country they purport to love and support?
3. Is this the hill they are prepared to die on?
Last month we witnessed their extremely well-orchestrated attempt to sabotage Kavanaugh. That didn’t work (but it might have).
And we witnessed the consequences of that ill-advised (though not for them, apparently) fiasco.
It looks like we will be witnessing another attempt, if on a more epic (“Birth of a Nation”, perhaps?) scale.
Have they thought this thing through? (Oddly, the same question one could have asked—and did—about the Kavanaugh stunt.)
Well, we shall see.
One can say many things about them. But one thing that one certainly cannot say is that they are not persistent.
Almost none of them have a valid asylum claim. Central America (and much of Mexico) suffer from wretched crime rates – worst in the world, nearly. Guatemala and El Salvador are impecunious countries with household real income flows you might have seen in the industrial West in the early 20th century; Nicaragua and Honduras are poor countries with real income flows characteristic of the industrial West in the late 19th century. Poor living conditions are unfortunate, but they are not a basis for asylum claims. Bloc refugee flows (such as occur in the case of intramural warfare, are properly dealt with through camp construction and sustenance proximate to the violence, with a view to repatriating the refugees at the earliest opportunity. That aside, asylum is properly granted only to people actively engaged in local politics or local labor disputes, or people who’ve run afoul of some local Don Ciccio. And the first question which needs to be asked is “why are you here and not in [insert name of Spanish speaking country proximate to the country of origin of the applicant]?”. The answer to poor living conditions in Central America is institutional and economic development, not resettling Central Americans in Texas and California.
Yes to what Art Deco says at 9:13 a.m. Plus, the law says “may apply” for asylum, not that asylum must be granted. I see no bar to using illegal entry as a reason to refuse the asylum request.
The rock throwing phrase caught my ear, because it will be interesting to see what happens if the army storming the gates decides to get violent. Throwing rocks is something the Palestinian youths do to taunt Israeli troops, hoping to provoke a reaction that can be exploited by the press. If the same tactics are used at our border, you can bet CNN is praying (whoever soulless halfwits pray to…Mother Gaia??…Lenin??) for a US soldier to even point a gun in the direction of the mob.
Journalists were always corrupt and dishonest. Remember Walter Duranty, the Pulitzer prize winning journalist? The journalists used to pretend they were objective but now they have stopped the pretense and are blatantly partisan.
I noticed this cause:
(2) Exceptions
(A) Safe third country
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.
I think this is coming quickly unless Mexico wants to see the border closed and all those Mexican trucks, that are now hauling “Migrants” north, barred from US highways.
Journalists were always corrupt and dishonest.
I think during the Newseum era (1955-95) there was a sense of professionalism which tended to contain the worst abuses. Also, look at the Kilgallens, father and daughter, and what they had to say about their vocation. Bennett Cerf said he and Arlene Francis never cared for Dorothy Kilgallen’s politics (Hearst loyalist), but he did aver that she was a terrier as a reporter, and when she got wind of a story, she would never let it go. She wanted to tell stories. Her father just ‘ere his death listed all the sorts of stories he’d covered in nearly 80 years in the reporter’s trade, “In what other line of work would I have seen such action?”.
I’d note in this connection Fred Barnes recollection of his years working on opinion magazines during the period running from 1985 to 2000. He said when he worked for The New Republic, a dissenting liberal magazine, newspapers were calling all the time trying to recruit their interns and staff writers. Barnes was always the odd man out there and when The Weekly Standard was founded in 1995, he was hired there. He said during his years at The Standard, they had interns and staff writers of equal quality to those at TNR, but there were no recruiting calls. IIRC, he could recall one person who’d worked at The Standard who had been hired by a provincial metropolitan newspaper during the period running from 1995 to 2000. Newspapers were going out of their way to not hire people who had worked for the starboard press. I note that at that time you could readily find print reporters who had worked at Pacifica and at Out. Jonah Goldberg offered that he discovered to hie surprise working at the defunct Brill’s Content (a media review) that the place was shot through with veterans of Mother Jones.
Barnes landed his first reporting job in 1965. His frame of reference was there.
Someone did a census of who New York Times employees follow on Twitter. It turned out they followed other people just like themselves. There was one person the Times staff couldn’t be bothered with: Ross Douthat. Only 10% of the staff followed his Twitter fee.
In the era of Lincoln and the Civil War there were newspapers that were sponsored by political parties and which reliably presented that POV, Whig vs Democrat, for example. If you were a Whig you read the Whig newspaper. That did not change until World War II after which the old Republican oriented newspapers died off. Frank Know was Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Navy. He had been a newspaper owner and editor since 1912 and the GOP VP candidate with Alf Landon in 1936.
democrats making robo calls saying to hispanics saying trump and republicans will take away your citizenship if you don’t vote!
Manju, thanks for the extra information. Always so much easier to discuss things with some documentation in sight.
“Under US law…and you can see the law with your own two eyes here…”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…”
Kate on November 2, 2018 at 9:25 am at 9:25 am said:
Yes to what Art Deco says at 9:13 a.m. Plus, the law says “may apply” for asylum, not that asylum must be granted. I see no bar to using illegal entry as a reason to refuse the asylum request.
* * *
This.