N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
From your summation, that is not 'invasion'. People don't normally get arrested after a failed 'invasion'. Unless you think afterward they are put into some secret POW camp?
First of all how can I not go over the same ground when you refuse to remember basic facts or misapprehend the simple stuff.
There is a legal way to cross the border and an illegal way. "They" choose the illegal way of border jumpers and so can be seen as invaders using this definition I just grabbed off Google:
Invade: to enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.
"demonstrators invaded the presidential palace"
synonyms: overrun, swarm, overwhelm, inundateYes, these invaders did enter with intrusive effect.
What intrusive affect? Since when is 132 a large number?
And we keep going over it because you refuse to read what I write on the subject. If you read it, you'd not bother to repeat yourself.
When I Google Invaders, I get this:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
The government can't or won't keep exact records of exactly how many are invading as border jumpers but the CBC tells us there were 2,000 refugee claims in the first 2 months of the year. They tell us border jumping incidents are expected to increase as weather improves.
See, now this is a lie. You know very well that statistics are compiled annually, so
stats for January won't be available from Government sources for a year. And I did post the RCMP border arrest numbers and asylum claims for January - March. But you said I lied about it. You have that information. Ignoring it is a lie of omission.
You also know that refugee claims take 3 months to have a hearing, so we won't know the results for a few weeks yet.
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
You posted a link telling us there were 135 border jumping incidents recorded one cold month in Manitoba. 132 of those may have been catch and release. There's a loophole in Canadian law letting them be released into Canada to get lost in the bureaucracy after an arrest.
Some border jumpers make it past the RCMP and simply bother the Canadian residents on their way to make their refugee claim at an office. The Canadian border guard union claims about 50% of some invaders they keep records on have "records of criminality."
Now you decide to use the term 'catch and release' just like 'invaders' - to try to illicit an emotional response. And yet you ignore that same article that said only 132 of them are awaiting refugee hearings. The other 3 were held as they were deemed a threat.
Convenient that you ignore facts that hinder your agenda, hmmmm?
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
There is a kind of tolerated human smuggling network on the American side facilitating the process. Those of us who viewed the videos saw one of those facilitators (a taxi company owner or manager) claim he finds it useful to get in touch with the RCMP on the other side and have them waiting as kind of catch and release bellhops for the invaders who are exploiting the process.
Tolerated? Despite this story stating "U.S. border patrol officials confirm a number of people were taken into custody south of the border near Portal, N.D. on Friday."? How much tolerance is that? And how are people 'invading' if they get arrested then held for being a security risk?
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
I used the term
"catch and release" twice and just emboldened it. Did you notice that. Can you figure out why? Or are you going to need me to explain that to you too?
Hint: Start here -
$1:
People don't normally get arrested after a failed 'invasion'.
Yes, the term is meant to illicit an emotional response. That's why you use and highlight it.
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
BTW seeing as you so often feel the need to slip off topic I know you won't mind me adding something tangential to all this...just cause it's interesting:
Feel free. Not watching it as hard as I can.