The uproar isnt about the caravans. It is about the methodology that is being taught to game the system to avoid 'instant' deportation in the short term, and 'long term' avoidance of the same.

The 'asylum' angle is being abused to achieve the former and help with the latter.

The caravans are a result (in a macro sense), in part, of the knowledge of the ways to game the system.

Again, you miss the point.

The more a system is gamed to rig the outcome and defang any enforcement of a rule, the more people will be emboldened to use that 'game' and violate that in-place rule or law. The caravan(s) are the result of this. The less a legal system is actually enforced, the more will not adhere to that legal system. That is the aim isnt it? Abolish ICE, make sure 90 per cent of asylum claimers get the free extended stay, catch and release. All geared to the same end result by some.

As for your question of 'we should'.... I kind of outlined a methodology above that would keep valid asylum seekers and deport the remainder. The asylum process needs to be changed to make it both immensely more difficult, and much easier to 'on the spot' weed out people for the horrid, depraved 6am bus to Reynosa (the sheer horror.....) But, as with every issue involved with actual enforcement of illegal immigration, I am sure the progs would litigate any step to an actual enforcement of a border to death and beyond.