The Dept of Health and Human Services looking at building tent cities on US Military bases for unaccompanied Migrant Children

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,998
31,193
1,743
oklahoma city
#21
POINTS TO PONDER:
<><>A common Third world practice is to claim children that are not theirs in order to increase the gravy train haul....especially the EITC checks.
<><> There's instances of border-crossers passing children back and forth for monetary gain.
<><> Sometimes the border jumpers claim children "back home" who do not even exist on EITC forms.
<><>The "parents" jumping the border may by anything but the ones who sired those children.....could even be traffickers, maybe pedophile pimps.
=============================================
AND THIS: THE GOVT OF MEXICO CONSIDERS MEXICANS ON US SOIL TO BE MEXICAN CITIZENS SUBJECT TO THE GOVT OF MEXICO
A sworn affidavit by Mexico's Consul General to a Texas court asserts that Mexico's official govt policy is to encourage its poor people to migrate here illegally in order to access our generous welfare system. The Mexican consul's sworn testimony asserts: "My responsibilities in this position include protecting the rights and promoting the interests of my fellow Mexican nationals, and, that the main responsibility of consulates is to provide services, assistance, and protection to Mexican nationals abroad." A footnote states that Mexican nationality is granted to children born abroad of a Mexican born parent. IOW, anchor babies born in the US retain parents Mexican nationality.
==========================================
Ergo, illegals have two governments looking after their interests.....our govt subsidizing them, and the Mexican govt making sure they collect.
Its time the US govt look after the interests of American citizens.
You do realize that the USA gives citizenship to children born in another country to American parents also?
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,998
31,193
1,743
oklahoma city
#22
Kids don't go to jail with their parents anywhere, it's an asinine talking point from the only party to ever actually put children in concentration camps. Manzanar ring a bell with any dems?
Regadless of what idiotic things dems have done in the past, comparing what is going on right now to the normal process of dealing with the children of people accused of crimes is not right. We don't take people's kids under false pretenses. We don't ship them to other places. We do not take toddlers and disallow human contact with them.
If we were just following the same exact rules for how we handle other misdemeanors that would be one thing. But, this is clearly different. It is also clear that the point of taking the children is not because we have to. The children are being used as the major part of the punishment for the alleged crime.
It just isn't the same thing. We are better than permanently scarring children in order to punish parents.
And, again, if this is a proper method of fighting immigration crime, where are all the employers getting thrown in jail and their kids taken away to deter them from breaking the law by hiring illegal workers?

I hope and think you are just trying to pull chains. I think I know you better than to really be defending this travesty.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
66,366
48,101
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#25
From National Review:

The Truth about Separating Kids
By RICH LOWRY
May 28, 2018 10:37 PM

U.S. Border Patrol agents with illegal immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border near McAllen, Texas, May 9, 2018.(Loren Elliott/Reuters)Some economic migrants are using children as chits, but the problem is fixable — if Congress acts.

The latest furor over Trump immigration policy involves the separation of children from parents at the border.
As usual, the outrage obscures more than it illuminates, so it’s worth walking through what’s happening here.
For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. This poses challenges we haven’t confronted before and has made what once were relatively minor wrinkles in the law loom very large.

The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.
It’s the last that is operative here. The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)
When a migrant is prosecuted for illegal entry, he or she is taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals. In no circumstance anywhere in the U.S. do the marshals care for the children of people they take into custody. The child is taken into the custody of HHS, who cares for them at temporary shelters.
The criminal proceedings are exceptionally short, assuming there is no aggravating factor such as a prior illegal entity or another crime. The migrants generally plead guilty, and they are then sentenced to time served, typically all in the same day, although practices vary along the border. After this, they are returned to the custody of ICE.
If the adult then wants to go home, in keeping with the expedited order of removal that is issued as a matter of course, it’s relatively simple. The adult should be reunited quickly with his or her child, and the family returned home as a unit. In this scenario, there’s only a very brief separation.
Where it becomes much more of an issue is if the adult files an asylum claim. In that scenario, the adults are almost certainly going to be detained longer than the government is allowed to hold their children.
That’s because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.
The clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled. The migrant is allowed ten days to seek an attorney, and there may be continuances or other complications.
This creates the choice of either releasing the adults and children together into the country pending the ajudication of the asylum claim, or holding the adults and releasing the children. If the adult is held, HHS places the child with a responsible party in the U.S., ideally a relative (migrants are likely to have family and friends here).
Even if Flores didn’t exist, the government would be very constrained in how many family units it can accommodate. ICE has only about 3,000 family spaces in shelters. It is also limited in its overall space at the border, which is overwhelmed by the ongoing influx. This means that — whatever the Trump administration would prefer to do — many adults are still swiftly released.
Why try to hold adults at all? First of all, if an asylum-seeker is detained, it means that the claim goes through the process much more quickly, a couple of months or less rather than years. Second, if an adult is released while the claim is pending, the chances of ever finding that person again once he or she is in the country are dicey, to say the least. It is tantamount to allowing the migrant to live here, no matter what the merits of the case.
A few points about all this:
1) Family units can go home quickly. The option that both honors our laws and keeps family units together is a swift return home after prosecution. But immigrant advocates hate it because they want the migrants to stay in the United States. How you view this question will depend a lot on how you view the motivation of the migrants (and how seriously you take our laws and our border).
2) There’s a better way to claim asylum. Every indication is that the migrant flow to the United States is discretionary. It nearly dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration when migrants believed that they had no chance of getting into the United States. Now, it is going in earnest again because the message got out that, despite the rhetoric, the policy at the border hasn’t changed. This strongly suggests that the flow overwhelmingly consists of economic migrants who would prefer to live in the United States, rather than victims of persecution in their home country who have no option but to get out.
Children should not be making this journey that is fraught with peril. But there is now a premium on bringing children because of how we have handled these cases.​
Even if a migrant does have a credible fear of persecution, there is a legitimate way to pursue that claim, and it does not involve entering the United States illegally. First, such people should make their asylum claim in the first country where they feel safe, i.e., Mexico or some other country they are traversing to get here. Second, if for some reason they are threatened everywhere but the United States, they should show up at a port of entry and make their claim there rather than crossing the border illegally.
3) There is a significant moral cost to not enforcing the border. There is obviously a moral cost to separating a parent from a child and almost everyone would prefer not to do it. But, under current policy and with the current resources, the only practical alternative is letting family units who show up at the border live in the country for the duration. Not only does this make a mockery of our laws, it creates an incentive for people to keep bringing children with them.
Needless to say, children should not be making this journey that is fraught with peril. But there is now a premium on bringing children because of how we have handled these cases. They are considered chits.
In April, the New York Times reported:
Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.
Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing.​
According to azcentral.com, it is “common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.”
If someone is determined to come here illegally, the decent and safest thing would be to leave the child at home with a relative and send money back home. Because we favor family units over single adults, we are creating an incentive to do the opposite and use children to cut deals with smugglers.
COMMENTS
4) Congress can fix this. Congress can change the rules so the Flores consent decree will no longer apply, and it can appropriate more money for family shelters at the border. This is an obvious thing to do that would eliminate the tension between enforcing our laws and keeping family units together. The Trump administration is throwing as many resources as it can at the border to expedite the process, and it desperately wants the Flores consent decree reversed. Despite some mixed messages, if the administration had its druthers, family units would be kept together and their cases settled quickly.
The missing piece here is Congress, but little outrage will be directed at it, and probably nothing will be done. And so our perverse system will remain in place and the crisis at the border will rumble on.

RICH LOWRY
— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via email: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. @richlowry
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
7,530
6,483
1,743
Yukon, OK
#28
So I have a question. If the enforcement of a law that has existed but has been "policy" to not enforce, why aren't more people calling for the law to be changed? If the enforcement of a long standing law is immoral then why do we still have that law on the books?
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,972
18,020
1,743
#29
An estimated 60,000 such children will pour into the United States this year, according to the administration, up from about 6,000 in 2011. Now, Washington is trying to figure out how to pay for their food, housing and transportation once they are taken into custody.

The flow is expected to grow. The number of unaccompanied, undocumented immigrants who are under 18 will likely double in 2015 to nearly 130,000 and cost U.S. taxpayers $2 billion, up from $868 million this year, according to administration estimates.

The shortage of housing for these children, some as young as 3, has already become so acute that an emergency shelter at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, has been opened and can accommodate 1,000 of them, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said in an interview with Reuters.

The issue is an added source of tension between Democrats and Republicans, who disagree on how to rewrite immigration laws. With comprehensive legislation stalled, President Barack Obama is looking at small, administrative steps he could take, which might be announced this summer. No details have been outlined but immigration groups are pressing him to take steps to keep families with children together.

The minors flooding over the border are often teenagers leaving behind poverty or violence in Mexico and other parts of Central America such as Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. They are sometimes seeking to reunite with a parent who is already in the United States, also without documentation.

“This is a humanitarian crisis and it requires a humanitarian response,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski said in an interview. The Maryland Democrat, a former social worker, has likened the flood of unaccompanied children to the “boat people” of past exodus movements.


Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on Mikulski’s committee, said, “The need is there, you know the humanitarian aspect of it, but we’re challenged on money.”

Immigration groups lobbying for comprehensive reform argue that children are being hit hardest by the political deadlock.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...isis-for-obama-congress-idUSKBN0E814T20140528

Capture.PNG




Where was your outrage in 2014 when we knew the problem was giong to get worse? Where was your outrage to the policies that helped create this problem?

Congress and Obama kicked the can down the road. And now some of you want to blame Trump for a crisis that was swept under the rug!

Within a month after Trump took office in a speech to Congress he called for immigration reform. Congress has done nothing!
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
66,366
48,101
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#30
So I have a question. If the enforcement of a law that has existed but has been "policy" to not enforce, why aren't more people calling for the law to be changed? If the enforcement of a long standing law is immoral then why do we still have that law on the books?
Because they'd rather have a political football to kick around than fix the law.
 
Sep 13, 2013
4,866
1,165
743
Left field
#31
How can Democrats be responsible for every bad thing and at the same exact time in charge of nothing? How can Republicans be in charge of everything and at the same exact time responsible for nothing?
LIES would be my untrammeled guess.
Edison invented the light bulb.
Tesla invented the AC motor.
Sessions and Trump invented this tragedy.
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
7,530
6,483
1,743
Yukon, OK
#32
How can Democrats be responsible for every bad thing and at the same exact time in charge of nothing? How can Republicans be in charge of everything and at the same exact time responsible for nothing?
LIES would be my untrammeled guess.
Edison invented the light bulb.
Tesla invented the AC motor.
Sessions and Trump invented this tragedy.
This is where I just don't agree. Why is the enforcement of a law left on the books by Congress the fault of Trump? We have laws. We should enforce all of those laws. If enforcing them is tragic or immoral, the problem is the law. People are misdirecting their anger because their anti-Trump blinders are strapped on too tight... I don't like what's happening either but you'd THINK this would put enough spotlight on the issue for Congress to actually DO something.
 
Sep 13, 2013
4,866
1,165
743
Left field
#33
This is where I just don't agree. Why is the enforcement of a law left on the books by Congress the fault of Trump? We have laws. We should enforce all of those laws. If enforcing them is tragic or immoral, the problem is the law. People are misdirecting their anger because their anti-Trump blinders are strapped on too tight... I don't like what's happening either but you'd THINK this would put enough spotlight on the issue for Congress to actually DO something.
We've become so tribal that when the opposition wins their sole purpose is to undo everything the prior administration accomplished. Why would anyone ever help the opposition?
 

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
18,527
8,365
1,743
Earth
#34
Can you give another example of children being taken away and put in prolonged care elsewhere in the country for a misdemeanor crime?
Why aren't we putting the owners of the businesses that hire illegal workers in jail and taking their kids away if the purpose of doing so is a deterrent? I think if you owned a roofing company you would be a lot more careful to make sure you were hiring legal workers if you would be put in jail and have your kids taken if you didn't.
Why are we encouraging employers to break our immigration laws like this?
Better yet why aren't we just deporting them when they come across?...all of them, unless they are legal and have papers? I understand allowing those seeking asylum but we ought to be monitoring and allowing ONLY those in under some sort of system that does that right at the border. It's the information age, surely we can do better in terms of timing. This whole thing sounds like some sort of political ploy to me, especially since it's been going on for several years and didn't just start under this particular blowhard President but the last one.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
28,167
15,636
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#35
Better yet why aren't we just deporting them when they come across?...all of them, unless they are legal and have papers? I understand allowing those seeking asylum but we ought to be monitoring and allowing ONLY those in under some sort of system that does that right at the border. It's the information age, surely we can do better in terms of timing. This whole thing sounds like some sort of political ploy to me, especially since it's been going on for several years and didn't just start under this particular blowhard President but the last one.
This immigration issue is much older than our last two POTUS. Reagan's answer was amnesty. That obviously didn't work.

I saw today that the DHS estimates the number of kids held in these areas is expected to double by the end of the Summer.

Something has to happen and happen fast. We have been kicking the can down the road for generations now

People who are willing to risk separation from their children to get to the US aren't going to be deterred by a wall they can defeat with a shovel or a ladder.

Trump has a great opportunity to make some real change and impact some real immigration policy and make it sustainable if he will take up the reigns and then he can claim a victory that a generation of politicians have kicked down the road.
 

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
18,527
8,365
1,743
Earth
#36
This immigration issue is much older than our last two POTUS. Reagan's answer was amnesty. That obviously didn't work.

I saw today that the DHS estimates the number of kids held in these areas is expected to double by the end of the Summer.

Something has to happen and happen fast. We have been kicking the can down the road for generations now

People who are willing to risk separation from their children to get to the US aren't going to be deterred by a wall they can defeat with a shovel or a ladder.

Trump has a great opportunity to make some real change and impact some real immigration policy and make it sustainable if he will take up the reigns and then he can claim a victory that a generation of politicians have kicked down the road.
You are right..it's not an easy fix and that's why it persist. I'm fairly sure the "Trump" can't fix it either...this is going to take the American people doing what they have failed to do in the past...come to an agreement in a vast majority without partisanship. I just don't see that happening...sadly.
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
7,530
6,483
1,743
Yukon, OK
#37
We've become so tribal that when the opposition wins their sole purpose is to undo everything the prior administration accomplished. Why would anyone ever help the opposition?
Even more of a reason for Congress to turn this thing around, no?
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
7,530
6,483
1,743
Yukon, OK
#39
This problem could be returned to normal today. Trump tells Sessions to knock it off. But how do you fund this damned wall without a growing crisis?
"Normal" is what needs to be fixed. It's not a solution, it's a band-aid that the administration can rip off at any time they choose.