Time to Repeal the Law That Delays Deportations for Central Americans
“Report: 300,000 Central American immigrants heading to U.S.” That’s Noah Rothman’s headline at Hot Air, and it’s about as disturbing as it gets. He quotes a San Antonio radio station as saying:
In fact, one source told Newsradio 1200 WOAI as many as 300,000 Central American immigrants are now ‘en route’ to the United States through Mexico, and the Department of Defense has asked military bases around the country to find 180 barracks, holding centers, and other facilities to house the flood which is not expected to stop coming any time soon.
Basically, as the word gets out that everyone who crosses the border gets to stay, more and more people are headed north.
Obama blames the influx on a 2008 law signed by President Bush that prevents immediate deportation for Central American immigrants. The New York Times is eager to repeat the talking point, giving us this headline: Immigrant Surge Rooted in Law to Curb Child Trafficking. That’s . . . a stretch, given that the law was signed in 2008, and last time I checked, it is now 2014. Clearly, a six-year-old law did not provide the initial motivation for tens of thousands of children to suddenly come to the U.S., and the obvious culprit is Obama’s unilateral announcement that he will not deport certain children. Central Americans aren’t picking up on the nuance that this policy applies only to children here since 2007.
But while the law signed by Bush is not the reason they first came, it probably has a lot to do with why they keep coming. After all, a big part of the reason Central Americans seem to think the Obama non-deportation policy applies to everyone is because, effectively, it does. These children aren’t getting deported. They’re being shipped around the country and placed in homes. They will enter taxpayer-funded schools next year. And they’ll face years-long deportation proceedings that will lead to almost nobody actually being deported.
So why not repeal this law, today?
Obama is reported to be considering “changes” to the law. No. The House should move quickly to repeal it in its entirety. The bill can be just a few lines; repealing a law should not require a lot of verbiage.
That way, when Harry Reid’s Senate refuses to take up the repeal, Republicans can tell the country that Obama can’t blame the law any more.
I understand this law was passed unanimously, in a bipartisan fashion. Lovely. But laws tend to have unintended consequences, and we’re seeing that today. So repeal it. Don’t whine about it. Just do it. Now.
At the risk of misquoting Mark Steyn, more kids in America is a good thing, regardless of how they get here. If Central Americans are willing to throw their kids over the border, and homes are willing to take them, this won’t be any kind of catastrophe. Obviously, the adults have to go back though.
I just hired a Nicaraguan who’s perfectly bilingual, and she’s going to be a rock star in my company.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:00 amUm,no. More illegal kids in America is a bad thing. And it’s bad for the countries they are leaving, dooming those countries to even more poverty down the road.
Kevin (e226f0) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:20 amSometimes the unintended consequences of new laws do not materialize immediately.
The effects of gay marriage will also take years to appear, and the same thing would have been true of the Equal Rights Amendment, had it passed.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:20 amKevin (e226f0) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:20 am
More illegal kids in America is a bad thing.
That can be remedied by making them legal.
And it’s bad for the countries they are leaving, dooming those countries to even more poverty down the road
How so?
Either poor children are good for a country, or bad for a country, or make no difference.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:23 amWhy?
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:23 amWith modern warfare, we don’t need as much cannon fodder as we used to. No factories, either. Taking their organs would be immoral. Meantime, we have to feed them, clothe them, shelter them, educate them, make their booboos well. Not necessary, not beneficial, a drain on the nation’s wealth.
nk (dbc370) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:27 amI lived in California for thirty years, and what happened to the schools and emergency rooms was nothing short of a disaster. More and more resources had to be redirected to ESL classes, which didn’t actually help the majority of Hispanic students anyway, and affected the ability of all the students.
The hospital that I went to in La Mesa was closed because the majority of patients were illegal and had no health insurance. I fractured my thumb playing in an over-the-line tournament in Fiesta Island. When I went up to the window for incoming patients, the nurse said that I was the first person that day to have insurance coverage. It was 3:00 PM.
I’m happy you got your “rock star” employee, but I’d rather not have to travel 20 miles to get to an emergency room.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:32 amaffected the ability of all the students. s/b
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:33 amaffected the ability to educate all students.
Carlitos, hope it’s not.you and your loved ones that come down with TB and scabies.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:36 amPerhaps some of the open borders crowd has forgotten that an invasion is an act of war. We’d be perfectly justified at militarizing the border and shooting all criminals as well as invading the southern border to secure our own.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:38 amGreat. Let’s start shooting peasant children who try to cross our border. Maybe we can send the statue of liberty back to France for a touch-up on her makeup. Something a little more goth.
ESL classes are a stupid idea, and have nothing to do with this topic. They are more of an example of California liberals trying to “help” the have nots. Kids do much, much better when then don’t have silly theories like ESL to deal with.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:48 amBasically, as the word gets out that everyone who crosses the border gets to stay, more and more people are headed north
The word has already gotten out, true or false. It’s not anyone, by the way, but anyone not from Mexico under 18 if unaccompanied by a parent or guardian, although it is also substantially true for women with children.
What is true for them is that they get to stay outside of prison, and, even if they want to, unaccompanied minors from countries outsiode of Mexico or Canada cannot agree to go back to their home countries voluntarily, but can only be deported after a hearing. And they often can get reunited with their parents that way, even if their parents are here illegally.
This was the law for some time but it took time to be discovered, and publicized. The law was passed under the assumption that anyone under 18 who travelled a long distance not accompanied by a parent or guardian was quite possibly the victim of sex or other human trafficking, and the case needed to be investigated, and the children kept out of the hands of traffickers, and put into the custody only of people interested in their welfare. Which might be true in a normal world.
What’s more, the word has gotten out that while this is true now, it might not be true later, so now’s the time. (The June 30th cutoff date had a certain plausibility, but since nothing using the June 30 cutoff date has been announced, this continues as before, and the greater the pressure to do something,the greater the incentive to beat the deadline.)
And furthermore, the word has been out for a long time that there is a seniority system involved in all amnesty proposals, and if amnesty is delayed, the date someone will have had to have been in the United States to qualify for amnesty will be advanced. There is no way to tell people that is not true, because it is undeniably and unavoidably true.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:52 amTime for our elected officials to represent us and not those coming into the country illegally. Jan Brewer can be first by telling the ninth circuit to go puound sand.
Jim (01b3f3) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:53 amThe Obama Administration is saying they will not be allowed to stay, which is mostly not true, and even if true, will have to be proven to have any effect, and it will take a year or two for people to go through the system.
And it is saying that people trying this risk getting killed, which is also mostly not true, but the Obama Adminstration may attempt to make more true, and they are probably counting on that, because none of the other ideas will do anything in the short term.
You probably only need a death rate of between 1% and 2% to considerably slow this down. Anybody that thinks that anything other than that will slow this down quickly is living in a fool’s paradise.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:48 am
Let’s start shooting peasant children who try to cross our border.
No, they are not going to do that. It will take the form of subtle pressure on foreign governments to act against safe means of travel.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:54 amI’m fine with that Carlitos. An act of war is an act of war or have you missed all the child soldiers in history.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:55 amWasn’t there a proposition in Californioa that got rid of most ESL classes?
http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_227,_the_%22English_in_Public_Schools%22_Initiative_(1998)
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:56 amCarlitos, perhaps you’ve missed all the drug trafficking, coyotes and military style attacks coming at our citizens from the southern border. I haven’t.
Wake up.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:58 amLadies and gentlement, allow me to present njrob, an internet tough guy. Good for you, buddy. I’m sure you’d have your .44 magnum ready to go and shoot 8 year old Guatemalans crossing the Rio Grande. You are a big, big man. I salute you.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:02 amWe could just not open the gates, you know. If they sneak through, just let them wander around and catch what we can and just through them back over a secured part of the border where they’d have to travel a little to find another “break in the fence”.
nk (dbc370) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:08 amAnd I’m sure you’d stand there as an 8 year old shot your family because he’s “just a kid.”
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:08 am*throw* them back
nk (dbc370) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:08 amYeah, there are lots of 8 year-olds shooting families. 8 year old shooters is probably the number one problem plaguing border towns.
Here is where you can present evidence of such a thing. Please fill in the blanks.
____________________________________________
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:12 amYou built the “shoot” strawman, carlitos. Peasant kids, too. Statue of liberty. Goths.
nk (dbc370) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:14 amAh, already this morning we have the idiotic “we should just send the Statue of Liberty back to France” view represented, and stood up against the vile “we should shoot 3 year olds crossing the southern border because they’re invaders” contingent.
Yes, by all means let’s just take the most extreme positions of any side of any issue and try to base all the arguments on those as if they have merit or integrity. This is why we can’t have nice things anymore, people.
elissa (b62c4b) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:14 amJust as many as unaccompanied 8 year Olds crossing the border.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:16 amYou guys have fun attacking those scarecrows. Meanwhile, we’re at war on our southern border.
Let me know when you open your homes to all these invaders.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:17 amnk (dbc370) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:27 am
Meantime, we have to feed them, clothe them, shelter them, educate them, make their booboos well. Not necessary, not beneficial, a drain on the nation’s wealth.
They are cheaper to care for than natural born American citizens because you save the cost of maternity care and paying for their birth, and often as well as the cost of kindergarten and the earliest grades in school.
If they are a drain, so are most other children, only more so, with the only possible exception being children of very wealthy parents, except that tax dollars are often used for them too..
The medical care for these immigrant children is also less than for the American born, as you avoid years of pediatric “well baby” doctor’s visits, and there are no problems with premature births and so on..
Is there something wrong with this logic?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:18 amHey elissa, if an unaccompanied 3 year old can make it across our border on their own, they can stay. Everyone else gets tossed out. Deal?
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:19 amThis is text of the WILLIAM WILBERFORCE TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION REAUTHORIZATION
ACT OF 2008.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ457/pdf/PLAW-110publ457.pdf
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:19 amYou were the one who asked why more illegal children was a bad thing, right? I gave you an example. And California isn’t the only state with ESL classes. I had a son who went to public school in Cypress, and a best friend’s wife who taught in the Riverside school district. She opposed ESL classes. I was giving you my perspective based on my experience. Please let me know if this remark is off topic as well, and I’ll try to be more accommodating in reply to your comments.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:20 amYeah, WTF is your point? Is your point, we didn’t have to pay for their well-being up to the point of their entry into the US? If it is, then would you expect their care going forward to be more, less, or the same, as an American born child?
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:29 amnjrob, I’m very sorry you read my comment @24 and came up with whatever conclusion you did, that then somehow caused you to think your “conclusion” warranted the snide attack against me @28. Yes. This is why we can’t have nice things.
elissa (b62c4b) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:34 amSammy, you neglect to mention that the vast majority of children who came from 3rd world nations remain a net drain on society. And with leftist indoctrination, they never assimilate but instead become a permanent underclass that votes for ever more largesse from the government. A permanent leftist socialist superstate.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:34 amSince you consider defending our border to be vile, I’ll take your dismissal as a badge of honor.
I’ll also remember that you want the beatings conservative voters take from the establishment to continue since you support Thad.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:36 am“More illegal kids in America is a bad thing
Why?”
carlitos – Dick Durbin doesn’t want them in Illinois. I suggest you ask him.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:40 amI used to believe in compromise and that both sides came to their beliefs honestly. The real world has cured me of that naivety. The acceptance of the southern invasion is about remaking our nation into a 3rd world he’ll hole that accepts a permanent political class as our betters in return for some return of our own tax dollars. It is the goal of the political class to destroy conservatives and marginalize their political influence.
Carlito and elissa seem to have the same goal.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:41 amI really don’t understand how several of you think the age of the invader matters. If a million 8 year olds invade it’s just as bad as a million 28 year olds. Perhaps worse, at least the 28 y. o. we could find jobs for, maybe. Either way it’s an invasion and they’re entering Our Country and Our Home illegally. If a person sneaked into my back door and decided he’s not leaving my home and that I HAD to take care of him at MY expense it wouldn’t matter to me a rats ass what his age is, he’s a criminal.
I’m not for shooting people 8 or 28. But we need to address this thing and realizing we have a problem is the first step. If some of us keep denying that illegals diver our resources and cost our country and our citizens great cultural, social and economic harm we will never regain our sovereignty. There’s a word you don’t hear often what leftists speak.
The government set tis up to force “immigration reform” which is to say some sort of amnesty. We have immigration laws, we don’t need reform, we need enforcement, punishment and a damn secure wall. Or perhaps we should drop off 500 of these folks at the White House and have Obama take care of them from his own bank account. How do you think that would go over?
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:46 amLump me in with elissa, njrobb. I think you are more out of line with your rhetoric than carlitos is. And I’m not going to vote Democrat in Illinois to “punish” the Mississippi GOP either.
nk (dbc370) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:50 amIt’s the shooting three year old invaders that I called “vile” njrob–practical, lawful defense of the border is not “vile”. It is in fact necessary and has been increasingly so for several decades as more and more of our immigration laws have not been enforced or have been ignored, with the resulting stream of illegal aliens.
elissa (b62c4b) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:52 amThere are many variations and gradations of “defending the border”, however. You must try to read others’ comments more clearly and think through what your own comments actually sound like to most people. This is merely a suggestion.
njrob, I’m with ya. The left in this country has spent the last 41 years aborting their children and future voters so now they want to invade the US with a bunch of South American socialists to replace them. And yes njrob, they want a permanent ruling class of leftists in this country and a de facto one party system. They seem to love the politics of Venezuela, N. Korea and Cuba.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:52 amI didn’t say you should nk.
Everyone has to vote according to their own conscience. I just know I’ve had enough of both parties selling out my interests and trying to marginalize or destroy my vote through legalize criminal activity coming from the border or straight out fraud as was done in Mississippi.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:55 amThis invasion is being pushed by the press and the left as poor kids trying to get to the USA for salvation. It ignores the adults, the drug trafficking, the coyotes, chain migration and the lack of assimilation by existing illegals.
Elissa, you came up with your own strawman 3 year old. I said if they can make it on their own, they can stay. Carlitos came up with his own 8 year old strawman. I shot that strawman in the face.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 8:58 amnk, elissa and Carlito: nobody’s gonna run around shooting kids. That’s not who we are nor whaqt we do. But we simply can’t let minors enter this country uninvited, unescorted and undocumented and say it’s okay because of “humanitarian” reasons. These kids are being torn from their families, many suffer from disease poverty and ignorance it is just can’t be the job of the US alone to care for every living deprived child and person on earth. We can’t do it. And to ignore that fact will only harm our American culture, economy and society.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 7/8/2014 @ 9:00 amStopping an invasion is one of the actual duties of the federal government according to the constitution. An invasion is an act of war according to the constitution. Sorry if the optics makes you squeamish. War is ugly.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 9:00 am“Obama blames the influx on a 2008 law signed by President Bush that prevents immediate deportation for Central American immigrants.”
Patterico – Of course the left is eager to repeat this point, but as I believe retire05 pointed out last night, the law had its origins in 2000 under Clinton and the 2008 actions were just a reauthorization for funding. I have not verified the claims, but if Wikipedia is to be believed, the law was also reauthorized in 2003, 2005 and 2013 (as an amendment to VAWA).
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/8/2014 @ 9:01 amP.Ss: Shoot the coyotes before you shoot the 8 year olds.
8 year olds have injured and killed Border Patrol agents. The rock-based injuries are large in quantity, and I assume he was referring to the known shooting cases.
luagha (5cbe06) — 7/8/2014 @ 9:03 am== nobody’s gonna run around shooting kids. That’s not who we are nor whagt we do.==
Hoagie, You may want to double check that statement with njrob. Just sayin’. Beyond those first 2
elissa (b62c4b) — 7/8/2014 @ 9:18 amsentences, I agree wholeheartedly with every single word you wrote in #43. Every single word. And I’ve never written anything on this site that is contrary to that. In fact what I’ve written time after time on this site (including today) almost mirrors what you said in #43.
carlitos – Do you have a suggested bag limit for illegal alien children or would it vary by age?
With respect to giving back the Statue of Liberty, I would attach a few conditions, send it back only if the Fwench agree to keep John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren. Otherwise, no deal.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/8/2014 @ 9:25 amAny talk of anything that smells like amnesty motivates illegals to risk their lives to come here. Cause and effect.
If we don’t respect our borders, neither will they, and people will die.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 7/8/2014 @ 9:31 amOnce again, feature, not a bug. ∅ will exploit the situation. If people die, especially children, that’s just a reason to ask for more money. How more money stops them from coming is anyone’s guess.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/8/2014 @ 9:46 amEnough. Immigration is not invasion. Invasion, by definition, must be with hostile intent. Almost none of the people arriving, whether children, teenagers, or adults, have any such intent. They come with exactly the same intentions as our own parents, grandparents, etc. came; to settle and live here, and be Americans.
The framers of the constitution would be astonished if you were to present them with the concept of an “illegal immigrant”, and if you then referred to such a person as an invader they’d think you belonged in a Bedlam. Nobody needed permission to immigrate to America; people just decided to come, and came. Immigration restrictions were introduced in the USA with an explicitly racist purpose, to prevent racial minorities from increasing their proportion of the population.
People are the wealth of a nation. Any nation. Julian Simon proved this exhaustively. Educating children is an investment, not a drain. And Sammy is right to point out that an immigrant child costs less than a child born here, because many of the costs have already been paid.
Njrob claims to be concerned that immigrant children will be indoctrinated by the left, but why would these immigrant children be more likely than native children to be subjected to such indoctrination? If you’re concerned about it, then prevent it, for all children. It’s not a reason to reject these children in particular.
The same applies to concern about California’s “bilingual education”. It’s history. It was a terrible idea, and the voters finally saw that and abolished it. If other states still have it, then let them get wise and abolish it too. (I think Hadoop confused “bilingual education” with ESL classes. ESL means teaching immigrants English, which is obviously the most productive possible use of education resources.
None of this means we can afford to leave the border unguarded. Patterico has cited reports of older teenagers with gang markings or known gang affiliations coming in with this horde. Who knows who else is coming in, either with them or a few miles up the border while the Border Patrol is distracted. And if children are being handed over to unknown people who claim to be their family, without verifying their relationship or criminal record, that’s horrible.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 9:51 amNo, he didn’t. Njrob explicitly raised it in the comment immediately before Carlitos’s. It’s no strawman; Carlitos was merely taking Njrob’s hyperbole at face value.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 9:55 amMilhouse, I call BS. There is nothing in the history of illegal aliens invading our nation to show they are a boon to society.
There is a history to show they destroy our hospitals, shack up and ruin rented buildings, fraudulently get government money, steal identities and then demand the right to steal our elections and land. The vast majority vote for leftists and support their ethnic identity over an American one.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:02 amIn the “Immigration Issues” thread, Dana posted this:
This is why we can’t just leave the border open and let anyone in. This is what we should be concerned about, not the innocent kids who just want a better life in America. Screen these criminals out, and the problem is gone. The good kids are an asset, not a problem.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:02 amNice try milhouse. I said shooting criminals while he deliberately played the poor 8 year old child card to get false sympathy. I didn’t bite because it was a false canard.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:03 amThere is nothing in the history of our nation to support the concept of an “illegal alien”. But there is much in the history of our nation, and the way it responded to generation after generation of immigrants, that is shameful and disgusting. Every wave of immigrants was subject to the same Know-Nothingism, the smae bigotry. And it proved false each time.
There is no difference between a child who came here legally and one who came illegally. It’s beyond stupid to claim that one is more likely than the other to be a productive resident and a net asset. In the case of adults, you can (barely) claim that coming illegally shows a propensity to lawbreaking, and thus a greater likelihood of being a problem in the future. In the case of children this claim is impossible. So what are you left with?
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:07 amIt was abundantly clear that by “criminals” you meant all people crossing the border illegally. Which in the current case means 8-year-olds.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:08 am“There is nothing in the history of our nation to support the concept of an “illegal alien”.”
Milhouse – Nothing except statutory law and culture.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:10 amReally milhouse, nothing other than the drug trafficking, gang members, adults who smuggle children and see traffickers, the people that destroy citizens’ property and lives. They don’t count, right?
It’s only 8 year old kids by themselves. You’re so full of it and you know it.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:14 amSee traffickers*
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:15 amThe law was initially passed in 2000. It has been reauthorized several times since then, the most recent being 2013. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the changes in it last year were not inserted to support what is going on this year. Annotated copy of the law can be found at the link. Downloadable pdf is 126 pages long.
This is preplanned with at least 5 Executive Branch agencies involved and several countries involved. It is Cloward – Piven. Cheers –
http://www.ifsnetwork.org/Portals/4/docs/TVPA-in-5-Colors_2013_FINAL.pdf
agimarc (324b03) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:16 amSex*
Can not believe my phone will auto correct sex.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:16 amWhat statutory law or culture? The concept of an “illegal alien” was itself alien to American law and culture. America never had any restrictions on immigration, or even the concept that there might be such restrictions in the future. Immigration restrictions were first enacted not much more than a century ago, with the explicitly racist motive of keeping down the inferior minorities. Surely everyone today would agree that those measures were un-American, contrary to our history and culture. So what history does the concept of an “illegal alien” have? How long has it legitimately existed?
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:18 amNjrob, here are your exact words:
In the context, “all criminals” clearly means whoever is crossing the border, which Carlitos correctly took to include 8-year-olds.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:21 amWe should be concerned about actual criminals, including minors. Not about the bulk of the arriving children, who are as likely as native-born children to make fine Americans.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:23 amExactly! What are we left with? We take in over a million legal immigrants a year. What do you feel would be an appropriate number? Two million? Ten million? Don’t you believe immigration should be an orderly process? Do you believe we should have any borders?
You may feel that the problems of gang members and diseases entering our country is overblown, but the communities where they’re being dumped may think differently. The mayor of Murrieta, CA said he wasn’t notified about the “illegals”, “undocumented angels”, or whatever you want to call them were being housed in his city. I’m sure you can appreciate his concern, right?
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:24 am“What statutory law or culture?”
Milhouse – That is a tough one isn’t it? What do immigration judges rule on every day? Why do we have a Border Patrol? Why do we have ICE? Why do we theoretically have employment verification?
Why don’t you tell people waiting in line years to emigrate legally to the U.S. that there is nothing in the history of our nation to support the concept of an “illegal alien”? I doubt that they would agree with you.
In terms of culture, there is a large segment of the American population which feels people should do their best to follow American laws as one of the duties or obligations of citizenship. You have expressed disagreement with that perspective here in the past but it nevertheless exists and is one reason people support legal immigration but disapprove of illegal immigration. That is one reason why illegal immigration advocates try to blend the two terms.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:35 am“Sir”, said the urchin, “I exist”.
“However”, replied the Universe, “that does not create an obligation in me”.
Even then, that’s giving the Chamber of Commerce and the Democrats too much credit. They’re not doing it out of compassion. One is doing it for cheap labor and the other for votes.
I do not see how raising other nations’ throwaways is beneficial to America. Feeding them, we are taking food out of our own children’s mouths. Yes, we have been negligent and complacent. Yes, we let the situation get out of hand. Maybe it was necessary for the situation to get this far, just as for some people it’s necessary to see water in their basements to understand that they have to clean the leaves out of their gutters.
Obama is going to drag his feet and try to take a detour. The plutocrats and the Democrats will be helping him to do just that. We just very well might have to close our eyes and think of England. Como se dice “estamos jodidos” en su idioma?
nk (dbc370) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:35 amHey milhouse,
How are 8 year Olds by themselves supposed to create a life here? They can’t work. They don’t know the culture or the language. What are they supposed to do other than be a drain on society?
Do you want 8 year old illegals for any reason other than some strawman? They show fake pics of 8 year Olds in the same way they showed kiddie pics of Trayvon; to confuse the issue and manipulate bleeding heart morons.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:36 amAs many as apply, and are not criminals or carrying easily communicable diseases.
I’m not sure about that. But let’s agree thta it should be. Ideally, there’d be no need for anyone to immigrate illegally, because they could easily do so legally. In such a world, entering illegally would be good evidence that the person was undesirable. But we don’t live in such a world. There is no way for a Honduran or Guatemalan peasant to immigrate legally. None. There is no line for him to get at the back of. So is it any surprise that he comes illegally? You would too, if you were in his shoes (or lack thereof).
What is a border? It’s the territorial extent of our jurisdiction, that’s all. For most of our history our borders were open; did they not exist for all that time? Of course they did, and the fact that anyone could cross them at will didn’t change that. Should our borders be open now? Until 11-Sep-2001 I thought so. Now I don’t, but only because there are some very dangerous people in the world, who are trying to enter our country in order to harm us, and I don’t see how we can possibly hope to keep them out if we don’t control our borders.
No, I don’t. I don’t understand where you got the idea that I did. I think that is a valid problem, and the only reason why border controls need to exist. But the vast majority of those entering, especially of the children, are not gang members, and don’t carry serious diseases.
I’m not sure why they mayor needs to be notified, though it would be courteous to do so.
Only if they’re going to be released in his city and remain there, not if they’re going to stay on the base until they’re taken elsewhere.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:37 amThe question was specifically about our history, and the fact is that we have no history of any of these. They are all recent innovations.
Like it or not, it’s true. And what people “waiting in line for years”? How many people really are doing that? And how many of them do you suppose would hesitate for a moment to come illegally if they could?
Citizenship?! But these are not citizens. They’re not even residents. It’s reasonable to expect that if they beocme citizens they should undertake to follow the law. But how is it reasonable, or rooted in American culture, to expect aliens, in a foreign country, to obey American law? What possible duty could they have to respect our law before settling here?
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:47 am“Give me your tired, your poor […] The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.” Raising children is always beneficial, if one can do it. And we can.
Besides, these children are not being thrown away, on the contrary, their parents’ intention in sending them here is to give them the opportunity of a lifetime.
Excuse me? Of all the problems we have in this country, a lack of food is not one of them. Our children have far too much food, and will not suffer if we also feed these other children, who are just as precious as our own.
There are plenty of people, mostly relatives, willing to raise them. Do you call native-born children a drain on our society?! They can’t work and don’t know the culture either; nor the language, if they’re young enough. But children grow up, learn the culture and language, and become productive adults. What difference does it make whether they were born here or somewhere else, or whether they arrived with official permission or without? How does that affect their likelihood of becoming productive adults?
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:58 amBy that reasoning, Milhouse, crimes committed against the United States by foreign citizens, outside the borders of the United States, are …? Wait, it’s not outside our borders. They cross our border! Foreign citizens, who cross our border, do nothing wrong because they owe no duty to obey American law. Can they bring in a few pounds of polonium, too?
nk (dbc370) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:59 am“The question was specifically about our history, and the fact is that we have no history of any of these. They are all recent innovations.”
Milhouse – What kind of response is that? History begins yesterday.
You and I were not alive in the 19th century to witness waves of European and Asian immigrants getting discriminated against in this country and we also were not alive during slavery. What is relevant to me is what is going on today.
If you want to make the case that our current immigration laws are racist and xenophobic, please go ahead and do so, but I really don’t give a crap about what happened 100 years ago. I care about what is happening now. I can’t change the past.
You ask how many people are waiting in line to emigrate to the U.S. You tell me. Isn’t the waiting list in the millions and the average waiting time over a dozen years? Look it up. It was along those line last time I looked. I don’t think those people appreciate the unfairness of people illegally jumping in line ahead of them and being allowed to stay and work, but you apparently feel differently.
Citizenship?! But these are not citizens. They’re not even residents. It’s reasonable to expect that if they beocme citizens they should undertake to follow the law.
I did not call illegal immigrants citizens. Read again.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:01 amFacts not in evidence. There are orphanages overflowing here and children being slaughtered in the womb, but you think there are all these families willing to take in these aliens. Next you’ll tell me there’s a chicken in every pot.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:01 am“Taking food out of our children’s mouths” is a metaphor. For all the things raising dependent kids costs.
nk (dbc370) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:01 amThat’s why I said “you may”, not “you think”.
I think that is a valid problem, and the only reason why border controls need to exist. But the vast majority of those entering, especially of the children, are not gang members, and don’t carry serious diseases.
By “vast majority” you mean we don’t know, right? I’m assuming that you think we should find out, right? If you were the mayor of Murrieta and you found out that our government was dumping these people in a Phoenix, AZ bus station without notifying local authorities, wouldn’t you at least be concerned that the same thing was going to happen in your community?
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:03 am“The question was specifically about our history, and the fact is that we have no history of any of these. They are all recent innovations.”
Milhouse – Do you have a date for when history begins in your mind?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:03 amThat makes no sense. First of all, the word “illegals” is nonsensical and bigoted. An “illegal” can only mean a person who is illegal, and that is a null concept. A person cannot be illegal; only an act can be. An illegal immigrant is a person who has immigrated illegally. Second, I “want” 8-year-old illegal immigrants for the exact same reason that I “want” any other 8-year-old. Children, unless they have been so corrupted by their upbringing as to be dangerous criminals, are precious. They are our future. And a child from Mexico is just as precious as one from Arizona. There are valid reasons why we need to secure our border, but none of them have to do with people on the other side being worth less than people on our side.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:07 am==Immigration restrictions were introduced in the USA with an explicitly racist purpose,==
Perhaps at times, but I think not always so. There are other reasons.
I absolutely do not support open borders. It seems to me that the American melting pot works best when the influx of immigrants is organized and occurs in a way where the person who wants to come here to work and to become an American citizen has an equal shot regardless of where they’re from. I think a person from far across the ocean; from China or from Sudan or from Poland or from Chile should have the same opportunity to apply and come here, and to assimilate as the people who just happen to geographically be able to sneak across a convenient contiguous border. I think even in a country as large and welcoming as ours that there are limits as to how many newcomers can reasonably be successfully assimilated and absorbed in any single year or decade. I think all pre-naturalized immigrants in the digital 21st century should have visas or some sort of identifying documents or ID and that there should be pre-screening for past criminal offenses and alliances as well as on-going criminal monitoring. And I also believe that there must be screening for communicable diseases before sick migrating people are allowed to enter the interior of the country and associate with others (even our forefather immigration bureaucrats at Ellis Island understood this).
elissa (b62c4b) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:08 amAhh, you’re one of those people milhouse. People who believe factually correct words are racist. At least I know what I’m dealing with. Thanks.
njrob (77ec94) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:11 amThat’s too many strawmen in one comment. No one is calling the child/ms-13 gang member/undocumented cosmopolitans “illegal”, we’re calling their entry “illegal”.
I one US citizen’s life can be saved by denying a ms-13 gang member or infected child illegal entry, then don’t you think it’ll be worth it? Isn’t that the usual mantra?
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:14 amI s/b If
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:15 amOnce again, the question was specifically about our history. If you are not interested in that question then kindly don’t address it. What is going on today is simply not relevant to the topic that comment was addressing. And no, I don’t claim that our current immigration laws are racist or xenophobic. I don’t understand why you would think I am claiming that. But their history is certainly shameful and un-American.
This “waiting list”, at least as far as unskilled Central Americans with no parents or children in the USA are concerned, is all theoretical. Nobody on it expects ever to get to the top.
You claimed that American culture includes an expectation that “people should do their best to follow American laws as one of the duties or obligations of citizenship”. How does that relate at all to people who aren’t citizens?
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:20 amReally? Where? AFAIK there aren’t any. When Gingrich suggested bringing them back, he was greeted with howls of dismay.
What’s that got to do with anything?
Of course there are. Where do you think these kids will end up? Where are they being resleased now? They’re not being dumped on the streets, they’re being given to people who claim to be their relatives. I’m appalled that these claims are not being investigated properly, but most of them are surely true. And the younger ones can still be adopted; surely you’re aware of the severe shortage of children for adoption in this country.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:26 amI’m just taking posters here at their word. For example:
…
no. I’m not the one here having fantasies of shooting kids from our border.
Please provide evidence of this.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:26 am“You claimed that American culture includes an expectation that “people should do their best to follow American laws as one of the duties or obligations of citizenship”. How does that relate at all to people who aren’t citizens?”
Milhouse – You are bowdlerizing what I said. Here is my direct quote to keep things honest:
I never claimed my statement applied to non-citizens, that is your claim, and I much appreciate you repeating it yet again. You tell me how illegals believe it applies to them. It should be self-evident.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:28 am“Obama is reported to be considering “changes” to the law. No. The House should move quickly to repeal it in its entirety. The bill can be just a few lines; repealing a law should not require a lot of verbiage.”
As if Obama follows the law to the letter and doesn’t pick and choose which laws he follows and which laws he breaks. Blaming Bush is his attempt to deflect blame from HIS serial Fu*k-ups.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:28 am“no. I’m not the one here having fantasies of shooting kids from our border.”
carlitos – Wait, I thought that was specifically your suggestion:
“Great. Let’s start shooting peasant children who try to cross our border.”
amirite? 🙂
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:30 amAnd we have no shortage of all those things. Raising children is an investment, the most worthwhile investment in the world. Children are a nation’s future. And more is better. Americans aren’t having enough children; importing some more seems like a good idea, if they can be screened to make sure they’re not undesirable.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:36 amThere weren’t at the time. Again, this was specifically addressing the claim about our history. The present is not relevant to that question.
Where have I suggested otherwise? Or course these should exist. But once they do, anyone who passes the filter should be issued a visa. Until that happens, one can’t blame those who come illegally.
Even that is fairly recent. For most of our history there were no border controls at all.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:43 amSuch as? “Illegals” is not a factually correct word. No person is illegal. I have no prolem with “illegal immigrants”, because that is factually correct.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:45 amWrong. I don’t know what you are calling anyone, and I did not challenge you at all, but njrob wrote of “8-year-old illegals”. If you care tp defend that, have at it, but don’t you dare deny that that is what he called them.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:48 amWhy just a citizen? If anyone‘s life, or health, or property can be saved, at a reasonable cost, it should be done. Where could you possibly have got the idea that I would like to import gang members or disease carriers? How many times have I specifically said that they should not be allowed in?
Why do you suppose I would know what the “usual mantra” is?
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:51 amI thought we had a shortage of Pediatricians? Supposedly, children in America are going without food, proper shelter, etc. Google it!
Raising children is an investment, the most worthwhile investment in the world. Children are a nation’s future. And more is better. Americans aren’t having enough children; importing some more seems like a good idea, if they can be screened to make sure they’re not undesirable.
Yeah, it sounds like a song. Oh right, it’s George Benson’s “Greatest Love of All”. The “not undesirables” you so eloquently labelled was the reason I said it needed to be orderly, and couldn’t be too many at once.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:52 amAs if Obama follows the law to the letter and doesn’t pick and choose which laws he follows and which laws he breaks.
This would be an ideal situation for him to just do his ignore-the-law thing and send those illegal kids back immediately. Of course, now he decides that that can’t be done, and no one in the media is calling him out for his sudden respect for the law.
Blacque Jacques Shellacque (51809b) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:52 amReally? We were discussing whether there is anything in the history of our nation to support the concept of an “illegal alien”. You replied “Nothing except statutory law and culture”, and later expanded that by saying that our culture includes the feeling that “people should do their best to follow American laws as one of the duties or obligations of citizenship”. How does that support a claim that our culture includes the concept of an “illegal alien”?
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:57 amThat is mostly leftist twaddle, agitating for more taxes and more welfare, when it should be obvious that what’s needed is lower taxes and less government spending. The shortage of pediatricians can be easily solved, in the short term by importing more, and in the long term by reforming the insane liability system created by the Democrats on behalf of their trial lawyer donors. Also by getting rid of 0bamacare, decoupling health insurance from employment, and allowing nationwide competition in health insurance.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 12:02 pmIllegals. I also wrote invaders and you whined about that. These criminals are disregarding our laws by entering the country illegally. They are trying to avoid detention, bringing disease and they have no interest in assimilating.
But you whine over shorthand. Continue whining
njrob (9103c0) — 7/8/2014 @ 12:03 pmAnd milhouse, I didn’t write of 8 year old anything. That was a useless strawman I shot in the head by your fellow criminal conspirator, Carlitos.
Encouraging people to break immigration law. How adorable.
njrob (9103c0) — 7/8/2014 @ 12:05 pmBecause we don’t know who they are or what diseases they have! They aren’t being screened because they are too many at once. That’s my whole point. After some reports came out the administration made it illegal to take pictures, interview health care workers, etc.
You were the one who said the government didn’t have to give local authorities notice of housing these people except out of courtesy. Well, how do you protect your community without being apprised of the situation?
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/8/2014 @ 12:08 pmLook, I am on record saying that I think the border should be closed as tight as possible, and anyone caught crossing it illegally should be dumped back on the other side, with no hearing or due process. But this entire thread has been about Kevin’s claim that “More illegal kids in America is a bad thing”, and that is nonsense. I support border control, but not because I think there is such a thing as “illegal kids”, let alone that they are bad for America. I support it for exactly the reasons Hadoop has been suggesting, i.e. because among the hordes trying to enter are some very bad and dangerous people, and if we just throw the borders open those people will take advantage and harm us. For the sake of keeping those few bad people out, we have no choice but to seal the border to all the good people who want to immigrate. But so long as we don’t give them any other way of coming in, we can’t blame them for trying.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 12:10 pmAnd where did you see me support this? Where did you see me suggest that they shouldn’t be screened, carefully and with a presumption of guilt? I absolutely think they should be. The government’s first duty with regard to the border is to keep bad people out, and they should err on the side of caution. But “illegal kids” are not bad for America, they’re good for America, and any that can be verified as non-criminal and healthy, and want to stay, and have people willing to take them in, should not be sent back now that they’re already here.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 12:14 pmWhy does the local community need to be protected from people being kept inside a federal facility? There is no law requiring the mayor to be told what’s going on inside a federal facility in his city. So long as whatever it is stays there, it’s not really any of the locals’ business. Screening these minors is the federal government’s responsibility, and if it’s not doing so then its offense is against all Americans, not just those who happen to live in Murietta.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 12:18 pmThe reason I defended Kevin’s statement was that I assumed he was talking about “illegal” entry, and until we can get a handle on the sheer numbers. It takes a lot of planning to get schools properly organized to accommodate new students, especially if there are language and cultural barriers to giving them an education. Otherwise, you’re asking a lot of a community to throw together a manageable curriculum. And that’s just the education challenges.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/8/2014 @ 12:22 pmThis whole thing started when the government dumped a bunch of people at a bus station in Phoenix, AZ. Since it is now illegal for anyone to take pictures, interview the undocumented, interview health care provider on site, etc., I guess no one will know for sure. But, if it were my community, I’d want proof that proper screenings are being done, especially if I was an elected official responsible for the safety of my city’s residents.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/8/2014 @ 12:32 pmWhat Kevin wrote was that the chidlren themselves are bad for America. Not that the sudden influx has overwhelmed our capacity for processing them, but that they themselves are bad for us. And that’s a bigoted and indefensible statement. Children, no matter how they arrived here, are good for us, provided we can screen out the few bad ones. Unfortunately, doing so means rejecting some good ones as well, because we can’t take any chances. But that’s something to regret, not to celebrate, and we should try to minimise the number of good ones we reject.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 12:40 pmIt can’t be illegal to take pictures of people dumped at a public bus station, or to interview them. But what has that got to do with people who are not being dumped anywhere, but kept inside a federal facility?
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 12:41 pmSorry if I wasn’t clear. This entire situation with people from Central America came to light with the report of people being dumped in Phoenix, AZ after being held at a federal facility in Texas. I don’t know whether the individuals that were supposed to be housed in Murrieta would be released into the community, and neither you. All I’m saying is that if I were an elected official of a city charged with the community’s safety, I’d want to be notified. What if there’s a fire at the facility? Or any of a dozen scenarios where the facility has to be evacuated? I’d want to have a plan in place if anything happened.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/8/2014 @ 12:56 pm“There is no law requiring the mayor to be told what’s going on inside a federal facility in his city.”
Milhouse – Did somebody claim there was a law requiring a mayor to be told what is going on inside a federal facility in his community or is that just another straw man you introduced to the conversation? Now when those illegal immigrants begin utilizing resources of the community into which they are placed, such as schools, isn’t it common sense to notify local officials this will be happening? In addition, not all the facilities the illegal immigrants are shipped to with little or no prior notice are federal facilities. Is there a law against that? Actually, the Administration has bumped up against obstacles there in trying to place children in facilities no up to code for them where they brazenly just assumed they could be dumped.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/8/2014 @ 1:07 pmHadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/8/2014 @ 12:56 pm
I don’t know whether the individuals that were supposed to be housed in Murrieta would be released into the community, and neither you.
I think what they say is the plan has not been contradicted by anybody. They are to go into some kind of halfway house type facility, operated by some kind of religious group, and then to be placed with some person(s) – probably relatives – who would agree to take care of them. That’s also for the women with children. The federal government will not support them, so they need someone who will. (they also get deportation hearing dates)
The intent is that very few, if any will stay in Murietta.
There is to be a continuous rollover of people.
All I’m saying is that if I were an elected official of a city charged with the community’s safety, I’d want to be notified
Even if he wasn’t notified at first, he knows now, and he’s a big demagogue and liar. In fact he must have been notified in order to have a demonstration ready the first time any buses came.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/8/2014 @ 1:13 pmNote how laws only stick if they benefit Progressive causes.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 7/8/2014 @ 1:21 pmshouldn’t boehnerpoofter be on this already?
or is Tom Donohue’s insatiable hunger for young latino boys as yet unsatisfied?
these are both good questions
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/8/2014 @ 1:49 pmNo, you are not right. I was being faceitious, and internet tough guy njrob actually agreed with my Modest Proposal. He, um “shot” my strawman “in the head,” and was kind enough to remind us about child soldiers. As if that’s a serious problem in Central America. Lots of violent fantasies from this guy.
—
Hogie was absent when they taught Sun Tsu and Clausewitz.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/8/2014 @ 3:48 pmI don’t understand why all these people from other countries would even want to come to America—haven’t they gotten the memo that we’re all raaaacist, and that global warming is going to cause all the coastal cities in America to be swallowed up by the oceans ?
Elephant Stone (5c2aa0) — 7/8/2014 @ 3:54 pmOr something ?
They play for teh win in New Joisey, carlitos. Head shots.
You wanna see someone play for keeps, just put a dozen donuts in front of their governor!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/8/2014 @ 4:06 pm“Even if he wasn’t notified at first, he knows now, and he’s a big demagogue and liar. In fact he must have been notified in order to have a demonstration ready the first time any buses came.”
Sammy – Sort of like Hillary getting notified that there was not a protest over the video in Benghazi after she insisted there was?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/8/2014 @ 4:24 pmI’m still waiting to hear what legislative magical mechanisms are contained in the senate immigration reform bill. Other than the money for all the immigration giveaways, the zipster really didn’t care about the legislation.
Hadoop (a6ac21) — 7/8/2014 @ 4:34 pmSammy,
Please stop being such a passive-aggressive putz.
Elephant Stone (5c2aa0) — 7/8/2014 @ 4:36 pmThere’s a total difference between being officially notified by the feds VS figuring out that the buses might be coming based on internet or other news reports.
You should know, because Obama constantly learns about world events by watching CNN or reading the newspaper.
No I wasn’t Carlito. As an expert in Napoleonic history I know both of these gentleman very, very well. And in either Art of War unless we as 21st century civilized Americans are ready and willing to kill both 8 and 28 year olds then the 8 year olds are far, far worse. I was in war when I was 18 and I’m sure I’ve killed my share of 28 year olds. I would not have faired well with 8 year olds. That’s why you fail to understand the gravity and the nefariousness of this particular situation in our country’s history. They are invading our Sovereign country with children we can neither kill nor deport nor imprison because they’re fuckin’ children. It’s a no win situation and the future of America is at stake.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 7/8/2014 @ 6:14 pmBTW, Carlito, don’t get snotty with me. I was in Nam and have two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star with a “V”. I have a degree in economics from Princeton and was in business for 37 years owning 17 restaurants and a financial services brokerage. The last thing I need is some smart ass telling me when I was absent or present. I was present before you were born.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 7/8/2014 @ 6:22 pmPeople can be the wealth of a nation, but some, perhaps most are not. What Julian Simon proved is when you begin with an premise you want you can write “exhaustively” and prove the point you began with. Kinda like a man made Glow-ball warming advocate. Anyway, educanting children is an investment, but indoctrinating children is abuse. And mark my words, these children will be indoctrinated to know, absolutely know, it was the leftist Democrats who saved them from the evil capitalists. Now, perhaps Sammy is right about the costs of immigrant children compared to those born here. But perhaps he’s not counting the unseen and unintended costs for these kids not only in dollars and cents but in cultural shift, future prosperity, national health, procreation and crime. There are more costs in heaven and earth my dear Milhouse, than you have dreamt of in your philosophy.
They are not more nor less likely to be indoctrinated, they are more likely to buy into it because they do not have the American culture nor American parents to tell them otherwise. We are trying to prevent it, that’s why we vote conservative. And that is not the main reason to “reject these children”. The fact they are illegal and uninvited is the reason to “reject” these children of other parents from another county. They are not our problem, the children who survive the abortion mills of America are our problem. I believe we have enough on our plate without assuming the parenting of the world.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 7/8/2014 @ 6:55 pmthat didn’t strike me as being all that snotty Mr. H
but i been watching real housewives of ny
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:32 pmBut there is much in the history of our nation, and the way it responded to generation after generation of immigrants, that is shameful and disgusting. Every wave of immigrants was subject to the same Know-Nothingism, the smae bigotry. And it proved false each time.
Oh, kumbaya, Milhouse.
Yep, the statistics for most Latino schoolchildren in the US, going back decades, duplicates exactly — EXACTLY!! — the scholastic track record of a large percentage of children of immigrants from, originally, Europe and, more recently, Asia. Yes. Uh-huh.
I also see the long-term socio-economic traits of most countries south of the border and, again, they too duplicate exactly — EXACTLY!! — the socio-economic traits of most countries in Europe, certainly of western Europe and, more recently, those of Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Yes. Uh-huh.
I was wondering if I had you pegged correctly going back a few years and, more recently, when you were debating about AGW. You were oddly squishy about the idea of the government spending even 2 seconds of its time and more than 3 bucks of its budget on the issue of CO2 and global warming. But that by itself wasn’t an a-ha moment. But combining that with your reaction to this controversy convinces me that, yes, I did have your number.
Mark (cb6333) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:47 pmThank you for your service Mr Hoagie and your contribution to our economy and future.
If only others would follow your example.
NJRob (1d8873) — 7/8/2014 @ 7:53 pmNo, they didn’t get the memo. In the same way, back in the Bad Old Days of apartheid, the blacks who kept trying to sneak over the border into South Africa obviously hadn’t got the menu about what a terrible place it was for them, and how all the blacks who were already there were tring to escape…oh, wait, they weren’t. It was remarkable that the USSR and China had their border guards facing in, to prevent people from escaping, while South Africa’s border guards faced out, occupied full time with preventing black people from entering. I guess there were a lot of memos that never got delivered. Maybe they were lost in a storm.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 9:26 pmMark, all the things you say about Central American immigrants were said in their time about Western European immigrants, and then about Chinese immigrants, and then about Eastern European immigrants, and about Jewish immigrants, etc. And every time they proved to be wrong. So why would you be right this time? How are you better than the Know-Nothings and the anti-Chinese and all those other people who whipped up public sentiment against each new wave of immigrants and predicted that these would be our doom? Central American countries now are no poorer than China was in the 1850s, or Russia and Poland in the 1890s.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 9:50 pmHoagie, who exactly is going to be doing this indoctrinating?
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 9:51 pmI don’t believe in shooting children at the border. I don’t believe anyone seriously advocates that, except as hyperbole to make a rhetorical point. If I’m wrong about that, then it’s disturbing.
However . . .
In response to the idea that we have nothing to fear from children, read this.
(Quoted by Milhouse above, quoting Dana’s comment from an earlier thread.)
So, let’s contrast two quotes. One from carlitos above:
And one from the post I just wrote (quoting Pavlich):
Further evidence that it doesn’t pay to be snide.
Patterico (9c670f) — 7/8/2014 @ 9:53 pmAnd every time they proved to be wrong. So why would you be right this time?
Milhouse, I’m reminded of those people (perhaps mainly of the left) who claimed decades ago that if this society became less discriminatory, less conservative, less non-progressive, less intolerant, less non-permissive, less non-socialistic (certainly in terms of do-gooder government programs) that a lot of the downward mobility and self-destructive patterns in, for example, black America would start to recede, if not outright vanish. That doesn’t even factor in socio-economic trends (again, presumably good ones) that presumably would be apparent when the US has no less than its first black (or mixed-race) person sitting in the Oval Office.
Yes, of course, anything can happen in 100 years, or 200 years, or 1,000 years. But since I don’t have the longevity of Methuselah, my patience or confidence in testing your theories or assumptions is limited.
I’ll just say that I truly resent when people talk out of both sides of their mouth, and when they too end up voting with their feet and the moving van, and, in turn, force everyone else (who weren’t quite so naive and gullible) to do the same thing.
Mark (cb6333) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:10 pmMark, you’re the one who’s repeating racist and bigoted propaganda from the 19th century, which proved wrong then, and claiming this time is different. What exactly is the difference between Guatemalan immigrants and all the previous waves, who encountered the same vicious lies and hatred, and proved them wrong?
“Racist” has been so overused that it’s become a meaningless term of abuse, as Orwell wrote about “fascist”. But I’m coming to the conclusion that you may actually be a racist.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:24 pmBut I’m coming to the conclusion that you may actually be a racist.
Milhouse, I’m coming to the conclusion you’re a two-faced fool.
However, I will judge you (or your ilk) differently if you, for example, have school-aged children and you gladly, happily send them to a campus where most of the student body consists of the kids you profess to be so optimistic about.
Mark (cb6333) — 7/8/2014 @ 10:35 pmI find Millhouse tedious, but I will say this. All those folks you mentioned came to this country through the front door. They assimilated. The Mexicans and South americans are stealing in through the back door. When you steal something, you don’t really value it.
Gazzer (002e13) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:10 pmGazzer, when they came there was no front door or back door. America’s doors were open — all of them. But I guarantee you not one of them would have hesitated to come just because there was a law against it.
Milhouse (b95258) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:21 pmFrom 1924 to 1943, there was no legal immigration for Asians. Any Asians, from any Asian country. They all came in illegally. Even the ones already legally here were under severe restrictions, they could not obtain citizenship or re-enter if they left among other things.
nk (dbc370) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:32 pmI don’t believe there is a real comparison to the immigration policies America had 100 years ago to those we have today. First off, that was before “The Progressive Movement”. After about 100 years of progressives and their policies, we need strict laws. 100 years ago regardless of what country you came from you were expected to:
1. Be pre-screened for disease. Sick people weresent back, not treated by our “National Healthcare System”.
2. You had to learn English.
3. Had to work since there was no welfare, SNAP, or 27 other programs to insure you were a non-producer.
4. You were expected to help you ethnic community, not create ghettos.
There is really no comparison with the Irish, Scotts, English, Dutch, Spanish, Germans, Swiss and even the far east Chinese and Japanese from 100 years ago entering America seeking Freedom and Opportunity and the deluge of poor, sick, illiterate socialists seeking welfare, free health care, and housing. Immigrants 100 years ago didn’t know what socialism was, they weren’t here for hand-outs but rather for opportunity. Throw in the gang members and the high potential for terrorist and we don’t need immigration now. People of the world should have to prove WE NEED THEM before they are allowed to enter. You’re a doctor, Welcome. You’re an engineer, come on in. You’re a sickly teen running away from home, Bye-bye. One other thing. Once you’re here you have 5 years to learn English and to pass a citizenship test or, bye-bye.
92 million Americans are out of the job force. 48 million Americans are on food stamps. We have a (supposed) unemployment rate of 6.2% which is really about 17%. We are 17 trillion in debt with unfunded liabilities of around 100 trillion. Forget the leftist pabulum. Clean up this mess then we can consider taking in immigrants who bring nothing to our national table.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 7/9/2014 @ 4:42 amHoagie (4dfb34) — 7/9/2014 @ 4:42 am
92 million Americans are out of the job force. 48 million Americans are on food stamps. We have a (supposed) unemployment rate of 6.2% which is really about 17%.
this is the lump of labor fallacy.
We are 17 trillion in debt with unfunded liabilities of around 100 trillion.
If they get jobs, then the debt is less as a proportion of GDP, because GDP is not fixed, and the most important compoent for estimating it is the number of people in the labor force.
If they don’t get jobs, you have a much bigger problem to worry about.
There’s another question: Why is there any numerical restriction at all on the immigration of college graduates who speak English?
Why is that, or even only STEM graduates, or even people who join the military, being held hostage to Democrats agreeing to do what they are not inclined to do, and if they agreed to it, you wouldn’t believe them, and anyway you’d pocket that “concession” without giving anything in return, saying that after something happens that can acxtually never happen, it might be something to consider?
Sammy Finkelman (cd2969) — 7/9/2014 @ 7:05 amPatterico,
of course I’m being hyperbolic. I thought that was clear. I refused to accept Carlitos straw man that the invasion from the south is being made up of only little 8 year old children. That’s not the case and anyone who wants to debate this honestly would acknowledge it.
It’s no different than showing the “kiddie” pics of Trayvon Martin instead of how he really looked when the media was getting the public into a frenzy against George Zimmerman.
NJRob (1d8873) — 7/9/2014 @ 8:06 amWTF? You hang out at a conservative web site knowing full well that we support “legal” immigration weighted toward educated, entrepreneurial individuals, and you have the nerve to pose that question! Unbelievable, truly unbelievable!
Here’s the answer for you, Sammy: “SOCIAL JUSTICE”! IOW, fairness. We should choose those individuals that most benefit this nation. It used to be called “brain drain” due to the fact that best and brightest of other countries would come here. Now, we call people refugees who have to live in places no more dangerous than Chicago, Oakland, etc.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/9/2014 @ 8:28 amI am in agreement with Hoagie. Specious comparisons to America 150 or even 100 years ago are just that. People offering them up should take a few minutes and think of the ways our country and society has changed before throwing intellectually dishonest analogies into the comments.
Were rates of immigration in the past at times higher relative to the existing population? Yes, but who cares? Does anybody dispute that the U.S. as a sovereign nation has a right to control its borders? I don’t think so. Does anybody claim that it is unconstitutional for us to control who enters our country? I don’t think so.
There is now a distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration which many commenters seem bound on blurring. The general public as we saw in 2007 wants the country to control illegal immigration while many Washington politicians seem out of touch with that sentiment. It’s not just a matter of Southern border crossings it also includes Visa overstays and other means of entry.
For some there may be parallels to prior periods of ethnic No-Nothing bigotry even when no “illegal immigration” existed in this country, but I think for most Americans securing our borders, fixing our immigration system, and verifying employment is all about protecting our sovereignty and basic fairness and abiding by our laws as opposed to the calumnous accusations of bigotry and xenophobia which people are fond of tossing on the table.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/9/2014 @ 8:39 amThere are numerical restrictions and outright restrictions on many occupations. Doctors top the list, and they’re a good example. There are questions on the application for a visa: Are you a Communist? Are you a Nazi? Are you a terrorist? Do you intend to practice medicine in the United States? It depends on whose ox is gored. The AMA is powerful and wants to keep the number of doctors low. The Chamber of Commerce is powerful and wants groundskeepers that work cheap for its 11,000 or so private golf courses. Our immigration laws are stupid and make no sense from any point of view except selfishness, greed, and prejudice.
nk (dbc370) — 7/9/2014 @ 8:40 amAnd in “selfishness, greed, and prejudice” I include Durbin and Guttierez who prefer unlimited street urchins over doctors. Their greed and selfishness is for votes, and their prejudice is for brown people over white and yellow.
nk (dbc370) — 7/9/2014 @ 8:45 amnk – Except Durbin doesn’t want them in Illinois. He’s a NIMBY. He was quoted in a piece in Chicago Tribune to that effect that I read on another blog which I am having trouble relocating. Hypocritical twatwaffle is the most stupid man in the Senate.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/9/2014 @ 8:57 amHeh, I Googled Senate S. 744 Immigration Reform Bill. I find it funny that the Immigration Policy Center is research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council.
Hadoop (5ab0dc) — 7/9/2014 @ 9:21 amSorry,
I find it funny that the Immigration Policy Center is research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council is the first web site listed on the search results
Hadoop (5ab0dc) — 7/9/2014 @ 9:23 amWhat I find unusual is all the howling over what are common practice many places in the world. The following is list of occupations for which Ireland refuses to grant work permits to citizens of non-EU (or EEA) countries:
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/9/2014 @ 9:24 amThe Daily Mail, WorldNetDaily, and Alex Jones could not be reached for comment? An anonymous “agent” allegedly told Townhall that some illegal immigrant kid (probably travelling with gang members) claimed to have killed someone when he was 8. Seriously, Patterico. You can do better. When I was 12, I claimed to have a girlfriend in Canada.
It pays not to be snide, indeed.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/9/2014 @ 12:14 pmarlitos@147,
Your fixation on the fact that Border Patrol agents are mostly speaking anonymously for fear of losing their jobs is just silly given their situation. The feds’ threats to those agents are real and have been validated. It fits in with an established Obama administration pattern; a special counsel is investigating 62 cases of retaliation against whistleblowers in the VA scandal, and the list grows daily.
But they can’t shut everyone up. Not everyone works for the feds.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/07/08/Sheriff-Feds-Releasing-Criminals-Deported-10-15-Times-into-Arizona
Steve57 (cd4182) — 7/9/2014 @ 5:49 pm” The House should move quickly to repeal it in its entirety. The bill can be just a few lines; repealing a law should not require a lot of verbiage.”
The problem with this approach is the chance that the trafficking victims protection act has some things we want to keep. Like perhaps the section titled “Penalties Against Traffickers and Other Crimes” or “Restriction of passports for sex tourism.”
dan (b4bbe4) — 7/9/2014 @ 5:51 pmWe should make human trafficking a state offense. Trafficking in humans has nothing to do with he federal government’s Constitutional powers to enforce immigration laws.
And then we could arrest and charge federal officials that commit that crime in Texas, and hopefully other states will follow suit.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/12/federal-court-obamas-partnership-with-mexican-drug-cartels-goes-far-beyond-guns.php
That’s all from the court’s opinion, so it shouldn’t be a problem if I quoted extensively from what is in fact in the public record. The federal government has no special powers or lawful authority granted to it to engage in criminal conspiracies to violate the laws of the US.
I’s disgusting; a couple of weeks ago here was a thread about a woman arrested and charged with child abuse for leaving her toddler alone for three minutes in a locked car on a cool day.
Yet when parents who are in his country illegally endanger their children by paying to hand them over to criminals, trafficking those children through territory controlled by violent drug gangs, and expose them to days if not weeks worth of countless dangers (including exposure to the elements) on their illegal journey, the government simply hands he kids back to the same parents that could have gotten he kids killed.
This isn’t just human trafficking. The government is engaging in a form of child abuse. “A private citizen would, and should, be prosecuted for this conduct.”
Steve57 (cd4182) — 7/9/2014 @ 7:52 pm“We should make human trafficking a state offense.”
Nothing is stopping states. But when it comes to dealing with passports and foreign governments, there’s a definite role for the Feds there.
“I’s disgusting; a couple of weeks ago here was a thread about a woman arrested and charged with child abuse for leaving her toddler alone for three minutes in a locked car on a cool day.”
Under state or federal law?
dan (b4bbe4) — 7/9/2014 @ 7:59 pmFortunately passports or foreign governments wouldn’t be an issue state laws outlawing human trafficking would have to concern themselves with. It wouldn’t make a whit of difference if a child was being smuggled across Texas from Mexico to Oklahoma or from Louisiana to New Mexico. Or for that matter from Houston to Dallas.
Since states have to comply with federal guidelines or lose funding, it wouldn’t much matter. There are federal child abuse laws, which is how civilian spouses of military personnel, who are not subject to the UCMJ, can be prosecuted for crimes committed on military reservations outside the US (the host government won’t prosecute such crimes, as long as no local nationals are involved). But the federal guidelines define child abuse as:
Certainly the El Salvadoran father living illegally here in Texas, who proudly allowed himself to be interviewed by local television, committed child abuse according to the first guideline. He paid a coyote $5k to bring his 13y.o. daughter up from El Salvador, and she was raped along he way.
Apparently he thought that worked out so well he plans to spend another $5k to bring his minor son up along the same route. Considering what just happened to his daughter, that’s definitely child abuse according to the second guideline. And every single parent living here illegally is committing child abuse by that definition when they pay criminals to bring their children along these deadly routes to smuggle the into he country. They are definitely exposing the child to far more danger then someone making a quick run into a convenience store while leaving he kid in he car.
And the feds are complicit in all these crimes. From the court case I cited earlier:
Steve57 (cd4182) — 7/9/2014 @ 10:57 pm“Fortunately passports or foreign governments wouldn’t be an issue state laws outlawing human trafficking would have to concern themselves with.”
Right. But they’re still issues you want to tackle when addressing the problem, because people are trafficked from other countries and people use their passports for trafficking or sex tourism.
“Since states have to comply with federal guidelines or lose funding, it wouldn’t much matter.”
I think I don’t want to have to explain all of this to you.
dan (b4bbe4) — 7/10/2014 @ 3:13 amSteve – dan/Nick/imdw is a special kind of special.
JD (e1b64b) — 7/10/2014 @ 4:13 amDannyboy doesn’t want to explain it! Then don’t. Are there no links that would explain your point?
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/10/2014 @ 4:51 am135. nk (dbc370) — 7/8/2014 @ 11:32 pm
From 1924 to 1943, there was no legal immigration for Asians. Any Asians, from any Asian country.
And since 1882, for Chinese. There was an exception, for the son of an American citizen, and there was a whole species of fraud involving “paper sons” (this was well before DNA or even low cost blood group testing, and you neeed a parent’s blood for that anyway.)
http://www.aiisf.org/stories-by-author/737-my-father-was-a-paper-son
And then it tells the story of Jim Fong, who came to the Unoted states as a paper son in February, 1929.
Sammy Finkelman (cd2969) — 7/10/2014 @ 7:09 amSteve57 (cd4182) — 7/9/2014 @ 10:57 pm
They are definitely exposing the child to far more danger then someone making a quick run into a convenience store while leaving he kid in he car.
But they have greater reason to.
This would be a matter for the Texas Department of Human Services, which to begin with is not as crazy as such organziations in some other states, and, furthermore, if anybody ever attempted to do this, it probably would be reversed by a court. Furthermore, doing this as a matter of policy, also has a budgetary impact. The budgetary impact sort of guarantees that nothing of this sort will ever be done, plus the usual goal is to re-unite the child with the parent.
The reason this would be rejected by a court is that taking children from their parents is not considered punishment, or deterrence for others, but prevention in that case.
A woman leaving her child unattended outside a store might do it, or other “dangerous” things again, and all the other children of such parents can also considered to be in danger. At least in legal fiction.
The father who paid to transport the child will not do it again because the child is already here.
Any children not here are not under the jurisdiction of Texas and cannot be protected by the state of Texas.
Were the child to be taken away, it would be put into foster care, which is universally known to be dangerous for a child.
The child is supposed to be put into the most safe environment, and that’s with the family that arranged for the smuggling.
It is not a sign of general neglect, because it is a rather unique situation.
Sammy Finkelman (cd2969) — 7/10/2014 @ 7:39 am“Dannyboy doesn’t want to explain it! Then don’t. Are there no links that would explain your point?”
I don’t even know where to begin. You’ve got some idea that states are stuck following federal child abuse guidelines and then go on about what happens in federal bases…What can I do with that?
dan (b4bbe4) — 7/10/2014 @ 2:35 pmLOL! dan, that was Hadoop, not me, genius.beginhere.
And no wonder you didn’t want to “explain” it. Because you can’t.
In never said that states are “stuck” following federal guidelines. Those are the bare minimum standards.
In his case it wouldn’t much matter because the actions these illegal parents took by engaging in a criminal conspiracy to smuggle their children into the country meets those minimum standards.
Steve57 (cd4182) — 7/10/2014 @ 5:09 pmDan,
You’re violating laws about logic.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 7/10/2014 @ 5:11 pmYou said you didn’t want to explain it, so I asked for a link to something that would explain the point you were trying to make. I see nothing wrong with that request.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/10/2014 @ 5:19 pm” Those are the bare minimum standards.”
Like I said, I have no idea where to go with this.
dan (b4bbe4) — 7/10/2014 @ 5:21 pmSending your child off with a smuggler is not neglect? Unique situation? Holy crap!
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/10/2014 @ 5:23 pmdan – Is Tuberculosis an infectious disease?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/10/2014 @ 5:45 pmIs this something you want me to look up for you?
dan (b4bbe4) — 7/10/2014 @ 7:06 pmtuberculosis is the future
that and healthy school lunches
legacy, bitches
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/10/2014 @ 7:21 pmYeah, genius, you look it up.
Meanwhile,Captain Obvious:
https://www.childwelfare.gov/can/defining/federal.cfm
Since a least 48 states, D.C.,Puerto Rico, and some US territories accept CAPTA funding, going by the federal definitions establishes a baseline standard that is virtually nationwide and eliminates the need to get down into the weeds about individual state laws.
We need look no further than the above to know that practically all states an prosecute illegal alien parents who entered into criminal conspiracies to violate US laws in order to smuggle their children into the US, exposing them to grave danger. Some of those children were in fact exploited, sexually abused, or suffered serious physical and/or emotional harm because of he actions of heir parents.
They can be prosecuted, and considering how they endangered their children they need to be prosecuted.
Or do the open borders types want to add child abuse and neglect to the list of laws illegal aliens an violate with impunity, along with immigration law violations, document fraud, identity theft, perjury, e.t.c.?
Steve57 (cd4182) — 7/10/2014 @ 9:29 pmSammy @158, you are insane if you think:
1.This is a safer environment for a child then foster care:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/192557927?access_key=key-abuv3pfkeme80lo2ela&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll
2. Those criminals who succeed in stealing the load (and sometimes the smugglers themselves) will complete the transfer rather than exploiting them. Such as forcing the girls, at least, into prostitution. And holding the others for ransom from heir families if not executing them(or both). Any of which, in case you haven’t heard, is worse for children than foster care.
3. (Reread no. 1)
4. That it matters where the child was when the conspiracy started, instead of where the parent was (living illegally within the jurisdiction of one of the 50 states or D.C.) when they committed the act (initialed and funded he criminal conspiracy) that subjected their child to abuse and neglect
5. That a court would throw a child abuse case like this out. This was written by a judge who wanted the mother who entered into this criminal conspiracy prosecuted to the full extent of the law precisely for abusing her child by endangering her in this way.
6. That illegal alien parents always or typically have only one child and would not (and have not) exposed additional children to the above dangers despite already bringing harm to one or more of the others.
7. That a court would not consider a parent who paid a complete stranger, of who the only thing they knew was that stranger was a criminal, to transport their child(ren) through territory controlled by murderous criminal organizations an ongoing danger to their child(ren). The judge in this case was so disturbed by the danger that this mother exposed her child to (encouraged, aided, and abetted by DHS) that he was compelled to write a very unusual order to condemn DHS’s practices. To repeat, this is what this judge in the above case had to say about parents who would endanger their children by initiating and funding such a criminal conspiracy:
You can’t take his form of child abuse more seriously? Leaving a child alone in a locked car on a 50 degree day for a three minute run into a convenience store is not even subjecting your child to abuse. Sending your child on an incredibly dangerous journey with a stranger you know is a criminal and exposing that child to all the risks of death and exploitation the judge describes is no only terribly abusive, but is indeed an especially heinous crime.
And you can’ see that, Sammy? Sorry, that’s weird.
Steve57 (cd4182) — 7/11/2014 @ 12:24 amLike I can look up for you CDC recommendations on vaccination for TB. Would that help you? Or maybe you can find them yourself?
dan (b4bbe4) — 7/11/2014 @ 5:00 amSammy @158 wrote:
I wrote:
Like clockwork this is a headline on drudge this morning.
http://news.yahoo.com/police-rescue-165-kidnapped-migrants-mexican-border-state-210542112.html
Yup. There you have it. Almost the full range of delights these illegal alien parents set their children up for when they hire criminals unknown to them to smuggle their kids across Mexican cartel country. Physical assault, sexual assault, forced labor, which no doubt for the younger women and girls would mean working for the gang as prostitutes (if they’re not sold to someone else to work as prostitutes) rather than as drug mules like the men, and executions.
And you defend the parents for initiating and funding these criminal conspiracies that endanger their children’s lives like this, Sammy? You actually believe children are better off with families that would do this to them than in foster care? You think “if anybody ever attempted to do this [prosecute the parents for child abuse and neglect], it probably would be reversed by a court?”
Well maybe in NYC, which is apparently full of people who compulsively demonstrate their ignorance on a wide range of subjects on which they’ve convinced themselves they’re experts. But not along the border where we know better about the cruelties these parents are exposing their kids to.
Stick to something you know about, Sammy. Like, um, uh.
I don’t know what that would be.
Steve57 (cd4182) — 7/11/2014 @ 5:01 amI’m sure a lengthy incoherent explanation will be forthcoming.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/11/2014 @ 5:11 amTB or not TB
nk (dbc370) — 7/11/2014 @ 5:12 amThat is the question.
Whether tis numbing to the mind to argue,
With Sammy and imdw,
O’er matters commonly known;
Or to tell both to f*** off
And by ignoring, end them.
It’s difficult to ignore Sammy when he Finkbombs every thread, trolls MD in Philly on matters of medicine, and writes the most convoluted crap I’ve ever read in a comment blog section.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/11/2014 @ 5:39 amSammy is autistic but he is always well-mannered, so I make allowances. imdw a/k/a Dan plus some two dozen other names is a troll plain and simple.
nk (dbc370) — 7/11/2014 @ 5:50 amnk, I try to make allowances, too, but I found Sammy’s post a @158 disturbing.
More from the judge:
Things the judge ites in his order happen all the tie. They’re in today’s headlines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_al0aYOVh-E
That’s just in one Texas county in 2, 2 1/2 years at ost. As the rancher points out they probably only find 25% of the bodies. Kids are especially hard to find. They’re small. The coyotes can hide the bodies under a bush and move on with the rest of the illegals they’re smuggling.
Imagine the death toll along the entire border.
To intentionally expose a child to these lethal dangers is, as the judge put it, an especially heinous crime.
Steve57 (cd4182) — 7/11/2014 @ 6:38 am“To intentionally expose a child to these lethal dangers is, as the judge put it, an especially heinous crime.”
Steve57 – Agreed. Rather than give yet another blame shifting speech bashing Republicans for inaction, it would be easy for President Obama to exercise actual leadership, something he has always been reluctant to do. He can come right out and say he has no intention of seeking amendments to the Wilberforce Law and that he believes the people he encouraged to come to the U.S. should be allowed to stay or he can work with Congress and amend the law and concurrently begin putting the border crossers on buses or planes on the way home.
Dithering from behind is not leadership or presidential.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/11/2014 @ 9:38 am