L.A. Times Fails to Tell Readers Obama’s Policy Is the Reason for the Border Crisis
The L.A. Times has a Q&A titled Explaining the crisis on the Southwest border as children seek refuge. Note how they fail to make any reference to Obama’s policies in answering why the border crisis is happening:
Why are they coming to the U.S.?
Although there has always been crushing poverty in Central America, violence in the region has escalated in recent years. For example, Honduras has the most murders per capita of any country.
Drug cartels and gangs are at the root of the increased violence. Some of these children are fleeing gang initiations, according to several reports.
But not all the children fleeing the region are arriving in the U.S. They are also looking for refuge in Mexico and other nations, such as Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Belize, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency.
Meanwhile, false rumors are circulating throughout Central America that the U.S. is giving families and children traveling solo permisos, that is, documents to permanently reside in the U.S.
It’s amazing that they got around to mentioning the false rumors at all. What is less amazing is that they don’t mention any connection at all to Barack Obama’s policy of not deporting children who meet certain criteria. As I have already told you, an internal Border Patrol memo states that a “high percentage” of the immigrants are coming because it is rumored that illegal immigrants with children are receiving “permisos” — official documents allowing them to stay.
Illegal immigrants from Central America are surging across the U.S.-Mexico border because they believe they can take advantage of American immigration policy and gain at least a tentative foothold in the country, according to an internal Border Patrol intelligence memo.
The immigrants come seeking “permisos,” which apparently are the “notices to appear,” the legal documents given to non-Mexicans caught at the border, according to the memo, which was viewed by The Washington Times and raised several times Wednesday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
Those notices officially put the immigrants into deportation proceedings. The immigrants usually are released to await a court date, giving them a chance to fade into the shadows in the interior of the U.S.
The L.A. Times Q&A does confirm that the newly arrived illegal children are generally released into the population, especially if they have relatives here:
An estimated 65% of the children are placed with a sponsor — usually a family member, according to the Vera Institute of Justice. The federal government has reported that the number may be higher, between 85% and 90%, according to Kids in Need of Defense, an advocacy organization that works to find pro bono representation for these children.
Does that mean all these Central American children are allowed to stay indefinitely after they reunite with family?
No. From the time an unaccompanied child is taken into immigration custody, he or she is under removal proceedings. The child receives a Notice to Appear in immigration court, where he or she can ask to stay.
Yeah, technically. But when the government catches you and lets you go, a lot of those people aren’t going to come to court. Of course, exact statistics are not available — embarrassing statistics never are available from this administration.
Also unmentioned in the Q&A: all this appears to be a direct result of Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, under which children are not being deported:
DHS will exercise prosecutorial discretion as appropriate to ensure that enforcement resources are not expended on low priority cases, such as individuals who came to the United States as children and meet other key guidelines.
According to the Washington Times story reporting on the Border Patrol memo I told you about a few days ago:
“This information is apparently common knowledge in Central America and is spread by word of mouth and international and local media,” the memo reads. “A high percentage of the subjects interviewed stated their family members in the U.S. urged them to travel immediately, because the United States government was only issuing immigration ‘permisos’ until the end of June 2014.”
When I first reported that, many of us were confused: why the reference to June 2014? Things get a little clearer when you visit the Department of Homeland Security page on how children can get around immigration laws. To seek to stay under Obama’s unilateral “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” policy, among other things, you have to have been arrived before June 15, 2007, and have been present on June 15, 2012. The repeated references to June, I believe, have apparently been miscommunicated to Central Americans as “you must arrive before the end of June 2014,” precipitating the current flood.
Whether that speculation is correct or not, it is definitely being spread by word of mouth that they’re letting people go after they get here. I have a hunch that’s good enough for most illegals.
Also unmentioned in the L.A. Times report: the fact that about 560 illegal children will be flown to California for processing (and presumably release) every six days for the foreseeable future.
As they no doubt say in the newsroom: sure, we could tell people about this stuff — but why give Republicans a bunch of talking points?
Yes, blame Obama, but don’t stop with him. Also blame fool governors that promote giving in-state tuition to illegal students. Blame churches that openly declare themselves sacntuaries. Blame mayors that openly declare their cities to be sanctuaries. Blame Eric “My People” Holder for for failing to enforce America’s laws.
When you blame the others you realize there are things you can do in your own hometown to fight this nonsense.Gusto Smooth (941ba0) — 6/23/2014 @ 8:02 am
Yo, Pat…it’s not ONLY Obama to blame – it’s also the RINOs who are caving to amnesty.Al-Ozarka (c7fbec) — 6/23/2014 @ 11:19 am
Why go with this, at all;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/23/scotus-rejects-epas-rewrite-of-the-clean-air-act-but-ghg-regulation-will-go-forward/narciso (3fec35) — 6/23/2014 @ 11:29 am
LAT: Unfit For The BirdcageColonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/23/2014 @ 11:42 am
Obamalitos.AZ Bob (c949f7) — 6/23/2014 @ 12:12 pm