The Detainee Children
[guest post by Dana]
As we continue to watch the president’s immigration policy implode and the resistance to illegal detainees increase, we are also finding out more about some of the 52,000 unaccompanied children who survived the long and dangerous journey to the US.
Texas Congressman Henry Cuellar (D-Laredo, TX) spoke to 1080 KRLD in Dallas, Texas:
Officials at Lackland Air Force Base told us that one-third of young girls that come across – and they were just like little babies; 10, 11, 14 years of age. That about one third of them get raped and/or abused on the way here.”
Cuellar says that as he was speaking to Customs and Border Patrol agents he was also discovering a disturbing trend of adults “renting” children in Central America in order to increase their chances of being able to stay in the U.S. once they cross over.
“I was talking to somebody that worked for Border Patrol, and he said that in the late 80′s there were a lot of kids from El Salvador coming in and what they were doing is they had a ‘rent-a-kid’ program.” says Cuellar “In other words they said ‘oh if I come in and I have a kid with me they’ll let me go.” And the Border Agent told him “Henry, I’m seeing this again, I cannot believe it.”
“This is a phenomenon that has gone on for years if not decades,” says George Grayson a Professor of Latin American Politics at William and Mary “As far as I know they pay the families (and remember these economies are in sad shape) and therefore to get maybe a few hundred dollars you’re willing to give up your 7th or 8th child.”
Grayson says that coyotes (smugglers) will often use children as a distraction, “Because your heart goes out to children. If the same group of organized criminals is trying to move drugs you can distract them by having a group of children moving into one part of the McAllen corridor into Texas and then you have your drugs moving in a few miles away.”
Meanwhile Cuellar goes onto say that the wave of illegal immigrants coming across the Southern Texas border has not ebbed at all.
“It still is bad… about 1,200 to 1,500 people they’re catching a day and about 20 to 30 percent of them are kids with no parents.”
With that, I wanted to mention as aspect of this issue that was brought up in the comments section a few nights ago, and that is the issue of compassion for these children.
My position is that unaccompanied children are nothing but pawns in an ugly grown-up game of politics. To assign them blame or anger is not only wrong, but is to potentially lose sight of who is really responsible for this situation. Likewise, to respond to them with unbridled sympathies, as our administration hopes, can distract us from holding responsible parties accountable, as well as clouding our view of immigration policy. Rather than objectively seeking what is in our country’s best interest, we instead yield to our sympathies. Unmeasured emotional reactions of any kind benefit no one. They are a liability, especially when it comes to decision making.
With that, I believe a measured response of compassion accurately reflects who we are as the greatest nation on earth. These children have been victimized in the worst way by assorted unsavory adults, including elected officials, and thrown into a devastating situation beyond their control. As such, how does one not respond to them – not the politics swirling around them – with some level of compassion? I believe it is possible to view these children in this light, while at the same time holding firm the belief that they must be returned home. Compassion and doing what is in the best interest of our country are not mutually exclusive. And stating the obvious, a compassionate response to their plight does not negate nor minimize their illegal presence in our country, nor does it diminish one bit the self-serving manipulations and complete neglect of duty by an impotent administration in failing to do its damn job of securing the border in the first place.
While one side hurls accusations of “xenophobes”, “racists”, “facists” at those of us who believe that the illegal detainees must be returned home and our borders secured, there are also those on this side of the issue who seem to believe that these children, simply by being unlucky enough to have been caught in the middle of an adult-made quagmire and thus here illegally, are unworthy or undeserving of compassion.
As misguided as our accusers are, so also is it as equally misguided to deny a rudimentary truth: “there but for the grace of God, go I” when considering the plight of these children. Spare me the You’re-playing-into-the-hand-of-the-Nancy Pelosi-President Obama-who-want-you-to-feel-sorry-for-them bullshit. I am not talking politics here (which, of course, they are), nor am I talking about a silly “compassionate conservatism”. This is not about some manipulatively designed political strategy intended to produce a specifically designed outcome. It is none of these. Rather, I am looking beyond the politics and paring it down to a basic fundamental: the intrinsic worth of a child – no matter where they come from or how they got here. The individual must be worth something. As such, these children who are powerless to change or control their situation, deserve our compassion.
Because here’s the bottom line: you and I will be fine. Simply put, and notwithstanding our immigration policy debacle, we will be the ones still living on this side of the border in the greatest country on earth.
–Dana
*fascists*
please to use it in a sentence
ok… The fascists weaponized a gaggle of third world children and sent them streaming across America’s porous and undefended borders. Hilarity ensued.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/5/2014 @ 10:00 amAnd you are an idiot playing right into the hands of politicians who would do anything, literally anything, to gain power and enrich themselves. Communists and socialists are willing to kill millions to feed their egos and gain power. They feel nothing for children, nothing for people, it’s all about them. And here you are, doing their bidding.
Don’t you see what’s happening? This country is heading for civil war, hard working Americans against our own government and PEOPLE LIKE YOU! Do you actually think this ends in Murrieta?
Besides, South America will never get any better as long as the US helps their dictators solve their problems.
GaryS (9629e4) — 7/5/2014 @ 10:19 am“This is a phenomenon that has gone on for years if not decades,” says George Grayson a Professor of Latin American Politics at William and Mary “As far as I know they pay the families (and remember these economies are in sad shape) and therefore to get maybe a few hundred dollars you’re willing to give up your 7th or 8th child.”
how unspeakably racist is it for George Grayson to allege that Guatemalan people are such subhuman animals that they’re selling their children by the tens of thousands?
Very.
Nonono, racist professor.
This phenomenon has not been going on for years and nobody’s paying nobody. The hordes are coming for food stamp and marco rubio’s dreamy dreamy amnesties.
Don’t get it twisted.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/5/2014 @ 10:29 amHear, hear, Dana!
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 10:43 amhappy, you are out of your mind if you think people climb walls and cross deserts because they are lazy.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 10:44 amLazy people find a connection to great aunt Maria who lives in San Antonio and file paperwork to be allowed in legally, then wait 3 years before ICE gets around to processing their family-connected visa application. The dependents come in legally — ONLY dependents come in legally because they get preferences. Workers we try to keep out as best we can. Why? Democrats, and particularly union democrats (e.g. Teddy Kennedy) designed the laws.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 10:49 amBTW, there is a second constitutional definition of “treason” — those who levy war against the United States — and any politicians who conspired to arrange this invasion are guilty of exactly that.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 10:55 amThe people across the border who are collecting and shipping these poor children must be stopped. They are up to no good, and somebody is paying them to “use” these children for political or worse purposes (like trafficking). The people on this side of the border who are encouraging and facilitating their entry and relocating them to camps which we are not allowed to monitor or visit also must be stopped. The diseases must be quarantined. The only way to stop either side of this horrible and inhumane scripted drama is to get firm control of the border and decide to enforce our laws in order to discourage even more of this cruelty and outrage. Hard medicine. Yes, the younger children are powerless and are victims in many ways. Quite aside from the natural human tendency to feel sorry for them I just don’t know what we are supposed to do with them. Another version of the famous and infamous “orphan trains” Do the kids have ID? Are there notes pinned to their shirts saying they have relatives in Iowa? Is there a mechanism to contact a parent back home? Nobody knows because we aren’t being told the truth about the origin of the journey of these children, who these children are and how as a group they got to the border.
elissa (7bd3b5) — 7/5/2014 @ 10:57 amwho said they were lazy
i said they were motivated by obama and rubio’s promises of sweet sweet amnesty
that said, are you thinking the deluded urchins are employment-minded?
I’m thinking most of them understand that they’re not going to have to get a job and contribute to society anytime soon.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/5/2014 @ 10:57 amYou said foodstamps, too. Maybe you use that word so much you forget what it means.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 10:58 amI’m thinking most of them understand that they’re not going to have to get a job and contribute to society anytime soon.
Because they spend all their time in Honduras paying video games and watching cartoons? Most of them are in their teens, and most of them have been working since they were 8. The ones I’m more concerned about are the ones who’ve been learning to be thugs. But even a self-respecting thug doesn’t apply for food stamps.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 11:02 amno Mr. M I did not say food stamps I said food stamp
food stamp is a kenning for vajayjay jarrett’s fascist little puppet man
synecdoche, if you will
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/5/2014 @ 11:05 amelissa–
I get the impression that these kids are being coached on what to say to stay here by the “shelter” employees. I believe this is happening by plan, and that Obama’s people are behind it. Their idea is to get most of these kids to stay and become lifelong Dem voters by and by. Thant isn’t to say the one who make the journey aren’t motivated for their own reasons, just that they are being badly used and manipulated by evil people here.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 11:06 amOh good grief, GaryS @ #2, did you even read the post or did you just see “illegal” and “compassion”, and erupt in a misguided rant?? Because that’s what it sounds like.
Dana (4dbf62) — 7/5/2014 @ 11:06 am== Most of them are in their teens, and most of them have been working since they were 8.==
Kevin, I am curious on what reliable basis are you getting your information? There are many rumors that the children as a group are quite a bit younger. But who really knows since the media and even our lawmakers apparently are being kept in the dark by ICE and the administration.
elissa (7bd3b5) — 7/5/2014 @ 11:11 amSo what’s the magical solution? I’ve yet to hear what special language in the “reform” bill would prevent what’s happening now. Nothing. As cruel as it sounds, the only way to stop the flow is to deny entry. No solution, no entry.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/5/2014 @ 11:22 amI don’t care if anyone calls me a “xenophobe”, “racist”, etc. These words have become meaningless. Either we’re a sovereign nation with secure borders and laws, or we’re Afghanistan with roads and plumbing.
elissa–
What I read is that they range in age and *some* of them are as young as 10, 11 & 12. That doesn’t mean anything about their average age and the video I have seen shows people rather older.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 11:24 amLets put them up for adoption by worthy patriots.
red (ac28a9) — 7/5/2014 @ 11:24 am#16:
1) We need to back to a system of annual registration of non-citizens, like we had in the past.
2) We need to end all preferences for extended family members. Citizen’s new spouse and spouse’s minor children only, with a repatriation agreement should the marriage end before they become citizens.
3) Otherwise preferences are for workers with experience in areas we have labor shortages. This might not be skilled labor if, say, we have a shortage of strawberry pickers. A superminimum wage for such importees might be a good idea here.
4) For those who are here illegally, a signed waiver of any path to citizenship for adults; a large fine; immediate deportation for crimes; back taxes as estimated by the IRS under normal no-documentation rules; a prohibition against state aid other than treating communicable disease; and a time cut-off — people recently arrived go home anyway.
Or something along those lines. All after a serious attempt to secure the border that includes a full wall. I would also like American rights in Mexico and Central America expanded.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 11:37 amnor am I talking about a silly “compassionate conservatism”.
The very fact such a phrase even exists today and doesn’t necessarily have to be qualified in spite of it being based on a foolish assumption, much less a blithe acceptance of all the do-gooder compassion oozing out of modern-day American, circa 21st century, is why a reminder that the concept of compassion must be inserted into the middle of debate about immigration is unnecessary. That’s sort of similar to saying that when planning a trip to the South Pole, it’s important to never forget about bringing along warm clothing.
Your frame of mind might have been in proper context over 50 years ago, when, for example, during the 1950s, Dwight Eisenhower implemented a program called no less than “Operation Wetback” — ie, even the formal designations of government initiatives back then were like the opposite extreme of today’s political correctness run amok — in which there were cases of native-born or naturalized Americans of Latino descent being included in round ups and forcibly sent south of the border.
I won’t even say anything about LEGAL immigration policies at the time being very restrictive and very racially oriented (ie, an open-door policy to most Europeans seeking to move to the US, just the opposite for practically everyone else in the rest of the world).
Nowadays, in the 21st century, we have someone like Barack Obama running a banana-republic boiler-room operation out of the White House and someone like Nancy Pelosi handing out candy at the US/Mexico border.
Simply put, America in 2014 isn’t your father’s or grandfather’s America.
Mark (cb6333) — 7/5/2014 @ 11:40 amUnfortunately, any “reform” to immigration will pay lip-service to true border security, mandatory e-verify for employers with heavy fines for violation, and interior enforcement.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/5/2014 @ 11:53 amyou are out of your mind if you think people climb walls and cross deserts because they are lazy.
By the same token, Kevin M, it’s naive to believe that countries full of the dysfunction — including endless bouts of corruption and poverty — associated with Central and South America is due to many people there sitting around and eating bon bons and watching TV all day long.
Some of the most gut-wrenching societies throughout the world are full of people who lead a gueling hand-to-mouth existence, where if they don’t work (perhaps even like slaves), they don’t survive. IOW, to assume that hard work and hard-working people (all by itself, all by themselves) are the answer to inculcating a successful, upwardly mobile society, and that a lack of such is why Third World environments are Third World, is a very naive assumption.
Mark (cb6333) — 7/5/2014 @ 11:55 amI was thinking this afternoon about what the phrase “natural rights” means, and drifted quickly towards the idea that you have a natural right to do anything you could do if you were the only human being on the planet. And whatever you could do if you were alone on the earth, the government could not stop you from doing. Period. Natural rights – with all else necessitating the consent of the next person you add to the equation.
I’m curious as to the group’s thoughts on this definition, if the group is at all interested in discussing it.
To tie it to the thread, it would seem that one of the things that I could do if I was alone on this earth would be to walk north until I wanted to stop.
Leviticus (1aca67) — 7/5/2014 @ 11:58 amIOW, to assume that hard work and hard-working people (all by itself, all by themselves) are the answer to inculcating a successful, upwardly mobile society
Necessary does not imply sufficient.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:05 pmnd whatever you could do if you were alone on the earth, the government could not stop you from doing.
A tautology, I think. Unless God stops you, as He would when your walk reached the North Pole.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:07 pmLeviticus, your proposed definition of natural rights doesn’t fly with me and and I suspect it won’t fly with a lot of others either. Your question is worth thinking about but not if that’s the def. you want to use to start the discussion out with. Maybe try something remotely realistic or plausable? If yer the only person on earth you’ve got way bigger problems than pondering what your “rights” are, I think. 🙂
elissa (7bd3b5) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:15 pmLeviticus #23 – I’ll take up your challenge …
And I will start by pointing out what happens with “natural rights” …
A couple of years ago, with my family, I visited a place which demonstrated natural rights …
“Jim Corbett National Park is the oldest national park in India and was established in 1936 as Hailey National Park to protect the endangered Bengal tiger.”
It gave me a much better visceral understanding of the predictable results of a Gun-Free Zone … For the Bengal Tiger, with respect to natural rights, the Jim Corbett National Park is both a gun-free zone and a snack-bar …
(During entry to the Park, an Indian Park official carefully explained to me (and to my family) that we were not to go nearer than 20 metres (60 feet) to a Bengal Tiger … I pointed out to that official that, since the jeeps in which one visits the Tiger Preserve are open topped where the tourists sit, I would do my bes to ensure that the driver didn’t get us any closer to a Bengal Tiger than that …)
Natural rights do not emanate from a government … natural rights are what Nature affords us … and the most basic is “Eat or Be Eaten” … Nature does not give a rodent’s fundament about our human aspirations … as far as nature is concerned, when we act like prey, predators are welcome to us …
*That*, Sir, is “natural rights” !
Alastor (2e7f9f) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:18 pmelissa #26 – what could be more perfect for a Progressive than a world populated only by Progressives ?
Alastor (2e7f9f) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:19 pmLeviticus,
Since nobody will likely ever be the “only person on the planet,” it kind of reduces “natural rights” to yet another one of those grad skool two o’clock in the morning BS sessions.
Leviticus, let me ask you this…did southern slaveholders violate the “natural rights” of black people by keeping them in bondage ? Or were the southern slaveholders merely doing what they could get away with, until Union soldiers kind of made them give up their slaves ?
Elephant Stone (5c2aa0) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:27 pmelissa and Kevin M,
In this video, the mayor of Nogales states that there are children as young as three, as well as them needing diaper and formula donations. However, he also mentions that most of the children are older.
Further, this:
Dana (4dbf62) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:30 pmNo one invited you gringos here either. The children did not set up a beach head on the north shore of the rio grande river and kill or chase off the people already living there. Nor burn down their villages and make slaves out of the people. The children just want to live here and be loved.
vota (411118) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:35 pmHey fellow conservatives,
So many of us complain that there’s never anything worth paying for at the local cineplex, so let’s everyone open up their wallet and buy a ticket (or two) for Dinesh D’Souza’s new documentary film, America. If you’ve got some money to burn, buy ten tickets.
Even if you don’t have time to actually attend a showing of the film, you can still buy a ticket online or at the box office, and just not see the film.
That way, there’s still money being counted toward the box office take.
It’s really important to have a strong showing so that D’Souza will have future films financed.
Also, movie theatre chains always look at box office numbers when determining how many screens they will commit for your next film’s opening.
Transformers 5; The War Against Lego-land will be on a zillion screens in 2016 because all of its previous incarnations have earned zillions of dollars.
Elephant Stone (5c2aa0) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:36 pmVotaPerry #31,
You know what the doctor says when you fail to take your medication on a consistent basis.
Elephant Stone (5c2aa0) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:38 pmLeviticus,
I like that you think about these sorts of things. Whether they are a moot point or unrealistic, it creates for an interesting exercise.
With that, your curiosity reminds me of an old episode of Twilight Zone where Burgess Meredith is a coke-bottle bespectacled librarian (I think) who wants nothing more to do than sit and read every book there is – and be left alone by the public, his family, the government, whoever. Just. Wants. To. Read. Uninterrupted. So some sort of disaster hits (can’t remember what) and he ends up being the last man on earth. Rushes to the library and excitedly looks at the opportunity before him. But unfortunately, he rushes too much, trips and breaks his only pair of glasses.
So, yeah, if you were the only person on earth, you could pretty much do what you wanted. But the laws of physics – as well as other natural laws – could still constrain you in your quest to exercise your natural rights.
Dana (4dbf62) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:39 pmDr. samuel johnson said it best when boswell asked him what he thought about the american revolution going on at the time. I observe those who scream the loudest about freedom and liberty are the slave holding southerners!”
vota (411118) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:40 pm“Leviticus, your proposed definition of natural rights doesn’t fly with me and and I suspect it won’t fly with a lot of others either.”
– elissa
Why? Is there something you think of as a natural right that isn’t accounted for by the definition I proposed? Again: if you could do something if you were the only person on earth, you have a “natural” right to do it.
You could speak your mind, worship your God, move about freely, and carve a living from the land. These are the things we think of as natural rights – I’m just trying to come up with a principle to justify them.
Leviticus (1aca67) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:41 pmDana,
That particular episode of the TZ is entitled, “Time Enough at Last.”
Elephant Stone (5c2aa0) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:44 pmThe Burgess Meredith character had been sitting in the reinforced bank vault, reading a book during his lunch hour when the nuclear attack leveled everything.
It was one of the very first episodes during the first season.
Excellent stuff.
“did southern slaveholders violate the “natural rights” of black people by keeping them in bondage ?”
– Elephant Stone
Could said black people speak their minds under slavery? Could they move about freely? Learn freely? Worship freely?
And could they have done those things if not for their slavers? Of course southern slaveholders violated the natural rights of black people by keeping them in bondage. And government sanctioned it, for a long time. It’s healthy for us to start thinking about our rights detached from Constitution or government, and I’m trying to think of a principle to assist in the endeavor.
Leviticus (1aca67) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:45 pmGuys, I’ll start a new post with Leviticus’s question about natural rights, so we can discuss the issue there, and focus on immigration policy on this one.
JVW (feb406) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:49 pmTo tie it to the thread, it would seem that one of the things that I could do if I was alone on this earth would be to walk north until I wanted to stop.
And if in that sojourn you end up at a place that appeals to your wants and needs, and you glom onto it, and in the process eventually bring it down like a house of cards — and make it similar to the place you originated from and felt you had no choice but to abandon — don’t expect me to shed big tears for the value of your natural rights.
Mark (cb6333) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:49 pmThere are no rights only privileges as the children no all to well! The children are part or all native american they belong here you don’t! If no amnesty for the children why should we give YOU amnesty? And we are now the voting majority! We will demand Mrs Clinton make conservatives illegal aliens if she wants our votes in 2016. Murrieta california showed which side can put more people into action!
vota (411118) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:50 pmLeviticus,
But if your standard is that “natural rights” are what people can get away with because there’s nobody stopping them, then weren’t the southern slaveholders merely exercising their “natural rights” by keeping slaves ?…you know, since nobody was stopping them ?
Elephant Stone (5c2aa0) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:51 pmPost in which to discuss “natural rights” is now up.
JVW (feb406) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:56 pmI’ll answer on the new thread, Elephant Stone. Sorry, JVW – didn’t mean to threadjack.
Leviticus (1aca67) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:57 pmLeviticus #38 – it is good to see you expressing understanding and wisdom …
When the current administration and the Democrat Party violate your definition of natural rights by preventing people from expressing political opinions freely (by limiting campaign funds), and from walking freely in the White House or National Parks …
When they violate your definition of natural rights each time they try to throw out so much of the history of this country to prevent people learning the whole story, warts and all (whether American Indian upon American Indian slavery or the reason the US Marines were founded (to combat Barbarous Islamic slavery and piracy)) …
When they try to prevent the free exercise of religion by doing their best to ban it from the public square; when they do these things …
I know you are going to be among the first to work to defeat their suppression of natural rights as you define them …
Right ?
Alastor (2e7f9f) — 7/5/2014 @ 12:59 pmRight ?
No. Because those situations won’t ping the do-gooder emotions of the typical liberal.
Mark (cb6333) — 7/5/2014 @ 1:07 pmDana, this is an excellent post and I think you have hit upon some of the real problems with untrammeled illegal immigration. The other part that is so galling is that these Latin American countries use migration as a way of dealing with their own poverty. If a country like Nicaragua (population of six million) or Honduras (population of eight and a quarter million) can send 50,000 or 100,000 or even 250,000 of its poorest citizens over to find work from good ol’ Tio Sam, that removes a lot of the impetus for reforming the economy and undertaking the difficult task of providing opportunities for your own citizens. Even as staunch an “immigrant rights” activist as Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez (a native of Mexico incidentally) has spoken of the need of Latin American and Asian countries to institute reforms so that fewer of their citizens would need to seek opportunities elsewhere.
JVW (feb406) — 7/5/2014 @ 1:10 pmWhen those “children” (some are in their teens and many are cartel members)are being used as weapons to destroy our county or at least the productive portion, all bets are off. Returning them back to Mexico ASAP is the only way to send a message to stop coming. My compassion is for my own family and fellow conservatives.
I wish that the votas of the country were forced to house and care for this invading force. Maybe then we would be united in insisting that the border be enforced.
Margaret McCarthy (b5205a) — 7/5/2014 @ 1:12 pmThanks, JVW. Sometimes you wonder…
What I’m seeing is a frustrated and fed up public not being able to separate our failed immigration policies, corrupt governments and money makers from the pawns in the game: unwitting children. While they are certainly part and parcel of the same package, directing ire toward them is not going to benefit anyone in the long run. What tipped the scale for me was a commenter referring to them as “filthy urchins”. I don’t want to ever forget that it’s by grace alone I was born in this country with all the opportunities and accoutrement that come with it.
At this point, the Latin American country governments are so utterly and contemptibly corrupt, is it feasible to believe they would ever institute reforms that benefit everyone – not just the political elite and well connected? Or at this point, is a complete revolt the answer? Either way, citizens have to be willing to stay and fight for what they believe is their right. If more and more leave, then what is left?
Dana (4dbf62) — 7/5/2014 @ 1:17 pm“Returning them back to Mexico ASAP is the only way to send a message to stop coming. ”
I think you’re not aware that the big issue here is non-Mexican children and the procedures that our law has for processing them.
dan (968c29) — 7/5/2014 @ 1:18 pmI wish that the votas of the country were forced to house and care for this invading force.
What really irritates me about far too many people like that are that when the going gets tough, plenty of do-gooder liberals vote with their feet and the moving van. They also send their own precious children to private schools or academies (Hello, Barack and Michelle, and how are Natasha and Malia doing??!) that are far from the madding crowd, which may contain plenty of the “undocumented.”
Mark (cb6333) — 7/5/2014 @ 1:19 pmhey there Obama
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/5/2014 @ 1:22 pmwhy don’t you hop on llama
ride Eff outta town
@ Margaret McCarthy,
Thanks for commenting. I have not read that the kids are cartel members, only that they have been likely escorted by the cartel coyotes. With that, in the post I make it very clear, without equivocation, that they must be returned home because, yes, that is how to stop it. I want my compassion to be big enough to hold more than just my kids or fellow conservatives. Something would be lost if I couldn’t.
Dana (4dbf62) — 7/5/2014 @ 1:24 pm…eh, return to Guatamala and Central America…
Dana (4dbf62) — 7/5/2014 @ 1:25 pmI want my compassion to be big enough to hold more than just my kids or fellow conservatives.
Dana, a lack of compassion is the last thing this society has to worry about. We’re oozing so much sentiment of kumbayah and do-gooderness, that the system (ie, the US military, and not the ACLU, or NOW, or the NAACP, etc) allowed someone like Nidal Hasan to go his merry way — to be a happy camper — until it was too late.
Mark (cb6333) — 7/5/2014 @ 1:31 pmDana, you said:
And it makes me wonder; have you ever read The Camp of The Saints? I would seem not. This is what we are seeing on our southern border.
And while it is grand to lecture us on compassion, you offer no solution. There are going to be future ramifications from this flood of illegals that no taxpaying citizen is going to like. That needs to be addressed.
Henry Culler (D-Tx) would not be considered a conservative by the stretch of anyone’s imagination. He is a solid-lock Democrat. But he is speaking truth to what is happening. Yes, coyotes are using the rent-a-kid system in order to be able to enter the U.S. But there is an even more frightening aspect of this whole debacle. What is happening to these children once they are released to a “family” member, and how does a 2-3-4-5 years old from Honduras know who their family members in the U.S. are?
There was a 3 1/2 hour Congressional hearing held in McAllen, Texas just last Wednesday. When a Congressman as the head of the Laredo Border Patrol is there are background checks being done on the supposed “family” members these children are being released to, some illegals themselves, he said he didn’t know. How are we meeting the 72 hour release rule if we have to do background checks on an adult here illegally? It is totally impossible.
And when do we draw a line in the sand? When do we say “No more” as more children flood into our nation? If the parents really wanted them to be in a safer place, why have them trek up from Central America, thru Mexico to the Texas border? Why not move them to Nicaragua or Costa Rica? The children would have a better chance in nations where assimilation would be easier due to similar cultures and common language.
And what happens when it is no longer Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala sending us their children and single mothers? Shall we throw open the doors to the children of Sierra Leon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the other nations on the African continent? Where does the line end?
What about our American children? They are now going to be exposed to diseases that we have virtually eradicated. My spouse recently caught whooping cough. Our doctor explained that whooping cough is at critical levels in Texas because it is being brought to the U.S. by illegals who have never been vaccinated against it? What happens when your 70 year old father, or your one year old daughter is racked with pain over whooping cough? How about scabies, TB, H1N1? Will you then be demanding others have compassion? And who is going to pay for all of this? Don’t you think that Hondorus, Mexico, El Salvador and Guatemala are responsible for their own citizens?
I think it is fine to have compassion. Donate to some charity that provides an education, and a chance, to these children in their own nations, but to insinuate that we have a responsibility to them is just flat out foolishness.
retire05 (163c58) — 7/5/2014 @ 1:32 pmretire05,
For the hundredth time, in the post I make it very clear – at least I thought I did – that I do not agree with allowing them to remain, they must be sent back, our borders must be secured, our immigration laws must be upheld.
All I am saying is that a 5 or 6 year old kid is not to blame. They are the unfortunate pawns of corrupt adults. Period. Hell, it’s not even their fault they’ve contracted scabies, TB or anything else. Do I want them here to spread communicable diseases? Of course not. Do you see anywhere in my post that I would want them here especially with said health issues? Do you see anywhere in my post that the Central American governments shouldn’t be responsible for their own? Do you see anywhere in my post that But why would I be angry with them? Why would I not have some compassion for their plight? That does *not* in any way, shape or form relieve anyone responsible for this mess.
And in no way do I insinuate that *we* have a responsibility to them. Stop with the misassumptions.
And while it is grand to lecture us on compassion, you offer no solution. There are going to be future ramifications from this flood of illegals that no taxpaying citizen is going to like. That needs to be addressed.
I have stated my solutions on the linked post where the original discussion took place. Also, in this post I have stated them and on this comments, as well. And because there will be future ramifications from this surge, which none of us will not only like, but benefit from, of course the course of action must be addressed.
Can you agree with that?
Dana (4dbf62) — 7/5/2014 @ 1:40 pmEh….Do you see anywhere in my post that I want them to kumbyah-come-live-with-us-as-one-big-happy-family? No! But again, why should I be angry with them?
I am attempting to separate my reaction to the children from the debacle they are caught up in. While part and parcel, they are also separate entities who have no control over this.
I want control over my responses and to be able to sort them accordingly. This does not infer, insinuate or mean that I am squish-squish and want them to stay or have our borders open or look the other way. Period.
Dana (4dbf62) — 7/5/2014 @ 1:45 pmDana, I’m skimming comments today more than usual because I’m cooking for a small get-together this evening. I see you’ve used the compassion word several times on this thread. I think some commenters may see that word (which is already extra-loaded because of a certain regular poster here) and wonder what, if any, action you see that needs to go along with the feeling of compassion to demonstrate compassion. Or are you more using the word just to ask people not to post nasty things about the kids who really are for the most part victims. If you’ve already spelled this out and I missed it, I apologize.
elissa (7bd3b5) — 7/5/2014 @ 1:50 pmAt this point, the Latin American country governments are so utterly and contemptibly corrupt, is it feasible to believe they would ever institute reforms that benefit everyone – not just the political elite and well connected?
Dammit, I started a rather long reply to this question, then mistakenly closed the window before submitting my comment. The gist of it though was that the strides that Mexico has made in the past 20 or so years should give us some hope that other Latin American countries can come around. Even though problems still remain, Mexico is vastly more stable and wealthy than it was in the 1980s.
JVW (feb406) — 7/5/2014 @ 1:52 pmGood point, elissa. I should have defined the term and usage. At a base level, not referring to them as “filthy urchins” and all that the phrase suggests.
Compassion in that they should not be held responsible for what their parents, this administration and the cartels have done to put them in this predicament.
Compassion in that while they are being processed, they are treated with respect, which from all I’ve read, they are. However, I have seen a few interviews with protesters who think that providing immediate care until they are processed and deported is wrong as it drains from our resources. Which begs the question and shows the craziness of this situation: if this administration *allowed* and *encouraged* them to come, doesn’t *it* then have an obligation to provide this?? Unfortunately, for those of us who did not want them to come and wanted measures taken years ago to prevent this inevitable surge, we’re the ones being hosed.
Dana (4dbf62) — 7/5/2014 @ 1:56 pmDana,
to agree with your assumption that we need to have compassion for innocent children caught up in what seems to be a political ploy by their governments, along with the criminal element in those countries, you have to first assume that we do NOT have compassion for them. Otherwise, there is no need to tell us to have compassion, is there?
I have yet to read one story, one article, one op-ed that blames the children. Where, in any source, has anyone blamed these children for the diseases they carry? Where has anyone, anywhere, said they were angry with the children? So your point becomes moot.
Did you mean to say “which none of us will like, or benefit from” because your statement makes no sense.
The ramifications have already entered my door. Whooping cough was extremely dangerous for my spouse due to open heart surgery.
Frankly, I don’t believe that most people have the issue of separating their compassion for children, often abused beyond imagination on their trek to El Norte, and the solution.
retire05 (163c58) — 7/5/2014 @ 2:00 pm#60,
More stable? Have you seen the murder rates of Mexico lately? These are not one mafia member wiping out another mafia gang; these are cartel members killing innocent civilians. Wealthier? You betcha. And the caste system that blatantly exists in Mexico is getting even worse.
Mexico is not our friend. Has not been for a long time. We knew, with the death of Kiki Camarena that the corruption goes all the way to the top in Mexico. Nothing has changed since then.
retire05 (163c58) — 7/5/2014 @ 2:04 pmretire05,
I apologize for snapping at you.
Again, as I stated, what got me thinking about this was seeing them referred to as “filthy urchins”.
Also, you are correct re my sentence.
My best hopes for your wife and her recovery.
Dana (4dbf62) — 7/5/2014 @ 2:06 pmMexico is vastly more stable and wealthy than it was in the 1980s.
For some reason when I read that, I think of the phrase “with friends like that, who needs enemies?!” Or “I’m so healthy and strong I can beat up my 85-year-old grandmother!”
A few months ago I was watching a video of a TV sitcom from the 1960s posted to Youtube. It was a show about a witch living with her mortal husband, who were grappling with an unwanted spell that was making people totally honest and tactless. The scene showed the top manager of an American ad agency speaking with an executive from Mexico. The American blurted out to the client that Mexico was a backwards and sleepy country. Cue the laugh track.
Over 45 years later, the gist of such humor has morphed into something that’s now more grotesque than funny.
Mark (cb6333) — 7/5/2014 @ 2:18 pmlice and scabies
hey urchin babies
i’m angry but i still
love
u
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/5/2014 @ 2:19 pmCompassion in that while they are being processed, they are treated with respect, which from all I’ve read, they are.
That’s why to even raise the issue of compassion in the context of modern-America 2014 is unnecessary, even excessive. It’s like worrying that a person floating on a dingy in the middle of Lake Tahoe may not have enough water to drink.
Mark (cb6333) — 7/5/2014 @ 2:23 pmMore stable? Have you seen the murder rates of Mexico lately? These are not one mafia member wiping out another mafia gang; these are cartel members killing innocent civilians. Wealthier? You betcha. And the caste system that blatantly exists in Mexico is getting even worse.
Mexico’s population tripled between 1960 (40 million) to 2010 (120 million), but it is now stabilizing. The fertility rate for Mexican women has gone from over six children per woman in 1960 to about 2.28 today. Access to clean water in rural villages continues to expand. Growth in Mexico’s GDP has outstripped ours thus far this year and is expected to do so for 2015 and 2016.; you will see the figures at this site.
The major drawback facing the Mexican economy is that the percentage of citizens living in poverty continues to creep upwards. That doesn’t bode well for Mexico, nor does it bode well for the U.S. because it probably means Mexico will want to export many of those impoverished people to us. Mexico clearly needs to do more to expand their economy — increasing oil production would be one important way — and provide opportunities for its citizens. Interestingly, the World Bank figures indicate that the percentage of overall income earned by the top 10% of wage earners may be declining while the share held by the lowest 20% of wage earners may be rising (the figures are somewhat incomplete, so we can’t draw a definitive conclusion).
Yes, the crime situation especially with the cartels is bad, but this isn’t too different than the position the U.S. found itself in during the 1920s and 30s.
JVW (feb406) — 7/5/2014 @ 2:31 pmDana–
#30. Apparently there is a second crisis, involving mothers with small children coming across near McAllen and turning themselves in. Since they are accompanied by the children, while the mothers can be sent home the children cannot, so it’s catch and release there too. I would suspect that the 3-year-olds are part of this group.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/05/immigrant-moms-border-texas/12207667/
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 2:32 pmI remember reading an SF story decades ago about the last remnants of Anglo culture in retreat before the ethnic cleansing of North America by a Latino wave from the south.
And I thought to myself, “How silly! That could never happen.” As I said, it was a long time ago.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 2:38 pmThanks for the link at #69, Kevin M. I hadn’t read that. The situation is fluid, so it’s tough to keep up with everything.
Dana (4dbf62) — 7/5/2014 @ 2:43 pmI remember reading an SF story decades ago about the last remnants of Anglo culture in retreat before the ethnic cleansing of North America by a Latino wave from the south.
And I thought to myself, “How silly! That could never happen.” As I said, it was a long time ago.
See Kevin M, these are the kind of comments that get our side tagged with the “racial purists” or “anti-brown” allegations. I don’t think they are helpful at all. I don’t care what ethnicity or nationality our new arrivals have in their background; what I care is that these arrivals accept and support the idea that America is not a socialist nation with a gigantic welfare state where everyone gets to vote themselves a higher income and more goodies. I also want them to understand that the highly-regulated and government-controlled economies of their home countries are the problem, and that free markets and democratic capitalism are the solution.
JVW (feb406) — 7/5/2014 @ 2:49 pmYes, the crime situation especially with the cartels is bad, but this isn’t too different than the position the U.S. found itself in during the 1920s and 30s.
That sounds just a bit morally relativistic, JVW.
As bad as things got back in the era of Bonnie and Clyde or Al Capone, I’m not aware of the situation ending up quite as brutal and bloody as what is seen in photos like this. Or to put words to the image:
Mark (cb6333) — 7/5/2014 @ 2:54 pmI don’t care what ethnicity or nationality our new arrivals have in their background; what I care is that these arrivals accept and support the idea that America is not a socialist nation with a gigantic welfare state where everyone gets to vote themselves a higher income and more goodies. I also want them to understand that the highly-regulated and government-controlled economies of their home countries are the problem, and that free markets and democratic capitalism are the solution.
This is asking for way too much.
JD (222480) — 7/5/2014 @ 2:58 pm@47 There is no mention of them coming from nicaragua the iran-contra traitor bonzo was not able to instal drug dealing stooge and corporate lackey there as they were in el salvador honduras and guatamala.
vota (411118) — 7/5/2014 @ 3:08 pmAs bad as things got back in the era of Bonnie and Clyde or Al Capone, I’m not aware of the situation ending up quite as brutal and bloody as what is seen in photos like this. Or to put words to the image:
Beyond the sensationalism of the decapitations, how is this any different from the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in Chicago? Only half as many victims, certainly, but nevertheless a brutal and bloddy execution carried out by gangsters.
JVW (feb406) — 7/5/2014 @ 3:11 pmcompassionate conservative now there is an oxymoron!
vota (411118) — 7/5/2014 @ 3:12 pm“This is asking for way too much.”
Of children? Definitely
dan (15b551) — 7/5/2014 @ 3:13 pm#68 JVW
The problem is that what Mexico needs to do, and what it will do. It will not do anything to reverse its caste system, because it is solidly locked into a Pan-American political view. And those that migrate here will only subscribe to the same Pan-American political view as it is all they have ever known.
retire05 (163c58) — 7/5/2014 @ 3:14 pm#76
How is the crime wave that griped certain areas of the United States (Chicago/New York in particular) similar to this:
Battered by drug-related violence in recent years, more than 85,000 people in Mexico have died in drug-related killings since the end of 2006.
If you counted every low level Mafia goon in the 30’s that found himself riddled with bullet holes, it would not come close to the 85,000 number or even half of that number.
retire05 (163c58) — 7/5/2014 @ 3:22 pmSee Kevin M, these are the kind of comments that get our side tagged with the “racial purists” or “anti-brown” allegations
Then you haven’t read many of my comments.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 3:25 pm∅ hasn’t even crafted a strongly worded letter or tweet with outrage. Seems rather selective. Like the Green Movement in Iran being met with a “meh”! Mubarak was untenable, and had to go. Same with Ghaddafi. Honduras, well those b@$t@rdS had the nerve to try and get rid of a guy who once elected decided he was a dictator instead of a representative leader. Zippy must just like Mexican thug politics
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/5/2014 @ 3:40 pmThen you haven’t read many of my comments.
I’ve read plenty of your comments, Kevin M, and I know you well enough to know you aren’t a racist, but when you use a term like “ethnic cleansing” in your comment it is pretty easy for someone who isn’t familiar with your comments to misconstrue you as a racist and to thus dismiss our side’s arguments.
JVW (feb406) — 7/5/2014 @ 3:42 pmOne thing to consider is that North America is largely the product of the British colonial experience, along with India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica and South Africa. While these are not all perfect places, they tend to be the best examples in their region. Sure, the Brits were racist as all get out, and some of them (e.g. Cecil Rhodes) were monsters, they pretty much worked through institutions and law, and demonstrated at least a modicum of decency. Slavery was ended in the Empire decades before the US. They left their traditions behind and even in the worst places, some semblance of them remains. Even Pakistan honestly tries to hold elections. Utter failures like Zimbabwe are few.
Central and South America are the products of the Spanish colonial experience. Here the idea was feudal exploitation, pure and simple. There was no rule of law, just rule for expedient gain. There was never any middle class, just rulers and peons. Today, it is still rich families and everyone else and the growth of a middle class has been very slow. Political debate is between fascism and communism, neither of which give a fig for the bourgeoisie, and neither of which really help the poor.
People are voting with their feet.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 3:44 pmBeyond the sensationalism of the decapitations
And other than THAT, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?!
Ya gotta be kidding me. As ruthless and violent as mobsters were in 1920s, 1930s America, they at least didn’t add insult to injury, if you will, by taking their victims’ bodies, going to the trouble (and barbarity) of chopping off their heads and other parts, and then, with the intent to make a statement to the onlooking world, hanging or displaying those parts in full view of the public and police.
We’re dealing with a whole new level of — if I may call it that — dysfunction.
Incidentally, when early Spanish conquistadors first visited the land of what is now modern-day Mexico, they witnessed unspeakable scenes of both human sacrifices and cannibalism, which I myself was not aware of until recently. That’s due in part to historians and scholars traditionally sidestepping the reality of that facet of the Aztec culture, either because it was too gruesome to want to delve into in detail or at all, or because it was too humiliating or shattering to the descendants of that empire.
Mark (cb6333) — 7/5/2014 @ 3:46 pmJVW, that was the story, and a one-sentence summation of it at that. A story which I considered impossible foolishness in 197x. But one that for some reason stuck with me, and does not seem so silly today.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 3:48 pmYa gotta be kidding me. As ruthless and violent as mobsters were in 1920s, 1930s America, they at least didn’t add insult to injury, if you will, by taking their victims’ bodies, going to the trouble (and barbarity) of chopping off their heads and other parts, and then, with the intent to make a statement to the onlooking world, hanging or displaying those parts in full view of the public and police.
To me, dead is dead.
JVW (feb406) — 7/5/2014 @ 3:50 pmHere the idea was feudal exploitation, pure and simple.
What is disquieting to me is that even when placed within the much better setting of the US — of its system and values, and overall environment — too much of the American Latino populace is remaining in, at best, sort of a socio-economic limbo, or continuing to reflect far too much of a lack of upward mobility. A lack of mobility that can no longer be explained away as a symptom of, say, British versus Spaniard, or feudalism versus capitalism, or 1950s bigotry versus something hip-and-modern.
Mark (cb6333) — 7/5/2014 @ 3:56 pmMark,
One of the reasons that the Aztecs fell was that they had subjugated everyone around them and when Cortez arrived there were many enemies to ally with. It was also an empire built on lies; it claimed to be an eternal empire but in reality it was about a century old. The sacrifices and bloodshed were artifices designed to create a warrior culture.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 3:59 pmTo me, dead is dead.
I hope you’re not next going to be claiming that, for example, the gung-ho economy of the People’s Republic of China rests upon a political foundation that is fairly identical to that of the capitalistic-rule-of-law USA.
Mark (cb6333) — 7/5/2014 @ 3:59 pmlack of upward mobility
This is not what I see here in Los Angeles. I see the generational advances that immigrants historically show, although this is mainly in the legal community. Perhaps the illegals have a problem with this, as upward mobility while illegal is at best awkward.
There needs to be a regularization of the illegals, but it needs to be one that makes HUGE difference between legal and illegal immigrants, skewing future preferences. And Obama keeps making this harder.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 4:05 pmThe difference between Capone and the Mexican drug lords is that Capone didn’t attack Chicago’s citizens or cops — they were his market and he had co-opted many of them. Bad for business to terrorize them. The Mexican drug lords’ market is elsewhere, so they don’t care.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 4:08 pmwhat the urchins have lacked is a theme song
until now
you can thank me later, mi urchinos
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/5/2014 @ 4:08 pmseriously though does anyone doubt that any second now we’ll all be clicking on the mega-viral video where the urchins in mccallen do a bang-on re-enactment of michael jackson’s thriller
except with more lice
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/5/2014 @ 4:16 pmPerhaps we should send them to Bermuda to stay with the Uighurs?
askeptic (efcf22) — 7/5/2014 @ 5:38 pmoh the places you’ll go
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/5/2014 @ 5:39 pmMy ‘compassion’ knows no bounds.
askeptic (efcf22) — 7/5/2014 @ 5:44 pmI see the generational advances that immigrants historically show
Kevin M, I’m guessing your optimistic impressions at least aren’t emanating from ideological/political naivete and disingenuousness. So if this society combines people like you with all those folks who do admire the strategy of willful naivete and purposeful dishonesty from characters like Obama and Pelosi, then I’m not sure if the light at the end of the proverbial tunnel is — as the joke goes — an oncoming train.
Mark (cb6333) — 7/5/2014 @ 5:48 pmAnother episode with Elle Woods:
http://therightscoop.com/state-department-keeps-ignoring-marine-in-mexican-jail-but-finds-the-time-to-criticize-israel/
narciso (24b824) — 7/5/2014 @ 6:21 pmSee, Mark, there’s the problem for CA – We’re too edumacated for our own good,
askeptic (efcf22) — 7/5/2014 @ 6:32 pmwhen it’s obvious that the growth industries here are for handymen, gardeners, and nanny’s
(not to mention fry-cooks).
no, there is credentialed, and educated there is a difference. now ‘educado’ implies a certain wisdom
narciso (24b824) — 7/5/2014 @ 6:38 pmin parlance ,for a example don’t use a slang term for Native born Americans to make your point, as a certain Mexican American minor celebrity did,
narciso, I’m sure that State personnel in places like Baghdad, Amman, Sanaa, etc., take a quite different view on how much assistance the Dept should be extending to that Marine.
askeptic (efcf22) — 7/5/2014 @ 6:42 pmSomething about Samuel Johnson and nooses.
Great post, Dana. Thank you!
felipe (960c75) — 7/5/2014 @ 7:24 pmThanks much, felipe.
Dana (4dbf62) — 7/5/2014 @ 7:45 pm“See Kevin M, these are the kind of comments that get our side tagged with the “racial purists” or “anti-brown” allegations”
“Then you haven’t read many of my comments”.
Kevin, you only have to f**k one goat to be forever called a “goatf**ker”.
felipe (960c75) — 7/5/2014 @ 7:58 pm20. Mark (cb6333) — 7/5/2014 @ 11:40 am
I won’t even say anything about LEGAL immigration policies at the time being very restrictive and very racially oriented (ie, an open-door policy to most Europeans seeking to move to the US, just the opposite for practically everyone else in the rest of the world).
There was no quota at that time for anybody coming from any of the independent countries in the Wesern hemisphere. Colonies had zero or a quota of 100 — immigration from Jamaica was free of quota requirements only between 1962 and 1967.
This whole issue of illegal immigration from Mexico, Cuba, etc could not, and did not, exist before 1968.
This was entirely the product of the immigration reform law of 1965, which put in a quota for the western hemisphere on January 1, 1968. There wasn’t easy immigration from anywhere in Europe befire 1965, either, except from Ireland, where the quota was above the demand, because the quota was based on U.S population in 1890, and Ireland actually had fewer people than it did in the 1800s (or at least it did in 1914)
You started hearing complaints (on radio stations from radio talk show hosts) about illegal immigration about 1974, probably stimulated by corrupt bureaucrats, who probably broke a law about lobbying. I can’t think of any other explanation. There wasn’t any actual problem.
They never bothered to mention this was largely the result of a change in the law, at least as far as Hispanics are concerned.
It is really telling that, even now, you had no idea of this change in the law as of 1968.
The only reason there were any kind of illegal immigrants from Mexico in 1953 must be that many of them avoided the fees and paperwork and requirements (the main ones being that there was a need to demonstrate that they would not become a public charge and it was also illegal to contract fof work while abrod – both provisions of a law passed in 1885. This is usually overcome by having a “sponsor”) and had been brought over by employers or labor contractors, who wanted to have some power over them, and so therefore actually avoided bringing them over legally.
Sammy Finkelman (cd2969) — 7/5/2014 @ 8:01 pmMy position is that unaccompanied children are nothing but pawns in an ugly grown-up game of politics
So were the kids in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957.
Why the Civil Rights people did it you probably know about. I will explain what the other side was about. (perhaps they may have bene in cahoots, though.)
It was customary in Arkansas for a Governor to get basically a free pass on running for his second 2-year term, and then not run for 3rd term. The corrupt Orval Faubus did not want to do that, or the illegal casino gambling interests in Hot Springs, Arkansas, led by the founder of organized crime in America, Owen Vincent (Owney the Killer) Madden, wanted to re-elect him, so this whole thing was ginned up.
Once he had brfoken the 3rd term barrier, Orval Faubus continued to be re-elected every 2 year through 1964 (when he had a close call) and lost in 1966 in Winthrop Rockefeller’s second try.
Bill Clinton brought Orval Faubus back in 1984 as a Democratic primary opponent to lose to.
Sammy Finkelman (cd2969) — 7/5/2014 @ 8:09 pmthere’s simply no reason whatsoever that an american should have to travel all the way to israel just to get beaten down by a cop Mr. narciso
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/5/2014 @ 8:10 pmjust hop on the 10
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/5/2014 @ 8:12 pmwell throwing rocks at cops, doesn’t endear yourself to anyone:
https://www.numbersusa.com/news/not-my-backyard-feds-efforts-relocate-illegal-aliens-border
narciso (24b824) — 7/5/2014 @ 8:14 pmCompassion and doing what is in the best interest of our country are not mutually exclusive.
Who said it is in the best interest of our country to enforce the law? You’re confusing “enforcing the law” with the “best interests of our country.” That remains to be proven.
Furthermore, there is most definitely a tension between compassion and enforcing the law. If you go all the way in the direction of enforcing the law, you will definitely not have compassion. You;ll be pretty cruel. There are no two ways about it.
Let me tell you something about how the law avoids compassion for children, but not for adults..
U.S. Immigration law contains an “extreme hardship” exemption for disqualification from immigrating when the person would ordinarily be admitted but there is some other bar. I think this also applies to avoiding removal.
The “extreme hardship” must be to a spouse. It cannot be to a child. Because if it was for a child, an alien could have a child on purpose just to qualify!!
That is, that is the case when when the disqualification is because of a previous deportation. If the disqualification is because of a criminal record, then the child’s hardship can be taken into account.
Thewre is always a question of how far you may want to go in enforcing the law, and the further you go the less compassion you have. That’s basic, and there’s no avoiding this. One thing or the other – compassion or enforcing the law – has to give way.
And the law as it is written now makes some provision for compassion – but less for children than for adults.
Sammy Finkelman (cd2969) — 7/5/2014 @ 8:19 pm85. Mark (cb6333) — 7/5/2014 @ 3:46 pm
That’s due in part to historians and scholars traditionally sidestepping the reality of that facet of the Aztec culture,
Some historians did that with Carthage, too.
In The Amewricas it was not just the Aztecs. There were any number of other governments that practices human sacrifice in Mexico or central America, and the Incas did that, too.
The Incas had less enemies at the time of the Spanish conquest, but they had bene hit by a smallpox epidemic before Pizarro.
Sammy Finkelman (cd2969) — 7/5/2014 @ 8:26 pmThe illegal immigrant children are merely exercising their natural rights to enter our country. They believe they are the last kids on earth, so it’s all cool.
Elephant Stone (55b56d) — 7/5/2014 @ 8:27 pmOur buddy Leviticus says so.
Or something.
Re: Civil Rights.
In that case, federal, although not state, law was on the side of the people engaging in civil disobedience.
But before the Civil War, when the issue was slavery, the law was not on the side of the slaves.
Sammy Finkelman (cd2969) — 7/5/2014 @ 8:32 pm113. Elephant Stone (55b56d) — 7/5/2014 @ 8:27 pm
The illegal immigrant children are merely exercising their natural rights to enter our country.
Of course. It is self-evident. They are engaging in the pursuit of happiness. They don’t really have an alternative way of doing so, either. And they were created equal.
That’s why you will never knock the idea that they have such a right out of people. That’s why this occurs all over the world.
Sammy Finkelman (cd2969) — 7/5/2014 @ 8:36 pmcompassionate conservative now there is an oxymoron!
Yeah, just like ‘thinking liberal’
red (ac28a9) — 7/5/2014 @ 8:36 pmSammy,
Are you actually admitting that the home countries of these children cannot provide for them ?
Elephant Stone (55b56d) — 7/5/2014 @ 8:42 pmWhat’s wrong with those countries ?
Are they just shitty ?
Or do they hate children ?
Mark,
#98, yes the LA public schools are terrible. They have been for some time. Sometime circa 1970 some idiot judge decided that he’d ordered kids bussed back and forth 20 miles across town. Middle-class parents found the means to opt out. There are many areas in the city now where very few residents’ kids go to the local public school. To top it off, the unions are such that child-molesting teachers cannot be fired.
And this is of course the system that immigrants are stuck in. The wonder is that Latino admissions to colleges are so high, especially since the illegal population is so large.
This isn’t ideology or wishful thinking — I interact with these immigrants on a daily basis, although perhaps mostly the strivers. There do seem to be a lot of them, though.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 8:47 pmSee, Mark, there’s the problem for CA – We’re too edumacated for our own good,
when it’s obvious that the growth industries here are for handymen, gardeners, and nanny’s
(not to mention fry-cooks).
You know, askeptic, that’s pretty much what the said of my Irish fore-bearers 100 years ago. Before the sons and grandsons of hod carriers opened groceries and their sons and grandsons became lawyers and engineers.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 8:51 pmFelipe,
What do you have against goats?
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/5/2014 @ 8:53 pm“It still is bad… about 1,200 to 1,500 people they’re catching a day and about 20 to 30 percent of them are kids with no parents.”
Something to think about: Assuming those kids really are coming from Central America, then they are traveling through Mexico.
That’s where any arm-twisting should begin.
Blacque Jacques Shellacque (51809b) — 7/5/2014 @ 8:58 pmIf I told you, that you had a beautiful goat, would you hold it against me?
felipe (960c75) — 7/5/2014 @ 9:09 pm120
Gazzer (002e13) — 7/5/2014 @ 9:13 pmPlus their Southern border is supposedly tighter than a duck’s arse, so someone is letting them through.
This isn’t ideology or wishful thinking — I interact with these immigrants on a daily basis, although perhaps mostly the strivers. There do seem to be a lot of them, though.
Kevin M, it does come down to percentages, in that there obviously isn’t a rate of either success or failure in scholastic achievement totaling 100% of the Latino or any other population. There are also gradations of success and gradations of mediocrity.
What’s long been interesting to me is that of the 3 distinct so-called minority groups in the US, of black, Asian and Latino, the latter population in certain ways can be characterized as the least visually/externally different to the white/Anglo population. So if the idea that upward mobility in America is greatly dependent on one’s successful inter-mingling with the white/Anglo population — and how much one has to care about the idea of “don’t judge a book based on its cover” — then of the 3 major minority groups, Latinos have the least excuse for claiming that their marginalization is somehow due to the dynamics of being ostracized by the majority community, including that due to blatant, petty bigotry.
A smart, sociable, well-educated black person can at least make a somewhat more plausible claim that pure discrimination shortchanged them in situation A, B or C long before a similarly high-achieving Latino can say the same thing.
Another thing: Is the interminable lowly standing of a country like Mexico — with all its corruption, poverty, crime and other underwhelming features — a hint of what many people from there who’ve immigrated to the US will duplicate in their adopted new society in the future?
You know, askeptic, that’s pretty much what the said of my Irish fore-bearers 100 years ago.
But was the academic standing of immigrants of Irish background to the US at that time, and then the standing of that populace’s first, second and third, etc, generations virtually identical to what’s evident in the Latino community today and over the past, say, 40 to 50 years?
Mark (cb6333) — 7/5/2014 @ 11:59 pmElephant Stone (55b56d) — 7/5/2014
Are you actually admitting that the home countries of these children cannot provide for them ?
Of course. It’s not actually that they can’t provide, but they can’t in the same way.
What’s wrong with those countries ?
Well, the United States is the place where many things were invented, circa 1850-1950 – even later (computers)
That spread to Europe and Japan, and to a limited degree, its colonies, and more recently, the fringes of the Far East.
Why didn’t it spread there?
Lack of the rule of law, hot climate with its high mortality and morbidity and tropical diseases, the Monroe Doctrine combined with local objections to “Yankee Imperialism”, often honored by the United States, discriminatory laws against foreigners and foreign investment, unrealistic laws so that much economic activity is illegal (or informal), and the general slowdown of the spread of technology since the First World War, partly caused by capital controls, and the end of the international gold standard (that is, the fact that purchasing power parity, and automatic convertability of currencies disappeared, so that it was not a good idea to hold long term savings in pesos, quetxals, lempiras, colons, cordobas, etc.)
Are they just shi??y ?
Yes, of course. Does anyone hold a different opinion? Is the sky blue?
Or do they hate children ?
No. Some people in the United states do.
Sammy Finkelman (cd2969) — 7/6/2014 @ 7:06 amIsn’t that what the United Nations HRC is for. They did it for the Syrians. Are the Guatemalans, Hondurans, etc. any less deserving?
Totally f#cking asinine. Don’t some people in every country hate children, or is it just in the United States? That seems to be your implication. Is there ANY country on this planet that does more to help men, women and CHILDREN, than the United States.
Don’t even bring up the bs about other countries giving more per capita, because you’d have to exclude what our military does with regard to humanitarian efforts. And, of course, most surveys do.
To use a New York phrase, get bent!
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/6/2014 @ 7:50 amAmerica hates children so much that the United States adopts more children internationally, but also domestically, than the rest of the world combined.
Hadoop (f7d5ba) — 7/6/2014 @ 8:10 amWhy didn’t it spread there?
Lack of the rule of law….
You left out a big one, Sammy: Not just a lack of rule of law but in too many instances in general an embrace of the type of law that reflects foolish ideologies and bad political figureheads. Or all the variations of an Evita Peron or a Hugo Chavez (or characters like a Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, etc) who’ve come down the pike since time immemorial.
I’ve yet to witness any truly messed-up, dysfunctional society (the anarchic ones notwithstanding) that wasn’t also governed by people — either voted or pushed into leadership roles — who were philosophically very nonsensical, generally left-leaning, dishonest type of thinkers.
Mark (cb6333) — 7/6/2014 @ 9:23 am125. 128.
Mark (cb6333) — 7/6/2014 @ 9:23 am
You left out a big one, Sammy: Not just a lack of rule of law but in too many instances in general an embrace of the type of law that reflects foolish ideologies and bad political figureheads.
I think I included that:
I couldn’t be more specific because I don’t know the details. But I think they have typical regulations that are like the ones they had in Europe, or even stronger, and lot of regulations – all kinds of permits required to do anything legally, probably high taxation)
The one thing taht don’t have is a totally unrealistic minimum wage, because that would simply make all employment illegal.
Or all the variations of an Evita Peron
Argentina was actually on a plane with Europe, until 1931. That was before Eva Peron. It was already going on at the time of the demagoguery of the Peronistas.
or a Hugo Chavez
Hugo Chavez – and his successor, are ruining Venezuela.
Countries, by the way, generally don’t fall back in development – they stop progressing. They tend to recover to where they were.
(or characters like a Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, etc) who’ve come down the pike since time immemorial.
The only thing bad they did was the expansion of Medicaid and some other means tested programs.
Everything that has happened has slightly, but only slightly, reduced the labor force participation rate. What really halted progress was things that happened in the 1950’s and 1960s.
(In 1951 the minimum wage was extended to cover many many more jobs – the juvenile delinquency laws of the late 1950s and teacher unionization, which started then, put things ona downward path; in the 1960s the Great Society anti-poverty programs basically froze things in place in places where people were not part of the mainstream – plus the crime policies, some caused by the Supreme Court, some caused by budget cutting which always affected certain areas much more than others. Barack Obama it should be mentioned represented an area impacted by bad law, but never found anthing wrong and if anything strove to make things worse)
I’ve yet to witness any truly messed-up, dysfunctional society (the anarchic ones notwithstanding) that wasn’t also governed by people — either voted or pushed into leadership roles — who were philosophically very nonsensical, generally left-leaning, dishonest type of thinkers.
Oh, you can have people with bad philosophy – provided it is not affecting anything vital, or their philosophy does not cause laws to be changed. It is bad philosophy at the wrong time and place that’s a problem.
Sammy Finkelman (cd2969) — 7/6/2014 @ 11:04 amWould Obama be an example with regard to changing the immigration law regarding Dreamers unilaterally?
Huitzilincuatec (7fc17e) — 7/6/2014 @ 11:28 amWhat a great post. Dana has channeled my feelings well.
I am extraordinarily lucky to have such intelligent and centered guest posters. All three of the regulars bring something worthwhile to the table.
(I still miss DRJ.)
Patterico (9c670f) — 7/6/2014 @ 9:43 pmRather, I am looking beyond the politics and paring it down to a basic fundamental: the intrinsic worth of a child – no matter where they come from or how they got here. The individual must be worth something. As such, these children who are powerless to change or control their situation, deserve our compassion.
One question: What are you going to say when, at some point in the future, leftists start agitating to bring the families of these kids over to the U.S. as part of some reunification scheme?
Blacque Jacques Shellacque (51809b) — 7/6/2014 @ 9:52 pmRe Post 14:
There are approximately 2 billion children in the world, the great majority living in poverty due to disfunctional governments and widespread ignorance.
There are roughly 150 million working Americans, a great many in low paying jobs that are struggling themselves.
If you are not too stupid, do the math. Then if you like, we’ll ask the DHS to send over 5 or 6 of these children to your house. You should have no objections, right? After all, somebody has to pay for this. Why not you? Or is your intent that someone else bear the burden? You feel all warm and fuzzy and somebody else suffers.
Typical liberal crap.
And no, I don’t regret anything I said in post #2. The odds are good that in time, as this plays out, you will agree with me.
Oh, now the government appears poised to shove them up our ass at the point of a gun. I’m sure you’re OK with that too, aren’t you?
GaryS (9629e4) — 7/7/2014 @ 10:00 amMark, you miss my point. Los Angeles is one area where there are an awful lot of Mexican and Central American immigrants. They do not comprise the majority of residents (Anglos are still about half), but they are the overwhelming majority in the public schools — which are terrible, and most terrible in Hispanic East LA — as they are too poor to escape. It would not be outrageous to say there are no public schools for the Mexican immigrants — just glorified daycare.
Now, a lot of this is due to the impact all this illegal immigration has had, and the reduced tax income since illegals work under the table, but still measuring immigrant success by student test scores isn’t meaningful when the schools are so divergent.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/7/2014 @ 10:20 amA fairer measure would be to see how the Hispanic wave is doing wrt to earlier mass immigrations of ethnic groups. Say against the Italians circa 1900 or the Irish 1850 onward. But to compare them against settled groups (as might be fair with blacks or asians) ignores too many factors.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/7/2014 @ 10:25 amGary S @ 133,
I understand that this is an increasingly awful situation that continues to spiral out of control before us and that it’s bound to get worse before it gets better. With that, emotions are strained and can easily get the best of us. I’m sorry you still miss my point, however, there is no reason for me to again explain myself.
And because ultimately, you and I both want the same thing, I will let it go at that: We want our borders secured before anything “discussion” of policy, we want our immigration policies on the books upheld and we want the detainees returned to their homes as soon as possible so that a clear message can be sent.
Dana (4dbf62) — 7/7/2014 @ 10:45 amKarl Rove said on Fox News Sunday a week ago (June 29, 2014) that they discussed the idea of something like changing immigration law unilaterally during the Bush Administration, and the legal opinion was (if I understand him correctly) that the President could allow anyone to stay in the country, but he couldn’t make a new rule.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2014/6/29/reps-becerra-goodlatte-debate-if-president-obama-guilty-executive-overreach
KARL ROVE, FORMER BUSH WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: ….But when it comes to the execution of the laws passed by Congress, the statutes, a president must first and foremost look whenever they take an executive action, an executive order, for example, they must look for, is there a statutory basis to do so? I remember plenty of times as we discussed executive orders, the counsel’s office and other legal authorities inside the administration were weighing in on what was the statutory authority for the president to take his action.
One of the instants was we reviewed, does the president have authority to take a class of individuals and exempt them from the enforcement of immigration laws? And the lawyers came back and said, you have an ability to exempt individuals but no ability to exempt a class…
Sammy Finkelman (cd2969) — 7/7/2014 @ 1:30 pmDatejust
Datejust (4125a6) — 7/7/2014 @ 8:39 pmbut still measuring immigrant success by student test scores isn’t meaningful when the schools are so divergent.
Kevin M, I think you’re stretching a bit, responding with too much rationalization. If the social-cultural traits that are evident in Los Angeles were somehow unique to the LA area, and somehow a manifestation peculiar to LA public schools (and their admittedly excessive mediocrity), you’d have a point. But I believe the trends I’m referring to go far beyond LA, beyond Orange County, beyond southern California. They can be found in points throughout the US — and this is most crucial too — and are evident even farther away, in countries like Mexico or Guatemala.
Mark (cb6333) — 7/7/2014 @ 9:04 pm