1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Obama is fully responsible for the central american immigrant crisis

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by bigtexxx, Jul 16, 2014.

  1. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,899
    Likes Received:
    2,246
    And as per usual Obama takes absolutely zero leadership or accountability on the crisis. His executive order in 2012 that essentially legalized hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant kids is key here. That message is a key enabler. There's always been violence in central america -- that is not the reason. Obama could eliminate the central american loophole (mexican kids get their butts shipped back, but not the central american ones due to a law passed to curb sex trafficking in 2008), but he's not serious about it. It wasn't even in his proposal that he offered up.

    The immigration no-brainer

    As is his wont, President Obama is treating the border crisis — more than 50,000 unaccompanied children crossing illegally — as a public relations problem. Where to photo op and where not. He still hasn’t enunciated a policy. He may not even have one.

    Will these immigrants be allowed to stay? Seven times was Obama’s homeland security secretary asked this on “Meet the Press.” Seven times he danced around the question.

    Presidential press secretary Josh Earnest was ostensibly more forthcoming: “It’s unlikely that most of those kids will qualify for humanitarian relief. . . . They will be sent back.” This was characterized in the media as a harder line. Not at all. Yes, those kids who go through the process will likely have no grounds to stay. But most will never go through the process.

    These kids are being flown or bused to family members around the country and told to then show up for deportation hearings. Why show up? Why not just stay where they’ll get superior schooling, superior health care, superior everything? As a result, only 3 percent are being repatriated, to cite an internal Border Patrol memo.

    Repatriate them? How stone-hearted, you say. After what they’ve been through? To those dismal conditions back home?

    The steel border fence and a U.S. Border Patrol observation tower are seen from Nogales, Arizona. (Nancy Wiechec/Reuters)
    By that standard, with a sea of endemic suffering on every continent, we should have no immigration laws. Deny entry to no needy person.

    But we do. We must. We choose. And immediate deportation is exactly what happens to illegal immigrants, children or otherwise, from Mexico and Canada. By what moral logic should there be a Central American exception?


    There is no logic. Just a quirk of the law — a 2008 law intended to deter sex trafficking. It mandates that Central American kids receive temporary relocation, extensive assistance and elaborate immigration/deportation proceedings, which many simply evade.

    This leniency was designed for a small number of sex-trafficked youth. It was never intended for today’s mass migration aimed at establishing a family foothold in America under an administration correctly perceived as at best ambivalent about illegal immigration.

    Stopping this wave is not complicated. A serious president would go to Congress tomorrow proposing a change in the law, simply mandating that Central American kids get the same treatment as Mexican kids, i.e., be subject to immediate repatriation.

    Then do so under the most humane conditions. Buses with every amenity. Kids accompanied by nurses and social workers and interpreters and everything they need on board. But going home.

    One thing is certain. When the first convoys begin rolling from town to town across Central America, the influx will stop.


    President Obama took questions after making a statement on the border crisis on Wednesday in Dallas. Obama explained his reason for not using his executive power to push immigration reform, citing House Speaker John Boehner's recent lawsuit against him. (AP)
    When he began taking heat for his laxness and indecisiveness, Obama said he would seek statutory authority for eliminating the Central American loophole. Yet when he presented his $3.7 billion emergency package on Tuesday, it included no such proposal.

    Without that, tens of thousands of kids will stay. Tens of thousands more will come.

    Why do they come? The administration pretends it’s because of violence and poverty.

    Nonsense. When has there not been violence and poverty in Central America? Yet this wave of children has doubled in size in the past two years and is projected to double again by October. The new variable is Obama’s unilateral (and lawless) June 2012 order essentially legalizing hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came here as children.


    Message received in Central America. True, this executive order doesn’t apply to those who came after June 15, 2007. But the fact remains that children coming across now are overwhelmingly likely to stay.

    Alternatively, Obama blames the crisis on Republicans for failing to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

    More nonsense. It’s a total non sequitur. Comprehensive reform would not have prevented the current influx. Indeed, any reform that amnesties 11 million illegal immigrants simply reinforces the message that if you come here illegally, eventually you will be allowed to stay.

    It happens that I support immigration reform. I support amnesty. I have since 2006. But only after we secure the border.

    Which begins with completing the fencing along the Mexican frontier. Using 2009 Government Accountability Office estimates, that would have cost up to $6.6 billion. Obama will now spend more than half that sum to accommodate a mass migration that would have been prevented by just such a barrier.

    But a fence is for the long term. For the immediate crisis, the answer is equally, blindingly clear: Eliminate the Central American exception and enforce the law.

    It must happen. The nightmare will continue until it does. The only question is: How long until Obama is forced to do the obvious?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...e8723c-085a-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html
     
  2. Air Langhi

    Air Langhi Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    21,613
    Likes Received:
    6,238
    bigtexxx what should Obama do?
     
  3. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    52,987
    Likes Received:
    52,633
    Dang, I sure hate those politicians that look at immigration as a photo op...

    http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=9092018&postcount=82
     
  4. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,537
    Likes Received:
    35,913
    Haha. Without a doubt the best thing I'll read today. Immigrants don't come to the US because of violence/poverty - they come because there isn't a fence!

    All Obama has to do is go down to Lowe's and pick up some fencing. Of course then he's gotta get someone to build it....d'oh...
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,899
    Likes Received:
    2,246
    Close the central american immigrant loophole and quit playing politics.
     
  6. Air Langhi

    Air Langhi Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    21,613
    Likes Received:
    6,238
    Do you want him deport all those kids?
     
  7. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,899
    Likes Received:
    2,246
    If they were from Mexico they would be deported. Double standard much?
     
  8. tallanvor

    tallanvor Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    16,805
    Likes Received:
    8,235
    What to do with the kids who have gotten in is different than what to do about future kids trying to get in. He should increase security on the border to prevent the latter. Obama's inability to address the latter is why he is being criticized. You are asking about the former.
     
  9. Dubious

    Dubious Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,316
    Likes Received:
    5,087
    You mean unilaterally change the law approved by Congress?
    or
    Maybe bestow the power to arrest to the National Guard?

    I'm sure the other nutters and the Supreme Court will be fine with that.
     
  10. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,899
    Likes Received:
    2,246

    Obama didn't even suggest closing the loophole in his proposal.

    Is it possible that he welcomes this influx of children in order to push his immigration plan? Or to curry favor with hispanic voters?
     
  11. Dubious

    Dubious Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,316
    Likes Received:
    5,087
    How about instead of a fence, we go to Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua and build a boarding school campus for about 25,000 each, give the kids a safe haven, decent food, schooling and job skills and a reverence for building democracy withing their own borders.
    They could feed into the army, the police corp, community service programs, law schools and med schools to build a future for free trading allies of the US.
     
  12. Dubious

    Dubious Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,316
    Likes Received:
    5,087
    Pretty sure the House Majority leader could swing that amendment in a compromise to pass the bill, maybe he should try it.

    And, abandoning children plays to the base.
     
  13. tallanvor

    tallanvor Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    16,805
    Likes Received:
    8,235
    Why not both? None of those things is a substitute for a fence.
     
  14. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    52,987
    Likes Received:
    52,633
    I don't think a simple fence will do... howsabout moats with alligators and sharks? Electronic fences with lasers gun towers every couple feet or so? Gunboats with media-pandering Governors patrolling the border?
     
    1 person likes this.
  15. Baba Booey

    Baba Booey Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2,516
    Likes Received:
    822
    Obama is personally responsible for the current state of Honduras. Yeah, that makes sense.
     
  16. Rocketman95

    Rocketman95 Hangout Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    48,946
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    Republicans now believe in global warming. They blame Obama for it.
     
  17. da1

    da1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    101
    This is racism plain and simple. If you're white you are an American but if you're not get out of our country even though white people stole this land from natives. I'm not saying all white people are racist but there is a significant percentage.
     
  18. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,899
    Likes Received:
    2,246
    Can I ask what your age is?
     
  19. Deji McGever

    Deji McGever יליד טקסני

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 1999
    Messages:
    4,012
    Likes Received:
    949
    I'm not with Krauthammer's position that a fence is going to solve the problem, but his point that the 2008 loophole is a poorly written law that creates an unintended exception for Central Americans seems to be a reasonable grievance.
     
  20. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    61,018
    Likes Received:
    28,507
    Immigration is always interesting

    1. IF we go into those countries and try to Social Engineering . . .well we are pushing our beliefs on other people . .. and that is wrong
    2. If we don't allow them into our country . . .well we are selfish and not helping them escape the 'hell' that is their country . . .. and that is wrong
    3. If we allow them into the country . . . .we give them equal rights and benefits . .. . and the locals don't think that is right because they benefiting from a system they have not put into . . . . .and the system is already stretched thing . . .. so that is wrong

    What's a country to do?

    Rocket River
     

Share This Page