The Link. According to the poll, the sentiment of the American people leans toward rapid deportation of the children from Central America that are storming our borders. Interesting excerpt from the link:
I think the same way Santiago does. I feel for the kids. They have lived with conditions I couldn't imagine. But, we just can't take them in and send the message that ultimately sends 100,000 more our way. I am very pro-immigration, including poor people from 3rd world countries but it has to be more organized.
We have averaged admitting 75,000 people a year under asylum requests since 1975 (3 million over 40 years). This does not include the 125,000 Cuban boat people. These children are all entitled to an asylum determination by an immigration judge. Who gives a **** what polls say particularly when the polls are being shaped and driven by a racist wedge issue? "Storming our borders" WTF kind of stupid **** is this? 1.6 undocumented were detained in 2000 versus less than 500,000 now. So the "storming our borders" narrative is just a complete and abject lie. Stoking the flames of xenophobia for the mid-terms. Nice job Koch brothers et al. You guys really have no shame or respect for the law.
These children are refugees and US and International law provides them with protections. They are "entitled" to these protections. Many of them particularly the ones from Honduras will be granted US citizenship. They have rights just like all of us. Obama sought money for more judges to speed up the process. It is stuck in Congress.
There has not been a major uptick in "illegal" immigration in recent years. This is a lie. My numbers come from the US Border Patrol for total apprehensions. They are significantly down from 1.6 million in 2000. There were 414,000 in 2013. The Link You should ask yourself why you did not know this and why you would have this false impression. Who is lying to you and why?
Paso, that's a very loose interpretation of "international" law. Only US laws, made by elected representatives of US citizens and executed by their officers, dictate who the US gives asylum to. No international law dictates that (if you disagree, please provide us an example). And our US laws are subject to change at the discretion of the US electorate. The US may engage in treaties with other nations and other self appointed "international law" authorities. But ultimately, US participation in those treaties and those organizations is at the US' pleasure. Maybe we're arguing semantics (I doubt it), but even if we roll with your definition of "entitled" - we can "disentitle" them at our pleasure through the legislative process.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to discuss rights under Treaties with you and US law makes them refugees. We can admit 3 million over 40 years, but when it is the dirty brown ones we have to shut the door? WTF? I love this issue long-term anyway. The Republicans are being exposed yet again for the raw racists that I know many of them are especially the Tea Party f*cks. It should alienate the Mexican/Latino and Asian vote for another generation or two. Great job!
It is, however, a no doubt group tested (probably by the Koch brothers) wedge issue which might help turn out the angry racist vote in the mid-terms. This is a very problematic strategy long-term and in national elections, but like the Koch brothers give a **** about that.
I love Republicans. If actual objective data denies what they "feel" just ignore it. Have a great day wallowing in the mud.
It is a total false equivalence between Tea Party and virtually anyone in the Democratic Party. You are not middle of the road to want to "give" them a hearing. This is the law and they have a right to it. Many of them will become US citizens. And this issue, like prop 187, will be the gift that keeps on giving. There is zero objective reason to want to "send these children back". Every single claimed reason is a lie like the objective numbers that you don't like because they don't "feel" right. When you eliminate everything else, the only reason that remains is xenophobia aka racism. The Tea Party always has been the modern equivalent of the Know-Nothings. You should embrace it.
I love how these kids are now "refugees", not illegals. That helps to make Obama's diaspora look better. He's dumping these kids all over the nation without telling even the governors of the states that get them about it first. He hits and runs and lets the states pay for their health, eduacation, and welfare. What's next for the Dumacrats? If these children are "refugees" what about about the children of the Gaza Strip? They live under some real dangerous conditions. Let's bring all them over here too and what about the Christian Girls in Nigeria? We know what happens to them. Let's bring all them over here too. Why limit it to hispanics? The world is full of desperate kids. Let's bring 'em all over here and let the American taxpayers pay for it all.
The people in favor of letting them stay would be up in arms if the ones storming the border were Irish future republicans.
I thought Obama was the "deporter-in-chief?? -- according to the "progressives," at least. Boy, anyone who trotted out that line within the past few years looks like an idiot now... Obama is trying to EXPAND the ability of Central Americans/Mexicans to get on the fast-track to U.S. citizenship. And all of you Obama lapdogs who arrogantly pointed out that Obama was simply following a law "Bush" signed in 2008... I knew you were being disingenuous from the start. pasotex and his "racist" card -- look in the mirror, my friend!
Enlighten me counselor. Certainly as someone who took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States in order to practice law, you would be able to point out to me the correct statute. You also didn't answer the question. I respectfully (while being accused of being racist by you) asked a legitimate question, and you give a smartass evasive reply. Color me surprised. You take your time to spin-up yourself some lawyerly rebuttal. Don't get yourself too dizzy trying. Why don't we bring in Seattle to take over for you...at least he can respectfully debate as a gentleman.
You asked a question about a statute that does not apply to these children. I told you that you were wrong. What more of an "answer" do you need? As for the statute, research it yourself. These children are considered refugees pursuant to a 2008 amendment. They are not illegal aliens. The name of it was the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. It went into several sections of the United States Code. BTW you might reread what I wrote because I did not call you a racist. You might be and your ethnicity certainly does not exempt you, but I made a generic statement about the people up in arms about this. You may or may not fit. I don't particularly care. I have zero cares about the right-wing morons that inhabit this cesspool.
I did not make an "argument" about the unimpeachability of the law. I commented that Obama was following a bipartisan law passed in 2008 and signed by George W. Bush (this law altered a number of sections in the United States Code including significant parts of Title 8 and Title 22). The law does several things in order to protect potential refugees. One of the most significant features is that it allows them to stay in this country pending a status determination. They are not "illegal" immigrants until their status is determined and for some or many they may become residents and eventually citizens. You cited a statute applicable to illegal immigrants. This statute has zero applicability to these children particularly before their status is determined. It is a waste of my time to explain this to a lay person, but citing a single statute in isolation is just dumb. You have to look at all the relevant statutes and understand them. 8 U.S. Code § 1158 is an important piece of the puzzle, but it is not the only piece. The law is like a mosaic and people go to school for several years to understand it. I do not practice immigration law and it is an extremely specialized practice. I do know enough to read the Code and understand how these children should be treated. This forum is so boorish on matters like this. Why are you even trying to "debate" the law?
paso's quote is a distortion because it tries to make you think he's calling the immigrant kids "coonass". That word was used in describing Cajuns. The word "coonass" is derived from "cajunas", or "cajuns". If you're a Cajun from Louisiana, good chance you've been called that and referred to yourself as one. Had a former boss from Louisiana who told me about that. Sorry to distract from the name-calling and fake outrage from paso. Please continue.
