To understand all of the partisan bickering in America's politics today, who have to understand how it all started.
Just go back to 1960 Presidential race, Nixon vs. Kennedy. It all came down to who would be tougher against communist expansion in the world, Nixon or Kennedy ?
With the help of the Cook County, Illinois cemeteries Kennedy was elected.
"WHO LOST CHINA" DEBATE
>" In 1949 communist armies led by Mao Zedong defeated the nationalist regime of Chiang Kai-shek. The communists took control of the Chinese mainland, establishing the People's Republic of China, while Chiang Kai-shek, who had received U.S. support during the conflict, fled to the island of Taiwan. China, previously a loyal U.S. ally and a country Americans felt particularly familiar with because of the strong presence of American Christian missionaries, overnight became one of America's most bitter enemies. With the post–World War II world starkly divided into American and communist spheres of influence, the Chinese shift was seen as a serious loss. From the establishment of the People's Republic of China well into the Korean War and the witch hunts of the McCarthy era, a debate raged in Washington about whom to blame for the loss of China to communist forces. At the time, most of the blame fell on the administration of President Harry Truman, as well as fellow-travelers and subversives. Studies in the late twentieth century, however, challenged this view and emphasized Chiang Kai-shek's own weaknesses. Although without the urgency of the 1940s and 1950s, the debate over "who lost China" recurrently appeared within American society during the second half of the twentieth century. The debate has informed American responses to crises in the region as well as within China itself, such as the Tiananmen Square repression in 1989. … "<
From what I've seen, people here as non-citizens but permanently legal residents can still legally bring their children with them UNLESS the means in which they are being granted a visa is because the U.S. Citizen sponsoring them is their spouse, child, or parents (SOURCE). So for instance, a U.S. Citizen sponsoring their child's permanent residency doesn't allow that child to automatically bring along their own child. However, the person petitioning for the initial visa can petition for one for hte child as well.As far as your later point, about the child's parent being a citizen, I'll note two things. One is that there is a difference between a parent that is here legally, and a parent that is a citizen. The parent can be here legally, but not be a citizen which may (I don't) mean that the child can come here.
So by and large, yes...there are legal avenues of bringing one's children into the country that could be taken in almost any fashion of legal residency here in the U.S. For someone to forgo those avenues to send their children on a dangerous voyage, perhaps with a criminal, across the boarder is ridiculously irresponsable.
And I've referenecd "family" as opposed to "parents" numerous times. And as I said, if the family member is LEGALLY here then under this law I have no issue with the children being delivered there. However, I do believe part of the investigation into the environment would need to be whether or not that relative knew of the dangerous and reckless endevour the child was sent on and if they made any effort to push for a safe and legal means of bringing the child into the country. If the relative or parent KNEW that the child was being sent across the boarder in an illegal and dangerous fashion, and either condoned or assist with it, then I HIGHLY question the quality of care and environment that they would provide.Also, it refers to parents while my understanding is that these children are often being placed with "family". That can mean aunt, uncle, cousin or whatever. It doesn't necessarily refer to a parent.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
(42) The term “refugee” means
(A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or
(B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157 (e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term “refugee” does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.
8 U.S. Code § 1101 - Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute
That's not relevant. You don't apply for asylum before leaving your home country. You flee and then request asylum.then they can ask for alsyum the correct legal way instead of cross the border illegally.
Incorrect. US law -- not the whims of pissed-off conservatives -- dictates how applications for asylum are handled. If they were not following the correct process, they would be handled differently.they are doing it the illegal way which gives them 0 standing to ask for anything.
Then I guess Reagan, Bush 41 and 43 were also "bad Presidents."any president that allows an invasion of this country is a bad president.