Page 28 of 36 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 353

Thread: Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes

  1. #271
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I agree completely, and acknowledged, that it wasn't clear. Everything surrounding it has a lot of ambiguity. I'd hope you'd at least acknowledge though that the lack of clarity and abundance of ambiguity makes it reasonable to question whether or not those "immigrants" they speak of are legal or not.
    I thought I had said that but I have no problem saying it clearly - it's not clear if the families they are being placed with are here legally.

    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.
    I guess I wasn't clear again. My bad

    I'm not saying that all of the people who are here legally but are not citizens have no legal way to bring their children into the country legally. As you point out, and document, there are some ways that it can be done. What I am saying is that those options may not be available to some of those people (non-citizens who are here legally but not citizens) and for them, this (sending the minor over unaccompanied) may be an option.

    In addition, my understanding is that in many or even most of these cases, the child isn't the child of the people they are being placed with. There's some sort of family relationship there (aunt, uncle, grandparent, etc) but it's not a parent-child relationship. However, I do not know the #'s as far as what the family relationships are.

    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.
    If there is a legal way to do so, and they choose an illegal means, then yes it is irresponsible and foolish. However, I haven't seen anything to indicate that this is actually happening. At best, it seems like something that could happen.



    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.
    The remarks that you responded to were in response to the following comment of yours
    If they're being delivered to LEGAL parents LEGAL residing in the US, why in the world did they go about ILLEGAL entry that is dangerous, risky, and potentially costly? IF those parents are legally here then it begins to bring to question whether or not they are a safe household to deliver the chlidren to, as they chose to have their child undergo an extremely dangerous endevour either alone or with a criminal instead of simply legally bringing them in.
    In my last response to you, I didn't break up your post into sections and respond to each so I can see why you thought I was responding to your comments about "family" as opposed to the more specific "parents". Again, my bad for not being more clear

    As far as them being placed with their parents who could have gotten them here legally, I don't know if that has actually happened. It may have, but I don't know that it has. But if it has, i would agree that would be very irresponsible and should call the placement into question.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  2. #272
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I thought I had said that but I have no problem saying it clearly - it's not clear if the families they are being placed with are here legally.
    That seemed to be what you were saying but I didn't want to assume. Thanks.

    I'm not saying that all of the people who are here legally but are not citizens have no legal way to bring their children into the country legally.
    I realized that wasn't what you were saying. However I was just trying to show yet another method in which a person here legally could bring a child over, even if they weren't citizens. My point was that there seems to be ways in the VAST MAJORITY of cases where someone is here legally for them to have an avenue to bring their child over. Or, at the least, there are more cases where they DO have a legal method of bringing the children over (be it their own or a relatives) then where they don't.

    Note that the one I referenced in my last post was an example of someone here legally but not a citizen, simply a permanent resident.

    In addition, my understanding is that in many or even most of these cases, the child isn't the child of the people they are being placed with. There's some sort of family relationship there (aunt, uncle, grandparent, etc) but it's not a parent-child relationship. However, I do not know the #'s as far as what the family relationships are.
    I know you say you don't have hard numbers, but do you have anything you can reference or point to in terms of shaping your understanding? I've not come across anything that has suggested that to be the case, but you may've read/seen/heard something I have not.

    If there is a legal way to do so, and they choose an illegal means, then yes it is irresponsible and foolish. However, I haven't seen anything to indicate that this is actually happening. At best, it seems like something that could happen.
    Agreed. I'm not saying it is happening. I'm saying that IF we're giving these kids over to their parents and we're saying that Obama MUST follow the law in this case regarding how to detain them, how to give them to family, how to give them hearings, etc....then we absolutely better be following the law in terms of investigations of identity of who, and how fit of a home, they may be being sent to, and one part of that investigation ABSOLUTELY needs to be the legal status and whether or not the person had any knowing hand in the irresponsable act that brought the child into custody in the first place.

    For example, in the CNN articles we DO have indications that the parents the parents were being delivered to KNOWINGLY engaged in the act of sending them.

    Marroquin said she didn't use a smuggler, or so-called coyote, and instead relied on a family member to bring the children to the riverbank.
    This mother orchastrated a situation where her children were brought to the border and then sent off largely on their own, going through the wilderness and entering this country illegaly.

    Marroquin claims to have been in the United States for Eight Years. That's longer than a student visa would generally allow for given they're not referring to her as "Dr. Marroquin". If she was on a work visa, she could've gotten a visa for the children as well (Source). It she's a legal permanent resident, she could've brought her children over legally. If she's a citizen she could've brought her children over legally. If you can point me to some other method of being in the country legally please do, and I'll research the options for bringing children over based on that. But from what I'm seeing, almost any way she would have been here for 8 years LEGALLY would've allowed her a legal avenue to bring her children over.....

    ....yet she ships them with relatives to the borders and have them wander off on their own, and then is seemingly upset and in "agony" that the children are scared when they're picked up by Border Patrol.

    "Ana" from El Salvadore seems to be in a similar situation. It claims the Grandmother paid their way for a smuggler, but seemingly with the Mother's knowledge that it was happening based on her notion of the risk being "worth" it.

    Yet in both cases, despite the parent CLEARLY in one case and seemingly in another actively encouraging or engaging in the irresponsible and dangerous gambling of their chlidrens lives, the child was returned to the parent.

    The remarks that you responded to were in response to the following comment of yours
    Gotcha. You can go ahead and swap "family" for "parents" if you'd like. I kept using them interchangably in a number of posts so I can see how it was confusing. My fault on the clarity that time.

    But if it has, i would agree that would be very irresponsible and should call the placement into question.
    Agree.

  3. #273
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I know you say you don't have hard numbers, but do you have anything you can reference or point to in terms of shaping your understanding? I've not come across anything that has suggested that to be the case, but you may've read/seen/heard something I have not.
    I didn't respond to the part that comes before this because I think the above is what differentiates us in how we see this

    As I said, I don't have any hard #'s. My perception that they are being placed with non-parental family members is based on the stories I've read (granted, just a few) and the point you have been making - that it would be both foolish and irresponsible to do something illegal when there's a legal avenue for them to pursue. It's particularly true when this illegal route could result in the child being eventually sent back, while the legal route could lead to permanent residency and citizenship.

    I guess I just assume that most people will what's in their best interests to do.


    Agreed. I'm not saying it is happening. I'm saying that IF we're giving these kids over to their parents and we're saying that Obama MUST follow the law in this case regarding how to detain them, how to give them to family, how to give them hearings, etc....then we absolutely better be following the law in terms of investigations of identity of who, and how fit of a home, they may be being sent to, and one part of that investigation ABSOLUTELY needs to be the legal status and whether or not the person had any knowing hand in the irresponsable act that brought the child into custody in the first place.
    I agree. There is something in the law about doing some sort of evaluation of the home they're being placed in, but I don't remember if it applies to every placement, nor do I know what that evaluation entails. I do agree that the evaluation should include seeing if the family is here legally. In addition to the concerns you mention, there is also issues like the financial stability and ability to support a child when the family is not able to work legally

    For example, in the CNN articles we DO have indications that the parents the parents were being delivered to KNOWINGLY engaged in the act of sending them.



    This mother orchastrated a situation where her children were brought to the border and then sent off largely on their own, going through the wilderness and entering this country illegaly.

    Marroquin claims to have been in the United States for Eight Years. That's longer than a student visa would generally allow for given they're not referring to her as "Dr. Marroquin". If she was on a work visa, she could've gotten a visa for the children as well (Source). It she's a legal permanent resident, she could've brought her children over legally. If she's a citizen she could've brought her children over legally. If you can point me to some other method of being in the country legally please do, and I'll research the options for bringing children over based on that. But from what I'm seeing, almost any way she would have been here for 8 years LEGALLY would've allowed her a legal avenue to bring her children over.....

    ....yet she ships them with relatives to the borders and have them wander off on their own, and then is seemingly upset and in "agony" that the children are scared when they're picked up by Border Patrol.

    "Ana" from El Salvadore seems to be in a similar situation. It claims the Grandmother paid their way for a smuggler, but seemingly with the Mother's knowledge that it was happening based on her notion of the risk being "worth" it.

    Yet in both cases, despite the parent CLEARLY in one case and seemingly in another actively encouraging or engaging in the irresponsible and dangerous gambling of their chlidrens lives, the child was returned to the parent.
    You mentioned CNN articles before, but I haven't read them. Do you have a link?

    However, I do agree that it is irresponsible for a parent in the US to conspire to do this when there's a legal way to get the child here.


    Gotcha. You can go ahead and swap "family" for "parents" if you'd like. I kept using them interchangably in a number of posts so I can see how it was confusing. My fault on the clarity that time.



    Agree.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #274
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    As I said, I don't have any hard #'s. My perception that they are being placed with non-parental family members is based on the stories I've read (granted, just a few) and the point you have been making - that it would be both foolish and irresponsible to do something illegal when there's a legal avenue for them to pursue. It's particularly true when this illegal route could result in the child being eventually sent back, while the legal route could lead to permanent residency and citizenship.

    I guess I just assume that most people will what's in their best interests to do.
    But this assumption is based on the assumption that they are being given to LEGALLY residing family members. Which is a big fat giant question mark.

    If there is no legal family member here then, to the family, sending the child illegally IS their "best interest" (or at least it is if the parent wants them to get here).

    Mind you, if there are LEGAL family members in this country other than the parents the children could STILL have a potential LEGAL avenue for being in this country...assuming the famliy member knows.

    You said you've read it in a few places so I'd love to read those links if you could provide them. In the links that I've seen, such as the CNN piece, the person the children has been given to in those situations were the parents.

    I agree. There is something in the law about doing some sort of evaluation of the home they're being placed in, but I don't remember if it applies to every placement, nor do I know what that evaluation entails.
    From what I read it does seem that, at the miminum, verifying the identity of the individual and their relationship to the child, and establishing that the location is a safe one is supposed to be done in every one.

    I don't know what the evaluation entails either, but I would suggest the evaluation would be EXTREMELY questionable and irresponsible if, in the effort of "identifying" the individual and their relationship, a check on their legal status isn't done and, in an effort to identify if the household is a safe one for the child, it's questioned as to whether or not the individual knew or assisted in the child illegally crossing the border.

    I do agree that the evaluation should include seeing if the family is here legally. In addition to the concerns you mention, there is also issues like the financial stability and ability to support a child when the family is not able to work legally
    Absolutley. That was part of my thinking. Either they're here working illegally, heightening the risk and increasing the criminal action on the part of the parent....or they're not working, which begs the question as to whether or not they have the financial stability to truly care for the child.

    You mentioned CNN articles before, but I haven't read them. Do you have a link?
    Sure. I got the link from out of the OP's source, as I wanted to actually read the soure for the DC's claims as opposed to take their word for things. It was one of the multiple articles it linked. Here you go, STORY.

    Amazing what can happen when people actually talk this out back and forth. The sad thing is that so often, for both sides, it's more important to just get entrenched and view any notion the other side is saying with disdain and worry for ulterior motives. It's been a good discussion, and one of the cases for why I enjoy this site....it encourages me to research and actually become better educated on issues, sometimes confirming what I thought and sometimes enlightening me to mistakes.

  5. #275
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    If you're going to use Zyphlin as backup, you might want to read the posts where he eventually agreed with me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin

    Alright, read over everything another time now. I acknowledge my mistake in stating that it explitely is speaking only of "trafficking victims"...while the laws intention and stated purpose is clear, the language is not and the first part does cover all alien children of a non-contiguous country.
    So your argument is the intent of the law matters not. Gotcha.

  6. #276
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,710

    Re: Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Refugee status is not exclusively about war.

    (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.



    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.



    Then I guess Reagan, Bush 41 and 43 were also "bad Presidents."
    Yes in that regards they were bad. They allowed and continue to allow illegal immigrents to enter this country. The amnesty bill that reagan signed was suppose to be the last and our borders secured. So far every president has failed to protect this country from illegal immigration.

    Someone said war i said there is no war and just because there is violence in an area is not a good enough reason for refugee status.

    they are illegal there are already rules in place for dealing with them they are booked and sent back to their country of origin. as stated the reason they are coming here is not due to violence or war. it is due to the fact that their parents think they will get amnesty from the president that is the exact reason.

    that is not a valid reason. it is an illegal reason.

    as i stated before if you and people like you want them here then we will send them to your home and you can foot the bill to take care of them. put your money where your mouth is. i want no part and if it was up to me they would be filed out and sent back to where they came from and their home country billed for the resources used to do it.

  7. #277
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    But this assumption is based on the assumption that they are being given to LEGALLY residing family members. Which is a big fat giant question mark.
    Yes, it is a question mark. Basically, I'm taking the position that the problem doesn't exist until I see that it does.

    If there is no legal family member here then, to the family, sending the child illegally IS their "best interest" (or at least it is if the parent wants them to get here).

    Mind you, if there are LEGAL family members in this country other than the parents the children could STILL have a potential LEGAL avenue for being in this country...assuming the famliy member knows.

    You said you've read it in a few places so I'd love to read those links if you could provide them. In the links that I've seen, such as the CNN piece, the person the children has been given to in those situations were the parents.
    Don't have any links. Just stories I read in hard copies and on the net but didn't save the links



    From what I read it does seem that, at the miminum, verifying the identity of the individual and their relationship to the child, and establishing that the location is a safe one is supposed to be done in every one.

    I don't know what the evaluation entails either, but I would suggest the evaluation would be EXTREMELY questionable and irresponsible if, in the effort of "identifying" the individual and their relationship, a check on their legal status isn't done and, in an effort to identify if the household is a safe one for the child, it's questioned as to whether or not the individual knew or assisted in the child illegally crossing the border.
    I agree



    Absolutley. That was part of my thinking. Either they're here working illegally, heightening the risk and increasing the criminal action on the part of the parent....or they're not working, which begs the question as to whether or not they have the financial stability to truly care for the child.



    Sure. I got the link from out of the OP's source, as I wanted to actually read the soure for the DC's claims as opposed to take their word for things. It was one of the multiple articles it linked. Here you go, STORY.
    Thanks. Will read it later
    Amazing what can happen when people actually talk this out back and forth. The sad thing is that so often, for both sides, it's more important to just get entrenched and view any notion the other side is saying with disdain and worry for ulterior motives. It's been a good discussion, and one of the cases for why I enjoy this site....it encourages me to research and actually become better educated on issues, sometimes confirming what I thought and sometimes enlightening me to mistakes.
    I have also enjoyed this discussion. Thank you
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  8. #278
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    So your argument is the intent of the law matters not. Gotcha.
    And your argument is that what the law actually says matters not.

    Gotcha
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  9. #279
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    And your argument is that what the law actually says matters not.

    Gotcha
    When divorced from intent, absolutely. The letter of the law can be a harmful thing when intent is removed for purposes of using said law outside of it's intent.

  10. #280
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Carolina del Norte
    Last Seen
    07-06-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    750
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Border Meltdown: Obama Delivering 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    You are defiantly not a politico.

    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. … "<

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-...na-debate.html
    Yes, but that was merely part of the USA's endless cold war proxy support for various groups. I did all the research a long time ago. The USA always supports one group supposedly against communism, but there are other reasons than fighting communism, and in general the USA supports verty hard right killers who kill peasants, women, and children, and in many cases are worse than the worst communists. We after all supported Pinochet. But at the heart of it is business like the United Fruit Company, whether or not we lose land or money, and all stuff about morality and caring about democracy and humanity is a lie. The originaly anti-red scare was shere fear-tactics pedaled to normal conservative society, such as the McCarthy lie that all commies were homosexuals, when most Communist states like Cuba or Soviet Union were just as severe toward gays as Christian Americans.

    Weve been basically lied to for years in order to support the elite's control of natural resources in the world. They lie and pull us into any war imaginable for the western Anglo-elite. WW1 is a good example. And of course Dalkton Trumbo got put on the commie list for making a movie critical of WW1, Johnny Got his Gun. Basically you people care very little about real "freedom".
    Last edited by michijo; 07-09-14 at 08:01 PM.

Page 28 of 36 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •