• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

Obama continues to refuse to uphold the oath of POTUS and continues to aid and abet illegal aliens at our cost.

If I were to get caught in illegal dumping I would be arrested. Obama is openly dumping poverty, gang bangers, disease and undocumented Democrats in America.

It's wasn't 50,000 but almost 300,000 illegal aliens.

Excerpts:

>" The vast majority of 50,000 unaccompanied youths and children who have illegally crossed the Texas border during the last few months have been successfully delivered by federal agencies to their relatives living in the United States, according to a New York Times article.

A second New York Times article report revealed that officials have caught an additional 240,000 Central American migrants since April, and are transporting many of them to their destinations throughout the United States...


Experts say that President Barack Obama’s administration has failed to close the loopholes and is unlikely to deport more than a small percentage of the illegals, despite the high unemployment rates among American Latino, African-American and white youths, and the strapped budgets of many cities and towns.

The president’s policy has caused protests by frightened citizens in towns such as Murrieta. But Obama’s allies — such as La Raza, an ethnic lobby for Latinos — are eager to escalate the conflict and to paint the protestors as racists. Those protests may escalate before the November elections...



Both New York Times articles described the border-crossing illegal aliens as “immigrants.” In fact, “immigrants” is the term for people who legally migrate into the United States...




Few of the illegal immigrants are high-school graduates, or have skills that would allow them to earn more than they cost to federal, state and local taxpayers...


All of it -> Border Meltdown; Obama Delivers 290,000 Illegals To U.S. Homes | The Daily Caller

Am I to understand that there are that many illegal immigrants from Salvador and Honduras in this country that delivering 50,000 children to them is possible? And who are the other 240,000 illegals that make up the grand total of 290,000? I'm finding this hard to believe for several reasons - the chief of them being: How do they know where to send everybody? As far as the kids go, their stories seem to be either one of two reasons: that they are fleeing violence - which makes me question why, if it's that "violent," did their worthless - [I'm using the only word I can think of that won't get me banned for foul language] parents leave them in the first place; and/or that they are trying to find their parents. Since they've never been here before, how do they, or the administration, know where their parents are so they can have a happy family reunion?!? C'mon, America is a big place, and most Americans don't like to be lied to! :thumbdown:

Greetings, APACHERAT. :2wave:
 
Am I to understand that there are that many illegal immigrants from Salvador and Honduras in this country that delivering 50,000 children to them is possible?

I don't know what you are to understand, but the law says that those kids can't be immediately deported. The law says they must be placed into a situation that is based on the best interests of the child. That usually means with a relative who is legally in this country
 
I also don't remember "the left" being in lockstep favor of sending Elian back to Cuba, but hey, it's CalGun.

I don't know that it was the left per se. I believe it was the vast majority of the country that believed it was the right thing to do. There were a handful of people who wanted him here because they didn't want to return him to a Castro-Cuba, but most people understood the child should be returned to his father.
 
No one wants kids piling up at the border. But most Americans -- including fiscal conservatives -- do in fact want a better path to citizenship for immigrants, including illegal ones.
There already is a path to citizenship, there are other in line ahead of these people.


By the same token, we can say that Republicans who repeatedly refuse to work on immigration reform are playing to the conservative base, rather than dealing with this in a humane fashion. See how that works? ;)

This isn't something any American did (except lefties encouraging immigration)-THEY made the choice to break up their family, and become human cargo.

Really? That's your complaint?

Thats a significant complaint amongst 1st generation immigrants. They did it right, why can't others?

For what? Moving illegal immigrants to a detention center near your home?

This isn't just detention-its a precursor to amnesty and everyone and thier gramma knows it. Amnesty does not work-because it simply rewards illegal behavior. So we get a repeat in a few years.

Basically, the law does not allow ICE to perform a "removal" process immediately unless they are Mexican, or if they request asylum. There is nothing illegal about relocating detainees to a place that happens to be near you. Sorry to disappoint your outrage, but: Obama isn't violating any laws here.

He's got his pen and his phone-luckily executive orders are relatively easy to overturn/mitigate. This is all about politics, from the same group who says asking for ID at the ballot box is an insurmountable barrier.

And another thing-it does effect me-at work where I treat these people, and where I see the violence, drug use, and drunk driving thats rampant. None of this makes it to the newspapers.
 
Last edited:
Am I to understand that there are that many illegal immigrants from Salvador and Honduras in this country that delivering 50,000 children to them is possible? And who are the other 240,000 illegals that make up the grand total of 290,000? I'm finding this hard to believe for several reasons - the chief of them being: How do they know where to send everybody? As far as the kids go, their stories seem to be either one of two reasons: that they are fleeing violence - which makes me question why, if it's that "violent," did their worthless - [I'm using the only word I can think of that won't get me banned for foul language] parents leave them in the first place; and/or that they are trying to find their parents. Since they've never been here before, how do they, or the administration, know where their parents are so they can have a happy family reunion?!? C'mon, America is a big place, and most Americans don't like to be lied to! :thumbdown:

Greetings, APACHERAT. :2wave:

I think the big mistake many have been making, including me, is that we assumed Barrack Obama was just naive and well out of his depth. The idea that he knew what he was doing never occurred to me because I didn't put myself in his place. When Nancy Pelosi said that those arriving illegally in the US are all 'Americans' it seemed quite foolish, but no one can be that stupid and still hold quite a high level in the US Government. Therefore, perhaps they are a great deal smarter than anyone in the middle or right gave them credit for.

These two articles go a long way towards explaning the Hope And Change slogan, particularly the 'Change' part. A great deal of this was inspired by a previous "Community Organizer", who also said a good crisis should never go to waste. Looking at it from BHO's point of view, and those of his intellectual supporters, he has been a remarkable success.

Obama's agenda: Overwhelm the system | Las Vegas Review-Journal

Articles: Cloward-Piven Paradise Now?
 
Would you suggest putting tracking collars on them?

Nope. I'd suggest immediate removal to south of mexico, via the cheapest means possible-ships or otherwise. Increase border security so children cant just walk in. :doh Strict penalties to anyone who rents to, or hires illegals.
 
Nope. I'd suggest immediate removal to south of mexico, via the cheapest means possible-ships or otherwise. Increase border security so children cant just walk in. :doh Strict penalties to anyone who rents to, or hires illegals.

Mass deportation without due process is illiegal.
 
The right constantly complains that Obama ignores the law except when they complain that Obama is following the law.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say their default position is "anything Obama does is automatically bad." But that can't be it.
 
That particular law is about human trafficking. It does not apply here. Do you not know what "Human trafficking" means?

I have posted several links to the laws, newspaper articles and even to a republican admitting that the law applies
 
I have posted several links to the laws, newspaper articles and even to a republican admitting that the law applies

Linking to the law does not mean it applies to an illegal alien willingly crossing the border. News papers sure as hell are not lawyers. As for the republican? Who cares? Did you really think that just because some stupid politician said something I'm going to take their word for it? As I recall Bush said it was perfectly legal to torture people. He's a republican...you going to take his word for it also?

Besides, even assuming if you are right, this particular thread also points out that what's going on involves more than just children. But also a lot of adult illegal aliens also. None of what you posted refers to them.
 
The right constantly complains that Obama ignores the law except when they complain that Obama is following the law.

Yep. I noted the same thing. In a thread complaining about the polarization, I was informed that Obama only followed the law when it fit his ideological and political positions.

I'm complaining because Obama and his cohorts refused to follow previous laws concerning immigration reform and now, since the law fits more to their ideology, they demand the law be followed... quite hypocritical and political.
 
Linking to the law does not mean it applies to an illegal alien willingly crossing the border. News papers sure as hell are not lawyers. As for the republican? Who cares? Did you really think that just because some stupid politician said something I'm going to take their word for it? As I recall Bush said it was perfectly legal to torture people. He's a republican...you going to take his word for it also?

Besides, even assuming if you are right, this particular thread also points out that what's going on involves more than just children. But also a lot of adult illegal aliens also. None of what you posted refers to them.

Again, I have posted several links confirming that my claim is true. Another poster quoted actual text from the law which describes how the children are to be placed and not detained or immediately returned back to their home countries. The only "rebuttal" I've seen so far is "Nuh-uh" worded in a variety of ways.

And if the adults are women, and many are women, they are protected under Division B of the act.
 
You do realize how hard that will be, expensive, and inhumane?

appeal to emotion are not arguments they are fallacies.

we are a nation of laws and these kids are not with their families but with relatives that are probably hear illegally as well.
leave it to liberal radicals to pander to people though.

this is a sever breaking of his oath of office and failure to uphold the law which he sworth an oath to execute faithfully.
they have yet to deport one of these people. they are letting them just run free in the US.

they are bringing all sort of disease and other trouble with them and nothing is being done about it.

It isn't inhumane to uphold the law tha is why the law exists.
 
There is one truth here; these invaders will never be sent back home because they are part of the future liberal voting block so it is correct to say the liberals are violating the law of the land in order to pursue a one party government which makes such a government..............illegal.
 
The right left constantly complains excuses and approves that Obama ignores the law except when they complain that want Obama is following the law.

I fixed your quote to highlight the same type of hypcocrisy on the other side that you failed to highlight. Many on the left have cheered Obama's "prosecutorial discretion" and "executive actions", yet declare he must follow the law exactly in this case.

Shockingly, yes, both parties have hypocrites or people who rationalize why a different reaction in a different instance is perfectly justifiable.
 

"explore reuniting those children with family members. "

We should definitely look to reunite these children with their family members, specifically those not in this country.

Subject to section 279(b)(2) of title 6, an unaccompanied alien child in the custody of the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall be promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child. In making such placements, the Secretary may consider danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of flight. Placement of child trafficking victims may include placement in an Unaccompanied Refugee Minor program, pursuant to section 412(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1522(d)), if a suitable family member is not available to provide care. A child shall not be placed in a secure facility absent a determination that the child poses a danger to self or others or has been charged with having committed a criminal offense. The placement of a child in a secure facility shall be reviewed, at a minimum, on a monthly basis, in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary, to determine if such placement remains warranted.

There is no indication or classification of these children as "Child trafficing victims’".

Indeed, the entire “subsection B” that Sanga keeps talking about is stated as thus:

”Assistance for trafficking victims”

These are not trafficking victims. The problem here is that Sangha is desperately attempting to misrepresent these things expecting that people actually can’t do some research. The 2008 reauthorization he keeps pointing to is an update to the 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which details what exactly trafficking is and thus who would be a “trafficking victim” (Note, the answer is not “any illegal alien child”). Two types of Trafficking is defined in the act:
Sex trafficking is the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purposes of a commercial sex act, in which the commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years of age, (22 USC § 7102; 8 CFR § 214.11(a)).
There is no indication, what so ever, that these children fall under this provision. There’s been no indication that they’ve been transported for the purpose of sex.
Labor trafficking is the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purposes of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery, (22 USC § 7102).
Again, there’s been no indication that these kids were transported to the US through the use of force, fraud, or coercion to do work in some kind of indebted fashion.

(SOURCE)

Indeed, CBP itself notes the primary requirement for something to be human trafficking: "It occurs when a person is induced by force, fraud or coercion" (SOURCE). There was no force, fraud, or coercion here UNLESS the suggestion is that ANYTIME a child is brought/sent to the U.S. by the parent it's "human trafficking" in which case every illegal immigrant coming across with children (Or here already and sending children) are guilty of human trafficking and should be even more stingnetly sought out and prosectued.

The law is EXPLICITELY for victims of TRAFFICKING, and yet it’s being used here as some kind of cover all for ALL illegal immigrant children. At BEST one can say that this is a judgment call on the part of the administration on how it wants to prosecute these instances…as instances of human trafficking or standard instances of immigration…which takes me back to the highlighted notion of Sangha’s pathetic one sided condemnation of hypocrisy, as the left cheers when Obama makes judgment calls on when/how to not enforce the law but then acts as if he MUST enforce the law in a specific way on another judgment call situation.
 
Last edited:
That's exactly the bill I'm referring to. It was sponsored by a pro illegal alien liberal Democrat.

Did this "pro illegal" democrat pull a gun on Bush and force him to sign the bill? :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom