• 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

Is "strawman" new to you and you don't know the meaning?

There is war and violence in their countries, asylum could be legally possible, and if it isn't they can be deported when that is determined.

Are you an immigration lawyer, or is it just "Obama BAD?"

nope you are distorting the argument and what i said into something else then you are arguing against the distortion.
nope there is no war. violence is everywhere that is not a reason for aslyum to the US.

then they can ask for alsyum the correct legal way instead of cross the border illegally. there is a legal way to do it and an illegal way to do it.
they are doing it the illegal way which gives them 0 standing to ask for anything.

they have broken the laws of this country by crossing our border without permission which means they have committed a crime.
any president that allows an invasion of this country is a bad president.

as i said if you think they should be here then we will ship them to your residents and you and others like you can take care of them and foot the bill for them to be here. i will wait your objection to this which i know you will have.
 
Did this "pro illegal" democrat pull a gun on Bush and force him to sign the bill? :lamo

I guess you couldn't comprehend the difference between Obama and every President who served before him.

Let me put it this way, Congress legislates and the President enforces.

Unknown to the current President, the President can't have it his way every time. The President isn't a monarch king.

A perfect example would be the Simpson-Mozzoli Act aka IRA of 1986 or better known as "amnesty." It was the Democrats who put an amendment into the IRC rewarding law breakers with amnesty. Reagan felt uncomfortable with the amnesty amendment being added to the bill, Reagan wanted an enforcement bill and nothing else. But Reagan wasn't a king and knew what compromising was. Besides the Democrats said that the amnesty of rewarding criminality would be a one time thing and never repeated again. They seem to have lied because six more amnesties were passed during the Clinton administration.

Hey Texmex, are you tired of always being lied to by the left ? I sure am.
 
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.

And each time failed to notice that the law applies specifically to trafficking victims, which is not the case here.
 
Anyone can say "laws", but I was hoping for something more specific, for instance the name of the law, applicable punishments, etc.

Strangely, I cannot find "improper entry by alien" or the procedure for dealing with it in Title 18.

8 U.S.C. §1231. details the detention and removal of aliens ordered removed.

Crossing U.S. Borders | Homeland Security

A synopsis from DHS.
 
Hey Texmex, are you tired of always being lied to by the left ? I sure am.

:lamo

"...an incident that took place during the 1948 Presidential election campaign. In Harrisburg, Illinois, Truman delivered a speech attacking the Republicans. During the speech a supporter yelled out "Give 'em Hell, Harry!". Truman replied, "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

President Truman was talking about the republicans.
 
:lamo

"...an incident that took place during the 1948 Presidential election campaign. In Harrisburg, Illinois, Truman delivered a speech attacking the Republicans. During the speech a supporter yelled out "Give 'em Hell, Harry!". Truman replied, "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

President Truman was talking about the republicans.

Was that before or after Truman lost China to the communist ? :lamo
 
So doing some more research. The June 22nd article from CNN seems to be intentionally vague in regards to the immigration status of the "immigrant mother" that's being talked about. Throughout it keeps referencing "Central American Families" with little inidcation of the legal status of those families except for this blurb which suggest that they are families ILLEGALLY here:



That is the only mention of the legal status anywhere in the article, and suggest that the status CURRENTLY is NOT legal since they "hope" they can obtain legal status by sending their children to themselves.

The July 3rd New York Times story has an immigration official suggesting that they'll be taken to "non-criminal" relatives, which is a bit ambiguous to the situation as well since we've heard often that simply being here illegally isn't a felony and thus some suggest they are not "criminal".

The legitimacy of the notion that the parents are legally here is also questionable given the fact that they could bring their children into this country LEGALLY if that was the case, without paying for coyotes or causing them to take the dangerous route of being smuggled across the board. Why is that?



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.

At best, it seems that the immigration status of the families once found simply aren't being checked...which begs a whole lot of questions when the argument for why this MUST happen is that Obama MUST follow the law to the T. One would assume that such a check SHOULD be done considering that the law demands that the person it's being turned over to has their identity checked (and how can one verify who the person is if there's no official record of them) and requiring that it be investigated that the individual is not engaging in activity that would put the child at risk (which being here illegally, or more specifically if you want a higher crime WORKING here fraudulently and illegally).

I can see why you might think it's saying that the family the child is with is not here legally, but it's not clear. The hope they speak of may be the families hope that the child will be naturalized.

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.

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.
 
Was that before or after Truman lost China to the communist ? :lamo

How can an American lose China land to communism? China is not his possession to lose. Neither is Latin America. You must suffer from Conservative Entitlement disorder. This is a mental problem conservatives have where they feel entitled to ownership and control of the whole world. Many Democrats suffer from it as well, like when Obama bombed Libya. American Entitlement Disorder.
 
Was that before or after Truman lost China to the communist ? :lamo

Don't worry. Nixon went to China and sucked his way back into their good graces.
 
I guess you couldn't comprehend the difference between Obama and every President who served before him.

Let me put it this way, Congress legislates and the President enforces.

Unknown to the current President, the President can't have it his way every time. The President isn't a monarch king.

A perfect example would be the Simpson-Mozzoli Act aka IRA of 1986 or better known as "amnesty." It was the Democrats who put an amendment into the IRC rewarding law breakers with amnesty. Reagan felt uncomfortable with the amnesty amendment being added to the bill, Reagan wanted an enforcement bill and nothing else. But Reagan wasn't a king and knew what compromising was. Besides the Democrats said that the amnesty of rewarding criminality would be a one time thing and never repeated again. They seem to have lied because six more amnesties were passed during the Clinton administration.

Hey Texmex, are you tired of always being lied to by the left ? I sure am.

Yes, they are being treated according to the law that is currently on the books. Congress legislated, and the President is acting in accordance with that legislation. I know that Obama's record in that regard is a little spotty, but either you want him to enforce the laws or you don't. If you want him to pick and choose which laws he enforces, you can't scream when he does that differently than you'd like.
 
How can an American lose China land to communism? China is not his possession to lose. Neither is Latin America. You must suffer from Conservative Entitlement disorder. This is a mental problem conservatives have where they feel entitled to ownership and control of the whole world. Many Democrats suffer from it as well, like when Obama bombed Libya. American Entitlement Disorder.

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-1G2-3427300440/lost-china-debate.html
 

If you're going to use Zyphlin as backup, you might want to read the posts where he eventually agreed with me. :lamo

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.
 
That's right, why aren't these people posting a bond like all Americans have to do when they are given a court date be it for j-walking or DUI ?

Immigration law as with J-walking is civil not criminal, so they don't need to post bail for they haven't committed a crime, it is a violation of immigration laws. :)
 
I can see why you might think it's saying that the family the child is with is not here legally, but it's not clear. The hope they speak of may be the families hope that the child will be naturalized.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
nope there is no war. violence is everywhere that is not a reason for aslyum to the US.
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


then they can ask for alsyum the correct legal way instead of cross the border illegally.
That's not relevant. You don't apply for asylum before leaving your home country. You flee and then request asylum.


they are doing it the illegal way which gives them 0 standing to ask for anything.
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.


any president that allows an invasion of this country is a bad president.
Then I guess Reagan, Bush 41 and 43 were also "bad Presidents."
 
Immigration law as with J-walking is civil not criminal, so they don't need to post bail for they haven't committed a crime, it is a violation of immigration laws. :)

I'm old enough to remember when j-walking in California was a misdemeanor treated as a moving violation. Today it's an infraction.

I remember when cops could shoot at fleeing felons and what the **** was a "Miranda" ?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

:thumbs:
 
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.
 
If you're going to use Zyphlin as backup, you might want to read the posts where he eventually agreed with me. :lamo

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom