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.