• 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

Visbek said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I have also enjoyed this discussion. Thank you
 
sangha said:
And your argument is that what the law actually says matters not.

Gotcha
Click to expand...

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.
 
APACHERAT said:
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
Click to expand...

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:
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's for the courts to decide.


they are illegal there are already rules in place for dealing with them they are booked and sent back to their country of origin....
Click to expand...
Booked and given a hearing. And when the courts are overwhelmed, it takes time to complete that process.

Further, if they apply for amnesty, then a different set of practices are applied.


it is due to the fact that their parents think they will get amnesty from the president that is the exact reason.
Click to expand...
Ah, so Obama is responsible for people in a completely different country, who are fleeing high levels of crime, because they misunderstand Obama's policies?

Y'know what, I think I'll blame the Republicans, who have spent the last 2 years falsely accusing Obama of wanting to offer a Reagan-style amnesty. Yeah, that's the ticket. :mrgreen:


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.
Click to expand...
Uh huh. Well, I wanted no part in the Iraq war, or in spending obscene amounts on wasted defense spending. Can I get my money back for that? Maybe I should get you to pay my part of the bill, if you supported that war.

Taxation and government spending is not like ordering a sandwich at a deli, where you tell them every item you want, and if you want a pickle on the side. Sometimes the government does what you want, sometimes it doesn't. That's how it works when you live in a nation of 313 million people, who have diverse ideas about how to run a country.

That said, I have absolutely no problems whatsoever with an immigration detention center in my general area. I only ask that all detention centers be run as humanely, cleanly and efficiently as possible, for the sake of the detainees.
 
polgara said:
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:
Click to expand...
How does the obama regime know where to send the illegals? Simple. he has the census data and he has a county by county map of the places that voted against him. With chain migration in five years the 300k illegals will become three million immigrants. The anti-American monsters in our government intend to change these immigrants into voters. Put three million people into places that vote for Republicans and most of them will magically vote for democrats. The end is in sight. In a decade, if this stands, we will become a one party state much like the former Soviet Union.
 
clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the text I referred to was included intentionally and didn't insert itself into the bill accidentally.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

OK, I read the CNN piece and I have to say it makes me feel conflicted. As the article states, a parent who has someone send their kid to cross the border illegally is taking an incredible risk with their child. In addition to the problems we mentioned, the article also mentions the risk of the child being sexually abused. And it doesn't take much for me to imagine something even worse than that happening to the child. After all, they were doing something illegal. If something were to go terribly wrong, what are they going to do? Call the police?

I can also see how some of these kids might be in situations where poverty or violence might make such a risk conceivable, but the article (and the women's stories) didn't hint at that. I'm sure some of them are in that situation, but I have no idea how many. Lots? Many? Most? Who knows? I sure don't.

That story made it sounds, particularly with the first mother, that the motivation was to re-unite the family. While that's an understandable desire, the risks don't seem to justify the decision. Either way, it's a pretty sad story all around.
 
rocket88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think we all know that Obama already picks and chooses the laws he wants to enforce.
 
Dear Forum,

I know this sounds cold. Let me preface this by stating I am not a part of the Bat-Shirt-Crazy section of the Republican Party. That's neither here-nor-there, we have to stop this and we have to stop this now. Folks from the south are not coming from East Berlin (by the way, it was really hard to do, and they had electric fences). They come here because they know they can stay. I no longer care how bad they have it, or what excuse they have to come here. My wife did it legally in 1976. Her sisters before that.

My family has been here since the start of the U.S. (Marquis de Lafayette, according to the family tree), I am white-guy with Luxembourg, Norwegian, French, Irish and German blood (The Germans were late comers, they didn't get here until 1876), and that makes me a Mutt. But rest assured, every damn one of them nationalities came here LEGALLY.

America doesn't build roads (Ike), we don't fix bridges, we don't take care of our Veterans, and we have a whole lot of other interests before we have to start baby sitting South American children. If we do not stop it . . . it will get worse. I'm sorry . . if it was my choice, I'd be flying them back in droves. You may ask; what if no country accepts them?
OK, shut them off from every American dollar. What? I can't get a banana from Belize? Look, we are the World's sponge . . . I am tired of it. I am willing for us to take a responsible role, but being Mac-Daddy must end.

Respectfully,
Me
 
michijo said:
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 originally 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".
Click to expand...

When I said what caused the big divide between the Republican and Democrat parties, China played a major role and so did the Korean War, the firing of Gen. MacArthur and a few other things.

I want to point out that both Republicans and Democrats were both patriotic, even the liberals in America were nationalistic and anti commie and anti socialist. In fact from the fall of Nationalist China to 1970 it was who was a bigger hawk, who was tougher against communism. JFK was an anti communist big time and a hawk. His brother Bobby Kennedy was one of the biggest hawks in Washington. Bobby wore two hats in the JFk administration, the Attorney General and he was in charge of CIA special ops.

But the divide started in 1952 when the Republicans got dirty.

>" The Republican right divided all Democrats into five categories: The Criminals, the traitors, the cowards, the incompetents who always blundered into war. And the effete who lacked sufficient vigor to invade China and conquer it."<

(The above is from a history book we were required to read back in college over forty years ago.)

But I digress, if I continued it would be thread drift and it should be in a Vietnam War thread not this thread.

To get back on track, it was Obama's failure or refusing to secure our borders, refusing to enforce our immigration laws and going around Congress and writing his own immigration polices using executive orders why this thread exist today. Obama created the illegal alien jihad at the border and instead of stopping it he's relocating the illegal Allen jihad throughout our neighborhoods in America and the taxpayers will be footing the cost.
 
Misterveritis said:
How does the obama regime know where to send the illegals? Simple. he has the census data and he has a county by county map of the places that voted against him. With chain migration in five years the 300k illegals will become three million immigrants. The anti-American monsters in our government intend to change these immigrants into voters. Put three million people into places that vote for Republicans and most of them will magically vote for democrats. The end is in sight. In a decade, if this stands, we will become a one party state much like the former Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Misterveritis. :2wave:

You know, the people who have said that he appears out of touch or inept - me included, sad to say, will have to change their thinking. He is showing that he is neither, and if he had our country's best interests at heart, which I am beginning to understand is definitely not the case, we'd be difficult to beat. I still can't give him all the credit, though, because he is apparently taking orders from the one-world government cabal, who he agrees with, and America must be brought into the fold if they are to win. They seem to be ramping up the time table - we are a stubborn bunch, I guess, and they must be getting irritable that it's taking so long to accomplish. Other countries, one by one, have been easier to defeat, all without firing a shot, and the cabal have been patiently working for over 100 years.

Those of us who have lived a while remember what it used to be like, but most of the younger generation knows nothing about those days - the current state of things is all they've ever known - the education system was used to convince them that government knows best, and I'm talking grade school though college. It's continuing today with the PC thought police changing word meanings, and encouraging dissent if that's what it takes to change things. And it's working.

We used to be The United States of America, but we've been divided by design. What kind of new world awaits us, with a debt load that cannot be repaid, and millions already on food stamps and other assistance so they have shelter and won't starve? Sad...
 
APACHERAT said:
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
Click to expand...
This has been his greatest failure IMO.
A crisis he not only Bungled, but Caused.
Now he can't even own it.
What's next?

2016 can't come soon enough.
Hopefully it will produce a leader who doesn't want to 'solve' the crisis, but End it permanently.
NO one who enters illegally should EVER be Legal. (nor employable)
No more incentive.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
This has been his greatest failure IMO.
A crisis he not only Bungled, but Caused.
Now he can't even own it.
What's next?

2016 can't come soon enough.
Hopefully it will produce a leader who doesn't want to 'solve' the crisis, but End it permanently.
NO one who enters illegally should EVER be Legal. (nor employable)
No more incentive.
Click to expand...

And dont forget the 4 BILLION dollars.
 
mbig said:
This has been his greatest failure IMO.
A crisis he not only Bungled, but Caused.
Now he can't even own it.
What's next?

2016 can't come soon enough.
Hopefully it will produce a leader who doesn't want to 'solve' the crisis, but End it permanently.
NO one who enters illegally should EVER be Legal. (nor employable)
No more incentive.
Click to expand...

I concur Mbig.

Obama owns this 100%, He bypassed Congress and misused executive orders and wrote his own immigration policy and it turned around and bit him in the crotch. ( I couldn't say balls because Obama doesn't have a pair.)

I watched the Sunday morning talking heads programs with incompetent Obama appointees trying to lie their way out of this one. I watched C-Span with more incompetent Obama appointees sounding stupid in front of Congress.

Children and community organizers shouldn't play with matches.
 
CRUE CAB said:
And dont forget the 4 BILLION dollars.
Click to expand...
If he really wanted to end the nonsense all he would have to do is Go on National TV (Simulcast in Spanish to Mexico and Central America) and say what I just did.

"NO one who enters illegally will EVER be Legal. (nor employable)"

NO Amnesty EVER.
NO 'Path to citizenship.'
NO 'send/have your kids and reunite' - trick.

You wait your turn for legal immigration status or get chucked withOut being able to get a job here. Nor a State ID/License.
National ID/e-Verify required for any ID/License/Job.

Bush, Clinton, and virtually ALL other Presidents have Failed us as well. This is particularly bad though.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
If he really wanted to end the nonsense all he would have to do is Go on National TV (Simulcast in Spanish to Mexico and Central America) and say what I just did.

"NO one who enters illegally will EVER be Legal. (nor employable)"

NO Amnesty EVER.
NO 'Path to citizenship.'
NO 'send/have your kids and reunite' - trick.

You wait your turn for legal immigration status or get chucked withOut being able to get a job here. Nor a State ID/License.
National ID/e-Verify required for any ID/License/Job.

Bush, Clinton, and virtually ALL other Presidents have Failed us as well.
Click to expand...

Since this would cost Obama hispanic votes and future voters, he will never do this. Hope and change.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Misterveritis. :2wave:

You know, the people who have said that he appears out of touch or inept - me included, sad to say, will have to change their thinking. He is showing that he is neither, and if he had our country's best interests at heart, which I am beginning to understand is definitely not the case, we'd be difficult to beat. I still can't give him all the credit, though, because he is apparently taking orders from the one-world government cabal, who he agrees with, and America must be brought into the fold if they are to win. They seem to be ramping up the time table - we are a stubborn bunch, I guess, and they must be getting irritable that it's taking so long to accomplish. Other countries, one by one, have been easier to defeat, all without firing a shot, and the cabal have been patiently working for over 100 years.

Those of us who have lived a while remember what it used to be like, but most of the younger generation knows nothing about those days - the current state of things is all they've ever known - the education system was used to convince them that government knows best, and I'm talking grade school though college. It's continuing today with the PC thought police changing word meanings, and encouraging dissent if that's what it takes to change things. And it's working.

We used to be The United States of America, but we've been divided by design. What kind of new world awaits us, with a debt load that cannot be repaid, and millions already on food stamps and other assistance so they have shelter and won't starve? Sad...
Click to expand...
I'm not big on conspiracy theories, Polgara, but have recently come to the conclusion that you are correct. Many have incorrectly been comparing him unfavorably with former Presidents but he is a entirely new and different politician with the only promise he's kept being Change. This is not the Change most Americans hoped for but he and his handlers were smart enough to tell the American people what they wanted to hear (transparency, etc.) but it's only Change that has come to be.

Where that leads the country is well beyond me but we can see that he will do his best to destroy what America once was in the time he has left. This is the legacy he really wants and one that will be admired by faculty leftists throughout America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom