• 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

How about the laws that say you cannot enter the US without the proper documentation?

There are asylum laws that say under certain circumstances you can show up at the border and ask for asylum. There's a whole legal component to see if it's legit, but yeah....

If these kids have a valid asylum claim, it should be heard.
 
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.

I see nothing that suggests that they must be transported to their family illegally in this country or that they can't be held, though it comes down to how the law defines "Secure facilities" which I'm unable to find at this time (though the statute it references identifies "placement" as being applicable to a "detention facility"). I would argue that living illegally within this country, thus being at risk to be removed at any time and having to continually violate the law if they're actively engaging in work, is putting the child at risk so turning them over to illegally residing parents is not a legitimate course of action.

But I do agree, these children do need to go before a judge for a hearing before being deported. While the President has indicated repeatedly a will go use executive actions to selectively enforce or follow the law in various manners and such I think could be fully capable of doing so here, I generally disagree with those actions and would disagree with it here simply for the sake of expediting the removal of these children. However, if their family in this country is illegal then the children should not be delivered to them as they are not a safe environment for the child. As such, some solution must be created for the children that is the least restrictive means of housing them until they can have their hearing.

Additionally, the notion that we COULD find illegal family members for these various children...and yet are continually told it's not "possible" to actively seek out illegal aliens for deportation...is laughable. If we're able to determine that the child has family illegally in this country, then the ONLY way we should be delivering them to the family is if we're simultaneously moving forward with an deportation hearing for the family as well. Now if they have LEGAL family here, then by all means put them with them until the hearing and hold them responsible if they take flight to avoid the legal process.
 
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.

Thank you.

I see nothing that suggests that they must be transported to their family illegally in this country or that they can't be held, though it comes down to how the law defines "Secure facilities" which I'm unable to find at this time (though the statute it references identifies "placement" as being applicable to a "detention facility"). I would argue that living illegally within this country, thus being at risk to be removed at any time and having to continually violate the law if they're actively engaging in work, is putting the child at risk so turning them over to illegally residing parents is not a legitimate course of action.

This text talks about placement of unaccompanied alien children
(c) Providing safe and secure placements for children
(1) Policies and programs
The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Homeland Security, Attorney General, and Secretary of State shall establish policies and programs to ensure that unaccompanied alien children in the United States are protected from traffickers and other persons seeking to victimize or otherwise engage such children in criminal, harmful, or exploitative activity, including policies and programs reflecting best practices in witness security programs.
(2) Safe and secure placements
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.

Note that it specifies placement in the "least restrictive setting" and sets out conditions for placing the child in a "secure facility"

But I do agree, these children do need to go before a judge for a hearing before being deported. While the President has indicated repeatedly a will go use executive actions to selectively enforce or follow the law in various manners and such I think could be fully capable of doing so here, I generally disagree with those actions and would disagree with it here simply for the sake of expediting the removal of these children. However, if their family in this country is illegal then the children should not be delivered to them as they are not a safe environment for the child. As such, some solution must be created for the children that is the least restrictive means of housing them until they can have their hearing.

Additionally, the notion that we COULD find illegal family members for these various children...and yet are continually told it's not "possible" to actively seek out illegal aliens for deportation...is laughable. If we're able to determine that the child has family illegally in this country, then the ONLY way we should be delivering them to the parent is if we're simultaneously moving forward with an deportation hearing for the parent as well.
Fair enough, but I'm not sure that the family members they are being placed with are here illegally. I did not notice anything in the text that speaks to that issue.
 
The section of the law I linked to in my previous post (the one whose meaning we are debating) states that the definition of "unaccompanied alien child" can be found in " section 279(g) of title 6."

Here is section 279(g) of title 6.
U.S.C. Title 6 - DOMESTIC SECURITY

Here is the text that defines the term "unaccompanied alien child"


Can you tell me where that definition says that it only applies to children who are the victims of trafficking?

Obama could change the law with his pen or his phone.
 
There are asylum laws that say under certain circumstances you can show up at the border and ask for asylum. There's a whole legal component to see if it's legit, but yeah....

If these kids have a valid asylum claim, it should be heard.

And if they don't, they shouldn't.
 
This text talks about placement of unaccompanied alien children

It does. As I stated, if they are being placed with LEGAL family members here then I have no issue with it in terms of a legal sense (I may have issues with the law, but the law is the law as it stands). They should not be placed with ILLEGAL family members in this country, as that a safe and secure placement. If there is no legal family here, it would seem to be the government needs to take steps to figure out what the next "least restrictive setting" is. It seems, in the law it referenecs, a "detention facility" is allowed but a "secure facility" is not based on this law. Unfortunately, this does not define what a "Secure facility" is. Is it anywhere that is guarded and a child can not leave unaccompanied, or is it a facility where children are secured in specific areas ala a jail? There is no real indication per the law.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure that the family members they are being placed with are here illegally. I did not notice anything in the text that speaks to that issue.

I honestly don't know. I'll look back through the original story again and try to do some research. I find it hard to imagine there are "290,000" illegal alien children that came across, and got caught, that all had legal immigrant families here as I would imagine such a situation ... based on how "dire" we are told the situation is that caused these kids to supposedly come here ... would've had the family already taken steps to get them here in a safe and legal fashion as opposed to just letting them cross the border themselves and fend for themselves until picked up by CBP.
 
And if they don't, they shouldn't.

If they don't they should be deported. I think that's the plan, but you've at least got to hear them out first.
 
It does. As I stated, if they are being placed with LEGAL family members here then I have no issue with it in terms of a legal sense (I may have issues with the law, but the law is the law as it stands). They should not be placed with ILLEGAL family members in this country, as that a safe and secure placement. If there is no legal family here, it would seem to be the government needs to take steps to figure out what the next "least restrictive setting" is. It seems, in the law it referenecs, a "detention facility" is allowed but a "secure facility" is not based on this law. Unfortunately, this does not define what a "Secure facility" is. Is it anywhere that is guarded and a child can not leave unaccompanied, or is it a facility where children are secured in specific areas ala a jail? There is no real indication per the law.

I am also unsure of the difference, if any, between detention and placement in a secure facility. However, the law does mention this
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.

I have no knowledge of the specifics on the Unaccompanied Refugee Minor program.



I honestly don't know. I'll look back through the original story again and try to do some research. I find it hard to imagine there are "290,000" illegal alien children that came across, and got caught, that all had legal immigrant families here as I would imagine such a situation ... based on how "dire" we are told the situation is that caused these kids to supposedly come here ... would've had the family already taken steps to get them here in a safe and legal fashion as opposed to just letting them cross the border themselves and fend for themselves until picked up by CBP.

I don't know either
 
And if they don't, they shouldn't.

Nancy Pelosi see this as an "opportunity" and from her point of view it iis, allowing that no good crisis should go to waste.

The government is overwhelming the system, just as planned, and while each side debating is convinced they are right neither seems to fully understand how they are being manipulated. It comes as a shock to realize that Obama, Pelosi, Holder, Reid, Clinton, etc. actually know what they are doing in dividing the country the way they are.

This seems a good time for all Americans to come together, reflect for a while, and ask themselves what's really happening to their country.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nanc...is-at-the-mexican-border-2014-6#ixzz36tuxpgoY
 
I have no knowledge of the specifics on the Unaccompanied Refugee Minor program.

And, in that case, it specifically IS talking about "child trafficking victims" as opposed to "unaccompanied alien children". And again, I can't see a way to term the majority of these children as "child trafficking victims" without essentially establishing that ANY child brought into this country illegal as a means of escaping potential violence is being trafficked and thus illegal immigrant parents bringing their children with them for that reason would be "child traffickers"

But I agree, I'm not sure what the difference is between placement in a "detention center" and placement in a "secure facility".
 
If they don't they should be deported. I think that's the plan, but you've at least got to hear them out first.

The plan is to disseminate these kids to places in the US like Lawrenceville, Va, Syracuse, NY, Elmira, PA, California, and then release them to relatives already in the US, legally here or not, pending their hearing, presumably after cleaning them up, rendering them disease free, and providing funds for their living expenses. The initial funding request is $60,000 + per child. Not counting future health care. Not counting potential epidemics of nearly eradicated diseases. Not counting schooling. Not counting future welfare expenditures. The show up rate at deportation hearings is around 10% The prosecution rate for no shows is close to zero.

If we need warehouse space, let's lease it in Mexico. Process at the border prior to granting entry or turning the flow around. Since these illegals are coming from Mexico, shouldn't Mexico kick in a few billion bucks?

If Mexico doesn't like it, they can shut off their southern border.
 
The plan is to disseminate these kids to places in the US like Lawrenceville, Va, Syracuse, NY, Elmira, PA, California, and then release them to relatives already in the US, legally here or not, pending their hearing, presumably after cleaning them up, rendering them disease free, and providing funds for their living expenses. The initial funding request is $60,000 + per child. Not counting future health care. Not counting potential epidemics of nearly eradicated diseases. Not counting schooling. Not counting future welfare expenditures. The show up rate at deportation hearings is around 10% The prosecution rate for no shows is close to zero.

If we need warehouse space, let's lease it in Mexico. Process at the border prior to granting entry or turning the flow around. Since these illegals are coming from Mexico, shouldn't Mexico kick in a few billion bucks?

If Mexico doesn't like it, they can shut off their southern border.

i don't think you are counting the children from the "northern triangle" countries of honduras, Guatemala, and el salvador.

i don't think they came here to get a job, they were fleeing from violence.
 
I don't know either

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:

But Central American families take the risk any way, with private hopes that somehow they can obtain legal residency some day -- though the Obama administration warns that the unaccompanied children or mothers with children won't benefit from any proposed immigration reforms or a deferred deportation policy for young immigrants called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

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?

(paraphrased due to layout)

A Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen after Birth IF…

(A) The child was under 18 or not yet born on February 27, 2001
(B) The child was under 18 from December 24, 1952 to February 26, 2001

AND....

(A) At least one parent is a U.S. citizen, the child is currently under 18 and residing in the U.S. in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent pursuant to lawful admission for permanent residence.

(B) The child was residing as a Green Card holder in the U.S. and both parents naturalized before the child’s 18th birthday (and some other supporting factors)

(SOURCE)

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 don't think you are counting the children from the "northern triangle" countries of honduras, Guatemala, and el salvador.

i don't think they came here to get a job, they were fleeing from violence.

There is no more violence now then there was three, five or 10 years ago. It's consistently high. If America tries to do anything about it then the US Government will be attacked, in America, for its 'interference'. Economic pressure should be put on these countries in order that they change - helping when they do the right thing, withholding when wrong. Money is the one thing everyone understands.
 
i don't think you are counting the children from the "northern triangle" countries of honduras, Guatemala, and el salvador.

i don't think they came here to get a job, they were fleeing from violence.

I'm counting border invaders. I don't care where they come from.

R88 makes the point that they are entitled to a hearing. You have already made up your mind.

Mexico obviously does not consider them worthy of refugee status. They are moving them through Mexico without any offer of help. They are also violating Mexico's borders, but no prosecution.

Something smells bad here, and it is more than the smell of unwashed kids with lice and scabies. Mexico has tight controls on their borders. Particularly the Southern borders. Those illegals were not allowed into Mexico without the Mexicans knowing full well that the transported illegals would not be turned back to become Mexico's problem.
 
If they don't they should be deported. I think that's the plan, but you've at least got to hear them out first.

Nope they came here illegally there is nothing to hear. the reason they were sent here is that their families keep hearing about amnesty and that the president and congress are going to pass amnesty for all the illegals in this country.

so they are overhelming the system so that they kids get amensty. of course once their kids are citizens they can sponser their real families to come here which means even more poor and poverty stricken people to come.

of course it is great if you are a liberal left winger that pander to people like this. i am sure there will be a flock of liberal agencies with the welfare and medicaid forms ready to sign them up.

that is why they are coming across. what is even worse is they are bringing diseases here that we have pretty much taken care of. scabies and TB are being reported all over the place.

good if you don't think they should be deported then all people like you can take them in and care for them. Then you can foot the bill instead of the rest of america.
 
I'm counting border invaders. I don't care where they come from.

R88 makes the point that they are entitled to a hearing. You have already made up your mind.

Mexico obviously does not consider them worthy of refugee status. They are moving them through Mexico without any offer of help. They are also violating Mexico's borders, but no prosecution.

Something smells bad here, and it is more than the smell of unwashed kids with lice and scabies. Mexico has tight controls on their borders. Particularly the Southern borders. Those illegals were not allowed into Mexico without the Mexicans knowing full well that the transported illegals would not be turned back to become Mexico's problem.

Rahm Emanuel cynically said, "You never want a crisis to go to waste." It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Barack Obama's presidency.

Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.
Obama's agenda: Overwhelm the system | Las Vegas Review-Journal
 
The plan is to disseminate these kids to places in the US like Lawrenceville, Va, Syracuse, NY, Elmira, PA, California, and then release them to relatives already in the US, legally here or not, pending their hearing, presumably after cleaning them up, rendering them disease free, and providing funds for their living expenses. The initial funding request is $60,000 + per child. Not counting future health care. Not counting potential epidemics of nearly eradicated diseases. Not counting schooling. Not counting future welfare expenditures. The show up rate at deportation hearings is around 10% The prosecution rate for no shows is close to zero.

Well, it's cheaper than having them be wards of the government for the long term. They have to go somewhere until their hearing...and usually someone seeking asylum is in legally until a decision is made.

If we need warehouse space, let's lease it in Mexico. Process at the border prior to granting entry or turning the flow around. Since these illegals are coming from Mexico, shouldn't Mexico kick in a few billion bucks?

If Mexico doesn't like it, they can shut off their southern border.

So it'll be cheaper to rent prison space in Mexico than have them stay somewhere in the meantime? You really think so? Besides which, I'm sure the law dictates what happens. You want Obama to follow the law, right?

Mexico is negotiating with Guatemala about the border.
 
If the current administration immediately sealed off the border and began deporting these children, the same conservatives who are complaining now would be bitching about Obama's strong arm tactics and how much he hates these poor children.

I wouldn't.
 
Nope they came here illegally there is nothing to hear. the reason they were sent here is that their families keep hearing about amnesty and that the president and congress are going to pass amnesty for all the illegals in this country.

so they are overhelming the system so that they kids get amensty. of course once their kids are citizens they can sponser their real families to come here which means even more poor and poverty stricken people to come.

of course it is great if you are a liberal left winger that pander to people like this. i am sure there will be a flock of liberal agencies with the welfare and medicaid forms ready to sign them up.

that is why they are coming across. what is even worse is they are bringing diseases here that we have pretty much taken care of. scabies and TB are being reported all over the place.

good if you don't think they should be deported then all people like you can take them in and care for them. Then you can foot the bill instead of the rest of america.

If they are legally entitled to asylum, then there should be a hearing. Obama is following the law as passed by Congress in 2008 before he took office. Not doing so would be exactly the sort of abuse you wouldn't like if it were a law that you liked. You apparently don't mind if Obama picks and chooses as long as he picks what you like.

Legal asylum would mean they're here legally. I thought you guys weren't against legal immigration.
 
If they are legally entitled to asylum, then there should be a hearing. Obama is following the law as passed by Congress in 2008 before he took office. Not doing so would be exactly the sort of abuse you wouldn't like if it were a law that you liked. You apparently don't mind if Obama picks and chooses as long as he picks what you like.

Legal asylum would mean they're here legally. I thought you guys weren't against legal immigration.

nope not hearing needed there is no war going on in their country. so they cannot claim asylum.
they aren't immigrating here legally they are crossing the border illegally in hopes of getting amnesty.

your strawman arguments don't work.

no he isn't following the law or all of these people would be deported to their country of origin.
 
I'm counting border invaders. I don't care where they come from.

R88 makes the point that they are entitled to a hearing. You have already made up your mind.

Mexico obviously does not consider them worthy of refugee status. They are moving them through Mexico without any offer of help. They are also violating Mexico's borders, but no prosecution.

Something smells bad here, and it is more than the smell of unwashed kids with lice and scabies. Mexico has tight controls on their borders. Particularly the Southern borders. Those illegals were not allowed into Mexico without the Mexicans knowing full well that the transported illegals would not be turned back to become Mexico's problem.

the united states is not the only country the refugees from the "northern triangle" countries are fleeing to. some are fleeing to panama, some are fleeing to mexico, some are fleeing to costa rica, they are fleeing to any country that will grant them asylum.
 
nope not hearing needed there is no war going on in their country. so they cannot claim asylum.
they aren't immigrating here legally they are crossing the border illegally in hopes of getting amnesty.

your strawman arguments don't work.

no he isn't following the law or all of these people would be deported to their country of origin.

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?"
 
How about the laws that say you cannot enter the US without the proper documentation?

Anyone can say "laws", but I was hoping for something more specific, for instance the name of the law, applicable punishments, etc.

8 U.S.C. §1325.
Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—

(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or

(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
U.S.C. Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

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.

(a) Detention, release, and removal of aliens ordered removed
(1) Removal period
(A) In general
Except as otherwise provided in this section, when an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney General shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days (in this section referred to as the “removal period”).

(B) Beginning of period
The removal period begins on the latest of the following:

(i) The date the order of removal becomes administratively final.

(ii) If the removal order is judicially reviewed and if a court orders a stay of the removal of the alien, the date of the court's final order.

(iii) If the alien is detained or confined (except under an immigration process), the date the alien is released from detention or confinement.
U.S.C. Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
 
Back
Top Bottom