The whole situation could be handled very quickly and without all the fanfare by the government getting the hell out of the way and allowing private charities to take care of the children. Since our government policies (Drug War) have caused most of the horrific conditions in Mexico,Central and South America that the children are trying to flee, then I'm good with throwing some money at it. Not 3.4 billion though. How 'bout 1 billion divided up amongst 10 charities? 100 mill each without government regulations on housing and nutrition etc etc. The groups which are big enough to handle this and would be able to provide a plan for spending 100 mill. are humanitarian in nature and will care for the children properly. Then stop the idiotic and Quixotic war on drugs, so the cartels will have nothing to kill people over. 1 bill ought to be enough of other people's money to let Obama feel like a humanitarian. Then make it much more simpler for folks who want to work for a better life to be able to come here and do so. It's really not as complicated as many try to make it.
To the oh-so-compassionate and caring 70% who voted "yes", your kid had better not ever end up on my property....I'll throw him (her) right into the street. Not just chase him off my property, but literally throw the kid into the street. Cars coming? TOO FREAKING BAD...GET OFF MY PROPERTY!!!
Sound harsh? Yep...but that is the situation you're putting these kids in.
The situation sucks, period. But to say to children "screw you - go get fired at in your own country" is absolutely heartless. Yeah, it puts a burden on us, but how can we proclaim ourselves,to be a great country of we cant at least take a bit of time to find a safe,place for these kids to go?
{shoot - next thing you know we'll be torturing/waterboarding just like the Nazis did}
Over 300 readers vote to have the children deported - immediately. It is not surprising for this forum. What is surprising is the lack of comments from the 300+ . This is a volatile topic that asks for a black or white response. In the privacy of your own space, you vote. You are not asked to comment or let your friends and neighbors know where you stand. The silence, from the 300+, is deafening.
Dave was on the right track until the snarky, " make O'Bama feel like a humanitarian". This is a humanitarian crisis and we should all feel like humanitarians as we look for solutions to provide safe haven for the children.
Tim and Jerry wrote exactly what I was thinking. Thank you both.
Sadly, the sentiments of the 300+ are not limited to children escaping a life we can barely comprehend. The same group contend that we should first take care of our own. Lofty thoughts to be sure. Yet, they would vote to deny basic services to thier neighbors in need, be they babies, broken families, the elderly and the infirmed.
I remember when our country took in the Hungarian refugees. Their children grew to be productive members of society. I would like to believe that the children, surrendering to border patrols, may just have in their ranks future men and women who will make positive contributions to our country. Our investment in their future may very well reap great benefits.
We absolutely must take care of these children (food, shelter, medical care) with the expedited goal of reuniting them safely with their families (Dave's idea has a lot of merit). In the meantime the unintended (or intended) consequence of trying to ensure that we receive the children, the video below stands in stark contrast to the standards by which we attempt to keep known criminals and/or terrorists out of our country.
If you have crossed the Canadian border recently, you know how long it takes, the multiple questions you get asked, and the proof you need to provide before crossing, and that's in a passenger vehicle. Look what it takes now to enter the US from Mexico in a tractor trailer
It's a good thing the "deported quickly" mind set wasn't around 100 years ago. If it was, most of us wouldn't be here right now. Those "illegals" were our grand parents and great grand parents. I believe in a country that is compassionate to children. Cut out the foreign aid to central american countries. Use that money here to care for the children escaping violence in the third world.
Did anyone stop to consider this? Maybe these kids are on their way to Canada. Very arrogant of us to believe that the US is EVERYONE'S ultimate destination.
As far as deportation, we can't in good conscience do this. This shining beacon on a hill has been calling foreigners for as long as we've been a nation. And these are kids, for Christ's sake, kids.
Not snarky necessarily, Bea. Obama is surely no humanitarian, but would love to pound his chest and say so, while spending someone else's money. Might even get another bogus Nobel Peace Prize. The unwillingness of the president and his attorney general to end the war on drugs and alleviate the violence and horrific conditions central American children are facing, coupled with the immigration laws that make no sense which they will only address in a perfunctory manner are causing or at the very least adding to this problem.
The key is to treat them like children from Mexico or even Brazil. These kids come under a different law, that will had good intentions, backfired.
If you do want the law changed to treat them like children from Mexico (and tell me why not), then at least we need more hearing officers to move the cases faster.
LEGAL immigrants. hard working individuals, with a desire to assimilate into society helped evolve this country into the great iconic society we once were.
The influx of illegals is adding to our decline. Many of the "children" referenced are gang members intent on recruitment. The majority are not the innocent young people the media portrays.
I'll agree with you that we should cut foreign aide to such countries, but suggest that money be spent on the suffering children already here - legally.
So many people say that we must stop being the world's police. I believe we must also stop being the world's benefactor.
Bob, what I said was that kids from the Central American countries should be treated the same as we treat the ones from Mexico and not given special treatment. There is no reason for the double standard.
Bob, that is a bunch of hooey. The situation as to my understanding is that children are being forced into the cartel thug gangs. The ones coming here are trying to escape that. This "legal vs illegal" immigrant argument is hooey as well. People are not illegal, children are defenseless and surely we can find room in a nation of 320 million for 50,000 or so children. The meddlesome policies of this country are causing people to want to get the hell out of their countries which we have exploited. We made this mess, taking care of the people effected by our government is not being a benefactor, it is being responsible. If we were actually more responsible for the messes we create, we wouldn't do it so much.
Bea, if you're a child from Mexico, you can be deported right away. But if you are from a select number of Central American countries, you can not be. That makes no sense.
As for the reason being given for special treatment that the children are being forced into drug gangs, so are Mexican children, but they are treated different.
And what about the children in Africa being forced into not only gangs, but into the militaries. Why do you not advocate for African children being allowed in to stay without limits on time or numbers?
John?????
I'm not sure why you feel I'm opposing your view. It has merit. A level playing field for all oppressed children should be the goal. If unaccompanied children find their way to our border and surrender to the first border patrol they see then they are asking for asylum.
Dave's suggestion that the funds to help them go to faith based and other organization may be the short term solution.
A comprehensive immigration policy that addresses this issue is needed. It may be very different from the inconsistent policy we now have, but it should make it better than what we have.
Once again, I'm sorry if you felt that I, in anyway, minimized your point of view.
It's a complex problem I agree with points on BOTH sides of the fence. Unfortunately politics complicates this even more so. We have rules in place already, they do have some discretionary power in them as well.
But throwing new rules into the mix just doesnt make sense to me.
I really like the idea of funding reputable charitable orgs to help deal with this though.
The complexity of dealing with minors is rooted in the 2007 immigration law, one portion of which was intended to address human trafficking. This law which had bipartisan support was one of George W. Bush's pet projects and possibly his final piece of legislation. Anyone curious as to why these minors are being treated differently should consult that law. Additionally, there has always been a separate process for dealing with refugees and asylum-seekers as differentiated from other immigrants. It's clear that these minors are emigres driven out of their native countries- unlike immigrants seeking economic advantage.
Thanks for the directions to "flesh" out the details CM. Just from first blush on reading these it's obvious that the general way we the public are looking at this and the generalized way our political leaders present solutions to us. Really arent doing the situation justice at all.
If some of you feel so strongly about our need to support these children and that sending them back is morally and ethically wrong. I think this might be the time for ourselves to circumvent our own Govt and handle this ourselves and through our churches and organizations. Isn't this truly what Kiwanis and Rotary and Masonic as well as Catholic Charities for?
Kyle, the children surrendered thenselves to our border patrol, not to a service organization or faith based group. The first responsibility for their care belongs to the country where they seek asylum.
The ideal solution, as Dave suggested, is for government funding the groups so the children receive the proper care and treatment. Congress chose not to vote on any funding before they left for their 5 week hiatus.
Bea our Govt isn't really a service organization either. As defined by the Constitution of the United States. The Federal Govt's role is....
So what is the proper role of the federal government?
The Constitution’s Preamble says the federal government was established (and the Constitution was adopted) to “form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
The Constitution’s articles, and the subsequent Amendments, specify the prerogatives of the Feds. They are listed in Article I, Sec. 8; Articles II-V; Amendments XIII-XVI, XIX-XX, XXIII-XXVI. These prerogatives belong to one of the following categories:
1) Defense, war prosecution, peace, foreign relations, foreign commerce, and interstate commerce;
2) The protection of citizens’ constitutional rights (e.g the right to vote) and ensuring that slavery remains illegal;
3) Establishing federal courts inferior to the SCOTUS;
4) Copyright protection;
5) Coining money;
6) Establishing post offices and post roads;
7) Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures;
8 ) Taxation needed to raise revenue to perform these essential functions.
Those are the only prerogatives of the Feds. The Tenth Amendment states that all prerogatives not explicitly given to the Federal Government, nor prohibited of the states, are reserved to the states or to the people (i.e. individual Americans). So the Feds are not allowed to handle any issues not explicitly listed in the Constitution; their prerogatives are limited to what the Constitution explicitly states.
(The above quotation is old and I am not sure which website it came from but it was in my reference docs folder)
So while they surrendered themselves to Agents of the Federal Govt. It doesnt necessarily mean they have to assume responsibility. I mean by your definition if some of those children walked up to say hospital administrator, or up to someone's home, does that mean THEY are responsible for them?
We have seen how well the Federal Govt handles things that should be left to service organizations and faith based groups.... Just look to the handling of Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Sandy.
The whole situation could be
The whole situation could be handled very quickly and without all the fanfare by the government getting the hell out of the way and allowing private charities to take care of the children. Since our government policies (Drug War) have caused most of the horrific conditions in Mexico,Central and South America that the children are trying to flee, then I'm good with throwing some money at it. Not 3.4 billion though. How 'bout 1 billion divided up amongst 10 charities? 100 mill each without government regulations on housing and nutrition etc etc. The groups which are big enough to handle this and would be able to provide a plan for spending 100 mill. are humanitarian in nature and will care for the children properly. Then stop the idiotic and Quixotic war on drugs, so the cartels will have nothing to kill people over. 1 bill ought to be enough of other people's money to let Obama feel like a humanitarian. Then make it much more simpler for folks who want to work for a better life to be able to come here and do so. It's really not as complicated as many try to make it.
To the oh-so-compassionate
To the oh-so-compassionate and caring 70% who voted "yes", your kid had better not ever end up on my property....I'll throw him (her) right into the street. Not just chase him off my property, but literally throw the kid into the street. Cars coming? TOO FREAKING BAD...GET OFF MY PROPERTY!!!
Sound harsh? Yep...but that is the situation you're putting these kids in.
The situation sucks, period. But to say to children "screw you - go get fired at in your own country" is absolutely heartless. Yeah, it puts a burden on us, but how can we proclaim ourselves,to be a great country of we cant at least take a bit of time to find a safe,place for these kids to go?
{shoot - next thing you know we'll be torturing/waterboarding just like the Nazis did}
Imagine being in a situation
Imagine being in a situation so desperate that the only evident solution is to send your children away to the unknown and maybe never see them again.
Over 300 readers vote to have
Over 300 readers vote to have the children deported - immediately. It is not surprising for this forum. What is surprising is the lack of comments from the 300+ . This is a volatile topic that asks for a black or white response. In the privacy of your own space, you vote. You are not asked to comment or let your friends and neighbors know where you stand. The silence, from the 300+, is deafening.
Dave was on the right track until the snarky, " make O'Bama feel like a humanitarian". This is a humanitarian crisis and we should all feel like humanitarians as we look for solutions to provide safe haven for the children.
Tim and Jerry wrote exactly what I was thinking. Thank you both.
Sadly, the sentiments of the 300+ are not limited to children escaping a life we can barely comprehend. The same group contend that we should first take care of our own. Lofty thoughts to be sure. Yet, they would vote to deny basic services to thier neighbors in need, be they babies, broken families, the elderly and the infirmed.
I remember when our country took in the Hungarian refugees. Their children grew to be productive members of society. I would like to believe that the children, surrendering to border patrols, may just have in their ranks future men and women who will make positive contributions to our country. Our investment in their future may very well reap great benefits.
We absolutely must take care
We absolutely must take care of these children (food, shelter, medical care) with the expedited goal of reuniting them safely with their families (Dave's idea has a lot of merit). In the meantime the unintended (or intended) consequence of trying to ensure that we receive the children, the video below stands in stark contrast to the standards by which we attempt to keep known criminals and/or terrorists out of our country.
If you have crossed the Canadian border recently, you know how long it takes, the multiple questions you get asked, and the proof you need to provide before crossing, and that's in a passenger vehicle. Look what it takes now to enter the US from Mexico in a tractor trailer
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=765yFl3x8sc]
It's a good thing the
It's a good thing the "deported quickly" mind set wasn't around 100 years ago. If it was, most of us wouldn't be here right now. Those "illegals" were our grand parents and great grand parents. I believe in a country that is compassionate to children. Cut out the foreign aid to central american countries. Use that money here to care for the children escaping violence in the third world.
Did anyone stop to consider
Did anyone stop to consider this? Maybe these kids are on their way to Canada. Very arrogant of us to believe that the US is EVERYONE'S ultimate destination.
As far as deportation, we can't in good conscience do this. This shining beacon on a hill has been calling foreigners for as long as we've been a nation. And these are kids, for Christ's sake, kids.
Not snarky necessarily, Bea.
Not snarky necessarily, Bea. Obama is surely no humanitarian, but would love to pound his chest and say so, while spending someone else's money. Might even get another bogus Nobel Peace Prize. The unwillingness of the president and his attorney general to end the war on drugs and alleviate the violence and horrific conditions central American children are facing, coupled with the immigration laws that make no sense which they will only address in a perfunctory manner are causing or at the very least adding to this problem.
The key is to treat them like
The key is to treat them like children from Mexico or even Brazil. These kids come under a different law, that will had good intentions, backfired.
If you do want the law changed to treat them like children from Mexico (and tell me why not), then at least we need more hearing officers to move the cases faster.
And just in case anyone wants
And just in case anyone wants to tell me Obama cares for the children: http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2014/06/29/3454463/obama-steps-up-…
You are so very mistaken,
You are so very mistaken, Jim.
LEGAL immigrants. hard working individuals, with a desire to assimilate into society helped evolve this country into the great iconic society we once were.
The influx of illegals is adding to our decline. Many of the "children" referenced are gang members intent on recruitment. The majority are not the innocent young people the media portrays.
I'll agree with you that we should cut foreign aide to such countries, but suggest that money be spent on the suffering children already here - legally.
So many people say that we must stop being the world's police. I believe we must also stop being the world's benefactor.
John, are you suggesting that
John, are you suggesting that we once again change our norms to fit those of foreigners that may or may not contribute to our society?
Bob, what I said was that
Bob, what I said was that kids from the Central American countries should be treated the same as we treat the ones from Mexico and not given special treatment. There is no reason for the double standard.
Congratulations to the 850+
Congratulations to the 850+ readers who voted to send unaccompanied children back to an incomprehensible existence. Out of sight - out of mind.
Bob, that is a bunch of
Bob, that is a bunch of hooey. The situation as to my understanding is that children are being forced into the cartel thug gangs. The ones coming here are trying to escape that. This "legal vs illegal" immigrant argument is hooey as well. People are not illegal, children are defenseless and surely we can find room in a nation of 320 million for 50,000 or so children. The meddlesome policies of this country are causing people to want to get the hell out of their countries which we have exploited. We made this mess, taking care of the people effected by our government is not being a benefactor, it is being responsible. If we were actually more responsible for the messes we create, we wouldn't do it so much.
Bea, if you're a child from
Bea, if you're a child from Mexico, you can be deported right away. But if you are from a select number of Central American countries, you can not be. That makes no sense.
As for the reason being given for special treatment that the children are being forced into drug gangs, so are Mexican children, but they are treated different.
And what about the children in Africa being forced into not only gangs, but into the militaries. Why do you not advocate for African children being allowed in to stay without limits on time or numbers?
The poll question has not
The poll question has not been changed at all. The word immediately was never used.
John????? I'm not sure why
John?????
I'm not sure why you feel I'm opposing your view. It has merit. A level playing field for all oppressed children should be the goal. If unaccompanied children find their way to our border and surrender to the first border patrol they see then they are asking for asylum.
Dave's suggestion that the funds to help them go to faith based and other organization may be the short term solution.
A comprehensive immigration policy that addresses this issue is needed. It may be very different from the inconsistent policy we now have, but it should make it better than what we have.
Once again, I'm sorry if you felt that I, in anyway, minimized your point of view.
It's a complex problem I
It's a complex problem I agree with points on BOTH sides of the fence. Unfortunately politics complicates this even more so. We have rules in place already, they do have some discretionary power in them as well.
But throwing new rules into the mix just doesnt make sense to me.
I really like the idea of funding reputable charitable orgs to help deal with this though.
The complexity of dealing
The complexity of dealing with minors is rooted in the 2007 immigration law, one portion of which was intended to address human trafficking. This law which had bipartisan support was one of George W. Bush's pet projects and possibly his final piece of legislation. Anyone curious as to why these minors are being treated differently should consult that law. Additionally, there has always been a separate process for dealing with refugees and asylum-seekers as differentiated from other immigrants. It's clear that these minors are emigres driven out of their native countries- unlike immigrants seeking economic advantage.
Thanks for the directions to
Thanks for the directions to "flesh" out the details CM. Just from first blush on reading these it's obvious that the general way we the public are looking at this and the generalized way our political leaders present solutions to us. Really arent doing the situation justice at all.
If some of you feel so strongly about our need to support these children and that sending them back is morally and ethically wrong. I think this might be the time for ourselves to circumvent our own Govt and handle this ourselves and through our churches and organizations. Isn't this truly what Kiwanis and Rotary and Masonic as well as Catholic Charities for?
Kyle, the children
Kyle, the children surrendered thenselves to our border patrol, not to a service organization or faith based group. The first responsibility for their care belongs to the country where they seek asylum.
The ideal solution, as Dave suggested, is for government funding the groups so the children receive the proper care and treatment. Congress chose not to vote on any funding before they left for their 5 week hiatus.
Bea our Govt isn't really a
Bea our Govt isn't really a service organization either. As defined by the Constitution of the United States. The Federal Govt's role is....
So what is the proper role of the federal government?
The Constitution’s Preamble says the federal government was established (and the Constitution was adopted) to “form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
The Constitution’s articles, and the subsequent Amendments, specify the prerogatives of the Feds. They are listed in Article I, Sec. 8; Articles II-V; Amendments XIII-XVI, XIX-XX, XXIII-XXVI. These prerogatives belong to one of the following categories:
1) Defense, war prosecution, peace, foreign relations, foreign commerce, and interstate commerce;
2) The protection of citizens’ constitutional rights (e.g the right to vote) and ensuring that slavery remains illegal;
3) Establishing federal courts inferior to the SCOTUS;
4) Copyright protection;
5) Coining money;
6) Establishing post offices and post roads;
7) Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures;
8 ) Taxation needed to raise revenue to perform these essential functions.
Those are the only prerogatives of the Feds. The Tenth Amendment states that all prerogatives not explicitly given to the Federal Government, nor prohibited of the states, are reserved to the states or to the people (i.e. individual Americans). So the Feds are not allowed to handle any issues not explicitly listed in the Constitution; their prerogatives are limited to what the Constitution explicitly states.
(The above quotation is old and I am not sure which website it came from but it was in my reference docs folder)
So while they surrendered themselves to Agents of the Federal Govt. It doesnt necessarily mean they have to assume responsibility. I mean by your definition if some of those children walked up to say hospital administrator, or up to someone's home, does that mean THEY are responsible for them?
We have seen how well the Federal Govt handles things that should be left to service organizations and faith based groups.... Just look to the handling of Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Sandy.