Who Is Really to Blame?

pitchfork protester Published:

    Obama administration officials deny that lenient policies (including a 2012 Executive order that allowed immigrants who had entered the country illegally as minors before June 2007 to apply for deportation deferrals) have encouraged the sudden surge of illegal immigrants and minor children under 18. With this information let’s build a wire frame of who is actually responsible for the massive surge of illegal immigrants today.

    To start Diane Feinstein had introduced a bill back in 2007, The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act, which was a “pet project” of hers that she had actually introduced several years earlier and it didn’t get much attention or even discussion. That being said her “pet project” was then attached to what we have today William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. This act states that minor illegal immigrant children coming over the border illegally from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador prevents the quick return of the children to their original countries. Mexico and Canada illegal minors including adults and adults from the three mentioned countries are exempted from that law and can be expedited back to their countries quickly without any hearing, if caught.

   This is the law that President Bush was passionate about to protect minor immigrant children from traffickers. It gave compassion to those children that border patrol agents would take into custody and in a humane timely procedure their cases were heard and decisions made. 50,000 illegal immigrant minors under the age of 18 is going to take some time to get done, but more are coming each day as long as the borders are not secured.

   In 2012, by Executive Order, Obama place into effect the DACA-Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. This order was only to blanket cover illegal immigrant children who enter the United States illegally prior to 2007 predating by Executive Order the 2008 law. Now remember that date it will be necessary to follow the wire frame of blame. Along with the 2008 law that then President Bush signed Obama followed that up with his DACA order which then if any one has any common sense could see that Obama was not only predating the law that was already in place but now he has added more to that without having to get it approved through Congress. 2012 was the beginning of the surge of illegal immigrants, mainly minors under the age of 18 not the 2008 law that President Bush singed, but by Executive Order.

   Never mind that by Executive Orders (which Diane Feinstein has suggested that he do for this crisis) and not respecting the letter of the laws even ones he has signed such as the ObamaCare individual open enrollment end date, the ObamaCare employer mandate and 26 other adjustments to ObamaCare that he has done without Congressional approval, EPA regulations and so on and so forth Obama has completely disregarded and shown lack of respect for the laws but it is this one law that all of a sudden Obama is starting to be a stickler about following to the letter.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that Obama is responsible for the surge of illegal immigrants mainly minors under the age of 18 by his 2012 Executive Order broadcasting that if you make it to the border you have a good chance at not being deported because there is a law that prevents that from happening

   All of this is on Obama and he cannot blame President Bush for this one as he is more commonly known to do when his way of governing fails miserably.  This is Obama’s version of Comprehensive Immigration Reform that doesn’t need Congressional approval other that allocating tax payer funds to cover it. 

Want to leave your comments?

Sign in or Register to comment.

  • One of these days Homo, Legion, Brunouno is gonna run up on the wrong individual and start spewing his venom and is going to get a serious wake up call. And I hope it's uploaded to Youtube lmao

     

  • No, no, a normal person would value a fetus of one of his own people more than he would value the children of foreigners. I do. If you value wet children over fetuses here in Kentucky, there is something wrong with you.

    The idea that these border children have some innate human right to protection here is part of your leftist radical secular humanist beliefs.

    If you think "human rights" begin at birth, prove it scientifically.

  • If you think that human life begins a conception, prove it scientifically. An abortion is the cessation (aka bringning to an end) of pregnancy or fetal development

    Life begins when the egg, you know the part that comes from the female is fertilized with one sperm the part that comes from the male and that's science how else could you know how babies are made? In essence it is the killing of a male/female baby since none of us are conceived as toddlers, teenagers, or adults. It isn't called Pro-baby beliefs versus Pro-Abortion beliefs now is it Einstein? Or should we just start calling you Beaker?

    What is ironic is the condoning of abortion-that actually kills life, and the protest of the death penality-another from of killing a life by the left wing hypocrats like you. If you believe in taking a life then be all in for any form that takes a life.

    Your Luddite reference made me laugh so hard I scared my pets into the other room. For you to use a sect of Luddiets as your support for science and its techology really shows how ignorant you actually are. From you very own words one can tell that you C&P every post you make and do no more research than what you THINK is the amount of knowledge to win an argument.

    I may/may not have perfect sentence structure, make typos, or utilize the English language correctly all the time but what I do know I know and that comes from research that just so happens to be associated with classes I have taken and will be used on ones yet to be. Ned Ludd just happened to be one of the subjects of my latest class and you got it all wrong as usual.

    As far as Taliban goes, I think the Liberal Dimorcats like you have taken that honor all on yourselves.

  • Well, certainly I have never condoned "baby killing" or for that matter, the killing of anybody else either.  I assume from your other psychobabble religious posts that by "baby killing", you are referring to abortion...which of course is not killing a baby.  A zygote is NOT a baby anymore than a fetilized egg is...that is just your right wing extremist religious belief.  A baby is a very young human, particularly from birth to a couple of years old or until walking is fully mastered.  

    An abortion is the cessation of pregnancy or fetal development. In that respect, the Pro-Abortion (Pro-Choice) community is right in saying that abortion does not kill a "baby" according to the scientific definition. The Anti-Abortion (Pro-Life) community is obviously not using this scientific definition though. They are using the term "baby" to refer to human offspring in the earliest stages of development. What they are implying is that no matter what formal labels you use, abortion kills a very young human. We cannot set pubic policy on ficticious religious beliefs, we must establish our laws based on solid and sound science.  This conclusion must be objective and consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and should be answered by human embryologists - not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars or obstetricians and gynecologists.

    You Luddites will never understand this principle since you want to return our society to the 13th century with 5,000 year old laws.  You are our very own Taliban!  How quaint.

    The Pro-life position in the abortion debate is about “values” rather than “facts.” An honest debate about abortion, however, is about values based on facts. If we don’t get the facts right, we will not get our values right. Establishing by clear scientific evidence the moment at which a human life begins is not the end of the abortion debate. On the contrary, that is the point from which the debate begins.

    If you think that human life begins a conception, prove it scientifically.

    What is wrong with you?

  • Well, certainly someone who condones baby killing does not get to ask:

    "What is wrong with you?"

  • Ummm... isn't BrunoUno an abortion supporter?

    You know robert1 isn't it funny how those who support should have been victims of, instead become cheerleaders? I just wonder how they would feel if they had to choose which one of their kids lives.

  • Ummm... isn't BrunoUno an abortion supporter?

  • What is wrong with you?

    Nothing I don't buy into the hyped up reasons or the Alinsky ways of this self inflected border crisis brought on buy the messiah and his supporters and I'm not alone on this. Evidently FOX NEWS is reaching more and more people everyday how else can you explain the groups stopping the placement of these ILLEGALLYS in their communities?

    How does this sound. Closing the border will not place the individuals in any further trafficking danger since the parents of these people had to pay to have them sent here (aka trafficking their own children). If the messiah had not encouraged by executive order there would be mass flooding of the border. It is his sole responsibility for the trafficking problem we are seeing today. He followed Alinsky rules to the letter 6, 10, 12.

    This is all his doing and it appears it's becoming his undoing.

  • What is wrong with you?

  • The children at the border are refugees, not criminals, and deserve all available protections under international and domestic law. We need to immediately address the deplorable conditions that toddlers and young children are being subjected to in Border Patrol jails, including calling in FEMA if necessary.

    Oh give me a break refugees my hind end. 12,13,14 year old MS/13 members have been found embedded with these so called "refugees" and the holding facilities are not the only place they are being held at.

    These toddlers and young children make this trip all on their own? And you say the messiah has nothing to do with this, that it was all from the law President Bush signed way back in 2008. I bet you even got pics of the Grey Lady don't ya?

    Stop with the Alinsky playbook people aren't buying the hype and more than ever are keeping themselves aware of the detriment the messiah is doing. FEMA should have already been called in so the Border Patrol agents could keep doing their jobs and stop the flow since DHS as stated that no more are not welcomed any longer.

     

  • The children at the border are refugees, not criminals, and deserve all available protections under international and domestic law. We need to immediately address the deplorable conditions that toddlers and young children are being subjected to in Border Patrol jails, including calling in FEMA if necessary.

  • These are children for crissakes!  What is wrong with you?

    My point exactly. The use of children to gather support is shameful. Alinsky Rule # 10: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

    But you'd rather expose Americans and their children to health risks, families safety, communities fighting each other for a move that is the most detirmental action the mesiah has taken thus far. We are not talking 100 to 1000 peoiple here, it's over 50,000 and it's all of a sudden not since 2008. Since 2008 the messiah has lessened the deportations and as of 2013 he has only deported 1,669 minors under the age of 18. President Bush deported 8,143 minors under the age of 18. Alinsky Rule #12:The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. 

    The question is what is wrong with you and people like you that feel this is a necessary action to oblige illegal immigration just because there are children mixed in with adults and criminals. And we the tax payer are footing the bill to allow them to continue breaking our laws put at risk our communities and children and everyone's safety. Alinsky Rule #6: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

    The needs of the many (Americans) outweighs the need of the few,(illegal immigrants) or the one (the messiah).

  • These are children for crissakes!  What is wrong with you?

  • Let's face it, this is just another hammer for you Teabagger types to beat Obama over the head with, right?  Benghazzziiii, Benghazzziiii, Benghazzziii! The real reason that you are screaming at the top of your lungs is because we have a black man in the White House and it is eating you alive!

    GAWDD here you go again its your last ditch effort and favorite statment since you cannot find any solid support for the messiah.

    The conditions in the 3 central American countries has been deemed as twice as dangerous as in Iraq at the peak of the insurgency.

    I could care less not my problem it's theirs. But now it appears it's going to be us tax payers problem since Uncle Tom Obama is giving in to mighty whitey and their purse strings.

    One out of 3 of these refugees have been sexually assaulted on their way HERE!

    Well there's you answer.. If they weren't coming here ILLEGALLY guess what? They wouldn't get sexually assaulted now would they genius. Good lord talking to you is like talking to an amobea. Did you eat paint chips as a child?

    80% of these kids have family that they could live with that are already living here.

    Get this they are ILLEGALLY here too....

    As long as Bush done it, nothing was wrong with it, huh?  But Obama abiding by Bush's law which "was a piece of legislation we’re very proud to sign" is another thing entirely...

    The only piece of  legislation the messiah follows and stands behind is the only piece of legislation he used to flood the borders with his DACA executive order and everyone but you evidently knows this.Even Democrats see what he has done and they don't like it either. 

    Get with the program of coming here LEGALY or get the he!! out simple as that. 

  • Don't let the pesky facts get in the way of your xenophobic rants.

    As I have pointed out and you have ignored:

    The conditions in the 3 central American countries has been deemed as twice as dangerous as in Iraq at the peak of the insurgency.

    Net immigration flows from Latin America recently reached zero and remain near recent historic lows.

     One out of 3 of these refugees have been sexually assaulted on their way HERE!

    and here is another one:

    80% of these kids have family that they could live with that are already living here.

    One of the final pieces of legislation signed into law by President George W. Bush, a measure that passed without controversy, was the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, named for a 19th-century British abolitionist. “This program has been very effective around the world in trying to stop trafficking in persons.”

    As long as Bush done it, nothing was wrong with it, huh?  But Obama abiding by Bush's law which "was a piece of legislation we’re very proud to sign" is another thing entirely...

    Let's face it, this is just another hammer for you Teabagger types to beat Obama over the head with, right?  Benghazzziiii, Benghazzziiii, Benghazzziii! The real reason that you are screaming at the top of your lungs is because we have a black man in the White House and it is eating you alive!

  • .  One out of 3 of these refugees have been sexually assaulted on their way HERE!

    There's a big difference. Escaping is one thing, but to have family members pay to have children sent here knowing what will and does happen along the way is not the responsibility of Americans. Of coure you're not mentioning the adults that are also coming along with the flood of kids. So according to the 2008 law which is the only one this administration seems to want to follow and abide by that accompanied adults is suppose to be sent back immediately correct?

  • Well, the facts are agin ye once agin.  One out of 3 of these refugees have been sexually assaulted on their way HERE!

  • Originally pushed by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers as well as by evangelical groups to combat sex trafficking, the bill gave substantial new protections to children entering the country alone who were not from Mexico or Canada by prohibiting them from being quickly sent back to their country of origin.

    Oh I get it now... Evangelical groups along with a bipatisan Congress good law. Evangelical groups against a biased Congress bad law. It seems that if, as I stated before as long as it goes the way Liberal like it's fine. The minute it goes against Liberals then it's wrong and racist.

    There is no grounds under this act/law for 50,000 plus illegals to claim they are being used in sex trafficking. This is a ruse endorsed by the messiah to flood the country with dependent illegals plain and simple. And some towns city's and countys are not having any of it or buying the messiahs BULLCHIT..

    His DACA was an open invitation and under this passed law by Bush he's doing his best to look like he's just as surprised as the rest of us. 

     

  • Let me repeat:

    "WASHINGTON — It was one of the final pieces of legislation signed into law by President George W. Bush, a measure that passed without controversy, along with a pension bill and another one calling for national parks to be commemorated on quarters.

    “This is a piece of legislation we’re very proud to sign,” a White House spokesman, Tony Fratto,told reporters on Dec. 23, 2008, as the president put his pen to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, named for a 19th-century British abolitionist. “This program has been very effective around the world in trying to stop trafficking in persons.”

    Now the legislation, enacted quietly during the transition to the Obama administration, is at the root of the potentially calamitous flow of unaccompanied minors to the nation’s southern border.

    Originally pushed by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers as well as by evangelical groups to combat sex trafficking, the bill gave substantial new protections to children entering the country alone who were not from Mexico or Canada by prohibiting them from being quickly sent back to their country of origin.

    Instead, it required that they be given an opportunity to appear at an immigration hearing and consult with an advocate, and it recommended that they have access to counsel. It also required that they be turned over to the care of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the agency was directed to place the minor “in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child” and to explore reuniting those children with family members.

    The Obama administration says the law is partly responsible for tying its hands in dealing with the current influx of children. Officials have suggested that the White House might seek flexibility in the law’s requirements when it asks Congress to provide emergency funds to contend with the latest immigration crisis, a request that could come as early as Tuesday. About 52,000 minors without their parents have been caught at the Southwest border since October.

    “Giving the secretary of homeland security additional authority and discretion that he can use to confront that situation more efficiently, making sure that we are acknowledging the humanitarian issues that are at stake while also enforcing the law, is a priority,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said Monday. “It’s the priority of this administration, and if you listen to the public comments of Democrats and Republicans, it sounds like it’s a bipartisan priority.”

    Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who helped write the measure, said the White House does not need new power to act. “That law already provides the administration with flexibility to accelerate the judicial process in times of crisis,” she said. “The administration should use that flexibility to speed up the system while still treating these children humanely, with compassion and respect.”

    On Capitol Hill, Democrats said they expected that the administration’s initial request for border money would not push for changes in the trafficking law but that the White House would try to work with relevant congressional committees to eventually win revisions.

    Democrats have shown reluctance to endorse narrow immigration law changes after House Republicans balked at a much more sweeping overhaul and seem hesitant to tinker too much with the William Wilberforce Act.

    In a recent letter to Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, said Congress must ensure that the provisions of the trafficking victims act, “which passed the House and Senate unanimously and was also signed into law by President Bush, are fully enforced, so that due process is provided to unaccompanied children and the safety and well-being of unaccompanied children is protected.”

    Republicans, who are calling for changes that would make it easier to send them back, blame President Obama for the surge of children at the border, saying he provided a lure by instituting a program that deferred deportations for some immigrants who entered the nation illegally as children.

    They say the effort to point to the Bush-era law is a meant to deflect attention from the administration and make both parties culpable."

     

  • ihate, you could attempt to be useful. You could explain that this situation stems from a 2008 law that granted extra legal protections for Central American children fleeing human traffickers, 

    Don't forget the DACA Executive Order of 2012 that was publicly announced in a campaign speech as an open invitation to Central America. Or do you actaully think it took 6 years for them to get here under the 2008 law? Let's not foget that Mexico has such a strict border that all of a sudden over 50,000 plus since Oct 2013 just crossed without any kind of confortation whatsoever? 

    ihate you could connect the dots and see that the messiah knows WTF he is doing but he's playing dumb and all of this is on him, but I think you already know that.

  • ihate, you could attempt to be useful. You could explain that this situation stems from a 2008 law that granted extra legal protections for Central American children fleeing human traffickers, protections that aren’t there for Mexican or Canadian children. You could say that if they believe this law was well-intentioned but has overwhelmed the immigration system, they could urge Congress to change it, now that members of both parties in Congress are weighing whether to do just that. You could clarify that this situation is not a “border security” problem, and border security itself could be addressed in a House immigration bill that the chamber could bring up for a vote and send to conference to be negotiated with the Senate bill that passed last year. You could add that net immigration flows from Latin America recently reached zero and remain near recent historic lows.

    Or you could just make up frantic stock characters from a distance and say that they’ve reached a boiling point because of President Obama’s lack of leadership and/or deliberate sabotage of the country.

  • http://www.vox.com/2014/6/30/5842054/violence-in-central-america-and-the-child-refugee-crisis

  • These kids are refugees. An Immigrant is an individual who leaves one’s country to settle in another, whereas refugees are defined as persons, who move out of one’s country due to restriction or danger to their lives. Immigration is considered a natural phenomenon in population ecology, whereas the refugee movement occurs only under some kind of coercion or pressure. The conditions in the 3 central American countries has been deemed as twice as dangerous as in Iraq at the peak of the insurgency.

  • Rigt out  of the ole Alinsky playbook.  Overwhelm he system create a crisis.  Tie the hands of border patrol oj enforcement for years as Odumma has.  Then when it reaches level you get on tv and say folks we must act now I BILLIONS and BILLIONS of YOUR TAXDOLLARS to take care of these poor innocent women and children......he has no plans on securing the border almost all the BILLIONS he is seeking will NOT fix the problem instead it will encourage more to come because they see the bread crumbs Obama is holding in his luring them with......So let the attack begin when you dont give him thr BILLIONS and BILLIONS he wants...those mean ole Republicans I tried to fix the problem all they had to do was pass a bill.......folks its a broken recording and this idiot of a President  is driving this train right down the tracks of econmic ruin!!!

  • I hope this fairy tale has a happy ending!

    Typical response from the average low informed voter. *thumbs up*

  • I hope this fairy tale has a happy ending!

  • Well you're certainly to blame for your blatant palgiarism of this article.

    OH NO...It's the grammar Nazi...lmao.Didn't know I was suppose to cite my references. So KMA... 

    Since the messiah decided to over step his bounds again and predate the 2008 law, which has nothing to do with the sugre of ILLEGAL immigrants to be allowed to cross the border ILLEGALLY for no other purpose than to escape sex traffickers, (which BTW has not even been reported as a reason by any of the ILLEGALS) his little DACA Executive Order was the invite needed.

     If the 2008 law is written the way you Liberals are now claiming, and it is really nothing but a weak a$$ excuse for another detrimental action by the messiah, then President Bush would not have deported 8,143 ILLEGAL immigrant minors in 2008 and the sugre would have happened long before now.

    The messiah's own deportation numbers of ILLEGAL immigrant minors, or any ILLEGAL at all for that matter (1,669 in 2013)  are a reflection if his open invitation to prostitute immigrants minor or adult for political gains. Since you only want to run with what you are being fed it's no surprise that you are in denial of evidence that contradicts all the evidence you present as a counter argument. Can't have honset debates if one side keeps spewing out what is half correct or what is being presented as their version fact. And when you have standing orders to turn away any member of Congress,you know the one's who you are asking  3.7 billion dollars for, from inspecting a holding facility,  something is shady about what is going on.

  • READ THIS ONE, the previous one picked up the sidebar when I scanned it.

    Here is the REAL story on this!

     

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/us/immigrant-surge-rooted-in-law-to-curb-child-trafficking.html?_r=0

     

    "WASHINGTON — It was one of the final pieces of legislation signed into law by President George W. Bush, a measure that passed without controversy, along with a pension bill and another one calling for national parks to be commemorated on quarters.

    “This is a piece of legislation we’re very proud to sign,” a White House spokesman, Tony Fratto,told reporters on Dec. 23, 2008, as the president put his pen to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, named for a 19th-century British abolitionist. “This program has been very effective around the world in trying to stop trafficking in persons.”

    Now the legislation, enacted quietly during the transition to the Obama administration, is at the root of the potentially calamitous flow of unaccompanied minors to the nation’s southern border.

    Originally pushed by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers as well as by evangelical groups to combat sex trafficking, the bill gave substantial new protections to children entering the country alone who were not from Mexico or Canada by prohibiting them from being quickly sent back to their country of origin.

    Instead, it required that they be given an opportunity to appear at an immigration hearing and consult with an advocate, and it recommended that they have access to counsel. It also required that they be turned over to the care of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the agency was directed to place the minor “in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child” and to explore reuniting those children with family members.

    The Obama administration says the law is partly responsible for tying its hands in dealing with the current influx of children. Officials have suggested that the White House might seek flexibility in the law’s requirements when it asks Congress to provide emergency funds to contend with the latest immigration crisis, a request that could come as early as Tuesday. About 52,000 minors without their parents have been caught at the Southwest border since October.

    “Giving the secretary of homeland security additional authority and discretion that he can use to confront that situation more efficiently, making sure that we are acknowledging the humanitarian issues that are at stake while also enforcing the law, is a priority,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said Monday. “It’s the priority of this administration, and if you listen to the public comments of Democrats and Republicans, it sounds like it’s a bipartisan priority.”

    Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who helped write the measure, said the White House does not need new power to act. “That law already provides the administration with flexibility to accelerate the judicial process in times of crisis,” she said. “The administration should use that flexibility to speed up the system while still treating these children humanely, with compassion and respect.”

    On Capitol Hill, Democrats said they expected that the administration’s initial request for border money would not push for changes in the trafficking law but that the White House would try to work with relevant congressional committees to eventually win revisions.

    Democrats have shown reluctance to endorse narrow immigration law changes after House Republicans balked at a much more sweeping overhaul and seem hesitant to tinker too much with the William Wilberforce Act.

    In a recent letter to Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, said Congress must ensure that the provisions of the trafficking victims act, “which passed the House and Senate unanimously and was also signed into law by President Bush, are fully enforced, so that due process is provided to unaccompanied children and the safety and well-being of unaccompanied children is protected.”

    Republicans, who are calling for changes that would make it easier to send them back, blame President Obama for the surge of children at the border, saying he provided a lure by instituting a program that deferred deportations for some immigrants who entered the nation illegally as children.

    They say the effort to point to the Bush-era law is a meant to deflect attention from the administration and make both parties culpable."

     

  • Here is the REAL story on this!

     

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/us/immigrant-surge-rooted-in-law-to-curb-child-trafficking.html?_r=0

     

    "WASHINGTON — It was one of the final pieces of legislation signed into law by President George W. Bush, a measure that passed without controversy, along with a pension bill and another one calling for national parks to be commemorated on quarters.

    “This is a piece of legislation we’re very proud to sign,” a White House spokesman, Tony Fratto,told reporters on Dec. 23, 2008, as the president put his pen to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, named for a 19th-century British abolitionist. “This program has been very effective around the world in trying to stop trafficking in persons.”

    Now the legislation, enacted quietly during the transition to the Obama administration, is at the root of the potentially calamitous flow of unaccompanied minors to the nation’s southern border.

    Continue reading the main story

    RELATED COVERAGE

    [Representatives Robert W. Goodlatte, left, of Virginia and Darrell Issa of California, both Republicans, on Thursday. They were among the lawmakers on a tour of the South Texas border.]

    Amid Influx of Migrants, Obama Is to Skip Border Visit on Texas TripJULY 3, 2014

    [President Obama spoke in the Rose Garden of the White House on Monday.]

    Obama Says **** Order Action to Aid ImmigrantsJUNE 30, 2014

    [Demonstrators outside a federal building in Detroit on Saturday spoke up about deportations.]

    Obama to Seek Funds to Stem Border Crossings and Speed DeportationsJUNE 28, 2014

    Snakes and Thorny Brush, and Children at the Border AloneJUNE 25, 2014

    [A customs center in Nogales, Ariz., is struggling to care for a growing number of unaccompanied minors.]

    Border Centers Struggle to Handle Onslaught of Young MigrantsJUNE 18, 2014

    [Mercedes Mejía, from Honduras, at the Sacred Heart shelter in McAllen, Tex., on Sunday. Residents have rushed to help.]

    Migrants Flow in South Texas, as Do RumorsJUNE 16, 2014

    Originally pushed by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers as well as by evangelical groups to combat sex trafficking, the bill gave substantial new protections to children entering the country alone who were not from Mexico or Canada by prohibiting them from being quickly sent back to their country of origin.

    Instead, it required that they be given an opportunity to appear at an immigration hearing and consult with an advocate, and it recommended that they have access to counsel. It also required that they be turned over to the care of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the agency was directed to place the minor “in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child” and to explore reuniting those children with family members.

    The Obama administration says the law is partly responsible for tying its hands in dealing with the current influx of children. Officials have suggested that the White House might seek flexibility in the law’s requirements when it asks Congress to provide emergency funds to contend with the latest immigration crisis, a request that could come as early as Tuesday. About 52,000 minors without their parents have been caught at the Southwest border since October.

    “Giving the secretary of homeland security additional authority and discretion that he can use to confront that situation more efficiently, making sure that we are acknowledging the humanitarian issues that are at stake while also enforcing the law, is a priority,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said Monday. “It’s the priority of this administration, and if you listen to the public comments of Democrats and Republicans, it sounds like it’s a bipartisan priority.”

    Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who helped write the measure, said the White House does not need new power to act. “That law already provides the administration with flexibility to accelerate the judicial process in times of crisis,” she said. “The administration should use that flexibility to speed up the system while still treating these children humanely, with compassion and respect.”

    On Capitol Hill, Democrats said they expected that the administration’s initial request for border money would not push for changes in the trafficking law but that the White House would try to work with relevant congressional committees to eventually win revisions.

    Democrats have shown reluctance to endorse narrow immigration law changes after House Republicans balked at a much more sweeping overhaul and seem hesitant to tinker too much with the William Wilberforce Act.

    In a recent letter to Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, said Congress must ensure that the provisions of the trafficking victims act, “which passed the House and Senate unanimously and was also signed into law by President Bush, are fully enforced, so that due process is provided to unaccompanied children and the safety and well-being of unaccompanied children is protected.”

    Republicans, who are calling for changes that would make it easier to send them back, blame President Obama for the surge of children at the border, saying he provided a lure by instituting a program that deferred deportations for some immigrants who entered the nation illegally as children.

    They say the effort to point to the Bush-era law is a meant to deflect attention from the administration and make both parties culpable."

     

  • I just love fairy tales.......

  • Well you're certainly to blame for your blatant palgiarism of this article.

    "Deportation data won't dispel rumors drawing migrant minors to U.S.", LA Times, 5 July

    www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-deport-children-20140706-story.html