Almost all of the minors will eventually be deported back. They can only stay if an attorney can convincingly make the case for asylum, which does not apply in almost all of these cases
I have ocean front property in Arizona also cheap.
Once the children are released from government custody, you think they are going to voluntarily show up for deportation hearings
Consider why they are here in the first place.The Feds are sending them into the interior to be with "relatives".
1) The Feds are not concerned if the "relative" is a legal resident.
2) The Feds are not requiring any type of bond that the child will show up at a hearing at a later date.
3) The Feds are not going to expend resources to track the child down for a missed hearing.
crashtech
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2013
- 10,573
- 2,145
- 146
The problem with that is that this situation is almost completely of political manufacture. It is, in essence, political garbage dressed up as a humanitarian crisis. So while I can understand why you might take issue with my tongue-in-cheek delivery, the point is that borders are exclusively a federal, and therefore partisan political issue. Listening to NPR today, I heard a woman enumerating all the reasons this is happening now, and the most important reason, made glaringly obvious by its conspicuous absence, is that the ruling party in the US has no interest in controlling immigration in any way. It's well known that to the extent it is feasible, the Administration holds as many immigration laws as possible in abeyance. As a libertarian I am somewhat sympathetic to this view, but I find it dangerously incompatible with our current welfare state system.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,320
- 126
I have also heard that the world would be a better place if Atheists were running the world......they need to step up to the plate....
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,320
- 126
I didn`t see nothing in the Discussion Club rules that said to leave politics out....hmmm
I don't think his issue was with discussing the politics, but with the overt sarcasm. This is intended to be a place to have serious discussions on issues. I have to agree with Crashtech; this is by its very nature a political issue, so there is no way we can have a reasonable discussion about it without bringing politics into it.
Did said illegal immigrants cross the US border to get into Canada? If so, I have no problem with it. If not, your example is flawed.
boomerang
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2000
- 18,883
- 641
- 126
You send them back to their country of origin and it then become the responsibility of that government to reunite them with their families. Simple solution.
That takes care of the immediate problem. The underlying problem is that it appears that the Obama administration is behind them coming here. In January of this year the .gov solicited for vendors to move 65,000 children around the country on a seven day a week 365 day a year basis. They knew they were coming. This was not some spontaneous occurrence. It was orchestrated.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36466453&postcount=200
So, the questions that need to be answered are:
Why would our government encourage such an influx?
Why is our government not admitting their involvement?
Why did Mexico cooperate with this massive movement of children through their country and across our common border?
Those are just a few questions that come to mind. If this is to be a serious discussion it's probably best to limit the scope of the questions at this early stage.
That takes care of the immediate problem. The underlying problem is that it appears that the Obama administration is behind them coming here. In January of this year the .gov solicited for vendors to move 65,000 children around the country on a seven day a week 365 day a year basis. They knew they were coming. This was not some spontaneous occurrence. It was orchestrated.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36466453&postcount=200
So, the questions that need to be answered are:
Why would our government encourage such an influx?
Why is our government not admitting their involvement?
Why did Mexico cooperate with this massive movement of children through their country and across our common border?
Those are just a few questions that come to mind. If this is to be a serious discussion it's probably best to limit the scope of the questions at this early stage.
In my opinion:
1. Recognize the root cause of this is the illegal drug trade giving billions of US dollars to the massive drug cartels that are turning those countries into narcoterrorist states.
2. Recognize that the horror of that situation is a humanitarian crisis. The Jewish (and other groups') problems under Nazism included years of deportation, until other countries closed their doors to more immigration. And that's when the you know what began. While they're clearly not the same thing, these countries having the highest murder rates in the world have a similar issue in terms of simply closing our doors being a death sentence for many of these innocent families. This is largely about refugees, not 'illegal immigration'.
3. The Middle Eastern countries have put us to shame when it comes to accepting refugees - look at Syrian refugees just overwhelming neighboring countries, and those countries despite a lot of domestic anger at the problems it causes have accepted far larger numbers of refugees.
4. The President should lead on this, with a national address to reframe the issue from one of illegal immigration - Mexico has been a net zero for years - to one of the humanitarian crisis and refugee status for many of these people. He should humanize the people for those Americans who have turned them into inhuman political tools to get votes by expressing hate of them and calling for sending them to get killed.
5. The longer term solution here is to legalize the drugs, and take the money out of the criminal enterprise, much as legalizing alcohol took it out of organized crime's hands.
Short of actually being able to stop the importation of drugs, which does not appear possible, what alternative to the massive black market disaster is there?
6. We should try to have policies which help other countries leave poverty, so the people don't feel compelled to leave.
Unfortunately, sometimes we profit by their poverty. Our corn growing corporations seem pretty happy about selling corn to Mexico where it destroyed their corn growing industry, and that led to such wide unemployment, that's the leading group who illegally immigrated to the US - but that also makes them desperate cheap labor for American factories located in Mexico.
I'm not talking about 'give them a ton of money to eliminate poverty'. There are a lot of things we can do that don't cost us much that help.
We should also work with the governments there to inform the people that the rumors they're being told by coyotes about easy immigration are lies.
For over a century we've had the Monroe Doctrine where we lay claim to Central and South America as 'our' region that other powers are not allowed to have a large role in.
It's time for us to do what comes with that in making efforts on the regional problems, not simply ignoring them except to demand no one else can have a role with them.
Oh, and while I'm at it, end the embargo on Cuba. Not directly related, but they supply a lot of doctors to local countries, and it'd help the economies there.
1. Recognize the root cause of this is the illegal drug trade giving billions of US dollars to the massive drug cartels that are turning those countries into narcoterrorist states.
2. Recognize that the horror of that situation is a humanitarian crisis. The Jewish (and other groups') problems under Nazism included years of deportation, until other countries closed their doors to more immigration. And that's when the you know what began. While they're clearly not the same thing, these countries having the highest murder rates in the world have a similar issue in terms of simply closing our doors being a death sentence for many of these innocent families. This is largely about refugees, not 'illegal immigration'.
3. The Middle Eastern countries have put us to shame when it comes to accepting refugees - look at Syrian refugees just overwhelming neighboring countries, and those countries despite a lot of domestic anger at the problems it causes have accepted far larger numbers of refugees.
4. The President should lead on this, with a national address to reframe the issue from one of illegal immigration - Mexico has been a net zero for years - to one of the humanitarian crisis and refugee status for many of these people. He should humanize the people for those Americans who have turned them into inhuman political tools to get votes by expressing hate of them and calling for sending them to get killed.
5. The longer term solution here is to legalize the drugs, and take the money out of the criminal enterprise, much as legalizing alcohol took it out of organized crime's hands.
Short of actually being able to stop the importation of drugs, which does not appear possible, what alternative to the massive black market disaster is there?
6. We should try to have policies which help other countries leave poverty, so the people don't feel compelled to leave.
Unfortunately, sometimes we profit by their poverty. Our corn growing corporations seem pretty happy about selling corn to Mexico where it destroyed their corn growing industry, and that led to such wide unemployment, that's the leading group who illegally immigrated to the US - but that also makes them desperate cheap labor for American factories located in Mexico.
I'm not talking about 'give them a ton of money to eliminate poverty'. There are a lot of things we can do that don't cost us much that help.
We should also work with the governments there to inform the people that the rumors they're being told by coyotes about easy immigration are lies.
For over a century we've had the Monroe Doctrine where we lay claim to Central and South America as 'our' region that other powers are not allowed to have a large role in.
It's time for us to do what comes with that in making efforts on the regional problems, not simply ignoring them except to demand no one else can have a role with them.
Oh, and while I'm at it, end the embargo on Cuba. Not directly related, but they supply a lot of doctors to local countries, and it'd help the economies there.
You're right - they'd just sit and let the drug cartels execute their children, instead of trying to leave the country. And what's wrong with that?
Actually, I was surprised to learn recently of caps on the number of refugees we'll accept, and it's a low number. So even very legitimate refugees - sorry, too bad.
The problem with your post - a problem, at least - is its lack of accuracy.
- Something being a federal role doesn't automatically make it 'therefore a partisan political issue'. It can be made on by a group who wants to politicize it - look, a problem at the border, blame Obama! look, an attack in Benghazi, blame Obama! look, conflict in Iraq, blame Obama!
But the issue doesn't have to be 'partisan politics'. Pandering to those Americans who are simply extreme anti-immigrant people - who would be happy to see us simply shoot every man, woman and child taking a step across the border, and sending any back to be killed by the horrible drug cartels if we miss the shot - it an unnecessary political use of the issue.
The law largely determining how we handle this - providing for things like mandatory representation and hearings for children - was passed in 2008 by both Bush and Democrats.
Let's distinguish between legitimately partisan issues and ones where the partisan divide is manufactured for political benefit to exploit things like a lot of immigrant hate.
- "made glaringly obvious by its conspicuous absence, is that the ruling party in the US has no interest in controlling immigration in any way. "
This is clearly and severely false.
Democrats do tend to be the party that cares a lot more about human beings, and for that reason are likely to have more humane immigration policies, but look at the facts. Obama has deported millions of people. Border resources are up significantly. The border is more controlled than ever before. Mexican immigration has been at net zero for years. These Central Americans aren't coming to the US and having a lack of border control by Obama let them in - they're being taken into custody at that secure border (most are intentionally approaching border security to be taken into custody, they're not trying to evade our security to enter).
Compare the border security and rates of illegal immigration and deportation under Bush and Obama - they're far higher with Obama.
So, your statement is purely one of uninformed ideology - it helps your argument to say Obama is doing something, so you just say he is - and not accuracy.
Oh, and Obama's request for $4 billion to effectively process and return most of the refugees - Republicans are balking at that now. Now that's 'partisan politics'.
Perhaps they are expecting the worse the problem gets, the more they can use it as 'blame Obama'.
- This isn't about 'our welfare system'. Studies show that Mexican immigrants contribute more to our economy than the cost of any assistance they get, and while the same won't be true of children sent here from Central America to save their lives - and it shouldn't be - that's still a distortion to try to paint 'welfare expenses' as the dominant issue for illegal immigrants.
By the way, the welfare system is essential to the people who use it being able to get employed, helping the economy.
Your objection sounds entirely ideological, without any idea of the facts of how welfare benefits the economy, rather simply an anti-government pathology applied to helping people.
I have ocean front property in Arizona also cheap.
Once the children are released from government custody, you think they are going to voluntarily show up for deportation hearings
The Feds are sending them into the interior to be with "relatives".
1) The Feds are not concerned if the "relative" is a legal resident.
2) The Feds are not requiring any type of bond that the child will show up at a hearing at a later date.
3) The Feds are not going to expend resources to track the child down for a missed hearing.
Just curious, why don't you find out how many people processed this way do show up for their hearing and post the information here, instead of making up your answer?
It makes a lot of sense for the children to be with relatives, of any legal status. You think the children are better off in government detention? You think US taxpayers are better off with them in government detention? What happened to 'family values', which should care about the child not being greatly harmed the way you imply you want?
A bond? Yes, a four year old crossing Mexico to surrender to a border agent should be demanded to post a large bond. Makes a lot of sense. Or, the relatives - if he's lucky enough to have some - who would care for him while awaiting the hearing should be demanded to post a large bond they can't afford, for the privilege of our not keeping him in our detention at our cost.
You could argue for your last point - diverting our resources from looking for, say, criminal parole violators and other law enforcement activity to rounding up children who are here illegally when they miss a court date - but I'd ask again, for you to provide some numbers how many we're talking about who don't go to the hearing.
Statements by the federal government indicated 57,000 over the past 9 months (since Oct).
Using such numbers, you are talking 7,500/month
1669 children were deported in 2013
That is 2,000 imported per month vs 150/month exported.
So they are not showing up or the immigration system is letting them go after showing up. If the later; then what use are the immigration hearings if they are catch/release?
RandomWords
Senior member
- Jun 11, 2014
- 633
- 5
- 81
Here is the condition from what first hand knowledge I have from people who actually work the border:
A.) there is so many that the facilities can't handle the inflow
B.) Family units are surrendering in mass amounts - they have an order to appear in 3 years but until then are given a free bus or plane ticket to anywhere in the U.S. they want to go.
C.) The children are not starving - they are being fed but many (like children do) are refusing to eat because they "don't like" the food they are given... that sounds like they aren't hungry enough to me.
D.) There is no stopping the inflow and no effort to do so because it is just too vast - the majority of people working the border are there to take the people to be processed and get their bus/plane ticket.
Edit: I would be wary of bus and planes for the time being as a lot of these people have lice and scabies and other contagious conditions and you are not going to be informed of any illegals that are on or were on prior to your being there.
A.) there is so many that the facilities can't handle the inflow
B.) Family units are surrendering in mass amounts - they have an order to appear in 3 years but until then are given a free bus or plane ticket to anywhere in the U.S. they want to go.
C.) The children are not starving - they are being fed but many (like children do) are refusing to eat because they "don't like" the food they are given... that sounds like they aren't hungry enough to me.
D.) There is no stopping the inflow and no effort to do so because it is just too vast - the majority of people working the border are there to take the people to be processed and get their bus/plane ticket.
Edit: I would be wary of bus and planes for the time being as a lot of these people have lice and scabies and other contagious conditions and you are not going to be informed of any illegals that are on or were on prior to your being there.
Last edited:
Mexico allowed them to come through.
When they are arriving at the border by train loads and busses (convince me that they are walking); Mexico has the opportunity to intercept. They do not
SMOGZINN
Lifer
- Jun 17, 2005
- 14,221
- 4,452
- 136
But Mexico is under no obligation to uphold our laws. If Mexico does not care if they pass through on the way to the US, then how does giving them back to Mexico help us? They will just get right back on a bus to the US.
It is not our law, it is the laws of Mexico that they are breaking while in transit.
Mexico ignores the issue because they know the intended destination is the US and it will become an US headache. Were the destination be Mexico, they would take an active interest.
So Mexico needs to realize that playing ostrich is only going to hurt US relations and harm them.
Hand the illegals back to Mexico, that is the territory that they came from. Mexico can then reship them south. And then decide to stop them from coming in. Let that transit country handle the problem if they want.
IF Mexico wants to absorb the illegals, let them. If they want to play Ping-Pong with them; rinse and repeat. If the illegals get tired of being the ball, they can pack it up and head home.
How Mexico handles it is not the US problem unless the bleeding hearts are going to feel pity. In that case, they can go to the US embassy in that country and sponsor a child.
cabri, you're trying to figure out how many court dates are not kept by calculating it from other numbers, but that's not very reliable. More direct information is better.
If you can link to where the government has the raw data, please provide it.
Empty space can be calculated roughly by taking the total space and subtracting the known used space.
Same goes for here.
X are tagged, Y are released; therefore Z must be the difference between what is caught and released (ie. kept)
Unless you can show/justify that 90% are granted amnesty; then logically that 90% difference are those that did not show up.
Now if those 90% are being granted amnesty; then the immigration hearings become a joke and a waste of money.
If they are not showing up then the whole issue of securing out borders from illegals becomes BS.
So the question if for you in response. where are those 90% and why. Provide another theory and back it up such that it will hold up to questioning.
No, cabri, the burden is on you, and providing a half-baked argument neither meets the burden nor transfers it to me.
I saw a report of court dates being up to 3 years later - that alone would make your speculation completely incorrect. Is that right? Who knows? You made the claim.
I saw a report of court dates being up to 3 years later - that alone would make your speculation completely incorrect. Is that right? Who knows? You made the claim.
Original stats I presented
While it may take up to 2 years for a hearing to happen (some have claimed 550 days); what has happened with the people that came across 2 years ago and have been released.
Lets look at some other statistics for 2010
Link
Roughly 50K more were allowed in than were sent back. This includes both adults and children. Avg 4K/month are being "lost"
Link
2012 - 643,474 unauthorized immigrants are apprehended. More than 69% are from Mexico.
2012 - 419,384 unauthorized immigrants are removed from the United States. Approximately 47% of these individuals have prior criminal convictions
for 2012, there is a net of 225K of what was apprehended vs what was sent back.
2010: 517K in .... 474K out
2012: 643K in .... 419K out
So, if you want to allow for a 2 year delay, 100K were lost that came in in 2012, and after the 2 years delay for processing not returned. Note, that these classified as unauthorized. So, you have 8K/month being lost, not showing up.
Even if it takes 2 years to process them; there is 20% that never show up that were identified.
PlanetJosh
Golden Member
- May 6, 2013
- 1,814
- 143
- 106
The mandatory hearings are not for young illegals from Mexico and Canada, it’s for if they come from other countries. And you may be well aware of it. I didn't even know until recently that Mexico was excluded or that the law existed.
I think it should include Mexico and Canada but I guess I can understand why they didn’t include Mexico. Below is the reason, it basically says the Border Patrol can make an on the spot decision to have the Mexican youth sent back to Mexico because the kids can be safely and quickly sent back. Same for Canada:
And here is the part about what you mentioned for mandatory processing/hearings in the 2008 law:
Both of the quotes above are from this fairly recent article:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/02/immigration-obama-deportation-children-border/11915723/
I'm not saying I agree with the president to change the law. It's complicated. He probably should not have it changed. I used the article mainly for the above quotes taken from it.
I may have been a little long winded with this post, I'm trying to keep it concise. Again I wish Mexico was included for mandatory processing/hearings. Why take a chance the Mexican youths could be subjected to abuse if deported quickly? But maybe the lawmakers thought the U.S. system would be overwhelmed back in '08 if they included Mexico.
And I realize a lot of kids from Central America may have been sent back since '08 even after their hearings. I guess it's still uncertain how many of the youths got to stay in the last five years or so?
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter