DOJ' s Child Migrant Solution: Throw Money at the Wind

50,000 children have fled their home countries and arrived in the U.S. since last fall. The number is expected to reach 90,000 by the end of the year. They are desperately in need of humanitarian aid. They should be treated as refugees from the violence in their home countries, not immigration violators. The U.S. should be providing them with asylum, not subjecting them to deportation.

What is DOJ's solution? Yesterday it announced a new policy. [More...]

  • Increase funding to immigration courts, not for lawyers to represent them, but to speed up the deportation process.
  • Increase funding to the Governments of Mexico and Central America for crime fighting, via "law enforcement capacity building" and "combatting transnational crime and the threat posed by criminal gangs."

The money will come from Obama's latest 3.7 billion request for supplemental funding.

What about money to help the children and the dismal conditions they are in? I guess DOJ thinks that's not their problem. How about money to speed up the asylum process instead of the deportation process? That would require common sense.

The ACLU filed a class action today on behalf of the thousands of migrant children who are not provided with legal representation or resources to fight deportation proceedings.

The complaint charges the U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Health and Human Services, Executive Office for Immigration Review, and Office of Refugee Resettlement with violating the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provisions requiring a "full and fair hearing" before an immigration judge. It seeks to require the government to provide children with legal representation in their deportation hearings.

Children should not be left alone in immigration court.

The Complaint is here.

Obama's plan also includes a new detention center. Detention should be a last resort, not a first.

“The underlying approach to such a program should be ‘care’ and not ‘detention,’” Long said, stressing that children under detention are entitled to education, legal aid, counseling and recreation. Alternatives to detention, such as electronic monitoring via ankle bracelets, should be considered,

We should be spending money on the children stuck in the existing unsanitary existing detention facilities. We don't need more prisons.

Here's Joe Biden with his typical response: more funding for law enforcement.

In Honduras, under the Central American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI), we will provide $18.5 million to support community policing and law enforcement efforts to confront gangs and other sources of crime.

...The United States also plans to provide $161.5 million this year for CARSI programs that are critical to enabling Central American countries to respond to the region’s most pressing security and governance challenges [translation: crime-fighting].

....Another approximately $96.5 million will go toward peace, security, stabilization, and other related rule of law programs to strengthen immigration, law enforcement, and judicial authorities and promote anti-gang and human rights programs.

We need to help the children who are here now, not throw more money at foreign law enforcement -- which will be as ineffective as the money we've wasted in fighting the war on drugs in these countries. It's just throwing money at the wind. Our foreign aid money should go to reducing poverty and increasing opportunities for the children, not more crime-fighting.

These children are refugees, not criminals. Humanitarian aid for them should be our first priority, not aid for crime-fighting in other countries or for programs to detain and deport more of them faster than ever, with no concern for their legal rights. More from Biden's office:

The Department of Justice and DHS are taking additional steps to enhance enforcement and removal proceedings. We are surging government enforcement resources to increase our capacity to detain individuals and adults who bring their children with them and to handle immigration court hearings – in cases where hearings are necessary – as quickly and efficiently as possible while also while also protecting those who are seeking asylum. That will allow ICE to return unlawful migrants from Central America to their home countries more quickly.

How about prosecuting the border guards who abuse the detained children?

This is not an immigration problem, it's a refugee problem. Children fleeing violence in their home countries should be protected, not sent back home. As one person said, “It is akin to sending a child back into a burning building and locking the door.”

Recommended reading: Un-American Justice: Chilling Scenes from a Southwest Courtroom and The U.S. Government Treats Detained Immigrants Like Slaves

< Wednesday Night Open Thread | "El Chino Antrax" Extradited to San Diego >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    These (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by lentinel on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 04:24:48 AM EST
    actions by Obama and his administration remind me of Bush's vaulted phrase, "compassionate conservatism".

    That's who and what we elected.
    The same cornflakes with a different photo on the package.

    How do these people find billions to torment children, but can't find it to aid veterans from its unending wars?

    After defending Obama from accusations (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 06:57:36 AM EST
    of not doing anything from people who equate not going to the border with not doing anything, I am disappointed and disheartened to learn what kinds of "solutions" this administration is managing to come up with.

    I have not heard one freaking word from the media regarding the US's role in Central America, and how our actions in that region have contributed to the conditions that are bringing so many of these children here.  

    Not one word.

    No one's looking at what these children are fleeing from, which I think is strange - or maybe it just gets in the way of the little picture the media wants in our heads: greedy, grasping, looking-for-handouts children playing the American people for all they're worth.

    No, what we're getting is a militarized authoritarian solution to a humanitarian problem.  Send us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free?  I think not.  This is America, where we drone it, bomb it, round it up and detain it, punish it, arrest it, and lock it up.

    That's who we are now.  And there doesn't seem to be anything we can do about it.

    False premise (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by thomas rogan on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 07:33:52 AM EST
    If there is so much dangerous violence in these countries of Central America, where are the news stories of mass graves?  Should the US perhaps send troops to help the police of these countries with the "extreme" danger?
    No one in the Latino lobby suggests that REAL refugees such as those from Syria or Moslems from Burma get admitted en masse by the hundreds of thousands.  
    If a country is in such an evil way that children need to travel hundreds of miles alone, then maybe we are evil for doing nothing about it.  Or is it that the Central American countries are not quite so bad off?

    What about poor Black kids in Chicago? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Aspidistra on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 12:26:25 PM EST
    Some areas of Chicago are apparently reaching war zone status - over the Fourth of July weekend in Chicago there were 56 shootings and an additional 14 people shot to death.

    Any sympathy or resources for the impoverished Black children struggling to survive the pervasive criminality and violence in urban Chicago (or Detroit, or Oakland)?  Can we also quickly set aside $3 billion for them?



    No argument here.. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 12:35:43 PM EST
    let's reallocate the entire DEA budget to helping children foreign and domestic be free of violence, hunger, and disease.  The CIA's too if its not enough.  The ATF's!  The NSA's!  The DHS's!  I got mad offset ideas to pay for an America to be proud of;)



    Your (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by sj on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 01:44:18 PM EST



    bit is irrelevant. Of course no one was discussing "impoverished Black children" because the topic of conversation is actually "DOJ' s Child Migrant Solution".

    I'm not diminishing the problem you bring up. At all. because sympathy and compassion are not a finite resources. We can feel compassion and concern for the child refugees currently being victimized by our government without taking anything away from your personal issue.

    And yes, we could quickly set aside 3 billion for the children of Chicago. It only takes the political will to do so. So tell me, are you advocating for a detention center for Chicago's children? Or are you going to clear your eyes and realize that the point of this post is that the very expensive proposed "plan" under discussion is wrong at it's very core.


    please stay on topic (none / 0) (#115)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 02:17:46 PM EST
    of the migrant children. Chicago's urban problems aren't the topic.

    In My Opinion This is Pure Politics... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 02:43:11 PM EST
    ...for all the bluster on the right, they are going to fight this tooth and nail which requires showing the true color of their souls, black as coal.
    "A trillion for war, no problemo, a couple billions people to help women and children in desperate need, FU."

    He asked for an amount he knew the House would flip-out over and demand some sort of balancing cut.  Which of course is not going to happen.

    Can't win an election in the US without some Hispanic votes and this issue is going to drive that small percentage of Hispanic republicans far away from the faux christian party, and I would image parents of any heritage as well.

    I mean seriously, what kind of person demands kids be sent back into the meat grinder, Fox News republicans, and they can't be more vocal about it, which is a shame.  But at least they are the ones driving the nails in their own coffins.

    I can't believe there are Americans with this much hatred and total lack of compassion on any level.  It's sick, as in a clinical defect of the mind.

    Obviously I agree with the post, these are refugees, and should be dealt with in the way in which we asked other countries to deal with the refugees we created in the failed Iraqi experiment, and the other many failed US experiments that left thousands, if not millions, without a secure home.

    I am (none / 0) (#80)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 07:37:41 AM EST
    entirely in sympathy with your post, but I wonder whether it might not be possible for a president to just say, "I will not seek or permit one thin dime to be used to deport children. We can and we will care for them."

    Would that be so goddam hard?


    Not To Mention (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 10:17:55 AM EST
    Obama is not a King.. as much as you would like him to be.

    Hard? (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 09:43:54 AM EST
    but I wonder whether it might not be possible for a president to just say, "I will not seek or permit one thin dime to be used to deport children. We can and we will care for them."

    Not hard but hardly wise.

    there are about 17,630,000 refugee children in the world. If Obama were to say what you would like him to say, I believe that there would be a lot more children sent to the US as it would be an easy solution for the rest of the world to dump their problem on the US. Putting them all on planes to the US would be cheaper than housing them in the camps where they are presently.

    And, I do believe that the 60,000 children already in the US should be given attorneys and and the benefit of doubt to be processed as legal immigrants to the US.


    That is Not What I was Saying (none / 0) (#100)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 11:57:34 AM EST
    I was saying that he asked for an amount that is very... generous in order to aid the right in publicly flipping-out over what should be humanitarian aid.

    He certainly has resources to deal with this for some time and that amount seems rather large if all he plans to do is deport refugees.


    Yes. (none / 0) (#139)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 10:28:23 AM EST
    I understand.

    It has to do with a manipulation of the right - to have them flip out as a means to an end.

    That's politics.
    Maybe even good politics.

    I just yearn for a clear statement of principle now and then.


    real refugees (2.00 / 2) (#5)
    by thomas rogan on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 07:54:35 AM EST
    Syrian refugees camp out at the nearest safe spot across the border in Turkey and Jordan.  How is it that these child refugees from ostensible gang violence don't stop in the Yucatan if the whole point is simply safety?  There can be a refugee camp there.  Or at a refugee camp in Costa Rica?  

    Yes, kick the children (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 12, 2014 at 06:40:12 AM EST
    Those horrible children!

    You Realize... (none / 0) (#146)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:06:31 AM EST
    ...that those are all different countries right ?  And if everyone in those countries took your stand, which I am sure there are people who don't want them either, that they would literally have no where to go.

    Those spots, right across the border, are just as dangerous and the hope in Syria was that they would return once the war was done.  They aren't living permanently at the border, they have dispersed and newly displaced people are at the border trying to figure out where to go, which ain't easy with people like you around wanting them to go anywhere but here.

    And beyond that, what makes more sense, a country with little resources and near same levels of violence take refugees or a county with more than any other take them ?  Or even better all people in the world open their arms to the products of violence and let these lost souls in no questions asked ?

    It's a privilege that impoverished people look at the US as the best place in the world to make a go of it, not a GD curse.

    There is a simple solution, elect another GWB to tank the economy and the border crossings will rapidly decrease.  That is joke based on fact.


    Jeralyn (2.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 09:24:10 AM EST
    How can you say "These children are refugees, not criminals".

    First point is refugee and criminal are not mutually exclusive groups; a person can be both.

    Second there is suppose to be a hearing to determine the status of people crossing the border illegally.  The hearing can determine if the person is a refugee or illegal alien.

    As an aside I am still waiting for a breakdown of the sex and age cohort of those being detained.  It is disturbing that the administration (self proclaimed as the most transparent administration ever) is preventing members of congress and the press reasonable access to the holding pens.  I have seen reports that the majority (some say as high as eighty percent) of those being detained are teenage boys over 15 years old.

    As others have noted there is some point at which America can not continue to absorb non English speaking low skill folks some with health issues.  Is this point at 50,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 or 50,000,000 or some higher number.

    It is not like there are not problems providing aid to US citizens or vets or homeless or other groups needing it with no question about their legal status.

    Reagan got his amnesty through by saying we will take this two million with the promise that this will be the last time.

    Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

    In addition to the question... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 09:36:13 AM EST
    ...of quarantine to prevent the spread of diseases they may or may not have, or the exposure of them to diseases to which they may not be immunized...

    It is disturbing that the administration...is preventing members of congress and the press reasonable access to the holding pens.

    what horrible things have they done to deserve being descended upon (for purposes of exploitation) by politicians and the press?

    Have they no right of privacy whatsoever?


    You give up some rights (none / 0) (#11)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 10:22:18 AM EST
    when you violate the law.  When authorities detain a person they are subject to search as well as medical examination.

    Lets keep in mind what ever status the courts assign to these folks they are in violation of laws governing crossing the border.


    Who's law? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 10:44:47 AM EST
    Not natural law.  Not god's law.  Just some bullsh*t immigration laws at best.....and even that's in question as it is legal to cross the border to flee murder or tyranny and see refugee status.  Ultimately it's up to the courts to decide whether crossing the border was illegal or legal.  

    Legal/illegal is the cops, lawyers, and judges game anyway...I'm much concerned with right and wrong.  What have the kids done wrong?  Absolutely nuthin'...and to treat them like they have is what's wrong here.


    The law (none / 0) (#22)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    that is enforced by those guys with guns that your taxes pay for.

    Oh that law... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 01:08:04 PM EST
    That set of laws has yet to determine if their entry was "illegal"...if these kids were Cuban they'd be legal already, all non-Cubans get a day in court according the guys with gun lawbook as currently written afaiu.

    kdog, Natural law says that (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 04:43:40 PM EST
    if you don't defend your borders then you will lose your country.

    Ask the Indians.


    I think these kids... (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 08:25:33 AM EST
    want to share in the safety and bounty of our country...not steal it. No one is coming for your garden Jim, I assure you....and god forbid somebody did odds are it would be a banker or a bueracrat, not a 12 year old Guatemalan.

    That's what the Spaniards claimed. (none / 0) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 05:08:07 PM EST
    And all those Englishmen and others just wanted a small piece of land.

    Honest. Trust me.

    Here, sign this Peace Treaty that says you can hunt as long as the rivers flow and the sun shines...Where's that Peace Pipe???


    The last time I looked (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 08:55:21 AM EST
    the Indians only have had trouble with Kashmir.  Is that what you were referring to?

    No. I was (1.67 / 3) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 05:04:43 PM EST
    referring to what we called them before you PC wanna be policemen decided we must change.


    You know, like Tonto.



    God you are just vile (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 06:00:57 PM EST
    MT, tell me one more time why (2.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:13:56 PM EST
    a perfectly good one word name must be discarded in favor of a two word name??

    Indian served us for years. It is just the PC police who now want to control every aspect of our lives who have kittens upon seeing it.


    For the same reason you get to decide (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:36:57 PM EST
    what your name is and what you want people to call you.

    It's about respect, something you don't seem to have much use for.


    Sorry Anne (none / 0) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 06:45:41 PM EST
    Indian is a group name and I don't get to decide what I want my "group"  called... And my parents named me.

    As for your "respect," hooey. Using Native American, which I have done in the past, has nothing to do with respect and everything to do with writing what the PC police want you to write.

    Ah for the old days when freedom abounded in this great land.


    So you would be (none / 0) (#151)
    by sj on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:51:12 PM EST
    fine being referred to as that cranky old cr@cker? Or h0nky? Or g@bacho? Or (ewww) peckerw00d? Those are all group names, too.

    How about And making logos out of those names? And putting them on marquees?


    As usual you don't grasp the point (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 11:01:04 PM EST
    I restate.

    "Indian is a group name and I don't get to decide what I want my "group"  called... And my parents named me."

    And indeed they group names and I have no control over what you call me over the Internet. Person to person would be a different matter.

    And I again restate, I have used NA time and again but outside of satisfying the demands of the New Ruling Class, aka PC People Police, I see no problem with Indian. A word that has been used for years and has absolutely nothing bad attached to it,unlike the examples you used.


    Oh, my. (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:53:47 AM EST
    Question for you: why'd you get your boxers in a bunch when I referred to you as "jimmy?"  I mean, there's nothing bad attached to it, is there?  Or did you feel like it diminished you somehow, made you feel like you were being mocked?  I could have called you "jim bob," you know, sort of an homage to The Waltons - would that have been better?  Or would you have felt like it was a way for me to call you a redneck without actually using that label?

    Welcome to the world of Names Have Meaning, and when it's your name - whether it's a group identifier or your given name - you have a say, and when it isn't, you don't.

    That's why we've moved away from identifying races and ethnicities by the pejorative labels meant to belittle and demonize members of those groups, in favor of ones that do not.


    A simple question (none / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:58:55 PM EST
    deserves a simple answer.

    But first, let me remind you that "Jimmy" is not a group name. Which, BTW, is the basis of this discussion

    "Indian is a group name and I don't get to decide what I want my "group"  called... And my parents named me."

    And indeed they group names and I have no control over what you call me over the Internet. Person to person would be a different matter.

    So the distinction is between personal and group.

    BTW - Indian is not pejorative.


    No, jim. This is about how people (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:24:17 PM EST
    wish to be identified and how they identify themselves.  

    No - I take that back.  How people wish to be identified and how they identify themselves is what it's about for me - and for most people here who've weighed in on the issue.  For you, though, this seems to be about how you want to identify others, regardless of how they wish to be identified.

    You want to make a distinction between someone's individual name and the name for whatever group a person identifies with or is a part of, but really, it all comes down to the same thing: respect.

    And you don't seem to have any - you just want to whine about not being able to use with impunity the labels from back in the Dark Ages.

    You may not wish to evolve, but thank goodness the evolution is happening in spite of people like you.


    Read what I wrote about Alice (none / 0) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:37:00 PM EST
    "BTW - Indian is not pejorative." (none / 0) (#163)
    by unitron on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 12:06:44 PM EST
    But it is incorrect and stupid.

    And now that there are lots of people in North America of Indian sub-continent ancestry, confusing.


    How to say I love you (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 12:10:58 PM EST
    in Indian

    How to Say I Love You in Indian, with a foreword by renowned Native activist, environmentalist, economist and author Winona LaDuke, follows his universally well-received first book, Don't Know Much About Indians (but I wrote this book about us anyways), now in its third printing. The stories and poems of How to Say I Love You in Indian are filled with humor, heartbreak and wisdom and convey Native love in many forms romantic, parental, love between friends, love of one's culture and community.

    Stupid to who?? (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:36:06 PM EST
    We have people who call people Crackers or Red neck or Cajuns who are not.

    Face it. This is about control.

    'Certainly,' said Alice.

    'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

    'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

    'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

    'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

    'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'

    Through the Looking Glass - Lewis Carrol


    Cajuns? (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:03:25 PM EST
    When did that become pejorative?

    So, Humpty Dumpty, (none / 0) (#175)
    by sj on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:48:06 PM EST
    I'm glad you have provided us with a jim-approved alternative name.

    So it is the PC police (none / 0) (#154)
    by sj on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 11:06:06 PM EST
    that keeps those terms from common use? Don't you think that's a good thing? I do.

    Nope, I don't (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:33:00 AM EST
    Freedom is a costly thing and is being called a nasty word is my only share I will consider myself lucky.

    Of course, before the Left became prosecutor, judge and jury, something greatly facilitated by social media, we had libel and slander laws.. not to mention fists and noses and, in the distant pass, duels.

    I read somewhere that if everyone openly carried weapons the world would be a politer place.

    "Smile when you say that, pardner."



    Too bad you think that (none / 0) (#160)
    by sj on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 11:40:39 AM EST
    You could use some good manners. But as long as you think manners and respect are PC police I can see you will never acquire them.

    Can't blame a body for trying. I think even you are capable of redemption. Just maybe not on this side of the veil.


    sj, would I hurt your feelings if (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:51:06 PM EST
    I wrote that I didn't care what you thought??

    I find you, and others like you, very troubling with your absolute desire to control what we say.... with a view towards controlling our thoughts.

    And that is what you want. All this blather over using NA rather than Indian is just a means to an end.


    Why would it hurt my feelings? (none / 0) (#166)
    by sj on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 12:43:17 PM EST
    It appears that your total lack of common sense, your poor manners and your absolute insensitivity are intrinsic characteristics. How could that possibly reflect on me?

    No, it wouldn't (none / 0) (#156)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:45:05 AM EST
    And indeed they group names and I have no control over what you call me over the Internet. Person to person would be a different matter.

    ... apart from all the accompanying laughter.


    Just can't keep from snarking, eh? (none / 0) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 07:58:23 AM EST
    PC Policemen (none / 0) (#143)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 06:04:30 PM EST
    At least the PC policemen have not decided that we have to change the name for you. Some things are constant.

    "These folks" are children. (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 12:28:05 PM EST
    I don't know where you've acquired your information and facts regarding the laws and the rights to which people are entitled, but I think you would be well-served not to get them from right-wing media.

    Not all right wing media... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 12:37:53 PM EST
    is wrong...Glenn Beck is actually making sense, and catching hell from his crazy-arse base, for suggesting charity and goodwill rule the day.

    That stopped clock is (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 02:37:38 PM EST
    right once a day.

    oops... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by sj on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 11:26:35 PM EST
    That stopped clock is  (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 01:37:38 PM MDT

    right once a day.

    Actually twice a day if it's analog :)

    I can just hear him and the Bishops (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 11:59:33 AM EST
    thinking "They'd make good Mormons."

    Not that I'm cynical about Beck..


    Beck is taking a few million dollars worth (none / 0) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 11:02:18 PM EST
    of food and such down there.

    And you are doing?????


    How do you know that? (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:19:14 PM EST
    Are you a regular viewer or listener of Beck?

    "And such" (none / 0) (#173)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 11:10:25 AM EST
    what"s the such? Little sewing machines and bundles of fabric?

    "This is Not Political" (none / 0) (#174)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 12:00:49 PM EST
    Beck has repeatedly stated that those who are in the United States illegally must be sent back to their home countries, but that Americans have a responsibility to care for those in need while they are on the U.S. side of the border....

    "It's evil, what's happening to the children all the way around," Beck said. "To have them used for political purposes -- I don't care if it's the left or the right that's doing it. It is wrong. It is shameful. It's un-American, and it's not the Christian thing to do."

    Glad to know that Beck has not stopped lying through his teeth.


    3000 Soccer Balls and Teddy Bears? (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 02:59:01 PM EST
    They need lawyers... If Beck really wants to help bring truckloads of immigration lawyers and foot the bill.

    Hey it's something positive... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 08:19:22 AM EST
    the rest of his set wants to throw rocks at the poor kids...I couldn't resist wading into the comments on his website about it...you'd think he killed Jesus and George Washington in a double-homicide by the reaction to the charity.

    And I wouldn't totally poo-poo toys...these kids need a small morsel of joy as well as food, blankets, doctors, and lawyers.


    Sorry Kdog (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 12:08:41 PM EST
    When Beck says that this is not political, it sends up many red flags.

    He is nothing but political. That is what he does. And his politics suck.

    So, when he starts talking about something more than applying a band aid, if it is even that, I will start to listen.

    Let's go through the steps.

    Beck's followers want to expel all immigrants and basically seal the borders from brown people. There is zero wiggle room on that issue for his followers. It is written in stone.

    Beck makes a big announcement that this may ruin his entire career....  WTF?  

    He knows that there is zero chance of persuading his extremist base of having any sympathy for these children.

    If he were concerned about this running his career, he would have sent the 3000 soccer balls and teddy bears privately, without telling anyone. That is true charity...

    but he made a big announcement...  RED FLAG


    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 01:54:22 PM EST
    it could be a Machiavellian gamesmanship/11th Dimensional Chess kinda thing...but if the kids get some toys out of it that works for me.

    "Holding pens?" (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 10:33:06 AM EST
    ::rolling eyes::

    Nice to know you regard them in much the same way as you do cattle or other livestock.


    And this is part of the problem, in my opinion.  And it's emblematic of the rank hypocrisy of conservatives who keep insisting they are all about the children and the family.  Well, unless those children are poor, non-white, non-Christian and/or not here legally.

    Since much of what you write here sounds like right-wing truthiness, it might be instructive for you to take a gander at this, which may give you a better idea of why so many children are coming here.


    How would you describe them (none / 0) (#23)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    The point of my post was that what ever status you want to assign to them they are being held in substandard conditions and that attempts to view those conditions by congress members and the press have been prohibited.

    How would I describe them? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 01:59:51 PM EST
    As people.  As children.  As human beings.  As people with mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters.

    How is it that these choices didn't occur to you?

    The point of your posts - taken collectively - seems to be that these aren't "real" refugees, that regardless of the fact that they're children, most of them, they aren't entitled to any rights, that their presence on this side of the border makes them de facto criminals, and so on.  You referred to the facilities in which they are being held as holding "pens," which, where I come from, evokes images of livestock in a corral.

    Did you not make these points?

    For what it's worth, I am coming around to believing that Obama does, in fact, have to go to the border.  That if presidents can go to the sites of natural disasters, they can go to the man-made ones, too.  That there's something to be said for him - and for members of Congress - seeing up close and personal the extent of the suffering, hearing, through a translator if necessary, what would make children make a perilous journey through the desert to get to this country, and what that journey was like for them.

    I would send you there, too, because maybe then you'd begin to see them as people, and not like cattle to be rounded up and held in pens before being put in trailers and shipped back to wherever they came from.

    Once again, I should remind you that we'd have immigration reform by now, would have had several years to implement those reforms, but Republican members of the House have refused to allow it.  

    If someone is elected to legislate, and refuses to participate or allow legislation to be voted on, that person needs to find something else to do, and make way for someone who actually wants this government to work.


    Anne my question was (2.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 03:32:51 PM EST
    how would describe the facilities used to hold the illegal aliens (the history of that term is from the Alien and Sedition Act) not how you would describe the illegal aliens.

    If you don't like my term holding pens what term would you like me to use.

    As I posted earlier the term illegal alien and the term children are not mutually exclusive.


    Anne?? May we put you down for (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 04:45:36 PM EST
    ?? Say two girls and four boys?

    I know you want to help out.


    Sure. But I will require an "offset" (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 05:12:27 PM EST
    that will mean you have to take up residence in whatever country of origin the kids are from.



    Excuse me but, (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 12:08:01 PM EST
    "As others have noted there is some point at which America can not continue to absorb non English speaking low skill folks some with health issues."

    These are children who would go to school and I'm pretty sure they will learn English and they may actually go to college (shock!) and who knows what else? Many children who immigrate to the US go on to do great things. Just because they have brown skin does not mean they will be a non-english speaking low wage worker.


    But if you're someone who regards (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 12:21:51 PM EST
    migrants as little more than livestock, of course you're going to assume that there's nothing here for them but low-wage jobs or living off the government.

    It's a mindset and a world view that I just don't understand.


    I'm holding back (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 12:41:05 PM EST
    one big a** rant . . .

    But until their adult parents and late teen (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 04:48:28 PM EST
    siblings go get this education they will remain low end employees.

    And imagine a school district hit with 3000 of these children at $7000/each. Got a spare $21 million in your pocket??


    I would tax the Koch Brothers (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 08:57:56 AM EST
    Since This is a Nation of Immigrants... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 03:00:50 PM EST
    ...the number is around 300M and we are no where near full, pretty sure another 100,000 isn't going to have any effect other than driving the right bananas.

    And please, for the love of god, quit acting like R's give a damn about anyone in need, we could eradicate homelessness in the US, but you clowns keep voting for people that don't seem to want to help anyone here.  Hand-outs seems to be your party's views on helping anyone.  I even remember a clip on Fox News telling people that Halloween is bad in that it teaches children that handouts are A-OK, it teaches them to be liberals.

    Found it.

    But today they care about US citizens, paleaze.  Those same people were moochers in 2012.


    My (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 07:30:59 AM EST
    bone to pick with the "nation of immigrants" line is that it obliterates any reference to the poor souls who lived here before the explorers and settlers and conquerors took over and just about wiped them out.

    I do not discount the "nation of immigrants" line, I emotionally bond with it in fact, but I wish there were some way to express that idea without discounting the prior existence of the Native American on these lands.

    It is also obvious to me that people like Bush, and other wealthy folks, do not identify with being or ever having been "immigrants". I would expand that sentiment to include just about anybody who has "made it".

    Once established and no longer hunger, many people seem to forget their pasts and want to close the door. Silver spoons seem to have that effect on those who have been born with them in their mouths.


    I Agree (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 12:54:17 PM EST
    Technically we all descendants of illegal immigration as defined by the people who originally settled these lands.  And we didn't just 'sneak in at night' we killed and multilated anyone who objected, then rounded them up and forced them to live in the most undesirable lands we could find.  

    Texas and most bordering states were settled by white 'illegal' immigrants even after borders were established, who just took what they wanted from Mexico, mostly by force.

    Great point and I meant no disrespect by not mentioning it.


    If we send the message (1.50 / 4) (#36)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 03:10:28 PM EST
    Why not the kids of Somalia? Syria? Nigeria? Palestine?

    Why are theses kids so special?  Because their parents paid people money to bring them here illegally?

    What exactly are they escaping from?  Is it worse then the countries I list above?

    This is all so ridiculous.   Playing the moral high card that these kids are so downtrodden that we can't send them back is liberal whining at it's finest.

    This "crisis" is a direct result of Obama playing politics with our immigration policy.

    People have gotten the message that this president won't deport you unless you are a murderer.

    Short of that you can stay forever.

    Bring em on.


    Are you saying the 2million he's already (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 03:12:55 PM EST
    deported were all murders?

    If Only Someone Would Have Decided... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 03:24:44 PM EST
    ...your ancestor's nation was off the acceptable people's list...  

    I am all about taking anyone that wants better, you assume that I have some sort of line in sand, I don't.  Immigrants made this country great and will continue to make it great whether you like it or not.

    I like that we are all immigrants, it's the one thing that nearly all of us have in common, I don't like that some immigrant descendants think they are in a position to say no to the reflections of themselves who want better.


    My ancestors came here (none / 0) (#62)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 07:32:15 PM EST
    from Spain and Wales.

    They came in legally and through the system.

    They where held (in the case of my moms family) at Ellis Island for weeks while the government made sure they where healthy etc...

    I'm sorry.   That is how most immigrants came to this country.

    We do indeed take the hungry and needy but we have system in place to do so.

    Sneaking into this country in the dead of night no matter the reason is not how it's supposed to work.

    Why have boarders at all?   A Nation without boarders isn't a nation.  It's a free for all.


    The Only Reason It's Charnged... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 12:21:09 PM EST
    ...is because the rules were changed by jacka$$es after they were here and decided to put up a red velvet rope to keep anyone they don't approve of out.

    Make the rules the same as our ancestors had and put an Ellis Island at the border and they will come through as you claim, 'legally'.

    If you want folks to follow the same rules as others, don't change the them and they will.  Change the rules and your argument makes no sense.

    And FYI, Ellis Island was open for 62 years, most immigrants of the time (~70%) came through EI.  But we have been allowing immigrants in for hundreds of years, including west coasters who went through San Fran.

    The best number I can find is 20-25% of all immigrants into the US came though EI, which is no where near most.


    one problem (none / 0) (#105)
    by nyjets on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 12:26:19 PM EST
    This country does have the right to change the rules.
    Times change, what was true then is not true now.
    If we want to put a velvet rope , to use your words, to keep people out, this country has every right to do so.

    Of Course We Have a Right to.... (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:49:11 AM EST
    ....to change the rules, but then you can't complain when people don't use the methods that your ancestors used, which of course, are no longer available.

    What you should be asking yourself is, "Would my ancestors been allowed in the country using today's rules, or would they have 'crossed illegally' or would I have never been born because the odds of a Welch and Spaniard meeting not in America are very close to zero.

    For me, I doubt unskilled farmers/lumber jacks, my ancestors, would be allowed into the US today and I sure as hell hope they would have taken the steps to ensure we, their descendants, weren't born in impoverishment and despair.  And I know for a fact, every single soul in my family is damn glad they weren't still in Germany during WWI & WWII.

    I would tell them "F the idiots, your family's welfare is more important that a bunch of jerks who think they have some sort of divine decree to shut the borders once they escaped their impoverishment and despair to others in the same exact circumstances just because they have enjoyed some success.

    Sans a couple of folks, my family is a very successful one, the majority of their descendants are college educated people and law abiding and constructive members of society.  What nearly all descendants of immigrants are, including descendants of Italian, Irish, and Chinese immigrants, the same ones folks just like you discriminated against and insisted will be the decline of America.  I would expect nothing less from Mexican immigrants, why don't you ?


    Sure country has the right to change (none / 0) (#119)
    by sj on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 02:54:53 PM EST
    the rules. But it isn't "the country" that's making a nuisance and abusing the refugees and demanding a rule change, it's the nutters.

    BFD frankly (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by sj on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 02:48:32 PM EST
    My ancestors came here (none / 0) (#62)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 06:32:15 PM MDT

    from Spain and Wales.
    They came in legally and through the system.

    My Spanish ancestors came in long before Ellis Island was open for business. So as far as I'm concerned you're the interloper. As far as my Native American ancestors are concerned, my Spanish ancestors are the interlopers.

    Your pride in your Ellis Island entry is misplaced. You should instead be proud and grateful that Ellis Island existed at all. Have you given the same amount of thought to why they came? I think that's the bigger issue.

    What were their circumstances that the better choice was to leave their homes and their families and their heritage, and show up nearly empty-handed in some unknown foreign country? What would your circumstances have to be for you to flee the USA? I think you should stop talking and start thinking and give that matter some real reflection.

    As to why have boarders at all? For a little extra income? As for why should we have "borders"? As far as I'm concerned it's only for convenience. They are a management tool.

    What do you think they're for?


    It's not Obama who has refused to (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 05:07:43 PM EST
    bring an immigration reform bill to a vote - that's a Republican failure.  Republican.  So, just stop with the lie that this is all about Obama playing politics.  It's Republicans refusing to vote on a bill that contains provisions that Republicans said they wanted.

    Your comment reveals a shocking ignorance of the conditions and situation these children are trying to escape; I'm sure if the children of the countries you mentioned didn't have an ocean standing in the way, they might have undertaken to come here.

    If you want to lecture people about the lack of immigration reform and solutions to the problems, talk to the Republicans standing in the way.


    Don't make excuses for him (2.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 07:34:58 PM EST
    He doesn't lead on anything.

    He leaves it to congress, play's politics and then tells everyone while it's their fault not his.

    Last time I checked he's the president.   If he wanted to actually do something other then play politics he would have by now.  

    I grow so tired of why it's the party who controls 1/3 of government's fault.

    Dems have controlled 2/3 or all of government for 5 years.

    Why didn't they do anything in his first term?   Why?

    How about we start holding the party that controls most of government responsible for what's going on.


    Obama's first term (none / 0) (#77)
    by jmacWA on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 06:47:17 AM EST
    Because he is A republican wet dream, they get what they want and say someone with a "D" behind their name is the culprit.  The list of reforms that could have been enacted by a Democrat with control of both houses is long (starting with National Health care).  

    Once again, assuming all "D"s (none / 0) (#107)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 12:35:57 PM EST
     want the same thing We liberals have every right to complain about things that were not done by Democrats.

    No one in their right mind (1.50 / 2) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 05:44:03 PM EST
    wants a reform (read - AMENSTY) bill until the border is closed.

    Of course those in their left minds.....


    Because In Republican Wet Dreams... (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 12:40:20 PM EST
    ...the border can actually be 'closed', doesn't matter that it's 2000 miles with rivers and mountains and oceans, and wildlife that requires crossing to survive; somehow, without increasing taxes, it can be 'closed'

    It's like the saying that we reform our drugs laws just as soon as we can stop them from entering the country.

    Their entire premise of negotiation is predicated on an impossible feat.

    Never mind all US industry that requires an open border, ditto for wildlife, and the fact that at each end of the border is an ocean that can't be 'closed' by human beings today or in the foreseeable future.

    Same great minds who are convinced we can stop drugs from coming into the country, never mind the endless amounts of evidence proving it to be an impossible feat.


    Slado, these kids are special (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 08:59:43 AM EST
    because the U.S. tortured their parents and grandparents.  Because the U.S. supported genocide ....and toppled their democracy in favor of a dictator.

    actually, "special" (none / 0) (#135)
    by thomas rogan on Sat Jul 12, 2014 at 09:51:18 PM EST
    Special means that Central American kids get to stay here longer before deportation due to an old law about s-x trafficking, and many have other friends/family already in the US (what family members send unaccompanied kids otherwise--everywhere else in the world the whole family becomes refugees).

    Bush signed that law... (none / 0) (#136)
    by unitron on Sat Jul 12, 2014 at 10:27:33 PM EST
    ...on his way out the door, so it's not all that old.

    I was talking about a broader (none / 0) (#144)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 08:38:16 AM EST
    principle--why the U.S. has a moral obligation to these kids.

    Political asylum (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by CST on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 09:44:22 AM EST
    Is something we offer to certain immigrants.  So yes, we should take in kids from Somalia/Syria/Nigeria/Palestine, and we sometimes do   (for example).

    The reality is it is harder for people from those places to reach the United States because there is an ocean in between us and them.  It makes sense that you would have more people coming from Central America because it's much easier to get here from there.


    In practicality, this group is different (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 11:05:56 AM EST
    because they are able to walk or be driven across our border where there are no checkpoints, albeit with great personal difficulty. Someone from Somalia needs to board a shop or plane, crossing many more checkpoints and borders to get here. But if they were able to do that I would advocate treating them like refugees.

    The scope of this problem is limited by these practicalities to refugees in our own back yard. Therefore all the extrapolation arguments to millions of other people are pretty obviously meaningless hyperbole and scare tactics and I have not responded to each one of them.


    50k kids - this sentence fits (none / 0) (#130)
    by Jack203 on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 07:52:21 PM EST
    Give me your tired, your poor, 
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, 
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. 
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, 
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

    Actual Inscription (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:42:34 PM EST
    I like it because it's put the quote in context:

    New Colossus

    Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
    Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
    "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

    With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

    And here we are with our storied pomp and burned out flame, the frail old woman weeps to the huddled masses who year to breathe free, "Go back, go back to your chains of oppression and hopelessness because republicans have deemed the richest Nation on Earth, too good for you."

    Shameful. Shameful. Shameful.


    Well, in that context.... (none / 0) (#165)
    by unitron on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 12:13:48 PM EST
    ...it sounds like The Statue of Liberty was supposed to be put on the West Coast near San Fransisco.

    Imagine, if instead of saying "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." to Europe, we had said it to Asia back then.

    Many, many splodey heads.


    What a bunch of bigotted rubbish (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:20:49 PM EST
    This is the Republican soul.

    Why can't these children stay (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 07:02:48 AM EST
    If an American home requests to foster them?

    American foster kids have enough trouble (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 11:07:21 AM EST
    Speaking from painful first hand experience as someone who had to call off an adoption of a foster child because it was negatively affecting my own child to an obvious degree, this is much easier said than done.

    OMG...few children are easy (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 06:09:56 PM EST
    One of my friends who is a counselor says it is sometimes easier often to work with adopted parents and adopted families than those confronting their own DNA, adopting parents often have fewer expectations they attempt to imprint on their children and the whole family takes differences less personally.

    Nobody is perfect, no child is perfect, no family is perfect, and every form of that imperfection beats abandonment every time.  I never said fostering was perfect Dadler, but let's face it, along with sad stories there are good stories and with a developing psyche everything trumps abandoned.  


    Why don't we adopt all of our (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 04:31:40 PM EST
    native born children before we worry about the world?

    I think most of them are Jim (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 05:11:15 PM EST
    Unless their personalities are too toxic, such as what happened to Dadler's family.  Many kids in foster care are waiting.  A parent is in jail or something else going on.  

    What they should do is (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 08:14:55 AM EST
    go to their native countries and do enough regime changes that the problems disappear.

    At the same time the children, parents, et al should be returned forth with to their native country.

    We cannot take in the world.

    And I know this heartless and sad.

    But I also know it is true.

    Except for... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 09:30:45 AM EST

    "What they should do is...go to their native countries and do enough regime changes that the problems disappear."

    ...the somewhat special case/unique combination of circumstances of our defeat of Japan and Germany, has that approach ever worked out?

    In cases where a well-meaning government is unable to overcome the drug lords, etc, how would eliminating that government weaken the drug lords?


    Glad you asked (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 04:34:57 PM EST
    Instead of leaving, as Obama has done in Iraq, I would appoint a Viceroy and stay. If they can't govern themselves and that means that we have problems then we have every right to do so.

    Maybe in a hundred years or so we can leave.

    In the meantime a stable self government is obviously not possible.


    I encourage you to read (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 08:51:42 AM EST
    about Central America.

    Do you know what the U.S. did to Central America?

    Really.  Do you know anything about the region?


    Yes MKS (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 04:33:50 PM EST
    I've kept up.

    But the fact remains that these are part of a wave of people of all ages. And many of these "children" are in their late teens and only in America would they be considered "children."


    Yeah, That Won't Displace Anyone (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 02:24:05 PM EST
    But more importantly, this is precisely the right's world view, it's perfectly fine to spend 100's of billions on war and destruction, but god forbid we spend a nickel peacefully helping people in need.

    We aren't taking in the world Jim, we are taking in people who are trying to escape unfathomable conditions, many of them women and children.

    But we know we you would stand on lifeboats on the titanic.

    We have the space, the resources, and not taking in people in need is ungodly, not that I believe, but I am tired of Christians demanding we send them back to the horror show.


    that is not true (none / 0) (#33)
    by nyjets on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 02:58:04 PM EST
    We have neither the space or resources. There are to many American citizens without jobs or resources themselves. I would rather we took care of our own first.

    Really, we Don't Hvae the Room or Resources ? (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 03:14:58 PM EST
    Here is a density map, please explain why we have no room.

    Need I remind the right that we are the richest Nation on Earth and nearly every single soul in this grand country is a product of immigrants who came from less than favorable conditions in their home countries.

    Why can't these kids and adults be productive members of our great society ?


    They might want to check out the back story (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 03:22:04 PM EST
    on a certain SC Justice to see what an immigrant's daughter can do :) Oh yeah, and her brother is a Dr. . . .

    a little misleading (none / 0) (#40)
    by nyjets on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 03:22:17 PM EST
    A lot of the land which has little population are unpopulated for a reason. They can not support cities and towns.
    Also, we might be the 'richest nation' however we are in a middle of a recession. To many people are without jobs or resources. Do you honestly think we can handle more people.

    Trust Me... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 03:56:41 PM EST
    ...there are approximately 4 million babies born here every year and people are living longer.

    It's funny how were are always full in the context of the border, but not when medicine keeps people living longer and when people keep having babies, never a mention of us filling up.

    I think we could handle a billion easy, China and India have and they have less space(depends if you count the great lakes), and the fact is unless we blow ourselves up, it will happen.  Ditto for 2,3, and 4 billion.

    We hit 100M in 1915, 200M in 1968, and 300M in 2006.  And the entire time, life and wealth has vastly improved.  We will hit a half billion in my lifetime and only be a third of China's current population.


    Would you really? (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 03:50:55 PM EST
    Because what we keep hearing from conservatives is that people need to help themselves, and if they can't, well - too bad, so sad. The thinking seems to be that if you haven't managed to succeed in life, you really don't deserve help, just scorn.  

    I don't have the time to list the many ways in which conservatives have demonstrated, over and over again, that they really don't want to help people who need it, but trust me when I tell you, the list is a long one.  Shamefully long.

    The reality is that we don't have to draw the line at not helping anyone else until we've helped "our own;" if we're going to talk about our druthers, though, I'd rather we take the money we spend - waste - on all the security and detention and interdiction and prosecution and deportation and spend it on feeding people who don't know where their next meal is coming from, housing people who are sleeping on the streets, clothing people who have nothing but the clothes on their backs and educating people who can't go to school because they have no permanent address.

    Whether we're talking about migrants or US residents, we're still largely talking about people who aren't to blame for the condition of their lives, and insisting that they marinate in their hunger and homelessness and fear is unconscionable.   At least to me.

    And that goes for "those people" as well as for "our own."

    Funny, isn't it, that all the God talk only seems to be for the purpose of finding ways to keep people down and making their lives more miserable instead of lifting them up?  

    So funny I forgot to laugh.


    If you are writing to me (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 04:41:01 PM EST
    please remember that I am not a conservative, what ever that is nowadays, b jut a Social Liberal.

    The point is, at point would you stop?? Should we take in 10 million? 10? 100????


    You might want to rethink that (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 04:44:12 PM EST
    social liberal tag you like to give yourself. . .

    Nope, don't have to (1.50 / 2) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 05:48:06 PM EST
    I support liberal causes, as most Americans do. It is those on the Left that I can't identify with.

    For example....


    Yes, because that one video ... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 07:01:42 PM EST
    ... that you keep posting is representative of "the Left".

    Pfffffttttt ...

    BTW - Oh, look, I guess you can't identify with conservatives, either - Conservatives call for the lynchlng of 0bama.


    Another one (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 07:08:58 PM EST
    Tea partiers like the idea of lynchlng Sen. Patty Murray.

    Wow ... guess you can't identify with your Tea Party buddies, either ...


    Every now and then even you are right (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 07:52:27 PM EST
    Don't support either one. Bad bad.

    Of course your source provides no proof that these people are "Tea Partiers" beyond what the AP says they are "tea party."

    And Eastern WA and ID have been known for their wackos for years.

    But the thing I find despicable is that there is no such thing as a "tea party." Yet the reporters use the name as if it exists.

    That's just as lie. But then that's what we expect from the press today.

    And newspapers wonder why they are loosing readers.


    Your hilarious hypocrisy (none / 0) (#68)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 08:08:40 PM EST
    You attack "the Left" because of what one person says in a video.  You say there "is no proof these people are Tea Partiers" - despite the fact that it was a meeting of the Lewis & Clark Tea Party Patriots, while providing no proof that the person on the video is "the Left".  You claim that Eastern WA and ID have "been known for their wackos for years" - suggesting these hundreds of Tea Partiers are not representative - while using one person's comments to attack "the Left".  You claim there is no such thing as a "Tea Party" and call it a media lie - despite the fact that dozens of Tea Party groups actually exist - while attacking "the Left".

    Are you actually trying to be funny, or does it just come out that way?


    You got me (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 11:18:21 AM EST
    I didn't see that last line in the link.. my bad..

    But my base point remains.

    There is no national tea party just as there is no nation left party which you have agreed with me on.


    Exactly Jim... (none / 0) (#102)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    ..there is no Tea Party, it's all Republicans trying to re-brand themselves after the GWB disaster.

    A myth that Palin and Cruz have deemed themselves some sort of monarchy of.


    Guess you "missed" ... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 01:20:27 PM EST
    ... the video with all the Tea Party signs, shirts, etc., too.

    The fact that there is no formal, national organization called the "Tea Party" doesn't mean there's no such thing as Tea Partiers.


    And even though there is Leftie Party (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 04:56:44 PM EST
    that doesn't mean there is no such as Lefties.


    But I return to my main point. Charles Johnson, no surprise here, used the wrong name in his headline:

    Tea Party Speaker Calls for a Lynching

    The correct name is:

    Lewis & Clark Tea Party Patriots,

    Why did he do that?? To try and brand a larger number of people by inference. That's just dishonest.

    The video clip is titled "Tea Party Politics" the female talking head refers to "the local Tea Party" which definitely paints a picture of a larger organization.

    And it works. Almost all uninformed people I have spoken with, believe that their is a national Tea Party. Anecdotal, of course, but telling.

    OTOH Code Pink is a national organization.


    Let us know what comes up when (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 12, 2014 at 09:41:29 AM EST
    you Google "national Tea Party."

    Oh, right - you probably won't do that, so I'll do it for you.

    First result is for

    Tea Party Patriots - America's Fastest Growing Movement  
    ‎  Their mission statement is:

    Tea Party Patriots stands for every American, and is home to millions who have come together to pursue the American Dream and to keep that Dream alive for their children and grandchildren.

    What unites the tea party movement is the same set of core principles that brought America together at its founding, that kindled the American Dream in the hearts of those who struggled to build our nation, and made the United States of America the greatest, most successful country in world history.

    Second result is for

       Tea Party - Join the Movement. Support the Tea Party.

    Mission statement:

    The Tea Party is a grassroots movement that calls awareness to any issue which challenges the security, sovereignty, or domestic tranquility of our beloved nation, the United States of America. From our founding, the Tea Party represents the voice of the true owners of the United States: WE THE PEOPLE.

    TeaParty.org was created on: September 2nd, 2004. Many claim to be the founders of this movement; however, it was the brave souls of the men and women in 1773, known today as the Boston Tea Party, who dared to defy the greatest military might on earth. We are the beneficiaries of their courage.

    Let's compare to the Code Pink entry, shall we?  First up:

    CODEPINK : Index

    Mission statement?  Here ya go:

    CODEPINK is a women-initiated grassroots peace and social justice movement working to end U.S. funded wars and occupations, to challenge militarism globally, and to redirect our resources into health care, education, green jobs and other life-affirming activities.

    Is there a national tea party?  There may not be a registered political party, but there is no question there is a national tea party organization - actually several of them - and there are affiliated state and local organizations.

    So, just stop splitting hairs, jim.  If the people involved in these organizations refer to the Tea Party - if they're fighting over who owns the name - I think it's safe to say that they believe they are part of something national.  

    But we'll be sure to look for evidence of the campaign you'll be undertaking to eradicate the term from common usage because it doesn't fit your requirements for making silly arguments on a left-leaning blog.

    ::rolling eyes::


    Because... (none / 0) (#132)
    by unitron on Sat Jul 12, 2014 at 12:09:50 AM EST
    ..."Lewis & Clark Tea Party Patriots Speaker Calls for a Lynching" is rather long and unwieldy as a headline?

    For good or for ill, the general industry consensus is that headlines should be short and punchy.

    And generally whoever writes the actual story is not the person who writes the headline.


    I would take all the children of (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 08:53:46 AM EST
    Guatemala and half of their 12 million total population.

    Want to discuss why?


    I try and never discuss (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 10:43:09 AM EST
    obviously silly statements.

    Now, how many will you take that you can actually care for??


    It is not a silly statement (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 12:31:12 PM EST
    You are uninformed.

    You need to know the background to understand whey these kids are coming here.


    You know, I don't care why (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 05:01:28 PM EST
    these people, children, adults and all between, are coming here.

    They are here. They have no right to be. We have some silly law that Obama is using to release as many as possible into the general population supposedly believing they will come back for a hearing and deportation.

    Yeah. Sure. And if you believe that there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to tell you about.


    You should care why (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 08:21:50 PM EST
    If the U.S. caused the problem in the first place.....then we need to fix the resulting problems.....You know the Pottery Barn Rule from the Bush Administration.

    But ignorance is bliss.....


    Are you claiming the poverty in Central America (none / 0) (#137)
    by Jack203 on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 09:13:41 AM EST
    Is the US's fault?


    If you think communism was the answer in Central America during the late 70's and 80's and all would be wonderful if they had won.  I'm afraid you are just as delusional as the neocons of today.


    I would be happy to discuss this (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 10:21:28 AM EST
    with you.  

    You seem to imply that the U.S. policy in Central America was correct in the 1970s and 1980s because we were fighting Communism.  Is that what you are saying?

    What the U.S. did in Guatemala, and the rest of Central American, was not fight Communism.   The U.S. supported military dictatorships that tortured its own people and engaged in genocide.  The U.S.--and the Reagan Administration primarily--supported those efforts.

    Do you really want to throw your support behind what we did to Guatemala?

    I do know about this, I know more about this subject than perhaps any other.  I was living there at the time.  

    Guatemala, since the CIA overthrew its Democracy in 1954, had suffered one dictator after another.   Every few years a group of middle class university students would start some type of armed resistance and they would be dispatched quite quickly.   But those students were middle class Ladinos (non-Mayan) from the Capital.   More than half of Guatemala's population was rural and indigenous and spoke little if any Spanish.  What torched the Civil War was the massacre of Mayans in the countryside.  The Mayans fought back, fought for their land,  fought for their freedom.  They were intensely religious, so I never understood how they could be classified as communists, as if that were reason to kill and torture them.  They were also democratic.  

    And, Reagan decided to back Rios-Montt, a butcher who engaged in the infamous beans or bullets campaign.  At one point, over 100,00 Ixil Maya were on the run trying to escape U.S. made, trained and equipped helicopters that were chasing them.  Men, women and children, carrying as many of their possessions as they could were gunned down mercilessly.

    The conservatives here engaged in the rankest form of apology for the Guatemalan Military.  They were lying.  The Peace Accords in 1996 led to first the Gerardi Report, an official Catholic Church report on the war, and then the UN Truth Commission.  Both are devastating reading.  The Gerardi report, and he gave his life for that report as he was murdered two days after publishing it, establishes the murder and torture of innocent people on an unbelievable scale by the Guatemalan military, which was trained, equipped and given intelligence by the U.S.  

    And there is more.  I believe Dick Cheney was personally responsible for running the torture chambers in Guatemala.  I can lay out my case if you like.


    Fascinating. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Jack203 on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 12:20:12 PM EST
    You obviously know a thousand times more about this topic than me.  Love to ask you about it....and please correct me where I'm wrong.

    I understand long civil wars can be devastating to countries, and that wars are almost never about good vs evil.  Both sides have elements of each.
    I understand desperation in war leads to atrocities.  The more desperate one side is, the more atrocities are usually committed.

    I am skeptical that Guatemalans would be better if left wing forces won the civil war.
    Weren't the goals of the revolutionaries to nationalize the private industry? If the majority supports stealing, isn't it still stealing?

    I'm all for very high taxes on the rich. But I do think nationalizing private business is wrong.

    Yes, very interested in the Dick Cheney in Guatemala subject.  I have never heard of this before.


    "nationalize" private industry? (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    There wasn't much industry to nationalize, so, no, I doubt that was a goal.

    What industry existed was foreign owned.

    In terms of land, it all depends on your perspective as to who owned it, and that was a big issue for the Mayans.

    Cheney:  His friend from Wyoming, Thomas Stroock was U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala, when Cheney was Secretary of Defense in the late 1980s.   At that time, the Guatemalan Civil War was raging and accounts of torture abound.  The U.S. was still in the Reagan mode of backing the Guatemalan Military.  That included training their military leaders at the School of the Americas at Ft. Benning, Georgia in "interrogation" and "abduction" techniques--according to course syballus that have been release and published.

    All of that above is well established by the public record.  In addition, there is the personal account of Sister Dianna Ortiz, a Catholic nun who was abducted, raped in tortured while in Guatemala.  She says she was released from the torture chamber when a blond man who spoke English with an American accent entered the torture chamber and ordered her released.  She fled to the U.S. Embassy where Stroock and his wife publicly stated they doubted her story.   She has, though, some 112 cigarette burn marks on her back.  Sr. Dianna went public in her own defense.  At one point, Stroock said that Sr. Dianna was being ungrateful for what he had done to help her--in reference to her release from the torture chamber.  Hillary was one of the few public officials to validate Sr. Dianna, taking her into the White House to be photographed with her.  I believe that Hillary's witnessing Sr. Dianna's vigil outside the White House directly led to a change in U.S. policy including the release and declassification of thousands of U.S. documents, which confirmed the U.S. overthrow of Arbenz and knowledge of the 1980 death squads.

    The trail to Cheney.  I have found evidence, through Google, so all legal, of Cheney's itinerary as Secretary of Defense, placing him in Guatemala at Stroock's residence a few months after Sr. Dianna's release, when the public campaign against Sr. Dianna was intense and apparently the main order of business for the U.S. Embassy there.

    Cheney has publicly extolled what the U.S. did in Central America.  He was the conduit while Secretary of Defense for U.S. aid to the Guatemalan military while the Civil War raged.  He was physically present in Guatemala at a critical time.  His longtime friend from Wyoming who helped Cheney get into Yale was named U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala when Cheney was appointed Secretary of Defense.  That Ambassador implied he had control over the torture chambers in Guatemala, to the extent he could direct who could be released.  An American, a CIA agent believed to be Randy Capister (again part of the public record), was the person present in the torture chambers and running them.

    A deposition of Dick Cheney would reveal imo a Jack Nicholson moment of "Your goddam right I  ordered torture."


    Hypocrisy (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jack203 on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 09:20:12 PM EST
    There is hypocrisy from the left and the right.  The right may be worse, but that's not saying much.

    I have met plenty of Christians that are extremely good people.  Your characterizations are getting ridiculous.

    I'm glad you want to help people that need help.  But there are a lot of people and children who need help everywhere around the globe.  How do we decide who, when, where and how to help?  These are the questions.  You've answered who, when, and where. The 50k kids that made it to our country.  Ok, how?  If you were Obama, what would you do, and how would you get it passed in Congress?

    Do you think there is any danger in Obama coming out and saying to all poor countries in Central/South America hey pack your kids up with the coyote gangs and ship them to us?

    In my opinion, it's a complex situation that Obama will need to tread cautiously.  In the end, I think we will not ship home the vast majority of the children now or in the future, but we will try to make counter measures to try not to incentivize mothers from around the world in doing this.


    Start with where in the last (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 09:24:00 PM EST
    few years we have hurt the countries of origin of the immigrants...

    Where did we knock off a democracy in favor of a dictator?

    Where did we support torture and genocide?

    To which country did  Dick Cheney's friend from Wyoming become U.S. Ambassador and implicitly admit to control over the torture chambers?


    Not sure what Jeralyn is talking about here (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 09:58:22 AM EST

    What is DOJ's solution? Yesterday it announced a new policy. [More...]

    *Increase funding to immigration courts, not for lawyers to represent them, but to speed up the deportation process.
    *Increase funding to the Governments of Mexico and Central America for crime fighting, via "law enforcement capacity building" and "combatting transnational crime and the threat posed by criminal gangs."

    From her own link:

    Cole announced that the department's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) will refocus its resources to prioritize cases involving migrants who have recently crossed the southwest border and whom DHS has placed into removal proceedings - so that these cases are processed both quickly and fairly to enable prompt removal in appropriate cases, while ensuring the protection of asylum seekers and others.

    "This refocusing of resources will allow EOIR to prioritize the adjudication of the cases of those individuals involved in the evolving situation at the southwest border," said EOIR Director Juan P. Osuna.  "Although our case management priorities are shifting, our immigration judges will continue to evaluate and rule upon cases consistent with all substantive and procedural rights and safeguards applicable to immigration proceedings."

    To augment its capacity to adjudicate cases as promptly as possible, EOIR is committed to hiring more immigration judges.  EOIR this week will also publish a regulation allowing for the appointment of temporary immigration judges.  Further, EOIR plans both to expand its existing legal access programs, and enhance access to legal resources and assistance for persons in removal proceedings.

    Cole also announced that the Department is seeking new funding, as a part of the President's emergency supplemental appropriations request, to assist Central American countries in combatting transnational crime and the threat posed by criminal gangs.  This regional strategy for law enforcement capacity building would be aimed at addressing the issues that have been a factor in forcing many migrants to flee Central America for the United States

    But this wasn't mentioned (from June 6).

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), which administers AmeriCorps, and the Department of Justice today announced "justice AmeriCorps," a strategic partnership to increase national service opportunities while enhancing the effective and efficient adjudication of immigration proceedings involving certain children who have crossed the U.S. Border without a parent or legal guardian.

    The interagency agreement reflects the spirit of a Presidential Memorandum issued on July 15, 2013 that established the Task Force on Expanding National Service. The Task Force calls on federal agency leaders to identify ways to address some of the nation's most pressing challenges by expanding national service.

    "With the launch of justice AmeriCorps, we're taking a historic step to strengthen our justice system and protect the rights of the most vulnerable members of society," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "How we treat those in need, particularly young people who must appear in immigration proceedings - many of whom are fleeing violence, persecution, abuse, or trafficking - goes to the core of who we are as a nation. Through this program, we reaffirm our allegiance to the values that have always shaped our pursuit of justice. We empower new generations of aspiring attorneys and paralegals to serve their country and stand on the front lines of this fight. And we bolster both the efficacy and the efficiency of our immigration courts."

    "Young immigrant children entering the U.S., often under dangerous circumstances, represent some of the most vulnerable individuals who interact with our immigration system," said Wendy Spencer, CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service. "AmeriCorps members will provide critical support for these children, many of whom are escaping abuse, persecution, or violence. The justice AmeriCorps partnership responds to a direct call from Congress, and reflects how national service can be a part of the solution to some of the most challenging issues facing our country today."

    The partnership, known as "justice AmeriCorps," is a grant program that will enroll approximately 100 lawyers and paralegals as AmeriCorps members to provide legal services to the most vulnerable of these children, responding to Congress' direction to DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review "to better serve vulnerable populations such as children and improve court efficiency through pilot efforts aimed at improving legal representation." In addition, DOJ officials believe the AmeriCorps members will help identify unaccompanied immigrant children who have been victims of human trafficking or abuse to assist in the investigation and prosecution of those who perpetrate such crimes on those children.

    please be respectful of bandwidth and do not (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 05:05:55 PM EST
    reprint more than short paragraph or two of material published elsewhere. Link to it and only quote enough to make your point.

    I would send (none / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 08:57:02 AM EST
    foreign aid to Central America.  

    That would go a lot further in solving the problem.  

    thread cleaned (none / 0) (#116)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 02:18:27 PM EST
    of sniping and personal attacks between commenters.

    I have to admit (none / 0) (#117)
    by Slado on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 02:25:44 PM EST
    When you put it this way

    I'm a little more sympathetic to the argument we should let these kids stay.

    One last time (none / 0) (#127)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 05:08:33 PM EST
    please stay on topic. If you want to insult each other or talk about tea party politics in general, you'll have to get your own blog. I'm interested in your views on the child migrant issue.

    Jim, Yman particularly, take note.

    OK, I'll do my part. (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 05:17:00 PM EST