Carl DeMaio has a simple solution to how we handle the tens of thousands of desperate Central American children who have presented themselves to the Border Patrol: Send them home.

Don’t give them hearings for asylum. Don’t screen them to ensure they’re not being trafficked.

Scott Lewis on Politics LogoThe spokesman for the former San Diego City Councilman, now a congressional candidate, gave me that take Tuesday in a statement about the need for a secure border. And he joins a growing group of Republicans making the same point.

“You cannot have a secure border if anyone can get in by asserting a right of asylum. Carl supports substantial improvements in federal border security as well as a change in the law so these individuals can be turned away,” spokesman Dave McCulloch wrote.


Support Independent Journalism in San Diego Today

 Learn more about member benefits

It was an unambiguous take on the dilemma. But it took some time to get to it. Just days earlier, DeMaio had batted away the question from KPBS about what to do with the youth who had arrived here.

“Until you secure the border you can make all sorts of other changes in immigration rules and it will still not solve the crisis of a steady flow of individuals breaking the law, crossing the border and putting a strain on communities such as San Diego,” he said.

That was a pretty standard answer for the overall immigration issue. But this question isn’t about people sneaking across the border and melting into society. These kids are presenting themselves to the Border Patrol.

We are currently holding them, and protests about what is being done for them have provoked a major national debate.

I couldn’t help but ask DeMaio what more border enforcement would achieve for people who aren’t trying to evade it.

“I tend to focus on dealing with roots of problems, not symptoms. An unsecured border is the core problem,” he wrote to me when I mentioned his comments on Twitter.

The core of the problem, though, is much further away. The sudden migration of children from Central America to the Texas border has flummoxed officials, frustrated Border Patrol agents and caused both intense anger and sympathy from people on all sides of the discussion.

And DeMaio’s stance is a bold one. He’s saying we should get rid of a 2008 law that passed Congress unopposed.

It’s called the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 and it was a product of former President George W. Bush and a bipartisan group of lawmakers. It’s not totally clear how much this law and others have contributed to apparent confusion over what happens to kids who make it to this country.

But the fact is many of them are released temporarily into the country to live with family members here, potentially for years as they await hearings.

The law says we have to screen unaccompanied youth who come to this country. We have to determine whether they are being trafficked or are in other danger.

The United States can hand children from Mexico or Canada over to authorities across the border quickly. But Central American youth must be held for longer periods.

The Border Patrol has to deliver the kids over to the Department of Health and Human Services and it places them in facilities or releases them to their families while they wait for the government to decide if they deserve asylum.

But typically we have to deal with a few thousand of them. This year, it’s up tenfold. Check out this graphic from Foreign Policy magazine. The increase in referrals to the Unaccompanied Alien Children program is extraordinary. The system is overwhelmed and that’s why, for instance, Escondido was asked to consider a new facility.

UC San Diego professor and immigration expert Wayne Cornelius reminded me kids coming from Central America have been riding on top of trains to get to the United States since the 1980s. This year, though, the numbers are skyrocketing, both those hopping on dangerous trains and the ones who find other routes.

Yet the number of unaccompanied youth arriving from Mexico has remained steady. And it’s not just the United States witnessing this influx.

Countries like Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Mexico are dealing with big spikes in applications for asylum.

Gaps in our border security alone could not have caused these things. This all means something terrible is happening in three countries: Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.

If DeMaio is interested in finding the root of this problem, he can’t stop at our border. He’ll need to make his way to Tegucigalpa. It is not just the poverty and crime in those countries. The Border Patrol claims that these kids are confused that they will be allowed to stay. Cornelius agrees there’s some of that.

“But what’s really going on now is there are extremely powerful push factors in the countries where these children and mothers are coming. As long as those push factors remain as strong as they are now, it’s inconceivable that any investment in our border security will be a sufficient deterrent,” he said.

So then, what does DeMaio’s rival, Rep. Scott Peters say?

Gotta enforce the border better! At first, responding to that same KPBS inquiry, Peters pulled out his own talking points and said the current dilemma highlights why we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform. It’s an argument Vox called “dead wrong.”

The legislation Peters is referencing, which passed the U.S. Senate but hasn’t gotten a vote in the House, would do little to impact this situation. It does add money for immigration courts and enforcement, which might speed up the time it takes to process unaccompanied children.

So I followed up with Peters too. DeMaio’s position may be merciless, but it’s clear: Send them back, Bush and all the others were wrong about human trafficking.

Peters released a statement that again reiterated his support for comprehensive reform. He also agreed with DeMaio that more enforcement would deter these kids.

“[Comprehensive immigration reform] includes much tougher border security, which would have discouraged many from attempting to cross in the first place, and it includes funds for a much greater number of immigration judges so asylum seekers could be processed more quickly,” Peters wrote.

It’s hard to picture how trying to detain more kids impacts kids who are already detained.

As for the question of asylum, Peters only reiterated that current law requires they be given a hearing.

And here I should put my bias on the table. I have enormous sympathy for kids who flee their countries. No matter what you think about the issue, if a child can make it from Honduras to Texas with no money and only hope, that’s a child with potential.

My great-grandmother had potential. Her Volga German family fled Russia early in the 20th century and landed at Ellis Island.

The authorities would not allow her father, mother and siblings to enter the country because of health concerns. So my 13-year-old great grandmother entered the United States alone. Everyone else made their way to South America and she never saw her family again.

She ended up in Colorado and worked on a farm until a shepherd, 20 years older than her, took her away and married her.

Kids have a different relationship with fear and with threats. I personally don’t see how border enforcement stops desperate young people fleeing chaos.

In fact, security — order, in place of chaos — may be exactly what they crave. If we want to deny them the hope of staying, we can make that decision and change the law.

But let’s not pretend we can stoke any more fear in them than they’ve already faced.

    This article relates to: 52nd Congressional District Race, Border, Border Crossing, News, Politics, Share

    Written by Scott Lewis

    I'm Scott Lewis, the editor in chief of Voice of San Diego. Please contact me if you'd like at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org or 619.325.0527 and follow me on Twitter (it's a blast!): @vosdscott.

    96 comments
    Mark Giffin
    Mark Giffin subscribermember

    David is correct on this point. The dream act is not law but rather Obamas executive order in June 2012.

    Resulted in a Department of Homeland Security directive that would prevent DREAM Act-eligible undocumented immigrants from being deported. policy change in homeland security.

    The Executive Order / Deferred Action - Memo from Janet Napolitano re: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children

    A new policy from the Department of Homeland Security signed by Janet Napolotanio on June 15, 2012 and endorced by President Obama provides for temporary legal residence status for people who would have qualified under the never-passed Dream Act.

    To qualify to apply for the status, applicants are required to:

    • Have come to the U.S. under the age of sixteen
    • Have continuously resided in the US for at least five years preceding June 15, 2012 and were in the U.S. on that day
    • Be currently in school, or graduated from high school, or obtained a GED or have been honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States
    • Have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, multiple minor misdemeanors or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety
    • Not be above the age of thirty

    If a person meets those requirements, the order will allow him or her to apply to remain in the U.S. and receive a work permit and protection from deportation for two years, with the possibility of renewal.

    Obama said in a statement about his order: "This is not amnesty, this is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix." Unlike the Dream Act, this executive order does not provide a pathway for permanent status. But, many hope it will be the first step to allowing undocumented immigrant aliens who came to the United States as children a pathway to permanent residency

    Richard Ross
    Richard Ross subscribermember

    The win win answer is to bring all of our middle East troops home now and put them on our borders. Then bus all all the undocumented migrants along with Scott Peters and ship them back across our Southern Border. Finally we need to amend our outdated bill of rights such that pregnant foreigners who give birth in the U.S. that those children are not automatically citizens. Most of the forebears of legal citizens of this country came through Ellis Island the hard way. Enough is enough...sustainability must be at the top of the list. We cannot endure infinite population growth.

    -P
    -P subscriber

    @Richard Ross To be technical, that's in the 14th amendment, not the Bill of Rights. Citizenship by birth is the law in the majority of countries in the western hemisphere. Some argue that the 14th is only about ex-slaves, but, according to the decision in the US Supreme Court case, Plyler v Doe, (that's the decision that said that if public education is provided, it must be provided for all children, whatever their immigration status) the framers of that particular amendment that the "persons" referred to in the amendment are about all persons, "not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be,"    It wasn't until 1875 that the US federal gov't passed the first immigration law, the so called "Asian Exclusion Act"


    Richard Ross
    Richard Ross subscribermember

    -P... To be technical the bill of rights and the 14th are all ammendments to the constitution.

    -P
    -P subscriber

    @Richard Ross I never said the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, were not Constitutional Amendments. At the time of the Bill of Rights, immigration was much easier, provided, of course, that the person was a "free white person" and was able to convince a judge that  he/she was a "person of good moral character". All that was required was was live here for 2 years, apply to a judge and swear an oath. Furthermore, any children of the applicant under 20 years old will then automatically become citizens. Also, "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States"

    http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html


    By the time the 14th amendment was written, immigration was more difficult.

    Craig Carter
    Craig Carter subscriber

    Immigration must be a strict process and is for some. Even if you pass a new law for this particular situation they will simply stop turning themselves in.  It's estimated that 11 million are here already illegally so its even more complicated when those give birth to American citizens.  Why not attack the problem at its roots? We are in the jungles of Columbia fighting a "drug war" yet legalizing some of the very drugs coming over.  I don't think we burned many poppy fields in Afgan yet that is one of the source for heroin.  So with agreement and assistance from those countries set up the along those borders and stop the long journey before it starts.  Mexico should be doing more but why should they? Billions are sent back home so they would be cutting their own throat and perhaps the even poorer countries feel the same way. But amnesty and this dream act that was passed does nothing but fuel the fire. 

    David Benz
    David Benz subscriber

    @Craig Carter "But amnesty and this dream act that was passed does nothing but fuel the fire."


    Where in the world do you people get the idea that the Dream Act passed?  Is it Fox or Rush or some other wing nut because multiple people have made this response.  Bobby Jindal was correct, conservatives are the "stupid party".

    Bit-watcher
    Bit-watcher subscriber

    @Craig Carter The money for the "other side" of the drug war comes from many of these happy US folk who turn a blind eye to "recreational" drug use, not caring what it does to the countries where it comes from.  So we're spending tax dollars to combat money from US (and other) drug users.

    It will be interesting to see if VOSD pays attention to that part of the problem.  Not much other media cover it.

    Craig Carter
    Craig Carter subscriber

    @David Benz

    After legislators declined to enact the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act) in the 112th Congress, President Obama initiated the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program on June 15, 2012. He did not bother to issue an Executive Order or White House memorandum regarding the decision. He simply directed Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to draft guidance on applying "prosecutorial discretion" with respect to a certain class of younger immigrants without legal status. 

    So, we get what we want in a different way is all Obama did.  It's  an unofficial Dream Act. I stand corrected!

    Bit-watcher
    Bit-watcher subscriber

    Why can't the intervening country (Mexico) help these kids?  They have money, and have the same language.  

    What's the violence being fled from?  Narco-terrorism?  Who funds that?  North American dollars?  Why not cover that if it's applicable?

    Craig Carter
    Craig Carter subscriber

    @Bit-watcher

    Billions of dollars go back into these countries from the United States. Would make them look very hypocritical.  They are not stopping their own people from entering. And if they stopped in Mexico which some probably do that only hurts the Mexican job market.

    Mark Giffin
    Mark Giffin subscribermember

    @Bit-watcher 

    My understanding is Mexico is one of the toughest on immigration policy legal and illegal.

    Their lack of response and enforcement here is puzzling.

    Mark Giffin
    Mark Giffin subscribermember

    Create a magnet and they will come.

    Chris Brewster
    Chris Brewster subscribermember

    Mr. Giffin: In my view, the major magnet all along has been jobs. Americans and American businesses have offered employment at low wages, but better than wages in the countries of origin. I have long been of the belief that if it were made a federal offense to knowingly hire a non-citizen and a simple way was offered (e.g. EVerify) to determine work eligibility, the bulk of our problems with illegal immigration would end very quickly. Alas, Americans and American businesses of all political stripes hire people they know do not have a right to work in the US. This is in large part a problem related to our greed. The politicians who set policy do not want to turn off the spigot of cheap labor many of their constituents love, but want to rail against the consequences.

    Mark Giffin
    Mark Giffin subscribermember

    @Chris Brewster 

    I agree on this Chris. As a contractor for 30 years I've seen it and the exploitation that goes with it.

    Problem is despite the rhetoric on both sides its a wink, a nod and a don't ask don't tell situation.

    My comments have to do with the subject at hand and that is this phenomenon of mass waves of kids and young mothers.

    Obviously the perception is the can come,stay get work and get an education.

    What needed to change this?

    Mark Giffin
    Mark Giffin subscribermember

    @Chris Brewster 

    "disparage the current administration."

    I do lay much of the blame for this on the Obama administration.

    He is the president and his administration should of seen this coming and been ahead of it. His persona is global and he has been rather flakey on the response (even members of his own party have noted this).

    At the same time "for which we can lately thank the Tea Party." 

    FWIW I don't disagree with that statement.


    Chris Brewster
    Chris Brewster subscribermember

    I agree that the Obama administration has been ham-handed in dealing with this. I'm not sure it would have been possible to see this coming. I don't know. But the root cause appears to be stuff that both parties own.

    Chris Brewster
    Chris Brewster subscribermember

    Mr. Giffin: I don't know a lot about the present phenomenon, but I am understanding that some of the kids have parents (legal or not) in the US that they are coming to join. Others may be legitimately fleeing conditions that might qualify them as refugees under US law. What I'm suggesting is that if we had not (as a country) essentially welcomed unlawful immigration by creating a wink and a nod employment situation, then magnet for many of these kids would not exist (i.e. parents in the country). As well, we would not have the overall level of unlawful occupancy in the US that we have today, which greatly heightens the concern.

    To put this another way: Imagine that we had no undocumented (illegal) immigration problems in the US and kids claiming to be refugees suddenly appeared at the border asking for shelter/protection. My guess is the view would be substantially different and perhaps fairly sympathetic. Alas, we have created a situation in which this relatively small number of children (compared to the larger number of undocumented US residents) and the fact that current law requires that these kids be meticulously processed and in some cases harbored, has created a major reaction.

    While I don't intend for this post to be partisan, clearly it seems that most of the negative reaction is coming from Republicans and other conservatives. Ironically, many of these people are business owners and homeowners who have contributed greatly to the problem (they are not alone in the political spectrum) by hiring business employees and home employees they know or reasonably suspect lack the right to work in this country.

    The normal national hypocrisy surrounding illegal immigration is amplified by a desire to use this crisis to disparage the current administration.

    As for an answer: I presume that repealing the Bush era law that apparently fueled this issue might help, but it might also have consequences, as I gather it was passed for legitimate humanitarian reasons. In any case, I doubt it would happen because an action like this would increase the challenge Republicans already have with Latino voters. So they probably think the best thing to do is to simply use the crisis to advance political goals, while having no real appetite for legitimate solutions.

    It is a political morass emblematic of our current political state of affairs, for which we can lately thank the Tea Party.

    David Benz
    David Benz subscriber

    @Mark Giffin What a joke but it's not surprising you blame Obama, right wingers such as yourself are allergic to facts.


    You think the Dream Act is law and you refuse to admit that the 2008 Law created this mess and it can't be fixed without congressional action.  Your republican house just approved tax cuts last week that will add $100s of billions to our debt instead of closing the 2008 immigration loophole.


    Jindal was spot on with his "stupid party" comment.

    Robert Parkinson
    Robert Parkinson subscriber

    If they were all from Cuba, the Republicans would have greeted them with open arms!

    Joe Point
    Joe Point subscriber

    DeMealyMouth....will say anything to play to the right wing-nut masses.  What he forgets....these hate inspired individuals will turn on him in a second as he is a gay man....another segment of the population they'd like to eliminate from the face of the earth.  Wake up Carl!

    David Cohen
    David Cohen subscriber

    So De-Me-me-me-o's plan is to change the Bush era law. Well, that is a possibility, but until then . . . ?

    Grammie
    Grammie subscribermember

    It just doesn't seem fair that we only reward the poor children who can walk here, admirable as that feat is. What about the poor poor children in Nigeria, Syria, and many other places, from which they can't walk here, no matter how motivated. What are the plans to bring them to safety, as they have just as much right to be here. 

    Gary Vineyard
    Gary Vineyard subscriber

    To ALL of you BLEEDING HEART LIBERALS I say this;  Take those kids into YOUR home....feed them, house them, care for their medical treatment AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIER ACTIONS UNTIL THEY ARE 21 YEARS OLD...and then we'll talk about it

    Jeff Sanders
    Jeff Sanders subscriber

    I appreciate that you stated your bias, although it's existence wasn't a surprise. Almost all of those working as journalists in this country share that bias  and it greatly undermines honest journalism (which should be a redundant phrase) of immigration, denying citizens the opportunity to hear an honest debate and understand the issue.


    DeMaio gets some things wrong, but he's hardly alone in that among politicians. It's true that this influx of Unaccompanied Alien Children as well the adults with kids isn't a border security issue in itself, as they are turning themselves in expectation that they will be released into the country in some manner. I do expect that the diversion of Border Patrol resources due to this influx has created security holes that are being exploited by illegal immigrants and drug smugglers who goal is to evade the Border Patrol.


    But border security has always been useful political theater by politicians to cover up their own complicity in illegal immigration. You can't control illegal immigration just  at the border while preserving and promoting the rewards of being in the country illegally. If you want to control illegal immigration, you need to remove the reasons why people enter illegally or overstay their visas. There must be policies regarding those illegally in the country that are coherent with the idea that it simply isn't ok. That's not at all what illegal immigrants currently face and it's getting worse, with more and more efforts to remove illegal status as an obstacle to anything.
     

    Those in this Central American surge of illegal immigrants are likely being driven by beliefs that reasonably reflect the reality of what is occurring in short term but which also might reflect beliefs regarding the larger questions around kind of treatment of others who are in the country illegally, including amnesty efforts or the quasi-amnesty, DACA. Many also have family who are here illegally that live well in this country even if no further rewards were given for their illegal presence. As the treatment the previous Central American illegal immigrants received at the border became more widely known, more and more decided to come themselves. Only changing the facts on the ground for illegal entrants will stem the growing flow.


    The 2008 reauthorization of the trafficking law was introduced in the House December 9, 2008 and passed by the Senate the next day. Careful legislating it wasn't. But then who could be against reauthorizing anti-trafficking legislation? I think what's being ignored is that other, long-languishing legislation, “ The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act,” was incorporated into the the trafficking bill by California politicians and it is that legislation that is the source of the problem.
    Here's some evidence of that from the National Immigration Law Center's website thanking Feinstein and Lofgren as well as Feinstein taking credit on her website:


    http://www.nilc.org/lirs-trafficking.html

    DECEMBER 11, 2008
    From our friends at Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service
     "We extend our deepest appreciation to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), who have worked tirelessly for eight years to pass legislation that protects vulnerable unaccompanied children. Without their efforts, these critical reforms would never have become a reality."

    http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2009/12/b8a4b956-5056-8059-760a-4eb9130f8b7c-post

    “The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 expanded the tools necessary for law enforcement and included Senator Feinstein’s Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act to provide special protections for trafficked children.”

    Except that it is not children who are “trafficked,” as being involuntary moved to another country, that's at issue. Those who came with smugglers had them hired to deliver them to the border, often paid by illegal immigrant families living here. The law should be repealed. Nor are most asylum claims valid.


    “Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.”


    Crime and poverty may be bad but that's not grounds for asylum under our laws, even if advocacy groups say otherwise. These illegal immigrants need to be humanely detained and repatriated to their home countries. We should take step to help increase their safety and wellbeing as well as that of those who didn't come here.

    Jeff Sanders
    Jeff Sanders subscriber

    @-P @Jeff Sanders The people making these determination in UN have a different belief system than our laws specify. In recent days, I've seen a wide array of people say that the overwhelming majority don't qualify for asylum under our laws. Of course those fleeing to nearby neighboring countries instead of traveling thousands of miles to get ours aren't economic refugees, although the number of those are small relative to the flow to this country. Many of those coming here come from areas in their countries without the severe violence.
    We could help people become safe closer to their homes. For the same amount of money we're spending on the illegal immigrants here, that would be helping vastly more citizens of those countries. One might think that helping more people would be seen as the better policy by those who claim to care about such things.
    This Unaccompanied Alien Children surge is mostly  really about illegal immigrants in this country getting their relatives here. After being transferred to HSS, 85% percent are being placed with relatives in this country, whose immigration status isn't checked.

    -P
    -P subscriber

    @Jeff Sanders Except for the fact that those UN decisions are based on treaties that we have signed. According to the Constitution "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (Article 6)

    Robert Cohen
    Robert Cohen subscriber

    I find it silly when the "conservative" side of the argument always exclaims "secure the borders" and "amnesty".   I use conservative in quotes because most of them today are really just radical right wingers.  A true conservative would actually acknowledge a deep problem and assist in finding a solution, not just rail against the powers at be.  As to "secure the borders", that's just an excuse to do nothing.  You can't ever fully secure anything.  And by doing nothing you are in effect granting "amnesty" because the status quo doesn't change.  So people who are here illegally, unless they are caught which most won't be, ride it out with uncertainty about the future.


    It's not surprising that DeMaio is taking the position of "throw them out".  It's an easy sound bite that makes him look tough and that he is "doing something".   It may be cruel and inhuman, (and in violation of current law), but why should that stop him when it sounds go good.


    What is happening with the children from Central America is tragic.  I agree with Scott that for them to travel up to the U.S. under the conditions they must go through is a testament to their fortitude and with those personality traits, probably would result in a net plus for the U.S. because a lot of them will find a way not only on how to survive, but flourish as well.    Unfortunately we'll just hear more noise from politicians, especially from the right wing, and no cogent and sensible immigration policy will ever get passed and implemented.  

    Robert Cohen
    Robert Cohen subscriber

    @James Weber @Robert Cohen As I understand it, under the law passed during the Bush administration, children from  Central American countries are entitled to a hearing.  It was passed to deal with human trafficking problems.  Children from Mexico, on the other hand, do not get to have a hearing.

    David Cohen
    David Cohen subscriber

    Doesn't it require a Court hearing and determination of refugee status in each case under current law?

    Mark Giffin
    Mark Giffin subscribermember

    What a looser this situation is.

    Obamas Administration should of seen this migration coming a mile away. His administration stinks on just about every level of planning, organizing, implementing and now control.

    The dream act created a magnet and a perception that was easy to embrace and promote. Those selling the dream to these kids had no problem taking advantage.

    Now we see the result with these Kids believing they will get to stay if they can make it here.

    Scott Lewis
    Scott Lewis moderator administratormember

    @Mark Giffin I don't really see the clear evidence that anything similar to the Dream Act caused this. And it's odd for me to see conservatives so easily transfer blame for someone's actions away from that person but to some unrelated issue.

    Grammie
    Grammie subscribermember

    @Mark Giffin Mark, didn't you read it's caused by extremely powerful push factors?

    Scott Lewis
    Scott Lewis moderator administratormember

    @Mark Giffin @Scott Lewis there's indeed confusion among those who are coming over but it seems to be more related to the "permiso" issue, which has misconstrued their right to a hearing for asylum to mean permission to stay permanently. That asylum issue is a product of the 2008 anti-traficking law passed by both parties and G.W. Bush. 


    There's lots of surveys of the kids and data available but nothing that proves anything about the Dream Act, which doesn't affect these kids. Again I ask why they're not responsible for their own actions.

    -P
    -P subscriber

    @Mark Giffin @Scott Lewis I doubt this situation has mach of anything, if any at all, to do with the dream act. I think most of this has to do with the violence and chaos in central america. We're not the only country that children are fleeing to, for example Venezuela has had a massive influx of children going there.

    David Benz
    David Benz subscriber

    @Mark Giffin @Scott Lewis BS.  It's the 2008 law that gives the free pass, there is no illusion.  

    David Benz
    David Benz subscriber

    @Mark Giffin Why do you righties revel in stupidity?  This is Bush's law signed in 2008, the Repugnant house can eliminate it, and send it off to the Senate and then the pres but they wont.  


    The reich wing wont work with a black man.  Obvious to anyone with a brain.

    David Benz
    David Benz subscriber

    @Scott Lewis Your attempt to play nice and not call out the ignorant fact-free blatant racists is why this site will continue to suck.  VoSD is a tiny upgrade over the UT, which is no accomplishment.

    Mark Giffin
    Mark Giffin subscribermember

    @David Benz @Mark Giffin 

    Don't take this stuff personally David. If you disagree fine. no problem

    I would appreciate you not attacking me personally.

    My opinion has nothing to do with the fact the president is Black

    Yes bushes law gives them the right to a hearing. Obamas passing the much touted dream act and the spike in these migrations as the article I posted suggested. He is the president. It his administrations job to see this kind of problem brewing but they didn't.


    Best


    David Benz
    David Benz subscriber

    @Scott Lewis  No one who came that far to get into this country is going to appear for their hearing.


    The 2008 anti-trafficking law is as good as a free pass, unless the illegals are held until their hearing.

    David Benz
    David Benz subscriber

    @James Weber The guy that signed the bill into law, you actually got something correct for a change.

    David Benz
    David Benz subscriber

    @Mark Giffin BS, Obama passed the dream Act?  Really?  You guys out yourself.


    Only a completely uninformed know nothing would bring up the dream act, which has nothing to do with the issue.  Turn off Rush and put down the UT.  Thanks for being proof that the southern strategy is still working.



    Mark Giffin
    Mark Giffin subscribermember

    @Scott Lewis @Mark Giffin 

    They are responsible. Not saying they are not.

    What I am saying is Obama is president and his actions(dream act) and the corresponding  "surge" of unaccompanied minors without thinking his decision through is poor leadership. It is his administrations Job to foresee this before it becomes a crisis and his foreign advisors and intelligence had no clue?

    He is the president. Does he ever own anything?

    We can disagree on this till the cows come home. This whole situation is a looser and will have to be dealt with in a humane and lawful way. 

    The solution will be when we have a reputation and clear policy of border enforcement.