Politics

[Bluto]

You can disagree all you want, but you're still wrong as it applies to US immigration law. I posted two days ago the 5 circumstances under which people can come here. Refugee status means the person is being persecuted in their home country. That does NOT include poverty.

Murder Rate in O'Malley's Baltimore Rivals Central American Countries

Kids are being specifically targeted and coerced into becoming foot soldiers for drug cartels on top of being poor. So, this does involve more than just being poor.

As to Baltimore. We as a country should be embarrassed that we have actively pursued public policies that helped push places like that into third world status.

 

[connor_in]

Content, not quantity, is what makes Obama's unilateral initiatives unsettling | News OK

 

[ab2cmiller]

This whole thing is one huge pile of crap. I fault Obama for his overreach and I fault Congress for their inability to work together to do what is best for this country. Each President seems to take more and more liberties. The next President will probably take things one step further then what the current one has. Our whole form of government feels like its ready to go over a cliff. I thought Mr. Turley's statement to the House Rules Committee was amazing.

<script height="360px" width="640px" src="http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.js#pbid=b171980b65ae4996bffea4da902c7846&ec=B0OHh5bjq7ixSt9VN9ox8CGHajxyd5-b"></script>

JONATHAN TURLEY: Frankly it's difficult to discuss these quaint constitutional issues in what is often a poisonous political environment. As a people we've become -- we've come to the point where we can't just simply disagree, we have to despise each other. We subscribe to the worst motivations of our opponents and elevate our own proposals over process. To put it simply, we've embraced what the Queen Mother said in Richard III. We just think of our babies as sweeter than they were and he who slew them is fowler than he is.

I don't believe the president has a desire for tyrannical authority. I don't question his motivation. I question his means. Our system is changing and this body is the one branch that must act if we're to reverse those changes. We're seeing the emergence of a different model of government, a model long ago rejected by the framers. A dominant presidency has occurred with very little Congressional opposition. Indeed, when President Obama pledged to circumvent Congress, he received rapturous applause from the very body that he was proposing to make practically irrelevant. Now many members are contesting the right of this institution to even be heard in federal court. This body is moving from self-loathing to self-destruction in a system that is in crisis.

The president's pledge to effectively govern alone is alarming, and what is most alarming is his ability to fulfill that pledge. When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger the framers sought to avoid. What we're witnessing today is one of the greatest crises that I expect the members of this committee and this body will face. It has a patina of politics that is hard to penetrate. It did not start with President Obama. I was critical of his predecessor, and certainly this goes back long before George Bush, but it has reached a tipping point. (House Rules Commitee, July 16, 2014)

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Call them whatever you want. They are kids escaping horrific violence and seeking refuge in other places, including the United States ...



... all provided by the richest country on the face of the earth I suppose. The fact that you want to send them back to the most violent place on the planet because you don't think it's fair that we have to foot the bill is just disturbing. They are kids for Christ's sake! Sometimes you just have to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

They. are. not. refugees. Therefore, they should be going home to their families.

For the second time in two days, the US private sector has created the richest and most prosperous nation in history, not the US government. The US government, as wizards reminded you, is in big trouble and cannot afford to take care of all the poor kids of Central America. How this simple math doesn't add up to you is disturbing, but you want a nanny state so it kinda makes sense.

You're right. I'm a big, mean, conservative racist because I oppose illegal immigration. Wa Wa wa...same old left wing sob story based on all emotion and no logic. You're damn right we don't have to foot the bill. They aren't out kids and aren't our citizens, and they're not refugees. So I say we house them, feed them, and take care of them on a VERY short term basis until we figure out the logistics of getting them home to their families.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Kids are being specifically targeted and coerced into becoming foot soldiers for drug cartels on top of being poor. So, this does involve more than just being poor.

As to Baltimore. We as a country should be embarrassed that we have actively pursued public policies that helped push places like that into third world status.

Kids in other countries being targeted and forced into gangs is not our problem. Does it suck? Yes. Do I wish that weren't the case? Yes. Does that mean we are morally obliged and should open to the border to tens of thousands of MORE illegal immigrants we can't afford? No.

Baltimore: the citizens elect their leaders at the local and state level. It's mostly up to them to fix their problems. Still didn't address my point, which was I'm sure parents in the bad areas of Baltimore, Chicago, etc would LOVE to get their children out of poverty and send them somewhere for a better future. But where?

 

[magogian]

If the massive flood illegal immigrants was really due to a surge in violence in their home countries, why is it the made up of such a high percentage of unaccompanied kids?

Because they have all heard that kids will get to stay if they can just make it to the US.

According to a leaked law-enforcement report:

(U//LES) In late May, the U.S. Border Patrol interviewed unaccompanied children (UAC) and migrant families apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley. Of the 230 total migrants interviewed, 219 cited the primary reason for migrating to the United States was the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes or permisos to UAC and adult female OTMs traveling with minors. Migrants indicated that knowledge of permisos was widespread across Central America due to word of mouth, local, and international media messaging—prompting many to depart for the United States within 30 days of becoming aware of these perceived benefits, according to the same reporting.

UAC = unaccompanied children

This should really end the factual dispute.

 

[Bluto]

If the massive flood illegal immigrants was really due to a surge in violence in their home countries, why is it the made up of such a high percentage of unaccompanied kids?

Because they have all heard that kids will get to stay if they can just make it to the US.

According to a leaked law-enforcement report:


UAC = unaccompanied children

This should really end the factual dispute.

I wasn't saying it was due to a surge in violence per see. I made the point awhile back that the situation faced by these kids in their home countries would seem to provide as much justification for granting refugee status as a Cuban national who shows up in Miami sans proper documents and is granted refugee status on the spot.

As to who is "responsible" for the situation faced by the populace in many of these Central American countries? The US does bear a good deal of that responsibility in my opinion due to the homicidal foreign policy it engaged in during the tail end of the 19tb and 20th century that played a huge part in destabilizing that region in the first place. For example the US army invaded various Central American countries and replaced democratically elected governments at the behest of big business, installed and propped up murderous dictators throughout the region and trained death squads (who murdered nuns and priests by the way) at the School of the Americas. Add to that our countries ravenous need for narcotics (cocaine) and our ridiculous criminalization of drug use and we are just reaping what we have sown at this point. In my opinion we should bear some of the responsibility for cleaning up the mess that is of our own making. If that involves treating 30,000 kids with some semblance of decency and potentially granting them refugee status, well considering all the bad shit the US has done in this region for 100 plus years that's a drop in the bucket in my opinion.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I wasn't saying it was due to a surge in violence per see. I made the point awhile back that the situation faced by these kids in their home countries would seem to provide as must justification for granting refugee status as a Cuban national who shows up in Miami sans proper documents and is granted refugee status on the spot.

As to who is "responsible" for the situation faced by the populace in many of these Central American countries? The US does bear a good deal of that responsibility in my opinion due to the homicidal foreign policy it engaged in during the tail end of the 19tb and 20th century that played a huge part in destabilizing that region in the first place. For example the US army invaded various Central American countries and replaced democratically elected governments at the behest of big business, installed and propped up murderous dictators throughout the region and trained death squads (who murdered nuns and priests by the way) at the School of the Americas. Add to that our countries ravenous need for narcotics (cocaine) and our ridiculous criminalization of drug use and we are just reaping what we have sown at this point. In my opinion we should bear some of the responsibility for cleaning up the mess that is of our own making. If that involves treating 30,000 kids with some semblance of decency and potentially granting them refugee status, well considering all the bad shit the US has done in this region for 100 plus years that's a drop in the bucket in my opinion.

1) No, they do not qualify as refugees. Please read the excerpt I posted twice from our immigration law. Cubans are refugees because they come here seeking refuge from persecution at home. These Central Americans are not being persecuted by their government or anyone.

2) No, America is not responsible for the shitty conditions in Honduras and Guatemala. Iraq and Afghanistan...yeah you could argue we have a hand in that.

 

[Cackalacky]

I wasn't saying it was due to a surge in violence per see. I made the point awhile back that the situation faced by these kids in their home countries would seem to provide as must justification for granting refugee status as a Cuban national who shows up in Miami sans proper documents and is granted refugee status on the spot.

As to who is "responsible" for the situation faced by the populace in many of these Central American countries? The US does bear a good deal of that responsibility in my opinion due to the homicidal foreign policy it engaged in during the tail end of the 19tb and 20th century that played a huge part in destabilizing that region in the first place. For example the US army invaded various Central American countries and replaced democratically elected governments at the behest of big business, installed and propped up murderous dictators throughout the region and trained death squads (who murdered nuns and priests by the way) at the School of the Americas. Add to that our countries ravenous need for narcotics (cocaine) and our ridiculous criminalization of drug use and we are just reaping what we have sown at this point. In my opinion we should bear some of the responsibility for cleaning up the mess that is of our own making. If that involves treating 30,000 kids with some semblance of decency and potentially granting them refugee status, well considering all the bad shit the US has done in this region for 100 plus years that's a drop in the bucket in my opinion.

Agree with this. Our war on drugs (LOL), colonialism, installation of puppets etc... are all coming home to roost with this. We can't expect to implement our will on countries and not expect some fallout.

 

[Cackalacky]

1) No, they do not qualify as refugees. Please read the excerpt I posted twice from our immigration law. Cubans are refugees because they come here seeking refuge from persecution at home. These Central Americans are not being persecuted by their government or anyone.

2) No, America is not responsible for the shitty conditions in Honduras and Guatemala. Iraq and Afghanistan...yeah you could argue we have a hand in that.

Did you miss the part of history class that dealt with US Foreign policy through 1900-present?

 

[GoIrish41]

Kids in other countries being targeted and forced into gangs is not our problem. Does it suck? Yes. Do I wish that weren't the case? Yes. Does that mean we are morally obliged and should open to the border to tens of thousands of MORE illegal immigrants we can't afford? No.

Baltimore: the citizens elect their leaders at the local and state level. It's mostly up to them to fix their problems. Still didn't address my point, which was I'm sure parents in the bad areas of Baltimore, Chicago, etc would LOVE to get their children out of poverty and send them somewhere for a better future. But where?

I wish I could view the world so selectively as you do. The world and our role in it is vastly more nuanced than you portray it. See Bluto's post above for a little historical perspective. This is not a black and white economic issue. It is a moral issue. What price do you place on this nation's moral authority in the world. We inject ourselves in disputes all around the world in the name of human rights ... we portray ourselves as the shining city on the hill, the greatest country in the world, and a becon of hope. You would have us do a cost benefit analysis to determine if we should keep faith with the principles of a moral society. Not even seeig how the private sector made us great argument even matters if we cannot demomstrate our greatness when we are tested by circumstances. The hearings prescribed by our laws will determime if these people stay or go. You can type they are not refugees until your fingers bleed. Hopefully people with a deeper understanding of what is at stake and a more profound sense of humanity will rule on their fate. That would be far superior than having such grave decisions made by those who recognize their situations are horrible yet choose to do nothing because it is not in our economic self interest .

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I wish I could view the world so selectively as you do. The world and our role in it is vastly more nuanced than you portray it. See Bluto's post above for a little historical perspective. This is not a black and white economic issue. It is a moral issue. What price do you place on this nation's moral authority in the world. We inject ourselves in disputes all around the world in the name of human rights ... we portray ourselves as the shining city on the hill, the greatest country in the world, and a becon of hope. You would have us do a cost benefit analysis to determine if we should keep faith with the principles of a moral society. Not even seeig how the private sector made us great argument even matters if we cannot demomstrate our greatness when we are tested by circumstances. The hearings prescribed by our laws will determime if these people stay or go. You can type they are not refugees until your fingers bleed. Hopefully people with a deeper understanding of what is at stake and a more profound sense of humanity will rule on their fate. That would be far superior than having such grave decisions made by those who recognize their situations are horrible yet choose to do nothing because it is not in our economic self interest .

You can whine and cry all day about "humanity" and "the right thing to do." Doesn't change basic economics and our rule of law, and that's what I'm sticking by.

 

[GoIrish41]

You can whine and cry all day about "humanity" and "the right thing to do." Doesn't change basic economics and our rule of law, and that's what I'm sticking by.

If you are sticking by rule of law why are you saying "send them home" when our laws afford them a hearing to determine their status? You seem to want the decisions about their status to be pre-determined, i.e. they are not refugees. Who is whining and crying? I want the law to run its course and think it would be a miscarriage of justice to to otherwise.

 

[ab2cmiller]

If you are sticking by rule of law why are you saying "send them home" when our laws afford them a hearing to determine their status? You seem to want the decisions about their status to be pre-determined, i.e. they are not refugees. Who is whining and crying? I want the law to run its course and think it would be a miscarriage of justice to to otherwise.

I agree that the law has to be followed. We can't arbitrarily decide to not follow the law because we don't like it. If we don't like the law, then the law should be changed by Congress and signed by the President.

Just a couple of questions for GoIrish41

1. Do you see any reason to change the law based upon the current circumstances?

2. If the flow of unaccompanied minors and others were to increase to 200,000 per year would you change the law? How about 500,000? How about 1,000,000?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

If you are sticking by rule of law why are you saying "send them home" when our laws afford them a hearing to determine their status? You seem to want the decisions about their status to be pre-determined, i.e. they are not refugees. Who is whining and crying? I want the law to run its course and think it would be a miscarriage of justice to to otherwise.

I'm saying send them home because we don't have the judicial resources or time to go through hearings for THOUSANDS of unaccompanied children and others. Please. Read. Our. Law. It is black and white. It's not hard to comprehend. These people are not fleeing communist Cuba where people are persecuted every day. They're fleeing violence and poverty and my heart goes out to them, but they are not refugees and thus need to go home.

I also believe it's no coincidence that these people started showing up together in the thousands, some of their home countries were helping transport them here, our border patrol is changing friggin diapers, and the left in this country will do anything they can for amnesty to bribe future voters.

None of this makes any logical or legal sense. It's also an insult to all the immigrants who did things the right way and came here legally.

 

[GoIrish41]

I agree that the law has to be followed. We can't arbitrarily decide to not follow the law because we don't like it. If we don't like the law, then the law should be changed by Congress and signed by the President.

Just a couple of questions for GoIrish41

1. Do you see any reason to change the law based upon the current circumstances?

2. If the flow of unaccompanied minors and others were to increase to 200,000 per year would you change the law? How about 500,000? How about 1,000,000?

I think the law is a bit arbitrary to be honest. It is an example of the piecemeal immigration laws that we currently have. It highlights the need for comprehensive immigration reform that the GOP continues to block. For that reason I find their arguments hollow. We should have a plan as a nation that welcomes immigration without doing harm to our country. The piecemeal approach makes for a disjointed policy that can too easily be used as a political football. I am all for helping people and I understand that there has to be a reasoned approach that has its limits. Calling these kids a burden that this country cannot manage is a faux argument IMHO. While our immigration policy must have limits (that the two sides of our political spectrum do not agree upon) so to must it show empathy that is equal to our rhetoric about oour greatness as a nation.

 

[ab2cmiller]

I think the law is a bit arbitrary to be honest. It is an example of the piecemeal immigration laws that we currently have. It highlights the need for comprehensive immigration reform that the GOP continues to block. For that reason I find their arguments hollow. We should have a plan as a nation that welcomes immigration without doing harm to our country. The piecemeal approach makes for a disjointed policy that can too easily be used as a political football. I am all for helping people and I understand that there has to be a reasoned approach that has its limits. Calling these kids a burden that this country cannot manage is a faux argument IMHO. While our immigration policy must have limits (that the two sides of our political spectrum do not agree upon) so to much it show empathy that is equal to our rhetoric about oour greatness as a nation.

You should be a politician, you managed to say nothing while using a lot of words and speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm saying send them home because we don't have the judicial resources or time to go through hearings for THOUSANDS of unaccompanied children and others. Please. Read. Our. Law. It is black and white. It's not hard to comprehend. These people are not fleeing communist Cuba where people are persecuted every day. They're fleeing violence and poverty and my heart goes out to them, but they are not refugees and thus need to go home.

I also believe it's no coincidence that these people started showing up together in the thousands, some of their home countries were helping transport them here, our border patrol is changing friggin diapers, and the left in this country will do anything they can for amnesty to bribe future voters.

None of this makes any logical or legal sense. It's also an insult to all the immigrants who did things the right way and came here legally.

You are suggesting just following the laws you like but not the ones you do not. Got it.

Your understanding of why this happened or their motivations are wholly irrelevant. Our laws guarantee them hearings and their fate will be decided in them. Congress should approve the resources so we can find resolotion sooner rather than later instead of going round and round about which of our laws rise to your standards.

 

[GoIrish41]

You should be a politician, you managed to say nothing while using a lot of words and speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

You asked a question and i answered it ... we need a cohesive immigration plan to replace the political bandaids that we have strung together as a disjointed policy. There is really no need to be rude because you do not like the answer you received.

 

[ab2cmiller]

You asked a question and i answered it ... we need a cohesive immigration plan to replace the political bandaids that we have strung together as a disjointed policy. There is really no need to be rude because you do not like the answer you received.

I asked you two pretty straight forward question and the answer I received sounded like it came from a politician where you threw out lots of words using vague generalities that simply avoided the questions that I asked.

In regards to the current law, do you believe that the illegal immigrants from Central America should be treated the same as those from Mexico or do you believe that they should be treated differently?

 

[GoIrish41]

I asked you two pretty straight forward question and the answer I received sounded like it came from a politician where you threw out lots of words using vague generalities that simply avoided the questions that I asked.

In regards to the current law, do you believe that the illegal immigrants from Central America should be treated the same as those from Mexico or do you believe that they should be treated differently?

That is why i said the law is arbitrary. My opinion is that all should be treated the same. But that is not how the law is written and i think we are obligated to follow the law as it currently exists until it is changed.

I think this issue is too comlex for simple one word answers.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You are suggesting just following the laws you like but not the ones you do not. Got it.

Your understanding of why this happened or their motivations are wholly irrelevant. Our laws guarantee them hearings and their fate will be decided in them. Congress should approve the resources so we can find resolotion sooner rather than later instead of going round and round about which of our laws rise to your standards.

Yep. 5 years of Obama as commander in chief can have its effects on a country, even me.

 

[Cackalacky]

Yep. 5 years of Obama as commander in chief can have its effects on a country, even me.

PolishLeppy,
I mean this in the best possible way,but after all that we have seen, all that our government has done since the 1950s, all the collusion to rig the system in the favor of a few at the expense of all of us, the outright destruction of the Constitution (Patriot Act, SCOTUS) do you really find 5 years of #ThanksObama as a compelling stance to hold regarding our current state of affairs?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

PolishLeppy,
I mean this in the best possible way,but after all that we have seen, all that our government has done since the 1950s, all the collusion to rig the system in the favor of a few at the expense of all of us, the outright destruction of the Constitution (Patriot Act, SCOTUS) do you really find 5 years of #ThanksObama as a compelling stance to hold regarding our current state of affairs?

New boss. Same as the old boss.

 

[Redbar]

PolishLeppy,
I mean this in the best possible way,but after all that we have seen, all that our government has done since the 1950s, all the collusion to rig the system in the favor of a few at the expense of all of us, the outright destruction of the Constitution (Patriot Act, SCOTUS) do you really find 5 years of #ThanksObama as a compelling stance to hold regarding our current state of affairs?

This is the heart of the matter IMO, how one answers this exact question tells me if someone is understanding the nature of our reality, or if they are just watching the news with their red colored glasses on. Anxiously awaiting when someone is in the Oval Office that fits their narrative.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

PolishLeppy,
I mean this in the best possible way,but after all that we have seen, all that our government has done since the 1950s, all the collusion to rig the system in the favor of a few at the expense of all of us, the outright destruction of the Constitution (Patriot Act, SCOTUS) do you really find 5 years of #ThanksObama as a compelling stance to hold regarding our current state of affairs?

No. It was a friendly jab at GoIrish41, albeit one with merit.

 

[magogian]

The world and our role in it is vastly more nuanced than you portray it. See Bluto's post above for a little historical perspective.

Hilarious. Your and Bluto's view isn't nuanced. It is vastly oversimplifying and mischaracterizing history in order to produce one simple theme: blame America.

Funny how that works.

 

[GoIrish41]

Hilarious. Your and Bluto's view isn't nuanced. It is vastly oversimplifying and mischaracterizing history in order to produce one simple theme: blame America.

Funny how that works.

Maybe you should tell us the "real" history then. Enlighten us.

 

[BobD]

Maybe you should tell us the "real" history then. Enlighten us.

The Real History:
In the beginning everything was fine, then someone had an opinion.

 

[Bluto]

1) No, they do not qualify as refugees. Please read the excerpt I posted twice from our immigration law. Cubans are refugees because they come here seeking refuge from persecution at home. These Central Americans are not being persecuted by their government or anyone.

2) No, America is not responsible for the shitty conditions in Honduras and Guatemala. Iraq and Afghanistan...yeah you could argue we have a hand in that.

Yeah, this kid and his family aren't being "persecuted" by "anyone". Give me a break.

Fear of gangs, rampant violence send Central American kids north - CBS News