Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Immigration and Amnesty (Page 8)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14   
Author Topic: Immigration and Amnesty
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In particular, Seneca has a real aversion to letting Mexicans into the country. Next to his desire to bring guns into restaurants, it's one of the two topics on which he'll start a thread.

Here we see him complaining about a suspiciously high number of refugees seeking asylum, and using this as evidence that any attempt to negotiate immigration reform will fail -- because, after all, the important part of immigration reform is to make it harder for Mexicans to get into the country; anything else would be a failure.

To which I say: dude, get a grip.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I really don't understand why you're so reluctant to let brown people into the country for any reason, Seneca.

Yeah, Seneca, do you hate brown people? Are you full of hate and racism for brown people? Why do Republicans hate brown people? What's up with that? What's wrong with brown people? Why can't we let brown people into the country?

I want to know!


And just like that.....the magic is gone. Sumimasen. Somebody get that straw man a brain.

Yeah, apparently I am racist as well as anti-Mexican, been searching for where I made those statements but for some reason can't find them. Really bizarre considering I am "brown" skinned myself... My objections surely could NOT be about the rule of law or orderly immigration policy...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm curious, then: what about "the rule of law" is an inherent good? These "refugees" -- and I use scare quotes here out of respect for your theory that they're actually just gaming the system -- are behaving perfectly legally. They are, in fact, obeying the rule of law. Does that mean they're not a problem?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'm curious, then: what about "the rule of law" is an inherent good? These "refugees" -- and I use scare quotes here out of respect for your theory that they're actually just gaming the system -- are behaving perfectly legally. They are, in fact, obeying the rule of law. Does that mean they're not a problem?

Are you referring to the inherent good of law in general, or the inherent good of this law in particular?

I believe Seneca the Mexican-hater is concerned that the letter of the law is being abused by individuals in a way that perverts the spirit of the law.

First, is it possible for this to occur? Can the letter of the law be manipulated or abused in a manner that perverts the spirit of the law?

If this can occur, then how can we tell if it is occurring. What are the criteria?

Lastly, if it can occur, where is the blame? Where is the problem? How could it be fixed? Is it the fault of the individuals perverting the law, or is it the fault of the individuals who wrote the law?

How would all of that apply to our immigration policy of offering amnesty to political refugees, in the case that Seneca Mexican-hater brought up?

[ August 13, 2013, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: Grant ]

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If we as a country gave a poop about stopping illegal immigration then the first step is to legislate draconian harsh punish to employers who hire them. Pretty much any other method or trying to make the boarder impervious or punish the illegal immigrants is a ridiculous strategy.

Now if on the off chance you view boarder security as national security against potential enemies... you still do the above to decrease incentives for illegal immigration. Thus making any remaining illegal border crossing that much more obvious of a threat and worthy of reaction. (or overreacting)

We should improve the ability of those willing to follow the proper channels to gain admittance to our country in a timely manner. Teaching, or having them taught how to circumvent the established (and admittedly inefficient) method of legal immigration just creates more cover for other illegal activities which require a boarder crossing.

<-- Hopes this makes a little sense. Been drinking. [Razz]

quote:
First, is it possible for this to occur? Can the letter of the law be manipulated or abused in a manner that perverts the spirit of the law?
There are people who make a career out of doing so. Of course it's possible.

quote:
s it the fault of the individuals perverting the law, or is it the fault of the individuals who wrote the law?
The authors of the law. It's pretty much always their fault. They know that people will attempt to twist and abuse the intent of their law. <see above> It's their job to make it as bullet proof as possible unless they intend for it to be flexible enough to be abused in the first place.

[ August 13, 2013, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
If we as a country gave a poop about stopping illegal immigration then the first step is to legislate draconian harsh punish to employers who hire them. Pretty much any other method or trying to make the boarder impervious or punish the illegal immigrants is a ridiculous strategy.

I agree with you, and said as much back in 2006, I believe. I was accused of not wanting to share my good fortune of being born an American with the rest of the world.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe the "problem" would self correct quickly if we eliminated illegal workers. The demand for legal workers would increase to a level where immigration reform would quickly become a priority.

The down side is living wages would increase across the board which employers don't particularly like. As they would lobby against those measures (with the money they save by keeping wages low) there is little chance of real reform. Instead we waste time with feel good measures and stall tactics that pretend to be about party ideology.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I believe the "problem" would self correct quickly if we eliminated illegal workers. The demand for legal workers would increase to a level where immigration reform would quickly become a priority.

The down side is living wages would increase across the board which employers don't particularly like. As they would lobby against those measures (with the money they save by keeping wages low) there is little chance of real reform. Instead we waste time with feel good measures and stall tactics that pretend to be about party ideology.

The problem might self correct but there would be a lag. Since immigration policy is such a highly volatile political football, one could question weather we could open the valve as quickly as the vacuum builds.

I am probably one of the few individuals here that does not believe that policy or politics in America are consistently ruled by the all-mighty dollar. I tend to believe that the political influence of wealth is present, but not pervading. Because of this, I believe that meaningful reform can happen in the face of lobbying efforts by employers, and in other cases. Each side would have you believe that the other is in the pocket of Mammon, particularly Republicans, and that their actions and policies are driven by such, but I believe this is an extreme over-simplification.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Since immigration policy is such a highly volatile political football, one could question weather we could open the valve as quickly as the vacuum builds.
Given unemployment numbers I think that lag would reveal a lot about both the unemployed and the wages the employers are willing to pay them. This lag would be advantageous to the health of our country IMO.

My cynicism is begining to evolve beyond partisan differences I guess. [Razz]

[ August 14, 2013, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Given unemployment numbers I think that lag would reveal a lot about both the unemployed and the wages the employers are willing to pay them. This lag would be advantageous to the health of our country IMO.

My cynicism is begining to evolve beyond partisan differences I guess. [Razz]

Obviously wages for labor would go up as the supply of cheap labor decreases. The flip side is that the rise in the cost of labor will be directly transferred to the customer, across the entire economy. If everyone is willing and able to pay double for orange juice and milk, then the economy can absorb this, but where the lord giveth he taketh away. Spending more money on milk and orange juice means less money for beer, or credit cards, or automobiles, or something. The effects go on and on and on, and at some point Krugman will be wrestling with the ghost of Friedman in the Grey Hooker's op/ed pages, and we'll end up calling each other names.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Labor costs go up.
Costs for products/services go up.
Demand goes down for products/services.
Suppliers/employers cut back man-hours to accommodate reduced demand.

Then one of two things happens.

1: People eventually find a different job at a high enough pay that demand goes back up. As the potential employees for this increased demand moved on you have just added jobs.

2: Employers eventually scale back their expectations of profit levels and lower prices to achieve former levels of demand and re-hire or increase man-hours to maintain this level.

Well, there is a 3rd option that certain employers are starved out of the system. If their service/product was needed/desired someone should be able to move in or pick up this slack.

Yes, the cost of labor is transferred to the customer, but only so far as the customer NEEDS the goods or services or feels the new added cost is acceptable.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Keep in mind that wage increases do not generally correspond directly to price increases on a 1:1 basis- doubling a workers wage will not double the price of the product they produce- in fact it will only incrementally increase the price.

On the other hand, doubling a wage effectively amounts to a much larger relative increase in disposable income, because the baseline cost of living is relatively static.

So, sure, there profit margins are already pretty optimally narrow, a wage increase will generally translate to a small price increase, but the magnitude of the disposable income increase will generally (almost certainly at our current economic activity level) far out way the slight price factor, translating to more overall, and thus more employment opportunities to meet it.

It's only really when the net change in disposable income begins to match the net incrase in overall prices that improved wages become a wash, if not actively suppressive of growth, but on the lower end of the economy, we're impossibly far from that mark- you need a combination of someone making so much that static living costs are a trivial portion of their income and offering a product where their income amounts to nearly 100% of the price and there's no corresponding correlation to productivity anymore. Top shelf executive pay might fall into that line, but nothing remotely near the living wage line.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A federal judge in Texas is accusing the Department of Homeland Security of hand-delivering children smuggled into the United States to their illegal immigrant parents.

quote:
A federal judge in Texas is accusing the Department of Homeland Security of hand-delivering children smuggled into the United States to their illegal immigrant parents.

U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen revealed the practice in a blistering court order filed late last week. He said the "dangerous" practice is effectively aiding human traffickers and particularly the drug cartels, which run many of these operations.

"These actions are both dangerous and unconscionable," he wrote.

The judge attempted to lift the curtain on what is happening behind the scenes of the Obama administration's changing approach to immigration enforcement. It has been well-documented that DHS is allowing some illegal immigrants already inside the country to skirt deportation, and particularly those who came to the U.S. as children.

But the "conspiracy" outlined by Hanen would take that controversial policy a big step further. He detailed the case of an illegal immigrant parent in Virginia, but used that as an entry point to describe what he suggested was a broader program.

Hanen claimed that, in more than one case before his court, immigration officials are arresting human traffickers smuggling children into the U.S. -- and then "delivering the minors to the custody of the parent illegally living in the United States."

"The DHS has simply chosen not to enforce the United States' border security laws," he wrote.

Further, he said this is simply encouraging risky smuggling operations. "Time and again this court has been told by representatives of the government and the defense that cartels control the entire smuggling process," Hanen wrote. "... the government is not only allowing [illegal immigrants in the U.S.] to fund the illegal and evil activities of these cartels, but is also inspiring them to do so."

He added: "To put this in another context, the DHS policy is as logical as taking illegal drugs or weapons that it has seized from smugglers and delivering them to the criminals who initially solicited their illegal importation/exportation. Legally, this situation is no different."

The judge's statement was prompted by the case of Mirtha Veronica Nava-Martinez. She was arrested at the Texas-Mexico border in May and pleaded guilty to trying to smuggle a 10-year-old child originally from El Salvador. After the sentencing, the judge wrote, he decided to go public with additional details from the case.

He wrote that the "conspiracy" started when an illegal immigrant in Virginia hired smugglers to get her daughter from El Salvador to Virginia. She paid $6,000 in advance. But after the smuggling operation was interrupted by federal agents, he wrote, "the DHS delivered the child to her."

Further, he wrote, this was the fourth case he'd seen in as many weeks along these lines. In one case, he claimed, the U.S. government "flew a child to multiple locations" in the U.S. at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. "This is an absurd and illogical result," he wrote.

The judge noted that after the court inquired about the incidents, a federal prosecutor apparently "requested" that the mother in Virginia be placed in immigration proceedings. He said it's unclear whether that has happened, and he's been told the government will not pursue prosecution.

Hanen wrote that he is "not unsympathetic" to the parents in these cases, but noted the danger these children are put in.

"If [DHS officials] persist in this policy, more children are going to be harmed, and the DHS will be partly responsible because it encourages this kind of Russian roulette," he wrote.


Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So they are arresting smugglers and --- reuniting the children that were in their custody with their parents? What sort of non-evil alternative do you envision?
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did you even read it? These aren't just parents, this is human trafficking to non-parents as well, and people whom they have no idea if they are the legitimate parents.

On top of that, these people were paying smugglers thousands of dollars to violate our laws, the smugglers get caught and what does our government do? Finish the job for them.

What is the point of even having laws if the government is going into the business of aiding people to break them?

It's also extremely dangerous and results in a lot of death and harm to the children, and our government becomes complicit in that harm and death. Does that matter?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your concern for these children is touching. You would rather have them put in detention centers? Sent back "to non-parents as well, and people whom they have no idea if they are the legitimate parents. "?
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The government needs to stop this because it is encouraging more of it!
That is placing MORE children in harms way!

Send the kids back to where they came from and have the Mexican government (their own government) take care of finding their families.

I find it hard to believe that people expect the US to take care of both Americans and Mexicans.

Are we really expecting the Mexican government to do nothing and it's our job to run their country?!

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I find it hard to believe that people expect the US to take care of both Americans and Mexicans.
I expect the US to care of children who turn up at its borders.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No wonder this is an industry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's boneheaded US policy that criminalizes what should be legal behavior and creates the need to engage in smuggling in the first place to get parents to live with their children, so it's the least we can do to clean up out own mess.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have seen parents put into CPS hearings for things less dangerous than putting a 10 year old in hands of Coyotes. Kid should have been sent to CPS.

[ December 19, 2013, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*nod* That'd be the logical response, actually.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sounds good to me.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why bother having borders or immigration laws at all?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gives drug dogs something to do, I imagine.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To give you some perspective on how up-is-down, black-is-white and in-is-out things have become, here is a recent case of a local soldier who has served the US bravely in Afghanistan for 4 years. His wife happens to be a Canadian national who has been able to travel back and forth between the US and her maiden home in Canada until recently when she's been denied entry because of a technicality of a minor change in her paperwork. They eventually relented once they realized the media was going to stir up a storm, but it is still quite shocking.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Soldiers-wife-home-for-holidays-237100111.html

Meanwhile our government aids illegal aliens in crossing our border and completing their criminal smuggling operations for them.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One anecdotal case doesn't give perspective; it reinforces a fixed conviction. This woman was temporarily caught between a change in her status and a rule that hadn't caught up to it, but it was resolved appropriately. Or do you think there should be different rules for white women crossing the border from Canada and Mexicans coming in from Mexico? Or is it that the husband in this case is a soldier, and you think the rules should be relaxed for them?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, are you proposing special rules for spouses of veterans, or just for white spouses of veterans?

I personally would like to see an across the board liberalization of rules for bringing in spouses of citizens, especially when they have children together. I've seen several cases where the government spent tens of thousands of dollars fighting to get a husband of a US citizen deported, even though he was the sole means of support of the citizen and their children together? Are you OK with that if he's Mexican and she's not a veteran?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, do you realize that when Fox regales you with numbers of Mexican illegals that it's not just counting literal setbacks but also folks that immigrated legally but have over stayed their visa, like the woman you described? That some of Fox's most hated include folks married to American citizens, parents of American citizens, and with papers submittrd to extend their visa or to get green cards or to contain citizenship?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Where did I mention that she was white?

The hypocrisy is that she was stopped after being told she could travel on her intermediary form , meanwhile the government is aiding illegal immigrants sneaking across the southern border. And those people didn't try to follow the law like this woman did.


Surely you can see the hypocrisy?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Her picture is on the site.

"Surely you can see the hypocrisy?"

This sounds like a ****-up, not any kind of policy. Why take it so seriously? I'm sure a million mistakes are made every day in all areas of public and private life. This one was quickly and successfully rectified. I would be annoyed if this happened to me, but grateful that it was resolved correctly.

Why not look at it that way?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Mistake" usually refers to something done on accident. It doesn't seem to be an accident that DHS is smuggling illegals into the US.

Also, I repeat again, where did I say she was white?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Where did I say that you said she was white?
Where did I say that the government policy on immigration wasn't hypocritical?
Care to answer my questions?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
"Mistake" usually refers to something done on accident. It doesn't seem to be an accident that DHS is smuggling illegals into the US.

Also, I repeat again, where did I say she was white?

You want to back up the claim that the DHS is smuggling illegals into the country? For my information, are they all Mexicans or other hispanics? Or are they smuggling Iranian Muslims or Indians or eskimos?

I confess I'm fascinated with the kinds of "news" and world events you're plugged into.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
A federal judge in Texas is accusing the Department of Homeland Security of hand-delivering children smuggled into the United States to their illegal immigrant parents.

quote:
A federal judge in Texas is accusing the Department of Homeland Security of hand-delivering children smuggled into the United States to their illegal immigrant parents.

U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen revealed the practice in a blistering court order filed late last week. He said the "dangerous" practice is effectively aiding human traffickers and particularly the drug cartels, which run many of these operations.

"These actions are both dangerous and unconscionable," he wrote.

The judge attempted to lift the curtain on what is happening behind the scenes of the Obama administration's changing approach to immigration enforcement. It has been well-documented that DHS is allowing some illegal immigrants already inside the country to skirt deportation, and particularly those who came to the U.S. as children.

But the "conspiracy" outlined by Hanen would take that controversial policy a big step further. He detailed the case of an illegal immigrant parent in Virginia, but used that as an entry point to describe what he suggested was a broader program.

Hanen claimed that, in more than one case before his court, immigration officials are arresting human traffickers smuggling children into the U.S. -- and then "delivering the minors to the custody of the parent illegally living in the United States."

"The DHS has simply chosen not to enforce the United States' border security laws," he wrote.

Further, he said this is simply encouraging risky smuggling operations. "Time and again this court has been told by representatives of the government and the defense that cartels control the entire smuggling process," Hanen wrote. "... the government is not only allowing [illegal immigrants in the U.S.] to fund the illegal and evil activities of these cartels, but is also inspiring them to do so."

He added: "To put this in another context, the DHS policy is as logical as taking illegal drugs or weapons that it has seized from smugglers and delivering them to the criminals who initially solicited their illegal importation/exportation. Legally, this situation is no different."

The judge's statement was prompted by the case of Mirtha Veronica Nava-Martinez. She was arrested at the Texas-Mexico border in May and pleaded guilty to trying to smuggle a 10-year-old child originally from El Salvador. After the sentencing, the judge wrote, he decided to go public with additional details from the case.

He wrote that the "conspiracy" started when an illegal immigrant in Virginia hired smugglers to get her daughter from El Salvador to Virginia. She paid $6,000 in advance. But after the smuggling operation was interrupted by federal agents, he wrote, "the DHS delivered the child to her."

Further, he wrote, this was the fourth case he'd seen in as many weeks along these lines. In one case, he claimed, the U.S. government "flew a child to multiple locations" in the U.S. at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. "This is an absurd and illogical result," he wrote.

The judge noted that after the court inquired about the incidents, a federal prosecutor apparently "requested" that the mother in Virginia be placed in immigration proceedings. He said it's unclear whether that has happened, and he's been told the government will not pursue prosecution.

Hanen wrote that he is "not unsympathetic" to the parents in these cases, but noted the danger these children are put in.

"If [DHS officials] persist in this policy, more children are going to be harmed, and the DHS will be partly responsible because it encourages this kind of Russian roulette," he wrote.



Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's interesting. Let's see if the story is confirmed or denied by the WH, as none of the stories (the same story whinging around the conservative echo chamber) include any response. But, the court ruling says there may have been as many as 4 such child transports conducted by the DHS. If it turns out that there are only 4, will your outrage be as monumental? Don't forget there are over 10 million illegal immigrants in this country...

Remind me, how many Canadian wives of US soldiers have been turned away at the border?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, of all the various people in the world, whom do we apparently want to ease restrictions on and let into the US? Oh yeah, those with ties to terrorist groups. You have to see it to believe it:

quote:
President Obama’s use of an executive directive to ease the rules for people trying to enter the United States or stay in the country even though they have given “limited” support to terrorists or terror groups is causing problems for Republicans working on immigration reform.

"President Obama should be protecting U.S. citizens rather than taking a chance on those who are aiding and abetting terrorist activity and putting Americans at greater risk," says Virginia GOP Rep. Robert Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and part of the GOP House leadership team working on immigration reform.

He and other Republican lawmakers argued that the administration is relaxing rules designed by Congress to protect the country from terrorists.

And Missouri GOP Sen. Roy Blunt on "Fox News Sunday" repeated the concerns of fellow Republicans and others about Obama repeatedly saying that "he can use his pen and his telephone" to work around Congress.

The change is one of Obama's first actions on immigration since he pledged during his State of the Union address last month to use more executive directives.

The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department now say that people considered to have provided "limited material support" to terrorists or terrorist groups are no longer automatically barred from the United States.

A post-Sept. 11 provision in immigrant law, known as terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds, had affected anyone considered to have given support to terror groups. With little exception, the provision has been applied rigidly to those trying to enter the U.S. and those already here but wanting to change their immigration status.

The Democrat-controlled Senate last year passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill that includes a 13-year path to citizenship to some of the estimated 11 million people now living illegally in the United States. The Republican-led House has shown signs recently about a desire to at least offer legal status for some illegal immigrants, but suggested last week such legislation will not get passed this year.

So apparently not only do we have to let people who cross our border illegally stay, but apparently we have to let in people who have provided material support to Al Qaeda. But don't worry, they aren't a threat. People who associate with terrorist groups aren't a threat, just ask the Tsarnaev brothers, er I mean brother.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, you might want to look into the context here a bit, Seneca.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apparently this is what is considered mere association...

The training aside, how many who have been radicalized by their "associations" must we let in?

One can easily say that Major Hassan from Ft. Hood had 'associations' with known terrorists and look what that led to...

Don't we have enough terrorists trying to kill us outside the country? Why do we need to let them into our country?

[ February 10, 2014, 06:18 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Apparently this is what is considered mere association...
No, it's not. Tsarnaev is your strawman, not an actual example.

Again, do yourself a favor and look for more context than Fox News will give you.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1