The Obama administration is considering whether to allow hundreds of
minors and young adults from Honduras into the United States without
making the dangerous trek through Mexico, according to a draft of the
proposal.
If approved, the plan would direct the government to screen
thousands of children and youths in Honduras to see if they can enter
the United States as refugees or on emergency humanitarian grounds. It
would be the first American refugee effort in a nation reachable by land
to the United States, the White House said, putting the violence in
Honduras on the level of humanitarian emergencies in Haiti and Vietnam,
where such programs have been conducted in the past amid war and major
crises.
Critics of the plan were quick to pounce, saying it appeared to
redefine the legal definition of a refugee and would only increase the
flow of migration to the United States. Administration officials said
they believed the plan could be enacted through executive action, without congressional approval, as long as it did not increase the total number of refugees coming into the country.
Presidential over reach? Is this the new legislate in Washington?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn-Country Refugee/Parole Program for Central American Minors, and the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security introduced it on November 14, 2014. They promised it would not become “a pathway for undocumented parents to bring their children to the United States,” but it appears that’s not the case.
ReplyDeleteThe program not only creates a pathway for Central American children to reunite with their newly amnestied parents, it also pays their travel costs and ensures them federal benefits. The program is open to any unmarried child under age 21 in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, provided they have a parent lawfully present in the U.S. If the children fail to qualify as refugees, they may be admitted as parolees, which will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
The Department of Homeland Security acknowledged on an invitation-only conference call last week that it was willing to accept people into the program who have previously been deported. “They are able to apply for a waiver for the inadmissibility,” a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services official said on the call. “It’s the I-602 process,” the official said, referring to waivers filed by refugees previously determined to be inadmissible to the United States. The official added that “the waiver authority for the refugee program is quite broad.”
More Immigration The Green-Card Racket for Beltway Cronies Report: More Than 2,000 Illegal Immigrant Children Are Arriving Each Month in 2015 Rubio: I'm 'Realistic on Immigration' The cost of the program and its impact inside the U.S. are not yet fully known. Dan Langenkamp, a State Department spokesman, tells National Review that the Central Americans will travel to the U.S. on commercial flights and be given a travel loan for the cost of the flight that they will be required to repay. Parolees, he says, will be required to pay for their trips up front. “Each person is provided initial services and support by the U.S. Department of State equivalent to $1,975,” Langenkamp says in an e-mail. “Additional transitional benefits are provided by the Department of Health and Human Services, as they are for other newly arrived refugees.”
Now that Cuba is Obama's 51'st State I say fly them to Gitmo and open the doors.
ReplyDeleteLet the communist paradise amalgamate these children into perfect little Marxists.
I believe if you read the law, it says that only children of people who already have resident status, and are from one of the three countries mentioned, will be allowed in, to join their parents. El Salvador. Guatemala and Honduras are all in a state of complete government breakdown.
ReplyDeleteOnly people who have been granted amnesty.
DeleteThey promised it would not become “a pathway for undocumented parents to bring their children to the United States,” but it appears that’s not the case.
The program not only creates a pathway for Central American children to reunite with their newly amnestied parents,
And best is the US taxpayer pays the bill.
What about all the people in Africa that are victims of violence? The people in Syria, Iran victims of ISIS? Why such compassion for the Central Americans and not the rest of the world.
Hypocrites one and all.
When the US is in a state of government breakdown, not long from now, who will rescue the US citizens?
DeleteHow about sending them a hundred billion or 2 and ship the people home.
Notwithstanding the obvious "Facts" as to what has or has not occurred and the debate over executive action, is the influx of people from South America good for the people of the US?
ReplyDeleteAs with my country, the US has a crisis in economic terms at present. Too many on welfare, too many in Goal and too many wanting more from the government than the government is able to provide. There are also too many who want the situation to remain as it is. The idea that working for a living is something that someone else does, has led to second and third generation unemployed citizens of both countries.
I must therefore ask, is it not the responsibility of America to look after Americans first? There is time enough to renew the Lady Bountiful programs when the economy of the country is under control. I assure everyone prepared to read my scribble, your economy is not currently under control and neither the Reds or the Blues are capable, acting alone, of fixing the problem.
I hope my friends will understand, no matter how much I study your history, I cannot avoid the feeling that executive action is in some ways the only means out of the mess your tri party power ball creates.
My nation was created off the back of your rebellion. Convicts were sent to Australia when it was deemed unsafe to send them to North America. We had a benign government located in England and gradually we took control of our own destiny. It was not until 1986 that the last link in our judicial system was severed from the Privy Council in London.
Because your nation was born out of a revolutionary gestation, the Constitution was written as the afterbirth of the revolution and the mindset of the people ever since has been engrained with a sense of distrust for the government, I see this present situation of distrust as being just one more lead weight in the pocket of a drowning man.
I must close this small contribution by advising that my friend Louman sent me a link yesterday to a university site containing a series of lectures on the Federalist Papers. Of course I have read these magnificent papers previously but I have never heard them discussed orally. in one short half hour I gained a much greater understanding than I have garnered over thirty years. Lou may be prepared to make the site known to readers, it is not for me to do so even though tempted.
Cheers from Aussie
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAs the Federalists papers are difficult to read being in the prose of the time, the lecture series is most interesting. Anyone that would like the link to the series, let me know, I would be happy to post it for you.
DeleteAs to executive action. Instead of executive action perhaps we should learn the lost art of compromise again. It's worked since the origins of the country and can work today should both parties try.
Yes it should be Americans first before we allow any immigration into the US. One would think that paramount. Instead we allow people to not work and collect benefits. The additional labor of course suppresses wages. Why would any employer increase wages when 10 are ready to start tomorrow?
The day approaches when a decision will need to be made as to what we can afford and want vs. wanting everything.
Yeah louman, "but what about the children?"
DeleteThat is a great point what about American children?
DeleteThe American children of parents that can find no or inadequate work? Destined to be a product of generational poverty? The children of generational welfare?
When do we say Americans first, that includes American children?
Of course I would like the link… I am not so sure why the link to a public information source is treated as a secret and not posted as general information for those with even casual interest to pursue, but I would be interested. I would also be interested to know if the lectures are given from the perspective of an originalist or that of a constitutional expert such as our dear president and if the lectures reflect the concerns and warnings given in the anti-federalist papers. You are correct that the federalist papers, read in isolation, are difficult to understand but when reflected against the points raised in the antifederalist and clarifying comments made elsewhere, jargon aside… most is fairly clear. To me, the biggest failing in the construction of the constitution was the assumption of clarity and the lack of understand of a determined lawyer to somehow change words like ‘shall’ into ‘May’ and ‘. Much lucidity of meaning was lost due to the presumption that what was written was universally understood and accepted...like the roll of the judiciary in protecting the rights of citizens from government encroachment… someone didn’t seem to understand the gravity of that role.
DeleteThe question of compromise, for me, follows the last paragraph. To start a compromise from a position outside of the law defeats the purpose of law. We are so far removed from Constitutional LAW that we are operating on the premise of precedent…. One person got way with circumventing the law so the next person has the privilege of seeing just how much more irrelevant they can make the original statute. As I told King, in a discussion that was quickly abandoned by both he and Max, there is nothing whatsoever in my thought process that makes me want to return to the 1700’s but Article VI, section 2 of the U. S. Constitution is quite clear where ALL U.S. LAW >>> SHALL<<< be based. Don’t like the constitution?… change it… but until then, compromise outside of the law is just condoning lawlessness… lawlessness that has lead us to many of the problems we have today… lawlessness that is causing more and more people to say… “Enough!”
If we are honest about the subject of immigration we will admit that it is a means to an end for several groups who want, like nuclear disarmament, to unilaterally drop our borders, the ability to selfishly pursue a personal life without consequence and people who are so amoured with the idea of change and that the past was so very bad that we need to destroy personal responsibility, any semblance of a value system, the family and pride in a once great nation.
Firstly the idea that we must import unskilled labor into a work market who’s net available jobs don’t even cover the unemployed in residence is a rather head scratching conclusion…. And then demand a minimum wage that inhibits the type of hiring that gave me work experience in farming, trash collection, food service, lawn care, moving and storage and others all before I left high school and paid for my first car, new, with cash… because my dad wouldn’t by me one saying that I would appreciated and care for it much more if I bought it with my own hard earned money.
One argument goes that we need these people to mitigate the bubble created by the baby boomers, yet continue to openly defend an encourage the behaviour that has prevented, largely for nothing more than social convenience, the abortion of some 55million people, many who would now be freshmen grandparents with families of their own. People like to speak about dealing with problems based on the ‘reality’ of today’s modern society…. Problem is, their own philosophy has created the reality that has spawned these problems.
Then there are those with one world ambitions… Amero / North America Union ambitions regardless the consequence to the people of the United States.
King,
DeleteOf course the word benign is, like most other descriptions of the sort, relative. I am quite sure you will find people from all over the world who found British rule and colonization anything but benign…. But then again the term ‘white privilege’ only applies to Americans of European ancestry. The fact that your association with the crown and the concept of monarchy has been an absolute thread running through your history might lead you, not unlike a frog in a boiling pot, to see the word sovereign in a much different way than do I.
TS,
DeleteI have a hard time envisioning what it means to physically not want to live in the 1700's, but still maintain a mental context that was present when the constitution was written. I would not disagree at all that generation by generation, there has been a change in social norms wherein certain behaviors become less tolerated, and other behaviors become more tolerated. There is a lot of behavior I see everyday that I abhor. I would even go further to say that while I don't currently believe in theistic religion, I at least appreciate many of the concepts held within theistic religion that dictate how we should carry ourselves and how we should treat others.
I've talked a lot about my attraction to very conservative thinking in my early 20's. Best as I can fathom, I think one of the biggest draws was the sharp contrast it presented to chaos that I grew up in where I had very little supervision or support until I was in my teens, when it was nearly too late. I came to detest anyone who wasn't working two jobs like I was and particularly those who stood on corners begging me for money. I also became very judgmental of people who had abortions, of unions and so on. It all fell apart for though when I realized that people with money were just as ruthless, vindictive and willing to break the rules for the benefit as anyone else. There is no one segment, no single race, no single demographic I found where people lived up to what they preached. It made sense in the romantic fantasy of Atlas Shrugged, but had no reality based connection at all.
You correctly pointed out to me that the self evident truths come from the declaration of independece while our laws come from the constitution. My bigger point that remains the problem today, IMO, is that one the one hand the thinking of the day led to the declaration of independence. The same thinking of the day, and compromise I suppose, led to the creation of laws that in some cases flatly contradicted the self evident truths. Even today, within our courts and justice system, we have a situation wherein wealthy people seldom go to jail no matter how heinous the crime, while those of color or low income receive no such blessing.
Conservatives have long blamed "liberal" thinking as the cause of everything they find wrong with society. Abortion. Drug use. Bad schools. Bad economics. Disregard for responsibility. Ironically, many conservatives will support a religious belief that says we are all born sinful, (human nature?) yet when individuals act that out, it is because of twisted liberalism and lack of respect for the constitution. I don't buy it.
Max,
DeleteI am quite sure that your inability to differentiate my appreciation for the law of the land which resides in the constitution and some by gone time has something to do with a fact that you can agree with everything someone says and still rationalize a ‘but’ in every discussion and can without taking a breath admit that you are…. Wishy washy… Relative. Of course the usurpations in history that have occurred play quite nicely into the ideology of those who see black letter law as a hindrance to the furtherance of whatever cause is in fashion at the time… unless of course it isn’t.
Of course no one lives up to what they preach… but as long as they are preaching it, they are hearing it… its when you stop hearing the message that you really go off the rails… what do you think prayers are for, mantras are for, affirmations are for. Of course women got abortions during the time the constitution was written but you could probably count all of them on half ledger sheet of Planned Parenthood daily profit statement.
Believe me, I don’t blame everything on liberals… those on the social far right drove many of the laws that pushed people who wanted the constitution enforced. It really wasn’t a hard sell before the Supreme Court … it was right there in black and white and while the constitution doesn’t forbid religious influence in our laws, it certainly draws the line as to what laws one man(and their ‘good book’) can impose on another… if one takes the time to read it. The problem here is that we have come to a point where this administration/era violated this provision and that administration/era violated that provision and we are now to the point where we see the basic law as the problem and not the usurpations. Every generation so willing can change any provision of the basic law it chooses.. No? Because no generation has been so moved to do so, special interest(generally small groups of vocal people) pushes ‘law makers’ to pass laws that have no connection to the constitution and with a dysfunctional judiciary, the law gets a pass… and the constitution becomes even more irrelevant… and the patchwork of disjointed law gets ever thicker and our world becomes far more complicated than it need be. Liberals, that is progressives, have had a run now for about 100 years so it is hard not to focus on their many … accomplishments.
So, tell me, what is wrong with the precepts of the Declaration of Independence. What laws were compromises against those self-evident truths?... this ought to be interesting.