Our wave of child immigration: What SHOULD be done about it?

[Larry]

Yeah, there's a whole lot of "Awwww, they're children" in this topic.  (Although, I observe, not much in this thread.) 

 

Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's possible to prevent it, though. 

 

Maybe seriously cracking down on employers would help a lot. 

 

I mean, every time I read about somebody shouting "Just close the border" (and even ignoring the fact that many illegals don't sneak across the border), I find myself imagining myself as an unemployed Mexican, and I'm looking across the Rio Grande, and on the other side, there's guys in business suits waving bundles of $100 bills, softly singing "I'll give you this, if you make it across".

 

I don't think it's possible to put enough sharks in the water, that people won't try it. 

[GibbsFactor]

I think Bill Maher said it best.   War on drugs.  End it.   Why?   Because that stops the need for such powerful cartels.    Invest in our own damn continent as well.   Why do we allow central America, to be third world?   How much would it really cost us to invest in those countries?    

People stuck on border control simply cannot see the forest through the trees.

[Slateman]

I think Bill Maher said it best.   War on drugs.  End it.   Why?   Because that stops the need for such powerful cartels.    Invest in our own damn continent as well.   Why do we allow central America, to be third world?   How much would it really cost us to invest in those countries?    

People stuck on border control simply cannot see the forest through the trees.

We've been investing in Central America for over 200 years.

[The 12th Commandment]

We've been investing in Central America for over 200 years.

Investing is kind of a quaint term in this context.

[twa]

 

I mean, every time I read about somebody shouting "Just close the border" (and even ignoring the fact that many illegals don't sneak across the border), I find myself imagining myself as an unemployed Mexican, and I'm looking across the Rio Grande, and on the other side, there's guys in business suits waving bundles of $100 bills, softly singing "I'll give you this, if you make it across".

 

I don't think it's possible to put enough sharks in the water, that people won't try it. 

 

and free food,housing,healthcare,education.....and a chance to become that guy in a suit.

 

I agree jobs are a part....but only part

[GibbsFactor]

We've been investing in Central America for over 200 years.

Clearly.

[Slateman]

Investing is kind of a quaint term in this context.

But we have been. The idea that we need to invest in these third world countries and that the investment will make them cease to be third world nations is laughable. Frankly, Central America should be thanking their stars the US hasn't decided to invade them to give them "freedom and democracy" like we did Iraq. We'd probably be better served if we'd simply leave them the hell alone for a while.

 

I think the US should concentrate on investing in its own country before rushing to the aid of others.

[Bang]

Problem is we invest it, and it never gets to where it is supposed to help. Corruption and crime rule.

we do fuel the drug economy.

 

I don't have any answer other than to think if it's better there, they have no reason to come here.

Parents figured their small children had a better chance to be safe by sending them on a thousand mile walk through drug wars,  criminal cartel territories, deserts, and all the perils of the road than to stay where they were.

As a parent, i have to think that means where they are is pretty damn bad. 

 

Perhaps we ought to extend our war on terror to these cartels who terrorize so many, and create this problem for us in the first place.

 

~Bang

[Larry]

But we have been. The idea that we need to invest in these third world countries and that the investment will make them cease to be third world nations is laughable.

Actually, I think your assertion is laughable.

Growing their economies is the only thing which possibly can raise them.

 

(Now, the rest of your post?  Suggesting we should try to grow our own economy?  That's a good idea, too.) 

 

[The 12th Commandment]

You guys never heard of Banana Republics?  Those are the countries we're talking about here and we bear no little responsibility for the current state of their economies.  We propped up strong men who returned the favor with sweetheart deals for our corporate citizens in the fruit growing business (though they had not yet achieved that status officially) for a long time and it had a bad impact. Apparently.

 

You would call that investment?  We got a return, or at least those who owned stock in the Chiquita, etc did, so in that respect it has been an investment.  But very few of the citizens of these other countries did. Turns out that our country is now seeing another kinda return as well, and it isn't one we like much.

[Slateman]

Problem is we invest it, and it never gets to where it is supposed to help. Corruption and crime rule.

we do fuel the drug economy.

 

I don't have any answer other than to think if it's better there, they have no reason to come here.

Parents figured their small children had a better chance to be safe by sending them on a thousand mile walk through drug wars,  criminal cartel territories, deserts, and all the perils of the road than to stay where they were.

As a parent, i have to think that means where they are is pretty damn bad. 

 

Perhaps we ought to extend our war on terror to these cartels who terrorize so many, and create this problem for us in the first place.

 

~Bang

We can do nothing to fix the corruption. Nothing.

 

And I kind of doubt going to war with the cartels is even remotely a good idea. More like complete lunacy.

 

You can't drag people out of poverty. They have to be willing to do it themselves. And so far, all we seem to be able to accomplish is to get another dictator "elected" whom the people want to overthrow in 3 years. American involvement in Central America has been nothing but bad. Goes double for Africa and the Middle East. It's time to stop getting involved. The US has other concerns. Mainly its own people, who can barely read, and are responsible for some of the most violent areas in the world.

[JMS]

Grant amnesty to all here now, but then have a legitimate and enforceable policy to halt the onslaught going forward

 

I think the lesson Reagan taught us was... If you grant amnesty for the folks here,  wait ten years and you will have 10 times more here..

 

Enforcement at the boarder is a joke..  We have three times the number of guards there we had 20 years ago and the illegals go though them like they weren't even there...   We could line up the entire Army, Navy, and Marine Corps on our boarders and if the folks in south america believed they would get to come here they would still overwhelm our boarders...

 

You have to send the message that economic immigrants must come here through legal means.. period...    A lot of these kids are fleeing dangerous situations,  I think they fall into a different camp... We have always recognized refugee's fleeing dangerous situations and have granted them special protections..   I'm not all that keen about keeping 50,000 Hispanic children in some sort of boot camp though..

[twa]

  I'm not all that keen about keeping 50,000 Hispanic children in some sort of boot camp though..

 

Ya could educate and train them then send them back as peacekeepers/peacecorp models.....be better than some of the aid we piss away

[Larry]

Ya could educate and train them then send them back as peacekeepers/peacecorp models.....be better than some of the aid we piss away

Part of me says that's an absolutely stupid idea. But then, I'm not sure exactly why, in this case.

[twa]

Part of me says that's an absolutely stupid idea. But then, I'm not sure exactly why, in this case.

 

I call it the Russian model   , more than likely unconstitutional

 

it does provide for them w/o really rewarding them much, and could be a driver for change when they are shipped back

 

we could start our own little communes.

[Taylor703]

We must send them back home. I'm sorry and I know it's not the most caring thing to say but we have our own we need to take care of.

[Slateman]

We must send them back home. I'm sorry and I know it's not the most caring thing to say but we have our own we need to take care of.

And the law?

[twa]

And the law?

 

Ya define them away....it seems to work in other areas.

smuggled vs trafficked

[The 12th Commandment]

We must send them back home. I'm sorry and I know it's not the most caring thing to say but we have our own we need to take care of.

But there are interim steps until the goal of deportation is achieved.  You understand that I'm sure and agree that there is very little we can do about it.  In the meantime shouldn't we be caring to women and kids?  

[Taylor703]

But there are interim steps until the goal of deportation is achieved.  You understand that I'm sure and agree that there is very little we can do about it.  In the meantime shouldn't we be caring to women and kids?

Well of course but that's the idea in coming here isn't it? That we would feel obligated to take care of them once they got here. I hate the idea of turning my back on anyone but it's also a bit disheartening that we have our own that starve and have no place to live and our government springs to action to take care of someone else's. Just my opinion and I'm sorry if it makes me seem inconsiderate because that's not the case.

[The 12th Commandment]

Well of course but that's the idea in coming here isn't it? That we would feel obligated to take care of them once they got here. I hate the idea of turning my back on anyone but it's also a bit disheartening that we have our own that starve and have no place to live and our government springs to action to take care of someone else's. Just my opinion and I'm sorry if it makes me seem inconsiderate because that's not the case.

What do you propose to do though?  We're stuck with what we have to work with, I figure.  I don't think you're being inconsiderate so much as you just haven't finished explaining your take on it.  How would go about seeing that we didn't have to house them at all. 

 

Forgetting about the laws saying how they have to be processed, you can't put 60,000 people in the air on the same day.  The logistics of moving even those that are coming across in one day is way beyond what anyone can handle.  

 

Our government springs into action every single month to help our own citizens.  We spend a fair amount of money on welfare and food stamp programs.  Too many people slip through the cracks though, I agree.  I can get on board with you in expanding these programs somewhat if the administration of them is efficient.  Whatever amount of money is involved in that, however, is not going to impacted by feeding and housing these folks on a temporary basis.  That's a red herring.

[s0crates]

We've been investing in Central America for over 200 years.

Investing?

I guess bombing Panama was an investment in Central America (and not for the US). I suppose supporting the contras in Nicaragua was such an investment too. I guess the overthrow of the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz (and the tens of thousands of government sponsored murders that ensued) in Guatemala was such an investment too. Same thing with the CIA backed death squads in El Salvador I imagine.

Somebody already mentioned United Fruit, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Give me a break with this "investing" stuff. I thought our brutality towards the people of Central and South America in the name of US interests was well known.

[JMS]

Investing?

I guess bombing Panama was an investment in Central America (and not for the US).

To be fair we (Teddy Roosevelt) sent ground troops into Venesuala to convince them Panama should be free, ( aka ours), before we "invested" in building the Panama Canal. We then operated the canal as our possession for 50 years before Jimmy Carter finally honored an Eisenhower agreement to return control of the canal back to Panama..

I agree Investing in revolutions, death squads, and right wing extremists has been our legacy for central and south America... I remember 1976 when Augusto Pinochet started to shoot off car bombs in DC to kill his enemies here... And then I remember in the 1990's when former cia directors and secretary's of state(Eagleburger) tried to appeal to the American Public to save Pinoche from trials for his abuses in Argintina.

I thought our brutality towards the people of Central and South America in the name of US interests was well known

It was actually a lot of cold war activities... The communists would move into an area and destabilize it.. and we would support the right wing nutjobs to deal with the Communists... dark dark times... for pretty much 50 years...

[Wrong Direction]

The best part of all of this is how it demonstrates the complete ineptitude of our politicians. If you gave this problem to a run of the mill project manager, they'd probably see something like:

 

1. Broken law +

2. Broken message from POTUS =

3. Illegal population

 

That program manager would then:

 

1. Fix the law, so we don't provide exemptions to people we can't support

2. Change the message, to reinforce that people who come here illegally will be deported, and

3. Work over time to follow the previous law and/or deport these people (depending on the new law).

 

People act like border security is rocket science. It isn't. It's a political failure of D's and R's who want power more than they want to do good things for our country. 

[JMS]

I think the "going to family here" isn't an option. (It's hard to tell, but I think the blog twa listed that implied otherwise, is working really hard to falsely imply that. But I'm not 100% certain.).

Now, yeah, I can certainly embrace the idea of "they stay, but they aren't citizens". (Although I suspect that saying that they can never become citizens, for a decision their parents made, seems a bit harsh. But it does solve the "what if their parents show up" issue).

From what I've read in the NYTimes TWA's article is accurate. of the 52,000 unattended kids who have crossed our boarders, most have already been reunited with family or friends of family in the US... Flown to the US city of their choice at US taxpayer's dime. Of the 220,000 family with children which also fall under the same loophole... they too have been released and flown to the city of their choosing after promising to return for their immigration hearing....

What else can we do? By Law they must have a hearing before they can be deported and there is now a 3-4 year backlog in the immigration courts. If they show up for their hearing.