Quantcast

Obama's Unconstitutional Implementation of DREAM Act Having Adverse Effect - A Surge in Unaccompanied Illegal Child Immigrants!

Ken 2012/05/02 18:44:52
We need to control our borders NOW!
No more unconstitutional "going around" our elected representatives in congress!
Undecided
All of the above
None of the above
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Child Migrant Surge To US Stresses Support System


by The Associated Press






















McALLEN, Texas April 28, 2012, 05:00 am ET

McALLEN, Texas (AP) — An unprecedented surge of
children caught trudging through South Texas scrublands or crossing at
border ports of entry into the U.S. without their families has sent
government and nonprofit agencies scrambling to expand their shelter,
legal representation and reunification services. On any given day this
year, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement has been caring for more
than 2,100 unaccompanied child immigrants.

The
influx came to light last week when 100 kids were taken to Lackland Air
Force Base near San Antonio for temporary housing. It was the first
time the government has turned to the Defense Department — now, 200 boys
and girls younger than 18 stay in a base dormitory.

While
the issue of unaccompanied minors arriving in the U.S. isn't new, the
scale of the recent increase is. From October 2011 through March, 5,252
kids landed in U.S. custody without a parent or guardian — a 93 percent
increase from the same period the previous year, according to data
released by the Department of Health and Human Services. In March alone,
1,390 kids arrived.

"The whole community
right now is in triage mode," said Wendy Young, executive director of
Kids in Need of Defense, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that matches
pro bono attorneys with unaccompanied minors navigating the immigration
system. "It's important that the resources and the capacity meet the
need, and we're not quite there yet."

The
Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement
facilities in 10 states range from shelters to foster homes and have
about 2,500 beds. Government-contracted shelters were maxing out their
emergency bed space, setting up cots in gymnasiums and other extra
spaces.

"It's a much more limited set of
services," said Lauren Fisher of the South Texas Pro Bono Asylum
Representation Project, which helps children and their families navigate
the system. "It felt something like a Red Cross shelter, a hurricane
shelter."

Unaccompanied children are first
processed by the Department of Homeland Security, and then turned over
to the ORR while the deportation process begins. Once in a shelter, the
search begins for their relatives or an acceptable custodian, while
nonprofit organizations try to match the children with pro bono
attorneys. When a custodian is found, the child can leave the shelter
and await immigration proceedings.

Eighty
percent of the children referred to the ORR end up in a shelter,
according to a report released last month by the Vera Institute of
Justice — a nonprofit that developed a program to better provide access
to legal services for children. The average shelter stay is 61 days, and
the report found that at least 65 percent of the kids end up with a
sponsor in the U.S.

The cause of the surge
remains a mystery to child migrant advocates and government officials.
The kids are coming from the same places as usual —Guatemala, El
Salvador, Honduras and Mexico — and they offer the same range of
explanations: they made the trek to look for parents already in the
U.S.; they're seeking economic opportunity to send money home; they want
to escape violence or abuse.

"We're talking
to the children, but we don't have one solid answer," Fisher said.
"There seem to be the same reasons that we've seen before."

Some
have suggested that human smugglers are more aggressively marketing
their services. Others wonder if the Border Patrol, whose presence has
doubled in recent years, is simply catching more of them. But Border
Patrol apprehensions of children and adults were cut in half from 2008
to 2011, and only 5 percent of those caught are unaccompanied children.
Younger children commonly cross with adult smugglers at the ports of
entry, while older kids join groups that follow guides through the
brush.

A South Texas woman told border
authorities this month that the 5-year-old girl accompanying her at the
international bridge connecting Hidalgo, Texas, and Reynosa, Mexico, was
her sister, according to court records. She even presented a Texas
birth certificate. But the girl couldn't answer basic questions, so the
woman told customs officers that she wasn't related to the girl at all.
She said that a man whom she worked with in Mexico offered her $2,000 to
"cross" the girl — who was actually from Guatemala — and accompany her
to Houston. The woman was charged with transporting an illegal
immigrant.

This week, the first ladies of
Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala spoke at a three-day conference on
unaccompanied minors in Washington, D.C. Mexico's first lady, Margarita
Zavala, and Honduran counterpart Rosa Elena Bonilla de Lobo noted that
tougher U.S. border security made it more difficult for parents working
in the U.S. to return for their children, a suggestion as to why parents
increasingly would put their children in a smuggler's care.

"The
statistics are worrisome,"
said Rosa Maria Leal de Perez, Guatemala's
first lady.
"We've had 6,000 unaccompanied children repatriated in the
last year."

The Department of Health and
Human Services limited its public statements on the unaccompanied
migrant children program, but it allowed a few reporters to take a short
tour this week of the housing at Lackland Air Force base. They were not
allowed to speak with children.

The beige,
nondescript four-story dormitory is located deep on the base. When
children arrive, they are issued black duffel bags filled with clothing
and are allowed two phone calls a week. Three-quarters of the children
are boys, most between 14 and 17 years old.

Green
cots were spaced two feet apart along the stark-white walls. A media
room held a large flat-screen television and a video game console; there
were also board games and an outside area with a basketball hoop and
two soccer goals. The kids play outside for an hour each day.

"We
are looking to add some educational features that are appropriate for a
30-day temporary program,"
HHS spokesman Jesse Garcia said, though the
goal is to move kids to more established accommodations within 15 days.

As
of late Friday, 83 kids had already been transferred out of Lackland,
most to permanent facilities. Nineteen had been reunited with family.

__

Associated Press writer Paul Weber in San Antonio contributed to this report.


Comment:
This is what happens when ICE is told to implement the DREAM Act
administratively, when "selective prosecution" allows minors to remain
in the United States. This is yet another policy of the Obama
administration that has been implemented after a Democratic congress
voted it (i.e. the DREAM Act) down! The fact that such lenient policies
actually attract more illegal immigration remains lost on those who
promote such policies.
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • RTHTGakaRoland 2012/05/04 07:59:34
    All of the above
    RTHTGakaRoland
    +1
    Obama is going to add to his total of Mexicans killed, 300+ from Murdergate aka Fast and Furious alone, with this idiotic policy.

    Some truck full of kids are going to die miserably in Summer desert heat because they are being smuggled into America illegally.

    Obama: callous, careless, or clueless?
  • Ken RTHTGak... 2012/05/04 22:08:07
    Ken
    +1
    They don't seem to understand (or don't care) the magnet that the offer of a free education in the U.S. and a path to citizenship means to those who are able to "jump the line" ahead of the legal applicants who have been waiting for years.
  • Prairie Wind 2012/05/04 01:18:45 (edited)
    All of the above
    Prairie Wind
    +1
    The increased return of Latinos/Hispanics/Mexicans/W e t b a c k s... across our southern border back into Mexico has our Democrats in a dizzy, demanding our border fences and patrols increased to ensure Obama's imagined voters from returning to their homelands, leaving their "anchor babies" to wander southward toward the aura of chicken and dog filled tacos once again with their patronage! Just keep waking toward your Rio Grande baptism!
  • Ken Prairie... 2012/05/04 01:47:13
    Ken
    +1
    LMAO - too true!
  • Rebel Yell 2012/05/02 21:25:17
    None of the above
    Rebel Yell
    +1
    What is happening is because of cartel activity near the border. Also, Obama has placed 1200 new border agents and the Nat. Guard . Hispanics here are not risking going home. For many years they crossed between the two countries three or more times a year , reconnecting with their families.

    These children who have been living with relatives are looking for their parents. A child still doesn’t understand how their mother or father can leave them behind. Even if it means bringing food to the table. They miss their parents desperately and need to be with their parents. Parents leave their children behind in the care of relatives and cross the border so they can find work that will help provide money for their families back at home.They miss their parent(s) and are desperate to see and be near them again. So, in the end these children will decide to travel alone and try to get reunited with their parents. Most of the children don’t realize the dangers they face when trying to cross the two borders. Many are swept up by sex traffickers. Others get lost in the desert and disappear.
    Others hop trains . (Which Way Home, Kids Riding Trains), the movie
  • Ken Rebel Yell 2012/05/02 22:00:11 (edited)
    Ken
    You seem to have no clue as to what is happening - these kids weren't abandoned because ICE sent their parents home without them - they are crossing the border without their parents, at least according to this Associated Press story.
  • Ken Rebel Yell 2012/05/02 22:18:05
    Ken
    That is a lie! "There were 20,745 border patrol agents as of April 9, 2011; 17,659 of them stationed along the southwest border with Mexico, according to data provided by Steven Cribby, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security. That's up from 17,499 border patrol agents at the end of September 2008, four months before Obama took office." http://www.politifact.com/tru...

    By my math, that's a whole 160 agents Obama has added, not 1200. Also, Obama is cutting the number of National Guard troops on the border (placed there by Bush) by at least half.

    http://www.washingtontimes.co...
  • rightside 2012/05/02 19:54:34
    All of the above
    rightside
    +2
    bama want's illegal aliens to vote for him illegally.
  • ProudProgressive 2012/05/02 19:42:23
    None of the above
    ProudProgressive
    +2
    I bet you blame President Obama for cloudy days, too. The President has not violated the Constitution on this or any other issue, and the DREAM Act has not been implemented, although it should be. "Selective prosecution" has absolutely nothing to do with border crossings, since it only affects people who are ALREADY HERE. And you seem not to have read your own post very well or you would realize that one of the reasons for this surge is that BORDER PATROLS HAVE DOUBLED, so more people crossing the border are caught. The FACT is that deportations are higher now than they were before the President took office, overall entries by illegals are down significantly, we have a net zero illegal immigration level for the first time in many decades.

    You know, it really does get annoying when people who obviously have never read the Constitution and clearly have no idea as to how our system of government works constantly complain about "constitutional violations". It's funny sometimes, but it just demonstrates the irrationality of all of the Obama Haters and their obsession with attacking one of the most effective and successful Presidents this nation has ever had.
  • Ken ProudPr... 2012/05/02 22:06:56
    Ken
    +1
    Au contraire, the DREAM Act has largely been implemented by Obama and the DHS administratively, despite the fact that it was voted down by a Democrat-controlled congress.
    http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/31...

    And you are the one who is misreading the article - just after the statement that the border patrols have doubled, it is qualified: "But Border Patrol apprehensions of children and adults were cut in half from 2008 to 2011, and only 5 percent of those caught are unaccompanied children. Younger children commonly cross with adult smugglers at the ports of entry, while older kids join groups that follow guides through the brush."
  • ProudPr... Ken 2012/05/02 22:22:59
    ProudProgressive
    +2
    No WONDER you don't understand. You're reading birther central. Prosecutorial discretion is a common thing in all types of criminal cases, not just immigration. It is a necessary and useful method of using limited resources in the most efficient manner. If there are two people awaiting trial - let's say a woman who has worked in a laundromat for twenty years and has no other criminal record but who entered the country illegally, and a man charged with four counts of murder in addition to being in the country illegally, and you've only got one courtroom and one judge and can only try one of them, which one do you choose? The problem with anti-immigrant extremists is that they view these two hypothetical cases as being equal. We don't have the resources to put every illegal alien on trial (especially since Republican obstructionism now has about a fifth of the Federal judiciary vacant) so the Obama administration is properly putting the emphasis on deporting and/or imprisoning the serious criminals and aren't wasting their time on the laundress. But this is most emphatically NOT Amnesty. If and when we have the resources, they'll come back for the laundress.

    And I didn't misread anything. They are talking about apprehensions of adults WITH children with them. Look, I ...





    No WONDER you don't understand. You're reading birther central. Prosecutorial discretion is a common thing in all types of criminal cases, not just immigration. It is a necessary and useful method of using limited resources in the most efficient manner. If there are two people awaiting trial - let's say a woman who has worked in a laundromat for twenty years and has no other criminal record but who entered the country illegally, and a man charged with four counts of murder in addition to being in the country illegally, and you've only got one courtroom and one judge and can only try one of them, which one do you choose? The problem with anti-immigrant extremists is that they view these two hypothetical cases as being equal. We don't have the resources to put every illegal alien on trial (especially since Republican obstructionism now has about a fifth of the Federal judiciary vacant) so the Obama administration is properly putting the emphasis on deporting and/or imprisoning the serious criminals and aren't wasting their time on the laundress. But this is most emphatically NOT Amnesty. If and when we have the resources, they'll come back for the laundress.

    And I didn't misread anything. They are talking about apprehensions of adults WITH children with them. Look, I would have no objection to them adding even more Border Patrol agents, but the reality is that illegal immigration is not nearly the "crisis" that the conservatives try to make it. We are at net zero illegal immigration this year, and assuming we continue the policies now in place the total number of illegals will be dropping within the next few years. I won't deny that not all of the drop is because of President Obama's policies. The weakened world and US economy the last few years also plays a role, and I do give the anti-immigrant people some credit for frightening a lot of employers out of hiring illegals at the rate they used to.

    "A study published this week by the Pew Hispanic Center found that over the last five years, immigration from Mexico to the United States has dropped to its lowest level in decades, hitting the key “net zero” benchmark just recently, where more Mexicans are moving out of the U.S. than there are coming in.

    The study’s most startling finding: while the population of legal Mexican immigrants is growing faster than it has in many years, the undocumented population is shrinking even faster. There were a total of 6.1 million undocumented Mexican immigrants living in the U.S. in 2011, compared to nearly 7 million in 2007 — a statistic that, according to Pew, represents the first significant decrease in illegal immigration in nearly two decades."

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/20...
    (more)
  • Ken ProudPr... 2012/05/02 23:29:37 (edited)
    Ken
    +1
    I'm an attorney, PP, I know what "prosecutorial discretion" is, and in this case it came down from on high, from the Chosen One himself, and note, coincidentally, it reflects virtually every standard that was found in the DREAM Act, a piece of legislation that not even a Democratic congress would pass. So now, according to you and President Obama, it is fine for the president to "go around" the people's elected representatives when he doesn't get his way, when they specifically vote down legislation he supports?

    The "laundress" is every bit as much a law-breaker as the criminal, in terms of violating our immigration laws. According to you and Obama, we are to now look the other way when anyone is found within our borders who has failed to comply with our laws, while virtually no other nation in the world abdicates their own sovereignty and their right to secure borders? So it isn't amnesty because you say it isn't? Easy to win a debate when you control the definitions.

    Yes, you did misread it and you are still doing so, perhaps intentionally. The entire story is about a surge in unaccompanied children crossing the border, the younger ones at ports of entry accompanied by adults, who ostensibly have papers, and the older ones who are trekking through the "scrub" with their ...



    I'm an attorney, PP, I know what "prosecutorial discretion" is, and in this case it came down from on high, from the Chosen One himself, and note, coincidentally, it reflects virtually every standard that was found in the DREAM Act, a piece of legislation that not even a Democratic congress would pass. So now, according to you and President Obama, it is fine for the president to "go around" the people's elected representatives when he doesn't get his way, when they specifically vote down legislation he supports?

    The "laundress" is every bit as much a law-breaker as the criminal, in terms of violating our immigration laws. According to you and Obama, we are to now look the other way when anyone is found within our borders who has failed to comply with our laws, while virtually no other nation in the world abdicates their own sovereignty and their right to secure borders? So it isn't amnesty because you say it isn't? Easy to win a debate when you control the definitions.

    Yes, you did misread it and you are still doing so, perhaps intentionally. The entire story is about a surge in unaccompanied children crossing the border, the younger ones at ports of entry accompanied by adults, who ostensibly have papers, and the older ones who are trekking through the "scrub" with their coyotes -- it isn't about whether they are caught or not.

    Once again, it does appear that illegals are self-deporting because of a lack of jobs. Apparently Obama's immigration policy, destroy private sector jobs and provide an economy that sucks, is working.

    Also, I seriously doubt Pew's statistics on the total number of illegals. In 2000, California alone had a foreign-born population of 8,864,255, or 26% of the state's total population, and half of them, or over 4,000,000, were Latin Americans. The total number I've seen is typically 11.2 to 11.5 million. http://news.yahoo.com/number-...
    (more)
  • ProudPr... Ken 2012/05/03 11:42:11 (edited)
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    Now you see, there's the typical anti-illegal immigrant myopia. California has almost 9 million foreign born people, and you just naturally assume that each one of them is in the country illegally. I've got news for you - being "Foreign Born" is not a crime. The most reliable estimates indicate roughly 11 million people in the country illegally, and a little more than half of them from Mexico.

    born crime reliable estimates roughly 11 people country illegally mexico

    I also love the part about "destroying private sector jobs". I guess you haven't noticed that we've ADDED private sector jobs for the last 25 consecutive months, and have added over 4 million private sector jobs overall since the President took office.
  • Ken ProudPr... 2012/05/03 14:21:15
    Ken
    "Anti-immigrant???" Typically for a liberal you lie by omission - you left out the "Illegal" part. Four million jobs??? Where did you get that lie??? As of July, 2011, the net number of jobs, including government, was just over one million. That isn't even enough to keep up with new entries into the job market.
    http://politicalcorrection.or...
  • ProudPr... Ken 2012/05/03 15:10:30
    ProudProgressive
    You're correct on the first part. In my haste I did not type "anti-illegal immigrant". I've corrected the post and apologize for the imprecision.

    As to jobs, you overlook the fact that George Bush's going away present to the nation was a job loss of 750,000 jobs a month. It's true that the "net number of jobs created" is nowhere near enough, but when you consider that for the first six months of President Obama's term, when we were still in Bush's fiscal year and the stimulus had not yet started to kick in fully, we lost another several million jobs. Had we started on January 20, 2009 at zero jobs gained or lost per month, the 4 million figure would be a net gain figure. As it is, it took a long time to even break even given the damage Bush's failed policies inflicted.
  • Ken ProudPr... 2012/05/03 21:34:21 (edited)
    Ken
    Once again you cling to the lie that the financial meltdown was Bush's fault, when he recognized the problem and did his best to correct it. He warned as early as 2001 that the two GSEs were in bad shape and that a failure of one or both of them would create "systemic problems" with the economy.

    What he got for his troubles was a letter signed by 76 Democrats complaining that his proposal to regulate Fannie and Freddie for "safety and soundness" would interfere with their mission to provide subsidized housing. Barney Frank infamously remarked that he wanted to "roll the dice a little longer" in favor of more subsidized housing. Barney and the Dems rolled the dice and they came up "craps" for the American people.

    I suggest you read "Reckless Endangerment" by Gretchen Morgenson, a financial editor/writer for the N.Y. Times (hardly a right-wing source!) for the story of how the policies of the CEO of Fannie Mae, James Johnson, to push "subprime loans" as a way to increase volume and his own bonuses (Johnson,a Democrat, made over $100 million at Fannie Mae in ~ eight years!), from the early 90s on, along with Clinton's "federalizing" Johnson's policies by rewriting the regulations to the CRA and forcing banks to make shaky loans, led to the "housing boom" and the subsequent m...








    Once again you cling to the lie that the financial meltdown was Bush's fault, when he recognized the problem and did his best to correct it. He warned as early as 2001 that the two GSEs were in bad shape and that a failure of one or both of them would create "systemic problems" with the economy.

    What he got for his troubles was a letter signed by 76 Democrats complaining that his proposal to regulate Fannie and Freddie for "safety and soundness" would interfere with their mission to provide subsidized housing. Barney Frank infamously remarked that he wanted to "roll the dice a little longer" in favor of more subsidized housing. Barney and the Dems rolled the dice and they came up "craps" for the American people.

    I suggest you read "Reckless Endangerment" by Gretchen Morgenson, a financial editor/writer for the N.Y. Times (hardly a right-wing source!) for the story of how the policies of the CEO of Fannie Mae, James Johnson, to push "subprime loans" as a way to increase volume and his own bonuses (Johnson,a Democrat, made over $100 million at Fannie Mae in ~ eight years!), from the early 90s on, along with Clinton's "federalizing" Johnson's policies by rewriting the regulations to the CRA and forcing banks to make shaky loans, led to the "housing boom" and the subsequent meltdown.

    You also greatly exaggerate the job losses under Bush. During 2008 there were a total of 2.6 million jobs lost, approximately 217,000 a month - less than a third of your claim. http://www.pbn.com/US-job-los...

    The unemployment rate remained at just over 7% when Obama took office in January, 2009. Obama promised that if his $800 billion "stimulus" bill was passed, unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. It promptly went to 11% and his stimulus was an abject failure. If the people who have quit looking and those who are under-employed were counted, the true unemployment rate would be around 15%!




    abject failure people quit under-employed counted true unemployment rate 15
    (more)
  • sbtbill 2012/05/02 19:29:08
    We need to control our borders NOW!
    sbtbill
    +3
    The only way we will do that is to document the people currently here and obviously allow them to bring their family's here too. We also must fortify all the borders. The dream act is not enough but it should be passed. Once we have done these two things then we can add employer sanctions,
  • ProudPr... sbtbill 2012/05/02 22:23:51
    ProudProgressive
    +3
    I would put employer sanctions at the front of the list, actually. But I do agree with you that all of these things need to be done.
  • Ken ProudPr... 2012/05/02 23:30:43
    Ken
    +1
    YEA!!! I gave you a rave for a positive point - employer sanctions are indeed needed, and they work as Oklahoma has found.
  • Ken sbtbill 2012/05/02 23:31:39
    Ken
    Bring their families here too? Why don't we just send them an engraved invitation, saying if you make it across the border you are free to stay, and BTW, bring granny and gramps while you're at it.
  • ~ Veronica Arin Ayne~ 2012/05/02 19:24:16
    All of the above
    ~ Veronica Arin Ayne~
    +1
    Any other country in the world, if you don't have proper papers, you go to jail!
  • Ken ~ Veron... 2012/05/02 22:07:36
    Ken
    +1
    You've got that right. Try working in Mexico as a non-citizen and find out what happens!
  • ProudPr... Ken 2012/05/02 22:25:02
    ProudProgressive
    +3
    Then would you agree that tougher sanctions against employers who hire illegals would be a good idea?
  • Ken ProudPr... 2012/05/02 23:32:47
    Ken
    +1
    I certainly do. They should be required to check E-Verify and fined if they hire anyone who doesn't clear the system - something which Arizona wanted to do but was sued by Obama and Eric Holder.
  • ProudPr... Ken 2012/05/03 11:50:27
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    That's not what SB1070 said. It said that any law enforcement officer can detain someone if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that they might be illegal. No attempt is made to define what "reasonable suspicion" is, and as you are a fellow member of the bar, you know as well as I do that under the Fourth Amendment they require "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." People like Joe Arpaio and J.T. Ready have shown that they consider a person having brown skin, or a person who speaks Spanish, is "reasonably suspicious".

    The main point of SB1070, of course, is voter suppression. It was designed to intimidate LEGAL hispanics from going to the polls out of fear that if their papers were not in order, or they didn't happen to have a copy of their birth certificate, they would be thrown in jail for trying to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

    And it is the job of the Justice Department to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens. SB1070 infringes on those rights, so they had a duty to do what they could to prevent it from taking effect. And both the District Judge and the Court of Appeals agreed with the Justice Department. It remains to be seen whether this will be another case of SCOTUS putting politics ahead of the Constitution.
  • Ken ProudPr... 2012/05/03 14:29:46
  • ProudPr... Ken 2012/05/03 15:16:20
    ProudProgressive
    LOL the House report is nothing more than a campaign ad for Romney. It is both factually and legally severely flawed and ignores both precedent and common current practice in order to create a smear with no rational basis. The fact that Members of Congress waste their time with partisan political bullsh*t like that report instead of doing what they were elected to do - create jobs and help the American people - is why there will be a Democratic majority in the House come November. It's funny how fast they have forgotten how wasting the nation's time for over a year with a nonsensical impeachment that had no legal basis and was doomed to failure anyway was condemned by the public, and ultimately wound up adding at least ten points to Clinton's approval ratings.
  • Ken ProudPr... 2012/05/04 01:49:27
    Ken
    Wrong - it is factually accurate as Eric Holder will find out when he is held in contempt of Congress. What a dismal day for our democracy when one of the branches of government ceases to function on behalf of the American people and simply works for the incumbents.

    If you truly believe it is nothing but a "campaign ad" why don't you point out the inaccuracies!!!
  • CUDDLY BUT STILL CRABBY 2012/05/02 19:13:36
    All of the above
    CUDDLY BUT STILL CRABBY
    +2
    These Hispanic guests have so much to offer to the USA and this is what we get ...........

    illegal aliens
  • Ken CUDDLY ... 2012/05/02 19:20:36
    Ken
    +1
    True, and we're constantly told that all they want is to support their families.
  • blah 2012/05/02 19:04:48
    All of the above
    blah
    +2
    Very sad children are put through things like this. Also, many Americans need jobs. I say train and put them to work on our borders. Build a 12ft brick wall, install cameras and put snipers on top...whatever it takes to stop all these illegals from coming in. Every state needs to have control over their own borders. Round them all up, to include the ones in our jails and prisons and remove them from our country.
  • Ken blah 2012/05/02 19:19:29
    Ken
    +1
    My idea is to establish military "tent camps" every 30 miles along the border, capable of housing company-size (80-100 men) groups of troops on a rotating basis. Equip them with the latest in IR technology and have Blackhawk helicopters stationed at every-other camp. Marines, Army and National Guard troops could be rotated through for one-month "training exercises." It would take approximately 50 such tent camps and around 4,000 men at a time to man them. It would absolutely cut off 99% of illegal immigration as well as drug smuggling across the border.

    military tent camp
  • CUDDLY ... Ken 2012/05/02 19:22:18
    CUDDLY BUT STILL CRABBY
    +1
    Please add live ammunition to your plan. No rubber bullets.
  • blah Ken 2012/05/02 19:31:49
    blah
    +1
    That sounds great also. Let's combine your actions with mine. Double the power. Bye Bye Illegals!
  • sbtbill Ken 2012/05/02 19:32:10
    sbtbill
    +1
    It doesn't to any good to just fortify the Mexican border. That is like a pail without sides.
  • Ken sbtbill 2012/05/02 22:08:33
    Ken
    Wrong. Our Coast Guard is quite capable of catching the ones who attempt to come in by sea.
  • ProudPr... Ken 2012/05/02 19:52:41
    ProudProgressive
    +2
    Oooh whoopie.... let's go out and massacre children! What fun.

    But please, let's make sure we don't raise taxes on millionaires to pay for any of this.
  • Ken ProudPr... 2012/05/02 22:10:06
    Ken
    Who said anything about massacreing anyone, and this post is not about taxes, in case you didn't notice. Closing the border would more than pay for itself in the cost of social service, medical care, education and law enforcement saved.
  • Always Right 2012/05/02 19:03:38
    All of the above
    Always Right
    +3
    Illegal immigration has got to stop! The federal government has a duty to enforce the immigration laws!
  • ProudPr... Always ... 2012/05/02 19:54:07
    ProudProgressive
    +2
    The Federal government has been doing a better job of enforcing the immigration laws than when the last guy was in the White House. Deportations are way up, new entries are down and border patrol personnel have been significantly increased.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/17 18:56:48

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals