The Big Lawsuit

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I disagree. "Controlling the border" is not the same as "closing the border". Controlling the border is about deterrence. I agree that it's not realistic (or sane) to try to make our southern border completely impenetrable. I do believe that we need to have the tools to SIGNIFICANTLY increase the deterrent effect of our border control efforts to decrease the current rate of border penetration.

Once again, you need to get off of your "controlling the border" kick. I understand the appeal of simple (and simple-minded) solutions to the problems on our southern border, but they fail to address the actual causative factors. However, in order to fashion an effective solution, one must first understand the problem and not buy into simple-minded platitudes. "A report released in March by the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees states that 58% of children arriving from Mexico and Central America are eligible for some sort of humanitarian protection under international conventions. A similar study by the Vera Institute of Justice found that about 40% were eligible for some form of immigration relief — such as asylum or special immigrant juvenile status."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...621-story.html

Whether we like it or not, as a civilized nation we have an obligation to adjudicate the immigration/refugee status of these children. I know that this doesn't comport with the simplistic (and illegal) solution supported by the GOP and their 'Bagger base, but the law is the law and our obligations under international treaties remain, particularly when we harp on these very issues incessantly to the international community.

I think any and all conservatives who stand by their "seal the border" and "deport them all" solutions should be required to publicly foreswear their Christian faith.