The Big Lawsuit

[BlueStreak]

I prefer my red herring on rye with mayo and a Kosher dill on the side.

Dave

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by merrylander

And there are places along that border where I can bring in the whole Barnum and Bailey Circus and not see a single guard.

I think we should start persecuting 'Baggers so they feel compelled to emigrate to Mexico and Canada. I'd gladly trade 'Baggers for Central Americans kids, one-for-one. They're smarter, harder working and more educable.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

Questions:

This is the 3rd or 4th time I'll say this: it's not just about the kids. I've already stated in an earlier post that I'm in favor of the bolded statement above. The challenge is separating the wheat from the chaff. Illegal immigration, not just of refugee children, is on the rise overall according to the folks at Pew. So, yes, the challenge remains controlling the border so that illegal immigration is reduced. Agree or disagree?

One way to reduce it is also policy. I can't agree with a policy that tells folks who make it into the country, and who can successfully hide out for five years, clear a policy hurdle and can remain. It creates a magnet for illegal immigration. Agree or disagree?

Then, why is it only our southern border that has an issue? Where are the hordes of Japanese sneaking ashore under the cloak of darkness on rafts made of bamboo? Frenchman building makeshift submarines to glide into remote harbors undetected? Where are the Canadians digging tunnels under the St. Lawrence?

Ummm......

Could it be because their homelands are actually pretty nice places, free of brutal, drug dealing dictators who were probably installed in office by the CIA under Daddy Bush?

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Again, the "controlling the border" is a red herring you've bought into. It's about removing the incentives of those seeking to come here for economic reasons. OTOH, we cannot (and should not) stop refugees showing up to avoid persecution.

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.

[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.

[Rajoo]

Back to the topic of "The Big Lawsuit". Why does Boehner not sue the Obama administration on this border crisis?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

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.

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.

Oh BS Finn. They found the body of another dead child drowned in the Rio Grande this weekend. They find bodies in the desert near the border. We know that these kids, and the adults for that matter, are subject to assault, rape, robbery and other abuses. How "Christian" is it to encourage or support a continuation of the current migration?

Speaking of "simple - minded", to suggest that all of this is somehow a function of the demand for cheap labor is WAY oversimplifying the issue. Sure its a component, but that component hardly applies to the children seeking refugee status. Are you suggesting that these children are going to be processed through their hearings and then immediately hired at their local McDonalds?

[barbara]

From the previous post....
another dead child drowned in the Rio Grande this weekend. They find bodies in the desert near the border. We know that these kids, and the adults for that matter, are subject to assault, rape, robbery and other abuses.



And yet.... Taking the chance to cross the border, knowing the risks, is still a better option than staying in their homeland.

[whell]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

Back to the topic of "The Big Lawsuit". Why does Boehner not sue the Obama administration on this border crisis?

They are. The focus of the lawsuit is on the House's opposition to Obama's use of executive orders that they believe circumvents Congress's responsibility to make law. On the list of executive orders that they disagree with is this one:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/politics/immigration/

[merrylander]

There is a way they can stop executive orders. Simply get off there collective arse and pass some intelligent legislation.

Oop I forget they are Republicans andd that would be asking a lot.