If this doesn’t count as a crisis in your eyes, I would love to see what does.
Part of the problem is that you need somewhere to send them TO, and that requires the cooperation of the governments of Honduras, Guatemala, etc. The U.S. can’t even land an airplane of deportees in Tegucigalpa without permission of that country, and certainly can’t just toss minors over the border without making arrangements with whatever passes for child services in the home country. What makes anybody think the Central American countries are going to be in a hurry to ease the process? The days when such countries automatically leapt to do the bidding of the U.S. ended some decades ago, and while we have influence, we don’t control them.
(In fact, there are certain countries, such as Cuba and Cambodia, that simply refuse to accept most deportees. Several European countries have refused to accept suspected Nazi war criminals, which is why some continued to live in the U.S. for many years after they were ordered deported.)
9/11. Maybe ISIS. Certainly any major natural disaster. The 2008 financial meltdown.
But nothing related to immigration or refugees has constituted a crisis ever in American history to date.
I wonder what the anti-deportation people here would say about the rights of other countries to deport illegal US immigrants.
Apply for a visa.
You might as well say “pray to superman to save you” because that is about as helpful. Someone who was allowed to immigrate here legally suggesting this is about as tone deaf as a rich asshole telling a starving homeless man to just buy himself some caviar. You had it easy and you want people who have it a million times harder than you to suffer even more.
I don’t understand. If I, as a prolife person, am seen as a terrible hypocrite/short sighted for not yet adopting a baby I’d rather not be aborted, why aren’t pro-immigration people eager to show how serious they are about their concerns by opening their homes to the people they want to keep from being deported? We’re supposed to get some of these kids here in NH for who knows what reason, so surely there are plenty of opportunities for pro-immigration types to offer food and shelter while they’re here.
Geez, it sounds like you just don’t want them deported, but don’t give a damn what happens to them after they’re born. I mean, not deported.
Yes. It is called expedited removal. No hearing. Decision of the Dept of Homeland Security official is final.
As a part of that process they should be assessed to see if they can make a claim for asylum. These Central American migrants generally cannot as you MUST make that claim in the first safe country you enter - Mexico in this case.
Personally, I don’t ask the anti-abortion people to take in infants. But it is worth noting that many of these people are dead set against abortion but against many things these kids will need after they’re born- assistance with health care needs, day care assistance for the mothers, and preschool education. It’s as if they think life begins at conception and ends at birth. I’m all for letting the immigrants in and for giving them health care and education, food, shelter, etc.
Problem is, it can’t be done. You can have either a liberal immigration policy or a good social welfare state. YOu can’t have both.
Why not? Stop spending as much as the rest of the world on defense, stop spending so much money putting drug users in prison, roll tax rates back to the Clinton era, there would be plenty of money for all of that and more.
40% of Mexicans want to move to the US. No, even with your changes, we cannot absorb 50 million Mexicans into the welfare system.
It’s pretty hilarious how Pew chooses to word their headline: Most Mexicans WOuld Not Move to the US, as if that’s surprising. 39-40% wanting to move here is a pretty huge number.
And that’s just one country. Gallup used a different methodology and came up with 138 million people worldwide wanting to move to the US:
37 million people want to move to Canada. I wonder how well Medicare would hold up under that?
You keep looking at immigrants as a burden when the reality is they are a benefit.
If they are working they are undoubtedly a benefit.
Please show your work.
Regards,
Shodan
We can show ours, actually. European nations: restrictive immigration policies, despite doing everything Bob wants us to do and more. While the EU has certainly liberalized their immigration policies compared to what they were, they are still very restrictive. Their social systems would simply not hold up under a flood of African and Middle Eastern immigrants.
But surely the law of diminishing returns applies here. Yes, some immigrants are good. ALL the immigrants would be a disaster.
I just listened to a John Boehner press conference on this issue. He stated rather emphatically that this is a crisis of Obama’s making since he had been POTUS for 5 plus years. I just don’t get how anybody could actually believe that. I mean how, in any possible rational look at the issue, could he honestly blame Obama? It should be obvious that the people most responsible are the criminals in Central America that make the countries of Guatemala and Honduras an unsafe place. Also to blame are the coyotes who bring the children across the border. I don’t see where Obama factors in to this. Why the press didn’t challenge him on such an obvious point is another thing I don’t understand.
Cite?