freeman3 wrote:This Los Angeles Times article explains what is going on.http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dep ... tml#page=1
Basically, the 2008 law (signed by Bush II) prevents deportation of these children (not from Mexico and unaccompanied) from being deported until they have gone through deportation hearings (which can take years). Word has eventually filtered back that children are not getting deported (which is not accurate but they are clearly down). Since the middle of 2012 the US has not been deporting illegal immigrants who came as children who meet certain criteria including being in the US for five years. It seems a stretch that immigrants think could think drag out immigration proceedings for five years. But they could think that their children could get into deportation proceedings (not immediately deported) and qualify for asylum. That is the effect of the 2008 law, not the mini Dream Act decided by Obama in mid-2012.
As to how the children get here, it looks like parents pay smugglers to get them through Mexico. The evidence on this is sketchy but it makes sense.

Is it helping that the President has been promising o use his executive power to legalize illegal immigrants? Hasn't illegal immigration increased on account of the President's DREAM order?

It took 6 years for word of the Wilberforce Lawton get to Central America? That is spin of the highest order.

Btw, for the last several years, the Administration has boasted about border security. I would guess that a video montage of all the bragging would be a bit embarrassing.

Put another way, since immigrant children stats started to rise in 2012, to blame that rise on application of a portion of the Dream Act in 2012, you would have to believe that parents in Central America responded to the change in policy that quickly You could make argument based on the stats, I 'm just saying it seems like too quick a response by immigrants.

freeman3 wrote:Put another way, since immigrant children stats started to rise in 2012, to blame that rise on application of a portion of the Dream Act in 2012, you would have to believe that parents in Central America responded to the change in policy that quickly You could make argument based on the stats, I 'm just saying it seems like too quick a response by immigrants.

I think it would be fair to say that all of the debate and votes, beginning in 2010, had a lot to do with the immigration surge. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act

Odd: I posted this and it got "lost" some place. So, I'll try again. Apologies if the first reply shows up, as well....

freeman3 wrote:This Los Angeles Times article explains what is going on.http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dep ... tml#page=1
Basically, the 2008 law (signed by Bush II) prevents deportation of these children (not from Mexico and unaccompanied) from being deported until they have gone through deportation hearings (which can take years). Word has eventually filtered back that children are not getting deported (which is not accurate but they are clearly down). Since the middle of 2012 the US has not been deporting illegal immigrants who came as children who meet certain criteria including being in the US for five years. It seems a stretch that immigrants think could think drag out immigration proceedings for five years. But they could think that their children could get into deportation proceedings (not immediately deported) and qualify for asylum. That is the effect of the 2008 law, not the mini Dream Act decided by Obama in mid-2012.

The article makes a creditable case, citing the criminal gangs as primary motivators. I think drug cartels may be involved, as they profit from border agents distracted by thousands of kids "seeking asylum". But is the 2008 Act the primary motivator or even the only one?

The 2008 law has been around for some time now, and there has been no real upsurge of children storming the borders until recently. Why? DACAL (and all of the debates and publicity surrounding it) provides the most likely (and current) motivator that builds on the 2008 law's effects. I'll add to that the general malaise of Congress and the President. It certainly would not take 6 years for people in any country in Central America to hear about the 2008 law (from whatever source) and take advantage of it to the extend that seems to be the current case.

Still, the question remains: Why now? Freeman suggests that the lack of tracking before 2012 may skew the recent surge statistics. Fair enough, but that begs the question of why was this counting only undertaken in 2012?

I could imagine a scenario where smugglers started using the magic words "Dream Act" to get parents to pay money. And since the 2008 law made it difficult to deport children, more and more families would pay money. I am not sure we fully understand the causes, but I am not ruling out the Dream Act helped spur child immigration, either. (in conjunction with the 2008 law). It probably contributed.

freeman3 wrote:I could imagine a scenario where smugglers started using the magic words "Dream Act" to get parents to pay money. And since the 2008 law made it difficult to deport children, more and more families would pay money. I am not sure we fully understand the causes, but I am not ruling out the Dream Act helped spur child immigration, either. (in conjunction with the 2008 law). It probably contributed.

The answer is not what the President is proposing and doing. The border needs to be closed, then the problem can be addressed. All he's proposing is treating the symptoms.

Close the border?

I wonder how simple that really is. I suppose assuming that no legitimate migration across the border takes places, and there is no real trade or commerce across the border, it would be easy. And assuming it's quite a short boundary through flat and easily monitored terrain...

But none of those thing apply to the US-Mexico border, really.

I think Obama is doing what he can. The main problem is the requirement in the 2008 law that the children must see an immigration judge. In other words, they can't just be summarily deported. A tweaking of the law is needed to preserve the intended goals of the 2008 (the laudable goal of protecting children from exploitation) without causing the unintended consequence of immigrants intentionally sending children to exploit the loophole. Obama is doing what he can to send more resources to process these child immigration cases but this immigration judge requirement is a major impediment. And even if the mini Dream Act contributed to the problem, I favored it, it was the right thing to do, and we should not refrain from doing the right thing because people will try to use it in an unintended fashion.

danivon wrote:Close the border?

I wonder how simple that really is. I suppose assuming that no legitimate migration across the border takes places, and there is no real trade or commerce across the border, it would be easy. And assuming it's quite a short boundary through flat and easily monitored terrain...

But none of those thing apply to the US-Mexico border, really.

Excellent!

Then, let's just admit it's hopeless and deport by any means necessary all illegal aliens. If that's too much to do, then let's ensure they receive no benefits, cannot have anchor babies (by passing a law that says one parent must be an American citizen), and cannot work. They will, in the legendary words of Romney, "self-deport."

Until then, no path to citizenship. Period.

"Oh, but Republicans will lose all of the Hispanic vote."

Yes, all who prefer the US consist of "all Americans" (per Pelosi), which puts our current population at what? 500 million?

freeman3 wrote:I think Obama is doing what he can. The main problem is the requirement in the 2008 law that the children must see an immigration judge. In other words, they can't just be summarily deported. A tweaking of the law is needed to preserve the intended goals of the 2008 (the laudable goal of protecting children from exploitation) without causing the unintended consequence of immigrants intentionally sending children to exploit the loophole.

So, why isn't Obama calling for that?

Again, he has no problem enacting "legislation" without Congress, but this time, when the clear intent of the legislation is being exploited by others, all he's proposing is spending more money as he sends poverty-stricken illegal aliens all around the country--except Washington DC.

Obama is doing what he can to send more resources to process these child immigration cases but this immigration judge requirement is a major impediment.

Suspend it. He did that with the ACA mandate. That power is nowhere in the Act itself. Again, he has no problem "expanding" the law in some cases, why not here?

And even if the mini Dream Act contributed to the problem, I favored it, it was the right thing to do, and we should not refrain from doing the right thing because people will try to use it in an unintended fashion.

It's only "the right thing to do" if we ensure we won't get millions more illegal immigrants afterward. That requires MORE than just the DREAM Act.

freeman3 wrote:I think Obama is doing what he can. The main problem is the requirement in the 2008 law that the children must see an immigration judge. In other words, they can't just be summarily deported. A tweaking of the law is needed to preserve the intended goals of the 2008 (the laudable goal of protecting children from exploitation) without causing the unintended consequence of immigrants intentionally sending children to exploit the loophole. Obama is doing what he can to send more resources to process these child immigration cases but this immigration judge requirement is a major impediment. And even if the mini Dream Act contributed to the problem, I favored it, it was the right thing to do, and we should not refrain from doing the right thing because people will try to use it in an unintended fashion.

Maybe, but timing is an important issue. To ignore the possibilities is to court disaster, as any Dip player knows. It is certainly disingenuous (and partisan) for Obama to try and throw the blame back on Bush II (ie Republicans) for the current situation. In spite of the intransigence of both sides of the Congressional aisle, Obama has had plenty of years to focus on crafting a coherent, pracitcal immigration policy (as opposed to feel-good acts). That has not been done. You can blame the Republicans for some of this malaise, but in the end, it still falls on the President's leadership or lack thereof. It is a fact that he snubbed the Republicans from the start. And it is also true that factions within the Repub have pushed them into hard-line positions that did not admit negotiation or compromise. I suppose when you have states such as California and Illinois passing legislation favorable to illegal immigrants, that only adds additional motivation to enter our country without permission.

It is not the job of the opposition to always agree with the party in power. It is the job of the party in power to find a way to get the opposition to agree with them or have enough votes to overrule them. When there is not enough votes, you have to fall back on persuasion, if you really expect to get things done.

In spite of his public statements and staged events, I don't believe Obama's actions have shown any substantive efforts at bipartisanship. So even now, instead of working hard to win over the Republicans, Obama has instead resorted to the standard political tactic of blaming his predecessor for a problem that he has only exacerbated. It is almost ironic, since Bush was a strong supporter of the bipartisan Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which failed to pass.

Well, it's politics--Republicans tried to blame Obama and Obama defended himself by pointing out the blame was at least in large part due to the 2008 law. It's predictable that Republicans would try to blame on this on Obama and it's predictable that Obama would point to the 2008 law. The question is whether the two sides will come together and problem solve or they will stick to blaming each other. Frankly, I don't blame Bush II for the 2008 law or Obama for his decision not to deport kids who would qualify under the Dream Act--they were both well-intentioned acts.

(As a side note, does not enforcing the law against a certain group of people, like Obama's decision not to deport illegal immigrants who came over as children, violate the equal protection clause? See, e.g., http://law.justia.com/cases/california/ ... 5/286.html)

freeman3 wrote:Well, it's politics--Republicans tried to blame Obama and Obama defended himself by pointing out the blame was at least in large part due to the 2008 law. It's predictable that Republicans would try to blame on this on Obama and it's predictable that Obama would point to the 2008 law. The question is whether the two sides will come together and problem solve or they will stick to blaming each other. Frankly, I don't blame Bush II for the 2008 law or Obama for his decision not to deport kids who would qualify under the Dream Act--they were both well-intentioned acts.

(As a side note, does not enforcing the law against a certain group of people, like Obama's decision not to deport illegal immigrants who came over as children, violate the equal protection clause? See, e.g., http://law.justia.com/cases/california/ ... 5/286.html)

I was just listening to our local Sheriff talk about the border issue. He mentioned some things that are pertinent. For example, he said the average shift of Border Patrol agents consists of 8 agents patrolling 68 miles of border. Gee, I wonder why we can't stanch the flow of illegal immigrants?

It's also important to think about who is actually controlling the immigration to the US: the drug cartels. They are, in his words, multi-billion dollar corporations with satellite communications and sophisticated monitoring so that they know where the border agents are. He says they've smuggled Al Qaida members into the US. We also know that Central American gangs, like MS-13, have expanded their violent footprints in many American cities, including Chicago.

This is not just a "crisis" of the moment. It is an existential threat to the sovereignty of our country. If not dealt with, all politics aside, the result will be catastrophic.

Can we "seal the border?" I think we can do a lot better than we are now.

We have to.

Doctor Fate wrote:This is not just a "crisis" of the moment. It is an existential threat to the sovereignty of our country. If not dealt with, all politics aside, the result will be catastrophic.

This seems to be a little bit hyperbolic. Can you explain how these children portend impending catastrophe?

George, you realize that they will (1) grow up in the People's Republic of California, (2) probably get benefits, and because of (1) and (2) they will vote Democratic. I mean, how can you be so calm--it's the end of the world