Janet Napolitano did a great job of securing the border. I know this because I read the HuffPo's piece from a year ago and they would never just parrot propaganda or anything.

Obama responded to Napolitano’s announcement to resign by thanking her for her “outstanding work.” He also touted her efforts on border security:

“Since day one, Janet has led my administration’s effort to secure our borders, deploying a historic number of resources, while also taking steps to make our immigration system fairer and more consistent with our values.”

Janet Napolitano’s record on border security, deportations

During her four-year tenure at Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano drew criticism from conservatives and immigrant rights advocates alike for her efforts to secure the border and ramp up the number of deportations.

Napolitano led efforts to deploy more resources to protect the United States’ borders. Today, Border Patrol is better staffed than ever before, with more than 21,000 border agents — up from about 10,000 in 2004 — deployed mostly along the nation’s border with Mexico. DHS has also deployed more surveillance technology along the highest trafficked areas across the southwest border.

According to DHS, these efforts have resulted in apprehensions decreasing by 53 percent since 2008. Over the last three years, DHS has also seized 74 percent more money, 41 percent more drugs, and 159 percent more weapons along the Southwest border. Crime along the four southwest border states — Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas — has also dropped significantly since 2008.

Despite these numbers, many Republicans have criticized Napolitano, saying DHS has not done enough to secure the nation’s borders.

At the same time, Napolitano has also received a lot of heat from immigrant rights advocates over the record-breaking numbers of deportations under her leadership. Approximately 400,000 people have been deported every year since she became DHS secretary, with about 1,200 people being deported every day.

Napolitano has defended these numbers, saying DHS is focused on deporting immigrants who have committed serious crimes and pose a threat to national security. But advocates have been quick to point out that many of the deportees have been deported after being jailed and charged with minor crime violations, including driving without a license.

Meanwhile, a year later, we've got a "crisis." (I put "crisis" in quotes because the Administration has known about it for many months--they put out an RFP estimating they would need transportation for 65000 minors a few months ago. How did they know? Note: no conspiracy here.)

The government is dumping the unwashed, disease-ridden masses on small, ill-prepared and uninformed communities like Murrieta, CA. The buses roll in and bring the new welfare recipient/anchor children to their "temporary" homes.

Not sure if this is the best place for this, but this morning's Times had an article on why all these kids were coming over the border:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/us/immigrant-surge-rooted-in-law-to-curb-child-trafficking.html

Originally pushed by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers as well as by evangelical groups to combat sex trafficking, the bill gave substantial new protections to children entering the country alone who were not from Mexico or Canada by prohibiting them from being quickly sent back to their country of origin.

It's more than just rumor, there's a law that give kids more protections now.

Great example of an unintended consequence.

"unintended"

Color me cynical...

geojanes wrote:Not sure if this is the best place for this, but this morning's Times had an article on why all these kids were coming over the border:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/us/immigrant-surge-rooted-in-law-to-curb-child-trafficking.html

Originally pushed by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers as well as by evangelical groups to combat sex trafficking, the bill gave substantial new protections to children entering the country alone who were not from Mexico or Canada by prohibiting them from being quickly sent back to their country of origin.

It's more than just rumor, there's a law that give kids more protections now.

Great example of an unintended consequence.

So, change the law. Don't pack people in here that were not the intended beneficiaries.

When people mysteriously are able to cover the entire country of Mexico and turn themselves in at the border, there's something wrong. They're not fleeing Cuba.

Oh, and Mexico has draconian immigration laws and deportation regulations, but all of these poor children survive hundreds of miles, drug cartels, etc.? Sure.

Meanwhile, the Administration is moving heaven and earth to accommodate the "refugees" from Central America--including dumping them on quiet little towns, but . . . somehow they don't wind up in . . . Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Long Island, or the Hamptons? Why is that?

Oh, and why can the President call the Mexican President to urge him to enforce their laws when he won't enforce our own border? If you will recall, he claims "executive power" to fundamentally change the EPA regulations, the ACA, seize all kinds of land, but he can't do anything about this "crisis" (that he's known about for months)?

Oh, and why can't he spring the Marine from the Mexican prison system? He's an illegal alien, but I guess he's not important--being American and all.

fate

They're not fleeing Cuba.

Would you accept them from Cuba?
They are fleeing much more dangerous places than Cuba.
There are narco wars and the highest rates of murder in the world in Honduras...

rickyp wrote:fate

They're not fleeing Cuba.

Would you accept them from Cuba?
They are fleeing much more dangerous places than Cuba.
There are narco wars and the highest rates of murder in the world in Honduras...

More dangerous than Cuba . . .

Really?

Regardless, half of the world lives in hell on Earth. We can't take them all.

We should take more LEGAL immigrants, no doubt about it--but that is a LEGAL question, not a panicked response to an Obama-generated crisis.**

**Yes, he is responsible. By unilaterally implementing the DREAM Act, he sent a none-too-subtle message: "Get your kids here any way you can. They can stay." Inherent in that message is the additional thought that "families will be reunited." He sent out the invitations and now professes surprise.

fate

really?

yes really

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Honduras has the highest rate of intentional homicide in the world, with 6,239 intentional homicides, or 82.1 per 100,000 of population in 2010. This is significantly higher than the rate in El Salvador, which at 66.0 per 100,000 in 2010, has the second highest rate of intentional homicide in the world.[4]

Crime is present in various forms in Cuba though the government does not release official crime statistics.[1] Crime reports are on the rise, with below-average crisis intervention from police.[2] Gun crime is virtually nonexistent and murder rates are below those of most Latin American countries

rickyp wrote:fate

They're not fleeing Cuba.

Would you accept them from Cuba?
They are fleeing much more dangerous places than Cuba.
There are narco wars and the highest rates of murder in the world in Honduras...

Your comment does not make any sense considering context. DF was drawing conclusion to the land sovereignty of a country being violated rather than international waters...

bbauska wrote:Your comment does not make any sense considering context. DF was drawing conclusion to the land sovereignty of a country being violated rather than international waters...

And, there is the "small matter" of Cuba being little more than a tropical prison. There is no freedom to do anything . . . except agree with the government.

The United States has the right to determine who should/should not be permitted to enter. Without that right, we cease to be a nation.

Currently, we have no effective border. The sheer numbers are overwhelming the system. We cannot provide endless welfare for countless immigrants.

Doctor Fate wrote:**Yes, he is responsible. By unilaterally implementing the DREAM Act, he sent a none-too-subtle message: "Get your kids here any way you can. They can stay." Inherent in that message is the additional thought that "families will be reunited." He sent out the invitations and now professes surprise.

Again, the Times article says this event is due to extra rights granted in the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. If you read the article, it seems the most likely cause, and not anything to do with the DREAM act. And be comforted, that while Bush signed the law Pelosi co-wrote it, so you still have a villain.

Obama is blamed for apparent manipulation of a law by immigrants (for this to occur parents would have to know about the law and think their children would have a better chance of getting through without them and the Mexican government would have to be complicit) Of course, Obama is being blamed for a law signed by Bush II, a law passed almost without opposition by the Congress. Obama is being blamed for a law passed before he came into office... As Gollum would say, that's tricksy...

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:**Yes, he is responsible. By unilaterally implementing the DREAM Act, he sent a none-too-subtle message: "Get your kids here any way you can. They can stay." Inherent in that message is the additional thought that "families will be reunited." He sent out the invitations and now professes surprise.

Again, the Times article says this event is due to extra rights granted in the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. If you read the article, it seems the most likely cause, and not anything to do with the DREAM act. And be comforted, that while Bush signed the law Pelosi co-wrote it, so you still have a villain.

You err, sir. (And, so does Freeman)

The people of Central America did not find a loophole in the Wilberforce Act. The Democrats whined incessantly about the DREAM Act and the President unilaterally implemented most of it. That's when the surge began.

The President is NOT enforcing the law, nor keeping his oath. What a shock. Notes Cal Thomas:

The Department of Homeland Security website publishes a list of restrictions and prohibitions on aliens wishing to enter the United States. Among those barred are people with “a communicable disease of public health significance.” From various media reports it appears some of those flooding our southern border have, or are suspected of having, such diseases. Among those who are to be denied entry are children who have not been vaccinated for certain types of diseases, including “mumps, measles, rubella, polio, tetanus and diphtheria toxoids, pertussis, influenza type B and hepatitis B, and any other vaccinations for preventable diseases recommended by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices."

Does anyone believe the unaccompanied minors pouring over the border — 52,000 so far and 240,000 other migrants since April, according to the New York Times — have brought with them proof of vaccinations?

Who will follow up to make sure each alien child is vaccinated, much less “sponsored”? Probably no one, because no one will ensure they will ever show up in court, as required for their cases to be properly adjudicated.

Disease is only one of many categories that make an alien ineligible for admittance to the U.S. The others are available on the DHS website. The clauses I mentioned are under ACT 212. After reading them, you might wonder why they are not enforced by the president, who took an oath to uphold them?

The one promise President Obama is keeping is to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” He is transforming the country by flooding it with illegal immigrants that will result in creation of a new permanent underclass beholden to government and thus the party of government, the Democrats.

From geojanes' NYT article:

Originally pushed by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers as well as by evangelical groups to combat sex trafficking, the bill gave substantial new protections to children entering the country alone who were not from Mexico or Canada by prohibiting them from being quickly sent back to their country of origin.

Instead, it required that they be given an opportunity to appear at an immigration hearing and consult with an advocate, and it recommended that they have access to counsel. It also required that they be turned over to the care of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the agency was directed to place the minor “in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child” and to explore reuniting those children with family members.

The Obama administration says the law is partly responsible for tying its hands in dealing with the current influx of children. Officials have suggested that the White House might seek flexibility in the law’s requirements when it asks Congress to provide emergency funds to contend with the latest immigration crisis, a request that could come as early as Tuesday. About 52,000 minors without their parents have been caught at the Southwest border since October.

Now, let's see. The President is free to ignore the law, change the law, sometimes radically, whenever he wants, but THIS law handcuffs him?

Bull.

The ACA has had whole swaths of it delayed, reinterpreted, and added to, but the President doesn't have the authority to enforce the ORIGINAL INTENT of this law?

Double Bull.

freeman3 wrote:Obama is blamed for apparent manipulation of a law by immigrants (for this to occur parents would have to know about the law and think their children would have a better chance of getting through without them and the Mexican government would have to be complicit) Of course, Obama is being blamed for a law signed by Bush II, a law passed almost without opposition by the Congress. Obama is being blamed for a law passed before he came into office... As Gollum would say, that's tricksy...

To assume that people in Central American countries are somehow too ignorant or provincial or perhaps locked into some remote jungle and out of touch with the world (and the US) is naive, at best. As far as the trafficking law of 2008 is concerned, I believe that is a red herring. The timing does not work at all. The fact that it is now brought up is likely more of a post factum legalistic tactic than some a priori rationale for this surge. In that view, I'd agree with Freeman. It's too subtle a reason.

As Dr Fate has noted, the recent surge in children (mostly from Central America) illegally crossing the border (many on their own) only began after Obama's actions to implement a portion of The Dream Act. For Obama to feign surprise is insulting. However one feels about the humanitarian side of dealing with children, it was the height of mismanagement (if not duplicity) to not first deal with the border and our immigration policy. Obama may have added more border guards, but clearly, that was not enough in an environment where local and federal laws restrict and immobilize any coherent policy. Really, there is no coherent immigration policy. When American cities officially declare themselves "safe havens" for illegal immigrants, you know something is wrong.

It is very hard to expect that all of these children migrated across Mexico on their own, without support. Perhaps it was not Mexican authorities, but organizations that might want to both smear the Mexican government and undermine American border patrols; organizations that would benefit from our government being overwhelmed with caring for thousands of unattended children illegally entering the US. I wonder what organizations they could be? What organizations might be spreading the word to people in Central America that their children would be guaranteed American citizenship and they are only too happy to help them get there?

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.