Obama Advertised In JANUARY For ‘Escorts’ To ‘Resettle’ 65k Illegal ‘Children’

It's time for mid-term elections and to ramp up the propaganda about the "do nothing" Congress and lack of immigration reform and now the faux "humanitarian crisis" on the border.

But obviously this has been going on for a while and I would say I'm shocked that the government is knowingly breaking the laws it is supposed to uphold, but then I'd be lying.

a reply to: xuenchen

Your story fails to actually name which law from 2002 you are talking about.

Which one are you referring to ? (If you know that is)

It's mentioned several times, but here it is:

William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 H. R. 7311, written by 110th Congress, signed by G.W. Bush.

This was the re-authorization of the 2002 law; Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Section 462)

The change being how it handled the unaccompanied minors -

Children from Mexico and Canada are interviewed and repatriated quickly if it is determined they have not been trafficked or do not face danger upon return to their countries.

However, for UACs from non-contiguous countries, the procedure is very different. Homeland Security has 72 hours to transfer them to HHS custody, whereupon UACs “shall be promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child.” The HHS secretary is supposed to ensure that each custodian with which a child is placed has his or her identification and relationship to the child verified. The HHS secretary is also supposed to determine that the custodian is capable of providing for the child’s physical and mental well-being. Currently, the number of custodial situations to verify is 52,000 and counting. How many of these “verified” custodians are working with traffickers? How many of these children will simply walk away from their “least restrictive setting”?

The problem of these accompanied minors, as noted, has been ongoing, with the change to the law in 2008 resulting in the 'surges' at the border. It was never cried about in the media because it would have meant blaming it on then president Bush.

a reply to: RancorXXX

Congress and only Congress has the power to write the law to fix the loophole in the previous law that is leading to this manufactured 'crisis.'

PS: I wonder how many of these complaints come from Christians? The law is designed to aid children who might be subject to human trafficking or from war-torn countries. You'd think that the party that is always grandstanding on 'Christian values' would be championing their plight, instead of leading protests over them and blocking busses. Yup, very Christian of them...

a reply to: neo96

hmm... I don't think you have enough evidence to prove what I'm sure you're implying..

really scraping the bottom of the barrel aren't you?

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

Scraping the bottom of the barrel was done when people dragged Bush in to this topic.

Because of what ever reason.

They either can't or just don't want to discuss the current epic failure in chief.

As the border CLEARLY SHOWS.

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: neo96
neo first you accuse the obama administration of breaking athe law, then you say that obama isn't breaking the law enough.

a reply to: MarlinGrace
what does feinstein know?
hell what do most of those useless senators know about anything,

harry reid, nancy pelosi, ted cruz, feinstein, heck Rand Paul even; all the damn same; mostly looking out for their constituents at the expense of everyone else,

Since Feinstein sits on the intelligence committee I would say she knows quite a bit about what's coming across the border. I mention it not because of her pure brain power but because of her party affiliation which includes the requisite butt kissing of the president since they share ideology.

If you can put Cruz, and paul in the same sentence as pelosi, and Reid, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

a reply to: MarlinGrace
lol your partisan bias is showing, canuckian candidate cruz and paul are only against the president because he isn't a republican, they don't care about any of his policy decisions, which they'd support if he were replaced with El Romney.

randroid paul has been into misinformation campeigns since his medical school days. www.nationaljournal.com...

talkingpointsmemo.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.deadlinedetroit.com...


quite clearly rand is a military genius; he just knows that any foriegn invasion/assault would begin in his dear state, and so defends the need for otherwise uneccessary and expensive military bases.

of course its politically correct for "conservatives" to whine about spending and taxes, yet support the bloated waste of money and time that is our military industrial complex, harping on about "defending our freedom" when the military has been basically taking on poorly organized, barely trained, and often non-industrial factions since the end of the korean war, and while the 1st gulf war was clear and decisive victory, much like the UK in the falklands, we lost iraq, we lost afghanistan. we lost those because we were arrogant and stupid enough to belive it was in the best interests of americans, when it was merely in the interests of big business/capital.

as for ted cruz:
www.teaparty911.com...
-travelled to a foriegn country, not once, but twice; attacking


the democratic party is hardly aligned ideologically at all anymore, the same can be said for the republican party,

really they're all just opportunists, who's only unifying principle is (for the democrats: "we aren't republicans") (for republicans "we aren't democrats")

Harry reid has been funneling government money into pork-projects in his home state, feinstein has too. (remember reid had that whole solar power misadventure, Feinstein has numerous things, including her laughable record on intelligence. Obama is a puppet, much like Bush II.

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: MarlinGrace
lol your partisan bias is showing, canuckian candidate cruz and paul are only against the president because he isn't a republican, they don't care about any of his policy decisions, which they'd support if he were replaced with El Romney.

Now who is being partisan, against the president? Gheez the line for being against the president starts on the right and ends on the left, with the citizenry in the middle for 100's of miles.

randroid paul has been into misinformation campeigns since his medical school days. www.nationaljournal.com...

talkingpointsmemo.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.deadlinedetroit.com...
These links would be the same as myself quoting from the national review. Talk about partisan

quite clearly rand is a military genius; he just knows that any foriegn invasion/assault would begin in his dear state, and so defends the need for otherwise uneccessary and expensive military bases.

Obviously disinformation Rand is a libertarian he thinks all military action stops at the shores.

of course its politically correct for "conservatives" to whine about spending and taxes, yet support the bloated waste of money and time that is our military industrial complex, harping on about "defending our freedom" when the military has been basically taking on poorly organized, barely trained, and often non-industrial factions since the end of the korean war, and while the 1st gulf war was clear and decisive victory, much like the UK in the falklands, we lost iraq, we lost afghanistan. we lost those because we were arrogant and stupid enough to belive it was in the best interests of americans, when it was merely in the interests of big business/capital.

I am not sure of what you're talking about, non-industrial factions? We lost nothing our political non leaders such as the current fearless leader gave them up. HIs management skills are obviously sub par. Hence the current mess now. Comparing the Falklands to Iraq and Afghanistan would like comparing a street fight to WWII. Falklands really? 2 months and it's over compared to how many years in Afghanistan?

as for ted cruz:
www.teaparty911.com...
-travelled to a foriegn country, not once, but twice; attacking


the democratic party is hardly aligned ideologically at all anymore, the same can be said for the republican party,

really they're all just opportunists, who's only unifying principle is (for the democrats: "we aren't republicans") (for republicans "we aren't democrats")

And all you hear from the president while on the road in foreign countries is how the republicans won't work with him. and the whoosh of his golf club.

Harry reid has been funneling government money into pork-projects in his home state, feinstein has too. (remember reid had that whole solar power misadventure, Feinstein has numerous things, including her laughable record on intelligence. Obama is a puppet, much like Bush II.

Reid has been funneling money into his own pocket, the rest we are in agreement.

originally posted by: RancorXXX
This was the re-authorization of the 2002 law; Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Section 462)

Partially correct.
- The original law was signed in 2000 by Bill Clinton called "Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000"
- It was then amended and reauthorized in 2003
- It was then amended and reauthorized in 2005
- It was then amended and reauthorized in 2008
- It was then amended and reauthorized in 2013 (with a twist)

Here is a very brief summary of the original law and it's reauthorizations.

The 2008 version, signed by Bush, is the version that the current administration and democratic lawmakers would like to pin this 'surge' on, in part or in whole. All well and good except they've neglected to mention that this was amended again and tacked onto the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act as an amendment to the VAWA which in March of 2013, signed off on by Obama. It was in the 2013 'version' that any loopholes should have been closed IF they were truly interested in doing so. Link

To that, I would like to add that pinning this on any one president is a bit disingenuous. It is the fault of congress in passing it with the loopholes in place AND the president for signing with this language he (and some lawmakers) now are crying fowl over.

a reply to: MyMindIsMyOwn

Here is the full law and all its reauthorizations:

Summary of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act (TVPA) and Reauthorizations

The 2008 reauthorization is the one that is causing the border crisis:

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA 2008)

Added new prevention and protection measures, such as providing additional information to persons entering the U.S. lawfully and protections for unaccompanied alien minors.

The 2013 reauthorization adds additional criminal prosecution measures for child sex trafficking.

Now you can see that this issue firmly belongs to CONGRESS to fix. NOT Obama.

Obama is bound BY THE LAW passed by Congress in 2008 that is STILL THE LAW OF THE LAND to NOT repatriate undocumented children from Central America.

The Do-Nothing Congress of John Boehner has made sure the immigration issue has been taken off the table, and blocked any attempt at reform. YET these same Repugs are demanding "do something" about the humanitarian crisis at the border.

In 2008, 8,041 undocumented children arrived at the border, the thought now is the spike in violence in Central America is causing more to arrive. source

Again, it all comes down to Congress taking action, but that won't happen under it's current leadership.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

Obviously disinformation Rand is a libertarian he thinks all military action stops at the shores.

I'll grant you that; at least on perhaps on what he personally believes, it seems though that he behaves in a manner politically correct for a present-day republican.

blog.nader.org...

I am not sure of what you're talking about, non-industrial factions? We lost nothing our political non leaders such as the current fearless leader gave them up. HIs management skills are obviously sub par. Hence the current mess now. Comparing the Falklands to Iraq and Afghanistan would like comparing a street fight to WWII. Falklands really? 2 months and it's over compared to how many years in Afghanistan?

seems like you didn't read.
I was comparing the falklands to the first gulf war; both were short, decisive victories, and the exceptions to what has been a series of indecive, drawn out, expensive, unpopular wars. I probably should have been clearer on that point.

And all you hear from the president while on the road in foreign countries is how the republicans won't work with him. and the whoosh of his golf club.

you hear that from the president because it's actually part of the problem, there has been plenty of evidence of such pointed out to you in this and other threads. The republicans are obstructing legislation

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: MyMindIsMyOwn

Here is the full law and all its reauthorizations:

That is the summary that I linked in my own post in this thread in the interest of saving time.

Here is the full text of the 2008 Act. TVPA 2008 - PDF Format

Now you can see that this issue firmly belongs to CONGRESS to fix. NOT Obama.

And it always has been as they write and vote on the laws. However, in signing this without asking for any kind of revision or tightening of the loopholes the president is just as complicit as congress.

Obama is bound BY THE LAW passed by Congress in 2008 that is STILL THE LAW OF THE LAND to NOT repatriate undocumented children from Central America.

Not to repatriate?? Holy cow... have you even read the 2008 Act? It most certainly DOES allow for that, however, the length of time and process involved is much greater than with those countries who share a border with the US (i.e Mexico and Canada). In the link above to the entire text, take a look at section 235, paragraph D which states:

(D) PLACEMENT IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS.—Any
unaccompanied alien child sought to be removed by the
Department of Homeland Security, except for an unaccompanied
alien child from a contiguous country subject to
exceptions under subsection (a)(2), shall be—
(i) placed in removal proceedings under section
240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1229a);
(ii) eligible for relief under section 240B of such
Act (8 U.S.C. 1229c) at no cost to the child; and
(iii) provided access to counsel in accordance with
subsection (c)(5).

"Placed in removal proceedings"... deportation proceedings, sent back to the country of origin, repatriation. Now, there are exceptions to this. As I understand it if in the course of investigation and proceedings it is found that they have suffered from trafficing of any kind it switches from 'removal proceedings' to naturalization proceedings, fair enough.

The Do-Nothing Congress of John Boehner ......

We've had do nothing congress' for decades regardless of congressional party leadership, which is my point. We've had ample time in the past to work on this. Now it's a crisis and all we can accomplish is finger pointing which last time I checked gets nothing done except divide us further.

In 2008, 8,041 undocumented children arrived at the border, the thought now is the spike in violence in Central America is causing more to arrive.

That's the thought but I have yet to find any real proof of that other than what we are being told and your source only lists numbers not reasons. Interesting that between FY2011 and FY2012 the numbers almost double. I would think when that came to light then would have been the time to find out why and prepare for it before we even got to this point. But our government never was efficient at looking ahead and planning for anything.

Again, it all comes down to Congress taking action, but that won't happen under it's current leadership.

It will take congress, the president and the citizens taking action regardless of party affiliation. I don't hold out much hope for any of that to happen in our current political climate.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
More proof of this militant tyrant's plan to destroy our country. And at this point, it is not only Obama and the senate to blame...it is the supporting left among us. They have become the enemy too!

ok...all you right-wingers on this thread, what would you do? shoot them?....c'mon I want REAL, PRACTICAL, DOABLE, Answers...not some pie-in-the-sky, vague, philosophy.

No need to engage in hyperbole here ...

#1 - Revoke the Executive Order that provoked all of this - the fact that Obama directed DHS to stop deportations of "DREAMERS" is one of the root causes of this. And holding a White House ceremony to celebrate the "contributions" of DREAMERS in advocating for

#2. People are sending their children across the border with the expectation that they will be able to re-join their children in the future to "take care of them." Change the law that allows non-Mexican border-crossers to stay to treat *any* border crosser the same as we treat Mexicans - return them to their country of origin, and let their governments re-unite them with their families. This will remove the motivation to send unaccompanied children across in the first place. Simultaneously, buy television ads in Central America and forcefully explain that children will and are being returned, that there is no "permisos" program for unaccompanied children, and they're exposing their children to death and exploitation by sending them.

#3. Suspend economic assistance grants to Mexico and Guatamala until they revoke the recent agreement to provide 72-hour visas for Guatamalans to make their way to the U.S. Southern borders to illegally cross.

Of course, we also need to implement E-Verify universally, sue sanctuary cities, cities that ignore ICE detainer requests, and states that provide unequal services like in-state tuition to illegals (if illegals can get in-state tuition, so should every American citizen). Complete the border fence, increase the number of ICE agents for both border and interior enforcement duties, expand the number of immigration judges/courts, enhanced punishments for deportees who re-enter the country, end birthright citizenship, extending citizenship only to children born of parents who are US citizens or whose parents are in the country with legal residence (no birth tourists), and allow school districts to charge parents of children who cannot speak English for their ESL classes.

Specific enough for you?

a reply to: squittles

And almost all of what you listed needs to be done by Congress. So maybe Johnny can stop yelling at his weekly press conferences and stop refusing to vote on anything that is immigration reform.

a reply to: nenothtu

You know more about this part of the world than myself, so I will go with your knowledge on the topic. I was simply forwarding one idea.... I never said it was the best idea, just one alternative to new recruits to put down the americans....

I think anyone would like an alternative to that. Call it wishful thinking....

a reply to: Sremmos80

I'm just not certain what needs reformed where concerns immigration? People apply to get into this country, and some get in, most do not. Process process and red tape. It's the proper way to gain access into a country. The process weeds out many undesirables - granted not all, but definitely the best we can do I think.

When people come to this country illegally, deportation of them is the rule of thumb. Having border patrols who keep our nation's borders protected from illegals is a very good way to keep them from coming in illegally in the first place. We spend an awful lot of funds on the stupidest stuff that could be going to needed areas such as our borders.

I'm just not seeing any problem areas where reform is needed, other than the reform to start actually enforcing the law...

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: squittles

And almost all of what you listed needs to be done by Congress. So maybe Johnny can stop yelling at his weekly press conferences and stop refusing to vote on anything that is immigration reform.

*Almost* - there's one *major* issue that ypu're ignoring and many are attempting to deflect from. The "Executive Order" (or Directive - it's not clear which) whereby Obama ordered the de factor implementation of the DREAM act, ending the deportation of illegal immigrant children and those brought here as minors. This was Jun 2012.

Prior to 2012, the average number of unaccompanied minor children illegally entering the US was stable, averaging about 7000 a year.

Then the DREAM EO was announced.
In FY 2012, the number rose to about 14k.
In FY 2013, the number rose to about 25k.
In FY2014, the number is expected to rise to 60k (or more.)

The perhaps intended, or perhaps unintended consequence of the "DREAM" act EO was the mistaken belief by Central Americans that if they can get their children here, they can stay here, and their families can later join them.

This exponential growth of border crosses is down to one thing, and one thing only - President Obama's EO. While Central Americans may have misinterpreted what the provisions of the EO are, if there was no EO, there'd be nothing to misinterpret. If he hadn't have so publicly demanded amnesty, and promised to implement immigration changes on his own if Congress wouldn't, they wouldn't be coming in such numbers.

The "difficulties" in then deporting them is a sideshow, a distraction - this rising tide, this avalanche of children (and who knows how many die or are kidnapped by sex traffickers along the way?) and adults wouldn't be coming in such huge numbers if he hadn't of issued that EO and made those promises to implement immigration "reform" (which is actually legalization - the immigration system isn't "broken", except that it's not enforced.)

This is a problem that's *entirely* of the President's doing - his own actions, his own words. No one, and nothing else. It belongs to him.

originally posted by: squittles

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: squittles

And almost all of what you listed needs to be done by Congress. So maybe Johnny can stop yelling at his weekly press conferences and stop refusing to vote on anything that is immigration reform.

*Almost* - there's one *major* issue that ypu're ignoring and many are attempting to deflect from. The "Executive Order" (or Directive - it's not clear which) whereby Obama ordered the de factor implementation of the DREAM act, ending the deportation of illegal immigrant children and those brought here as minors. This was Jun 2012.

Prior to 2012, the average number of unaccompanied minor children illegally entering the US was stable, averaging about 7000 a year.

Then the DREAM EO was announced.
In FY 2012, the number rose to about 14k.
In FY 2013, the number rose to about 25k.
In FY2014, the number is expected to rise to 60k (or more.)

The perhaps intended, or perhaps unintended consequence of the "DREAM" act EO was the mistaken belief by Central Americans that if they can get their children here, they can stay here, and their families can later join them.

This exponential growth of border crosses is down to one thing, and one thing only - President Obama's EO. While Central Americans may have misinterpreted what the provisions of the EO are, if there was no EO, there'd be nothing to misinterpret. If he hadn't have so publicly demanded amnesty, and promised to implement immigration changes on his own if Congress wouldn't, they wouldn't be coming in such numbers.

The "difficulties" in then deporting them is a sideshow, a distraction - this rising tide, this avalanche of children (and who knows how many die or are kidnapped by sex traffickers along the way?) and adults wouldn't be coming in such huge numbers if he hadn't of issued that EO and made those promises to implement immigration "reform" (which is actually legalization - the immigration system isn't "broken", except that it's not enforced.)

This is a problem that's *entirely* of the President's doing - his own actions, his own words. No one, and nothing else. It belongs to him.

And that`s the name of that tune.This is all Obama,all the time.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

Scraping the bottom of the barrel was done when people dragged Bush in to this topic.

Because of what ever reason.

They either can't or just don't want to discuss the current epic failure in chief.

As the border CLEARLY SHOWS.

(A) It is irrational to blindly pretend that President Obama is the first person to have held the office of President, but insanely that seems to be your demand.

(B) The change to the law occurred in 2008 under President Bush's immigration reform initiative.

(C) That law can be changed, but the GOP in Congress have refused to even bring any immigration reform bill to the floor. They are afraid of how their extremist right-wing caucus would vote against reform, alienating Latino voters before the mid-term elections.

So the GOP created the legal crisis that demands these children be treated differently and requiring hearings...AND they refuse to fix the law...all the while shouting it is President Obama's fault!...which will have traction with the least informed voters amongst their caucus.

Par for the course for the hyper hypocritical and dishonest political strategy.

President Obama is a long way from perfect and the Democrats need a foot up their arses, but God help me the current GOP reach new, unprecedented peaks of hypocrisy, dishonesty and ignorance with every new crisis they create and then shout at the president about.

Frankly...every time they do this they discredit themselves and alienate voters that otherwise would be focused on real issues with the Obama Administration like NSA constitutional intrusions.

a reply to: squittles

Care to source those increase in immigration numbers?

This "issue" is all about the elections coming up, reform was already offered up and GOP denied it. John says he refuses to vote on anything immigration.
Yet they sit there and complain and whine about the loopholes that are being taken advantage of....
Get a biill in front of obama if you want this issue resolved That is how it works.