Skip to main content

Try not to act too surprised.

White House: Boehner won't set immigration vote this year.
Of course he won't. His base won't allow it, and whatever the GOP's incredibly shrinking base demands, they get. They've long-ago surrendered any hope of expanding their electorate. But rather than stick the knife in, the administration announced in response that it will continue doing the GOP's dirty work for them:
WH offl: the President will direct [DHS] and the AG to move available & appropriate enforcement resources from our interior to the border.
@ZekeJMiller
So expect more Latino-alienating headlines like this one:
Univision screenshot 6-30-14: Obama pide acelerar deportación de niños
"Obama seeks to accelerate deportation of kids."
But wait, there's more!
WH offl: the President has directed his team to identify additional actions and send recommendations to him by the end of the summer
@ZekeJMiller
Ooh, why not make it a "blue ribbon" commission to underscore the patheticness of this response? So the administration was caught flat-footed by Boehner's announcement, and had nothing ready to go? Seriously, if alienating Latinos was the goal, he's doing a heckuva job.

Originally posted to kos on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 11:34 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos and LatinoKos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  You get what you vote for. (5+ / 0-)

    n/t

  •  I know I shouldnt be (12+ / 0-)

    but I am amazed how the GOP managed to move even further to the right post-2012.

    After that election, I expected some kind of moderate moves. Perhaps just passing a DREAM act. Or ENDA. I doubt such moves would have hurt them politically with conservative voters, and they definitely would help with minority and younger voters in 2016 and beyond. But no, they couldnt even do that.

    Anyway, great news for Hillary Clinton and other Dems running in 2016.

  •  On top of Giving up on Truth, Science and Reality (5+ / 0-)

    Surrender Monkeys

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 11:46:30 AM PDT

  •  A serious question: what should Obama do? (9+ / 0-)

    Since he can't get anything through Congress this year.

    We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

    by Samer on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 11:46:31 AM PDT

    •  Keep an Eye on Foreign Affairs, a Few Exec Orders. (6+ / 0-)

      Otherwise, if he has any motivational skills, he'll have lots of time to employ them.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 11:48:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Let's start with NOT enacting right-wing policies (14+ / 0-)

      n/t

      The Republicans are crazy, but why we follow them down the rabbit hole is beyond me.

      by Jazzenterprises on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 11:48:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Um... how is securing borders against illegal (5+ / 0-)

        immigration right-wing policies?

        Just about every other country (Canada, Europe, Mexico) does the same thing.

        •  Because it's the ONLY thing in the Rep's quiver (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nmjardine, cybersaur, Glenn45, mchristi314

          vis a vis immigration. Of course, it's the part that Latinos understand and justifiably hate. It also weakens the country by depriving the labor pool of hard working people who can and will do what our citizens are loathe to do.

          More brown skinned people == double plus bad in the Republican formulary.

          I've got an idea: how about we secure our NORTHERN border with a massive 20' high steel barrier like we've got down south. This would guard against all those terrorists and Canadians who are just champing at the bit to get into the promised land?

          Every human being has paid the earth to grow up. Most people don’t grow up. And you find out what it costs us to love and to lose, to dare and to fail. And maybe even more, to succeed. What it costs, in truth.—Maya Angelou

          by TerryDarc on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:56:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  On this issue, I think he's done all he can... (11+ / 0-)

      I am certainly critical of Obama on many issues, and I grant you that immigration reform is not a top priority for me. I do believe we need reform, though, and the President and most congressional Democrats have made clear their desire to get something done. And just like it would be unproductive and impractical to deport the millions of law-abiding undocumented immigrants who have settled here, I also think it's unproductive and impractical to not address the enforcement aspect of immigration reform. We can't allow everyone who wants to settle here to do so, and the lax enforcement of companies that knowingly hire undocumented aliens creates a bad incentive where it becomes seen as easier to come in illegally than to do it the right, legal way.

      So, without Congress, he is doing what he can, via executive action, to create a more humane policy for those who have settled and lived here without trouble, while also addressing the flow of new undocumented immigrants.

      What else can he do?

      •  Accelerating the deportation of children (10+ / 0-)

        doesn't sound like creating a more humane policy.

        Marx was an optimist.

        by psnyder on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:04:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's not what he is doing (10+ / 0-)

          He is accelerating the re-introduction of children that are at the border caught in the act of trying to enter the country illegally back to their homes of origin.

          That it his job, TO EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  And when children or adults are caught at the border, they are returned to the countries of origin.

          •  He needs to NOT send them back to possible deat... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nmjardine, suzq, cybersaur, mchristi314

            He needs to NOT send them back to possible death and find them a place here, period! Most have family here that can take them and that needs to be done now.

            •  He can not legally do that. (0+ / 0-)

              They are caught by border patrol.  They must be returned.  I understand their families are here, but the laws of the land are clear.

              I'm sorry but that is the reality.  Otherwise, ALL undocumented workers could say they have families here, where would that reason stop?

              •  The laws of the land are clear? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nmjardine, mchristi314, ladybug53

                Yes, I suppose they are. But the law does not say that someone who crosses without papers is automatically deported.  It has never said that.

                Under the law that set up the Department of Homeland Security in 2004, unaccompanied children must be turned over to the Department of Health and Human Services within 72 hours.  DHHS holds them until they are: (1) returned home; (2) released to relatives here, usually with a charging document and a court date; (3) found to be victims of abuse or neglect at immediate risk and placed in the foster care system - a tiny minority of kids.

                Under the law, those who can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution have the right to seek asylum.  By UNHCR's own admission, there are a number of Central American kids who do fit that description.

                The laws have not substantively changed since 2004, and neither has the Administration's response.  What has changed is that the conditions in Central America have become much worse, pushing more kids northward.  

                “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

                by ivorybill on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:18:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  And the problem is? (0+ / 0-)

                Seriously, what would be the problem with that? Why should we be upholding a law that has inhumane results? It's not true that everyone who is caught by the border patrol must be returned. Why shouldn't we, for example, interpret reasons for granting asylum as broadly and liberally as possible?

            •  If the President does what you are suggesting, (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nmjardine, KayCeSF, artmartin

              more children will be risking being abused or even raped as they leave their parents in many cases and make that death defying trip to the U.S.

              Before they even reach the United States, children face extreme hazards while traveling across Mexico and trying to cross the border. Smugglers often rob, abuse and abandon them; girls are sometimes raped. But more divided families are calculating that the risk is worth it. Once the children reach the border, some parents are instructing them to surrender to once-feared U.S. Border Patrol agents as soon as they can.
              Then when they arrive, if their extended family refuse to take them in, what then? Will they then live on the streets? Some of these families will experience added burdens when these children arrive.
              Even when long-separated families are successfully united, they often face daunting adjustment problems. There are stepfathers and younger siblings whom the newly arrived teenagers have never met. There are language barriers and old feelings of anger, jealousy and abandonment. There are crowded apartments and long workdays that offer little chance for special attention. And often, there are the added tensions and uncertainty of the parents being illegal.
              Your notion of the President going down to the border with these children's extended relatives and saying "Come let me reunite you with your family," sounds great but is that realistic? Would he be able to provide subsidies or financial help for some of these family members to care for these children?

              A problem currently facing the U.S. government is how to correctly house the kids when they arrive in holding locations, and I think the President is seeking funding to do just that. But he and everyone who care for these children should, as the President has done, dissuade families in the nations of their origin from sending them on such a dangerous adventure.

              I don't think you have thought this out....

              •  I agree. We cannot allow it to become acceptable.. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                NedSparks

                We have to make clear that we're not going to allow parents in Central America to send their kids, undocumented and unaccompanied, to the US. In the best case scenario, we are talking about relatives who can support the kids financially and safely. In those cases, the right way for that to happen would be via foreign adoption. If it's a family, and they meet the criteria for asylum, they should apply and have it granted to them.

                The unofficial, illegal way means kids are being placed into the custody of human traffickers, affiliated with incredibly dangerous criminal organizations. Not only does this allow those awful groups to profit from the misery of others, there is a huge potential for abuse, and I certainly imagine some of those kids will be diverted into prostitution or indentured servitude. How exactly does a parent stuck in Honduras or El Salvador ensure their child's safety or prevent such scenarios? The hell are the parents going to do if it does happen? Take on the cartels?

                We need CIR badly, and the President and most Democrats have made clear they're ready to make it happen. Until then, the President can't/shouldn't just let this type of immigration slide. I believe he's doing the best he can here.

            •  Reunite them with their family (0+ / 0-)

              and send them all back.

        •  What do you suggest we do with those kids? (6+ / 0-)

          Serious question...

          •  Place them with family members in the US. He wo... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nmjardine, suzq, mchristi314

            Place them with family members in the US. He would be a hero if he would personally go down to the border and have pictures of him taken of him personally picking up one of those kids and placing it in the arms of his or her mom, aunt, cousin or whomever they could find to raise the child here.

            A hero!! This are kids and the American people will not just stand still and watch tens of thousands of kids thrown out to go to violence.

            •  The people who would take these kids in... (4+ / 0-)

              How do we know they're fit to take them in? What happens the first time a child is placed into a home, and the kid ends up being abused?

              We just cannot and should not allow people to send their kids up here, unaccompanied. It's completely unacceptable and dangerous. Not to mention it supports the human trafficking activities of organized criminal gangs.

              If these kids have family members willing to take them in, why not go through the formal adoption process instead of just sending them up through the border, undocumented, and dealing with coyotes and other criminal gangs?

              •  Do you know how much money it would (0+ / 0-)

                cost an undocumented family to go through the formal adoption process??? They are here already, so do you advocate sending them back?  All tens of thousands of them?  Do you have any idea how mad that will make people to see that?

                •  It makes me plenty mad to see parents... (0+ / 0-)

                  Sending their children to some coyote to deliver them to the United States. They can't afford the adoption process, but they'd be able to support a child? Without the safety net that they can't get access to, or minimum wage and other labor laws that don't apply to them because of their undocumented status?

                  Yes, I advocate sending unaccompanied children found at the border back to their parents. Just like I supported Elian Gonzalez being re-patriated back to Cuba.

                  •  It's not about adoption (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    nmjardine, mchristi314

                    In most cases, the parents are here - the kids were in El Salvador with guardians.  The parents don't need to adopt the kids, but they have exactly zero chance of seeing them again unless and until CIR is passed.

                    It's not a question of adoption.  That's essentially irrelevant in this situation.

                    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

                    by ivorybill on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:20:24 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'd say that if the parents are already here... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ivorybill

                      And they've established roots and have followed the law, then their kids should be re-united, and the family allowed to stay via executive action, pending CIR that gives them a process to stay. If they haven't laid down roots, or have committed violent or serious crimes, I think they should probably be deported.

                      I was thinking of situations where the kids are sent by their parents via coyotes or other human traffickers, to hopefully get taken in by other relatives. In those cases, I generally think that if the kids are detained at the border or while crossing, they should be sent back to their parents in their home country. I just can't see allowing that type of thing to become normal or accepted.

                •  How much more affordable is it? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  artmartin

                  To pay a coyote to get your kid to the U.S. than for a formal adoption? I'm not being snarky, I just don't know how much a formal, foreign adoption costs.

                  I do know people who have come via coyotes through Mexico. One woman I met in Guatemala told me it cost her friend $5000 USD to go from Guatemala City, through to the U.S. side of the border. My ex girlfriend came illegally with her parents from Sonora, Mexico. I believe it cost around $2000 a person. This was back in the 80's.

          •  Do what we have been doing: (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nmjardine, Phoenix Woman, ladybug53

            (1)  Screen, interview, assess and make a "best interests of the child" determination.  In many cases, that means going back to Honduras or El Salvador.  In others, that means being released to relatives here.

            (2)  Provide the kid with an attorney.  No child should be in immigration court without an attorney.

            (3) Children who demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution, or serious abuse or neglect, are eligible for immigration relief under the Refugee Act and for Special Immigrant Juvenile Visas.  

            Families are sending their kids now for a number of reasons.  First, the gang violence is worse - note that the kids coming north are coming from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala - and not from Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia or Venezuela, all of which are safer at the moment.  There is a connection between violence and kids moving north.

            Second, parents have given up on comprehensive immigration reform.  Parents have been waiting more than 8 years since CIR was introduced into the senate, and nothing is happening.  Many, many parents think "if I don't get my kid up here now, they will spend their entire childhood without me".  The very failure of CIR is what is sparking this unregulated, undocumented flow.

            Finally, undocumented parents won't go to the courts to "adopt" their kids, because they can't bring them up here legally even if they could adopt them... and anyway, they are their kids so they don't need to adopt them.  They are here, have built a life, and are forced to be apart from their kids in some cases for their entire childhood.  It is civil disobedience born of desperation.

            “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

            by ivorybill on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:30:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is why we can not re-unite ALL these (0+ / 0-)
              because they can't bring them up here legally
              kids with their parents.  

              We need to definitely do the enumerated items above but in the end, we as a country can not allow all those undocumented children into this country.  That would be openly violating immigration laws..

              •  But we don't let them all in (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nmjardine, Phoenix Woman, ladybug53

                The kids still go to immigration court.  In many cases, they are deported.  

                What we cannot do is to take a teenager from Guatemala, turn him around at the border, and hand him over to the tender mercies of the Zetas, or corrupt Mexican officials.  You can't just turn teenagers around and force them across the border without review or some legal process, which is what the restrictionists and the GOP want us to do.

                “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

                by ivorybill on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:54:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Leave the kids alone for starters! Find a place... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybersaur

      Leave the kids alone for starters! Find a place for them here and be a hero for two!

    •  Obama or any other leader (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brightlights

      should eliminate welfare to those who come into our country illegally and send back as many as he/she can.  This is NOT a human rights issue.  It's a fiscal issue.  

      Imagine living in a house with roommates.  Suddenly, one of your roommates starts bringing in guests who never leave and keep mooching off of everyone.  How would you feel living with a roommate like that?  

      That Latinos want their fellow Latinos to stick is not a surprise.  We live in a complex, diverse society where each group always pushes their own agenda.  But when hundreds of thousands in Detroit are getting their water cut off by the city, we need to forget about pandering to a specific ethnic /race group and start looking after our own AMERICANS.  

      Close our welfare system to those crossing our borders illegally and send them back home. It's the only sane thing to do.

      •  It is not so simple (4+ / 0-)

        First, the idea that these are all undifferentiated "illegals" is not accurate. Immigration law is complex; many people labeled as "illegals" actually do have relief under the law.  

        In terms of looking after our own "Americans", consider that many people who are deported are the husbands or wives of US citizens, and the parents of US citizen children.  This is not an issue of foreigners versus Americans.  This is something that splits American families.  And no, being married to an American does not necessarily mean having permanent residence and is often no barrier to deportation.

        Second, closing off "welfare" is a red herring.  Very few undocumented persons obtain "welfare".  And as for "mooching"?  Many if not most undocumented pay taxes into the system and get nothing out.  In nearly all jurisdictions, they pay more than they extract in services.

        Third, it is very much a human rights issue.  The US is a signator to the Refugee Convention, the Convention Against Torture, and various other international treaties and conventions that require the US to screen and determine refugee status and to prohibit refoulement of refugees against international law.  Now, this applies to a minority of Central Americans, but it still applies to some.  It's not a matter of "no papers, you're out of here".  The world stopped doing that in 1945.  Additionally, US law recognizes that some children may not be able to return home, and makes provision for that - under Special Immigrant Juvenile Visas, for example.  

        So some, even most, undocumented persons are deportable.  But the idea that we need to simply deport everyone is contrary to international law, US law, and common decency.

        “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

        by ivorybill on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:28:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's a human rights issue (0+ / 0-)

          if you're crossing the borders to seek a better life.  But it's a fiscal issue if I'm paying into the system that's subsidizing their life in America.  

          •  OK but (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Phoenix Woman, Australian2, ladybug53

            undocumented immigrants pay $20,000,000,000 - $30,000,000,000 more in taxes than they take in services.

            http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/...

            I could maybe be more sympathetic to your position if they were actually costing you money.  But I'm not convinced that you are subsidizing their lives in America.  The opposite might be true.  

            Also, with our low birth rate, who's gonna be doing the home health care aid work when the baby boomers all have alzheimers? Population growth cannot continue unrestrained forever, but the US can handle the current influx - and the age structure of our society for the next 50 years might actually benefit by a little more immigration of younger persons.

            “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

            by ivorybill on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:42:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  You know what bothers me the most? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman

      The Latinos in this country already have the numbers to fix the problem but they have notoriously stayed home for elections.  I hope that will change soon but it seems that regardless of the fact that the Republican party has zero to offer Hispanic/Americans as far as meaningful legislation goes, on wedge issues the right has been able to dilute their influence.  Abortion is one of those issues.  So much of our Latino population is Catholic and the church has been hammering their members in past years with a right wing political slant and made Catholic voters believe that the left is the devil.  Perhaps this new Pope will begin to change that although America will be one of the last bastions of that good old boy network the Pope has been lashing out at.  

      The Latinos that vote aren't necessarily voting for Republicans but there's so few of them voting that their effect on elections is minimal in the last few decades.  I'm not sure that Obama would necessarily see more gain in votes by going all in on immigration or staying tough on border security.  With the few Latino votes he'll pick up by being soft on that security he could potentially lose more with centrist white voters that feel that immigrants are stealing their jobs.  

      In addition we know Obama to be a political pragmatist.  Any talk of immigration reform that the right would sign off on must include a tight border.  By enforcing the law he takes that part of the negotiations off the table and it becomes all about the moral issue instead.  

      This is a tough one.

    •  Gutierrez: Prez will do what Congress won't (0+ / 0-)

      Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

      by Phoenix Woman on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 08:28:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hispanics and Latinos (6+ / 0-)

    Welcome to another edition of "Under the Bus!". Getting crowded under here...

    The Republicans are crazy, but why we follow them down the rabbit hole is beyond me.

    by Jazzenterprises on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 11:47:46 AM PDT

  •  Wait… (5+ / 0-)

    doesn't that tweet about "moving resources from the interior to the border" mean less emphasis on deporting people who are already here and more on stopping people from getting in in the first place? I'm not sure why fewer resources spent in the interior is a bad thing.

    At any rate, we should probably wait to hear what specific actions are being taken. If it's just a "blue ribbon commission", yeah, that's lame.

    •  Yeah, I agree with you (8+ / 0-)

      It might not be a popular position here, but I think Dems have to careful about opposing border security.

      It's one thing to want the undocumented already in the country to come forward and go through a legalization process. But I think a lot of people would have problem with lax border security and the perception of more people coming here illegally.

      •  That's right, it's one thing to giver DREAMERS (10+ / 0-)

        who have been here through no fault of their own their entire lives a break, it's another to be lax on border security and not try to enforce the Immigration Laws already on the books.

      •  Exactly (7+ / 0-)

        Most people of common sense realize that without some form of border security enhancement we will be right back here in 30 years with another batch of huge undocumented people that need some form of amnesty just as we are now after St. Ronnie in 1986 that dealt with immigration the first time.

        The reason people are rightfully concerned about border security is that after we make the current 13 million illegals legal, what are we doing to make sure we aren't going to have to do the same thing again in the future so we don't have another group of 10-20 million illegals that need to be made legal.

        What is the point of having any immigration laws if we just make everyone that snuck in legal every 20-30 years when it reaches a critical mass?

        At some point we need to figure out how we avoid the problem in the future after we take care of the current group. That is going to come through enhanced border security to ensure we don't keep getting these huge hoards of people here illegally that need to be made legal because there are too many to realistically deport.

        •  Exactly (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FiredUpInCA, brightlights, ladybug53

          I dont know what the argument is against what you have said.

          I'm all for a path to citizenship for people who are here. I'm all for making it easier for people to come here legally, especially those who are living in countries wracked by violence.

          But I just cant be outrage that people trying to come here illegally would be turned away from the border. And I dont think most people are outraged by it either.

        •  i dunno (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nmjardine, babaloo, ivorybill, benamery21

          just throwing open the doors and letting people become americans worked well enough for my ancestors. then again, they were from europe, so i guess it's different (although the bill o'reilly's of their day railed about how they were wrecking the american character with their presence, so i guess not that much has changed)

          personally, if you really want to stop migrant labor flows, stop fucking up the small farmer and working class economies abroad with neoliberal free trade agreements, and most people will be happy to stay home and make a living in their own countries. the push factors are bigger than the pull ones, IMO.

        •  The border is not broken... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nmjardine, Phoenix Woman

          The immigration system is broken, and Central America is broken.  The border is the symptom, not the cause.

          Do you know why >90% of the kids are from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, and not elsewhere in Latin America?  Like Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Nicaragua?  Because those nations are in chaos - we exported the gangs, and created the war on drugs, and any sane parent or guardian is desperate to get their kids away from the violence.  

          Do you think undocumented parents can simply petition for their children to join them?  No, they cannot.  Kids are spending their entire childhoods separated from their parents, and parents simply can't take the delay any longer.

          Immigration from Mexico has slowed as Mexico becomes more stable and the economy improves.  Immigration from Central America will taper off if/when the same thing happens there.  In the meantime, a percentage of these kids (30% according to UNHCR) fit the criteria for refugee status and/or sufficiently severe abuse and neglect that they are eligible to remain under US law.  

          The solution?  Make sure the kids are screened and get legal representation.  Those who are eligible for relief, stay.  Those who are not, are sent back.  But we can't be a nation that permits 8 year olds to go to immigration court without an attorney and without adequate assessment to determine the safety and best interests of the kid.  

          “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

          by ivorybill on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:37:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is not a problem that we as Americans (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LordNicholas
            Kids are spending their entire childhoods separated from their parents, and parents simply can't take the delay any longer.
            can fix.  Those people chose to LEAVE THEIR CHILDREN.  Instead of doing what they could to bring change to their own country.

            So now we need to provide safe haven for them and the children they left behind?  That would NEVER happen the other way around.

            •  Central America does not exist in a vacuum (0+ / 0-)

              We funded several decades of civil wars in those countries - especially El Salvador and Guatemala.  MS-13, the major criminal gang in Central America, actually originated in East LA - we literally exported the gang problem from East LA to Central America.  Central America is intimately tied to the US through CAFTA as well.

              Now, I'm not saying that Central Americans have no responsibility for the mess that they find themselves in... but the US has a huge degree of responsibility as well.  A lot of people have died trying to fix Central America. The kids are paying the price.

              “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

              by ivorybill on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:11:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm from El Salvador and your description of th... (0+ / 0-)

                I'm from El Salvador and your description of the situation is really accurate.

                I have brothers that live there and never showed any interest to Come to th US until very recently, the gang and crime situation is so out of control that you literally were safer to go to the street during the civil war than now. You don't know if you are coming back alive.

                Almost every business have to pay the gangs extortion fees to operate.

                The gangs recruit kids in the schools, if you refuse you get beat up or killed.

                It surprise me that the American media is not talking about that, if You have children over there you want to get them out of there as soon as possible.

      •  There's Also the Fact (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        brightlights

        That a lot of people (myself include) think a lot of them are cowards for abandoning their homeland instead of fighting off the cartels.

        City of Cedarburg, WI-06

        by LordNicholas on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:04:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I understand your concerns (0+ / 0-)

        regarding border security because I hear them a lot.  Since 9/11 it has become "common sense" to conceive of a strictly enforced border as being conducive to better security because of an assumption that it actually leads to fewer bad guys entering the country despite little, if any, factual evidence that it actually does that.  

        People do tend to think more security at borders means more secure interiors, but they're simply wrong, and I don't think we as a party should be accepting this wrongness just to win popularity contests when it so strongly contradicts our progressive values.   There may be things progressives should sell out for, but not this, in other words.  

        More open borders -- more personal liberty, less militarization, and fewer prisons and sad children -- means easier-to-control borders because only the bad guys need to hide actions or use fraudulent documents.  It's not only offensive to our values to support stronger border enforcement, but just plain stupid too.

         

      •  It hurt Jimmy Carter during reelection (0+ / 0-)

        The waves of Cubans coming during the Mariel boatlift and and the placement of them in camps where some riots occurred. The optics were horrible and for better or worse, he got blamed.

    •  False distinction (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      suzq

      No border patrol is going to be completely effective, so it's probably more efficient to find people by stepping up enforcement at places of employment.

      Secondly, a common source of undocumented immigration is people entering legally and overstaying visas.  Suffice it to say, people in that category are not hanging out in McAllen and Nogales.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:08:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely. I think you MUST do both (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordNicholas, brightlights
        by stepping up enforcement at places of employment
        For YEARS, I have been saying "Make the fine $100,000 PER INCENDENT"

        You can just see how many employers would have second thoughts on hiring undocumented workers.  

        •  Well, of course you can do both to some degree - (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DiesIrae

          except for that you still have to address the question of allocating limited resources.

          we need people on the border not to prevent immigration so much as to rescue the people who are dying in the desert trying to do so.  Unaccompanied minors have particular needs.  It's not so you can create a thousand-mile human chain to play red rover.  

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:21:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  just like Dems need to run on Obamacare (6+ / 0-)


    they need to run on supporting women's health care, and they need to run on immigration reform and amnesty.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 11:51:26 AM PDT

  •  Not shaping up to be a good week . . . sigh. (7+ / 0-)

    "The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”" -- Paul Dirac

    by Rikon Snow on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 11:51:47 AM PDT

  •  GOP asshattery. DEM fecklessness. (7+ / 0-)

       The story of America, since the late 1970's.

       Obama's just carrying on the tradition.

       

    "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

    by Buzzer on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 11:53:10 AM PDT

  •   the whole immigration thing has been a wonderful (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, thanatokephaloides

    success, another one, for rw radio.

    they spent years using the issue to help ALEC pass voter suppression/ID bullshit. non citizens were voting for dems, brown terrorists are streaming across the border, and we need voter ID laws, we need citizen militias to protect the border, etc.

    they were never going to pass anything real and risk losing their cheap labor force and push wages up, etc.

    dems not knowing this is another big mistake made possible by ignoring the right's best weapon.

    lately limbaugh's been convincing his audience the o admin somehow organized the kid influx- (future dem voters, to push for reform, etc)

    he and the other radio gods will crucify any republicans who might want to talk sense on immigration or support obama in any way, and they got a decade or more of unchallenged lying to back them up

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 11:55:14 AM PDT

  •  Honest question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thanatokephaloides

    Why is it that the issue of illegal immigration is so closely tied up with the Latino vote?

    Obviously, some people's opposition to illegal immigration is motivated by anti-Latino sentiment.  But surely we can't say that about Obama.  So why would action he takes against illegal immigrants from Latin America be considered a huge negative among Latino citizens?

    •  It's not (0+ / 0-)

      The term is too amorphous to have any real meaning.

      http://www.thedreammapnovel.com

      by DAISHI on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:13:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  because the current immigration system (6+ / 0-)

      sets absurdly low quotas from latin america relative to demand, and makes it incredibly difficult for people both to migrate across the border for work, as well as to become citizens.

      a significant amount of latino families have a complex mix of national and immigration statuses, so the effect ends up more personal than one would expect just looking at the raw numbers. and as you pointed out, the right wing screaming about immigration is basically just outright racial animus towards latinos as an undifferentiated class, and latinos are as good as hearing the dog whistles as the racist whites said whistles were intended for.

      that obama is trying to split the distance on this rightfully reads as a betrayal, and is boneheaded politics IMO.

      •  This congress is UNLIKELY to raise quotas. (0+ / 0-)

        Even when the Dems were in charge of both houses, we didn't touch quotas.  Quotas haven't been changed in DECADES.

        •  yes. that is why the system's broken (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          babaloo, FogCityJohn, benamery21

          you have a party that advocates for racist pogroms, and a party that advocates for the perpetuation a broken status quo with rhetorical concessions to the xenophobes, but few elected advocates for a system that would actually work.

          i expect that this will change over time as a younger and more immigrant-linked (not only latino, but asian as well) dem primary electorate emerges, but it is painful to watch elected dems actively work to woo the right at the expense of wooing their future majority. both dumb and cruel.

    •  As an outsider, I don't claim to know.. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thanatokephaloides, suzq

      ..but my guess would be that if you select a specific issue to go extra-obviously-overboard on, there is assumed to be a hidden agenda driving the issue.

      We have entire industries (like banking, investing, energy, and manufacturing) who break laws like they were breaking eggs.. and nary a whisper of 'special enforcement' or 'national verification databases' or 'terrorist threats'.  But we do over immigration.  

      I can certainly understand folks asking 'Why?'

      Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations. - George Orwell

      by Wayward Son on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:17:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because it's hard to find (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      benamery21

      a Latino family that has not been here for generations that doesn't know someone who has been screwed over by the system.  Those who don't have to deal with it have no idea how screwed up it is.  Parents who have been here for 15 or 20 years get deported, leaving their US citizen children behind - 250,000 children in Mexico don't speak Spanish and are in special language classes in Mexico because their parents were deported.  

      It is terribly easy to be deported, for something as minor as a traffic ticket.  The Obama Administration was supposed to slow enforcement except for "criminal aliens".  This has not really happened.  True, more "criminal aliens" are being deported than ever, but at the same time overall detention numbers have gone from 250,000 annually under Bush to >400,000 annually under Obama.

      People who have built lives here, who have children here, can easily end up getting 10 year bars to re-entry, even for visits.  The system splits so many families.  Latinos see this, because it affects their neighbors and relatives.

      And... the hate toward Latino immigrants affects those who are not recent immigrants, too.  The profiling, the assumptions, the antipathy, all of that pisses off many Latino voters, including some who have been here since before Mexico was independent from Spain.

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:44:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Defy them. Go slow on enforcement, Obama. (4+ / 0-)

    We need GOOP to turn up their demented outrage.

    "They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”--FDR 1936

    •  A bit off topic (0+ / 0-)

      but I would love to see the inland checkpoints dismantled entirely. If you want to see what Big Brother looks like, go through one of the checkpoints about 100 miles from the border.
      And all of the children that were sent here to escape war and violence should be made citizens.

      +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

      by cybersaur on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:29:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Women and brown people need to vote (6+ / 0-)

    there is nothing else to do

    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

    by merrywidow on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:07:43 PM PDT

  •  Come on guys. Cut Boehner a break. He's way too (2+ / 0-)

    busy trying to figure out a way to sue Obama for EOs without looking overly moronic. And the TPers are mean to John. :(

  •  Pfft (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thanatokephaloides

    I'll believe it when the goons and their camera farm are pulled off San Diego expressways.

    Every time I come back from Arizona, I'm worried somebody's going to screw up and hit the dog at the I-8 checkpoint... I would actually be upset about that.

  •  Obama is AGAINST deporting kids... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thanatokephaloides, KayCeSF, Matt Z

    ...as shown here:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/...

    Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

    by Phoenix Woman on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:14:22 PM PDT

  •  Speaking of Univision... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thanatokephaloides

    ...its former head and co-owner backed a number of anti-immigrant candidates:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

    by Phoenix Woman on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:18:12 PM PDT

  •  This thread is odd, Obama basically announced he's (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    suzq, closerange, Matt Z, willynel

    going to do immigration reform on his own, but no one is talking about that.

  •  CIR starts with "comprehensive" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KayCeSF, closerange, jj32, Phoenix Woman

    He has always been for strengthening the border as well as all the other things you want. This is nothing new. I suggest waiting for a more comprehensive statement of what he plans to do before jumping on a single tweet.

    "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

    by conspiracy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:34:48 PM PDT

  •  I would raise the quotas. No one is talking about (0+ / 0-)

    that.  These ridiculously low quotas are doing no one any good.  They haven't protected a single job.  They've done nothing to raise the average wages in the US.  The whole thing is ridiculous.

    We need a REAL path to citizenship that involves either a reasonable queue (that doesn't take 20-30 years) or involves a period of working and living in the US without breaking any laws.  Add to that a rational work permitting system.

  •  Obama is the "Deportation President" (0+ / 0-)

    So why expect anything else?  He also has nothing to lose since he's not running for office again and clearly has not acted like he cares much about the Democratic Party.  This is only news if you're still dreaming about hope and change.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:16:22 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site