Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Did you bother to read the OP? It indicates that Obama should be releasing *more* illegal immigrant children into the US than he's allowing.
Do you support the president's position that fewer unaccompanied children from Central America should be released into the United States. Or the OP's position that more unaccompanied children from Central America should be released into the United States.
Yes
Not exactly. First the pres. talks out of both sides of his mouth on the issue. Second, the op is claiming they have parents here and the kids should be given to their parents, further proving the 2008 human trafficking law does not apply.
Besides that, the 2008 law applies to "victims of trafficking". Most of the m=new arrivals are coming in on their own volition. Some have even PAID thousands of $$ for the trip. That's not being victimized.
Also, regarding the ones who are being picked up by border patrol "unaccompanied", who is to say that those kids were not accompanied by adults right up until the time they got to the border, and then let loose ? Kind of hard to believe kids as young as these are managing to travel 1800 miles to the US "unaccompanied". Victims, my ass.
You keep falling flat, but it's admirable you keep trying to support the prez...or notThe president's position is that these illegal immigrant children SHOULD NOT be released to their parents or guardians in the US.
The CIS is arguing that a 'significant majority' of these illegal immigrant children SHOULD be released to their parents or guardians in the US.
Who do you support? The President or the CIS?
Link that is the prez position
Link that's the CIS position rather than the cherry picked words Jon Feere
Neither are trustworthy base on the op.
Its in the OP article. The CIS is complaining that the president ISN'T releasing these children to their parents or guardians in the US, as they insist the 2008 law requires.
Is the CIS wrong? Is the president doing what the CIS insist he should be doing, and releasing the 'significant majority' of these children to their parents and guardians in the US?
Or is the CIS right on the president's actions....and the president REFUSES to release a 'significant majority' of these children to their parents and guardians in the US? The 'misreading' that the CIS is lamenting about is claim that the '2008 law applied only to unaccompanied minors who dont have a parent or guardian already in the U.S.'
Pick which.
You keep falling flat, but it's admirable you keep trying to support the prez...or not
don't kid yourself.....Obama is shipping these kids as fast as he can all over the USA....in fact he wants more money to do so...
Then what, pray tell, is the CIS complaining about? What 'misreading' are they referring to if, as you claim, Obama's already shipping these kids all over the US?
You seem to be contradicting the CIS account rather directly.
Unaccompanied alien children are, by definition under federal law, are children who do not have family or legal guardians in the United States....these are trafficked children that should be kept for legal proceedings under the 2008 law....
Children who do have family in the USA are, by definition, not 'unaccompanied' and therefore do not fall under the 2008 law...
Federal law defines an "unaccompanied alien child" as a person who "has no lawful immigration status in the United States" and "has not attained 18 years of age" and does not have "a parent or legal guardian in the United States".12 The last part of this definition is significant in that available data, described earlier, suggest most of the children coming across the border either arrive with family or have a parent or guardian in the United States. In fact, federal officials have been transporting children to these guardians.
CIS is complaining about Obama....here's the CIS article by John Feere....i'm not contradicting CIS at all.....we agree...
The Obama administration appears to be hiding behind the 2008 law and acting like it requires them to allow the current wave of illegal immigration to continue. Yet the trafficking statute has little applicability to the situation at hand. Even without new legislation, the White House has a number of tools at its disposal to discourage the current influx of illegal immigrant families.
2008 Trafficking Law Largely Inapplicable to Current Border Crisis | Center for Immigration Studies
You keep falling flat, but it's admirable you keep trying to support the prez...or not
I keep asking a very simple question that neither your nor any one else on this thread has the stones to answer:
Do you agree with Obama that these illegal immigrant children should NOT be released into the US or do you agree with CIS that a 'significant majority' should be released into the US?
Smiling....keep running.
Yes
Not exactly. First the pres. talks out of both sides of his mouth on the issue. Second, the op is claiming they have parents here and the kids should be given to their parents, further proving the 2008 human trafficking law does not apply.
Besides that, the 2008 law applies to "victims of trafficking". Most of the m=new arrivals are coming in on their own volition. Some have even PAID thousands of $$ for the trip. That's not being victimized.
Also, regarding the ones who are being picked up by border patrol "unaccompanied", who is to say that those kids were not accompanied by adults right up until the time they got to the border, and then let loose ? Kind of hard to believe kids as young as these are managing to travel 1800 miles to the US "unaccompanied". Victims, my ass.
How do you know who has paid and who hasn't.....until you interview them. That's the rub. 'Most' doesn't tell us who is who. You have to interview them before you can tell.And the interview process takes time.
You keep falling flat, but it's admirable you keep trying to support the prez...or not
I keep asking a very simple question that neither your nor any one else on this thread has the stones to answer:
Do you agree with Obama that these illegal immigrant children should NOT be released into the US or do you agree with CIS that a 'significant majority' should be released into the US?
Smiling....keep running.
The Obama administration could make better use of Expedited Removal, an authority created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which allows immigration officers to quickly remove any inadmissible alien who is without a valid claim of asylum. It results in a final order of removal and prohibits the alien from reentering the United States for a period of five years. Most significantly, it circumvents any judicial involvement. As written into law, the policy applies to any illegal alien apprehended anywhere in the United States, provided the alien has not been continuously physically present in the country for longer than two years.16 Since the Obama administration claims to seek the quick repatriation of recently arrived illegal aliens, it naturally would want to make use of Expedited Removal.
2008 Trafficking Law Largely Inapplicable to Current Border Crisis | Center for Immigration Studies
You keep falling flat, but it's admirable you keep trying to support the prez...or not
I keep asking a very simple question that neither your nor any one else on this thread has the stones to answer:
Do you agree with Obama that these illegal immigrant children should NOT be released into the US or do you agree with CIS that a 'significant majority' should be released into the US?
Smiling....keep running.
Looking at the source for the article, it is clear that they are making the case that since these unaccompanied children are not trafficked (and in most cases paid a smuggler to bring them here) and that they have a parent or guardian in the US, that this law does not apply at all. They suggest the following:
The Obama administration could make better use of Expedited Removal, an authority created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which allows immigration officers to quickly remove any inadmissible alien who is without a valid claim of asylum. It results in a final order of removal and prohibits the alien from reentering the United States for a period of five years. Most significantly, it circumvents any judicial involvement. As written into law, the policy applies to any illegal alien apprehended anywhere in the United States, provided the alien has not been continuously physically present in the country for longer than two years.16 Since the Obama administration claims to seek the quick repatriation of recently arrived illegal aliens, it naturally would want to make use of Expedited Removal.
2008 Trafficking Law Largely Inapplicable to Current Border Crisis | Center for Immigration Studies
The CIS doesnt advocate reuniting them with family in the US; it is advocating using an entirely different section of the immigration law to expedite their immediate removal.
Unaccompanied alien children are, by definition under federal law, are children who do not have family or legal guardians in the United States....these are trafficked children that should be kept for legal proceedings under the 2008 law....
Children who do have family in the USA are, by definition, not 'unaccompanied' and therefore do not fall under the 2008 law...
Two problems. First, the 2008 trafficking law doesn't define 'unaccompanied' as a child who has no relative in the US. Here's the law:
William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008
Show us that special definition. It doesn't exist. We then have to fall back on the regular English definitions. Unaccompanied means 'having no companion or escort.'
I'm unaware of any context where 'unaccompanied' mean having no parent or guardian in the United States. Anywhere. Can you provide any law, in any context, where that definition is recognized or articulated?
Second......what happens per the brand new, never been used before CIS definition of 'unaccompanied' if one of these chidren has a family or guardian already in the US? The article makes it ridiculously clear:
Jon Feere, legal policy analyst at the center, said that 2008 law applied only to unaccompanied minors who dont have a parent or guardian already in the U.S. a situation he said doesnt apply to a significant majority of the children now jumping the border......
.......The law, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, was designed to combat human trafficking, including sexual trafficking of children. It says that authorities encounter children from countries that dont border the U.S. who are traveling alone, the kids should be interviewed to determine if they have been trafficked, and then should be quickly turned over to social workers, and eventually reunited with families.
The children are usually still subject to being deported but many of them never show up for their proceedings, and end up blending in with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S.
The illegal immigrant children get released into the United States. That's the CIS position. That's the CIS argument. That's the product of the CIS definition. The Obama administration doesn't recognize their inventive definition and instead holds these children in custody pending deportation .
And NOT releasing them into the United States.
So which position do you support? The CIS position that a 'significant majority' of these illegal immigrant children should be released to their parents within the US. Or Obama's position that they shouldn't be released into the US?
I've asked this question half a dozen times. And so far, no one has had the stones to answer it.
Obama may be misreading 2008 deportation law, report shows - Washington Times
he Obama administration may be misreading a 2008 law when it says it has to release most illegal immigrant children from Central America who are surging across the border, according to a new report being released Wednesday by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Jon Feere, legal policy analyst at the center, said that 2008 law applied only to unaccompanied minors who dont have a parent or guardian already in the U.S. a situation he said doesnt apply to a significant majority of the children now jumping the border.
Read more: Obama may be misreading 2008 deportation law, report shows - Washington Times
Follow us: [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter
Oh damn!!!!!! No more blaming Bushie????
I keep asking a very simple question that neither your nor any one else on this thread has the stones to answer:
Do you agree with Obama that these illegal immigrant children should NOT be released into the US or do you agree with CIS that a 'significant majority' should be released into the US?
Smiling....keep running.
Looking at the source for the article, it is clear that they are making the case that since these unaccompanied children are not trafficked (and in most cases paid a smuggler to bring them here) and that they have a parent or guardian in the US, that this law does not apply at all. They suggest the following:
The Obama administration could make better use of Expedited Removal, an authority created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which allows immigration officers to quickly remove any inadmissible alien who is without a valid claim of asylum. It results in a final order of removal and prohibits the alien from reentering the United States for a period of five years. Most significantly, it circumvents any judicial involvement. As written into law, the policy applies to any illegal alien apprehended anywhere in the United States, provided the alien has not been continuously physically present in the country for longer than two years.16 Since the Obama administration claims to seek the quick repatriation of recently arrived illegal aliens, it naturally would want to make use of Expedited Removal.
2008 Trafficking Law Largely Inapplicable to Current Border Crisis | Center for Immigration Studies
The CIS doesnt advocate reuniting them with family in the US; it is advocating using an entirely different section of the immigration law to expedite their immediate removal.
The "trafficking" law specifically forbids Expedited Removal of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries. It clearly and specifically requires that they be given full immigration trials with benefit of counsel.
It makes no distinction about whether or not they were "trafficked".
Federal law defines an "unaccompanied alien child" as a person who "has no lawful immigration status in the United States" and "has not attained 18 years of age" and does not have "a parent or legal guardian in the United States".12
The last part of this definition is significant in that available data, described earlier, suggest most of the children coming across the border either arrive with family or have a parent or guardian in the United States. In fact, federal officials have been transporting children to these guardians.
Consequently, to the extent the 2008 law applies to "unaccompanied alien children", it may not apply to a significant majority of minors currently arriving at U.S. borders.
2008 Trafficking Law Largely Inapplicable to Current Border Crisis | Center for Immigration Studies
I keep asking a very simple question that neither your nor any one else on this thread has the stones to answer:
Do you agree with Obama that these illegal immigrant children should NOT be released into the US or do you agree with CIS that a 'significant majority' should be released into the US?
Smiling....keep running.
Looking at the source for the article, it is clear that they are making the case that since these unaccompanied children are not trafficked (and in most cases paid a smuggler to bring them here) and that they have a parent or guardian in the US, that this law does not apply at all. They suggest the following:
The Obama administration could make better use of Expedited Removal, an authority created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which allows immigration officers to quickly remove any inadmissible alien who is without a valid claim of asylum. It results in a final order of removal and prohibits the alien from reentering the United States for a period of five years. Most significantly, it circumvents any judicial involvement. As written into law, the policy applies to any illegal alien apprehended anywhere in the United States, provided the alien has not been continuously physically present in the country for longer than two years.16 Since the Obama administration claims to seek the quick repatriation of recently arrived illegal aliens, it naturally would want to make use of Expedited Removal.
2008 Trafficking Law Largely Inapplicable to Current Border Crisis | Center for Immigration Studies
The CIS doesnt advocate reuniting them with family in the US; it is advocating using an entirely different section of the immigration law to expedite their immediate removal.
The "trafficking" law specifically forbids Expedited Removal of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries. It clearly and specifically requires that they be given full immigration trials with benefit of counsel.
It makes no distinction about whether or not they were "trafficked".
Federal law defines an "unaccompanied alien child" as a person who "has no lawful immigration status in the United States" and "has not attained 18 years of age" and does not have "a parent or legal guardian in the United States".12 The last part of this definition is significant in that available data, described earlier, suggest most of the children coming across the border either arrive with family or have a parent or guardian in the United States. In fact, federal officials have been transporting children to these guardians.
Looking at the source for the article, it is clear that they are making the case that since these “unaccompanied children” are not “trafficked” (and in most cases paid a smuggler to bring them here) and that they have a parent or guardian in the US, that this law does not apply at all. They suggest the following:
The CIS doesn’t advocate reuniting them with family in the US; it is advocating using an entirely different section of the immigration law to expedite their immediate removal.
The "trafficking" law specifically forbids Expedited Removal of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries. It clearly and specifically requires that they be given full immigration trials with benefit of counsel.
It makes no distinction about whether or not they were "trafficked".
children who have family in the USA are not considered to be 'unaccompanied' per Federal Law....is there a different definition....?
Federal law defines an "unaccompanied alien child" as a person who "has no lawful immigration status in the United States" and "has not attained 18 years of age" and does not have "a parent or legal guardian in the United States".12
The last part of this definition is significant in that available data, described earlier, suggest most of the children coming across the border either arrive with family or have a parent or guardian in the United States. In fact, federal officials have been transporting children to these guardians.
Consequently, to the extent the 2008 law applies to "unaccompanied alien children", it may not apply to a significant majority of minors currently arriving at U.S. borders.
2008 Trafficking Law Largely Inapplicable to Current Border Crisis | Center for Immigration Studies
The "trafficking" law specifically forbids Expedited Removal of unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries. It clearly and specifically requires that they be given full immigration trials with benefit of counsel.
It makes no distinction about whether or not they were "trafficked".
children who have family in the USA are not considered to be 'unaccompanied' per Federal Law....is there a different definition....?
Federal law defines an "unaccompanied alien child" as a person who "has no lawful immigration status in the United States" and "has not attained 18 years of age" and does not have "a parent or legal guardian in the United States".12
The last part of this definition is significant in that available data, described earlier, suggest most of the children coming across the border either arrive with family or have a parent or guardian in the United States. In fact, federal officials have been transporting children to these guardians.
Consequently, to the extent the 2008 law applies to "unaccompanied alien children", it may not apply to a significant majority of minors currently arriving at U.S. borders.
2008 Trafficking Law Largely Inapplicable to Current Border Crisis | Center for Immigration Studies
Where in "Federal Law" is that defined, exactly?
It's certainly not defined that way in the "trafficking" law...
ETA: I found it. CIS left part of it out, of course:
(2) the term unaccompanied alien child means a child who
(A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;
(B) has not attained 18 years of age; and
(C) with respect to whom
(i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or
(ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.
children who have family in the USA are not considered to be 'unaccompanied' per Federal Law....is there a different definition....?
Where in "Federal Law" is that defined, exactly?
It's certainly not defined that way in the "trafficking" law...
ETA: I found it. CIS left part of it out, of course:
(2) the term unaccompanied alien child means a child who
(A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;
(B) has not attained 18 years of age; and
(C) with respect to whom
(i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or
(ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.
thus these kids really have no standing to plead their case in court....
Where in "Federal Law" is that defined, exactly?
It's certainly not defined that way in the "trafficking" law...
ETA: I found it. CIS left part of it out, of course:
(2) the term “unaccompanied alien child” means a child who—
(A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;
(B) has not attained 18 years of age; and
(C) with respect to whom—
(i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or
(ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.
thus these kids really have no standing to plead their case in court....
The courts seem to disagree with your interpretation of the law...
