Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
36. Forget it. The JAQ (just asking questions) session is over for now. And they are *legal* refugees:
Thu Jul 31, 2014, 03:00 AM
Jul 2014
Obama is enforcing the law - William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.

The LAW mandates that a hearing before a judge be held, it takes a year now, so speeding it all up makes perfect sense, more funds for the administration and enforcement of current law IS the solution according to law. And according to compassion this is the minimum response.

Before I forget to mention, the current refugee flow rate from Central America is double what it has been for years, so it is not the hair on fire situation it is made out to be, it is serious, but it can be managed with thoughtful response, and stemmed with thoughtful legislation that deals with all the broken parts of the immigration/refugee current hodgepodge of laws. The Senate bill held up by the Republicans is the long term solution, but no one wants to talk solutions, they all want to be outraged and set hair on fire over and over again. Seems America is addicted to self mutilation of thought by follicular arson.

Thank The Lord for the calm of Obama... again. The media propaganda campaign to shame Obama to go the border to do some sightseeing and for no other good reason anyone can mention, is an example of the idiocy faction always getting the megaphone.

The late 2008 legal amendment to the old law, to add protections for children specifically from these Central American countries who were being trafficked into America at the time it was a crisis, was written in a rush, was to protect against human and child trafficking. However, the definition of who is not a trafficked child and a refugee or an economic or war refugee was not well defined. Lawyers and judges are required to sort it out. Deportation personnel, judges, escorts, etc. are also required, exactly as the request from HLS outlines in detail.

So now the Republicans want Obama to ignore the law, one signed in the last days of the Bush years with bipartisan support, but that would be acting just exactly like a dictator?

Make up your creaking minds, is he a dictator or not, how do you get away with having it both ways all the creaking time, I should ask Captain Obvious, maybe he would know.

Obama wants funds to speed up the enforcement of the law, and to change the laws, but somehow that is outrageous, no way say the Republicans?

Unbelievable, the media is again ignoring the obvious idiocy of the only other party in a two party state... they have to, otherwise the whole media profit model goes down the drain.

Republicans love dictators, just not the ones not in their pure Christian cult. Are they are that the refugee children are likely all devout Catholics? Is the colour of their skin so offensive to them that they abandon all their Christian values so readily?

The bibles they clutch and the flags they stand in front up are cover for the gun they also clutch because the love of the gun and the love of hate they cling to over all else needs cover.

I love the rule of law, some not so much.


H.R. 7311 (110th): William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008

http://m.state.gov/md113178.htm

SEC. 212. INTERIM ASSISTANCE FOR CHILDREN.

(a) In General- Section 107(b)(1) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7105(b)(1)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (E)(i)(I), by inserting ‘or is unable to cooperate with such a request due to physical or psychological trauma’ before the semicolon; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘(F) ELIGIBILITY FOR INTERIM ASSISTANCE OF CHILDREN-

‘(i) DETERMINATION- Upon receiving credible information that a child described in subparagraph (C)(ii)(I) who is seeking assistance under this paragraph may have been subjected to a severe form of trafficking in persons, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall promptly determine if the child is eligible for interim assistance under this paragraph. The Secretary shall have exclusive authority to make interim eligibility determinations under this clause. A determination of interim eligibility under this clause shall not affect the independent determination whether a child is a victim of a severe form of trafficking.

‘(ii) NOTIFICATION- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall notify the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security not later than 24 hours after all interim eligibility determinations have been made under clause (i).

‘(iii) DURATION- Assistance under this paragraph may be provided to individuals determined to be eligible under clause (i) for a period of up to 90 days and may be extended for an additional 30 days.

‘(iv) LONG-TERM ASSISTANCE FOR CHILDREN-

‘(I) ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION- Before the expiration of the period for interim assistance under clause (iii), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall determine if the child referred to in clause (i) is eligible for assistance under this paragraph.

‘(II) CONSULTATION- In making a determination under subclause (I), the Secretary shall consult with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and nongovernmental organizations with expertise on victims of severe form of trafficking.

‘(III) LETTER OF ELIGIBILITY- If the Secretary, after receiving information the Secretary believes, taken as a whole, indicates that the child is eligible for assistance under this paragraph, the Secretary shall issue a letter of eligibility. The Secretary may not require that the child cooperate with law enforcement as a condition for receiving such letter of eligibility.


to Fred Sanders:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10025216542

Let's get something straight. The kind of child trafficking being discussed is the sex trade for girls and forced to serve as child soldiers (gang members) for boys. I can quote from the Bible how craven and wrong it is to hate these people, even if they weren't children. There is nothing being saved by opposing these refugees because there is no moral basis for that position.

There is a reason some may not have shown up at hearings, but no link was provided when the claim was first made. Many of the children were sent to live with extended family that are either legal residents or native born people, not in the same state they were found in and detained. This is what always occurs, they have sponsors.

Remember they are children who, just like native born children, do not have the ability to move about freely in society. They don't speak English. They don't have money to pay to go on buses or trains or planes to get to the courthouses which are often far away from where they have found a home. They do not drive or own cars. Would we give our kids a map and tell them to get to a courthouse?

It's insane to expect children who are not competent legally to take care of these matters. A number of adults could not manage it with those obstacles, or even less. Their caregivers may be facing financial and logistical problems in getting to court.
It's just mean and ignorant to make that an issue.

And guess what, with climate change there will be more refugees. The GOP and their fence can't keep them out. PBO will send back all he can, but follow the LAW first.

The Pentagon did a study in the 1970s predicting this was coming with global warming. They knew from the climate data collected that people would cross borders to live and there would be conflicts over land.

That is what we are seeing, it's not even political. And for what it's worth, the people screaming the loudest came from immigrant stock and most if not all, came for purely economic reasons, too. So they better get ready to roll with it.

The only comfort I can give to those wailing, 'There goes the neighborhood!' is that the natives of the Americas said that first!

When boats full of foreign people who didn't look right to them, had no papers or other tokens to explain their right to move into America, and refused to learn the language or the ways of the people who lived here first and then proceeded to act violently and break all the native laws for centuries, it was just the way it was. We don't have much moral right to wave people off.

JMHO...
K&R for our good governor. JDPriestly Jul 2014 #1
Put them all in Murrieta KamaAina Jul 2014 #2
For the love of God, wil people stop calling these children 'illegal'? ColesCountyDem Jul 2014 #3
Why? candelista Jul 2014 #5
They're ASYLUM SEEKERS dammit! nt alp227 Jul 2014 #7
What type jamzrockz Jul 2014 #8
Not just poverty - also real oppression like gang violence targeting families. alp227 Jul 2014 #10
Post removed Post removed Jul 2014 #13
Of course Nigerians, Syrians, etc. should be granted asylum after they apply and get a day in court. alp227 Jul 2014 #17
In Texas, 90% don't show for scheduled immigration hearings. candelista Jul 2014 #9
Because they were misinformed as to the nature of those hearings alp227 Jul 2014 #11
they are refugees, what is wrong with you? CreekDog Jul 2014 #14
All of them? Or only some? And how have you determined this? candelista Jul 2014 #21
how about giving them the same benefit of the doubt you gave Putin? CreekDog Jul 2014 #24
You may want to learn the difference between 'immigrants' and 'refugees'. LanternWaste Jul 2014 #18
Why don't you explain it to me? candelista Jul 2014 #22
they are REFUGEES ffs frylock Jul 2014 #23
No, they are NOT 'illegal immigrants'! ColesCountyDem Jul 2014 #25
*crickets* n/t ColesCountyDem Jul 2014 #30
Forget it. The JAQ (just asking questions) session is over for now. And they are *legal* refugees: freshwest Jul 2014 #36
Yup, their families are exploiting an ill conceived law itsrobert Jul 2014 #33
No, we don't ALL 'know what's going on here'. ColesCountyDem Jul 2014 #37
We will see. As of now the majority of these kids are not even showing up itsrobert Jul 2014 #38
Let's not conflate distinct issues, shall we? ColesCountyDem Jul 2014 #39
So what? candelista Jul 2014 #41
Now that is a cute twist! candelista Jul 2014 #40
Jerry Brown once opposed immigrants coming to CA. former9thward Jul 2014 #4
that was in the '70s, attitudes on immigration have changed in the decades since. alp227 Jul 2014 #6
I think its interesting that Democrats took present day Republican positions former9thward Jul 2014 #12
Ted Kennedy supported the immigrants CreekDog Jul 2014 #15
No, anecdotal stories of one individual do not a party position make. former9thward Jul 2014 #19
Ah, you just proved why your quote about Democrats opposing immigrants was wrong CreekDog Jul 2014 #32
Whatever is a good summary of all of your posts. former9thward Jul 2014 #34
quite the opposite actually CreekDog Jul 2014 #35
the author was the Republican opponent of Loretta Sanchez CreekDog Jul 2014 #16
So are the quotes untrue? former9thward Jul 2014 #20
gosh, Kali Jul 2014 #26
Is it untrue? former9thward Jul 2014 #27
I didn't find the Newsweek source. Kali Jul 2014 #28
No, it doesn't. former9thward Jul 2014 #29
it is interesting that if you search the topic, almost all sources of it are right wing blogs CreekDog Jul 2014 #31
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Jerry Brown says he would...»Reply #36