Obama admin brings families of illegal children to US

[JimParker]

The Department of Homeland Security has been tasked to reunite families from central America with their children who crossed Mexico and entered the US illegally. Those children were bussed to communities throughtout the USA.

The Obama administration has DHS people on the ground in Central America to facilitate their immigration.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/04/dhs-launches-family-reunification-refugee-program-for-central-americans/

Why?

I susspect to create a large underclass of people who do not speak English (or the same dialect of Spanish as our Mexican-American citizens), are poorly educated and unskilled. They will be to the USA what the "Palestinians" are to Israel. They will provide a pool of "oppresed" people inthe "land of opportunity" and a source of unrest.

They will overwhelm our social networks. That is exactly what the communist professors Claward and Pivins taught at Columbia University. (I think Columbia?)

They also will prsent a huge opportunity for evangelization. The citizens of the kingdom of God prosper. (Not in a "prosperity Gospel" sense.) We are being presented with a choice: will they be a growing oppressed underclass or a growing Kingdom of God.

Our choice. Pick one.

 

[River Jordan]

The Department of Homeland Security has been tasked to reunite families from central America with their children who crossed Mexico and entered the US illegally. Those children were bussed to communities throughtout the USA.

The Obama administration has DHS people on the ground in Central America to facilitate their immigration.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/04/dhs-launches-family-reunification-refugee-program-for-central-americans/

Why?

Because getting families back together is a good thing?

I susspect to create a large underclass of people who do not speak English (or the same dialect of Spanish as our Mexican-American citizens), are poorly educated and unskilled. They will be to the USA what the "Palestinians" are to Israel. They will provide a pool of "oppresed" people inthe "land of opportunity" and a source of unrest.

They will overwhelm our social networks. That is exactly what the communist professors Claward and Pivins taught at Columbia University. (I think Columbia?)

Towards what end?

They also will prsent a huge opportunity for evangelization. The citizens of the kingdom of God prosper. (Not in a "prosperity Gospel" sense.) We are being presented with a choice: will they be a growing oppressed underclass or a growing Kingdom of God.

Our choice. Pick one.

Keep in mind, the majority of people from Central America are already Christians. But we can definitely show the love and mercy of Christ in our actions.

Matthew 25:34-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’

“Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’

“And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’

 

[lforrest]

Here is a novel idea, let's send the kids back to their parents.

 

[River Jordan]

Here is a novel idea, let's send the kids back to their parents.

That seems like a good idea, but the problem is, many of these kids left because there was a very real chance they were going to be kidnapped or killed. I don't think I could look a kid in the face and tell them "I'm sending you back and I'm not really that concerned about what happens to you".

Of course the best solution would be to help fix the problems in the countries they're coming from in the first place, but that's a pretty big task. We seem to be pretty good at starting wars and blowing people and things up, but building functional, stable countries? Not so much.

 

[pom2014]

Here is a novel idea, let's send the kids back to their parents.

Here's a novel idea let's send everyone back in the states to their ancestral homes?

That way they'll be no one in the western hemisphere and we can finally get at least one group of.insular isolationists to be quiet.

How about that?

 

[JimParker]

<< Because getting families back together is a good thing? >>

Then why did the Obama administration bring them here in the first place?

And, since we do not have the resources to support another 30 million or so unemploable people, why not send their kids back to them? (There's also the issue that they are here ILLEGALLY to begin with.)

<< Keep in mind, the majority of people from Central America are already Christians. >>

Right. Just like the USA is a Christian nation.

 

[lforrest]

That seems like a good idea, but the problem is, many of these kids left because there was a very real chance they were going to be kidnapped or killed. I don't think I could look a kid in the face and tell them "I'm sending you back and I'm not really that concerned about what happens to you".

Of course the best solution would be to help fix the problems in the countries they're coming from in the first place, but that's a pretty big task. We seem to be pretty good at starting wars and blowing people and things up, but building functional, stable countries? Not so much.

It should be easier to fix our immigration system to more readily grant asylum.

Here's a novel idea let's send everyone back in the states to their ancestral homes?

That way they'll be no one in the western hemisphere and we can finally get at least one group of.insular isolationists to be quiet.

How about that?

At least River Jordan poses valid concerns without reverting to straw-man arguments.

 

[River Jordan]

Then why did the Obama administration bring them here in the first place?

The child refugees were brought here by the Administration?

And, since we do not have the resources to support another 30 million or so unemploable people, why not send their kids back to them? (There's also the issue that they are here ILLEGALLY to begin with.)

I'm not sure where you get the 30 million figure from, but I'm pretty sure there weren't that many children from C. America coming here. The numbers I've seen are more like 70,000 when it was at its peak in fall 2014. I'm pretty sure the US has the resources to help these kids out.

Right. Just like the USA is a Christian nation.

All I can do is show you the data. If it's not what you want to hear, that's your problem.

It should be easier to fix our immigration system to more readily grant asylum.

It would be nice, wouldn't it? I'm amazed at how immigration reform is something both sides campaign on, but neither side accomplishes.

 

[JimParker]

<< The child refugees were brought here by the Administration? >>

Do you imagine that tens of thousands of children just suddenly all decided to walk from Central America, across Mexico and into the USA without any assistance or encouragement from anyone? Mexico doesn't let people just cross their borders without papers. How did these tens of thousands of children manage to just wander 1500 miles across Mexico with enough food and water and end up at the Texas border where they were not repulsed but greeted by the INS who were prepared to receive them if it was not with the advise and consent of the white house?


<<I'm not sure where you get the 30 million figure from, but I'm pretty sure there weren't that many children from C. America coming here. >>

Bring all their families here and all the families of the millions who were illegally given amnesty by our dear leader and the total would probably be around 70 million. I conflated the two groups. Mea culpa.

<< I'm pretty sure the US has the resources to help these kids out.>>

Since they are all here illegally, why not use our resources to reunite them with their families back in the own countries? Why should the American people be saddled with the cost of supporting millions of people who are in the country illegally? Why should we go further into debt to support and encourage illegal behavior?

How does the left understand Nietzsche's "Out of chaos - order"? Create chaos then impose your order.

You are watching the cold blooded murder of the USA and you seem to think it's some kind of spontaneous benevolence opportunity.

There are reasons that countries have borders.

<< I'm amazed at how immigration reform is something both sides campaign on, but neither side accomplishes.>>

On the contrary. Obama has illegally, by executive order, usurped the power of congress to make law and made up his own law. The republican controlled house and senate has chosen not to oppose him by de-funding his alien project thus showing themselves to be willing accomplices in his illegal action.The Democrats remain in lock step with whatever dear leader does, illegality be damned.

 

[River Jordan]

Do you imagine that tens of thousands of children just suddenly all decided to walk from Central America, across Mexico and into the USA without any assistance or encouragement from anyone? Mexico doesn't let people just cross their borders without papers. How did these tens of thousands of children manage to just wander 1500 miles across Mexico with enough food and water and end up at the Texas border where they were not repulsed but greeted by the INS who were prepared to receive them if it was not with the advise and consent of the white house?

So you have no actual direct evidence that the children from Central America were brought here by the Administration.

Bring all their families here and all the families of the millions who were illegally given amnesty by our dear leader and the total would probably be around 70 million. I conflated the two groups. Mea culpa.

No worries.

Since they are all here illegally, why not use our resources to reunite them with their families back in the own countries?

I've covered that.

Why should the American people be saddled with the cost of supporting millions of people who are in the country illegally? Why should we go further into debt to support and encourage illegal behavior?

I suppose if you're the kind of person who actually has to ask "Why should we help children who are fleeing from murder, kidnapping, rape, and the sex trade", there's really no point in answering. I'll just reiterate the words of Christ...

Matthew 25:34-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’

“Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’

“And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’

How does the left understand Nietzsche's "Out of chaos - order"? Create chaos then impose your order.

You are watching the cold blooded murder of the USA and you seem to think it's some kind of spontaneous benevolence opportunity.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to such paranoid conspiracy theories.

 

[JimParker]

<<So you have no actual direct evidence that the children from Central America were brought here by the Administration.>>

Maybe it was UFOs?


<< I suppose if you're the kind of person who actually has to ask "Why should we help children who are fleeing from murder, kidnapping, rape, and the sex trade", there's really no point in answering. >>

And you know that to be the case because ________________________ (fill in the blank.)

And that explains their sudden appearance at our border in the thousands because _______________________________ (fill in the blank.)

And they were allowed free passage across Mexico because __________________________ (fill in the blank.)

There is some explanation for their sudden appearance. You have offered none.

The DHS and INS were prepared to receive them when they showed up in their thousands. That requires preparation and leadership.

Where do you think the orders to be prepared to receive, house and then transport thousands of central American children around the country came from? Or do you suppose it "just happened"?

Who do you think authorized DHS personnel to go to Central America and arrange to bring the families of those thousands of children her to the USA so they can be reunited?

Re. Mat 25:

Have we run out of hungry, thirsty, naked, etc, in the USA that we now have to import them?

And why would we stop at just bringing in families of illegal immigrants from Central America. Lets bring every person in the entire world who makes less than $16,000 a year to the USA with their families and take care of them. That would be about 3 billion people.

Or, how about, we take care of who we already have without importing more?

 

[River Jordan]

Like I said, I don't subscribe to such paranoid conspiracy theories. Thanks for your input.

 

[lforrest]

It would be nice, wouldn't it? I'm amazed at how immigration reform is something both sides campaign on, but neither side accomplishes.

I've been thinking about the legality of this situation. Suppose a child came to a US embassy seeking asylum. Children don't have the right to choose to leave their families until they reach adulthood, or until they claim emancipation at a minimum of age 16 in most states. The asylum request would be declined. Consider Elián González, who's Cuban father had the right to get his son back from his adoptive family. This means parental rights still belong to the parents for the unattended immigrant children below age 16. It isn't the child's choice to run away and be granted legal asylum.

So here is a situation where we have a demographic crying 'please think of the children' and condoning actions that are illegal. That simply is lawlessness.

 

[pom2014]

without reverting to straw-man arguments.

This was not a straw man, this was an ad hominem. Due to the nature of the hypocrisy that those dirty immigrants should go home but not YOUR immigrant ancestors.

Because obviously YOURS were much more deserving of legal immigration.

Your attitude toward immigrants now is a blatant breach of the second great command. And therefore a break of the first.

Now you can start your evasion protocols and start with the classic Romans 13 retort about divine ordination of government, but before you do I'm from the United Kingdom. We used that divine right to rule to conquer most of the world, make English the language of the world it is today, force the King James Bible onto countless people by force all the while claiming that they were lesser people.

And we had enough time to put down nappy and burn your white house to the ground.

I'm ashamed at what we did in building an empire by abusing divine right. If we'd looked at Romans 13:8 things might have gone better.

You might want to look at it before treading the Appian Way.

The legal system in the US is onerous and in conflict with Our Kings commands. So who's side should we be on?

 

[River Jordan]

I've been thinking about the legality of this situation. Suppose a child came to a US embassy seeking asylum. Children don't have the right to choose to leave their families until they reach adulthood, or until they claim emancipation at a minimum of age 16 in most states. The asylum request would be declined.

I don't think so. They can be classified as refugees and given refugee visas.

Consider Elián González, who's Cuban father had the right to get his son back from his adoptive family. This means parental rights still belong to the parents for the unattended immigrant children below age 16. It isn't the child's choice to run away and be granted legal asylum.

That's different because there you had at least one parent wanting the child to stay in the home country, whereas with the C. America children, their parents are sending them to the US to escape the conditions at home.

So here is a situation where we have a demographic crying 'please think of the children' and condoning actions that are illegal. That simply is lawlessness.

It's disappointing to see Christians, when faced with children who are desperate, hungry, and under the threat of murder, rape, kidnapping, and the sex trade, send them back to those conditions because of concerns about the law. IMO, that sounds exactly like the Pharisees....so focused on the letter of the law that they lost sight of its spirit.

 

[lforrest]

That's different because there you had at least one parent wanting the child to stay in the home country, whereas with the C. America children, their parents are sending them to the US to escape the conditions at home.


It's disappointing to see Christians, when faced with children who are desperate, hungry, and under the threat of murder, rape, kidnapping, and the sex trade, send them back to those conditions because of concerns about the law. IMO, that sounds exactly like the Pharisees....so focused on the letter of the law that they lost sight of its spirit.

Is surrendering your parental rights as easy as sending your children away? I think not. They shouldn't have it both ways, abandoning their children and then wanting to be reunited? If the governments weren't so corrupt they would be working to get the parents arrested for child endangerment.

Accepting immigrant orphans is a good thing, but when they have parents who are responsible for them it is the contrary. The parents who abandoned their children shouldn't have their rights returned to them, but if they want another chance send the children back to them. Laws should not contradict the morals of a society, and hypocrisy should be rooted out of the system rather than embraced.

Granting the parents the right to live in the US because they sent their children here illegally creates an incentive to further endanger children; All so they can bypass the immigration system and come here as well.

 

[pom2014]

They are here illegally because of the horrid immigration laws in place.

If these laws were in place at the time of your ancestors arrival, you'd be illegal too.

The people that wail about immigration have no idea what the law is or the process of legal immigration.

I invite all that wish to throw the law at these desperate people to go and learn about the steps needed to gain lawful entry.

I doubt most Americans that are citizens could.

 

[River Jordan]

Is surrendering your parental rights as easy as sending your children away? I think not. They shouldn't have it both ways, abandoning their children and then wanting to be reunited?

I don't think you understand the circumstances these families face. In many cases, it's literally a question of life or death for the kids. They're not surrendering their rights, they're doing whatever they can to keep them alive.

If the governments weren't so corrupt they would be working to get the parents arrested for child endangerment.

??????? So you're faced with a situation where the children in your village are being murdered, raped, and kidnapped. According to you, if you try and get your kid out of there, you should be arrested for child endangerment? How in the world does that help anyone? :blink:

Accepting immigrant orphans is a good thing, but when they have parents who are responsible for them it is the contrary. The parents who abandoned their children shouldn't have their rights returned to them, but if they want another chance send the children back to them. Laws should not contradict the morals of a society, and hypocrisy should be rooted out of the system rather than embraced.

Granting the parents the right to live in the US because they sent their children here illegally creates an incentive to further endanger children; All so they can bypass the immigration system and come here as well.

Again, IMO that's a very Pharisee-like attitude and the opposite of what Christ directly told us to do.