Jump to content

Menu

Children being bussed across border illegally. Heard of this?


staceyobu
 Share

Recommended Posts

Protecting minors' privacy should be a top consideration especially in this situation. I don't understand why a U.S. congressman would be barred from entering a shelter. That's the part that stumps me.

 

I wonder if any adult entering the center has to have a background check? A local private school has this rules. Even a parent can't enter unless they've had a background check and child protection training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 436
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2583135/Cartel-member-accused-kidnapping-children-harvest-organs-captured-Mexico.html

 

IMO, this is why. The cartels are now harvesting children's organs because it's "More money than drugs." Those bastards. It's gotten unreal. The more I hear, the more I wonder why our military is not over there. I hope they don't ship those babies back.

 

It is completely disgusting and evil.

 

Do you mean why our military isn't on the border or isn't in Mexico?  If you mean in Mexico, that is because that would be an invasion and considered an act of war.  It is only recently, in the last few years, that border agents on both sides have begun cooperating in protecting the borders and sharing information (yes, Mexico protects their borders, too).  If we were to send our military to Mexico to help deal with the cartels, without being asked, we would be *way* overstepping the sovereignty of Mexico as a nation (totally different situation if they asked for our help).

 

As for turning away Mexican children at the border, Mexico wants us to do that.  It's an agreement with their country and, fact is, those kids are citizens of their country and so must follow their country's wishes and rules (we don't turn away all Mexican kids who arrive at the border crossings... there are pathways for them to come in if they claim certain things and it is determined they would be in imminent danger if they returned).  It would be nice if we could help everyone - and trust me... we help a LOT of them... but we simply do not have the ability to help them all.  It is not easy for anyone.

 

BTW, there is only one official border crossing that is currently unmanned.  Others used to be unmanned, but after 9/11 that changed.  The one that is unmanned crosses into Big Bend National Park and has a national park on the Mexico side as well.  It is designed to be used by hikers and bikers and the like.  It was manned after 9/11, but about a year and a half ago they went to electronic, non-human crossing (there is a scanner where you are supposed to put your passport and speak electronically to an off-site agent).  There has been talk about doing that at other places that are super quiet (i.e. not cost effective to have a human standing there all the time), but that hasn't happened yet.

 

Most of where people sneak in, though, is not an actual border crossing at all.  The Rio Grande is grand in that it is long, but it is not wide.  In many places you can walk right through it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if any adult entering the center has to have a background check? A local private school has this rules. Even a parent can't enter unless they've had a background check and child protection training.

 

A U.S. congressman? In his own state visiting a shelter has to have a background check? No, that doesn't make any sense.

 

Remember Hurricane Katrina? Those shelters were being handled by FEMA -- a federal agency. They made a mess out of things. As a former Red Cross staff person -- somebody should be watching what's going on in these shelters. Not just trusting that the gov't is doing the right thing.

 

Kartrina's mismanagement should tell all we need to know.

 

Alley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The secrecy is disturbing to me too, but I've also mostly seen it being discussed in the news with a "these children are spreading disease and need to be sent home immediately because they're putting us at risk" context, which was also disturbing to me.  I don't find it surprising that they carry disease and that they pose a risk, but I also don't think that's a good reason to violate US law and...  what?  Bus them right back and spread more disease just not in the US?  That's probably not going to end well for us long term either.

 

I do wonder if the congressmen being refused is because there is more disease risk in the camps than is being discussed.  But there was an excellent series of photos showing one of these facilities on the AP, I believe.  It both seemed better (recreation areas with basketball, kids with coloring books and crayons, etc.) and worse (kids sleeping en masse on the floor, areas all separated by prison style architecture and chain link fencing, etc.).  And some of the images would be comical if they weren't so serious, such as adult bureaucrats at desks and masses of tiny kids waiting to see them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Protecting minors' privacy should be a top consideration especially in this situation. I don't understand why a U.S. congressman would be barred from entering a shelter. That's the part that stumps me.

 

Keep in mind the third world countries around the world have horrendous living situations for children and adults. Why these particular children is what keeps running through my mind.

 

Because these kids are here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because these kids are here.

 

Never a good plan to have no checks and balances. Having been involved w/ Red Cross shelters -- somebody other than the shelter managers should be "allowed" to evaluate.

 

The gov't is blocking media and congress. That doesn't raise questions in your mind?

 

The Katrina shelters should be considered. I don't think the gov't has the ability to handle this.

 

Alley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, it's a question of critical mass - at what point does our country's aid to illegal children begin to compromise our ability to offer aid to ANYONE? to even care for our own needs?

 

I don't know the answer to that question, but obviously, the factual truth is that it's somewhere in the middle of "nobody, zero, send the kids back to hell-holes" and "sure, send every child with any problem and we tax-payers will fix things."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the border is not fenced, not a checkpoint, and does not have anyone standing there on duty.  Most of the border just leads into ranchland.

I get that there is a lot of unfenced area on the border, but it sounded from the OP and some of the earlier posts like kids were literally being bused to he border, and then crossing. I would assume that there would be border checkpoints at actual roads that could support a bus, but maybe that is not the case, either. However, from reading later posts, it doesn't sound like kids are actually being bussed up to the border, and then crossing en masse.

 

 

 

*IF* there were busloads of kids coming through a checkpoint, though (there are not), as long as they were not of Mexican origin, we absolutely cannot turn them back at the border.

 

 

But, *if* there were a busload of kids coming through a checkpoint, why wouldn't the border patrol turn them back before they entered? We would not have to provide aid if they did not actually enter our country, would we? From the way you wrote that above, it almost sounds like if they simply show up at the border, we have to provide aid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The secrecy is disturbing to me too, but I've also mostly seen it being discussed in the news with a "these children are spreading disease and need to be sent home immediately because they're putting us at risk" context, which was also disturbing to me.  I don't find it surprising that they carry disease and that they pose a risk, but I also don't think that's a good reason to violate US law and...  what?

This brings up another point, could the children even be legally vaccinated without parental consent? Or is the privilege of consent lost when your kid shows up alone in another country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The numbers are also disturbing from a trend-setting perspective; the annual average until 2011 was 6,500-7,000 illegal unaccompanied children / year. After 2012, the average is 60,000+ and increasing.

 

Part of the solution is figuring out the cause for that drastic jump. It isn't that crime / poverty / horrific conditions in third-world countries got suddenly worse in 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The numbers are also disturbing from a trend-setting perspective; the annual average until 2011 was 6,500-7,000 illegal unaccompanied children / year. After 2012, the average is 60,000+ and increasing.

 

Part of the solution is figuring out the cause for that drastic jump. It isn't that crime / poverty / horrific conditions in third-world countries got suddenly worse in 2012.

 

The increase began in 2011.

And yes, conditions have worsened in many of those countries in the past 3 years.  Sudden changes in countries leading to increased immigration/refugees is not exactly an unusual phenomena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The increase began in 2011.

And yes, conditions have worsened in many of those countries in the past 3 years.  Sudden changes in countries leading to increased immigration/refugees is not exactly an unusual phenomena.

 

There are more factors at play than the political instability of the origin countries.

 

I should have linked my comment here to my one above - it's still a question of critical mass. At what point does our (collective American) desire to help third world children compromise our own ability to help anyone?

 

I say this gently, questioning, humbly - it's the same question that every compassionate human encounters regularly; we are blessed with much - the question isn't SHOULD we help others, but HOW MUCH HELP are we capable of giving? If we destroy our capacity to help, have we truly helped?

 

(I'm not great with analogies, but comparing the macro / micro is useful to me - our home has a budget, and limited resources. We wish to help others, but if I suddenly invited every child who could get here to come live with me, be home schooled by me, be fed and raised by me, . . . soon I would have no home, no food, no nothing for anyone, even my own original children. I think that's the question we should be asking on a national scale. And no, I do not think it is simple.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never a good plan to have no checks and balances. Having been involved w/ Red Cross shelters -- somebody other than the shelter managers should be "allowed" to evaluate.

 

The gov't is blocking media and congress. That doesn't raise questions in your mind?

 

The Katrina shelters should be considered. I don't think the gov't has the ability to handle this.

 

Alley

My response was to your comment about other countries having poor living conditions. Those kids aren't on US soil. It's an entirely different fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read an entire rush Limbaugh article on this and still couldn't find a cause?

He's not a journalist. He's an entertainer. His articles will not provide you with facts. My dad will call with something he heard on Limbaugh and I have to email him articles debunking it. I would give more credence to something he overheard in a gas station. Check NPR and PBS. I like reading BBC news on American stories too for an "outsider" perspective. It's amazing sometimes what they cover thoroughly that's barely mentioned on CNN or whatever here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have now been several links provided for you.

 

I heard a Navy pilot talking the other day about how he flew for the Navy and saw extreme poverty in El Salvador twenty years ago. I don't see credible links that all of a sudden something has changed for these countries. (The gov't is implying that, but the question is why.)

 

It's insulting to imply that the South American continent is somehow worse off than conditions in Africa or Asia. They're all dealing with horrendous third world problems. No argument there. It's vile to see kids -- and adults -- "living" in such awful situations.

 

I'll never forget when an elderly man in India told Mother Theresa (I'm paraphrasing), "Everyone talks about the children's hunger, but I'm hungry too." Mother Theresa had related this story decades ago and I've never forgotten it. It's heartbreaking.

 

But I don't think we have the money to handle the entire world's problem.

 

I sure wish we did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This brings up another point, could the children even be legally vaccinated without parental consent? Or is the privilege of consent lost when your kid shows up alone in another country?

 

Think this is the least of their concernsĂ¢â‚¬Â¦butĂ¢â‚¬Â¦ I would think that this would be viewed as a public health issue, and of course they can be vaccinatedĂ¢â‚¬Â¦and it's in everybody's best interest if they are.  Look at the polio cases being seen in refugees from Syria.  

 

Refugee situations are infectious disease playgrounds.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard a Navy pilot talking the other day about how he flew for the Navy and saw extreme poverty in El Salvador twenty years ago. I don't see credible links that all of a sudden something has changed for these countries. (The gov't is implying that, but the question is why.)

 

It's insulting to imply that the South American continent is somehow worse off than conditions in Africa or Asia. They're all dealing with horrendous third world problems. No argument there. It's vile to see kids -- and adults -- "living" in such awful situations.

 

I'll never forget when an elderly man in India told Mother Theresa (I'm paraphrasing), "Everyone talks about the children's hunger, but I'm hungry too." Mother Theresa had related this story decades ago and I've never forgotten it. It's heartbreaking.

 

But I don't think we have the money to handle the entire world's problem.

 

I sure wish we did.

 

It has been stated in several links.  There is essentially a war going on throughout parts of Central America between drug cartels/gangs vs the governments and other cartels/gangs.  It began intensifying in the mid-200s and has turned many areas into what are effectively war zones.  Some of these areas are no longer under government control, which is leading to more and more people fleeing those areas.

So yes, there has been a significant increase in violence in parts of Central America along with declining economic conditions.  I am not sure why this is such a surprise when we see mass migrations from other areas of the world where these same things occur.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Congressman aside, tone of the articles above explained they are limiting pictures at these facilities due to privacy concerns of the children, partly due to not wanting those who have trafficked some of these children to find out where they are.  That is also why they are keeping some of the locations where these kids are located secret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it insulting to imply this?  Who implied it anyway? Why are we making a comparison between continents and poverty?  What does it matter?  The fact is asian and african peoples are coming illegally here as well, the practical reason more S Americans do is because they can get here more easily.

 

 The government is IMPLYING that "something has changed" in these countries?  Link where the govt implied this.

 

I am not quite sure what Mother Theresa's story has to do with...anything.

 

How nice that your navy pilot friend has been able to fill you in on world economies so thoroughly.

 

I also believe we (the US) needs to make more of a role here because 1.) the immigration influx affects us directly, and 2.) US foreign policy in Central America has indirectly (one could probably argue directly) caused many of the issues that are driving the immigration.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll second this book and provide a link:

 

http://www.enriquesjourney.com/

 

 

 

There is absolutely no way I could ever send a single one of these kids back.  I wish they could be spread out more to not put all the burden on a couple of areas, but IMO, our country is indeed big enough to try to help others get a better life.  Who knows what some of these kids could offer us if developed correctly!

 

Another book to read before passing judgment:

 

http://doctorqmd.com/books/becoming-dr-q/

 

Whether one "succeeds" in life or not (or has the opportunity to do so) should NOT be dependent upon winning the birth lottery.

 

Well said. Enriique's Journey was an eye opener for me. I'll check out the other one you suggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do have refugees coming from Africa and Asia. It's a little harder to get here from those places, though. Most if those children arrive with an adult family member. There are a lot of African refugee communities on the east side of Atlanta. There is a book called Outcasts United that tells their story with the backdrop of the ATL soccer community. I had an African refugee student who had to transfer schools because our school was in the flight path for an AFB. Every time a plane flew over, she would duck under her desk. It was so sad.

 

I heard a Navy pilot talking the other day about how he flew for the Navy and saw extreme poverty in El Salvador twenty years ago. I don't see credible links that all of a sudden something has changed for these countries. (The gov't is implying that, but the question is why.)

 

It's insulting to imply that the South American continent is somehow worse off than conditions in Africa or Asia. They're all dealing with horrendous third world problems. No argument there. It's vile to see kids -- and adults -- "living" in such awful situations.

 

I'll never forget when an elderly man in India told Mother Theresa (I'm paraphrasing), "Everyone talks about the children's hunger, but I'm hungry too." Mother Theresa had related this story decades ago and I've never forgotten it. It's heartbreaking.

 

But I don't think we have the money to handle the entire world's problem.

 

I sure wish we did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no dog in this fight and am just learning about it now.  Have put the books on hold pp mentioned.  My friend sent me this link when we were chatting online.

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/16/young-illegals-tell-border-patrol-were-coming-because-we-heard-about-a-new-u-s-law-that-lets-minors-stay/

 

The misunderstanding of  US immigration policy has been speculated as a possible cause for the increase, and I mentioned it in a prior post.  However, if you go to the source of that claim linked, you will see that increased gang violence and economic hardship were cited as the root causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha! Exactly. As if being elected makes you magically entitled to access every square inch of the state.

 

The Representative had clearance to be in some of the areas of the military base but not all. HHS asked that he return for a scheduled tour a couple of weeks later. He's the one politicizing it. The CDC is here in Atlanta, but I doubt the Reps here show up unannounced and demand access to every area, then go on the news and declare a conspiracy. Asking the Rep to schedule a tour is not unreasonable. He couldn't get one as an everyday person at any time. All of this is about protocol. There has to be the right person there to give the tour--and I'm sure that person is a national-level person over many many facilities. S/he's not on site waiting for the off chance that someone demands access. The center isn't staffed 24/7 with high-level tour-giving employees. That would be a huge waste of resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it insulting to imply this?  Who implied it anyway? Why are we making a comparison between continents and poverty?  What does it matter?  The fact is asian and african peoples are coming illegally here as well, the practical reason more S Americans do is because they can get here more easily.

 

 The government is IMPLYING that "something has changed" in these countries?  Link where the govt implied this.

 

I am not quite sure what Mother Theresa's story has to do with...anything.

 

How nice that your navy pilot friend has been able to fill you in on world economies so thoroughly.

 

The Navy guy was talking on the radio -- his point is good: South America has always had extreme poverty.

 

I use the word "imply" for this reason: why allow kids into the U.S. from South America but not from the Middle East? Where -- thanks to ISIS -- plenty of kids certainly need help.

 

I brought up Mother Theresa just to say third world countries are starving, yes, it's awful. Can we fix it? No. The U.S. thinks we can fix everything. We can't. Iraq should have taught us that.

 

New border subject: many are now concerned that not stopping the border crossing means ISIS is going to come over through the unblocked border. They seem very organized -- I think we should assume they're coming over.

 

Alley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do have refugees coming from Africa and Asia. It's a little harder to get here from those places, though. Most if those children arrive with an adult family member. There are a lot of African refugee communities on the east side of Atlanta. There is a book called Outcasts United that tells their story with the backdrop of the ATL soccer community. I had an African refugee student who had to transfer schools because our school was in the flight path for an AFB. Every time a plane flew over, she would duck under her desk. It was so sad.

 

 

In Europe we have a lot more of the refugees from Africa, while Australia has a lot from Asia. Geography would explain a the difference in where refugees are going.

 

Although in Sweden we have a large percentage of teenage Afghan boys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Navy guy was talking on the radio -- his point is good: South America has always had extreme poverty.

 

I use the word "imply" for this reason: why allow kids into the U.S. from South America but not from the Middle East? Where -- thanks to ISIS -- plenty of kids certainly need help.

 

 

Alley

Because these kids aren't showing up here. There is a big ocean in between. It's harder to get here from there. That's why. Not because we wouldn't treat them the same if they show up. We do. They just can't get here as easily. See TeacherZee's post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Navy guy was talking on the radio -- his point is good: South America has always had extreme poverty.

 

I use the word "imply" for this reason: why allow kids into the U.S. from South America but not from the Middle East? Where -- thanks to ISIS -- plenty of kids certainly need help.

Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador are in North America. South America is south of the Darien Gap between Panama and Colombia. South America doesn't currently have anywhere near the level of violence being seen in North America. Even Venezuela doesn't have this level of gang violence and drug-related anarchy.

 

The refugees from Syria and Iraq tend to go to Turkey and Jordan because they can access them by land transportation. Those countries are no where near as rich as us, but they haven't been sending people back to war zones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a snarky question, but here's what I'm wondering. What do people who keep saying we can't support this many refugee kids (which I actually agree with) and it should be stopped believe that we should do? The kids are over the border and in the US already when we find out about them, right? They are here without parents, and most of them are from countries that are not directly bordering the US, so we can't just put them back in Mexico and tell them to go home. What kinds of solutions are being proposed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard a Navy pilot talking the other day about how he flew for the Navy and saw extreme poverty in El Salvador twenty years ago. I don't see credible links that all of a sudden something has changed for these countries. (The gov't is implying that, but the question is why.)

 

It's insulting to imply that the South American continent is somehow worse off than conditions in Africa or Asia. They're all dealing with horrendous third world problems. No argument there. It's vile to see kids -- and adults -- "living" in such awful situations.

 

I'll never forget when an elderly man in India told Mother Theresa (I'm paraphrasing), "Everyone talks about the children's hunger, but I'm hungry too." Mother Theresa had related this story decades ago and I've never forgotten it. It's heartbreaking.

 

But I don't think we have the money to handle the entire world's problem.

 

I sure wish we did.

 

There is and always has been a huge amount of poverty in the world and not all of it is in Latin America. Anyone who lives in the Northern part of the USA would probably have their eyes opened, severely,, by a visit to the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. The poverty on the U.S. side of the border isn't a lot different from that on the Mexican side. On the border, there is a huge relationship, commercial and otherwise, between the "sister cities" on each side of the border. The stores on the Texas side would see a huge drop in sales, without their sales to residents of Mexico. The restaurants and bars and stores on the Mexican side would see a huge drop in their sales, without people from the Texas side crossing over.

 

The 3 countries who are currently sending this wave of children and families to the USA are in Central America. Actually, there is no "Central America", so they are actually in North America, along with Canada, the USA and Mexico. It is easier to refer to it as "Central America", from a geographic viewpoint, but really it is a part of North America and they can drive from those countries to the USA.

 

There probably has been an increase in drug related problems in those 3 countries, in recent years. Along with that an increase of gang violence, street crime, etc.

 

Here, we have a very large Middle class, but there is still a lot of poverty and as much as it is a problem for our family budget, when I go to the supermarket to shop, I know that there is no discount for poor people, when they go there to shop  and I know that they do not eat as well as we do. That said, here in Colombia, there is a program to subsidize some people, economically, as there is in the USA. Not infrequently, when I go to the ATM machine, they are in line in front of me. I do not know what percentage of the population that program is able to help, but some is better than none...

 

Many years ago, many people, from all levels of Colombian society went to the USA and there are huge numbers of them there today, but many have returned to Colombia, because things have improved here over the years. We know a number of families who have returned, voluntarily. Primarily it is because they want to raise their children here.

 

The rule is that "there are no simple solutions to complex problems"

 

Many years ago, I read a book, "Distant Neighbors", about the astonishing differences between the USA and Mexico. That 2 countries so different can share such a long border, is remarkable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this is my question.  So we now have 52,000 children with more coming.  We cannot even find foster parents for children in Texas for people that are here legally..  I agree that sending them back would be cruel.  At the same time, how do we house them well, educate them well, etc and who pays for all of that...  It is a really tough situation.  I don't have a clue what the answer is.

 

Which is why they are being moved to other parts of the country.

 

Or at least were before some people so kindly decided to protest this /sarcasm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There apparently are resources located in different areas of the country- look at my links.

 

These children were not sent here to be alone- often their relatives (parents, aunts, uncles, siblings) are already here.  Again, reading the links would help.

I agree. Do you remember Elian Gonzalez? He lived with a relative while his case was being decided by the courts. Many of these kids do have family members who could take them in while their deportation proceedings are moving through the justice system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are other areas of the country better prepared for this???  They have the money to educate them and raise them?  Who is going to organize all of this??? 

 

Welcome to the world my friend. Europe has had this "problem" for years. We are learning to cope. Sweden took 4000 unaccompanied minor refugees last year. Not so many in sheer numbers but consider that this is 4% of our population, and the 52,000 are 1.5% of the US population you might understand the scale. Our numbers are also up by almost 50% in a years time. This on top of about 50,000 other asylum seekers last year. Our numbers this year are much higher due to the conflict in Syria, anyone coming from Syria gets automatic asylum here right now. Last year one of our largest groups came from Somalia, many of whom are illiterate in their own language.

 

But to answer your question, probably not, BUT I think individual communities can probably care for smaller numbers. If each state takes 1100 of those children you have soon spread the 52,000. And as others have said, many of these children actually have relatives in the country. Not all need to go into the foster care system, at least not long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three solutions - build a triple border fence with posted national guard the entire length, and drone patrol the remainder of the border. Once this is in place amnesty considerations can begin for those already here. Doing amnesty first, however, will exacerbate the problem.

 

Second solution would be mass deportations, which are probably necessary but not useful without more enforcement of the border by the Feds.

 

Third solution is no additional border enforcement and severe penalties for any employer found employing illegal immigrants. Dry up the jobs, the people move elsewhere. The dips in immigration seen during the recession seem to confirm this.

 

 

Those are the three main solutions that seem to have coalesced.

 

nevermind

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are other areas of the country better prepared for this???  They have the money to educate them and raise them?  Who is going to organize all of this??? 

 

The government has to take care of them until they can be processed regardless.  That's the law.  Some will stay here with relatives once those are found, some will be returned.  Other places had empty facilities as well as labor the government could hire to do that job so that they wouldn't have to build new places and they would be better able to find people to do the jobs that needed to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/17/police-in-western-mexico-detain-cartel-member-suspected-in-trafficking-children/

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/17/cartel-mexico-organ-trafficking/6548691/

 

I apologize for the lame link. Here it is in USA Today. I didn't hear about it on the web. It's what a lot of neighbors in town with family in Mexico are saying why people are trying to get the children out of there. This, taking organs from children is new. Kidnaping children to do gang work was already happening.

 

You're right, butter, I did mean war. I'm probably wrong to want that, but I think Mexico is in over it's head with this. Unless we want to be living right next to the middle east we Americans should be a little more concerned about Mexico.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to life in the border states.

 

I live on the southern most part of the county in the  PHX area next to tribal land. I'm in the last suburb before you hit the famous "Tucson Sector" and right next to "Coyote Highway." I'm 3 hours from the Mexican border but the area between the border and my house is filled with human traffickers and a lot of irate Native Americans whose land is being over run by this mess.

 

Why isn't the border sealed?

 

The southern US border is thousands of miles long over inhospitable desert terrain.  There's no way to put human patrols on the border unless you do an incredibly large increase in personnel.  I dated a guy a million years ago who was offered  job-very very few people want that job. The other options are a physical fence and/or drones. Those are terribly expensive.

 

Border states for years have been screaming for the feds to deal with it, because constitutionally, that's who's responsible.  The feds haven't.  The states doing it themselves hasn't happened because they say (at least mine does) that they don't have enough tax revenues to do it.  States would have to pay for the fence themselves (like CA's fence) by diverting funds from other things.  They could call out the National Guard but again, this is tremendously expensive.

 

When large numbers of children come across, they have to be cared for by Border Patrol, which means a Border Patrol agent cannot both care for children and patrol the border at the same time. That means sending (by bus and plane) those children to other facilities and in the last few months other states because they're overwhelmed by what has been reported the more than 50,000 people who've some since October of last year and the tens of thousands more they anticipate coming in the near future.

 

Why are people protesting moving them into communities?

 

Medical facilities are overwhelmed by the numbers.  Reports of diseases including whopping cough, scabies, measles, and leprosy are in the perfect situation for spreading rapidly: poorly nourished, large groups of people in close quarters. Don't forget, the people who get you across the border illegally are what we call coyotes (human traffickers) who are closely connected to gangs and drug cartel.  The psychological issues these children will have from witnessing and experiencing being human trafficked will require long term professional help that is also very expensive.

 

AZ, CA, and TX have some of the largest numbers of foster children in the US.  According to recent reports, our numbers of foster kids increase at 40% per year here in AZ.  Adding in these refugees will add to an already overwhelmed system that has serious problems to begin with. Tax dollars fund that.  They'll have to be diverted from some other tax funded program(s.) We were hit hard during the recession, we have some of the highest foreclosure rates in the country in the recent past.  Our tax revenues have been low for a long time now.

 

Most people think their ps classrooms are over crowded and their schools are underfunded per pupil as it is.  That won't change with increased numbers of children coming in, many who need ESL teachers and other special help related to being at the low end of the socioeconomic ladder. People trying to get in the US legally will be slowed by immigration processing large numbers of children who are away from their parents. There are reports that not everyone claiming to have extended relatives here actually does so that's an additional problem.

 

Why aren't the criminals who are making all this happen being dealt with?

 

Reports are that cartel related people started the rumors on a large scale in C. America that children coming in would be housed, fed, medically treated and educated.  Everyone involved in the trafficking industry through Central America and Mexico was complicit because it makes them money. 

 

My husband's first cousin lives just outside Tucson.  He was working as a prison guard.  One day, walking down the row of cells an inmate started saying several address.  One was the cousin's parents house where his parents and little sister lived.  The other was the address of his sister in TX. He quit the next day.  No one every testifies against cartel-ever.  They will find your family and kill or harm them. They're not worried about breaking the law.

 

A friend of mine has a relative foolish enough to carry an unopened package  across the border from Mexico as a late teen for $10,000. She was arrested for being a drug mule.  She wouldn't say who paid her to do it as part of a plea deal. She served the full sentence herself. Why?  Because if you testify against cartel or cartel related activities, they will kill or harm your family. 

 

Law enforcement has to operate within the law-cartel doesn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reading that a law put on the books by Bush forbids the U.S. from sending back unaccompanied minors.  I think, based on my research, it's called the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.  Word seems to be out that the U.S. govt won't send unaccompanied minors back from where they came from and that they will get to stay. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a snarky question, but here's what I'm wondering. What do people who keep saying we can't support this many refugee kids (which I actually agree with) and it should be stopped believe that we should do? The kids are over the border and in the US already when we find out about them, right? They are here without parents, and most of them are from countries that are not directly bordering the US, so we can't just put them back in Mexico and tell them to go home. What kinds of solutions are being proposed? 

 

I refuse to believe that a country with 300 million + can't afford to deal with this.  We might have to change our priorities and think outside the box just a little for a change.  My suggestion would be to send kids on to relatives and/or relocate them in different areas to spread out the cost a bit.  Try to be sure they get an education and let them see where their talents lie.  If 1000 +/- went to each state, is that seriously going to impact a budget - esp if many live with family?

 

When I die and meet my maker I sure don't want to have to explain why I turned away "the least of these" in order to "have more for me."

 

We HAVE a fair number of immigrant kids in the school where I work (some legal, others likely not - I don't ask).  The VAST majority are awesome teens and human beings who can offer quite a bit to our country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the world my friend. Europe has had this "problem" for years. We are learning to cope. Sweden took 4000 unaccompanied minor refugees last year. Not so many in sheer numbers but consider that this is 4% of our population, and the 52,000 are 1.5% of the US population you might understand the scale. Our numbers are also up by almost 50% in a years time. This on top of about 50,000 other asylum seekers last year. Our numbers this year are much higher due to the conflict in Syria, anyone coming from Syria gets automatic asylum here right now. Last year one of our largest groups came from Somalia, many of whom are illiterate in their own language.

 

But to answer your question, probably not, BUT I think individual communities can probably care for smaller numbers. If each state takes 1100 of those children you have soon spread the 52,000. And as others have said, many of these children actually have relatives in the country. Not all need to go into the foster care system, at least not long term.

Are most of these refugees arriving in Sweden legally?

 

I don't know what it takes to be legally given refugee status in the US, but if these children qualify I imagine so do millions of others in their home countries.

 

I don't have any answers. I have lived in two of the poorest countries in Latin America, if these were my children and I thought there was any chance of them having a better life in the US, I just might send them. Personally I would like to think it is possible to create more friendly immigration laws, after all the overwhelming majority of Americans are descendants of immigrants, most of whom came from destitute circumstances and arrived with little more than the clothed on their backs. Who am I to forbid someone else from taking that same gamble?

 

On the other hand, if we make immigration easier, what unintended consequences will we face? How many millions of immigrants could we take in without facing social and economic chaos? I really don't know.

 

These children? I would not send them home. If they have family here, reunite them. If they don't, I bet an appeal to the decent citizens of the country could find placements for them. I would take one in, in memory of the many children I have seen and cried over being unable to help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are most of these refugees arriving in Sweden legally?

 

I don't know what it takes to be legally given refugee status in the US, but if these children qualify I imagine so do millions of others in their home countries.

 

I don't have any answers. I have lived in two of the poorest countries in Latin America, if these were my children and I thought there was any chance of them having a better life in the US, I just might send them. Personally I would like to think it is possible to create more friendly immigration laws, after all the overwhelming majority of Americans are descendants of immigrants, most of whom came from destitute circumstances and arrived with little more than the clothed on their backs. Who am I to forbid someone else from taking that same gamble?

 

On the other hand, if we make immigration easier, what unintended consequences will we face? How many millions of immigrants could we take in without facing social and economic chaos? I really don't know.

 

These children? I would not send them home. If they have family here, reunite them. If they don't, I bet an appeal to the decent citizens of the country could find placements for them. I would take one in, in memory of the many children I have seen and cried over being unable to help.

 

Agree with all of this, but especially the bolded.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are most of these refugees arriving in Sweden legally?

 

I don't know what it takes to be legally given refugee status in the US, but if these children qualify I imagine so do millions of others in their home countries.

 

I don't have any answers. I have lived in two of the poorest countries in Latin America, if these were my children and I thought there was any chance of them having a better life in the US, I just might send them. Personally I would like to think it is possible to create more friendly immigration laws, after all the overwhelming majority of Americans are descendants of immigrants, most of whom came from destitute circumstances and arrived with little more than the clothed on their backs. Who am I to forbid someone else from taking that same gamble?

 

On the other hand, if we make immigration easier, what unintended consequences will we face? How many millions of immigrants could we take in without facing social and economic chaos? I really don't know.

 

These children? I would not send them home. If they have family here, reunite them. If they don't, I bet an appeal to the decent citizens of the country could find placements for them. I would take one in, in memory of the many children I have seen and cried over being unable to help.

 

How do you mean legally?

 

Are they showing up with their asylum claim processed? No

 

Are they showing up with visas or visa waivers? No

 

They are simply showing up at our borders. We don't call them legal or illegal, we simply call them asylum seekers and we determine if they can stay in our country once they are here. They become illegal once their claim has been denied. Right now no one from Syria is having their claim denied, nor I think is anyone from Somalia (I could be wrong there but I am to lazy to look it up right now :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scattered thoughts. No solutions but here are the areas I can't stop thinking about:

 

I am concerned about human rights violations on many levels.

 

The immediate physical needs are one problem.

 

This talk of "send them back" or "put them in camps" is another.

 

We've DONE camps in the USA. We've done refugee camps, detainment camps, and reservations.

 

Enough said?

 

We can't become complicit; we can't become human traffickers or slavers, even inadvertently, in an attempt to shuffle these people out of sight or sneak them in where they are not welcomed or wanted (I'm talking about places in America that will not be helping but will rather drive them out of town if they know they're part of the "invasion"), under some crazy assumption that they'll survive somehow. How can they survive with no friends? If we work with people from the other side of the border to "send them back" how do we know who they are, how do we know we aren't placing them into dangerous hands right then?

 

Those who are afraid that s*x slaves, prostitutes, drug dealers, and gang members are creeping in? I don't know. There might be some among them. I do know that we can CREATE a generation of all these undesirables if we leave these young people and children to try to make it on their own, dropping them off by the busload into unfamiliar places with imaginary court dates and imaginary potential connections to relatives. Nature abhors a vacuum. A needy child steps off a bus into nothing and SOMETHING will find him.

 

I am concerned about disease. In my perfect world we would be helping these persons to become healthy before doing a single other thing to them or with them. Treat the lice, scabies, tuberculosis, viruses, and all. Surely that is nothing more than a humanitarian necessity, for their own sake as well as for the sake of their new neighbors.

 

A veteran public school teacher wrote an article I read yesterday that I can't find today, no matter how hard I look, about how we could take this as an opportunity to turn around American schools. These newcomers will need so much real, solid, applicable education in Math, English, History, etc. that we could, in our effort to give them the education they need, recall that our children need the same quality education instead of the fluff and nonsense they are getting now. I thought that was an interesting notion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...