Children being bussed across border illegally. Heard of this?

[chiguirre]

I think our nation needs:

Strong border control. Good fences make more tolerable neighbors.

Genuine practical immigration reform. It's been insane for decades. We can't even blame 9/11. It was a nuts complicated pita expensive long wait from hades system long before that.

And frankly, if Mexico can't get their act together, then we should go do it for them to protect our own states. This is ridiculous. Same goes for the countries these children are coming from. I think at the very least it might be cheaper to offer them territorial status and possibly ratification if they can meet certain humanitarian and corporate conditions. It's a win-win, so it will probably never happen. :/

 

What I keep thinking is that protecting the area between the border states and Mexico is a real pita compared to the itty bit between panama and Columbia. Just sayin.

Let me see if I understood you correctly. You're proposing to invade Mexico and all the countries of Central America? Then, after the war, they'll become US associated states like Puerto Rico and we will hand out passports to all of their citizens, allowing them free movement to and within the current United States and voting rights.

 

It would seem to me that if we can't handle the 50,000 we've currently got, there is no way on planet Earth that we could handle the 170 million your plan would encompass.

 

As a separate point, the US has a very checkered reputation in Central America for good reason. A quick tour of the lowlights:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(filibuster)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_%C3%81rbenz

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somoza_family

[JumpyTheFrog]

Hmm, I don't think you should assume that Mexico and the other countries mentioned want to be part of the US. 

[MBM]

Faith, I don't think your idea is all that bad, either. Maybe you could also talk to some people/profs at U of M or MSU, too.
 
Btw, U of Notre Dame offers a cost-free graduate degree in education in exchange for two years of teaching in particular Catholic schools. Over 100 schools participate. I don't see why they couldn't train more teachers to work with these incoming children. During the two years of teaching, teachers also receive a little bit of money for housing as well. Applicants do not need to be Catholic or even religious but the schools would teach a Catholic curriculum. The program is called the Alliance for Catholic Education (ACE). Here's a link and small blurb:

 

http://ace.nd.edu/teach/
 

The school communities in which ACE teachers serve are often among the most under-resourced schools in the United States. Approximately 25% of ACE schools serve predominantly African-American students, while over 35% of ACE schools serve primarily Latino populations. While some of the middle and high schools in which we serve are not financially under-resourced in comparison with the elementary schools, Catholic schools are rarely able to offer salaries competitive with local public school systems, and teacher shortages are chronic and critical in most dioceses served by ACE teacher

[brehon]

Hmm, I don't think you should assume that Mexico and the other countries mentioned want to be part of the US.

Well, now, that's just seeing that the glass is half empty. Where's your can do spirit? <insert eye roll here> ;)

[Butter]

And frankly, if Mexico can't get their act together, then we should go do it for them to protect our own states. This is ridiculous. Same goes for the countries these children are coming from.

 

Interesting idea.  Upthread somewhere someone commented how her grandmother I think it was was terrified when she (the board member) came to the US because her (the grandmother's) conception of our country was terrifying to her and it seemed to her that our country is worse than Mexico.  So let's say the Mexican government decides that we can't get our act together.  Should they come in and do it for us to protect their own states?

 

As for the idea of using Detroit... that's not something I had ever thought of.  It would be a huge undertaking, but I think it is brilliant for the long run.

 

[Caroline]

Are you suggesting we annex all of Central America? 

 

 

I think our nation needs:
Strong border control. Good fences make more tolerable neighbors.
Genuine practical immigration reform. It's been insane for decades. We can't even blame 9/11. It was a nuts complicated pita expensive long wait from hades system long before that.
And frankly, if Mexico can't get their act together, then we should go do it for them to protect our own states. This is ridiculous. Same goes for the countries these children are coming from. I think at the very least it might be cheaper to offer them territorial status and possibly ratification if they can meet certain humanitarian and corporate conditions. It's a win-win, so it will probably never happen. :/

What I keep thinking is that protecting the area between the border states and Mexico is a real pita compared to the itty bit between panama and Columbia. Just sayin.

And no, I don't want war. No one ever does. Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is the smart or right thing to do or not.

But really I don't think we need a terrible war to do it. If the situation is this drastic, now is the time to move in with some excellent diplomacy. It sounds like just the thing millions of parents would demand there. I have to think if they care enough to be this desperate, they would care enough to pitch a screaming fighting fit in the streets to an agreement that would mean they didn't have to do it at all.

If anything our war would be with the cartels. And I'm okay with that.
Because who are we kidding, if anyone in Washington is awake at all, we are already at war with them.
Unless we are sleeping with them. Which I'm just as likely to believe of our leadership these days.
:/

As for the children currently here.

They should be processed as quickly as possible into valid relatives' homes.

And they won't find homes in the foster system unless the foster system and the adoption system gets a genuine reforming too. People are always asking who will take the babies/children of unwanted whatever conditions as though there are not people who would take them. This is not true. There are MANY who want to and would give good homes but the system for them to do so is such an expensive nightmare to contend with that many are turned away from it. We have to change this.

 

[Murphy101]

Let me see if I understood you correctly. You're proposing to invade Mexico and all the countries of Central America? Then, after the war, they'll become US associated states like Puerto Rico and we will hand out passports to all of their citizens, allowing them free movement to and within the current United States and voting rights.

 

It would seem to me that if we can't handle the 50,000 we've currently got, there is no way on planet Earth that we could handle the 170 million your plan would encompass.

 

As a separate point, the US has a very checkered reputation in Central America for good reason. A quick tour of the lowlights:

 

Then let the cartels have them if that's what they prefer and close the boarder tight and strictly. *shrug*

 

You didn't read my post very well.

 

I also mentioned that I didn't think it'd have to be an awful civilian war, but some excellent diplomacy could net a win-win. We could help them get rid of the cartel system that is oppressing them, set them up to not only have democracy, but join the union. Yes it would be a huge adjustment to our country, and it wouldn't be cheap, but it would be done slowly over time, much like the addition of the states to the union. And joining the union requires the territory vote to join. It's not a land purchase that I'm suggesting. (Tho I'm not against that either necessarily.)

 

There is not a free option here, but obviously getting rid of their cartels and gaining political territory is cheaper than the hemorrhaging of funds on the whims of whatever blows across our border. And it could mutually benefit all parties. Yes, there'd be some give as well, there always is in a mutual agreement. So what? The question is whether it would be worth it. I simply proposed that done well, it could be very worth it.

 

I don't like any of this, but if these countries are literally going to dump their problems on us to fix, then I'm not much interested in them pitching a sentimental fit that we didn't do it how their drug lords and child traffickers wanted.

 

Yes, history shows what not to do.

 

So let's not do it the way they did. None of them offered union.

 

I'm open to new ideas on how to solve this old problem of Central America unrest. Because it is a danger to American interests, politically, regionally, militarily and financially. But let us not delude ourselves that it is going to be solved prettily or cheaply or nicely. It isn't. There's no way for that to happen. I wish there was, but there isn't.

[Caroline]

Then let the cartels have them if that's what they prefer and close the boarder tight and strictly. *shrug*

 

You didn't read my post very well.

 

I also mentioned that I didn't think it'd have to be an awful civilian war, but some excellent diplomacy could net a win-win. We could help them get rid of the cartel system that is oppressing them, set them up to not only have democracy, but join the union. Yes it would be a huge adjustment to our country, and it wouldn't be cheap, but it would be done slowly over time, much like the addition of the states to the union. And joining the union requires the territory vote to join. It's not a land purchase that I'm suggesting. (Tho I'm not against that either necessarily.)

 

There is not a free option here, but obviously getting rid of their cartels and gaining political territory is cheaper than the hemorrhaging of funds on the whims of whatever blows across our border. And it could mutually benefit all parties. Yes, there'd be some give as well, there always is in a mutual agreement. So what? The question is whether it would be worth it. I simply proposed that done well, it could be very worth it.

 

I don't like any of this, but if these countries are literally going to dump their problems on us to fix, then I'm not much interested in them pitching a sentimental fit that we didn't do it how their drug lords and child traffickers wanted.

 

Yes, history shows what not to do.

 

So let's not do it the way they did. None of them offered union.

 

I'm open to new ideas on how to solve this old problem of Central America unrest. Because it is a danger to American interests, politically, regionally, militarily and financially. But let us not delude ourselves that it is going to be solved prettily or cheaply or nicely. It isn't. There's no way for that to happen. I wish there was, but there isn't.

 

But, we can't defeat the gangs and drug cartels in our own country. What makes you think we can do that in Central America? 

[Murphy101]

Interesting idea. Upthread somewhere someone commented how her grandmother I think it was was terrified when she (the board member) came to the US because her (the grandmother's) conception of our country was terrifying to her and it seemed to her that our country is worse than Mexico. So let's say the Mexican government decides that we can't get our act together. Should they come in and do it for us to protect their own states?

 

As for the idea of using Detroit... that's not something I had ever thought of. It would be a huge undertaking, but I think it is brilliant for the long run.

 

I think that America needs to be working towards having allies in our own hemisphere. I'd like those allies to not be dictators fronting cartels and trafficking. One way to gain allies is to offer them something they want for something we want. Fighting a mutual enemy is often a starting point. They want the supposed American dream (heck, me too) of freedom, jobs, education, influence in their regions and possibly internationally. We want security, corporate growth, military strength, and international influence. Finding a way where we can manage that exchange, gain an ally, and level the finances a bit would be a great thing.

 

If things are really that dire in these countries, it doesn't have to be done in a regime change manner or even against their will. Maybe they don't want to join the union. Okay. Maybe we need to change that then. Becoming a territory of the United States should be seen as a lucrative and awesome thing. If it isn't, we could change our strategy to make us more appealing.

 

I don't see anyone else proposing much to change things. The Detroit idea is interesting, but there's still the question of how to fund it and run it. Turning Detroit into Little Honduras does not seem like a better idea to me than creating an opportunity for Honduras to become a territory. How many other American cities should be given to these countries?

 

My ideas are not quick or cheap, but they are long term and potentially have better ends for both parties and are more than just too little too late reactionary measures.

[Murphy101]

But, we can't defeat the gangs and drug cartels in our own country. What makes you think we can do that in Central America?

There is a difference between defeat and contain. It is a never ending war bc there are always bad guys.

 

But yeah, in America for the most part my kids can play out front on my lawn without fear of being raped and turned into a drug mule or organ crop. Yes, bad things still happen to American children, but no, we are not living in daily fear of drug cartels and in most places we feel safe calling the police. And our citizens can defend themselves. We aren't sending our children away to other countries for safety to avoid being killed. I don't think we will eradicate all drugs and child crimes or other crimes in Central America. But yes, I do think we can seriously reduce it to the point that citizens who want a better life can choose to have one.

[Caroline]

There is a difference between defeat and contain. It is a never ending war bc there are always bad guys.

 

But yeah, in America for the most part my kids can play out front on my lawn without fear of being raped and turned into a drug mule or organ crop. Yes, bad things still happen to American children, but no, we are not living in daily fear of drug cartels and in most places we feel safe calling the police. And our citizens can defend themselves. We aren't sending our children away to other countries for safety to avoid being killed. I don't think we will eradicate all drugs and child crimes or other crimes in Central America. But yes, I do think we can seriously reduce it to the point that citizens who want a better life can choose to have one.

 

Well, there are many places in the US where people do live in daily fear of drug cartels and gangs and where people don't feel safe calling the police. 

 

I think the job is much bigger than you are understanding.  

[kiana]

Well, there are many places in the US where people do live in daily fear of drug cartels and gangs and where people don't feel safe calling the police. 

 

I think the job is much bigger than you are understanding.  

Furthermore, we aren't invaders trying to impose it on ourselves -- yeah, the man on the street might want the drug cartels gone, but he ALSO might feel a mite ticked off in a "how dare you come try to take over my country" manner -- enough to give assistance, which would mean a fairly large increase in formerly decent citizens involved in the drug trade.

 

ETA: We do not currently have a great record as far as "let us come over and fix ALL your problems and everything will be wonderful and drug-free and democratic" goes.

[maize]

 

If things are really that dire in these countries, it doesn't have to be done in a regime change manner or even against their will. Maybe they don't want to join the union. Okay. Maybe we need to change that then. Becoming a territory of the United States should be seen as a lucrative and awesome thing. If it isn't, we could change our strategy to make us more appealing.

 

 

 

These are countries with their own history, their own stories of fighting for independence, their own pride in sovereignty and patriotism. Why would they want to give that up just to be absorbed into a larger country? Would you want to? The points you make could have equally been made the British Empire in the early 1800s--in fact I think they were made, around the time of the war of 1812. Why didn't we want to join the powerful, lucrative empire? Why insist on making our own struggling way through life?

 

You go tell them they will now have the privilege of cheering for the United States team in the World Cup and see what kind of reaction you get :)

[TeacherZee]

Faith I love your idea!

[Murphy101]

 

 

Sure there is. And no, I am aware the job is terrifically huge. I never stated I thought it would be easy or small or quick or anything else.

 

 

Sure they do. I never said they didn't have their own history. Does Puerto Rico or the Philippines feel they gave up their history? Idk. Maybe they do.

 

And if they want to insist on making their own way through, I'm fine with that. Give them their kids back, tighten the borders and let them do it then.

Well, there are many places in the US where people do live in daily fear of drug cartels and gangs and where people don't feel safe calling the police.

 

I think the job is much bigger than you are understanding.

 

 

Sure there is. And no, I am aware the job is terrifically huge. I never stated I thought it would be easy or small or quick or anything else.

 

These are countries with their own history, their own stories of fighting for independence, their own pride in sovereignty and patriotism. Why would they want to give that up just to be absorbed into a larger country? Would you want to? The points you make could have equally been made the British Empire in the early 1800s--in fact I think they were made, around the time of the war of 1812. Why didn't we want to join the powerful, lucrative empire? Why insist on making our own struggling way through life?

 

You go tell them they will now have the privilege of cheering for the United States team in the World Cup and see what kind of reaction you get :)

Sure they do. I never said they didn't have their own history. Does Puerto Rico or the Philippines feel they gave up their history? Idk. Maybe they do.

 

And if they want to insist on making their own way through, I'm fine with that. Give them their kids back, tighten the borders and let them do it then.

 

ETA: Our states have their own history and such too. They'd like to make their own ways as well. Yet they are being overrun with people from another country. They are being forced to provide and care for and finance their invasion and all the related problems of it with little to no say. Why is this haphazard unplanned annexing of our cities okay, but my suggestion to instead carefully negotiate and plan how to make this happen in those countries sending an influx of their population to us is not okay?

[unsinkable]

Well, I must be insane to propose anything because I am sure it will get flamed wildly, but I am sending a proposal to my state rep.

 

The idea I have is that we have a TON of abandoned real estate in Detroit and some of it is in fairly safe neighborhoods and still renovation worthy IF donors could be found to fund the projects. GM, Ford, and several other companies have said they would donate to a worthy enterprise to do some "renaissance work in the city".

Be sure to include plans for paying for water.

 

:lol:

[Audrey]

Well, I must be insane to propose anything because I am sure it will get flamed wildly, but I am sending a proposal to my state rep.

 

The idea I have is that we have a TON of abandoned real estate in Detroit and some of it is in fairly safe neighborhoods and still renovation worthy IF donors could be found to fund the projects. GM, Ford, and several other companies have said they would donate to a worthy enterprise to do some "renaissance work in the city". Due to recent budget cuts, we have ESL teachers out of work and we have contractors that barely keep their heads above water or have closed up shop but still need work. We have social workers who lost their jobs due to budget cuts. All of these people could find employment with group home projects. Reclaiming some buildings and devoting them to taking in children could put a bunch of Michiganders back to work, in turn elevating their financial service and thus putting income and sales tax into the system. We are a heavy agriculturally minded state and food is relatively inexpensive compared to other states. Direct contracts with local farmers helps the economy and puts local foods in hungry bellies. Michigan deer hunters have said for years that they needed more outlets for donating venison...we have very good venison here and a LOT would be donated. Detroit has an excellent children's hospital plus the likes of Beaumont and Henry Ford with world class specialists.

 

With some help from the feds, donations from local companies and wealthy citizens, and a city desperate to rejuvenate itself with worthy causes and a governor actively seeking for opportunities, I think that providing quality, short term group homes and volunteer tutors (4h has a strong program for helping in communities in this manner), putting teachers and social workers,contractors, etc. back to work, and helping kids move through the counseling process and into permanent families when possible is something Detroit, Lansing, and the rest of Michigan could do if political minds would agree to try. I've seen a lot of cooperative efforts come together recently in the city, retirees mowing parks and cleaning them up, volunteers in schools, reading programs, helping neighbors with transportation, churches running all kinds of benevolence programs....I think that with some monetary assistance from Washington and corporations, we could make a difference in the lives of several hundred children.

 

The one thing that would have to change would be the difficulty of passing a home study in some communities. We do not qualify because we have well water...doesn't matter that we have a whole house revers osmosis filtration system so our water is safer than city water! It's a county regulation with no option for exemption. There are lots of silly things like that which wouldneed to be altered so that more families who have a heart to help a child would qualify.

 

It's probably a stupid idea, but I'm going to suggest it anyway. We have real estate, we have good and decent unemployed peole who would jump at the chance to be employed working to do the practical things like renovation and maintenance, or the emotional stuff like working with kids, teaching, etc., and volunteers who want to help do something worthwhile in the city. We don't have the water or food delivery issues of the border states. So maybe, just maybe it's something Lansing could consider with assistance.

 

 

I don't know if it's a good idea or not, Faithe, and I have no idea if it could work, but for ONCE, it is nice to see someone actually come up with a plan of action and put it forward instead of sitting around, arm-chair quarter-backing and complaining about "those people" and what a "problem" they are as if they were non-human beings.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Hmm, I don't think you should assume that Mexico and the other countries mentioned want to be part of the US. 

 

Even if they did, there is a significant number of citizens here who would fight tooth and nail before letting millions of Hispanics become US citizens.

[Caroline]

Even if they did, there is a significant number of citizens here who would fight tooth and nail before letting millions of Hispanics become US citizens.

I hadn't even thought of that. I know you are right.

[Ohdanigirl]

And frankly, if Mexico can't get their act together, then we should go do it for them to protect our own states.  This is ridiculous.  Same goes for the countries these children are coming from.  I think at the very least it might be cheaper to offer them territorial status and possibly ratification if they can meet certain humanitarian and corporate conditions.  It's a win-win, so it will probably never happen. :/ 
And no, I don't want war.  No one ever does.  Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is the smart or right thing to do or not.
If anything our war would be with the cartels. And I'm okay with that.  
Because who are we kidding, if anyone in Washington is awake at all, we are already at war with them.

I know someone has already addressed this comment, but I felt I needed to do the same.  First off, I 'd like to say that nothing I am about to say is meant to offend or insult you.  I am not sure how it is all going to come out on the forum and hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt when reading my response to you.  

 

I am going to take some liberties and assume that some of your response is coming from fear, shock, a little anger, and (for lack of a better word) ignorance on the subject of Latin America and its people.  (Again, I am so sorry.  I know people use the word  as an offense, but I mean it in reference to lack of knowledge/expertise on a subject.) Many Americans are scared of what a large influx of Illegal Aliens or refugees will do to system.  Will these people be able to assimilate if allowed to stay.  Are there gang members, rapists, and criminals among the arriving teens?  Why are there so many coming here?  Why now? These are all likely questions running through many people's minds and reflecting the feelings of fear and shock people are feeling. I think any offer of territorial status would be looked on suspiciously at best and an attempt to invade at most.  Historically, The US is seen as an invading imperialistic force by many foreign countries.  Even when The US has gone in to provide humanitarian aide, history often sees it differently.  I think much of this has to do with cultural differences.  You think you are offering them something fantastic, but they do not see it this way. We must remember that people see things through different eyes. Furthermore,  Latin Americans are very patriotic.  It isn't just their country.  It is their culture, the very essence of who they are.  

 

As for the children currently here.
They should be processed as quickly as possible into valid relatives' homes.
And they won't find homes in the foster system unless the foster system and the adoption system gets a genuine reforming too.  People are always asking who will take the babies/children of unwanted whatever conditions as though there are not people who would take them.  This is not true.  There are MANY who want to and would give good homes but the system for them to do so is such an expensive nightmare to contend with that many are turned away from it.  We have to change this.

 

An effort is being made to reunite these children with their  families, but many times doing so means releasing them to undocumented parents already in the states.  Many people take issue with this.  Other children are being returned to their home country and relatives back home.  As many here mentioned, one was even returned to the 'wrong' country.  I use quotations, because she was returned to the country of her birth, just not the one she had been raised in.  (if I remember the article correctly)  There may have very well been legal reasons for this.

 

Then let the cartels have them if that's what they prefer and close the boarder tight and strictly. *shrug*
You didn't read my post very well.....
I also mentioned that I didn't think it'd have to be an awful civilian war, but some excellent diplomacy could net a win-win. But let us not delude ourselves that it is going to be solved prettily or cheaply or nicely.  It isn't.  There's no way for that to happen.  I wish there was, but there isn't.

I think it would be naive of us to think trying to absorb Mexico and other countries further south would not be seen as an act of aggression or lead to war.  Of course it would. As for the cartels, yes they are a problem.  But remember, you are seeing it from the outside.  As I mentioned earlier, I am currently in Mexico.  I do not live in fear of my children playing outside, going to the store, or generally being out in public.  I think I lived more in fear growing up in California in the late 80's early 90's with the street gang violence, even though I did not live in the ghetto. When I am here I move around freely, drive at night, and am perfectly willing to call the police if need be.  In Mexico, we all complain about the government and the police that are more than willing to take a bribe when pulling people over.  I recognize that, and the system is far from perfect.  I also know that if someone is breaking into our home, calling the police will get them arrested.  Believe it or not, they (police) do do their jobs sometimes...not always but sometimes.  Simply put, the issue is not that cut and dry.

 

This article by an AP reporter explains how the illegal aliens come across the Rio Grande River and then turn themselves in immediately for processing.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140707/us--immigration_overload-hot_spot-264468bcb2.html

Lanny, Thank you for posting this link.  I forgot to mention that in my last post last night.  May I also add, that many of these people are arriving and requesting refugee status.  I know someone was asking about that up-thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Faith, regardless of whether everyone agrees with your proposal, the important part is that you are trying to think of possible solutions.  Hopefully it encourages others to really think critically about the situation and consider what possible solutions there may be.

 

Thanks, ohdanigirl. Your answers help to flesh out what I was wondering about specifically how children travel into and through Mexico. :)

 

I am glad I was able to answer some of your questions.  I am no expert, of course, but I am happy to help when I think I can.

 

Hmm, I don't think you should assume that Mexico and the other countries mentioned want to be part of the US.

:iagree: 

 

For those interested in learning a little more about the History of Violence in Latin America, may I recommend Children of Cain:  Violence and the Violent in Latin America, by Tina Rosenberg.  It is not for the faint of heart, but I think it illustrates very well the History of Violence in these countries.  I think, to an extent, younger generations in some of these countries have been desensitized to much of the gory violence we see coming from cartels, etc.  There is a history of it the likes of which we Americans are not used to and we find it shocking.  

[maize]

Texas has its own unique culture and history - it was even its own country once - and yet we joined the union. (Although some - many? - Texans lament that fact. LOL!)

 

 

The circumstances under which Texas joined the union were significantly different than those of any Latin American country today. The majority of Texans were from the United States. 

 

 

From Wikipedia:

" by 1834, over 30,000 Anglos lived in Texas,^[1] compared to 7,800 Mexicans.^[2]" 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Texas

 

And Texas was an independent country for a very short time. The situation is not in any way comparable to that of any modern country south of the US boarder.

[Caroline]

Ohdanigirl, thank you for that thoughtful post. I appreciate your explanations.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

We need more ideas likes Faiths.

 

 

It may not be viable, but more positive big ideas like that will lead to a solution that can work.

[MBM]

Apparently, in the past year the governor of Michigan proposed setting aside 50,000 EB-2 visas over the next five years for immigrants, but he wants highly skilled immigrants.
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/24/us-usa-detroit-immigration-idUSBREA0M1P120140124
 

[maize]

Apparently, in the past year the governor of Michigan proposed setting aside 50,000 EB-2 visas over the next five years for immigrants, but he wants highly skilled immigrants.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/24/us-usa-detroit-immigration-idUSBREA0M1P120140124

 

 

 

I think we need to be looking more at temporary worker visas; a lot of these people are not necessarily wanting to immigrate permanently but would be willing to come work a decent job and have some money to send home. We could do two or three year visas with options then to work towards permanent residency if that is what they want. I'm thinking of all the people who do migrant farm work etc.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think we need to be looking more at temporary worker visas; a lot of these people are not necessarily wanting to immigrate permanently but would be willing to come work a decent job and have some money to send home. We could do two or three year visas with options then to work towards permanent residency if that is what they want. I'm thinking of all the people who do migrant farm work etc.

 

This.^^^^^^^^

 

Of course, some industries that use immigrant labor actually lobby against this idea as giving workers a legal status makes it more difficult to exploit them.

[Lanny]

The situation in the camps (Lackland, Ft. Sill, etc.) seems to be extremely bad, with regard to contagious medical issues. That may include TB. As they release those people to travel within the USA, one can possibly assume that there is going to be more illness.

 

The older teens, especially the males, have a mid to high probability of being involved in gangs in their home countries. How the gang members can be weeded out and selected for deportation, will be an interesting issue for the government. If they are not deported, there will be more violent crime where they end up.

 

Never are there easy solutions to complex problems.

 

It has been many years since I took a course in U.S. History or U.S. Government and I'd forgotten exactly what the Monroe Doctrine covered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

 

Today, things in Latin America are much more complex. There is great influence from Iran (especially in Venezuela and in Ecuador and I believe in Nicaragua and Argentina too). If it were easy for the USA to have positive influence in Latin America, Venezuela would not be as hostile as it is to the USA and Colombia, just to give one quick example.

 

Tomorrow morning is the “dog and pony†tour for the Congressmen/Congresswomen at Lackland. Hopefully, they will be able to get some idea about what is happening, during their guided tour (no questions can be asked of the children or of the workers).   

[Audrey]

Even if they did, there is a significant number of citizens here who would fight tooth and nail before letting millions of Hispanics become US citizens.

 

 

You are right, and it is one of the most depressing aspects of this whole situation, IMO.

[Murphy101]

 I am going to take some liberties and assume that some of your response is coming from fear, shock, a little anger, and (for lack of a better word) ignorance on the subject of Latin America and its people.  (Again, I am so sorry.  I know people use the word  as an offense, but I mean it in reference to lack of knowledge/expertise on a subject.) Many Americans are scared of what a large influx of Illegal Aliens or refugees will do to system.  Will these people be able to assimilate if allowed to stay.  Are there gang members, rapists, and criminals among the arriving teens?  Why are there so many coming here?  Why now? These are all likely questions running through many people's minds and reflecting the feelings of fear and shock people are feeling. I think any offer of territorial status would be looked on suspiciously at best and an attempt to invade at most.  Historically, The US is seen as an invading imperialistic force by many foreign countries.  Even when The US has gone in to provide humanitarian aide, history often sees it differently.  I think much of this has to do with cultural differences.  You think you are offering them something fantastic, but they do not see it this way. We must remember that people see things through different eyes. Furthermore,  Latin Americans are very patriotic.  It isn't just their country.  It is their culture, the very essence of who they are.  

I'm not scared or much of anything really. Life is carrying on just fine for me, so I'm not feeling a reason to panic.

 

I agree with everything you have written. Again, I will repeat, I never said I think anything I suggested would be easy, quick, painless or whatever. I never even implied that. That doesn't mean that it can't be done and done well or with positive results.

 

An effort is being made to reunite these children with their  families, but many times doing so means releasing them to undocumented parents already in the states.  Many people take issue with this.  Other children are being returned to their home country and relatives back home.  As many here mentioned, one was even returned to the 'wrong' country.  I use quotations, because she was returned to the country of her birth, just not the one she had been raised in.  (if I remember the article correctly)  There may have very well been legal reasons for this.

Yes. Most are going to be deported either by themselves or with the family they were sent to. I don't take issue with it. It is the result of illegal activity.

 

I think it would be naive of us to think trying to absorb Mexico and other countries further south would not be seen as an act of aggression or lead to war.  Of course it would. As for the cartels, yes they are a problem.  But remember, you are seeing it from the outside.

I don't think it is quite fair to say USA citizens are seeing it from the outside when we are stuck dealing with the thick of the consequences of it.

 

And for about the fifth time, I never said it would be easy or quick. I said if handled properly and slowly incrementally over time, it could work.

 

Again, I never said it was cut and dry. I never implied it either. I have no idea why anyone is making those comments.

 

But we have to do something and we have to start somewhere and it needs to be towards a solution instead of just constant reactionary measures.

 

Because obviously diplomatic hand-wringing and statements of sad conditions not being acceptable is not working.

 

I don't consider voluntarily giving up the city of Detroit to other countries, on our own dime no less, a better option than demanding cities south of us change in their own countries.

[Audrey]

I think we need to be looking more at temporary worker visas; a lot of these people are not necessarily wanting to immigrate permanently but would be willing to come work a decent job and have some money to send home. We could do two or three year visas with options then to work towards permanent residency if that is what they want. I'm thinking of all the people who do migrant farm work etc.

 

 

Another thoughtful plan of action.  :thumbup1:  Would you write your representatives to promote that to them?

[shinyhappypeople]

I think we need to be looking more at temporary worker visas; a lot of these people are not necessarily wanting to immigrate permanently but would be willing to come work a decent job and have some money to send home. We could do two or three year visas with options then to work towards permanent residency if that is what they want. I'm thinking of all the people who do migrant farm work etc.

 

There's already the Temporary Agricultural Workers Visa.  I need more information to understand why more individuals don't take advantage of this.  Is our gov't unwilling to issue the number of H-2A visas being requested?  Do the farm owners that don't want "legal" workers b/c they'd have to pay them more?  Or is there some sort of advantage to being illegal while working here?  I don't know.  

 

I support programs like guest worker visas - esp. for farm jobs, b/c most legal residents aren't willing to work the fields.  

 

Being opposed to illegal immigration (and I am) does not mean I'm opposed to any immigration.  Lawful immigration is a wonderful thing, and I totally support it.  

 

However, sending your kids illegally, because you are here illegally... and putting your kids at extreme risk en route.... I just have a really hard time with it.  I don't want any children hurt.  But... crap.  It all just really upsets me.  My feelings about this are complicated.  

 

God help us if the result of giving 50,000 children amnesty is that 50,000 more come... and 50,000 after that... good grief, we can barely take care of our own residents (and often do a shoddy job at that!).  

 

There has to be a better solution.  Maybe it's private investment in Central America, maybe it's something else entirely, I honestly don't know.  This problem is just so huge, and sad, and infuriating :(

[Ohdanigirl]

I'm not scared or much of anything really. Life is carrying on just fine for me, so I'm not feeling a reason to panic.

 

Please allow me to apologize for my ill attempt to communicate what exactly I meant. I in no way intended to imply that you or anyone else was in a panic. I knew that there was a likelihood for misinterpretation or miscommunication on my part due to the written format of this communication, and my responding while tending to other distractions. I may be incorrect, but wouldn't it be reasonable for Americans to feel fear/concern over how the current situation will affect our country. If we are honest, resources are stretched very thin in some areas, there are many schools that are unable to properly educate the children they already have, and the economy is still recovering. I guess I was assuming that you had a reasonable fear of the negative impact the situation, if allowed to spiral further out of control, could have on our country.

 

Yes. Most are going to be deported either by themselves or with the family they were sent to. I don't take issue with it. It is the result of illegal activity.

I think it would be naive to assume that all of these people or their families will be deported soon or easily. I don't remember the axact numbers, but I do recall reading in one of the links that about 33% of those released with a court date would actually return. Once they are set free, they could actually go anywhere. Right? For those awaiting a ruling on their request for refugee status, I believe that could take years.

 

I don't think it is quite fair to say USA citizens are seeing it from the outside when we are stuck dealing with the thick of the consequences of it.

I am at a loss of how to better word it. I agree that US cities and residents are suffering some of the consequences. My father lives in Phoenix, and I know that a lot of the cartel violence has spilled in to their city in the past. In the San Diego area, the have actually been kidnapping from Eastlake, which is considered a pretty nice area. When I said that you were looking at it from the outside , though, I was referring to your comment about allowing the cartel to have Mexico. I guess I felt it painted an idea that the cartels have wide spread control of the country. I am not looking at your original post, but I believe I recall something about citizens here living in fear. It might have been someone else, but I was just wanting to counter that idea. That is not to say that when violence increases in one area, residents don't become more cautious.

And for about the fifth time, I never said it would be easy or quick. I said if handled properly and slowly incrementally over time, it could work.

Again, I agree. You never said that it would be easy, and I did not intend to imply that you did.

 

Again, I never said it was cut and dry. I never implied it either. I have no idea why anyone is making those comments.

My cut and dry comment was in reference to the cartels and corruption in Mexico, not you or your comments. I am sorry if that was not clear.

 

But we have to do something and we have to start somewhere and it needs to be towards a solution instead of just constant reactionary measures.

Yes. You are 100% correct here.

 

I hope this clears up some of my mis-steps. Honestly, I in no way want to offend anyone and usually try to avoid topics that I feel can spiral out of control or be seen as controversial. It took me quite some time to decide to post in this thread despite seeing it when it only had about three posts. I have a unique experience, though, that I felt could allow me to answer some questions and bring a different perspective.

[La Texican]

There's already such a thing as work visas. What are you suggesting, easier work visas, work visas without expiration dates, work visas without an employer lined up?

[mamakelly]

I heard an comments about this topic on the radio today. The first was that, some people are concerned that the "family" that is supposed to be meeting or picking up these illegal immigrant children, may not be family at all, but child traffickers. There really isn't a solid way for anyone to prove they are related to the children, without DNA testing of some sort..

[Murphy101]

I hope this clears up some of my mis-steps. Honestly, I in no way want to offend anyone and usually try to avoid topics that I feel can spiral out of control or be seen as controversial. It took me quite some time to decide to post in this thread despite seeing it when it only had about three posts. I have a unique experience, though, that I felt could allow me to answer some questions and bring a different perspective.

I wasn't offended by any of your posts and didn't even really disagree with you.

 

I was just trying to clarify my position as well. :)

[MBM]

I think we need to be looking more at temporary worker visas; a lot of these people are not necessarily wanting to immigrate permanently but would be willing to come work a decent job and have some money to send home. We could do two or three year visas with options then to work towards permanent residency if that is what they want. I'm thinking of all the people who do migrant farm work etc.

 

I am not sure what the right answer is. My husband has worked on certain kinds of legislation for over 30 years, testified before Congress several times, and I know from his experience that the process is not always fast or easy due to unforeseen problems sometimes (what he calls the Law of Unintended Consequences) and other times, due to politics that are not all that transparent and that can be very ugly.

 

I do feel very sorry for these kids.

[Caroline]

I am not sure what the right answer is. My husband has worked on certain kinds of legislation for over 30 years, testified before Congress several times, and I know from his experience that the process is not always fast or easy due to unforeseen problems sometimes (what he calls the Law of Unintended Consequences) and other times, due to politics that are not all that transparent and that can be very ugly.

 

I do feel very sorry for these kids.

My dad worked on immigration labor reform for a number of presidents in his job as an economist for the Dept. Of Agriculture. He testified before Congress on these very bills. He was one of the people who was involved in deciding the number of worker visas to be issued depending on how well crops were doing, etc. He retired when one president made him mad enough. He was planning to work a few more years, but filled out the paperwork and retired on a few weeks notice.

[QueenCat]

My dad worked on immigration labor reform for a number of presidents in his job as an economist for the Dept. Of Agriculture. He testified before Congress on these very bills. He was one of the people who was involved in deciding the number of worker visas to be issued depending on how well crops were doing, etc. He retired when one president made him mad enough. He was planning to work a few more years, but filled out the paperwork and retired on a few weeks notice.

 

What's the tune to the twilight zone............. we've talked about our small worlds. My dad was an economist for Dept of Labor, and did quite a bit of interdepartmental work related to worker visas.............

[Caroline]

What's the tune to the twilight zone............. we've talked about our small worlds. My dad was an economist for Dept of Labor, and did quite a bit of interdepartmental work related to worker visas.............

We are really freakily connected.

[MBM]

My dad worked on immigration labor reform for a number of presidents in his job as an economist for the Dept. Of Agriculture. He testified before Congress on these very bills. He was one of the people who was involved in deciding the number of worker visas to be issued depending on how well crops were doing, etc. He retired when one president made him mad enough. He was planning to work a few more years, but filled out the paperwork and retired on a few weeks notice.

 

I absolutely understand. My husband is at that point of wanting to just leave. He gets incredibly frustrated at times. At this point he is just trying to keep a low profile and bear with all the BS.

 

When he was working on one bill (for over five years), he was intimidated a few times (with guns) and we were harassed on the streets every so often -- even with our kids in tow -- just because dh was trying to do the right thing for a certain group of people who would be vulnerable if another group got there way.

 

My youngest was thinking of working for the government but no way. He is interested in economics, btw.

[Caroline]

I absolutely understand. My husband is at that point of wanting to just leave. He gets incredibly frustrated at times. At this point he is just trying to keep a low profile and bear with all the BS.

 

When he was working on one bill (for over five years), he was intimidated a few times (with guns) and we were harassed on the streets every so often -- even with our kids in tow -- just because dh was trying to do the right thing for a certain group of people who would be vulnerable if another group got there way.

 

My youngest was thinking of working for the government but no way. He is interested in economics, btw.

 

I am sorry you and your family were harassed. That is awful. Ugh.

 

My dad was never quite that high profile. Mostly, his bosses testified based on his research. But sometimes he would testify. We would watch him on C-Span. This was in the days before CNN and Fox News. A couple of times he had to testify on short notice, and he had to run to Garfinkles or Woodies to get a suit because he was in shirt sleeves. After that happened a few times, my mom convinced him to keep a suit downtown. 

[MrsBasil]

I heard an comments about this topic on the radio today. The first was that, some people are concerned that the "family" that is supposed to be meeting or picking up these illegal immigrant children, may not be family at all, but child traffickers. There really isn't a solid way for anyone to prove they are related to the children, without DNA testing of some sort..

 

I imagine that's part of the privacy concerns that keeps the press and political grandstanding visits away.  Much harder for someone to say, "Oh, that little girl on the news is my dear sister's child...."

[MBM]

I am sorry you and your family were harassed. That is awful. Ugh.

 

My dad was never quite that high profile. Mostly, his bosses testified based on his research. But sometimes he would testify. We would watch him on C-Span. This was in the days before CNN and Fox News. A couple of times he had to testify on short notice, and he had to run to Garfinkles or Woodies to get a suit because he was in shirt sleeves. After that happened a few times, my mom convinced him to keep a suit downtown. 

 

No, my husband is not that high up. He has 3 bosses but he is in charge of crunching numbers. They'd put him on the hot seat because no one else wanted to do it and he couldn't say no. Ugh! The lobbyists worried him the most, though. LOL.

 

The testifying that your dad did is a lot like my husband had to do. It was usually short notice and he'd have to run home, grab some clothes and go to DC. Of course, this was all when the kids were young usually when they were sick.

 

I keep telling him to go work somewhere else but he's just a few years from an ideal age to retire. PTL.

[QueenCat]

We are really freakily connected.

 

Yep...........

[FaithManor]

I don't see anyone else proposing much to change things. The Detroit idea is interesting, but there's still the question of how to fund it and run it. Turning Detroit into Little Honduras does not seem like a better idea to me than creating an opportunity for Honduras to become a territory. How many other American cities should be given to these countries?

 

My ideas are not quick or cheap, but they are long term and potentially have better ends for both parties and are more than just too little too late reactionary measures.

I find that sentiment to be really offensive! I said we could possibly help out a few hundred or a thousand kids with short tem group homes while relatives already living here are found or foster homes, etc. I am not sure how that translates into turning American cities into mini Latin American countries! It sure comes across as racist.

 

Ugh...I'm bowing out of this discussion. I've contacted two state reps and both senators to ask them to investigate options for Michigan to be involved in a positive manner.

 

If nothing else, I have asked our representative to find out if the children could receive simple care packages. 4H clubs around the US could easily manage this. I can almost guarantee that in our county alone, we'd generate 400 or more, probably a lot more because my own church produced 150 last year for an orphanage in Ukraine. Again, not a solution, but these are CHILDREN and someone should give a rat's rear regardless of what the color of their skin is or their country of origin!

[Valley Girl]

Edited comment below.

[Valley Girl]

I've decided to stay out of this. Sorry for the interruption in the flow of the thread.

[Butter]

The people I know around here who are against people coming in illegal and, especially, being given amnesty are all the same color as the people coming across our southern border.  For them it's not about racism.  It's about fairness.  Some of them, or their parents in the case of kids my kids' ages, waited years to be able to come into our country.  The stories they tell about just how hard they worked to be able to come here legally are incredible.  I am not surprised they get so passionately angry about illegal immigration.

[Butter]

There's not too much "fairness" in our immigration system.  Have you looked at the quotas, rules, etc? It's extremely confusing, and definitely favors some groups over others, as most programs probably do.

  Amnesty itself has so many rules/procedures. It's not like we bop them on the head and say, Yay! You're here,no need to do anything else! Also, just because the ones being "given amnesty" as you say are the same color as your friends( can we not say brown?) does not necessarily mean they're from the same countries, tho I don't know your friends. Still, it is easier to get here legally from some countries than others. I do understand anger, but may I add that brown skinned people can be  prejudiced about other brown skinned people? It's not so cut and dried. Your friends' stories are just a drop in the huge bucket, no more or less important than any others' plights to find a home.

 

Actually we have two kinds of brown-skinned people around here.  We have Hispanics and we also have Middle Easterners.

 

Yes, it is not easy to immigrate legally.  That is true.  I live in San Antonio.  The majority of people who live here are Hispanic, most from Mexico.  A lot of those who have immigrated legally did not speak a word of English before they got here (some still don't).  They were not wealthy.  They scrimped and saved to pay the fees and work through the system.  These aren't just my direct friends.  It's the general sentiment among legal immigrants in this area from Latin America from what they tell me.

[Um_2_4]

Although I see a lot of this everyday being in SoCal (undocumented immigrants), I have stayed away from this conversation as many points have been rehashed here, but a thought came to me last night...

 

If these children (and their families) are running from cartel wars, etc, are they then considered refugees? If so, has anyone read anything as to the UN getting involved? Either in their home countries or in the countries that they end up "running" to?? Or is it all about they want a piece of the "American Apple Pie" and they just happen to be close enough to here to make it versus the people on other continents who can not get here so easily?

 

I just base this on my experience in other countries with the UN and refugees (my DH is a refugee, so his family is well familiar with it). They kept the family intact, provided housing, education, medical care,  etc for millions. So they have the experience to handle something of this scope. I just wonder if because it is not a typical "war" (is there such a thing?), that perhaps that is why the UN has not offered help to these families? Or have they offered and the countries don't want it?

 

Just my ponderings last night...