U.S. to spend $9 million to find lawyers for unaccompanied minors in nine cities, including Dallas

[decocker 7,198]

Feel free to not answer those pertinent questions. Again, if you had answers, you'd give 'em.

I asked:

Please remind us of how these "unaccompanied minors" managed to make it to the US border without parents or guardians? Have they run away from home? Aren't their parents looking for them, or concerned, or deserving of having them returned? And since O'bama is surely in favor of family unity, etc., shouldn't he be in favor of reuniting these families ... albeit across the border?

1. i don't know why i should have to remind you as to how the kids make the journey, they must want to get america very bad.

2. have they run away from home? do you know nothing of the danger and poverty that faces these children where they live?

3. some of them have parents they are trying to reunite with, others don't. you ask really dense questions.

4. this article explains some of the issues behind treating the children from central america in the same manner as children from mexico. i doubt you'll read it all of it, but here's the link and an excerpt. you seem to demand substance although you never provide any yourself:

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5813406/explain-child-migrant-crisis-central-america-unaccompanied-children-immigrants-daca

Not every child who gets apprehended at the border ends up getting taken into government custody.

mexican children have to pass an immediate screening interview to stay; the obama administration wants to extend this to central americans

Mexican children who are apprehended coming into the United States are interviewed by a Border Patrol agent very quickly. If the child persuades the Border Patrol agent that he or she is afraid of being persecuted or trafficked if sent back, then the child is kept in custody. But if the child can't pass the interview, he or she is immediately "returned" to Mexico.

Most child migrants have historically come from Mexico, and very few of them pass their screening interviews. This means that historically, the United States hasn't had to house too many child migrants. Now, with more children coming from Central America — who are automatically put into custody and given full court proceedings — the US has to house a much larger share of the children who cross.

The Obama administration and Republicans in Congress have both embraced the idea of changing the law, to children who are coming over from Central America the same way as children coming from Mexico: they'd have to pass an immediate screening interview in order to stay in the country.

That's likely to greatly reduce the number of children who are able to stay. But the rushed process is ending up sending Mexican children back into danger. That should raise red flags for any proposals to deal with Central American children the same way.

5) Congress set the rules on dealing with child migrants under the Bush administration

The Obama administration doesn't have much leeway in dealing with unaccompanied child migrants. That's because Congress set a particular process here as a way of fighting human trafficking.

Most of this process was codified by Congress under the Homeland Security Act of 2002; Congress added some additional protections under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, in 2008.

Under current law, the Border Patrol is required to take child migrants who aren't from Mexico into custody, screen them, and transfer them to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (a part of the Department of Health and Human Services).

The law tasks HHS with either finding a suitable relative to whom the child can be released, or putting the child in long-term foster care. For more about how that process is supposed to work — and some of the problems with it being overloaded — see here.

The inflexibility here is one reason why the Obama administration and Congress are now talking about changes to the law.

Edited October 1, 2014 by val erie

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A legal defence is expensive. What's the alternative - to not provide a legal defence to someone who is entitled to one?

[Teddy B 17,252]

I would have thought even you could see the truth in Robby's comment. Guess not. Then again, you're not the one who wasted their money, so I guess it doesn't affect you as much. But I feel pretty much the same way Robby does.

Thing is, there really isn't any truth to Robby's comment at all. It's a complete exaggeration of reality. Sure it sucks to have people come here illegally and then eventually be allowed to stay while we all pay our way and do it legally, but the course these people take to eventually get to that point is nowhere close to what Robby said. Nor is it easier than the legal way.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Teddy B

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A legal defence is expensive. What's the alternative - to not provide a legal defence to someone who is entitled to one?

Oh gawd, you used the "e" word. They're breaking out the pitchforks as I type this.

Thing is, there really isn't any truth to Robby's comment at all. It's a complete exaggeration of reality. Sure it sucks to have people come here illegally and then eventually be allowed to stay while we all pay our way and do it legally, but the course these people take to eventually get to that point is nowhere close to what Robby said.

Does of reality? It'll fly right over their heads.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Making such an ignorant statement even makes one look stupid, too.

Can you ever add anything that is not an attack. Do you have any salient point to make on the matter. How is his expressing his sentiments about following the law and spending lots of money doing it, while others break it and are funded by the Govt stupid ?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

If it was a Republican doing this, he'd be screaming about it. You can bet on that.

Most of the deniers would. When the shat really hits the fan, it will be Bushs fault. That is always the last position they retreat to before they slink away

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Can you ever add anything that is not an attack. Do you have any salient point to make on the matter. How is his expressing his sentiments about following the law and spending lots of money doing it, while others break it and are funded by the Govt stupid ?

It's stupid because it has absolutely nothing to do with the reality. Any suggestion that those that come here without having a lawful path to immigrate are somehow better off and have it made is just as ignorant as it gets. To some, it might be outright offensive. Either way, an intelligent contribution to the discussion it certainly isn't. It's stupid to suggest any such thing. Period.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh gawd, you used the "e" word. They're breaking out the pitchforks as I type this.

No doubt.

Seriously, the legal system entitles everyone to a legal defence (no matter their legal status or where they come from) - there is a certain cost to that. I mean there's that whole section in the Miranda rights about how if you can't afford an attorney you will be appointed one free of charge. I wonder if any of these jokers understand why that might be....

Perhaps the issue here should be why is a legal defence so expensive, not that lawyers were appointed for destitute kids from another country.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

It's stupid because it has absolutely nothing to do with the reality. Any suggestion that those that come here without having a lawful path to immigrate are somehow better off and have it made is just as ignorant as it gets. To some, it might be outright offensive. Either way, an intelligent contribution to the discussion it certainly isn't. It's stupid to suggest any such thing. Period.

Better off or having it made ? I don't think anyone thinks that. What the are doing is circumventing the law and going around the legal process, that so many of us have adhered to. I don't really care if they took a dangerous journey to get here or flew in on wonder woman's plane, it is still wrong and not fair to those that w ait years and spend thousands doing it the right way.

These kids are coming in record number's because they know they will not be turned away and in fact will be cared for by the USA . If there were no jobs,, if they could not go to our schools they would not come. The dream act nonsense has encouraged it.

Come to the Philippines and try to go to school or work illegally.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Better off or having it made ? I don't think anyone thinks that.

I don't know what anybody thinks but I can read what one writes. And he wrote the below which clearly suggests that illegal immigration is somehow a viable alternate path that has the added benefit of not having to shoulder the process expenses. It isn't. It's stupid to suggest otherwise.

Makes a person feel stupid for wasting all the money, time, and stress of doing legal immigration, when they could have just sashayed across the border and surrendered to the nearest CBP officer and have the federal government foot all their immigration expenses.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

That's right. My immigration and that of my wife were all immediate with no wait, paperwork or hassle and they were free to boot.

Yeah, cuz that's what I meant. Uh-huh.

Before doing the visa journey thing myself, I was ambivalent (uninformed? lackadaisical?) about immigration. Now that I have seen the hoops one must go thru to be legal, I pay more attention. I am not saying that illegals can just show up and life is rosy, as you tend to espouse via your frustrating hyperbolic commentary. But if they are coming over illegally and staying, there must be something in the mix that makes it worth it to them.

Why are they coming over to America? To make life better than it is now would probably be the #1 answer, I suspect.

Why are they coming over illegally? Lack of money and sponsors, I would imagine.

And now, they are doing exactly what the visa process seeks to avoid... becoming wards of the US government. Now we are spending money on lawyers for them that could be better spent on other programs for US citizens.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yeah, cuz that's what I meant. Uh-huh.

Not sure what you meant. I can only go by what you post. And what you posted was this.

I would have thought even you could see the truth in Robby's comment. Guess not. Then again, you're not the one who wasted their money, so I guess it doesn't affect you as much. But I feel pretty much the same way Robby does.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Not sure what you meant. I can only go by what you post. And what you posted was this.

If you're the immigrant, typically you don't pay, the sponsor does, correct?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

If you're the immigrant, typically you don't pay, the sponsor does, correct?

I might be wrong, but I think MBD is the sponsor and his wife is the immigrant. He could either be a naturalized USC or a USC by birth and living overseas with his parents at the time.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Come on, no one in their right mind believes they actually "sashay across the border". But they DO seem to be willing to do whatever it takes to get here, regardless of how hard it may be. One could argue that is IS easier than the legal way, because I'd bet that for many of them, there IS no legal way.

And as per the title of the thread, it seems that the last part of his statement is at least partially true. And I also bet you a nice lunch that the $9 million is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how much it will end up costing us tax payers for these illegals. Wanna take that bet?

Thing is, there really isn't any truth to Robby's comment at all. It's a complete exaggeration of reality. Sure it sucks to have people come here illegally and then eventually be allowed to stay while we all pay our way and do it legally, but the course these people take to eventually get to that point is nowhere close to what Robby said. Nor is it easier than the legal way.

Robby said -

Makes a person feel stupid for wasting all the money, time, and stress of doing legal immigration, when they could have just sashayed across the border and surrendered to the nearest CBP officer and have the federal government foot all their immigration expenses.