A Crisis of Words, what about the Children

The downing of the Malaysian plane MH-17 and the Israeli offensive in Gaza have finally pushed immigration from the headlines, it is a good time to examine the “crisis” its origins, the public reaction and the use by member of the main parties to game the controversy.

Immigration reform like many other subjects in American politics, is one that emote great anguish on both sides of the political spectrum. Those on the left see any abortion legislation that in any way limits abortion as if abortion is being abolished and a War on Women. Similarly the reaction to the Hobby Lobby decision brought about some of the dumbest, ignorant and ill-informed commentary from the MSM, the immigration debate does that to the Right.

Let me begin by saying that the notion that 57,000 UAC (unaccompanied alien children) coming into the US will somehow cause some massive disruption that will bankrupt some local governments is ludicrous. In the aftermath of the Haiti Earthquake 60,000 refugees came to the US. 38,000 of them settled in the Miami area. Unlike up to 85% of the UACs which are reunited with parents or relatives already here, most the refugees from Haiti, came with the clothes on their back and needed placement, which included housing, food, monetary assistance,  job placement, etc., while it may had provided some strains in the system they were absolve into the country.

The issue with immigration in our country has always been one of  lax enforcement of  the laws we have or a different interpretation of what those laws require us to do. currently, the most common excuse being given for the “crisis” is the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, a law meant to protect the young from human and sex traffickers by providing a different procedure of handling those UACs from those from Canada or Mexico, where they would be sent back expeditiously.

Pryor to 2012, only 1% of illegals were UACs, last year there were 26,206 UAC’s of which only 1,669 were deported according to the LA Times, this year there could be up to 90,000 according to estimates by DHS.  Something changed after 2012 that is now the driving force for the changes in the amount of UACs doing the perilous journey from mainly El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras through Mexico and into the US.

Pro-immigration proponents will say that violence and poor conditions in those countries are the reason for the influx of UACs, while others will point out that the decision of President Obama to adopt his version of the Dream Act, allowing children of illegals to stay is the driving force. This report and interview of a mother and child by local TV station seems to lend credence to the latter.

A mother and child told CHANNEL 5 NEWS that the message being disseminated in their country is, “go to America with your child, you won’t be turned away.”

The woman, Nora Griselda Bercian Diaz, from Guatemala, said she endured threats from the Zetas and extortion from corrupt Mexican police. She eventually crossed the Rio Grande with her 6-year-old Delmi Griselda Paul Bercian by her side.

The woman said she wants a U.S. education for her daughter.

“I want to study,” said the girl who hopes to one day become a doctor.

A CHANNEL 5 NEWS crew met the mother and daughter three hours after they crossed the border illegally. They were lost and searching for Border Patrol agents.

“I was planning to go to McAllen then call a friend for her to send me money on the bus,” Bercian Diaz said.

Bercian Diaz said she has no family in the United States. Her hope of staying here relies on her little girl. She said the message in her country is that America’s borders are open to all families.

News reports in Guatemala say mothers and small children are getting bus tickets, Bercian Diaz said.

“I said, ‘I need to act right now, because this will end and my girl won’t have a future,'” Bercian Diaz said.

Ms. Diaz had been deported from the US previously, now she made the trip with her daughter in the hopes that they would not be separated and allowed to stay. As Ms. Diaz points out, the feeling in Guatemala is that there would be changes in the law soon, which means that they better take advantage of the current atmosphere now.

This story on the New York Post, details a memo from the Border Patrol that would contradict the administration’s contention that violence in Central America is the reason so many young people are streaming northward.

According to the memo, which was brought up at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, agents grilled more than 200 non-Mexican immigrants in late May, and 95 percent of them said they headed to the US because they’d heard they could get a “permiso,” or “free pass” simply by showing up at the border.

Somehow people in these 3 countries have gotten the impression (rightfully,  it seems) that if they send their children or come with their children to the US and turn yourself to the Border Patrol that you will not be deported or will be allowed to stay indefinitely. How did these people get that impression? It obviously appears that there has been collusion between our government and pro-immigration groups as well as the government of these countries and Mexico. Having heard some of the comment by government officials from those countries they are aware of the situation and are encouraging it, if not at  least condoning it.

But, it is a crisis as the Media is trying to portray it or just a ploy to get Congress to act and pass an Immigration Reform bill that seemed to have stall?  It appears to be both, if we examine the timeline we see that until late May, while it appeared that the Republican Congress would vote on an Immigration Reform bill, the influx of UACs was unnoticed. According to DHS testimony last week, the numbers of illegals detain in the southern border are on par with last year, what is different is that the percentage of those caught changed from 65% Mexicans to others to only 35% Mexicans the others making up the difference.

The border discussion belies a bigger problem when dealing with illegal immigration and that is Visa overstayers. While estimates vary wildly from 25% to 40% and may vary also by group, Pew Hispanic Research Center estimated in 2010 that 45% of the 11.2 million illegals in the country are Visa overstayers.  The Wall Street Journal on a report last year;

Nobody is sure how many people are in the U.S. on expired visas. The most commonly cited figures equate to some four million to five million people. But that is based on a 2006 study by the Pew Hispanic Center, which relied on a formula that was created using 1990 data. In 2011, there were 159 million nonimmigrant visits to the U.S., according to the Department of Homeland Security. More than three-quarters were for pleasure. But millions also involved business travelers, temporary workers and students.

This is not just an issue that affects immigration but a national security issue as well, especially in light of September 11, when all the hijackers had legal visas into the US, 5 of them were Visa overstayers. Currently foreigners are fingerprinted when they enter the country, but no system exists to track when if ever they leave and whether they overstayed their Visa.  While a group of Republicans and Democrats want to establish a system to verify exit of those that enter the country, the President wants no such system and wants to allow any foreigner in the country the ability to apply for admission. This would include those here legally but on temporary Visas as well those that have overstayed their Visa. This is one of the many sticking points on any proposed Immigration Reform legislation. Then there is another problem, even when we issue deportation orders few comply voluntarily.  Currently there are more than 850,000 people with deportation orders still in the country.

Both sides are adamant in making the current situation into a crisis, the pro-immigration camp wants to utilize the UACs to call for a wider amnesty, after all it is for the children and you would not want to break-up the families. While the others are saying this is exactly what you get when you reward lawlessness, there is a reason most governments do not make deals with terrorists, it entices them to do it again.  Both have ramped up the rhetoric with some placing the blame on us due to the War on Drugs like here, here, and here.  On the other side there are equally misinformed articles that aim to scare the populace with stories of how these group of immigrants will bankrupt their cities, destroyed their schools and crime rate will skyrocket.

Both sides are convinced that any larger influx of Hispanics will be to their benefit are the voting booth.  A common misconception that totally ignores reality and display an ignorance about what Hispanics want and how they vote if they vote at all.  Hispanics are not block voters, like for instance the AA vote. If that was the case Texas would be Democrat controlled state in every election.  People like to point out New York and California as examples of states where the Hispanic vote is key but both of those states though they have large Hispanic population, were blue states for a long time.

This urban myth, seems to be a result at least of where the exit voting polls are taken and the belief that all Hispanics support illegal immigrants.  The areas where exit polling is done are usually in large Metro Areas,  New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, etc.  Invariably most if not all of these areas are controlled by Democrats, they are also areas where large segments of the population are dependent on government. This eschews polling data by showing a preference for governmental policies and liberal views.

Yet those preferences don’t translate in other areas here are some quick facts from the BLS;

  • Hispanics are only second to Asians in the worker participation rate at 66.4 %
  • Hispanics enter the workforce earlier that any other Ethnic group
  • Hispanics as a group also work the most past the age of 65
  • Hispanics are paid the least across all job categories

Other stats

  • Hispanics are less likely to receive government assistance
  • Hispanics that live at or under the Federal poverty level, less than 50% are receiving 1 form of assistance
  • Only 36% of those receive more than one, compared that to 68% of blacks and 57% of whites

Before anyone guesses that I am pro-amnesty or open borders, let me state that I bitterly oppose both. There are good arguments for securing our borders and for managing our immigration policies in the manner that suits the country. What I am opposed is both sides using false or misleading statements to achieve their goals. If you have to resort to sentimentality to win, then you already lost your arguments. Likewise if you have to lie and instill fear to make your point you are just as bad.

I am reminded of the movie Children of Men, in that postapocalyptic world where no children were being born, this meant that those alive would be the last to survive. Refugees were thrown into cages, killed or kept in Refugee Camps with no hope. Finally a woman is pregnant with the first baby in more than 18 years, the rebels that opposed the immigration policies wanted to use the baby as a rallying cry to a full-blown rebellion, willing to kill the only woman who could start the next generation of humankind.  Talk about cutting your nose to spite your face. In many ways this is what is happening with the surge in UACs, some are hoping that the large migration of juveniles will force the government to act their way, risking the lives of those kids on a long and perilous journey to do so. Others are using the surge to do the opposite, demonizing  a large group of citizens along the way, who agree with them in the first place.

Finally, I wanted to answer Univision’s reporter Jorge Ramos, who tweeted that government should not be in the business of deporting children; to which I say,  government should not be in the business of  trafficking of children, which is exactly what is happening, and it is a lucrative business. As this story reports or This one also thanks to Clarice Feldman at American Thinker.

Advertisements

Imagine, an Obama as the Candidate he told us he would be

romney-2012-blog-image-hope-and-change

The euphoria and heady days of 2008 and the candidate for President Barack H. Obama are long gone. For many the Hope and Change that was promised has given way to cynicism, disappointments, blame shifting, name
calling, and to many horror at how things have turned out. For most, except the most partisan out there President Obama and his Administration have been a failure. We can argue as to the causes but the fact remains. Imagine what could have been had Candidate Obama had become President Obama. Before the election there were some doubts about Obama, veteran newscasters Charlie Rosen and Tom Brokaw expressed some of those in October 2008, and though some like Limbaugh have mischaracterized the conversation, the substance was that Obama was a somewhat unknown quantity. In the end they did as much of the MSM did in regards to Obama in 2008 and they just downplayed or ignored their instincts, choosing instead to join the bandwagon and helped Obama win the Presidency and a sweeping majority in Congress to boot.

Right after the election there were indications that something could be wrong, when Obama started doing press conferences with the non-existent seal of the Office of President-Elect of the US, a concocted title that he and his transition team would go on to use until his inauguration. But it was a meeting 3 days after his inauguration on January 20th, 2008 that set the tone for the rest of his Presidency. It was at this meeting with the heads of Congress that was meeting to discuss the stimulus package proposals, that President Obama told Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona, “I won” and House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, “elections have consequences!”. The meeting which was supposed to foster bi-partisanship, had turned into, something else. The Republicans which had been battered and powerless, having lost Congress and the Presidency would now be unified, and would ride the Tea Party wave into control of the one-half of Congress in 2010, effectively stopping Obama’s agenda and our current situation. Let us Imagine what it could have been had the uniter, moderate, consensus builder, bi-partisan, post-partisan Candidate that was elected in 2008 had actually been what was advertised.

  • 2009- After assuming office with the economy still mired in a Recession, Obama held a meeting with Congress leaders for proposals to help the country still mired in a Recession. As a result a package of tax-cuts and spending on infrastructure was devised, with the cost of package being off-set in part by the winding down of operations in Iraq.
  • In June, he expresses his full support of the Green Revolution Movement in Iran, supporting the Secular student and young Iranian movement to replace the Islamic Republic.
  • Obama also supported the Honduran Supreme Court, that sought to stop the President of Honduras Manuel Zelaya, who with the help of Hugo Chavez, was trying to change the Honduran Constitution to allow him to run for re-election which the Constitution did not allow. Following a similar tactic that the Presidents of Venezuela’s Chavez had employed to keep himself in power. The same thing was done in Ecuador and Nicaragua who changed their Constitutions to allow the President to run indefinitely,  de-facto dictators.
  • In July, when asked to comment on the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates, a friend, Obama replied that it was a local law enforcement issue and as President it would not be his place to take sides.
  • In August he proposes a budget that starts to remove elements from the TARP and ARRA legislations to bring his baseline budget more in line with the Budgets before both emergency legislations.
  • In September he urges Congress to forgo the Mathew Shepard legislation as there was already Hate Crimes laws that were applicable not to mention State sanctions that did not require another Federal intervention.

 

  • 2010-After the loss of the Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy for 47 years after his death in January, President Obama formally asks his fellow Democrats in Congress to work with Republicans on the Health Care Bill. The people had sent a message and he got it, the present bill was not what the people wanted.
  • After announcing the end of Combat Operations in Iraq, due to the success the “Surge” in Iraq, Obama promises to work on a new SOFA agreement to monitor and assist the new Iraqi government past the current date of 2011. He explains that this small force was needed to ensure the hard-fought gains of the American Serviceman and Women during their intervention in Iraq.
  • In Afghanistan, the “good war”, he follows the advice of his military for a similar surge that proved a game changer in Iraq.

Now I was going to continue and to list other areas where Candidate Obama would have acted differently from President Obama, like after the loss of one half of Congress he would moderate his policies and be more inclusive, or how he would act more forcefully when confronted by malfeasance by members of his Cabinet (ATF, NSA, IRS, HHS, DOJ, VA, etc all had scandals). Perhaps, he would not insert himself into the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin shooting, while ignoring the mass killing going on in Chicago and other cities. He would not intentionally disregard laws that he was opposed to, simply because prosecutorial discretion allows him too, but at the end of the day as the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exclaimed;

What difference at this point does it make?

As I was writing this blog piece, I was following the events of the plane that went down in the Ukraine. It appears that it was shot down, by whom? It is not clear, it could have been the Russians, the Russian backed rebels or even the Ukrainians who also have the capability. Whatever the circumstances a plane bound for Kuala Lumpur from Amsterdam with almost 300 people had been shot down with not survivors. Among the dead were 23 Americans, over 100 children and this was his statement;

‘Before I begin, obviously the world is watching reports of a downed passenger jet near the Russia-Ukraine border. And it looks like it may be a terrible tragedy. Right now we’re working to determine whether there were American citizens on board. That is our first priority.’

‘And I’ve directed my national security team to stay in close contact with the Ukrainian government. The United States will offer any assistance we can to help determine what happened and why. And as a country, our thoughts and prayers are with all the families and passengers, wherever they call home. ‘

Obama then jarringly quickly returned to his prepared remarks.

‘I want to thank Jeremie for that introduction’ he said. ‘Give Jeremie a big round of applause.’ ‘It is great to be in the state that gave us Joe Biden. We’ve got actually some better-looking Bidens with us here today.  We’ve got Beau and his wife, Hallie, are here. Give them a big round of applause. We love them.’  …’Jack Lew’s signature is actually on your money,’ he said, ‘although it’s kind of illegible. We teased him when he first became treasury secretary that he was going to have to fix his signature a little bit because it looked just like a caterpillar running along the bottom.’

In all his statement regarding the event was about 40 seconds long before he turned to the teleprompter and his speech about transportation and boosting infrastructure spending. Regardless of the reason for the crash, a mechanical malfunction, pilot error, or some freak natural event the crash and death of 300 individuals IS a tragedy. That this might be the result of human intervention and deliberate whether in error or not, President Obama’s disconnect was in full display. It was a shameful display with jokes and political attacks against the Republicans. The total disregard for human beings is nothing new to President Obama as displayed by his reluctance to address the current border situation. The masses of young children and adults coming in the country after a hazardous journey were many are dying on the way. Young girls are being raped to the point that the DHS Secretary Johnson is testifying that girls are given birth control before they embark to the US and when they arrive as reported here. Not only that but the law that the Administration is claiming that is forcing them to accept the illegals the “William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008” is not applicable to as many as 85 percent of the cases because the children are being smuggled into the country, in many instances with a parent,  and not victims of trafficking, making them ineligible for the protections afforded by the law. It is just another instance of the Obama Administration expanding the parameters of a law to suit its political purposes. You can read the Center for Immigration Studies explanation of the law, here.

Whether Obama the Candidate was just a dream foisted by a pliant and cheerleading MSM,  he was a good great con man who suckered the nation or a combination of both, maybe he just never existed, it was a projection in most of Americans. That is probably closer to the truth but just Imagine if that person existed was in charge today, just Imagine. If there is a lesson here is that something that seems to good to be true, usually is and that is particularly the case in politics. We need to vet our candidates well, or else they will become President or Senator or Congressman, and we want the candidate to be that person we choose, not an empty Bear in a suit who is now loose.