Monday, July 14, 2014

As The Border Crises Continues More Info From The Administration...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


Wella, Wella, Wella and golly gee.

It appears as though the administration is softening it's stance on how the onslaught of illegal alien children, most sent to the USA border alone by their parents, will be handled. An educated guess at this point is a very large number of these kids will end up staying in the good ole US of A. Most likely on the American taxpayer's dime.

Reporting from THE HILL.

The White House said Monday it was “likely” that immigrant children facing mortal danger in their home countries would be allowed to stay in the United States.

The comments come amid a growing debate over a 2008 law that allows many of the children flooding across the southern border an automatic asylum hearing.

“These children will — and other immigrants who are attempting to enter the country without documentation — will go through the immigration process and that means their claims of asylum will be considered by an immigration judge and by asylum officials,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday.

“What that means is it means that if a immigration judge determines that they face a credible threat of death upon their return to their home country, then, again, I'm not an immigration judge, but it is likely that the immigration judge will find that that person should be granted humanitarian relief.”

“These children will — and other immigrants who are attempting to enter the country without documentation — will go through the immigration process and that means their claims of asylum will be considered by an immigration judge and by asylum officials,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday.

“What that means is it means that if a immigration judge determines that they face a credible threat of death upon their return to their home country, then, again, I'm not an immigration judge, but it is likely that the immigration judge will find that that person should be granted humanitarian relief.”

Earnest's comments underscored the careful balancing act the White House is attempting on the border, looking to appease both its Democratic base — which has expressed concern over the treatment of the migrant children — and Republicans eager to blame the crisis on mismanaged enforcement by the administration.

Republicans want to change the 2008 law so that immigrant children from Central American countries largely driving the surge at the border are treated the same as children from Mexico and Canada, who don’t get an automatic hearing.

Democrats on Capitol Hill, however, have raised warnings that such a change could harm children seeking safety in the United States.

What a surprise eh? Read the rest of the story HERE.

Via: Memeorandum

27 comments:

  1. RN,
    "....softening it's stance..."???
    The stance of the Barack Obama administration on the current border children issue is not measured in Rockwell units, rather, Krebs. How could it possibly get any softer.

    Or was that your hyperbole du jour?

    ReplyDelete
  2. RN,
    How could the White House be softening their stance? The measurement was never in

    ReplyDelete
  3. RN,
    In re: January post concerning GOP candidates for President, I don't know if you got might question, but would like to read your comment about Mike Pence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Provide the link and frame the specific question you have (here in this post) and I'll take a look at it and respond if I find your question worthy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of your January 2014 posts, Main Topics, referred to whom the GOP had for candidates for the Presidency, your proffer was Kasich, among others discussed. I offered Pence as a suggestion. I miss clicked, ending at that post, as it was a 6 month old topic, I didn't know what your admin involvement was regarding comments 6 months after the original post.

      Delete
    2. Old topic. Pence as all politicians has his agenda.

      Delete
    3. Kind of a fair point for KM, Les... There's something in your blog that regurgitates and links other stories. some many years old, right by new ones.

      Delete
    4. Yep, and as things develop, and one grows wiser new revelations open up. Those who understand understand. Those who don't never will.

      Nuff sad?

      Delete
    5. "Those who don't never will."

      Do you mean those who stick to a blind partisan narrative, as if it were some sort of holy bible? And never evolve views as they get more information, or grow as a person, and learn?

      Delete
  5. What ever happened with the border fence idea? Sort of a dilemma, Statue Of Liberty, etc and the
    desperate parents sending their kids off by themselves to escape poverty and violence. What to do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is no accident that we placed the Statue of Liberty, with her welcoming message, next to Ellis Island - the point of entry and screening facility for LEGAL immigration.

      Delete
    2. Nice try, but this was only one point of entry.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, and it closed in 1954. IE, ceased processing immigrants.

      Prior to 1892.immigration was handled by the individual states.

      Delete
    4. And the Statue was dedicated several years before Ellis Island !!!Lol. Will Choc own up to the double goof, claim it is "satire", or slink away??

      Delete
  6. It wouldn't work and thinking people know it BB Idaho.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And a lot of these "kids" are 16, 17, 18, and 19. Those I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them and would send them all back immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  8. oh my, send them back to sure mistreatment or death? Why according to some the USA should be the worlds repository for all the world's downtrodden and whatever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is what "rational self interest" is all about... not giving a crap about "sure mistreatment or death". And citing a possibility of trouble from a small percentage of kids who might be in gangs as a reason to not help any. An excuse as good as any, I suppose. Although I suspect that such people would seize upon ANY excuse to be inhumane and coldhearted.

      Delete
    2. In your flawed interpretIon of rational self interest it is. As to the bulk of your comment DS, you're FOS.

      Delete
    3. RN: As yours is more rational, and given your reputation of being more concerned with the rights of the governed as opposed to the privileges of those in power, it is more logical to stand by yours also.

      Delete
  9. I'm actually a pretty big pro immigration fellow but I would hugely prefer it to be a much more orderly process and especially now with all of this talk about MS 13 having ties to some of these older "kids". That type of stuff we simply do not need.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have have NO problem with immigration Will, IF it is orderl, legal, AND, controlled. Hell, I wouldn' be here had my ancestors not immigrated to the new world in the 1600's
    .
    Having said this I add that enforced immigration quotaa are not a bad thing. We should not want nor can we support being Immigration central for the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN: The main restriction I would have on immigration is to keep the bad people out: criminals and those who hate our Constitution and country and way of life (i.e. theocratic terrorists... Muslim and otherwise... Nazis and other socialists....those who seek to destroy the nation as soon as they get here).

      These are a minority of those who come, of course. but care should be taken to weed them out. I have no problem with those who come here to work. I don't have the nativist racism that people like Pat Buchanan and WD have against hard working people who weren't born Americans.

      Delete
  11. Illegal workers drive down wages. I am not opposed to legal immigration nor am I opposed to a pathway to citizenship for people here illegally. Republicans want to keep undocumented workers illegal so the plutocrats can abuse them. And they don't want them voting for Democrats. Which (demographics show) a large number of them will.

    The Pat Buchanan comparison is LOL-able. The commenter above me, who believes discriminating against people for their political beliefs is a fine thing, has more in common with Buchanan than I do. The ONLY thing I'd say I agree with Buchanan on is "free" trade.

    BTW, "Born American" isn't a race. Also the Nazis were fascists. Fascism is an ideology on the RIGHT on the Right-Left spectrum.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.