15 thoughts on “Come to the U.S.A.”

  1. The majority of children recently crossing the border are not from Mexico, but from other Central American countries. They cannot be immediately turned around at the border because of a 2008 law.

    In 2008, during the Bush administration, Congress passed a law to protect Central American children from sex trafficking by preventing them from being sent packing without a hearing, advocate and attorney. While awaiting their court dates, the children must be placed in the least restrictive setting possible, and sometimes that means with relatives or acquaintances. Essentially, INS is doing what is required in the law.

    Perhaps this Bush law is the incentive for children illegally immigrating into the US. I am not saying it is good or bad, just that it was enough of a problem as far back as 2008 to require congress to act and this is the provision many of the children are quoting when they are detained.

    Like

    1. Looking through the gov.track website: The law was first passed in 2000 under Clinton as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, then renewed and amended in 2003, 2005, and 2008 (in December, just before Obama took office). At some point (2008?), the title was changed to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. According to Wiki, the funding lapsed in 2011, but in 2013, the entire law was attached to the Violence Against Women Act.

      The law was intended to address the trafficking of children, not illegal immigration. As such, it enjoyed bipartisan support. However, Obama has chosen to interpret the law to apply to the current hoard of illegals crossing the border.

      Like

    1. Charles: Yes, she would and rightly so.

      I was no fan of Palin when she was picked to be McCain’s running mate. I though he had lost his mind. But she has grown on me, and now I’m a big fan. She would be a far better president than Barry, of course, but … who wouldn’t?

      Like

  2. Well…once again we agree to disagree…I just have a very low tolerance for shallowness, ignorance, and stupidity…

    Like

  3. Yeah, the USA needs to be a lot more like the list of countries mentioned: Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc. Only then can we consider that we’ve made some progress here.

    It’s funny, all those people whining about illegal immigration’s burden on the tax payer never seem to mention the fact that it’s nothing compared to a grossly imbalanced Social Security system (not supportable under current demographics), a hugely inefficient Medicare system, a global war machine that spends more than the entire rest of the world times some multiple. Nor the fact that the illegals that do things like use false social security numbers pay in, but don’t collect.

    Nah, let’s just listen to an entertaining little parody and then move on to making public policy.

    Saludos,

    Kim G
    Tehuacán, Puebla
    Where I somehow managed to sneak past the borders and am now busy ruining the way of life here.

    Like

      1. Indeed. But I think any sensible policy deals with the most important/serious problems first and leaves the lesser problems to a lower priority. I think immigration falls into that category. Unfortunately, we have a political system that likes to deal with emotionally-charged problems first, and leave the big, nation-destroying problems to another day.

        I don’t disagree at all that the USA is spectacularly badly-run. And it’s occupants are laboring under the assumption that that isn’t going to have serious repercussions. That is a very very sad thing.

        Like

    1. P.S. By the way, everyone should realize the following. Let’s assume that illegal aliens are net cost to society. I’m not sure I necessarily agree with that, but let’s assume it’s true for the purpose of argument. There is also a cost to keeping them out. I think we can all agree that due to the various border security measures already in place, there are fewer illegals than there would be if the border were completely unguarded. Thus the implication of that is that zero is not the economically optimal number of illegal aliens. Which is another way of saying that it is possible to spend more keeping them out than it would cost to let them in. Now while this is true, I have no idea where those numbers lie. But in any policy debate, this truth must be acknowledged and dealt with. Otherwise we will have a sub-optimal policy.

      Like

Comments are closed.