Blatant disregard for the office of Presidency. Is it a matter of national security ?

http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/06/09/did-the-obama-administration-engineer-a-huma...

O.K. That was amusing ! I swear these guys have given Obama godlike powers. But, putting aside the fact that there are idiots, like Beck, who are using these kids as pawns in a political shit storm aimed at the office of President, what really is the right thing to do with the children ?

Obama has been following Bush's deportation laws.....he had deported more illegals than any previous President.
The question as to why now and why so many seems to me to be a result of the continued circus show that is our government. We are somewhat lucky that this is just a problem of immigrants and not acts of war. Our continued inability to do anything but spend money reinvestigating issues that have been investigated ad nauseum, and the blatant warnings by the GOP that nothing what so ever is going to get done, has become a national security issue.

What do we do with these children ? And how are we going to protect ourselves while it is blatantly clear that we have no vested governing body ?

Perhaps Mr. Beck can send them some of the "Survival Kits" he sells for thousands of dollars ?

What we've always done with children of illegals; ignore them.

Actually, the law the President is following in this matter was written by Bush. It is also important to note that we are not the only country these children are fleeing to. This is a crisis involving more than "illegal" children. Obviously they are not safe where they came from.

I read an article somewhere that said there are a couple of international humanitarian organizations that want the children to have a "war refugee" status - like in Syria and surrounding countries. I guess I am out of touch with how bad things are in Guatemala. I thought it was looking up since they stopped putting political prisoners or detainees into helicopters and dropping them into the ocean from great heights. I understand the current problems are caused by unchecked gangs and that there is an elected government?

Michael Welch, who contributes here, was there I believe within the last 10 years and probably knows as much as anyone about the 'post war' period. One thing I do know is that the problems are similar in El Salvador, where so many weapons remain, as in Guatemala, after decades of war.

It is also important to note that the US intervention on behalf of United Fruit in 1954 is what started the problem. And that the US supported war criminal after war criminal after that. One of them, Rios Montt, was successfully prosecuted as a war criminal IN Guatemala.

Here's an article that brings the problem up to date: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/08/drug-cartels-are-causing-a-re...

>1 faceinbook: I wouldn't send a single child back, not one.

ETC formatting.

What gullible parents believe they can send their children to the USA to receive free things if they aren't a corporation.

It is my opinion, after listening to President Obama's speech last evening, that the children are going to be sent back. The legal, moral and practical issues in this matter are kind of mind blowing and without a functioning government to work on fixing the problem, Obama has little choice in what he can or can not do. He has no funding. He did say he met with non profit groups and various religious groups who are volunteering their help.

Part of my point here is the fact that this is a common occurrence in other parts of the world. At any given time refugees cross boarders looking for safety.....at this point in time, we have no way to handle this. Without a government that WORKS....we are in a bad place. These are children, this isn't a national crisis so much as a humanitarian crisis. (of course there are those who are claiming this is a national crisis) The fact that, as a country, we have set ourselves up as a laughing stock, in so far as respect for our leader, along with demonstrating a total disregard for the idea of compromise, which constitutes the very workings of a democracy, how could we hope to handle a national crisis ?

>8 theoria: I think they ARE corporations, but don't know it. Or is the ipso facto logically fallacious?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/09/glenn-beck-border-event_n_5570926.html

OK....I am eating some of my words. This does not change my mind about the methods Mr. Beck has used in an attempt to divide this country, or the lack of respect he has blatantly shown our current President but, it shows a side of him that I haven't seen to date. I think that if those who had the means were to pony up for these kids, the President wouldn't need to go through the do nothing Congress to deal with this issue.

Kudos to Mr. Beck. (hard to say but credit must be given where credit is due !)

Conservatives need to stop and listen to the lessons they claim to be the premise of their actions : "Suffer the little children to come unto me for such is the kingdom of heaven"
At this point in time this should be about the children and NOT about one's political agenda.

Did Mr. Hobby Lobby send anything ? I wonder.

#5--what it basically comes down to is we meddle in another nation's affairs--create a history (that quite often blows back) that hardly anyone here ever remembers and then we have someone like TrippB come along with his recent thread of 'What would the world do if there was no USA?'--a thread that was pretty much about the USA disappearing its very own aggressive foreign policies of the last 60 or so years-- and not actually disappearing as just another nation among nations. His thread could as easily have been titled 'what would happen if the United States more or less minded its own business like Denmark?' The answer to that I'm pretty sure is we'd have a lot less problems and the world would be a more peaceful place.

>12 lriley:
Agree !

>12 lriley: Why drag me into this? I was sitting this one out, but, ok, here’s my perspective on the unaccompanied minor illegal aliens. After Congress refused to pass the Dream Act, Obama very publicly proclaimed that allowing illegal alien children to stay in the US is “the right thing to do” before royally giving an executive order (DACA) to not enforce existing federal laws on the legal process for illegal alien children to stay in the U.S. Sure, DACA’s fine print limited its scope to kids already here, so who could possibly have expected that some parents in Mexico and Central America would get the crazy idea that if they just sent children to the U.S. they’d be welcomed? It’s his usual tactic of creating a crisis, denying responsibility, and blaming others while demanding exigent solutions.

I realize there are many more factors involved, and I hold Republicans even more culpable than the Democrats. They’ve all very cowardly avoided doing anything meaningful to secure our borders for decades. Combined with the horrible violence in areas infested by drug cartels, it’s no wonder we’re being flooded with abandoned children. It should not be a partisan issue. We have tens of thousands of children who were handed over with a little cash to smugglers who are the worst of society and who are not above any cruelty or unspeakable exploitation. I have no doubt that coyotes kept some children for other profit opportunities. It’s also a very serious health threat—these kids have scabies, swine flu, active tuberculosis, and who knows what else and they’re being distributed into neighborhoods near you if you’re in the U.S. Based on other reports, some of the teenagers are also violent gang members. We have plenty of those already. The whole situation is a mess, although I agree the children deserve a better life.

I also think this woman has a valid point:
Houston Woman On Border Crisis- What About The Kids In Our Neighborhood

>12 lriley: Perhaps more to your specific post, I agree with your point about meddling. The US meddles far too much. You failed to mention that it’s much more frequently in the form of foreign aid than aggression, since we consistently give more to the world than any other country. We give to friends, we give in disasters, and we also give very generously to enemies.

Maybe it’s time we heeded President Washington’s farewell advice of minding our own business. Among other warnings on foreign alliances, he said, “Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.”

Some people insist that as a (or, the) superpower, we have a responsibility to intervene. Perhaps. I’m willing to see how things go if we try a little isolationism for a while. All this meddling sure causes a lot of problems and animosity. Let's keep all our money here and bring all of our troops home, and see how things turn out.

Disease Threat From Immigrant Children Wildly Overstated

~ The Central American kids arriving in Texas are likely to be better-vaccinated than children in Texas.

>15 TrippB: "We’ve even rebuilt every country that’s gone to war with us in the last century."

no you haven't....Viet Nam was not rebuilt by the USA....Iraq has not been rebuilt, in fact it was quite distinctly stated that the USA was not in the nation building business and look at the result now. Same goes for Afghanistan...twice...now with the current withdrawal and prior when the USA was involved in the covert war to rid the country of the Russians...the country was abandoned and the Taliban stepped in....history seems to be repeating itself there. This latter mess was started by BUSH/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz (SP?) and continued by Obama....it does not seem to matter if it is Republican or Democrat no one has the the political ability or will to do anything to solve the problems

But I suppose you are referring to those "hot spots" of Panama and Grenada...pretty manageable there....what?

Frankly, from an economic point of view, the USA would be in a massive recession without wars. Look at the impact of standing down say 1/4 of the military....How are they to be absorbed by the existing economy...then there are the defense industries that depend on military largess. How are they going to replace the loss of business?? then the suppliers to the defense industry??? the ripple effect goes far and wide.

It is not a simple problem...and YES the USA meddles in too many pots....not just with the "enemy"...with allies too. Germany has been a decent ally but these spy scandals are not helping cementing relationships. Even Canada has economic irritants with the USA with commodities such as water, energy, lumber...the list moves on. So much so that there is a conscientious effort to sell our energy products abroad...and once that starts to really happen...it will be Canada's turn to ignore the needs of the USA or at least negotiate a better price for their goods (they don't get world prices for their oil and gas as it is).

no...the USA is painting itself in many corners...military, economically (the global economy has been a great success for America...NOT)...and many more. It will have to take a real attitude change and a dissolving of the polarity that exists in American society so that there is a common goal.

Frankly, from an economic point of view, the USA would be in a massive recession without wars. Look at the impact of standing down say 1/4 of the military....How are they to be absorbed by the existing economy

I don't seem to recall a recession taking place when Clinton reduced the size of the U.S.'s military by about 20% during the 1990s.

After Congress refused to pass the Dream Act, Obama very publicly proclaimed that allowing illegal alien children to stay in the US is “the right thing to do” before royally giving an executive order (DACA) to not enforce existing federal laws on the legal process for illegal alien children to stay in the U.S.

That's not even close to what the executive order says.

> 17. Good point. I agree that "rebuilt" is a poor word to describe the incredible amount of money we've given to nations we fought over the years. I'll retract that statement.

> 19 In terms of the border crisis, what the order said isn't nearly as important as how it was interpreted. To existing and potential illegal aliens it sounded like amnesty for kids.

21: Except that wasn't what you said. You said, and I quote, "Obama very publicly proclaimed that allowing illegal alien children to stay in the US is “the right thing to do” before royally giving an executive order (DACA) to not enforce existing federal laws on the legal process for illegal alien children to stay in the U.S."

The fact is that he neither said nor did any such thing. His executive order was specifically targeted at limited categories of illegal aliens: (1) illegal aliens who had been brought to the U.S. by their parents as small children and had grown up in the U.S. with almost no connection to their "home" country, (2) illegal aliens who are caregivers for their small children who are citizens of the U.S., and (3) illegal aliens who are married to or have children with U.S. military service personnel. The executive order also gave instructions to deprioritize deportations of illegal aliens whose only offense was being an illegal alien in favor of prosecuting those who had committed other crimes, mostly because government resources are, and always have been, stretched to prosecute every single case. Choosing how to prioritize prosecuting cases on grounds like these is well within his executive discretion.

If you want to point a finger at something that has given people the idea that there is amnesty for kids, you should look to Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Pub. Law 110-457), passed under Bush's watch, which makes the procedures for deporting illegal alien children much more difficult, and gives illegal alien children ample (and easy to qualify for) grounds for seeking asylum in the U.S. One reason so many children are coming to the U.S. is because, by law, they must be given the opportunity to claim status as asylum seekers, and if they do, they must be given sufficient time to put together a case for asylum. This isn't "Obama said amnesty so people are coming". This is actual U.S. law concerning immigration and children.

And yet, despite this, Obama has deported more people than any other President in U.S. history. The idea that the administration is somehow not enforcing the immigration laws of the U.S. is laughable. Those detention centers full of illegal aliens - how does one think they got that way? Because illegal aliens were showing up at the doors and turning themselves in?

Blame Obama ! Blame Obama ! Blame Obama !

Rather mind bending isn't it ?

Many on the Right have given Obama almost as much power as their God.

>22 StormRaven: Except that wasn't what you said. You said, and I quote, "Obama very publicly proclaimed that allowing illegal alien children to stay in the US is “the right thing to do” before royally giving an executive order (DACA) to not enforce existing federal laws on the legal process for illegal alien children to stay in the U.S."

It appears that you stopped reading because he also said, right after the part that you quoted:

Sure, DACA’s fine print limited its scope to kids already here,

It appears that you stopped reading because he also said, right after the part that you quoted

And even with that caveat, TrippB's assertion was completely wrong. It didn't limit its scope to "kids already here". It limited its scope to a very tiny and very specific subset of children already in the U.S.

The salient point is that TrippB's entire post was riddled with lies, half-truths, and bullshit. For example, note Jessie's response concerning TrippB's hysteria regarding "diseased illegal immigrants". In addition, concerning the president TrippB said:

It’s his usual tactic of creating a crisis, denying responsibility, and blaming others while demanding exigent solutions.

Except that it is clear that Obama didn't create this "crisis", and has been working to deal with it by detaining and deporting multitudes of illegal aliens. To the extent that any U.S. policy has "created" this so-called crisis it is the mandatory rules concerning the rights of children to seek asylum provided by a law that Bush signed.

I went to Guatemala, to a small place called "San Lucas Toliman" on the side of a lake and "under the volcano" as they say, from mid August to mid Nov 2001* where I stayed "on a mission" run mainly by the archdiocese of not Minneapolis but some other city in south central Minnesota I can't recall right now. It provided some employment re coffee growing and selling in the US and also got some folks a cement block house to live in which was just fine for them.

Mostly I traveled with Father John Brandes, a "retired" priest of 72 and a feisty to say the least old guy who liked to have me go with him in a beat up old automobile over roads that ranged from good to decent to cow paths to virtual "gullies" to from what I could tell "nonexistent."

I guess I was with Father so we both could hike our way up or down some mountain to the nearest village where maybe somebody could help us get the car out of whatever mess it was in. Fortunately nothing like that (MIRACLES are REAL after all!) ever occurred but Father was always pissed off if I missed going with him -- who was he going to "ride" a bit or tell his stories to? But of course it was an "adventure" as we went day or night, rain or heat, so Father could say mass in some obscure place or even literally "on the road," hear confessions, say an extreme unction (once) and a marriage (twice).

I have to say that though Brandes seemed to "enjoy" pointing out to me the particular place on a highway that he and some others were robbed by bandits coming out of a cornfield ("Right there Mike -- here I'll stop --" "Yeah Father sure I see" -- "No I'll stop and show you!") -- he did nearly every time we drove that route -- I was more worried about the car than "outlaws."

Guatemala at that time seemed to me to be struggling out of the "twenty years wars" and I actually caught a sense of optimism sometimes despite the constant poverty and low expectations. Obviously in the decade and more since things have (unsurprisingly?) gone downhill -- yet again.

(By the way I once got lost in Guatemala City -- really -- and folks helped me find the right bus to my hotel by the airport and one woman even walked me to its front door. And NO ONE tried to "rob" me, harm me in any way nor did they even ask for money.)

Maybe it's "better" for Guatemala and other central American nations to have the US upset with them -- years ago it was communism creeping in but now I guess it's uh "infantilism," i. e., kids MASSING the southern border and who KNOWS what sort of "subversion" could come from that?! A bunch of little "Hugos" with machetes under their dirty shirts! And they may even have a nefarious "plan" -- replace good ol' patriotic AMERICAN football with "futbal"! Quel horreur! Will it never "end"?!!!...

* Yeah yeah I was in San Lucas on "9-11"; I just got out of mass and went to the commissary where I saw my "pal" Father Brandes drinking coffee. He said "Somebody just flew some planes into some buildings in New York"; "Yeah sure"; "Okay" he shrugged "go to the office; they got a tv there." I did so and watched the replay of that second plane going into the WTC again and again and again and it all seemed pretty weird.

The locals just to let you know were very sympathetic and the town held a special mass and service at the church for the victims. As time went by of course I knew "someone must pay" so the attack on Afghanistan was inevitable but I still find the whole "episode" well still "weird"...

>22 StormRaven: So....to summarize your posts, you’re saying that President George Bush was quite successful in establishing an enduring legacy to his great compassion for the world’s children; and Obama is hell-bent on setting an all time presidential record for quashing the hopes of immigrants who just want a chance to work for their piece of the American Dream. Does that pretty much sum up what you wanted to say?

OK. Just kidding. I’m probably not taking this as seriously as I should. No offense intended. You don’t want me to blame the president? Fine. Illegal immigration across the Mexican border has been a problem for decades. I just want the issue fixed. It isn’t just a matter of (or maybe even primarily of) Mexicans and Central Americans—the border is also too open to our enemies from all over the world. We need border security that works.

And if it hasn't been fixed after all these years of Republican and Democratic presidents and congresses, maybe that should be a clue that it just isn't possible? That maybe our borders are too long to be sealed to any great extent?

As far as migration of Mexican people over US borders--part of the problem was the Nafta free trade policy. It initially began with the Arizona republican congressman Kolbe and the first President Bush and the corrupt Salinas brothers who headed up the Mexican govt. at the time. When Bush wasn't re-elected Clinton changed some of the terms and pushed it through anyway. It was sold to the American public as something that would create millions of American jobs while at the same time improve the standard of living of millions of Mexicans which would keep them on their side of the border. Instead there was the migration of American companies from the US into Mexico and then a short step to the Pacific Rim--meanwhile it didn't really do much for the Mexican economy--within two years the peso had collapsed pretty much knocking real wages down there a good 20%. What the US did then was bail out the companies and investors that had banked on the agreement--a kind of prelude to what would happen after the banking collapse of 2008. In any case for Americans there was a loss of manufacturing and industrial jobs--for Mexicans a major decrease in their already very low wages--it increased the flow of Mexicans crossing the border illegally or not.

American economic policy is geared for people who already have money and not for those who don't have it. To make the wealthy even wealthier. It's been the same thing since the Reagan administration and has successively run through every administration since. When Obama was running as a kind of leftist populist for a first term as POTUS USA he made noises that this was going to be seriously looked at. But when he announced his original economic team it was pretty much the same old neo-conservative--neo-liberal retreads that make major Wall St. investors so very happy. Nothing has changed during his time in office. We continue along the same track and I expect we'll continue through the next administration whether republican or democrat as well.

I don't like the demonizing of the Mexican people by all these border control advocates who think a heavily armed military/police presence is the solution to this problem. Our own government has helped to create the problem and the border control advocates either don't care--don't know or just deny.

>29 lriley: I agree with you that raising the economy of Mexico somehow is the key to control of the American/Mexico border. It is the reason that you do not have such a problem on the Canadian/American side. There are always a few that want to move from Canada to the USA just as there are Americans that want to come to Canada such as in the anti-draft days of the 1960-70's. But there is little or no incentive for the poor Canadians to illegally migrate to the USA. With our social programs in this country which are lacking in the USA (universal healthcare is not a hated phrase in this country) and for the most part equal to or slightly higher wages, most Canadians are better off here than there. The reverse is true in Mexico economically.

The problem is that stopping illegal immigration and sending back illegals back to Mexico creates a whole new set of problems as Mexican labour is key to the operation of your food producing areas. Farm labour for low wages is not what most Americans want to do...Actually in Canada we have a similar problem finding Canadians that want these labour intensive low paying jobs. We have programs in place to import temporary labourers and it is somewhat controlled as we do have this buffer called America between Canada and Mexico.

Actually, due to our job market, immigration is at a low point...other than the issue with the kids. Not so sure that the kids are an immigration problem so much as a refugee issue. The violence in Central America coupled with the law passed in 2008 kind of created a perfect storm.

Of course it would be during Obama's watch. There will be many individuals that will be glad to see the doors of the White House, close on him for the last time but none I suspect, as glad as he.
He looks done in. Shameful how people act !

Actually, due to our job market, immigration is at a low point...other than the issue with the kids.

And we are detaining and deporting more people than ever. And still people are screaming that somehow Obama isn't enforcing our immigration laws.

I know I'm not the first to say this but it's funny how the conservatives who are so anti-abortion can be against helping kids once they're born.

That's no solution to this dilemma, of course, but it's a strange contradiction: they'll fight for all children's rights before they're born but if you're not a U.S citizen, then, frankly, you're on your own.

There is also the hypocrisy of states' rights red state governors begging for federal assistance.

This situation is heartbreaking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/opinion/sunday/a-refugee-crisis-not-an-immigra...

To put this in perspective (emphasis mine):

The United States expects other countries to take in hundreds of thousands of refugees on humanitarian grounds. Countries neighboring Syria have absorbed nearly 3 million people. Jordan has accepted in two days what the United States has received in an entire month during the height of this immigration flow — more than 9,000 children in May.

>36 sturlington: I don't think the situation in Jordan/Syria is the same as USA/Mexico. People are fleeing Syria due to the Civil war that has been on-going for years now...there is no war in Mexico, the movement there to the USA is economic. Hopefully compassion would be shown if there was a revolution/civil war were to take place in Mexico but take away the issue of drugs and control of the traffic the country is pretty stable. I don't think you can compare the war on drugs lords akin to bombed out cities and use of chemical warfare in Syria.

>37 Lynxear: The difference would only be in the matter of degree. In each instance, you can either join, run or die.

The situation is appalling and the decades-long failure of immigration policy has highlighted a broad, systemic breakdown of part of the government. (One question is, if this what else?) Obama ridicules anyone who opposes his policy, the senate won't move in an election year especially since the heat is on the pres and the house, and the house wouldn't come in if they were outside in an electrical storm. I've never seen anything like it, ever.

Regardless of the politics involved, those are at-risk kids putting their lives on the line to get here. I wouldn't send a single child back. Not one single kid. And I am furious at the US government for creating a situation where children would risk death for a better life and aren't doing a damn thing to change it and protect those kids and anyone else who may think of coming over.

Amnesty now and close the border tighter than a drum. Saying it can't be done is a damn lie.

Amnesty now and close the border tighter than a drum.

Exactly how would you propose closing the border "tighter than a drum"?

#37

They're not fleeing FROM Mexico (in most cases); they're fleeing THROUGH Mexico to the U.S., from countries in Central America that are marginal at best.

>37 Lynxear: Please read the editorial so you can understand the comparison being made. These are children who are fleeing a situation in Honduras where the choice is stay and be killed brutally, join drug gangs where you will be expected to brutally kill others, or leave to save your life. The US is being hypocritical in that it expects countries like Jordan to accept refugees at a much greater flow than we are seeing over our border, but we, a much richer country that prides itself on being a "humane" country, pitch a fit over taking in children who are fleeing for their lives.

Wall off Texas and Arizona from the United States.

#41

http://rall.com/2014/07/11/syndicated-column-those-kids-crossing-the-border-from...

>43 BruceCoulson: Thank you for posting more background on this. The US should take responsibility for the consequences of our actions in the world.

Let us in Arizona at least get the eastern breezes?

I think there IS a "war" in Mexico and in central America that is not as dramatic as per Syria and Iraq but as unrelenting.

AZ rep from Tucson Raul Grijalva called the other day for the prez to "come to the border" -- Obama seems awfully nervous about photo ops at the southern border; is he so afraid of AZ Gov Brewer's waving finger?

Obviously there is "an humanitarian crisis" going on and sticking the kids on planes (even with first class tickets as per Sen Coburn) as fast as one can is simply, as always, running in a circle.

In 1848 "we" bought it (uh COMPELLING the "seller" eh) and we've spent a hundred sixty six years since with buyer's remorse? Hey this is what "the border" is...

I couldn't agree more

"History written with lightning" and unending: Wilson, Villa, Zapata, Wallace Beery, Marlon Brando, John Wayne. Hey the river FLOWS, like it or not...

Statement from my son while discussing this issue :

If these kids were White they would be refugees but the Brown skin makes them immigrants. "Yeah" says he, "bunch of kids from Ireland would be refugees"

Smart kid. It should be stuck on a picture and made a meme.

Hi all -

I'm reposting a new essay by author Todd Miller on the subject. I was kindly directed here by a fellow user, in hopes it would find interested eyes.

"For the past fifteen years Todd Miller has researched, written about, and worked on immigration and border issues from both sides of the U.S. Mexico divide for organizations such as BorderLinks, Witness for Peace, and NACLA.

Following the recent protests in Marietta, I'd like to share Miller's newest essay on the subject. His book, Border Patrol Nation, addresses the effects and consequences of a heavily militarized border.

See the essay here"

#50--FWIW the USA has supported dictatorships throughout Central and South America and the Caribbean Islands for decades and decades. Dictatorships have the tendency to keep the great masses of their populations poor and subservient. To create an 'elite' ruling class around a strong military and unaccountable police forces. All a regime had to declare was that it was anti-communist--didn't matter how totalitarian it was--we were on their side. If they stepped out of line--we would send (post WWII anyway) the CIA in to help their opposition overthrow them. There was also the School of the Americas in Fort Benning Ga.--a training camp for interrogation and torture techniques and sometimes we sent advisers in such methods like the clown that was murdered in Uruguay during Nixon's presidency.

Mostly Americans don't know any of this. They don't want to know and they want to believe their country is the shining light on the hill--even those who hate paying taxes for the most part want to believe we are a true force for the good. Generally the American public is easily outraged and manipulated by world events. Too much trust that in a (make believe) crisis their government will do the right thing--too much trust that the main stream media will really tell them the truth. This is how we happened to land in Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Panama, Grenada, Somalia, a bunch of other places, Afghanistan and Iraq. There is very little critique from within of American foreign policy. Since the Vietnam hangover wore off it's off limits to criticize practically anything the American military does. If you want an education in right wing group think the American military by the way would be a good place to enlist into. We've militarized our police and we use our military overseas as police. We have all kinds of contracted and privatized security forces. We are IMO--fucked up.

The border patrol is just another element. The drugs are coming in anyway. It's important for major banks to be able to launder all the money the cartels make. People need to understand that. It's important as well that all our southwestern fruit and vegetable growers have a workforce that will put in 120 hours a week in the baking hot sun for a $1 or less an hour with no benefits and limited toilet breaks. We need to eat cheaply and the fruit and vegetable plantation owners need to get rich--and the truth is there are not too many Americans willing to work under those conditions for that kind of pay. Three generations of Central American dictatorships that we supported have created three generations of dirt poor peasants that need something to do to feed themselves and their families and if the best course they have is to cross our border illegally and work for Old MacDonald on his farm 120 hours a week that's what a lot of them are going to do. Yeah--there's a lot of assholes with guns and drugs that come with them. Doing as Colorado and Washington have done--legalizing marijuana by the way is a good idea. That will do more damage to the drug cartels than the border patrol will ever do.

What goes around comes around -- but folks usually don't like it.

A few days ago the Sheriff Joe Wannabe of Pinal county, Paul Babeu (look him up -- "interesting" guy; when Joe dies Paul's up), said that a "whistleblower" in the Border Patrol let him know that a bunch of migrant kids were going to be parked at some "boy's ranch" place near the little town of Oracle between the Phoenix valley and Tucson. (Oracle's big "claim to fame" is that the great silent movie cowboy Tom Mix died there in a self imposed car accident; there's a nice memorial.)

Anyway folks came to protest and some came to support and Babeu came to get all the media attention he could. Suddenly down the road comes -- a school bus!!!! Lousy illegal kids livin' off the tax of the land! Protesters rush the bus, including a Repub would be for congress, tweeting about "the fear in their eyes" -- yeah well that was because these were actually kids from Tucson on a school trip; no migrant "wagon train" ever arrived nor was any scheduled to do so.

The great impression for me is that many Republicans ENJOY being pricks, so much so that harassing a bunch of kids tickles their wangers. Fuck 'em I say...

>52 Michael_Welch:
"The great impression for me is that many Republicans ENJOY being pricks, so much so that harassing a bunch of kids tickles their wangers. Fuck 'em I say."

Many Republicans enjoy being BULLIES (hence the obsession with high power weapons, extreme amounts of ammo, the continuous beating of the war drums and the fist pumping over decimating a small country with no ties to Al-Qaida) A bus load of kids is the PERFECT target for a show of power and hate spew. I don't get it.....it is so far from anything I can imagine to be self gratifying.

But, then look at the government. Bullies in action....only takes a few. In the cause of bringing down ONE man they will burn the entire house down.

>32 StormRaven: And we are detaining and deporting more people than ever. And still people are screaming that somehow Obama isn't enforcing our immigration laws.

According to several news sources that have looked behind the statistics suggesting we are deporting more illegal aliens than ever, this claim is bogus. USA Today said “But the fact is this: The number of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. deported by the Obama administration has fallen in each year he's been in office. Deporter in chief? Far from it.” The article goes on to detail how the methodology for counting deportations was changed, and people simply turned back at the border are now counted as full deportations.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/15/voices-gomez-obama-deportat...
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html#page=...

>54 TrippB:
"people simply turned back at the border are now counted as full deportations."

Oh...so we are doing more of this then ? Must be a good thing ? Is he doing something right ? Or is "turning people away at the border not sufficient....should they be shot ? Heads mounted on posts or something ?

Frankly, at this point in time, anything we hear about President Obama is bogus and suspect. The Right has made a mockery of the office he holds, along with diminishing, deriding and disrespecting everything he has said or done. They will say anything. In fact Ted Cruz accused the President of holding the kids at the border ransom.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ted-cruz-democrats-obama-holding-migrant-kids-ransom

SO......you hang on to your facts and I'll hang on to mine. History will tell......my facts were, after all, correct in so far as the useless, expensive and life taking wars in the Middle East.
My facts have been proven correct more often than not. The Right simply moves on to a different issue with their own facts when proven to be wrong.