Obaloney or Glubaloney its still a lot of bs
From today’s QC Times (online and print) Many steps to take yet for Davenport immigrant shelter. The article is by Barb Ickes. The material in italics was included in the Ickes article, a Q&A sourced to the U.S. Department of Human Services (DHS), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). The order has been altered in order to facilitate our related comments and questions which appear below each of the italicized quotations.
‘Unaccompanied Alien Children’ Who are they?
The children come primarily from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. Most are older than 14, and about three quarters of them are boys. They come to the U.S. without adults.
Besides significant revelations not admitted to previously by Gluba regarding the predominant age of the “children,” that they are also overwhelmingly male has not been part of the discussion. The public relations sympathy ploy behind the use of the term “children” is to imply the common understanding of the term, infants, toddlers and ‘kids” of grade school age. The word “children” in common parlance does not typically include teenagers, who are instead referred to as teens or teenagers. To use the term “children” exclusively is manipulative (which is not to say, however old, that many or all do not deserve some sympathy). The related Web site refers to program eligibility under the rubric “children” as including individuals up to 18 years of age. To use the term as bandied about implies that seventeen year old U.S. Soldiers and Marines are “children.”
How many are being served by The Division of Children’s Services, U.S. Department of Human Services?
In recent years, an average of 7,000 to 8,000 children were served by the Unaccompanied Alien Children Program annually. The current projection for fiscal year 2014 anticipates 60,000 referrals.
How they “know” that as a projection is of interest as is the implication of having known this in advance of the current crisis. An acknowledgment of an eight-fold expected increase is a scandalous admission in itself. But if DHS is still reporting that figure on their website the administrator is out of touch with reports from the border, which indicate a lot more in the pipe line. The official figure is already 52,000 detained unaccompanied children.
What about children with diseases?
All children are given medical exams and childhood vaccinations. If they are determined to have any communicable disease or have been exposed, they are placed in quarantine-equipped facility.
The medical exams are not comprehensive . The Texas Tribune reports: “doctors providing medical care for immigrants being released by U.S. Border Patrol ahead of their court dates say those recent detainees were not appropriately screened or treated for illness while in federal custody.”
What is the cost to communities wishing to shelter some of the children?
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services pays for and provides all services, including food, clothing, education and medical screening. Children do not attend local schools.
This might be true if the general populace of the “communities” never did and were never to be required to pay federal taxes. It is evasive at best as regards what jurisdiction picks up the tab after the “average stay” (see below). Parsing the words of the statement we note the assertion that HHS “pays for and provides all services. Maybe an “or” substituting for the “and” would be more truthful. HHS may pay for them but it is doubtful it provides all services unless there are a bunch of federal employees exclusively tasked to the children in each local.
No one is offering definitive information as to what happens after the pre-judicial processing and temporary custody period of formalities expires and they are not deported , instead released to sponsors or relatives or their own recognizance.
How long do they stay in temporary shelters?
The average stay is 35 days. The goal is to locate family members or sponsors or complete the repatriation process.
If there is any seriousness to the figure given about “the average stay is 35 days” it raises the issue of why bother transporting them to Davenport Iowa for such a short stay if there is true likelihood that they will be deported after that short period. The truth according to the Wall Street Journal, which supports extensive immigration by the way, is that they will not be deported after 35 days with a strong likelihood of years in country not 35 days. “Data from immigration courts, along with interviews with the children and their advocates, show that few minors are sent home and many are able to stay for years in the U.S., if not permanently.”
Why are the children here? Some are escaping violence or abuse in their home countries. Some are here to find family members already residing here. Others are seeking work, and some were brought to the U.S. by human trafficking rings.
We are distressed at some and sympathetic to others of these reasons even if most do not qualify under the provision of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act . Fundamentally our concern is over open borders, national sovereignty, protecting our culture, financial solvency and primary responsibilities to our citizens. We think the “why” offered is incomplete, as drug running and gang recruitment should be added to some extent as activities other than the listed. We also question the open ended consideration provided for the named countries in light of similar conditions in many countries around the world, or districts within them, including Mexico . . . and Michigan.
Consider the following expose from the January 22, 2013 The Atlantic. Comparing gun murder rates per hundred thousand population from the article, Gun Violence in U.S. Cities Compared to the Deadliest Nations in the World , we note comparatives for the Central American countries receiving special consideration: 39.9 per 100,000 in El Salvador – 35.9 per 100,000in Detroit, USA . . . 68.4 per 100,000 in Honduras, 62.1 per 100,000 in New Orleans ,USA . . . 34.8 per 100,000 in Guatemala, 29.7 per 100,000 in Baltimore USA.
The “children” of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala should be welcomed on the same basis as those of Mexico and any other country where admittedly problems exist. Would we presume to absorb or tolerate a rush of the same intensity from areas of Mexico, just as violent and subject to criminal elements, or countries with still worse general conditions the world over? We wouldn’t because we can’t. We could be far more selective and even handed in a true sense of comparative justice, but giving carte blanche entry to citizens of one country no worse off than so many others is illiberal and unjust. R Mall
