Wednesday the Quad City Times published an article written by Rod Boshart titled Iowa officials surprised by placement of illegal immigrant kids . According to the article:
Central American children who have crossed the U.S. border illegally are making their way to Iowa “behind the scenes” with the help of family members and support groups to avoid drawing attention or the ire of protesters, an Iowa Latino leader said Tuesday.
Joe Enriquez Henry, state director of the League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa, or LULAC, a Latino civil rights organization founded in 1929, said he is aware of family members who have driven to the Mexican border to be reunited with unaccompanied children who have sought refuge from the violence in their countries.
Henry said the activity has been forced to operate “in the shadows” in part because of Gov. Terry Branstad’s public opposition to efforts to welcome children to Iowa who have entered the United States illegally. . . .
“But it’s a very quiet thing because these Latinos families, some of them would not be documented in the first place, so to be helping some of their relatives, they definitely want to be very private about it until such point that they realize that these kids are welcome in Iowa.”
The article quotes Iowa officials as being unaware of the “placements” and provides references or characterizations of the governor’s position as basically wanting to see the border secured, and not wanting to encourage a dangerous journey because the composition of those crossing the border are not refugees.
However liberals are intent on referring to the current border rushers as refugees and in abusing a law with a narrow scope, focused on three Central American countries, intended to provide haven for victims of human trafficking, as a loophole to allow general entry from those countries. The usefulness of the law for open border liberals is that a mere claim invoking that law effectively triggers bureaucratic delays sufficient to see to the ensconcement of the claimants into the country, with federal aid providing sustenance, and, as is our view, eventually state and local official resources.
Key to our position and our objection, is that this rush and manipulation of the law is being done by people who have no more serious circumstances to contend with in their native country, however bad, than the many who are obeying our immigration laws, and expect no government aid now or in the future. You know, like the ones referred to in the Emma Lazarus poem set on a bronze tablet at the base of the Statue of Liberty. Indeed as bad as circumstances may be for the border rushers, there are far worse, far more objectively desperate people who are trying to come to America.
Unless our country is to be overrun by disorderly immigration, the current rushers unjustifiably elbow out any potentiality of our country to absorb other would be immigrants from the same or more dire circumstances. Our current immigration quotas will have to be reset and many “children” from other countries may actually die as a result — to turn the argument back on the shameful incriminations thrown at conservatives by liberals like Mayor Gluba of Davenport and Joe Enriquez Henry of LULAC.
As we posted earlier, the surge of Central Americans grabbing U.S. residencies are not victims of human trafficking, people unwillingly being trafficed for nefarious purposes. They willingly traverse Mexico to arrive at the US border. Many are involved in smuggling themselves across the border through payments to “coyotes.”
Gary Bauer’s / Campaign for Working Families’ End of Day Report today has many good observations with reference to liberal hypocrisy regarding the border crisis. We have excerpted much of it.
“Obama’s Immigration Flip-Flop”
That’s the title of a Politico article this morning outlining Barack Obama’s constantly evolving immigration positions. It’s hard to believe now, but here’s what Obama said about granting a mass amnesty in 2010:
“I recognize the sense of compassion that drives this argument, but I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally.”
Two years later, in a desperate gambit to boost his reelection chances, Obama ignored his own advice and granted an amnesty to the so-called “Dreamers.” Just as he predicted, we got a surge of more illegal immigration, specifically children whose parents believed there were no repercussions for breaking our laws.
So, here we are, trying to deal with Obama’s man-caused disaster on the southern border. Just three weeks ago, Obama said he wanted to close a 2008 loophole that was being exploited by open borders advocates so that he could speed up deportations of unaccompanied minors. That would be a step in the right direction at least, but we can’t believe anything he says. He’s flip-flopped yet again.
Far from closing that loophole, Obama is planning to expand it. The geniuses at the Obama White House put their heads together and came up with a way for the children of Central America to just skip that whole “illegal immigration” thing. Obama is reportedly considering an executive order allowing anyone under 21 in Central America to apply for refugee status at U.S. embassies and consulates in their home countries.
But even the left-wing New York Times notes, “Under American law, refugees are people fleeing their country of origin based on fears of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” It’s not at all clear how Obama’s plan meets that definition.
More importantly, where does it end? Do we open our doors, as Rep. John Lewis suggested, to the poor in every South American country? Africa and Asia too?
We already know that 65% of the unaccompanied minors who get here are granted asylum status, even though a recent government report determined that the vast majority of illegal immigrants said they are coming because of “the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes or permisos to UAC (unaccompanied children) and adult females.” Are you prepared to take in 65% of Central America?
Unfortunately, with Congress divided and unable to act in a unified manner, Obama is likely to do whatever he wants.
Compassion & The Rule Of Law
Earlier this week, author Stephen King took to Twitter to bash Christians and the Tea Party. King tweeted: “Revised Tea Party Gospel: ‘Suffer the little children come unto me. Unless they’re undocumented kids from Central America.” And, “Much easier to be a Christian when the little children aren’t in your backyard, isn’t it?”
Mr. King has some pretty big backyards attached to his homes in Bangor, Maine, and Sarasota, Florida. Unlike most Americans, he certainly has the resources to support a few additional families. How many could he take? Five, fifty or five hundred? I suspect he would soon find the limits of his compassion. Perhaps Mr. King should avoid political and religious commentary and stick to what he does best — writing scary fiction.
The rule of law is a Christian concept, which is on its firmest ground when the law is just. For a nation to have authority over its borders is just and necessary. That is what defines a nation.
A nation that does not have control of its borders risks being engulfed by war and humanitarian crises, while its citizens are buried with crushing taxes, failing schools and hospitals. No country can handle massive migration across unguarded borders.
As for the women and children who have been enticed to come here by left-wing rhetoric, they are subject to our laws. They should be, as promptly as possible, returned to their home countries. Until then, they deserve to be treated with dignity. Like all of us, they too are made in the image of God.
I would remind King that there are many Christian groups working on the border right now providing food and medical care to the individuals who have entered our country. Many more Christians support ministries that care for impoverished children and families overseas.
It is right to be compassionate to hurting people. At the same time, there is nothing unreasonable about insisting that your nation have definable borders and that the people, through their representatives, decide how many immigrants can be brought into the country through a legal process without overburdening its own citizens. Otherwise we risk breaking our economy and causing even more suffering in Central America and right here at home.
It is very simple, but nevertheless something liberals cannot grasp, you can not have open borders and even a moderately successful welfare state.
R Mall
