Typical of This Administration

[Rupert Pupkin]

The Administration who claimed they were going to be the most transparent administration in history is once again showing that they are actually the most secretive and high-handed administration in history. Knowing how they operate, this story isn't even that shocking:

Medical staff warned: Keep your mouths shut about illegal immigrants or face arrest

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...r-face-arrest/

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The Administration who claimed they were going to be the most transparent administration in history is once again showing that they are actually the most secretive and high-handed administration in history. Knowing how they operate, this story isn't even that shocking:

Medical staff warned: Keep your mouths shut about illegal immigrants or face arrest

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...r-face-arrest/

Unless you can find a confirming link from salon, huffy, dailykos or slate this can't be true ! Seriously there must be a blog somewhere that you can link that confirms this story - blogs only speak the truth

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by geeker2

Unless you can find a confirming link from salon, huffy, dailykos or slate this can't be true ! Seriously there must be a blog somewhere that you can link that confirms this story - blogs only speak the truth

I don't think people are too pleased with what's going on. Look what happened today is San Diego.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...rant-protests/

[GenuineRisk]

There's actually been a lot of coverage of this humanitarian crisis:
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news...en-5485132.php

And Rachel Maddow did a segment on it a week or so ago.

But typical FOX- the actual story is kids fleeing from nations so torn by poverty and violence that their parents are trying to save their children's lives by sending them away, but for FOX it's EWWW SCABIES!

Jesus wept.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

There's actually been a lot of coverage of this humanitarian crisis:
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news...en-5485132.php

And Rachel Maddow did a segment on it a week or so ago.

But typical FOX- the actual story is kids fleeing from nations so torn by poverty and violence that their parents are trying to save their children's lives by sending them away, but for FOX it's EWWW SCABIES!

Jesus wept.

The reason that the parents are sending their kids here is not because of the poverty and violence. There has always been poverty and violence in those countries. Yet in 2012, it was estimated that 6,500 of these underage immigrants came here. This year the number is over 90,000. It has nothing to do with the poverty or violence. It has to do with their belief that the policy of this Administration is "catch and release". Obama is now starting to speak out publicly saying people should not send their kids here because we are going to send them back. I'm glad he's finally speaking out. But what he's saying is not totally true. They are going to send some back but they are going to let others stay.

I agree with you that our country is a better place to live than countries that are poor and have a lot of violence. But what do you think we should do? Do you think we should just open our borders and let anyone in? I'm just as much of a humanitarian as you are but I'm certainly not in favor of an open border.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The reason that the parents are sending their kids here is not because of the poverty and violence. There has always been poverty and violence in those countries. Yet in 2012, it was estimated that 6,500 of these underage immigrants came here. This year the number is over 90,000. It has nothing to do with the poverty or violence. It has to do with their belief that the policy of this Administration is "catch and release". Obama is now starting to speak out publicly saying people should not send their kids here because we are going to send them back. I'm glad he's finally speaking out. But what he's saying is not totally true. They are going to send some back but they are going to let others stay.

I agree with you that our country is a better place to live than countries that are poor and have a lot of violence. But what do you think we should do? Do you think we should just open our borders and let anyone in? I'm just as much of a humanitarian as you are but I'm certainly not in favor of an open border.

Rupert, the violence in Mexico and Central America has escalated the past few years as drug cartels destabilize the nations in that area. It's torn Mexico to shreds and now it's moving into Central America. Things are very, very bad there. Sixty thousand have died in drug-related violence since 2006 in Mexico alone (and that's a lowball estimate). On Monday, 22 traffickers and soldiers died in a single firefight. It's hardly surprising parents are trying to get their kids the hell out of there by sending them to relatives in safer countries.

The state Mexico is in is largely our fault; we have created this situation with our War on Drugs policies. In addition, the US has a history of turning a blind eye to drug trafficking, and even aiding it, if the factions doing it are serving our own interests- that's been going at least since the Reagan Presidency (remember the Nicaraguan Contras and the CIA?) and for all we know, longer. The US role in creating the situation in Mexico cannot be overstated.

So, where young children are concerned, yeah, I have a bit of a "we broke it; we bought it" opinion.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

There's actually been a lot of coverage of this humanitarian crisis:
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news...en-5485132.php

And Rachel Maddow did a segment on it a week or so ago.

But typical FOX- the actual story is kids fleeing from nations so torn by poverty and violence that their parents are trying to save their children's lives by sending them away, but for FOX it's EWWW SCABIES!

Jesus wept.

I think your "Jesus wept" comment is pretty absurd. There is no evidence that any of these kids were in any type of life and death danger back in their countries. Sure those countries are far more dangerous than the US but so are hundreds of other countries across the world. Do you think the US should take in all the children of the world who live in fairly dangerous countries?

When I hear there is genocide going on somewhere, I'm in favor of us helping any way we can. And when we hear children in Africa are dying of diseases that can be cured with medication, I am in favor of sending medication there. I don't mind paying for it.

But I don't think the US should take in any child who wants to come here that lives in a fairly dangerous country. By the way, there are far more dangerous countries in the world than most of the countries in Central America. Countries like Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, etc are far more dangerous. Some of the countries in Central America were really dangerous back in the 1970s and 1980s when they were having civil wars there, but they're not that bad now, not compared to other places.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think your "Jesus wept" comment is pretty absurd. There is no evidence that any of these kids were in any type of life and death danger back in their countries. Sure those countries are far more dangerous than the US but so are hundreds of other countries across the world. Do you think the US should take in all the children of the world who live in fairly dangerous countries?

When I hear there is genocide going on somewhere, I'm in favor of us helping any way we can. And when we hear children in Africa are dying of diseases that can be cured with medication, I am in favor of sending medication there. I don't mind paying for it.

But I don't think the US should take in any child who wants to come here that lives in a fairly dangerous country. By the way, there are far more dangerous countries in the world than most of the countries in Central America. Countries like Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, etc are far more dangerous. Some of the countries in Central America were really dangerous back in the 1970s and 1980s when they were having civil wars there, but they're not that bad now, not compared to other places.

Okay. Here:

How Mexico's Drug Cartels Recruit Child Soldiers as Young as 11:
http://www.wired.com/2013/03/mexico-child-soldiers/

Mexican Drug Cartels Targeting and Killing Children
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...b9C_story.html

Mexico's Drug War is Changing Children
http://www.npr.org/2012/11/27/166027...ging-childhood

Mexican and Central American children are coming here because we're the closest relatively stable nation. It has nothing to do with the USA being special. If they were closer to Europe, they'd be going to Western Europe.

If you don't think things have gotten much, much worse in Mexico and Central America over the past few years, you haven't been paying attention. Well, except for the Honduras, which I think has had one of the highest murder rates in the world since the 1990s.

Okay, I did google that to be sure- here are the nations with the highest homicide rates, according to the UN:

COUNTRIES
Honduras: 90.4 (per 100,000)
Venezuela: 53.7
Belize: 44.7
El Salvador: 41.2
Guatemala: 39.9
Jamaica: 39.3
Swaziland: 33.8
Saint Kitts and Nevis: 33.6
South Africa: 31.0
Colombia: 30.8

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The Administration who claimed they were going to be the most transparent administration in history is once again showing that they are actually the most secretive and high-handed administration in history. Knowing how they operate, this story isn't even that shocking:

Medical staff warned: Keep your mouths shut about illegal immigrants or face arrest

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...r-face-arrest/

Amazingly, according to the article, the government personnel even call themselves the "Brownshirts". That's eerie on every level.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Amazingly, according to the article, the government personnel even call themselves the "Brownshirts". That's eerie on every level.

"Foxnews Opinion" = Fact

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by jms62

"Foxnews Opinion" = Fact

Surely you jest..I know don't call you Shirley

[Danzig]

i'll give credence to the story as soon as a legitimate source has something on it. all i've seen is the fox story, and some sites repeating the fox story.
if fox said the sky was blue, i'd want it confirmed.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'll give credence to the story as soon as a legitimate source has something on it. all i've seen is the fox story, and some sites repeating the fox story.
if fox said the sky was blue, i'd want it confirmed.

I actually don't necessarily question a lot of what is in the FOX article, because it seems to be a whole lotta nothing. I don't understand why these private contractors have their shorties in a bunch about not being allowed to bring in items that can take pictures to an Air Force base that is currently serving as a refugee camp filled with children. The last thing these kids need is their pictures plastered all over social media. It seems to be a gesture towards protecting the kids' privacy. A refugee camp is not a public place. I'm not allowed to take pictures of my son in swim class at the YMCA for the same reason. Protecting children's privacy.

So I couldn't figure out exactly what the article was railing against, other than it seemed to have a very strong bias against the children, which is pretty heartless.