• Welcome!
    Logout|My Dashboard

Should the US be sending all these children back? - The Galveston County Daily News: Guest Columns

December 4, 2016

Should the US be sending all these children back?

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • carlosrponce posted at 6:35 am on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6535

    Word from the Border Patrol Agents now in charge of the children - they want to go home. They miss their parents. Send them back.

  • gerhardmeinecke posted at 8:37 am on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    gerhardmeinecke Posts: 236

    You are right. the right thing to do is to send all people that are not Anglo-Saxons back to where they came from. That would keep the culture of this country clean. the trouble started when they let all those Germans (like me), Italians, Russians, Chinese and Puerto Ricans etc in here. And in Texas they didn't clean out all those Mexicans after the Alamo. Now they have all those funny names around like Meinecke and Ponce. Those kids know best what is good for them, what do their parents know. They don't see that their kids would enjoy getting raped left and right and sold into slavery. That would take them off their hands and provide some good for their owners.

  • gerhardmeinecke posted at 8:43 am on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    gerhardmeinecke Posts: 236

    Don't you think that a kid at 12 yrs old would miss their parents? Don't you think that the parents knew that when they sent them. have you thought about what it takes as a parent to do so. What a reasoning!!! I knew what I would hear or read about my comments, but this argument is on par with "lets send them back because they likely have lice". What have we become? One-day-a-week Christians?

  • Bigjim posted at 9:59 am on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    Bigjim Posts: 1417

    Some practice what they preach.
    Others preach what they what they practice .
    Such as
    Jesus cleansing a leper
    Lazarus the beggar.

  • Island Runner posted at 10:43 am on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    Island Runner Posts: 401

    Well said

  • gerhardmeinecke posted at 11:02 am on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    gerhardmeinecke Posts: 236

    I assume, island runner, you are not referring to carlosponce's comment, or?

  • Jake Buckner posted at 11:02 am on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    Jake Buckner Posts: 2240

    Good, thought-provoking letter, Mr Meinecke. I look forward to your second installment, which I'll read before commenting.

  • gecroix posted at 1:21 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6393

    Race baiting, GM...?
    I'm surprised, considering the source of it.
    Tell me, since you conclude that the reason people oppose being invaded from the south is because the illegals are mostly hispanic, would you say that a person not wanting his home invaded or his possessions stolen by a gang of white youths was primarily anti-caucasian in their opposition?
    The logic of the latter tracks the logic of the former.
    What part of ILLEGAL is everyone having trouble with? it's a color blind word...

  • sverige1 posted at 1:30 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    You are correct, Meinecke. None of us here in glorious US of A can imagine what these children have been going through. As far as children saying they "want to go home". I would think that most children would come to that stage after a few days or months in this new land. That would not be a lasting stage, however. Most children, even from terrible beginnings, can reflect the few good things about their very young life. Most of us want to "go back" to some of the safety of childhood. Sad thing is that these children have little or no safety to remember.

  • carlosrponce posted at 1:58 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6535

    How about listening to the Border Patrol today at 6pm on Laredo, Texas television
    Border Patrol disagrees with Obama's intentions
    LAREDO, TEXAS (KGNS) - While the president hopes a $4 billion request could find a solution to the border crisis, the US Border Patrol Union is in disagreement.
    The funding would reportedly be for more judges and legal aid, to begin deportations, and for detention facilities to house in influx of immigrants from Central America. Agents don't agree, because none of the funds would even assist them in securing the border. Tonight on KGNS News at Six, reporter Christian von Preysing speaks to the union to hear their side of the story.

  • Jbgood posted at 2:31 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    Mr. Ponce,
    It is a political trick to help Hilliary in 2016! "Uncle Sugga" knows if he can make people think he is helping out on this end,....delaying any actions for years, while NOT securing the border, he can maybe keep the minority vote intact for the Democrats in 2016.
    The fact that Illegal-Immigrants will continue pouring over the border, overwhelming the present border patrol people, is immaterial to him, and would allow him to point the finger at the Republicans and say, "See, there it was their fault, and not ours!"
    I will say again, "Secure the border!" "Procure a satisfactory immigration policy for everybody!" "Work the policy!" Any alternatives will allow for the steady FLOOD of Illegal-Immigrants to continue moving into this country along with criminals and gang-,members coming with them! All the MS-13 members from El Salvador have to do is hook up with those in California and Texas ( HOUSTON ).... and they will be in business! Robbing, stealing and killing, for which they are famous for!

  • Bigjim posted at 2:59 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    Bigjim Posts: 1417

    Looks like more than none of the funds will be used for border patrol agents
    From the Latino Post

    . "It will be spent on border patrol agents, immigration judges, aerial surveillance, and new detention facilities to address the severe overcrowding issues in Texas.
    In addition to ramping up patrol, a good portion of the funds -- nearly half -- will be used to improve care for undocumented children as they move through the deportation process.
    "We are taking steps to protect due process but also to remove these migrants more efficiently," a White House official said Tuesday morning. "We are taking an aggressive approach on both sides of the border."

  • gecroix posted at 3:33 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6393

    Jim, first, exactly what thing, anything, has occurred in the last 5 1/2 years that would lead anyone to think the Administration can be trusted to do what it says it will do, and actually solve a problem, rather than make it worse, or toss money at it and then forget about it?
    Since that won't take long to think about, the answer being demonstrably squat, then second, how will more border patrol agnets, immigration judges, aerial surveilallnce, and detention facilities do doodley about stopping illegal immigration? They're already IN the country before these things take effect or have any connection.
    Third, the 'deportation process' requires someone to show up for a deportation hearing, and to then be hauled back. Since these folks are already in this country illegally but are being released into our population with only a promise to do come back and face the music, how many do you figure will do that? 10%? 5%? 50%?
    What will the last refuge of our leadership, throwing a few more billion at a problem, do to solve any of that, besides make for a talking point to pretend it's somebody else's fault that there is a 'situation' that could be stopped in great part, but the means to do so is not being employed?
    3.7 billion with a B bucks would, and could TODAY, be spent well sending the National Guard to SECURE the border, to turn away ALL seeking to enter illegally (all we can find, anyway...), THEN we talk and wrangle about 'immigration reform'. It's all BS political gamesmanship, absent the influx of illegals stopped in it's tracks.
    That 'pen and a phone' ...our President could use them right now, at 1530 hours Thursday, July 10, 2014, to order the means of securing the border to get started at it, right now, rather than sit around playing pool, partying, and blaming Republicans for not giving him more money. He doesn't NEED 'Congress' to deploy the National Guard.
    He just needs a pair of...well, a pair that allows him to do his job, and stop pandering to the ninnies he's pandering to...
    Fourth, what do you think the likelihood of that happening is? About the same as you and I waking up young again tomorrow...[beam]

  • gerhardmeinecke posted at 6:13 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    gerhardmeinecke Posts: 236

    Gerald I didn't single out Hispanics, "...the trouble started when they let all those Germans (like me), Italians, Russians, Chinese and Puerto Ricans etc in here".

    There is a general sentiment against incomers destroying the Anglo-Saxon culture. I could send you quite a few examples of what I have received to this extent.

    As you know I came here myself and BELIEVE in an orderly permit process.

    What I resent is actually the seemingly INdiscriminate reaction to anyone coming illegally in this case especially since we carry some responsibility for the unbridled violence there.

    The children from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador coming without their parents is not the general illegal invasion, which I want to get stopped as well,

    It is sad to see this discussion being used as a platform to voice the general dissatisfaction with the administration; not that I do not share that to quite an extent.

  • gerhardmeinecke posted at 6:21 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    gerhardmeinecke Posts: 236

    What would the meat packer, construction,restaurant and farming industries do then? Their lobbying against disruption of their labor flow has spanned many administrations and will continue to buy the White House's & Congress' inaction. All that talk for and against is just window dressing by both sides' weather vanes. Have you seen anyone in Congress, from either side, propose a bill seriously punishing employment of illegal immigrants?

  • gerhardmeinecke posted at 6:23 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    gerhardmeinecke Posts: 236

    It is difficult to debate generalizations for political reasons.

  • carlosrponce posted at 6:48 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6535

    If you missed the Laredo News at http://www.kgns.tv the train that carries children atop rail cars derailed. Thank God no one was killed like last August. The train carried 1,300 Central American migrants traveling north towards the United States. The train is called "The Beast".

  • carlosrponce posted at 6:59 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6535

    "What would the meat packer, construction,restaurant and farming industries do then?" They would have to hire the unemployed, pay the going rate and reduce the unemployment rate.
    "Have you seen anyone in Congress, from either side, propose a bill seriously punishing employment of illegal immigrants?" Yes.
    "House Republicans, led by Reps. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Elton Gallegly (R-CA), and Steve King (R-IA), recently introduced a new bill, the Legal Workforce Act, that would require employers to verify the immigration status of potential employees over a federal E-Verify electronic system."
    Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has introduced new legislation (S.202) in the U.S. Senate that would require all employers in the United States to use E-Verify.

  • Jbgood posted at 7:00 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    Okay, everybody listen up! Uncle JBG is fixing to get down to the nitty-gritty with yall now! Before I do, I want all my friends and those who are recommending compassion here, but standing firm on the laws of then land be obeyed,....I want yall to be vigilant! I say this because you are going to see some of these bleeding hearts, who want to see the borders of this country opened up, start to scatter.
    What if parents in Africa, Haiti, and Dominican Republic start strapping all their BLACK KIDS to rafts and boats and they start flooding into our American borders ENDLESSLY, HOW MANY OF ALL OF YOU WHO NOW ARE ADVOCATING KEEPING, all those who show up from South America, WILL stand up like men and women of compassion and say:
    Lets keep all these kids FROM AFRICA, HAITI, AND THE DOMINICAN REBUBLIC! KEEP ALL WHO COMES to our shores? ( Mr. Ponce, gecroix, Bvresident, watch them start making excuses! ) TALK BACK TO ME, AND TELL THE TRUTH!
    I already know the answer to my question!!!! I WOULD say the same thing I'm saying now, GET OFF YOUR REAR ENDS ,...and secure the borders, procure Comprehensive Immigration Plans that are fair to everybody, and work within them!

    Oh I can't wait to hear some these answers, from all these......DEMOCRATS

  • Jbgood posted at 7:10 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    My point was not to embarrass anyone! My point was that we need a FAIR Immigration plan for everybody! I frankly don't think it is right ( I'm talking about me ) to punish a Mexican kid who comes across the border by leading him to the borderline and getting rid of him, when you will let a kid from El Salvador stay for years, then probably give him a great crack at citizenship! Where is the right in that? I don't want to hear all this MS-13 crap either! IT IS NOT RIGHT!!!! PERIOD!!!!!

  • Jbgood posted at 7:13 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    Oh talk back to me if you can! I want you to.[smile]

  • Jbgood posted at 7:30 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    Nobody want to talky-talky? No? Everybody was talking while agooooo!!!!! Well that's alright, I'm going find me some sports to talk about! Football! Good night!

  • carlosrponce posted at 7:43 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6535

    "Yo Quiero mami, yo quiero papi," the child cries.
    "You made it all the way here. To heck with what you want NOW. You're staying! Uncle and Aunt Liberal know what is best for you! Now be quiet, you're making the President look bad."
    "Don't you think that a kid at 12 yrs old would miss their parents? Don't you think that the parents knew that when they sent them. have you thought about what it takes as a parent to do so. What a reasoning!!! " Really?

  • gecroix posted at 7:55 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6393

    The Forums either shrank, or my new trifocals need a tune up...[unsure]
    That's one way to get rid of whatever you want to get rid of. Just get rid of it.
    Maybe the hard drive crashed....

    Anyway, wasting your time, Jbg.
    It's all about protecting the 'investment' by building straw men to burn down, to try to keep the President from feeling the heat himself...
    Didn't work, though...Those were some real beads of sweat on that forehead after time under a pool table light, and a beer chaser...[beam]
    When Emperor Nero was feeling the heat, he just fiddled...
    I don't recall whether he blamed the Assembly....

  • gecroix posted at 8:27 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6393

    My name is not Gerald...but I do know a couple of Geralds...
    Does one have to single out hispanics in a forum that in this case is about hispanic children illegally entering the country?
    We have some responsibility for violence in Central America? What, we're not sending them enough money, so they're ticked...[huh]

  • gerhardmeinecke posted at 9:15 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    gerhardmeinecke Posts: 236

    I am not a Democrat and I do not care what color people are. It all depends on the circumstances. That's why there are hearings. The problem is the slow process.

    As I said in my comment just a few minutes ago, one has to study the history of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and also Nicaragua, to fully understand the situation there, a very different one form Mexico or any other Latin American countries

  • gerhardmeinecke posted at 9:19 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    gerhardmeinecke Posts: 236

    Scattering starts when the discussion gets to the broken record part. When it gets to the uncompromising hostile insulting debate between the two halves of this "indivisible" country

  • gecroix posted at 9:54 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6393

    I am not a Republican, and I don't recall Party affiliation being mentioned, anyway.
    I respectfully disagree that the problem is the hearings. The problem is the people entering the country illegaly in the first place. No need for the hearings if they don't.
    I'm just a simple old East Texas Piney Woods stomper, not an academecian, but I still know that the problem with crime is not the criminal justice system's inadequacies.
    It's the criminals making them inadequate.

  • kevjlang posted at 10:40 pm on Thu, Jul 10, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    The reason for the hearings is that they are unaccompanied minors. If they're adults, the law allows us to just make them leave and go back from whence they came.

  • bvresident posted at 7:11 am on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    No sir, the problem is that 90% of them will not show up for their deportation hearings and will remain in this country indefinitely because that is the will of this president and the democrat party.

    And I'll tell you just like I told Lang. If we don't understand the social and political issues at play in Central America by this stage of the game then now is not the time to start understanding. Either way, that statement has absolutely no relationship to whether we should take immediate action to stop the entry of ALL illegals into this country.

  • sverige1 posted at 7:20 am on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Well, JBG -
    I, for one, don't comprehend what you mean. If there were thousands of black kids rafting from Africa (and that could conceivably happen)....then the "advocating for keeping" them would run just as much if the advocators truly believe that children are to be humanely dealt with and taken care of. I would think the advocators are "color blind" in that regard.

    As kevinjlang said, it is an entirely different matter when it concerns children. You can't simply "ship" them back. Now, I'm not one to give an excuse as to why thousands of Haitian kids should be returned, but not so for Guatamalan kids. Guess we'll have to find someone to bring us up to speed on the difference.

  • sverige1 posted at 7:26 am on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    You know as well as I do that children will say things they don't entirely mean. Just try to yank them back into a rafter and tell them they're going back to Honduras. They'll have misgivings, cry, have mood swings one way or the other. That's why it takes the adults to make decisions for children that are in their best interests in the long run.

    Would you keep a child from being sad or from crying and "give in" to his/her cries if he/she didn't get his/her way at a grocery store, after you told him or her that child cannot buy a candy bar just before dinner? Oftentimes we send kids to do things, urge them to make the right (but more painful) choice. That's life.

  • sverige1 posted at 7:31 am on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    I beg to differ, bvresident. One must understand history and past decisions to move forward and make the better of choices in the future. Any public relations or theory course would agree.

    So, you're willing to stop trying to understand the circumstances that these Central American children arrive from? How are we going to eventually stop their entry if we don't understand WHY they're coming in the 1st place?

    BVResident = CIVIC 101 FAIL! LOL

  • gecroix posted at 10:35 am on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6393

    The reason for the hearings is not because they are minors.
    They'd still be minors back in their own countries (except for all the accompanying adults conveniently overlooked).
    The reason for the hearings is because they've breached our border.
    Illegal is only a 6 letter word - yet so difficult for 'progressives' to grasp.

  • kevjlang posted at 11:28 am on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    The law requires hearings. The law also requires us to figure out how to get them back across Mexico. Even after hearings, we can't just drop the kids off at a bus station across the border from Brownsville or Laredo.

  • gecroix posted at 11:52 am on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6393

    It's not a chicken or egg thing.
    It's very simple.
    No illegals.
    No need to 'hear' their cases.
    Legal immigration already has provisions to grant/not grant entry/staying.
    It's already been figured out how to fly them or bus them around the country, so change the GPS coordinates and fly them or bus them to Central America.
    "Recalculating...1/4 mile ahead, make a u-turn, and proceed in the opposite direction from which you were heading"
    Maybe use the same vendors being contracted for last January?
    Wave to the National Guard on the way back...if the pool game and fundraising can spare the time to actually do something...

  • kevjlang posted at 12:11 pm on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    The law requires hearings. Or, are you demanding the President to break the law? Seems to me that you've chastised him in the past for breaking the law. Are there times when he should follow the law and others when he should break it? What are the guidelines? If he breaks laws you like, he's rogue, and if he breaks laws you don't like, he's a renegade?

  • carlosrponce posted at 12:26 pm on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6535

    The 2008 law was designed to circumvent sex trafficking. There is already legislation in the works to remedy this. Of course it won't get past Harry Reid. Then he and Barack Obama can tell the voting Public that the "House" isn't doing its job.

  • kevjlang posted at 1:57 pm on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Like any law, you have to go by what it says, not what someone says they thought it was for 6 years ago. And, how do we know that sex trafficking doesn't apply to any of the 57K people? And, why would we want to just turn children around to cross dangerous parts of Mexico again, subjecting them to a second tempt of fate?

    Not saying we should fling open the doors, but I'm not convinced that just shooing them away is the right approach, either.

  • kevjlang posted at 1:59 pm on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Is John Boehner sitting on any legislation that the Senate has sent over, refusing to put it in front of the House for debate or vote? Goose, Gander, Pot, Kettle. Any of them around?

  • carlosrponce posted at 7:20 pm on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6535

    Here is the list and what the House has done with the Bills sent to them from the Senate:
    Looking over the list I see things that the House has not acted on and I agree with the reasoning. Find a bill you think is worthy and I'll point out the flaws. For instance Senate Bill 649: Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act, sounds innocuous until you read the bill.Section 509 (c)(6)(6) identify campus safety information (including ways to increase off-campus housing safety. Sounds good until they come into your child's off campus apartment and do a weapons inspection. Violation of your child's rights? You betcha. Will that stop them? Not until that court order.

  • kevjlang posted at 8:06 pm on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Well, I'm sure Harry Reid would claim similar rationale for not bringing house bills to vote. I'm sure that Boehner would respond with something to the effect of bring it up for vote, vote it down, and send it back to committee. Is there anything wrong with the house doing the same? Or, is Boehner afraid that enough House Republicans are ignorant enough to vote for something that's a bad bill?

  • carlosrponce posted at 8:30 pm on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6535

    Pick a Bill, any Bill the House has not worked on. Read the Bill as I have. They're just plain BAD bills, some downright un-Constitutional, some nothing but pork. Pick a Bill.

  • raifm posted at 8:59 pm on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    raifm Posts: 87

    What about the people who hire them? That's against the law also. I see very little on this forum about throwing this criminals in jail They are breaking THE LAW. Should they get a pass because they are usually WASP?

  • raifm posted at 9:03 pm on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    raifm Posts: 87

    I agree!

  • carlosrponce posted at 9:28 pm on Fri, Jul 11, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6535

    There have been laws proposed by Republicans to require the use of E-verify by employers with penalties involved but so far the penalty part has been weakened. See how your representative votes and if it's not to your liking vote that person out of office. Are they WASPs? I'd like to see the stats on that one.

  • Jose Boix posted at 11:49 am on Sat, Jul 12, 2014.

    Jose Boix Posts: 417

    Interesting migration route finally entering the US on foot - or after a raft/boat ride across the Rio Grande. Looking at the Central American map, Nicaraguans, Salvadorians, Hondurans and Guatemalans had to enter and leave Mexico - I guess Mexico does not require "documents." If from Nicaragua, they had to cross El Salvador or Honduras, then Guatemala and Mexico before reaching the US.

  • gecroix posted at 1:13 pm on Sat, Jul 12, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6393

    No, President Obama doesn't have to break the law.
    He also doesn't have to pander to people who make absurd generalizations and get all hyperbolioc rather than actually use some reason, and he doesn't have to bad mouth Everybody Else but himself and head off to another party or pool hall, either.
    Our President could, right now, with a stroke of his pen, a legal one, send the National Guard to the southern border and that alone would be a beginning to slowing the human surge. He could get his own B-hind on AF1 and fly down there, this time closer than Austin, and get in front of the cameras at McAllen and say STRAIGHT UP, directed at the countries dumping their people on us, that the illegal aliens WILL NOT be allowed to stay, and WILL be deported. ASAP.
    Period. So, save your 700 bucks coyote money, and stay home (while he's at it, he could tell the Mexicans holding our Marine that has been ignored by the White House that they either release him, NOW, or the border WILL be closed going INTO Mexico, from this side. No tourists. Period, until they do).
    Then, or during the flight down to texas, he could get out his phone and call the Speaker of the House and ask him, in the best interests of the nation, to get the House to pass an amendment to the law such that Central American illegal aliens get treated the same as Mexican illegal aliens. I'm betting Boehner would take care of that quickly, with wide support in the house. Then, he could dial up Harry Reed and tell him it's OK not to sit on the coming bill...go ahead an actually re-open the Senate, and debate and vote. Then he could get that pen out again and sign the darn thing, and that would further begin to be part of the resolution.
    Total elapsed time...a week, two, if POTUS would declare the invasion at the border a national emergency, and ask Congress to.
    No need for a bunch of other hands.
    No need for a bunch of shoulda/woulda/couldas.
    No need to speculate or dream up possibilities.
    No need for pandering to the twits on both sides who either see no limit to other people's money to spend, or who see the end of the world coming.
    Just HANDLE the problem. DECIDE! ACT! RESOLVE!!!
    Rather than the always, and inevitably expected, divert, distratct, delay.
    He could actually get around to not just being President, but actually being Presidential, and doing the job, not just living the perks. 'Bust loose' in the right direction, as it were...
    He could, today, get with the program.
    Will he?
    No way.
    Because, he's got millions of people just like some GDN posters who shall remain unnamed ([wink]) who will cover for his failures to act, excuse his complete lack of leadership skills and desire to be one, and/or wring their hands and try to come up with SOME way to do ANYTHING but attend to the issue at hand.
    One hand...[wink]

  • bvresident posted at 8:02 pm on Sat, Jul 12, 2014.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    I don't think I'll use your distorted and bizarre view of the world as the litmus test as to whether I pass or fail the understanding of government. I do however, certify you as a loon.

  • sverige1 posted at 9:13 am on Sun, Jul 13, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to bvresident posted at 8:02 pm on Sat, Jul 12, 2014:

    Well, bvresident -
    You're proving once again that you need to increase your moniker to bvresident the anti-intellectual. LMAO

    geocroix - Obama has the moral obligation to deal with this influx crisis. He can't turn away children. Not too difficult concept to grasp. Even "shrub" Bush would be doing the same.

  • carlosrponce posted at 2:58 pm on Sun, Jul 13, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6535

    sverige, were you a "bully" in school. You sure sound like one. With all his flaws we would not be in this mess if George W. were President. If President Obama had any sense he would invite the former president to lead a bi-partisan task force to remedy the border "situation"/ crisis. It seems that George W. Bush gets along better with Bill Clinton than Clinton gets along with Obama.

  • sverige1 posted at 9:10 pm on Sun, Jul 13, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 2:58 pm on Sun, Jul 13, 2014:

    I'm perplexed..You're worried about me "bullying" the former President of the US? I imagine he's over the fragile identity stage of being made fun of. I also would imagine that if George "Shrub" Bush were still in office, he would have to assemble his own team of advisors, as I doubt he ever had the background to tackle this issue without even his own experts.

    Curious to see, however, if Bush has any ideas. I haven't heard of any....do you know of any links?

  • carlosrponce posted at 9:44 pm on Sun, Jul 13, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6535

    I'm concerned about your bullying EVERYONE in these forums, not President Bush. That's the first sign of a bully -they do not recognize it in themselves. Examine your posts.
    definition of a bully: a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates

  • kevjlang posted at 2:06 pm on Mon, Jul 14, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    You want Harry Reid to pick a bill, any bill, and let the Senate vote it down. I have no problem with that. Let the chamber have a good laugh at the House's expense, vote it down, and toss it into the circular file. Why do you not want Boehner to do the same? It's not unconstitutional to vote down a bad, pork-filled, unconstitutional bill. Get the bills out of circulation.

    I find it a bit incredulous that you would berate Reid for stonewalling bills the House has presented while excusing Boehner for the same thing. Kind of like having a parent telling the kids not to smoke while puffing away on their Winstons.

  • carlosrponce posted at 2:35 pm on Mon, Jul 14, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6535

    Don't smoke. I don't agree with everything Boehner does. I believe these bills should be sent to committee and if unworthy, die in committee. A strong Speaker can convey his wishes and send it to the proper committee with his wishes known. I miss "The Hammer" who was politically accused, stepped down as Speaker but had all charges dropped. He was my Congressman, was doing a terrific job which frightened the Democrats.

  • sverige1 posted at 5:15 pm on Mon, Jul 14, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Well, let's see carlos:

    I've been called "lefty", and clumped in with the "entitlement generation". I've been told that I don't like this country (which is very untrue b/c I make a very good living and would not want to live elsewhere). Hmmmm, what else? I've been told that I make excuses for our President, which I really don't b/c after all...our President has never vouched for me. I've simply said that this country would be turning like the world has these past 6 or so years the same way if RobMe was our leader. I've been very practical, candid, and truthful about things....yet many would agree that I have been bullied a time or two, or three. So, um....I don't agree that I've been that much of a bully, if any.

    What I do know is that I don't believe in turning away refugee children who have been from somewhere that has given them a bad time. That's not bullying...that's being part of the forward-thinking electorate citizens who love children and want humanity to prevail instead of exclusionary tactics. Again, that's not "bullying".

  • carlosrponce posted at 5:26 pm on Mon, Jul 14, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6535

    Very common among child bullies is the response "but THEY started it" or "but you should hear what THEY call me." I asked you to examine YOUR posts. As President Teddy Roosevelt said,"Bully, Bully!"

  • sverige1 posted at 10:19 pm on Mon, Jul 14, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 5:26 pm on Mon, Jul 14, 2014:

    Well, I guess you'll have to "get over" all my bullying. Maybe a mental health expert can be of assistance to your delicate sensibilities. LMAO [beam]

  • carlosrponce posted at 7:05 am on Tue, Jul 15, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6535

    sverige, it's not my "delicate sensibilities" but my training to spot bullies.

  • kevjlang posted at 10:56 am on Tue, Jul 15, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    So, I guess we're both on record that something besides stuffing them in the closet should be done with the bills in both legislative houses. However, I think that both houses like using these kinds of parliamentary procedures in order to have stuff around that allows them to declare where they stand on things without actually declaring where they stand--or to make other legislators declare where they stand.

    I think we'd find that many (most? all?) of these bills contain "poison pills" planted by the passing majority that sour the stomachs of the leaders or the other body. Right now, I don't think we'll see Boehner bring any "Tax the Rich" riders hidden inside other bills to the floor, and I don't think that we'll see Reid bring any "Kill Obamacare" riders inside other bills.

  • gecroix posted at 1:06 pm on Tue, Jul 15, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6393

    The number of asylum requests granted under Pres. Obama almost tripled from 2012 to 2013. Just a bit over 30,000. That's 30,000! That's 10 times more than were granted in 2008, the last year in office of his prdecessor, who, we hear, is the cause for all this mess.
    So, the Ranch down in Crawford is where the requests are still being OK'd....[beam]

    From 3000 in 2008. To 10,000 by 2012. To 30,000 by 2013.
    "On June 15, 2012, President Obama signed a memo calling for deferred action for certain undocumented young people who came to the U.S. as children....DACA..."
    The 'Republican's fault...."?

    It certainly helps to have a base, base....

  • sverige1 posted at 3:30 pm on Tue, Jul 15, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 7:05 am on Tue, Jul 15, 2014
    Response to raifm posted at 8:59 pm on Fri, Jul 11, 2014:

    About those affluent WASPs who knowingly hire undocumented illegal workers. New proposed legislation: If caught, they must pay IRS 60 percent of their own income. Failure to do so can result in a series of audits and possible IRS tax fraud charges.

    As for carlosr (bullypolice)ponce - perhaps you need a refresher course in your bully detection training. I doubt if anyone here writing or reading these forums looks upon our written words as anything more than mere debating points, mixed in with some cynicism and humor here and there.

    As with our elected officials, I doubt if any one person who writes editorials, expresses opinion, or writes letters is exempt from a bit of chiding and BEING chided.

    Now once again, back to the matter at hand: I doubt if it does any good to examine how many more thousands of children have come here in 2014 than did so in 2013, 2012. The fact of the matter is that they are here. Aside from the stories we've heard today of buses bringing a few back to the border...the vast majority are here to stay. Here's a thought: why not there be created a referendum based on the voters that requires the big leagues in Congress (Speaker, Majority/Minority leaders, etc) to rally their voting congresspersons to pass a comprehensive immigration bill and to pass crucial budgetary laws we've been needing for a decade now. If Congress refuses to make active laws in relation to immigration and budgets, then they lose their posts and we find some leaders who can bring the bipartisanship concept to a reality.

  • carlosrponce posted at 4:24 pm on Tue, Jul 15, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6535

    In real debate, sverige, bullying is discouraged and you lose points if you try it. No refresher course needed, I taught bully detection in education seminars.

  • gecroix posted at 11:57 pm on Tue, Jul 15, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 6393

    "A new intelligence assessment concludes that misperceptions about U.S. immigration policy – and not Central American violence – are fueling the surge of thousands of children illegally crossing the Mexican border.
    The 10-page July 7 report was issued by the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), which according to the Justice Department website is led by the DEA and incorporates Homeland Security. Its focus is on the collection and distribution of tactical intelligence, information which can immediately be acted on by law enforcement.
    "Of the 230 migrants interviewed, 219 cited the primary reason for migrating to the United States was the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes or permisos to UAC (unaccompanied children) and adult females OTMs (other than Mexicans) traveling with minors,” the report said.
    The intelligence assessment, which is unclassified but not meant to go beyond law enforcement, also cited data from the United Nations office on Drugs and Crime Statistics saying despite an explosion in the number of illegal minors, crime data for Central America actually showed a dip in violence.
    A draft chart circulating on Capitol Hill showed data from Homeland Security projects that if current trends continue, as many as 90,000 illegal children will enter the U.S. by the end of this year and nearly double that,160,000, next year."

    There it is....