One more thing—most of those children entering illegally will be staying legally
This is the way it works:
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status is something that we attorneys on the border have been getting CLE training in for a while, but largely it has not been well known outside of CPS attorney work.
With the invasion now taking place, it is going to explode. No parents means that any immigrant child under 18 can apply for a Green Card as soon as they are deemed “abandoned” by their parents for 6 months by the court system. There are some other minor rules, but that is the big one”¦.
The bill renewal was the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. It modified and exempted application of certain rules which would normally result in inadmissibility”¦. Also, it set up an “expedited” review schedule that USCIS is REQUIRED to adjudicate SIJ petitions within 180 days of filing, and that interviews may be WAIVED for SIJ petitioners under 14 years of age or when it is determined that an interview is unnecessary.
Further, per the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, a SIJ petitioner may not be required to contact an individual who allegedly abused, abandoned or neglected the Juvenile.
What nobody is talking about (or maybe nobody has realized yet) is that this is going to flood the child welfare courts FIRST, before they get to the USCIS (certain findings of fact which can only be made by the state are prerequisites to SIJS applications) with a sudden influx of “abandoned” children, and put a strain on the CPS system like nothing that has ever been seen.”
There’s much much more at the link.
But to cut to the chase, my prediction is this: when Obama says he wants to streamline and fast-track the process and will act if Congress doesn’t, he wants people to think he means to make deportation faster and easier. Although his goal is to make you think that, it’s not the way he intends it to work at all.
And afterward, he’ll say he learned about it in the paper, just like the rest of us.
I had the same thought.
Obama implies that he’ll use the $2 billion for deportations, but never actually says that. Since he’s a compulsive liar, and was the architect of the policy that brought this flood of children here, why would he suddenly reverse course?
Has he done that on any other subject?
Once the $ is in his hands, Congress cannot stipulate the precise use, since enforcement isn’t their business.
If they refuse the money, Obama will blame them for doing nothing during a crisis.
The best they can do is to get Obama to explicitly state what the money will go for.
His social re-engineering approaches Hitlerian scale: he wants to remake the American demographic, entire.
Repressing White birth rates (aka ‘women’s health’ in the 0-care act) while importing vast, vast numbers of alien wombs on the cusp of fertility must have the same demographic impact as forced relocation or genocide.
Barry really IS remaking America to look like the rest of our troubled planet.
Barry realizes that genocide = bad PR;
‘Any term abortion’ = ‘women’s health rights’
At the end of the day, Barry is going to have our entire polity voting along ethnic lines. (Which has been Honolulu practice for just about forever.)
There will be some blow-back. The lower economic production of these new entrants will make the current welfare state impossible.
Yes, Barry can really break the system.
By destroying the American ethos — demographically and culturally — Barry is setting the stage for a reversal of fortunes.
As Weimar Germany showed, chaos is resolved by coercive leadership that tears up the statutes. (See also Russian, Chinese, French… revolutions.)
The ONLY way a strong man can re-boot the system would be to cut off the sugar to all of the current gibsmedats, cronyists,… even retirees. That’s what happened in Russia (1998)
The army and police don’t get cut off. They should be expected to explode in size. (The National Guard would be out in the streets, backing up patrol cops.)
&&&
Germany had been, traditionally, one of the most (socially) liberal nations in Europe, a far cry from Russia or Poland. (Setting aside the zany Prussians.) Hamburg and Berlin were the ‘San Franciscos’ of Europe.
{ St. Pauli girl = slang for prostitute; ironic, no? }
Yet, in no time at all, Bohemian Hitler morphed the culture something bizarre.
With all of his policemen running around, it may stun you to know that plain old street crime took off like a rocket during the war. Censorship inside the Nazi state kept the worst crimes from reaching print.
Weapons became widely available (captured Russian arms) so strong arm crimes took off.
Criminals often could hide their craft under the rubble of Allied bombing. (Wack a target and knock the wall over with a blast, etc.)
And some de-compressing troops shot up their neighborhood — very much in the style of the American trooper who murdered 17 Afghans in one night.
All of which is to say, when things break down they can REALLY break down.
(BTW, many of the German crimes were pre-peated in the South during the American Civil War. Feuds were resolved — the hard way — once civil authority broke down. Similar antics still happen in Russia — as no-one really trusts the cops or the courts. That entire nation is mobbed up like a Chicago ghetto.)
This is big, big news.
“Legally”? For good or bad, since Obama, there is no “Law” – no morally or ethically binding law anyway.
By being “the Law”, Obama destroyed the Law. All there is is force. You might have to do something because you are forced to; but not out of moral obligation. Plato’s Crito is the classic piece here. The moron who people made president has no idea what he did.
But his lawlessness also means that when we get power again we can do whatever we want. We can for example, deport all the liberals and make them “illegal”; and turn around and make all the illegals to be legal. Stroke of a pen movement of an army type stuff – in other words, easier than anything.
The next President’s first act should be to formally exile Obama. Anywhere will do. ANd then Pelosi, Reid, and John Roberts to the same place. They can form a government-in-exile! And then borrow the local army to come and take America back.
Cloward-Piven
It’s like it is rigged to promote the Left’s war on humanity.
I want to ready what you write daily – I may not like it , because truth is not always happiness. But you write well, and tell it like it is or seems to be. Any way I saw this yesterday, the law may allow kids to be returned to where the came from, but I’m not inclined to trust the source – the former speaker that is.
(07-11) 15:04 PDT WASHINGTON — Two Bay Area Democrats – Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San Jose – wrote the law now at the center of the controversy over what to do with the 50,000-plus children and other Central American immigrants swamping the Texas border.
Feinstein defended the provisions of a 2008 child-trafficking law, which the Obama administration says ties the hands of the government in dealing with unaccompanied minors crossing the border. The law prevents immediate deportation of children coming over the border alone from countries other than Mexico and Canada. Federal officials must assess each child to see if he or she is eligible for asylum or refugee residency, a process that can take months.
Feinstein says the law has an “exceptional circumstances” loophole that could give the administration more flexibility to remove children.
“I’d just like our distinguished heads and secretaries to know I kind of, in the Senate at least, began this effort legislatively back in 2002, and I want to tell you what happened,” Feinstein said at a Thursday hearing of the Appropriations Committee, which is considering President Obama’s request for $3.7 billion to deal with the influx of Central Americans.
“I was home,” Feinstein said. “I turned on the TV, and what did I see? I saw a 15-year-old Chinese youngster, shackled, hand cuffed, and tears rolling down her face in front of an immigration judge. She had no interpreter, no counsel. She had been held in a jail cell for eight months and was detained another four months.
“She was one of the survivors from a container of Chinese who came to this country, one of the very few. And I believe her parents died coming across the ocean. And I thought at the time, ‘I’m going to take a look at the law and see what we can do.’ ”
The result was the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act, which passed the Senate just before Christmas in 2005, and was later incorporated into the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, passed with broad bipartisan support and the signature of former President George W. Bush just as he was leaving office.
The Obama administration is seeking changes to the law, and Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and John McCain of Arizona, among others, are working on legislation.
Lofgren has strongly defended the law, telling The Chronicle that the problem is a shortage of immigration judges to sort out who is a legitimate refugee and who should be deported.
Feinstein’s goal, she said, was “to see that unaccompanied youngsters who came from countries that were far away, through no initiative of their own, for the most part, really would have a process that was somewhat different. … They would be able to at least have help in terms of pro bono counsel, in terms of an advocate, in terms of research as to whether there was a place to bring them back to their country, or whether there was a place for them here.”
Feinstein said at the time, there were about 5,000 such children a year.
She told Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who wants more flexibility to deport, that the law contains a provision for “exceptional circumstances” that could provide the administration the authority it wants without changing the law.
She argued that “exceptional circumstances” could be triggered by large numbers coming in.
“It may be the number of children coming through in a week, or a month, however you see it,” Feinstein said. “This is really hard, and from 5,000 we’ve gone now to 60,000, and I really, I offer to work with you. I hope the bill does not need amending because it took six years to get where we are.”
Carolyn Lochhead is the San Francisco Chronicle’s Washington correspondent. E-mail: clochhead@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @carolynlochhead