Quantcast
U.S. & World

Thousands of unaccompanied migrant children are at the border — what's the solution?

Comments

Return To Article
  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    July 10, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    The solution is to treat them kindly while arranging to send them back to their country and Families. We need a stronger boarder fence and presence. We must have order, not chaos.

  • Objectified Richfield, UT
    July 10, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    It's notable that most, if not all, of the immigration activists shown in the article's picture are hispanic, possibly even illegal themselves, considering there are more than 12 million currently in our country.

    So now the president wants billions of dollars to care for these illegal kids. In other words, more entitlement welfare for illegals crossing the border. Parents of these kids rightly figured our liberal establishment and activists here would have a more difficult time not giving them welfare (which they are not entitled to) or deporting them.

    Interesting that liberal media like the New York Times has been saying for the past decade that the US can't and shouldn't police the world. Now they have flip-flopped and say that we should get involved and police South America. Once that gets started, where is the line drawn? Taking care of the world is a very expensive and unappreciated endevour. We always end up hated by those countries in the end. No exceptions. They want our money and resources, but nothing else.

    But we're more in-debt than any country in the history of the world and almost bankrupt. So no can do!

  • Seldom Seen Smith Orcutt, CA
    July 10, 2014 8:33 a.m.

    Seal the border.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    July 10, 2014 8:36 a.m.

    @Objectified

    So what is the solution?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 10, 2014 8:36 a.m.

    "The solution is to treat them kindly while arranging to send them back to their country and Families. We need a stronger boarder fence and presence. We must have order, not chaos"

    Sounds like you're in agreement with the President.

    A stronger boarder does nothing for this crisis. These people aren't sneaking through anything, they're walking right up to the agents and turning themselves in.

  • CMO Beaver Beaver, UT
    July 10, 2014 8:42 a.m.

    planes, trains and automobiles are in order to get these folks, all of them back to their original countries... lets do it humanely and with empathy, that should be the priority... but I see no sense of urgency from the administration.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    July 10, 2014 8:53 a.m.

    pragmatistferlife: "A stronger boarder (sic) does nothing for this crisis..."

    We need a stronger BORDER. Enforce our immigration laws or we can just expect millions more people to cross it without permission. What good is a border if it means nothing.

    Dictionary definition of Boarder: a person who receives regular meals when staying somewhere...

    the only thing that is missing here is the rest of the definition

    ...in return for payment or services.

    I can't blame the illegals for wanting to come here for a better life, but I can blame Obama for either his incompetence or his willfull disregard for our immigration laws. Don't give him another penny until he proves he will use it to actually stop the crisis. Like the stimulus money, the $4 billion will be spent on his lawyer cronies and not on border enforcement.

  • Janet Ontario, OR
    July 10, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    I have listened to several interviews in recent days. The reality in Honduras and Guatemala is that gangs have taken over. The gangs kill about 19 people a day in Honduras. They extort money and anything else they can get from business owners (even someone who has a fruit stand). Parents are told to pay up or their children will be killed, and the gangs mean it. President George W. Bush signed a law into effect that treated such children as refugees. Parents send their children on the long and dangerous trip through Mexico to the U.S. border. Some lose their legs to the trains they ride. Some are abducted and physically and sexually assaulted. They have been told that if they turn themselves in at the U.S. border, they will be safe. If we "send them back," it will be even worse for them than for a child from Juarez, Mexico -- if that if possible. We obviously can't take in all of the world's endangered children. We need creative and humane solutions, but first we need to see the breadth and depth of the problems.

  • Objectified Richfield, UT
    July 10, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    @ CHS 85:

    In order to get control of this situation, the ultimate solution needs to entail 2 main actions. First, the border has to be completely sealed and done immediately. Obama should use the National Guard to do this until more border agents can be hired and trained. The National Guard has done this to limited extents in the past... and always successfully. That's the main purpose of the National Guard... to protect America, and that starts at our borders.

    Secondly, Congress needs to override the ill-advised Executive Order that Obama signed in 2012 that is the main culprit in this disaster getting to this point in the first place. Minors should not automatically be given hearings (which usually get delayed and less than 20% actually show up for anyway, after giving written promises that they would).
    Most of these minors should be treated similarly to adult illegals trying to sneak in. They should be turned back at the border and/or immediately deported in a humane way.

    If those 2 things aren't priorities and take place first, this problem will only persist and in fact get worse, as is the current pattern.

  • Objectified Richfield, UT
    July 10, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    @ pragmatistferlife:

    You are completely wrong about a stronger border doing nothing for this crisis. These people are being allowed to stay because they are on American soil when they turn themselves in. They are thus taking advantage of the loophole in Obama's 2012 immigration Executive Order.

    With a stronger border, all of these people would be turned back at the border without being allowed to enter America in the first place. Then the hearings and eventual deportations aren't needed. It would consequently save a lot of time and money.

    But more importantly, when word gets out that people aren't actually able to cross our borders illegally to take advantage of our law loopholes, they will mostly stop coming. They won't be willing to pay human smugglers many hundreds of dollars to bring them here and then just get sent back.

    Almost every country in the world has and maintains strong borders. Ours is the only industrialized country who isn't currently doing a good job of this.

    We can't afford to be overrun with masses of uneducated and unskilled people, most of whom can't even speak our language. It truly is currently a disaster.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    July 10, 2014 9:55 a.m.

    @Objectified
    "First, the border has to be completely sealed and done immediately." I don't think you understand this situation. This is a different issue than people sneaking into the country and trying to live and work here. This is children, intentionally turning themselves in at the border, because even our prisions are better than where they are from. The national guard would just be more people to process these refugee children. And no doubt, these children are refugee's of the drug war. To me it seems that we need to bring in other countries to help these poor little kids. Should the USA take some of them in, I think so. But should we enlist the help of the Canadians and Europeans to help either by letting some of these kids into their countries, or by financially supporting our efforts to help these kids. I'm sorry, but I think that anyone who really thinks we should send these lambs back to the wolves in their home country doesn't understand the situation or has a cold cold heart.

  • Brio Alpine, UT
    July 10, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    @ Noodlekaboodle...

    I believe Objectified understands the border situation better than you do. Your heart is in the right place, but it is overriding the common sense element.

    First of all, we see pictures of small children, which evoke the most emotion from readers, just as the media is intending. But in fact, many of those currently coming are teenagers (technically children) but which aren't exactly the lambs you describe in your comment. There are also quite a few adult women accompanying them.

    In addition, not a single other country has shown any indication of wanting to get involved, either by taking some of these minors in or with financial assistance. Like many others have stated, we can't police the world by ourselves or take care of all the hemisphere's refugees. It's simply not physically or economically feasible, especially with our own economy so shaky.

    Also, where is your verifiable evidence that most of these illegals are refugees of a drug war? Undoubtedly, some are. But most? Most are being sent here by their parents because human smugglers are convincing them now is a good time to come here and not get sent back.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    July 10, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    Everybody is a descendant of an illegal immigrant so get off your high horse and show some compassion for these kids.

  • Cleetorn Fuaamotu, Tonga
    July 10, 2014 11:44 a.m.

    Shaun, while your ancestry may be of dubious arrival in this country, it does not mean that everybody’s is. And even if your fantastical accusation were true, there’s still a GREAT deal of difference between being descendant of an illegal and being an illegal.

    And the issue is not just about compassion. We are distraught that the children have to suffer the depredations of crossing vast territories and we would very much like to take care of them all. But we also need to be realistic. You and I are currently providing free care for 12 million of them. As much as we might like to, we are in no position to embrace another 12 million or more.

    While it may already be too late, if we don’t stop the madness now, we will be totally overrun from within before wed can turn our heads. When we have no more to give and this country is totally bankrupt, then we’ll all be destitute. That may be fine with you, but I would like to be able to take care of my family in the future. I think others would agree.

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    July 10, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    Pragmatistferlife,
    I do not agree with Obama. I believe in strong border control with a strong military presence. I do beieve a wall can be built, using technology that can prevent penetration. I also believe it could be done quickly. Adult illegals are responsible for breaking our laws, and should be treated as such. Small children, not so much. They are the ones who should be treated with kindness as I stateded before. They do need to be sent home.

  • Brio Alpine, UT
    July 10, 2014 12:40 p.m.

    @ Shaun:

    A statement spoken in ignorance.
    Actually, most Americans today had ancestors who came from Europe by boat and processed through the harbor in New York... totally legally. As such, your own horse to climb off of appears to be quite high.

    Most people, including those commenting on this article, do believe in compassion, but tempered with realism. If we simply adopt and take care of all these minors with no strings attached, then many, many more will immediately keep coming and creating a much bigger humanitarian crisis than what we already have. Things will consequently get much worse.

    In order to get some control over the situation, actions will need to be taken that bleeding heart liberals will have a hard time understanding. But that's been the scenario for over 2 centuries. Thank goodness we also have people with enough common sense to deal with the real world in a balanced way.

    Sadly, and much to your chagrin, this isn't a perfect world, and the USA doesn't have unlimited power or resources to take care of all the world's problems. That's the truth of the matter and something you and others need to accept.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    July 10, 2014 12:41 p.m.

    Pragmatist,
    No, he is not agreeing with BO – BO allows them to stay. Since there are not enough holding facilities, they are released and told to return to immigration court, and none of them are stupid enough to do so.

    JoeCapitalist2
    I think pragmatist probably knew what he was doing spelling it “boarder”, and I’m sure he knew he was leaving out the part about compensation.

    Noddlekaboodle,
    These children are victims of the drug war. So you are saying if we eliminate our demand for illicit drugs, the problem would be solved? Sounds good to me, but CO, WA, CA and too many other liberal places have already said they do not want that.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 10, 2014 12:41 p.m.

    Objevtified -

    " . . . liberal media . . . has been saying for the past decade that the US can't and shouldn't police the world. Now they have flip-flopped and say that we should get involved and police South America"

    The NYT said NO such thing.

    How did you leap to that ridiculous conclusion?

    That may be the narrative in Right Wing La La Land . . . But it didn't happen in the real world.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 10, 2014 12:44 p.m.

    Hey Brio -

    " . . . where is your verifiable evidence that most of these illegals are refugees of a drug war?"

    Well Brio . . . There's the fact that drug wars a raging in central America that have taken the lives of thousands of innocent people.

    People leaving in droves to escape annihilation are known as "refugees."

    Therefore it can be reasonably inferred that refugees from these drug wars are in fact refugees from drug wars.

    Do you see how that works now?

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    July 10, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    I wonder which is the worst "war zone" - Central American countries or Chicago?

    I have no doubt that if all these kids and their parents were likely to join the Tea Party movement once they arrived here, we would see Obama calling out every branch of the military in a New York minute. The federal resources that went after Clive Bundy and his supporters would pale in comparison. Every main stream media outlet would be telling the narative that our country is being invaded by potential terrorists and there would be almost zero talk about the need for compassion.

    And Obama has the gall to accuse the GOP as being partisan. He is the most partisan president that this country may have ever seen.

  • Brio Alpine, UT
    July 10, 2014 1:27 p.m.

    @ GaryO:

    I have to admit that much of what you often write seems to be biased political rhetoric, but you do make a valid point this time.

    There is no doubt that some of these kids are trying to escape drug war conditions. But it would be a stretch to assume all of them are. It's possible they all are (though very unlikely), but it would be nice to see some sort of evidence so that decisions are not made on "inferences" as you call them. Decisions actually based on established facts always end up with better consequences.

    To claim that ALL of these particular people are trying to escape imminant "annihilation" is the result of watching too much MSNBC and reading too many dime-store novels. In truth, those South American drug wars have been going on since the 1980's... over 30 years.

    It's also established fact that most of these people have been influenced and encouraged to come here by human smugglers (coyotes) trying to make big profits.
    None of these illegals have shown any indication of suffering any physical harm from drug cartels.

    It's best to keep active imaginations in check.

  • Objectified Richfield, UT
    July 10, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    @ GaryO...

    At least be smart enough to spell my moniker right, and please quit splitting hairs.

    OK... it was the Los Angeles Times instead of the New York Times who said the U.S. government should get involved with South American government affairs and policing things down there. It's still a liberal media source and those things were printed. Either way, it's a dumb idea. So you are thus splitting hairs and consequently wasting both your and my time.

    You honestly should start reading these articles before commenting on any of them. In this particular case, it's spelled out and explained in the last 2 paragraphs of the accompanying article.

    By reading carefully first, it will help keep you from embarrassing yourself so often, and thus better able to objectively contribute to the ongoing dialog. Keep trying, Gary. I have confidence you can eventually get there.

  • Brio Alpine, UT
    July 10, 2014 2:28 p.m.

    GaryO...

    I asked for verifiable evidence (facts), not the mere assumptions and "inferences" that you explicitly referenced. See the difference and how that works?

    The drug wars have been going on in South America for over 30 years. And yes, with some civilian casualties. But to claim that all of sudden all these people now need to run for their lives to escape "annihilation", and especially just after Obama happens to create a loophole in his Executive Power immigration order to let them stay, is a bit far fetched. In fact, a lot far fetched. But on the other hand, it's something far left liberals might fall for. In fact, some obviously have.

    This particular group probably suffered more harm during their journey here than they ever have in their home countries. Travel through Mexico often gets dangerous like that... especially for girls and women.

    These "refugees" are much more likely to be trying to escape their poverty than any particular physical danger. The United States has a generous welfare plan. That's why they didn't stop and stay in Mexico.

    So now do you see how all this works?

  • Copacetic Logan, UT
    July 10, 2014 3:06 p.m.

    @ GaryO:

    Concerning your comment to "Objectified"...

    Are you now reducing your comments down to finding minor technical errors in other people's comments? It was actually the LA Times and not the NY Times who flip-flopped and recently wrote that the US government should now be getting involved in the government affairs of South American countries. So what?

    Both papers are liberal-based media outlets. So the essence of his comment is still valid. Read the latter part of the article to see for yourself... something you should've done before commenting. There was no "leaping" and no "ridiculous conclusion". It's all taken from easy-to-read print that the rest of us read.

    Your last sentence in that particular comment of yours was inappropriate and offensive to Conservatives. In fact, that entire comment of yours added absolutely nothing to the on-line dialog. As such, it's surprising that acerbic based comment was allowed through.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    July 11, 2014 12:27 a.m.

    @Cleetorn and Brio

    Remember when the Iraq war was a war of finding weapons of mass destruction and then it morphed into helping those poor Iraqis obtain freedom? We have money for wars and destruction but not to help out kids?

    I never said to buy them a Ferrari and send them to Harvard. Apparently the word compassion brings really sets people off.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    July 11, 2014 5:29 a.m.

    This crisis is a microcosm of the illegal alien problem.
    Since deportation is a dirty word for Obama there is no deterrent effect. We all know that the government has trouble with enforcement.
    So, we really must send these children home immediately or send the message that we are soft on the issue. As a result, more will undoubtedly come.
    The bigger picture is the same. Since we are historically unable/unwilling to deport illegals in general, more will come. We have a reputation of non-enforcement.
    And the third world will take advantage of it.