Guest Column: Immigration coverage overlooked key facts

07/27/2014 10:00 AM |

photo (19)

I was sorry, but not surprised, to see The Suffolk Times parroting the leftist party line regarding its coverage of the “border children” arriving in Riverhead. 

According to the newspaper, this sudden tidal wave of nearly 60,000 children is the result of the kids “fleeing their violence-plagued homelands in Central America.” Frankly, this is a logic-twisting, flat-out lie. The violence in their homelands has been horrible for decades.

What triggered this onslaught was our president’s determination not to enforce our immigration laws and to “amnestitize” those illegal immigrants already here. A second factor is the exploitation of a well-intentioned 2008 law to stop Central American sex-trafficking, which is why it doesn’t apply to Mexican children.

The following was published in The New York Times July 7: “Originally pushed by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers as well as by evangelical groups to combat sex trafficking, the bill gave substantial new protections to children entering the country alone who were not from Mexico or Canada by prohibiting them from being quickly sent back to their country of origin.”

Instead, it required that they be given an opportunity to appear at an immigration hearing and consult with an advocate, and it recommended that they have access to counsel. It also required that they be turned over to the care of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the agency was directed to place the minor “in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child” and to explore reuniting those children with family members.

At some point, circa 2010, this “message” went viral in Central America. Kids under 17 from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, rather than being promptly sent back, could be given lawyers, “temporarily” taken care of and, when possible, reunited with any family members already living here.

And, oh yes, there is also a third factor in this equation: America’s far-left has no real interest in securing our border and, case in point, it doesn’t want the 2008 loophole law to be changed.

The following was published in The New York Times July 16: “Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, reversed course on Wednesday and said she would not back changes to a 2008 law that gave certain undocumented immigrant children broader legal rights to enter the United States.”

Keeping that law in place is essentially flashing a big green light to keep sending children to the U.S. — 60,000 kids and counting. And, just imagine, they all get lawyers. Of course, the crux of the matter is the divide between those who believe any and all illegal immigrants should be welcomed into the U.S. and those who believe, as I do, that like many beneficial things — sunlight, water — too much of it can kill you.

Which (at least in my politically incorrect mind) begs two questions: Why exactly is it that these Central American cultures have been — for decades — so “violence-plagued”?And isn’t it reasonable to assume that a significant percentage of these would-be citizens are bringing those cultures along with them when they cross our border?

The author is an award-winning songwriter from Greenport.

Comments

comments