children fleeing from violence are NOT invaders, they are refugees

[geek tragedy]

It's bad enough that we have the Steve King rightwing whackjobs referring to immigrants--who have not fired a weapon, stolen anything, harmed anyone--as invaders. Not acceptable, but from the Teahadists understandable and predictable.

But now we have people here--self-professed liberals--referring to unaccompanied children as an "invasion." We even have people speculating that they'll become felons when they grow up.

For f@ck's sake, people who are tempted to talk this way, listen to yourselves. These are CHILDREN. Exploited, vulnerable, in danger of violence, CHILDREN.

They are not coming to take your home, or burn your crops, or shoot your family. They need a bed, a couple of shots, food, water, and basic human decency.

[libodem]

1. War refuges

At that. The war on drugs and criminalizing substance use has made us all criminals and suspects, and ruined South America. I understand China has bought most of it. Let them fix it.

[LanternWaste]

2. If someone actually did allege that, then that someone should find a direct line to the nearest dict

If someone actually did allege that, then that someone should find a direct line to the nearest dictionary, or simply admit they're being somewhat melodramatic to better mask the lack of a valid premise.


Invader
1. to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields.
3. to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home.
4. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream.

[geek tragedy]

3. either that, or they view immigrants as akin to (4).

it's really creepy rhetoric one would expect in Murietta.

[Louisiana1976]

8. Exactly. And racism is behind that view.

[Hekate]

13. see post #11 in this thread

and #15

Invaders they are

[JDPriestly]

19. I suggested it in order to justify using national defense, military

money to provide housing, etc. for the children.

Invasion is a word that triggers national security issues and therefore money. These children are going to have a lot of needs, and our social services system if not geared or funded to take care of them.

If DUers are so opposed to my use of the word "invasion," then I hope they are ready to take a child or two into their own homes. Children in the US do not have the legal authority to just live out there on the streets on their own.

I live in an area with a lot of immigrants and have quite a few immigrants in my family. Adult immigrants with college degrees can find themselves adrift in an America in which their education or skills are meaningless. Immigrant children alone on their own??? That's a really tough way to start out life.

The Jewish children who were given refuge in England in WWII were invited and were housed and cared for through and organized effort. They did not just arrive at the border and expect someone to take care of them.

If DUers don't like the term invasion, then they need to step up to the plate and take the children into their homes and communities as refugees.

But I think most of these children will be sent back to their families in Central America. Our immigration laws probably will not find most of them to be genuine refugees, and so housing them in military facilities, on military bases is the best interim solution. That way the money can come out of the military budget, and Obama will not have to beg the Republicans in Congress for it.

[kentauros]

4. Absolutely!

And truly, I don't see this "technique" as being any different than what European and English parents did with their children back during WWII.

This is a humanitarian issue, and I wish our government would accept them as asylum seekers. We've done so in the past, with Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, and so forth. Why is this any different now?

[geek tragedy]

6. We can't encourage every parent in Central America to send their kids through

Mexico to our border--we're not equipped to handle 10,000, let alone 2 million. And we can't guarantee them safe passage through Mexico, obviously. This is already a humanitarian problem, it could turn into a disaster.

But, we do need to treat those who are here with kindness and compassion, while making it very clear to parents that sending their kids through Mexico to get them here is a VERY bad idea.

The ones we don't see are the ones who don't make it, or who have been sold as slaves, etc.

[Hekate]

16. The UN has already commented on it -- what do they recommend we do, and are they offering to help?

I know we can't save them all, but we should do what we can do, including asking for outside help.

To the POTUS: more Executive Orders, sir; there's no sign of intelligent life in Congress.

[geek tragedy]

17. it's a regional problem affecting not only the US, but also Mexico, Canada

Panama, Costa Rica, and even Nicaragua (as if Nica doesn't have enough problems of its own).

So, definitely a regional, multilateral approach needs to happen. Mass scale humman trafficking certainly is not the answer.

[Hekate]

18. That's an intelligent start. nt

[Fred Sanders]

5. By American LAW they are refugee claimants and must be processed as such. I rest my case.

[vlakitti]

20. Absolutely. Well put.

That particular law has to be the starting point for any discussion here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. They are so ignorant, filthy, and superstitious.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/no-irish.htm

Oh, wait. She was talking about these invaders.



Or, these.

[JDPriestly]

15. Are you willing to give foster care to one of these children

in your home? Because if you aren't, who is?

These children will be placed in our juvenile justice system. That's not a good solution.

We do not have a big enough foster care system.

And not just anyone can offer foster care. Your house has to be checked out for safety, etc. Then if we have 100,000 children coming in this year, that is over 30 classrooms of kids. Places have to be found. A lot of states fund education with property assessments. So that means that the money has to be found in local communities to take care of yet another child.

That is why I suggest using military bases for the children, calling their entry an invasion, using military money and other resources to deal with it. Refugees are a military problem. This is probably just the first of waves of economic refugees from around the world. Wait until people in Asia learn that they can just send their children here.

Please think about the logistics of the problem before you condemn those of us on DU who tend to think very practically. I don't object to immigration. But waves of immigrating children? That's a big, big responsibility.

And if it is treated as an invasion the money and facilities can come from military resources. That is the way to get around the recalcitrance of legislatures to allocate money for the care they will need.

[Comrade Grumpy]

38. I think most of these kids are coming to find family members.

And are being released to them pending hearings.

[F4lconF16]

9. Thank you for posting.

This cannot be said enough.

[napkinz]

10. ...

[JDPriestly]

11. I take it you are planning to invite one of these children

into your home. Because refugees usually live in refugee camps. In WWII, the British took in Jewish children fleeing from Germany. But they did it under an organized program.

These children are not ordinary immigrants. They have no adults to provide for them and see that they have housing, food, clothing, medical care, etc.

It is an invasion. And Obama should use military resources to take care of it at least until people like all the DUers who are so critical of everyone who calls it like it is agree to take personal responsibility for at least one of the children coming here.

I stand by the word invasion. Refugees from Iraq invaded Syria. So there. That's what refugees who escape from crises do. They invade other countries. It happens quite often. And we set up refugee camps for them. I suggest setting up refugee camps on military bases. I suggest using money set aside for emergency military operations to take care of these children. I stand by it. There is nothing cruel about it.

Fact is a lot of Americans are ignorant about the problems we have regarding caring for abused and abandoned children in our country. And that is what these children are: abused and abandoned. Our foster care system is not well organized to take care of such a large influx of homeless children at this time.

So, what is the plan. How do the DUers who want to welcome these children plan to house, feed, etc. them if no money is allocated for them? Churches? What is the plan?

[Hekate]

12. What's your plan, btw? I like a solid plan myself, backed by heart, and I can see...

...you're all heart.

[JDPriestly]

25. See my post #24.

I worked for a homeless project of eight years. I think in practical terms -- beds, housing, psychiatric care, social work, job placement (here, schools), etc. It costs money. A lot of money. We should use our military funds for this purpose. That's where the money is in this country. Trust me. I know how hard it is to find money for the homeless. It's really hard. Although I think it is somewhat better under Obama.

[geek tragedy]

14. Sorry, I will not use the language of exteme xenophobes, nor will I

EVER recommend that we treat children as a military problem.

Quite frankly, I find that kind of language to be sickening.

Also, by your logic anyone who doesn't want a homeless person living in their den is a hypocrite for social welfare programs.

You can have the last word on this, as I've run out of borderline civil ones to use.

[JDPriestly]

24. I worked for a homeless project for eight years.

I know what I am talking about. I have also been involved with children in the juvenile justice system.

These children have to have legal guardians, lawyers, doctors, dentists, the works. There will be 100,000 of them very possibly this year. That costs money.

Most of the refugees we take in are adults maybe with children. But there is a responsible adult involved in the process of getting resources to the refugees.

These refugees did not come with responsible adults. The legal and logistical problems are enormous and will cost quite a bit of money.

Unless private organizations come forward, I can think of no organization in our country that can handle the logistics as well as the military can. But immigration and nationalization is not normally under the military purview, not in terms of budget or money. So I am suggesting that, unless individuals want to take the children into their homes or some private organization decides to undertake the task, we use our military resources for this purpose. If we call the problem an invasion, we can categorize it as a national security challenge (which it is) and take care of it that way without having to beg the Republican House for approval.

So my plan is clear, and it makes sense. I haven't seen anyone else suggest any clear plan. All I have seen is a lot of emotion on one side or the other. I suspect that Obama is already implementing my idea. I read that in the San Antonio Tx. area, the children are being housed at Lackland Air Force Base.

Let's have some concrete suggestions about how to care for these children and how to fund their care.

This is an invasion. Refugees are invaders. And they are usually housed in refugee camps that are overseen by the United Nations. Why should these children be cared for in any other way? Eventually most of them will return home. As do most refugees hopefully.

[cheapdate]

37. That's a cheap shot and weak argument.

You probably are the compassionate person you claim to be, but your lashing out at others with a different outlook on the situation -- belligerently demanding they offer proof of their own compassion and goodwill -- is outrageous.

I'm not an expert in foster care -- my mother was. Her entire adult life was spent as a social worker in child abuse and neglect. Arranging foster care was one of a number of extremely difficult challenges that she faced on a daily basis. She always spoke well of Catholic Children Services. Foster homes and caregivers are supported with public money from the state and federal government. There was never an adequate supply of good foster homes. There were many, many episodes in my life when my mother answered the phone after midnight to deal with some crisis involving children placed in foster homes.

The DHHS is better suited for taking care of refugee children than the United States military.

[davidn3600]

21. I just want a simple question answered...

What do we do with these kids?

They cannot legally and financially support themselves. So where do we put them? Do you want to set up orphanages? Do you want them to stay in detention centers until they are 18? Have them live in refugee camps?

If you say we need to place them with families...who? Do we have a surplus of foster families that I dont know about who are waiting to take in kids?

How many of these kids are you personally willing to take in, Geek tragedy?

[geek tragedy]

23. you are the second person who, when confronted with the fact that these

are not armed invaders, has responded with a very personal "how many do you want in your home?"

Right now, the answer is pretty simple: obey the law. Feed them, shelter them, attend to their medical needs, give them the due process of law.

If their parents can be located AND they won't be endangered by sending them back, then family reuinification is the preferred policy and has been for quite some time (ask Elian Gonzalez).

But, sending children back where they face significant danger from ongoing violence? Nope. That's not how civilized countries conduct themselves.

[neffernin]

32. There has to be something that can be done.

And that is infinitely more than the little that is being done now.

I couldn't even begin to imagine how I would deal with such a situation as an adult, let alone as a kid.

[Gormy Cuss]

36. Open an orphanage, send them back to die.

Decisions, decisions.

[morningfog]

22. Full agreement.

[rickyhall]

27. Update

Invader
1. to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: The United States invaded Iraq in 2003
2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields.
3. to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home.
4. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream.

[littlemissmartypants]

26. Childism, sexism...

It's all the same to them.

Thanks for your post.

Love, Peace and Shelter. Lmsp

[geek tragedy]

29. in general, they're not being persecuted or targeted for oppression

by the government or other elements of society. some parts of northern Central America are just incredibly violent places. If you travel in Honduras or Guatemala, you see a lot of guns. Police with assault rifles, dudes righting motorcycles with shotguns strapped to their back, etc.

[ReRe]

30. I can just hear a little 4 year old saying...

... "powiticol assym."
Most of them are little and don't know where they are or what they are doing.
All they know is their mommies and daddies are gone.

[neffernin]

31. But... they take our jerbs!

And all of the children who cross have an average of a 3rd grade education! Personally I think that we should only accept the ones with PHDs!

*sighs*

I'm going to go look at the cat appreciation thread, its happier.

[redstatebluegirl]

33. If these were white European kids

they would be reacting very differently. They see that "brown people" do not vote for them so they have to try and limit the numbers whenever possible. These are children for goodness sake, are republicans and many Americans totally without compassion anymore?

[Hekate]

34. White European kids were sent back to the oncoming Holocaust because they were Jewish...

... and we had enough of "those people" already, and who would take care of them, and they no doubt had families back there, and probably had some disease, and there weren't enough orphanages and jobs .... and you get the idea. They were sent back to die.

We've done it before. I thought we were better than that now, but then George W. Bush came along and showed me different.

It's always a fight between light and darkness in America, as it is in the world itself. Lincoln wrote about "the angels of our better nature," but that was in context of times of utter darkness.

It's always been up to us to fight the good fight, to staff the station on the Underground Railroad, to offer a church as sanctuary, to do whatever it takes.

This is going to be one of those times. I agree with the naysayers at least this far: What is our plan?

[barbtries]

35. they had CNN on at the airport

and never ONCE did they report on the fact that this is a refugee crisis. no, they're illegal immigrants. as if they haven't risked life and limb in search of a better life. as if they have options in their home countries.
i had to move so i didn't have to listen to that. it annoys me to no end that the media in this country are SO BAD and we're actually forced in public places to listen to it.