Skip to main content

See also:

What nation states would permit ‘mortal child endangerment’?

'A young girl cries as her home and neighborhood are forcefully dismantled in a shanty town after the government claimed that the settlement was illegal (Spencer Platt/Getty)'
'A young girl cries as her home and neighborhood are forcefully dismantled in a shanty town after the government claimed that the settlement was illegal (Spencer Platt/Getty)'
Spencer Platt/Getty

President Obama has introduced a new element in the immigration enforcement situation, and that is “mortal child endangerment” He says that if a refugee child faces mortal danger in the home country, then they be awarded freedom in America.

What constitutes mortal danger? How is that to be proven?

It begins with the child refugee being assigned an attorney who will assess and argue the case. Who pays for that? America taxpayers, that’s who. Is that right?

No it isn’t, and here is why.

The argument about the child’s safety should happen on home country soil. It should happen with the home country providing legal representation for the child. The burden belongs in the home country.

Now, if the home nation has such a huge problem taking care of its population, then it can appeal to the U.N., Organization of American States, U.S. and other developed countries for assistance. The desperate situation belongs squarely where the problem begins. That is where assistance may be rendered.

Obama’s idea is to spread refugee children throughout the country in detention centers that the press argues are not open for public scrutiny. He is taking on the problem instead of putting it back where it belongs.

Yes, it is a humanitarian crisis, but the problem and solution doesn’t belong to the U.S. It is being imposed by foreign governments that should not be let off the hook. In fact, presidents of nations who have mismanaged this problem may be eligible for prosecution for crimes against humanity. Has anyone thought about that?

This situation needs and requires professional oversight. Congress should not let President Obama freelance with this problem because he is not competent to come up with the right solution.

What guidance are Republicans offering on this subject? Apparently they are AWOL. Will voters not remember this gross dereliction of duty by members of the U.S. Congress in November?

“White House: Immigrant children facing danger will 'likely' stay in US

By Justin Sink - 07/14/14 03:18 PM EDT

The White House said Monday it was “likely” that immigrant children facing mortal danger in their home countries would be allowed to stay in the United States.
The comments come amid a growing debate over a 2008 law that allows many of the children flooding across the southern border an automatic asylum hearing.

“These children will — and other immigrants who are attempting to enter the country without documentation — will go through the immigration process and that means their claims of asylum will be considered by an immigration judge and by asylum officials,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday.

“What that means is it means that if a immigration judge determines that they face a credible threat of death upon their return to their home country, then, again, I'm not an immigration judge, but it is likely that the immigration judge will find that that person should be granted humanitarian relief.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/212173-white-house-immigrant-children-facing-danger-will-stay-in-us