US Border: When Lawlessness becomes the Law

[Zack Morris]

The "stuffing the ballot box" motive does not compute. Only two years until the next election, and it's easier to just hack the e-voting machines. The Diebolds can be hacked with a remote control for $10.50. http://www.salon.com/2011/09/27/votinghack/

Politics is always about immediate gain; the next election and today's payoff is what count. Obama sees a profit for himself out of this scheme in the near future. I'd like to figure out what that is, and not level out at name-calling and invoking political metaphysics.

Maybe he plans to retire and open a Neverland Ranch of his own for little brown children with the money he's sure to earn from his tell-all book about what really happened to Malaysia Flight 370?

[Doc]

Report: 117% increase in children 12 and younger crossing border alone
A whopping 177% increase in children 5 years and under coming to the US unaccompanied....



http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... story.html

Report: 117% increase in children 12 and younger crossing border alone
Guatemalan migrant children
Mothers and children arrive in Guatemala City on July 22 after being deported from the United States. (Johan Ordonez / AFP/Getty Images)
By Molly Hennessy-Fiske contact the reporter
Laws and LegislationPoliticsMigrationHondurasImmigrationEl SalvadorGuatemala
Unaccompanied children illegally migrating across the border are much younger than a year ago, study says
There has been a 117% increase in detentions of unaccompanied children ages 12 and younger, study says

Not only have more unaccompanied children illegally crossed the southern border this year — more than twice last year's total — but they are crossing at much younger ages, according to a study released this week.

There has been a 117% increase in apprehensions among unaccompanied children ages 12 and younger and a 12% increase among teenagers between the 2013 and 2014 fiscal years, according to government statistics obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Pew Research Center.
Ages of unaccompanied children caught crossing the border illegally

“These under-12-year-old children who are coming across the border unaccompanied, many of them are coming from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador,” said one of the authors of the study, Mark Lopez, Pew’s director of Hispanic research. “In the last year, there has been a change in the composition of the unaccompanied minors who are apprehended.”

Since October, more than 57,000 youths have crossed the southern border unaccompanied, meaning without a parent or guardian. Most come from Central America and cross into the U.S. through the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

In recent days the number of children making the perilous journey has dipped, but federal officials have cautioned the decrease may be temporary. The Obama administration and Congress have been scrambling to cope with the humanitarian crisis, promising expedited processing and deportations. Advocates have called for more lawyers and aid for young migrants thrust into a complicated court system.

Although the increase among migrants ages 6 to 12 was significant, they made up only 14% of total youths apprehended at the border, according to the Pew report, which provides the first detailed portrait of the age and nationality of child migrants detained.


There are still more 13- to 17-year-olds crossing, 84% of youths apprehended. Most are 16- and 17-year-olds, Lopez said.

Fewer than 1% of children caught this year were younger than 1 year old, and only about 2% were 5 or younger, the report said.

The number of unaccompanied children varies by country. The share of minors 12 and younger among Honduran children making the trek alone increased to 27% from 20%. The number from El Salvador rose to 22% from 17%; Guatemala doubled to 10%.

By contrast, this year just 3% of Mexican apprehensions were young children and the percentage of young children was unchanged, the study said.
Origin of unaccompanied children at border

“The fact that Hondurans represent the highest percentage [27%], followed by Salvadorans, makes clear that the major push factors are violence,” said Susan Terrio, an anthropology professor at Georgetown University who has interviewed dozens of unaccompanied immigrant children.

The number of children caught crossing the border illegally with a parent or guardian nearly tripled in less than a year, according to the Pew analysis. So far this fiscal year, 22,069 accompanied children were apprehended, compared with 8,479 last year. More than half, 12,074, came from Honduras, a 434% increase from last year.

Migrant children traveling with a parent tended to be younger; about 81% were 12 years or under, compared with 16% of unaccompanied children.

“The fastest-growing population is parents and young children,” Terrio said, “Because under U.S. Immigration law, children are considered as appendages of their parents, some attorneys are reporting that children are being piggybacked onto to their parents' claims for asylum relief. Thus, if the parent's claim is denied, the kids are also denied. That is, some children's cases could qualify for legal relief if they were considered alone or apart from the parent's claim.”

Those children traveling with a parent or guardian may actually at a legal disadvantage compared with unaccompanied peers, said Bryan Johnson, a New York-based immigration lawyer who works with unaccompanied youth.

Those who arrive unaccompanied often join parents who have been in the U.S. for years, have developed support networks and know where to turn for legal help, he said. With children who arrive accompanied, he said, “The parents don't know that much more about the immigration courts than they do.”
Immigration overload
Immigrants from Honduras and El Salvador who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally are stopped in Granjeno, Texas, on June 25. (Eric Gay / Associated Press)

Johnson has been working to shore up protections for Central American migrant youths' due process, including a 2008 law, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Act, that entitles them to court hearings before they can be deported. Mexican migrant youths can be more quickly repatriated as a voluntary return.

Next week, Johnson and three young clients from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are scheduled to testify in favor of the 2008 law before the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The three youths are a 12-year-old girl who fled Honduras after witnessing a killing, a 15-year-old boy who fled gang violence in El Salvador and a Guatemalan girl, also 15, who fled sexual abuse by a neighbor.

“What we're really concerned about is that Congress and the president are going to treat Central American children the way they are treating Mexican children,” and deport them rapidly, Johnson said.

Lawmakers who have proposed rewriting the law in the wake of the influx insist that's not the case.

Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, epicenter of the immigrant influx, recently joined Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) in proposing legislation that would speed deportation of young migrants and expand voluntary return to include Central American youths. But he insists the proposed legislation, called the Humane Act, "maintains all legal protections for unaccompanied children."

"Instead of waiting three to five years for their time before a judge, as is the situation under current law, my legislation would ensure that every child receives due process in a timely manner," Cuellar said in a statement, adding that the act would "close the loophole in current law that provided an incentive for criminal organizations to engage in human trafficking."

Pew researchers are further analyzing the government data to see whether more girls have been caught crossing the border illegally and unaccompanied, and at what ages. They expect to release results this week.

[Typhoon]

These are deeply Christian societies. How can this be happening? Latin America makes the Islamic world look civilized.

These are the socialist kinds of Christians all you guys talk about. See the results.

Parochial, Made in the USA, fantasies won't help resolve this problem.

Take the case of Guatemala, historically one of the original "Banana Republics", with heavy US involvement in it's politics keeping a succession of right wing dictators, backed by a small group of kleptocratic families, in power.

Currently

In 2011, Retired General Otto Pérez Molina of the Patriotic Party won the presidential election in a runoff against populist Manuel Baldizón of the LIDER party. Pérez Molina assumed office on January 14, 2012 and his vice president is Roxana Baldetti.

The Patriotic Party or Patriot Party or (Partido Patriota) is a centre-right political party in Guatemala. It was founded on 24 February 2001 by retired Army General Otto Pérez Molina.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

These are deeply Christian societies. How can this be happening? Latin America makes the Islamic world look civilized.

These are the socialist kinds of Christians all you guys talk about. See the results.

Parochial, Made in the USA, fantasies won't help resolve this problem.

Take the case of Guatemala, historically one of the original "Banana Republics", with heavy US involvement in it's politics keeping a succession of right wing dictators, backed by a small group of kleptocratic families, in power.

1954 Guatemala is a great example but may be an extraordinary case. Heavy US involvement is an awful way to evade that you have one example to confirm your bias.

I do concede though that between 1838 and 1954, Guatemala had something resembling competitive electoral politics and that Jacobo Arbenz was popularly elected, and it made the CIA involvement even more egregious.

But the picture gets awfully murky from there when communist groups started an insurgency in 1960, ignored the proffered amnesty in 1966 and Guatemala's government had a duty to suppress insurrection. I think it's safe to say that this post-60s period was harrowing and should had been conducted with less loss of life. Yet, It is very debatable whether the US government was in a position to micromanage the Guatemalan military conduct at that point. None of this explains the mess experienced from 1978 to 1985 after the US had cut off all aid.

Otherwise; there hasn't been a US military garrison in South America with the exception of the Panama Isthmus since the 1820s. U.S. Marines were invited into Nicaragua between 1924 and 1934. American forces have not moved beyond the Caribbean. Outside of Guatemala, little of the civil disorder can be attributed to clandestine US activities.

Most of the the southern cone nations were second tier affluent republics with a certain order, democratic in later eras, from about the mid 19th century until around the Great Depression where a lot of the same virulent "third way" political pathologies found in Europe rose, unsurprisingly. The only difference is that it only took Europe to the 1950s and 1960s to start recovering while these southern hemisphere nations didn't begin healing until the early 80s.

In the meantime, around the time the United States was propping up your right-wing (your words) governments. They eliminated these autocratic regimes:

-the coalition government in Laos [1958]
-Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam [1963]
-the Coard-Austin claque in Grenada [1983]
-the Noriega syndicate in Panama [1989]
- Raoul Cedras in Haiti [1994]
-the Taliban regime in Afghanistan [2001]
- the Baath regime in Iraq [2003]

They also participated in the elimination of the fascist and totalitarian regimes from the Second War World/Cold War era; and joined in pressuring nations like South Africa and the former Rhodesia to move to the left.

They also installed social-democratic governments throughout Europe- which I totally understand as being labelled right-wing- that were much more liberal and "left-wing" than the old autocratic order. The whole world has moved left since.

But please, do go on about that unwavering support of the right from the US Government.

[Doc]

These are deeply Christian societies. How can this be happening? Latin America makes the Islamic world look civilized.

These are the socialist kinds of Christians all you guys talk about. See the results.

Parochial, Made in the USA, fantasies won't help resolve this problem.

Take the case of Guatemala, historically one of the original "Banana Republics", with heavy US involvement in it's politics keeping a succession of right wing dictators, backed by a small group of kleptocratic families, in power.

1954 Guatemala is a great example but may be an extraordinary case. Heavy US involvement is an awful way to evade that you have one example to confirm your bias.

I do concede though that between 1838 and 1954, Guatemala had something resembling competitive electoral politics and that Jacobo Arbenz was popularly elected, and it made the CIA involvement even more egregious.

But the picture gets awfully murky from there when communist groups started an insurgency in 1960, ignored the proffered amnesty in 1966 and Guatemala's government had a duty to suppress insurrection. I think it's safe to say that this post-60s period was harrowing and should had been conducted with less loss of life. Yet, It is very debatable whether the US government was in a position to micromanage the Guatemalan military conduct at that point. None of this explains the mess experienced from 1978 to 1985 after the US had cut off all aid.

Otherwise; there hasn't been a US military garrison in South America with the exception of the Panama Isthmus since the 1820s. U.S. Marines were invited into Nicaragua between 1924 and 1934. American forces have not moved beyond the Caribbean. Outside of Guatemala, little of the civil disorder can be attributed to clandestine US activities.

Most of the the southern cone nations were second tier affluent republics with a certain order, democratic in later eras, from about the mid 19th century until around the Great Depression where a lot of the same virulent "third way" political pathologies found in Europe rose, unsurprisingly. The only difference is that it only took Europe to the 1950s and 1960s to start recovering while these southern hemisphere nations didn't begin healing until the early 80s.

In the meantime, around the time the United States was propping up your right-wing (your words) governments. They eliminated these autocratic regimes:

-the coalition government in Laos [1958]
-Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam [1963]
-the Coard-Austin claque in Grenada [1983]
-the Noriega syndicate in Panama [1989]
- Raoul Cedras in Haiti [1994]
-the Taliban regime in Afghanistan [2001]
- the Baath regime in Iraq [2003]

They also participated in the elimination of the fascist and totalitarian regimes from the Second War World/Cold War era; and joined in pressuring nations like South Africa and the former Rhodesia to move to the left.

They also installed social-democratic governments throughout Europe- which I totally understand as being labelled right-wing- that were much more liberal and "left-wing" than the old autocratic order. The whole world has moved left since.

But please, do go on about that unwavering support of the right from the US Government.

YOu forgot to mention the Philippines Marco left under heaving pressure not only from the Philippine people but the us government as well

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

You forgot to mention the Philippines Marco left under heaving pressure not only from the Philippine people but the us government as well

Well I wasn't trying to provide a comprehensive list. I think it's important not to forget that in several cases, the United States also cooperated with these people they would later oust.

This isn't about the wisdom or righteousness of any of these foreign entanglements; in hindsight, many have been, most charitably, mixed results.

When looking at an array of these situations, two common patterns emerge. One, and it's awfully trite, the US government will act or compromise when it feels its in their best interest or necessary for another goal. Two, 1950s Guatemala and Iran are exceptions where genuinely popular and self-described progressive governments were toppled. Both to disastrous results. Both under President Eisenhower who seemed very fond of toppling governments. The rest of the list shows a pattern of American opposition to anything ordered too far away from social democracy, autocratic and racially/religiously/sexually hierarchical. Or put another way: anything politically right of the United States.

The insinuation of America's right-wing meddling is just mendacious AmeriKKKa crap .

[Doc]

You forgot to mention the Philippines Marco left under heaving pressure not only from the Philippine people but the us government as well

Well I wasn't trying to provide a comprehensive list. I think it's important not to forget that in several cases, the United States also cooperated with these people they would later oust.

This isn't about the wisdom or righteousness of any of these foreign entanglements; in hindsight, many have been, most charitably, mixed results.

When looking at an array of these situations, two common patterns emerge. One, and it's awfully trite, the US government will act or compromise when it feels its in their best interest or necessary for another goal. Two, 1950s Guatemala and Iran are exceptions where genuinely popular and self-described progressive governments were toppled. Both to disastrous results. Both under President Eisenhower who seemed very fond of toppling governments. The rest of the list shows a pattern of American opposition to anything ordered too far away from social democracy, autocratic and racially/religiously/sexually hierarchical. Or put another way: anything politically right of the United States.

The insinuation of America's right-wing meddling is just mendacious AmeriKKKa crap .

That was during the cold war. Different time(I think ) And now that i think about it you have to count all the countries freed by the iron curtain as well in your list.

[Typhoon]

You forgot to mention the Philippines Marco left under heaving pressure not only from the Philippine people but the us government as well

Well I wasn't trying to provide a comprehensive list. I think it's important not to forget that in several cases, the United States also cooperated with these people they would later oust.

This isn't about the wisdom or righteousness of any of these foreign entanglements; in hindsight, many have been, most charitably, mixed results.

When looking at an array of these situations, two common patterns emerge. One, and it's awfully trite, the US government will act or compromise when it feels its in their best interest or necessary for another goal. Two, 1950s Guatemala and Iran are exceptions where genuinely popular and self-described progressive governments were toppled. Both to disastrous results. Both under President Eisenhower who seemed very fond of toppling governments. The rest of the list shows a pattern of American opposition to anything ordered too far away from social democracy, autocratic and racially/religiously/sexually hierarchical. Or put another way: anything politically right of the United States.

I don't think so.

Over the 20th century the US overthrew various governments: Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines [Spanish-American War], Iran, Guatemala, S Vietnam, Chile, and Grenada
and meddled in the politics of many other nations supporting either right wing dictators [Somoza in Nicaragua, Park in S Korea, Allende in Chile, etc.] or right wing parties such as
the LDP in Japan.

Of course, it was not all bad. The Marshall Plan was brilliant and both Germany and Japan are better off with democratic institutions compared with the alternatives.

Anyways, the point is not to reargue the history of US foreign policy, but to note that the current situation with immigrant children is in part a product of

1/ decades of US policy in C American; and

2/ the so-called War on Drugs, and it's destabilizing effect on C America, due to the insatiable US demand for product

The way some people in the US are going on about the current situation, one would think that there's a full scale invasion taking place rather several tens of thousands of kids.

Far more unaccompanied kids passed through Ellis Island.

About 130,000 kids are adopted per year in the US.

[Mr. Perfect]

These are deeply Christian societies. How can this be happening? Latin America makes the Islamic world look civilized.

These are the socialist kinds of Christians all you guys talk about. See the results.

Parochial, Made in the USA, fantasies won't help resolve this problem.

Take the case of Guatemala, historically one of the original "Banana Republics", with heavy US involvement in it's politics keeping a succession of right wing dictators, backed by a small group of kleptocratic families, in power.

Currently

In 2011, Retired General Otto Pérez Molina of the Patriotic Party won the presidential election in a runoff against populist Manuel Baldizón of the LIDER party. Pérez Molina assumed office on January 14, 2012 and his vice president is Roxana Baldetti.

The Patriotic Party or Patriot Party or (Partido Patriota) is a centre-right political party in Guatemala. It was founded on 24 February 2001 by retired Army General Otto Pérez Molina.

I don't think you understood what Zack Morris was trying to say.

[Mr. Perfect]

I don't think so.

Over the 20th century the US overthrew various governments: Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines [Spanish-American War], Iran, Guatemala, S Vietnam, Chile, and Grenada
and meddled in the politics of many other nations supporting either right wing dictators [Somoza in Nicaragua, Park in S Korea, Allende in Chile, etc.] or right wing parties such as
the LDP in Japan.

Of course, it was not all bad. The Marshall Plan was brilliant and both Germany and Japan are better off with democratic institutions compared with the alternatives.

Anyways, the point is not to reargue the history of US foreign policy, but to note that the current situation with immigrant children is in part a product of

1/ decades of US policy in C American; and

2/ the so-called War on Drugs, and it's destabilizing effect on C America, due to the insatiable US demand for product

Of course not. The Drug War has been failing for decades, there is nothing in the last 6 months that is unusual that would precipitate the current problem. [/quote]

Of course not. The Drug War has been failing for decades, there is nothing in the last 6 months that is unusual that would precipitate the current problem. Also America is far less involved in South/Central America than it has been in decades. There is no current meddling in their politics that would cause this.

Rather, the US government under obama has been telegraphing amnesty for a year or two, and unsurprisingly people are taking great risks to obtain it. And amnesty granted once will be granted into perpetuity.

The way some people in the US are going on about the current situation, one would think that there's a full scale invasion taking place rather several tens of thousands of kids.

Of course not. The issue is the humanitarian crisis created by left wing policy (the expectation of amnesty)

[Typhoon]

History of Amnesty in the USA

Not unprecedented. Whether or not they worked is another issue.

[Mr. Perfect]

Obviously has not worked.

[monster_gardener]

Obviously has not worked.

Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Mr. Perfect.

Quite Correct.....

One definition of insanity is to keep doing what doesn't work.....

Esteemed Typhoon's link even mentioned a 1993 WTC attack terrorist who got in under an amnesty. Was also the getaway driver in a political assassination.... This is JUST one especially egregious example...

The IRCA amnesty has been tied to terrorism. Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was legalized as a seasonal agricultural worker as part of the 1986 IRCA amnesty. This allowed him to travel abroad, including several trips to Afghanistan, where he received terrorist training.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/lear ... gress.html

Mahmud Abouhalima (Arabic: محمود أبو حليمه ‎; born 1959) is a convicted perpetrator of the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing. His red hair earned him the nickname Mahmud the Red.[2]

Contents

1 Life
2 Militancy
3 Capture
4 References

Life

Born to a mill foreman in Kafr Dawar, Egypt, Abouhalima spent his adolescence with the Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, an outlawed Islamic group that heralded Omar Abdel Rahman as their spiritual leader. He briefly attended Alexandria University, but dropped out and left Egypt altogether in 1981, moving to Germany. There, he later recalled he had lived a life "of corruption - girls, drugs, you name it".[2]

The following year, Germany denied him political asylum and he quickly married Renate Soika, a troubled German woman, which guaranteed he could remain in the country. He divorced Soika three years later, but shortly after he married another woman named Marianne Weber in a Muslim ceremony. He flew to Brooklyn with his new wife and after his American tourist visa expired, applied for amnesty claiming to be an agricultural worker and was accepted as a permanent resident under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

He worked as a New York cabdriver for five years from 1986–1991, though he saw his license suspended ten times during that period, for failing to attend traffic court for cab violations including traffic violations and an attempt to overcharge a customer.

In his free time, Abouhalima worked long hours for a non-profit group in Brooklyn that raised money for the Afghan Mujahideen.
Militancy

Abouhalima travelled to Afghanistan in 1988, saying he wanted to prove he "was a Muslim, not a sheep", and received combat-training in Peshawar.[2]

Ali Mohamed, a sergeant at Fort Bragg, provided United States Army manuals and other assistance to individuals at the al-Farouq Mosque, and some members including Abouhalima and El Sayyid Nosair practiced at the Calverton Shooting Range on Long Island, many of the group wearing t-shirts reading "Help Each Other in Goodness and Piety...A Muslim to a Muslim is a Brick Wall" with a map of Afghanistan emblazoned in the middle. Abouhalima wore an NRA cap during their practices.[2][3] When Nosair assassinated Meir Kahane, Abouhalima was driving the purported getaway car, although Nosair accidentally jumped into another cab by mistake.[2]

He was the subject of an FBI investigation through January 1993, at which point the investigation was called off, shortly before the World Trade Center bombing. On February 26, 1993, the day of the WTC bombing, he was seen by several witnesses with Mohammed A. Salameh at the Jersey City storage facility allegedly used to prepare the explosives.
Capture

Abouhalima fled to Saudi Arabia, and then back to his native Egypt where he was captured by Egyptian police, tortured,[2] and handed back to the United States, mummified in duct tape.[4]

In March 1994, he received a sentence of 240 years in prison with no possibility of parole. He is currently an inmate at ADX Florence in Florence, Colorado. His current release date as stated on the Bureau of Prisons website is 09-20-2087.[5] His Federal Bureau of Prisons ID# is 28064-054.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_Abouhalima

[manolo]

Folks,

I'm not so keen on President Obama's plan to repatriate underage illegal immigrants coming into the USA. These could be a ready supply of future democrat voters. Surely there is a social programme that could guide them into the fold?

Alex.

[monster_gardener]

Folks,

I'm not so keen on President Obama's plan to repatriate underage illegal immigrants coming into the USA. These could be a ready supply of future democrat voters. Surely there is a social programme that could guide them into the fold?

Alex.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Alex Manolo eThinker.

I'm not so keen on President Obama's plan to repatriate underage illegal immigrants coming into the USA. These could be a ready supply of future democrat voters.

Don't worry too much , Alex, you've got to remember that Darth obama is a proven spectacular serial Liar .

You might be more likely to be disappointed if Darth obama the Son of a Bitch Eating Liar had said the US was going to keep the children.

Surely there is a social programme that could guide them into the fold?

If there isn't maybe I can help. I am considering calling & writing some legislators suggesting that the parental rights of the younger children who are still mostly trainable be summarily severed so that they never again have contact with the reckless parents that sent them on such a too often deadly journey and so that they can be adopted by American families and hopefully taught English and how to be good US citizens something my clan is doing right now with 2 adopted Hispanic children.

Regarding the older children, especially those with gang tattoos, I am going to ask that they be shipped to Azari's neighborhood in Canada where he sleeps with open windows and unlocked doors and without a gun AND also to England.

After all since Mexico is shipping them to US why can't we/US Americans do the same thing to Canada/Canadians who try to tell US how to handle the situation and likewise for England/British.

With a little luck, maybe the MaraSalvatrucha & other gangs will get going strong in Canada & England or even stronger if there already

Maybe there will be twisted funny news stories about how Canadians and especially Brits are having to use improved weapons like garden gnome statues as guns are so restricted to fight off a wave of deadly home invasions and Knock Out Game/Muggings of pensioners...

LONDON (AP) -- A grandmother stopped an intruder from entering her home by lobbing a heavy garden gnome at him, police said Friday. Jean Collop was woken early on Tuesday morning by the sound of an intruder on the roof of her home in Wadebridge, southwest England.

"I grabbed the first thing that came to hand - one of my garden gnomes - and hurled it at him, and hit him," she recalled.

"He lay there and I began to scream. I went back into the kitchen and found a rolling pin in case he came down. I didn't want to break another gnome."

A neighbor alerted police who arrived shortly afterward and arrested the intruder.

He added: "Our usual advice would be not to get involved, but to contact the police straight away," said a spokesman for the Devon and Cornwall Police.

"We do appreciate that in the heat of the moment people react to that situation, and if it results in a happy outcome that's great."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1387029/posts


liatWFj5COk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liatWFj5COk

The commentator mentions that the Knockout Game is like a Clockwork Orange so it should be perfect for England...

Just imagine An England on Droogs as well as Drugs ....

But Hispanic Droogs who will treat Pensioners like Piñatas!

Hat tip to the late Anthony Burgess of England

[Typhoon]

These are deeply Christian societies. How can this be happening? Latin America makes the Islamic world look civilized.

These are the socialist kinds of Christians all you guys talk about. See the results.

Parochial, Made in the USA, fantasies won't help resolve this problem.

Take the case of Guatemala, historically one of the original "Banana Republics", with heavy US involvement in it's politics keeping a succession of right wing dictators, backed by a small group of kleptocratic families, in power.

1954 Guatemala is a great example but may be an extraordinary case. Heavy US involvement is an awful way to evade that you have one example to confirm your bias.

I do concede though that between 1838 and 1954, Guatemala had something resembling competitive electoral politics and that Jacobo Arbenz was popularly elected, and it made the CIA involvement even more egregious.

But the picture gets awfully murky from there when communist groups started an insurgency in 1960, ignored the proffered amnesty in 1966 and Guatemala's government had a duty to suppress insurrection. I think it's safe to say that this post-60s period was harrowing and should had been conducted with less loss of life. Yet, It is very debatable whether the US government was in a position to micromanage the Guatemalan military conduct at that point. None of this explains the mess experienced from 1978 to 1985 after the US had cut off all aid.

Otherwise; there hasn't been a US military garrison in South America with the exception of the Panama Isthmus since the 1820s. U.S. Marines were invited into Nicaragua between 1924 and 1934. American forces have not moved beyond the Caribbean. Outside of Guatemala, little of the civil disorder can be attributed to clandestine US activities.

Most of the the southern cone nations were second tier affluent republics with a certain order, democratic in later eras, from about the mid 19th century until around the Great Depression where a lot of the same virulent "third way" political pathologies found in Europe rose, unsurprisingly. The only difference is that it only took Europe to the 1950s and 1960s to start recovering while these southern hemisphere nations didn't begin healing until the early 80s.

In the meantime, around the time the United States was propping up your right-wing (your words) governments. They eliminated these autocratic regimes:

-the coalition government in Laos [1958]
-Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam [1963]
-the Coard-Austin claque in Grenada [1983]
-the Noriega syndicate in Panama [1989]
- Raoul Cedras in Haiti [1994]
-the Taliban regime in Afghanistan [2001]
- the Baath regime in Iraq [2003]

They also participated in the elimination of the fascist and totalitarian regimes from the Second War World/Cold War era; and joined in pressuring nations like South Africa and the former Rhodesia to move to the left.

They also installed social-democratic governments throughout Europe- which I totally understand as being labelled right-wing- that were much more liberal and "left-wing" than the old autocratic order. The whole world has moved left since.

But please, do go on about that unwavering support of the right from the US Government.

YOu forgot to mention the Philippines Marco left under heaving pressure not only from the Philippine people but the us government as well

The US propped up a series of puppet regimes in S Vietnam until the fall of Saigon.

The US was the staunchest supporter of the Marcos regime, 1965 to 1986, in the Philippines until it was no longer possible.

Also a staunch supporter of the Noriega regime in Panama and the Hussein regime in Iraq until a falling out with both.

[Typhoon]

I don't think so.

Over the 20th century the US overthrew various governments: Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines [Spanish-American War], Iran, Guatemala, S Vietnam, Chile, and Grenada
and meddled in the politics of many other nations supporting either right wing dictators [Somoza in Nicaragua, Park in S Korea, Allende in Chile, etc.] or right wing parties such as
the LDP in Japan.

Of course, it was not all bad. The Marshall Plan was brilliant and both Germany and Japan are better off with democratic institutions compared with the alternatives.

Anyways, the point is not to reargue the history of US foreign policy, but to note that the current situation with immigrant children is in part a product of

1/ decades of US policy in C American; and

2/ the so-called War on Drugs, and it's destabilizing effect on C America, due to the insatiable US demand for product

Of course not. The Drug War has been failing for decades, there is nothing in the last 6 months that is unusual that would precipitate the current problem.
There is no current meddling in their politics that would cause this.

Yet the so-called War on Drugs continues as does growing demand for product in the USA.

The illegal drug trade in Guatemala includes trans-shipment of cocaine to the United States. According to some reports, Mexican drug cartels such as Sinaloa have also established poppy growing operations there. There is a reported relationship between the Mexican Los Zetas cartel and the Guatemalan Kaibiles military force.

What has changed over the last several years is that C America has become a major trans-shipment point to the US.

[Doc]

I don't think so.

Over the 20th century the US overthrew various governments: Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines [Spanish-American War], Iran, Guatemala, S Vietnam, Chile, and Grenada
and meddled in the politics of many other nations supporting either right wing dictators [Somoza in Nicaragua, Park in S Korea, Allende in Chile, etc.] or right wing parties such as
the LDP in Japan.

Of course, it was not all bad. The Marshall Plan was brilliant and both Germany and Japan are better off with democratic institutions compared with the alternatives.

Anyways, the point is not to reargue the history of US foreign policy, but to note that the current situation with immigrant children is in part a product of

1/ decades of US policy in C American; and

2/ the so-called War on Drugs, and it's destabilizing effect on C America, due to the insatiable US demand for product

Of course not. The Drug War has been failing for decades, there is nothing in the last 6 months that is unusual that would precipitate the current problem.
There is no current meddling in their politics that would cause this.

Yet the so-called War on Drugs continues as does growing demand for product in the USA.

The illegal drug trade in Guatemala includes trans-shipment of cocaine to the United States. According to some reports, Mexican drug cartels such as Sinaloa have also established poppy growing operations there. There is a reported relationship between the Mexican Los Zetas cartel and the Guatemalan Kaibiles military force.

What has changed over the last several years is that C America has become a major trans-shipment point to the US.

I believe that the reason for that is that the Zetas have been expanding there. I surmise there is a partnership with M@13 and the Zetas Given the reports of MS13 members coming across teh border with the other immigrants. There is no way that would happen unless the Zetas were allowing it to happen. It is their smuggling routes after all and they make sure they know what is being smuggled along them .

[Mr. Perfect]

Yet the so-called War on Drugs continues as does growing demand for product in the USA.

The illegal drug trade in Guatemala includes trans-shipment of cocaine to the United States. According to some reports, Mexican drug cartels such as Sinaloa have also established poppy growing operations there. There is a reported relationship between the Mexican Los Zetas cartel and the Guatemalan Kaibiles military force.

What has changed over the last several years is that C America has become a major trans-shipment point to the US.

But this has nothing to do with the lnflux of children coming across the border. They are coming across the border because there is the promise of amnesty.

If the drug war ended tomorrow it would not stop the influx of children by one child.

[monster_gardener]

Yet the so-called War on Drugs continues as does growing demand for product in the USA.

The illegal drug trade in Guatemala includes trans-shipment of cocaine to the United States. According to some reports, Mexican drug cartels such as Sinaloa have also established poppy growing operations there. There is a reported relationship between the Mexican Los Zetas cartel and the Guatemalan Kaibiles military force.

What has changed over the last several years is that C America has become a major trans-shipment point to the US.

But this has nothing to do with the lnflux of children coming across the border. They are coming across the border because there is the promise of amnesty.

If the drug war ended tomorrow it would not stop the influx of children by one child.

Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Mr. Perfect.

SECONDED!

IMHO Largely True.......

[Typhoon]

Yet the so-called War on Drugs continues as does growing demand for product in the USA.

The illegal drug trade in Guatemala includes trans-shipment of cocaine to the United States. According to some reports, Mexican drug cartels such as Sinaloa have also established poppy growing operations there. There is a reported relationship between the Mexican Los Zetas cartel and the Guatemalan Kaibiles military force.

What has changed over the last several years is that C America has become a major trans-shipment point to the US.

But this has nothing to do with the lnflux of children coming across the border. They are coming across the border because there is the promise of amnesty.

If the drug war ended tomorrow it would not stop the influx of children by one child.

I don't think so.

[Doc]

Yet the so-called War on Drugs continues as does growing demand for product in the USA.

The illegal drug trade in Guatemala includes trans-shipment of cocaine to the United States. According to some reports, Mexican drug cartels such as Sinaloa have also established poppy growing operations there. There is a reported relationship between the Mexican Los Zetas cartel and the Guatemalan Kaibiles military force.

What has changed over the last several years is that C America has become a major trans-shipment point to the US.

But this has nothing to do with the lnflux of children coming across the border. They are coming across the border because there is the promise of amnesty.

If the drug war ended tomorrow it would not stop the influx of children by one child.

I don't think so.

I don't either The Drug Cartels are reportedly making more money from Human trafficking than drug smuggling. The smuggling networks that were created to smuggle drugs has become dual use.

Our Neighbor Isn’t Doing Its Part’

The president of Honduras on why the United States and its drug habit are to blame for the violence and kid immigrants fleeing Central America.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z38zzLDnV2



Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández came to Washington this week with just about the toughest hand a world leader can play: His tiny, impoverished country is both very dependent on what happens here in the United States and more or less without leverage to shape it. The only leverage, in fact, that Honduras and its small, equally troubled neighbors Guatemala and El Salvador have found recently has come in the form of small children, tens of thousands of whom have clambered over the U.S. border this year in numbers so large and so unexpected they’ve created an immigration crisis that, at the least, has succeeded in placing Central America’s plague of drugs, violence and poverty on the Washington agenda in a way it wouldn’t have been otherwise. That said, it’s still not clear what, if anything, will come of the new state of affairs—at least not when it comes to Honduras, so deadly that its city of San Pedro Sula has been dubbed “the murder capital of the world” and so politically troubled that Washington hardly blinked when its elected president was toppled in a coup a few years back. Politico Magazine editor Susan Glasser met with President Hernández Friday—and found a leader deeply skeptical about the United States, from its refusal to acknowledge the role our own demand for drugs has had in creating his country’s cycle of violence, to our poor record of delivering significant aid. Their edited conversation, translated from Spanish by Politico reporter Jose DelReal, follows.

***

Susan Glasser: Mr. President, we’re in crisis mode here in Washington over this question of the border. And in particular the plight of the children coming to the United States unaccompanied has captured the public’s attention. But the politics of this is, to be blunt, a disaster. There’s no real sense that we have solutions, or even that President Obama can win passage for his proposed $3.7 billion plan to deal with the crisis, and I’m curious what you most want to say to the president and to the politicians here in Washington. How much responsibility do they have for this crisis?


President Hernández: First, I would like to tell leaders in Washington: A Central America with violence caused by drugs, a Central America without opportunities, a Central America that doesn’t have space for economic growth at the rate the population needs, will be an enormous cost and an enormous danger to the United States. On the contrary, a Central America in peace, a Central America that is prosperous, a Central American with economic growth, a Central America where violence is controlled, is a great investment for the United States. It is a great benefit, not a cost.

Now, how to do that? That’s through shared responsibility. The United States is responsible, Central America is responsible, and Mexico is responsible. We have assumed our commitment [as in “responsibility”] and our visit today requires talking with leaders in Washington and structuring a plan dividing that responsibility. And I think that, until now, what we’ve been talking about with congressional leaders is moving on a good path. I would expect that that the electoral politics that are playing right now will not affect a decision that has to do with tending to a humanitarian crisis. When we talk about the children [on the border], they are human beings. Human beings who are in a difficult situation. In that sense, I would expect that the electoral debate doesn’t affect [the response].

SG: There’s been a big debate about who’s responsible for the influx of children coming here: how much is a result of confusion around U.S. law. You think that that does affect the children coming?

JH: That does.The problem is that that ambiguity, that lack of clarity, is used by coyotes [traffickers] to perversely deceive the families that are here, telling them that they can bring their kids and that their entry can be resolved legally later. But another problem is that they deceive the people in Central America, telling them, “take kids to the border and they’ll be received and admitted,” when we know that’s not true.

That confusion is due to a lack of clarity, but there’s another important cause in relation to Honduras. If you take a map of the municipalities where drugs pass, and overlay a map of the municipalities where the kids are coming, they match perfectly.

SG: San Pedro Sula [the Honduran city that is the murder capital of the world] is where most of the people are coming from.

JH: Exactly. But another side of it is the trafficking of dollars, payment for the drugs.

SG: Your point is that the United States is responsible for creating the demand for the drugs—and the violence that it has caused in the country—that we have not accepted really our share of the responsibility for that.

JH: We all share responsibility, from those who produce the drug to the transit countries, but also the country that uses the drugs. And the United States is the great consumer of the drugs. The advantage that you have here—if you can call it an advantage—is that the violence has been separated from the transit of drugs. That’s why for many officials and public servants the drug problem in the United States is one of public health. In Central America, the drug problem is life or death. That’s why it’s important that the United States assume its responsibility. They fixed the problem in New York, Los Angeles, and Miami, separating the violence from drug trafficking, or at least controlling the violence.

SG: Your foreign minister was interviewed on NPR and said that it’s “outrageous” that the United States has spent so much money on border security and so little money helping Honduras and the other countries of the Northern Triangle. Do you agree with that? What should the United States be doing to assist Honduras more directly?

JH: I return to my point. A Central America at peace, with less drug violence, and with opportunities, is a great investment for the United States. On the contrary, if they are only investing in border security and not in the source of the problem, in the genesis of the problem, then we will have more of the same.

SG: And is that an outrage that we have our priorities so wrong?

JH: I would say that it’s a miscalculation. Of course for us it’s uncomfortable and frustrating knowing that our neighbor isn’t doing its part.

SG: President Obama has proposed this 3.7 billion dollar package, and even then it’s not clear whether Congress will actually approve that. Only a small amount, something like $300 million, is supposed to go directly to the countries in the region. Is there some more concrete form of assistance that would stop this flood of migrants?

JH: There was an initiative by the name of CARSI (Central America Regional Security Initiative) that all the countries of South America and the Caribbean see as a practical joke. In Guatemala many years back it was said that there would be an enormous investment in this same problem, the violence. Almost $3 billion. Practically nothing has arrived. And so we don’t want to be deceived again.

SG: So you’re skeptical based on history?

JH: Yes.

SG: Honduras is a small country. It must be very painful for you to be the president of what people call the murder capital of the world. Do you see any prospect for not having that be the thing that you’re number one in?

JH: We are working on that. And we are working hard. We have some improvements. But we have a lot more to do. It is not enough. That is the reason we need help. Help from the people who demand this consumption of drugs.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... 09400.html

[Mr. Perfect]

It's not news that various criminal elements are exploiting the situation, it is also not news that people would rather blame others for their situation (the Honduran President).

Fact is, if there was no promise of amnesty this would not be happening. These kids are coming in the daylight, not in secrecy. This is not fundamentally about the drug war.

[Doc]

It's not news that various criminal elements are exploiting the situation, it is also not news that people would rather blame others for their situation (the Honduran President).

Fact is, if there was no promise of amnesty this would not be happening. These kids are coming in the daylight, not in secrecy. This is not fundamentally about the drug war.

I disagree. These kid are coming from drug gang infested countries. They are being transported at the very least with the paid help of drug cartels. They are saying that many of those coming to the US are members of MS13 which would never ever happen without the consent and even partnership of the Zetas. Who in fact have extensively made operations in the very same Central American countries that the refugees are coming from. They would never have gone to those countries or even existed in the first place if it were not from money used to buy drugs in the US.

The evidence for this is completely over whelming.

SG: There’s been a big debate about who’s responsible for the influx of children coming here: how much is a result of confusion around U.S. law. You think that that does affect the children coming?

JH: That does.The problem is that that ambiguity, that lack of clarity, is used by coyotes [traffickers] to perversely deceive the families that are here, telling them that they can bring their kids and that their entry can be resolved legally later. But another problem is that they deceive the people in Central America, telling them, “take kids to the border and they’ll be received and admitted,” when we know that’s not true.

Here Mr P. you should have inserted "BUT IT IS TRUE" and indeed it is. Obama certainly did not intend to make this crisis, but make it he did, with his "Lack of clarity" Which I take as diplomatic speak, of one who is seeking foreign aid, for "F***ing Obama !!!"

That confusion is due to a lack of clarity, but there’s another important cause in relation to Honduras. If you take a map of the municipalities where drugs pass, and overlay a map of the municipalities where the kids are coming, they match perfectly.

[Mr. Perfect]

If we had a regular known deportation policy I can't imagine how this would be happening.