wilkes

I tried to read your last filibuster and got bored. Did you answer or not?

It is clear that swcy still has a problem with remedial counting as he posts two questions while purporting to ask only one.

Okay, simple question: Who would you deport? Just juveniles? If not, be specific.

In shoulda's defense, you never did answer a simple question, or wonder about an answer, or contemplate the question at all. A hundred posts later, all we can do is hope that the drama will end. Chuck it up as a loss Connie! NO shame!

So, you only want to deport juveniles?

How weird.

Another post by swcy, another badgering lie. For purposes of polite discussion, I said I woulda open the bidding at a dollar a head. That is all. My position has been misrepresented and distorted, again, by swcy to the point of absurdity. He does that, a lot. While swcy leapt to an imaginary number of 11,000,000, the actual premise of the OP was the several thousand juvenile illegals estimated to cross our southern border this year. Curious how things get blown by swcy. He does that, a lot.

You said you would give one dollar a person to start the deportation process.

Really, we're all just waiting on you, NeoKonrad.

The more you stall, the worse the perceived problem gets.

Maybe you could set up an installment plan? Until the year...oh, let's say...3016?

I removed a few posts that were off topic and/or trolling.

Did you send the check in yet, NeoKonrad?

The old mother hen has been overwhelmed and has been kicking out her own brood to make room for the new ones that aren't even hers.

I thought he meant $8,000, not $8. The paperwork alone is just over $1,000:

http://www.visanow.com/gree...cost-fees/

Most people go through an attorney, though, which is around $6,000 in fees, plus the $1,000-$1,500 in documents:

http://knowyourvisa.com/greenfees.php

Also, renewing your green card is every $10 years so that would mean she's seen increases every 10 years, not just recently. Just lies.

Tnt- if that woman said $8 for a green card she's a liar or 200 years old.

What do you propose as an alternative? Send children away that are begging for help, knowing that they'll be tortured, raped, sold in to slavery, or murdered?

We need to review treaties, laws, and policies that have become outdated and liabilities to our country. What was fair and doable 65 years ago may not be so today. When you are rescuing victims from a sinking ship, do you want to take on so many that your vessel sinks, also?

In addition to the fact that Obama is following international law, I noticed that all of the headlines are basically lying. They're saying that Obama plans to give $17,613 to the immigrants.

This is a flat out lie.

The request is for $1.226 billion in funding for the Unaccompanied Children program. This money is used to cover legal expenses, education, health care, and housing:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/prog...ograms/ucs

Preparing for an inevitable increase in unaccompanied children immigrants isn't the same, at all, as offering them money they way that it's being described.

SO, is anti confusing the thread by conflating those crossing from Mexico as refugees?

What are our obligations under international law?

The United States has entered into treaties with other countries to ensure the protection and safe passage of refugees. Among the most important are the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol. Under these treaties, the United States may not return an individual to a country where he or she faces persecution from a government or a group the government is unable or unwilling to control based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. A separate treaty, known as theConvention Against Torture, prohibits the return of people to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe they may be tortured.

The United States has implemented these treaties in various laws and regulations. They form the basis for both our refugee program and asylum program. (An asylee is simply a refugee whose case is determined in the United States, rather than outside it.) In fact, under our laws, anyone in the United States may seek asylum, with some exceptions, or protection from torture with no exceptions. It can be difficult and complicated to determine whether an individual has a valid claim for asylum or protection from torture. To meet its protection obligations, the United States should ensure that children are safe, have an understanding of their situation and their rights, and have adequate representation when they tell their stories to a judge.

Do Central American children qualify for protections under international and U.S. law?

Many of the children fleeing to the United States have international protection needs and could be eligible for humanitarian relief. According to UNHCR's survey of 404 unaccompanied children from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, 58 percent "were forcibly displaced because they suffered or faced harms that indicated a potential or actual need for international protection." Notably, of those surveyed, UNHCR thought 72 percent of the children from El Salvador, 57 percent from Honduras, and 38 percent from Guatemala could merit protection. While international protection standards are in some cases broader than current U.S. laws, the fact that over 50 percent of the children UNHCR surveyed might qualify as refugees suggests that a thorough and fair review of these children's claims is necessary to prevent them from being returned to danger.

Moreover, children may qualify for particular U.S. forms of humanitarian relief for victims of trafficking and crime, or for children who have been abused or abandoned by a parent. A 2010 survey conducted by the Vera Institute of Justice indicated that 40 percent of children screened while in government custody could be eligible for relief from removal under U.S. laws. Given their age, the complexity of their claims, and the trauma that generally accompanies their journey, determining whether these children qualify for some form of protection can be a time-consuming process.

A) It is obvious that swcy is confused once again as the OP clearly posted that this was a sum o'bummer has budgeted for those crossing the boarder illegally this year, NOT the "estimated" 11,000,000 already here and unaccounted for.