Archive

ShareThis Page
‘Refugee’ ruse: An illegals pipeline | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

‘Refugee’ ruse: An illegals pipeline

Since the surge of “children” — primarily male teens — from Central America in 2014, the Obama administration has tried various ways to open the floodgates to this segment of illegal aliens. The latest attempt, billed as “family reunification,” extends to these children the same benefits as refugees.

Except most of them are not refugees, according to a Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) analysis.

To better manage the “crisis,” a new refugee-resettlement program set up in Central America coordinates with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Children who “qualify” would be flown to the United States.

Trouble is, most of these children who leave their homes in Central America “do not do so for fear of persecution” and, by the U.N.’s definition, are not refugees, writes Nayla Rush for CIS. “Wouldn’t it make more sense to provide them with the care they need away from danger but in their own country or close to it?”

The U.N. agency’s policy is clear: “States are responsible for protecting the human rights of all persons within their territory, including refugee children.” Never mind the projected $1 billion-plus U.S. cost for “unaccompanied children” in 2017.

Once established in the U.S., these “refugees” can obtain legal status and sponsor their illegal relatives living the U.S.

This is nothing more than a means to an end, focused not on what’s best for the children but on illegals’ amnesty.


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.