JMHO Loc: Utah

The US government, which has refused to act decisively to control the horde of children entering the US via Mexico from Central America (estimated to be nearly 60,000 from October 2013 to June 2014) certainly had no compunctions about expelling a helpless child back to terrible conditions in the case of Elian Gonzalez back in 1999 during the Clinton regime. In that case, the Feds were wrong to send a child back to a c*******t dictatorship, where he lives today, a member of the Union of Young C*******ts, propagandist for the regime, and personal “friend” of Fidel Castro.

But at least the government acted decisively, to put it mildly. Attorney General Janet Reno sent in a federal SWAT team to seize the young child from his uncle and relatives in Miami during a convoluted ordeal that began when then 5-year-old Elian was picked up off the Florida coast clinging to an inner tube. His mother and eleven others perished during their escape from Cuban tyranny in a small raft, leaving Elian’s father in Cuba.

The US State Department recused itself from granting Elian political exile status, leaving the state courts to decide whether or not his uncle could keep him under his care in the US. The Immigration and Naturalization Service mysteriously entered the fray and ruled in contravention of a Florida Family Court decision that allowed Elian to remain with his American relatives. The INS ruled that Elian be returned to his father (conveniently in the US to claim his son) but the Feds had to use maximum force to remove Elian from the home of his American family to comply with the order.

Today, even a display of minimum force would assuage Americans who stand by horrified as children queue up to enter the US, attracted by statements by Barack Obama pushing his Dream Act that would grant citizenship to i*****l i*******t children. The problem is: the Act has not been approved by Congress. Nonetheless, Obama’s emotional words have been interpreted in Central American nations as law, causing families to pay $5000 to $10,000 to t***sship their children to the US border with Mexico where they assumed they would be welcomed by America and granted political asylum.

Instead, most Americans are outraged. Towns and cities chosen for relocation sites for the children have demonstrated against their entry, although confronted by counter-demonstrations by La Razza, the Obama administration approved Hispanic pressure group. La Razza (The Race) calls for a homeland for Mexicans and Latin Americans in the US named ‘Aztlán’ — a swath of land comprising Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State -- allegedly occupied by Aztecs before Europeans arrived in North America.

It’s hard to blame the Central American parents who believed their children would be welcome. They are confused and have no honest source to explain to them the difference between actual laws and executive policies, such as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, executive orders and directives, such as the Family Interest Directive, by an uber-socialist president and the procedures required for an actual law to pass. When you think about it, most Americans are unaware of the difference between a p**********l wish list and the law of the land. If a large share of Americans don’t get the process here, how can we expect Central Americans to know?

In the case of the juvenile immigrants, Obama knows his words and executive actions are tearing apart non-Hispanics in communities in the Southwest and areas to which the i*****l i*******t children are being shipped. He is dividing the entire country with blather while serious concerns are debated, such as diseases, absorption and social cost related to the young asylum seekers. Not to mention the mounting crises overseas.

This is a problem that is owned by Barack Obama.

Bernie Reeves

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

The refusal to provide names or aliases and other information to state governments concerning these children is very disturbing, to me.

The ACLU, which has filed suit that immigration officials are exploiting these children, has in a completely opposite argument opposed identifying these children as to state governments that seek to ensure these children are provided a safe and stable environment until the courts determine their fate.

I would like to know the ACLU's reasoning on these two, seemingly inseparable, matters. I have had no success in trying to find any such reconciliation.

I would be very interested, if you have any insight on this matter.