BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG
We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
NORTON META TAG
Showing posts with label Sen jeff flake r AZ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sen jeff flake r AZ. Show all posts
SO many critics about the Obama administration's plans and actions against daesh, and so few of them offer realistic alternative plans of actions. Anyone of any political party trying to use the terrorist attacks in Paris for their own political gain is disgusting. We should be united in our efforts to defeat and destroy terrorism and if suggestions and opinions are to be expressed they should be realistic and practical, not propaganda, fear-mongering, misinformation and deception. +Senator Tim Kaine has been calling for congress to to pass authorization for the American war on daesh / isis for months to no avail. A dangerous precedence is being set allowing our President to wage war without congressional authorization, and congress should hold a debate and vote on AUMF to be on record on the matter and also to take a stand for the defense of our Republic's constitution. These from Sen Tim Kaine's website, +Mother Jones and +PolitiFact ......
In the wake of the
Paris attacks last week, U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) a member of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, took to the Senate floor today to
renew his call for Congress to debate and vote on an Authorization for
Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIL. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who
introduced a compromise AUMF with Kaine in June, joined him on the
Senate floor to express his support for a debate on war authorization.
In
the wake of the Paris attacks last week, U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) a
member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, took to the Senate
floor today to renew his call for Congress to debate and vote on an
Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIL. Sen. Jeff
Flake (R-AZ), who introduced a compromise AUMF with Kaine in June,
joined him on the Senate floor to express his support for a debate on
war authorization.
Yes, Obama Does Have an Anti-ISIS Plan "to Take Out These Bastards"
At
a Monday press conference at the G20 meeting in Turkey, President
Barack Obama was repeatedly asked by American reporters a version of
this question: What are you doing to defeat ISIS? CNN's Jim Acosta put
it in these Twitterish terms:
"Why can't we take out these bastards?" His passionate formulation
seemed to imply that the Obama administration was not doing everything
reasonably possible to vanquish ISIS. And throughout the presser, Obama
explained that there was a strategy in place, asserted that other ideas
(such as sending in ground troops or establishing a no-fly zone in
Syria) were constantly being scrutinized, and expressed frustration that
he was being asked the same question (what's your plan?) repeatedly.
Obama was right. He does have a strategy, and for more than a year
the United States has taken many actions to thwart ISIS. Whether these
steps are the best that can be attempted (weighing all the complicated
costs and benefits) is subject to debate. But Obama's
opponents—particularly those Republicans seeking to succeed him in the
White House—often assail him as if he's a feckless, do-nothing
commander-in-chief who has no understanding of ISIS and has mounted
practically no effort to counter these murderous extremists. But that's
hardly the case.
Ask
the White House what the president has done to combat ISIS—the
president prefers to call the group ISIL—and aides will quickly point
out that Obama has forged a coalition of 65 nations that are supporting
local forces in Iraq fighting against ISIS. This effort has launched
8,100 airstrikes on ISIS targets in a little more than a year. (For
comparison's sake, there have been about 400 drone strikes against targets in Pakistan since 2004.) The White House notes that US military forces recently struck 116 ISIS fuel trucks
and disrupted the group's oil-smuggling and financing capabilities. And
two weeks ago the president announced he would be sending additional special operations forces
to work with Kurds battling ISIS in northern Syria. At the same time,
Obama noted the administration would step up supplying equipment to
anti-ISIS forces in Syria.
For weeks, administration reps have been describing their anti-ISIS efforts. In late October, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter testified
on Capitol Hill and claimed that the US military effort to help
moderate Syrians fighting to gain control of Raqqa, an ISIS stronghold
in Syria, had made gains and that these Syrians were 30 miles from the
strategically important city. He noted the overall air campaign against
ISIS was intensifying, and he said the United States was prepared to
provide more air support and equipment to Iraqi forces battling ISIS,
provided that the Iraqis demonstrate progress and the ability to
preserve recent gains in Anbar province. "We've given the Iraqi
government two battalions' worth of equipment for mobilizing Sunni
tribal forces," Carter said. "As we continue to provide this support,
the Iraqi government must ensure it is distributed effectively."
Carter cited recent successes on the ground: the Kurdish-led hostage rescue mission
in northern Iraq and assorted raids against ISIS leaders: "The raid on
Abu Sayyaf's home, and strikes against Junaid Hussain and most recently
Sanafi al-Nasr, should all serve notice to ISIL and other terrorist
leaders that once we locate them, no target is beyond our reach." He
told the senators that all the ideas touted by Obama's critics—a no-fly
zone, a buffer zone, humanitarian zone—had been reviewed and pose their
own challenges.
In a November 12 speech,
Secretary of State John Kerry also outlined details of the
administration's anti-ISIS campaign. He said that the number of
airstrikes was rising: "There were more than 40 just last night." He
added that "the coalition and its allies on the ground have defended
Mosul Dam and other vital facilities in Iraq while also preventing a
terrorist assault on Baghdad. We have driven [ISIS] from the critical
border town of Kobani…We've seen the city of Tikrit liberated." He
pointed out that "thousands of American advisers" were training and
assisting Iraqi security forces. "We have significantly degraded
[ISIS's] top leadership, including Haji Mutazz, the organization's
second in command," Kerry added, "and we continue to eliminate
commanders and other personnel from the battlefield."
And there's more: helping Iraqi forces aiming to take back Ramadi and
boosting the shipment of supplies and ammo to Syrians fighting ISIS.
Also, Kerry remarked, the Obama administration was trying to bolster the
efforts of its European allies and those allies in the region: "Not
long ago, [ISIS] controlled more than half of Syria's 500-mile-long
border with Turkey. Today, it has a grip on only about 15 percent, and
we have a plan with our partners to pry open and secure the rest." And,
Kerry noted, the administration had been pushing a diplomatic initiative
in Syria aimed at deescalating the conflict within that country, which,
if successful, would allow for a more concentrated multilateral assault
on ISIS.
"Remember, this [anti-ISIS] coalition has only been together for 14
months," Kerry said. And administration officials like to toss out this
particular stat: ISIS has lost between 20 and 25 percent of the
populated territory it used to control in Iraq.
So Obama and his team can recite a long list of actions and a short—but significant—list of accomplishments. Still, the Paris attacks (as well as attacks in Beirut and the downing of a Russian airliner, which have been attributed to ISIS) and
the ability of ISIS to maintain its quasi-state within not one but two
countries can be cited as a sign that ISIS, to some extent, is
prevailing, even if it has lost ground.
Obama's anti-ISIS plan is nuanced, multifaceted, tethered to the
vexing realities of the region, and focused on long-term success—and it
avoids the risks and unforeseen consequences of deploying American
ground troops to directly engage with ISIS on Syrian or Iraqi territory.
It does not involve grand or sweeping actions. It does not promise
complete and immediate success by a date certain. Consequently, Obama is
vulnerable to criticism from those who claim bolder (if sometimes
unspecified) action would yield better and quicker results. Perhaps
additional steps could produce more progress. For example, Brian
Katulis, an expert on the Middle East and terrorism at the Center for
American Progress, faults Obama for not leaning hard enough on partners
in the region, such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to make busting ISIS a
top priority. But with the national discourse so thoroughly shaped by
politics and ideology, it will be hard to have a cool and reasonable
debate over alternatives or add-ons to Obama's approach.
The Bush-Cheney invasion of Iraq in 2003 unleashed forces and
challenges that might require decades to counter, and Obama has been
trying to implement a series of actions to end the danger that war
generated. Yet any decent plan could take a long time to take out the
bastards.
When President Barack
Obama said ISIS, or ISIL, was contained, he "was responding very
specifically to the geographic expansion of ISIL in Iraq and Syria."
— Ben Rhodes on Sunday, November 15th, 2015 in comments on ABC's "This Week"
By Lauren Carroll on Sunday, November 15th, 2015 at 4:18 p.m.
President Barack Obama discussing ISIS. (Screengrab)
Last week, President Barack Obama said
the Islamic State is "contained" -- a comment that has been scrutinized
in the wake of the deadly attacks in Paris that have been attributed to
the terrorist group.
But has Obama’s comment been taken out of context?
ABC This Week host George Stephanopoulos presented White
House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes with a list of
politicians criticizing Obama for his Nov. 12 remarks. Republican
presidential candidate and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, for example, said Obama sees the world "as a fantasy."
Rhodes said Obama was talking about a particular aspect of
containment that in no way dismissed the possibility of terrorist
attacks in the West.
"The president was responding very specifically to the geographic
expansion of ISIL in Iraq and Syria," Rhodes said, using another acronym
for the group. "A year ago, we saw them on the march in Iraq and Syria,
taking more and more population centers. The fact is that we have been
able to stop that geographic advance and take back significant amounts
of territory in both northern Iraq and northern Syria. At the same time,
that does not diminish the fact that there is a threat posed by ISIL,
not just in those countries but in their aspirations to project power
overseas."
This reminded us of a prior fact-check, when Obama said he didn’t
specifically describe ISIS as a "JV team" -- a statement we rated False
because he was clearly talking about the Islamic State at the time. We
decided to look back at Obama’s comments on containing ISIS to see his
comments in their complete context. Rewind
In the context of Obama’s Nov. 12 interview with Stephanopoulos
-- the day before the Paris attacks -- it’s actually quite clear that
when he says ISIS is contained, he is talking about ISIS’s territorial
expansion in Syria and Iraq. Here are the relevant parts of the
interview:
Stephanopoulos: "Some of
your critics say, even your friendly critics say, like Fareed Zakaria,
that what you have on the ground now is not going to be enough. Every
couple of months you're going to be faced with the same choice of back
down or double down."
Obama: "I think what is
true is that this has always been a multiyear project precisely because
the governance structures in the Sunni areas of Iraq are weak, and there
are none in Syria. And we don't have ground forces there in sufficient
numbers to simply march into Al-Raqqah in Syria and clean the whole
place out. And as a consequence, we've always understood that our goal
has to be militarily constraining ISIL's capabilities, cutting off their
supply lines, cutting off their financing at the same time as we're
putting a political track together in Syria and fortifying the best
impulses in Baghdad so that we can, not just win militarily, but also
win by improving governance."
Stephanopoulos: "And that's the strategy you've been following. But ISIS is gaining strength, aren't they?"
Obama: "Well, no, I don't think they're gaining strength. What
is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain, and
we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq. And in
Syria they'll come in, they'll leave. But you don't see this systematic
march by ISIL across the terrain. What we have not yet
been able to do is to completely decapitate their command and control
structures. We've made some progress in trying to reduce the flow of
foreign fighters."
When Obama said "we have contained them," it’s within a plainly
defined scope: ISIS’s territorial ambitions in Iraq and Syria. This
context is bolstered by the fact that Stephanopoulos asks Obama about
the ground efforts in those two countries.
He wasn’t saying, as critics have shorthanded, that ISIS no longer
presents a threat -- an assertion that the Paris attacks would have
negated. In fact, in the same interview, Obama acknowledged that ISIS
might have surpassed al-Qaida as the greatest terror threat in the
world, adding that they are constantly looking for "a crack in the
system" to exploit to carry out attacks. "I think that one of the
challenges of these international terrorist organizations is that they
don't have to have a huge amount of personnel," Obama said. Is ISIS contained in Iraq and Syria?
The region Obama refers to is significant because it’s the epicenter
of ISIS’s caliphate. We surveyed a number of experts, and they all said
Obama is accurate when he says ISIS hasn’t gained territory in Iraq and
Syria in recent months, though it does not give a full picture of ISIS’s
global reach.
"It’s a choice of words that isn’t great, but what he is referring to
-- as opposed to the way people have interpreted it -- is correct,"
said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, senior fellow at the Foundation for
Defense of Democracies.
While ISIS has captured a couple towns in the past few months, it has
ultimately lost roughly a quarter of its Iraq and Syria territory
overall. A good portion of the losses resulted from United States
airstrikes but also from fighting with Iraqi forces and regional groups, Gartenstein-Ross said. This is a far cry from a year ago, when there was serious concern that ISIS would capture Baghdad.
But even though they haven’t expanded territorially recently, ISIS
continues to counterattack anti-ISIS forces in the region, noted
Frederick Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project at the
American Enterprise Institute. He added that ISIS has actually expanded
globally -- with strongholds and cells in Libya, Yemen, the Sinai
region, and Bangladesh, as well as establishing ties with other
terrorist organizations in Africa.
This November map from the Institute for the Study of War shows where ISIS has ties. The stars indicate where ISIS has a remote "governorate."
And, as we know from the Paris attacks, ISIS is able to flex their muscle in the West, too.
"They are being contained geographically by traditional military but
they are leapfrogging over it using terrorism," said Joshua Landis,
director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of
Oklahoma. He added that Obama used "your grandfather’s notion of
containment." Our ruling
Rhodes said that when Obama said ISIS was contained, he "was
responding very specifically to the geographic expansion of ISIL in Iraq
and Syria."
Looking back at Obama’s interview where he made this comment, it is
quite clear that it’s within a narrowly defined scope: ISIS’s
territorial expansion in Iraq and Syria. He did not rule out the
potential for a terrorist attack, and he also made it clear that the
United States’ anti-ISIS efforts are a work in progress.
References or suggestions that Obama claimed ISIS no longer presents an active threat are incorrect.
Further, experts told us that Obama is right that ISIS hasn’t
expanded in the region in recent months, though this doesn’t give a full
picture of ISIS’s global reach.
Rhodes’ statement rates True.
ABC News, This Week, Nov. 15, 2015
ABC News, "Full Interview Transcript: President Barack Obama," Nov. 12, 2015
Institute for the Study of War, "ISIS’ Global Strategy: A Wargame," July 2015
ISW, "ISIS Global Strategy," November 2015
Phone interview, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Nov. 15, 2015
Phone interview, Joshua Landis, University of Oklahoma, Nov. 15, 2015
Email interview, Frederick Kagan, American Enterprise Institute, Nov. 15, 2015
Email interview, David Schanzer, Duke University, Nov. 15, 2015
Email interview, Bruce Riedel, Brookings Institution, Nov. 15, 2015
Email interview, National Security Council spokespersons Ned Price and Emily Horne, Nov. 15, 2015
SEN Jeff Flake (merecedor de su apellido) r tb AZ alimenta la histeria por la invasión de los niños de América Central , indocumentados y los inmigrantes de manera ilegal bajo la ley actual. Este
es un problema, pero que necesita ser tratado con compasión y a través
de los sistemas de inmigración y justicia y no con la mentira, el
engaño, el racismo y la manipulación del miedo, sobre todo en estos
tiempos económicos difíciles. Es triste Sen escama tiene
que recurrir a este tipo de tácticas, uno pensaría que la gente de
Arizona esperarían mejor de uno de sus senadores. Es aún más triste si en realidad está expresando sus puntos de vista. Desde + PolitiFact y + PBS NewsHour
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Cuando los niños indocumentados son recogidos en la frontera y "dijeron a
aparecer más tarde en la corte ... el 90 por ciento no lo hace entonces
aparecer."
Jeff Flake en Martes, 08 de julio 2014, en una entrevista en la PBS "News Hour"
El senador Jeff Flake, republicano por
Arizona., Discutió el aumento de los niños no acompañados que llegan a
la frontera de Estados Unidos con México. Una de las estadísticas que mencionó levantó las cejas.
Dos muchachas a ver un partido de fútbol
de la Copa Mundial de su área de espera en Nogales, Arizona, donde se
procesan y se mantienen a cientos de niños inmigrantes estadounidenses
en su mayoría centroamericanos.
El aumento de los niños no acompañados en la frontera EE.UU.,
provenientes principalmente de Honduras, Guatemala y El Salvador, ha
superado la capacidad de Estados Unidos para manejar sus casos legales.
Una ley aprobada durante la presidencia de George W. Bush y destinado a
frenar la trata de personas requiere que los menores procedentes de
Centroamérica que llegan a la frontera deben tener sus casos ante la
corte antes de que puedan ser deportados. En la actualidad, los niños esperan un promedio de 578 días antes de una audiencia - retrasos que son seguros para alargar si el flujo de niños ha disminuido.
Una de las más flamantes $ 3,7 mil millones el presidente Barack Obama
está solicitando en un proyecto de ley de gastos suplementarios para la
frontera sería para aumentar la capacidad de los tribunales para manejar
la carga de trabajo de los niños recién llegados.
En este contexto, el senador Jeff Flake, republicano por Arizona.,
ofreció una estadística notable sobre el tratamiento judicial de las
personas que llegan a la frontera de los EE.UU.. En un 08 de julio 2014, entrevista en la PBS News Hour
, Flake destacó los riesgos de tener un gran número de personas que
salen en los Estados Unidos a la espera de una audiencia - en particular
el riesgo de que fracasen en aparecer y aumentar el número de
indocumentados inmigrantes en el país.
"Cuando estos niños se entregan fuera de la Patrulla Fronteriza, el
papel (del gobierno) es colocar realmente los hijos al cuidado de un
tutor o un miembro de la familia", dijo Flake. "Y entonces
lo que el expediente demuestra es que se les dice a aparecer más tarde
en la corte, donde se adjudicó su caso. Pero el 90 por ciento de ellos,
el 90 por ciento, no se mostrará en la corte más tarde."
Un lector nos llamó la atención a esto, citando datos de forma pronunciada en conflicto, así que decidimos echar un vistazo.
El lector nos indicó un informe del Centro de Política Bipartidista - un think tank fundado por ex líderes del Congreso de ambos partidos - que citó cifras mucho más pequeñas que 90 ciento.
El informe utilizó datos de la Oficina Ejecutiva para Revisión de
Inmigración, encargada por el Departamento de Justicia con el manejo de
los procedimientos judiciales de inmigración, opiniones de apelación y
audiencias administrativas. Entre 2003 y 2012, el
porcentaje de todos los inmigrantes que no se presentó en la corte
después de ser liberado se ha recuperado entre 20 por ciento y 40 por
ciento, de instalarse en un 30 por ciento al final de ese lapso de
tiempo. (No hay datos para los niños es particularmente disponibles de este conjunto de datos de larga duración.)
Eso es sustancialmente inferior a la cifra del 90 por ciento de la escama citada.
Mientras tanto, en un 10 de julio la audiencia
del Comité de Asignaciones del Senado - que tuvo lugar dos días después
de las declaraciones de la escama en PBS - Juan P. Osuna, director de
la Oficina Ejecutiva de Revisión de Inmigración, dijo al panel que su
departamento estima que el 46 por ciento de los niños que actualmente no
logran presentarse a la fecha en la corte. Él dijo a los legisladores que cualquier otro número son "correctos".
Comprobamos con expertos en política de inmigración para ver si las
estadísticas federales o estimación de Flake parecían más precisa, y
estuvieron de acuerdo en que las estadísticas federales cuadraba con su
comprensión a largo plazo de la cuestión.
" No estoy al tanto de los datos que muestra un 90 por ciento de tasa de
no-show ", dijo Marc R. Rosenblum, director adjunto del Programa de
Política de Inmigración de EE.UU. del Instituto de Política Migratoria. Agregó
que el rango de largo plazo de 20 por ciento a 40 por ciento coincide
con lo que el Instituto VERA encuentra entre 1997 y 2000 cuando se
estudió el problema en un contrato federal para realizar un seguimiento
de los casos individuales de inmigración.
El Centro de Política Bipartidista también expresó su escepticismo sobre el 90 por ciento figura. "En
base a los datos federales que hemos visto, sabemos que entre 2008 y
2012, alrededor de 70 a 80 por ciento de todos los inmigrantes se
presentó para su comparecencia ante el tribunal", dijo Rosemarie Calabro
Tully, un portavoz del grupo. Más tarde se nos pasó la estimación Osuna dio a la comisión del Senado.
Cuando contactamos con la oficina de Flake, dijeron fuentes de la senadora para la estadística era un comentario por Judicial de la Cámara, el presidente Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., en un desayuno de medios de comunicación patrocinados por el cristiano Science Monitor . el 26 de junio El monitor
no se imprimió una cita directa, pero he aquí un extracto del artículo:
"En este momento, (Goodlatte) dijo, la ley no permite que los menores
de edad, que se celebrará en un centro, por lo que se liberan a los
familiares o de cuidado de crianza, y luego se da una fecha de corte
para reaparecer. Más del 90 por ciento no lo devuelva, dijo. "
Así que nos pusimos en contacto la oficina del Goodlatte. La
oficina de Goodlatte dijo que durante su visita a la estación de la
Patrulla Fronteriza de McAllen en el Valle del Río Grande en julio,
Goodlatte escuchó de agentes de la Patrulla Fronteriza que sólo el 26
por ciento de los detenidos no se presentó para un proceso de
deportación. Ellos dijeron las autoridades no dieron un porcentaje de los que habían sido puestos en libertad y no se presentaron.
Ellos citaron un artículo en NewsMax
, una publicación en línea conservadora, que citó un "detective del
Sheriff del Condado de Los Angeles de alto nivel que se ocupa
habitualmente con los inmigrantes ilegales" anónimo quien dijo que "un
número masivo - de 80 a 90 por ciento" no se presentó a las audiencias
de deportación. Sin embargo, la oficina de Goodlatte reconoció que esto era evidencia anecdótica.
oficina de Goodlatte también señaló que ya hay piscina significativa de
inmigrantes cuya deportación final, ha sido ordenado, pero no lleva a
cabo. Al menos 858.779 extranjeros no son detenidos
deportables, pero no han sido deportados, muchos de los cuales están
ahora en el radar de las autoridades, según los cálculos realizados por
el Centro de Estudios de Inmigración en base a datos federales. Este es un tema relacionado y notable, pero un poco diferente de lo que dijo Flake o Goodlatte.
Expertos nos registramos con hizo notar una advertencia: No hay manera
de saber si el actual grupo de recién llegados se comportará de manera
diferente en lo que respecta a aspectos de la corte que sus predecesores
tener. De hecho, debido al retraso acumulado, es poco
probable que muchos de los menores detenidos en el 2013 o 2014 han
tenido su cita en la corte presentado ya, y hasta su comparecencia ante
el tribunal se haya completado, el Gobierno no va a saber cómo muchos
terminan yendo y cuántos dejan de aparecer. Nuestra resolución
Flake dijo que cuando los niños indocumentados son recogidos en la
frontera y "dijeron a aparecer más tarde en la corte ... 90 por ciento
no entonces apareció."
Históricamente, la tasa ha oscilado entre el 20 y 40 por ciento y se
estableció en alrededor del 30 por ciento en 2012, el año completo más
reciente para el cual hay datos disponibles. Una estimación
más reciente para los niños específicamente, realizados por el director
de la oficina responsable del manejo de estos casos, es que la actual
tasa de no-show para niños es de 46 por ciento. Eso sigue siendo bastante alto, pero es sólo la mitad de lo que dijo Flake. Nos daría la falsa afirmación.
El senador Jeff Flake, republicano por Arizona., Se une a Gwen Ifill de
compartir su opinión acerca de 3,7 mil millones dólares la propuesta del
presidente Obama para hacer frente a la ola de los menores no
acompañados que cruzan la frontera sur. Critica la
propuesta de asignación de demasiado dinero para el Departamento de
Salud y Servicios Humanos, y se analizan los cambios a una ley de lucha
contra el contrabando y la perspectiva de una reforma migratoria en una
casa dividida.
TRANSCRIPCIÓN
GWEN IFILL: Por otro punto
de vista, nos ocupamos ahora de senador republicano Jeff Flake de
Arizona, miembro del Comité Judicial del Senado Committee.Senator Flake,
gracias por estar con nosotros.
Usted firmó una carta recientemente, a finales del mes pasado, en el que
se instó al gobierno de no dar un tratamiento especial a estos niños
que cruzan las fronteras. ¿Tiene la propuesta del presidente, su solicitud hoy, ¿Satisface tus inquietudes? SEN. Jeff Flake, R, Arizona: Bueno, no, no es así.
Pero déjame primero decir que escribí una carta con el senador McCain y
el senador Feinstein, y me escribió una carta animando al presidente y
la administración para dejar claro que los que están llegando ahora,
estos menores no acompañados, es poco probable que calificar para la
acción diferida o cualquier legislación propuesta por el Congreso.
y aplaudo al presidente por hacer esa declaración y su administración. El
problema que veo con esto - con esta propuesta ante el Congreso es, la
mayor parte del dinero, $ 1.8 mil millones de la misma, irá al
Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos. Eso no es dinero que va a deportar a cualquier persona o para proporcionar la vigilancia fronteriza.
Eso es dinero para resolver realmente estos niños con las familias o tutores en algún lugar del país. Y
así, en el mejor de que es un mensaje muy, muy mezclado, y en el peor,
se está diciendo a los cárteles y los traficantes de personas que la
misma situación que tenemos ahora va a continuar y mantener a los niños
venir. GWEN IFILL: A ver si esta correcto . Usted
cree que ese dinero va a mantener a los niños en el país, en lugar de
hacerse cargo de ellos mientras están aquí antes de que sean devueltos? SEN. Jeff Flake:
Bueno, si nos fijamos en lo que HHS, su papel cuando estos niños se
entregan fuera de la Patrulla Fronteriza, su papel es colocar realmente
los hijos al cuidado de un tutor o un miembro de la familia.
Y entonces lo que muestran las fichas es que se les dice a aparecer más tarde en la corte, donde se adjudicó su caso. Pero el 90 por ciento de ellos, el 90 por ciento, entonces no apareció en la corte más tarde. Y así, lo que realmente está diciendo a los cárteles y los contrabandistas es que la misma situación va a continuar.
Ahora, la administración hace que el punto de que ese es un requisito de la ley actual. Es por eso que tenemos que cambiar la ley actual. La
ley contra el contrabando aprobada en 2008, dice que los niños de
América Central, si usted está en un país no contiguo, entonces - tienen
que ser tratados de manera diferente. Y usted tiene que
tener un día en la corte con un juez, en lugar de ser manejado
administrativamente, al igual que hacemos con los niños de México o de
Canadá. GWEN IFILL: Y si no recuerdo mal, en 2007, cuando estaba en la casa, que de hecho se opuso a la ley original. SEN. Jeff Flake: yo lo hice. Debo decir que me opuse en razones presupuestarias. No había previsto que esto ocurra.
Pero, sin duda, debemos cambiar eso ahora, y creo que el presidente dijo
inicialmente que tenía que ser cambiado, y ahora tal vez ha retrocedido
un poco. Pero tenemos que cambiar eso, porque, hasta que
lo hagamos, siempre y cuando estos niños se colocan con el HHS, el HHS
no hace la debida diligencia.
No es su trabajo, ellos le dirán que, para determinar a quién le están colocando estos niños con . Una vez que estén colocados en algún lugar del país, el 90 por ciento de ellos no se presentó a una cita en la corte. Y
así, el mensaje es claro, muy claro, a los carteles y traficantes de
personas y las familias para seguir adelante y continuar para enviar a
sus hijos aquí, porque, a pesar de lo que podemos decir hasta que
estemos azul en la cara la mayoría de ellos no lo harán calificar para
los programas aquí en los EE.UU. para tener algún tipo de tratamiento,
sus hijos recibirán el tratamiento o que simplemente van a desaparecer
en la población. GWEN IFILL: ¿Entonces usted no cree que - de ninguna manera que los niños deben ser tratados de manera diferente SEN. Jeff Flake: Bueno, lo que yo creo es que los niños, ya sean de México o si son de Honduras o El Salvador, deben ser tratados de la misma. El problema es que se trata de una laguna en la ley. No previmos lo que sucedería cuando esta ley contra el contrabando fue aprobada en 2008.
Y las personas muy sabias a esta hemos aprovechado esta ley para hacer
que los niños en el país y, a continuación, a sabiendas de que tienen
que comparecer ante el tribunal, y el sistema judicial es tan respaldado
- y que debo señalar que el dinero aquí por los jueces para agilizar el
proceso judicial es muy mínimo.
Es sólo pienso en $ 50 millones, en comparación con $ 1.8 mil millones
para el HHS para colocar en realidad estos niños en los hogares . Así que es - el mensaje es bastante malo aquí. GWEN IFILL:
Usted es uno de los miembros del Senado que ha sugerido que debería
haber algún tipo de reforma migratoria más amplia, sin embargo, también
ha dicho que no habrá ningún apetito para que en el House, que va a
estar al lado de cero posibilidades de que eso suceda este año. Teniendo
en cuenta que, ¿crees que hay una oportunidad en absoluto para la
Cámara y el Senado para acordar incluso la revisión legislativa que se
está sugiriendo aquí? SEN. Jeff Flake: Bueno, eso espero. Y me alegro de que usted hizo ese punto.
Soy un miembro de la cuadrilla de ocho. Creo en la reforma migratoria. Estoy de acuerdo con el presidente que lo necesitamos. Y parte del problema aquí es que nunca va a llegar, siempre y cuando esta crisis persiste. Yo creo que hay apetito en la Cámara y en el Senado sobre una base bipartidista para solucionar realmente el problema.
Y debo mencionar, en 2005, tuvimos un gran problema con los llamados
OTM, o que no sean mexicanos, venida, y en gran parte de Brasil. Encontraron - brasileños, es una comunidad muy unida. Descubrieron que podían explotar nuestra ley, y tuvimos un gran número que viene. Y
así que había un programa llamado Texas Hold 'Em realidad donde todos
ellos capturados, no ponerlos en libertad, y dentro de 30 días, el
número de brasileños venida en realidad se redujo en un 50 por ciento.
Y, dentro de los 60 días, se redujo en un 90 ciento. Y así tenemos que tratar a este mismo camino. GWEN IFILL: Supongo que mi - me perdone. Mi pregunta era si el Congreso tiene la voluntad de hacer algo como eso en este momento. SEN. Jeff Flake: Yo creo que sí. Esta es una crisis de este tipo.
Y tener en cuenta, esta es una crisis humanitaria horrible. Estos niños se están poniendo en las manos de los contrabandistas que no tienen sus mejores intereses en el corazón. Pero
te puedo decir que no vamos a detener la ola hasta que la gente en
Honduras y El Salvador y Guatemala realmente ven un avión de regreso con
los niños en él, y aquellos padres decir, pasé 5.000 dólares para
enviar a ese niño a los Estados, y ahora están regresando.
Fue entonces cuando se le detener la marea. Eso es cuando usted va a hacer algo que es bueno por razones humanitarias. Y
por eso tenemos que cambiar esa ley que está permitiendo que el vacío
legal que permite a estos cárteles para explotar estos niños. GWEN IFILL: Senador Jeff Flake, republicano de Arizona, muchas gracias por estar con nosotros. SEN. Jeff Flake: Gracias.
GWEN IFILL: Presidente
Obama está solicitando $ 3.7 mil millones en fondos de emergencia desde
el Congreso para hacer frente a la afluencia de los menores no
acompañados que cruzan la frontera sur. Alrededor de la
mitad del dinero sería utilizado en la atención para los más de 50.000
niños que han llegado a los EE.UU. desde octubre, en su mayoría de
América Central. El resto se destina a agentes de la
Patrulla Fronteriza, los jueces de inmigración adicionales, la
vigilancia y los nuevos centros de detención.
Estamos unidos ahora por Cecilia Muñoz, directora de Política Interior
Council.Thank del presidente gracias por estar con nosotros.
¿Podrías contarnos lo que en la propuesta del presidente frenaría el flujo de inmigrantes? CECILIA MUÑOZ, de la Casa Blanca Consejo de Política Interior: Bueno , hay varias cosas.
En primer lugar, hay una serie de disposiciones y recursos para nuestros
países socios de América Central para asegurarse de que estamos
tratando con las causas profundas de la migración, que estamos rompiendo
las redes de contrabando, que es un factor muy importante en esta
migración, y que en realidad estamos ayudando a crear centros para el
proceso de repatriación y reintegración de esas personas que van a ser
devueltos.
Así que, ese es un elemento muy importante de lo que estamos viendo Aquí. Y
entonces estamos también, como usted ha mencionado, las cosas Los
crecientes como los jueces de inmigración, los funcionarios de asilo
para asegurarse de que podemos honrar cualquier reclamo humanitarias de
niños u otras personas que vienen hacia adelante y podrían calificar
para algún tipo de alivio.
Pero para otros que somos no va a calificar para el alivio, queremos
asegurarnos de que podemos conseguir que las respuestas a sus casos con
celeridad y luego se le retirarán a sus países de origen, en cooperación
con sus países de origen. Pero lo más importante aquí es
asegurarse de que nos estamos enfocando en las redes de contrabando, que
estamos tratando con las causas profundas y que somos capaces de
gestionar eficazmente la migración que ya ha llegado a nuestra frontera.
GWEN IFILL: ¿Qué diría usted que son las causas principales? CECILIA MUÑOZ:
Bueno, es una combinación de la violencia y la pobreza en América
Central, pero sobre todo el contrabando de redes que están
comercializando activamente a las personas la falsedad de que si gastan
dinero para sus hijos - a poner a sus hijos en manos de los traficantes y
hacer este viaje increíblemente peligroso que cuando luego llegar a los
Estados Unidos, se les permitirá - se les dará permiso para quedarse
permanentemente.
Esto es incorrecto. Y es, obviamente, influye la decisión de que los padres están haciendo lo que pone a sus hijos en realidad muy grave peligro. Así
que estamos trabajando muy duro para desbaratar las redes, sino también
para obtener información precisa a las personas que podrían estar
haciendo esta decisión de poner a sus hijos en este tipo de peligro. GWEN IFILL:
Usted debe ser consciente de que los defensores de la reforma
migratoria, porque se han reunido con ellos, creo que esto puede ser un
poco demasiado duro, que en realidad te estás castigando a los niños que
están tratando de escapar y deben ser tratados como refugiados en su
lugar. CECILIA MUÑOZ: Bueno, estamos
haciendo lo más claro posible que los que tienen pretensiones
humanitarias, vamos a hacer el mejor trabajo posible de escuchar esas
reclamaciones, asegurándose de que proveemos de alivio cuando esté
disponible bajo la ley para aquellos que cumplen con la norma.
Pero también debe quedar claro que la norma de asilo o de otros tipos de demandas humanitarias es muy alta. Y
pensamos, simplemente teniendo en cuenta la historia de este tipo de
reclamaciones, que la mayoría de la gente que están surgiendo que
lleguen en los EE.UU. tienen pocas probabilidades de calificar para el
alivio, y así, con nuestra responsabilidad bajo la ley para asegurarnos
de que volver la gente, pero la comprensión, especialmente en el caso de
los niños que tendremos que estar haciendo esto de una manera que no
las pone en peligro, además, que colaboramos con sus países de origen
para asegurarse de que esto se haga correctamente.
Así , nos estamos acercando a esto como una situación humanitaria urgente. Pero
también es cierto que tenemos que dejar claro a todos los padres que
podrían estar tomando la decisión puso a su hijo en manos de traficantes
y contrabandistas que esto es una cosa muy peligrosa de hacer y que no
debe hacerlo sobre la base de la falsa premisa de que están estatus en
los Estados Unidos garantiza, porque eso simplemente no es verdad. GWEN IFILL: Hablando de la colaboración, el presidente cuando viaja a Texas mañana se reunirá con el gobernador Rick Perry. ¿Qué
es lo que tiene la esperanza de compartir con él o demasiado - ¿qué
tipo de apoyo es que la esperanza de obtener de él por esta propuesta? CECILIA MUÑOZ:
Bueno, él invitó al gobernador a unirse a él en una reunión con
activistas y líderes religiosos que están trabajando para hacer algo
sobre el problema, que están trabajando para ayudar a las instalaciones
abiertas para algunos de estos niños en Texas.
Así que él está esperando una colaboración bipartidista, no sólo con el gobernador, sino en el Congreso. El
presidente, como usted ha mencionado, envió una solicitud de fondos de
emergencia para asegurarse de que tenemos los recursos para hacer frente
a esta situación con eficacia y rapidez. Tenemos gente de ambos lados del pasillo hablando de qué tan grave es este problema. Tenemos la esperanza de cooperación a ambos lados del pasillo para hacer frente a ella. GWEN IFILL: ? Si el presidente se va a la frontera para ver las condiciones para el propio CECILIA MUÑOZ:
Bueno, el presidente se centra, como lo ha sido a lo largo de este
situación, en asegurarse de que el gobierno en todo el gobierno federal
está haciendo todo lo posible para hacer frente a la situación de manera
eficaz.
Así que incluye asegurarse de que las diversas agencias del gobierno
federal, del DHS al DOJ al HHS y el Departamento de Defensa , están
trabajando en colaboración para dar cobijo a estos niños, a surgir
nuestros recursos, para asegurarse de que podemos manejar estos casos
con celeridad, para asegurarse de que estamos haciendo lo que deberíamos
estar haciendo para romper estas redes de contrabando.
El presidente se centra en lo que va a ser más eficaz en el tratamiento
de un problema y que está instando a otros a hacer lo mismo. GWEN IFILL:
Speaker Boehner ha sugerido que el presidente debería ser la
habilitación de la Guardia Nacional para ir a la frontera para ayudar
con la seguridad fronteriza. ¿Qué dices a eso? CECILIA MUÑOZ: Bueno, no está claro qué tipo de papel jugaría la Guardia Nacional.
El problema no es que no estamos aprehender personas. Estamos, de hecho, la detención de un gran número de personas. La
cuestión es tener las instalaciones para manejar los casos
adecuadamente, para asegurarse de que los niños están recibiendo los
tipos adecuados de atención, y para asegurarse de que tenemos la
capacidad de oleada de recursos judiciales, los funcionarios de asilo
para asegurarse de que estamos escuchando reclamos humanitarios dónde se
están realizando.
Esas no son cosas que la Guardia Nacional puede hacer. Y ya hemos llegado al Departamento de Defensa participa. Ellos han proporcionado hasta ahora tres instalaciones en las que estamos albergan niños. GWEN IFILL:
¿Cómo sabes que estos niños que ahora están diciendo básicamente
tendrán que volver a casa una vez que han pasado por este proceso
judicial, ¿cómo sabes que ' ? re - ¿cómo va a ser capaz de decir que no
están siendo víctimas de la trata, de hecho, que no son refugiados CECILIA MUÑOZ: . Así que este es un proceso que ya existe
Usted tiene que asegurarse de que hay - que hay la representación para los niños, que ha sido un reto. Estamos,
de hecho, anunciamos un nuevo cuerpo de la justicia en el que estamos
tratando de reclutar a abogados voluntarios para ayudar a proporcionar
representación para estos niños.
Hemos capacitado funcionarios de asilo, funcionarios capacitados que
forman parte del sistema del DHS cuyo trabajo es asegurarse de que
pueden tener este tipo de conversaciones de una manera que provoca la
información que podría poner de relieve este tipo de la reivindicación
humanitaria. Necesitamos más de esos oficiales. Eso es parte de lo que era -. Parte de la reforma de inmigración que el presidente ha estado empujando hacia delante
tenemos un sistema de corte de inmigración atrasados. La reforma migratoria incluye más recursos, para que podamos traer a más jueces para este tipo de casos. Por
lo tanto, vamos a surgir los recursos que tenemos que asegurarnos de
que estamos tratando con estos nuevos operadores en la frontera, pero
necesitamos algún tipo de cooperación en el Congreso para asegurarnos de
que podemos aportar recursos adicionales para llevar a hacer . de forma
más eficaz GWEN IFILL: Cecilia Muñoz, directora del Consejo de Política Nacional del Presidente, muchas gracias. CECILIA MUÑOZ: Gracias.
SEN jeff flake (deserving of his last name) r tb AZ feeds the hysteria over the invasion of children from Central America, undocumented, and so illegal immigrants under the current law. This is a problem, but one that needs to be dealt with with compassion and through the Immigration and Justice systems and not with lies, deception, racism and manipulation of fear, especially in these tough economic times. It is sad Sen flake has to resort to such tactics, one would think the people of Arizona would expect better of one of their Senators. It is even sadder if he is actually expressing their views. From +PolitiFact and +PBS NewsHour
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
When undocumented children are picked up at the border and "told to appear later in court ... 90 percent do not then show up."
Jeff Flake on Tuesday, July 8th, 2014 in an interview on the PBS "News Hour"
Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., discussed the
surge of unaccompanied children coming to the United States' border
with Mexico. One of the statistics he cited raised our eyebrows.
Two girls watch a World Cup soccer
match from their holding area in Nogales, Ariz., where hundreds of
mostly Central American immigrant children are being processed and held.
The surge of unaccompanied children at the U.S. border,
primarily coming from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, has
overwhelmed the ability of the United States to handle their legal
cases.
A law passed under President George W. Bush and aimed at curbing
human trafficking requires that minors from Central America who reach
the border must have their cases heard in court before they can be
deported. Currently, children wait an average of 578 days before a hearing -- delays that are sure to lengthen if the flow of children continues unabated.
A substantial chunk of the $3.7 billion President Barack Obama is
requesting in a supplemental spending bill for the border would be for
increasing the courts’ ability to handle the caseload of newly arrived
children.
In this context, Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., offered a notable
statistic about the judicial treatment of people who arrive at the U.S.
border. In a July 8, 2014, interview on the PBS News Hour,
Flake outlined the risks of having large numbers of people released in
the United States awaiting a hearing -- particularly the risk that they
will fail to show up and boost the number of undocumented immigrants in
the country.
"When these kids are handed off from the Border Patrol, (the
government’s) role is to actually place those children in the care of a
guardian or a family member," Flake said. "And then what the record
shows is that they’re told to appear later in court, where their case
will be adjudicated. But 90 percent of them, 90 percent, do not then
show up in court later."
A reader called our attention to this, citing sharply conflicting data, so we decided to take a look.
The reader pointed us to a report from the Bipartisan Policy Center -- a think tank founded by former congressional leaders of both parties -- that cited figures far smaller than 90 percent.
The report used figures from the Executive Office for Immigration
Review, which is tasked by the Justice Department with handling
immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews and administrative
hearings. Between 2003 and 2012, the percentage of all immigrants who
failed to appear in court after being released has bounced between 20
percent and 40 percent, settling in at about 30 percent at the end of
that time span. (No data for children specifically is available from
this long-running data set.)
That’s substantially lower than the 90 percent figure Flake cited.
Meanwhile, in a July 10 hearing
of the Senate Appropriations Committee -- which was held two days after
Flake’s remarks on PBS -- Juan P. Osuna, the director of the Executive
Office for Immigration Review, told the panel that his department
estimates that 46 percent of children currently fail to show up for
their date in court. He told lawmakers that any other numbers are
"incorrect."
We checked with immigration policy experts to see whether the federal
statistics or Flake’s estimate seemed more accurate, and they agreed
that the federal statistics jibed with their long-term understanding of
the issue.
"I’m not aware of data that shows a 90 percent no-show rate," said
Marc R. Rosenblum, deputy director of the Migration Policy Institute’s
U.S. Immigration Policy Program. He added that the long-term range of 20
percent to 40 percent matches what the VERA Institute found between
1997 and 2000 when it studied the issue on a federal contract to track
individual immigration cases.
The Bipartisan Policy Center also expressed skepticism about the 90
percent figure. "Based on the federal data we’ve seen, we know that
between 2008 and 2012, about 70 to 80 percent of all immigrants showed
up for their court appearance," said Rosemarie Calabro Tully, a
spokeswoman for the group. She later passed us the estimate Osuna gave
to the Senate committee.
When we contacted Flake’s office, they said the senator’s source for the statistic was a comment by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., at a media breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor on June 26. The Monitor didn’t
print a direct quote, but here’s an excerpt from the article: "Right
now, (Goodlatte) said, the law does not allow minors to be held in a
facility, so they are released to relatives or foster care, and then
given a court date to reappear. More than 90 percent do not return, he
said."
So we contacted Goodlatte’s office. Goodlatte’s office said that
while visiting the McAllen Border Patrol Station in the Rio Grande
Valley in July, Goodlatte heard from Border Patrol agents that only 26
percent of those who were detained failed to show up for removal
proceedings. They said officials didn’t give a percentage for those who
had been released and failed to appear.
They cited an article in Newsmax,
a conservative online publication, that cited an anonymous "senior Los
Angeles County Sheriff's detective who routinely deals with illegal
immigrants" who said a "massive number — 80 to 90 percent" do not show
up for deportation hearings. However, Goodlatte’s office acknowledged
this was anecdotal evidence.
Goodlatte's office also noted that there is already significant pool
of immigrants whose final deportation has been ordered but not carried
out. At least 858,779 non-detained aliens are deportable but haven’t
been deported, many of whom are now off the radar of the authorities,
according to calculations by the Center for Immigration Studies based on
federal data. This is a related and notable issue, but somewhat
different from what Flake or Goodlatte said.
Experts we checked with did note a caveat: There’s no way of knowing
if the current group of new arrivals will behave differently in regard
to court appearances than their predecessors have. Indeed, due the
backlog, it is unlikely that many of the minors apprehended in 2013 or
2014 have had their court date come up yet, and until their court
appearance is complete, the government won’t know how many end up coming
and how many fail to appear. Our ruling
Flake said that when undocumented children are picked up at the
border and "told to appear later in court ... 90 percent do not then
show up."
Historically, the rate has ranged between 20 percent to 40 percent,
settling in at about 30 percent in 2012, the most recent full year for
which data is available. A more recent estimate for children
specifically, made by the director of the office responsible for
handling such cases, is that the current no-show rate for children is 46
percent. That’s still quite high, but it’s only half what Flake said.
We rate the claim False.
Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., joins Gwen
Ifill to share his take on President Obama's $3.7 billion proposal to
tackle the wave of unaccompanied minors crossing the southern border. He
criticizes the proposal for allocating too much money to the Department
of Health and Human Services, and discusses changes to an
anti-smuggling law and the prospect for immigration reform in a divided
House.
TRANSCRIPT
GWEN IFILL: For another point of view, we turn now to Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.Senator Flake, thank you for joining us.
You
signed a letter recently, late last month, in which you urged the
government not to give special treatment to these children coming across
the borders. Does the president’s proposal, his request today, does it
satisfy your concerns? SEN. JEFF FLAKE, R, Ariz.: Well, no, it doesn’t.
But
let me first say I wrote a letter with Senator McCain and then Senator
Feinstein, and I wrote a letter encouraging the president and the
administration to make clear that those who are coming now, these
unaccompanied minors, would be unlikely to qualify for deferred action
or any legislation proposed by Congress.
And I applaud the
president for making that statement and his administration. The problem I
see with this — with this proposal before Congress is, the bulk of the
money, $1.8 billion of it, will go to the Department of Health and Human
Services. That’s not money that goes to deport anyone or to provide
border enforcement.
That’s money to actually settle these children
with families or a guardian somewhere in the country. And so at best
it’s a very, very mixed message, and at worst, it’s telling the cartels
and the human smugglers that the same situation we have now is going to
continue and to keep the kids coming. GWEN IFILL: Let me
get this correct. You believe that that money is going to keep the
children in the country, rather than to care for them while they’re here
before they are returned? SEN. JEFF FLAKE: Well, if you
look at what HHS, their role when these kids are handed off from the
Border Patrol, their role is to actually place those children in the
care of a guardian or a family member.
And then what the records
shows is that they’re told to appear later in court, where their case
will be adjudicated. But 90 percent of them, 90 percent, do not then
show up in court later. And so what you’re really saying to the cartels
and the smugglers is that the same situation is going to continue.
Now,
the administration makes the point that that’s a requirement of the
current law. That’s why we need to change the current law. The
anti-smuggling law passed in 2008 says that children from Central
America, if you’re in a noncontiguous country, then we — have to be
treated differently. And you have to have a day in court with a judge,
rather than be handled administratively, like we do with kids from
Mexico or from Canada. GWEN IFILL: And if I recall correctly, in 2007, when were you in the House, you actually opposed the original law. SEN. JEFF FLAKE: I did. I should say I opposed it on budget reasons. I didn’t foresee this happening.
But,
certainly, we ought to change it now, and I think the president
initially said that it did need to be changed, and now perhaps has
backed off a little. But we have got to change that, because, until we
do, as long as these kids are placed with HHS, HHS does no due
diligence.
It’s not their job, they will tell you, to determine
who they’re placing these kids with. Once they’re placed somewhere in
the country, 90 percent of them don’t show up for a court date. And so
the message is clear, very clear, to the cartels and human smugglers and
the families to go ahead and continue to send your kids here, because,
although we can say until we’re blue in the face most of them won’t
qualify for programs here in the U.S. to have some kind of treatment,
they will get treatment or they will simply disappear into the
population. GWEN IFILL: So you don’t believe that — in any way that children should be treated differently? SEN. JEFF FLAKE: Well,
what I believe is that children, whether they’re from Mexico or whether
they’re from Honduras or El Salvador, should be treated the same. The
problem is, it’s a loophole in the law. We didn’t foresee what would
happen when this anti-smuggling law was passed in 2008.
And people
very wise to this have taken advantage of this law to get kids into the
country and then, knowing that they have to appear in court, and the
court system is so backed up — and that I should point out that the
money here for judges to expedite the court process is very minimal.
It’s
just I think about $50 million, compared to $1.8 billion to HHS to
actually place these kids in homes. So it’s — the message is actually
quite bad here. GWEN IFILL: You are among the members of
the Senate who has suggested there should be some sort of broader
immigration reform, yet you have also said that there will be no
appetite for that in the House, that it will be next to zero chance of
that happening this year. Given that, do you think there’s a chance at
all for the House and the Senate to agree on even the legislative fix
that you’re suggesting here? SEN. JEFF FLAKE: Well, I hope so. And I’m glad you made that point.
I
am a member of the gang of eight. I believe in immigration reform. I
agree with the president that we need it. And part of the problem here
is we will never get there as long as this crisis persists. I do think
there’s appetite in the House and in the Senate on a bipartisan basis to
actually fix this problem.
And I should mention, in 2005, we had a
big problem with the so-called OTMs, or other than Mexicans, coming,
and largely from Brazil. They found — Brazilians, it’s a tight-knit
community. They found that they could exploit our law, and we had a
large number coming. And so there was a program called Texas Hold ‘Em
actually where they caught them all, didn’t release them, and within 30
days, the number of Brazilians coming actually dropped by 50 percent.
And, within 60 days, it dropped by 90 percent. And so we need to treat this the same way. GWEN IFILL: I guess my — pardon me. My question was whether Congress has the will to do anything like that right now. SEN. JEFF FLAKE: I do think so. This is such a crisis.
And
keep in mind, this is a horrible humanitarian crisis. These kids are
being put in the hands of smugglers that don’t have their best interests
at heart. But I can tell you that we won’t stem the tide until people
in Honduras and El Salvador and Guatemala actually see a plane coming
back with children on it, and those parents say, I spent $5,000 to send
that child to the States, and now they’re coming back.
That’s when
you will stem the tide. That’s when you will do something that is good
on a humanitarian basis. And so we have got to change that law that is
allowing the loophole that allows these cartels to exploit these
children. GWEN IFILL: Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, thank you for joining us. SEN. JEFF FLAKE: Thank you.
GWEN IFILL: President
Obama is requesting $3.7 billion in emergency funds from Congress to
deal with the influx of unaccompanied minors crossing the southern
border. About half the money would be used on care for the more than
50,000 children who have arrived in the U.S. since October, mostly from
Central America. The rest would be spent on Border Patrol agents,
additional immigration judges, surveillance and new detention
facilities.
We are joined now by Cecilia Munoz, director of the president’s Domestic Policy Council.Thank you so much for joining us.
Could you tell us what in the president’s proposal would slow the flow of immigrants? CECILIA MUNOZ, White House Domestic Policy Council: Well, there are several things.
First
of all, there are number of provisions and resources for our partner
countries in Central America to make sure that we’re dealing with the
root causes of the migration, that we’re disrupting the smuggling
networks, which is an incredibly important factor in this migration, and
that we’re actually helping them create centers for the process of
repatriation and reintegration of those folks who are going to be
returned.
So, that is a really critical element of what we’re
seeing here. And then we’re also, as you mentioned, surging things like
immigration judges, asylum officers to make sure we can honor any
humanitarian claims from children or others that come forward and might
qualify for some form of relief.
But then for others who are not
going to qualify for relief, we want to make sure that we can get them
answers to their cases expeditiously and then they will be removed to
their home countries in cooperation with their home countries. But the
most important thing here is making sure that we’re focusing on the
smuggling networks, that we’re dealing with the root causes and that
we’re effectively able to manage the migration that has already reached
our border. GWEN IFILL: What would you say are the root causes? CECILIA MUNOZ: Well,
it’s a combination of violence and poverty in Central America, but
especially smuggling networks that are actively marketing to people the
falsehood that if they spend money to get their children — to put their
children in the hands of traffickers and make this incredibly dangerous
journey that when then get to the United States, they will be allowed —
they will be given permission to stay permanently.
This is
incorrect. And it is obviously influencing a decision that parents are
making which puts their children in really very grave danger. So we’re
working very hard to disrupt those networks, but also to get accurate
information to people who might be making this decision to put their
kids in this kind of danger. GWEN IFILL: You must be aware
that immigration reform advocates, because you have met with them, think
this may be a little too tough, that in fact you’re punishing the
children who are trying to escape and should be treated as refugees
instead. CECILIA MUNOZ: Well, we’re making it as clear as
possible that those who have humanitarian claims, we’re going to do the
best possible job of hearing those claims, making sure that we provide
relief when it’s available under the law to those who meet the standard.
But
it should also be clear that the standard for asylum or other kinds of
humanitarian claims is very high. And we think, just given the history
of these kinds of claims, that a majority of the folks who are coming
forward who are arriving in the U.S. are unlikely to qualify for relief,
and so with our responsibility under the law to make sure that we
return folks, but understanding especially in the case of children that
we will need to be doing this in a way which doesn’t put them in any
further danger, that we collaborate with their home countries to make
sure that this is done properly.
So, we’re approaching this as an
urgent humanitarian situation. But it’s also true that we have to make
it clear to any parent who might be making the decision put their child
in the hands of traffickers and smugglers that this is an incredibly
dangerous thing to do and they shouldn’t do it based on the false
premise that they’re guaranteed status in the United States, because
that’s simply not true. GWEN IFILL: Speaking of
collaboration, the president when he travels to Texas tomorrow will be
meeting with Governor Rick Perry. What is it he is hoping to share with
him or too — what kind of support is he hoping to get from him for this
proposal? CECILIA MUNOZ: Well, he’s invited the governor to
join him in meeting with advocates and faith leaders that are working
to do something about the problem, that are working to help open
facilities for some of these children in Texas.
So he’s hoping for
a bipartisan collaboration, not only with the governor, but with the
Congress. The president, as you mentioned, sent up a request for
emergency funds to make sure that we have the resources to deal with
this situation effectively and expeditiously. We have people on both
sides of the aisle talking about how serious this problem is. We’re
hoping for cooperation on both sides of the aisle in addressing it. GWEN IFILL: Should the president be going to the border to see the conditions for himself? CECILIA MUNOZ: Well,
the president is focused, as he has been throughout this situation, on
making sure that the government all across the federal government is
doing everything that we can to deal with the situation effectively.
So
that includes making sure that the various agencies of the federal
government, from DHS to DOJ to HHS and the Defense Department, are
working collaboratively to provide shelter for these kids, to surge our
resources, to make sure we can handle these cases expeditiously, to make
sure we’re doing what we ought to be doing to disrupt these smuggling
networks.
The president is focused on what’s going to be most effective in dealing with a problem and he’s urging others to do the same. GWEN IFILL: Speaker
Boehner has suggested that the president should be empowering the
National Guard to go to the border to help with border security. What do
you say to that? CECILIA MUNOZ: Well, it’s not clear what kind of role the National Guard would play.
The
issue is not that we are not apprehending people. We are in fact
apprehending large numbers of people. The issue is having the facilities
to manage those cases properly, to make sure that children are
receiving the appropriate kinds of care, and to make sure that we have
the capacity to surge judicial resources, asylum officers to make sure
we’re hearing humanitarian claims where they’re being made.
Those
are not things that the National Guard can do. And we have already got
the Defense Department engaged. They have provided so far three
facilities where we’re housing children. GWEN IFILL: How do
you know that these children who you are now basically saying will have
to go home once they have gone through this judicial process, how do
you know they’re — how will you be able to tell that they’re not being
trafficked, in fact, that they’re not refugees? CECILIA MUNOZ: So this is a process which already exists.
You
have to make sure that there are — that there’s representation for the
kids, which has been a challenge. We in fact announced a new justice
corps where we’re trying to recruit volunteer lawyers to help provide
representation for these kids.
We have trained asylum officers,
trained officers that are part of the DHS system whose job it is to make
sure that they can have these kinds of conversations in a way which
elicits the information which might highlight this kind of humanitarian
claim. We need more of those officers. That’s part of what was — part of
the immigration reform that the president has been pushing forward.
We
have a backlogged immigration court system. The immigration reform
included more resources, so that we can bring more judges to these kinds
of cases. So, we’re going to surge the resources that we have got to
make sure that we’re dealing with these new entrants at the border, but
we need some cooperation in Congress to make sure that we can bring
additional resources to bear to do this more effectively. GWEN IFILL: Cecilia Munoz, director of the president’s Domestic Policy Council, thank you very much. CECILIA MUNOZ: Thank you.
At
a Monday press conference at the G20 meeting in Turkey, President
Barack Obama was repeatedly asked by American reporters a version of
this question: What are you doing to defeat ISIS? CNN's Jim Acosta put
it in these Twitterish terms:
"Why can't we take out these bastards?" His passionate formulation
seemed to imply that the Obama administration was not doing everything
reasonably possible to vanquish ISIS. And throughout the presser, Obama
explained that there was a strategy in place, asserted that other ideas
(such as sending in ground troops or establishing a no-fly zone in
Syria) were constantly being scrutinized, and expressed frustration that
he was being asked the same question (what's your plan?) repeatedly.
El senador Jeff Flake, republicano por
Arizona., Discutió el aumento de los niños no acompañados que llegan a
la frontera de Estados Unidos con México. Una de las estadísticas que mencionó levantó las cejas.
Dos muchachas a ver un partido de fútbol
de la Copa Mundial de su área de espera en Nogales, Arizona, donde se
procesan y se mantienen a cientos de niños inmigrantes estadounidenses
en su mayoría centroamericanos.