The New York Times, in its never-ending quest to prop up the Obama administration, now has figured out a way to blame the flood of underage illegal aliens into the USA on……….George Bush.
If you can stop laughing long enough, I will show you the Times\’ rationale for this claim, and then debunk it with facts that the Times finds inconvenient to deal with.
First the rationale – found in the first three paragraphs of Carl Hulse\’s Page 1 article this morning:
Itwas one of the final pieces of legislation signed into law byPresident GeorgeW. Bush, a measure that passed without controversy, along with apension bill and another one calling for national parks to becommemorated on quarters.
“Thisis a piece of legislation we’re very proud to sign,” a WhiteHouse spokesman, Tony Fratto, toldreporters on Dec. 23, 2008, as the president put his pen to theWilliamWilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of2008, named for a 19th-century British abolitionist. “Thisprogram has been very effective around the world in trying to stoptrafficking in persons.”
Nowthe legislation, enacted quietly during the transition to the Obamaadministration, is at the root of the potentially calamitous flow ofunaccompanied minors to the nation\’s southern border.
Well, there you have it. The problem is not President Obama, George Bush has again resurrected himself to create failure during the Obama years.
Yes, the article goes on to point out that it was a bipartisan bill and its purpose was to impede sex trafficking. But before you read any of that, the die has been cast, hasn\’t it? Damn that Bush, he did it again.
So, does this make sense?
Well, let\’s fast-forward from 2008 to 2012, and look at the following excerpts from Tom Cohen\’s article at (usually Obama-supporting) cnn.com:
Inan election-year policy change, the Obama administration said Fridayit will stop deporting young illegal immigrants who entered theUnited States as children if they meet certain requirements.
Theshift on the politically volatile issue of immigration policyprompted immediate praise from Latino leaders who have criticizedCongress and the White House for inaction, while Republicans reactedwith outrage, saying the move amounts to amnesty — a negative buzzword among conservatives — and usurps congressional authority.
Republicanswho have blocked Democratic efforts on immigration reform immediatelycondemned the move, with some calling it an improper maneuver toskirt congressional opposition.
Rep.Steve King of Iowa, a leading GOP foe of Democratic proposals forimmigration reform, threatened to file a lawsuit asking the courts tostop Obama “from implementing his unconstitutional and unlawfulpolicy.”
Ina Twitter post, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolinacalled the decision “a classic Barack Obama move of choosingpolitics over leadership,” while House Judiciary CommitteeChairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, called the change a “decision togrant amnesty to potentially millions of illegal immigrants.”
“Manyillegal immigrants will falsely claim they came here as children andthe federal government has no way to check whether their claims aretrue,” Smith said in a statement. “And once these illegalimmigrants are granted deferred action, they can then apply for awork permit, which the administration routinely grants 90% of thetime.”
Hmmmm. That seems to suggest pretty clearly that President Obama was the one who suggested illegals would be able to come here….and Republicans immediately warned that, although Mr. Obama said there would be strict criteria regarding who would and would not be deported, he was opening up the floodgates and illegals would be streaming in. Which, of course is exactly what is happening.
But that still doesn\’t give us a clear answer. If there were an immediate, significant rise in the number of illegals after Bush\’s legislation, it would show that The Times was right; that it was he, rather than President Obama, who caused this problem.
With that in mind, please read this excerpt from Brian Bennett\’s article for the (usually Obama-supporting) Los Angeles Times…
Asit now stands, the 2008 law guarantees unaccompanied minors fromthose countries access to a federal asylum officer and a chance totell a U.S. judge that they were victims of a crime or face abuse orsexual trafficking if they are sent home. If the claim is deemedcredible, judges may grant a waiver from immediate deportation.
“Wordof mouth gets back, and now people are calling and saying, \’This iswhat I said\'” in court, said a senior U.S. law enforcementofficial, who was not authorized to speak on the record. “Whetherit is true or not, the perception is that they are successfullyentering the United States…. That is what is driving up thelandings.”
Theincrease has been dramatic. For most of the last decade, U.S. agentsapprehended fewer than 4,000 unaccompanied children from ElSalvador, Guatemala and Honduras each year, according to U.S. Customsand Border Protection figures.
Thetotal jumped to 10,146 in fiscal year 2012. It doubled to 20,805 lastfiscal year. It nearly doubled again, to 39,133, between last Octoberand June 15 this year.
…and this one, from Adam Kredo\’s article at freebeacon.com:
Thenumber of illegal children crossing the border has more than doubledsince last year, when some 24,000 unaccompanied minors wereapprehended. More than 52,000 illegal children have crossed fromOctober to mid-June, according to (HHS Secretary Jeh) Johnson, who admitted that theunprecedented influx is stressing DHS resources at the border.
Morethan 250 children are being apprehended every day along the southernborder; U.S. Customs and Border Patrol estimates that more than150,000 unaccompanied children will illegally enter the U.S. in thenext year.
Does that make things clear enough?
But wait. Maybe President Obama really is making good on his promise to deport illegals as fast as they come in.
Uh….no. Just look at this chart, which also is from the Los Angeles Times article, and see for yourself:
Hello, New York Times: you getting any of this?
