Obama's performance and global instability

[columbus]

You want to bring ILLEGAL Hispanics just because they vote for you. And when we object, we are called racsist.

Nobody said that Phil.

You are just plain wrong.

Tom

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Half the nation opposes the above. Thats who Republicans represent.

On abortion Yes. I think Gallup had it 47% pro-choice and 46% pro-life.

Then again...we're not talking about the nation. We're talking about Hispanics and the polling on that is higher....

New Polling on Latino/a Attitudes Toward Abortion | National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health

Latinos support a woman's right to make decisions.

74% of Latino registered voters agree that a woman has a right to make her own personal, private decisions about abortion without politicians interfering.

As far as voting rights...everyone supports it. Try messing with the right to vote for whites, blacks, Hispanics etc. and people will become outraged and actually show up to the polls to vote just because. In all of the states where Republicans were enacting various voting criteria and it began to disenfranchise people the people showed up in drives standing in line for more that 4, 6, 12 hours just to vote in 2012

Same sex marriage..Well..Latinos support ii more than the use to. This is because of the new and younger generation. Many of them are or know someone who is LGBT and for many in the new generation it's not a big deal...The ones that oppose it the most are the older religious crowed.

(Latinos)

Latinos’ views of same-sex marriage have changed dramatically in recent years. In 2012 for the first time, more Latinos said they favored same-sex marriage than opposed it (52% versus 34%) according to a Pew Hispanic Center survey.

On the minimum wage..Well most Americans are for raising the minimum wage. But again we're talking about Latinos and they're for raising it too.....

Minimum Wage in US: California Increases Minimum Wage to $9 as Public Opinion Split : Business : Latin Post

More Latinos stated the minimum wage should increase than others ethnicities. Latinos, at 62 percent, stated the minimum wage should increase.........

There's no need for me to even bring up a stat on immigration. The majority of Hispanics are in favor of comprehensive immigration. So it's easy to say what America is for or against when we're pretty much talking about what the majority of Hispanic people want. What they're for the Republican party has either said they're against it and/or written policies to that effect...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You want to bring ILLEGAL Hispanics just because they vote for you. And when we object, we are called racsist.

No one said that or wants that. You need to get out of your comfort bubble and talk to Hispanics.

I don't mind sending them back if they don't have a viable reason to be here. Given what's going on in their country I think the overall concern is warranted. What you and others seem to be conveniently brushing over is that the 2008 bill G.W. Bush signed into law gives these refugees the right to have their case heard to determine the possibility of gaining asylum. As I stated before...many won't qualify and will be returned. The returns have already begun.

 

[YmirGF]

And finally, though I have much more interesting things to do, I must address your pithy response.

What do you expect from people when they hear lying warmongering hawks try and re-write history...

Are you seriously referring to me, a mild-mannered Canadian, as a lying warmongering hawk? Are you seriously suggesting that I am trying to rewrite history? Seriously?

So do most people....even many us on the left..including me...

Then you should be VERY concerned about Mr. Obama's comments about "I have a pen and a phone". The downside to the concept of the imperial president is that too much power is placed into the hands of one person. This is all fine and dandy, if the sitting president is of your political persuasion or at least tolerably so. Where this becomes a real problem is that the next "Uber" president can undo all the things the previous president did via the same mechanism. That is NOT how things are supposed to work and the greatest failing of Obama is that he is unable to negotiate his way out of a paper bag. Like you would expect with a Professor, he is good outlining what he wants and how he wants to accomplish that but he doesn't handle criticism or rejection very well - at all.

Wrong. He's been nothing but complacent with Republicans and welcomes the opportunity for them to get serious on a whole range of issues that the American people actually care about.

That is not a fair analysis of the grid-lock though. You don't find it unsettling that a sitting President is, by your own words, being complacent? To me, that IS the problem. Is it any wonder the Republicans cannot work with the man? Tell me, how can one actually work with a person who is complacent? I'm all ears. By definition, it is his way or the highway. Remember his comment to Eric Cantor? "Elections have consequences."

That said, I could understand a certain amount of smugness if Obama had won a landslide victory. He didn't. If anything he should be bending over backwards to accommodate the wishes of Americans who did NOT vote for him.

They vowed day one not to work with him and not much has changed since. Which might be one of the reasons the 112th and 113th congress have the lowest rating than any other congress in history. So no one is trying to stick anything to the republicans. What they've done they've done to themselves.

It's sort of a perfect storm scenario where the American people elected incompetence over vision on both sides of the aisle.

Yet most Americans like their health insurance now...Even 74% of Republicans like their health insurance.

Most American liked their insurance before the monstrosity known as the ACA was shoved down the throats of the American people.

But he's correct. If congress won't do their job then he'll do what needs to be done to get things done for the American people. He's got a pen that can sign executive orders. Something ALL presidents past and future used/will use. Mind you he's actually used it less than many of his predecessors. He has a phone so that congress can call him in order to work with him instead of getting paid public funds to take vacations...

But he isn't correct. It's not his job to make law. It's his job to work with congress. It's not his job to issue edicts. It is up to congress and the senate to do the work. The problem with this of course is that you can find yourself in polarized periods where nothing seems to get done due to ideologues on both sides of the aisle. That polarization is not an invitation for a president to do the work that is not his to do.

Then impeach the guy. They won't because there's no there...there.

As loathsome as Joe Biden is, of late, I'm seriously thinking that he could not possibly be worse than Obama. Maybe nearly as bad, but being worse would take some time. Joe at least has 30 years of jumping through hoops in Washington. So, he might actually be able to get people talking. Then again, the guy isn't exactly the sharpest tack in the box. That said, I'm not in favor of impeaching Obama.

Instead Boehner is "suing" (yea right) him over the employer mandate that even they wanted him to delay..now they want to sue him to reverse and implement the law even faster. Come on now..!

I know, it does sound crazy. What you deftly left out was the simple fact that Obama and Democrats fought the Republicans tooth and nail over delaying the implementation. For Obama, to fight against them for so long over that and then do it anyways isn't a bit disingenuous? Seriously? The things is, the suit, if executed properly could result in a review of presidential over-reach. Our kids might well thank us years from now.

Yet his decisions to not get involved or commit troops to costly foreign adventurism is on par with the American people. War hawks want to give weapons to people we never trusted before simply because they're fighting the guy we like even less. They wanted to aide Ukraine in the early days of the dust up even though many of the Ukrainians were defecting and going over to Russia...surrendering and handing over their weapons. Had we given them weapons they would have ended up in the hands of the Russians to be used against Ukrainians. You and yours think we need to stick our nose in foreign affairs. Me and mine want to stay out of it.

DO NOT presume to know my thinking on foreign affairs, Dirty Penguin. The Ukranian thing is a bit of a no-brainer considering Russia is directly involved. In your heart of hearts, do you seriously believe that Russia would have done this if a Republican president was sitting in the Oval Office? I don't think Putin is that dumb. With Obama, on the other hand.... oh hell, let's see what happens...

And to lay it at the feet of one president when America has cultivated this hatred for dozens of years under many presidents means you don't have a firm grasp on history or how foreign relations work.

I have a very good grasp of history and geo-politics, Dirty Penguin. Much better than the norm. What you are ignoring is that America chose the wrong person to lead and the world leaders have taken note. The NSA/Snowden scandal didn't exactly help things much either, but that was NOT Obama's fault. I don't know about you, but I would have given almost anything to Russia to get Snowden back and put him on trial. Maybe not the Ukraine, but I would have made it worth their while.

How about you check the work calendar of the president compared to our do nothing congress. They're off playing golf way more than the president. Shucks...when asked about terrorist and terrorism..the previous president was actually on the golf course. He gave some glib response and then turned to the camera and said...(Now watch this swing)....so spare me the mantra about "the president goes golfing"....

A fine mess American voters have created for themselves. Spiffy.

 

[Shia Islam]

Obama Contends With Arc of Instability Unseen Since '70s - WSJ

The article talks about the current global instability being the highest since the 70s. Palestine, Iraq, Ukraine, Iran, Pakistan and China-Japan, etc.

Do you guys think President Obama is doing a good job regarding the circumstances, being cautious about enforcing American intervention?

Or has he failed by showing the world that the US is powerless, weak and afraid?

I think Obama it is wrong to blame Obama for everything...
He made a mistake for supporting the terrorists in Syria. ..but he must be praised for not attacking Syria...
He made a mistake for giving the saudis the green light for invading Bahrain. ..but he must be praised for not supporting Egypt dictator Mubarak to the end.

 

[columbus]

Are you seriously referring to me, a mild-mannered Canadian, as a lying warmongering hawk? Are you seriously suggesting that I am trying to rewrite history? Seriously?

Yes.

I've watched you do it. That's why I wondered where you were from.

You claimed to believe that Obama was the worst president.

Tom

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have no doubt you will give it a try. How persuasive your argument will be is quite another thing.

I did quite well given your right wing mantra is nothing new. We've heard it all before which is why we're never surprised when you start ranting.

Personally, I don't buy into the idea that they are fleeing.

Of course you don't. You're predictable. All three country's where these refugees are coming from are some of the most violent places in Central America. This isn't even in dispute.

DHS: Violence, poverty, is driving children to flee Central America to U.S. | Pew Research Center

I tried to provide a source that isn't "rightish" or "leftish"...I hope it helps.

That said, the Latino vote traditionally votes for the Dems, so those who will be given amnesty likely reward those who let them stay.

That's pretty much what I keep hearing from those on the right but when you actually talk to Hispanic people, especially the younger generation of voters, it has to do with the Republican agenda and policies. If your policies don't address their socio-economic concerns they tend to not want to waste their vote.

Not yet, at least. Mr. "I have a pen and a phone" might unilaterally decide to flout congress and give it a try.

I see. You're just playing the speculation game.......:sad:

Especially now that that evil animal Paul Ryan is on record as saying that Immigration will not pass this year. I doubt the Golf Pro-in-Chief will be able to resist. I could be wrong though.

Well. it's not like Republicans would actually do it. And no one listens to "Failed Vice Presidential Candidate" Paul Ryan. If Boehner put the Senate immigration bill on the floor it would pass which is why he won't bring it up for a vote. Congress doesn't work these days. Have you looked at their calendar? I think they're going to be off pretty much the whole month of August. On average they make $175K a year. Multiply that by the members of congress times 30 and I believe that's up in the millions we're paying them to go on vacations. And I'm being fair because I'm including Dems and Pubs.

I don't know about you, but I don't imagine that the Courts are going to be too hard on kids.

But it has nothing to do with Obama. He's following a 2008 law. The rest is up to the courts.

I can't help but wonder were the Dems in control of the House and the Senate at that point or was it before the mid-terms?

It was under the Dem controlled (110th Congress) House when things got done and bills got passed. The bill had huge bipartisan support and outside group support from non other than evangelicals and signed into law by G.W. Bush.

 

[MD]

Why Is There So Much Turmoil Right Now? | News 92 FM | Official Site for Houston News, Traffic, Weather, Breaking News

"A good example of this, he said, is when Russia invaded and annexed the Crimean peninsula in March despite protests from Western nations and the threat of punishment.
“It was done, quite frankly, because the Russians thought they could get away with it without consequences from the U.S., and they were right. And that adventurism is more common today,” Berman said."



I think Obama has spectacularly failed on geopolitics. His domestic policy isn't bad, but his inaction on Georgia and Crimea has given Russia a lot of power. His inaction on Iraq allows ISIS to continue expanding. His inaction on China allows it to continue threatening other nations and expanding it's reach.

The old order is breaking down. The President wants to play by the rules, but the rules don't apply in the world.

 

[esmith]

This solves nothing. The refugees that are here aren't the ones from Mexico. Their plight is strikingly different than the ones we encounter trying to sneak into the country for work and money. The ones that came here actually gave themselves up and welcomed being taken into custody by the border patrol. And as far "enforcing the law" that's exactly what the administration is doing. They're following the 2008 law the Bush administration put in place.

Please explain your reasoning on the difference between those from Mexico and those from other countries entering the US illegally.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Are you seriously referring to me, a mild-mannered Canadian, as a lying warmongering hawk? Are you seriously suggesting that I am trying to rewrite history? Seriously?

No..not you. We were talking about Cheney.

Then you should be VERY concerned about Mr. Obama's comments about "I have a pen and a phone".

I'm not. The people know and understand that Washington is broken. It's been broken since 2010...since the 112th congress. But many want to know what can the president do in the face of explicit opposition. The President has the power to issue executive orders. If this was the "imperial" part you're referring to then please know that presidents past have used it. Some of them more than Obama. Was Bush an imperial president? I believed he wielded the pen more. I think Clinton did too.

That is not a fair analysis of the grid-lock though. You don't find it unsettling that a sitting President is, by your own words, being complacent?

No because pretty much at every turn he's tried to compromise. Some in the Republican party view compromise and meeting the Democrats half way inconceivable and many of them are ruled by outside big money special interest. So the mantra is Washington is NO, NO Compromise, Filibuster......unless it's military spending and paying for the military by cuts to the working poor and the middle income.

It's sort of a perfect storm scenario where the American people elected incompetence over vision on both sides of the aisle.

Well you'll never hear me deny that. I find that there are some decency on both sides and some incompetence on both sides.

Most American liked their insurance before the monstrosity known as the ACA was shoved down the throats of the American people.

Many of these people had crap insurance with caveats that gave the insurance provider outs and loopholes when claims were being filed as well as kicking people off for various minor errors on their paperwork. You can hate on it all you like. There are many things about it I don't like. I don't like the fact that it's NOT Universal Healthcare. I do like the fact that the rhetoric has calmed down and many of those people you talk about have moved on with new policies that are stronger than before. No being denied for pre-existing conditions and no lifetime caps are some of the big ones.

But he isn't correct. It's not his job to make law. It's his job to work with congress.

If he was wrong then that power to do so would have been stripped from all presidents and it hasn't. If he was wrong then Boehner would be suing him over that instead of wasting taxpayer money to sue Obama over something he and his party wanted from the start.

I'm not in favor of impeaching Obama.

Then obviously he's not the law breaking, power hungry, hard nosed, imperial president you make him out to be.

The things is, the suit, if executed properly could result in a review of presidential over-reach. Our kids might well thank us years from now.

Boehner has no standing. He knows it. This is for show...and in the process he's going to use taxpayer funds to do it.

DO NOT presume to know my thinking on foreign affairs, Dirty Penguin. The Ukranian thing is a bit of a no-brainer considering Russia is directly involved. In your heart of hearts, do you seriously believe that Russia would have done this if a Republican president was sitting in the Oval Office?

Yes. This isn't the first time Russia has done something against another nation even where there were republican presidents in office.

Korean Air Lines Flight 007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (also known as KAL007 and KE007) was a scheduled Korean Air Lines flight from New York City to Seoul via Anchorage. On September 1, 1983, the airliner serving the flight was shot down by a Soviet Su-15 interceptor near Moneron Island, west of Sakhalin Island, in the Sea of Japan. The interceptor's pilot was Major Gennadi Osipovich. All 269 passengers and crew aboard were killed, including Lawrence McDonald, representative from Georgia in the United States House of Representatives.

We actually had an American, a congressman, on board. Our president then, like our president now, issued some strong words but no action was done. That wasn't a "my bad" situation either.

2008 Russo-Georgian diplomatic crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An international diplomatic crisis between Georgia and Russia began in 2008, when both countries accused each other of military buildup near the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. On 6 March 2008, Russia announced that it would no longer participate in the Commonwealth of Independent States economic sanctions imposed on Abkhazia in 1996.Increasing tensions led to the outbreak of the Russo-Georgian War in 2008.

Georgia 'overrun' by Russian troops as full-scale ground invasion begins | Mail Online

Georgian officials tonight claimed the country had been 'overrun' by Russian troops after a full-scale ground invasion.
Amid reports that Moscow forces had taken the town of Gori - and were marching on the capital Tsblisi - Georgian soldiers appeared to be in full retreat.
Troops were apparently in complete chaos as a full-scale rout pushed them back through the countryside.

Meanwhile, the civilian crisis intensified with thousands of refugees fleeing the seemingly unstoppable advance of the Russian army.

I don't think Putin is that dumb. With Obama, on the other hand.... oh hell, let's see what happens...

Your problem as well as others is you believe Putin actually cares who's in the Whitehouse. Obviously he doesn't. In fact...he doesn't care about the UN, NATO or any of that...He along with the rest of the nations are tied together at the financial hip through natural resources and trade among other things.

I have a very good grasp of history and geo-politics, Dirty Penguin. Much better than the norm. What you are ignoring is that America chose the wrong person to lead and the world leaders have taken note.

And you seem to think this president or any other president has the power to do something about it. None of them, past. present or future can without "DECLARING WAR"....This is the problem with the whole rhetoric. We've issued sanctions and even the latest round of sanctions had Putin on the phone calling Obama to complain. But if you think we should be doing something beyond what we're currently doing then you're going to have to spell it out. Is it war?

The NSA/Snowden scandal didn't exactly help things much either, but that was NOT Obama's fault.

It was EVERY administrations fault. These types of secrets, questionable or down right illegal activity didn't start with Bush's Patriot Act or Obama keeping much of it going... Snowden did what he felt was the right thing.

A fine mess American voters have created for themselves. Spiffy.

Talk to me in two years when we got another Republican in there mucking it up again....because that seemed to work out so well for us before...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think Obama has spectacularly failed on geopolitics. His domestic policy isn't bad, but his inaction on Georgia and Crimea has given Russia a lot of power.

What, specifically, was he supposed to do?

His inaction on Iraq allows ISIS to continue expanding.

We've been there and done that and that's why the situation in Iraq is what it is. But again...what, specifically, was he supposed to do?

His inaction on China allows it to continue threatening other nations and expanding it's reach.

Such as what?

The old order is breaking down. The President wants to play by the rules, but the rules don't apply in the world.

There were never any rules.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Please explain your reasoning on the difference between those from Mexico and those from other countries entering the US illegally.

I have a few times in this very thread already....

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think we should have stayed out of WW2 too, everyone would have been happy, especially Hitler as without America, he could have defeated USSR.
Japan would have been happy to because it could then have had its own way in East Asia. Everyone's happy.

Germany was on the road to defeat once they decided to invade the USSR. The Soviet Army played a huge role in crushing Germany and sent the German troops retreating back to Germany, they were the ones who dealt the final defeat to Germany at the Battle of Berlin. So even if America never joined in the war, they would've lost anyway since Germany could not have possibly won a two-front war. But if they had never invaded the USSR, they had a good chance of winning, regardless of if the Americans had joined the war or not.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Certainly Obama's biggest mistake was allowing us to help destroy Libya. That was Dubya's same mistake in destroying Iraq, but somewhat in miniature. They never, ever should've done that. It seems somewhat obvious that the Jihadis are some sort of lackey for the imperialist capitalists, as we aided them in their fight to bring down Gaddafi (NATO bombed a pathway for them in Libya and then the Islamists would follow-up on the ground) and we're providing a sort of moral support by whining about Assad and our slanted corporate media is anti-Assad and still refers to the terrorists as "rebels". Yes, Assad may be a "dictator" (which is a smear term that government and media use against leaders they don't happen to like) but at least he kept the country together and most people had basic rights. Christians and other minorities have rights in Syria. But that will be destroyed if his government falls and the Islamists take over. It's obvious that the only way so far that Middle Eastern countries can govern themselves and not fall into civil war is by having a strong, secular authoritarian leader who is harsh at times but keeps order. The Middle East is not suited to Western "democracy" and free market capitalist nonsense.

The Jihadis seem to be shock troops for the capitalists as they are opposed to many of the same people in the Middle East that the West is because people like Gaddafi, Assad and Saddam did not/do not play by the rules that the capitalist globalists want everyone to obey and the Jihadis hated/hate them because they're secular/not Sunni/etc. It is a continuance from the Cold War, where we feel that everyone must be brought under our sphere of influence. If they do not become vessels to us, we will kill their leaders, overthrow their governments and install right-wing capitalist dictator puppets who rule with an iron fist in the name of "democracy" and "free markets". But instead of installing corrupt puppet dictators like Pinochet, we let the Jihadis do much of our dirty work for us in taking down our enemies.

But what's to come after this? The stupid American foreign policy is short-sighted. They are not factoring in what's going to happen after the Jihadis take out our designated enemies. They will come after us. They are mad dogs.

You reap what you sow. We are doomed, honestly.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But again I will say a Republican in office in his spot would have probably started world war 3, so in comparison to them he's better.

That is very true. However, we're well on our way there, if not in the opening salvos of it as it is. All a Republican would do is speed up the process instead of drawing it out like Obama is.

 

[xkatz]

Some thoughts on the pres:

In terms of his foreign policy, continuing involvement in much the Middle East was a mistake. Especially supporting trying to implant Western liberal democracy, which is utterly alien in that part of the world. Because of it Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen are in turmoil, and Saudi Arabia has become alienated. And G-d forbid if KSA buys nukes from Pakistan because we negotiate too generously with Iran (whom I don't think are worth negotiating with anyways, but that's just me). As for Russia, I can't really say I blame him for his stance because I don't see the point in going to war over Ukraine but I think more could be done to give assurance to countries like Poland and the Baltic states.

As for the domestic policy, I think that despite his best efforts, we are still I'm the economic ****ter. Not to mention the administration has been really lacking in regards to serious education reform (the college bubble and Common Core), and tax reform. In regards to the current immigration scandal, while compassion should be important, we also really do need to seal the border to prevent these types of crisis to begin with. Doing so would also prevent a lot of guns and drugs from swapping across the border which would weaken drug cartels I imagine. And I don't think need to mention the NSA, VA, and IRS scandals and how poorly they've been handled.

So much for good governance...

 

[esmith]

I have a few times in this very thread already....

Only problem is you do not provide proof. Just speculation by others.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Only problem is you do not provide proof. Just speculation by others.

I linked an article why the the ones fleeing their homes in Central America not but a few pages back.

Many of the migrants from Mexico come here for mostly economic reasons. Usually those caught at the border from Mexico get returned. The Refugees in Central America, as the article I linked in an earlier post shows they're fleeing their homeland because of the violence, children being sold into prostitution, the extreme high rate of murder from gangs and poverty. Not all coming here under these conditions will be granted asylum. This is something the courts will have to decide. The 2008 law solidified this. (http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/us/immigrant-refugee-definition/)...But then again....the reason for the 2008 law was because situations like this was already in the works....


No Childhood Here: Why Central American Children are Fleeing Their Homes | Immigration Policy Center

Over a decade before President Barack Obama described the influx of unaccompanied child migrants to the United States as an “urgent humanitarian situation requiring a unified and coordinated Federal response,” child and refugee advocates warned that children who shared experiences of years-long family separation, widespread violence in home countries, and higher rates of neglect and abuse were fleeing from South of our border in alarming numbers. Then as now, over 95 percent were from Mexico and the Central American nations of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. When these children were apprehended in the U.S., the Trafficking and Victim’s Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) required agents to ask limited and straightforward abuse questions. If the child was determined to be without a parent or legal guardian, s/he had to be transferred to Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) care within 72 hours.

Yet, even though 8,000 to 40,000 unaccompanied child migrants were apprehended annually between 2003 and 2011, only 4,800 to 8,300 entered ORR’s care each year. A 2011 report by the Appleseed Foundation documented that most Mexican child migrants did not receive TVPRA screening and thus could not transition to ORR care. Instead, per an agreement between the Mexican and U.S. governments that Obama would like emulated among Central American countries, Mexican children were quickly deported.

Based on the evidence I collected and analyzed to date, violence, extreme poverty, and family reunification play important roles in pushing kids to leave their country of origin. In particular, crime, gang threats, or violence appear to be the strongest determinants for children’s decision to emigrate. When asked why they left their home, 59 percent of Salvadoran boys and 61 percent of Salvadoran girls list one of those factors as a reason for their emigration.

Below vox breaks down the numbers and some of the underlying reasons these people are fleeing their homelands...and the US isn't the only country many of these people are seeking asylum.

14 facts that help explain America's child-migrant crisis - Vox

The Obama administration doesn't have much leeway in dealing with unaccompanied child migrants. That's because Congress set a particular process here as a way of fighting human trafficking.
Most of this process was codified by Congress under the Homeland Security Act of 2002; Congress added some additional protections under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, in 2008.


Under current law, the Border Patrol is required to take child migrants who aren't from Mexico into custody, screen them, and transfer them to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (a part of the Department of Health and Human Services).
The law tasks HHS with either finding a suitable relative to whom the child can be released, or putting the child in long-term foster care. For more about how that process is supposed to work — and some of the problems with it being overloaded — see here.


The inflexibility here is one reason why the Obama administration and Congress are now talking about changes to the law.

 

[Pegg]

there is instability no matter who is the head of the american government.

There has always been instability because people are not capable of successful self-governance.

 

[LuisDantas]

there is instability no matter who is the head of the american government.

There has always been instability because people are not capable of successful self-governance.

I guess I agree with that wording, if probably not with the meaning.

It is a bit of a puzzler when people talk of the POTUS as if he had history-changing powers. That is not reasonable. Dubya's main mistake was seeing himself as so capable. Obama's main mistakes are variations of same, as in Syria and Lybia. So are the most common mistakes of his critics, who basically want him to blunder more spectacularly for national pride's sake.

I wish people took foreign politics more seriously. We certainly could use some constructive intervention, as opposed to military.