HHS money to church entities long before waves of illegal immigrants

Via Pewsitter I learned of this from Liberty News. My emphases.

EXCLUSIVE: HHS Bankrolled Catholic and Baptist Church from 2010 to 2013 to Prepare for Obama’s 2014 Invasion!

A month or two ago news broke that Obama’s HHS was calling for private contractors to help transport illegal aliens throughout the interior United States. What made this already big news even bigger is the fact that the original call for proposals came out in January, long before the bulk of the illegal alien surge began.
The breaking news you’re about to read is ten times bigger, because the following proves the Obama administration was bankrolling America’s churches back in 2010. And the tens of millions were flowing in to prepare for the invasion currently underway.
The following is a small taste of what’s out there in grant records. This is just the tip of the iceberg, folks.
Between Dec 2010 and Nov 2013, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Galveston received $15,549,078 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Project” with a program description of “Refugee and Entry Assistance.”
Last year, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Fort Worth received $350,000 from Department of Homeland Security for “citizenship and education training” with a program description of “citizenship and immigration services.”
Between September 2010 and September 2013, the Catholic Charities of Dallas received $823,658 from the Department of Homeland Security for “Citizenship Education Training” for “refugee and entrant assistance.”
From Dec 2012 to January 2014, Baptist Child & Family Services received $62,111,126 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Program.”

All that money from the feds… from our taxes.  What could go wrong?

Moderation queue is ON.

UPDATE:

I was sent a link to the Catholic Charities site of Galveston-Houston, which is fair and appropriate to post.  HERE  They give their criteria for assistance for deferred action in regard to illegal immigrants.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to HHS money to church entities long before waves of illegal immigrants

  1. Priam1184 says:

    No organization that calls itself Catholic should EVER accept money from any government local, state, or federal (but especially federal) in the United States. The strings attached to that money end up being a noose around your neck.

  2. NickD says:

    So they were planning for this before December 2010? I can’t even…

  3. Pingback: Illegal Immigrants Petition Demands Obama House Migrant Children In A White House Hooverville » Gossips

  4. DisturbedMary says:

    The Catholic Church will break in two over this. As to the Patriotic Catholic Church in America: Spare me Lord from sermons about unity from Dolan, O’Malley, or Gomez. Spare me the word “welcome” again from men in the pulpit with scales on their eyes. Spare me photos of Masses on the border with hands reaching through the security fence. Spare me pictures of Father Larry Snyder and Sister Carol Keehan praying with Obama in the Oval Office. Let those priests who would be missionaries, go to the foreign places and serve the poor as the Church has traditionally done. Spare us all of it before we lose our minds and our faith.

  5. Pingback: Report: Obama bankrolled the Church in 2010 to handle illegal immigrant surge | Catholic Bandita

  6. Pingback: LisaGraas.com | Report: Obama bankrolled the Church in 2010 to handle illegal immigrant surge

  7. SaintJude6 says:

    Double face palm.

  8. Lisa Graas says:

    What DisturbedMary said.

  9. Kathleen10 says:

    Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas, or to put it another way, dance with the devil and you dance to his tune. The Catholic church and the Baptists have accepted money from the government. Many people do not agree with the Catholic church stance on immigration, so this was a gamble. Speaking as a Catholic, I don’t like this. They have worked to encourage an invasion. I don’t care how sad the story or how cute the kids are, and they are, and I know they are sweet as honey, but it doesn’t change things. We are being invaded and we don’t know who is coming in.
    Huh, so that’s how it is. Has this been a relative “secret”, or was this well known?
    This makes sense in light of the promotion of illegal immigration we get from the pulpit, not to mention the other leftist social justice advertising.
    For our little part, we are not subsidizing this any longer. We will identify what we want to subsidize and do that instead.

  10. NBW says:

    What?!? This is very disturbing. Did the Church believe the immigrants would remain Catholics and fill up their pews? Perhaps if the Masses were Traditional, the immigrants would continue to be Catholic.

  11. acardnal says:

    If I remember correctly, Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta did not take government money because she didn’t want to be under their control and influence.

  12. wmeyer says:

    I have believed for a long time that much of the preaching on “social justice” from the bishops has been shaped by a concern to keep getting Federal dollars. It is long past time to turn away from temptation, and to recommit to the fullness of Church teaching.

  13. aviva meriam says:

    Some gifts are too expensive to accept……

    Here’s an ugly thought: If they planned for this 4 years ago, and its STILL not being run well what does that say about them? Furthermore, this artificially created crisis has children being raped, abused and murdered….. The administration seems to not care about anything other than their objectives.

    Aren’t we supposed to judge the tree by it’s fruit?

  14. Yankeegirl says:

    Disturbed Mary-absolutely spot on

  15. kevinm says:

    So on one hand the government assaults the Church on all fronts, abortion, gay ” marriage”, contraception etc. etc…and to date the Church has stood its ground….but then takes a back hander from that same government…..c’mon already……………..
    Can the end be far away??????????
    Kevin

  16. Sonshine135 says:

    Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Render unto God what is God’s.
    Anyone with their hand caught in the Federal cookie jar have no God by Caesar Obama. This is no humanitarian issue. It is a coordinated invasion. If Obama could get away with it, he’d invite the parents to come pick up these kids and give them 50 acres and a mule to stay here and vote for Democrats.

  17. Mike says:

    “Fortnight for Freedom,” indeed. Who’s kidding whom?

  18. Papabile says:

    And this is a surprise?

    Catholic Charities has been on the receiving end of government largesse for decades.

    Three biggest thing they are worried about now is an exemption from Obama’s new executive order implementing ENDA by fiat.

    Just wait….the fun had just begun.

  19. Father Flores says:

    I leave the separate issue of the consequences of receiving federal funds to someone more knowledgeable than me (most people). However, money dedicated to helping immigrants (even illegal ones) and providing for those who are minors is not new, nor would a planned “invasion” with the help of scheming bishops and Fr. Larry be the first conclusion I would draw.

  20. GypsyMom says:

    This type of corruption and hypocrisy is one of the factors that gives fuel to the Protestants and others that the Catholic Church is not the church of Christ. How can we attract intelligent people with this albatross around our necks? Our bishops make it very difficult!
    On two occasions when some of our clergy were behaving with courage and acted as if they actually believed the Faith, I heard both Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh seem to come right to the brink of saying they would consider converting if that was how we believed and behaved all the time. They didn’t say those words, but it was the next logical thought to be uttered if they continued on with what they had been saying, but they stopped themselves in mid-sentence. Imagine, if that was really what was going on in their minds–there have to be legions of others out there who think the same way. But our bishops and too many priests, with their pandering to the federal government for money, their support for the party of death, their unwillingness to teach and defend moral truths, their cover-up of unspeakable crimes, and their concern for political issues (usually liberal) over the salvation of souls keep many from coming to the One, True Faith. May God have mercy on them!

  21. scholastica says:

    We stopped giving to Catholic Charities not long after we became Catholic and had started giving. My husband was on the local board and was continually disappointed about their real agenda. It wasn’t helping the poor, no matter how often he tried to promulgate that item. I was scandalized by a presentation given to parents at our parish school by the director of CC. The next year found me homeschooling for that among other reasons.

    As for our country-going to see America tonight with friends! That and prayer-offering our nightly rosary for our government leaders and offices and pleading the Blood of Jesus over each state.

  22. Bea says:

    When one receives gifts/money from someone they have put you in their pocket.
    There is no gift without strings attached.
    It used to be Church policy to not accept Federal Aid.
    It’s too bad money spoke louder than common sense.

    This also explains why the POTUS does not view this as a crisis, but continues to play golf, go to fund raisers and play pool as if nothing was happening. It is all part of the plan. Bankrupt the Nation and we will all depend on the Government and become a Socialist/Communist Nation. Notice his book was “Dreams FROM my father” and not “Dreams OF my father”
    Anybody here, see the movie called “2016”?

  23. Theodore says:

    “No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” Matt. 6:24

  24. CrimsonCatholic says:

    @GypsyMom

    Protestants get just as much money from the government as the Church does, the article itself mentioned the Baptist received 62 million. So that really isn’t a reason that they wouldn’t come to the Church. Also, Glenn Beck was a Catholic and converted to the Mormon faith, and he is apparently critical of “traditional” Christian doctrines.

  25. JustaSinner says:

    They’re ‘just kids’, but come November I’m sure they’ll be voting…

  26. tcreek says:

    So what else is new?
    This is from Brian Anderson at City Journal in 2000.

    How Catholic Charities Lost Its Soul.
    city-journal.org/html/10_1_how_catholic_charities.html

    “… rather than trying to promote traditional values and God-fearing behavior, Catholic Charities … has become over the last three decades an arm of the welfare state, with 65 percent of its $2.3 billion annual budget now flowing from government sources and little that is explicitly religious, or even values-laden, about most of the services its 1,400 member agencies and 46,000 paid employees provide.”

    “… Catholic Charities in Albany, New York, has proposed starting a health maintenance organization that would make abortion referrals; Catholic Charities in San Francisco, to keep its city contracts, now complies with the local law extending spousal benefits to unmarried heterosexuals and homosexual live-in partners; Catholic Charities in Oakland, California, recently ran programs that encourage public school social-science instructors to discuss in a favorable light “same-sex marriage,” “gays in the military,” and “family diversity” starting in the first grade.”

    “… Catholic Charities was the nation’s loudest opponent of the 1996 welfare-reform law, lobbying hard on Capitol Hill and meeting with the president to derail it. Fr. Kammer [Jesuit president of C.C.], prophesied that the new law would be “a national social catastrophe. . . . No one will be spared the consequences.” But today, [year 2000] with the welfare rolls plummeting 50 percent in just three years and anecdotal evidence suggesting that many former recipients are happy to be liberated from dependency and in control of their own lives, Kammer’s dire predictions seem ludicrous.”

    This is from a much longer article written in the YEAR 2000.

  27. rodin says:

    Some very pertinent observations in these comments that I hope will appear in letters to the various Archbishops and Cardinals in a position to do something about Catholic Charities and about themselves while they are at it. Perhaps it might be worth a few letters to Pope Francis about the rampant hypocrisy in the American church.

  28. MarkG says:

    When national independent rankings of charities are made, Catholic Charities is usually near the top of the list in effectiveness in using funds.
    In the Dallas / Fort Worth area, Catholic Charities is always highly ranked by the local media when they do yearly reviews of the effectiveness of local charities.
    It’s probably fair to say that Catholic Charities would spend the funds much better than a government program for similar purpose would spend them.
    As a Catholic, I think it’s a bonus that the Church gets name exposure for good works and also gets loyalty from those families helped.

  29. Lisa Graas says:

    From Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston website, criteria for approval for assistance in cases of deferred action on illegal immigration.

    http://www.catholiccharities.org/services/daca?

  30. Wade says:

    Catholic Charities Dallas resettled and provided ongoing assistance to a large number of refugees from Burma, Somalia, Bhutan and Iraqi during the time frame mentioned above. There is a sizable (non-Hispanic) refugee population in the Diocese of Dallas. I’d bet that much of the money listed above for “Citizenship Education Training” for “refugee and entrant assistance” was for non-Hispanic immigrants. It is the State Department that determines refugee status and eligibility, so I’m not sure how Catholic Charities could be involved in refugee resettlement without working to some extent with the government.

  31. Cantor says:

    I can’t believe I’d defending the Obama administration, but this is rather a no-win situation. If they had been unprepared for the children, they would be chastised for their unpreparedness. Because they were prepared for it, they must have planned it. (Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Leo?)

    Regardless, I’m pleased to see the government turn to private agencies to answer the call. I’ll admit I’d love to see a line-item budget sheet from the various Catholic agencies who’ve received funds.

    You think the LCRW could reschedule their conference, live for a few weeks in a zero-star tent camp, and do the sort of work their predecessors did?

  32. jhayes says:

    Those requests for proposals were required to carry out the requirements of a bill passed by Congress in 2008 and signed by President Bush

    With an influx of about 52,000 child immigrants at the border since October, the conversation has shifted to explanations. Which brings us to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 Some have cited it as the catalyst for the increase in illegal immigration.

    President George W. Bush signed the law on Dec. 23, 2008; it received bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate as a measure to combat human trafficking worldwide.

    The law was never intended to encourage mass immigration from noncontiguous countries. But the law’s Section 235 did change the policies and procedures for handling unaccompanied alien children.

    Section 235, entitled “Enhancing Efforts to Combat the Trafficking of Children,” requires humane treatment of minors crossing the border from foreign nations. It also mandates “safe and secure placements,” calling for careful consideration when placing unaccompanied minors in residences within the United States.

    The law lays out one procedure for child immigrants from contiguous countries, like Mexico and Canada, and another for children from noncontiguous countries, like El Salvador or Honduras.

    Child immigrants from contiguous countries [Mexico, Canada] are processed for immediate return to their home country. In all other cases, the children are placed under the responsibility of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. These children are placed with family or in other residences while they await their immigration court date. Long story short, they get to stay in the United States.

    HERE

  33. jhayes says:

    Those contracts with Catholic Charities and others were required to carry out a law passed by Congress in 2008 and signed by President Bush

    With an influx of about 52,000 child immigrants at the border since October, the conversation has shifted to explanations. Which brings us to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. Some have cited it as the catalyst for the increase in illegal immigration.

    President George W. Bush signed the law on Dec. 23, 2008; it received bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate as a measure to combat human trafficking worldwide.

    The law was never intended to encourage mass immigration from noncontiguous countries. But the law’s Section 235 did change the policies and procedures for handling unaccompanied alien children.

    Section 235, entitled “Enhancing Efforts to Combat the Trafficking of Children,” requires humane treatment of minors crossing the border from foreign nations. It also mandates “safe and secure placements,” calling for careful consideration when placing unaccompanied minors in residences within the United States.

    The law lays out one procedure for child immigrants from contiguous countries, like Mexico and Canada, and another for children from noncontiguous countries, like El Salvador or Honduras.

    Child immigrants from contiguous countries are processed for immediate return to their home country. In all other cases, the children are placed under the responsibility of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. These children are placed with family or in other residences while they await their immigration court date. Long story short, they get to stay in the United States [for several years, anyway]

  34. jhayes says:

    Link for that article

    HERE

  35. Chris in Maryland 2 says:

    Has any Bishop stood up and spoken the truth and end the charade about “Catholic Charities?”

    Our pastor keeps defending it every year. He came of age in the 1960’s…believing I am sure in this corrosive program of entanglement. I am sure that during the annual Catholic Charities collection he has seen the notes of concern in the collection basket about the problem with CC. He prefers that we live with allusions – as if “Catholics” are responsible for the “charity” flowing to “Catholic Charities.”

  36. Chris in Maryland 2 says:

    That is – “illusions.”

  37. pj_houston says:

    With (c)atholics like this running the show at the USCCB, none of this should be a surprise. From National Review: “Sister Mary Ann Walsh, director of media relations for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that images of the Murrieta protesters recalled the “fire hoses and snarling police dogs in Birmingham, Alabama, used against African-American students protesting racial segregation.” The images also reminded her of a picture of a “little girl in North Vietnam running terrified and naked with burning skin after South Vietnamese planes accidently dropped napalm on Trang Bang” in 1972. Walsh referred derisively to the “mob in Murrieta,” and wrote that she awaits a “moral conscience moment” similar to what occurred with the passage of civil-rights legislation 50 years ago and the moment when the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam.” Yep, she really said that.

  38. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:

    Maybe there’s a legal mind lurking hereabouts who can address this question:

    Under the Executive Order(s) by which, reportedly, Federal Government contractors must increase their wages and not engage in discriminatory policies, do the grants given to Catholic Charities qualify as Federal contractors?

  39. Pingback: Obama prepares to issue executive order that could close religious institutions | Catholic Bandita

  40. Pingback: LisaGraas.com | Obama prepares to issue executive order that could close religious institutions

  41. lmo1968 says:

    I agree with Sr. Mary Ann Walsh. I saw the news video of the angry faces chanting USA and screaming at the buses full of women and children and was ashamed. Even though I am conservative and am appalled at Obama’s de facto policy of amnesty, I strongly recoiled from the harassment of these, yes, refugees, who had traveled on cattle cars for weeks through the desert and needed nothing so much as a hot meal and a soft bed. They had broken no laws, and didn’t deserved to be treated like that. These are our brothers and sisters in Christ. We need to treat them like human beings not invaders. The Church’s wisdom is correct on this issue as it is on so many others.

  42. jhayes says:

    Mercy for the children

    Bishop Eusebio Elizondo, auxiliary bishop of Seattle and chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration, called upon the Obama administration on July 2 to reconsider its request to Congress for “fast track” authority to expedite the removal of unaccompanied children fleeing violence in Central America. “This is a very vulnerable population, which has been targeted by organized crime networks in Central America,” said Bishop Elizondo. “To return them to these criminal elements without a proper adjudication of their cases is unconscionable.” Speaking before the House Judiciary Committee on June 25, Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso, Tex., urged Congress to respond to the problem of unaccompanied minors at the border as if it were a humanitarian crisis, not an immigration control problem. He suggested an interagency response, more funding for processing and placing unaccompanied migrants and an approach that seeks to pursue the best interests of individual children according to international humanitarian standards.

  43. This puts a whole new meaning on the USCCB being the DNC at prayer. God have mercy

  44. jhayes says:

    I was sent a link to the Catholic Charities site of Galveston-Houston, which is fair and appropriate to post. HERE They give their criteria for assistance for deferred action in regard to illegal immigrants.

    That is a different program that applies only to people who arrived in the US at least 7 years ago – not people who arrive now.

    Notice the requirements that say:
    • Entered the United States before age 16 and before June 16, 2007
    • Continuously resided in the United States for 5 years and present in the United States on June 15, 2012

  45. Salvelinus says:

    @LMO1968
    Not “refugees” illegal immigrants.
    “…they had broken no laws…”. Umm yes they did. They illegally crossed the border of a sovereign nation.

  46. pj_houston says:

    @lmo1968
    To make an analogy between the situation in Murietta and the battle for civil rights, or Vietnam, or whatever shows the same kind of intellectual dishonesty being used to compare the fight for gay marriage to racial equality. Its absurd, and yes they are breaking Federal Law 8 U.S. Code § 1325 – Improper entry by an alien. CCC 2241 also states that’s immigrants are to obey the the laws of its host country. You are wrong on both accounts.

  47. lmo1968 says:

    pj_houston

    These women and children were being taken to Murietta for processing by the federal government. If they had broken the laws the way to deal with it would be there, mob justice is not the lawful way to handle it. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And if these women and children had broken laws, it was under great duress, much like how a starving man would be breaking the law by stealing bread. Basic Christian compassion says you don’t further traumatize people who are already traumatized, especially when those people happen to be children. Crossing the desert stuffed in a cattle car for weeks on end would be traumatic in itself no matter what happened to lead you to flee your country. And these were children being threatened and screamed at by this ugly mob of adults! Jesus was a child when he fled his country. I wonder if anybody screamed at him.

  48. Gail F says:

    And…? This isn’t evidence, it’s possible evidence. Unless you know a) if the same entities got similar amounts before or this was entirely new; b) if the same entities didn’t get similar amounts before but other entities did (that is, they got contracts formerly going to other entities; and c) if they spent the money on other people (from Burundi, etc., as mentioned above) or saved it for a secret anticipated group of people as part of a nefarious plan… you don’t know anything.

  49. Bob B. says:

    Sr. Mary’s USCCB blog didn’t publish my response to this article which, it seems to me, is an attempt to squash any dissenting opinions. (She’s going to America magazine soon, too.)
    I took exception to Sister’s use of Vietnam as an example of how the U.S. is such a bad place. If she understood some of the things the Viet Cong did, perhaps she might also understand why the war was winnable – look at the communist government in Vietnam today and the things they have done and are doing to their populace.
    As for what amounts to Amnesty II, the bishops have latched on to a topic which they are more than willing to pontificate on. In this country, anyone who abandons their children are likely to go to jail. What the bishops want is the reverse – let everyone come in and make them all citizens (eventually) – and let’s spend the $4 billion that Obama will find from somewhere, though there are now so many who can’t find jobs that the government doesn’t even count them anymore. There are many who are going to live with their illegal relatives and there are reports of the MS-13 and 18th Street gangs actively recruiting the newly arrived. Using Catholic churches to house some of these arrivals is apparently in the works, too.
    The bishops can’t even mind their own dioceses, what makes them think they can do something on a larger scale?

  50. Johnno says:

    lmo1968 has a point.

    Some people are getting mad at the wrong target.

    The ones who you should be running out of the country are Obama, Democrats, liberal idiots, Catholic traitors and Iscariot bishops.

    Offer a fair trade:
    The U.S. gets the little children
    Mexico/South America gets Obama and the entire Democratic party

  51. Papabile says:

    OK… I am a little tired of seeing the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act mentioned as if it were the cause of this. People often mention it was signed by President Bush as if he were responsible.

    Well a little history on this bill since I personally helped draft the original language…. 1. It was originally authorized during the Clinton Administration; and, 2. the reauthorization fundamentally changed nothing in the underlying text or approach to the people it covered; and, 3. there is plenty of authority in that legislation for the President to apply a much higher standard of approval for entry. Funny that it took almost 16 years for a bill signed by President Clinton to have this type of explosive effect in one two year period….

    To say otherwise, or to try to assign blame to the bill/Bush for the explosion in children is a lie.

    The MUCH BIGGER driver of these children entering the country is the mandatory 2 year deferred action on anyone under the age of 16 that President Obama promulgated by Executive Order

  52. JARay says:

    I can understand the howls of rage above. We, here in Australia, have a problem with illegal immigrants. Under the previous government here, they came in boatload after boatload. Now, with the present government, these boatloads have been stopped. The boats have been turned back at sea to where they came from and all who attempt such a dangerous voyage (over 1500 have drowned at sea), have been told that if they make this journey they will never…as in NOT EVER… be allowed into Australia as refugees. Most are in fact economic migrants and not people fleeing from tyranny. They have recently sent large numbers of unaccompanied children and the hard line is being imposed on them also.
    However, we, as Catholics, do have a call by Christ himself, to succour the needy and indeed, unaccompanied children ARE needy. There’s the problem. They must be looked after BUT that does not mean that this country must look after them for ever. They would be far better off in the lands of their birth and culture. That is where they should be and it is in those lands that we should be giving them help and assistance to get out of the miserable kinds of life that they are presently subjected.

  53. SKAY says:

    “Well a little history on this bill since I personally helped draft the original language…. 1. It was originally authorized during the Clinton Administration ”

    “The MUCH BIGGER driver of these children entering the country is the mandatory 2 year deferred action on anyone under the age of 16 that President Obama promulgated by Executive Order”

    Thank you for pointing the truth s out to us Papabile. For some reason these facts have been lost in the history twisting propaganda used by the media.

    Those coming across the border are not all just ” children”. There are many older teens (who knows their real age) with gang tattoos who are being released and allowed to stay in the US. That is not to mention the adults from countries other than Mexico and South America –countries with terrorist ties. — slipping in because of the chaos that has been purposefully created.

    It was reported last night that the original law said that all children coming in illegally across the border with adult members of their family were to be sent back to their home country along with their family members. I guess Obama didn’t like that part.

    Sadly, these children are being used by the Democrat Party and that also includes the “catholics ” within it. The chaos is just beginning within our own country if we do not wake up.
    The Church needs to be working within the countries of origin to help the children there and help those countries change from within. Accepting money from the most pro abortion administration I can remember is really not a good plan for the Catholic Church no matter what the intentions. An old saying keeps running through my mind. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/07/obamas-administration-paying-over-6000-a-month-to-house-one-illegal-minor/#disqus_thread

    A caller answering the ad was told there were no children under 12. Where are the little children we are told about by the administration?

  54. jhayes says:

    Papabile, as you will see from this list from the State Department, there were quite a few trafficing laws between 2000 and 2008

    http://m.state.gov/mc16501.htm

    However, the 2008 law was the first one to introduce the distinction between children from “contiguous” countries (can be returned immediately to Mexico or Canada) and children from “non-contiguous” countries (must be allowed to stay in the U.S. until they can be tried in court).

    Regardless of whether the history runs back to 2008 or earlier, the point is that the law pre-dates the current administration and is not some new idea invented by it – or which it can change without action by Congress to amend the law.

    The USCCB position is that the law should not be changed

    Bishop Eusebio Elizondo, auxiliary bishop of Seattle and chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration, called upon the Obama administration on July 2 to reconsider its request to Congress for “fast track” authority to expedite the removal of unaccompanied children fleeing violence in Central America.

    See my earlier post for the full quote from +Elizondo

  55. jhayes says:

    The MUCH BIGGER driver of these children entering the country is the mandatory 2 year deferred action on anyone under the age of 16 that President Obama promulgated by Executive Order

    Papabile, that program is called DACA and applies only to children who arrived in this country before

  56. jhayes says:

    Sorry, hit the Post button by mistake. That was supposed to say:

    The MUCH BIGGER driver of these children entering the country is the mandatory 2 year deferred action on anyone under the age of 16 that President Obama promulgated by Executive Order

    Papabile, that program is called DACA and applies only to children who arrived in this country before June 16, 2007 – not to anyone arriving now or in the past seven years.

  57. HyacinthClare says:

    I am trying to understand what all of you are saying here. A year or so ago, we in Phoenix got a letter signed by all the Hispanic bishops that essentially said if we were opposed to open borders, we had no Christian charity and probably hated brown people. Are you all saying that they said that to keep the money flowing from Washington? I’m beyond cynical, but that’s almost too much even for me.

  58. jhayes says:

    HyacinthClare wrote Are you all saying that they said that to keep the money flowing from Washington?

    HyacinthClare, that’s not what I’m saying.

    Was this the April 2013 letter by Bishops Gerald Kicanas, Thomas J. Olmsted, Eduardo Nevares and James Wall?

    See full text of the letter HERE

  59. benedetta says:

    The evidence certainly indicates that the administration was aware of the numbers that would be coming in and could have in an exercise of leadership petitioned Congress, or at least apprised Congress and the American people, well in advance, in order that constituents could make their opinions known at least as to how to proceed. It isn’t totally impossible for the country to take this on in a terrible economy where the cost of necessities are sky high and wages flat with many out of work, but, people should have been given a chance to voice their own sense of it to their elected officials. In other words, the good that can be accomplished by Americans in sheltering refugees during its own economic crisis is really diminished when citizens are not permitted by their government to choose how they wish to respond, or what sacrifices they are willing to make, when the government knew of the situation. It does seem to be that the facts have been hidden from the American people’s knowledge.

  60. benedetta says:

    As to the issue of this from a foreign policy standpoint, it was documented quite a long time ago that Obama dispensed with the daily briefings that his predecessors relied upon and really does not take an interest in foreign policy. Someone in his administration should have related what was occurring on the ground as far as intelligence in these Central American countries so that he in turn could have informed the American people. Even if he was not aware by his own choice, certainly people in his administration were aware and are rightfully charged under the law to act.

  61. Papabile says:

    Jhayes….

    1. I know perfectly well what the original law authorized back in the 1990’s said as I worked with Legislative Counsel in House while drafting it in cooperation with Rep. Berman’s (D-CA) office – who was the sponsor.

    2. I don’t think the law needs to be changed one iota. The Willam Wilberforce law DOESN’T contribute to this mess, and has literally no effect on it.

    3. The treatment of noncontiguous alien children allows full discretion to find and immediately repatriate them to country of origin providing certain conditions are met. The President can make these determinations. None other than Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA-proabort) has made this point publicly.

    4. I know full well what DACA is, and I also know what message it sent to latin America. I have spent substantial time there in the last two years. The message was (regardless of what it said with respect to children pre-dating June 2007) was that if you get to US soil, you will likely be allowed to stay. And from a practicality point of view, that’s right.

  62. Bea says:

    There was one Bishop ONLY ONE (that I know of) who has spoken any sense.
    I tried to find the link where I read that but couldn’t.
    He was the Bishop of Monterrey, Mexico.
    He said that these illegals shouldn’t be here.
    He called upon the countries from where these illegals came from to fix the problem in their own countries so that these people would not feel the need to abandon their roots, their culture and their families.

  63. jhayes says:

    Papabile, the Wilberforce Act gave children under 18 the right to a court hearing before they can be deported (except for Mexicans and Canadians).

    The court system is so overwhelmed that it can currently take three years to get a hearing, and many believe the delays will only get worse in the months ahead….

    Immigration courts in the United States have long been troubled. The courts, overseen by the Department of Justice, have more than 375,000 cases being handled by just 243 judges, according to the agency.

    It can take months or years to get hearings for immigrants who aren’t in detention facilities, let alone a resolution. Immigration lawyers said judges are already setting hearings for 2017….

    Officials have asked Congress for $3.7 billion in emergency funding to cope with the crisis, including the hiring of more judges.

    Senator Feinstein’s comment was that the administration should speed up the “judicial process”, which is what it has asked Congress to provide money to do.

  64. Dienekes says:

    There was one Bishop ONLY ONE (that I know of) who has spoken any sense.
    I tried to find the link where I read that but couldn’t.
    He was the Bishop of Monterrey, Mexico.
    He said that these illegals shouldn’t be here.
    He called upon the countries from where these illegals came from to fix the problem in their own countries so that these people would not feel the need to abandon their roots, their culture and their families.

    Right on. As an INS agent for 22 years, my mentors were people whose careers stretched back to the 1950s. Including the Immigration reform farce of 1986, the USA has been a safety valve for Mexico and other kleptocracies further south for over 50 years. Had this not been the case Mexico would have had serious civil unrest and possibly a change in government long ago. Oddly enough this was very convenient for agribusiness which became addicted to a cheap, docile, and continuously replaced workforce. Over the decades other sectors of business developed a taste for indentured servants to do “jobs Americans won’t do” for substandard wages and benefits. Even better–the American taxpayer tends to pick up any slack in the system, particularly health care. The Democratic party has come to see this influx as a source of future low-information and dependent voters–so both political parties have a lot to answer for.

    It’s sometimes said that the consequences of stupidity and evil are indistinguishable in their effects. We seem to have arrived at that place.

  65. SKAY says:

    I saw a US Doctor who has spent time working in Central and South America speaking about the health crisis that is looming in the US because of this influx. Of all the communicable diseases being brought into this country across the border, one of the worst is drug resistant TB that is spread the same way that treatable TB is spread–through the air. She has heard reports that several border patrol agents have already contracted TB. and is surprised that the CDC seems to be strangely quiet about what is happening as these illegals are being relocated(many on planes) all over the country.
    School will be starting soon and unprepared communities and their children will be impacted where the illegals are relocated.
    I also just read that the ACLU is already involved in law suits against the government for these illegal immigrants who claim they have not been treated well. I am sure those wealthy lawyers that Obama attended a fundraiser for(around $30,000 a couple) in Texas are expecting to be included in many of the lawsuits. They have been big backers of the Democrats in Washington. Who will pay for all of this? Those legal American citizens who actually work and pay taxes to this government run by an administration who does not have anyone’s best interest at heart but their own ideology. I guess the fact that we already are 17 trillion dollars and counting in debt means nothing. Our children and grandchildren will one day pay the price and will wonder why we were such sheep and just let it happen.
    I agree with Kathleen10– ” We are being invaded and we don’t know who is coming in.”

  66. Jan says:

    +
    Many people here are confusing Catholic Charities with the Catholic Church – they are not identical. Our bishops are calling us to compassionate action. Please do some reading on the background of this situation from members of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Surely what they say should carry more weight for us then what a journalist has written. http://www.cacatholic.org/ and http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-policy/upload/BSeitzfinaltest.pdf and http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-policy/upload/Mission-To-Central-America-FINAL-2.pdf

  67. jflare says:

    OH … MY … whooeeee (whistles in horror and disgust) …. !!!!!

    I had been pretty suspicious of Catholic Charities before. Now this….
    Immigration aside, how can you call it “charity” if the money comes from federal funds?
    Even if they don’t typically collect by severe means, the federal government does have the authority to back a levied tax by means of physical force.
    I don’t think it’s charity if ultimately it can be collected at gunpoint.

    Counting immigration in this…wow. I hope this doesn’t grow worse, but I wonder how far Obama will push….

    FWIW Cantor, the President did not have any obligation to bring anyone here for any reason. If he or the US bishops had felt that conditions in Central or South America warranted American help, he or they could readily have let the word out to seek people who could visit these nations and render humanitarian aid.
    That neither he nor they seem to have decided on that course suggests to me that we’re rapidly losing our nation.

  68. Papabile says:

    Yes… Feinstein said speed up the judicial process and they have the ability to do it. That was her point in the New York Times. And she also made the point on immediate return during the bullpen conference at the Capitol.
    __________

    Yes, they get a judicial process provided they screen correctly during the initial 72 hour process. That’s there there is discretion to return them. They don’t use it, however.

    Additionally, the law FORBIDS holding these children in a SECURE facility — like the very military bases they are now being held in. They can only hold them there is there is a determination made that they could be of harm or injury to themselves or others.

    But that is NOT the population that is held at Fort Sill and Lackland. In fact, I was AT Lackland last week and had this confirmed to me by base officials.

    Furthermore, they are holding them in camps an cells that are so secure that they forbid photos and press interviews – a CLEAR violation of law. They say this is for privacy purposes, but that doesn’t hold under several supreme court decisions.
    _________

    With respect to treating the non-contiguous in a different way, if you had read the bill, it actually treats the CONTIGUOUS Alien children differently. The carve out is for them, NOT the non-contiguous alien children.

    The “non-contiguous” children are treated differently BECAUSE of the carve out.

    We discussed this for months, and actually considered having this proceed through Rules Committee because of the nature of the carve out. Instead we moved it under Suspension after some members backed off it.
    _________

    Furthermore, if they simply hold out, they will be allowed to stay, to suggest otherwise is foolish. The ones they actually release have a 16% appearance rate when their judicial hearings actually occur.

    That may be because if you cross reference names with Bureau of Prisons and local law enforcement, at least 4% of those are in prison/jail by the time they have their hearing.

  69. lmo1968 says:

    Jan

    Thank you for posting those links. I have read those documents from the bishops. They are fact-based and written with the mind of the church and for that reason they are worthy of consideration. I find in these times, when there are so many heated issues and so many voices clamoring for my attention that the only sure guide is the Catholic Church.

  70. jhayes says:

    Papabile wrote: Yes, they get a judicial process provided they screen correctly during the initial 72 hour process. That’s there there is discretion to return them. They don’t use it, however.

    Section 235(a)(4) describes the 48-hour screening period in which Immigration can decide to deport the child rather than turning him or her over to HHS. However, it applies only to children “described in paragraph (2)(A)” (i.e. from contiguous countries.)

    Is there some other provision that allows screening and deportation of unaccompanied children under 18 from non-contiguous countries without a court hearing? I don’t see it in subsection (b) referred to in (3) below:

    (3) RULE FOR OTHER CHILDREN- The custody of unaccompanied alien children not described in paragraph (2)(A) who are apprehended at the border of the United States or at a United States port of entry shall be treated in accordance with subsection (b).

    (4) SCREENING- Within 48 hours of the apprehension of a child who is believed to be described in paragraph (2)(A), but in any event prior to returning such child to the child’s country of nationality or of last habitual residence, the child shall be screened to determine whether the child meets the criteria listed in paragraph (2)(A). If the child does not meet such criteria, or if no determination can be made within 48 hours of apprehension, the child shall immediately be transferred to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and treated in accordance with subsection (b). Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to preclude an earlier transfer of the child.

  71. pj_houston says:

    @Jan
    Neither the USCCB, nor any regional bishop’s conference, are part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. However, Catholic Charities is most definitely aligned with the USCCB. While its terrible that children are being used in this situation, the CCC clearly states immigrants are obligated to follow the laws of their host country, something our pro-amnesty bishops seem to conveniently ignore.

  72. acardnal says:

    ditto what pj_houston said.

  73. Papabile says:

    jhayes… And we pretend Sec. 211 of the same bill does not apply here in the executive application?

    SEC. 211. ASSISTANCE FOR CERTAIN NONIMMIGRANT STATUS APPLICANTS.

    (a) In General- Section 431(c) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1641(c)) is amended–

    (1) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ‘or’ at the end;

    (2) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; or’; and

    (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

    ‘(4) an alien who has been granted nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(T) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T)) or who has a pending application that sets forth a prima facie case for eligibility for such nonimmigrant status.’.

    (b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to applications for public benefits and public benefits provided on or after the date of the enactment of this Act without regard to whether regulations have been implemented to carry out such amendments.

  74. jhayes says:

    Papabile wrote jhayes… And we pretend [say] Sec. 211 of the same bill does not apply here [to deportations of children under 18] in the executive application?

    Yes. Sec 211 changes the definition of “qualified alien” as used in “this Chapter”, which is Chapter 14 of USC 8 and has to do with getting federal or state benefits, not deportations.

  75. Pingback: LisaGraas.com | Obama admin admits to preparation for 60K illegal immigrant children; Catholic Church complicit?