Ann Coulter has another angle:
It’s been reported everywhere—The New York Times, The Washington Post, Fox News—that the William Wilberforce Sex Trafficking Act requires that any non-Mexican children who show up on our border be admitted and given a hearing. (New York Times, July 7, 2014: “Immigrant Surge Rooted in Law to Curb Child Trafficking.”)I am not sure she is correct. Here is the Text of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008:
The problem, we’ve been told, is that a loophole in the sex trafficking law mandates these hearings — or “removal proceedings.”
But there is no such loophole. ...
According to last Friday’s New York Times, almost 90 percent of the 53,000 illegal alien kids given refugee status since October have already been transferred to parents or relatives living in the U.S. By the law’s clear terms, those 47,000 kids should have been summarily turned away at the border — just as Mexican children are.
Subject to section 462(b)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(b)(2)), an unaccompanied alien child in the custody of the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall be promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child. In making such placements, the Secretary may consider danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of flight. Placement of child trafficking victims may include placement in an Unaccompanied Refugee Minor program, pursuant to section 412(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1522(d)), if a suitable family member is not available to provide care.I read this as saying that the alien kids can be placed with a USA family member, justified by BIOTCh, and while awaiting a BIOTCh hearing. Coulter says that the law excludes kids who have a suitable USA legal guardian.
And the kids get to lawyer up:
The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to appoint independent child advocates for child trafficking victims and other vulnerable unaccompanied alien children. A child advocate shall be provided access to materials necessary to effectively advocate for the best interest of the child. The child advocate shall not be compelled to testify or provide evidence in any proceeding concerning any information or opinion received from the child in the course of serving as a child advocate. The child advocate shall be presumed to be acting in good faith and be immune from civil and criminal liability for lawful conduct of duties as described in this provision.This seems crazy to me. The so-called "child advocate" is supposed to tell the kid's story, and that story is to be believed, but the lawyer will not be under oath so he is free to tell lies in order to zealously advocate for the child.
This must have been written by lawyers who profit from endless proceedings that accomplish nothing. No one else would think that these child advocates are reasonable.
The kids should just be sent back to their home countries to rejoin their parents.
Post a Comment