AG Becerra: Forcibly Separating Children from Their Parents Is Inhumane and Unnecessary

(From Press Release) – California Attorney General Xavier Becerra today joined New Mexico Attorney General Hector H. Balderas and 19 attorneys general in demanding the U.S. Department of Justice immediately end its new “zero tolerance” immigration policy which separates children from their parents. In their letter, the attorneys general explain how these compulsory separations create serious concerns regarding the violation of children’s rights, constitutional principles of due process and equal protection.

“As a father, it is unthinkable that our government would forcibly and unnecessarily pull children away from their parents,” said Attorney General Becerra. “This policy, devised by the Trump Administration, is wrong, inhumane, and traumatic for thousands of children. It is horrifying that an American President would direct this cruel ‘zero tolerance’ policy that contradicts our American values. This is a new low for President Trump. We must do everything in our power to uphold America’s values and the rights of children not to be forcibly separated from their parents.”

On April 6, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the new policy, which called for the criminal prosecution of every individual who enters the United States without inspection or authorization. This has been compounded by subsequent policies making asylum protection unavailable to victims of domestic and gang violence, even to those who properly request asylum at U.S. ports of entry. According to this policy, adults who enter the United States may be taken to federal prisons as opposed to immigrant detention centers while their children become “unaccompanied minors” who are placed into the care of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement. Adults seeking asylum are sometimes not informed of the whereabouts of their children.

Joining Attorney General Balderas and Attorney General Becerra in sending the letter are the Attorneys General of: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

Full text of letter…

Dear Attorney General Sessions and Secretary Nielsen:

The undersigned Attorneys General write to express our strong opposition to the Department of Justice’s new “zero tolerance” policy of forcibly separating all families that cross the border illegally, including those seeking asylum. The policy is not only inhumane, but it also raises serious concerns regarding the violation of children’s rights, constitutional principles of due process and equal protection, and the efforts of state law enforcement officials to stop crime. Because of these concerns, we demand that the Department of Justice immediately cease these draconian practices.

On April 6, 2018, the Attorney General announced a new “zero tolerance” policy, calling for the immediate criminal prosecution of all individuals who illegally enter the United States, including those seeking asylum. Under this policy, adults who enter the United States are brought to federal prisons, instead of immigrant detention centers, and their children are treated as “unaccompanied minors” and forcibly placed into the care of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement.

As you are aware, the fundamental rights of children are expressed in international, federal, and state bodies of law. Each of these laws is, at its core, designed to protect the best interests of children. These laws are representative of the views of millions of Americans that the government, in any process, should first and foremost seek to protect those interests. Almost universally, the statutory mandates and the litany of cases interpreting them overwhelmingly express that a child’s best interests are served by remaining with his or her family, absent a rigorous judicial inquiry resulting in a finding that a parent is unfit or proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed. Policies that separate a child from his or her parent absent that level of inquiry, would not only be illegal under most state laws, but also may be contrary to the policy views of state legislatures and their constituents across this country.

These views are complemented by numerous laws and judicial precedent that mandate and hold that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children. This principle is affirmed in both state and federal law, by both statute and judicial precedent. The notion that the government should intrude into the rights of a parent to be with their child has historically been met with extremely high levels of scrutiny. Thus, the deliberate separation of families for the express purpose of furthering an immigration policy is contrary to our laws.

Not only is it highly concerning that current Department of Justice policies may be in contravention of the express purpose of these legal mandates, but these practices directly interfere with the efforts of our offices and other enforcement officials—locally, nationally, and internationally—to prevent and prosecute crime. In most states, Attorneys General are responsible for enforcing laws that include human trafficking, drug trafficking, and gang violence offenses. As you are keenly aware, these issues are rarely local in context; rather, they require the efforts and collaboration of law enforcement officials across both state and international borders to prevent the widespread and syndicated perpetration of these crimes. These efforts rely on reporting and cooperation from survivors of these crimes and victims of criminal organizations. The practice of mandatory family separation is both inhumane and contrary to the efforts of the law enforcement and others who dedicate their tireless efforts to stopping violent criminals.

Put simply, the deliberate separation of children and their parents who seek lawful asylum in America is wrong. This practice is contrary to American values and must be stopped. We demand that you immediately reverse these harmful policies, as it is in the best interests of the children and families affected.

Signed by AG Becerra and 20 other state Attorneys General

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts


  1. Jerry Waszczuk

    By Christopher Kerosky

    Christhopher Kerosky is Honorary Consul of Republic of Poland in San Francisco

    HE TRUTH ABOUT THE IMMIGRANT FAMILIES AT THE BORDER. There is so much misinformation about the asylum seekers coming to our Mexican border, including a plethora of “alternative facts” put forth by Donald Trump.
    Our office has represented many families who went through the same process like those incarcerated at the border now. Below I try to explain why this is happening and who is to blame for separating children from their parents in our name.
    This article is available on line at:…/the-truthabout-immigrant-…
    Are these immigrants all coming in illegally?
    No, a large portion of these refugees are entering the U.S. border legally, seeking asylum through a legal procedure established by the U.S, by statute in 1980, and in accordance with the UN Human Rights Treaty. This is true of all of those coming in the caravans of desperate refugees from Central America, organized by humanitarian organizations. Donald Trump has condemned these caravans, but the fact is these people are following our own laws that provide a procedure for refugees to seek asylum at our border.
    According to the Washington Post, some of the others who have been separated from their children were also seeking asylum but were apprehended because they went to the wrong port of entry or crossed the border in desperation when they were turned away at a port of entry.
    The majority of those seeking asylum are from Mexico, Honduras and El Salvador, all countries ravaged by violence at the hands of criminal organizations. Extortion, kidnappings and even murder are very common in many of the areas from which these refugees come. Virtually all of the asylum seekers I’ve met reported that their families were targets of this violence and were threatened with more violence if they stayed in their communities.
    Are these immigrants able to stay forever in the U.S. just by coming to the border?
    No, all applicants for asylum have to go through a rigorous interview process to establish they have a credible fear of persecution in their home country before they are ever allowed to leave the custody of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials.
    Those who fail these interviews are deported.

      1. Tia Will


        Why? Are you not even curious about how long he has been here? What his credentials are for his position? Or are you simply interested in taking a cheap shot? If you know those things about him already, I would be happy to learn.

        1. Jim Hoch

          Tia, I don’t care about him or his credentials at all. Poland has a very hostile attitude towards immigrants and it’s following Hungary down this path. Better he explain what they are doing than explain what we are doing.

  2. John Hobbs

    “Put simply, the deliberate separation of children and their parents who seek lawful asylum in America is wrong. This practice is contrary to American values and must be stopped.”

    I can remember when these things only happened in totalitarian regimes. I am ever more convinced that the damage done to the conscience of the country by the outrages of the illegitimate president and his gang will be irreparable.

      1. CTherese Benoit

        I tried for asylum in the EU once due to my own fears for my family. Of course, being American I was denied – we were not treated so badly thank goodness. I did not witness any refugees experiencing that either, but I did hear of some part of France where some similar disaster took place. Still, even then the families weren’t separated.

        The way these kids have been separated is worse than your example because most these separations look like they will be permanent. Many of those kids will be trafficked/badly abused and doomed to miserable lives here or wherever they end up. Perhaps it would have been the same in their native home with their families since the countries are so war ridden. But now they will also be indefinitely alone and unloved.

        I think this is so very sad and I cannot understand how many Americans are able to be so calloused about it. I know Americans worship money, but this is not even logical from a fiscal perspective. I am so floored. What a country. Honestly, executing all of them would have been only slightly less humane than what America has done. Probably half those kids will one day wish that had happened. Sad.

      2. Jerry Waszczuk

        Poland has one milion illegally working Ukrainians   because Poles are working legally  in Great Britain , Ireland and other EU Western countries . Poland is a EU member . Muslims don’t like to stay in Poland because  Poland is a  Catholic country and no Hallalah meat  and pork is preferential above beef and lamb .


        1. CTherese Benoit

          When I was a refugee in Holland, most the food served in the cafeterias included pork. Almost all the refugees were muslims. Anyway they were all eating pork and I dont think most the refugees realized that. I dared not to say anything because I feared what would happen.

        2. Jerry Waszczuk

          Funny. One Polish cook almost got killed by them for serving them pork . He did not know . Poland has refugee camps for Afghans and Syrians but they don’t want to stay long and they like to go to Germany or Sweden because welfare check is a lot bigger there than in Poland .

        3. CTherese Benoit

          The social services to asylum seekers in a lot of countries are unnecessarily excessive but there’s a catch to it – at least in some cases I know… I think most refugees flee their countries wanting safety and then later they may get greedy because some of the western countries (I am speaking of Europe as I dont know much about American process) are so generous…

          The catch is that many refugees are actually being exploited, some very badly. And the highest salaries in some of these highly socialized countries go to people working for the UN and other related agencies dealing with those assistance programs…

          If you get caught up, they won’t let you work… They create a very complicated situation for some refugees where you are forced to be 100% dependent or else you risk to lose any chance at the protection you need. These people get stripped of their dignity in some of the worst ways… I guess a lot of them change. Some seem to become permanently mentally ill. Many “marry” – but it is not about love and respect. Others get exploited worse, some go home or elsewhere… But it’s really not what it looks like from the outside..

          A lot of very strange happenings. Maybe when I am dead and gone I’ll release the story if anyone cares to hear then but, it’s just not what it seems and there are a lot of really unethical people acting as advocates. At least from what I’ve experienced, that was the case.

          I think many of the people who act like they care so much about being generous to these refugees are mostly just looking out for their own interests… They have slaves. But true asylum should be about protection and if that were offered mostly on it’s own, it could be given a bit more freely I think.

          Still, as far as the American borders are concerned; hurting these kids costs as much money as if we let all these people in. Doesn’t make sense AND its cruel. Just send them home intact already. Sheesh.

      3. Tia Will


        Again, is it really not possible for you to consider the responsibility of this nation without pulling in worst case samples as you see them for comparison. What difference does it make if another country is not acting morally if we are not either?

        1. Jim Hoch

          Tia, you can’t take all day off and then come back and expect me to catch you up with the conversation. That is a little unreasonable.

          Our local rep from F03.91 wrote “I can remember when these things only happened in totalitarian regimes”. Despite the fact that totalitarian regimes were trying to prevent people from leaving. The point is that uninvited guests are widely unappreciated.

  3. Jeff M

    Only 20 percent of asylum claims of illegal immigrants are real.  The kids are generally just pawns and leverage for the 80% that want to scam the system and take advantage of the fantastic benefits the US would provide them.   We finally have a POTUS trying to fix the problems that have been ongoing as the previous feckless politicians have failed to do anything.  And of course the left that benefits from more dependent Democrat votes and the right that benefits from more cheap labor don’t want the problems fixed.

    Meanwhile the majority of Americans want the immigration system fixed.

    The ugly part of this is the lies of the previous administrations that all repeated:

    “We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws” while they committed to stopping the tremendous flow of illegal immigrants… a flow that has decimated service budgets around the country.  But then they do nothing.  They pander to the virtue signaling mob and their media attack dogs and back down for fear of being labeled a racist, xenophobe and hater of brown people.

    I am very happy that Trump is standing up to the mob.  It is about time we get this fixed.  Note that all these asylum-seekers could have gone to the embassy or consulate in their home country to request asylum.  Building and wall will save lives and prevent kids from being harmed by eliminating the opportunities to scam the system.

    1. Don Shor

      Only 20 percent of asylum claims of illegal immigrants are real.

      20% are granted according to, I believe, the administration. That doesn’t mean the other claimants didn’t or don’t have “real” fears back in their home countries. Deciding what is a real and present danger isn’t a simple thing.

      The kids are generally just pawns and leverage for the 80% that want to scam the system and take advantage of the fantastic benefits the US would provide them.

      The families are fleeing violence, chaos, and dire economic conditions. Their concerns are valid. I suggest you stop disparaging people who are seeking to come to this country.

      We finally have a POTUS trying to fix the problems that have been ongoing as the previous feckless politicians have failed to do anything.

      In just the last several days Trump has issued contradictory statements and probably sabotaged the only measure that might have succeeded in a vote of the House. He is a hopeless incompetent with respect to the legislative process.

      And of course the left that benefits from more dependent Democrat votes

      They don’t become citizens.

      and the right that benefits from more cheap labor

      It isn’t just the “right.” It is all of us.

      don’t want the problems fixed.

      The ugly part of this is the lies of the previous administrations that all repeated:
      “We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws” while they committed to stopping the tremendous flow of illegal immigrants… a flow that has decimated service budgets around the country. But then they do nothing.

      A comprehensive immigration reform bill passed the Senate in 2013. It was not allowed to come to a vote of the Republican-controlled House. It probably would have passed with majority Democratic party support and enough moderate Republicans to get it through. President Obama would have signed it. The Hastert Rule prevented immigration reform in 2013.

      They pander to the virtue signaling mob

      Watch five minutes of a Trump rally, if you can stomach it, and tell me who is pandering to a mob.

      1. John Hobbs

        “Please cite verifiable primary sources…”

        Look for the proctological report.

        “Watch five minutes of a Trump rally, if you can stomach it,”

        He’ll have to take a cold shower afterward.

        “for fear of being labeled a racist, xenophobe and hater of brown people.”

        You have no fear of that, do you Jeff?

      2. Jeff M

        20% are granted according to, I believe, the administration. That doesn’t mean the other claimants didn’t or don’t have “real” fears back in their home countries. Deciding what is a real and present danger isn’t a simple thing.

        I don’t even know how to respond to this.  Yes, 20% are determined to be qualified for asylum based on the law and the standards used to determine qualification.  Deciding what is real and present danger is what they do.  That means that 80% are not qualified.  You believe that every human that lives in another country that has fears is qualified for asylum?  Are you an open borders person?

        The families are fleeing violence, chaos, and dire economic conditions. Their concerns are valid. I suggest you stop disparaging people who are seeking to come to this country.

        Facts are not disparaging people.  How about you stop lying and calling people names just because they have a disagreement with your politics.  Frankly it is a disgusting habit.  Apparently you are an open borders person. Dire economic conditions are qualification? How many homeless people do you invite into your home to live?  With this “logic” there should be no limit.

        They don’t become citizens.

        They do if Democrats get their amnesty way.  And their kids and successive generation of offspring do.  And the lessons of their parents and liberal handlers will help ensure more Dem votes.  You know this and it is disingenuous of you to deny it.

        It isn’t just the “right.” It is all of us.

        BS.  Tell that to the displaced working class.  Tell that to school systems and the prison systems that are struggling to handle the numbers. It benefits elites, government workers and big business at the expense of the American working class.  But it creates more poor dependent Americans that will vote Democrat for their required hand-outs.

        immigration reform in 2013

        It was just a Democrat vote increasing plan.  The Dems controlled all three branches of government from 2008 – 2010 and yet did nothing about the problem.

        Watch five minutes of a Trump rally, if you can stomach it, and tell me who is pandering to a mob.

        You don’t get the definition of mob.  That would be like calling the American Idol audience a mob.

        1. Tia Will

          Ok, lets consider what “mob” means. I think the “many fine people on both sides” Charlottesville marchers with Tiki torches chanting “Heil Trump” and provoking sufficiently to result in the deliberate death of Heather Hyer by automobile qualifies for the term “mob”.


    2. Howard P

      Note that all these asylum-seekers could have gone to the embassy or consulate in their home country to request asylum.

      Did you mean the US embassy/consulate?  Or, their own?

      1. Jeff M

        The US embassies and consulates.  They could do that instead of paying coyotes $10k and risking the dangerous illegal crossing into the US or to a US port (which is also a dangerous trek).   But then they would not be able to game the system resulting from the Dem-manufactured dysfunction of not being able to hold illegal immigrant children for more than 20 days that supports their catch-and-release vote generation machine.

        The illegal immigrants know this.

        The Democrats know this.

        And it is simply a convenient dysfunction benefiting both groups at the expense of the majority of American people.

        The Trump administration has submitted a court filing for Flores to be modified to allow children to be kept longer than 20 days in non-licensed (detention centers) as long as they are kept with their parents.

        “Exemption from this requirement is tailored to address the immediate influx with which the Government is currently dealing, while providing time for ongoing efforts in Congress to address these issues,” Justice Department lawyers wrote in Thursday’s court filing. “Relaxing these requirements would permit family units to be kept together in appropriate facilities.”

        This is a reasonable request, but of course the coalition of Democrat-dominated sanctuary states is promising to fight it.  Which will then help the Republicans in the next election continue to make the case that Democrats care more about illegal immigrants than they do existing Americans.

        Interesting enough that although the left is attacking Trump for this, the Obama administration was the first to face the challenge of the dysfunction.  The illegal immigration / open borders activists sued and found bleeding heart judges that labeled the Texas detention centers with childcare services as “prisons” (make one wonder why all the walled and fenced-in day-care center and schools in the US are not also called “prisons”.)

        The solution to this problem is going to be a combination of a border wall to eliminate the illegal crossings, and new and improved detention facilities that pass routine inspection for meeting a standards of a licensed facility.  This would be a move in the right direction keeping families together and keeping them safe and well cared for until the asylum processing is complete.  However, the Democrats and their open borders activists will fight against it.  Because it really isn’t about the children.  As usual with the left, the children are just a proxy in the war of politics.

        1. Tia Will

          And is that what you would have done had you been told by gangs that you either leave or your wife and daughter will be raped and your sons inducted into the gangs. Really? You would go and hang out casually waiting for paperwork to be processed with your family under those kinds of threats?  I would question your competency as a spouse and father if that is your position, just as I would question theirs.

        2. Jim Hoch

          Move from Woodland to somewhere else. What I would not do is seek asylum in Bolivia

          “what you would have done had you been told by gangs that you either leave or your wife and daughter will be raped and your sons inducted into the gangs”

          1. Don Shor

            Here is a comprehensive study about who they are, why they’re leaving their countries, how they’re getting here, and what is happening when they do.

            Previously, many migrants would seek to reach the United States by hiking through the desert undetected. But in recent years, families have begun crossing the border and waiting for a Border Patrol agent, or showing up at ports of entry, to ask for asylum. Before the Trump administration’s recent immigration crackdown, these families would be then taken to a family detention center, where they would have to pass a “credible fear” interview to be released—that is, prove that they have a real fear of returning to their home countries. At least 77 percent of the families pass this hurdle and are released with an ankle monitor or after paying a bond. They can then begin their cases in immigration courts.

            The “credible fear” assessment:
            What changed?
            AG Sessions decided to change, effective immediately in May, from the release with monitor or bond, to physical, forcible separation of children from the parents and detention of the parents. In the absence of sufficient staff to process the applications, and without sufficient judges, the backlog is over two years.
            Which division of government is responsible for staffing and administration of that workload? The Trump administration implemented the policy abruptly without planning for the consequences. The AG set quotas for how quickly judges would have to decide cases, and removed domestic violence from the consideration of credible fear. And it was Sessions who directed US Attorneys to prosecute every immigrant referred by DHS for illegal entry, which is actually a misdemeanor. That is a significant change in the use of prosecutorial discretion. Now agencies are trying to interpret Trump’s executive order (which is probably illegal) and figure out how to redirect resources. Meanwhile hundreds of kids are still separated from their parents, and many may remain so.
            There is no excuse for this level of incompetence and grotesquely immoral behavior. In Trump’s case, he doesn’t know what he’s doing. In Sessions’ case, he knows exactly what he’s doing. These aren’t my values. I think they aren’t what most Americans want.

        3. Jeff M

          What changed?

          A president that stopped ignoring the problem where the 80% that would not be granted asylum are released and immediately go to a sanctuary city or state where operatives help them cut off their ankle bracelet and then they disappear into the American population with no intention of making their court dates… some as MS-13 gang members… some as sex-traffickers of the children they brought with them… some as members of the Mexican and South American drug cartels.

          And many that then flood the low-income ranks that get public assistance and also flood the blue-collar job market.

    3. Jerry Waszczuk

      For clarification . You could only get a political asylum if you are already in USA or  USA embassy . No other way to became a political assailant .  The refugees from the refugees camps  are going through the different procedure and vetting .

    4. CTherese Benoit

      Very few asylum requests get approved in the EU as well. There were plenty of Syrians and Congolese people who were denied… Everyone knows Syria, and the Congo is the lovely part of Africa where you can get decapitated and eaten over superstitions. All Albanians got denied despite mafia presence in their country and impossibly low salaries. The only Americans that get asylum are those who have committed murder and thus subject to the death penalty in the states – go figure. Wild to me that a serial killer is better protected by International law than a domestic violence survivor.

      Anyway, deportations did not have to be to their home countries… And sometimes they stayed illegally until they found ways to legitimize themselves. Most all refugees I met were genuine and interested in higher education and enterprise. They had legitimate fears, or at the very least – noble intentions.

      I think the social benefits given to successful asylum requests create the biggest problem. In Holland they give them a free house, and that is only the beginning. So of course everyone is paranoid and resentful of the refugees. If they changed that; it would act as an auto-filter for people out for financial gains. And more people who just want to be safe, could get the protection they need.

      Probably the same in America; still NOTHING justifies what has been done to those children at American borders. Nothing.

      1. Jerry Waszczuk

        It is a  very big and complicated problem  and is not getting better . The Wall would be as same as “I see nothing , I know nothing” but problem will not vanish .


    5. Ken A

      There is a big difference in the percentage of “real” asylum seekers and “fake” ones depending on how they come in.  You don’t need to “sneak” in to get asylum and it actually lowers your chance of getting it if for some reason you really deserve it and decide to swim in to Imperial Beach at 3:00am on a moonless night.  When a woman who just had her family killed by drug lords walks in to immigration at the border and asks for asylum it is almost always real (and she is almost always welcomed in to the US and given help), but when a bunch of young guys get caught sneaking in at 3:00am a week before the start of the grape harvest (when they can make more in a day than their friends in Mexico make in a month) and the coyotes (who are not nice people) start yelling “tell them you want asylum” they are probably faking it (and plan to return to Mexico after they get paid by the rich Napa winegrower).

  4. Jeff M

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: “All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.

    The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.

    That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.

    In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace…

    We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.” (Bill Clinton, Remarks At State Of The Union, Washington, D.C., 1/24/95)

    PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: “Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made — putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.

    I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigration. Hillary Clinton

    1. Ken A

      Just like most Democrats were against gay marriage when it would hurt them politically most Democrats were against illegal immigration (and legal weed) when it would hurt them politically.

      Today the Democrats in California are “both” the party of the poor and Hispanic who can’t wait until more friends come here and the buy the last few gringo homes in their 95% Hispanic neighborhood “and” the super rich and business owners who want to keep the cost of the once a week “mow & blow” <$100 and need cheap labor if they want to keep profits high and insure they are making at least $10/bottle on their Napa wine.  The Democrats have switched to pro illegal immigration since virtually all their voters (and donors) want more illegals.  The unions are also big fans of illegal aliens since every guy working with a fake SS# is paying union dues and paying in to a pension but will never collect a penny.

      With more and more people (like Bill Dodd and Marie Schubert) leaving the Republican party and Republicans dying off faster than average (since they are older than average) it won’t be long until Jeff and his few remaining Republican friends are just a tiny minority party in the state.

      1. Tia Will


        Oh please, let’s not pretend that only Dems benefit from the cheap labor of seasonal workers. In Orange County, which at the time I was there was very heavily GOP, especially amongst the land owners, was very much in favor of bringing in undocumented workers for very low wages. They just didn’t want them to have the opportunity to stay after they had harvested in horrible conditions.

  5. CTherese Benoit

    Okay but legitimate or not (which I tend to believe fleeing Honduras is probably legitimate) – why not just deport them? It’s less expensive for America and does not assume responsibility for whatever number of kids are inevitably sexually trafficked, abused, murdered/”vanished” because of this. Just deport them together… What are we trying to prove? The message wont resonate with them anyway because many feel they have nothing to lose… And these kids are ruined indefinitely… I cannot understand how people can be so calloused toward the fate of children. Sheesh.

        1. Don Shor

          They have just changed to a new system prioritizing temporary migrant workers (Australia needs the labor), and they have closed or are closing the Manus facility. It has been a huge fiasco. So I’m not sure which part of their old and new policies Jeff might have in mind.

        2. Howard P

          Don… sounds like the ‘bracero’ program… no path to permanent residency, much less citizenship… been there, done that, burned the t-shirt…

  6. CTherese Benoit

    Yes Jim, I googled the wiki but am multi tasking and wanted to avoid a long boring read about Australian nationality requirements. But thanks :-P.

    I was also curious to hear what Jeff was really trying to say.

  7. CTherese Benoit

    I was curious as to how he’d word it since it felt like he was trying to be inflammatory. Just a glance suggested their policies are probably considered racist by people who care enough to look.

    Never been interested in Australia beyond their indigenous cannibals.






  8. CTherese Benoit

    A bit off topic but I thought of this because of Australia… And please don’t misconstrue it as racism (my dad’s white, my mom’s African-American and I don’t regard either one above the other).

    But just an observation. With the exception being Jews and people of the Mediterranean, have you ever known a large white community to make anywhere outside of their native Europe more interesting because they are there? Maybe there are a few (please tell me), but generally speaking…

    Even if it comes with some downsides, latinos, blacks, asians, arabs etc etc seem to bring character and culture with them to foreign places… Like they bring color beyond that of their skin…

    White people, no disrespect intended, go to places like Asia or Africa or South America looking for culture and color… But they don’t really bring it or make any sort of imprint. It’s weird; like they don’t have a very interesting imprint to make on foreign places… As a group. I know there are individuals who are great artists and the like. But as a group, white people – as a group don’t seem to enrich the soul of a place the way others do.

    When they’ve colonized they’ve brought their idea of “order” at great cost to the people they exploit. But that’s it… Weird. I guess that’s their imprint; infrastructure, control, and exploitation.

    1. Jerry Waszczuk

      I think that the  unsecured southern border is more related to  the “endless war on drugs ” and jobs for thousands of agents which are fighting this war forever. Bashing immigrants is  just a smoke screen . .

      But just an observation. With the exception being Jews and people of the Mediterranean, have you ever known a large white community to make anywhere outside of their native Europe more interesting because they are there? Maybe there are a few (please tell me), but generally speaking

      No .

    2. Alan Miller

      With the exception being Jews and people of the Mediterranean, have you ever known a large white community to make anywhere outside of their native Europe more interesting because they are there?

      I appreciate that you excepted my people (though visit Israel sometime and you may stop believing Jews are “white” (or, see Sammy Davis, Jr.)), but what in h**l does the above statement with the phrase “more interesting” — mean, exactly?

  9. Alan Miller


    I understand the allure of freedom and opportunity that fuels the dream of a life in the United States. But I also understand the need to fix a broken system.


    The American people are a welcoming and generous people. But those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws.


     the agencies charged with border security would receive new technology, new facilities, and more people to stop, process, and deport illegal immigrants. But while security might start at our borders, it doesn’t end there. Millions of undocumented immigrants live and work here without our knowing their identity or their background. We need to strike a workable bargain with them. They have to acknowledge that breaking our immigration laws was wrong. They must pay a penalty, and abide by all of our laws going forward. They must earn the right to stay over a 6-year period, and then they must wait another 5 years as legal permanent residents before they become citizens.

    But in exchange for accepting those penalties, we must allow undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows and step on a path toward full participation in our society. In fact, I will not support any bill that does not provide this earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population–not just for humanitarian reasons; not just because these people, having broken the law, did so for the best of motives, to try and provide a better life for their children and their grandchildren; but also because this is the only practical way we can get a handle on the population that is within our borders right now.

    To keep from having to go through this difficult process again in the future, we must also replace the flow of undocumented immigrants coming to work here with a new flow of guestworkers. Illegal immigration is bad for illegal immigrants and bad for the workers against whom they compete.

    Replacing the flood of illegals with a regulated stream of legal immigrants who enter the United States after background checks and who are provided labor rights would enhance our security, raise wages, and improve working conditions for all Americans.

    But I fully appreciate that we cannot create a new guestworker program without making it as close to impossible as we can for illegal workers to find employment. We do not need new guestworkers plus future undocumented immigrants. We need guestworkers instead of undocumented immigrants.

    Toward that end, American employers need to take responsibility. Too often illegal immigrants are lured here with a promise of a job, only to receive unconscionably low wages. In the interest of cheap labor, unscrupulous employers look the other way when employees provide fraudulent U.S. citizenship documents. Some actually call and place orders for undocumented workers because they don’t want to pay minimum wages to American workers in surrounding communities. These acts hurt both American workers and immigrants whose sole aim is to work hard and get ahead. That is why we need a simple, foolproof, and mandatory mechanism for all employers to check the legal status of new hires.


    And before any guestworker is hired, the job must be made available to Americans at a decent wage with benefits. Employers then need to show that there are no Americans to take these jobs. I am not willing to take it on faith that there are jobs that Americans will not take. There has to be a showing. If this guestworker program is to succeed, it must be properly calibrated to make certain that these are jobs that cannot be filled by Americans, or that the guestworkers provide particular skills we can’t find in this country.

    I know that dealing with the undocumented population is difficult, for practical and political reasons. But we simply cannot claim to have dealt with the problems of illegal immigration if we ignore the illegal resident population or pretend they will leave voluntarily. Some of the proposed ideas in Congress provide a temporary legal status and call for deportation, but fail to answer how the government would deport 11 million people. I don’t know how it would be done. I don’t know how we would line up all the buses and trains and airplanes and send 11 million people back to their countries of origin. I don’t know why it is that we expect they would voluntarily leave after having taken the risk of coming to this country without proper documentation.


    It behooves us to remember that not every single immigrant who came into the United States through Ellis Island had proper documentation. Not every one of our grandparents or great-grandparents would have necessarily qualified for legal immigration. But they came here in search of a dream, in search of hope. Americans understand that, and they are willing to give an opportunity to those who are already here, as long as we get serious about making sure that our borders actually mean something.

    Today’s immigrants seek to follow in the same tradition of immigration that has built this country. We do ourselves and them a disservice if we do not recognize the contributions of these individuals. And we fail to protect our Nation if we do not regain control over our immigration system immediately.

    Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama, April 3, 2006

    1. Jeff M

      Without double standards, modern Democrats would have none.  Apparently

      This is important and I believe every Democrat that cares about national elections should be paying attention.  There is unbridled hatred for the President and it is causing the party to flail about in irrational policy response.  It reminds me of a divorce where the President is the wealthy husband and the Democrat party is the wife who is constantly angry, hurt and resentful over the rejection.  But instead of moving on to the next phase in her life, she spend all her day thinking about how she can destroy her ex.

      Blame yourselves for not telling your elected representatives to cooperate in solving this mess.

      1. Don Shor

        I know what I want my elected representatives to do. I want them to pass something that looks like the bill that passed the Senate in 2013. Then we need a D-majority House and a D-president, and it’ll get signed.
        My elected representatives are ready to do that. Maybe you should tell your party leaders to do the same.

        1. Jeff M

          Border security needs to be addressed first in any bill considered worthy of bipartisan support.  That lack of that was the poison pill because all other immigration reform bills prior to this one did the same and the changes just attracted more that had to be dealt with.

          The Senate could bring back that bill with border security being required to be implemented first, and it would pass the house.

          1. Don Shor

            Border security needs to be addressed first in any bill considered worthy of bipartisan support.

            Border security was clearly addressed in the Senate bill. Implementation procedures were clear.

            The Senate could bring back that bill with border security being required to be implemented first, and it would pass the house.

            I see no reason to believe that, because a majority of the House Republicans will oppose any bill that contains any path toward citizenship. That is who derailed it the last time. The fight right now is in the Republican party.

        2. Jeff M

          The fight right now is in the Republican party.

          Overly simplistic perspective.  We will see how the Democrat’s “resist” strategy will play out in the next election.  My guess is that the voters will punish them for clearly exploiting illegal immigrants for politics without accepting reasonable and rational compromise.

          And maybe you don’t see the connection with the way the Democrat are acting these days and the thought of bringing another 12 million illegal immigrants into their voter roles.  Democrats are anything but deserving of that.

  10. CTherese Benoit

    Interesting to me: the aspects of life that make us want to keep living haha

    But in this case – I don’t know the words for it but its the essence of a place, like New Orleans


    Or chinatowns throughout America (or anywhere in the world)

    Italian neighborhoods on the East coast…

    Even parts of east sac with high concentrations of Jews feel “sexier” (for lack of a better word) than Rocklin/Roseville

    People go to Tahoe for the lake but there’s no essence of human energy there, the kind that really pulls you in. Its a feeling I can’t describe but I think you know what I mean.

    I like old western towns…maybe they weren’t always so bland. Not sure.

    1. Jeff M

      First, my interest in the Australian system (one that my Assie liberal friends like but outwardly criticize to satiate their virtue signaling need) is that they hold people outside the country in reasonably humane accommodations until they can be processed, and that Australia has a merit based system.   It is a rational system.  No country can absorb millions of poor and uneducated people from other countries for decades and remain healthy and able to care for the people already there.

      Related to your post, I have two perspectives.

      The US previously was a country of immigrants pursuing the opportunity for a better life through the exercise of individualism and self-determination.  There are a lot of stories of immigrants coming to the US but returning to their home country because the US was too rough and too dog-eat-dog competitive.  There were no government safety-nets.  We were a nation of producers and those that wanted a piece of the American dream had to produce.

      The problem we have now is that too many are attracted to the social safety nets.

      Secondly, multiculturalism only works when there is a basis for cultural behavior that ties all disparate groups together.  Tribalism is real and tribal conflict is natural in the human tendency to pursue hierarchical structures that help secure scarce resources.  We have trashed our cultural basis for a number of reasons, but primarily because we have not valued it, and we have allowed politics to exploit and inflame tribal divisions.   And we have adopted new a new Utopian society meme that is completely and utterly false and ridiculous that disparate cultures can peacefully and successfully coexist while we destruct anything and everything traditionally American as being “white”, “male”, “cisgender”, “racist”, “xenophobic”, etc., etc., etc.

      Interested in your view of this…  because it covers this point…

  11. CTherese Benoit

    Maybe that’s what the natives saw when they referred to a “hole that cannot be filled” in their conquero.. There’s a sort of emptiness in their collective. And that would be necessary to be as ruthless as they’ve historically been (as a group, not individually)…

    Slavic people (as a group) are different. Its just the Caucasus (I think?) I’m referring to..

    1. Jim Hoch

      All people are ruthless. The First People here killed and raped each other for thousands of years. Then the Europeans brought the first weapon of mass destruction, the horse, to this continent and the tribes used them to slaughter each other.

  12. CTherese Benoit

    *** When I refer to Jews being the exception here; I am referencing Ashkenazi jews who I believe are most common in the US. I think, for the most part, they are perceived as white.

    Yes I met a black man who insisted blacks descend from original Hebrews. I don’t doubt that’s true. I am not sure it makes a big difference (?)…

    Almost everyone in the bible was likely brown/black, right? So many religious scriptures seem to be telling the same story to me. I get skeptical about the validity, not of God, but of the written accounts.

  13. CTherese Benoit

    Jeff I was wondering if anyone would mention that

    Renaissance faires (which i adore)/may be the only exception. White culture in America has been dulled down because it is difficult to separate from its history of oppression and the hate groups that persist…

    My white family loves Sturgis and some biking festival where Evil Knieval used to perform. (My uncle made his boots). Most my relatives from that side make me uncomfortable. Probably since my aunt reads from a bible that says blacks are the product of Eve and Satan. Yikes :-O. Anywa I, being brown, went with my brown kids to the bike festival with the good ole fam..

    How stupid I felt standing alongside them as entire block of the parade was a bunch of burly white men decked out in swastikas 😀 Awkward, and a bit scary.

    White Americans really don’t have much culture left. Like I always say, we need to open the dialogues more. Air the prejudices, share the pains so Americans can embrace the differences that create our melting pot. But instead we erase white history (liberal agenda), deny/ignore black history (conservative programming), and remain divided and albatrossed in unspoken resentments.

    Agree with you on immigration. Lose the financial incentives (or lessen them with strict time caps; auto filter. Should be that way everywhere. It would attract nobler intentions and lessen perceived threats. But I don’t like it being all about great wealth/education. If someone can pull their own weight and poses no threat to society – there’s no harm in giving them a chance to be a part of it.


    1. Jeff M

      White Americans really don’t have much culture left.

      I don’t even know what that means.  But I think it speaks exactly to my points.

      I am color blind, but not culture blind.  I am color blind, but not behavior blind.  I am color blind, but not blind to the exploitation of race for politics.

      You say standing next to burly white bikers made you feel uncomfortable.  What would you say about me if I commented that standing in line in a convenience store in South Sacramento that was filled with 100% black patrons and employees made me feel uncomfortable?  Would you claim this was racial bias?  Ironically I was told by a female patron next to me to put my money clip and phone in my pocket and to be careful when I left the store to get into my car.

      I have relatives from the Mid West that you might consider intolerant.  These are people that, if you lived next door, depending on your behavior and views displayed, would tell you directly how they felt about it.  But if you were sick or needed help, they would likely be there for you.   I would venture a guess that these Sturgis bikers would do the same.  And I know for a fact that there are bikers from all races that converge on Sturgic for those events.  Their shared cultural values (including love of motorcycles) tend to transcend race.   But they don’t transcend their opinions of people that reject their values and call them names for having them.

      That is American culture to speak your mind directly.  The hostility we see is directed toward those that want to shove their values down the throats of these people that have traditional American values.  They are people that would silence any criticism as being hateful.  I do think there is growing hostility around that… unfortunately.

      But in my experience people with similar values and views have de minimis racial tension.

      My Mid West relatives call me a freaky California liberal.  They tend to tell me what they really think after a dozen cans of Keystone Lite beer.  I tell them what I really think after a few bourbons.  We can irritate the crap out of each other.  But this is just the twaddle because all of us tend to share the traditional American cultural values that are covered well in that professor’s article above.

      If someone can pull their own weight and poses no threat to society – there’s no harm in giving them a chance to be a part of it.

      Agree with this 100% as long as they assimilate.

      1. CTherese Benoit

        Being blind is seldom a virtue Jeff. That was my point, sorry if its on me for not conveying it clearly.

        Prime example: SWASTIKAS. The swastikas made me feel stupid, not that the bikers were burly and white.

        A bible discussion where my aunt tells me half my bloodline descends from “Satan” makes me uncomfortable – not the fact that she’s from the Midwest and a bit simple.

        All that said I love my racist white family because I am NOT blind to the limitations of their individualized human experience. I am NOT blind to their barriers of ignorance that are too great for them to overcome easily.

        I understand them and so compassion overcomes resentments. Doesn’t mean I revel in their company.

        Same with blacks, browns, whites, rich, poor.  I’m not blind to any aspect of a person because every part of who we are (as people) puts our behaviors into context and perspective. We have to look at color in a society like ours where color explains so many variables outside of our control. We want to keep things simple, but simplicity does not afford the level of understanding necessary to bridge the gaps created by our complicated history. 

        Agree with you on the true character of most Midwesterners (and those of similar ilk) at the end of the day. They will feed and protect anyone when caught off guard. Which is why I truly did not feel scared inasmuch as goofy AF standing in a parade of swastikas. But here’s the thing, we cannot be blind to what swastikas mean to a lot of Americans (and people in general). My perspective on race relations is uniquely enlightened because of my bizarre background – pure (crap) “luck”. 

        Most non-whites, especially blacks aren’t as tolerant of bigotry as I am (nor should anyone need to be). The same as most conservative whites want to assess impoverished black communities based on the prevailing behaviors while being blind to ” color”. Its not possible to make a fully conscious, intelligent, compassionate assessment of blacks (or anyone in America) when you are blind to the one thing that has defined the path that has led to their existance. Not to give free passes, but to understand each other, forgive some shortcomings and recognize true opportunities for progress. Can’t do that blind. 

        We have to be realistic in our expectations of others, and honest in our dialogues with ourselves. White America has no culture outside of being controllers. White nationalist day freaks people out because it seems like we cannot celebrate the celts, druids, vikings, without swastikas, confederate flags, AND hate speech. So I’m like, hey golden idea – let’s share the cool things about whiteness without lauding hatred, violence, and oppression. Because those aren’t really “cool” to most people. Have your party but be welcoming to your guests. Tell your socially awkward bigoted brethren to leave their hatefulness home and try white pride with love. It would work out. And in time, even the confederate flags would have their respective place as part of american history we can all revere. But we must start by welcoming each other with open eyes, consideration, and understanding.

        Liberals practice blindness too and it’s horribly degrading to those they ultimately underestimate. Its never good for anyone to be blind… Unless they’ve married a troll for their money.

        1. CTherese Benoit

          “Forgive them father for they know not what they do.”

          (I’m not fanatically religious)

          But those words were the most important advice in that book IMHO.


          The “know not what they do” are the variables we cannot control (in America these relate lots to color and history).

          We have to go to our higher selves that sees the greater picture so that we can forgive those that hurt and disappoint us. The greater we are, the greater their loss. So compassion will come easily.


  14. CTherese Benoit

    Ya you’re right Jim. Can’t argue that. It seem brown people were mostly content to stay on their own continents terrorizing each other. Whites… Always going into other territories. Never satisfied. The hole can’t be filled. (I know there’s a handful of Asian and Arab groups that did this, but none so insatiable as white men. Too little love in their hearts I think.

  15. CTherese Benoit

    Yes Alan, a terrible story that is not quite over unfortunately…

    Strange thing a little over 10 years ago a mexican palm reader predicted it. I remembered her description (remiss a few details) when it happened.

    About the same time, 10 years ago; I dreamt of the tyrant largely behind it. When i saw his face a couple years ago – I was stunned. Could be coincidence I guess.

    A weird world. Who knows what’s up? 😛

  16. John Hobbs

    So can we assume that as long as it’s based on religion, race and cultural purity, David’s favorites are in favor of just blocking the borders and executing those already in custody?

      1. John Hobbs

        “What are you talking about?”


        Lol, you know, the one’s who violate the tone and terms of commenting (and common human decency) without fear of censorship, who add color to your otherwise drab palette. I’ve been cautioned by the censor not to name them.

        1. Don Shor

          If there are people here who bother you by their presence or political leanings, you can use this:

          You were the one who demanded it over many months. So I suggest you use it.

        2. Howard P

          At the risk of banishment to Elba (comme Napolean), John H spoke of,

          tone and terms of commenting [i.e. “playing by the rules” (my interpretation, not John’s]]

          He did not object to their presence nor political leanings… it was the “delivery” that he questioned… appears that passive-aggressive styles, even when they are thinly veiled personal attacks, are fully tolerated… where “thou art a fool” is dealt with vigorously.

          There are some who appear to be able to say just about anything.

          OK… DV gets to set the rules, but it does appear from time to time, there is an “A”-list (preferred, can get away with just about anything), and an “S”-list where the level of scrutiny is much (by magnitudes) higher…

          Following John’s lead, and the admonition he says he was given (which I do not doubt), I’ll not name names… but every sentient reader will know who we are talking about…

          Despite my divergent views from John, and often, criticisms of each others’ views, posts, I say, “John Hobbs, roche sur!” (not sure there is an equivalent en francais, mais je crois que John comprenda mon intention…)

          Je crois mon “post” sera supprime (imagine un accent aigu sure the “e”)… c’est la vie…


  17. John Hobbs

    “You were the one who demanded it over many months. So I suggest you use it.”

    I suggested it as a charitable option to those who found my posts objectionable. “Ignore” is the root of ignorance, a condition to which I would never aspire, but would not deny more of it to those so apparently disposed.

    1. CTherese Benoit

      Thank you Jim; I appreciate that you are always well-mannered toward those you clearly disagree with. I am aware that many posters here are greatly educated and enjoy sparring with words and references. I am not well equipped to do that so well, but for the topics I am passionate about – and feel I can contribute an interesting perspective; I enjoy sharing.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for