Rep. Michael Burgess Has a Horrible Plan for Dealing With Child Immigrants

Categories: Immigration

michaelburgessmug.jpg
House.gov
Representative Michael Burgess

Governor Rick Perry's sending the National Guard to the border may not be the best idea. Sending soldiers to perform law enforcement functions usually doesn't end well. That being said, at least there's a certain logic to it. Perry perceives the influx of undocumented kids crossing the border as a security issue, so he's throwing a thousand well-armed guardsmen into the mix.

Lewisville U.S. Repreprentative Michael Burgess' ideas about how to handle the same issue involve fewer guns and apparent ignorance of potential consequences. And math.

Burgess has introduced legislation that would slash $15,000 from U.S. aid to El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala or Mexico each time an undocumented child from one of the countries was found to have entered the U.S.

"That's quite a policy," says Glen Biglaiser, a UNT political science professor and expert in U.S.-Latin American relations. "[Burgess] assumes that Central American countries can control their own borders. It seems a bit ironic that we would want to impose that policy when we are not so great at controlling our own borders."

Even if the countries could, devoting more resources to the border in order to keep U.S. aid will take money away from addressing the very issues that cause immigration in the first place, like crushing poverty and crime, Biglaiser says.

If you take a look at the numbers -- both of kids coming into the country and the amount of aid the U.S. provides their countries -- Burgess' plan becomes even harder to imagine.

Between October 2013 and May 2014, more than 13,000 Honduran children have been apprehended after crossing the border, according to the Pew Research Center. If Burgess' bill were law, the U.S. would be expected to deduct around $195,000,000 from its aid to Honduras because of those kids.

According to ForeignAssistance.gov the U.S. plans to give Honduras $54.5 million in aid in 2014. Aid numbers consistently skew higher than projections, but not by nearly enough that Honduras could expect any U.S. aid were Burgess' proposal to become law. The same is true for El Salvador and Guatemala, while Mexico would receive about 15 percent of its planned assistance.

Randy Weber, a House member from Friendswood, introduced a similar bill earlier this month that would cut off all aid to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras until the countries made efforts to stop their youngest citizens from emigrating.



Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
38 comments
smokey1977
smokey1977

Where in our Constitution is the authority to spend a dollar on an ILLEGAL? "In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

.

 A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public


"A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewedroastedbaked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout."



Scumbag Rethuglkkkans taking cues from Johnathan Swift?

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas topcommenter

Burgess is a physician and has a great deal of compassion for those in need.  But, he also ran for Congress because he believed strongly that if the government didn't get its runaway  spending under control, our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have miserable lives with very high taxes, fewer government services, and any kind of wealth will be mostly out of reach - even for the well employed. 


Burgess' solution is basically putting the right monkey on the right back, and giving the original countries where these people are coming from a financial incentive to stop it.  I would also add that we should reduce donations to Mexico based on every person who illegally enters the U.S. with the help of Mexico -- and that's almost all of them. 


I believe it's a great idea, and it stops the outrageous costs to taxpayers to care for people who are here illegally - probably for years or permanently. 


As taxpayers, we have no obligation to solve every other country's problems or accept their citizens so they can start getting remittances.


We also have our own impoverished and needy that we're already taking care of at billions of dollars.  So, we're showing compassion to our own people.



As the saying toes, "charity begins at home".

russell.allison1
russell.allison1

Let's try logic...

I am divorced and pay child support to my ex for 2 children.  In the event that my children should come live with me, would I continue to pay child support to my ex?  No, my child support would cease.  If only one of my children were to live with me, my child support obligation, the subsidy I provide to my ex, would be correspondingly decreased.  My obligations would increase, thus I need more resources to accomodate those obligations.  Why is it any different for a nation?  We are caring for the children of another nation.  Our remittance to that nation should decrease because we are assuming an obligation that formerly belonged to them, caring for unaccompanied minors.  How is that not absolutely logical?  I would disagree with the amounts Dr. Burgess is suggesting, but not the concept of retaining funds intended for the nation in question. 

DerpDudeTX
DerpDudeTX

This is why the majority of Denton County voters are idiots to keep re electing this "moran".

TopAssistant
TopAssistant

I suggest you take the time to read an article by Walter E. Williams How Did We Get Here? - When Legalized Theft Becomes Routine, It Pays for Everyone to Participate, July 6, 2010. 

(snip)

"In 1794 James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, wrote disapprovingly of a $15,000 appropriation for French refugees saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” This vision was restated even more forcefully on the floor of the House of Representatives two years later by William Giles of Virginia, who condemned a relief measure for fire victims. Giles insisted that it was neither the purpose nor the right of Congress to “attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require.”

In 1854 President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally ill championed by the renowned nineteenth-century social reformer Dorothea Dix. In the face of scathing criticism, President Pierce said, “I cannot find any authority in the  Constitution for public charity.” To approve such spending, he added, “would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

President Grover Cleveland was the king of the veto. He vetoed literally hundreds of congressional spending bills during his two terms as president in the late 1800s. His reason, as he often said: “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.”

dingo
dingo

Boy, that plan is almost as extreme as the demagogic, ethnic fascism of Luis Gutierrez.

roo_ster
roo_ster

Actually, slashing aid and ceasing to grant visas to the USA from Guatemala, Honduras, etc. is a reasonable and valid response since they have thus far refused to allow the illegals from their countries to be repatriated.


Each "child" will eat through much more than $15k in taxpayer dollars in their time here.

darrylrs
darrylrs

So if we give less aid to these countries, does that mean more children will come?

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

By International Law, these migrants are Mexico's responsibility.

WaitWhat
WaitWhat

Sound like a variation of the Kinky Friedman plan.

Voot
Voot

In failed states controlled by criminal gangs like Somalia, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, where do the children on this side of the border writing about this think the money is actually going?


It's actually a brilliant plan addressed directly to the parties really in control, i.e., the gangs: we'll pay you $15,000 for every child you DON'T send north. Money talks, bullshit walks.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

Perry perceives the influx of undocumented kids crossing the border as a security issue...

I think Perry may be a bit concerned about the quarter-million-plus other immigrants, not just the MS13 tattooed toddlers.

russell.allison1
russell.allison1

@DerpDudeTX I am always bewildered by people who attribute a lack of intelligence to those with whom they disagree, especially those who are especially accomplished.  Dr. Burgess completed a medical degree, headed up an extremely successful medical practice and continues to hold an elected office.  You may disagree with his politics, but to hint at his being a moron is...moronic. 

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas topcommenter

@TopAssistant This is a criminal indictment of Barack Obama if ever there was one.  Great post; thanks for taking the time to construct it.


It amazes me how the first imperial president is supposedly some kind of constitutional scholar, but has no respect for -  and intention of obedience to - the document or his oath of office. 

He makes Jimmy Carter look like Winston Churchill. 



mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@dingo 

"ethnic facism"???

who gave you this phrase, and why do you believe it bears repeating?

roo_ster
roo_ster

@JFPO 

Since I hate to be wasteful, perhaps we can mesh this modest proposal with the production of "Soylent Brown."  

"Soylent Brown: All the nutrition of Soylent Green, with a spicy finish."

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas topcommenter

@darrylrs Fewer.  Little of that aid ends up with the people.  It mostly goes to high government officials. 


Cutting their "profit margin" would get their attention and stop the exporting.

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas topcommenter

@TheRuddSki That's correct.  And, any who MIGHT qualify as "refugees" going into Mexico are nothing more that illegal aliens when they trespass into our country.

tdkisok
tdkisok

@TheRuddSki


"MS13 tattooed toddlers" 


Ha!! I see you are still at it, asshole.

TopAssistant
TopAssistant

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz @TopAssistant  According to colonial records, the first slave owner in the United States was a black man named Anthony Johnson. We need to focus on how it is unconstitutional to room and board illegal aliens! Now what do you want to do with the Middle Eastern illegal alien Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists that have been entering the U.S. since BEFORE 9/11 and hiding in terrorist sleeper cells around our military installations, target and high value facilities? Stay focused on the cost associated with allowing ILLEGAL ALIENS to remain in the U.S. We are already $17.600 TRILLION dollars in debt and our children and grandchildren cannot pay back before we are bankrupt!

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas topcommenter

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz @TopAssistant Slavery was quite legal then, and was not considered either immoral or unethical.  In fact, a number of the founders were farmers or had agricultural interests, and owning slaves was quite common among the gentry.  (They were very expensive, and most people couldn't afford them.)


Slavery was a major bone of contention during the debate over The Declaration oF Independence,  But, the vote by the colonies had to be unanimous, and the Southern delegates refused to vote for independence unless Jefferson removed some offending passages that would have go against owning slaves. 

In the debate over our constitution, slavery was no less a contentious item.  Again, in order to create The United States of America, outlawing slavery had to be put off until another day. 

Even Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't free ALL the slaves.  It only freed those belonging to states that had seceded.  Several northern states has slaves, and none of those were freed on the occasion. 

 



dingo
dingo

@mavdog @dingo 

(1)

Greek ethnikós

Italian fascismo

(2) because the shoe fits


Fascism 

- a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is apalingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism - Roger Griffin

- a form of thought that preaches the need for social rebirth in order to forge a holistic-national radical Third Way - Roger Eatwell

------

La RazaThe presence of 11 million illegal aliens — largely from the poorer provinces of Mexico, the majority non-English-speaking and without high-school educations — warps all civic statistics about the upward mobility of Latinos. Translated, that means a third-generation American of partial Mexican ancestry, with a Latinate last name but not speaking Spanish, qualifies as a minority for purposes of hiring and admissions. The apparent theory is that his cohort has not achieved statistical parity with the majority, ostensibly because of ongoing but rectifiable discrimination, rather than because of the continuing influx of newcomers from impoverished Oaxaca.

Why would ethnic elites in journalism, politics, academia, and public employment wish to alter the present advantageous non-system? Illegal immigration has turned much of the American Southwest into a blue political haven. What the La Raza elite fears is a collective ethnic trajectory analogous to the Italian-American experience, where Latinate tribal identification becomes incidental rather than essential to one’s character, and where politics are predicated on issues rather than a quid-pro-quo patron-client bargain. Is there a La Razza that clamors for more immigration from bankrupt Sicily or seeks affirmative action for Italians tarred by slurs of affinity with La Cosa Nostra? Does any other identity group adopt the nomenclature “The Race”?

With the end of illegal immigration, in a generation or two the very word La Raza or Chicano would disappear from the American parlance, buried under the juggernaut of assimilation, intermarriage, and integration. Only the influx of millions of illegal aliens replenishes the unassimilated ethnic pool and thereby ensures through the ensuing disparities that the Latino caucus, the Chicano Studies Department, and the accented name of the evening newsreader do not go the way of Italian-, Armenian-, or Greek-American assimilation.

http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/?p=5922  

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas topcommenter

@mavdog @dingo How so?  

It reduces the cost of this travesty, charges the responsible countries their fair share, keeps the problems where they belong - in their backyard,  keeps the kids with their families, and makes it clear that America's borders should never be crossed without our permission.

It also makes drug dealers, terrorists, gun runners, and counterfeiter more visible and standing out against little or no traffic. 


I don't see a downside. 


It has nothing to do with ethnicity; it has to do with the law in a nation of laws.

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas topcommenter

@mavdog @roo_ster I'd send them back to Mexico where they came from.  It's not our problem; Mexico welcomed them and then pawned them off on us. 


We should give Mexico the ball and let it deal with these countries and the problems it created.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

Frustrating, isn't it?

russell.allison1
russell.allison1

@TheCredibleHulk @russell.allison1 @DerpDudeTX I can vouch for his intellect, having worked in the hospital his practice occupied for several years prior to his political career.  The presence of a medical degree places him well above most of society on that front.  I don't always agree with his politics, but having had some acquaintance with him as he sought election to the office he now holds I cannot fault his passion for serving the people of his district. 

 He used to have a really cool car too, way cooler than mine.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@noblefurrtexas 

Slavery was quite legal then, and was not considered either immoral or unethical.

when America gained its independence there was a growing movement that did see slavery as both "immoral" and "unethical".

the fact there was such a strong debate about the issue when the colonies met to write the Constitution speaks to how it had already become a contentious issue.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@dingo

Your definition shows exactly why the phrase "ethic fascism" is a contradiction in itself. With"nationalism" as it's core fascism mandates total subservience of the individual. "Ethnic" focuses on the composition of the individual's background, the self.

As for Victor Hansen, writing the line "Illegal immigration has turned much of the American Southwest into a blue political haven" shows just how wrong he is. Look at the states that comprise "the American Southwest" and see how red they are. His argument is discrimination against Latinos hasn't existed, it is just they don't learn to speak English or become better educated. All surveys show this to be completely wrong. The end of illegal immigration will not remove the elements of discrimination against Latinos that exists, and is illustrated in Hansen's writing.

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas topcommenter

@mavdog @noblefurrtexas 

Slavery was an absolute horrible institution, and while these people had know slavery where it was originated in Africa, I believe it was increasingly counter to our values in the New World.  However, it was a British institution, absolutely legal, and an accepted part of commerce as were farm animals. 

As I said above, there were fierce discussions about slavery during the Declaration's adoption.  But, it became self-evident to Adams, Franklin, and others favoring abolition that they would lose North Carolina and South Carolina, which would doom independence. 

The Constitutional convention, chaired by Washington and meeting in Philadelphia, also found slavery contentious. But, the delegates came to the same conclusion that debating slavery's place in the Constitution would corrupt the document and threaten its ratification. 


On the heels of The Great Compromise, introduced by Franklin, and which essentially created a bicameral legislation, slave owners and their communities were punished by having slaves only count as part of a person for purposes of apportionment and Congressional representation. 


(We could probably debate how much of a "punishment" that was, but the late Prof. Rufus Fears of O.U., a brilliant scholar on the founding, said that the penalty impacted all who owned slaves - even in the north.)

It's a shame that it took a bloody civil war to finally deal with the problem, but out of the ashes America rose to become the most powerful nation in history, and a beacon for freedom seen round the world. 

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...