PDA

View Full Version : Democratic Rep. Admits The Child Migrant Crisis ‘Was Kept Very Quiet Under The Obama Administr




spudea
06-16-2018, 09:25 PM
Democratic Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar admitted Saturday that the Obama administration attempted to cover up the child migrant crisis occurring at the Souther border.

“It was kept very quiet under the Obama Administration. There were large numbers of people coming in. The Obama administration was trying to keep this quiet,” Cuellar told CNN’s Fredricka Whitfield.
Whitfield displayed a 2014 image of migrant children held in cages at a detention center, and Cuellar said that he released similar photos of children separated from their parents.

Cuellar added that the number of children being held at the border right now is similar to the amount during the Obama administration.
“We still see the numbers,” he said, adding that “not all of them are being separated. Some of them are coming alone.”
“Keep in mind that under the law, you can separate a child if that person, the adult, is not the real parent or the custodian because sometimes we see situations where they’ll bring a child because they know of the policy that we have over here with children.”
Cuellar scrutinized the zero-tolerance policy for separation, suggesting criminal adult immigrants have previously taken advantage of it.

Full interview video at link: http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/16/dem-rep-child-migrant-crisis/

euphemia
06-16-2018, 09:41 PM
Who knew? What a surprise.

Zippyjuan
06-16-2018, 10:03 PM
It says that many crossed but not what happened to them once they got here.

This is where the photo was taken (and they are children who came without parents- not kids taken from their parents):

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2014/06/18/arizona-immigrant-children-holding-area-tour/10780449/


NOGALES — They are fed and clothed, kept clean and cool, far better off than if they were walking through the desert in June temperatures.

They are undocumented. They entered the country illegally. And when they were apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, they were shipped to Nogales from overwhelmed processing facilities in Texas.

But they are still children in cages, not gangsters, not delinquents. Just children, 900 of them, in a makeshift border-town processing center that is larger than a football field. They pass the day sitting on benches or lying side by side on tiny blue mattresses pressed up against each other on nearly every square inch of the floor in the fenced areas.

The Nogales facility is a way station where the children are identified, examined for health problems by the U.S. Public Health Service, vaccinated and then moved to other facilities in Texas, Oklahoma and California until they are placed with relatives already in the country to await their day in Immigration Court.

oyarde
06-16-2018, 10:15 PM
Henry probably annoys the hell out of the democrats . Endorsed by president bush , critical of trump craziness but votes with him 3/4's of the time . Homeland security committee , ranking member of border and maritime security . The only important democrat in texas .

Brian4Liberty
06-16-2018, 10:22 PM
The Obama Administration encouraged the "child migrant crisis" because it served to advance their agenda.

Swordsmyth
06-16-2018, 10:36 PM
Henry probably annoys the hell out of the democrats . Endorsed by president bush , critical of trump craziness but votes with him 3/4's of the time . Homeland security committee , ranking member of border and maritime security . The only important democrat in texas .

He's not that good.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index

Dist.28: Henry Cuellar (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001063) - 25%

oyarde
06-16-2018, 10:44 PM
He's not that good.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index

Dist.28: Henry Cuellar (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001063) - 25%

No dem is that good and probably only about a half dozen Pubs are really . In recent years we have lost some of the better ones.

Swordsmyth
06-16-2018, 10:46 PM
No dem is that good and probably only about a half dozen Pubs are really . In recent years we have lost some of the better ones.

True words.:(

euphemia
06-17-2018, 12:53 PM
*Bump*

enhanced_deficit
06-17-2018, 03:29 PM
To be fair, conspiracy theories about media/left wing neocons' political slave mastesr etc giving cover to Obama because he was 'founding fathering ISIS'/droning kids of colored races on a wholesale basis have not been confirmed by MSM.

http://revcom.us/i/366/immigrationAP853755628301-600.jpg





https://evolutionandexpressionsofracismfall2014.files.word press.com/2014/12/o-deportation-protest-facebook.jpg

Ender
06-17-2018, 05:21 PM
No dem is that good and probably only about a half dozen Pubs are really . In recent years we have lost some of the better ones.

The 2-party system is a sham.

There's no difference between the Left & Right- just sputter different buzz words to keep constituents happy.

Swordsmyth
06-17-2018, 05:26 PM
The 2-party system is a sham.

There's no difference between the Left & Right- just sputter different buzz words to keep constituents happy.

Bunk, the left is far worse.

check out this: https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index

Ender
06-17-2018, 05:45 PM
Bunk, the left is far worse.

check out this: https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index

Bunk- they're both the same.


If one were to compare the US political system to a dystopian society divided into distinct factions based on how many wars they have started, an interesting outcome rebuking conventional perceptions would have been observed.

It is not about the strong on defense, hawkish Republicans juxtaposed with peace-loving dovish Democrats anymore. Looking back at the past 118 years, there have been some 'divergents' — warmongering Democrats and amicable Republicans. However, more interestingly and surprising for the conventional-minded — the number of the XX century Democratic presidents who kept from starting wars is actually zero.

According to the research conducted by Sputnik, since the turn of the 20th century — out of 8 US presidents none have managed to stay away from initiating military aggression.

In turn, out of 12 Republican leaders, two — Warren Harding and Gerald Ford — have deviated from the generally accepted party reputation.

Since 1900, 35 conflicts have been launched by Republican administrations compared to 23 by Democrats, with 10 (out of 12) GOP presidents launching one or more conflicts, compared to 8 (out of 8) Democrats.

Values and Wars

Rooted in American conservatism, the US Republican party — commonly referred to as the GOP (abbreviation for Grand Old Party) — has always viewed strong national defense as one of its core principles.

Online users visiting the GOP website today are encouraged to choose principles that are most important to them. One of the options reads: "Military must be strong and prepared to defend our shores."

Given the party's solid emphasis on military strength and national security, it's not accidental the Republicans may be perceived as more eager to partake in military endeavors with the US acting as the world's policeman.

One of the recent examples would be the 2003 Iraq invasion under the administration of the Republican president George W. Bush. The conflict was deemed to be over in 2011 but its consequences are still far from settled.

What one wouldn't normally consider is that advocates of socio-economic equality and modern liberalism, aka the Democratic Party, would not produce a war-free president in over a hundred years.

"Democrats believe that cooperation is better than conflict," the party's online platform says.

However, contrary to the promoted tenet, the Democratic president Bill Clinton in 1999 committed US forces to the war in then Yugoslavia, which lasted a decade.

The bottom line is that the Democrats have been closely trailing the Republicans in warmongering stakes.

So who started them, and who ended them?

The Korean War began and was fought under a Democrat. It was ended by a Republican.

The Vietnam War began under one Democrat, escalated and spread beyond Vietnam under his Democratic successor, and then under a Republican. It was ended by another Republican.

The Persian Gulf War was entirely a Republican affair.

The Bosnian war and the bombing of Serbia were overseen by a Democrat.

The "war on terror" was started by a Republican who invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and has continued for nearly 8 more years under a Democrat.

A 'peacetime US president' is a rarity, especially — during the Cold War, when fear of the spread of communism in Latin America and not only — saw American commanders-in-chief commit US troops all over the world.

The end of the Cold War did not bring respite to US war mongering. The country has been at war almost continuously since then, and American forces are actively engaged not only in the highly visible conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen but also in Niger and Somalia as well as Jordan, Thailand and beyond.

Regardless of who sat in the White House there was hardly a presidential term in US history when the country was not at war.

It took a Republican Dwight Eisenhower to warn Americans of the corrupting power of the military-industrial complex. And it was a Democrat Bill Clinton who bombed Belgrade TV, designating journalists "legitimate targets".


https://sputniknews.com/us/201803271062904845-us-war-democrats-republicans/

Swordsmyth
06-17-2018, 06:12 PM
Bunk- they're both the same.


https://sputniknews.com/us/201803271062904845-us-war-democrats-republicans/

Naturally SPUTNIKnews doesn't pay any attention to the Demoncrats hard left turn to communism and social marxism or their recent turn to warmongering as bad or worse than Republicans, even when Demoncrats were more dovish it was only because they wanted to entrap the US and the rest of the world with globalism and create a world government.

Ender
06-17-2018, 07:22 PM
Naturally SPUTNIKnews doesn't pay any attention to the Demoncrats hard left turn to communism and social marxism or their recent turn to warmongering as bad or worse than Republicans, even when Demoncrats were more dovish it was only because they wanted to entrap the US and the rest of the world with globalism and create a world government.

And you do not pay attention to the Divide & Conquer ploy that is engulfing America but march right along with it.

We must stop this bickering "my sides good and your sides evil" nonsense & learn to stand together.

It ain't the immigrants, the left, the right, but EVERYONE letting themselves be sucked into The Matrix and believing they know what's really going on, when it ain't even close.

Swordsmyth
06-17-2018, 07:26 PM
And you do not pay attention to the Divide & Conquer ploy that is engulfing America but march right along with it.

We must stop this bickering "my sides good and your sides evil" nonsense & learn to stand together.

It ain't the immigrants, the left, the right, but EVERYONE letting themselves be sucked into The Matrix and believing they know what's really going on, when it ain't even close.

It makes a big difference how bad the people in government are if you care about what happens and how easy it will be to fix things.

Swampublicans are bad but Demoncrats are evil, stopping evil is more important than stopping bad.