Blaming the surge in unaccompanied Central American minors illegally entering the United States on a 2008 anti-trafficking law that gave such children additional protections, the Obama White House and Democrats misapply that law, ignore sex trafficking's distinction from human smuggling and deflect attention from administration failures.
A new Center for Immigration Studies ( cis.org) report points out that the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 applies to “unaccompanied alien children,” defined by federal law as younger than 18 and without parents or legal guardians in the U.S. But government data indicate most now arriving already have family here. And rather than being coerced, as trafficking victims are, they're brought willingly by paid smugglers — a distinct difference recognized by immigration officials.
The 2008 law's requirement of immigration hearings complicates response to the children now flooding in illegally. But that law also provides leeway for “exceptional circumstances.” If this crisis isn't “exceptional” enough to waive those hearings, what would be?
The administration could also pursue the smugglers, use “Expedited Removal” authority under a 1996 law to speed deportations and end “Temporary Protected Status” that has kept about 300,000 Central Americans in the U.S. since a 1998 hurricane and a 2001 earthquake. But what's needed most are truly secure borders — and making clear that would-be illegals won't be welcomed.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.