Texans propose letting Border Patrol agents turn kids back
WASHINGTON — Two Texas lawmakers announced legislation on Monday to speed removal of tens of thousands of Central American kids from the U.S.-Mexico border, as Washington searched for a solution to the growing crisis.
The bill by Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican, and Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Democrat, would allow Border Patrol agents to turn many of the kids around quickly at the border. Under current law, the youths stay here while awaiting an eventual hearing in the backlogged immigration court system, something that can keep them in this country for years.
Of more than 57,000 unaccompanied minors who've arrived at the border since October, only 1,254 had been returned home as of the end of June, according to a law enforcement official who spoke anonymously to discuss confidential data.
“Today's legislation strengthens current law protecting unaccompanied children and responds to the crisis,” Cuellar said in a statement.
The bill was announced as the White House is trying to get Congress to sign off on a $3.7 billion emergency spending request to deal with the situation at the border by adding more immigration judges and detention facilities, among other steps.
Show commenting policy
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.
- Gray wolf decision reversed
- Ghostly snailfish found at record depth
- FBI’s 2001 anthrax attack investigation questioned
- Conn. dentist’s license suspended over death
- Supreme Court won’t stop gay marriages in Florida
- Bush officials gave CIA wide latitude on interrogation tactics
- Traffic camera use upheld in Ohio
- End ‘mindless’ military spending caps, Aerospace Industries Association says
- Replacement part beamed up to space station
- Ohio judge frees 2 men in 1975 murder as then-teen witness recants
- House ethics panel defers campaign finance investigation of New York Rep. Grimm