Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

Media Telling Tales: Our Government Has NOT Lost Any Undocumented Immigrant Children [Video]

Thankfully, there are some people trying to get the media on the right path.

Published

on

There are a lot of misconceptions circulating in the media these days, particularly about what is transpiring along our Southern border.

Thankfully, there are some people trying to get the media on the right path. Senator James Lankford (R-OK) recently appeared on NBC with Chuck Todd, to set the record straight.

Specifically, he wanted America to know that our government had NOT lost any illegal immigrant children who had been detained along the border.

Trending: Huckabee Goes NUCLEAR After April Ryan Calls for Sarah Sanders’ Head to Be Lopped Off

Transcript from RCP:

Chuck Todd: Let me start with just a basic question. Have we misnamed this? Is this more of a refugee crisis than an immigration crisis? Considering this is a specific area — region of the world where this is emanating from?

Senator James Lankford: Yes, this has been a long-term issue. I’m not sure I’d call it a refugee crisis. Obviously, some would be able to target that, but it has been destabilizing for a long time.

This is something the Obama administration saw as well. We started three years ago investing about $650 million into El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala to help provide some economic activity for them. They helped provide some stabilizing force in their government, and to be able to provide them a reason to be able to stay.

I’ve been in the region multiple times to be able to oversee how that money is being spent. But this is a long-term issue. You go back to 2013 there were about 15,000 families that were coming illegally into the United States as a family unit. Now, we’re up to 89,000 families a year that are coming at the United States as a family unit.

Chuck Todd: Let’s go to some specifics here because we haven’t gotten a lot of answers from the Trump administration, maybe you have gotten some of these answers. Maybe they’re fulfilling their duty to at least let you know what’s going on in Congress.

Do you know how many of these kids that have been separated, how many of them are in shelters, how many of them are in detention facilities, and how many of them are already in foster care? Do you feel like we have a good idea of those three categories?

Senator James Lankford: We do. Let me clarify this. We know where every single child is. This is an issue that’s that’s gone out there somewhat in some of the other media that’s not been responsible with this, that with the assumption that the administration lost track of that.

So let me clarify a couple things. These are career professionals that work with HHS. And that work with DHS in Customs and Border Patrol and ICE.

These are not political appointees. These are career folks. They know where every child is to be able to connect them to their parent or their relative that came. Many of these children that came we don’t know if they’re with a parent or not, and so trying to be able to make sure that we’re connecting the dots on this.

As you know, of the 12,000 or so children that are either total, 10,000 of those are unaccompanied minors. They came with no parent at all. And then you’ve got another 2,000 that are out there that came with a family member of some type, they’re all in HHS custody, and they’re trying to be able to reconnect them now. But HHS often puts them in foster care across several states because they can’t handle the load on the Southern border.

Chuck Todd: To be clear though, while you said we know where every child is, that the government knows where every child is, the government, of the 2,300 that were separated from their parents, that the government has said, we don’t — the number might be higher. We don’t know. But of the 2,300 they’ve have confirmed, do we know where those parents are? That’s an unknown, correct? We don’t know where all the parents are.

LANKFORD: We do. No. No, that, that is — well, it’s a known of the adult they came with so the child and the adult that they came with, we don’t know if that is the parent. Often times that is a parent that is somewhere in the country, often times illegally as well.

They came with another relative and so trying to be able to connect the dots to see if they –we need to connect them with their parent that’s already here in the country, connect them with a parent that may be in custody, going through procedures, whatever that may be. But, yes, we do know how to be able to connect the people they came with as well.

Chuck Todd: And how does the reunification work? So, the child, you identify the parent, the child, then what happens? Is the parent brought to where the child is? Is the child brought to where the parent is? Are they both sent to a separate facility?

What can you tell us about that situation?

Senator James Lankford: Yes, it’s a mixture of all of those actually. We’re trying to be able to work through the process to connect with the adult. Several of the adults are given some kind of ankle monitoring system, ankle bracelet, so it monitors them until they get to what’s called a notice to appear hearing in the days ahead.

As you put in your lead-in, which was very well done, the lead-in gave the problem. The Flores Settlement from 1997 says that you can only hold that child for 20 days. It takes about 35 days to actually do a hearing. And so, what the court set up in 1997 was this conundrum. You either have to release them if they come as a family into the country and hope they show up, or you can’t keep them and actually go through a hearing on it.

Only two — to be very clear, only 2 percent of the family units that come to the United States illegally actually go through and actually have the notice to appear, finish up with the notice of removal, and actually leave the country. So, the family units that are coming here, 98 percent of them end up somewhere in the country, most of them illegally, because they never actually leave after they’re given the responsibility for an order of removal.

Chuck Todd: Your congressional fix here, let’s get into the Flores Amendment here and this 20-day conundrum, because the Trump administration’s asking for relief from the courts. They’re probably not going to get it, because the Obama administration asked for the very same relief, they didn’t get it either. You want to defund it.

How does — how is that going to make the matter easier to deal with? If you don’t fund the Flores settlement, essentially, not allow any congressional — money to go to it, how is that going to help the situation? I’m a bit confused.

Senator James Lankford: So let me give you three different options. One is to just say, we don’t fund it, to be able to do a pushback to the court, to say, we don’t, we don’t give the executive branch the ability to be able to operate this. We want to go back to the court and be able to resolve it.

The next tier of it is to be able to change the dates on it. To say it’s not 20 days, it’s maybe 60 days, where we can keep families together. That gives enough time to be able to actually get through a hearing, and so, we keep families together the entire time to be able to do that.

We’ve got to add additional judges, which we’ve asked for 225 additional judges across the country to be added for immigration. But ultimately, we’ve got to deal with Flores as a whole.

The lowest level, what I’m trying to find is what the lowest common denominator, that’s defunding it, so we can actually make sure we function together. The best thing that we can do is actually try to reform it, and so that we actually keep families together, keep them there long enough, that we can actually get through a proper hearing.

Chuck Todd: And are you in favor of using military bases to house these families? It appears that DHS has made a request to the Defense Department. Is that something you think is a good idea?

Senator James Lankford: I do think that’s a good idea, because there are locations for that. President Obama used military bases in 2014 for unaccompanied minors. Some of those were in my home state, in Oklahoma, which, by the way, members of Congress from my state tried to visit those facilities that are in my state, where President Obama was holding those unaccompanied minors. They were turned away at the door and told that they could not come in, the same thing that’s happening now.

So some people try to say, this is something new that the Trump administration is doing, blocking people out.

No, it’s the exact same policy that HHS had before. We made it an appointment. Then after we made it an appointment, we were allowed to be able to go in and to go through that process.

Chuck Todd: Should that be the process? Or should there be more transparency? Or do you feel as if the White House has been fully transparent with the American public about what they’re trying to do here?

Senator James Lankford: I don’t, actually. Now this has been one of the great frustrations. I think the White House has not been clear on how bad the Flores settlement is. They tried to say it and say it and say it.

The challenge is, you shouldn’t just allow anyone to be able to come in at any time, to be able to view a spot where there are children present. I think it’s entirely reasonable. This has been HHS’s policy for a long time to say, if you’re going to come into a location where there’s children, we need to know who you are, we need to know the background. We can’t just trust if you show up with an I.D., that that’s who that is. Make an appointment.

If you do that, you can get in to get a chance to see them, as a member of Congress, just like I did during the time when President Obama had those children here in Oklahoma at a military base as well.

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

Huckabee Goes NUCLEAR After April Ryan Calls for Sarah Sanders’ Head to Be Lopped Off

That escalated QUICKLY!

John Salvatore

Published

on

CNN’s April Ryan has been a Democrat Party activist since Donald Trump became president. Her outbursts during White House Press Conferences have become a thing of legend – right up there with fellow CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s. Now, tensions have escalated in a big way after Ryan called for Sarah Sanders’ head to be “lopped off.” This is considered journalism to many members of the media in 2019. Sarah’s dad, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, took umbrage with April’s words. Then, it became a Twitter war… Appearing Thursday on CNN’s Outfront, Ryan, who also serves as a political analyst for the network, claimed Sanders had no “credibility left” after special counsel Robert Mueller’s report was released. Ryan noted, “She outright lied, and the people, the American people, can’t trust her. They can’t trust what’s said from the president’s mouthpiece, spokesperson, from the people’s house.” She added, “When there is a lack of credibility there, you have to start and start lopping the heads off. It’s ‘Fire Me Thursday’ or ‘Fire Me Good Friday.’ She needs to go.” Enter Huckabee: So liberals—is this okay?Does CNN have the integrity to deal w/ this incitement to murder? CNN’s April Ryan Says Sarah Sanders’ Head Should Be “Lopped Off” https://twitter.com/GovMikeHuckabee/status/1119385684387803136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1119385684387803136&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fpolitics%2F2019%2F04%2F20%2Fapril-ryan-freaks-on-mike-huckabee-will-you-get-into-heaven-the-answer-is-no%2F Ryan threatened to sic her people on Huckabee… You sir need to sit down. You gave me a veiled threat not long ago. You call yourself a man of God? Boy bye! As your people come for me! My people see you and will do the same for you! https://twitter.com/AprilDRyan/status/1119390247765172224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1119390247765172224&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fpolitics%2F2019%2F04%2F20%2Fapril-ryan-freaks-on-mike-huckabee-will-you-get-into-heaven-the-answer-is-no%2F By the way you should be celebrating Good Friday or do you even remember Jesus anymore? He would not come down from the cross just to save himself! He decided to die… https://twitter.com/AprilDRyan/status/1119391320546496518?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1119391320546496518&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fpolitics%2F2019%2F04%2F20%2Fapril-ryan-freaks-on-mike-huckabee-will-you-get-into-heaven-the-answer-is-no%2F Huckabee then asked one more question… Will the ⁦@whca⁩ revoke April…

Continue Reading

News

PIGS ARE FLYING! CNN Savagely Tears Obama Apart After Revelations of Mueller Report

Even a broken clock…

John Salvatore

Published

on

Donald Trump was exonerated once and for all when Attorney General Bill Barr made it clear there was zero collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. Barack Obama, on the other hand, won’t come out completely unscathed. And this is coming from CNN – a vehement defender of 44 and his legacy. Check this out… From CNN: The partisan warfare over the Mueller report will rage, but one thing cannot be denied: Former President Barack Obama looks just plain bad. On his watch, the Russians meddled in our democracy while his administration did nothing about it. The Mueller report flatly states that Russia began interfering in American democracy in 2014. Over the next couple of years, the effort blossomed into a robust attempt to interfere in our 2016 presidential election. The Obama administration knew this was going on and yet did nothing. In 2016, Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice told her staff to “stand down” and “knock it off” as they drew up plans to “strike back” against the Russians, according to an account from Michael Isikoff and David Corn in their book “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump”. Why did Obama go soft on Russia? My opinion is that it was because he was singularly focused on the nuclear deal with Iran. Obama wanted Putin in the deal, and to stand up to him on election interference would have, in Obama’s estimation, upset that negotiation. This turned out to be a disastrous policy decision. While speaking with White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, CNN’s Jake Tapper literally said his network made no errors when it came to reporting on alleged Russia collusion. That’s like Stacey Abrams saying she is the rightfully elected governor of Georgia. It’s…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend