The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: flowers on July 13, 2014, 02:51:00 pm
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/13/nebraska-governor-illinois-senator-say-white-house-secretly-sending-illegal/
Elected officials in two states far from the U.S.-Mexico border have claimed that the Obama administration has resettled hundreds of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children without adequate notice and has refused to detail the exact locations where the children are being kept.
Fox News has learned that 748 unaccompanied minors have been transferred from areas near the border to the Chicago area. Of the original group of 748 kids, 319 have been placed with family members or sponsors while they await an immigration hearing. The other 429 have been placed in facilities run by the Heartland Alliance, a nonprofit organization that receives grants from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., told Fox News Friday that he did not know the exact locations of the facilities where the children were being kept, and stated his belief that the White House did not want the children's living conditions to be made public.
-
Title:
[[ Nebraska gov, Illinois senator say White House sending illegal immigrant children to their states without notice ]]
Well, governor, don't just complain about it, DO SOMETHING about it.
Tell the federals your state won't accept them.
And then back up that statement by sending state troopers to turn away the buses.
Don't just open your mouth -- DO SOMETHING about it.
-
Title:
[[ Nebraska gov, Illinois senator say White House sending illegal immigrant children to their states without notice ]]
Well, governor, don't just complain about it, DO SOMETHING about it.
Tell the federals your state won't accept them.
And then back up that statement by sending state troopers to turn away the buses.
Don't just open your mouth -- DO SOMETHING about it.
Now that might set up an interesting fed/State interplay/conflict: a State, for example, refusing to allow a federal agency bus from traveling that State's roadways to deposit its passengers at some non-federal area within that State. And I'm not being facetious here; this could be an interesting set-to.
-
Now that might set up an interesting fed/State interplay/conflict: a State, for example, refusing to allow a federal agency bus from traveling that State's roadways to deposit its passengers at some non-federal area within that State. And I'm not being facetious here; this could be an interesting set-to.
Can the states prevent federal buses from traveling interstates that cross their territory?
It'd be easy enough to say "Damn, some hopped out when we stopped for a comfort stop."