- Posted by Chucky Parts on 18th June 2018. Former First Lady Laura Bush spent years saying nothing. Eight long years of silence through one of the most corrupt administrations the United States of America has ever had the misfortune to go through. Then yet another year through an election where Laura was silent rather than speaking up about the character of the man that would be her husband’s predecessor.
Like her husband and her in-laws, Laura sat silently by while Barack Obama followed through on his promises to fundamentally change America into a country that many Americans no longer recognized. When Officer Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown in the line of duty as Brown fled the scene from a robbery attacking Wilson and riots ensued in Ferguson, Missouri over the false narrative of “Hands up, don’t shoot” Laura was silent. When the events in Ferguson spawned the Black Lives Matter movement spewing racial hatred from coast to coast, blocking highways, damaging property and businesses, and attacking police officers, Laura was silent.
She was silent about the deaths of four brave Americans k****d in Benghazi while the Obama regime peddled the fiction that a YouTube video caused these acts of violence. When Bill Clinton was repeatedly accused of sexual assault and even outright r**e against other women, Laura was silent. Not only was Laura silent, but she and her husband, the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush, actually embraced him as an adopted son of sorts. During the highly contentious 2016 presidential election as Hillary’s crimes were revealed in all their glory, rather than speak out against them, Laura chose to vote for Hillary, effectively endorsing the criminal actions.
Now Laura is choosing to speak. Now that America has at long last a president willing to follow through on securing American borders and actively working to fix America’s broken immigration policies, Laura has finally found her voice and is using it condemn these policies. Policies that many Americans overwhelmingly support. According to Numbers USA, the chart below reflects how midterm voters across the board would like to see a significant reduction in illegal aliens flooding America’s borders:
Meanwhile, Laura chose to pen an op-ed that appeared today in the Washington Post. In the article, Laura speaks of President Donald Trump’s zero-tolerance policy on illegal aliens calling it “cruel and immoral”.
Her op-ed states in part – “On Sunday, a day we as a nation set aside to honor fathers and the bonds of family, I was among the millions of Americans who watched images of children who have been torn from their parents. In the six weeks between April 19 and May 31, the Department of Homeland Security has sent nearly 2,000 children to mass detention centers or foster care. More than 100 of these children are younger than 4 years old. The reason for these separations is a zero-tolerance policy for their parents, who are accused of illegally crossing our borders.
I live in a border state. I appreciate the need to enforce and protect our international boundaries, but this zero-tolerance policy is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart.
Our government should not be in the business of warehousing children in converted box stores or making plans to place them in tent cities in the desert outside of El Paso. These images are eerily reminiscent of the Japanese American internment camps of World War II, now considered to have been one of the most shameful episodes in U.S. history. We also know that this treatment inflicts trauma; interned Japanese have been two times as likely to suffer cardiovascular disease or d*e prematurely than those who were not interned.”
I guess I missed the part where all of the sudden laws about illegal immigration no longer applied. Especially considering President Trump is simply obeying a law that has been in place in 2002 during her husband’s own administration in the DHS Security Act of 2002 as Paula Wood so eloquently reminds her via Twitter.
Was Laura out of the country when her husband’s own creation – the Department of Homeland Security was soundly criticized in a 2005 report by the House Appropriations Committee for separating illegal alien children from their parents? From the report – “even as young as nursing infants, are being separated from their parents and placed in shelters.”
And then from MigrationPolicy.org – “Operation Streamline, launched in 2005 by the George W. Bush administration in Texas’ Del Rio border sector, aimed to increase immigration prosecutions in response to an uptick in non-Mexican border crossers. DHS increasingly had to release these migrants from detention due to space limitations. Between 2003 and 2005, criminal prosecutions of first-time unauthorized crossers for illegal entry more than quadrupled, from 4,000 to 16,500. By 2010, they had reached 44,000, an 11-fold increase from 2003, while prosecutions for other immigration charges increased just 9 percent (excluding illegal re-entry, which tripled in that time). Previously, CBP had mainly referred for prosecution migrants who had prior criminal convictions or those suspected of smuggling.
Streamline continued through the Obama administration, and remains in place today. Criminal immigration prosecutions reached a peak of 97,000 in FY 2013, although first-time crossers were not prioritized.”
The New Yorker reported in 2005 of her husband’s policies on illegal immigration – “The detention of immigrants is the fastest-growing form of incarceration in this country, and, with the support of the Bush Administration, it is becoming a lucrative business.”
By the end of 2006, there were some 14,000 people in U.S. government custody for immigration law violations in a patchwork of detention arrangements including rental space rented out by hundreds of local and state jails, as well as seven freestanding facilities run by private contractors. Year over year statistics shows that this number increased by 79% from 2005 to 2006. This increase was directly attributed to the actions of Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, which runs the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division.
In 2005, Chertoff announced the end of “catch-and-release” -the long-standing practice of allowing immigrants caught without legal documents to remain free inside the country while they waited for an appearance in court. Since illegal aliens were not monitored in any way, the rate of no-shows for court was predictably high. With no punitive measures in place to enforce compliance, there was no incentive to comply. Predictably the New Yorker reports of how this practice increased anti-immigration sentiments.
As with the implementation of this policy, when immigration detentions began to rise and even climb post-9/11 the private prison for profit system eagerly offered up their beds, revitalizing the industry.
It seems Laura’s hypocrisy knows no bounds.
As MigrationPolicy.org reports regarding the challenges of increased family migration –
“As families have begun to make up a larger share of unauthorized flows, the government has faced two barriers to ending “catch and release”: strict legal protections for child migrants and insufficient detention capacity. The 1997 Flores v. Reno court settlement, which remains in effect, requires the government to release children from immigration detention without unnecessary delay to, in order of preference, parents, other adult relatives, or licensed programs willing to accept custody. If children cannot be released, Flores requires the government to hold them in the “least restrictive” setting available. The 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) codified parts of the settlement into federal law.
In 2015, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee of the Central District Court in California ruled that the Flores requirement applies to both unaccompanied minors and children apprehended with their parents, meaning that all minors must be released from detention if possible. Gee also ordered DHS to release parents detained along with their children. An appeals court in 2016 affirmed that Flores applied to all children, but reversed the ruling that parents should be released as well.
Though myriad factors drive migration, many have suggested that the 2015 Gee decision contributed to a spike in apprehensions of people traveling in families, which jumped from 40,000 in FY 2015 to 78,000 in FY 2016—a 95 percent increase. The surge in family flows meant that there were not enough detention beds available to hold families even for the 20 days allowed under the court settlement, causing many to be released.
By referring parents for criminal prosecution—funneling them into the Justice Department’s correctional system, separate from ICE detention—the Trump administration may bypass the limitations of the family detention system, which currently has the capacity to hold just 2,700 people at a time.”