A Reminder of Hillary Clinton's Stance on Central American Unaccompanied Minors; An Annoying But Unsurprising Response

by

10 comments
Back when Hillary Clinton was the U.S. Secretary of State. - COURTESY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
  • Courtesy of the U.S. Department of Defense
  • Back when Hillary Clinton was the U.S. Secretary of State.


Apparently, I am in a Hillary Clinton kind of mood today. But it's not all good.

After it was made official that Clinton is running for president, someone on Facebook reminded me of the insensitive comments she made last year on unaccompanied minors from Central America.

I just have a general issue with the one-dimensional "solution," if you can call it that, of "just send them all back," as Clinton said in a June 2014 interview with CNN.

I'll start with this: It's confusing that in many things, like establishing Walmart, Starbucks, the United Fruit Company and other corporations in Guatemala—and funding the overthrow of past presidents (such as Jacobo Árbenz, one of the best presidents my country has ever had, who was ousted in 1954 because he wanted nothing to do with the United Fruit Company)—some U.S. politicians don't have a problem with interfering in Central American business.

But when it comes to interfering in the form of offering positive, valuable, long-term solutions to disturbing issues (such as tens of thousands of children fleeing from the region), a lot of U.S. leaders don't want anything to do with Central America, aside from the old chant of "send them back."


It's a bipartisan collaboration!

The Huffington Post posted a recap of that interview. Her response on the influx of Central American minors wasn't surprising. The Obama administration has also failed to provide any thoughtful, human solution. The "let's send them back and by some miraculous event they will understand to never come back to the United States" is not how things work.

For as long as there continues to be gang violence and poverty corroding Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras (where most of these kids come from), there is going to be an influx of people escaping and heading North—that plus the fake tales that they will get some sort of asylum once on U.S. soil; it's all a very shitty recipe for an even shittier outcome. A lot of them see coming here as their one and only option, and overlook any type of explanation that tells them A. it is a dangerous and expensive trek and B. things here aren't easy for immigrants south of the border anymore.

Here's a section of the Clinton write up:

"They should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, because there are concerns about whether all of them should be sent back," the potential 2016 presidential candidate said in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour. "But I think all of them who can be should be reunited with their families."

Clinton's answer mirrored the Obama administration's tough position on how to deal with unaccompanied minors, who are entering the country through the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas at rates some have called a "humanitarian crisis." Those minors are put into deportation proceedings by the Department of Homeland Security, but then are transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services. That department looks for family members in the United States who can care for the children, although that does not mean they won't be deported later.
It's concerning that neither side of the political spectrum cares about getting past the "deportation is the only solution" route and explore the reasons these kids are pushed out of their native countries. 

I hope Clinton's views have changed a little...maybe?

I'm eager to hear what the immigration insight will be like for her this time around.


Comments (10)

Showing 1-10 of 10

Add a comment
 

Add a comment