RUSH: Let’s move on to the situation involving the illegal alien unaccompanied children. “United Nations officials are pushing for many of the Central Americans fleeing to the US to be treated as refugees displaced by armed conflict, a designation meant to increase pressure on the United States to accept tens of thousands of people currently ineligible for asylum.”
I tell you, these people on the left, are they good or are they good? The one thing they can do is coordinate a message. So here you have the purposeful, intentful importation of 300,000 illegals just since April, and of that 300,000, about 60,000 are unaccompanied children. And right on schedule, here comes the UN demanding that they be called refugees and that they be allowed to stay, and that they not be called illegal immigrants because they are refugees fleeing war-torn, poverty stricken nations. And of course it is our responsibility to open up and accept them. It just falls right in line with Obama’s message.
Now, yesterday at the White House press briefing — this is an example here of media bias. ABC News White House correspondent Jonathan Karl actually asked the press secretary a tough question, and he got an answer, and it was a story, it was an incident totally unfavorable to the White House. And ABC News spiked it. Nobody saw it other than the people who watched the press briefing live.
Here’s what happened. During yesterday afternoon’s White House press briefing, Josh Earnest was forced by Jon Karl of ABC to defend White House claims that they are deporting tens of thousands of these kids at the border. Obama’s saying it, Josh Earnest is saying it. But they’re not. They’re not deporting — the max may be 1%, and that’s just enough so that Obama or somebody can stand up and say, “Oh, yeah, we’re deporting ’em.” It’s the smallest amount of deportations they can get away with. So Jonathan Karl stood up. Well, I don’t know if he stood up. But he asked the question. He cited an article in the Los Angeles Times, which explained that under the Obama Regime, contrary to what the White House is saying, deportations of miners has actually decreased.
Jonathan Karl told Josh Earnest that, according to the article in the LA Times, deportation of minors is one-fifth of what it had been. And then he asked the press secretary, “Doesn?’t that show that what you are saying is disinformation?” So basically the ABC News White House correspondent, in so many words, said to the White House press secretary, “Doesn’t that mean you’re lying to us? Doesn’t that mean you’re spreading false information? You’re out there talking about how the deportation numbers are up, that your deporting a bunch of these kids and you’re really not.” And Josh Earnest answered by blaming Bush. He said the problem is traced back to the previous president and so forth.
Now, this all began when Jon Karl asked Josh Earnest “if he had an ‘an answer for me yet as to how many of those that are released with the promise of returning for a court date are actually showing up for their hearing?’ Earnest told him he did not yet have the numbers for him which agitated the ABC reporter. Karl asked Earnest if he could give him any idea of what the number was, was it ‘closer to 10 percent than 100 percent?’ Earnest didn?’t give in. Instead he argued that the number would not be accurate in light of the recent surge at the border. That?’s when Karl moved to the LA Times article and asked Earnest if that paper’s findings proves that the White House is giving ‘disinformation.’ Earnest argued to the contrary by shifting blame on the law signed by the ‘previous president.'”
I’ve got to get into this. I’ve gotta stipulate something here. I was wrong about something last week. I, too, fell for this. What Josh Earnest is talking about here, blaming Bush, is this supposed loophole in the law from 2002 that allows children who arrive here unaccompanied from nations not contiguous with the US to stay indefinitely. And it just so happens that that’s where these kids are coming from. They’re not coming from Mexico. They’re coming through Mexico, but they’re coming from nations further south, which are not contiguous, meaning, for those in Rio Linda, don’t share a border. And there is a 2002 law that says — and so Earnest says (imitating Earnest), “It’s not our fault, it’s not our fault. Bush did this. It’s Bush’s fault. That’s where the loophole is.” Which, of course, is a cop-out because it doesn’t matter. We still have a crisis.
We have a crisis on the border. We’ve got an influx that we can’t handle. It’s roiling the country. You ever wonder why the president doesn’t even dare go to one of his own refugee camps? Anyway, it turns out that what is being used in this case to not deport these children is not the 2002 law. It is a previous law that was signed by Bill Clinton. The law being used here by the Regime saying there nothing we can do. We have to keep these kids here. It actually predates that loophole of 2002 that was found in a Bush administration law, and I’ve got it in the Stack somewhere, I’ll find it after the break. Anyway, that’s what Earnest is talking about when he blames Bush. “Our hands are tied. We’ve got this loophole in the law.”
Anyway, Jon Karl at ABC News yesterday, during the White House press briefing, demonstrated that the White House is spreading disinformation. His report did not air on ABC’s World News Tonight. That is the kind of thing that happened to Sharyl Attkisson at CBS. That’s the kind of thing that ended up frustrating her and ended up causing her to look elsewhere. Her reports were on Benghazi, and CBS was spiking all of her reports, or the vast majority of them on Benghazi. Now, this is another clear example of an executive decision back at the ABC newsroom. Karl got the goods. He got a story and it ended up not airing on the primary ABC newscast of the day, ABC’s World News Tonight.
Let me take a time-out, find that Clinton-era law that I meant to cite this yesterday and I didn’t get to it.
RUSH: Okay, the law that the White House is citing — and I erroneously cited it. I can’t remember where I first saw this, but it was a credible place. The law that allows the unaccompanied children to stay originally was said to be a 2002 immigration law signed into law by Bush, which stipulates that children from nations not contiguous with the US could not be sent back it where they came back.
Now, I don’t know the history of that. I don’t know the origins. I don’t know why it was put in. I don’t know how we prove where they’re from. I mean, when these kids show up, how do we know that they’re from where they say they’re from? (interruption) Yeah, the original purpose was designed to prevent drug cartels from exploiting them by preventing them from being used to go back and forth to bring drugs in and so forth.
That was the original purpose. It had nothing to do with amnesty. It had nothing to do with immigration, actually. The Bush law was an effort to tamp down drug cartels’ usage of these kids. Now they’re showing up. Now they’re flying in. They arrived in San Diego on a jet! They’re being bussed back up to Murrieta, California.
You know, the Regime is really in their face in Murrieta, California. It’s a real standoff. It’s a replay of the federal government suing the State of Arizona, in its own way. But I have come to learn that what is actually being used to allow these unaccompanied children to stay once they arrive is a Bill Clinton law that’s titled The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000.
It was intended to offer protection to illegal aliens in the US who’ve been the victims of human trafficking. The bill has been renewed four times since 2000, and that is the legislation actually being used, actually being cited as the authority for allowing these unaccompanied children to stay. In 2008, Joe Biden sponsored a renewal that was rammed through Congress during December. It was actually Christmas of 2008.
Only two Republican senators voted against it. Bush signed it on December 28th of 2008. Now, the bill in 2008 contained the language that “requires alien minors from noncontiguous countries hearings and appeals if they claim to be the victims of human sex trafficking.” And you can bet, folks, that nobody except the pro-amnesty authors of the bill knew what the consequences of that would be.
Now, the 2013 renewal, which was also championed by Biden, “put in similar language to also require that women who claimed to be victims of domestic violence also get hearings and appeals,” which means they won’t be deported. So it is not the Bush law from 2002 that is being used here. It is a Clinton law from 2000 which has been renewed four times since 2000. It’s called the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000.
That’s actually what is being cited officially.
In the media they’re still saying it’s the Bush 2002 law, but it isn’t.