It's been reported everywhere—The New York Times, The Washington Post
, Fox News—that the William Wilberforce Sex Trafficking Act requires that any non-Mexican children who show up on our border be admitted and given a hearing. (New York Times, July 7, 2014: "Immigrant Surge Rooted in Law to Curb Child Trafficking."
The problem, we've been told, is that a loophole in the sex trafficking law mandates these hearings—or "removal proceedings."
But there is no such loophole.
The fact that people on both sides of the aisle
are telling the same lie about this law is worrisome. Are Republicans being tricked into thinking we need an emergency bill, so that, two weeks later, we'll see them emerging from a conference, saying:We fixed the loophole! We didn't get everything we wanted, but you can hear about that later.
No, tell me now.Well, remember amnesty? It's kind of in this bill. But the headline is: We closed the loophole! So no more worries about that loophole. But yeah, amnesty passed.
Why else would everyone be carrying on about a non-existent loophole? I know they're mistaken because I read the law.
The Wilberforce law states
, in relevant part:
"Any unaccompanied alien child sought to be removed by the Department of Homeland Security, except for an unaccompanied alien child from a contiguous country (i.e. Mexico—or Canada, so as not to sound discriminatory) ... shall be—placed in removal proceedings ... eligible for relief ... at no cost to the child and provided access to counsel."
Obviously, that's the whole ball of wax. Once a kid is in, given La Raza attorneys and a hearing date, he's never going home. No immigration judge is going to listen to a lawyer-manufactured sob story and say, "No, I'm sorry, that didn't touch my heart. You have to go back to Huehuetenango
But the law's definition of "unaccompanied alien child" limits the hearings to kids who have no relatives in the United States. If your relatives live here, the law assumes you're not being sex-trafficked—you're trying to join them.
Here's the definition—note subsection (C):
"(g) Definitions"(2) the term 'unaccompanied alien child' means a child who—(A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;(B) has not attained 18 years of age; and(C) with respect to whom—(i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or (ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody."[Edmphasis added]
The law is not—as George Will suggested on "Fox News Sunday
"—a general humanitarian mandate allowing all 2 billion poor children of the world to show up at our border and be told, "Welcome to America!" It's a law to combat sex trafficking.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein
and Vice President Joe Biden
wrote the law—and Feinstein isn't stupid
. She's well aware of illegal immigration. That's why the law specifically excludes two huge categories of illegal aliens from getting hearings: (1) Mexicans; and (2) children who have relatives in the U.S.
Those cases look more like illegal immigration than sex trafficking. (Didn't anyone wonder why Mexican kids are excluded?)
Mexicans make up the lion's share of illegal immigrants in the U.S., and children with relatives already living in the U.S. are probably just trying to rejoin family—not trying to escape a fiendish kidnapper about to sell them into sex slavery.
According to last Friday's New York Times,
almost 90 percent of the 53,000 illegal alien kids given refugee status since October have already been transferred to parents or relatives living in the U.S. By the law's clear terms, those 47,000 kids should have been summarily turned away at the border—just as Mexican children are.
(Democrats wailing about a "humanitarian" crisis—after calculating the precise number of voters they need—evidently don't care about the Mexican kids.)No law needs to be fixed.
The only thing that needs to be fixed is the president.
Obama has gone mad and is defying the law in order to "fundamentally transform America"—as he pledged
to do during the 2008 campaign
—into Latin America. (Luckily for George Will
, he won't be around by the time Latin America gets to his neighborhood
Any Republicans pushing for an immigration bill
to seal an imaginary loophole aren't fighting Obama; they're helping him.Constitutionally
, the remedy
for a president defying the law so he can assist an alien invasion is impeachment. But the media won't let us impeach Obama—and Republicans
don't have the votes, anyway
. The only way for Americans to fight back is to put large Republican majorities in the House and Senate this November.Ann Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is the author of TEN New York Times bestsellers—collect them here.Her most recent book is Never Trust a Liberal Over Three-Especially a Republican.