2008 trafficking law does NOT apply to ALL non-Mexican children

The biggest obstacle holding back any border bill in Congress — whether it originated in the House or the Senate — is the 2008 William Wilberforce Sex Trafficking Act. According to lawmakers and the media alike, this act mandates that ALL unaccompanied illegal immigrant children from non-contiguous countries (i.e., countries other than Mexico and Canada) be admitted to the country and given an immigration hearing.

Republicans want to amend the law so it’s easier to deport unaccompanied minors from Central America. Democrats, on the other hand, staunchly refuse to touch the law at all. Thanks to this act, border reform has reached a veritable impasse.

Or has it? As Ann Coulter points out, the law does not mandate hearings for EVERY unaccompanied illegal minor from non-contiguous countries; it only mandates hearings for those unaccompanied illegal minors who don’t already have relatives living in the United States:

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.”

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?)

The New York Times recently reported that almost 90 percent of the illegal children granted refugee status since October have been placed with parents or relatives living in the U.S. That’s a high percentage, but it also means that — according to the law’s clear terms — more than 10 percent of them should have been turned away at the border. Considering the volume of unaccompanied minors attempting to enter the country, 10 percent equals thousands upon thousands of children.

So the question is: Why aren’t Obama and Congress following the law? Because, as Coulter writes, Obama wants to “fundamentally transform America” into Latin America. Therefore, we must do everything we can to fight and oppose Obama; because Republicans won’t give us the votes to impeach him, the best way for Americans to fight back is to elect an opposition Congress this November.