Santa Clara County ready to help immigrant kids

Santa Clara County stands ready to help efforts to care for unaccompanied Central American children flooding to the U.S. border, some local officials and members of Congress said Wednesday.

U.S. Representatives Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose; Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto; and Mike Honda, D-San Jose, joined with San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, Santa Clara County Supervisors Dave Cortese and Cindy Chavez, and San Jose City Councilman Sam Liccardo in issuing a statement.

“Small children and refugees fleeing violence in their home countries require our support, not our acrimony. And where other communities may turn these needy children away, our community is ready and willing to be compassionate,” the officials said. “We urge communities in the Bay Area, throughout the State of California, and across the nation to join us to make good on America’s promise of fairness and due process.”

Cortese and Liccardo, incidentally, are rivals in November’s San Jose mayoral election.

Law requires that every unaccompanied child, as a part of a deportation proceeding, is entitled to an evaluation to ascertain whether they are victims of human trafficking, have been abandoned or are eligible for asylum because of persecution. If not eligible, they will be returned home. But until this examination is complete, these children will remain in the United States.

Josh Richman

Josh Richman covers state and national politics for the Bay Area News Group. A New York City native, he earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri and reported for the Express-Times of Easton, Pa. for five years before coming to the Oakland Tribune and ANG Newspapers in 1997. He is a frequent guest on KQED Channel 9’s “This Week in Northern California;” a proud father; an Eagle Scout; a somewhat skilled player of low-stakes poker; a rather good cook; a firm believer in the use of semicolons; and an unabashed political junkie who will never, EVER seek elected office.

  • Marga

    Good for Santa Clara. Alameda should be just as ready.

  • Willis James

    Just keep in mind that over 70% of the “children” are males between the ages of 15 and 17 years 11 months.

    BTW, KGO radio news just reported a survey taken of some 220 of the new arrivals, indicated that about 210 of them came at this time because they heard that the USA had changed their immigration laws for children. They keep using the word “permiso” for being allowed to stay. What we call temporary permission for processing, they view as “permiso”.. just about as good as legal entry.

    The idea that this all happened because of ‘sudden’ surge in crime and gangs in their home nations is just bogus.
    If anyone, children or otherwise, can come to the border and get to stay, be given a lawyer, and have us spend over $250 a day for care, hundreds of thousands more will come.

    BTW, who will those 16 and 17 year old young men be competing with for jobs in Alameda County. Tell me the job they will be doing and then tell me the same Alameda County young man won’t do the job.
    Be specific as to the job, and as to the profile of the young Alameda County young man who won’t do that job.

    The way this entire episode is being divided up between “progressive” and “right wing” is pathetic.

    Obviously the greatest driver for this sudden huge surge at the border is as a result of the message being sent by our policies.
    The word went out and people are heading North to get in under the wire before the law is revised.

    BTW, if I was in their shoes, and in their nations, I’d also be making a dash for the border. If I was already here illegally, I’d be sending money back home to send all my children in NOW.
    They are not fools, they see the opening and are acting rapidly.

    However with such a policy, the word will spread and anyone in the world will be coming to Mexico to make the crossing.
    A ten fold increase will happen without a dramatic change in policy.
    Each new child, say age 6 will cost California over $150,000 to send through school. Add in other costs and you are up to say, $200,000 each for child that age.
    Just how many do we, in Alameda Co., want to legally accept?

    After all the political slogans have died down, what can Alameda Co. afford that won’t take away from our own needy residents?
    Or own needy job seekers?
    Perhaps a article on that future impact will be forthcoming without all the political posturing we now see.

  • Elwood

    Round ’em up, load ’em up, fly ’em home!

    Adios muchachos!

  • Elwood
  • JohnW

    The link mentions several Democrats and one Republican (Eric Cantor) as being in favor of “amnesty” legislation. I’m pretty sure that none of the politicians mentioned has ever use the word “amnesty” to describe their ideas for immigration reform. Apparently anything short of rounding up and deporting 12 million people is regarded as “amnesty.”

  • Elwood

    Walks, duck, etc.

  • Willis James

    “officials estimated that the current cost of supporting one unaccompanied child is between $250 and $1,000 each day.”

    $1,000 a day for a child.

    Sadly we don’t see these figures in our local news sources, nor in the NY Times.
    Actually aside from MSNBC, I’ve only seen this revealed in the right of center media, yet the figure is accurate according to what I can read.

    With our present policy and crazy congress members such as Lofgren and Honda welcoming ever more “children”, you can expect hundreds of thousands more to follow.
    Sometimes some of us local Democrats have to speak out against insane “political correctness” that comes from our local legislators.

    BTW, don’t forget, that over 50% of the “children” are males between 15 and 17 years old. If you were not aware of it, that is legal working age in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, the nations they come from. They are not coming for further schooling, they plan to get jobs.
    Tell me about the jobs they will be doing. You know, the jobs that the 30% unemployed young men in East Oakland are unwilling to do.
    Please, as I always request, give me your profile of those young men in East Oakland who don’t want to work.
    Something no one dares ever answer.
    Or if these newly arriving “children” (young men) won’t be taking jobs, then tell me how much money you expect to spend, keeping them alive for the next few years until their immigration cases are heard.
    $250, per day….or $1,000 per day?

    What say ye Cong. Lofgren?