July 8th, 2014
07:21 PM ET
3 weeks ago

Coburn: Obama's border funding 'wrong approach,' offers first class seat home to every child

(CNN) – Sen. Tom Coburn said Tuesday he opposes President Barack Obama's request for $3.7 billion in emergency funding to address the influx of unaccompanied minors across the southwest border.

"That's $60,000 per child we will spend, in emergency money," the Oklahoma Republican said on CNN's "Crossfire."

"That shows how incompetent [the government] is."

Coburn said providing additional resources for detention spaces and immigration attorneys to the minors is the "wrong approach."

"We can put them all on a first class seat to their homes, that's $8 million,' he added.

Obama seeks emergency immigration funds, more authority

Instead, Coburn said Congress could in two weeks repeal the law that allows juveniles from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala to stay and apply for asylum instead of facing immediate deportation like Mexican citizens do.

To stem the tide of minors crossing the border, Coburn suggested, "the best signal to slow this down is send them home."

Coburn blamed the whole situation on a laxity of immigration enforcement by the Obama administration.

"You know what is in the craw of Americans? It is not immigration. They don't see our government enforcing our laws," Coburn said.

Sen. Ben Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland, pushed back on the idea that the immigrants were being given a free pass into the United States.

"They're not being given an opportunity to come to America," he said.

"They're desperate and they're families are making decisions. They're bad decisions. They shouldn't be sending their children here. It's extremely dangerous."

More from Crossfire: Could legalizing marijuana become 'tragedy'?

82 shot in Chicago? That's an outrage


Filed under: 2014 • Crossfire • Immigration • President Obama • Tom Coburn
soundoff (167 Responses)
  1. GOP = Greed Over People

    No one is yammerin' about this and did when the shrub did a "flyover" for two reasons.

    1. No one is drowning, under the shrub's plane, over 1100 people were dead or dying, literally.
    2. The 1100 were American citizens and the shrub was supposed to be helping them, not observing their deaths.

    July 9, 2014 03:25 pm at 3:25 pm |
  2. Rudy NYC

    Fair posted:

    Just what does that mean?
    ---
    What does "secure the border" mean? You go first.
    What metric do we use to determine when the border is "secure"?
    ---–
    Another classic Rudyism. Answer a question with a question. That way, he'll never be on the record for anything.
    =========================================================
    Why should I reply to tom's condescension? If he wants to know what is in the bill that Democrats passed he can read it online for himself. Wasn't it you who asked something about how condescending can I be? By your special request, I've been showing you. The funny part is that you guys always throw the first punch, and then play the victim/victor.

    July 9, 2014 03:30 pm at 3:30 pm |
  3. Boomer in Mo

    Drake, if we bring the troops home and put them on the border, how do they stop illegals from coming across the border? I suppose if they stood shoulder to shoulder and shot anything coming north toward the border that would solve the problem. Is that your proposal?

    July 9, 2014 03:31 pm at 3:31 pm |
  4. Rudy NYC

    smith

    @Rudy-Are you really now trying to say a fence and a wall are basically one the same? A fence can be gripped and has spaces for a good foothold. A wall is flat with nowhere to grip and no footholds. There is a huge difference between the two in relation to trying to breech. Its time to admit you were wrong about my comments instead trying spin your way out.
    ---------------------------------------
    Didn't post an admission, albeit a sarcastic one, to my "error" hours ago? Wall or fence, it makes no difference. They are both a FIXED BARRIER. The most pathetic part is that I was in no way attempting to quote you verbatim.

    If they cannot grip your wall, then they will simply use a ladder or some other means to go over it. In some places, usually the more urban areas, the existing fencing is more "wall like", and they have simply tunneled under it in the past. I'm still curious as to what exactly are National Guard troops going to be doing.

    July 9, 2014 03:59 pm at 3:59 pm |
  5. Rudy NYC

    GOP = Greed Over People

    No one is yammerin' about this and did when the shrub did a "flyover" for two reasons.

    1. No one is drowning, under the shrub's plane, over 1100 people were dead or dying, literally.
    2. The 1100 were American citizens and the shrub was supposed to be helping them, not observing their deaths.
    =============================================================================
    If Pres. Obama went to the border, then the right wing would twist the visit into him welcoming immigrants in the U.S.

    July 9, 2014 04:01 pm at 4:01 pm |
  6. Malory Archer

    Boomer in Mo
    Drake, if we bring the troops home and put them on the border, how do they stop illegals from coming across the border? I suppose if they stood shoulder to shoulder and shot anything coming north toward the border that would solve the problem. Is that your proposal?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Unless we're under violent attack from (think IEDs, RPGs, military tanks rolling across the border, armed foreign military engaging Americans in gun battles, etc.) it's illegal for our soldiers to "defend" us on American soil. Additionally, considering the psychological damage the troops have experienced over the last 12+ years,things would go horribly wrong very quickly with untold numbers of children being injured or worse. America would cease to be the world's beacon of democracy.

    July 9, 2014 04:02 pm at 4:02 pm |
  7. Anonymous

    @HenryMiller -"That's $60,000 per child..."

    Insanity! But, hell, it's just taxpayer money. Obama doesn't care how much of that he spends.
    _____________________________________________________
    Were you also upset about the millions wasted on the Tea Party government shutdown or how much taxpayer money Boehner plans on wasting on a frivoulous lawsuit against the President? Stop being a hypocrite!

    July 9, 2014 04:07 pm at 4:07 pm |
  8. GOP = Greed Over People

    "Secure the border"!

    Translation: Place a Navy Seal sharpshooter in a deer stand every 100 yards from TX to CA.

    Solves all the con problems, no more down trodden voting for Democrats, saves money, deer stands are cheaper to build than a fence, none of that pesky investigating as to why they fled their own country due to say, drug cartels or being a pawn in slave trading.

    And during hunting season the deer stands can be rented out, and increase revenue to apply to the deficit! Con nirvana!

    July 9, 2014 04:45 pm at 4:45 pm |
  9. fjb123

    I never thought I would agree with John McCain on anything but today I did.

    July 9, 2014 04:46 pm at 4:46 pm |
  10. smith

    @Rudy-Ladders?Lmao. They are going to be carrying ladders many miles to try and breech a manned wall? What are they now ninjas? You ask about the NG, do criminals commit crimes in front of the police? Their presence alone will help as well more eyes to spot attempts to breech the border. Tunnels, we have enough technology to detect tunnels. Im not saying a wall will stop every single attempt but it will stop 99 % of them.

    July 9, 2014 04:58 pm at 4:58 pm |
  11. Trooth

    "Drake, if we bring the troops home and put them on the border, how do they stop illegals from coming across the border? I suppose if they stood shoulder to shoulder and shot anything coming north toward the border that would solve the problem. Is that your proposal?"

    Do you honestly think that we can track and target Al Queda officers remotely, and kill them with a drone, but we can't see who is coming into the US border unless we have soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder?

    July 9, 2014 05:43 pm at 5:43 pm |
  12. Thomas

    If we thought there were WMD's in Mexico and Central America , we could invade . Then the children would be considered refugees and the GOP would welcome them with open arms .

    WMD's Vs Narco Terrorism ?

    Why dose 80% of the world want to migrate to Europe , Australia and the USA ?

    July 9, 2014 08:01 pm at 8:01 pm |
  13. Malory Archer

    Do you honestly think that we can track and target Al Queda officers remotely, and kill them with a drone, but we can't see who is coming into the US border unless we have soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder?

    ++++++++++++++++++

    Are you suggesting we should send killer drones after children???!!! My god – what is wrong with you? They aren't enemy combatants or terrorists so Americans can't do anything to them until they reach American soil, meaning sending drones to kill them before they get here isn't an option.

    July 9, 2014 08:29 pm at 8:29 pm |
  14. J Anthony

    There is a possibility,,, however slight,since most Americans would never go for it, that a North American Union may be contemplated, with the Canadian and Mexican borders being eliminated. The idea was discussed back in '05 with then- presidents of Mexico,,the U.S., and the PM of Canada, and of course the IMF/World Bank faction, who as usual have the most to gain from the endeavor (see European Union and South America)...unkkely, but it may come up.....

    July 9, 2014 09:23 pm at 9:23 pm |
  15. tom l

    Sniffit

    "What does "secure the border" mean? You go first."
    What metric do we use to determine when the border is "secure"?
    ===

    Ooooh oooooh, lemme answer for the Teatrolls:

    Secure border = no more brown people coming here.
    Metric = the brown people population has stopped outpacing the white people population in growth and the GOP/Teartolls are finally able to win a national election again....or, to put it in simpler terms..."I'll know it's secure once the number of brown people in town stops growing."
    =====

    Darn it. He's got me. This is really all about my fear of "brown people" – as Sniffit likes to refer to them. How did he do that? He was able to catch my total motivation as to why I would be opposed to hundreds of thousands of people entering our country illegally as a fear of "brown people" and that "demographic Armageddon" that is about to come our way as I have always demonstrated such strong ties to the repubs. He's amazing! He's incredible! It is all about race for me. If it was a bunch of Norwegians or Australians than I would definitely want them to come! So ridiculous and childish. As you like to say Sniffit, grow up. Have some substantial arguments. Otherwise, you just are another race baiter who happens to use a lot of big words.

    July 10, 2014 08:15 am at 8:15 am |
  16. tom l

    And you know what? There's another big distinction here. The "humanitarian crisis" involved in Katrina was the damage done to infrastructure, people's homes and livelihoods, the environment, etc., because of a natural disaster, and Bush needed to go there in person to reassure the people affected...the victims of the storm. The "humanitarian crisis" and its "victims" in this instance are these unaccompanied children, not the people complaining that Obama didn't come visit them to reassure them he'd be summarily kicking them out of the country and sending them home with nothing but a nametag stapled o their foreheads. They're not the victims or the ones suffering from a "humanitarian crisis" here, no matter how much of their selfish anti-immigrant vitriol you spout at me about it, and if you understand them to be, instead of these homeless parentless wandering children, then you've got your freekin priorities messed up.
    ==============
    Clearly, and this is just too obvious, you feel that these are second class people that don't require the same type of concern as them "regular murikans".

    July 10, 2014 08:17 am at 8:17 am |
  17. Rudy NYC

    smith

    @Rudy-Ladders?Lmao. They are going to be carrying ladders many miles to try and breech a manned wall? What are they now ninjas? You ask about the NG, do criminals commit crimes in front of the police? Their presence alone will help as well more eyes to spot attempts to breech the border. Tunnels, we have enough technology to detect tunnels. Im not saying a wall will stop every single attempt but it will stop 99 % of them.
    -------------------------
    Ah. Criminals do not commit crimes in front of police.
    Uh. How can they see your troops on the other side of your Wall?

    More seriously, though. National Guard troops would only be a temporary measure, a stopgap. I still don't understand what people trained for the acts of war can do during a humanitarian crisis involving mostly children. The Guard is typically used to isolate areas hit by disasters, not deal with people, much less kids, face to face. They say that the kids are simply walking up and surrendering. What are armed troops supposed to do? You need TRAINED AGENTS

    If not ladders, then some other means. People are resourceful. Nature always finds a way. If you want a perfect Wall, then I suggest you sleep on it. Dream on.

    July 10, 2014 08:39 am at 8:39 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7