Now on Drudge: “They Can’t Stay” . . . with a wink (with updates)

The link goes to a Washington Times article, with very little in the way of content.  Here’s the key (and first) sentence:

President Obama told his Mexican counterpart in a phone call Thursday that immigrants crossing into the U.S. illegally won’t qualify for legalized status or deferred deportation, including children.

 At this point, I don’t know what to make of all of this.  The administration repeatedly says that minors and families are fleeing due to poverty and violence — but I don’t think anyone believes this is the motivating factor responsible for the sudden surge.  Even the administration acknowledges that these would-be immigrants believe that there is a new administration policy, leading to families and children willingly surrendering themselves, but the line from the White House is “they’re wrong; they won’t be allowed to stay.”

Is Drudge right to pair this statement with a wink?  Is Obama playing a game here — the same sort of deliberate half-truth that masks a lie by omission, the same game that Bill Clinton played with “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”?

This is what we know:

The administration has repeatedly said that they will not deport anyone without a criminal record.  Because there aren’t sufficient detention facilities, newly-arriving families with children (as opposed to adults without children, who are, I believe, actually detained) are being given “Notices To Appear” and I haven’t seen any reporting on whether these families are actually “appearing” or not — in other words, do they, or did they, genuinely believe that they would be given legal authorization to stay, and are they complying with the government processes, even if it means eventual deportation?  Or is the opportunity to live under-the-radar without fear of deportation, sending their children to American schools, finding an immigrant community and help in securing a fake ID and a job, and settling in illegally, good enough?  Because if the latter is the case, then all the rhetoric about “only deporting criminals” and “they just want a better life” is certainly giving them grounds to believe they can stay put.

And the children?  Do the parents who send them genuinely believe the narrow fact that the “DACA” executive-order amnesty applies to them?  Or do they hear the administration, and the experiences of others, and the repeated statement that “they’re only children,” and conclude that, one way or the other, when it comes down to it, the children have a good enough shot at being allowed to stay to attempt it?

And when Obama repeats the line that “they aren’t eligible for DACA” rather than a broader “these children and families will be deported immediately” is he deliberately avoiding broader statements so as to play the “I didn’t lie” game later?

According to the CIA World Factbook, there are approximately 10,000,000 children under the age of 14 in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.  That’s a lot of prospective new arrivals.

UPDATE:  Just a couple more thoughts:  if we take the administration at its word, that it really does want the immigrant flow to end, then there’s only one way to accomplish this:  for large numbers of Guatemalans, Hondurans, and El Salvadorans to in fact be deported, and be deported quickly, returning home with tales of woe from their failed attempt to immigrate.  All the nice words from the White House won’t make a different — only actions.

Further update:  Here’s an article from azcentral.com which acknowledges that, as its title states, there are “few immediate consequences for child immigrants,” that, despite the administration’s words to the contrary, border-crossers from Central America will be able to stay for what amounts to an indefinite period of time, and can just cease showing up at deportation hearings if they appear not to be going their way.  When individuals make the decision to cross into the United States, which will factor more in their decision — statements from government officials, or reports from others who have arrived and are doing just fine?

Another article, which I can’t find any longer, featured interviews with prospective immigrants, all of whom said they were motivated by poverty and gangs rather than believing in some new openness to immigrants in the U.S.   But, at the same time, none of them appeared to consider the fact that they, in fact, did not have the legal right to immigrate as any factor to consider.