Trump Raises Tariffs on All Mexican Goods

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

And that takes jobs out of Mexico, that's the whole point of this. He wants to hurt Mexico if they aren't willing to help with border protection. 

Killing jobs in Mexico will help reduce pressure for them to move north..... how?

37 minutes ago, dfelt said:

End result is the Tariffs are the wrong approach I believe.

What is your proposed idea to fix the illegal immigration situation? 

Personally, I don't have one.. Something needs to be done but I don't exactly have a good idea on how to fix it. 

18 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Yet it does hurt the Americans in their pocket book.

The gov is another mess all together and I just do not see this changing anything versus getting an agreement to send advisors to work with their military on the southern border.

We have tried the Bully with a big stick approach before and look what it got us in Panama. A General becomes dictator and biggest drug lord that then has to be removed by us after we put him in there.

End result is the Tariffs are the wrong approach I believe.

What hurts American pocket books is FREE TRADE, or rather the tariff free imports from countries which may or may not allow tariff free access to their markets. That bleeds American Industry, American Jobs and American Wealth to other countries. A 25% tariff on Mexican and Chinese imports will not make everything 25% more expensive, it'll at most make Mexican and Chinese imports 25% more expensive. In reality it'll be less than 25% part of the tariffs will be absorbed by Mexican and Chinese exporters because they have to compete in the market with other goods which are not subjected to the 25% tariff. In addition, this WILL also be partially offset by increased US production and more US jobs which means more US wages and more money to spend by American workers and American companies. It WILL also be partially offset by increased imports from other trade partners not being targeted. Regardless, even a 25% increase in all consumer good prices does not make things crazy expensive; the de-industrialization of America is Crazy expensive (to the future of this nation).

As far as Panama is concerned, we should NEVER have turned over sovereignty of the Canal and the Canal Zone to the Panamanians. The USA built the Canal, the USA owned the Canal and to give it up was a Jimmy carter folly, just like giving up ICANN to a supranational body was an Obama regime folly.

I'll be looking forward to increased tariffs and the re-vitalization of US Manufacturing. It is about time the USA totally abandon the stupidity of Free Trade and adopt the proven stratagem of Mercantilism. I'll also be looking forward to the demise of Globalism as countries -- not just the USA -- adopt Nationalism and back away from the globalist order.

6 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Killing jobs in Mexico will help reduce pressure for them to move north..... how?

It hurts the government who's capitalizing on the income from the businesses producing products.

I already stated it is not about the individuals themselves trying to move north. 

7 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

It hurts the government who's capitalizing on the income from the businesses producing products.

I already stated it is not about the individuals themselves trying to move north. 

my point has been missed in there somewhere....  

increasing joblessness is going to cause more Mexicans to try and jump the border.  It's not Mexicans that are causing the bulk of the immigration issue right now. its from countries further south than that.

This tariff is like shooting yourself in the foot because your neighbor won't stop the guy two houses over from beating his wife.

23 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

What is your proposed idea to fix the illegal immigration situation? 

Personally, I don't have one.. Something needs to be done but I don't exactly have a good idea on how to fix it. 

Actually it is very simple...

(1) Deploy the US military for border defense. Increase the Combat Engineers headcount by 10x and task them to construct border fortifications. Lay a few mine fields, a few moats, lines of spikes and a scattering of booby traps. Turn the US-Mexican Border into the 38th Parallel. Anyone that doesn't come across border and custom check points literally risks life and limb, and if caught MUST be held indefinitely in CONCENTRATION CAMPS until deported. This WILL cut off the flow.

(2) Create a total lack of opportunities and a climate of fear for in-country illegal aliens. Raid work places, universal immigration status inquiry during all law enforcement encounters. Draconian fines and jail time for employers hiring illegals and landlords renting to illegals. Ban school and university enrollment of illegal aliens. Ban bank accounts and property ownership by illegal aliens. Ban ID and Driver licenses for illegal aliens. Cut all all Health and Medical assistance to illegal aliens. This will eliminate the motivation.

(3) Eliminate all hope of reprieve or legalization for Illegal Aliens. If a foreign national enters the USA illegally or overstays his/her visa by more than a year, he is banned from entry into the USA for 10 years and is forever banned from acquiring US employment Visas, permanent residency or Citizenship. End Birthright Citizenship for Illegal Aliens-- a person born in the USA to both parents who are foreigners illegally present in the USA is NOT a citizen of the USA. This will end all speculation or hope.

Once we have done ALL OF THE ABOVE, we can have a conversation about what we should do about the ILLEGAL ALIENS currently in the USA. One possible compromise is a one time amnesty for previous immigration violations -- any illegal alien in the USA who comes forward and register will be able to LEAVE the USA and apply to enter legally without pass transgressions counting against them and a quota of agricultural or unskilled labor Visas will be added which they can apply for in addition to existing categories. Anyone who had been brought to the USA as young children may have the option to stay as foreign students and apply for residency like other foreign workers and students based on merit and employment.

@Drew Dowdell  Agreed to disagree then.

I see it as a way to strong arm their government to give us a hand on the boarder. Or this is the idea. 

4 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

@Drew Dowdell  Agreed to disagree then.

I see it as a way to strong arm their government to give us a hand on the boarder. Or this is the idea. 

In the past, a country will DECLARE WAR on a neighboring state which permits, aids and abets a FOREIGN INVASION by allowing such a force to transit its territory and stage incursions from their side of the border.

3 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

Actually it is very simple...

(1) Deploy the US military for border defense. Increase the Combat Engineers headcount by 10x and task them to construct border fortifications. Lay a few mine fields, a few moats, lines of spikes and a scattering of booby traps. Turn the US-Mexican Border into the 38th Parallel. Anyone that doesn't come across border and custom check points literally risks life and limb, and if caught MUST be held indefinitely in CONCENTRATION CAMPS until deported. This WILL cut off the flow.

(2) Create a total lack of opportunities and a climate of fear for in-country illegal aliens. Raid work places, universal immigration status inquiry during all law enforcement encounters. Draconian fines and jail time for employers hiring illegals and landlords renting to illegals. Ban school and university enrollment of illegal aliens. Ban bank accounts and property ownership by illegal aliens. Ban ID and Driver licenses for illegal aliens. Cut all all Health and Medical assistance to illegal aliens. This will eliminate the motivation.

(3) Eliminate all hope of reprieve or legalization for Illegal Aliens. If a foreign national enters the USA illegally or overstays his/her visa by more than a year, he is banned from entry into the USA for 10 years and is forever banned from acquiring US employment Visas, permanent residency or Citizenship. End Birthright Citizenship for Illegal Aliens-- a person born in the USA to both parents who are foreigners illegally present in the USA is NOT a citizen of the USA. This will end all speculation or hope.

Once we have done ALL OF THE ABOVE, we can have a conversation about what we should do about the ILLEGAL ALIENS currently in the USA. One possible compromise is a one time amnesty for previous immigration violations -- any illegal alien in the USA who comes forward and register will be able to LEAVE the USA and apply to enter legally without pass transgressions counting against them and a quota of agricultural or unskilled labor Visas will be added which they can apply for in addition to existing categories. Anyone who had been brought to the USA as young children may have the option to stay as foreign students and apply for residency like other foreign workers and students based on merit and employment.

1. Is illegal and unconstitutional, also breaks international law. 
2. Papiere bitte. Also likely at least partially unconstitutional. 
3. Unconstitutional. 

All of the above ignores what is actually happening at the southern border, violates Geneva conventions, the US constitution, several international laws, and many U.S. laws..

9 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

@Drew Dowdell  Agreed to disagree then.

I see it as a way to strong arm their government to give us a hand on the boarder. Or this is the idea. 

It's also highly likely to backfire. 

4 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

1. Is illegal and unconstitutional, also breaks international law. 
2. Papiere bitte. Also likely at least partially unconstitutional. 
3. Unconstitutional. 

All of the above ignores what is actually happening at the southern border, violates Geneva conventions, the US constitution, several international laws, and many U.S. laws..

It's also highly likely to backfire. 

All three are 100% unconstitutional and to even suggest such things is agreeing to becoming a police state under military rule. Baffling how that simple concept escapes the extremist mindset. 

11 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

1. Is illegal and unconstitutional, also breaks international law. 
2. Papiere bitte. Also likely at least partially unconstitutional. 
3. Unconstitutional. 

All of the above ignores what is actually happening at the southern border, violates Geneva conventions, the US constitution, several international laws, and many U.S. laws..

LOL...

(1) Why do we even have a military if it cannot defend the borders of the country? And, which international treaty to which the USA is part of prohibits the construction of border defenses?

(2) And, which international treaty or part of the US constitution requires that we provide FOREIGNERS with education, employment or shetler them from inquiry into their legal presence in our country?

(3) That is for the SCOTUS to decide, not you are I. I take the position that the off-springs of FOREIGN INVADERS incurring and occupying US territory in violation of US laws are not "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore not citizens.

None of my propositions are extreme or unreasonable. In fact, that is what most countries do to keep their countries secure and to control immigration. What would be extreme would be to send troops door to door to root out illegal aliens, summarily execute them and make lampshades out of their skin -- you know, things the NAZIs did?

Again @dwightlooi, all are against several international laws all run affront of the US constitution. Maybe your K-12 education didn’t cover those basic facts but they are in fact, facts. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Regarding the idiotic use of land mines (and I honestly can’t believe that this even has to be explained)  

https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/landmines/

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/03/united-states-landmine-policy-questions-and-answers

Just now, dwightlooi said:

LOL...

(1) Why do we even have a military if it cannot defend the borders of the country? And, which international treaty to which the USA is part of prohibits the construction of border defenses?

(2) And, which international treaty or part of the US constitution requires that we provide FOREIGNERS with education, employment or shetler them from inquiry into their legal presence in our country?

(3) That is for the SCOTUS to decide, not you are I. I take the position that the off-springs of FOREIGN INVADERS incurring and occupying US territory in violation of US laws are not "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States" and thereof not citizens.

None of my propositions are extreme or unreasonable. In fact, that is what most countries do to keep their countries secure and to control immigration. What would be extreme would be to send troops door to door to root out illegal aliens, summarily execute them and make lampshades out of their skin -- you know, things the NAZIs did?

1. The Military is not allow to be used for policing matters. It's called Posse Comitatus Act and has been around since 1878
2. None, but that wasn't what you we suggesting.  You were saying that foreign nationals can't have a bank account or hold property here in the US or rent an apartment here in the US.  That is, for many obvious reasons, not tenable.  Also, anyone on US soil, regardless of citizenship status, is entitled to the protections of the constitution... which means due process.  It is not up to a bank to decide the immigration status of a person. That's a job for a court.  Furthermore, a person's "legality" can change, so how is a bank to know when a status changes one way or another?
3. Birthright citizenship is in the constitution/bill of rights.  It's already been decided. Nothing for SCOTUS to do. 

You're the one who proposed concentration camps. We've already got those, and people are already dying in them. 

16 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

It's also highly likely to backfire. 

It looks like we shall find out. 

As far as employers of illegals go, the solution is far simpler. E-Verify. Make it federal law that all employers use this. No stupid raids necessary. 

Furthermore, the people who are coming here currently are requesting asylum. There are rules and regulations regarding how we have to handle them.

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

It looks like we shall find out. 

To our own detriment. 

8 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

None of my propositions are extreme or unreasonable. In fact, that is what most countries do to keep their countries secure and to control immigration.

Land mines and concentration camps are not unreasonable?  It's not what most countries do at all.... well, maybe DPRK. But that's just the one. 

10 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

To our own detriment. 

Again, we shall find out. 

So far everything was supposed to go to sht 2+ years ago as soon as he went into office, then every couple of months we expect the market to fall out because something he does yet we continue to do just fine.

Maybe he isn't screwing everything up ??‍♂️

12 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Land mines and concentration camps are not unreasonable? 

Just a tad extreme... 

6 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Again, we shall find out. 

So far everything was supposed to go to sht 2+ years ago as soon as he went into office, then every couple of months we expect the market to fall out because something he does yet we continue to do just fine.

Maybe he isn't screwing everything up ??‍♂️

Just a tad extreme... 

Tell that to Dwight above. 

And while the market hasn’t taken a nosedive, it has effectively remained flat for the last year and a half. Not one trade deal has been ratified, no N. Korea deal (despite his promises that there was one), still no infrastructure deal (even though there have been several bills put up by democrats), more arms sold to our “friends” Saudi Arabia, no Iran deal with the threat of war (that’s what he gets for being Jon Bolton), etc. He is lucky the economy is holding up right now because everything else has been a $h! show. 

If the real issue is illegal migrants, enforcing E-Verify will go a long way into sending them back south of the border.  So why won't the president enforce E-Verify?  Simple: because a lot of businesses rely on illegal migrants to do the jobs Americans will not do at the wages provided.  Example: Mar-A-Lago.

Everything is going to shit... just taking longer to get there.  Plus he's doing stuff that is unnecessarily evil. 

At least we haven't gotten to land mining our own citizens yet though.... I mean, clinton totally would have done that. ?

4 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Tell that to Dwight above. 

Don't tell me what to do!!!

3 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Plus he's doing stuff that is unnecessarily evil. 

What is he doing/has done that is "evil"? 

That's a pretty strong word to use. 

30 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

1. The Military is not allow to be used for policing matters. It's called Posse Comitatus Act and has been around since 1878
2. None, but that wasn't what you we suggesting.  You were saying that foreign nationals can't have a bank account or hold property here in the US or rent an apartment here in the US.  That is, for many obvious reasons, not tenable.  Also, anyone on US soil, regardless of citizenship status, is entitled to the protections of the constitution... which means due process.  It is not up to a bank to decide the immigration status of a person. That's a job for a court.  Furthermore, a person's "legality" can change, so how is a bank to know when a status changes one way or another?
3. Birthright citizenship is in the constitution/bill of rights.  It's already been decided. Nothing for SCOTUS to do. 

You're the one who proposed concentration camps. We've already got those, and people are already dying in them. 

WRONG.

(1) The Military is prohibited from being deployed to for implementing domestic against the American Populace. Defending the Border against FOREIGN INVADERS is neither domestic policy nor against the AMERICAN populace.

(2) Due process is established by LAW and REGULATIONS. There is no due process that congress cannot eliminate and no due process they cannot add. The USA can and should pass laws and regulations that states very simply: "Employment, asset rental and transfer of property within the USA requires that the transferee(s) demonstrate legal presence within the USA or physical presence outside the USA. Facilitating asset acquisition or employment without such proof is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding $10,000 or a prison term no exceeding 6 months or both."  In otherwords, if you want to take title to a house, get hired for a job or acquire property in the USA you must show a valid VISA, a permanent resident card, US Passport or ID establishing citizenship such as a Birth Certificate or Real ID. If you are executing a transaction while NOT physically in the USA, you must be able to demonstrate that you are outside the USA. Congress can ALSO pass a law stating "The granting of refugee status shall be the exclusive purvey of the State Department and not subject to judicial review as it is a tool of foreign policy and not a legal matter." Very simple really.

(3) Actually, no. First of all, SCOTUS has NOT ruled that ILLEGAL ALIENS and FOREIGN INVADERS operating within US territory are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA. They clearly are not subjecting themselves to US laws and while we may be trying to subject them to such, their physical presence means that we have failed to do so. Secondly, SCOTUS can and do reverse their previous rulings hence SCOTUS can ALWAYS do something about it.

15 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

WRONG.

(1) The Military is prohibited from being deployed to for implementing domestic against the American Populace. Defending the Border against FOREIGN INVADERS is neither domestic policy nor against the AMERICAN populace.

(2) Due process is established by LAW and REGULATIONS. There is no due process that congress cannot eliminate and no due process they cannot add. The USA can and should pass laws and regulations that states very simply: "Employment, asset rental and transfer of property within the USA requires that the transferee(s) demonstrate legal presence within the USA or physical presence outside the USA. Facilitating asset acquisition or employment without such proof is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding $10,000 or a prison term no exceeding 6 months or both."  In otherwords, if you want to take title to a house, get hired for a job or acquire property in the USA you must show a valid VISA, a permanent resident card, US Passport or ID establishing citizenship such as a Birth Certificate or Real ID. If you are executing a transaction while NOT physically in the USA, you must be able to demonstrate that you are outside the USA. Congress can ALSO pass a law stating "The granting of refugee status shall be the exclusive purvey of the State Department and not subject to judicial review as it is a tool of foreign policy and not a legal matter." Very simple really.

(3) Actually, no. First of all, SCOTUS has NOT ruled that ILLEGAL ALIENS and FOREIGN INVADERS operating within US territory are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA. They clearly are not subjecting themselves to US laws and while we may be trying to subject them to such, their physical presence means that we have failed to do so. Secondly, SCOTUS can and do reverse their previous rulings hence SCOTUS can ALWAYS do something about it.

 

It’s amazing how you keep repeating the same thing with different words yet the result of all three points remain the same. The constitution and federal and international laws prohibit everything you have mentioned. It’s just that simple. Your changing of the words does not change these facts. 

Just now, surreal1272 said:

It’s amazing how you keep repeating the same thing with different words yet the result of all three points remain the same. The constitution and federal and international laws prohibit everything you have mentioned. It’s just that simple. Your changing of the words does not change these facts. 

Just because YOU say so doesn't make it so. I have very clearly explained why they do not. You on the otherhand have offered no argument other than your insistence.

1. The people at the border are seeking asylum. The Geneva conventions and other international law dictates that we must treat those people in a certain manner.... blowing them up is certainly not one of the options.  This also addresses your last lines of number 2. 

2. Due Process is part of the bill of rights. Sorry, not sorry. 

3. The whole reason we have Gitmo as a detention center is that if the prisoners were brought to the US mainland, they got certain constitutional protections.  

9 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

What is he doing/has done that is "evil"? 

That's a pretty strong word to use. 

Allowing doctors to refuse to treat Trans patients... no other group is subject to this right of refusal.
Banning of transgender people in the military.... they've been serving openly since the Obama administration with no issues. Why ban them now other than to be evil to a group of people you don't like? Don't give me the "medical costs" argument... the military spends more on Viagra than they do on general medical care for Trans members.
Changed the terms of student loan forgiveness applications so that now 99% of all applications are denied. This is supposed to go to firefighters, police, ems, teachers and other people who provide public service. Not only that, the Trump admin is also trying to say that the loan companies should be protected from lawsuits for deceptive practices surrounding the program. 

Locked kids in cages.
Locked sick kids in cages and denied them medical care resulting in their deaths
Locked kids in cages while their parents got deported with no known way of reuniting the families
"Lost" over 1,000 kids.
Running concentration camps.
Arresting people who offer water to people who might be illegal. 

1 minute ago, dwightlooi said:

Just because YOU say so doesn't make it so. I have very clearly explained why they do not. You on the otherhand have offered no argument other than your insistence.

5th and 14th amendment.  I don't need to go further.  Done. 

4 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

Just because YOU say so doesn't make it so. I have very clearly explained why they do not. You on the otherhand have offered no argument other than your insistence.

Why should we believe anything you say? What is your proof for your statements?    Your comments appear to be right-wing propaganda. 

15 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

Just because YOU say so doesn't make it so. I have very clearly explained why they do not. You on the otherhand have offered no argument other than your insistence.

That goes both ways. Just because YOU say it doesn’t make it so and I got news for you on this. The facts, the law, and the constitution are not on your side here. Go ahead and send the military to shoot unarmed “foreign invaders” (they are not, no matter how many times you spit that BS) and lay out some land mines. See how that works out. (That was full on sarcasm btw)

It has been very clearly laid out by others and myself why your suggestions are utter BS. You are not as educated as you think you are and your last few posts have proven that hand over fist. 

11 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Why should we believe anything you say? What is your proof for your statements?  

We shouldn’t and he doesn’t. His words are almost straight lifted from far right wing extremist websites and their supported propaganda. 

15 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

1. The people at the border are seeking asylum. The Geneva conventions and other international law dictates that we must treat those people in a certain manner.... blowing them up is certainly not one of the options.  This also addresses your last lines of number 2. 

2. Due Process is part of the bill of rights. Sorry, not sorry. 

3. The whole reason we have Gitmo as a detention center is that if the prisoners were brought to the US mainland, they got certain constitutional protections.  

Allowing doctors to refuse to treat Trans patients... no other group is subject to this right of refusal.
Banning of transgender people in the military.... they've been serving openly since the Obama administration with no issues. Why ban them now other than to be evil to a group of people you don't like? Don't give me the "medical costs" argument... the military spends more on Viagra than they do on general medical care for Trans members.
Changed the terms of student loan forgiveness applications so that now 99% of all applications are denied. This is supposed to go to firefighters, police, ems, teachers and other people who provide public service. Not only that, the Trump admin is also trying to say that the loan companies should be protected from lawsuits for deceptive practices surrounding the program. 

Locked kids in cages.
Locked sick kids in cages and denied them medical care resulting in their deaths
Locked kids in cages while their parents got deported with no known way of reuniting the families
"Lost" over 1,000 kids.
Running concentration camps.
Arresting people who offer water to people who might be illegal. 

5th and 14th amendment.  I don't need to go further.  Done. 

Like yesterday, I’d up vote this a thousand times but alas, I’m out lol. 

Im thinking this conversation has probably run its course but that’s just my opinion. Back to some pool therapy for me. Peace. 

I agree, I think it's about done. 

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

1. The people at the border are seeking asylum. The Geneva conventions and other international law dictates that we must treat those people in a certain manner.... blowing them up is certainly not one of the options.  This also addresses your last lines of number 2. 

2. Due Process is part of the bill of rights. Sorry, not sorry. 

3. The whole reason we have Gitmo as a detention center is that if the prisoners were brought to the US mainland, they got certain constitutional protections.   

Allowing doctors to refuse to treat Trans patients... no other group is subject to this right of refusal.
Banning of transgender people in the military.... they've been serving openly since the Obama administration with no issues. Why ban them now other than to be evil to a group of people you don't like? Don't give me the "medical costs" argument... the military spends more on Viagra than they do on general medical care for Trans members.
Changed the terms of student loan forgiveness applications so that now 99% of all applications are denied. This is supposed to go to firefighters, police, ems, teachers and other people who provide public service. Not only that, the Trump admin is also trying to say that the loan companies should be protected from lawsuits for deceptive practices surrounding the program. 

Locked kids in cages.
Locked sick kids in cages and denied them medical care resulting in their deaths
Locked kids in cages while their parents got deported with no known way of reuniting the families
"Lost" over 1,000 kids.
Running concentration camps.
Arresting people who offer water to people who might be illegal. 

(1) Actually, the USA is NOT party to all of the Geneva Conventions. More specifically, the USA is NOT a signatory to:-

Protocol I (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts

Protocol II (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts

The USA is also NOT a party to the Ottawa Treaty prohibiting landmines and cluster munitions, either.

Don't believe me? Look it up! In any case, even if the USA is there is no stopping the USA from withdrawing from treaties that is no longer in the national interest of the USA. Nobody has to be blown up; they do not have to cross the border. It is static defense; very different from having A10s cluster bomb the Caravans (for instance). There will be clear signs saying "Minefield AHEAD". We have as much right to mine our border as Korea has to mine theirs with North Korea. It is called National Defense.

(2) Due process is what laws and regulations define them to be. It is perfectly constitutional for congress to pass a law saying that the USA will grant asylum ONLY to compromised US Spies and defectors from enemy regimes we are trying to undermine. And, that the due process is that they get to speak to a State Department Representative who will determine whether the applicant is a Spy or qualifying defector. If he is not, the due process is that he be deported to his country, the country he entered the USA from or to different country (who will accept him) within 30 days.

(3) Detaining Kids is the RIGHT THING TO DO. Firstly, being of a certain age does not entitle a foreigner to enter or stay in the USA. Secondly, if you cannot ascertain the identity of the kid or whoever "claims" to be their parents, it is wrong and dangerous to release them to the custody or proximity of potential strangers -- who can be human traffickers. Thirdly IT IS standard policy and the proper practice for the Obama, Bush, Clinton, Papa Bush and Reagan administrations.

You're in the wrong country in the wrong era.