Separating immigrant families and imprisoning children

[lilpixieofterror]

While we're at it, let's pretend that drug runners and coyotes would never, ever, take unrelated children along as cover.

If a few children need to be sold into sex slavery to bring down Trump, so be it.

[oxmixmudd]

While we're at it, let's pretend that drug runners and coyotes would never, ever, take unrelated children along as cover.

This is a flaw in the 'you must reunite by X date'. But it would seem to me IF they had kept proper records, they would be able to show credible evidence that the kids not 'reunited' where not 'reunited' because the people that brought them here were not their parent. Heck, why not just ask the kids? Where these people your parents? And I do also disagree with some on the lib side who are up in arms about DNA testing. Given the amount of trafficking, it is absolutely necessary there be a high standard of proof that the people ferrying the kids are in fact their parents.


Jim

[One Bad Pig]

This is a flaw in the 'you must reunite by X date'.

Yep.

But it would seem to me IF they had kept proper records, they would be able to show credible evidence that the kids not 'reunited' where not 'reunited' because the people that brought them here were not their parent.

Agreed. Tough to pin this on Trump, though; way below his paygrade. Bureaucracies in general aren't necessarily good at keeping proper records.

Heck, why not just ask the kids? Where these people your parents?

The kids could be pressured to lie.

And I do also disagree with some on the lib side who are up in arms about DNA testing. Given the amount of trafficking, it is absolutely necessary there be a high standard of proof that the people ferrying the kids are in fact their parents.


Jim

Agreed.

[Roy]

Given the amount of trafficking, it is absolutely necessary there be a high standard of proof that the people ferrying the kids are in fact their parents.

How much trafficking is there? How many of the 3000 children reported to have been separated from their 'parents' were not separated from their actual parents?

[JimL]

How much trafficking is there? How many of the 3000 children reported to have been separated from their 'parents' were not separated from their actual parents?

Most likely zero. Its a talking point for the administration in defense of their policies, but I've yet to see anyone come up with one actual case.

[oxmixmudd]

How much trafficking is there? How many of the 3000 children reported to have been separated from their 'parents' were not separated from their actual parents?

There is enough it can't be taken for granted these are parents. I would not presume to know the best way to figure it out. It's just that I wouldn't rule out the use of DNA if the test does not take a lot of time (relative to typical time to figure it out other ways) and is relatively inexpensive (i.e. not many hundreds of dollars - in this day and age it really should be relatively cheap).

The Trump admin is not excused by this I don't believe, but it is an element that could in some cases provide a legitimate reason to be delayed. From the stats I saw, most of the unreunited kids had some sort of exception going on. A few looked legit:

Source: Time magazine

The U.S. officials said 46 of the children were not eligible to be reunited with their parents; a dozen parents had already been deported and were being contacted by the administration. Nine were in custody of the U.S. Marshals Service for other offenses. One adult’s location was unknown, they said.

Of the deported parents, officials said they had chosen to leave their children behind. One deported father, however, told the Los Angeles Times earlier this week that he didn’t realize what he was doing when he signed the paperwork to leave his child behind. It wasn’t clear if he was one of the dozen; no names have been made public.

In 22 other cases, adults posed safety concerns, they said. Officials said 11 adults had serious criminal histories including child cruelty, murder or human smuggling. Seven were not determined to be a parent, one had a false birth certificate, one had allegedly abused the child. Another planned to house the child with an adult charged with sexually abusing a child.

© Copyright Original Source

As usual, its complicated. But they (the DT administration) still screwed up. The bit with not making sure the parents understood they were signing paperwork to leave the kids behind is especially egregious.

Jim

[Charles]

Note, that says "YOU" not "your government".

You wrote that as a reply when confronted with:

"Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" (Matthew 25:40, 45)

What do you mean to imply by your response? Would Jesus not care about the consequences for "the least of these" if only you make sure that the government and not you yourself is responsible for their suffering and you "only" voted for them? Or how exactly are we to understand your reply?

[JimL]

You wrote that as a reply when confronted with:



What do you mean to imply by your response? Would Jesus not care about the consequences for "the least of these" if only you make sure that the government and not you yourself is responsible for their suffering and you "only" voted for them? Or how exactly are we to understand your reply?

OBP et al don't seem to realize that they, the governed, are synonomous with the government in so far as they are responsible for electing those who represent them. Government of, by and for the people.

[Cow Poke]

"Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" (Matthew 25:40, 45)

So, wait... now you're anti-abortion?

First, it is out of character for the Left to neglect the weak and helpless. The traditional mark of the Left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak, and the poor. The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even more in need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient or the boat people on the high seas. The basic instinct of the Left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves -- and that instinct is absolutely sound. It is what keeps the human proposition going.

[One Bad Pig]

OBP et al don't seem to realize that they, the governed, are synonomous with the government in so far as they are responsible for electing those who represent them. Government of, by and for the people.

Well, I helped elect Larry Hogan, who I didn't think would win. I certainly didn't help elect Trump, as my state went rather solidly for Hillary.

[One Bad Pig]

You wrote that as a reply when confronted with:

What do you mean to imply by your response? Would Jesus not care about the consequences for "the least of these" if only you make sure that the government and not you yourself is responsible for their suffering and you "only" voted for them? Or how exactly are we to understand your reply?

I don't think that government - especially the federal government - should generally be in the business of charity. 1) They're horribly inefficient with it. 2) It gives people a convenient excuse for not assisting others themselves.

[Starlight]

I don't think that government - especially the federal government - should generally be in the business of charity.

So what do you imagine happening to people in poor areas where there aren't enough well-funded charities to support them? Do you imagine these people simply being left to die?

In my mind the inherent problems with charities are:
1. They tend to be local, and so some areas (usually richer ones) are over-served by charities while other areas (usually poorer ones) are under-served.
2. They vary incredibly in competence and efficiency from utter wastes of money to highly efficient and effective services. There is no real standardization or ensuring they meet minimum competence requirements.
3. They simply do not receive anywhere close to enough funding, by an order of magnitude, to deal with social issues on a national scale.

That is why we absolutely need the national government to address those issues, by, in reverse order, levying compulsory taxes to gain sufficient funding, having national regulations and standards monitored and enforced nationwide to ensure a certain level of competence, and a centralized system that ensures all needy areas are served and that the poor areas aren't been left out.

If you look at the world, a basic difference between 1st world and 3rd world countries is that in 1st world countries the government taxes and spends a decent chunk of GDP on social services, and in the 3rd world countries it doesn't. Looking at the data, 1st world spending on such things has generally increased as a proportion of GDP over the last century. Today the countries that are happiest and most successful often tax and spend almost 50% of their GDP on social services (e.g. Denmark). If you can name even a single successful country that isn't a basket case that relies on private charities rather than government spending for its social services, I would be surprised. In short, your idea of private charities doing everything is just bonkers, and doesn't match to any observed evidence.

1) They're horribly inefficient with it.

I don't believe that. Insofar as there are sometimes problems, there are often plenty of problems in private charities too.

2) It gives people a convenient excuse for not assisting others themselves.

It works the other way round. I hear lots of people say "I would rather give to charity than pay taxes!". The number of people I've ever heard say "I don't feel a need to give to charity, because I pay taxes" in my life could be counted on the fingers of one hand.

[JimL]

I don't think that government - especially the federal government - should generally be in the business of charity. 1) They're horribly inefficient with it. 2) It gives people a convenient excuse for not assisting others themselves.

Typical conservative excuse for maintaining their support for selfish immoral government.

[Sparko]

Well thought out op-eds from creditable sources have a place on TWeb



Nonsense it's Trump's own doing. He aggressively made hard-line immigration policy synonymous with himself, but with the resultant uproar over the separation of children from parents he is now attempting to distance himself from the policy he himself implemented with much fanfare.

You and the left's pretending to care about the children while crying about the possibility of SCOTUS preventing the ability of mothers to kill their own babies makes your protestations meaningless. And the law has been in effect since before Obama actually. Congress has the power to change it. Yet they refuse to do so.

[Charles]

You and the left's pretending to care about the children while crying about the possibility of SCOTUS preventing the ability of mothers to kill their own babies makes your protestations meaningless. And the law has been in effect since before Obama actually. Congress has the power to change it. Yet they refuse to do so.

So if others did something you morally disagree with then you are of the hook and don't have to reflect on what you support and the consequences it has for other human beings? Or did I misunderstand you?