It might be good in some instances, but we can’t know, and I find it troubling, at best. This seems like it would be much too easy for the kids to be subject to some sort of exploitation. Do you really think that in the vast majority of cases you can be quite certain that the kids are in a safe environment? They are still in the country illegally, and won’t have proper papers when they get older.
Start drafting. Treason is defined in Art 3 Sec 3 of the US Constitution as consisting only in levying war against the United States, or giving enemies thereof aid and comfort, or adhering to them.
These terms have been defined by several court cases, so if your first thought was to speculate that perhaps Russia counts as an “enemy,” and “aid and comfort” covers any friendly thing being done, you should disregard that thought now.
An “enemy,” within the meaning of Art 3 Sec 3, is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war. Not Russia.
“Aid and comfort,” therefore, must be given to an enemy – to subjects of a foreign power in a state of open, declared hostility with the United States. See US v Greathouse et al, 2 Abb. U. S. 364 (1863).
Stop with the “high treason” nonsense, or adduce facts that show levying war against the United States, or aid to its enemies as defined by the law.
Or admit that you don’t care about the law; you’d prosecute people even if they did not violate the law, because you just hate them.
I think that on balance, here are the situations:
A) ORR keeps careful investigative track of the kids and the sponsor families (half the time it’s a parent, and most of the rest of the time some other close relative) to whom the child is released. And then ORR shares that information with ICE, run by an administration that wishes to deport the kids, and won’t mind investigating the rest of the family.
B) ORR does a background check on the sponsor, releases the child into custody, and does not keep track. While there are potential dangers, they are outweighed by the dangers of (A).
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see how this is a good thing. It would only be a good thing if their parents don’t care about them and the sponsors are all great folks (seems to me great caretakers wouldn’t allow themselves to be “lost” by the authorities).
I’m not ready to assume either of these is the case without evidence.
You are missing the Red parents who lost their children to “schools”. And those children lost their heritage (language, names, choice of hair style let alone family/cultural history).
That’s ok, we’re quite used to being ignored unless someone wants our land.
If ORR knows who is caring for the kid, then the kid isn’t “lost”. If the kid is “lost”, then ORR doesn’t have any idea where he or she is or who is caring for him/her.
As I understand the present discussion, the characterization of children in these circumstances as “lost,” arose from the testimony of Steven Wagner, acting assistant secretary of Administration for Children and Families for the Department of Health and Human Services, given to Congress last month. Mr. Wagner said:
This means that they made phone calls and got no answers to the question, either because the phone was not answered, it was disconnected, or the person refused or could not answer the question.
This does not mean they made a home visit or used any other method to ascertain the location of the children in question.
Once ORR has released the child to a sponsor, the family has no particular obligation to remain contactable. If I were to offer to sponsor my second cousin under these circumstances, I could move to Oklahoma next month and leave ORR with no way of contacting me, and I would not be violating any law in doing so.
My understanding is that there is also
(4) Adults who come to the border and (legally)make an asylum claim are being treated like like your point (2) with their children deliberately being removed from them.
In some cases, not sure whether in cases of (2) or (4), the parents are being deported without their children. And they aren’t given instructions of how to get their children back. It’s monstrous.
OK, so a parent is separated from their kid, and the kid is put with a host family, and then the ORR is no longer able to contact that family. Fast-forward a bit: The parent has done whatever is needed to get their refugee status approved, with all of the 'i’s dotted and all of the 't’s crossed, and they’re now in the country legally. Heck, maybe they even go through the naturalization process, and become a citizen. They want to be reunited with their child. How does that happen, and who do they call to make it happen? If there’s no one they can call for that, then I think it’s perfectly reasonable to describe the child as “lost”.
That, I had not heard, but if true, it’s also a bad thing. One might use stronger terms without fear of overstating the case.
I agree.
In the vast majority of cases, the host family is either a parent, or another close relative. Of the children released to sponsors, for FY2017, 49 percent to parents, 41 percent to close relatives, and 10 percent to other-than-close relatives or non-relatives.
Then shut up. According to you, saying something is morally wrong without having fully researched the facts is “virtue signaling”, and warrants being told to shut up.
Granted, that’s not what virtue signaling actually means, but I’m going by what you said.
Of all the people who should know how to say that, you should.
It’s Shut up BigTard. It’s a board meme.
We are so fortunate to have an avatar of civility, decorum and genial, good-natured warmth such as yourself.
Wait. Don Rickles is dead, right?
You meant to say “was”, there, not “is”. Because, you know, of the new Trump policy of separating them. Which is the topic of this thread, after all.
Here is a link describing asylum seekers who do not cross at ports of entry are treated as criminals. Further note that some border officials refuse to accept asylum seekers. This is a new policy that has just been put in place by Trump and Sessions and seeks to use the separation to punish families for seeking asylum.
Here is additional information on the lost children. This is an ongoing issue that is (apparently) getting worse. There has been minimal oversight of ICE for years.
The other issue is that HHS didn’t have capacity to deal with these children before and now the scope of separating families has expanded. HHS definitely can’t keep up. We are separating families that need stability.
There’s another longer topic that talks about Trump and Sessions treating gang members and victims of the gangs as the same.
They can work, and they’ve already shown the brains and initiative needed to get there. You won’t be supporting them: like every other person who’s willing and able, they will be doing their best to support the dead-wood part of their new society.
From what I understand, the problem is not simply (1) or (2), it’s that the government was already “losing” kids with the old policy. The 1.4k “missing” kids were all born of the old policy. Now, thanks to the new policy, the same department has to handle a lot more kids, and it’s far more disturbing when those kids get “lost”.
The system is not equipped to handle the policy humanely.
Take the following hypothetical: a family crosses the border looking for asylum. ICE, following the new Trump policy, separates the children from their parents, and ORR places them in temporary homes. Then, the asylum application is denied, and the parents are sent back to central America, but ORR can’t find the kids! The result of this is patently horrifying, and I hope you’d agree as someone who I know values “family values” and is quite religious.
Is the above hypothetical possible? Now, I’d like to hope that this is impossible with the new policy, but I have seen absolutely nothing to indicate that that’s the case, and it would be quite out of character for Trump or Sessions to care about the well-being of illegal immigrants, even if “well-being” in this case means “not being fucking monsters”. After all, they pardoned Joe Arpaio. I think it’s far more likely that this is going to happen on a far larger scale, and that things are going to go absolutely fucking haywire. Remember, they lost track of 1 in 5 children before this new policy made it likely for the number of children to increase drastically.
I’m less confident thatn you, I guess, of the agencies ability to determine who is and who is not a “close relative”.