My point is that, if the kids hadn’t yet been to baggage claim at the point where they were detained, they were arguably still subject to the control of the airline when their status was transmuted from “accompanied minors” to “unaccompanied minors.”
“Trump transition adviser convicted on foreign-agent charges”
I’m getting worn out trying to keep track of all this. How are we not in the streets yet?
This presumes that they were subject to the control of the airline beforehand. I don’t read where that is the case. Once I leave the plane, I’m not subject to the control of the airline. I’ll be travelling with my children to Italy next month, and once I leave the plane in Rome, the airline has absolutely nothing to do with me or my children. If for some reason I am arrested at the Italian equivalent of CBP, I would expect them to hold my kids until they could determine what to do with them. Not turn them over to Lufthansa Airlines personnel.
Do your kids hold Italian citizenship?
And does the Italian equivalent of CBP have concentration camps being operated under their authority?
HOLY FUCKING SHIT the mother in Chicago got her kids back from the motherfucking airport already!
She did? Great!
Your tone suggests that this is a surprising development, though… 
Jamaican that up, surely? Well actually, no, as it turns out. Hilarious.
om mother fucking g! That’s amazing! It’s like the second coming it’s so surprising!
They might. I’m just guessing though.
Because people still have indoor plumbing and streaming video services.
In UK, you can represent any district willing to elect you, even if you have never actually set foot in it (at least, that has been the case, there may have been changes since my childhood). And, anyway, Boris is in fact from the Upper East Side of Manhattan.
Are we still pretending this hand signal is a coincidence?
Pretty much this.
We’re comfortable. When we’re not comfortable, and particularly when there are young, unemployed males between 18 and 30 who are worried about ever finding a mate, that’s when you’ll see people in the streets, and they’ll be doing and wearing more than just wearing pink knitted caps.
Who can forget the famous Jamaican band Bob Marley and the Whalers?
They must have been named after the Prince of Whales.
Speaking as a participant in the 2017 Women’s March on Washington, I wish you’d find a way of referencing this hypothetical future violent protest that doesn’t have overtones of patronizing and somewhat sexist contempt for peaceful protest conducted largely by women.
We were maybe a quarter of a million people marching in DC, and we were doing quite a bit more than “just wearing pink knitted caps”. We were carrying signs and chanting and singing and disrupting the hell out of the Trumpian fascist-wannabe narrative of adoring crowds gathering to cheer Dear Leader’s ascension to the throne.
The Women’s March was a key part of how the whole idea of anti-Trump resistance got started in the first place. And I suspect that its participants all did more in the way of direct public protest against the current administration than either you or the vast majority of those disgruntled young males you speak of ever have done or will do.
And they’re streaming FOX News!
Sorry, you’re a 100% right to call me out on that. I didn’t mean it the way it came across, but I can understand how it would be interpreted as sexist.
What I wanted to say was that when I think of activism, it was great that we had the women’s march and the other marches in between, but the marches that matter most are the ones that put pressure on the government to do something or not do something specific. As I see it - and yes, coming from an admittedly biased male perspective - is that the women’s march, as visually powerful as it was, didn’t really lead to any specific outcomes. In fact, much of what has occurred since that march has been incredibly destructive to women, and I’ve not seen a single damn protest since.
By contrast, look at what the Stoneman High School marchers did in the wake of the mass school shootings. They took action. They took to the airwaves. They were very clear, very specific about what they wanted. They had a goal. And while they didn’t really change much nationally, they did manage to get then-governor Rick Scott, a notorious right wing conservative, to capitulate and sign some pro-gun control legislation. They also put pressure on Trump to remove bump stocks in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, which he did.
One thing I will credit the women’s march for doing was making women more politically active and giving them a voice, which no doubt played an important role in helping Democrats retake the House in November of last year. So I won’t say that they didn’t have an impact; however, I think protests - the kinds that actually force government to change - have to have a clear purpose, a clear outcome in mind.
Note: I was actually also at one of the Women’s Marches myself, FWIW. It was great to see - didn’t mean to poo poo it and sorry that’s how it apparently came across.
I happen to know someone whose teenage daughter was absolutely transformed by the Women’s March, from a very timid girl to an outgoing, active young woman, a community leader in the making.
Maybe she would have transformed in this way anyway, but the march experience did seem to be an important step.
Just one anecdote, but there are likely other, similar ones. I agree the march wasn’t effective in the way a specific-goal one might be, but as you pointed out, there are other positive effects.
Okay, enough of this hijack…