How far will Trump go? Child Abuse Edition.
joanne said:
How's this being received?
DNA analysis has been used in USA criminal cases to determine culpability for years now. Thousand of families have been divided as a result of the findings- no complaint from the left until now. Selective outrage- part of the left. These people entered the country illegally.
Alex, that’s not a real answer - if the parents aren’t in the country, and may not have a home to return to (being fearful of living in their former countries), how will knowing their DNA help to reunite them with their children?? Just having samples doesn’t mean you can actually track a person down once they’ve left your ‘guardianship’ or borders (as Australia knows very very well).
First, some are asylum seekers who have the right to enter the country and apply for asylum. Second, separation of children and transporting them to distant locations in not an appropriate punishment and certainly not appropriate prior to trial.
Persons incarcerated for other types of crimes leave their children with other family members. There are probably a few cases where there are no other family members and DYFS or some such agency must take custody, but the child is not transported to another State and I would think that they get to visit the parent.
The fact of inconsistency by "The Left" or whomever does not justify a horrendous policy.
LOST said:
The fact of inconsistency by "The Left" or whomever does not justify a horrendous policy.
"Does it make libs cry?" is the only justification for policy they need.
the asylum seeker must prove family status. In the case of undocumented entrants that cross our border and declare "asylum', the onus on proving family relationship sits with them. It would seem that DNA analysis and confirmation would be something the parents would actually want.
But it doesn’t help the family reunion process, because you can’t find both parties efficiently once they have left your ‘custody’.
We’ve seen this with our Stolen Generations, and with the British children sent here through Barnardos (to ‘keep them safe during the Blitz’) but actually fostered out then hastily ‘adopted’ by the third or fourth family with poor record-keeping by authorities. Meantime, families told, X has perished or run away; X told family has given them up, or can’t keep them, or died... because it’s too hard for anyone (including Red Cross and Salvos who specialise in these reunions) to find them. We currently have situations where family can’t even access the corpses of their dead children for burial.
So - how do you propose the reunions are actually handled since these are promised??
alex4855 said:
the asylum seeker must prove family status. In the case of undocumented entrants that cross our border and declare "asylum', the onus on proving family relationship sits with them. It would seem that DNA analysis and confirmation would be something the parents would actually want.
That's one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. What's next? Do you want to use DNA analysis to prove that they actually are real people?
The bottom line is that the Trumpers literally had no plan for re-uniting these families.
None.
Defend that, alex4855.
gerritn said:
alex4855 said:That's one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. What's next? Do you want to use DNA analysis to prove that they actually are real people?
the asylum seeker must prove family status. In the case of undocumented entrants that cross our border and declare "asylum', the onus on proving family relationship sits with them. It would seem that DNA analysis and confirmation would be something the parents would actually want.
Considering the source, your comment is unintentionally intelligent. Stephen, is that you?
drummerboy said:
The bottom line is that the Trumpers literally had no plan for re-uniting these families.
None.
Defend that, alex4855.
drummerboy said:
The bottom line is that the Trumpers literally had no plan for re-uniting these families.
None.
Defend that, alex4855.
The plan is purchased directly from the left. Its like skydiving without a parachute.
This article discusses the health issues at a detention center.
Read on DallasNews.com: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/06/28/border-doctors-advocates-worry-medical-care-immigrants-lacking
Even accepting everything alex485 is alleging at face value, the argument is a failure. Being hypocritical doesn’t mean being wrong.
alex4855 said:
drummerboy said:
The bottom line is that the Trumpers literally had no plan for re-uniting these families.
None.
Defend that, alex4855.
drummerboy said:The plan is purchased directly from the left. Its like skydiving without a parachute.
The bottom line is that the Trumpers literally had no plan for re-uniting these families.
None.
Defend that, alex4855.
Or posting without a brain.
An excerpt from an article in today’s New York Times Magazine (Can the A.C.L.U. Become the N.R.A. for the Left?):
It seemed impossible, too, that it was only four months ago when Gelernt first told me about Ms. L. Her story is still shocking in its particulars, and it’s worth knowing, I think, because her fate, like the fate of thousands of others seeking asylum here, is still undecided.
Nearly a year ago, fearing for their lives, Ms. L. and her daughter, S., who was 6 at the time, fled their small village in the Democratic Republic of Congo. A group of nuns gave them money and food and helped them flee the country. For the next several months, they slept outside most nights or sometimes on the floors of empty buildings they had been pointed to along their route north toward the United States. They cleaned themselves as much as possible in public restrooms. They scavenged for discarded food from restaurants. When they finally presented themselves at the crossing in San Diego, Ms. L. saw the American flag and told her daughter they were going to be O.K.: “We have arrived.”
This was on Nov. 1, 2017 — months before the government denied it was separating children from their families, then said it was only families who were caught crossing the border illegally, then announced it was all part of a zero-tolerance policy. Ms. L. entered legally at the port of entry at San Diego. In broken Spanish she had picked up along the way, she told the border agents she was seeking asylum in the United States. The Border Patrol referred her to ICE, and after four days in temporary housing, ICE agents met with her and S. and asked the girl to go with a guard into another room. Once she was gone, they handcuffed Ms. L., who hadn’t committed a crime. She listened to her daughter beyond the door, screaming and pleading with the guards not to take her away. S. was transported immediately to a facility for unaccompanied minors in Chicago. Ms. L. was detained in California with roughly 1,500 other detainees.
Two weeks later, on Nov. 17, an asylum officer conducted what ICE calls a “credible-fear screening” and determined that Ms. L.’s story met the “credibility threshold,” which would normally mean she could enter the country legally and live with her daughter in a shelter while she awaited a full asylum hearing. Instead, months went by, mother and daughter 2,000 miles apart, each in a place where no one else spoke their native Lingala. Ms. L. and S. spoke five or six times by phone, but the conversations were torturous for Ms. L., with S. sobbing on the phone and telling her mother how scared she was and her mother having no idea if she would ever see her again. “Chicago meant nothing to her,” Gelernt told me. “It might as well have been on the moon.”
I see no reason to continue debating with someone who is obviously suffering with the same mental disorder as their "law enforcement leader"....
Jaytee said:
I see no reason to continue debating with someone who is obviously suffering with the same mental disorder as their "law enforcement leader"....
I guess we come on here to debate with those with whom we disagree. I will, thereore, attempt to make alex defend his position.
alex4855 said:
the asylum seeker must prove family status. In the case of undocumented entrants that cross our border and declare "asylum', the onus on proving family relationship sits with them. It would seem that DNA analysis and confirmation would be something the parents would actually want.
First, you spoke of law breakers. Someone who arrives at an established check point and asks for asylum has not broken the law and should not be treated as if he had.
If the concern is whether the adult and child are actually related then the DNA analysis should be done before they are separated not afterward.
If there is some reason to separate a child from an adult, before that is done there must be a system to identify them so they can be reunited and the separation should be close by, like separate rooms in the same building, with frequent visitation. Children should not be put on buses or airplanes and moved hundreds or thousands of miles away.
Agree or disagree?
LOST said:
Jaytee said:I guess we come on here to debate with those with whom we disagree. I will, thereore, attempt to make alex defend his position.
I see no reason to continue debating with someone who is obviously suffering with the same mental disorder as their "law enforcement leader"....
alex4855 said:First, you spoke of law breakers. Someone who arrives at an established check point and asks for asylum has not broken the law and should not be treated as if he had.
the asylum seeker must prove family status. In the case of undocumented entrants that cross our border and declare "asylum', the onus on proving family relationship sits with them. It would seem that DNA analysis and confirmation would be something the parents would actually want.
If the concern is whether the adult and child are actually related then the DNA analysis should be done before they are separated not afterward.
If there is some reason to separate a child from an adult, before that is done there must be a system to identify them so they can be reunited and the separation should be close by, like separate rooms in the same building, with frequent visitation. Children should not be put on buses or airplanes and moved hundreds or thousands of miles away.
Agree or disagree?
Before would be better. However, the parents put their kids at risk.
Jaytee said:
I see no reason to continue debating with someone who is obviously suffering with the same mental disorder as their "law enforcement leader"....
You need to get help. You're venting and its not healthy. Help is available for liberalitious. Please get help.
drummerboy said:
alex4855 said:Or posting without a brain.
drummerboy said:
The bottom line is that the Trumpers literally had no plan for re-uniting these families.
None.
Defend that, alex4855.
drummerboy said:The plan is purchased directly from the left. Its like skydiving without a parachute.
The bottom line is that the Trumpers literally had no plan for re-uniting these families.
None.
Defend that, alex4855.
As en echinoderm, how do you manage?
alex4855 said:
LOST said:Before would be better. However, the parents put their kids at risk.
If there is some reason to separate a child from an adult, before that is done there must be a system to identify them so they can be reunited and the separation should be close by, like separate rooms in the same building, with frequent visitation. Children should not be put on buses or airplanes and moved hundreds or thousands of miles away.
Agree or disagree?
You did not address everything I wrote, but with respect to your response, of course parents fleeing intolerable circumstances and crossing large expanses of territory and international borders to seek asylum put their accompanying children at risk. For example I would cite the Syrian refugees or, a very apt example which we have previously discussed, Elian Gonzalez's mother. In the latter case everyone perished except, by miracle, the child. However I do not think the parents crossing the US-Mexican border knew that they risked their children being separated from them in the US.
To me the real point is that children are being punished in cruel ways for the actions of their parents, and not by natural occurrences but rather by policies and agents of the American Government.
LOST said:
alex4855 said:You did not address everything I wrote, but with respect to your response, of course parents fleeing intolerable circumstances and crossing large expanses of territory and international borders to seek asylum put their accompanying children at risk. For example I would cite the Syrian refugees or, a very apt example which we have previously discussed, Elian Gonzalez's mother. In the latter case everyone perished except, by miracle, the child. However I do not think the parents crossing the US-Mexican border knew that they risked their children being separated from them in the US.
LOST said:Before would be better. However, the parents put their kids at risk.
If there is some reason to separate a child from an adult, before that is done there must be a system to identify them so they can be reunited and the separation should be close by, like separate rooms in the same building, with frequent visitation. Children should not be put on buses or airplanes and moved hundreds or thousands of miles away.
Agree or disagree?
To me the real point is that children are being punished in cruel ways for the actions of their parents, and not by natural occurrences but rather by policies and agents of the American Government.
This is a business. What you say is true. These people have been told by the profiteers that if they make it to the USA they are not going to be turned back. Now that they know the risk exists, they will not be looking to our borders as much. I can understand that that the separation is cruel, however it seems to me that much less cruel than the situation that they flee if in fact they risk for their lives staying back home. Isn't that the core reason they seek asylum- to flee cruelty of a much more significant nature?
But why is Mexico not granting them asylum? Why are they free to migrate without status through Mexico to the USA? Isn't that the core problem? Perhaps it is more humane to provide them safe transit, as a unified family, to the Canadian border where they can then ask the Canadian officials for asylum..Canada seems willing to take all seekers, and they can handle the vetting. We can than watch and learn from them.
Canada seems willing to take all seekers, and they can handle the vetting. We can than watch and learn from them.
Excellent point, given the US's lack of experience with immigrants and seekers of asylum. And once in court, the toddlers forced to represent themselves must demonstrate that they truly belong here. Maybe if they prove themselves smarter and of greater integrity than POTUS they can stay?
dave23 said:
Canada seems willing to take all seekers, and they can handle the vetting. We can than watch and learn from them.Excellent point, given the US's lack of experience with immigrants and seekers of asylum. And once in court, the toddlers forced to represent themselves must demonstrate that they truly belong here. Maybe if they prove themselves smarter and of greater integrity than POTUS they can stay?
Exactly. Toddlers learn quickly. So tell us... how many have you taken in?
The U.S. Government is/was voluntarily doing violence to children by separating them from their parents. You can argue to politics of this from now until the cows come home, but the central fact remains that our government did not have to do this.
alex4855 said:
Perhaps it is more humane to provide them safe transit, as a unified family, to the Canadian border where they can then ask the Canadian officials for asylum..Canada seems willing to take all seekers, and they can handle the vetting. We can than watch and learn from them.
And in the meantime let's figure the cost of moving the Statute of Liberty to Toronto Harbor. Maybe the Canadians will pay for it.
alex4855 said:
Exactly. Toddlers learn quickly. So tell us... how many have you taken in?
Wait. The government is now giving these kids to families?
ml1 said:
dave23 said:it's the right wing taunt du jour.
alex4855 said:Wait. The government is now giving these kids to families?
Exactly. Toddlers learn quickly. So tell us... how many have you taken in?
Yes, I know. I've donated to legal fundraisers for the kids but had not heard that the kids are being placed on foster care.
I do agree that toddlers learn quickly. It's not hard even for them to understand 'don't block the box.'
It's being discussed on MSNBC.