I had to ask myself if this was the correct category. Are criminal parents entitled in some way, by any law, able to keep their children .....

.....until it is determined that the children will be safe?

I used to work with drug abusers, and later, with homeless families with children. If a woman came into our shelter and we caught her with drugs or endangering her child in any way, we were required to call CPS or lose our license to operate. Child endangerment could not be tolerated, by law. Protecting children and keeping them safe was our ultimate responsibility. It sucked at times. It certainly wasn't popular. But it was SO much better than allowing a drug addicted mother to escape out a window and take her three year old, after accusing the other residents of the shelter of being the devil. I think, in that instance, you had to examine the actions of the parent, and examine what might happen to the child. In that instance, we never found out. She just disappeared, and only God knows what happened to that three year old little boy. I certainly called CPS when she disappeared....but it was SO unpopular to do that, that I questioned my decision for years afterward. It just haunted me.

All the heartbreak I felt then is coming into play now. How can we keep the children of people who break the law by trying to come into our country illegally safe, and still obey our own laws? Our law is very, very clear. If a parent breaks the law, CPS must take custody, and the children must be placed in a group home if no relative exists who will take the child, or with a close relative who can prove that they are reliable. It sucks so hard it broke my motor.

BUT!!!!!! There is no freaking way that American law breakers are treated any differently than law breakers from anywhere else. Wow. What a concept for todays' age. No special treatment. One rule for all. Immigrants and Americans BOTH have to obey the same law. I know. It just sounds so........alien!!!!

The donkey brained people who are calling group homes for children "concentration camps" almost make me insane, just because I have had to deal with these child issues myself.

If I could go back to the year 2014 when Obama was president and do something to stop those photos we all saw of children lying on the hard ground in cages, I would. But in 2014 I don't remember those photos were ever televised. It was all on the down low. Secret.

In my opinion, the only way to keep these children totally safe is with a state sponsored DNA test. We have coyotes bringing them in to traffic them, claiming to be their parent. We have so called "Aunts and Uncles" showing up to claim them. The kids are threatened and terrified. If I were a little kid and someone told me that if i didn't say they were my father, they would slit my throat.....I think I would lie.

Before these kids are "given back" or "given to" any relative, I want DNA evidence.

We also have a giant posterior orifice psychologist weighing in, saying that these children will suffer permanent lifelong damage because of the stress of what is going on NOW.

I want her to be the same psychologist who has to treat any of these kids who are trafficked.....that's if any of them live.

I mean....the brainlessness...it just boggles me.

Am I wrong there? Maybe I have seen too much "stuff".

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

windinhishair · 61-69, M

Mothers with children they dearly love and would travel the ends of the earth come here because the US has always had the reputation for caring and compassion. Even the inscription on the Statue of Liberty says "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me..." These people believe in what the US has always stood for.

Until now.

In a Trumpian world, there is no place for love, for compassion, for caring. We don't want people coming from "shithole" countries. We don't want Mexicans, who after all, are all "rapists", or Haitians (all of whom according to the president have AIDS), or Africans fleeing their "mud huts." We only want small numbers of people from white countries like Norway, and people with money who can buy their way in. Our compassion has turned to uncaring, our advocacy to vengeance. And you may get your wish that those in greatest need stop reaching out their hands for a hand up, as they learn that we will only slap it or cut it off. And our nation becomes a lesser one as a result as the beacon of light goes out to Make America Great Again.

Mamapolo2016 · F

@windinhishair You hate Trump. Got it. What is your suggestion(s) about how to handle the problem of the children?

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@Mamapolo2016 Trump has made his hatred for immigrants and non-whites clear. To address the problem with children and other immigrants, we need to work with their countries to improve poverty and violence, which is the root cause of the current immigration. Children should not be separated from their parents, which is a Trump policy that could be reversed today if he so chose. They can be housed together just as easily while their cases are heard. A little compassion for people goes a long, long way.

Mamapolo2016 · F

@windinhishair I give up.

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@Mamapolo2016 So typical of the right wing to give up when faced with moral issues.

Mamapolo2016 · F

@windinhishair I didn’t give up on the moral issue. I gave up on you.

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@Mamapolo2016 I guess dealing with the issues of poverty and violence aren't worthwhile when we have a wall to build.

Mamapolo2016 · F

@windinhishair Unlike you I am not a political creature. It matters not to me whether Donald Trump serves out his four years in office or does not because you can manage to impeach him.

Of zip concern to me. I think he’s doing some good things but I personally can’t stand him.

Your approach to discussion is immoral. For you, disagreement with your position (and your party) means those in disagreement are of questionable moral fiber, and you are quick to toss accusations at someone you know nothing about except that they might disagree with you.

Your opinion of me is also of zero interest. My interest lies in trying to do something about those children.

In a response above you talk about working with other governments to raise living standards, etc. Fine. Do that.

It will not save the children who are in jeopardy NOW. It is equivalent to standing before a home engulfed in flames and hearing the screams and saying pompously, “You know, if you built future houses THIS way, things like this wouldn’t happen.” Fine again. But those people are going to burn to death anyway.

The purpose of the original poster was to try to set aside political differences and work on a solution.

I am able to do that. You are not, which makes you worthless in this discussion. It is the reason I’m going to block you as soon as I click ‘Post comment,’ not because I disagree with you politically but because you are contributing to the noise and hysteria and hatred that is polluting our atmosphere.

I am sure you will answer this because advancing your agenda is of paramount importance to you. Do it. I won’t read it.

windinhishair · 61-69, M

You can block all the people who disagree with you, but it won't help a single child. The issue is largely a moral one--do we have room in the US for refugees from violence and poverty? Apparently the answer in the current Administration is no.

The issue with the children has both long-term and short-term components. Curbing poverty and violence in places like Guatemala and Honduras is a long-term solution. In the short-term, I think we should reunite the children with their parents, and I would give them refuge in our country. I trust that would address the "burning house" issue. We who have been given so much have not only the right to help, but the responsibility.

4meAndyou · F

@windinhishair Hi. I've just been reading your dialogue, and I wanted to mention that I thought about your idea of improving the southern governments quite a long time ago. I thought it over at length, and concluded that the drug cartels and the corruption are so enormous that we just don't have the money to "fix" it. Neither do we have the money to inject new business into those countries only to have them taken over in the next coup. I do believe we tried to mess around down there...Noriega...and we were widely criticised. In the long run, uneducated poor people can't think or plan well enough to stop their own countries problems or fund the change.

Part of the problem is built right in to the culture. I have been reading about gangs, and anthropologically speaking, they are a carry over from tribalism. Really primitive tribes still exist in South America, and even the modernized areas just aren't that far removed.

I think you would need a coalition of mega-billionaire geniuses to fix any part of that.

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@4meAndyou The idea of improving the Central American governments has been around a long time. We sent arms to the Contras during the 1980s (illegally, I might add, under US law) to help fight the Sandinistas, and we overthrew Manuel Noriega in Panama in 1989. I'm not sure that these types of efforts are the best approach over the long run, though Panama is much more stable now.

We have been working largely unnoticed in many Central American countries such as Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Belize, Costa Rica, and Mexico, to improve the lives of its citizens, through the Peace Corps and NGOs. We were in Honduras until around 2012, when we had to pull out due to the violence. Our volunteers live with the local people at the same level of income, so to have hundreds of volunteers in a country is not that costly. The Peace Corps definitely makes a difference, as do the NGOs, in providing education and training to the locals, in the local language and dialect. I'd suggest increasing our presence throughout the region through these kind of mechanisms which not only provides jobs for Americans, but it improves the perception of Americans as well as the lives of the people who live there.

Be aware that the drug cartels and violence do not exist everywhere in the region. Yes, they are a problem that needs to be addressed, but they are not ubiquitous.

I would suggest that our money would be better spent directly inside the countries the illegal immigrants originate from than trying to prevent illegal immigration with a $25 billion wall that won't work. Even a fraction of the $25 billion would go a long way to improving the situation there, and is ultimately in our best interest.

South America does have some very primitive tribes, particularly in the Amazon, but those aren't the people who are coming to the US. Our focus should be on Central America.

4meAndyou · F

@windinhishair I tend to agree on your overall idea, but it gets vague when we talk about spending money inside the countries in question. Are we going to go in like a charity? Or go in with major investments to create jobs and businesses? I prefer the latter plan, BTW. We still have an issue at our southern border with drugs and human trafficking, and I wish we had the wisdom of Soloman to deal with that.

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@4meAndyou I would do both--charity and major investments. The US Trade and Development Agency works with foreign nations to promote US interests in developing nations. I've worked for them in Mexico and several Eastern Bloc nations and they do a good job in both helping the countries and US businesses. Sadly, I believe their budget has been severely curtailed, even though they bring back more than $10 for every $1 spent.

The southern border issue would be better addressed by the use of personnel and technology rather than a wall. I've spent considerable time on the border and have personally encountered immigrants coming across. We are now using blimps and drones with success, but need more personnel to respond in a timely manner. We do have the ability to make that happen if we want to.

4meAndyou · F

@windinhishair I think the National Guard are assisting at the border in a non-law enforcment capacity, not being employed efficiently, but they are certainly more work force than we had before.

I wonder who (or what agency) could address targeting and funding charities in a double headed effort along with encouraging American investment in countries with massive emigrations?

windinhishair · 61-69, M

The National Guard are doing very little and their talents are being wasted. The purpose of their being there apparently was for them to be there and show that we were sending troops to the border. Their efforts should be coordinated with a clear goal in mind. They could absolutely assist the Border Patrol.

I believe the Peace Corps operates through the State Department, which also funds foreign aid, including to NGOs. USTDA that I mentioned earlier also works through the State Department, so I believe State would be the proper agency for both.

By the way, I was reading the USTDA website and the return on investment of our dollars is now 95:1. In other words, our foreign investments through USTDA in other nations bring back $95 to the US for each dollar spent.

4meAndyou · F

@windinhishair How can we quadruple star those money figures and stick them in front ofJeff Bezos???? LOL! I heard a fellow who is very familiar with the National Guard situation state that they are not being used efficiently. I hope there is someone very talented coordinating their efforts with ICE.

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@4meAndyou It doesn't sound like there is much coordination. Both Massachusetts and New York are pulling their National Guard troops back as they announced today.

4meAndyou · F

@windinhishair I can believe that. It shows you what a great senator Elizabeth Warren really is. MS-13 is all over Boston now, but look what she is advocating.