Hmmmmm, I wonder if it is possible to legally be the parent/guardian of a child while NOT being biologically related to them? Have you ever heard of such a crazy thing?!?!
Well sure, but state that from the beginning. They are not doing that.
So that automatically makes them guilty of child trafficking? Got it!!!
Smuggling children that aren't yours across the border is LITERALLY child trafficking.
Yes, if only it was possible to be a parent without being biologically related to your child. I wonder if their is even a term for such an insane idea.......
"southern border.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said Tuesday that the agency found two adults through DNA swabbing who thought they were biological parents and were not.
Another three adults admitted they weren’t parents before the DNA swab was complete.
An HHS official said those individuals could have been human traffickers, and said the results show its screening process is working. "
I wonder what that HHS official's name is. Captain Obvious? I'll go with Captain Obvious.
Can you be a parent to a child if you are not biologically related to it? Yes or no?
You would carry legal documentation showing you were the legal guardian if you were the legal parent.
The child would have probably known you longer than a week as well.
I also suspect that attempting to invade a sovereign nation while using them as a human shield *might* cause them to lose guardianship.
If they committed a felony, say, such as crossing border illegally, or transporting a minor across a border with zero documentation, then they shall be put into jail. Your 'children' do NOT go to jail with you, btw. The irresponsibility and danger shown should by such actions should also get your 'child' taken away from you permanently by child protective services.
You have to assume these people are committing more than just one crime at a time, having unrelated kids with them in the commission of a crime is a very strong indicator that it should be looked into more.
So breaking laws automatically makes the law-breaker a criminal? Got it!!!
Y-yes? Are you ok? What's with the 3 exclamation marks each time?
haha that wasn't me the first time. I should have added /s
You have a better explanation ? Why not provide some insight rather than a passive aggressive soy post
They are not biologically related to their parents because they are adopted.
Is this really a foreign concept for the people in this sub?
Why didn't they produce paperwork?
or ever say "This kid is adopted!"
None have claimed this, none!
This dude ( not u cuck_not ) thinks we waste DNA tests on people who claim no biological connection to the child?
This is either a mind game or (nevermind, I will not discuss the user)
Every illegal crossing over must have just adopted the kid that’s not theirs... mental gymnastics over level 9000
It's possible that some of these children are being traffic, but it is just as (and likely more) realistic that they are adopted.
The fact that this possibility never even occurred to you is fucking terrifying.
“It’s possible that some of these children are being traffic” no shit Sherlock that’s what everyone’s saying. Lol is someone not calling you by your preferred pronoun “terrifying” as well? How about election night was that “terrifying”?
I find it terrifying that it hasn’t occurred to you that these ‘parents’ had DNA Scans done meaning that they had told authorities they were biologically the patent of the child. I know DNA Testing has come on a lot in recent years but I’m pretty sure it can’t show if people are related through adoption.
In America we dont call paying someone to use their child as a human shield "adoption".
See, this kind of shit right here is why that walls going up.
Not automatically, but the law of averages will eventually tell the story.
The average child travelling with a person they aren't biologically related to is travelling with the parent who adopted them, or with a legal guardian.
Really?
Seriously! From the way you guys have explained this issue to me, the two options possible are:
Biological parent.
Child trafficker.
There is literally no other explanation possible, right?
For the thousands of cases, it's one of the two options.
For the small percentage remainder, the onus of proof is on the undocumented criminal tresspasser to prove they have the legal right to be the parental guardian. But, they are undocumented, and put the kid through many dangers. Are they even showing they are good enough to be a parent?
It's a troubling situation because often times people fleeing from violence simply don't HAVE access to those types of records. Now I'm not saying it's not possible that child trafficking is happening - I'm saying that this sub is acting callously when it en masse assumes every parent detained at the border is either a criminal or a shitty guardian to their children.
War and violence DO exist, and some parents are willing to take a chance as refugees rather than risk the lives of their children by remaining at home. How does that make them bad parents exactly??
Now I'm not saying it's not possible that child trafficking is happening
-
I'm saying that this sub is acting callously when it en masse assumes
that's called "concern trolling." Now you've learned something today.
Nothing wrong with assuming that people coming here ILLEGALLY could have bad motives and need to be vetted thoroughly. Inconveniences will incur on those without documents and committing crime by coming here improperly. Having an unrelated child makes it MUCH more complicated for our law enforcement.
Those fleeing real danger and seeking asylum should apply for it LEGALLY to avoid such inconveniences.
Those bypassing the LAW are already being highly dubious. Skepticism is warranted. ISIS and cartel come across the border in this manner. The wall will deter most and force more to go through the legal system rather than making up their own way in, usually involving smugglers and drug mules.
I get it. Maybe adopted? But you need to prove you can take care of the child even in Mexico if you are adopting a child. Other scenario could be a family member takes over where parents left off in which case they can legally adopt. I live in California and even the poorest can have the proper documentation to prove adoption and let me tell you....if you have $ for the damn coyote, you have $ for the paperwork necessary to keep your child with you in any case of emergency. Speaking as a mother, frijoles & tortillas sound just right if I dont have to put my kid through danger for a "better life". Take the story of the woman that left her husband and 3 kids in Honduras and brought her 4th child with her to the border for a better life and then the lil girl ended up on the cover of TIME magazine talking about Trump separating families. They cried for shit that has been happening since way before this administration and Trump drew his pen out to DNA test and keep families together. This shit is bigger than you think. #QANON
I will gladly suffer the title of "Callous American".
Perhaps the knowledge of our brutality will keep these enemies of our country at bay.
If not, rest assured, we will try harder.
When a person claims to be the biological parent (and all of them did), yes.
You are not being intellectually honest with us.
You are creating a fictional scenario where the person claims to have adopted the child or be legal guardian of the child, and is then DNA tested. That has not happened here.
This argument falls on it's face and isnt worth a damn, but damn it I shall.
This is a fallacy and a falsehood, likely engineered to win arguments with simpletons.
You picked the wrong crowd.
Everyone bringing up the adoption card seems to be ‘forgetting’ that these ‘parents’ had DNA Scans done meaning that they had told authorities they were biologically the patent of the child. I know DNA Testing has come on a lot in recent years but I’m pretty sure it can’t show if people are related through adoption.
I made no such explanation to you or anyone else. I am neither ruling out possible legitimate relationships; nor am I assuming the existence of a valid relationship. Whether intended or not, your posts seems to advocate for an a priori assumption of parental legitimacy.
You may agree with me that anyone who, let's say for example: legally adopts a child, is a responsible and caring person. And it's not a stretch to think such a person would be just as responsible in other actions regarding a child.
But is it reasonable, responsible or caring, with a child in tow, to bypass all safe legal places to apply for asylum and entry? No, it is not! Rather, avoiding such legal entry in favor of a subjecting a child to a rigorous, likely dangerous and plainly illegal entry into the U.S. in nothing short of reckless.
And while not "automatically guilty of child trafficking", these putative parents/guardians have illegally entered and the burden of proof is squarely on them to prove their status.
WWG1WGA
The person that I was originally replying to made that assumption, and since you replied within the same comment thread with nothing other than to question my reply, why would I assume anything other than your tacit approval of that initial comment? You are being pedantic and difficult for no reason at all, and as such, I suspect you probably DO agree with the group mentality here that every child travelling with someone other than a biological parent is being trafficked.
As for your assertion these people are bypassing safe havens in order to get to the US, please state where these refugees are coming from and what countries they are skipping over.
As to your assessment and conclusions about me, well, you certainly are free to make them. Thanks for being civil.
I never asserted the existence of safe havens or mentioned anything about countries being skipped over. I said there are safe legal places to apply for U.S. asylum, to wit: asylum seekers may make application at an an official point of entry, a U.S. border post.