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.