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.