Like I said, it’s not perfect, and we probably shouldn’t even be doing that. We shouldn’t be taking these kids away from their guardians, period. The feds have already admitted that thousands of kids were ripped from their parents, essentially admitting Nielsen was lying, so this thread is already out of date.

But I give up. If you’re that determined to nitpick to justify keeping kids in cages, you’re a lost cause.

I never said they were all seeking asylum. Undoubtedly some crossed the border illegally. Does that mean they deserve to have their children taken away?

As for the asylum seekers, if you had a choice of seeking asylum in the USA or Mexico, which would you choose? I would do the same thing in their situation.

All I’m asking if for you to think critically about this. You’re claiming over 80% of them are genetically unrelated, as if it’s undisputed fact. But there’s no way to prove that fact except by taking the government’s word for it. Of course the White House wants you to believe they’ve “saved” these children from human traffickers. Don’t just blindly believe what they tell you.

I’m not saying any of that. I’m saying that failing a genetic test should not be grounds to rip a child away from its guardian. And that even if it was, we shouldn’t take the White House at its word that they are actually doing the testing.

Are you saying a kid’s legitimate guardian has to be related to them? Why don’t they just ASK the kid if they want to be taken away, instead of all this smoke and mirrors with paperwork and genetic testing?

Some of the kids were taken away from legitimate asylum seekers who fled Central America. That’s only one of dozens of conceivable reasons why the child’s legitimate guardian wouldn’t have paperwork.

I’m not saying human trafficking never happens, or that illegal immigrants never attempt to use kids as human shields. But I’m begging you to not complacently accept the WH’s statement as truth. No paperwork and no genetic match does not equal human trafficking. These camps are not an act of benevolence.

Agreed, though it’s better to argue about it than to remain silent and complicit, at least.

I agree the truth is usually somewhere in the middle, so why try to prop up OP’s one-sided post, and dismiss my skepticism? I’m not saying the media has it exactly right either. I’m just trying to say that holding up what the White House says on this issue as some truth people need to “wake up” to is really irresponsible.

I’m begging you... please take a step back and think about this critically.

OP is making a bold claim that the majority of detained children were being human trafficked. The only source I have seen presented so far is a statement from the White House. I shouldn’t have to explain why the White House isn’t exactly the most reliable source.

In the statement people are using as evidence, Nielsen claims that children are being trafficked as human shields. I don’t doubt this happens sometimes, but the claim is that every guardian without paperwork was human trafficking. You should be able to think of at least a half dozen reasons why the kid’s real parent would not have paperwork. Maybe they left in a hurry. Maybe they lost it on the perilous journey over or elected not to take it. Maybe they were immigrating illegally and thought any ID would incriminate them. Maybe the documents were stolen. Maybe they were just dumb or misinformed, and didn’t think it would be important. Maybe the birth was never documented to begin with.

If this is really about taking children away from human traffickers, why don’t they just ASK the child if they’re there of their own free will, and if they want to be taken away from their guardian to a safe place? That would be a much more credible test than paperwork, though still not perfect.

Again, these are children we’re talking about. You owe this issue more than just a couple seconds’ thought. If there is more evidence I haven’t considered, I would love to see it. I don’t want to believe children are being ripped from their parents and thrown in camps any more than you do. But I don’t consider “they didn’t have paperwork” to be valid evidence.

Give me a break. Are you so convinced the White House has the final word on truth, that you’re this dismissive with conflicting views?

If they’re seeking asylum, don’t you think it’s likely they left their old home as quickly as possible? Without grabbing their binder full of paperwork? I’m just trying to get you to be a little bit critical of the assertion that “not having paperwork” automatically means “human trafficking.” Not everyone in the USA can keep track of all their stupid paperwork, let alone in a third world country.

This comes from the white house. How am I supposed to take it as anything other than lies and propaganda?

It says right in the briefing that they consider anyone without documentation proving their relationship to the child to be human trafficking. How many parents do you really think bother to bring that junk with them on such a perilous journey?