Judge’s Rush Is Endangering 175 Migrant Children, Says Health Agency


#1

Judge’s Rush Is Endangering 175 Migrant Children, Says Health Agency

A California judge is endangering 2,551 migrant children by rushing their reunification with migrants who claim to be their parents, says the Department of Health and Human Services.
The discovery of fraud and deception among the adults who brought the first batch young 103 children shows that the “truncated vetting for [2,551 children aged 5 to 17] would result in HHS placing up to approximately 175 children with adults who are not their parents in the next 13 days,” said a July 13 court statement signed by Chris Meekins, a senior official in the DHHS agency.

The statement flips the claim by progressives that President Donald Trump is endangering children by separating them from their migrant parents. Trump’s deputies are now pointing out that a rush reunification carries risks for the children which progressives are claiming to champion.

Judge Dana Sabraw . . .

. . . The agency pushback follows weeks of emotional complaints by progressive activists and media that Trump’s deputies are endangering and harming the children brought into the United States by Central American migrants.

However, the resulting spotlight exposed large-scale fraud among the migrants who are described as victims by progressives. . . .

.

Some of the details of the “WHYS” are discussed here . . .

.

And here . . .


#2

“For example, one child from El Salvador was reunited with her mother in Houston without a full background check on the people in her expected household. A June Washington Post report reported that the mother’s mother’s sister had already migrated illegally from El Salvador to Houston.”

Seriously? Because a “mother’s mother’s sister” (also know as the mother’s aunt) “migrated illegally from El Salvador to Houston” DHHS asserts that there is good reason for that child to remain in the custody of the government? That’s what I call grasping at straws.

The whole charade is given away by this paragraph: “The statement flips the claim by progressives that President Donald Trump is endangering children by separating them from their migrant parents. Trump’s deputies are now pointing out that a rush reunification carries risks for the children which progressives are claiming to champion.”

This exercise of claiming that children will be endangered by reunification deadlines is obviously devised solely as a counterpoint to those who express a very real concern about how the separation policy is harming children - not by any genuine concern for the children.

If, in fact, there is genuine concern for children’s safety, the government could take individual cases to the court and ask for an extension based on supporting evidence. Actually, all of the adults who have contact with these children should be “mandated reporters” of suspected child abuse. Reporting suspected child abuse requires filling out a form that details a reason that abuse is suspected. The court would be concerned about a report of suspected child abuse, but the reporter would probably be called to testify.

Btw, this past week I saw Fr. James Martin, SJ, on TV describe the claim that children are being kept in government custody for their own good as “reprehensible.” In my opinion that is a very apt description.


#3

This exercise of claiming that children will be endangered by reunification deadlines is obviously devised solely as a counterpoint . . .

I did not know it was so “obvious”.

I would think an 80% child rape statistic (in the context linked above) would actually be significant!

Silly me for thinking it had to do with protection of these children.


#4

These children are being reunited with their parents. If in any particular case the government has evidence that by releasing a child to a parent the child will be subjected to rape, the government should initiate a Suspected Child Abuse case against the parent and submit it to the court.


#5

Kids being smuggled into the coutry by alleged “parents” need to have these relationships vetted before you can stick the children in a dorm rooom or whatever while their awaiting processing.


#6

If the government has reason to suspect that someone other than a parent is trying to get custody of a child, an entire genome can be sequenced in a day by a fast machine.


#7

The incompetence of the Trump administration who took these children away from their parents with no process in place for reuniting them is staggering…

“I can’t understand this, the judge said. If someone at the jail takes your wallet, they give you a receipt. They take your kids, and you get nothing? Not even a slip of paper?”


#8

HCTC . . .

If the government has reason to suspect that someone other than a parent is trying to get custody of a child, an entire genome can be sequenced in a day by a fast machine.

That is funny.

Just last week you guys were criticizing this.

. . . DOJ attorney Sarah Fabian told Sabraw on Tuesday the government still awaited the results of DNA tests for 16 parents — a delay Sabraw said was unacceptable.

“This is not an invitation for them to take time doing the swab,” he said. “They can do it and they can do it quickly.”

The judge on Tuesday clarified that the administration should proceed with reunifications if parentage can be verified through documentation apart from a DNA test.

Sabraw also ordered the administration to forgo an Office of Refugee Resettlement policy of conducting background checks of all members of a migrant family’s prospective household in the interest of a prompt reunification.

Sabraw said in a Tuesday court order that the government did not need to comply with the “onerous policies“ for vetting sponsors of unaccompanied minors . . .


#9

Why would a DNA test be needed for EVERY child and parent??? That is ridiculous and invasive.


#10

HCTC . . .

If the government has reason to suspect that someone other than a parent is trying to get custody of a child, an entire genome can be sequenced in a day by a fast machine.

You don’t NEED an entire DNA sequence to verify parentage.

Theoretical DNA running times and practical running times are not the same.

23 and Me is an efficient coroporation that does not even do a full sequence takes one to two months.


#11

HCTC . . .

Why would a DNA test be needed for EVERY child and parent??? That is ridiculous and invasive.

Nobody said there needs to be a DNA test for EVERY child and parent.

I don’t know what percentage it is.

But with 80% of the children being raped (In The context I mentioned), there is pretty good reason to be suspicious of what the adults tell our agents.


#12

The government should be able to do better than 23 and Me. A child separated from their parent by the government should not have get in a 23 & Me type queue.


#13

HCTC . . .

The government should be able to do better than 23 and Me.

Your criticisms is not going to get DNA testing done in less than 24 hours.

There are practical aspects you are ignoring.


#14

While a DNA test can be done in 24 hours, under the circumstsnces I would expect a three day turn around - if there were some reason to believe that a DNA test is prudent. At any rate, testing should be done on a case by case basis.

Unfortunately, the real problem is that when the government took these children, they had NO PLAN FOR RETURNING THEM! It was not only cruel, it was also incredibly STUPID.


#15

HCTC . . . .

While a DNA test can be done in 24 hours, under the circumstsnces I would expect a three day turn around . . .

Your “expectations” are irrelevant if it means helping an innocent child who is being raped.

President Trump’s administration is doing the right thing vetting these relationships and you are wrong.


#16

HCTC . . .

Unfortunately, the real problem is that when the government took these children, they had NO PLAN FOR RETURNING THEM! It was not only cruel, it was also incredibly STUPID.

You probably thought it was “stupid” and “cruel” when the Obama adminstration was letting the adults and children go with minimal vetting too (via “catch and release”).

Why not show me that this is the case and link me to . . . say . . . two or three of your posted complaints against the Obama administration for doing this same type of result (possibly resulting in PERMANENT SEPARATION of child and parent)?

(Of course nobody could really know with catch and release and a 98% [or whatever it was] no-show rate for court could they?)


#17

The judge disagrees with your opinion, and he has very relevant expectations that are also in opposition to your irrelevant opinion of what is right and what is wrong.


#18

Because your suggestion is irrelevant…


#19

The judge disagrees with your opinion, . . .

So now you are going use the SAME PRINCIPLES and support President Trump on the terrorust country immigration restictions (what Fake News kept calling “the Muslim Ban”) because THAT judge was over-ruled by the Supreme Court?

Is THAT what you are saying?

You are NOW supporting President Trump THERE because of a judicial decision?


#20

Now that is a deeply irrelevant question?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.