Donald I, emperor of the world.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Pinno718

Guru
So they should have just left the kid on the street?
If a responsible parent gets taken into custody, you'd expect the 'authorities' to take the kid into care too until another appropriate guardian is found. That's what happens across the west.

Have you ascertained if the father was here a) illegally* b) was going through the official lines of citizenship c) had committed an offence d) was legitimately detained ?
,
*According to US law, it is not a criminal offence to enter the US without authority, it is a civil offence.
Do you not think that unless the father was a dangerous criminal, a more humane action to take would be to have taken the father and the child to the local immigration processing facility, and for them to go through whatever paperwork and processes are required?
 

CXRAndy

Pharaoh
Have you ascertained if the father was here a) illegally* b) was going through the official lines of citizenship c) had committed an offence d) was legitimately detained ?
,
*According to US law, it is not a criminal offence to enter the US without authority, it is a civil offence.
Do you not think that unless the father was a dangerous criminal, a more humane action to take would be to have taken the father and the child to the local immigration processing facility, and for them to go through whatever paperwork and processes are required?
Whilst information is being confirmed, you dont leave dependants alone. The authorities did the correct thing. He went with his father- presumably because his mother or other close family is not around
 

CXRAndy

Pharaoh
According to US law, it is not a criminal offence to enter the US without authority, it is a civil offence.
Simply being present in the U.S. without authorization (unlawful presence, such as overstaying a visa) is generally a civil violation, not a criminal one. It can lead to deportation/removal proceedings but not criminal prosecution or jail time on that basis alone.

However if you've entered the country without documents ie crossed the border in the dead of night you have broken the law
Namely

U.S. federal law (primarily 8 U.S.C. § 1325, titled "Improper entry by alien"):
 
Have you ascertained if the father was here a) illegally* b) was going through the official lines of citizenship c) had committed an offence d) was legitimately detained ?
,
*According to US law, it is not a criminal offence to enter the US without authority, it is a civil offence.
Do you not think that unless the father was a dangerous criminal, a more humane action to take would be to have taken the father and the child to the local immigration processing facility, and for them to go through whatever paperwork and processes are required?

Exactly so. If normal people had a little vulnerable child to make safe, the correct and natural instinct would be to take him somewhere where his family could collect him as soon as possible. Even if the father's a hardened criminal, you'd ask him who could collect the child and for a phone number, and you'd ascribe a named person to make sure it happened.

If, however, your aim is to terrorise people with brown skin, and don't give a flying fig if you terrify 5-year-olds (I gather that is his age, in fact), this is what happens. There is no excuse whatsoever for terrorising a 5-year-old.
 

Pinno718

Guru
Unmentioned as yet (as far as I can see), but equally pernicious and nasty, enabling racists everywhere -
Trump paints himself as great white hope in racism-drenched Davos speech

Trump surmised: Yes, we might have our internal squabbles, but I am bringing tough love because we are all in this together. We are the standard bearers of western civilisation. We must resist the barbarian hordes. We must save the white man.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...speech-stephen-miller-white-identity-politics

Racism is endemic in the US and has been since the abolition of slavery. Abolishing slavery threw millions of blacks into poverty. There was no welfare state. As the former slaves tried to literally stay alive, robbery became rife and recorded hangings of blacks reached almost 5000.

While official records vary, organizations like the NAACP documented widespread racial terror, with estimates suggesting thousands of African Americans were lynched.
(I do not like the use of the word 'suggesting' as if it were arguable. Such is the result of a Google search)

A lot of farmers, many in the former Confederate states became poor overnight and of course, blamed the north. This (very crudely) north/south divide - now a left/right split can be traced back to the roots of both the GOP and the Democrats. The KKK was founded in 1865. That's 160 years of organised prejudice. The KKK has splintered but has been replaced with 250 separate 'hate' groups. Miller is arguably congealing the separate groups and giving them uniforms and a salary.

The difference now, is that we have a purely Christian Nationalist government. Bar Obama, every single president has to have the endorsement of the bible bashers or they will not be elected, they will not get enough votes. This is ironic as there are proponents of keeping religion and the judiciary separate. It can never be separate in the US if the bible bashers are the deciding factor. That means that US domestic and foreign policy has been formed for time immemorial with the indirect consent of a belief system.

Miller is now the bugle of that endemic white supremacy ideology - simultaneously capitalising on deportations (Palantir) and getting a stiffy out of being cruel and appealing to those purveyors of racism, of prejudice, of hate. Trump laced the track with the rhetoric of illegals being predominantly criminal. Which is threatening to white people of a certain order's very existence. He's said this for a while so for the Grauniad (I do like the Guardian) to have come to this conclusion now is rather belated when it has been blatant from the outset.

Sorry, long post.
 
Last edited:
A useful reminder...

1769072229108.png
 

CXRAndy

Pharaoh

Who'd of thought, rampant illegal immigrants were so prevalent back then too 🤔
 

Dorset Boy

Active Member
I am not condoning the actions of ICE in respect to the father in any way, however the correct course of action was taken in respect of taking the child into care.
Presumably the family didn't know where the child was because they didn't know where the father was.
Do you really expect 5 year old to know the phone numbers of their family?

there's plenty to beat ICE up over, but I really don't think the initial situation in respect of this child is one of them, as clearly the alternative was to leave the child on the street.
 

Dorset Boy

Active Member
Have you ascertained if the father was here a) illegally* b) was going through the official lines of citizenship c) had committed an offence d) was legitimately detained ?
,
*According to US law, it is not a criminal offence to enter the US without authority, it is a civil offence.
Do you not think that unless the father was a dangerous criminal, a more humane action to take would be to have taken the father and the child to the local immigration processing facility, and for them to go through whatever paperwork and processes are required?

Whilst that may be the case, the fact is ICE took the father into custody.
So are you saying they should then have left the kid on the street?
Because it was either that or take the kid into their care.
 
Top Bottom