Monday, June 18, 2018

Questioning Immigration Policy at the Mexican Border - The Truth about Separating Kids from Parents

Since the 2016 election, the issue of immigration has progressed from being a somewhat marginalized topic of discussion to being a central issue in politics today. We see news media ridiculing the policies which created this situation and in many ways, this is understandable. However, we might be surprised to know that this standard regarding the treatment of migrant children has been in place for decades, yet the MSM seems to have ignored this fact completely. Why?

The foundation of this questionable immigration policy is based upon a legal case which dates back to the year 1985.

Flores v. Reno

The case of Flores v. Reno was a well-known legal case (at least at the time) which dealt specifically with the treatment of Mexican immigrants and their children. This case and class action cited numerous instances in which children were reportedly mistreated and mishandled by caregivers and immigration personnel during the 1980s and in the years following.

Various reports have been filed regarding possible abuses taking place against the children of Mexican immigrants—abuses including detaining non-delinquent minors and juveniles for extended periods of time with no educational material, no adequate recreation, and no opportunity to learn about what was happening to them or why they were being detained.

Related links - 8 Ways the Global Elite Manipulate Our Perception of Reality - Links and Comment

To add, these children were treated like criminals even when they had committed no crimes. Children were often subjected to body cavity searches and other clear violations of the Constitution, U.S. immigration policy, and United Nations Protocols. It was cited in the case report that these violations were possibly committed as a means of punishing the parents for illegally entering the country.

In an interview, President Trump said that he wants to change the policy as soon as possible and that it is wrong to have children separated from their parents in such a way. He claims that he did not create the policy, and according to history, that is true. However, a recent executive order did make use of the policy, and this has caused many people to disapprove of the President's choice in that particular executive order.

It does seem questionable as to why the administration chose to act upon such an unethical policy which many would agree to be archaic and cruel at best, according to the case file.

Shifting Goalposts

Since 1985, Flores v. Reno has not been a major news point and seems to have been ignored by nearly every political commentator up until the 2016 election. Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama all managed to serve multiple terms with nearly no major attention given to these abuses taking place at the Mexican border. Yet today, the current President is made to answer for the policy which was implemented four decades ago.

All of these previous Presidents were celebrated during the lifespan of this reportedly inhumane policy. Yet the media only appears to be expressing outrage now. (We might also keep in mind that it not the corporate media's job to express their own opinions, but that this is now a common practice in the MSM.) 

Though it is common for the general public to lay blame wherever the corporate media suggests, it is important that we remember to think for ourselves in this case (and every other, for that matter). The current President may be responsible for creating policies based upon unethical immigration standards. However, this is no more or less unethical than the last five Presidents when they did the same.

Double Standards

It is very important, I believe, to evaluate any individual—especially a President—based upon a solid foundation of ethics. If ever we are to judge the conduct of any public official, it is necessary to use the same standard of upright conduct across the board. It is unethical to hold one official to a high standard while exempting everyone else who falls below it. The problem with the mainstream media is that they do not uphold this practice of evaluation at all.

It seems the current MSM has lost its collective mind in the way they openly and shamelessly demonize one apparent scapegoat for operating on a policy which has literally been in effect for over four decades. Instead of holding all Presidents to the same standard, the corporate media has chosen to demonize the latest one for the same thing the last five have done regarding this immigration policy. (However, this is not to excuse the policy itself, if in fact violations to human rights were committed.)

Instead of operating upon a fair playing field, the media has been transformed into a popularity contest in which the numerous companies and reporters tied to the financial interests who lost the 2016 election are committed to sabotaging the man who they feel stole the position they paid good money to occupy.

Related links - Know Your Propaganda – Smear Tactics – Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well

By all appearances, the MSM is now operating upon the petty standards of a pre-election campaign race. They visibly distort, disapprove of, and many times, lie about many of the actions of the current President. To add, this media seems to have made a point to disrespect the President at every point they address him. The American people are left without an example of true ethics in news, and the worst part is that most of the country has failed to realize the fact.

The standards of conduct of the corporate media have been uprooted from ethics entirely and have been transplanted into a mire of political correctness.

Political Correctness

This new trend of political correctness has been proven to be dangerous in numerous ways. In short, political correctness is a normalized standard which is literally born from self-interest and fabricated by the dominant voice within any political establishment. This means that the person with the microphone makes the rules and is in sole control over the people's perceptions of right and wrong.

It is clear that the current media establishment has a vendetta against the President. Considering the disrespectful conduct of this media, it seems clear that ethics and respectful discourse are of little interest to them. The media itself has created a substitution for moral and ethical behavior, and this standard is this: "Anyone who demonstrates hateful behavior toward Donald Trump is a good person."

By all appearances, this standard of hate is the new ethics in America. It is the standard in Hollywood, in corporate news, and it follows the corporate media everywhere the media travels. It may be tempting to the suggestible to conform to this low point of political correctness. However, those who think independently and hold a stable standard of ethics may want to avoid such hateful behavior.

The Decline of the MSM

Up until a certain point, we may have believed that the corporate media was largely objective, responsible, and reliable when it came to reporting the truth. After learning otherwise, many realized that the various MSM companies were a part of the same corporate entity and that this entity was in the business of selling the various agendas of its corporate heads. This left news audiences with a manicured and distorted version of the truth in news. Yet this fact was unbeknownst to the general public.

The reason we see the five Presidents who approved of this questionable immigration policy receiving a free pass and virtually endless praise from much of the corporate media is because these Presidents were financially partnered with the same corporate entities which the MSM was (and still is) in bed with.

The policy which separates migrant children from their parents may be unethical. If it is, it was unethical when Ronald Reagan acted on it, when Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama allowed it to go without attention. It is also ethically wrong for the corporate media to deceive the American people by claiming that one President is the sole cause of a problem which has existed for four decades, and to simply scapegoat one man for the actions of five others.

The truth of the situation is still uncertain in some respects. However, the truth about the current corporate media is becoming clearer by the day. Eventually, the general public will wake up and begin to read about history. When they do, they may still be upset about a few of the actions which President Trump has taken, but to a greater degree, the people will likely demand answers from a media that deliberately deceived, manipulated, and used the people merely as a weapon against their financial enemy.

* * * * *

Source: National Review

Published: May 28, 2018

By: Rich Lowry

The Truth about Separating Kids

U.S. Border Patrol agents with illegal immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border near McAllen, Texas, May 9, 2018. (Loren Elliott/Reuters)Some economic migrants are using children as chits, but the problem is fixable — if Congress acts.

The latest furor over Trump immigration policy involves the separation of children from parents at the border.

As usual, the outrage obscures more than it illuminates, so it’s worth walking through what’s happening here.

For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. This poses challenges we haven’t confronted before and has made what once were relatively minor wrinkles in the law loom very large.

The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.

It’s the last that is operative here. The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)

Related links - "Explosive", "Shocking" And "Alarming" FISA Memo Set To Rock DC, "End Mueller Investigation"

When a migrant is prosecuted for illegal entry, he or she is taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals. In no circumstance anywhere in the U.S. do the marshals care for the children of people they take into custody. The child is taken into the custody of HHS, who cares for them at temporary shelters.

The criminal proceedings are exceptionally short, assuming there is no aggravating factor such as a prior illegal entity or another crime. The migrants generally plead guilty, and they are then sentenced to time served, typically all in the same day, although practices vary along the border. After this, they are returned to the custody of ICE.

If the adult then wants to go home, in keeping with the expedited order of removal that is issued as a matter of course, it’s relatively simple. The adult should be reunited quickly with his or her child, and the family returned home as a unit. In this scenario, there’s only a very brief separation.

Where it becomes much more of an issue is if the adult files an asylum claim. In that scenario, the adults are almost certainly going to be detained longer than the government is allowed to hold their children.

That’s because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.

The clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled. The migrant is allowed ten days to seek an attorney, and there may be continuances or other complications.

This creates the choice of either releasing the adults and children together into the country pending the ajudication of the asylum claim, or holding the adults and releasing the children. If the adult is held, HHS places the child with a responsible party in the U.S., ideally a relative (migrants are likely to have family and friends here).

Even if Flores didn’t exist, the government would be very constrained in how many family units it can accommodate. ICE has only about 3,000 family spaces in shelters. It is also limited in its overall space at the border, which is overwhelmed by the ongoing influx. This means that — whatever the Trump administration would prefer to do — many adults are still swiftly released.

Why try to hold adults at all? First of all, if an asylum-seeker is detained, it means that the claim goes through the process much more quickly, a couple of months or less rather than years. Second, if an adult is released while the claim is pending, the chances of ever finding that person again once he or she is in the country are dicey, to say the least. It is tantamount to allowing the migrant to live here, no matter what the merits of the case.

Related links - US Secretly Created 'Cuban Twitter' to Stir Unrest and Undermine the Cuban Government - Links and Commentary

A few points about all this:

1) Family units can go home quickly. The option that both honors our laws and keeps family units together is a swift return home after prosecution. But immigrant advocates hate it because they want the migrants to stay in the United States. How you view this question will depend a lot on how you view the motivation of the migrants (and how seriously you take our laws and our border).

2) There’s a better way to claim asylum. Every indication is that the migrant flow to the United States is discretionary. It nearly dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration when migrants believed that they had no chance of getting into the United States. Now, it is going in earnest again because the message got out that, despite the rhetoric, the policy at the border hasn’t changed. This strongly suggests that the flow overwhelmingly consists of economic migrants who would prefer to live in the United States, rather than victims of persecution in their home country who have no option but to get out.

Even if a migrant does have a credible fear of persecution, there is a legitimate way to pursue that claim, and it does not involve entering the United States illegally. First, such people should make their asylum claim in the first country where they feel safe, i.e., Mexico or some other country they are traversing to get here. Second, if for some reason they are threatened everywhere but the United States, they should show up at a port of entry and make their claim there rather than crossing the border illegally.

3) There is a significant moral cost to not enforcing the border. There is obviously a moral cost to separating a parent from a child and almost everyone would prefer not to do it. But, under current policy and with the current resources, the only practical alternative is letting family units who show up at the border live in the country for the duration. Not only does this make a mockery of our laws, it creates an incentive for people to keep bringing children with them.

Needless to say, children should not be making this journey that is fraught with peril. But there is now a premium on bringing children because of how we have handled these cases. They are considered chits.

In April, the New York Times reported:

Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.

Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing.

According to, it is “common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.”

If someone is determined to come here illegally, the decent and safest thing would be to leave the child at home with a relative and send money back home. Because we favor family units over single adults, we are creating an incentive to do the opposite and use children to cut deals with smugglers.

4) Congress can fix this. Congress can change the rules so the Flores consent decree will no longer apply, and it can appropriate more money for family shelters at the border. This is an obvious thing to do that would eliminate the tension between enforcing our laws and keeping family units together. The Trump administration is throwing as many resources as it can at the border to expedite the process, and it desperately wants the Flores consent decree reversed. Despite some mixed messages, if the administration had its druthers, family units would be kept together and their cases settled quickly.

Continue reading at:

* * * * *

Last Resorts and Elitist Agendas

According to the Department of Justice, the new law known as Zero Tolerance (April 2018) was put in place not as a first choice, but as a last resort and a result of Democrats and Republicans failing to work together to solve the issues of immigration. According to multiple sources, this has become an issue of even greater severity than it has been in past years.

The ruthless Mexican gang known as MS13 has recently been the focus of official crack-downs. American officials have applied multiple policies in order to ensure that such violent criminals are not able to slip through a border that is believed to have been too lenient in the past. Though many political interests seem intent upon ignoring this problem, these gang members appear to be a major focus of the recent initiative to tighten border security.

The fact seems to be that the U.S. is engaged in a silent cold war against very wealthy and very ruthless globalists (i.e., the Cabal) who do not care about human life or the impact of their own destructive actions. It seems that many people within government and within society are willing to acknowledge the need to be protective against the efforts of these interests to create destruction in the West. However, many are not and are largely unwilling to see any image of reality the corporate media does not hand them.

Related links - Who Controls the World? - The True Story behind Money and Media Manipulation with TED X - Video, Links and Extended Commentary

It has been revealed that many of these elitist interests created terrorism in the Middle East, and have been doing so for the last fifty years or more. These same interests have been using American corporations to finance coups and regime changes worldwide for the benefit of their own bank accounts. And when these detestable ventures were halted, the corporate criminals turned to Mexican gangs as their next tool to cause trouble in the West, according to sources.

By all appearances, the political rift within the United States has not only been formed between Democrats and Republicans. It has been formed between those who have chosen to acknowledge the financial criminals who are behind societal destruction on a global scale and those who are uninterested in learning about these criminals.

As many of us may have learned, these cabalists have been running the world for the past century and are now attempting to regain control over society after substantial progress has been made toward their defeat. It is believed that many of the politicians who are behaving as though these criminal elitists do not exist are either willfully ignorant or are actually working for these elitists to help weaken Western policies and to eventually destroy the stability of the U.S. According to multiple whistleblower testimonies, this is exactly what these Cabal interests have done to every country who was unable to see through their schemes of global control.
Other Related Topics...

Unmasking Fascism - The United Nations Makes a Shocking Admission about Syria and Western Corruption - Commentary and Links Included

US North Korea Peace Talks Made Possible by USAF Secret Space Program - Exopolitics

US Cited for Police Violence, Racism in Scathing UN Review on Human Rights

The NDAA Legalizes the Use of Propaganda on United States Citizens - Commentary and Links, Plus an Interview with Dr. Udo Ulfkotte

Justice Department Reopens Hillary Clinton Email Investigation Just as Fire Breaks Out at Clinton's NY Home; Citizens Suspect Cover-Up

Think Banning Refugees Is Bad? Then You Need to Know How They Were Created

Billionaire Globalist Soros Exposed as Hidden Hand Behind Trump Protests, Provoking US "Color Revolution" - Video, Links, and Commentary

Sensationalism, Inflammatory Words, and the History of Tabloid Journalism - A Crash Course for Discerning Your Next Read - Links and Commentary Included

The Reality of Child Trafficking - U.S. and International Statistics for Victims of Global Pedophilia Rings

Criminal Referral Issued for Comey, Clinton, Lynch and McCabe; Rosenstein Recusal Demanded - Video, Article, and Commentary

33,000 Clinton Emails Previously Claimed to Be "Missing" Now Found? - Authorities Tracking Down Evidence from Backup Servers - Links and Commentary

Discerning the Mystery is a website dedicated to awakening and educating the people to their true potential of mental, spiritual, emotional, and physical growth. It can be difficult work, but if just one person benefits from these efforts, it is entirely worth it. 

If you enjoy what you read here, please give the post a like and share on social media. Also, if you enjoyed this article, please consider leaving a donation.

Feel free to send us an email and tell us what you think. If you have any suggestions or subjects you would like to see discussed, please let us know.

Thank you for your support.

No comments:

Post a Comment