Trump defends separating immigrant families amid outcry of children during removal by U.S. Immigration officials.

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association © 2007

Home Purposes
& Services		 FAQ Archives
& Links		 e Donation
& Survey		 Contact Us
Members
Only		 MCFD
Tactics		 Forum &
Testimonies		 Parent
Support		 Kid's
Zone		 On-Line
Services

Children Used as a Political Weapon

U.S. Policy of Removing Children from Families Entering the US Illegally

As a matter of policy, the U.S. government is separating families who seek asylum in America by crossing the border illegally. U.S. immigration officials say 2,342 children have been separated from 2,206 parents from 5 May 2018 to 9 June 2018 amid a "zero-tolerance" crackdown on illegal immigration brought in by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Removed children were sent to government custody or foster care while their parents were labeled criminals and sent to jail.

On 19 June 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump defended his policy of splitting up families entering the US illegally, defying a growing chorus of condemnation calling such policy "cruel and inhuman". Some critics claim U.S. holding centres for child migrants separated from their parents were like Nazi concentration camps.

There is no American law on separating children from illegal immigrant parents at the border, but rather a policy introduced recently by the Trump administration. "I don't want children taken away from parents," President Trump said. "When you prosecute the parents for coming in illegally - which should happen - you have to take the children away."

On 20 June 2018, the U.S. preempted a potential expulsion from the 47-member United Nations Human Rights Council by pulling out from council membership of her own accord. Alleging a "cesspool of political bias" against Israel, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley held a press conference and lamented that the Council's membership includes accused human rights abusers such as China, Cuba, Venezuela and Congo. Using the media as propaganda against rival nations, they claimed that the U.S. decision to withdraw was strengthened by the Council's refusal to reform by rejecting the U.S. proposal to lower the two-third voting requirement to kick out council members.

The sudden U.S. withdrawal from the Council stuns the world like the Japanese withdrawal from the League of Nations Assembly in 1933 after the Assembly adopted a report condemning Japan for invading Manchuria, China in 1931.

An Anecdote on Withdrawal of Child Removal Policy

On 20 June 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump abruptly reversed himself and signed an executive order halting his administration's policy of separating children from their parents when they are detained illegally crossing the U.S. border.

A White House official said the first lady Melania Trump and the president's daughter Ivanka Trump had been making their opinion known to the president for some time that they felt he needed to do all he could to help families stay together.

On her way to a child detention centre in Texas on 21 June 2018, the first lady wore an ‘I Really Don’t Care. Do U?’ Zara jacket
as she boarded her plane in Washington. This sparked controversy on why she wore a jacket with such sensitive message. There is no shortage of prudent advice from public image consultants for the first family. Her choice of attire probably would not meet the approval of her advisors.

In our opinion, the focus of this issue is not what Mrs. Trump really thinks or cares. By the White House's own admission, the first family apparently played a role in the president's turnaround. This suggests that his family is influencing the president's decision making on state affairs. The president's family members are not elected by the American people and have not sworn to protect their best interests. American voters have to decide the propriety of such modus operandi, namely, an elected political leader knowingly allowed himself to be influenced by family members in making decisions for the nation.

Implications of Child Removal Policy

The U.S. child removal policy on illegal immigrants in 2018 confirms our view that children have been and are still being used as a weapon by governments to beat parents into submission. America is a self-proclaimed leader of the so-called free world. Yet, it (and its closest allies) enforces state-sponsored child removal, often for reasons other than real child protection. Most parents treasure their children and will fight to retain their custody at all costs. Politicians and bureaucrats take advantage of this noble human nature and use children as pawns for political purposes.

Most English-speaking countries, especially those with a colonial background, have statutory power to remove children from their parents. Under the pretext of child protection, such authority is often abused to accomplish hidden agenda. Nations that ardently speak of human rights, civil liberty and democracy have used such oppressive power for political reasons. The following are some examples:
  1. the Canadian government used the residential schools to destroy the Aboriginal people as a sovereign power;
  2. the Australian government used similar child removal policy that created the Stolen Generation and destroyed the Australian Aboriginal families to seize their land and resources.
Despite that child removal based on ethnic profiling is abolished and politicians repeatedly apologized to the Aboriginal communities, atrocities created by state-sponsored child removal continue in modern child protection. Corruption in the child protection industry is much worse and more dangerous than its now denounced predecessor. Special interests, whose financial well-being depends on removing children, aggressively target tax dollars at the expense of destroying children and families. All ethnic groups with children are now at risk in all child protective service (CPS) infested nations.

State sponsored child removal is a systematic attack against a civil population resulting in enforced disappearance of persons. According to Article 7 2(f) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, "enforced disappearance of persons" is defined as the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. Hideous wrongdoings in modern child protection meet the aforesaid definition of crimes against humanity. Under the pretext of child protection, service providers are allowed to further their self-serving interests. Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they are ratified into law. Alienation of children from parents is an inhumane act causing great suffering and serious injury to mental health.

Error processing SSI file


Child removal is a convenient and powerful weapon seldom known to the public. It has been and could be used against any individual or groups of individuals, often under the pretext of child protection. Corruption is the abuse of power by a government for private gain or any organized, interdependent system in which part of the system is either not performing duties it was originally intended to, or performing them in an improper way, to the detriment of the system's original purpose. Abuse of power by government for gains of special interests is paradigmatic of corruption. Since government policies are largely controlled or strongly influenced by service providers, CPS infested nations will never give up such formidable power so that their governments could use children to subjugate, exploit and control their people at will. Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. The only solution to build a safer future for our children and better government is to outlaw oppressive, barbaric and inhumane state-sponsored child removal. It is as evil as genocide, as despicable as terrorist activities and as hideous as incest. It has no place in any civilized society.

References

[This page was conceptualized on 19 June 2018, added on 20 June 2018, last revised 11 September 2018.]