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

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

© 2007-now
Bookmark and Share
donate button
PAPA logo
notice board blogger icon
New links

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 Dont 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.

In CPS infested nations, the best interests of children are jeopardized by a monolithic and ruthless child protection industry that profiteers from the abuse of statutory power, vexatious legal proceedings and pseudo science. The financial interest of service providers relies on state-sponsored child removal which produces an endless supply of children to feed foster homes and the lucrative adoption market. In such command economy market vs command economy, child protection workers are given near absolute power to secure their jobs

19980318 Judge Exposes BC Policy of Removing Children from parents

In 1998, Judge Robin Smith of the B.C. provincial family court indicated that a waiting period of a year and a half should be expected before a child protection case is heard in court (after a Section 35 hearing). This will guarantee placement in foster homes for the next 12 to 18 months. If other delaying tactics (such as mediation and agreement of temporary custody from parents in exchange of more generous visitation terms) are used, MCFD could easily extend a waiting period of 2 to 3 years before a child protection case is heard in court. Service providers are motivated either by job security or financial incentives to create more cases and prolong their involvement. It is safe to contend that the number of children in care is budget driven, namely, the more tax dollars allocated into child protection, the more child abuse cases and more child removals.

This analysis also confirms a well known phenomenon that civil servants will doing everything they can to use up the budget before fiscal year end. This self-serving act is intended to avoid budget cut and to protect jobs of excessive government employees. If there is surplus money in the budget, they will spend it dry (like buying unnecessary supplies, upgrading equipments while the old ones still serve their purpose well) before the fiscal year ends. Although no public servant will publicly admit this, this practice is common in government, especially in MCFD.

On 18 March 1998 (during the NDP era), 14 new social workers apprehended 71 children from their parents in just two months in the small town of Quesnel in British Columbia with a population of 8,856 in 1998. In a rare instance, Judge Robin Smith (a family court judge in 1998) found this so appalling that he went public to express his concern on the excessive undue child removal in Quesnel. He noted that only 5 of the 71 removals were justified. Be mindful that the test of granting interim custody order in Section 35 hearings is extremely lax. Assuming foster homes are known safe places, judges often err on the side of caution and make interim custody order in favor of the Director of MCFD. Even in such lopsided test, only 5 out of the 71 new removals were justified. This demonstrates how serious the abuse of child removal authority is.

It is noteworthy to remark on the following:

  1. This child removal spree occurred two months before 18 March 1998. The fiscal year end of provincial ministries is 31st March. The spree raised the number of children in care and created a gradual fait accompli to lend support step by step in seeking a large budget and hence enhance job security for child protection workers. In our experience of assisting distressed parents, child protection workers in small town are generally more aggressive in removing children and more inclined to prolong their involvement than their counterparts in larger cities. This is probably due to the lack of sufficient seizable children to secure their jobs in sparsely populated small towns.
  2. Judge Robin Smith, the Interior Regional Administrative Judge in 2013, complained of hearing delay due to judge understaffed and heavy caseload in February 2012. MCFD often seeks long trial period, citing many witnesses and evidence, to ensure a remote hearing date (hence a prolonged child in care period) and cancel the trial shortly before hearing date. This frequently used MCFD scheduling tactic contributes to the court congestion and mitigate the ability of the judiciary to hear other cases on a timely basis. As a result, some criminal cases were dismissed because of a breach of charter right. Inadvertently, many criminals walk free because of MCFD's abuse of process.
  3. In early 1998, 8 existing child protection workers (or social workers in the LifeSiteNews article above) were removed for retraining. They were replaced by 14 new workers. The news article does not explain why the small town Quesnel with a population of 8,856 in 1998 suddenly needed more child protection workers or what retraining program entailed. Given the aggressiveness of the new workers and the horrendous arbitrary child removals, the 8 existing child protection workers probably did not remove enough children and were retrained to be more aggressive in exercising their child removal authority.
. Lawyers representing both sides safeguard their business by lengthening proceedings. Foster parents earn huge tax-free income from warehousing removed children to help pay their mortgages. Demand of services from psychotherapists is created as litigants in child protection hearings fabricate expert evidence to support their positions. Tax dollars allocated to protect children in need are wasted in counter productive activities. Taxpayers become an indirect victim.

Under the cover of a sheep skin, perpetrators launch coordinated, often premeditated, attacks on unsuspecting families to sever parental rights. Occupying the moral high ground, they profess themselves as noble child protectors in court rooms. Once out of the spotlight, they run their business on fear, intimidation, secrecy
The victimized mother from Creston, B.C. below (who uses a Youtube name Maya Bradshaw) asked why her 14-year old son (as of 17 November 2017) is allowed to stay with her while her 8-year old daughter Victoria was removed and adopted after the Ministry of Family and Children Development obtained a continuing custody order (CCO, in some jurisdictions this is also known as permanent custody order). The answer is simple. An 8-year old is much easier to adopt than an 14-year old. Adoption is a lucrative business. Victoria's whereabout is unknown to her.
, misrepresentation and deception. The best interests of children and at times child safety are in the least concerned. Self-serving agenda are concealed, not published. Mistakes are covered up and whitewashed, not headlined. Abuse of power is misconstrued as proper, necessary and professional, not condemned. High profile atrocities (often involving death of children in care) are used to squeeze more fundings and ironically used for self-aggrandizement of a worthless and often harmful social service. Media and the populace are kept in the dark under the pretext of privacy. Public ignorance, apathy and blind faith in government have been taken full advantage of. Benevolent non-profit societies that assist parents or to raise public awareness on the negative impacts of state-sponsored child removal are perceived as a threat, not an ameliorative driving force. To naturalize such threat, these societies are often infiltrated
For instance, PANIC of New Zealand was originally formed by a pastor to assist parents and to air corruption in the child protection system. PANIC abbreviate Parents Against Negative Intervention of CYFS (Child, Youth and Family Service, replaced by a new Ministry for Vulnerable Children in April 2017). After infiltration, it became CYFS friendly. Its website underwent a major facelift. PANIC is now renamed to Family Crisis Intervention Service (FCIS). PANIC is redefined as Positive Answers Needed in Crisis.
, intimidated (often by the police alleging unlawful activities) and financially eradicated
Non-profit societies are prohibited from becoming a registered charity by way of a provision in tax laws that charities are not allowed to explicitly communicate a call to political action (that is, encourages the public to contact an elected representative or public official and urges them to retain, oppose, or change the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country). Failure to obtain a registered charity status will severely handicap the ability of non-profit societies to raise funds as they cannot issue tax-deductible receipts (see Section 6.2 below).
. Whistleblowers
are disparaged and silenced, not praised. Perpetrators are protected or promoted, not punished. Deliberation of different opinions that could harm the financial interest of the industry is deemed unmeaningful and avoided. Faulty research results often involving biased and self-serving survey from service providers are used for budgeting and formulation of government policies. Parents have no representation whatsoever. Government propaganda glamorizes the industry and inflates the value

This 2016 government propaganda above attempts to brainwash us to believe in the value of foster homes. Foster homes are instrumental to the expansion of the child protection industry. This explains why the child protection industry always wants more foster homes. However, news footages on the right tell a totally different story on foster homes.


of child removal to confuse our moral compass.

When wrongdoings attract unwanted attention, perpetrators cowardly hide under the skirt of politicians. To placate public anger, governments often buy time by retaining retired judges or bureaucrats to conduct reviews. After months, if not years, of investigation and huge amount of tax dollars wasted, reports from these infallible creatures often advocate more money and more power to child protection workers. More child protection workers seem to be a universal solution, not a problem. To ensure support in the next election, politicians dutifully protect the industry by robotically reciting phrases like "child protection system is one of hope, child protection workers only intervene when there is a concern about a child's safety, children will be returned when it is safe to do so, we cannot comment on individual cases because of privacy, ... etc.
" in front of TV cameras. Rare birds who have the political will to speak against the industry and pose a credible threat are purged by their own political parties, not supported. Those who refuse to give up conveniently die a sudden and tragic death
. Irresponsibly assuming that foster homes are "known safe places"
British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services) v. G.(R.), 2001 BCPC 32 (paragraph [14]) is a good example to prove the foregoing. The Honorable Judge Jane Auxier (a provincial court judge in Vancouver, B.C.) wrote:
"I'm sure the parents will see this decision as unfair to them - that I've put the onus on them to prove themselves, rather than putting the onus on the director to prove their inability. And I suppose that is what I have done. Primarily because of the very lengthy history of ongoing problems, the court must err on the side of caution, keeping J. in a known, safe environment rather than taking the risk of placing him in his parents' care."
The news footages below are just some of the many documented abuses in Canadian foster homes that could effectively refute the aforesaid wrong belief.
, judiciary fails society by rubber stamping decisions made by the industry. In very few odd cases when judges rule against the industry, child protection agencies often launch lengthy appeal proceedings at huge taxpayer's expense and bankrupt opposing parties. Higher courts overturn unfavorable decisions and exonerate perpetrators previously found guilty. Pseudo watchdogs (official critics often called Representative for Children and Youth or RCY) are funded and controlled by government to create an illusion of accountability, contain damage and mislead the public towards the same goal of seeking more fundings.

The industry is at an undeclared de facto war on humanity. Child removal authority is often abused by estranged spouses, hostile in-laws, the police, prosecutors and other malicious parties for reasons other than child protection. Child removal is oppressive and inhumane. It undermines a fundamental human right and the precious dignity it confers. Service providers covertly, but legally, turn our hard-earned tax dollars into their ill-gotten assets by imposing their services on reluctant and often repulsive "clients" under the threat of child removal or the bait of returning removed children. In short, avarice
Extreme greed for wealth or material gain.
Synonyms: greed, greediness, acquisitiveness, cupidity, covetousness, rapacity, materialism, mercenariness; rarepleonexia; informalmoney-grubbing, affluenza
and megalomania
Obsession with the exercise of power, especially in the domination of others.
Synonyms: delusions of grandeur, folie de grandeur, thirst/lust for power;
• delusion about one's own power or importance (typically as a symptom of manic or paranoid disorder).
summarize the industry. Modern child protection is merely racketeering in ordinary times and could be used as a powerful weapon for political purposes as governments see fit. If there is no penalty for wrongdoings, people will continue to do them, especially when motivated by financial benefits. No democracy would ever hope or wish to rectify such corruption.

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.]