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
PAPA logo
donate button
notice board blogger icon
New links

On 14 July 2015, the Supreme Court of B.C. handed down an unprecedented judgment J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCSC 1216. This is the first case in Canadian legal history in which child protection workers are found liable for misfeasance in public office, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the standard of care. Litigations between JP and the MCFD are summarized in JP Aftermath. Our commentary on the Plecas Review Part 1: Decision Time was published on 4 January 2016. On 31 August 2017, the Court of Appeal for B.C. set aside the orders in the civil proceeding against the Director/Province, set aside the finding that Mr. Strickland committed misfeasance in public office, that the Director and her delegates breached their fiduciary duty to the children, and that the Director and her delegates breached the standard of care in the decisions they made with respect to the children while they were in her care.

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. 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 and lifestyle. 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 mount coordinated, often premeditated, attacks on unsuspecting families to sever parental rights. They profess themselves as noble child protectors in court rooms and in front of TV cameras. Once out of the spotlight, they run their business on fear, intimidation, secrecy, misrepresentation and deception. Self-serving agenda are concealed, not published. Mistakes are buried 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. Whistleblowers are disparaged, purged 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. Only favorable information that promotes the industry is published and propagated. When wrongdoings attract unwanted attention, they cowardly hide under the skirt of politicians. Politicians dutifully protect them by robotically reciting phrases like "child safety is of paramount importance, children will be returned when it is safe to do so, we cannot comment on individual cases because of privacy, ... etc." Rare birds who have the political will and courage to speak against the industry conveniently died a sudden and tragic death. Assuming that foster homes are known safe places, judiciary makes lopsided decisions in favour of the industry. In very few odd cases when judges rule against the industry, child protection agencies often appeal at taxpayer's expense. 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 quietly declares war on humanity. Oppressive act of child removal 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, megalomania and avarice 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. 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.]