Rippee also noted the troubling normalization of such activities within the government, saying, “It’s just an accepted part of the bureaucracy. But the reality is, this is exploitation, and it has to stop.”
In what POSSIBLE universe could the trafficking of children be considered an "accepted part of the bureaucracy?"
Kids either runaway across the border with no documents
Kids' parents die or are imprisoned upon crossing the border
Kids are rescued from slavery upon crossing the border.
In these cases, which do happen, the kids have to be interviewed to find their identity and home country. Upon figuring that out, the host country needs to be contacted, and their judicial system will get involved, and have to contact the original parents. Those parents will have to be investigated by the host country to make sure that it is safe for the children to be returned to their parents or appointed legal guardians. This is actually a horrifically stupid legal bureaucracy involving the laws of at least two nations, and possibly international laws and treaties. There does need to be a process in this case.
BUT, you'll notice that in all of these cases, the kids are returned to their host country.
Now, can I give you an example where kids are NOT?
There's only one I can think of: the extended family already lives in the US, the kids fled their host country, and host country parents/guardians are either dead or unfit to care for children.
So for example, grandma lives in the US, but mom and dad live in Mexico, but dad's a career criminal, and mom got shot to death by one of dad's rival gang members. So little jimmy feared that him and his sister would be killed next and decided to literally claw their way to grandma to be safe. In this case, the US authorities would have to recognize that the kids were in genuine danger, that neither parent could get the children, and now these kids are trying to go live with their grandma in the states. This is a catastrophe from a bureaucracy stand-point because not only is immigration law and foreign treaties involved, but now family courts in both countries are involved, and so is CPS. Now, if Grandma is willing to accept them, given the severity of the situation, the kids might be considered genuine refugees and non-residents that now have to live with grandma, if and only if the host country family court and US family court can agree on transferring the custody of the kids to grandma.
That being said, the likelihood of this happening even 100 times in a year is vanishingly small.
It should be pointed out that immigration services have lost hundreds of children. This doesn't necessarily mean these kids are dead or enslaved, many are likely just being moved from family member to family member in the US via these NGO's that didn't take good accounting of people.
Return to home country under care of home country's bureaucracy.
This is actually a horrifically stupid legal bureaucracy involving the laws of at least two nations, and possibly international laws and treaties. There does need to be a process in this case.
Yes, but that process can take place in either jurisdiction once it is established.
Yes, their stay in the US is mostly for the lag time that it takes to get them back. Weirdly, this can take 6 months to a year due to judiciary and bureaucratic nonsense.
I remember because MSNBC did a story about "unaccompanied minors being exiled by the Trump administration after separating them from their parents". It was actually about how a mom stole a kid from her husband and fled to the US. She was arrested, the kid was sent to an immigration facility. The family court of the host country was called, and they sorted out the domestic situation. The US government then bought the kid a plane ticket on a specially designated flight that would fly back into the host country where the grand-parents would be waiting to pick the kid up.
MSNBC reported on all of this, assuming their readers are illiterate and would get bored by the 3rd paragraph, and just spent most of the early part of the article reporting how the mother "didn't know where her kid would end up" despite the grandparents being required to pick the kid up from the airport.
Yes, but that process can take place in either jurisdiction once it is established.
Yes, absolutely. The only issue is that immigration cases with children can still be stupid, so you never know if the host country is going to demand the children back, or refuse to take them.
If they don't have any guardians, you basically just need to keep them in child-designated immigration holding facilities. These were the ones where AOC was claiming they were "jails" and that "children drank out of the toilets" because the toilets had a built in sink feature for washing hands. They are a bit spartan, but the staff do keep the kids safe, there are recreational centers, and there's plenty of food. Not the greatest place for boy or girl to hang out, but it's a safe & protective environment. They shouldn't need to be moved around at all once there.
In what POSSIBLE universe could the trafficking of children be considered an "accepted part of the bureaucracy?"
This universe, AKA the one where the devil runs the world.
And they're always pedophiles.
I can give you a few possible scenarios.
In these cases, which do happen, the kids have to be interviewed to find their identity and home country. Upon figuring that out, the host country needs to be contacted, and their judicial system will get involved, and have to contact the original parents. Those parents will have to be investigated by the host country to make sure that it is safe for the children to be returned to their parents or appointed legal guardians. This is actually a horrifically stupid legal bureaucracy involving the laws of at least two nations, and possibly international laws and treaties. There does need to be a process in this case.
BUT, you'll notice that in all of these cases, the kids are returned to their host country.
Now, can I give you an example where kids are NOT?
There's only one I can think of: the extended family already lives in the US, the kids fled their host country, and host country parents/guardians are either dead or unfit to care for children.
So for example, grandma lives in the US, but mom and dad live in Mexico, but dad's a career criminal, and mom got shot to death by one of dad's rival gang members. So little jimmy feared that him and his sister would be killed next and decided to literally claw their way to grandma to be safe. In this case, the US authorities would have to recognize that the kids were in genuine danger, that neither parent could get the children, and now these kids are trying to go live with their grandma in the states. This is a catastrophe from a bureaucracy stand-point because not only is immigration law and foreign treaties involved, but now family courts in both countries are involved, and so is CPS. Now, if Grandma is willing to accept them, given the severity of the situation, the kids might be considered genuine refugees and non-residents that now have to live with grandma, if and only if the host country family court and US family court can agree on transferring the custody of the kids to grandma.
That being said, the likelihood of this happening even 100 times in a year is vanishingly small.
It should be pointed out that immigration services have lost hundreds of children. This doesn't necessarily mean these kids are dead or enslaved, many are likely just being moved from family member to family member in the US via these NGO's that didn't take good accounting of people.
Yes, but that process can take place in either jurisdiction once it is established.
Yes, their stay in the US is mostly for the lag time that it takes to get them back. Weirdly, this can take 6 months to a year due to judiciary and bureaucratic nonsense.
I remember because MSNBC did a story about "unaccompanied minors being exiled by the Trump administration after separating them from their parents". It was actually about how a mom stole a kid from her husband and fled to the US. She was arrested, the kid was sent to an immigration facility. The family court of the host country was called, and they sorted out the domestic situation. The US government then bought the kid a plane ticket on a specially designated flight that would fly back into the host country where the grand-parents would be waiting to pick the kid up.
MSNBC reported on all of this, assuming their readers are illiterate and would get bored by the 3rd paragraph, and just spent most of the early part of the article reporting how the mother "didn't know where her kid would end up" despite the grandparents being required to pick the kid up from the airport.
Yes, absolutely. The only issue is that immigration cases with children can still be stupid, so you never know if the host country is going to demand the children back, or refuse to take them.
If they don't have any guardians, you basically just need to keep them in child-designated immigration holding facilities. These were the ones where AOC was claiming they were "jails" and that "children drank out of the toilets" because the toilets had a built in sink feature for washing hands. They are a bit spartan, but the staff do keep the kids safe, there are recreational centers, and there's plenty of food. Not the greatest place for boy or girl to hang out, but it's a safe & protective environment. They shouldn't need to be moved around at all once there.
the government kind
There really seems to be a pattern of Democrats trying to create as many unaccompanied, vulnerable, displaced minors as possible. 🤔