DECACS, Inc. and all its Initiatives

SOURCE: ACTIVIST POST

By Catherine J. Frompovich

For many years, especially since the infamous and diabolical decimation of the NYC World Trade Towers and Building No.7, which no plane hit, there’s been much talk about the “Deep State” and/or the “Shadow Government” being the very real government running the USA.  Most folks really don’t give a damn, or so it seems.  However, there are three sets of ‘actors’ who U.S. citizens seemingly can’t equate with manipulating the strings of governance, especially those folks who propose ‘socialism’.

Most folks think it’s the President and the political party they vote for and elect who run the country.  Think again!  Would you accept the President is not permitted to know the devious plans of the Deep State and Shadow Government; how about the machinations of the Federal Reserve and its cadre of fiatmoney economy manipulators; and what’s euphemistically referred to as the New World Order under the auspices of the United Nations!  See the UN’s Agenda 21 and 2030, if you don’t believe that.  Those are the defining actors, or “string pullers,” running the U.S., and most of the world, since they were able to get away with assassinating President John F. Kennedy, in my opinion.  I remember that day like it was yesterday!

So, who or what make up the Deep State or Shadow Government?  Basically, it’s a conglomerate of military-influenced and/or run alphabet agencies within the U.S. federal government.  Here’s a list and don’t gasp:

  • CIA       Central Intelligence Agency
  • IRS        Internal Revenue Service
  • FBI        Federal Bureau of Investigation
  • DoD      Department of Defense
  • DHS      Department of Homeland Security
  • DoS       Department of State
  • EPA       Environmental Protection Agency
  • NOAA   National Ocean and Atmospheric Agency
  • NWS     National Weather Service
  • NSA      National Security Agency
  • DOJ       Department of Justice

We can accept the above because they were named by former CIA agent Kevin Shipp on August 5, 2016 before an audience gathered to hear about weather geoengineering.

According to Mr. Shipp, who had his legal run in with the CIA and won, these agencies are operating outside the U.S. Constitution in what‘s being called a “Post Constitutional Government (PCG)”.  It’s illegal and we, the citizens, have allowed them to get away with it!  According to Shipp, even Congress doesn’t know the extent of the alphabet agencies involvement in post constitutional government, which is pretty sad.  Where’s congressional oversight?  Is that a ‘flagrant’ clue to what Mr. Shipp says about PCG?

Shipp talks about the CIA-NSA-connected newspapers.  He talks about how government agencies work with In-Q-Tel, and that Google is working under In-Q-Tel to monitor the Internet.  However, according to Shipp, it’s all part of the military complex agenda.

At 27:42 on the timeline, Shipp ventures off into vaccines and the Autism heartbreak, which may prove interesting to parents.  He states we live in the “Age of Cowardice.” OMG!  How has it come down to that?

CIA Whistleblower Speaks Out About Climate Engineering, Vaccination Dangers, and 911
41:22 minutes

https://youtu.be/Nl5NW9KcMt0?t=2110

“The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.”
The government rules by fear.

Source: Is There Such A Maniacal State In The USA Known As The “Deep State”?

Advertisements

Brazil’s New President Openly Threatens Genocide of Indigenous Amazonians

NOVEMBER 6, 2018 AT 5:33 PM

Along with his pledge to sell off their rainforest home to agribusiness and mining, Bolsonaro has said openly “minorities will have to adapt … or simply disappear”

Credit: Charlie Hamilton James, National Geographic

 

Brazil’s new president, Jair Bolsonaro, campaigned on a plan to sell off major portions of the Amazon rainforest to agribusiness, mining. and hydro-power.

“Minorities have to adapt to the majority, or simply disappear,” he said on the campaign trail, adding that under his administration, “not one square centimeter” of Brazil will be reserved for the country’s indigenous peoples.

Thirteen percent of the land in Brazil is protected indigenous territory in the Amazon rainforest, where most of the world’s last uncontacted tribes take refuge. Bolsonaro has said he wants to put all of that land on the auction block.

Contacted members of the Awá of Brazil, only 100 of whom remain uncontacted by civilization. Credit: Charlie Hamilton James, National Geographic

Since his election on October 28, he’s announced a merging of the ministries of agriculture and the environment — the latter of which was supposed regulate the former — into a new “super ministry” to oversee his plan.

The new ministry will be headed by politicians from the “beef caucus,” a group of lawmakers who have historically opposed indigenous land conservation, supported agricultural expansion, and attempted to relax slave labor laws.

Not only is this a grave attack on the human rights of Brazil’s indigenous people, but also on their ability to continue acting as the best defenders of the world’s forests,” writes Becca Warner, an environmentalism journalist for The Ecologist.

“We need all the forest we can get, to capture carbon from the atmosphere and keep it locked away,” she says. “In fact, scientists agree that halting deforestation is just as urgent as reducing emissions.”

Bolsonaro should have little trouble pushing his agenda through Congress, as it is currently dominated by a three-wing political alliance known as the Bancadas do Boi, do Bíblia e da Bala.

In English, those are the political representatives of “Beef” (ranching and agribusiness), the “Bible” (religious conservatives) and “Bullet” (the military).

Indigenous peoples and their supporters say the new push to open protected forested lands to agriculture and mining has clear genocidal implications.

More than 20 land rights activists have been killed in Brazil so far this year, with most deaths linked to conflicts over logging and agribusiness

Fifty land rights campaigners were killed in Brazil last year for trying to protect forests from illegal logging and the expansion of cattle ranches and soy plantations, according to Global Witness.

Source: Brazil’s New President Openly Threatens Genocide of Indigenous Amazonians

The Title of this video is, “Dr. Phil, Black Girl Thinks She Is White

When I first saw this video of Treasure Richardson, I knew from the start it had to be a set up, a hoax, a scam or some such thing as that.  In the ensuing days after the airing of this segment, with a little ground work and exposure by Treasure’s Sister, Nina, it has come to light, that it is simply a scam for ratings and notoriety, perpetrated by a young woman and her mother who come from a very painful home life experience.  While that is no excuse, it does help to fan the flame of the outrageousness of their behavior that subsequently landed them on the Dr. Phil Show.

From my experience with African Americans who identified as “white” it would only take a moment or two before the “black-ish” would come out.  The illusion of race is really to perpetrate the fraud of the difference in color, when in fact it is the difference in ethnicity, culture, social orientation, lifestyle, etc. along with genetics that cause people of a certain ethnicity to manifest physically in  a certain general form causing a general grouping of individuals.

To my thinking, White Supremacy is just as toxic as Black Supremacy.  The two paradigms are pitched against one another to keep the separation active, but from a high station above the clouds, looking down on this planet, you see people, different people, but people nonetheless.

To me it shows how Creative the All Encompassing Divine Force can be in expressing itself through our physical reality.  A garden filled with one type of flower holds a certain beauty but a garden of many flowers has a certain exquisite beauty that leans towards being quite breathtaking.

In this video, I will be citing a commentary on this Dr. Phil segment, submitted to me, from an email buddy, named Chaz White.  With all the commentary on this segment, I have found  Mr. White’s commentary to be the most profound so with his permission I will share it here.

On Monday, October 29, 2018, Mr. White wrote:

 “Such as a man thinketh… Such as he is.”

Blind Ridiculous Conformity ensures success in the “out-sane asylum” controlled by con artists. In wrestling,and you control the head of your opponent to direct the body of your opponent.

This show, like many others could be well scripted performance art. The programming is directed by mischief makers, i.e. authors of confusion, to condition mentalities for continued slavery of the populace.

We should first ask: What is the purpose of this story? Why is she being featured and promoted?? How does it serve system lords?

Confusion that confuses to more confusion is understandable in western cultures based upon confusion, while making that confusion seem like normal behavior.

She is only telling the same lie as so called “white people” tell.

If others can tell the same lie, why should not she?

Pay attention to Dr. Phil’s comments and assertions. They are misguidedly misinformed and shows his ignorance based on the inconsistencies in his description of race being biologically definable.

He is after all DR. PHIL. Which means that his thoughts and research should be responsibly connected to the information he dispenses to the public such that it educates, rather than sensationalize the mind.

The so called, “well educated,” therapist was not any better. Neither she nor Dr. Phil chose to address Race, Racism, or Whiteness, with the fact based approach which she so eloquently referred.

It’s all a sham, scam, and ham, G-d Damn!

The system encourages scientific ignorance and moral stupidity, then preys upon it.

Snow is white. The albumen of a cooked egg is white. Clouds are white.

Humans are not White

The concept of whiteness is the source of racism. Every other definition of race is based on this flawed make-believe of “whiteness.”

The invention of “whiteness” is rooted in pretension and presumption of the mentally/emotionally unstable mind. It is “Royalism,” that is beyond reproach, inquiry or inspection. It’s great to be the a royal or associate one’s validity with royals.

Royalty does what it wants to do, without question  It is always the victor with the spoils. It is the way of spoiled, overindulged children. They get their way at the expense of others deemed by them as inferiors, no matter what.

The designation of so called “white people” is even scientifically inconsistent with the definition of white itself. If white is the mixture of all colors (i.e. wavelengths of light),  then that would mean that so called “white folks” are the most colored folks of all folks.

The inconsistency is heard when someone uses the oxy-morron that describes a person as a so called “black albino!”

Incidentally, the largest contingent of Albinos is in East Africa.

The attachment to “Whiteness” used to define any Humans,  as superior, is a pathological dis-ease designed to soothe mental and emotional instability, while cloaking inadequacies and validating oppression upon any arbitrarily group designated as “not so called white”.

The quality of the content of ones character has nothing to do with physical attributes of Humans. It has more to do with behavior and beliefs upon which that behavior is based.

All Humans without exception are related. That is to say they are family. A dysfunctional family, but they are family nonetheless.  The con artist profit from the dysfunction and keeping the Human dysfunctional. Read Stephen J. Gould’s, “The Misrepresentation of Man,” to understand the history of the propaganda against scientific facts.

Here is an experiment for you: Ask a “so called white person” to prove without a doubt that he/she is white.

Their explanations will be no better than this young lady on Dr. Phil. You will see it is a matter of Blind Ridiculous Conformity or simply put “make believe.”

It is time to “raid the game,” by going to the falsehoods of the matter and challenging the facts to arrive at the truth.

This concludes, Mr. White commentary on the Dr. Phil Show, featuring a “Black Girl who thinks She Is White.”

Thanks for listening, thanks for watching, peace and blessing to you, your family and loved ones.

LINKS OF INTEREST

Dr Phil accused of ‘exploitation’ after black teen tells show ‘I’m white’

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/dr-phil-accused-of-exploitation-after-black-teen-tells-show-im-white/news-story/bcce7b68fbb8b99b4f15ba002b71dcf3

Black Teenager Tells Dr. Phil She Hates Black People, Claims She is White

https://www.wbls.com/news/news-0/black-teenager-tells-dr-phil-she-hates-black-people-claims-she-white

 

This video: https://youtu.be/BbIeOUQPA4Y

Music: Together [Eternal Glance] 1822

For the full narrative, links and videos please check out my blog

Nana’s Rants On Things From A-Z

http://nanas-rants.blogspot.com

Minds: https://www.minds.com/nanabaakan

Blaqspot: https://www.blaqspot.com/profile-8403/

BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/nanabaakan/

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/nana-the-metaphysician/

Steemit: https://www.steemit.com/@nanabaakan

YouTube: http://youtube.com/nanabaakan

Twitter: http://twitter.com/nanabaakan

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NanaBaakanAgyiriwah

Support My Work, it would be greatly appreciated. YouTube is doing its level best to make it hard for content creators.

Send a donation: http://www.paypal.me/nanabaakan

Become a Patron: http://www.patreon.com/nanabaakan

Available for Psychic Readings, Dream Interpretation and Workshops.

Contact: metaphysical.nana@gmail.com

'For Colored Girls' film screening, New York, America - 25 Oct 2010

 

Noted playwright, poet and novelist, Ntozake Shange died on Saturday morning. The news was announced via Shange’s official Twitter account. She was 70.

According to The Star Tribune, Shange had suffered multiple strokes in recent years, but her health was improving. She died peacefully in her sleep in an assisted living facility in Bowie, Md.

Shange was born Paulette L. Williams in Trenton, New Jersey on October 18, 1948. Her family was an advocate of the arts and their home welcomed legendary figures in black history including Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis, Chuck Berry, and W.E.B. Du Bois. Shange took an interest in poetry. When she graduated from high school, she went on to study at Barnard College in New York City. It was there where she met fellow poet Thulani Davis, who she would collaborate with on various works. After graduating from Barnard, she traveled west to USC and earned a masters degree.

In 1975, she returned to New York City from Los Angeles and in the same year, for colored girls who have considered suicide / when the rainbow is enuf came to light. The play was a 20-part choreopoem that explored the lives of women of color in the United States. It was first produced Off-Broadway and then made its way to Broadway’s Booth Theater. The play became an acclaimed hit, earning an Obie Award and other accolades.

The play was adapted into a book in 1977 and then into the Tyler Perry film For Colored Girls which featured an all-star cast of black actresses including Janet Jackson, Loretta Devine, Thandie Newton, Anika Noni Rose, Kerry Washington, Phylicia Rashad, Whoopi Goldberg, and Tessa Thompson.

Like For Colored Girls, Shange’s other plays such as Spell No. 7 chronicled the black experience. In 1980, she adapted Bertolt Brecht’s Mother Courage and Her Children which earned her another Obie Award.

Shange was also known as a primary figure in the Black Arts Movement, which was predominantly male. She was a pioneering figure and female trailblazer alongside notable figures from the movement and history including Gwendolyn Brooks, Nikki Giovanni, Rosa Guy, Lorraine Hansberry, Lucille Clifton, and Sonia Sanchez.

She continued to write and create throughout her years. In 2003, she was the visiting artist at University of Florida, Gainesville and wrote and oversaw the production of Lavender Lizards and Lilac Landmines: Layla’s Dream. Her essays, poems, and stories have appeared in numerous publications including The Black Scholar, Yardbird, Ms., Essence Magazine, The Chicago Tribune, VIBE, and Third-World Women

Shange is survived by her daughter, Savannah Shange and grand-daughter Harriet Shange Watkins.

Ntozake Shange@NtozakeShange1

To our extended family and friends, it is with sorrow that we inform you that our loved one, Ntozake Shange, passed away peacefully in her sleep in the early morning of October 27, 2018. Memorial information / details will follow at a later date.
The family of Ntozake Shange

 

Reposted from: https://deadline.com/2018/10/ntozake-shange-dead-for-colored-girls-playwright-obituary-1202490913/

File 20180827 75972 19v0afj.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Black power militant H. Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael (right) appeared at a sit-in protest at Columbia University in New York City on April 26, 1968. AP

Stefan M. Bradley, Loyola Marymount University

“If they build the first story, blow it up. If they sneak back at night and build three stories, burn it down. And if they get nine stories built, it’s yours. Take it over, and maybe we’ll let them in on the weekends.”

This is what Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and Black Panther Party affiliate H. Rap Brown told a crowd of Harlem residents at a community rally in February 1967.

They were there to protest Columbia University’s construction of a gymnasium in Morningside Park, the only land separating the Ivy League university from the historic black working-class neighborhood. The gym, along with the discovery that Columbia was affiliated with the Institute for Defense Analysis – a national consortium of flagship universities and research organizations that provided strategy and weapons research to the U.S. Department of Defense – stirred students to protest for more decision-making power at their elite university.

When considering the key events of 1968, such as the Tet Offensive, the assassinations of national leaders, demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention and the Olympics, as well international events concerning democracy, the Columbia uprisings merit attention.

Issues converge on campus

As I detail in my book – “Harlem vs. Columbia University: Black Student Power in the Late 1960s” – all the issues of the 1960s and New Left collided on the Morningside Heights campus of Columbia. Students contended with the war in Vietnam, institutional racism, the generational divide, sexism, environmentalism and urban renewal – all while trying to find dates and attend classes.

Everything came to a head on April 23, 1968 – just weeks after the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. That was when members of the Columbia chapter of Students for a Democratic Society hosted a rally on campus to decry the war – and, what many considered the racist gym in Morningside Park. Members of the Students’ Afro-American Society, or SAS, and Columbia varsity athletes – known as jocks – were in attendance as well. SAS followers showed up to resume an earlier fight they had with the jocks who supported the construction of the gymnasium.


Read more: Revolution Starts on Campus


Some students had been working with Harlem community groups. They saw the gym as a symbol of the university’s “power” over a defenseless and poverty-stricken black neighborhood. They joined local politicians who opposed the gym for a myriad of reasons, including its concrete footprint in a green park and the inability of the community to have access to the entire structure once built.

Troubled relations

The situation was, of course, complex. Columbia had long been a contentious neighbor to Harlem and Morningside Heights. The campus gym was decrepit and prevented the university from competing with its Ivy peers effectively in terms of facilities and space. Regarding the park, Columbia had constructed softball fields that initially community members could use. By 1968, however, only campus affiliates could access the fields. Then, white faculty members had been mugged in the park.

The university, seeking to expand in the postwar period, purchased US$280 million of land, mortgages and residential buildings in Harlem and Morningside Heights. That resulted in the eviction of nearly 10,000 residents in a decade, 85 percent of whom were black or Puerto Rican.

Columbia acted in coordination with Morningside Heights, Inc., a confederacy of educational and religious institutions in the neighborhood that also sought to “renew” the area to serve their mostly white patrons. David Rockefeller, grandson of oil magnate John D. Rockefeller, acted as MHI’s first president. Columbia was the lead institution.

Despite being close to a black neighborhood, the university admitted few black students and employed a handful of black instructors. For instance, as I report in my book, in the 1964-1965 school year, there were only 35 black students out of 2,500 students enrolled in Columbia’s College of Arts and Sciences, and just one tenured black professor. By spring 1968, there were more than 150 black students enrolled.

On April 23, protesting students attempted to take over the administration building but were repelled by campus security. Then, they walked to the gym construction site where they tore down fencing and physically confronted police. From the park, they returned to campus where they finally succeeded in taking over a classroom building, Hamilton Hall. In doing so, they surrounded the dean of the college, Henry Coleman, who chose to stay in his office with his staff. To “protect” Coleman, several jocks stood guard outside his door.

Clashes with police

What started as a racially integrated demonstration of students took a turn in the late night when H. Rap Brown and several community activists showed up at the invitation of the Students’ Afro-American Society. The student group, Brown and the community activists agreed that black people solely should occupy Hamilton Hall and that white activists should commandeer other buildings. The white demonstrators accommodated, leaving Hamilton and taking over four other buildings. That forced Columbia officials to contend with not just a student protest but a black action on campus at that height of Black Power Movement. Incidentally, the community activists removed and replaced the jocks as sentries of the dean’s office.

Participants of a student sit-in assist each other in climbing up into the offices of Columbia University President Grayson Kirk on April 24, 1968. AP

To the ire of many white university administrators of the period, Stokely Carmichael of SNCC and the Black Panthers fame showed up to explain – through the press – that the university deal either with the student activists on campus or militants coming from Harlem. This insinuated the tone of the demonstrations would change drastically. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated less than three weeks before. From offices in Morningside Heights, Columbia administrators had watched Harlem burn as residents mourned and reacted to the black leader’s death. The only thing that separated the elite white institution from angry black rebels was the park in which the university was building a gymnasium against the will of many community members.

In consultation with New York Mayor John Lindsay, Columbia administrators chose to end the demonstrations by calling 1,000 New York police officers to clear the five occupied campus buildings on April 30. Chaos and brutality prevailed. As the NAACP and other Harlem community organizations stood watch, black students vacated Hamilton, which SAS had renamed Malcolm X Hall, and were arrested peacefully. In the building that national Students for a Democratic Society leader and Port Huron Statement author Tom Hayden occupied, police and demonstrators collided physically. One of the most iconic documents of the postwar period, the 1962 Port Huron Statement outlined the need for young people to be in the vanguard of the movement to eradicate racism and grind the military-industrial complex to a halt; it centered the notion of participatory democracy, which called for greater inclusion of the citizenry in decision-making. In other buildings, students found themselves on the hurt end of police batons when they resisted arrest.

Police rush toward student protesters outside Columbia University’s Low Memorial Library on April 30, 1968. AP

Worldwide attention

In opening the door to violence, the university turned what was a local matter into an international story and radicalized moderate students and neighborhood residents. Young radicals abroad learned of “Gym Crow” and university-sponsored defense research. In solidarity, they supported the Columbia student activists’ causes and chanted “two, three, many Columbias” – a refrain that gained popularity among American student protesters.

After the demonstrations in April, ensuing violent demonstrations in May, and a six-week student strike, the university did not build the gym in the park and renounced its membership in the Institute for Defense Analysis.

In my view, elements of the 1968 Columbia rebellion are inspiring and instructional for today’s students, protesters and community residents. As gentrification threatens the homes of poor black people in urban areas today, activists should recall that 50 years earlier young people believed they could cut their university’s ties to war research and prevent a prestigious white American institution from expanding into black spaces at the same time. They succeeded.

Our new podcast “Heat and Light” features Prof. Bradley and Columbia University’s Michael Kazin discussing this issue in depth.

Listen on Apple Podcasts Stitcher Listen on RadioPublic Listen on TuneIn

Stefan M. Bradley, Chair, Department of African American Studies, Loyola Marymount University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 

Source: Coming Coup Against Trump

By Finian Cunningham

July 17, 2018 “Information Clearing House” –  The American backlash against President Trump over his summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin has been as ferocious as it was predictable.

Every possible vilification has been thrown at him. But it is the slur of Trump as “traitor” that puts this president in grave danger.

Democrats, Republicans, state intelligence pundits, hawkish media, liberal media — all have launched a torrent of attacks on Donald Trump for daring to meet with Putin in Helsinki this week.

The Washington Post accused Trump of “openly colluding with the criminal leader of a hostile power”. Let those extreme words sink in for a moment. The implication is as serious as it can get.

As with other politicians and media outlets, the Post said the president had “betrayed” American intelligence services by siding with President Putin in denying that Russia had interfered in US elections.

Former CIA chief John Brennan denounced Trump as a “traitor” who had “committed high crimes” in holding a friendly summit with Putin.

It can’t get more seditious than that. Trump is being denigrated by almost the entire political and media establishment in the US as a “treasonous” enemy of the state.

Following this logic, there is only one thing for it: the US establishment is calling for a coup to depose the 45th president. One Washington Post oped out of a total of five assailing the president gave the following stark ultimatum: “If you work for Trump, quit now”.

The US political class have cast their verdict that Trump is a state enemy, and are openly calling for a mutiny against the White House.

Trump’s political survival is the balance. Possibly the only thing staying the hands of his enemies for now is their wariness about how the ordinary American citizens would react to a deep state maneuver to overthrow the elected leader.

Despite the torrid hysteria in the US political elite over the meeting with Putin, the mass of American citizens seem rather sanguine about the development. It’s fair to say that many Americans would applaud the attempt by Trump to normalize relations with Moscow. After all, that was one of the main reasons why they voted him into the White House in 2016.

The American political class are agog to get rid of Trump, but they are apprehensive to make a decisive move just yet, because such a gambit to depose the president may engender a wider social revolt against the elites. There is a strong sense that US society is seething from numerous grievances. Poverty and abysmal social inequality as well as popular alienation from the Washington establishment are all too rife for a potential civil war or revolution if stoked too much.

One can anticipate that the media campaign to pillory Trump as a traitor will go into overdrive in the coming days, with the calculation by his powerful enemies within the deep state that public opinion can be turned decisively against him for “betraying America” to a “hostile enemy”. If that manipulation of public opinion is achieved, then Trump is a goner.

Admittedly, Trump has many flaws and much of his foreign policy is in keeping with the usual criminal conduct of American imperialism. But one thing that can be said in his favor is that he is not driven by an irrational Russophobia nor a hellbent determination to have a confrontation with Moscow — unlike many in the US establishment.

Trump is often guilty of peddling fake news himself. But one thing he gets right is his dismissal of the “Russia-gate” narrative as a hoax. The US establishment created that farce as a way to undermine Trump and overturn his intention of normalizing relations with Russia.

For two years, Trump’s political enemies have been flogging the “Russia interfered in our democracy” trope — to no avail. The latest wheeze was the unsubstantiated indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence personnel only days before the Helsinki summit.

To be fair to Trump, he wasn’t dissuaded by that effort to sabotage his summit with Putin. But the trap was set. As soon as the meeting was over in Helsinki, all hell has broken lose in the deep state-controlled US media and politicians, condemning Trump.

Russia’s Putin called the tedious allegations of Russian interference in US democracy “the biggest nonsense ever”. Trump said he agreed with that assessment. Probably many ordinary American citizens also agree that the whole affair has been cooked up by political elites who were never happy with the democratic mandate given to Trump.

Trump is right to reject the so-called US intelligence assessment claiming that Russia under Putin’s orders meddled in the presidential race. Putin told the Helsinki press conference that he wanted Trump to win the election in order to improve bilateral relations. So what? Are foreign leaders not entitled to have opinions on who comes to power in rival countries?

In any case, the US intelligence assessment is not conclusive nor a consensus of all 16 state agencies, as former American ambassador Jack Matlock recently pointed out. In other words, the claim is only partial and far from definitive. It was “politically motivated,” said Matlock, a veteran diplomat.

The American political class is sick. It is suffering from a psychosis that prevents any understanding of reality. It is living in abject denial of reality, convinced of its delusions about Russia being a hostile enemy, and Trump being a “Kremlin stooge”.

The problem for the American establishment is that it doesn’t like the way democracy worked out. The people voted for a candidate who wanted to restore relations with Russia. For the elite, that outcome is unacceptable, and they have tried every dirty trick in the book to overturn the democratic process. Ironically, they claim that Russia tried to subvert American democracy, when it is the effete elite in Washington and the deep state apparatus that are subverting the country’s constitution.

How ludicrous can these people get? An American president holds a long-overdue meeting with the leader of the world’s second nuclear power. The meeting was a success in terms of opening a friendly dialogue between the two leaders. And yet the US ruling class excoriate this event as a “disgrace” and “criminal collusion”.

The interests of ordinary American citizens, as with the mass of people around the world, are not served by irrational hostility towards Russia. It is in our interests to have peaceful dialogue and to develop mutual understanding between the US and Russia to avert confrontations.

It is only an unrepresentative elite who could possibly want hostility. War and conflict is profitable for a tiny few. But this cabal in the US, and among its European allies, driven by Russophobia and war profits, is nevertheless extremely powerful. They control the mainstream media and politicians with their money and intelligence assets.

When the interests of the ruling elite in the US are threatened anything is possible. Assassinations and coups are par for the course for these plutocrats and their agents.

The livid reaction to Trump’s eminently reasonable engagement with Putin this week — a reaction that is vicious and coordinated — is an ominous sign that powerful forces are moving against this president.

Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent.

This article was originally published by “Sputnik –

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Source: The U.S. Has Taken More Than 3,700 Children From Their Parents — and Has No Plan for Returning Them

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S program of systematically separating migrant children from their parents is steadily expanding, government officials confirmed Tuesday. Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s “zero tolerance” doctrine, U.S. authorities have been ordered to criminally prosecute all individuals arrested for illegally crossing the border without exception, including asylum-seekers and parents arriving with small children.

The result has been historic, and catastrophic, with the U.S. government intentionally creating thousands of so-called unaccompanied minors whose immigration cases have now become separate from their parents, plunging them, on their own, into an already overwhelmed system of federal bureaucracies.

The War on Immigrants

Read Our Complete CoverageThe War on Immigrants

In a phone call with reporters, senior officials at the various agencies responsible for the crackdown said thousands of families have been impacted by the measures so far. They added that there is no uniform, border-wide guidance in place establishing rules for how immigration agents on the ground should handle cases involving sensitive populations, such as babies and small children. Instead, officials said, it is up to Border Patrol chiefs at individual stations to exercise “discretion” in determining how to handle such cases. Officials described the ongoing effort as a program aimed at “deterrence.”

Brian Hastings, acting chief of law enforcement operations for the Border Patrol, told reporters that from May 5, 2018, through June 9, 2018, a total of 2,235 families comprising 4,548 people were apprehended along the southern border. “The total number of children that were made UACs through this prosecution initiative,” he explained, was 2,342, and the total number of adults referred for prosecution during that time period was 2,206.

MigrantChild7-1529445778

Graphic: Moiz Syed

“All humanitarian considerations and policies remain in place. There’s discretion given to the field chiefs over each of the nine southwest border sectors for the appropriate referrals for sensitive cases, those include adults who are traveling with tender-age children,” Hastings said. “The chiefs in the field are allowed to make that discretionary call.” When asked if that meant there was no blanket, border-wide guidance on the separation of infants from their parents, Hastings replied, “That’s correct.” He added that “the chiefs in the field” have “generally” considered children under the age of 5 as being “tender aged.” Hastings could not provide statistics on the number of children under 5 who his agency has separated from their parents.Steve Wagner, acting assistant secretary at Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families, which oversees the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is in turn responsible for the children the government is taking into custody, said his agency hopes the program will deter parents from entering the country without authorization. “We expect that the new policy will result in a deterrence effect,” he said. “We certainly hope that parents stop bringing their kids on this dangerous journey and entering the country illegally, so we are prepared to continue to expand capacity as needed. We hope that will not be necessary in the future.”

Wagner had no numbers to provide regarding families who have been reunited, post-prosecution, under the administration’s new program.

Shortly after the call, McClatchy, citing a review of federal data, reported that the “Trump administration has likely lost track of nearly 6,000 unaccompanied migrant children, thousands more than lawmakers were alerted to last month.” Last week, the government said it separated 1,995 children from their parents from April through May. Today, the Border Patrol cited a somewhat larger number — 2,342 — for May through June. Earlier this month, The Intercept reported a minimum of 1,358 children were separated from their parents from October 2017 through mid-May. While precise numbers remain fuzzy, due to overlapping timelines reported by different media outlets, it is safe to say the number of migrant kids separated from their parents by the Trump administration is well over 3,700 and climbing.

Testifying before lawmakers last month, the deputy chief of Customs and Border Protection, which oversees the Border Patrol, said he anticipates that the government will continue separating families at a rate of roughly 650 cases every two weeks into the foreseeable future. The Border Patrol chief in the nation’s busiest sector, meanwhile, is pushing his agents to ramp up arrests and prosecutions even more, telling the Washington Post over the weekend that his office has not yet reached 100 percent enforcement — as the administration has called for — but that they are working to get there.

Such an increase would require overcoming the mounting political and public pushback the administration’s efforts are currently receiving. But even if zero tolerance ended tomorrow, thousands of families have already been separated, so the question remains: Is there a functional mechanism in place to insure those parents get their kids back?

For attorneys and advocates on the ground, the answer at the moment is no. In a series of interviews over the last week, federal public defenders and legal advocates working within the immigrant detention system and at the ports in Arizona, as well as providers of care to migrant kids nationally and U.S. immigration officials, were unanimous in their criticism of the system — or lack thereof — currently in place to reunite migrant children with their parents.

Dona Abbott is the branch director of refugee services for Bethany Christian Services, a leading organization involved in placing children in ORR custody in foster care. With more than 40 years of experience dealing with children fleeing violence and persecution, she told The Intercept that there is simply no system in place for the reunification of families to criticize or praise. Instead, she said, there is a never-ending list of questions that people who deal with the fallout of family separations have been forced to answer on their own: How do you reunify children with parents who are being deported? Can we reunify them before they’re deported? What does the parent want? What does the parent say is in the child’s best interest?

“Just finding the parent sometimes is a challenge,” Abbott explained.

MCALLEN, TX - JUNE 12:  U.S. Border Patrol agents arrive to detain a group of Central American asylum seekers near the U.S.-Mexico border on June 12, 2018 in McAllen, Texas. The group of women and children had rafted across the Rio Grande from Mexico and were detained before being sent to a processing center for possible separation. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is executing the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy towards undocumented immigrants. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions also said that domestic and gang violence in immigrants' country of origin would no longer qualify them for political asylum status.  (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

U.S. Border Patrol agents arrive to detain a group of Central American asylum-seekers near the U.S.-Mexico border on June 12, 2018 in McAllen, Texas.

Photo: John Moore/Getty Images

No System in Place

Sometimes arresting agencies are handing kids over to ORR with identifying information, Abbott said, and sometimes they aren’t. Again, she said, there’s no system in place. “There’s a lot of families and a lot of kids affected by this — a lot,” she said. At the same time, none of the child welfare organizations that deal with unaccompanied minors, which the administration is creating more and more of each week, were consulted or warned before “zero tolerance” became the official enforcement posture of the federal government in early April. “We didn’t have a chance to ask questions and talk about how will the system work,” Abbott said. “Typically, you like to do that.”

Currently, the government’s solution for parents whose children it has taken is a 1-800 number. This also presents a problem, Abbott said, because often parents in detention have little to no access to phones. “What we’re finding is that we’re having to call detention centers,” she explained. As an example, Abbott pointed to the case of an 8-year-old girl who Bethany Christian is currently providing care for. “She’s been separated from her mom about a week, and we just keep calling all of the detention centers,” she explained. “Do you have someone by this name?” they ask. “The 1-800 number hasn’t been called, probably because mom hasn’t been allowed to make the call and we’re just not sure where mom is,” Abbot said.

For little kids, certainty about a parent’s whereabouts is of critical importance, Abbott said. “When you’re 8, a week is a long time,” she said. “You just don’t know, is my mom safe?” The issue of state-enforced separations, involving armed men in uniforms with guns, she added, can be particularly jarring for children from areas in Central America and Mexico where the line between organized crime and government security forces is nonexistent, and the entire purpose of the journey north was to escape precisely those kinds of scenarios. Abbott described the case of 10-year-old boy who tells the story of seeing his father handcuffed before they were separated. “That is scary for someone coming from a country where we know, it’s been reported over and over again, police are corrupted,” Abbott explained.

This particular boy’s ordeal also involved another troubling development emerging in recent cases, Abbott added: agents in the field, specifically Border Patrol agents, making on-the-ground calls about who gets to try to claim asylum and who does not. “Border Patrol seems to have a lot of independence and autonomy in their decisions,” Abbott said. “In the case of this little 10-year-old, there just didn’t seem to be anything other than they didn’t think dad had an asylum case and they immediately deported him, but they didn’t deport his son, and they didn’t make sure they went together. So now we have to try to reunite them. And the son is indigenous, which adds another layer of issues.”

Rather than install a system that reunites children with their parents, the administration has imposed at least one new measure that could decrease that likelihood. Earlier this month, McClatchy reported that ORR had entered into a new agreement with the Department of Homeland Security, in which the agency would share fingerprints and run immigration checks on potential sponsors who come forward to take custody of kids. “It’s not just the parent,” Abbott explained. “The new rule is everyone in the household, every adult in the household, must be fingerprinted, and those fingerprints, all those fingerprints, must be handed over to the Department of Homeland Security for criminal investigation. That means, probably, detention and deportation.” Already, as McClatchy reported, “the percentage of unaccompanied youths claimed by parents has dropped from 60 percent four years ago to 41 percent in 2017 after increasing crackdowns.” Abbott expects more of that to come.

“I can’t imagine it won’t exacerbate a difficulty with sponsors not feeling safe coming forward to claim their family member, their child,” she said.

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 18:  U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen (L) leaves after she briefed members of the press as White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders (R) looks on during a White House daily news briefing at the James Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House June 18, 2018 in Washington, DC. Nielsen joined White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders at the daily news briefing to answer questions from members of the White House Press Corps.   (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, left, leaves after she briefed members of the press as White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, right, looks on during a White House daily news briefing on June 18, 2018 in Washington, D.C.

Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

False Claims About Separations

In a call with reporters last week, public affairs officials with the various Trump administration agencies responsible for separating migrant kids from their parents defended their actions on the grounds that they have no other choice, falsely claiming that the law requires such separations. Demanding that they not be quoted in their effort to “correct the record,” the flacks blamed the media for irresponsible reporting. In particular, they claimed that the federal government is not separating babies from their parents and denying that government agents have used false pretenses to take kids from their parents, never to be returned again. Abbott said both claims were false.

For one, she said, the government has definitely separated babies from their parents. “The average age now of a child we have in care is 7, but we have children from 8 months all the way to 17,” she said. Second, she said, Bethany Christian provided care for a 6-year-old girl, who, along with her mother, described the pretense of a bath being used to carry out a separation. “Her mother was told, ‘We’re going to give her a bath,’ and they took her and never brought her back. Put her in foster care. I’m sure some immigration officer thought that saved the trauma of the separation, crying and screaming, but I can’t imagine what that mom thought,” Abbott said. “Maybe what the government is trying to say is, ‘We’re not systematically condoning that,’” Abbott said, but the fact remains: “We’ve heard it directly from a parent and a child.”

The chaotic implementation of “zero tolerance” is leading to all sorts of experiences like this, Abbott argued, and the public is only hearing a fraction of them. She described another, about a little boy who came to Bethany Christian carrying a belt. “An adult belt just rolled up and clung in his hands,” Abbott explained. “We were like, ‘Oh, what’s this about?’ We finally get the belt away from him and inside, as we unravel it, is dad’s name and phone number.” For Abbott, the presence of the number sent a clear message. “Dad had in one last desperate moment” said to himself: “What can I send with my son that tells somebody where to find me?”

“So he writes it on his belt,” she said. “We’ve just had too many kids have those kind of separation stories to suggest that it is anything but a little chaotic. More than a little bit — it is chaotic.”

Abbott is hardly alone in her concerns. Two sources The Intercept interviewed regarding the government’s family separation program — including an attorney who has represented children in ORR custody and a senior DHS official working on immigration issues — spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press. They, too, pointed to the absence of an effective system to reunite parents with their kids.

Contrary to claims from the administration, the attorney said the government is indeed separating parents from children even when those families present themselves at lawful ports of entry. “We’re definitely seeing that, even though sometimes the administration says they’re not doing that,” they told The Intercept. Similarly, they added, the government’s claim, relayed in a background call with reporters last week, that it is not separating babies from their parents, is simply not true. “That’s wrong,” they said. “We’re seeing babies.”

MCALLEN, TX - JUNE 17: In this handout photo provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection,  U.S. Border Patrol agents conduct intake of illegal border crossers at the Central Processing Center on June 17, 2018 in McAllen, Texas. (Photo by U.S. Customs and Border Protection via Getty Images)

In this handout photo provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Border Patrol agents conduct intake of illegal border crossers at the Central Processing Center on June 17, 2018, in McAllen, Texas.

Photo: U.S. Customs and Border Protection via Getty Images

No Way Home

The likelihood that those children will find their way back to their parents is entirely uncertain, the attorney added. In cases where a parent expresses a desire to be deported with their child, Immigration and Customs Enforcement promises to coordinate on reunification, they said, but has routinely failed to follow through. “We’ll get a promise of coordination and then it doesn’t happen,” they said, adding that instead attorneys come to learn that a parent has already been deported just as the reunification process is unfolding. “There’s just not any commitment to the coordination of removal or reunification before removal. There doesn’t seem to be any plan.” The DHS official agreed with that assessment. “It’s all up in the air,” they told The Intercept. “There’s no way this ends well. I feel like now that we’ve crossed this precipice, there’s no limit as to how far Trump and his people will go.”

In the absence of clarity, defense attorneys involved in the prosecutions that lead to family separations have turned to federal magistrate judges for relief, and in some cases, the judges are taking action.

In Tucson, upwards of 70 migrants are criminally prosecuted, in group hearings, for illegally crossing the border every day under the government program known as Operation Streamline. With those prosecutions spiking 71 percent over the last year, and family separations becoming routine, federal defense attorneys have begun asking judges presiding over the hearings to take unusual steps in order to increase the chances that parents will be reunited with their children. “One of the things we were asking for the judges to order, and the judges have been receptive to ordering, is that our clients be kept here, even if they receive a sentence of time served, and they’re subject to deportation — that they be kept here in order to be reunited with their kids,” Molly Kincaid, a federal public defender in Tucson told The Intercept. “They’d literally rather be kept in custody and reunited with their children.”

Kincaid explained, “Most of our clients who are affected by this are getting the misdemeanor, they’re only being charged with the misdemeanor because it’s their first entry.” Normally, she said, people charged with the first-time offense take the plea, accept the time served, and are quickly deported. Now that parents and children are in the mix, she said, an increasing number of defendants are expressing that they want to remain in the country. “It’s very bizarre because most of the time that’s what our clients want — they want the misdemeanor and to go back home as soon as possible, but when you have a child here, obviously that’s the most important thing,” Kincaid said.

So far, the magistrate judges in Tucson have appeared receptive to the effort. “In every single case where an attorney is requesting that recommendation, our magistrate judges are making them,” Christina Woehr, also a federal public defender in Tucson, told The Intercept. In an effort to bolster recommendations, Kincaid has additionally sought orders requiring the government to disclose the locations of children in custody. Any increase in transparency would be a welcome change, the two attorneys said.

Earlier this month, Kincaid appeared before Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald’s during a Streamline hearing. Her client, Cerafino Perez Andres, a Guatemalan father, had crossed the border with his 15-year-old daughter five days earlier. Following his arrest, Perez Andres’s daughter was taken by the government and, standing before Macdonald, Kincaid explained that he had no idea where she was. Federal prosecutor Christopher Lewis told Macdonald that CBP and the U.S. Attorney’s Office have “no knowledge or control as to where they will place those children,” and that the kids are the responsibility of ORR, which does not have a mechanism for reporting back on the whereabouts of the children it receives from DHS agencies.

“I’m hoping, though, that you can ask them to at least provide you with that information,” Macdonald told Lewis, according to audio of the hearing obtained by the Arizona Daily Star.

“I can inquire, but there’s no mechanism on the part of ORR to report that back,” the prosecutor replied.

“Well, I’m asking for you to ask them to report that back,” the judge said.

Cosme Lopez, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, stressed that the judge’s words were not an order. “I think the pivot point here is ORR,” Lopez told The Intercept, downplaying the Department of Justice’s role in family separations. “Our involvement has really not changed that much,” he said. “We have nothing to do with the children or the apprehension,” he added. “Our piece is so minute, it’s not even funny,” he insisted. The DOJ does not literally apprehend then process children, but the department’s role in family separation is not “minute.” Family separation is the consequence of a “zero tolerance” directive initiated by Sessions, who is head of the Justice Department. This change in prosecutorial priorities is at the very core of the national scandal that family separation has evolved into. The DOJ is just as implicated as all of the other enforcement agencies.

Kincaid and Woehr, the federal public defenders, point out that judges placing detention recommendations on their clients’ cases is hardly a solution to the situation at hand. They describe the measures more like a band-aid intended to staunch the enormous due process and emotional damage currently being done to migrant families. “It’s a pretty terrible choice to have to make as a parent,” Woehr said. “Do you want to be held in indefinite detention hoping you are reunited with a child who, you don’t know where they are, or do you want to ask to be deported and let your child’s immigration case wind its way through our system?” Woehr added, “The issue we run into with asking the government to disclose the location of the children is ICE says, ‘Well, they’re not in our custody anymore; they’re in ORR custody, so we have no way of finding their location,’ which shifts the burden of finding the location of the child to our detained or deported clients, which just adds to the terrible situation that they’re facing.”

“It’s Kafkaesque,” she said. “It’s just a nightmare.”

Kincaid agreed. “It’s one of the things that we’re struggling with right now and that we’re trying to address — is basically how to follow up with our clients to see if this reunification is happening, to see if they’re actually staying here, or they’re just getting deported immediately and their kids are staying here, which is obviously the worst-case scenario for most of our clients,” she said. “I can tell you that the whole situation seems to be shrouded in mystery for us.” Both pushed back on arguments, such as those from the Trump administration, that the migrants impacted by family separation bring their kids to U.S. in order to exploit a loophole and thus, gain entry into the country. “I don’t get that at all,” Kincaid said. “I’ve never heard that from any client,” Woeher added. Describing the experiences her clients have recounted, Kincaid said, “It really is more of a situation of real desperation.”

Fighting for Reunification

Beyond the horror of seeing parents separated from their kids, the attorneys said the current situation raises serious due process and proportionality questions. “Parents in this country who are citizens and are going through a process to potentially have their parental rights terminated — they have a lot of rights,” Kincaid pointed out, and yet, in the case of migrants, parents are losing their children through rapid-fire procedures in remote, closed-off government facilities. There’s also the question of how the punishment fits the crime, when the crime is a misdemeanor and the punishment is indefinitely losing your child. “You’re looking at a day in custody as your sentence, but oh, as a collateral consequence of your sentence, you’re going to lose your child for maybe a year — we don’t know,” Woeher said of the current practice.

For now, the public defenders’ focus remains on reunification, though it’s a campaign they wish they did not need to undertake. “We’re fighting for reunification right now but really, I think, the best thing that could happen is to go back to prosecutorial discretion, where you just don’t charge these cases,” Kincaid said. “Let’s not put ourselves in this situation to begin with, where we’re separating families.”

Part of what’s making the impact of “zero tolerance” and family separation so profoundly difficult to respond to, especially in terms of reunification, attorneys say, is that huge numbers of the people involved are little kids, toddlers, and babies — all of whom now have their own immigration cases, and no parents around to help.

With three offices and nearly 70 people on staff, the Florence Project has been the sole provider of free legal representation for people in immigration detention in the state of Arizona for nearly 30 years. Since January, the organization has documented 350 cases of family separation, and attorneys there are feeling the effects of representing very young clients. “Our kids program used to work mainly with 16-, 17-year-old Guatemalan boys, unaccompanied minors,” Lauren Dasse, the project’s executive director, told The Intercept. “Now we’re seeing a lot of young children. A lot of our clients are young and separated from parents.”

Those clients, Dasse said, have included a blind 6-year-old girl who was separated from her mother, and other preverbal, nonverbal, and disabled children and babies. The difficulty of sorting out these newly unaccompanied kids’ individual immigration cases, and reuniting them with their parents, is immense, Dasse said. “This is the most challenging thing I’ve seen,” she explained. “And I’ve heard that from staff cohorts in the field for a long time doing immigration defense and criminal defense, that this is the most challenging that they’ve had to do, is prep an inconsolable 4-year-old for their asylum hearing. You can imagine.”

And it’s not just the young kids, Dasse pointed out. “We have an older client, I think she’s 13, and she feels very guilty about her dad being detained because her dad was fleeing with her to keep them both safe,” she explained. “She’s put in a place where she has to make very adult-like decisions, with us representing her. She shouldn’t be in that place where she has to think of her own asylum case at this moment, because she has her guardian, her parent, as opposed to the unaccompanied minors that we’ve worked with for 20 years.”

Dasse described what’s felt like “a perfect storm of things that have happened over the past few months that have made our work and fighting your case so much more challenging.” She fears the combined impact of Trump administration efforts are aimed at increasing the time people spend in detention, so they will become more likely to abandon their cases, even if those cases involved potentially legitimate asylum claims. “Everything’s pointing to prolonged detention, and then the pressure is on people to give up on their cases,” she said. The DHS immigration official agreed, adding that the message from the administration appears to be “if you aren’t willing to be torn from your kids, spend six months or more in detention, and suffer humiliation and a complete upheaval of your life, then you don’t really need asylum.”

In response to the crackdown, the Florence Project is staffing up and building a rapid response team to handle family separation. Due to the government’s utter lack of transparency, much of that work involves combing through volumes of Streamline hearing transcripts, searching for parents whose children might have been taken. “It’s all very time-consuming,” she said. “Time-consuming and urgent. There’s an urgency right now that we’re all feeling.” The stakes right now couldn’t be greater, she argued.

“We are creating immeasurable trauma — immeasurable trauma, that will have lifelong effects on people,” Dasse said. “I’ve never seen anything like this.”

Abbott, of Bethany Christian, echoed that sentiment. “I’ve worked with unaccompanied children since 1977,” she said. “Forty years in child welfare, I’ve never seen anything quite like this. It’s so systematic.” Normally, she explained, the kids she works with have become unaccompanied for a reason. They are fleeing a war, for example, or a natural disaster, or some other crisis that causes them to enter the system without their parent. This is something different. In the U.S. context, she said, “people have managed to make it all the way to somewhere where they’re asking asylum and then are being separated.”

“This is purposeful, not part of the chaos of fleeing for your life. This is purposeful separation after you arrive at a border asking for safety,” Abbott said. “Quite honestly, I’ve never experienced where we use children as a deterrent.”

Top photo: U.S. Border Patrol agents detain a group of Central American asylum-seekers near the U.S.-Mexico border on June 12, 2018, in McAllen, Texas.

We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us 

Tag Cloud