Can't this be achieved through legal or properly political means? If child trafficking is outlawed then a company cannot engage in child trafficking. If petrol cars are outlawed, then a company cannot manufacture petrol cars.
I wish, but that is not the world we live in. Child separation is probably illegal under the universal deceleration of human rights (which the USA has ratified).
Article 16 (3):
> The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
When a government sanctioned agency engages in something that is probably illegal (and definitely immoral) and you still think they are worthy of your business, you are complicit in their actions.
You moved the benchmark from "child trafficking" to "child separation."
Many would argue, correctly or not, that the policies of not having children housed with whatever adult they cross the border with is in service of avoiding child trafficking.
Sorry about that, it is just that ICE were probably breaking the law when they engaged in child separation. The parent is asking if it couldn’t simply be the case that evil things would rather be illegal then up to a company. Unfortunately we demonstrably live in a world where evil things that are probably illegal are still done by a government sanction agencies. Child separation is the thing that they do which demonstrates this. That is why I moved the benchmark.
As I understand it, the reason for child separation is that they can't certify that the adult traveling with them is their actual parent, and given that child trafficking is a reality and much worse than potentially being temporarily separated from your parent, I can't see what other solution is at the table ?
> The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
and:
"children and their parents must be housed together when incarcerated"
That clause (perhaps the entire UN declaration of human rights) seems incredibly ambiguous. Reading the whole declaration seems like it, perhaps, means protection of the specific enumerated rights of part 16 sections 1/2 which seems basically like the right for anyone to marry or not anyone they want and for that person to terminate the marriage when they choose.
ICE didn’t just separate the family units during incarceration, they also failed to reunify them on release. They also forcibly sterilized other asylum seekers which is a whole another human rights violation. The USA has also signed—though not ratified—the 1989 Declaration of the Rights of the Child which has more explicit protections. I believe this was confirmed in US courts as they quickly issued an injunction of this practice.
There is also the issue of why they are incarcerated in the first place. They have committed no crime, migration and seeking refuge is protected under international law.
The UN universal declaration of human rights is written to be easily accessible and understood by the general public. And given that it was written 75 years ago I think they did a good job. I actually recommend everyone to read it entirely in your native language, as it has probably been translated into it and will only take a few minutes. A beautiful document indeed.
The important thing here though is not how rigorously defined these rights are, but the spirit of the law is clearly saying that the family is a fundamental unit of society. Separating the family unit is a failure to uphold that principal.
>Over the six-year period that had followed the passage of the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970, physicians sterilized perhaps 25% of Native American women of childbearing age, and there is evidence suggesting that the numbers were actually even higher.
> having children housed with whatever adult they cross the border with
What is the threat model here? If the adult they are crossing with is trying to sell the child in the US, then having the adult and child detained together still prevents this.
Also, at $250 for a paternity test, wouldn't a cost-benefit analysis make it rational to do that rather than risk the (more expensive) harm of separating a child from their parent?
> If the adult they are crossing with is trying to sell the child in the US, then having the adult and child detained together still prevents this.
Until the detention is over and then you release them together?
One threat model is child abuse. Detaining them together enables abuse. Another threat model is deceiving the government about the child trafficking. Separating the child and the adult allows investigators to question them separately without the adult coaching the child when investigators are not present.
> Also, at $250 for a paternity test, wouldn't a cost-benefit analysis make it rational to do that rather than risk the (more expensive) harm of separating a child from their parent?
This is a good point but not all children are biological offspring of their legal parents. When you suspect trafficking and the adult claims the child is adopted what do you do?
