40 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 56.2 ms ] thread
Is there any context to this particular item?
The context is that 5 year olds are being asked to read legalese and understand their rights to stay in this country. This is a small piece indicating how inhuman US immigration has become.

An analogy would be a 5 yr old American kid being read Miranda laws and asked to sign a release while in front of a cop. Do you know a single 5 yr old who understands what this means?

If this still doesn't sound brutal to you, I can't help.

(comment deleted)
This is illegal and unconstitutional. It is so bad that this is state sponsored child kidnapping.
You're describing the current administration but here we are.
The "current administration" is pulling the levers of brutally insane systems that have been around much much longer.
The us is committing crimes against humanity. If you are an american, as I am, then you are complicit. Separating children from their parents, asking 5 year olds to sign legally binding documents. This is just wrong and indefensible.

  Separating children from their parents
The parents had already separated themselves from her months earlier.

Policy is different for parents coming in together with their own children. Details are in the New Yorker article linked in an earlier comment.

The legally binding documents would allow the children to leave US protection and go back to their country of origin to reunite with their parents.

You are just wrong.

A child can not consent to anything in a legal document. Perhaps they are taking advantage of people not knowing this.
Allowing a child to participate in a hearing does not grant them emancipation as an adult. Teens are in court every weekday, all day in the U.S. Only a small fraction of them are granted emancipation as an adult and only for very rare and specific limited conditions. Could you please highlight the part that you believe provides emancipation for the child?

In addition, to the best of my knowledge, a country can not provide legal emancipation for another countries citizen that is not under their jurisdiction. I am not a lawyer, but it sounds like one should step in here.

It seems pretty unavoidably brutal, to be an unaccompanied minor who might not have a right to be in the country. It's obviously terrible to have 5 year olds make these kind of decisions, but would it be better if the government made them without asking?
In some kinds of proceedings, a guardian is appointed to advocate on the child's behalf. That seems much more sensible than asking the five year old directly.
Agreed, but then that's where context is important. Was this document signed after some months-long process, or was it a preliminary thing while they were working on finding a guardian?
(comment deleted)
The process was around 6 months long and the child was “4 and a half!” when it started...

A 5 year old can not read/understand or legally sign a legal document. What kind of context would make this “okay”?

Respectfully disagree.

Paperwork "signed" by a five year ought to be meaningless in any legal situation and the judge should have laughed this out of court. If an adult says "write your name here" they're almost certainly going to do it. They're little kids! The one in question was offered crayons to color with afterward!

Here's an article with more context: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-five-year-old-w...

In brief, the hearing is to determine if the person can be released on a bond (or parole) instead of being detained. In other words, this probably would have gotten the kid out much faster!

Gotten the kid out of where? The article indicates the government very quickly got her out of the detention center, putting her in a shelter since they hadn't found her mother at the time.
From the 8th paragraph:

> Helen had a right to a bond hearing before a judge; that

> hearing would have likely hastened her release from

> government custody and her return to her family.

You are, I presume, way older and wiser than a five year old. If you can't figure out the form, why would you expect a child to understand it? I would bet most kids could be persuaded to check either box by saying "Check here if you want to see your grandma" or "Check here if want to stay and color instead of having to sit quietly in court."

But how would the hearing have done that? The document strongly suggests that it wasn't a hearing about whether she should be released.

Again, I don't think anyone does expect a child to understand the form. But they need to either have the hearing or not have the hearing, regardless of what the child understands or whether a guardian has yet been found.

That's literally the point!

I suppose that if you're okay with the system as-is, then sure, they need to have the hearing or cancel it. Personally, I think the whole thing is horrific and Kafkaesque: the form is just a salient example of it.

For example, they could have left the grandmother and child together, reunited them when the grandmother was released, or at least let the grandmother make legal decisions on the kid's behalf. For unaccompanied minors, there ought to be people representing them on staff, like the Dept of Child Services/Children and Families/etc have in other situations. In a world where we spend tens of millions of dollar so the president can go golfing, this seems....incredibly doable.

  Paperwork "signed" by a five year ought to be meaningless in any legal situation
... so that should apply to her original paperwork requesting a Flores hearing as well.
Sure, though as a custody hearing should happen by default anyway, I don’t see that a particularly deadly objection.

We don’t let children who are /twice as old/ drink, smoke, vote, drive, or see scary movies. Do you really think these kids can decide if a Flores hearing is in their best interest?

(comment deleted)
(comment deleted)
Other direction - in 1997 Bill Clinton was deporting people without process which is where this body of law came from. The standard practice was that children with adults would get a bond hearing (because adults could represent themselves and their children) but unaccompanied children were being deported OR they pretty much became permanent residents of the detention system.

Then in 2017, they left limbo and have the right to be heard in a court: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/flores_v....

So... is a five year old expected to deal with their legal process? Yes, and they're appointed council to help with that, which is way better than where we were 20 years ago.

(comment deleted)
Sorry for the confusion; I agree deportation policies are brutal, but I didn't see a reason why this particular item was just now mentioned on the site, since this has been going on for a while.

At the time of my comment this was on page 2 from the home page, there were no comments, and no background info. I was hoping for a link to a news story on what made this relevant. As it was, there was no reason the title was accurate. Given disinformation campaigns, I thought it was valid to ask.

Based upon another comment I understand why someone decided to share this.

Your analogy is bullshit. You’re dumb, and your understanding of this is dumb.
America: like a tacky Los Angeles club where rich people and celebrities waltz in with half-naked women without reservations, while families dodging American-made cluster bombs and drone strikes huddle at the back of the line 10,000 miles away for years only to be told their paperwork isn't good enough and they're from a country that's now banned because of new religious purity tests, but here's a coloring book as a consolation prize. England turning away a boat of Jews in 1939 was an act of cowardice and evil, but diffusely, there are many more instances of this recently that pale in comparison. All I hope is that history looks down on the savagery, unkindness and inhumanity perpetrated on poor people all over the world with equal disdain, shame and disrespect for the pain, death and misery corporate-led military-industrial complex adventurism hath wrought. Solidarity now and forever, or divided we fall.
I agree to be deported from this thread, but I wish to keep the colouring page.
A contract between an infant (i.e., someone under 18) and anyone else is binding...on the other party, and generally voidable by the infant.
Whoever put this together is devoid of any kind of empathy. You can almost see the hatred.

The all important future impacting page 1 is in English, Page 2 is mockingly in Spanish asking to colour in a symbol of freedom.

They would torture and execute these kids if they could get away with it.