Child Dead In ICE Detention Center Due To ‘Negligent Care’: Immigration Lawyer

a reply to: CriticalStinker

No worries. It happens.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
I think the title of this thread is a bit misleading compared to what the actual article says the child did not die in the Detention Center it died following a stay at the Detention Center possibly from neglect and a respiratory illness caught from another child.

I think we need a lot more details before any opinions can be formed accurately

I agree. I want to hear more about what happened. This just broke over night so the details are scant so far.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You mean Obama's failed policy don't you?

a reply to: Necrobile

Yes. There are a lot of illegals. That's why "Catch and Release" has been the go to policy and why Trump had to fall back on it. Reality headbutted against rhetoric and reality always wins that battle. The numbers are just too great to apply simple solution like "Just send them back!" It takes time and the more there are, the longer and harder that process becomes. It is bureaucratically efficient to prioritize the known troublemakers and just let the regular families stay for now.

a reply to: ntech

No I mean the policy that was implemented on April 6th, 2018. I'm not sure how Obama would have anything to do with that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If they have any families and if those families aren't gang members or smugglers that they were with. If they have no families at all, they should be turned over to the Mexican authorities to sort. This isn't a humanitarian aid problem but a national security problem.

a reply to: WarPig1939

Did you just call a bunch of parentless children a "national security problem"? Am I reading that right? Because that is too ridiculous to believe and I feel like Poe's Law is in order here.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: pointessa

The fault of the death is entirely the ICE's fault.

A death hasn't even been confirmed, but you KNOW it's "entirely the ICE's fault." You're good.

We have absolutely no idea what we're dealing with beyond a possible "respiratory" illness resulting in death. We have no idea if the child arrived with the condition or contracted it in detention. We have no idea what the child's condition was upon arrival -- malnourished, dehydrated, weak, injured, etc. We have no idea what was done or not done for the child. For all we know, the child was being cared for properly but died from an allergic reaction to the antibiotics given. (Something her doctors and caregivers would have no way of knowing in advance.)

But I'm only using the royal "we" obviously, because you -- the amazing YOU -- know it's ENTIRELY the ICE's fault.... yeah, right...

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: pointessa

The fault of the death is entirely the ICE's fault.

A death hasn't even been confirmed, but you KNOW it's "entirely the ICE's fault." You're good.

Ok. Sorry. It WOULD be the ICE's fault. I'm not trying to to give the impression of jumping the gun here. Also the respiratory illness appears to have come from another child at the detention center.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok. Sorry.

Thank you. All we need is one story blown up out of proportion to be proven false to discredit the very real problems at these detention centers by those so inclined...

It WOULD be the ICE's fault. I'm not trying to to give the impression of jumping the gun here.

ICE may or may not bear liability... but they are far from the only ones. And I'm not talking about the child's parents. Once we take custody of these children, it's all on us. But ICE does nothing all by its lonesome.

Also the respiratory illness appears to have come from another child at the detention center.

If one child has a contagious illness, given the conditions, it's pretty certain that most of the other kids will get it as well in such close quarters. It might be a simple cold that turned into pneumonia for this one child... it might also be something worse. Until we know, there's really no conclusions to be drawn.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarPig1939

Did you just call a bunch of parentless children a "national security problem"? Am I reading that right? Because that is too ridiculous to believe and I feel like Poe's Law is in order here.

Well technically they could be. Have you ever been to Iraq or Afghanistan, whos to say some cartel or gang doesn't use the same tactic against the USA. Better yet who is to say a terror cell would use a child as a bio-weapon to destabilize the entire border allowing unlimited access until the us military arrived?

originally posted by: Boadicea
If one child has a contagious illness, given the conditions, it's pretty certain that most of the other kids will get it as well in such close quarters. It might be a simple cold that turned into pneumonia for this one child... it might also be something worse. Until we know, there's really no conclusions to be drawn.

A review of the health conditions and how these kids are given care may be in order. Just in case.

originally posted by: WarPig1939

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarPig1939

Did you just call a bunch of parentless children a "national security problem"? Am I reading that right? Because that is too ridiculous to believe and I feel like Poe's Law is in order here.

Well technically they could be. Have you ever been to Iraq or Afghanistan, whos to say some cartel or gang doesn't use the same tactic against the USA.

Have YOU ever been to Iraq or Afghanistan? Because I was in Iraq for 6 months (until I blew out my ACL) running convoy security up and down the highways near Baghdad and outside Fallujah. After missions we would stop at the local town outside our FOB and give the children our extra water, juices or even MREs. We didn't treat them as security threats. So what exactly is your point here? What would a cartel or gang gain outside of smuggling drugs (something that would be identified as soon as they are detained) on the children?

Better yet who is to say a terror cell would use a child as a bio-weapon to destabilize the entire border allowing unlimited access until the us military arrived?

Reality and logistics of the matter. It's much easier to sneak a terrorist into the country through Canada than Mexico and they don't have to rely on children to do it either. Also, you give terrorists too much credit (likely because you watched too many Hollywood movies or watch too much bad news about terrorists). Another thing I learned in Iraq is that terrorists are on average pretty dumb. They don't have intricate plans like that laid out and the ones who do tend to get caught. Muslim terrorism is less of a threat in the US than domestic right wing terrorism and that isn't even that bad either.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: WarPig1939

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarPig1939

Did you just call a bunch of parentless children a "national security problem"? Am I reading that right? Because that is too ridiculous to believe and I feel like Poe's Law is in order here.

Well technically they could be. Have you ever been to Iraq or Afghanistan, whos to say some cartel or gang doesn't use the same tactic against the USA.

Have YOU ever been to Iraq or Afghanistan? Because I was in Iraq for 6 months (until I blew out my ACL) running convoy security up and down the highways near Baghdad and outside Fallujah. After missions we would stop at the local town outside our FOB and give the children our extra water, juices or even MREs. We didn't treat them as security threats. So what exactly is your point here? What would a cartel or gang gain outside of smuggling drugs (something that would be identified as soon as they are detained) on the children?

One tour each. 07-08/10-11 29ID. So far as we know cartels and gangs have only used children to smuggle contraband, and so far that I know of they haven't gotten smart and started using them for other lethal purposes. That doesn't mean a small group or terror cells won't think to use a smuggler's children for lethal purposes. I'm talking about right at being detained that one won't have an explosive to blow up a group of border patrol agents. Of course after being detained they would have been searched.

The bio=weapon part still is a concern, a child laced with some bio-chem or powder could wreck havoc at a detention center or a checkpoint if no one is taking any precautions. These are all credible theories but the USA isn't supposed to be playing the part of the UN. The mission is to secure the border and return all that cross and persecute all affiliated gang/cartel members.

There are people coming from overseas now versus from South America which causes concern.

Just another story using a child's death to push a political agenda. Nobody would give one **** if Hillary was in office.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


You know much as I do that somewhere some government guy is being paid to bring up the same theories. While unlikely to happen, you still have countries like Iran that are very smart. That know where to enter into the country illegally or cause chaos at the border.

originally posted by: WarPig1939
One tour each. 07-08/10-11 29ID. So far as we know cartels and gangs have only used children to smuggle contraband, and so far that I know of they haven't gotten smart and started using them for other lethal purposes. That doesn't mean a small group or terror cells won't think to use a smuggler's children for lethal purposes. I'm talking about right at being detained that one won't have an explosive to blow up a group of border patrol agents. Of course after being detained they would have been searched.

The bio=weapon part still is a concern, a child laced with some bio-chem or powder could wreck havoc at a detention center or a checkpoint if no one is taking any precautions. These are all credible theories but the USA isn't supposed to be playing the part of the UN. The mission is to secure the border and return all that cross and persecute all affiliated gang/cartel members.

There are people coming from overseas now versus from South America which causes concern.

No they aren't credible theories. This is like taking out Volcano insurance while living on a flood plan. Sure, there is a very small chance a volcano COULD erupt there, but wasting money on it when it could be spent on something like flood insurance is dumb.

Arguing that children are dangerous because of the less than 1% chance that a terrorist cell was provided enough financing to buy a bio-weapon and then decided to smuggle it on a child through the Mexican border (which again is dumb when it is WAAAAAAY easier to get across the Canadian border undetected) all so they can blow up or contaminate a point of entry? Something that would be easy to shut down and quarantine? It's nonsense reasoning.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Just another story using a child's death to push a political agenda. Nobody would give one **** if Hillary was in office.

This is disingenuously hyperbolic. I don't know any liberal friends/acquaintances who would value Hillary's PR approval ratings over some innocent child...

You are using your hatred of Hillary and those who supported her to justify children dying, which is pretty ugly boyo.

a reply to: WarPig1939

But that's the point you are failing to see. You keep pretending like the Mexican border would be the preferable point of entry for these terrorists. If countries like Iran were planning something out, why would they try to cross along the most policed border of the country when there are three other sides they can enter from that are more porous?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Just another story using a child's death to push a political agenda. Nobody would give one **** if Hillary was in office.

This is disingenuously hyperbolic. I don't know any liberal friends/acquaintances who would value Hillary's PR approval ratings over some innocent child...

You are using your hatred of Hillary and those who supported her to justify children dying, which is pretty ugly boyo.

Actually that is exactly what the OP is doing. I didn't create the thread, I just posted a comment on their topic with the harsh truth. If you don't like it then move along. Obama knew about the medical care issues at the detention centers a long time ago, had a few years of holding the majority in Congress and never fixed the issue.

“In 2009, the Obama administration promised major immigration detention reforms, including more centralized oversight and improved health care,” said Clara Long, US researcher at Human Rights Watch. “But these death reviews show that system-wide problems remain, including a failure to prevent or fix substandard medical care that literally kills people.”