How To Steal A Civil Rights Legacy, The Child Welfare Propaganda Way

Ok, boys and girls, The Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed is going to introduce, what is believed to be the most prominent pirateering, co-optimization, highjacked, or just a classic example of stealin'.

This is the image that stopped me in my tracks.

This is the original

This is textbook material.

And there was not one mention of the Child Welfare System, the residual of the peculiar institution, or what I prefer to call the Trafficking of Tiny Humans, because, after all, as told to me by Amnesty International regional group, "foster care and adoption are not on our agenda."

And Amnesty International made no mention of what the plan was behind dropping the visual context of an issue of civil rights that does not exist.

Children have no civil rights because they are chattel, property, and in the situation of alien minors, they fall under the state through the legal mechanisms of an eminent legal domain, which has only been defined under international property laws in asset management.

Neither was there a mention of the meaning or history behind "I Am A Man".

And there was no mention of Detroit, where the movement came together and took force, where we have the highest rates of infant mortality, child poverty, child trafficking, foster care, adoption, illiteracy, and many of the others who are undocumented alien children who are not captured in this pirateering of the civil rights legacy, because it does not conform to the  objectives of the propaganda being spouted.

And there was no mention of John Conyers, Jr.

The 1997 settlement came out to be called the Adoption Safe Families Act because States become the legal guardians of these alien children, where, in turn, the States privatize the guardianship as a service of corporate parenting.

Simple rules of epidemiology, when trying to cure a problem, look and find out how it came to be a problem, where, in this instance, would be the history of child welfare in this nation.

Unfortunately, the history of children welfare has been, not just omitted from the history books, or just wiped out, because it is the last component of residuals of the peculiar institution, that no one wants to talk about.

No one wants to talk about the many forms of trafficking tiny humans because the epidemiological model all began in the construction of the peculiar institution.

And that, my dearies, is another tale on how to identify the stealin' of a civil rights legacy and the use of propaganda to cover it up.

 Defense of immigrant kids in detention relies on '80s court case

Aug. 2 (UPI) -- The Trump administration's immigration policies have brought an old court case back to life in defense of immigrant children at the border, often referred to as "the Flores settlement."he case, which was filed in 1985 and settled in 1997, set the rules that the government must follow when it keeps migrant children in its custody. The latest court order based on the settlement took place on Monday, in which a judge barred immigration authorities from giving children psychotropic drugs without consent of parents or legal guardians.

I have to set the record straight and expound upon the "consent of parents or legal guardians" when it comes to the use of psychotropic medication on kids in state care.  The state is the parent.  The state is the guardian.  The used to farm out its guardianship to a designated superintdent, or "governess" over the wards, but now, since it is all privatized, the legal guardians are the corporations, like CIVITAS or Samaritas.

The Trump administration has requested to amend the settlement to allow it to indefinitely detain migrant children. So far, the courts have denied these requests, and will continue to monitor the detention of migrant children.

So what was the Flores case about?

Case took years

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration aggressively used detention of Central Americans as a device to deter migration from Central America, where violent civil wars had caused tens of thousands to flee. As a result, the government held in custody Central Americans arrested at the U.S.-Mexico border, including many who sought asylum in the United States because they feared persecution if returned home. Immigrant rights groups filed a series of lawsuits challenging various aspects of the detention policies, including denying access of migrants to counsel, taking steps to encourage them to "consent" to deportation, and detaining them in isolated locations far from families and attorneys.

One suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 1985 on behalf of Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15-year-old from El Salvador. She had fled violence in her home country to live with an aunt who was in the United States. But Flores was detained by federal authorities at the U.S. border for being undocumented.

The ACLU charged that holding Flores indefinitely violated the U.S. Constitution and the immigration laws. The Flores case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its 1993 ruling in the case, the court held that a regulation allowing the government to release a migrant child to a close family member or legal guardian in the United States was legal.

But the primary legacy of the case was the subsequent settlement, to which both the Clinton administration and the plaintiffs agreed in 1997.

The Flores settlement established standards for the treatment of unaccompanied minors who were in the custody of federal authorities for violating the immigration laws. It requires the federal government to place children with a close relative or family friend "without unnecessary delay," rather than detaining them; and to keep immigrant children who are in custody in the "least restrictive conditions" possible. Generally speaking, this has meant migrant children can only be kept in federal immigrant detention for 20 days.

The Flores settlement created a framework agreed to by the U.S. government that addressed how migrant children were to be treated if they were detained. It is a landmark settlement in no small part because Central Americans continue to flee violence in their homelands and the U.S. government has responded with mass detention of immigrant children. Although the Flores settlement was agreeable to the Clinton administration, the Trump administration wants to detain families, including children, for periods longer than permitted by the Flores settlement.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©