If the US government wants to curb the tide on illegal immigrants, they could just air on a jumbo screen episodes of Dr. Phil, where most of the children on the show have home lives that would make forced separation from their families a welcome relief. I mean it.
We have a lot of precious moral masturbation going on here. It is classic propaganda that shows how far journalism has sunk.
Yes, it is a scumbag policy to separate children from their parents, but Canada's residential schools came before this nincompoopity and those poor kids were being carted off from their parents by the original illegal immigrants who crashed their country.
As the regime at the time patted themselves on the back with it without worrying about journalists taping those poor souls crying out for mommy and daddy; so let us not pretend that childhood isn't hell.
The US has their fair share of nightmare parents, such as the homeschooling Turpins who got away with it for years because nobody gave a damn who lived in the vicinity and saw it all happen. Jennifer and Sarah Hart didn't win Mommy of the Year, either by killing their entire brood, even though the warning signs were screaming everywhere. Parents leave their children with anyone who will have them, leading to catastrophic results.
The open abuse so many children take is sickening, and even when those children take the risk and expose the abuse, adults will not believe them. We don't know what to do with children, and it shows, even with all the blustering and virtue-signalling used as a form of deflection.
I wrote one story about women breaking the law to please a boyfriend years ago, and I had to interview several women serving hard time in jail -- or had already served their time. Some were mothers separated from their children and got twenty year minimums for something that used to get you probation.
The story was pure trauma for me. I heard women in the background having meltdowns screaming the names of their children. I talked to women whose now-grown children were emotionally damaged by the state-sanctioned separation and blamed their already victimized mothers for it. Their mothers most times didn't even know the mundane things she was doing was illegal, and the separation made a mess of lives.
I tried pitching this new angle to publications, but since it was not sexy and I had no Donald Trump to blame, the pitch was consistently shot down.
The press doesn't like to deal with children in peril unless there is some angle they can exploit. I remember one horrific example that happened while my family was away in Florida on vacation of a young African-American child who witnessed his estranged father murder his mother after she left him because he was abusive. The child had two younger siblings, but a genius reporter thought it was a great idea to interview this kid after it happened in front of rolling cameras.
Needless to say, this child was weeping as he dutifully told the exploitative grown-up how his life got torn to shreds.
So disturbed was my family in our hotel room, my mother phoned whatever agency was in charge at the time and asked if we could adopt those children. Both my grandmother and I were fully onboard, willing to do whatever it took, but fortunately the children had grandparents.
I can still close my eyes and see and hear the shameless ratings grab to this day.
It wasn't always this nakedly manipulative.
As far back as the 1970s, when a news producer exposed a horror inflicted on a child, it was genuine righteousness. Nick Ut's photograph of Phan Thi Kim Phuc running naked in the streets during the Vietnam war as she was the innocent victim of a US napalm attack didn't just bring global outrage that led to action, we know her whereabouts to this day because she was more than fodder for a photograph: Ut's eyes became our own.
By 1985, the grains of journalistic righteousness started slipping away. Steve McCurry's iconic National Geographic cover of "Afghan Girl" showed the haunted eyes of a young anonymous orphan. For decades, she had a face, but no name, and she was eventually tracked down, mostly as a publicity stunt, but her plight didn't spark what it should have, and she had years of personal suffering, and only after exposure of her now adulthood trauma, was something done.
It wasn't the same by then. Already, the humanity part was gone, and something less sincere replaced it.
The drive for instant gratification and attention. I remember in the 1990s when war broke out in the former Yugoslavia, how many US journalists -- many of them female and mothers themselves -- would shout things to then President Bill Clinton with absolute glee: Mr. President! Mr. President! When will you bomb the Serbs?
That's right, Mr. President: when will you throw bombs on children, maiming them, killing them, and if they survive, maiming and killing their parents?
Some children's plights are just more newsworthy than others: some children can go suffer in silence if we cannot exploit a narrative, while others the press devours hungrily, hoping to label their designated villain as a baby-slapper.
It keeps happening, but the worst of it is those children who get media attention are discarded once the game of combat has ended. It never changes.
The Sixties Scoop was framed as being normal and necessary, but now let's hear the press howl at Trump.
We'll bomb the brats, and the pity them for being orphans.
It is sanctioned insanity and exploiting a vulnerable and captive segment of society.
Spare us the faux outrage; we see who you are really looking at, and it is not the kids.
Because if the press actually cared about kids, they would have directed news stories straight at them years ago, but children are props in a news story, meaning they are unimportant citizens.
It is why the ones railing against this latest attack on children are as immoral as the ones who perpetrated it.
And the suffering continues...