There's a reason that the arrested are handcuffed. 2-3 weeks ago one of those sweet young thangs killed 2 officers and a 911 phone operator in Fayette, Alabama. While he was being finger printed and the cuffs removed, a stugle insued and the arrested child got one of the officers guns then killed three humans. All the "feelings" and righious indignation won't bring those three lives back or stop the sorrow of the families of the three people killed. So I would like to see the mental gymnastics of how not handcuffing an arrested person can possibly be squared with the if it saves one life logic so prevalant with the "feeling" crowd.

Let's just put it this way: if your children ever get arrested for murder (which is in my opinion many times worse than trying to enter a country illegally), they will most likely get a far better treatment than these children; because that's part of their basic human rights. There is a reason why children have those rights, in the hope they won't end up traumatized, scarred and badly influenced for the rest of their lives, and because they may not be fully aware of the actual implications of what they've done at their age... And you can't compare illegally trying to enter the US because you're fleeing for your life with any *serious* crime, either.
If there was ever going to be a case in which you had to flee for your life from the US, be it war or whatever (not necessarily because you did something wrong), and you and your kids end up in another country, would you like the idea of your children being treated like dirt, having to "mingle" with and being treated as actual serious adult criminals, being physically abused and perhaps even ending up traumatized for the rest of their lives, long before they were even supposed to lose their childlike innocence, effectively taking away some of the happiest years of their youth?

Ah yes, and one out of 5000 "snapping" surely is justification enough to treat the other 4999 as adult criminals. :rolleyes: The fact that at the same time they're violating the same human rights agreements from which they expect that the entire world abides by them and which usually sets the "evil" countries apart from the "good" countries hardly matters, er? [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img]

[ 06-24-2003, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Just a note to say LOA and crimsonblade's post were so over the top to take seriously, Sarcasam is funny [img]tongue.gif[/img]

The question of children as illeagal immigrants is a big topic for debate in Australia too. With the minister for immagration, Phillip "whats a heart" Ruddock, jailing all children with there parents for years. A blight on the country which we like to call 'lucky' and on our national motto which is "Fair go, mate"

I will post a link or two to our hidden shame tomorrow. Zzzzz time for bed [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

I'm afraid that one of them was serious. The other, although he has strong views on illegal immigration, was being his usual over the top self.

Ah yes, and one out of 5000 "snapping" surely is justification enough to treat the other 4999 as adult criminals. :rolleyes: The fact that at the same time they're violating the same human rights agreements from which they expect that the entire world abides by them and which usually sets the "evil" countries apart from the "good" countries hardly matters, er? [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>You're right, <font color=orange>Grojlach</font>. The "other 4,999" may not represent a significant threat. So I tell you what..we'll just have the Immigration Dept. send a photo of all 5,000 to you and you can circle the ONE person in the crowd they need to be wary of. :rolleyes:

The fact is that physical restraint is Standard Operating Procedure for police in any situation regarding the transport of a person. These children are not shackled 24/7. They are only put in restraints when being transported to court appearances or other meetings. That might seem cruel to some, but I'm sure it seems like common sense to the officers doing the transportation.

I worked at a convenience store several years ago. One night, a man came in very distraught. He was homeless and hitchhiking through the area. According to his story, a local family had met him and offered to let him stay at their house for the night before moving on. Suddenly, after eating dinner, the man of the house physically attacked the guy without provocation and the man barely escaped without receiving serious physical harm. He was very upset and needed a place to stay for the night. Since our small town has no official homeless shelter, the only other option was to spend the night in jail. The man said that was fine with him, he just wanted someplace safe to stay. I called the police and a deputy was dispatched to the store. Upon arriving, he listened to the man's story and offered to give him a ride to the jail where he could spend the night. HOWEVER, even though the man was very cooperative and offered no resistance, the deputy told him he would have to place him in handcuffs until they reached the jail. It is nothing more than a safety precaution meant to protect the police..because as the situation described by <font color=white>John Harris</font> illustrates, they never know when a person is going to "snap" on them.

Also, the article doesn't list the ages of the children...the reason is that most the word "children" conjures up images of innocent-eyed 5-year-olds. The fact is, many of these "children" are actually teenagers - who could reasonably be assumed to represent a far more potential threat than the toddler most people picture when reading this story.</font>

Let's keep the personal jabs out of this one, people. This is an emotional topic for some, so try to keep it in 'debate' mode not 'flame' mode.

Thanks,

Your Friendly Neighborhood Mod

I agree very much with Cerek, once again he is much more eloquent than I am, I would like to touch on

It's too bad your immigrate forbearers where not treated this why. Then we would not have to read your hateful ideas. I agree with Chewbacca you two should be ashamed of yourselves.

The problem with this statement is that you are assuming his ancestors were ilegal immigrants, the overwhelming majority of imigrants to this country are legal, which it seems LoA and Crimson Blade have no problem with (or perhaps they want the borders closed), the problem with the article is it tries to force upon you the idea that illegal immigrants have a right to be here, simply put they don't.

I'm afraid that one of them was serious. The other, although he has strong views on illegal immigration, was being his usual over the top self. </font>[/QUOTE]That is exactly how I had "scored" it myself.

In line with current US criminal procedure I will assume they are illeagal till they can prove otherwise [img]tongue.gif[/img]