By Tracy Fauver
Just a few weeks ago, a family was told that their children were being taken to get a bath. Those parents have yet to see their children since.
Just a few weeks ago, a mother weaned her six-month-old daughter as a precautionary measure—she wanted her infant to be used to drinking formula in case she was detained rather than being granted the asylum she was seeking at the US border from a boyfriend who was trying to kill her.
Maybe that mom was onto something, because just a few weeks ago, a child was taken from its mother’s breast when she was detained at the border.
It seems like these stories are excerpts from an unfortunate time in history—perhaps from a time where we didn’t know better, but these things all happened—just a few weeks ago—to 2,342 children.
At Yolo County CASA we train and support volunteers to ensure that foster children do not feel alone and have a strong voice in court, in school and in their lives. These are things most of us take for granted, but a foster child may move homes and schools three or more times in a year, with their belongings taking up no more room than a garbage bag. These traumatic experiences do not even account for the trauma caused by the abuse and neglect that these foster children suffered before they were removed from their homes… or the trauma of being separated from the only family they’ve ever known—no matter how dysfunctional.
We know that trauma as a child leads to poor outcomes as an adult. Unsurprisingly, foster children experience extremely high amounts of childhood trauma and as such, are highly likely to drop out of school, end up homeless, or suffer from mental and physical illness as adults.
Each day we work tirelessly to provide CASA volunteers for as many children in our dependency system as we can, and we will not give up until we serve all 617 of them (which is an all-time high). 
Why? Because research resoundingly shows that a stable and trusted adult relationship can reverse the harmful effects of childhood trauma in foster children.
Just a few weeks ago, over a six-week timespan, 2,342 children went through the same kind of extreme trauma that our foster children experience. For those who are into numbers, one child was separated from their parent or parents every 25 seconds.
Every 25 seconds a lifetime of harm was caused… but why?
Many immigrant families come to the United States to create a better life for their families or seek asylum from dangerous situation. They risk their lives for this because it’s gotten so bad where they are.
So I ask—where is the abuse and neglect in protecting your child and striving to give your child a better life?
It’s truly baffling to think of the harm that has already been caused for these 2,342 children.
At least at Yolo County CASA when we hear sad stories of abuse and neglect and children being taken from the home it’s because the child was in immediate danger. We can say that, yes, it’s sad but it was necessary to protect the child, and that we are going to do everything we can with our CASA volunteers to help until the child is reunited with his or her family or adopted.
Unfortunately, I can’t say yes, it’s sad, but it was necessary that the 2,342 children were taken from their parents at the border. Not even close…
In fact, all I can think to say about this is I am so very incredibly sorry—2,342 times–to these children.
I am sorry for the lifetime of suffering that a moment in time has caused you.
I am sorry that we have a shortage of foster homes and facilities in the United States to care for you.
I am sorry that you can’t understand what you did wrong to deserve this because I know that even when children are removed from their parents for a good reason, they still suffer trauma.
In fact, I am sorry that you are suffering trauma so extreme right now, that it’s hard for any adult to imagine.
And truly, I am sorry that your parents can’t tell you they love you tonight.
We can do better.
We saw how powerful it was when we as a nation spoke out against this immoral and barbaric zero tolerance policy. Now, let’s speak up for the children and urge our lawmakers to provide emergency funding and assistance to locate these children’s families and reunite them as soon as possible.
Tracy Fauver is the Executive Director of Yolo County CASA
To take children away from their parents to protect them is sad, but explicable. To take children from their parents with full explanation of why, where the child will be kept, and the process and timing of reunification would be unacceptable but at least explicable. To remove children from their parents under false pretenses or with no explanation and no plan or mechanism for reunification has another name entirely. It is abduction. In this case, state sponsored abduction and, in my opinion, there is no excuse or justification.
For those of you who do not believe this is true, I offer the definition of abduction:
“The action or an instance of forcibly taking someone away against their will”. Unlike kidnapping, no mention is made of the legality of the act.
Have you expressed this view, and demanded action, to the electeds? If not, why not?
Absolutely. Repeatedly. On multiple levels. In private communications and in public. Spoke not on this particular issue, but on the inadequacy of care at the ORR/juvenile detention center which the supervisors and staff are taking steps to remediate.
Today I will be making a different type of public statement at the Families Belong Together march in Sacramento. I am donating far more than usual to the ACLU for their reunification efforts as well as to some border groups. My Spanish is too rusty at present to be useful at the border, but I am brushing up on it in case this goes on longer than expected. I am very familiar with the Sells/Tucson area and could potential be useful for interpretation if I could get back to my previous level of near fluency.
Did you March when families were being separated when Obama and Clinton were President? Or just now because Trump is in the White House?
Tia… good!
Needs to be done also on State and national levels, not just CC and/or BOS…
I have further considered, since our government clearly has not, a process for family reunifications. I would recommend a two step reunification process.
1. A single staging area where children could be grouped in areas of alarge venue such as a convention center by age and gender and entered into a central computerized system by name and DOB if known. Parents could then seek out their child and be reunited on the spot. If there were any question about relationship or for any remaining unmatched, step 2 would apply.
2. DNA mouth swabs of parent and child could be taken at a cost of from $100-$500 each and matched within 48 hours. Even if the parent and child had not made it to the staging area, any remaining parent or child ( say at the DeVos affiliated adoption agency for example) could then be matched and reunited.
Fully agree with both points… the “losing track” of who belongs to/with who is truly an abomination (IMHO), and have heard many accounts that is happening all too frequently…
Even if the children/parents are not Mexican?
Not all undocumented folk are Mexican nationals…
How were the Hochs processed/documented?
They all have to pass though Mexico and most are Mexican.
I think this is actually a fantastic idea. Have the US pay Mexico to operate a detention center for asylum seekers while we vet each case.
Untrue… on several levels… not all the undocumented folk come from Latin America, and even many of those who do, do not passage via Mexico…
I’ll give you “majority”, but that “all” assertion is BS…
At the risk of losing my “progressive” membership, that’s a reason to seek asylum in another country?
There are folks all around the world who are being persecuted (e.g., by their own governments/military/wars), but can’t easily cross the border into the U.S. There’s also folks who would like to come here legally (from around the world), but cannot do so. Hell, there’s folks starving in other countries (who cannot come here, or to other countries).
Also – U.S. citizens cannot necessarily become citizens of other countries. (Even if their boyfriend/girlfriend is trying to kill them, here.)
I thought the same thing. And yes, I think you are at risk of losing your “progressive” membership.
I’ve probably already lost it. But, perhaps still have enough anomalies to create my own category (“none-of-the-above”). Won’t argue with the “slow-growth” label, though. (I realize you’d have a different label, for that.) 🙂
80% of the illegal immigrant children in US detention centers arrived here after a horrendously dangerous trek ALONE… sent here from their home by their parents. In other words, eight out of ten children that are being exploited by the media and political operatives to win the game of moral high-horse as being in the cohort of victims separated by the “Trump Nazis” were in fact separated by their very own parents.
It seems above the ability of those raging with anger about the Trump administration’s actions to secure the border and stem the flow of so many poor and uneducated people… trying to prevent them from gaming our already over-burdened system… to see that their lack of acknowledgement and admission of the ACTUAL problems of illegal immigration completely destroys their credibility as being interested in what is good for the country over what might benefit their politics.
The absence of a clear, enforced policy regarding immigration encourages people to risk their lives (and those of their children) via dangerous border crossings.
How is that “dreamers” were allowed to enroll in U.S. public schools, etc.?
What a mess.
It’s probably better (for all) if the our government did not purposefully make it attractive to come to the U.S. in the first place, instead of focusing on extremely long border walls that will likely be costly to build and maintain (and will likely be ineffective, anyway).
Here’s how:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe
Good link, but also liked your previous answer, Don…
Also have to wonder how Ron’s ancestors got into the US…
Howard: I’m wondering if you think the borders should just be entirely open, and with anyone automatically becoming a citizen if they so desire. (And – not just limited to those who can physically cross the border.)
If not, what would you propose?
I find it strange that you often choose to make a personal comment, rather than addressing the broader issues. As a side note, if my ancestors did not migrate here, then perhaps I wouldn’t even exist. (Not sure what that has to do with anything discussed here.)
It’s odd how the immigration debate so often becomes this binary choice between ‘zero tolerance’ and ‘open borders’. Jeff did the same thing the other day.
The Trump administration has implemented a zero tolerance policy in the form of prosecution as a crime of every individual apprehended for illegal entry. Previously it had been basically a citation. This is a change in prosecutorial discretion, announced by the attorney general, and the result was the policy of family separation because all adults were being arrested, held, and charged. All in an immigration court system with a two-year-plus backlog of cases.
That is what caused this inhumane policy of family separation.
It isn’t as though the only other choice is open borders. You can retain prosecutorial discretion, have a variety of ways of monitoring people who are cited for illegal entry. You can be stricter, you can increase resources to deal with the backlog, etc. Sessions knows all of that. Trump just says all kinds of weird stuff that ranges from inhumane to unconstitutional to farcically uninformed. But it isn’t as though the only other option is just opening the borders.
Most of our political leaders know what the components of a bipartisan immigration reform bill will be. It will resemble the 2013 Senate Bill. It may have more concessions to conservatives, or to Trump. It will have concessions to those who support the DACA residents. It will have some kind of a path to residency, and probably a long-term path to citizenship. It will provide for the labor needs of some industries, and will establish employer responsibilities. This isn’t rocket science.
But the jargon of the hard-line immigration opponents will continue to revolve around accusations of “open borders” and, their favorite one: “amnesty.”
And, on a related note, 40 million people living in California isn’t enough? Maybe 50 million, 60 million . . .
To reference/paraphrase an old song from a movie, “Whatever will be, shall be”?
Reminds me of the left debate over 187 in college. There was a ZPG wing of the anti-immigration movement. Most ZPG’s were not anti-immigration, they simply saw it as a re-distribution of the population from one area to another. But some were against the movement of people from less to better developed countries because of the resultant increase in per capita use of resources.
David: I view it as a failure to accept limitations.
If some countries are not able to support/address their ever-increasing populations, is it the responsibility of all other countries to accept and incorporate the result?
What do you think the end result of that approach will be?
Even without immigration, the U.S. hasn’t acknowledged the ramifications of never-ending population growth (which has greatly accelerated in the past century or two). Quite a contrast, when comparing that to the age of the earth.
Ron: When you play that game, the weak and vulnerable suffer.
Don: I’m a little unclear on the ramifications of “prosecution”, if the goal is to send immigrants back to their point of origin.
Prosecution would imply punishment, in the form of detention (thereby delaying deportation), or fines (which would likely not be collected). In other words, punishment does not seem to be part of the equation.
The separation of families has already been rescinded, although not yet remedied. Seems like everyone (including Trump) agrees that this was a mistake. So, I’m not sure what’s being protested, other than the lack of an immediate remedy.
I don’t understand the justification of providing a path to citizenship, for those who enter the country illegally. There are many who cannot immigrate to this country (legally) or illegally – simply because they do not share a border with the United States. And, many of them are likely in far more danger (or need) than those who are able to cross illegally.
Why would this country choose to “reward” (only) those who enter illegally?
Providing a path to citizenship for those who cross illegally will encourage dangerous border crossings, into the future. Doesn’t make much sense, to me.
Ron…
Don took the words out of my mouth re: “open borders” question, but did so with clean hands and latex gloves… so I don’t mind…
I don’t claim to “know the answer”, but know what we are doing today is historically, ethically, morally wrong… and defies the spirit of the famous Emma Lazarus (ironic? as in being raised from the ‘dead’?) quote emblazoned on one of our most famous cultural icons…
On one side of my family, my ancestors came to the US for opportunity, and no more documentation than being on a ship’s manifest, if that… the other side came to escape famines in the “auld sod”… before Ellis Island existed (connect the dots)… same amount of documentation… maybe ship manifests…
Many Americans are descended from those even brought to our shores against their will, and had to “fight” for their citizenship (including the right to vote), even tho’ they and their parents were born in the US (and were counted as 3/5ths of a person for representation in elections, but not allowed to vote)… many other Americans were also ‘imported’ here for cheap labor… without documentation… two of the major classes actually had rights (once granted) by laws passed, “revoked” by local laws, practices… some second generation American born folk were rounded up for the fact of their race/heritage, and were imprisoned, forfeited their lands and/or property… I personally know many folk who came here seeking opportunity and/or escape from oppression, and yes they followed the rules in place at the time, which were far less restrictive than they are now…
I don’t want to return to the days where the US turns away boats of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany (or their ‘counterparts’)… if you’re OK with that sort of policy, for technical or other reasons, then ethically and morally, I vehemently disagree… “final answer”!
Only a “****” would describe that as an “open borders” thing…
So, Ron, think I’ve pretty much answered (with an assist from Don) your questions, and volunteered my ancestors’ history, I’ll ask you straight out, “how did Ron’s ancestors get into the US”? It’s not personal, except as to your “creds” on judging/opining as to immigration policy/practice. Should folk today be treated differently than them, and if not,why not?
Howard:
Thanks for that thoughtful (albeit wide-ranging) response.
Ironically, the gist of your post has more to do with my point, which is that the current “policy” is not actually based upon relative need or danger. It is primarily based upon who is able to cross the border. And, as long as there’s sufficient incentive to do so, then people will continue trying (and dying in the process – out in the desert or in the back of a semi truck packed full of immigrants). (Just saw a video, regarding that.)
I’m not sure if this (or any) country could truly handle the outflow of immigrants from countries that have essentially collapsed around the world. Fortunately, your example of Nazi Germany was a “temporary” example. A relatively safe country for most, today.
More recent examples of this type of persecution can be found, today.
Regarding my ancestors, I don’t really know their exact circumstances. However, I suspect that they were not in immediate danger, and were pursuing better lives for themselves. At one time (as this country was being settled), that might have been “justification” enough. However, I would argue that this is no longer a reason to allow uncontrolled growth to occur.
To clarify: As this country was being settled, and as the original inhabitants were being forced off the land and/or eliminated.
Thought I’d provide this link, to a great poster:
http://www.gballard.net/photoshop.html?http%3A//www.gballard.net/photoshop/homeland_security_poster.html
But, can only deal with things as they are, today.
And, Ron, to your 2:41 post, no, I don’t think the US is the only answer… but I firmly believe we should be a part of the answer… Claire brought up some points about European countries being reluctant to handle refugees… ironically, France is one of the worst… ironic as the Statue of Liberty, where Emma Lazarus’ words are emblazened, was a gift from France… one friend,who married a guy (been married for many years) is facing a difficult path to citizenship… he can claim French citizenship, but she has to leave France for times each year, cannot inherit property they bought together, etc.
Yet she faces more years of residency (more than 7 years), master French (knows English and Spanish), etc. They are financially secure, owning their fairly large property outright (from proceeds from selling their house in Marin), and have pensions, 401’s, etc.
Other countries need to/should “step up to the plate” as to accepting economic and/or political/safety refugees, other immigrants… but, in the meantime, we should not emulate them…
Refugee homeowners from Marin county, with pensions, 401’s, etc.? Sounds like they’ve got it pretty tough! 🙂
They don’t even allow refugees the likes of me, in Marin. (Median price of a home is north of $1.1 million.)
Actually, the “Donald” would probably welcome more of these types of immigrants.
https://www.zillow.com/marin-county-ca/home-values/
Hope you were going, for le bon mot, “ha-ha”, etc., Ron, in your 3:24 post… if I thought it sarcastic, would respond differently…
The were sorta’ ‘refugees’… from traffic, living costs, uber-liberalism, and general pace of life… now they live in the Bordeaux area, their nearest neighbor 1/4 mile away, little fog, et non tetes de cochons…
Gravel roads, fresh bread nearly every day (it’s a law in France), good cheese, moderate weather… et, le vin du Bordeaux…
My main point was the French sorta’ welcome tourists, but not so much new citizens…
I don’t view it as a game. However, your statement does remind me of the scene from the movie Titanic, in which the lifeboats did not go back for survivors (for fear that they’d swamp the lifeboats).
Although less dire, your statement reminds me of the argument you put forth to keep growing, indefinitely. There’s apparently always going to be a “need” to continue to do so, from your perspective. And, “damn the consequences” of that approach. (Including to the planet as a whole, and non-human life.)
I already pointed out that the current policy seems to be favor those who can cross the border illegally, vs. (worldwide) need. And, creating a continuing incentive to cross illegally is leading directly to the deaths of many who try, as well as corrupt/criminal activities from those who take advantage of people in that situation.
In the interest of avoiding “2,342 postings” (to correspond with the number of apologies mentioned in the title of this article), I’d like to refrain from responding further.
Ron… your 12:04 post has a wrong referent… the title of the song was “Que sera, sera”…
see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcWbZUgymkw
You appear to be one who wants to control everything… events, other people, your personal outcomes… fine… you’re entitled to that approach to life… I do not share that apparent viewpoint… mais, ‘laissez-faire’, non.
Consider: https://web.cs.dal.ca/~johnston/poetry/island.html
Es-tu insécure?
Howard: I’m not sure how you’ve arrived at that conclusion.
I only state that growth can’t continue forever. And, that I generally support efforts to control it. I’ve witnessed the opposite approach in effect, just about everywhere.
You mentioned that your friends left Marin county (of all places), partly due to the impacts of growth. Ironically, Marin is one of the most growth-controlled counties in the entire country. (A primary reason that it’s still pretty nice.) How would it be, if Marin hadn’t taken those steps? (A freeway out to a developed Pt. Reyes, for one thing.) Also, housing covering the headlands.
(Those were actual plans, at one time. It took some dedicated individuals to prevent that from happening.)
40 million people in California, now.
This isn’t the root binary choice, but the secondary choice of symptoms. The root binary choice is related to the moral filters of sanctity vs fairness/harm. One side filters on all of these, the other side really only on fairness and harm. However, without prioritizing the sanctity of law and the sanctity of national sovereignty it might as well be open borders because border control becomes just a facade of games we play.
From my perspective, the binary considerations are:
Trump vs anti-Trump…
Or maybe for some… a deeper opinion that America is trillions in debt and already swimming in enough poor and uneducated people that we cannot afford to keep allowing in more illegal immigrants.
vs and opinion that America does not deserve national sovereignty… that it is either owned by the rest of the world or else perpetually owes the rest of the world.
“At Yolo County CASA we train and support volunteers to ensure that foster children do not feel alone”
Cringe. Foster kids are alone and there’s nothing anyone can manipulate them into feeling that will change that reality.
What’s worse than the lack of foster homes is the plethora of foster homes that exploit the vulnerability of the traumatized children entrusted to them.
Very sad what’s happened to those kids at the border. Most will never be okay. Not just because of the separation but also whatever they’ve endured in some government sponsored house of horrors.
Really hoping they’re ALL united swiftly. This has got to be one of the most heartbreaking power abuses I’ve ever seen.
You ‘overstate’ here, Claire… but I’ll assume you say,
in the narrow context of this piece… in general (beyond this particular context) personally know a couple of families who have “fostered” successfully, and one of those eventually formally adopted the kid(s)… had you said “some”, or “too many”, would not have commented…
The “foster system” is far from perfect, but far from having the kids feeling or being “alone”, most of the time…
I’m sure there are exceptions. But the kids ARE alone. Excepting a few households that choose to sincerely build their families this way, foster families do not substitute real families. They feel weird, forced, and uncomfortable and they fill ZERO void created by a family’s absence
And the overwhelming majority of the ones I’ve known were a lot worse than merely being insufficient. But many do have awesome facades.
Most adults who’ve survived that system take it like salt on unhealable wounds to hear people speak so warmly of it
Anyway, I just hope those kids recover and are reunited fast
OK… understand your point (je comprends)… but they ‘are not alone’… in many nuclear families, “only children” often feel “alone” … even with caring, supportive parents… just saying, there are many reasons children feel ‘alone’… including children in a ‘nuclear family’ where things go “nuclear”, and the family breaks up…
Have come to the conclusion that kids feel “alone” by some combination of nature and (lack of?) nurture…
Ya you’re probably right. We are all probably here to figure out that being alone is okay anyway. I’m glad the kids are being reunited. Hopefully it works out eventually.
Je d’accord… j’espère pour la résolution… très bientôt…
Oui, moi aussi lol
Passe une bonne nuit, et bonne semaine… paix…
Et, to yours as well…(franglish) [have a good friend who taught me that term…]
!
Haha, merci. Geniale
Mes enfants parlent beaucoup mieux que moi. 😛
Ron… re: your 5:57 post…
Have you ever flown in an airplane? Seen California? or the US?
Yes, there are limits… but we are nowhere close to them… water is a major limitation, but if costs of desalination are OK, like in many parts of the world, that isn’t even an issue… I go back to the appearance that it’s “all about you”… fine… your right to feel that way… Malthus, and those who actually study “carrying capacity” are to be listened to… are you either?
Traffic: in the eye of the beholder, based on their choices of when to travel… Marin traffic is moderate/light, except at commute hours… but, it’s all about you and your (and others) choices and preferences, right?
Fifth Street between Pole Line and A was perfectly safe (except for DUI drivers) about 12 hours a day for those wanting to navigate it, (even by bicycle) before the “road diet”… I know, I did drive a bicycle down it…chose the times to do … [Called “thinking”]
So guess you and others want your own choices, of “time, place, and manner” and everyone else has to accommodate that… fine, you are entitled to that belief… I disagree… hold different beliefs…
Of course I have. Yes, there’s still a lot of land out there (in the valley, at least), most of which is dedicated to some activity which supports civilization (e.g., farming).
Farming has impacts, as well (including drawing down the water table, and environmental impacts created by modern farming activities).
In other words, modern society has an impact far beyond its actual footprint.
Just today, I saw an article regarding species that have gone extinct in recent years. Tried to find it again, but couldn’t. (Here’s another one: https://www.buzzfeed.com/katienotopoulos/17-animals-that-became-extinct-in-our-lifetime?utm_term=.yskam6Vd6#.yaeYmpQxp)
Water is an issue, as is waste, CO2 emissions, etc. Idling in traffic is not particularly efficient (regarding use of energy, or time).
Your statement regarding it’s “all about me” has no basis. That’s your interpretation of what I’m pointing out, and it’s off-base. Downright ignorant, as well. Tired of you making this allegation, and wasting time responding to it. Your mind seems to be closed.
So much for avoiding personal attacks/comments… noted…
Here’s another article, which notes that global warming will likely increase immigration by desperate people in warmer climates. And sorry to say, global warming is also directly related to increases in population in our modern society. (Even if we all switched to hybrid cars, tomorrow.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/opinion/sunday/immigration-climate-change-trump.html
And, reflecting a question you asked of me, what is your proposed solution?
Worldwide, or more locally? Or both?
Pretty sure that you’re already familiar with some of my suggestions.
In reality, I think the “earth” itself will eventually provide an answer for us. In (indirect) reference to your post, some folks think that mankind is totally “in control” of the earth and its systems.
The dinosaurs were around much, much longer than we have been.
Ron re: (your 7:22 post)…
Yes…
Several times the question has come up of why do these immigrants from the south choose to come here as opposed to say other places in their own country or to some other country. Having worked ERs on the border in Arizona, I can address a small part of this issue.
While the border may appear to be a tight legal border to those of us who enjoy safety on or side of the militarily established and arbitrarily drawn line, this is not the reality of families who live along the border. Many people who live along the southern border do not share our proclivity for social organization by nuclear family. They see themselves as members of large, extended families sprawling across the border. A sister on one side of the US/Mexican border, may for example seek refuge in the home of a sister or cousin on the other side while fearing being captured and returned to an abusive spouse by members of his extended family if she remains on “her side” of the line.
Historically the governments of the US and Mexico have determined where the border is. They have however, in all this time, not been able to sociologically prevent complex interactions that span the border.
As to your last sentence… agree fully…
“Did you March when families were being separated when Obama and Clinton were President? Or just now because Trump is in the White House?”
I did not march, because no marches were occurring and I am not an organizer. However, I was as adamantly opposed to Obama’s border policy as I am to Trumps. For confirmation, you might remember that I wrote an article on this subject for the Vanguard comparing the practices of the Obama administration to those of the movie Snowpiercer which had come out in 2013, well before Trump’s tenure. I am also in the habit of writing legislator’s when opposed to policy.
Unlike some, it is the soundness and humane nature of the policy that matters to me, not it’s author Also, to be technically correct, familial separation was not the policy of the Obama administration which was overwhelmed by unaccompanied minors. The zero tolerance policy is a travesty unique to Trump and of his deliberate construction.
Interesting article in the NYT today
“COPENHAGEN — When Rokhaia Naassan gives birth in the coming days, she and her baby boy will enter a new category in the eyes of Danish law. Because she lives in a low-income immigrant neighborhood described by the government as a “ghetto,” Rokhaia will be what the Danish newspapers call a “ghetto parent” and he will be a “ghetto child.”
Starting at the age of 1, “ghetto children” must be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time, for mandatory instruction in “Danish values,” including the traditions of Christmas and Easter, and Danish language. Noncompliance could result in a stoppage of welfare payments. Other Danish citizens are free to choose whether to enroll children in preschool up to the age of six.
Denmark’s government is introducing a new set of laws to regulate life in 25 low-income and heavily Muslim enclaves, saying that if families there do not willingly merge into the country’s mainstream, they should be compelled.”
Cite?
Couldn’t find by searching…
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/world/europe/denmark-immigrant-ghettos.html
Thanks…