Showing posts with label child safety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label child safety. Show all posts

Sunday, March 17, 2024

Morgan Griffith on Internet Crimes Against Children

Editorial comment: It's been too long since I've found one of these e-mails on the appropriate weekend. 

It's a very relevant topic to this web site. We need good strong testimony on this. We have seen that efforts to censor online socializing in the name of discouraging crime, not inflaming criminals, etc., may actually promote violent crime--as when violent troublemakers turned the Trump rally into a riot in 2021. 

Trump was being shadowbanned as the system worked at the time--his followers weren't seeing his tweets on their home pages, but people who were aware of this and clicked over to his page could see his tweets. The excuse for censoring the then President was that he was likely to inflame people who refused to accept the results of the electoral college votes. But in fact, as Dinesh D'Souza was able to share with some of his Tweeps, including me, Trump posted a video thanking his fans and advising them to go home. Trump was clearly trying to prevent the rally turning as ugly as it turned, and Twitter censorship was preventing his doing that.

On the other hand, up to a certain point, allowing criminals to post about their criminal intentions helps fight crime and protect victims. Obviously some interference should take place. Using school bullies as an example, in order to avoid describing uglier crimes, although (trigger warning) some are mentioned below...I think that, at the point where a disturbed twelve-year-old starts live-streaming video coverage of exactly how he knocks down eight-year-olds and takes their lunch money, web sites should have a mechanism for reporting that to a human who can activate a mechanism allowing only police officers to see that video. But at the point where he's saying, "I knocked down this eight-year-old kid yesterday and took his lunch money, and today I'm going to beat up a few more little kids, until I have enough money to buy some bootleg antidepressants and get high," a case might be made for leaving that up. It might be disgusting to normal human beings--motivating them to shun the bully, which is good--but it might help adults, not necessarily police, supervise the sick twelve-year-old and keep him away from those little kids. 

We need to keep the channels of communication open. We need to keep people who care watching them. People, not algorithms. People who know when children typing things like "You are a hideous, horrible, ugly person and deserve to die" are sitting side by side, giggling, playing a game in which the character addressed is a serial murderer, and when they're doing an unsupervised, unethical science experiment to see whether they can actually get a classmate--who is not sitting beside them or giggling--certified insane. Children's use of the Internet needs to be very carefully supervised...by their parents, not by computer programs.

From U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith, R-VA-9:

"

Internet Crimes Against Children

Recently, I attended a Republican Whip meeting where Tim Tebow and members of his organization stopped by to say hello to Members of Congress – Tebow was testifying the next day at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on child sexual abuse. One of the women who was with him was a familiar face, Camille Cooper, now the Vice President of Anti-Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation at the Tim Tebow Foundation.

When we first crossed paths, I was in the Virginia House of Delegates and Camille was working to help Bedford County Sheriff Mike Brown, who assisted with the formation of the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program.

The ICAC Task Force Program was formed in 1998 in response to the growing number of children and teens using the internet, the growing number of child predators using the internet in an effort to contact and exploit underage persons, and the explosion of child sexual abuse images available online.

The Program was started by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), which works in conjunction with a national network of coordinated task forces, made up of local, state, and federal law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies.

Today, there are 61 task forces throughout the country. Sheriff Mike Brown helped start the Southern Virginia (SOVA) ICAC Task Force when the Bedford County Sheriff’s Office was selected as one of the first ten task forces in the nation in 1998.

Originally called “Operation Blue Ridge Thunder,” the task force covered all of Virginia and West Virginia.

Today, the SOVA-ICAC Task Force covers from far Southwest Virginia to the Delmarva Peninsula on the Eastern Shore and north to Greene County.

Since 1998, the ICAC program has led to more than 134,000 arrests nationwide, based on complaints referred to the program. In 2019 (latest data available), the SOVA-ICAC arrested 291 individuals, identified and/or recused 129 child victims, and examined 745,911 gigabytes for digital evidence.

Though a real and ever-growing threat to our children, the internet and internet related crimes were still relatively new in 1998.

Knowing the importance of the task force, I fought to get funding for Sheriff Brown’s program into Virginia’s biennial budget.

This wasn’t the first time I had done work to combat child sexual abuse.

In 1994, I started drafting legislation relating to civil commitment for sexually violent predators. Passed in 1999, the law allowed the state to hold certain sex offenders at psychiatric facilities after their criminal sentences if the offenders were deemed “sexually violent predators.” However, the state did not appropriate the money for the program.

In 2003, I once again fought to get funding for the legislation. Joining me in this quest was then-Attorney General Jerry Kilgore and victim advocate Paul Martin Andrews. A native of Virginia, Andrews was kidnapped in 1973 at age 13, held in an underground box and sexually assaulted by convicted child abuser Richard Ausley for eight days. As an adult, he became an advocate for bolstering Virginia law for continued civil commitments for sex offenders after their criminal sentence ended.

Andrews testified about the urgency for civil commitment for sexually violent predators. Andrews spoke about how Ausley was scheduled to get out of prison soon and research data indicated he would offend again. Once the legislature heard Andrews’ testimony, funding for civil commitment of sexually violent predators was passed.

Unfortunately, child sexual abuse and internet crimes against children are still a major problem in our society. As the internet has become more and more a part of our daily lives over the past 30 years, the work to protect our children on the internet remains important.

I continue to look for legislative solutions on the federal level to support victims of sexual abuse and protect our children. For example, I just co-sponsored a bill that would prohibit the importation or transportation of child sex dolls and robots. Currently, people are able to make physical features and “personalities” of robots resemble actual children, even taking their voice from social media to make the robots sound like the child. This can lead to an attitude of normalization for sexual encounters between adults and minors. This bill will help stop that practice and help protect our children.

I am also extremely thankful to the more than 5,400 officials who are part of the ICAC program. They work every day to put child predators in prison and help victims achieve justice.

If you have questions, concerns, or comments, feel free to contact my office.  You can call my Abingdon office at 276-525-1405 or my Christiansburg office at 540-381-5671. To reach my office via email, please visit my website at https://morgangriffith.house.gov/.

"

Monday, January 15, 2024

New Book Review for 1.4.24: Love and Injustice

Title: Love and Injustice 

Author: Mary Crawford

Date: 2018

Publisher: Diversity Ink

ISBN: 978-1-945637-27-8

Quote: "I know you don't believe me--but DeAndre was completely freaked out when Tallulah Johnson went missing."

Of three brothers, the military serviceman on active duty overseas, the police officer, and the schoolboy, their mother never would have dreamed that the youngest would become a Missing Person first...but that's what DeAndre just did. Luckily for him, his big brother's favorite person, who has just lost her job because of nasty things she didn't do, has time to work with big brother Dashonte's other friends to confirm a link between the disappearances of DeAndre, Tallulah, and a busload of other gifted students who've all disappeared separately. Most of them didn't know each other before, but several do now.

Trigger warnings: quick, tasteful, police-report-type references to several appalling things that have actually happened to missing children. 

If this non-police reader can find a flaw in this police-procedural mystery (no real murders, but someone who was ill is found dead), it's the characterization of a baddie. A few years ago, writing a short story that was really about Optacons and stun belts, I had a blind character with a future super-Optacon (and a supportive family) rescue a child from the custody of a "Mr. Badman" who I thought wasn't worth characterizing, so I just had him advocate a laundry list of things my regular readers and I don't like. The story didn't mention whether the NFL still existed in its hypothetical future, but if the NFL had existed you know Mr. Badman would've liked the Cowboys, too! I now think that was an amateurish way to construct a character, even one whose function is to die and never be missed. And I suspect it's the way Tori's enemy has been characterized in this novel. 

What I didn't like, while reading this book, is nothing about the book. It's the way Mary Crawford accurately describes the way the state's bureaucratic system always adds to the misery of people it's trying to "help"--at least, if those people are introverts, and probably even if they're not. It's the bulk and clumsiness of the bureaucracy. Everything has to follow a uniform policy. Every person has to be "processed" past a "team" of professional "helpers" who know nothing about the individuals being processed, "so that they can be objective"--bosh. Humans are not an objective lifeform. That's why every introvert above age five knows, the first time each of those strangers' eyeballs bore into our faces, that we;re Not Among Possible Friends. Introverts put up with a lot, and take personal vengeance for what we can't put up with, when the alternative is being processed. Like Tori in the story, not to mention the missing children, we may be completely innocent and virtuous victims of completely vile and unsupportable evildoers, but we need encouragement, hand-holding, and positive rewards every single step of the way to endure the process

I think back to the summer I reported a petty criminal, a "flasher," to the police in the town where I was attending church college. I always wondered why I bothered. It wasn't the neighborhood's first "flasher," or even mine; it was the time I happened to have been "flashed" when I had a couple of hours to spare. I thought a couple of hours was a reasonable amount of time to donate to the cause of public safety. During the rest of the year I was called back, and asked to repeat the same story, four or five times to different police officers. I understood that that's one way to identify false witnesses. I also understood that it's a very effective way to protect criminals. I reported something that made me angry; I could easily imagine how the system would protect criminals who'd done things that made people afraid, or ashamed, or sick, or physically injured. I think we could use a law stating that the bureaucracy is entitled to one interview with a person who is not guilty of a crime, after which anyone who wants to repeat or even clarify any question the person has already answered may ask the person's permission to do so in exchange for $100 in cash. If comparing the way the person describes something on different days is all that valuable, the person should get something valuable from it too!

In this novel the missing children all met online, and agreed to meet offline, and walked into dangerous situations, with people (Mr. Badman had help) who wouldn't have been much more obvious if they'd had "MR. STRANGER DANGER" painted on their faces. Why? Consider the consequences, from a child's point of view, of reporting that someone in an online community, game, chat, is behaving like Mr. Stranger Danger. For a start you have to report to an adult whose immediate response is likely to be "Well, don't ever visit your favorite community, game, or chat, any more!" Then you get to tell the story, and as a child you already know that most adults who listen to what children are listening in order to tell the children how and why they're obviously in the wrong, rather than doing anything about what the children tell them. Probably you get tighter surveillance, less privacy than you already had, which as a child wasn't much. Then you might even get to tell the same story all over again to people trying to trip you up--"You say he said his name was Don? Are you sure it wasn't Jon?" Meanwhile you don't know that he's not coming after you, bent on revenge. If anything at all happens to the dog or the baby you'll be swearing to God, privately, that you'll never "tattle" on anyone again, even if they are acting exactly like Mr. Stranger Danger.

That's the way our world is and, if anything, Crawford minimizes the ways bureaucracy hurts people because part of the purpose of this story is to cast people in the law and law enforcement professions in a favorable light. All the police people and all but one of the lawyers in this book are wonderful human beings  What happens to children, and other victims of crime, when they meet the minority in every group who are not nice people at all, is a whole separate problem this book does not discuss.

Anyway, although its subject matter is feel-bad, on the whole Love and Injustice qualifies as a feel-good story. All the children will be found. Most will recover. Tori will get her job back, Cody and Dashonte will solve the case, and Tori and Cody seem to be set up to live happily ever after--even though this is the beginning of a series about them.

 


Thursday, August 10, 2023

Book Review: Walk to Beautiful

(I've been writing book reviews...and scheduling them for the day the book is scheduled to reach a bookstore near you...and remembering, belatedly, to pop an older book review out of the can...)

Title: Walk to Beautiful

Author: Jimmy Wayne (Barber)

Date: 2014

Publisher: W / Thoams Nelson

ISBN: 978-0-8499-2210-7

Length: 280 pages

Illustrations: color photo insert

Quote: “We moved a lot when I was a little boy...every time Mama ran out of rent money.”

Jimmy Wayne Barber’s father disappeared when he was born. His mother was one of those lovable but badly drug-damaged hippie chicks; she let her homes fill up with freeloading “friends” who usually ate up most of the food Mama used her monthly handouts to buy, and let her children try to make it through the rest of the month on a box of cereal and a box of powdered milk apiece. Mama Barber tried to give her children a home, as she drifted from party to party, slum to slum, man to man, and in and out of the institutions social workers undoubtedly thought might have helped her, but it was just too difficult. Once she started to take little Jimmy with her; but then, when he and her boyfriend of the season didn’t get along, she set him out at a bus station.

So he learned about the foster care system and, as a rebellious teenager, about the juvenile correctional system. Being unable to afford a lot of drugs might have been good for Jimmy Wayne, on the whole, because he was sober enough of the time to remember his adolescence as being worse than average. He describes his early adventures rolling and selling marijuana cigarettes with just a few real marijuana seeds rolled up in tomato leaves. The primary effects of marijuana are psychological so his mother’s hippie friends paid for the “high” they got from much less marijuana than they were paying for, and little Jimmy felt good about being a fake drug dealer because he sent some of the money to Mama in the mental hospital. You might suspect that this early success as a fake drug dealer inspired Jimmy to try to make even more money as a real one, but he doesn’t describe doing that, if he ever did.

Foster parents, and state institutions for children in between foster parents, did not provide the sort of supportive adult young Jimmy knew he wanted. As a teenager looking for odd jobs he found a pair of supportive adults, Bea and Russell Costner. Disqualified by age and self-employment from being official foster parents, they’d been unofficial foster parents to many children. Jimmy was the last. He came to identify the word “beautiful” with the name “Bea,” idealizing this foster mother who was probably older than his real grandmothers.

He sang in a rock band. Then he studied law enforcement and worked as a prison guard. Then he had some success as a country musician, but--...

Y’know, although I think it makes this “celebrity memoir” an awkward read, I can relate to Jimmy Wayne’s level of musical talent and success. Musicians who are described as “great” are usually obsessed with music by or before age four. Then there are those of us who can carry a tune, can learn to play instruments and harmonize and even perform classical pieces competently, but for whom music is just one of several things we enjoy...who are usually advised not to try making music our primary source of income. We may be competent musicians but we’re not obsessive enough to make music a career; we want normal lives too. We’re good enough to be in backup bands, may even sell a few recordings; as long as we perform cheap or free, at churches, hospitals, prisons, or at local events, we have enough fans to justify recordings. If the lyrics are timely or clever, or the video is brilliant, we might even monetize a YouTube post now and then. We’re not magical musicians, though, and most of us are likely to be better rated at the other jobs we also do competently and enjoy doing.

It’s not painful to be the kind of musician Jimmy Wayne describes himself as being in this memoir. He was in this band, they recorded an album and sold five-dollar cassette versions to all their friends, they broke up. He performed in contests and usually didn’t win. He auditioned for this and that industry mogul, most of them said “Don’t call me, I’ll call you,” but some of them tried marketing his records. It’s not bad to be that kind of musician. It’s not even uncool to write about it, later—if the memoir is about how you then moved on to your real career, or how music remained part of your life along with your real career. I think it’s extremely cool to be a good music-store manager, or writer, or bus driver or whatever else, who has sold a few records and still sings on weekends. Most of my school friends are in that category; many of my favorite writers are, and The Rock Bottom Remainders are an excellent idea and a decent, if self-parodic, band. But it is pitiful to be that kind of musician, not know it, and package your memoir as a celebrity musician’s memoir, at an age when you’re too young to write a memoir as such, in any case. In this book Jimmy Wayne never seems actually to come to terms with the fact that he’s neither Elvis Presley nor Shel Silverstein.

This makes the packaging of Walk to Beautiful as a musician’s memoir a source of pain. That’s a pity because Jimmy Wayne does have something worthwhile to say, and in this book he says it well; it’s just a disappointment for those who like to read the memoirs of celebrities who moved quickly through that garage-band stage into long, glamorous careers. As the musician’s memoir the professional writer Ken Abraham tried to make Walk to Beautiful, it’s pathetic. As a fundraiser for a cause—the cause of helping foster children become independent adults—it’s excellent.

One of the things that put people off Jimmy Wayne’s songs is their emotionality. Emotionality worked against him as a prison guard too; nobody is paying those men to befriend convicts, as Jimmy Wayne wanted to do. When you realize that this book is really about how awkward and difficult it is for 19-year-olds without money or connections to start functioning as adults, that emotionality is appropriate. He makes a strong case that 19-year-old boys, not all of whom have even reached their full height, have a hard time acting like men when they don’t have a living, supportive father to guide them, by presenting his life as the way such boys’ lives can go if they’re very lucky. He gives mostly statistics, and not enough to make a chart, about the ones who are not lucky.

The dramatic climax of his story so far is thus his pledge to walk “halfway across America,” from Nashville to Phoenix, as a fundraising demonstration. He walked 1700 miles in seven months—all well publicized, with some sort of “support vehicle” and often an entourage of fans bollowing. During the last month his heel bone cracked so he walked on an increasingly swollen and painful foot. He limped into Phoenix in a padded support boot, with two sticks, doped to the gills on heavy-duty painkillers. He sang for his fans that night. Then he was flown back to Nashville and rolled off the plane in a wheelchair. Then he lobbied in the Tennessee legislature and got the legislation he wanted in his own state, at least.

Was it good legislation? Do nineteen-year-olds want to be wards of the state, of their schools, or of their parents? Given the inadequacy of state foster care to connect Jimmy Wayne to the Costners before he was seventeen, how helpful to the young Jimmy Wayne would it have been if the state had retained custody of him for another eight years? Is it healthier, generally, to classify nineteen-year-olds as normally independent adults, some of whom may revert to dependency due to temporary disabling conditions? We need to talk about these things. Fiscal conservatives’ opposition to the idea that foster children should be dependent till they’re 25 is not merely a matter of not wanting to disburse the money. Fiscal conservatives, who tend to be sturdy, resilient, cheerful souls and expect everyone to loathe anything that sounds like “Oh you poor little helpless useless thing, of course you can’t be expected to take care of yourself!”, often feel genuine concern about social workers who try to “rescue” children from things like growing up in conservative families—and sometimes succeed, often by aggravating devoted, hardworking parents’ financial problems. This is a serious concern for some people who have been foster parents or foster children. I share the concern. I think that, as always, flexibility, with all final decisions left to the individual of principal concern (in this case the foster child over age ten), is the central rule to which any satisfactory solution must adhere.

It won’t hurt the fiscal conservatives, though, to read Walk to Beautiful. Jimmy Wayne missed so much school, due to family and welfare-system drama, that at eighteen he’d only just moved in with the Costners—one of whom died later that year—in order to be able to attend eleventh grade classes. He was almost twenty when he finished high school, not quite twenty-two when he earned a two-year degree in “criminal justice,” basically a trade school course for prison guards. He’d been working—doing yard work and other legitimate odd jobs, as well as selling fake marijuana cigarettes—for years before he struck it lucky, getting the Costners as yard work clients. He had not been able to earn enough, from honest work, to have much chance at a decent adult life if he hadn’t stumbled into the Costner home just before the Costners died.

Such stories aren’t typical, but what is typical for foster children as a group? If we know one foster child, we know one foster child. Jimmy Wayne offers fiscal conservatives much to think about. 

Friday, July 28, 2023

Morgan Griffith on the Neglect of Immigrant Children

From U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith; editorial comment below...

"

Office of Refugee Resettlement

In a March hearing, I asked U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra to come before my Oversight and Investigations (O&I) Subcommittee to discuss the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). I recently chaired said hearing.

ORR, an agency within HHS, is responsible for the care and placement of unaccompanied children who cross our borders.

During my opening statement, I thanked him for testifying and said even though he and I don’t agree on the Biden policies that brought these children to our border, once we have taken on the responsibility for them, we must properly care for them.

During the Biden Administration, ORR has faced an unprecedented surge in the number of unaccompanied minors referred to its custody.

For reference, from fiscal years (FY) 2018 through 2020, ORR averaged around 44,500 referrals per year. As of March 31, 2023, the agency had received almost 60,000 referrals in FY2023. This puts the agency on pace for over 120,000 referrals for the third year in a row.

Evidence from whistleblowers, Inspector General reports, and news reports demonstrate a failure by ORR to competently manage the surge. This surge has led to increased exploitation and trafficking of unaccompanied minors.

During the questioning portion of the hearing, I asked Secretary Becerra about a few specific concerns I have with ORR.

First were comments that Secretary Becerra himself made. In a leaked audio recording, the Secretary was heard saying, in reference to the processing of unaccompanied minors:

“If Henry Ford had seen this in his plants, he would have never become famous and rich. This is not the way you do an assembly line.”

These comments are alarming! In April, the New York Times reported that instead of taking the necessary time and effort to properly vet the people the children were being placed with, ORR fast tracked children through their system. This has led to reports of children being forced to illegally work in dangerous and inappropriate jobs instead of being enrolled in school.

ORR does not even notify the local school system that the children have been placed in their jurisdiction.

While Secretary Becerra’s comments seem to suggest that moving children out of ORR facilities quickly is more important than protecting them, the Secretary claimed that was not the case and his comments were more about overall ORR efficiency.

I also questioned the Secretary about ORR’s unacceptable vetting practices of family members and sponsors.

In regard to establishing claimed familial relationships between an adult and an unaccompanied minor, I asked if the agency does DNA testing. Secretary Becerra said that the agency verifies the identity of the family member mainly through documents, like birth certificates.

This is not enough. Documents like birth certificates or passports can be forged!

DNA testing is the only way to be completely sure there actually is a family connection.*

Additionally, I questioned Secretary Becerra about ORR continuing to waive background checks not only for people claiming to be family members, but also for unrelated adults who live in the house where a child is being placed – practices that were approved by the Secretary in ORR Field Guidance 10 and 11.

Further, ORR does not generally conduct FBI background checks of sponsors. 

The Secretary’s responses to my questions about ORR’s vetting process were far from satisfactory. I was hoping to hear that ORR would start doing FBI background checks on sponsors and DNA tests on those claiming to be family. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

These issues with ORR have been ongoing since the start of the Biden Administration.

In 2021, I visited the Emergency Intake operation at Fort Bliss, Texas, and was shocked by what I learned. There was no collaboration with law enforcement for background checks when vetting sponsors and the “background check” or “public records check” they were using were merely widely available internet search engines.

In my opening, I placed into the record a report by a statewide grand jury in Florida, charged with investigating ORR. It said:

“If any resident of Florida exposed U.S. born children to this process, they would be justifiably arrested for child neglect or worse. We do not think children should be less-protected simply because they were born outside our borders and brought here by a government agency.” 

I agree. In my view, as a former domestic relations attorney in Virginia, ORR’s practices and actions are tantamount to child neglect. A child’s legal status is irrelevant, ORR must do better.

If you have questions, concerns, or comments, feel free to contact my office. You can call my Abingdon office at 276-525-1405 or my Christiansburg office at 540-381-5671. To reach my office via email, please visit my website at www.morgangriffith.house.gov.


"

Comment:  This can't go on. People think that instead of sending their children to school, they can just ship the kids to the United States and the children will be taken care of. But who's volunteering to take care of them?

DNA tests prove nothing. They suggest that a lot of people are not the sons or daughters of their mothers' husbands. Why hurt the feelings of mothers' husbands who are willing to act like fathers? A mother's husband's second cousin may be an ideal foster parent. A biological parent or grandparent may be a drug addict who can't take responsibility even for perself, There's no way a huge government policy can be tweaked to protect children who are sent to a foreign country on their own. 

Even with our own children, adolescence is always a difficult time as hormone surges make even the best situations feel intolerable to teenagers, decisions have to be made about an unknown future, and emotional compatibility between parents or guardians, teachers, and teenagers becomes crucial--and hard to guarantee. A school, home, foster family, or job that seems wonderful for one teenager seems abusive for another teenager. One child perceives a distant, "hands off" approach to teaching, parenting, or supervision as respect, and uses it as a base for prodigious achievements; another child perceives the same approach as "not caring" and uses it as an excuse to accomplish nothing, run away, and become a teenaged drug prostitute. There are no guarantees with or for teenagers. Most adults prefer just to avoid teenagers, even their own offspring, so that we won't be blamed when something goes wrong! 

It would be better to tell parents who are considering shipping their children off to the United States, "Don't do it. We can take no responsibility for your children. 

We can prosecute the life out of anyone we catch prostituting any child, put such creatures in prison and instruct the guards not to interfere if the murderers want to improvise a play about wine making and cast the child traffickers as grapes--but that's about all. 

We can make it hard for children to get legitimate, age-appropriate jobs--but a primary effect of that will be to put some children into illegitimate, inappropriate jobs. 

We can mandate that all children spend some time in some sort of school--but that's no guarantee that they will actually learn anything or that they'll be safe, even on the most basic physical level, from beatings, rape, or even murder. 

Every year we automate more entry-level jobs, so there is less opportunity for a teenager to get a nice wholesome part-time job stocking shelves or washing dishes, and so there's more opportunity for him and his guardians to be desperate enough that he ends up working in a coal mine. 

We can't promise to connect unaccompanied children with relatives who live here--the only way you can know with whom your children might live is to bring them here, yourselves, and make sure you know the alleged relatives who may turn up to claim them. We can't promise them homes, education, or medical care. Americans are like the rest of the world in that some of us love all children and wish we could adopt more of them, and some of us are selfish pieces of garbage who will exploit and abuse anybody in any way we can. If you send children here as unaccompanied refugees, you need to know that every year we have less room even for genuine refugees from natural disasters and wars, and it is entirely a matter of luck whether those children live or die. 

So don't send them here. If you want to see your children grow up, then KEEP THEM AT HOME."