"Did the Feds Lose 1,475 Migrant Children" by Rich Lowry

Did the Feds Lose 1,475 Migrant Children?

By RICH LOWRY

May 25, 2018 4:47 PM

Children traveling with a caravan of migrants from Central America play on the beach near the border fence between Mexico and the U.S., prior to preparations for an asylum request in the U.S., in Tijuana, Mexico April 29, 2018. (Jorge Duenes/Reuters)

That’s what you would conclude from this USA Today opinion piece headlined, “The feds lost — yes, lost — 1,475 migrant children.” It’s a piece that’s a pretty good example of how “fake news” works — there’s some factual basis for the claim, but it’s exaggerated or misunderstood, and then fed into the maw of the perpetual outrage cycle, in this case about the alleged extreme carelessness and heartlessness of the Trump administration toward migrant children.

Some background: As we all know, in recent years there has been a flood of “unaccompanied children” (UAC) showing up at the border. The U.S. government attempts to unite UAC with a parent or close relative in the U.S. The HHS program to do this is longstanding and long pre-dated the Trump administration.

COMMENTS

Given the size of the migrant flow, the scale of this task is enormous. The USA Today piece cites this congressional testimony by HHS official Steven Wagnerwho oversees the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) as its source. Wagner relates the numbers:

In fiscal year (FY) 2017, 40,810 children were referred to ORR from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In FY 2018 (through March), we have had 21,574 referrals. Although March and April of FY 2017 had the lowest referrals since FY 2012, referrals started to slowly increase in May of 2017, and today are significantly higher than just a couple of months ago. To illustrate, in March 2017, ORR had 755 referrals; while in March 2018, ORR had 4,204 referrals.

Most are placed with parents or close relatives:

In FY 2017, children typically stayed in ORR custody for 51 days and so far in FY 2018 (through March) average length of stay has been 56 days. ORR releases the majority of UAC to sponsors. In FY 2017, ORR released 93 percent of children to a sponsor. Of those, ORR released 49 percent to parents, 41 percent to close relatives, and 10 percent to other-than-close relatives or non-relatives. In FY 2018, we have released 90 percent of children to individual sponsors and of those sponsors, 41 percent were parents, 47 percent were close relatives, and 11 percent were other-than-close relatives or non-relatives.

There is a system of sponsor assessments that since early 2016 has been enhanced, according to Wagner:

In the area of home studies, ORR made two significant policy changes in March 2016. A home study is an in-depth investigation of the potential sponsor’s ability to ensure the child’s safety and well-being. The process includes background checks of the sponsor and adult household members, home visits, in-person interviews of the proposed sponsor and possibly interviews with other household members, and post-release services. The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA of 2008) mandates home studies in certain situations, but the March 2016 policy changes led to an increase in discretionary home studies, which are home studies that are not required by law. One of these policy changes focused on tender age UAC. ORR began requiring home studies for all UAC 12 years of age and younger being released to non-relative sponsors. The other change underscored the need for case managers and case coordinators, who have direct contact with UAC, to recommend home studies, even if not required by the TVPRA of 2008, if they think a home study would provide additional information required to determine that the sponsor is able to care for the health, safety, and well-being of the child.

Wagner also notes this improvement:

Another step in improving the safety of releases is to contact the child and the sponsor shortly after release, which is a critical adjustment period. To accomplish this, ORR initiated safety and well-being calls. A case manager contacts the child and the sponsor 30 days after release. The case manager confirms that the child is still residing with the sponsor, is enrolled in school, is aware of upcoming court dates, and, most importantly, is safe. If the case manager, or any other ORR grantee or contractor that has contact with a released child, has a concern about the child’s safety or well-being, they are required to take steps under ORR’s new “post-release reporting system for notifications of concern.”

And this is where the USA Today piece comes in. It fastens on this passage:

From October to December 2017, ORR attempted to reach 7,635 UAC and their sponsors. Of this number, ORR reached and received agreement to participate in the safety and well-being call from approximately 86 percent of sponsors. From these calls, ORR learned that 6,075 UAC remained with their sponsors. Twenty-eight UAC had run away, five had been removed from the United States, and 52 had relocated to live with a non-sponsor. ORR was unable to determine with certainty the whereabouts of 1,475 UAC. Based on the calls, ORR referred 792 cases, which were in need of further assistance, to the National Call Center for additional information and services.

Of course, all the context is left out of the USA Today piece, which at one point falsely says, “the federal government has lost — yes, lost — 1,475 migrant children in its custody.” But these children weren’t in HHS custody. They were placed with sponsors that HHS vetted. It’d obviously be better if HHS could locate all of the sponsors in its follow-up. Some of them surely moved, and perhaps others, if they or family members are illegal immigrants, may not want to be in further contact with authorities.

I’m sure this program can be improved in all sort of ways, like all government programs. But the root of the problem is that unaccompanied children are showing up at our border, a situation that is fraught with peril. We should be doing all we can to stop that flow so a federal bureaucracy doesn’t have responsibility for finding adults to care for them, but the same people frothing with outrage over the USA Today piece have very little interest in trying to do that.

Our 1475 Missing Children!

Okay, I thought, if I listed the adjectives I was feeling about or "missing" children, I might allay some of the rage and deep sorrow I have when hearing this past week's news.  There is no doubt, in my mind, that this country is in a severe moral crisis.  Above this rant, I have posted an article, which gives the basics of this massive problem alone.

If you haven't heard this news, no surprise.  Apparently, the administration has snuffed out more than the basic facts, to say nothing of any humanity.  Early this morning, even Googling this news provided scant details. Yesterday, only the "tip of the iceberg" of details was available, in general.

I hoped that by printing the words that I was feeling   ...pretty extreme, for sure .... I might "vent" as they say. I'll print the list here, because that intervention did not work very well for me.  But it did transform my energy into intention to use my skills to participate in action.

Most of my descriptions of this event were, in my opinion:

vile, egregious, ruthless, savage, inhumane, remorseless, nauseating,  merciless, heartless, hateful, brutal, monstrous, barbaric, malevolent, nefarious, despicable ... just for starters. Throw xenophobic  in there just for good measure.

One paragraph reads:

"In FY 2018, we have released 90 percent of children to individual sponsors and of those sponsors, 41 percent were parents, 47 percent were close relatives, and 11 percent were other-than-close relatives or non-relatives." (Look at the way the article minimizes that 90%.)

Read that carefully, because one is tempted to read it quickly ... I know I did. Fifty-eight (58%) of ninety percent (90%)  of the children were placed haphazardly and immediately into foster care, or anywhere other, than their biological parents. Having had much past exposure to the "real world" of "migrant children", the article is a bit "rosy" to the reality of these kids.  To be sure, the intentions of the workers are pure.  I would feel a just as described, but our system is overloaded which children who are basically abandoned for one reason or another. My memories were deeply painful in working with these children. 
          
One parent was told, "we have no idea where your children are", and the parents were sent back to their country.  I closed my eyes and tried to imagine myself in that same position.  I studied the emotions in myself which I was sure would be the same.

If you are a parent, and can imagine your young child literally standing at a gate alone to seek asylum, just try to imagine your pain of separation;  not knowing if you would ever see your child again.

Down the Rabbit Hole / Want to Know

Down the Rabbit Hole

A White House Insider's Journey 
Down The Rabbit Hole and Back to Magnificence

Written and gratefully experienced by Fred Burks

Fred Burks served for 18 years as a language interpreter with the U.S. Department of State, eventually interpreting for Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and numerous other world leaders. Late in his career, he stumbled down a deep rabbit hole where he discovered intense levels of global deception and manipulation. His courageous whistleblowing was reported on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. Fred has gone on to develop key websites which have helped millions to open their eyes to deeper realities and to powerfully work together for an inspiring new paradigm.

Warning: The below essay may initially trigger "new age rubbish" filters for some. Others may see shades of a "conspiracy nut." You are invited to let any triggers come up, yet stay open to this very personal message of hope from one who has traveled down roads where few have ventured. And don't miss the concrete suggestions in the "What you can do" section at the end.

• Magnificence
• My Awakening
• To the White House
• Down the Rabbit Hole
• My Mission
• Dark Shadows...
• Global Awakening
• Creating Heaven on Earth

..............https://www.wanttoknow.info/g/fredburks/down_the_rabbit_hole

"The Strength of the Scapegoat in the Narcissist Family"

The Strength of the Scapegoat in the Narcissist Family

As in any family, individuals in the narcissist family are as unique as their finger prints, but their roles are remarkably similar across class, race...click for more

"The Science of Mom Brain" ~ Vanessa LoBue, PhD.

If you’re a mom, chances are you’ve heard of “mom brain,” and maybe you’ve even blamed it for a lapse in judgment, a missed appointment, or a minor emotional breakdown at some point in your life. As the mother of a toddler and a newborn, it feels like “mom brain” is the new normal for me. I am forgetful, absent-minded, and am apt to get incredibly emotional if I see so much as a hallmark commercial that features a child within a few years of my son’s age. Watching movies that have anything to do with a child getting lost or hurt is out of the question, and any news footage of children suffering can send me into an emotional tailspin.

Source: Tina Franklin/Flickr

Some people are just sensitive, and maybe this doesn’t sound like anything out of the ordinary. But for me, this kind of forgetfulness and extreme emotionality is out of character: I’m not a crier, and was never really moved before by pictures of babies; I’m generally pretty on top of things, I never miss a deadline, am organized, and even tempered. That is, I was until my son was born 3 years ago. Since then, I have trouble remembering anything that I don’t write down, I experience mood swings, especially when my son is involved, and what’s worse is that these behaviors have become commonplace, especially after I became pregnant again. So what’s my deal? Is “mom brain” just an excuse I use when I’m a mess, or does becoming a mother really affect our brains?

Well, I’m sure it’s true that I use “mom brain” as an excuse for my mistakes from time to time, but it’s also true that our brains are affected by having children, sometimes in ways that are long-lasting. In fact, recent research suggests that a woman’s brain actually changes after she gives birth for the first time, in ways that might promote caring for her child. Researchers from Autonomous University of Barcelona scanned the brains of a group of women before and after they gave birth, and found changes in the structure of their brains that were long lasting, remaining for at least 2 years. Importantly, these changes were particular to the parts of the brain that were most active when the women were looking at pictures of their babies. Although further research is necessary to nail down exactly what these changes mean and how they affect mothers’ behavior, the researchers think these changes might help women understand the needs and emotions of their babies, helping them to better prepare for motherhood (Hoekzema et al., 2016).

Such changes in the way our brains function as a result of becoming a parent don’t just affect new mothers; there is evidence that the brains of fathers are affected as well. In one study, researchers scanned the brains of first-time mothers and fathers while these new parents watched a video of themselves interacting with their babies. The researchers found increased activity in the amygdala—the part of the brain that is responsible for emotional processing—in both mothers and fathers who were the primary caregivers for their babies. In fact, the more involved the fathers were in taking care of their infants, the more their amygdala activity looked like mothers’. This suggests that there isn’t just something special about physically experiencing pregnancy and childbirth that changes how the brain responds to babies (although there are some changes that are mother-specific); the act of parenting itself can also cause similar changes in fathers, or perhaps anyone that plays a large role in raising children (Abraham, Hendler, Shapira-Lichter, Kanat-Maymon, Zagoory-Sharon, & Feldman, 2014).

Researchers have long-suggested that these changes are good ones; they promote sensitivity to a baby’s needs, making us more responsive parents. Unfortunately, these responses could have some negative side effects, perhaps explaining why I (and many new mothers) feel overly emotional from time to time, especially when thinking about the wellbeing of our own children. In fact, our brains' responses to our own children can be quite intense, and some researchers have even compared it to how we experience romantic love (Bartels & Zeki, 2004).

There is also evidence that supports the idea that having a baby interferes with our memory, but not in the way you might think. Researchers speculate that oxytocin—a hormone present in mothers during labor, pregnancy, and nursing—might play a role in keeping women from developing bad memories about the experience (Heinrichs, Meinlschmidt, Wippich, Ehlert, & Hellhammer, 2004). In other words, what moms might be most likely to forget are the bad parts of pregnancy and parenthood in favor of the good. It’s nature’s way of stacking the deck so that we’ll forget the trials and tribulations of pregnancy and parenthood, making it more likely that we will turn around and do it all over again. 

The moral of the story is, if you’re having “mom brain,” take heart in knowing that we’ve all been there, and there’s some evidence from neurosciencethat it’s not only normal, but may even be beneficial. We can’t of course blame our brains completely—there’s probably a big part of “mom brain” that just comes with being overwhelmed by the new and challenging responsibilities of parenting that invade the same space where our old responsibilities still reside. That means that we may never return to our pre-mom brains, but our new brains—the forgetfulness and emotionality and all—might end up helping us on the way to becoming good, responsive parents.

References

Abraham, E., Hendler, T., Shapira-Lichter, I., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Zagoory-Sharon, O., & Feldman, R. (2014). Father's brain is sensitive to childcare experiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 9792-9797.

Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. Neuroimage, 21, 1155-1166.

Heinrichs, M., Meinlschmidt, G., Wippich, W., Ehlert, U., & Hellhammer, D. H. (2004). Selective amnesic effects of oxytocin on human memory. Physiology & Behavior, 83, 31-38.

Americans Are A Lonely Lot, And Young People Bear The Heaviest Burden"

May 1, 2018 6:01 AM ET

RHITU CHATTERJEE

Loneliness isn't just a fleeting feeling, leaving us sad for a few hours to a few days. Research in recent years suggests that for many people, loneliness is more like a chronic ache, affecting their daily lives and sense of well-being.

Now a nationwide survey by the health insurer Cigna underscores that. It finds that loneliness is widespread in America, with nearly 50 percent of respondents reporting that they feel alone or left out always or sometimes.

Using one of the best-known tools for measuring loneliness — the UCLA Loneliness Scale — Cigna surveyed 20,000 adults online across the country. The University of California, Los Angeles tool uses a series of statements and a formula to calculate a loneliness score based on responses. Scores on the UCLA scale range from 20 to 80. People scoring 43 and above were considered lonely in the Cigna survey, with a higher score suggesting a greater level of loneliness and social isolation.

More than half of survey respondents — 54 percent — said they always or sometimes feel that no one knows them well. Fifty-six percent reported they sometimes or always felt like the people around them "are not necessarily with them." And 2 in 5 felt like "they lack companionship," that their "relationships aren't meaningful" and that they "are isolated from others."

The survey found that the average loneliness score in America is 44, which suggests that "most Americans are considered lonely," according to the report released Tuesday by the health insurer.

NATIONAL

Businesses To Benefit From Addressing 'Loneliness Epidemic,' Doctor Says

"Half of Americans view themselves as lonely," said David Cordani, president and CEO of Cigna Corp. "I can't help but be surprised [by that]." (Cigna is an NPR sponsor and a major provider of health insurance for NPR employees.)

But the results are consistent with other previous research, says Julianne Holt-Lunstad, a psychologist at Brigham Young University, who studies loneliness and its health effects. She wasn't involved in the Cigna survey. While it's difficult to compare the loneliness scores in different studies, she says, other nationally representative estimates have found between 20 percent and 43 percent of Americans report feeling lonely or socially isolated.

Loneliness has health consequences. "There's a blurred line between mental and physical health," says Cordani. "Oftentimes, medical symptoms present themselves and they're correlated with mental, lifestyle, behavioral issues like loneliness."

Several studies in recent years, including ones by Holt-Lunstad, have documented the public health effect of loneliness. It has been linked with a higher risk of coronary heart disease and stroke. It has been shown to influence our genes and our immune systems, and even recovery from breast cancer.

And there is growing evidence that loneliness can kill. "We have robust evidence that it increases risk for premature mortality," says Holt-Lunstad. Studies have found that it is a predictor of premature death, not just for the elderly, but even more so for younger people.

The latest survey also found something surprising about loneliness in the younger generation. "Our survey found that actually the younger generation was lonelier than the older generations," says Dr. Douglas Nemecek, the chief medical officer for behavioral health at Cigna.

Members of Generation Z, born between the mid-1990s and the early 2000s, had an overall loneliness score of 48.3. Millennials, just a little bit older, scored 45.3. By comparison, baby boomers scored 42.4. The Greatest Generation, people ages 72 and above, had a score of 38.6 on the loneliness scale.

"Too often people think that this [problem] is specific to older adults," says Holt-Lunstad. "This report helps with the recognition that this can affect those at younger ages."

In fact, some research published in 2017 by psychologist Jean Twenge at San Diego State University suggests that more screen time and social media may have caused a rise in depression and suicide among American adolescents. The study also found that people who spend less time looking at screens and more time having face-to-face social interactions are less likely to be depressive or suicidal.

However, the Cigna survey didn't find a correlation between social media use and feelings of loneliness. This would on the surface contradict the new findings on screen time, but Holt-Lunstad says that previous research shows that how people use social media determine its influence on one's sense of isolation.

"If you're passively using it, if you're just scrolling feeds, that's associated with more negative effects," she says. "But if you're using it to reach out and connect to people to facilitate other kinds of [in-person] interactions, it's associated with more positive effects."

That last finding is also corroborated by the Cigna survey across all age groups. Respondents who said they have more in-person social interactions on a daily basis reported being less lonely.

HIDDEN BRAIN

Guys, We Have A Problem: How American Masculinity Creates Lonely Men

The survey also found that working too little or too much is also associated with the experience of loneliness, suggesting that our workplaces are an important source of our social relationships and also that work-life balance is important for avoiding loneliness.

Cigna wants to work with employers to "help address loneliness in the workplace," says Nemecek.

Social connection or the lack of it is now considered a social determinant of health. In a 2014 report, the Institute of Medicine (now the Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) suggested that health providers should collect information about patients' "social connections and social isolation" along with information on education, employment, lifestyle (diet, exercise, smoking, etc.) and psychological health.

"But this hasn't happened," says Holt-Lunstad. "I would hope that with a large insurer like Cigna [releasing a report on loneliness], that it would start to be more on the radar of major health organizations but also actual health care providers."

CorrectionMay 1, 2018

The UCLA Loneliness Scale ranges from 20 to 80. The initial version of this article incorrectly said that any score in that range indicates a degree of loneliness. People scoring 43 and above were considered lonely in the Cigna survey.