http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-immigration-toddler-lawyers-videos-snap-html-htmlstory.html
The topic of
"illegal immigration" is a heated one in this country. Just looking
at a Google News search of "immigration" (the results of which
changed almost completely after only a few hours) revealed articles on the
current political races, protests defending immigrants, governmental action
against immigrants, and more. Texts like The
Latino Threat, films like 9500 Liberty Alabama
I am unashamedly biased
on this: no, they cannot; they are three.
The aforementioned judge tries to argue that he had taught toddlers immigration
law, but, as far as I am aware, gave no evidence to support this rather ridiculous
claim besides his word. On the other side sits numerous immigration lawyers who
decided to video "trials" of their toddlers to show just how lost children
are when faced with the questions and demands of immigration court. Sure, YouTube
videos might not have the same kind of credibility as an article in a peer
reviewed journal, but they have more than assertions of the capability of three-year-old
children in a courtroom.
As The Latino Threat discusses, the general
attitude toward Latin American immigrants (and anybody thought to be a Latin
American immigrant) is not good; this is a particularly extreme example of it. Some
people would deny toddlers legal counsel, something that already is not assured
for non-minors in immigration cases. This is, quite frankly, yet another
blatant attempt to force Latin Americans out of this country regardless of how
it would impact their lives, as well as those of everyone else involved, by
targeting the defenseless.
What is your
opinion on the idea of toddlers as competent in the courtroom? Is there any
case you can think of in which a three-year-old would be able to adequately defend themselves legally?
My first reaction upon reading this was one of disbelief accompanied by a few expletives. My second reaction was one of thoughtful reflection. After said thoughtful reaction, I came to the conclusion that I really wasn't as surprised as I first believed myself to be. The extreme nature of this judge's assertions is a logical extension of the extreme rhetoric pertaining to the issue of immigration in America. Those who should be so "black and white" as to label one human body illegal and of lesser value than another place importance on arbitrary methods of valuation. Films such as "9500 Liberty" demonstrated the insidiousness of terms such as "illegal alien" and the casual nature in which it is used. The barely-disguised hostility of this language serves to construct a hostile environment--one that is socially acceptable, no less. In this sense , the choice as to whether or not a child deserves "taxpayer" representation becomes much cleaner and simpler than it should be. The child is not longer a child but an alien and as such is not deserving of basic human rights. As outlined in the "Latino Threat:" "Through the process of objectification (the process of turning a person into a thing) people are dehumanized, and once that is accomplished, it is easier to lack empathy for those objects and to pass policies and laws to govern their behavior [...]" (Chavez 6).
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing such an eyebrow-raising article, Forest!
Hi, Forest!
ReplyDeleteI find you topic very interesting! It never comes to my mind that using the toddlers to defend their parents' right about citizenship or something else would be considered as a strategy to weaken their arguments. I always thought that people let their three-year-old children or someone maybe a little older than that to represent themselves in the court is a way to stir others' sympathy. But in terms of the right-or-wrong question regarding these kinds of act, I cannot find an accurate or easy answer for that. I guess to me, it is okay, but if you rise the question to an upper level, let's say if you want to know if that will impact on immigrants' right, I guess the answer will be yes. So, it really depends on what the toddlers are representing for. Anyway, thank you for your post, it is very irradiative.
Forest,
ReplyDeleteI am still in shock after reading about a judge who thought it was appropriate for a three-year-old to defend themselves in a courtroom, especially when the average age for learning how to speak around 50 or more words is two. That being said, I agree with your statement that this is likely another case of racism and push for anti-immigration. I cannot imagine anyone who would think that allowing a three-year-old to defend themselves in a court room would be a reasonable and safe idea and for this reason, it’s alarming to see that a judge, a person with a great amount of power, would allow and encourage a child to serve as their own defense. In relation to 9500 Liberty, it seems that the push for anti-immigration is growing stronger which is truly unsettling. Not to mention, this political race has done nothing but influence this extreme behavior and has allowed unimaginable attitudes towards the Latino community.
-Gabrielle
(BTW, couldn’t think/ don’t know of any other cases in which a judge found it reasonable for a child to defend themselves… probably because the majority realize how ludicrous this notion actually is)
I was in total disbelief the entire time while reading this article and this judges uneducated statements. No I don't feel as though a three year old child could adequately defend themselves in an immagration court trial. Now by far children's advancements in 2016 are tremendous but even with that being said children are still very vulnerable creatures,still not in the predicament to make a life long decision. In the article I could not find any really statistical information to even prove his notion. With all that being said I thought this was a great connection to the videos and readings, but I have to say there is no way a child at three years of age could participate fully in an decision as far as immigration and its laws.
ReplyDelete