SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Privacy advocates have been on about how big data and large datasets can be be used against the population for decades. Now key data released by the immigration department may provide the key to bringing barbaric crimes out into the open. Data released by the Government shows thousands of child brides allowed by immigration. Accounts by some of the victims detail how they were used to gain access to America even though they were underage. While some senators have sworn to close the loopholes used to bring child brides into the US we can only expect more of this type of activity to come to light in the future as the public engages in analysis of data released by governments.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Child Brides Tracked Through Immigration Data
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 40 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
We lie loudest when we lie to ourselves.
-- Eric Hoffer
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @12:59PM (32 children)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @01:05PM (5 children)
They forget the child brides in America, born in America and legally married in America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States#Statistics [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by HiThere on Sunday January 13 2019, @05:51PM
If a 16 year old girl marries a 74 year old man, one may well wonder what their relationship actually is. And in a very large percentage of the referenced cases the older of the two parties was under 21. From the link, sometimes well under 21. I can think of a time when I was about 18 when, if we had been caught, I might have been forced into a marriage with a "child". But that's not the way we thought of it.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Sunday January 13 2019, @07:24PM (1 child)
Your argument seems to come from a different part of the wikipedia page, specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States#Statistics [wikipedia.org]
Footnote 42 leads to here: https://theconversation.com/child-marriage-is-still-legal-in-the-us-88846 [theconversation.com] (The sentence after FN42 is obviously opinion and gives insight into bias) which contains the following:
That quote contains a link to here: https://www.uncpress.org/book/9781469629537/american-child-bride/ [uncpress.org] which is a blurb for a book stating:
So, even if we were to take that 9% figure at face value (the links end at that blurb and the blurb contains no information on how that figure was obtained), we need to take into account the fact that 9% of all living women in America includes many who were born into an entirely different social climate than exists currently. For example, see this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States#Statistics [wikipedia.org]
Using "all living women" to prove a point about girls living today seems rather deceptive because the amount of change that occurred between the 50s and 2000 was seismic, and even in a mere 14 years following 2000, the numbers dropped to a sixth of the 2000 level in Alabama. Clearly, today is not last century.
Secondly, that 9% figure includes girls "under 18". I don't feel the same way about a girl who is 17 years and 10 months old getting married compared to one who is 14. For the 17yo, I think "idiot, but whatever, it's your life" -- for the 14yo, "gross, disgusting, manipulated and abused, that's wrong". So not only is that statistic covering women born into a different world ages ago, it is including extra people, people close enough to 18 that it barely matters.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday January 14 2019, @10:56AM
This probably needs to be mentioned somewhere in the comments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe [wikipedia.org]
"The vast majority of countries set their ages in the range of 14 to 16".
I would say a large part of what you consider appropriate vs legal is very cultural. Furthermore, most of the time the child brides get better life quality than their parents because men seeking child brides are sought after iff they have a better quality of life than the bride.
The situation is even more complicated because when the 80-year-old husband dies, the child bride and by proxy, her family gets the most legal rights over his property.
I would say that one ought to follow the law of the land, or do enough to get it changed, but then I also think that there is no law that's fair to everyone. I haven't picked a side on that debate yet.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 14 2019, @04:03AM
Sounds pretty old to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:37PM
Fuck off creimer I swear jesus christ please don't start shitting this place up just because you and your one man fanclub got banned from greenchan
(Score: 3, Informative) by driverless on Sunday January 13 2019, @01:12PM (23 children)
You do however have to look at what the US defines as a "child bride", which is typically anyone under eighteen. Under that criterion, a lot of the US also allows, and has, child brides. In fact, it looks like the largest source of child brides in the US is the US itself [frontline.org], something that the original article conveniently fails to mention as it points the finger at immigrants.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday January 13 2019, @01:21PM (11 children)
Defining someone who can sexually reproduce as a child is idiocy to begin with. By all means don't define them as full adults but if they're stuck with taking the responsibility for their behavior and the consequences thereof then they need to be afforded some measure of status. And no amount of legislation is going to be able to remove that responsibility or the consequences.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday January 13 2019, @03:09PM (5 children)
So. Here is a brief list of people who have sexually reproduced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers [wikipedia.org]
The people on the list are aged five to ten years old. Many people who reproduce sexually fall within a higher age band, of course, but for the average to be where it is, the outliers above must be offset by outliers below.
Now, I suggest that either it's idiocy to say that these children were children, as you posit, or idiocy to say that it's idiocy to say such a thing.
Guessing which one I am leaning towards may be left as an exercise for the reader.
Since people are individuals, we should perhaps look at averages for age of majority, and take statistical age of near-certain reproductive maturity into account in determining age of majority.
21 years? Valid only in that it is an absurdly conservative figure, inflated so wildly that it's almost guaranteed to capture the maturity of those who will, indeed, eventually mature.
18 years? See above.
In places like The UK [youthoria.org], 16 years is the legal and practical age of majority for many areas, including consent to marry. This seems pretty reasonable and non-idiotic.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday January 13 2019, @05:53PM
But note that that list covers multiple centuries and most of those cases are the result of a medical issue triggering puberty prematurely.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 14 2019, @01:28AM
Or they're extremely rare exceptions and you're being pedantic.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @08:25AM (2 children)
Why use age when we can measure? Age is especially problematic for immigrants, with lots of falsification occurring.
For females: Use an MRI scanner to check the bone structure around the womb. This includes the lowest rib, the pelvic opening, and the interconnecting spine. Have a computer model the passage of a 5 kg baby. If a birth wouldn't need medical intervention, then the female is ready.
For males: The male must show an ability to fully support a family consisting of himself, a female, and at least one child.
For both: They must be able to read and write in the country's primary language. They must show some basic understanding of consumer finance, how babies are made, and how diseases spread.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:56AM
That would prevent most asylum seeker applications from being successful
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 19 2019, @01:16PM
You want to prevent most Trumpers from having kids?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @04:19PM
They do have status: if it is disadvantageous to them, people under 18 are considered not children or children, depending on the situation.
(Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Sunday January 13 2019, @05:56PM (1 child)
Sorry, but the ability to reproduce doesn't mean that the body is really ready to do so. Reproducing too early can cause a female permanent bone damage, among other objectively measurable harm.
I'll agree that the modern meaning of "child" is inappropriate to such an intermediate state, and "adolescent" is preferable. But "child" is often used to cover the entire range of ages including adolescent, even though this leads to inappropriate arguments and decisions.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 14 2019, @01:31AM
I didn't say it did. I said that like it or not, that person now has the responsibility for their related actions and must deal with the consequences.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 14 2019, @01:05AM (1 child)
Found the paedo :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 14 2019, @01:32AM
I haven't fucked anyone under thirty since before I could legally buy beer. The stupid and inexperience are bigger turn-offs than anything a bit more youth brings to the table.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Sunday January 13 2019, @02:57PM (10 children)
And there's a specific reason why this happens in the good old US of A: Deuteronomy 22:28-9, where if a man rapes an unmarried woman or girl, he's supposed to (1) pay her father a bunch of money, (2) marry her, and (3) can't divorce her under any circumstances. Bible-Belters want to take this stuff as literal requirements rather than understand the principles behind the law in question, so they often do.
And this leads to creeps like Roy Moore who either can't or won't get a date with someone their own age going around trying to find a teenager to rape, and when they succeed her parents will force her to marry the guy who just ended her childhood (often by threatening her with stuff like being kicked out of the home if she says no), and the government even helps this along by making it impossible for the kid to sign divorce papers before they're 18. And of course sick bastards like this are targeting the most devoutly religious and abstinent girls that they can, since they're the most likely to go to their parents and be willing to go through with the marriage rather than get the cops involved or get an abortion if necessary to hide what happened or consider running away from the parents who are trying to pimp their daughter.
Whoever says American evangelical Christianity doesn't harm anybody is full of crap.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Funny) by requerdanos on Sunday January 13 2019, @03:23PM (7 children)
(I put in some important words you left out)
Here's one. Leviticus 18:19, "Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere..."
Now, what happened that the part about "No, it doesn't matter if she's 'just a half sister' or didn't grow up in the same house as you." had to be separately and specifically documented?
Back to the "taking this stuff as literal" department, Leviticus 19:19 plainly commands its audience, "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”
But I have never heard the Bible Belters you speak of mount any kind of campaign against COTTON-POLYESTER BLEND! Are you sure you have your facts right?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Sunday January 13 2019, @03:54PM (2 children)
What happened with those folks is that they wanted to be Christians, but weren't so keen on ideas like "Thou shalt not kill", "Love thy neighbor as thyself", "Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven", "It is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven", and especially "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men." When these ideas were taking shape back in the early 19th century, the other part they definitely wanted to ignore were the Old Testament rules about not mistreating their slaves.
So they invented a new Christianity that made the important part of their new religion all about maintaining the social order, a fairly rigid hierarchy where community leaders (preachers, businessmen, and politicians) control white men, who control white women as fathers or husbands, who control their children, and then all white people cooperate to control non-white people either by killing them (if they're Native) or coming as close as possible to enslaving them (if they're black). White people who don't fit into this hierarchy like Jews, gay people and those not doing their part to control non-white people must also be eliminated in this mindset. Maintaining the rules about virginity and rape served the purpose of controlling white women and children, so they were ruthlessly enforced. Whereas the rules about food, fabrics, etc are supposed to apply to everybody, including community leaders, and don't help enforce the hierarchy, so they are ignored.
Since most of this stuff has been illegal for a while, and nowadays a lynching can put you in jail when it didn't used to, the focus has been placed even more on preventing sex between anyone who isn't a hetero married couple. Make no mistake, they'd do all the other stuff if they could, but they can't, so they're focused on their daughter's virginity because it's the one thing they can still legally have some say over.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by requerdanos on Sunday January 13 2019, @06:13PM (1 child)
So... Obscure and/or extreme cultists, denying inconvenient-to-them parts of the Christian Bible, instead of those grouped into a belt who respect instead of deny same?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @01:43AM
sounds like islam
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @04:32PM
Easy, just say it's not "woven"!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Sunday January 13 2019, @07:54PM (2 children)
There is lots more in Leviticus that the bible-thumpers ignore. Bacon anyone?
It's almost like the Evangelicals are a bunch of hypocrites who love to pick and choose from Leviticus to support their own phobias. Oh wait, they are.
(Score: 4, Touché) by requerdanos on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:01PM (1 child)
Of course, one of the things they tend to ignore, as you are doing here, is that those hundreds of laws are addressed specifically to a group of God's chosen people that he called out of Egypt, and repeatedly, they are addressed to that specific group for the specific purpose of showing that they were a special group with distinct behavior.
The disciple Peter in Acts chapter 10 tries to make, with God, the same argument about bacon that you are making here, only to be answered in a vision (verse 15) “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” So the Christ-followers are probably on pretty good biblical ground when they eat bacon.
If you are a self-described Christian and you are picking and choosing laws in Leviticus, it doesn't mean you need to pick all of Leviticus. It means you missed things like "you are not under the law, but under grace." (Rom 6:14) and the like.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday January 14 2019, @01:00AM
What about the part that tells you what to do if a man has a wet dream?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Freeman on Monday January 14 2019, @06:29PM (1 child)
If you read it carefully, that particular passage isn't talking about rape. In the instance of actual or likely rape, the man comes out a lot worse off. In that specific text it's talking about where a man may have seduced a young woman, but the woman did not object. I.E. the typical "redneck shotgun wedding."
Adultery (Sleeping with a married woman.):
"22If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel."
"Adultery" (Sleeping with an engaged woman.):
"23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you."
Rape ("and the man force her")
"25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her."
Not Rape ("note betrothed, and lay hold on her" Please note the lack of the term "force her"):
"28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday January 14 2019, @06:32PM
'bah, "not betrothed" not "note betrothed"
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0, Interesting) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday January 13 2019, @02:34PM (1 child)
They say "Middle Eastern." Because of political correctness. They don't want to say Muslim. We have become so politically correct that we don't know what the hell we're doing. Remember San Bernardino? How about the person who knew what was going on said they didn't want to report them because they think it might be racial profiling, did you see that? We want something that is very, very tough and strong, in terms of the border. We need to end chain migration, and we need to cancel the terrible visa lottery. We need the Muslim Ban, also known as Travel Ban. And those are the four pillars that I've been talking about for a long time. We call those the White House framework -- a plan that will finally bring our immigration System into the 21st Century. The Republican position on immigration is the center, mainstream view of the American people, with some extra strength at the border and security at the border added in. What we’re asking for and what the American people are pleading for is sanity and common sense in our immigration System. We want immigration rules that protect our communities, defend our security, and admit people who will love our Country and contribute to our society.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @11:32AM
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5386/british-girls-raped-oxford [gatestoneinstitute.org]