There are various rec centers in north Arlington that could also fit the bill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

I think the UN should open safe and managed camps by the border. If the most liberal jurisdictions in the US dont open their arms to these children, what other options are there? Bowser and the council could have welcomed this proposal and offered personal oversight - but they didn't.

The UN should definitely open camps on the Mexican side of the border so that these people can be processed as refugees and sent to countries around the world

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

This is not it. The zoned schools are already Title I, heavily populated with children of low-income immigrants.

IMO, DC doesn’t want to be a part of the abuse of children- and much of what we have learned from these facilities is that they are not well-run and are abusive for the children. We do not trust the Trump administration on treating immigrants humanely.

Exactly the point. The schools are already struggling. Dumping 200+ more kids with high needs into the the same schools for the foreseeable future will not help dig them out of that rut. DC is already known and lambasted for its horrible schools.

These children are not integrated into local schools. They bring in their own teachers and provide all educational services on site.

One of the reasons they want to build a shelter in this area is because the family members the kids are reuniting with live here, so yes, when they are released from the shelter they will be going to public schools. As was stated before these immigrant communities are clustered so concentrated poverty and extreme need for resources will devastate already struggling areas/schools.

Spare me. It's a few hundred kids. I think we can handle it. If not, you can just sit down while the people who care figure it out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

This is not it. The zoned schools are already Title I, heavily populated with children of low-income immigrants.

IMO, DC doesn’t want to be a part of the abuse of children- and much of what we have learned from these facilities is that they are not well-run and are abusive for the children. We do not trust the Trump administration on treating immigrants humanely.

Exactly the point. The schools are already struggling. Dumping 200+ more kids with high needs into the the same schools for the foreseeable future will not help dig them out of that rut. DC is already known and lambasted for its horrible schools.

These children are not integrated into local schools. They bring in their own teachers and provide all educational services on site.

One of the reasons they want to build a shelter in this area is because the family members the kids are reuniting with live here, so yes, when they are released from the shelter they will be going to public schools. As was stated before these immigrant communities are clustered so concentrated poverty and extreme need for resources will devastate already struggling areas/schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like the PP, I assumed the push back was because DC would not have control of how the shelter is run, the conditions, etc. and wouldn't want to welcome abuse of children into its city.

These facilities would be regulated by DC. The hypocrisy DC is showing is absurd. The kids don’t magically disappear if DC refuses to oversee a shelter here. If DC really wants to prevent abuse they would make sure these are run like a tight ship and the children are protected. This is a NIMBY issue instead of a real concern for child welfare.

DC would have no control over the running of the shelters.

DC can negotiate a deal. DC gets control of the shelter if it gets approved.

This is an awesome opportunity to show Trump how it’s done.

No. Sheltering refugee/migrant kids is not something that DC can just up and do. It takes skills and expertise, not to mention a lot of bilingual staff. HHS needs to #1 commit to reducing the number of kids who need shelter by not separating them from their parents or delaying placement with a relative in the use; and #2 to using only proven operators who operate not-for-profit. For all that Bethany Christian Services has been criticized for certain practices, from what I know they legitimately try to locate families and treat the kids well.

Anonymous wrote:There is no Takoma Park MD. It’s Takoma DC or Takoma Oark MD. This is proposed in DC (hence the title).

native Marylander - Who knew?

We always referred to it as TK PK, DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am opposed to Trumps immigration plans, but these kids are here unaccompanied. I work in trafficking and under the law that means without a legal guardian or parent- so a narrow definition. They can’t just be released into the country. Some of these kids are young. They need somewhere to go while a family member is located. I don’t want them with ICE they need to be in shelters. Where should these kids go?

Do you know that they arrived unaccompanied or, more likely, they were stolen from the parents that they arrived with? Surely they can be placed with family members instead of in a child jail?

Don’t you think it takes time to find family members? How do you prove that someone is ‘family’ when these kids might have limited documentation. Would you rather ICE sticks them with any random adult here in the US?

These kids are placed with family members as soon as 1) the family can be found and 2) verified that they are family. You can’t just place a kid with any person who shows up claiming they are related. Also if you look at the history of children arriving in this country the vast majority are truly unaccompanied teenage boys. They are coming here in search of work. As a child welfare advocate it breaks my heart to think you have 13 year old boys risking their life to come here to work. I have worked in trafficking through the last administration and this one and both have had this issue. President Obama begged congress for extra money to house these children. The congress gave it to him.

True, but the goal should be to RAPIDLY reunite the kids with family, and place them with a foster family if that can't happen. And the shelter should be non-profit.

Anonymous wrote:I am opposed to Trumps immigration plans, but these kids are here unaccompanied. I work in trafficking and under the law that means without a legal guardian or parent- so a narrow definition. They can’t just be released into the country. Some of these kids are young. They need somewhere to go while a family member is located. I don’t want them with ICE they need to be in shelters. Where should these kids go?

There are two issues here.

1) They may be keeping these kids in the shelter, despite the fact that they have relatives in the US that they could be released to ... or even worse, they have been deliberately separated from the parent they crossed the border with, instead of released or placed in a family shelter. That's part of the Trump Admin strategy. And we know (as Mayor Bowser suggested in the reference to DC General) that it is inhumane to keep people in large institutions when they could go to a smaller site or, preferably with a family member, or to a foster family.

2) For those kids who legitimately cannot be sent to a family member (sometimes it takes time to locate & screen them too), then the problem is that this is a for-profit operator with a shoddy record. If the shelter were going to be run by a nonprofit, it might be more feasible. I've heard that the Bethany shelters in Michigan were well run.

So basically, if DC could trust that these were kids who were not forcibly separated from their parents by the US, not being deliberately kept away from other family members in the US, the shelter was being run not-for-profit and humanely, and that the kids would be placed in foster care rapidly if they could not be reunified rapidly with their parents or relatives ... then yeah, DC would be a good place for it. We have strong, educated labor force; lots of spanish-speaking families that could foster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am opposed to Trumps immigration plans, but these kids are here unaccompanied. I work in trafficking and under the law that means without a legal guardian or parent- so a narrow definition. They can’t just be released into the country. Some of these kids are young. They need somewhere to go while a family member is located. I don’t want them with ICE they need to be in shelters. Where should these kids go?

Do you know that they arrived unaccompanied or, more likely, they were stolen from the parents that they arrived with? Surely they can be placed with family members instead of in a child jail?

Don’t you think it takes time to find family members? How do you prove that someone is ‘family’ when these kids might have limited documentation. Would you rather ICE sticks them with any random adult here in the US?

These kids are placed with family members as soon as 1) the family can be found and 2) verified that they are family. You can’t just place a kid with any person who shows up claiming they are related. Also if you look at the history of children arriving in this country the vast majority are truly unaccompanied teenage boys. They are coming here in search of work. As a child welfare advocate it breaks my heart to think you have 13 year old boys risking their life to come here to work. I have worked in trafficking through the last administration and this one and both have had this issue. President Obama begged congress for extra money to house these children. The congress gave it to him.

Anonymous wrote:I want a shelter here so that we can more easily ensure that those kids are being cared for adequately.

This is what everyone should want.

I want a shelter here so that we can more easily ensure that those kids are being cared for adequately.

There is no Takoma Park MD. It’s Takoma DC or Takoma Oark MD. This is proposed in DC (hence the title).

DC

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they're proposing a place in Takoma Park

Fantastic

Takoma Park DC or Takoma Park MD?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am opposed to Trumps immigration plans, but these kids are here unaccompanied. I work in trafficking and under the law that means without a legal guardian or parent- so a narrow definition. They can’t just be released into the country. Some of these kids are young. They need somewhere to go while a family member is located. I don’t want them with ICE they need to be in shelters. Where should these kids go?

Do you know that they arrived unaccompanied or, more likely, they were stolen from the parents that they arrived with? Surely they can be placed with family members instead of in a child jail?

Don’t you think it takes time to find family members? How do you prove that someone is ‘family’ when these kids might have limited documentation. Would you rather ICE sticks them with any random adult here in the US?