Thanks for agreeing that I'm (usually) reasonable, and for the Star link. Here is a sentence that jumped out at me from the article:

"Authorities at the Hutto detention centre have acknowledged holding 170 children there, says Barbara Hines, a University of Texas law professor."

170 kids?

And a family caught in Puerto Rico with dodgy passports is sent--to Texas?

I'm still outraged. I can't imagine why.

Would you prefer the kids to be let loose on the streets?

Sean: good and fair post. BTW, the Zoom Airlines flight was probably a charter, if it existed at all. Zoom doesn't fly anywhere in the Caribbean, just Canada-Europe. Therefore there's no way for us mortals to find out if the Iranian family was indeed on a Zoom flight, was on any flight bound for Canada, and whether or not Puerto Rico was a designated stopover or the medical emergency happened as claimed. In short, a lot of missing info.

Also, I don't know for sure, but if routing was via Turkey and Guyana (at least ... there must be something between these two points as it doesn't seem possible to have a tremendous demand for direct flights between the two points ... why didn't the family seek asylum there?

Lastly, since they were deported from Canada in Jan 2005 and tried to enter almost exactly two years later, doesn't anyone find it slightly suspicious that claimed horrendous "torture" occurred, recovery from these terrible injuties took place, and enough money was earned to purchase two fake passports and do all the travel from Iran towards Canada through Turkey, Guyana (and probably more points) ... while trying to eke out a living while discriminated against in Iran?

This is getting fishier and fishier as time passes.

Dr. Dawg. Why are you "outraged"? Or is it just "Them" acting up again that you are upset about?

"And a family caught in Puerto Rico with dodgy passports is sent--to Texas?"

Given that they were apprehended by American authorities we can assume that they would be incarcerated in the US: what's so wrong with Texas, and where would you prefer - or is it just a chance to bitch about Americans?

Comments die here. One more try.

First, a cursory Google sweep reveals that Zoom indeed does fly all over the Caribbean, including to and from Guyana.

Secondly, I suspect that, after Arar, a refugee claimant from Iran might receive a less-than-perfunctory hearing at which claims of torture in Iran might be examined somewhat less dismissively than they are by Mr. Sorenson. But that's all hypothetical now, of course.

Finally, Dean, if a family had been apprehended in Toronto and ended up in a maximum security jail in Whitehorse, would you not raise your eyebrows just a teensy bit?

Instead of fussing about my motives, commentators here should be worrying about a jailed nine-year-old Canadian. Or--to use their favoured mode of argument--is it just that Americans can do no wrong?

Maximum security? That fits nicely with your gulag meme; its just as mendacious.

"apprehended in Toronto and ended up in a maximum security jail in Whitehorse

Sure - but casually looking at a map, the closest US location to PR is Florida. Anywhere along the Atlantic or Gulf coasts is closer than Texas, but Texas is closer than -say- California, Washington, or New York. Not knowing the US federal prison system intimately, or knowing whether the particular facility may be specialized for immigration matters (or even for handling under-age inmates) I cannot say a priori that Texas is inappropriate - can you? This to me sounds more like a family apprehended in Montreal or Halifax, and held in Toronto. If you are going to snark about the location, you are free to indicate why this is a particularly poor choice: what other facility would you suggest - otherwise, you are falling into the "Americans can do no right" mode of argument, which is less than convincing.

Five posts have now disappeared, while others trundle in. I have posted one more time, but failed to respond to Dean. Perhaps the description of the private jail to which I linked mighr put an end to all this subterranean "the Americans can do no wrong, what's the matter with you" chatter.

"Mendacious?' Judge for yourself:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2007/02/detention_center.html?welcome=true

And here:

"Authorities at the Hutto detention centre have acknowledged holding 170 children there, says Barbara Hines, a University of Texas law professor.

"It's a frightening experience for children, she said. Families are held in prison cells that have had the locks taken off. Laser beams detect when people get out of their beds, the professor said.

"'Families get 15 minutes to eat and then the food is thrown out,' Hines said. 'Have you tried to feed a child and then yourself in 15 minutes?'"

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/182470

I dunno: razor wire, laser detectors--sounds pretty max to me, and I've toured Millhaven and Edmonton Max. But I'm only as good as my information. Since you've now called me a liar, let's have yours.

Dawg - you seem to be seeing an awful lot more "the Americans can do no wrong" chatter than I am. Thinking that you are wrong is significantly different than thinking that people you criticise are right, much less, "can do no wrong"

I guess what I'm seeing here, Dean, is a knee-jerk response: I point to an egregious injustice, and you and others are quick, if not to jump to the defence of the US authorities, to at least cast aspersions on my motives and even to question my honesty.

Be assured that, were this happening here in Canada, my post would have been identical except in that respect. Where would you people be then? Accusing me of having it in for Harper or something?

No Dawg: you didn't identify an egregious injustice. In my mind the questions come down to:
> Does the US (or for that matter, any country) have the right to incarcerate people without status in that country (permanent or temporary), and without valid travel documents - in fact, with forged documents? I think they do - feel free to make the contrary argument if you wish.
> Having incarcerated the parents of a minor, is the US (or any country) best to seperate the minor child (or children), or to provide a detention setting for the whole family? If they should seperate the family, where should the child (or children) be sent, on whose authority, and at whose risk? I do not see that it is necessarily in the best interests of the child or his family that they be seperated - again, feel free to make the contrary argument.
> Is the US' right to incarcerate the parents trumped by the fact that they have a minor child? I do not believe so. Is that determination affected by the citizenship of the child? Again, I would say no.

The only criticism I saw from you was that they had been sent to Texas - my response is still: "suggest another location" - and (subsequently) the conditions of their detention. I agree, it sounds like a very secure (and very unpleasant) facility - are you arguing that the US doesn't have the right (and arguably, the obligation to its citizens and legal residents) to enforce secure detention of illegal aliens?

I don't see that to date this represents an egregious injustice although if the detention is unconscionably prolonged it might start looking that way. That leaves (in my mind) your unfounded assertion that this is an injustice, and coupled with the "ad locationem" arguments, I conclude that your outrage is simply because it is the US acting - I see a knee jerk response as well, I suppose. I distinguish between "really unpleasant penal conditions" and "egregious injustice" although I appreciate that you may not.

Looking to the future, I agree that Canada should be looking out for the rights and interests of the son, who is a Canadian citizen - but that does not (in my view) extend to requesting that the US treat the parents any differently, or that they be released to Canada rather than being deported back to wherever the US would otherwise send them. If they prefer to have their Canadian citizen son in foster care in Canada, that should be arranged. I don't see that their son's status should interfere with either Canada's right to determine their status and order them deported (again), or the US' right to deal with them in due course.

The only criticism I saw from you was that they had been sent to Texas

Well, no Dean. I am also critical of their being held in this dreadful facility. I am critical that the guards threaten families with separation. I am critical that arrangements were not made to get them to Canada as a third-party country, where the family could be held under less onerous conditions until the refugee claim is dealt with. I am critical that Canadian authorities apparently had to be prodded to act.

I'm critical every whichway.

The notion that I got interested in this only to pursue some dark anti-American agenda is fatuous. I would have expected better of you.

A former maximum security prison. A poor choice no doubt but, where are the armed guards? Any solitary confinment cells being used?

You know 'maximum security' is more than just the physical location of the place. I'll add category mistake to your list of infractions.

I'll go by that which you provided, which does not try to make the same case that you do. Judging from the Mother Jones article, there are alot of things that need attention here, probably the biggest of which is the place itself. But if illegal immigrants are going to continue to use children to take advantage of the system there is little choice but to incarcerate families.

"I am critical that arrangements were not made to get them to Canada as a third-party country..."
Oh. So you are arguing that the US doesn't have the right to detain them and/or that their Canadian-citizen minor child trumps that right, but you just don't want to say so out loud. I disagree; there is no reason to expect the parents to be released any earlier than any other illegal alien discovered on US territory, and no reason to expect that release to be to Canada.

"I'm critical every whichway."
But exactly none of the arguments you enumerated appeared in your inital comment in the thread. In that comment you noted the number of kids in the facility, your disbelief that the family would be sent to Texas, and the fact that you were outraged.

"The notion that I got interested in this only to pursue some dark anti-American agenda is fatuous."
I don't think so, but certainly no more so than your allegation that everyone who disagrees with you is doing so only because of some secret "America can do no wrong" agenda. I will say it again - just because people disagree with your criticism of something (in this case, the US conduct in this case) does not make them supporters of, or cheerleaders for, that thing.

No solitary confinement, eh? Look who's being mendacious.

"Her mother, Hanan, who is now five months pregnant, complained of being too tired to join daily showers at 5:30 a.m., but was told that if she didn't she could be put in solitary confinement, according to the suit."

This from the Mother Jones article that Sean must have read too quickly.

Solitary confinement. Razor wire. Prison scrubs. Laser detection. The Orwellian descriptor "Family Residential Center" doesn't make this place smell any sweeter.

And since when did the family in question attempt to "use" their child to take advantage of the system? They weren't even intending to enter the US.

Dean, simply because I am critical of the detention of children doesn't make me "anti-American," either. If you are going to attribute motives, then don't get all upset when I do the same in return. The unseemly haste with which commentators rushed into print here to defend the US rather than to express sympathy for a jailed child did have something of the knee-jerk about it.