California State Capitol

The State of California is concidering a bill that many proponants deem necessary for the on-going care of children of illegal immigrants who are separated from their parents because their parents have been arrested and incarcerated as criminals, either because they’re in the country illegally and committing heinous crimes, or because their in the country illegally and living their lives as best they can without committing heinous crimes.

I tried reading the text of the bill but, honestly, I’m not an attorney and the language of law just goes over my head. The problem is, then I have to rely on a summary of the law provided by various groups. Only those groups have skin in the game, so they summarize the bill to manipulate people into supporting it, or to manipulate people into opposing it. So, I’ll let you decide. Here are links to organizations that support the bill and organizations that oppose the bill. As well as the text of the bill. Opponants are claiming the bill is a kidnapper’s or a human trafficker’s dream. Proponants are insisting it’s necessary to provide children with the security of being cared for by someone the parents trust, and they call opponants of the bill hysterical fearmongerers.

There are some interesting red flags about the bill. First, supporters contend that the bill “allows parents to designate someone to care for their children temporarily, while maintaining their parental rights.” Okay. That’ great. But, then, why does it not require that the Caregiver Authorization Affidavit include a parent’s signature? One article I read ridiculed opponants of the bill as comparing a notarized document allowing a grandmother to care for her grandchild with a license for human trafficking. But the bill doesn’t require that the Caregiver Authorization Affidavit be notarized. Why not? And why does it specifically require schools or daycares to accept the legitimacy of a Caregiver Authorization Affidavit presented to them, no questions asked? I tell ya, there are definitely some people whose legitimacy I would suspect if they handed me an un-notarized document not signed by the parents designating them as caregiver of a child.

Proponants of the bill, and the bill’s author herself, assemblywoman Celeste Rodriguez, say that the bill was written to provide on-going, consistent care for a child by someone the parents know and trust if one or both parents are arrested by immigration authorities. But would the bill apply if a child is separated from one or both parents for any other reason? I suppose it would have to, right? There is, among immigration advocates, a great deal of concern that children are being separated from their parents when their parents are arrested for violating U. S. immigration law. But children are separated from their parents when any parent is arrested for violating any U. S. law of such magnitude that it warrants arrest. If a White guy who is a U. S. citizen has his children in the back of the car is stopped by police for a traffic violation, and in the process the police learn that he is wanted for burglary, he is arrested on the spot, and separated from his children. If a Black woman who is a U. S. citizen is arrested at her home for money laundering, she is arrested on the spot, and separated from her children, who watch her being taken away by the police in handcuffs.

It seems to me that there are some significant changes the proponants of the law could and should easily agree to if they want the law passed. First, the bill should require that all Caregiver Authorization Affidavits have one or both parent’s signatures. Who will care for one’s child in the event of the parents being separated from their child is not usually something you think of on the spot. Plenty of thought goes into the matter. So, there’s no reason a parent can’t designate someone to care for their child in the event of their being separated, regardless of why, and sign the affidavit designating that person as their child’s caregiver.

Second, it should be required that the affidavit be notarized. Proponants say sometimes that families can’t afford the cost of notarization. But the cost is small, at least in my state, and I suspect there are plenty of immigrant advocacy groups in California who would be happy to provide the service without cost.

Third, schools and daycare centers ought to be allowed to question the legitimacy of any particular Caregiver Authorization Affidavit. Who’s to say somebody can’t forge the document? What if the kid’s name is spelled wrong, or the parent’s name, or the child’s birthday is wrong? Those are big red flags that the document is not legit. The school and daycare center ought to be allowed to think first about the safety of the child and not any concerns about racism or hurt feelings of the one presenting the document. Why would the bill require that the Caregiver Authorization Affidavit be accepted, no questions asked? That seems outright bizarre to me.

Fourth, a verified identification should be required of the person presenting the Caregiver Authorization Affidavit to whomever is expected to receive it and accept it, no questions asked. Currently, the Affidavit can be filled out and presented by whomever to a school, daycare, or other institution caring for the child without notarization, without a background check on the one presenting the Affidavit, without a court order, and even without the one presenting the Affidavit producing an ID. All of that just seems weird to me.

In any case, the bill has passed the California Assembly. It now goes before the California Senate, that will consider the bill on Monday, August 18. I doubt the bill will be passed as is. But I’m not in California, so who am I to say? What thinkest thou? Read the links above and let me know.

Be Christ for all. Bring Christ to all. See Christ in all.