“The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those in the shadows of life -- the sick, the needy and the handicapped.” Hubert Humphrey 1977 By all measures, we fail.
The organization of American life, particularly work, is profoundly anti-family across the board. It is really organized against caring for people in many respects, but the anti-family aspects present the most glaring contradictions. It is exceptionally difficult to raise a family on one income unless it is a very large one, yet we know that children do benefit from a parent who can be very flexible about work even if they are not able to stay home full time. The school day is not aligned with the work day. Paid sick leave is not universally available. Paid parental leave is not universally available. We encourage people to move from place to place to place seeking more income, or a cheaper retirement, or something, leaving extended family networks frayed. We don't teach the basics of making a home as extensively as we used to and need to. Everyone needs basic finances, home economics, and shop. These are life skills. We don't have universal health care. Child care is both expensive for parents and pays poverty wages to the staff. The same manages to be true of in-home or nursing care for seniors.
5
I am a dedicated Democrat who will never vote republican and yet, I am just tired of hearing that the left has it right. The neoliberals are absolutely not family oriented. True the Republicans have no concerns for working families -- their tax structure favors the wealthy, they are against making health care and education affordable, and they will not even reconsider raising the minimum wage. However, the rampant entitlements that Democrats distribute among the non-tax paying class is also a form of abuse to the working families. Dems refuse to even acknowledge the elephant in the room: we have a terrible situation with illegal immigration --are we supposed to inherit all Mexicans? With the amount of tourism income, why will Mexico not invest in stabilizing its own economy? I have visited Mexico and I have visited the middle east-- the situation in the middle east is far too dire than in Mexico. Then there are some strata of social class that just will not get educated to move up and then there are the unions. Teachers in California want to make as much as a software engineer but feel super entitled for the 3 months of summer break and lifelong pensions + health care-- they are already earning more than a software engineer. The K-12 public education is terrible in California and there is no sign of improvement. Ashamed to call it a democrat led state.
1
This is not a binary issue. The left is far more family friendly than the right, which pursues distinctly hostile tax and social policy. That's well-established and this article should call them out. The nuclear family has come under attack by liberals (a writer in Harper's recently called the nuclear family a prison for women) (really), and that's quite wrong-headed. It's still the most stable environment for raising children. But it isn't the same as enacting policies that deliberately militate against family through perverse taxes and welfare policies that are designed to be difficult to access.
And *anyone* who argues that trump's policy of taking children away from their families is deranged. They may be coming for *my* job, but the policy is still heartless and mean.
3
I concluded many years ago that our government policies do not support families simply because our income was so modest while our taxes were so high. More importantly, it became more and more clear that our poor neighbors were being blamed and punished for their poverty no matter how they got there. And it started to look very easy to get there. Government policies never seem to take into account the accidents that life hands out, the kind that send people down the economic spiral. Policies tend to be untethered to human experiences.
5
The United States is hardly a nation of modest income and high taxes compared with other developed nations. Per capita income is quite high, and per capita taxes are very low. Your problems are inequality and a cruel refusal on the part of the wealthy to share *any* of their bounty.
6
The 2018 template for a "typical" American two-parent family---across all economic classes---finds that most all families REQUIRE both parents to work a full time job to maintainn their economic status/class or, more often than not, just to barely pay their family living expenses.
Back in the "bad old days" of sexist patriarchy, most families could survive and even prosper with only one parent---stereotypically, the male partner holding down a full time job.
Now, in our wonderful post-modern economy both mother and father have to work a combined 80-100 hrs a week,
just to survive, or "keep up with the Jones' of their particular class.
Of course, the omnipresent affluence of EASY CREDIT allowsthe addictive illusion of consumptive consumer bliss, while most families have no money in savings, and squirreling away scant disposable income for "college funds" or retirement plans is realistically improbable if not impossible.
In the early 20th century the 40 hour work week not only the legal norm, but the simple reality for at least most american families. (excepting the jim crow and "white trash perpetual underclasses.....)
But, at least now, hardworking Mom and Pop can talk or text themselves at work & cyber checking on their latchkey kids, to make sure there's plenty of stuff in the freezer so those kids can make themselves a post modern supper sans parents, but maybe with a sibling as "company".
Yes, the modern American Family: the envy of the world?
1
Here's what should be at the top of this article.
See Washington Post June 6: An explosive U.N. report shows America’s safety net was failing before Trump’s election. June 6.
Quote—
“In 2016, a “shockingly high” number of children were living in poverty — about 13.3 million, or 18 percent of them — the U.N. report states, with government spending on children near the bottom of the international pack.
40 million Americans live in poverty and 18.5 million in extreme poverty.
The U.S. has the highest rate of income inequality among Western countries and one of the lowest rates of intergenerational social mobility.
Americans live shorter and sicker lives compared to citizens of the other rich democracies.
The U.S. is the only country in the world not to have ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
And on Fathers Day we are reminded of the shocking fact that the US has the largest % of population incarcerated of any nation. This leaves millions of children without their father. And we must criticize how badly the US supports their mothers in jobs, pay and health care.
Now with things worsening under Trump, I haven’t seen mention of this UN report on any 24/7 TV cable news shows . NYT only has a short AP sum up, instead of the in depth analysis we need. Columnists have ignored it. Why?
7
Such draw dropping absurdity---- "Liberals, critics charge, say children should not be separated from their parents and yet condone relatively easy divorce and single parenthood."
What idiotic exaggeration and confusion. These things have nothing to do with each other. The critics can't think up anything better? What century are we in?
It's not a question of 'condoning'. In any modern society, people must be able to divorce. Disapproval of divorce belongs to a past age. Most people don't get divorced casually, anyway.
A single parent must be supported not condemned to help create healty families. It's not a question of 'condoning', it's just decency. In most advanced countries, child allowances and support are a centrist norm---here it's painted as left wing.
America's Taliban should move to another country where they'd fit in with authoritarian social norms.
4
Yes, it is absurd. Just as the republicans don't want abortions but would ready separate a gown up child from his/her mother. Sorry--we as a nation suck when it comes to family values.
1
Good public transportation is a big factor in being able to look for work, and get to work once employed.
Economist Joseph Stiglitz said the U.S. has to make it easier for people all along the income distribution spectrum to participate in the labor force. “It’s really hard if you’re poor to get to work. We don’t have good public transportation systems."
This especially affects women and steady employment.
In many places in the US you need a car, and that's a big expense. If it breaks down and repairs are too expensive, a parent can lose a job, affecting family support. If all family members have access to dependable, affordable transport to jobs, then family security is greatly enhanced----both economically and psychologically.
4
The essence of this article is that our politicians and our lawmakers are hypocrites. This is a good article and I agree. But hasn’t this been obvious for a long time. The question is whether the voters will care and vote them out.
1
Americans espouse that they love families, but that's all they do is "espouse" that sentiment. Far too many Americans are more interested in blaming and punishing those families who fall short of some arbitrary standard(s).
Face it, if Americans truly placed families first, they'd never vote for any Republican... and there are plenty of conservative Democrats who'd never be elected to office either.
As for single parents, there are lots of successful ones in the USA. By and large, single parents succeed when they have better than living-wage jobs, good healthcare and other benefits from their jobs, and access to quality, reliable, and affordable childcare. Missing any of those elements makes it difficult for even two-parent families to succeed, even harder for single parents.
The problems families face will never be ameliorated unless Americans start matching the values they espouse with the actions they take, including how they vote.
5
Back in the 1950s and 60s, thanks to a booming post war economy and widespread unionization, it was possible for most American families to survive on one paycheck. Dad went to work. Mom took care of the house and kids. This way of life for most families is just a memory today yet it is a potent memory that causes us to blame ourselves if we struggle and keeps us from doing what we need to do in order to enact the sort of family support we need.
I predicted this in 1978 when I first became aware of two-income households and the rhetoric of equal pay. Prices are set by supply and demand, and having two working parents increased the demand but not the supply, especially of housing. Now it takes two incomes to do what one used to.
I'd like to predict something about American economic life that will be generally easier in the future, but I can't think of it. All the vectors seem to be pointing the other direction.
Oh, please.
I assure you that it is possible to support an entire family on one moderate or even lower income, if you live like people did back in the halcyon days everyone harks back to. That would include 4-6 people in a 1,000 sq ft house (or smaller apartment) with one bathroom, a tiny kitchen, one telephone shared by all, one TV, one car, not so many clothes (ever notice the small closets in those houses?), little dining out, probably no air travel, probably no college for the offspring, few options if you got cancer or had a dire accident, no cable TV, internet or electronic gadgets (I remember my dad makiing a rare splurge in the early 70s on a TI handheld calculator that cost $100, and the neighbors came over to marvel at it), etc etc.
Kids weren't spending thousands of dollars a year on extracurriculars, they were playing ball on the lawn with a mitt from Kmart or Sears. They weren't going to DC or NYC on school field trips, or space camps or other expensive jaunts at tweens and teens.
It is more than possible to live like that now in many parts of the country, including my area which has great school systems that feed the Big 10 and Ivies. Perfectly adequate houses of about 1,000 square feet are available in this safe community that has about zero crime for about $150K.
People who want all the trappings and conveniences of 2017 AND kids AND a stay-home mom AND college AND vacations AND a retirement fund are being unrealistic. It was never thus.
3
You should be able to live on a single income in any place where you can buy a house for 150k. Throw on 100k in expansion and improvements, and you're housing your family for 1/2 of what it costs in most places.
I agree about the space camps and expensive toys. The retail industry has done a fine job of upselling the cost of toys. In many places, it's difficult to find outdoor spaces to play sandlot baseball too.
Over years in working in the spheres of management, staff and independent contractor I've come to feel that business in America and family life are incompatible. I've worked for CEOs whose first requirement was "marriage" to the company before all else. Others have had low tolerance for employees who put family before company and have little desire to make an effort to alleviate the problems created by children and their need for care and attention.
There are companies that will make an effort and go the extra mile, but they are few and far between; at least, in my experience.
As far as the world of business is concerned, family is an impediment to performance.
But, why else would most people work and endure, if not for their families?
19
Trump has ruined this nation. Empathy = no longer operable. Not for migrants, families, children or those who are ill.
As Rep. Sen. John McCain battles brain cancer, the vengeful Trump still mocked him yesterday at a rally--- for his vote against the Republican bill to repeal Obamacare.
Right there Trump bragged about sabotaging American families' healthcare. And continued on about McCain:
"Nobody talked to him. Nobody needed to, and then he walked in: thumbs-down. It’s alright, because we’ve essentially gutted it anyway."
This is how cruel it all has become.
I miss Obama. And Michelle would've never worn Melania's offensive jacket with its deplorable, uncaring message.
What a nightmare we awaken to every morning.
22
Former Sec. of Labor, one of the best, Robert Reich said it well: By embracing a man whose only principles are winning and getting even, the Republican Party no longer stands for anything other than Trump. ....And make no mistake: Trump and the Republicans are working on behalf of America’s biggest and richest investors, not American workers.
20
I agree we shouldn’t separate the illegal immigrants/asylum seekers. They should be kept together and sent back to their countries together. These folks went through enough trauma in their countries and in getting to the US to be separated.
5
The single best family friendly policy the US could implement would be to either fix and fully implement the ACA; or to come up with a health care system like Canada’s; Switzerland’s; Isreal’s; etc. For most people, the savings in premiums, deductibles, and co-pays would more than cover new taxes. The security of knowing your health, and the health of your family, will be looked after allows people to be more productive. It allows them to be innovative and start new ventures or move to new environs, since they wouldn’t have to fear losing their health insurance. It frees them from the fear of medical bankruptcy; and from the task of begging over the internet for money for medical expenses. Best of all, this policy would equally benefit single people and those without children. There are many, many successful health care systems around the world to study. We should give up on the deluded Republican idea that somehow they can get the “free market” to deliver high quality, reasonably priced health care to all (or even to most). We have proved over and over that it cannot be done.
20
Then we could just wait in line like everyone in those countries but I digress.....
2
Well, I have to wait six months to see a specialist I need on a regular basis. Six months for a ten minute appointment. Oh, and I have to pay good money for that visit, plus more money for necessary medication. I also have to wait months for other tests. But I digress....
3
We wait in line here just as long or longer. A friend tried to get an appointment with a psychiatrist for his aging father, physically healthy but having many behavioral symptoms suggestive of dementia. He called every geriatric psychiatrist in the metro area. Either they were not taking patients, taking only cash patients, or the wait was ridiculously long. One clinic scheduler told him that the next available opening was next June, one year way. That's a very long time to wait for someone with emerging dementia.
8
This article is true. It’s all in the way we behave. Example: Americans by far, work longer and harder than people in other industrialized counties. Americans tend to have people other than family members, take care of their children, sick and elderly: all of whom are victims, to our need to live a reasonable quality of life.
Being the economic superpower that we are, Americans struggle to pay for rising healthcare costs, medication, and anxiety over Social Security and an uncertain future. All of this, straight in the crosshairs of a Republican House, that aims to gut these programs, literally putting 20 million people’s lives in the balance.
Who can find serenity amidst such madness?
10
Among the approaches that would help families the most would be mandating a living wage for the working poor. The lack of a living wage law is fought against very hard by businesses large and small for a selfish reason—it results in the American taxpayer contributing directly to the profits of a business. When a worker does not earn enough to support his/her family, the difference is made up by taxpayers, because we don’t want to see people starving to death. The Abrahamic religions despise such an outcome, so we support those families with government help. The logical result is that that support is equivalent to pouring taxpayer money into the profits gained by those businesses. We have two choices to stop my taxes from going into the coffers of the already wealthy; we can allow people to starve, or we can require businesses to pay a living wage.
8
Define living wage. What should a low skill earner provide, at what level of luxury and for how many people?
1
In Denmark the minimum wage is 16.5 USD. And you can buy a McDonald burger for 4 USD.
We prefer the Norman ROckwell Family. That was embedded in our mind decades a go thanks to the now defunct Saturday Evening Post. His cover paintings still represent for many the ideal of AMerica and its culture.
The families produced by Globalization and the invasion of Hispanic Migrants - do not represent America for many of us. The symbol is PUSH 1 for English - Trump grew up with that America too.
No politician running for office every asked if we wanted to see the country transformed in this manner. Many are surprised to learn that we didn't want this to happen and our surprised at the backlash.
1
We have two major political conflicts. The Constitution says that: “We the People…ordain the government” while at the same time ultra-funded organizations hold our elected official hostage by controlling the amount of funds they have for their campaigns and making almost over threats to launch negative campaigns against them if they don’t toe-the-line and vote the way these organizations tell them to vote promising to manipulate the voters into thinking the way the organization wants them to.
The interests of these ultra-funded organizations isn’t always aligned with what is good for people or families, but they are good for the people who fund the organizations. Until We the People can make it so that our elected officials don’t have to raise funds to campaign we are stuck with a political system that is going to be aligned with the interests of the funders of the ultra-funded organizations that can manipulate how We the People think as well as exert pressure on elected officials to do as they are told.
9
A NYT article "The Big Money Behind the Push for an Immigration Overhaul" from 11/14/14 said, "When President Obama announces major changes to the nation’s immigration enforcement system as early as next week, his decision will partly be a result of a yearslong campaign of pressure by immigrant rights groups, which have grown from a cluster of lobbying organizations into a national force. A vital part of that expansion has involved money: major donations from some of the nation’s wealthiest liberal foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Open Society Foundations of the financier George Soros, and the Atlantic Philanthropies. Over the past decade those donors have invested more than $300 million in immigrant organizations, including many fighting for a pathway to citizenship for immigrants here illegally."
4
Ann, et al.,
Yes there are huge sums of cash on both sides of the range of political thought. That, regardless of the ideology of the source, is the problems. Neither extreme position is 100% correct in it's assessment of problems and proposed solutions.
This cash removes the process that has seen this country grow - compromise. History tells us that generally when we push through a law without any compromise it usually is a bad law.
Regardless of the topic, everything we humans do is complex and does not submit to a simple single solution. I prefer a messy and compromising system to that of a self-assured simplistic dictatorship. Dictatorships do not do well. Russia, North Korea, and the other dictatorships don't have a border problem other than everyone is trying to leave.
1
Since Reagan first cut taxes, the wealthiest 5% have gone from owning 40% of America to 75%. Conservative values promoting a strong family, and strong religion-rooted patriarchy, can keep families vibrant and strong. But those who promote these conservative values in Congress really just want tax cuts on the wealthy and regulations written so obtusely they are essentially ungovernable. If it got them the votes, they would as easily promote devil-worship. The result is seen throughout history: as conservative values are promoted through government, the rich get richer and the poor get religion. The wise man (Greenspan) said "The Iraq War was about oil." So is Trumps "War on the Elitists". If you don't like abortion don't get one. And if you insist that, through government, neither should anybody else? Then take a closer look at those guys protesting next to you. They don't care about the unborn: They are there for all the other goodies that come with such a misuse of state power.
5
All them furious comments about feeding immigrants children instead of our poor. You don't want to feed our poor children either so stop the righteous fury.
15
How does one even begin to raise a child in a land where lying is more rewarded than truth-telling
12
Let's start small. Stop punishing couples financially for staying married. Stop shaming women who chose to raise their children instead of work. Stop with the bigoted hatred of American cultures that value stay at home parents.
9
Right, because we stay at home parents are only worried about our delicate little egos. We demand lip service appreciation - not. I’ll tell you, the only reason conservatives praise stay at home parents is because conservatives assume they are working on their own dime. Poor stay at home parents, who might need food support? Those people are moochers! and we need stricter work requirements. No welfare queens, having babies just so they can collect public benefits! The only thing conservatives really value is money. This is why you can go on social media and find dozens of Go Fund Me pages where parents are trying to drum up money for their children’s health care. Conservatives obviously believe that forcing parents, even the stay at home ones, to beg for money for their sick children is preferable to providing publicly funded health insurance for children. But sure, pretend it is all about “bigoted hatred” of stay at home parents. The hypocrisy of conservatives and their smug assumption of the victim’s mantle are truly breathtaking.
9
So you’re a Democrat who supports family- and child-friendly policies like maternity leave, FMLA, and fair wages that enable one parent to stay at home, right? Great! Read the Democratic & Republican Party platforms to see which party fights for families with real life, evidence-based, not merely symbolic, solutions. Avoid the logical fallacy of false equivalence. Vote accordingly in November. Encourage your fellow parents to do the same.
Constructive thoughtful action is needed to counter those who whip up our emotions for their own ends. Our votes and the candidates we support prove our TRUE motivations, priorities, and values, period. Not voting does the same. NO EXCUSES. Those ballots don’t mark themselves after all. Let’s hold ourselves strictly accountable for those whom we elect and quit the lazy blame game.
2
Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras…
The political oppression and gang violence is overwhelmingly horrible and severe. We’ve heard their stories: The family farm burned, the mule shot, the daughter forced into prostitution and the son now a reluctant drug smuggler for the cartels. Horrible! Absolutely Horrible! No wonder over 30,000 people each month try to enter to the United States illegally! Can we blame them? Fast forward to the television remote control and let’s watch some cable, United States TV! Travel Channel, FoodNetwork, Gourmet Channel, Vacation Channel .. all making the same trips to these allegedly, “horrible countries,” telling Americans this is the place for delicious food, attractive women, handsome men, relaxing cultural atmosphere Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla .. Who now is telling the truth and who is lying? If the oppressed people fleeing these nations are telling the truth- should we not immediately [#MeToo] protest these Central American nations? Why spend a dime there supporting their economies- while their governments and social deviants continue to torture and displace their own people?
9
It's not rocket science: Both is right. What have good food and attractive women to do with gang violence? Does gang violence make food boring and women ugly so there's a contradiction?
US propaganda focusses on the white nuclear family. Black and brown families are considered undesirable. Gay and lesbian families are considered undesirable, if they are considered families at all. Ditto families headed by single women. The US is essentially a state corporation at this point, and children are not yet full consumers, so they are useless. Republicans say they are pro-family, but they are only pro gun, pro military (exportable and unregulated death machine), and pro corporation. Children are vermin because they need support and assistance. We need a Secretary of Consumer Rights; we need a Family Secretary. We need a progressive tax structure that requires the 1% to reinvest in the society that enabled them. We need to legislatively link workers' wages to CEO salaries. We need to abolish the Senate and the second amendment. We need publicly funded education K-16. The UN is indeed right to focus on poverty in the US; they should also remove our status as a democracy. We are none. Families are only the canaries in the coal mine at this point, gasping for oxygen.
12
Americans Love Families. American Policies Don’t.
It seems to me, Americans only like white families. If this was happening to white families, it wouldn't stand and well all know it.
8
So???
If you don't like the USA, g find a country you like and move there. No one is holding you back.
8
That would be the childish approach to a problem. Adults work to solve problems and injustice when they see them, rather than running away to a safe space.
14
Excuse me, did this really just equate children separated from their parents at the border with children of divorce??
8
And single parenthood. Because a parent who isn't interested in being involved in their child's life is EXACTLY the same as a child being taken from an involved parent, right?
1
This article isn't about what I thought it was going to be about. I'm beginning to feel that the border situation stories is getting overplayed.
8
What utter tripe!
And it is coming from the "newspaper" that imagines itself as the oracle of truth, and which is imagined as such by the supposedly educated erudite progressive/liberal elite.
The truth is that not one other major country in the world,
nor any other country (major or minor) that is even half-way as "advanced" (in terms of GDP) has immigration laws that allow legal family-based immigration on any significant scale, and certainly not on anywhere near the scale that the USA allows it. Not Canada, not Australia, not one country in Europe (including the sanctimonious Scandinavian countries), not Russia, not Japan, not Korea, not China, not India nor any other South Asian country, not Indonesia nor any other Southeast Asian country, and certainly not Mexico and certainly not one of any other Latin American country, many of which have as much or more land or other natural resources per capita as the USA.
Other countries either to not allow any significant immigration a all, or restrict it to rich folks who can buy their way in, or restrict it to persons of demonstrated ethnicity (e.g. many of the sanctimonious European countries) or religion, or restrict it to temporary admission for demonstrated work skills or restrict it to temporary admission for low-skill work at low wages well below the per capita income of natives (e.g. the Persian Gulf countries), and in both cases, the temporary admission is strictly enforced so as not allow conversion into permanent status.
18
Apparently you didn't actually read the article, because the article is about pro-family policies, not immigration policies.
5
I went with the photo and its caption at the start of the NYT story.
If the NYT does not want comments on a subject different than their text, they should not put a photo at the start of the text that is on a subject different than their text.
How foolish of the NYT to assume you would read an article before leaping on your favorite hobby horse and galloping off in all directions!
Every other country has understood the future will belong to countries strong in:
Education
Infrastructure
The Koch and Mercer families who apparently decide US policy have decided otherwise, Good bye America.
14
The article presents a false equivalency between left and right.
Right-wing "family values" promote the autocratic, patriarchal, heterosexual family, in which women have little freedom. The term is also a cover for denial of equal rights to gays.
The Left promotes choice, which means less restrictive divorce laws and support for single parents. The article implies that these are bad things.
5
The authors make important points. The subtext would seem to be not glaring inconsistencies, but a system designed to function to function for the better-off under a veil of family-friendly sloganeering.
Domestic violence law and policy is a mess. The GOP once again sets its sights on Social Security and Medicare. Schools are perennially underfunded, and Betsy DeVos will lead the charge. Mass incarceration for non-violent drug offenses has destroyed minority communities. The programs we know work--Head Start, wraparound care, more services in schools, universal health care, trauma-informed care for children, diversion programs for teens, and a civil rights division in DoJ that serves those who need it in stead of pretending persecution of evangelicals is anything but crass political payback.
And Trump's policies? Make the poor work for their bread crumbs. More prison time. Provide expensive insurance that doesn't cover basics like pre-existing conditions, or women's reproductive health. More Soviet-style border cruelty.
Any assault on the poor is by definition targeting people of color, who are disproportionately poor. But let's say we were to NOT pay .55 of every federal income tax dollar into the military (don't laugh--for 'security'). Where would it go? With the current parasites in charge, you can be sure it would serve their connected base of elites / funders.
Turns out it's easy to get poor people to vote--when they bother--against their economic self-interests.
5
Strange that we are just now discovering this. But then people don't believe me when I tell them that families have lots of time together in those evil socialist countries of Europe. In the U.S., we don't have anywhere near enough time together. We have limited vacation time, limited holiday time. Also, the evil Socialists don't have to worry about health care or their kids' college educations. These two issues alone cause tremendous stress in families, despair, and lots of overtime, second jobs, and tears. If we started looking around the world instead of thinking we were the center of the universe, we would begin thinking, "Yes, we can."
17
Let's be clear about one thing: Democrats support families, Republicans don't (contrary to what they say). Words without action are meaningless.
In EVERY area of life, Democrats have policies to enable families to thrive. Health care, education, gun control, nutrition, family leave and child care, reproductive rights - Republicans are MIA.
The greatest threat to America has been perpetrated by Republican party propaganda. For some reason, they've been successful. The results couldn't be clearer.
America is dying as a country thanks to Republicans. If they aren't defeated, the future will be bleak.
11
Can't keep throwing my tax dollars at so many social programs or I will be in those programs
4
Dear NYC dweller, If you refuse to "throw" your tax dollars to strengthen the social safety net, it will be *gone* when you need it yourself.
You, and I, and every non-millionaire always live on the edge of bankruptcy.
It will take just one major medical event, permanent layoff, or unforeseeable crisis that destroys our home and makes even the land it was on uninhabitable--just one--to push us over the edge.
You might feel certain that you can overcome every possible adversity by sheer strength of will. You might be wrong.
3
I've been screaming about America's war on its children for years.
This article would have been better if you took a social democracy like France, Germany or Sweden and directly compared its family and child benefits and contrasted it to the U.S.
Two decades or so ago you did such a contrast with Norway that shone the light on primitive American anti-child brutality.
8
We do not need children here. We can import all the future workers and consumers we ever will need.
Therefore, have kids at your own risk -- don't expect the rest of us to subsidize your lifestyle choice. We are busy working to fund what WE consider of value in this one shot at life here on planet earth -- which in my case is not destroying the environment and other species.
3
The American tendency is to love OUR OWN families. Others' families? not so much.
4
At issue is the concept of “deserving poor” vs. “undeserving poor.” Tranditionalists say to poor people who can’t afford kids, “don’t have kids!” When they do have kids and ask for “support,” traditionalists oppose what they see as handouts. And when migrants come with kids and ask for subsidies and welfare, traditionalists balk.
When parents make bad decisions, traditionalists want to help the kids but not reward the parents. Hence the dichotomy in the way kids and parents are treated.
The progressive left doesn’t distinguish between “deserving” and “undeserving” circumstances. To the traditional right, this is the key fundamental issue. The result is that the two sides cannot converse since they see the issue through completely different prisms.
2
"“For people on the left who have condemned separating kids from parents, that logic would apply to other family issues they wouldn’t be so happy about, like divorce and single parenthood,” said Brad Wilcox, a sociologist at the University of Virginia and a researcher at right-leaning family research groups."
Clearly someone who does not understand that divorced parents can parent effectively and help their children live happy, productive lives.
6
If we loved families - other than our own - we would have decent healthcare for all, we'd have much cheaper drug prices like the rest of the world does, we'd have mandatory maternity leave and paid sick leave, we'd have a Federal minimum wage that had the same purchasing power that $7.25 had 25 years ago - at least $12.50 per hour. We'd pay our teachers significantly more so that they would stay in education. We would have very low cost mental healthcare for all. We'd have ads everywhere showing little kids holding tablets and smart phones - and saying: Put Down the Electronic Babysitter and Read with your child.
6
Once again we're given false equivalencies in a Times analysis piece.
'"For people on the left who have condemned separating kids from parents, that logic would apply to other family issues they wouldn’t be so happy about, like divorce and single parenthood,” said Brad Wilcox, a sociologist at the University of Virginia and a researcher at right-leaning family research groups.'
See the preceding paragraph to that one.
So forcible separation of children from parents seeking asylum by the US government is equivalent to people having the choice to divorce or be a single parent? That this quote is highlighted at all in the commentary is questionable. That the false logic in the quote is not exposed is entirely another.
I'm beginning to have concerns about what sort of news organization the NYT will be in a decade.
7
If your ethics is anchored in radical capitalism and your chief value is profit, how can there be room for children, the elders, the disabled? Care for children and the rest, when no one is profiting from it, is a waste of labor. These old and young people don’t produce capital, they don’t work, but only mooch off others. America hates them all. (Embryos excepted...they are hardly in the way of profit making...innocent, you might say)
5
If you love children, the first thing you do is take care of pregnant women, married or unmarried. The next thing you do is make contraception, childcare and healthcare available to all and all work pay a living wage for at least one parent and one child. Everything else is up to the parent and extended family and private charities and churches. From this baseline of support, a mother can marry a productive, responsible and loving man to help raise children and provide a higher income. She can improve her own earning ability by getting more education. Government can't do and shouldn't try to do everything for every family, but it can provide a foundation for families to help themselves.
10
Last time I checked, women didn’t impregnate themselves. How ‘bout Republican men take some of that personal responsibility they’re always flapping their gums about.
4
"Families"? No.
What American policies love are dynasties.
Families aren't the point. What happens to a family this year or in five years is of no political concern. Preservation of familiar wealth and privilege are the objective. In that regard, families are corporate entitles. They're in for the long game, so the thinking on their behalf is for fifty or a hundred years ahead.
2
"Family" need not necessarily mean breeders and offspring. There are many different compositions of families. Most of which are not recognized by politicians or public policy.
The day I pay the same federal income tax rate as a breeder at the exact same income level is the day I will get on board with more help for "families."
6
Americans love their own families (maybe), but not other people’s families. That is a big difference from saying that America is a place that values families in a way that makes all our lives better and more hopeful.
4
My husband and I work in technology and by all standards we make a good living. Yet, we often wonder how the other parents at our neighborhood daycare can afford multiple children. I gasped when I saw a mom with a toddler and twin babies. Good God, that must cost about $5K per month! Who can afford that?!
What about college? We save $600 per month for our toddlers college which is by no means extravagant. When considering a 2nd child, the price tag seemed daunting. As it is, our daycare and college fund are significantly more expensive than our mortgage.
I certainly feel like this country discourages people in our economic bracket from having children.
19
The rhetorical emphasis needs to be placed upon
children, not families. It's all too easy to use an
ideological or religious pretext to justify opposing
any policy of the type this society so desperately
needs if it can be labelled as "pro family". Most
opposition looks at that and (silently) asks if it'll help the
families I am comfortable with being around. If not,
it is easy to articulate opposition based upon
the all too usual vacuous ("nanny state") or irrelevant (t"ax credits suffice") pretexts, and feel safe and secure in
doing so.
Putting the emphasis upon the beneficiaries, that is,
children makes this rationalized indifference harder
to maintain with a straight face of benign indifference, though of course, animosity to the other, of whatever composition,
is so deeply built into certain parts of the society, that harder
does not mean impossible.
Still, keeping the focus on children,
not families would seem helpful in crossing over our social chasm with those who genuinely feel the need to do so. That would be a helpful first step.
2
There are many people without children who feel strongly that they want no responsibility for other people's children. And there are people with one or two kids who don't want to feel responsible for people with 4 or 5. Obviously, children are our future whether they are ours or not, so supporting them makes sense. But not everyone feels that way. And even I balk at the idea of families accruing increasing government benefits as their number of kids increases. At least the word "family" has a more inclusive meaning than just adults and their related children. One example would be a couple without children living with and supporting an aging or disabled parent or other relative. That's a "family".
16
'' As the left sees it, government plays an essential role protecting and supporting families, through programs like Medicaid or a higher minimum wage. To the right, it seems government too often burdens families, who need lower taxes and less regulation. ''
Correction
As the left sees it, government plays an essential role protecting people. (if they happen to be in families, then all efforts are to keep them together and offer other incentives)
To the right, it seems that government too often burden rich people and corporations that need lower taxes and less regulation for themselves only.
Glad to be of help.
12
True. Americans love families. But only their own! All the familial bonds of non-Americans don't exist. They don't matter. Fleeing away from terror, murders and rape is not an instinctive reaction but a deliberate, motivated action to illegally enter this country with greener pastures.
I saw an illegal video of animal farms by the HPCA. It showed newborn suckling calves being forcefully pulled away from their mothers and just hurled into the back of a truck, one over the other - for veal! That was heart-wrenching to hear the desperate, distressed cows ' maa-ing ' and the calves who can hardly stand up, making feeble sounds, being stampeded. Just like the inhumane treatment of terrified people escaping death on our southern border. The forceful snatching and separating the innocent children from their parents is no different. Except these little ones are sobbing and crying, repeatedly calling for their ' Mama ' and ' Papa '! And we are talking about human beings here just like us - not cows and calves. How did Americans get here - totally inhumane and totally cruel?
7
I imagine that Mexico, Honduras, etc., must be even less family-friendly than the U.S. if families are trying to illegally come across. Maybe our support should start there.
13
@Mima: “what would have been…”
Oh, goodness, one just can't seem to let it go.
Hillary Clinton said ‘no, never’ to single payer; had a secret server in the basement of her upstate country house; just could not find tens of thousands of emails, many of which ended up on Anthony Weiner's laptop; Russia apparently engaged in a massive act of cyber war against the United States motivated apparently primarily because of HRC; her campaign sabotaged Sanders and then froze him out; let's not forget as HRC stated 'one has to have a public and a private position'; throw in (advance notice) Brazile and (who cares about DNC neutrality) Wasserman; then there’s the fiasco of Benghazi for Clinton--oh, right, it’s America’s fault because somebody made a video--wrong; or how about "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders…." That is not the perspective I want a US President to have. As far as I’m concerned, No Border? No Country. Finally, they are illegal immigrants. Illegal. And actually, demonstrating some very poor parenting choices. To quote the NYT: “This is the reason I brought a minor with me,” said Guillermo T., 57, a construction worker who recently arrived in Arizona…he had been told that bringing his 16-year-old daughter would assure passage. He asked that only his first named be used to avoid consequences with his immigration case. “She was my passport,” he said of his daughter.
11
"Immigrant" Families? Seriously? How clueless can you be. ILLEGAL immigrant families who come and crash our borders and illegally consume resources needed for our own poor families. You mean the very same people who game our system. No, sorry I care a lot about families. Families of American citizens. Families of immigrants who come here legally. Shame on you.
14
Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor, as is submitting false information on your federal tax return. Should we cage the children of everyone who lies on their 1040 about how much they gave away in charitable donations?
2
As a lifelong Democratic voter of progressive tilt, I agree with your distinction and am tired of hearing my fellow progressives and all Democrats draw no distinction between legal immigrants and legitimate asylum seekers and those entering or staying illegally for no other reason that economics. I must keep voting Democratic for other important reasons but I feel disrespected and ignored by the party's immigration ideology. If the party cannot tell the difference between legal and illegal, something is rotten at its core.
7
Jesus had a bleeding heart.
3
Over population is a very serious global issue. People need to biologically stop having kids and ADOPT !!!
It is egotistical and selfish for people to biologically reproduce.
12
Amen.
I'd rather save a whale, bee, rhino, monarch butterfly or elephant than have the fruits of my labor go to support the production of more obese, over-consuming American walmart shoppers.
There is zero social good these days in producing western children -- hence the pushback from those of us capable of thinking beyond our own selfish wants and emotional urges.
3
Yes. Mother, grandmother, teacher here. After I had my own children and witnessed policy in my life on all those fronts I have maintained that this country does not like children. Now we have even harsher evidence: Sandy Hook; Flint Michigan; withholding CHIPs; separating families. In addition to other slights (food deserts, no family leave, lack of health care, unequal access to education) we seem willing to murder, poison, and traumatize children.
13
Americans know that any government that can provide a soft, cushy lifestyle for its citizens can also inflict a horrible, dehumanizing lifestyle on them. We believe it's better to provide for ourselves than to turn our fates over to a government. That's why the Constitution (attempts to) limit the power of government. Other countries want the soft, cushy lifestyle so bad they're willing to surrender their right to provide for and protect themselves. History has proven that they invariably come to regret this weakness.
1
And like so many articles about “ family values,” nothing is mentioned about all of us who lack family or come from really bad families. Dysfunctional families abound, but we deny their existence and the deleterious effects they have on our entire society.
8
Right.
How many kids are going to be bashed around today by mommy's boyfriend du jour because he doesn't like them crying or soiling? How many women will leave kids in hot cars to go gamble, get high or get laid? How many kids will not be read to, talked to or cuddled?
The mere ability to pop a human out of one's womb doesn't make one a good parent. What we need to do is discourage early and indiscriminate breeding, not pick the pockets of actual taxpayers to come up with even more financial rewards for doing so.
1
This is a simplistic polemic that offers no insight whatsoever.
The courts and congress have made a mess of this for twenty years and President Obama and now Trump have had to tolerate the shouting from the cheap seats.
Time for a grown up conversation about how we address this problem in the near term and in the long term.
6
Simple: eVerify.
But the reality is that Republicans, particularly farm and food processing interests, want the illegal aliens.
1
Oh please...Americans do not love families.
Sure, I imagine a healthy proportion love their own families, but what Americans really love is their idea of families.
I mean that literally: if your family isn't like someone else's idea of a family they're just as likely to hate it, and you, and go out their way to make sure you know it.
In the more abstract, all it takes is a quick stroll through "the inner city" or one of the thousands of our deep[y depressed rural communities to gauge the level of love we bear for families.
Its less than zero.
We blame, condemn, demand, and chastise, but we never, ever help in a meaningful way.
Yes, we give people some money, some food, some government cheese. But we do it by hanging little bags of pennies in administrative hoops and watch to see who will jump, how high.
We never, ever make people whole and help them on their way. We offer them just enough to make it not quite to the next grudging hand-out, and while they're collecting we make certain they know what an evil life they chose to live, how unworthy they are, and how unbelievably generous are we.
Some Americans do love families liberally and with cynical generosity, until their kids are born. Then not only are all bets off, we punish them for daring to bring the child we formerly doted on into their subhuman world.
The globe is littered with nations that take concrete steps to provide meaningful, livable support. Americans do not want to be one of those.
13
Let us know the names of all those other countries that that "provide meaningful, livable support." Maybe a few in certain parts of Europe -- but then only for their own citizens or those who manage to get past their strict immigration laws.
2
Statuatory maternity pay in England is less than $200 a week (or less) -- I can only imagine American women screaming if that's what we offered them. People harking to the UK or Europe really don't know what they are talking about, they are parroting lines from aritcles like this one.
The Independent Global Index on Family (IGIF) ranks US 29th, for starters.
The Netherlands, Lithuania, Iceland, Spain, Bhutan, Japan, Israel, Australia, Luxembourg for Pete's sake. Yes, basically every EU country, and no, not all deny immigrants benefits (sorry, ILLEGAL immigrants).
And if you're from France, say, and live in Ireland or Cyprus, you'll still receive French benefits.
This is just family benefits. Let's not forget the free health care and generous retirement pensions.
I could go on.
1
America and very often the US government has been promoting numerous activities, incentives and “public speak” for the past 60 years which minimizes “the family unit”. Why all the shock, surprise and concern now? We as a nation reap what we sow. “You can chose to ignore reality but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”
5
Yes, there are all these contradictions between talk and policy. But the main point is that children should always have access--no separation--to at least one parent, ideally to both, but they need one anchor. If push comes to shove they could have as a substitute a grandparent--but they should never be locked up themselves and left without any close parent at hand. And yes, reform prison policy. It does not only unnecessarily punish the prisoner, it punishes his or her children by banning touching and a more human context--even if only during spaced out visits. Medieval.
7
Jail and prison visitation and communication policies affect not just small children but all family members. If you have a family member imprisoned who has a life-threatening medical condition, you really have no way of knowing whether he is getting the medical attention he needs. People die in jail and prison. Those are people who are loved by their families.
3
I don't believe it - in the general sense in which your title is offered. American conservatives like families that "look like them" - white, heterosexual, English speaking, working, and educated.
Of course even American conservatives don't meet that description - but that's a fiction embraced by the Trumpists (our own brand of Islamists molded by a twisted version of the American dream).
It is also true that US policies do not sufficiently support families of all types. That's a traditional prejudice found in our feckless Congress and Senate as they design laws to win primaries, exploit gerrymandering, and retain their power and their lifestyles.
I truly hope that Republican's practice of self-worship and bigotry will soon come to an end (to paraphrase Russel Crowe in Gladiator warning Comidus).
6
America loves families, rich families, with all the education and jet trips to Europe that they need.
Doesn't it all come down to the deliberate racism and classism that the investor class mandates, through their tools, Congress?
I grew up in a pretty, relaxed, very white Connecticut town, when schools were supported and the public universities were well financed. But when I went to Uconn, I noticed (1964) there were few black students not from Africa.
Today, it is us against them, the low income against the investor class, who own the politicians and run business. We are no longer one people, but now are drifting into a culture that feeds the children of the rich, and burdens the children of the poor to fight in foreign wars and for low wages.
Poverty kills families, as it steals their hopes and breaks their backs. And that poverty is built into the system, as the investor class cannot profit except by making the poor compete against the poor in China or Mexico.
America is the investor class, the rich. They are why we don't have family friendly laws and work regulations.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
10
I suggest that increasingly our leaders care much more about increasing the wealth of a few at the expense of everyone else including the family no matter it's structure. If families help increase profits...great, if destroying that which makes a family viable increases profits...great. The little bit of humane soul left in this country is quickly being wrapped in butcher paper and string and sold off to the highest bidding devil.
4
Americans love their own families. Mostly. Other families, not so much.
3
More than 40% of American babies are born on Medicaid which means their parents don’t have jobs with medical insurance. The Republican Party doesn’t care about American families they care only to reduce taxes and regulations for wealthy families while eliminating institutions, policies and protections for everyone else.
The Republican slogan should be, “I really don’t care about any of you!”
18
This should be the beginning of a long term in depth investigative journalism project. These two journalists have just acknowledged the tip of the iceberg.
The history of children and their families throughout history and the world and in these the supposedly United States is a at Best a minefield st worst multiple minefields.
Cornell West and Dallie Ann Hewitt wrote an entire book/ “ The Case Against Families” somewhere beyond twenty years ago.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moniyhsn himself s product of a single parent family did much academic research and Congressional work in this area.
There are other important tomes on this subject that must be brought from under the tbrown away rocks of surpressed memory.
The first White House Confetence on Children and Their Families was instituted by no other than Republicsn Teddy Roosevelt in 1909. There were many after and look wherever all are now!
I hope this really is a beginning and I would suggest to the writers to look far and derp. They might want to stop by The Library if Congress and speak to our Liberian Dr Carla Hayden. The Library had a great exhibit on the immigrant photographer Jacob Riis who helped turned the tide on help for immigrant children. I would also suspect she and her staff would have a treasure trove of materials for research and eventual dissemination.
2
So many commentators equate caring for families to government being one of the parents, probably unionized at that.. sounds warm and fuzzy yet in liberal strongholds there are so few traditional nuclear families and dads aren't needed. You will find strong Democrat political organizations perpetuating the mess.
5
What would you do?
Make divorce and single parenting illegal?
4
And yet, child-free single liberals like me in liberal enclaves STILL overwhelmingly vote Democrat. LGBTQ folks in non-traditional families do too. How ‘bout you folks in the party of personal responsibility take some for the candidates and party platform you support? You and you alone are responsible for the ugly barbaric values and behavior displayed by the current regime & the sheeple who follow them. The rest of us will not forgive you and will never forget.
2
The social upheaval in the 60s and 70s denigrated families as instruments of the loathed establishment. Even now there is an undercurrent that women who raise kids are instruments of the patriarchy and white norming society.
Having kids was uncool. You were not fulfilling your true potential in society if you had kids and actually wanted to be with them.
In CT, housing can in no way legally favor people with kids. That's discrimination based on family status.
Sure we love families but any policy that favors them is legally discriminating against people without them.
2
Well this is a start NYTimes, someone in the press has begun to think about American children and how many are separated from their parents and families because of the heroin drug situation, (much of it trafficked across the southern border, but we won't discuss that), inner city and rural crime, violence and poverty. I am black and I know many children being raised by one parent or grandparent because the other parent is in the criminal justice system. I knew many black children that have been murdered because of where they live. My mother just returned from Seattle, a beautiful city, but she couldn't believe the amount of homeless people with many problems just living on the street. They have children too. How many young Americans manage to make it through their troubled communities only to learn that their level of education didn't prepared them to compete well in university? If "migrants" have heard that "they" separate parents from their children at the border, then perhaps this isn't the way to arrive. Last summer we had to read countless articles about unaccompanied minors (some as young as preschool age!) crossing the border without parents. Hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied minors. Did you NYTimes forget? Many "migrants" weren't above doing that. I personally feel a little manipulated by this and I am getting angry enough to vote in ways I never thought I would. I live in NY and am too tired of watching Americans children suffer.
13
Thank you very much for this excellent, thoughtful, substantial, and discerning comment. This is exactly how I feel. It could not have been expressed better.
Thank you very much.
7
Policies sure don't support single people. So who exactly do American policies support?
6
Corporations! As Mitt Romney has said, “corporations are people, my friend.” US policy supports corporations.
2
The Trump administration seems to dislike everyone but the most heinous dictaor’s of the world, why should families be any different. The fact that Trump has no qualms about separating perhaps permanently families that have committed misdemeanors is chilling.
4
I am a U.S. citizen raising a child abroad. The ONLY advantage the United States has over our life in Europe is proximity to relatives.
The place dreadfully hostile to families.
19
The US is just plain repellent to cosmopolitans of any description.
4
It's disingenuous to say "people on the left" opposing family separation are hypocritical because they also want divorce and single parenthood to be possibilities for some people.
Family separation is a coercive, state-sponsored policy taking place without the consent of anyone involved.
In contrast, most "people on the left" don't think that divorce or single parenthood are ideal, but also realize that forcing people to remain in toxic or abusive relationships to preserve some notion of the sanctity of marriage is damaging to both parent and child.
4
How dare these authors (or anyone else) criticize the U.S.A.? Americans don't like reading or hearing about their precious U.S.A. being imperfect. We are, after all, "the greatest country in the world," and our way is undeniably the best!
Except when one looks at the data compiled in international studies focusing on economic and social standards. Generally, the U.S. doesn't even show up in the top 25 of nations with quality health care, access to good schools and technology, public services and transportation, etc. Yes, if you like fast food restaurants, big trucks, insurance commercials and the right to own guns, the U.S. is top dog, but god forbid you need to see a doctor (which might thrust you into bankruptcy) or pursue your educational dreams (which will shackle you with debt the rest of your life).
It won't be long before the last vestiges of the New Deal are dismantled by the current Republican Congress and Administration. The libertarian dream of the Koch's and others will be fulfilled. Once this happens, the economic and social divides between the wealthy elites and all the rest of us will sink the U.S more deeply into a banana republic status but at least we'll have a big army and no immigrants!
9
Gov't uses tax policy to 'bribe' families for votes. That's why their tax rates are lower than single taxpayers. They get tax credits and deductions for their spouse and children. More deductions for the education of their children.
One the other hand single taxpayers don't get these credits and deductions. Plus Single taxpayers have higher tax rates.
Why are single taxpayers forced to subsidize YOUR children?
3
Families, for conservatives in this country, are best characterized as the father working eight to five while the mother remains at home, taking care of the children and everyone goes off to church on Sunday morning. In that view, there is no need for government support. Unfortunately, that "ideal" disappeared decades ago. Pure economics and a desire by women to be more than housewives brought that era to an end.
It goes without saying that these same conservatives don't see "good" families when the parents are of the same sex (or are single), don't attend church or may be unemployed through no fault of their own. (Indeed, their own president referred to some of these people as inhabiting "breeding grounds last month).
Trump wants a return to the era described in the first paragraph as a way of making America great again. What he and his fellow idealists fail to grasp is that he has no economic strategy to support that goal and a massive younger demographic who want no part of it.
2
It wasn't that long ago that we thought of law enforcement as protecting the family. On my neighborhood website many online messages concern break-ins and other property crimes. The police are always called and sometimes they catch the perps. You can call this protecting neighborhood families or breaking up the perps' family. You seem to go with the latter. You wouldn't be very popular in my neighborhood.
3
We are all to blame; both parties have made “family” into a convenient political tool for some time and the masses eat it up with a spoon without any deep thinking of any policy consequences. I’d argue the GOP has done a better job of making it a political football but ultimately this is on the American voting public. If we really care about families (a vague term nowadays broadly defined) then we should vote in candidates who want:
better family leave work rights; decriminalize certain drugs and free incarcerated prisoners for minor drug offenses; higher education funding; equal pay for women; easy access to affordable health insurance; a higher minimum wage;
I could go on but my point is that only a sliver of Americans are beginning to support such candidates for public office. I would argue that more candidates who Back such policies could also help bring an end to the two party system stifling such progress
1
"Both parties"?
How have the Democrats done what you claim?
2
Please read up on logical fallacies, especially false equivalence. Thank you.
"Family" has become big juju -- a fetish for ideologists on the political spectrum. Imbued with religious meaning or with non-traditional associations, the term overlooks the real issue here.
Every one of those people -- adults and children, as individuals -- has the right to equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The cynical characterization of immigrants as criminals for political advantage violates the law and the spirit of America.
1
Our attitude in the US appears to be pro-procreation rather than pro-family. Once a child is born, the availability of security and love he or she needs to grow into a healthy individual is a matter of luck. Unfortunately for a growing number of children, their luck runs out the moment they enter this world.
The author is exactly right that both liberal and conservative policies cut against the needs of families. Yes, liberals, two-parent families ARE usually better for children. No, conservatives, they aren’t always better, and when a woman is emotionally traumatized by her husband she needs a way out. Drugs are a plague on families, but like everything else in this country our policies are driven by ideology and corporatist priorities rather than research-driven programs.
The recent horrors at the border are just the most visible examples of how we have become a Hobbesian “sink or swim”culture.
If we invested a fraction of the resources into families that currently go to benefit private business and the wealthy, we would have a much healthier (physically and emotionally) society. No, we don’t need or want a nanny state, but it’s obvious the pendulum has swung MUCH too far the other direction.
6
The comparison is faulty.
It equate tolerance with intolerance.
Liberals don't disparage two-parent families.
Whereas conservatives disparage non-traditional families.
3
Why do conservatives keep claiming that liberals don’t support two parent households? Almost all liberals I know are in stable, multi-decades long marriages. They raised their children in two parent households. Do conservatives resent the pragmatism that liberals display in acknowledging that life has no guarantees; that relationships fracture, spouses die, pregnant women are dumped by their baby daddies to raise children alone; and that these people deserve support and respect as much as anyone else? By the way, the conservatives that I know have far more single parents and divorces between them than the liberals.
3
Civilized countries grant social security credits to parents who stay home to work as parent, the most important job in the world (see "The Price of Motherhood").
2
"Family Values" is a phrase that rose during a period when advocacy groups hijacked language to hide their true intent. The fact is that if "family" appears anywhere in the name of an organization it will be racist and/or homophobic. It will have been created for political not moral reasons. Its leaders will accumulate great wealth by exploiting members and the tax code.
6
It isn't as though the Left favors easy divorce and single parenthood: that's a ridiculous misstatement. It's just that families need societal support--whether $$, services, health care, child care--whether those families are intact or fractured. It is the Right which takes a punitive attitude to single parenthood. We need to provide support to all young families: child care, health care, nutritional assistance, without the moral judgments. It's the Right that wants parents to be married, so why should the family lose assistance when the parents marry? And since the Right disdains poverty and family breakdown judgmentally, why does it also opposed planned parenthood? Don't they see any connection???
6
Of course we favor easy divorce.
It's called "freedom."
1
America doesn't love families, except the airbrushed kind which rarely exist, and, by the way, this family model works in proportion to how much wealth your family has. And while perfection will never be attained, real policy movement that could work for most, at least most of the time, is nil. And if we could get Big Money (Big Manipulation) out of the political system, that would certainly help..
1
I worked in child welfare for over 40 years and can attest to this article's premise. I would go further and say that the policies are written from the perspective that a heterosexual married couple with kids is the standard definition of a family ant other composition is seen as fractured or dysfunctional. This leaves plenty of room for judgement and debate and hence discrimination.
3
How exactly do these reporters know that "To the right, it seems government too often burdens families, who need lower taxes and less regulation"?
Do Times' reporters read minds? See into hearts? How is it they they know how life "seems" to the right?
Since "the right" has never produced any evidence that such policies enhance family life, it "seems" a fair question.
Unless, of course, nobody ever lies in American politics, so there's no need to qualify a talking point with words like "asserted".
There are those who want SAHM to be a government-paid job, because they want to be a SAHM. The argument in favor is that we need more (unspoken wish -- white) babies, and that if mothers had a year or more of paid leave, close to free child care after that, larger child tax credit, free college for the kids -- that we would see an increase in those (white) babies. This seems highly unlikely. Europe already has all those policies and its birth rate is lower than ours.
The author is correct that America's love of families does not apply to darker-skinned families. We do incarcerate too many mothers and fathers. The war on drugs is at the root of this.
The world is over-populated and over-heated. We don't need more pro-natal policies. We also can't afford them.
As the population of the US ages, there is actually going to be a population implosion.
The US needs more young people, not fewer.
2
American policies are a bi-product of the influence of lobbyists working for corporations that don't want the government doing anything they could make a profit on. They pull the puppet strings of politicians and run the propaganda mills.
The propaganda is about the government trying to do what churches, communities and extended families have the role of doing- that politicians want to gain power by giving away other people's money.
This argument resonates strongly with the GOP base and if you've never benefited from government programs that help people and are uninterested in real data about how they can actually uplift the economy and reduce the stress of surviving in the modern world, the logic of shrinking the federal government in all ways not military makes sense.
Perhaps it will require the collapse of our economy in the form of a great depression to shake off the grip of corporate corruption that doesn't allow our government to function like a modern nation.
1
When I see a traditional family - the kind with a white father, a stay at home mother, and enough wealth for the “white picket fence” lifestyle - I genuinely fear for our nation’s future.
These are the kind of families that incubate bourgeois values, which are inimical to a bigger and more loving government. So while some conservatives think that we want to make life harder on these families, I think it’s a good observation. We DO want to make white privilege harder, we DO think they should pay more in taxes so families with single mothers and asylum seeking families should have an easier life.
I think this week’s migrant family crisis illustrates the family-battle quite well. Personally, I support open borders BECAUSE of its promise for a transformation in families, culture, and values. Each one of these single mother led migrant families represents a PERFECT future progressive; these are workers, of color, who will need a whole host of services. The more we can become like Brazil, the better the progressive future will be.
1
I don't suppose that you want to be paying for these services that the migrants need?
3
I would love to, but I'm already indigent myself, with a massive student debt load, hormone treatments, and healthcare bills for my cat that are almost as high as my own.
But in return, I'm creating good art, and living my life to its fullest, and helping others pursue their dreams too.
So if the top 10% can take care of me, and these migrants, and the rest of us - I think it's a fair trade off. Especially since the top 10% have earned their plunder through corporate profits, greed, and white privilege.
Every time you see a white father with his family you despair for this country? Unbelievable. Every family should be so fortunate to have a working, engaged father. The impact would be an overwhelming improvement for many families.
2
This is really quite a simple problem. The billionaire conservative oligarchs who control the Republican party don't want to pay any taxes. To trick voters into voting for their political candidates, they claim to support families. But when the time comes to vote on legislation that supports families, they instruct their Republican puppets to block it.
8
America has gone from a country that "falls short" in supporting families (taken in this article to be families with children) to a nation inflicting a crime against humanity against thousands of children.
While I did not vote for them, I cannot imagine any of the other contenders for the Republican nomination in 2016 doing what Trump has done. Mitt Romney (2012 nominee) surely would not, nor did GWB do anything like this.
Mr. Trump has brought the callousness of the worst dictators in history into American "policy." The greatest tragedy of this is that about 40% of Americans, including large numbers of those who call themselves Christians, support this.
It's no surprise that a nation sufficiently cruel and irrational to have Trump as its leader would given nothing but lip-service to the concerns of poorer families ... even if they are legal citizens.
And let's be honest, most of this is about race, plain and simple.
8
A nation (must) understand(s) that its future is determined by its children.
It follows that a nation is well advised to carefully optimize a structure that supports its children. Not doing so will be its demise since another nation will do so.
For centuries most governments have concluded that families are the prime structure upon which we support our children. It does this by four pillars:
1) Subsidize families through preferential tax treatments
2) Provide laws that empower parents to represent their children
3) By direct investments into education through public schools
4) Direct support of families that do not have the means to provide the basic necessities to their children.
While there must be and can be reasonable discussion of the right formula of investments into these four pillars, there can be no misunderstanding that the current shift of public spending for families and children to spending for the elderly and security /safety (military, law enforcement) is a long term disastrous decision.
For me public schooling - free including university level - is the best decision a society can make. After all: Who pays for my Medicare and Social Security? Not me but the children becoming productive adults. Not doing so is at our own peril.
5
There are also issues of race and class embedded within
the divergence of policy to promote "strong families". The hypocrisy that denies this, and the social and media forces that refuse to acknowledge it openly and thoroughly, are non trivial obstacles for the constructive dialogue that is essential to this deep problem.
The right more or less seems to be saying that only policies that support a certain specific family structure, resembling their own (supposedly) but not others, deserve support to be implemented, while everything else is objectionable and unworthy of public financing.
Moreover, its fantasies
about low taxes and insufficient tax credits as a default cure all cannot help pay for affordable quality child care, preschool, transportation, etc. etc. unless
the recipients are already part of a high enough income level.
So again, coded objections are used to justify obstruction and getting help to all strata of society where significant need exists.
These things are not cheap, no matter how strong the
ideological imperative is to claim otherwise.
Together the level of hypocrisy, plus unspoken, but always lurking, animosities about class and race, that underlies the
"my way or the highway" approach taken by too many on the right is a formidable obstacle to any reasonably broad based effort to promote the health of all family units, no matter their composition, income level, ethnicity, or skin tone.
Bridge that chasm and many changes follow.
5
Excellent commentary, well over-due, and how I wish more people rather than a small group read this. We are distracted all too frequently by sensationalism in the media, but alas perhaps it is necessary in view of the unprecedented and unconscionable behavior and actions of this present administration.
I remember in college when studying sociology that the basis of a society starts with the family. That structure is the root, the foundation. What we have to realize is that because of our 21st Century paradigm, family no longer means the nuclear mom, dad, and kids. Family must be recognized as the fundamental necessity in which children are loved, cared for, nurtured, and prepared for a complex world. Again..love and nurturing are the key words here. Those crucial qualities can be provided by the single parent, the gay parent/s, and those of different skin pigments, ethnicities, sexual identities, and religions.
Do we need government more? Absolutely, families can not do this alone, not now. And we parents need to understand that we are not omnipotent. Society not only needs the government's empathy but also interdependence among each and every individual.
6
This country is run by business, and businesses treat families as a criminal distraction.
8
I wish the NY Times would start reporting, on an hourly basis, how many of the 2500 children have been returned to the parents, how many have been deported, how many are still in detention following reunification, how many are awaiting hearings, and how many children have parents who can't be located at this moment.
It is difficult for any observer to comment on the policy implications of this story without knowing exactly what the government is doing. This information void appears to be prompting a lot of secondary "news analysis" of the type that cable news relies upon as filler.
9
Yes! It’s difficult to find updates on the status of these families. Please cover the status of these children and their parents more closely.
3
Sequel--There is NO evidence that ANY of these children have been reunited with their families. I think it's another LIE that the tRump "administration" has reunited 500 children. Show us the evidence. No evidence? Just excuses, lies, and distraction? Keep up the pressure, and don't forget to vote on Tuesday.
5
Anabel--I'm sure NYT, and others, WOULD cover the status of these children, IF the "administration" were not hiding them, all over the country, and refusing to allow even elected officials to inspect the facilities, or check the many accusations of physical and mental abuse, and drugging. Something is very rotten, and I believe that few of these children will ever see their families, again. I also believe this was the intention, all along. Obviously, they NEVER HAD A PLAN to reunite families. They were just going to detain them until whenever, and quietly drop them somewhere behind the border. It will be up to us to correct this criminal wrongdoing, by donating to immigrant organizations, pro-bono legal efforts, and independent liberal media and investigators. If you see something, say something. But, don't report it to "law enforcement," tell someone who cares, and can do something to help.
1
"To the right, it seems government too often burdens families, who need lower taxes and less regulation."
Lazy take with no evidence in the real world... Which taxes were cut? Corporate. Which regulations get targeted? Health and safety.
So please stop repeating this lazy nonsense. Accept that the Right doesn't want any of these things and just might not be motivated for the same outcomes as you.
4
I think the article hit it on the head. The average person on the right believes they got a tax cut and that Trump is keeping his promise to "drain the swamp", reduce regulations, etc. I agree it is lazy nonsense. But lots of people believe it is true or at least pretend it is so they can feel they have gotten their way.
1
The US actually hates children and women, particularly if you're not white. Whether it's restrictive availability of abortion, high teen pregnancy rates, high sexual assault rates, virtually no paid maternity leave, no universal health coverage, expensive child care, massive incarceration and I could go on. That most politicians are hypocrites isn't a surprise, but it is surprising that the least capable people are repeatedly elected.
14
Those are the people the worst plutocrats in the US back with unlimited money.
2
The US is rich enough to have Scandinavian style family and health care -- for the elderly, the children and everybody else. Instead, as other comments demonstrate, you squabble over whether singles, Baby Boomers, or children should get the short end of the stick. Meanwhile, you let the GOP jigger your tax code to make sure the only people who aren't getting the short end of the stick are the very rich and their prospective heirs. Your social policy is the laughingstock of the civilized world, as is your President. But you do have world class gun violence, and absurd rates of unhappiness for a wealthy society. I guess that's what making America Great Again looks like in practice. Jesus wept.
35
So did Fred Rogers!
2
The civilized world pities the US, with its gun violence and its Darwinian social/economic policies---all propagandized to voters as 'protecting our Freedoms from 'big govt.'
So many Americans vote for a party that treats them badly and gives tax cuts to the rich, while it aims to destroy what small progress ACA has achieved.
The gun lobby and big insurance/pharma help finance our political campaigns. Other democracies don't turn over their elections to big money interests for financing, and thus for policy dominance.
‘Family friendly’ was always a political chew toy by each party.
One in particular to, in effect, lelevate only one type of socio- religious arrangement, along with the supporting the right to deny any woman, for any reason, the right to abort a fetus, even if it means death of the mother.
Also they prefer they’re born into a nice, affluent, white, ‘christian’ family.
The others.... not so much, especially if that child may put any long term demand on a public service that their own family can’t pay for on their own.
The other party attempts to say ‘all families matter’, but can’t quite come to terms with its own hypocrisies that create an American version of
city/state hyper wealthy metros that reinforce economic apartheid for those who don’t start out within families of high resources
1
Northern Ireland and the Palestinian territories make the point, this policy is simply radicalizing the next generation. They will seek retribution for the wrongs done to their family. That's how children in these situations deal with such trauma as they mature.
3
Canada and western Europe have been providing families with institutional support.
Until just recently, Canada has been adept at preventing migrants from moving in without permission. In addition, it accepts most of its legal immigrants on what they could contribute to the economy, their fluency in English or French, and on how easily they could assimilate. (In contrast, we accept most legal immigrants based solely on kinship.) Consequently, in comparison to the U.S., Canada does not have a high proportion of illegal or legal immigrants who contribute very little to its economy, but who use many government services.
Western European countries which had accepted some poorly educated refugees even before the current migration crisis, had political parties who were complaining that many refugee families were remaining on welfare instead of finding jobs and paying taxes. They feared their social support systems would run out of money.
A country has to limit the number of poorly educated migrants who could contribute little to its economy, if it is to afford child care, parental leave, and other family support systems for all of its residents.
6
Your assumptions are wrong.
Most undocumented immigrants in the US work, and work hard.
"Poorly educated" is a relative term. Most immigrants from Mexico, for example, are highly skilled in trades such as construction, farming, and cooking.
2
But, Jerry, we already have plenty of Americans who are skilled cooks and who know construction trades. We do not need loads more from another country. The latter compete with our own citizens for jobs. (The Harvard economist George Borjas found that Black employment drops as the number of undocumented workers increases. He also found that the undocumented depress the wages if our lowest paid workers.)
Farming is another matter. Only 5% of the undocumented work on farms, and we are in the process of developing computerized machines that could replace many of them. Some farm work is already being done by or helped by robots. We would have more robots that were doing other kinds of jobs by now, had farmers not been able to hire the undocumented so cheaply.
Canada looks for immigrants who could provide skills that the country needs.
1
More politically correct false equivalencies and benefits of the doubt. Every family friendly element and policy these authors--right-wing propagandists is more accurate-- cite have been supported by liberals and Democrats and opposed by "christian" conservatives and Republicans. Paid family leave, affordable child care, affordable health care, no jail time for non-violent drug offenders, increased social safety and welfare programs for families and children, livable wages; yet, these propagandists create a blatantly false equivalency. They paint a "both sides" fantasy--an extended lie--when the reality is starkly different.
The falsehoods extend all the way down to the issue of divorce: the last presidential race was between a man thrice married, a well-known womanizer and admitted sexual predator, the "family values christian" conservative; his opponent: a woman married to the same man for decades, yet repeatedly condemned for remaining in that marriage "for better or worse."
The NYT is clearly caving to the right-wing assault on press freedom, where truth is condemned as "liberal bias" and lies, false equivalencies and politically correct euphemisms are touted as "fair and balanced."
3
Go ahead Republicans, preach family values. I can hear the whining now from the ensuing backlash. The conservative, religious right has shown is true colors.
3
Yes, Americans love families, but American policies don’t, especially the American policy that allows for abortion. Thank you.
2
Many comments on this thread complain about people who have children but are not prepared to provide for them. The conservative solution is to make sure that having children without financial resources is punitive, because this will “deter” people from engaging in that behavior. Here you are saying that it would be “more” family friendly to force unprepared people to have children. Doesn’t make sense, Southern Boy.
My complaint about the NY Times is that its articles are often superficial. "Americans love families." What does that mean? If true with no qualifications, it reflects a distorted sense of values.
Because it is often interpreted to mean America loves large families. And many Americans do seem to believe that slogan.
A few years ago, A TV show, "19 and counting" suggested that a family with 19 children was desirable. Octomom already had six children when she had six children, then got fertility treatments so she could bear another eight. We give welfare payments to single mothers with children who push the fathers out of the family because they cannot earn enough. Some have four children with four different fathers.
Meanwhile the hated white patriarchs and matriarchs have only one or two children because they worry about SUPPORTING the children.
It might be argued that illegal immigration (immigrants have higher fertility) and welfare policies that put men in jail (the US has 14 times the incarceration rate of Japan) have contributed to lower educational outcomes for the poor and wages for unskilled workers, which some economists say stretch back to the 70's.
Small families are good, large families lead to disaster. In the past, too many children meant wars in the next generation.
Now too many children on planet earth (a doubling of population since 1972) set the world up for global warming and resource wars.
Americans should love a one-child policy.
3
The US is not suffering from over population.
Because so many are aging, there are too few younger people to fill in the gap.
The reason for a predicted short-fall in Social Security is that fewer people will be paying into the fund.
2
The rather family UN-friendly policies are also manifested in LOUSY LOUSY LOUSY WAGES AND (often nonexistent) BENEFITS!!!
If you're bringing home less than $1500 per week (bare bones minimum), having a kid is out of the question!
1
Automation and outsourcing continue to displace workers from decent paying jobs, leaving workers to scramble for the remaining low and unskilled jobs. We have so many people going after these low and unskilled jobs that employers do not have to raise wages or provide benefits to fill them. To make matters worse for workers are the millions upon millions of undocumented migrants who are further enlarging the labor pool. And more migrants are coming all of the time.
It is impossible to ask that your wages keep up with inflation, let alone ask for a real raise, when there is a long line of undocumented migrants waiting for your job.
In the 1980’s, when manufacturers started moving their factories overseas and to Mexico, to take advantage of the cheap labor there, their former workers found good paying jobs in construction. Then builders discovered that they could hire the undocumented for a lot less money. Now that Trump is talking about deporting the undocumented, builders are saying they will not have enough workers. What they mean is that they will not have enough people who are willing to work for low wages. If they would start paying the kind of wages that they used to, they would find an abundance of workers who would then earn enough to be able to support their families.
2
Re conservatives answer to the liberals condemning child separation-i.e. look at divorce etc. At least with divorce or single parenting the children have by definition one parent. What's happening at the border leaves them with no parents.
3
The article says liberals “condone” divorce and single parent hood . This is not accurate. Liberals support divorce and or single parent families but this does negate their pro Family stance. Supporting divorce and supporting families are not binary choices. You can have a family and have a divorce.
Conservatives claim to be pro Family but support forced separation of immigrant families .
2
Correction: Americans Love Families, But Not as Much as They Hate the State.
1
It is a plain fact that building up enough wealth to afford children will probably make you too old to have any in the USA.
1
Just in reference to the title of this piece...Some Americans love families is a more appropriate statement. "This government does not" would be the finish. There is a book out now on Trump and it makes clear that he was a philanderer his whole life. So the recent news is not a surprise, but obviously some women want money so much they will marry anything. And recently Melania has shown her true colors. She must have felt the media coverage of her nasty husband slurred her, for it shows her sadly as the goldigger she is. From stories I hear she is not alone nor were her predecssors but Trump can be congratulated in knowing where to choose from. But this Leader chooses to engender chaos at every turn, today he says one thing, tomorrow the opposite. He spend more time on the campaign trail than on the running of the government. And I wonder why this is not mentioned. Why is he not challenged on his continual "rallies" with those who like him love conflict and chaos rather than strong, robust leadership. And it seems the Republican Party is mostly to blame. First they voted for him, and now they blinding bow down to him. I remember thinking before his election that the Republican Party was so riven by divisions they would never win even a bar of soap, so I was glad for their disorder and disgusting violent behavior and rhetoric. How wrong I was. Now they control all of us.
We all know that traditional two parent family is disintegrating in the US, many American children have been thrown into chaos and unsurmountable risks. For example, nearly 75 percent of African American children are born to certifiable poverty, chaos, depravation and costly risks of fatherless, single parent families. There are large number of those children who have no parents at all. Child poverty and depravation and abuse is fairly common in the US. As a matter of fact United States is now 41 in Infant Mortality in the world and 42st in Maternal Deaths. Does writers of this piece know, statistics show that Maternal Health among these so called “destitute” migrant women held at our southern border is better than among the average white American woman?
2
The United Nations correctly condemns us, for our crimes against families, non-whites, and the poor. Can we ever be redeemed? We did this to ourselves, by staying quiet, not voting, and not holding our politicians accountable. By taking our privileged lives for granted. I am ashamed of my country.
1
Thank you Mr. President for making the world hate and despise us for making America Hate Again. You are not only the most divisive and hate filled man in the WH, but in the nation. That is NOT a badge of honor, character, or dignity. You never had honor as a businessman nor now as President. You are everything we would NEVER want to see in our children. A President is one that unites, not divides, that offers hope, not despair, and one that is sound of morals and values, that believes in the sacred principals of Christianity, and not one that uses it fraudulently to serve his own selfish interest as YOU do. People want honesty and integrity in government, not liars and dishonesty. You fail to even meet the most basic of human values...care, compassion, empathy, and decency. Every American should be ashamed of this man and the turmoil he has caused here and abroad. Those that love our country will not allow this to stand. Our voices and the ballot box will show, that no evil will be allowed to endure over righteousness. That no one man is above the laws of God or the laws of a democratic and just government. You could have been the better man, the better President, but you instead choose not to be. You instead found that dividing America with lies and hate is who YOU really are. America will survive this abomination, but the scars and memory will linger for a long time. I pray that the next President will void every EO you issued as we are better than your evil.
2
Republicans love families that are white, affluent and supportive of their trickle down policies. Poor, brown or struggling families, not at all.
4
American conservative politicians love families. They love them so much in many cases that they have several families. They love wealthy families and heteronormative families. They especially love white families and Christian families.
Other families . . . not so much.
4
No-brainer:
PHOTO kids,
DNA kids/family,
SHOW family photos (by age),
PROVE w/DNA,
REUNITE.
JustDoItNow. For God’s sake, do it now. NOW.
Much of the $$ being sent to organizations to help these families can be used to get those already deported back to get their kids. $$ should not be an object. Many of us would pay a plane fair to get these families united.
1
America hates the current political environment created by the media taking sides in the presentation of the news i.e. facts as well as whole news stories selectively ignored or purposely misrepresented
3
What a terrible sub-headline. The reason we do not have better family policies in the US is solely attributed to the right. Are democrats blocking paid mandatory maternity leave? Of course not. False equivalence everywhere these days.
5
The Majority of Americans Love Families. Republicans Don't.
Fixed it for you. I wanted to add a bit about Republicans only loving the fetus but that would make the headline too long.
5
Nothing has been more destructive to the American family than liberal policies. They have enshrined abortion as a right, denigrated and ridiculed religious and family-oriented values, enslaved a large portion of our population in dependency-creating government programs, which discourage marriage, protected the bureaucracy which underpins our failing schools, and encouraged millions of illegal aliens to invade our country--holding down wages up and down the economic ladder.
If you believe in strong, independent and thriving families--don't vote for Democrats, unless you want more destruction of the family unit.
3
The Left has favored more support for children and families, while the Right has supported less.
Equating help for struggling families as "enslavement" is the Right-wing excuse for denigrating the poor and the generosity of decent people.
2
It’s the ugly underbelly of our society- the bottom line trumps societal responsibilities.
1
The Trump administration does not have a policy of separating children from parents. Judge Dolly Gee of the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California has a policy of separating children from parents.
On July 24, 2015, Judge Gee ruled that the Obama administration’s policy of incarcerating children with their mothers in family detention centers violated the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement. She ruled accompanied as well as unaccompanied children have the right to release. She also ruled that DHS must release children with their mothers unless the mother poses a significant flight risk or public safety threat, but on July 6, 2016, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals held that she erred in interpreting the Flores agreement to provide an affirmative right to release for accompanying parents.
On June 27, 2017, Judge Gee found that DHS was violating the Flores agreement by holding migrant children longer than 20 days. This is why migrant children are separated from their parents at Border Patrol processing centers and transferred to Health and Human Services’ Refugee Resettlements.
On June 21, 2018, the Trump Justice Department asked Judge Gee to “exempt DHS from the Flores Settlement Agreement’s release provisions so that ICE may detain alien minors who have arrived with their parent or legal guardian together in ICE family residential facilities.” The expectation is that Judge Gee will deny the request.
2
Restoring prayer in the classrooms would be a good start. The institutional left has taken over our public schools since the ‘60s and cultural Marxism has virtually destroyed American culture. Marxism despises religion and the family. Government is to be our family.
The family was the foundation for American culture. Restore American culture and you restore the American family ideal.
3
So you want prayer in the classroom? I assume you mean Christian-oriented prayer. Do you honestly think that would (should) fly? Not every citizen in this country worships the same way--and many don't even believe in a deity, so how do you think that would work? You expect people to support schools with their taxes and yet force them into a prayer system which may or may not conform to their beliefs? And you think this will restore America?
6
Funny. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about families being the foundation of American culture, or anything about families at all.
What it does say is:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
it also says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That pretty much sums up the foundation of our culture. The institutional Right has for years tried to alter the inclusionary nature of the Constitution to suit their conservative Christian needs.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religious expression only after it guarantees freedom FROM government imposition of religion.
And still no mention of families.
The actual foundation of the American culture is clear if you read the preamble to the Constitution.
Justice, Domestic Tranquility, Defense, general Welfare, and the Blessings of Liberty.
Still no mention of families.
3
Cjmesq0,
There never was an "American family ideal," except in the movies — and in the fantasies of all-white, heterosexual, patriarchal bigots.
Prayer? I feel to see how making superstitious ritual a requirement in the public schools will help to produce open-minded, creative, independent children.
Marxism does "despise" religion. But to attribute "cultural Marxism" to the most rabidly capitalist nation on earth is a disservice to the plutocrats who rule it.
1
Americans love families.... White, Christian, rich American families.
Sadly, in the Trump era, this is my image of America today.
2
Americans DO love families. We do not love people sneaking into the country.
You want to come here? Do it right.
6
“Americans love families”. A statement clearly not supported by reality
2
A question not asked is why doesn't Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala revere families?
5
Perhaps because the question has a false assumption as its basis.
Latin America has far more cohesive families than the United States.
1
"Family values" have been high-jacked by hard-right insurgents (I won't call them conservatives because they have also perverted conservative values) and are not relevant to any concept of family per se. "Family" is an ultrasonic call to action for reactionaries to be intolerant, to stop "the other": gays, abortionists, atheists, agnostics, pagans, Hispanics, witches, liberals, blacks, miscegenists, and Jews.
"Family" is indoctrination, brain-washing, insidious social control that has nothing to do with mothers, fathers, and children and how they live their lives together. "Family" is a clandestine political strategy to undermine individual freedom, tolerance for others, liberty and equality, social justice, and democracy itself.
And the "family" strategy works very well: just look at our family-values president and his "policies."
1
What a bunch of hooey. Single folks without children bear a much much greater tax burden that folks with children (they are called dependents by the way).
5
Trump's America loves families.
As long as they are straight, white and Christian.
All other need not apply.
2
Yes. The US appears now to be a nation that has forgotten how to care for its own citizens. It distrusts and discards them, making healthcare into a battleground with endless hurdles, all the while that the self-anointed Fixer in the White House treats humans across the border as subhuman “vermin” whose children have been treated as pawns in his aggressive, sadistic tactics.
I no longer recognize the nation I’ve lived in for 73 years. Taking from the poor and defenseless to give to the already super wealthy and powerful is an abomination growing worse by the day.
8
Americans don't love families plural. They love their own, yours not so much if at all.
1
Actually, Americans are responsible for destroying African American families, for 400 years. Americans don't "love families," unless they are white, and European. Now, Americans want to destroy ALL families of color, under the excuse of vague, and illegitimate, "laws," that they don't really respect, anyway.
4
Decent Americans love families. Republicans love unborn children but once out of the womb, they're on their own.
4
Pro-life white Christian America, Inc. is a complete sham. It's all about the money. In Jesus' name.
4
When the opportunity comes in discussions like this, I like to quote Jared Bernstein, who perfectly encapsulated the difference between the philosophical outlooks of left and right as WITT v. YOYO, that is 'We're In This Together' v. 'You're On Your Own'.
The first embodies the golden American ideal of community that both sides rhapsodize about, but the right rejects it in practice (E pluribus unum, be damned!), while the left endeavors to make it a reality.
The second evokes the symbolism of the rugged individualist Marlboro Man, who eventually succumbed to the cancer caused by his consuming what he was selling.
7
Brilliant post!
1
Bureaucracy, not politicians, love to destroy families and make families into bureaucracies. Like making one in one's own image.
The sad part is that the politicians lack the courage to dismantle a system of their own creation. Yes, it is theirs, by allowing the system to live on.
1
In Ireland, where I live much of the year, education is organized by the Department of Education and Skills.... It's an obvious combination and I'm glad to see Labor and Education merge in the U.S., no matter which Administration does it. On the other fronts, maternity and paternity benefits and so on, families in Ireland do have supports, but income and VAT taxes are very high and kick in at relatively low income levels, so that there are many, many families that have great stress in finding childcare (not tax deductible...) and affording reasonable housing. Healthcare for those on low incomes is poor, with long delays for treatment and a very patronizing approach is common - poorer people are left ignorant of options and it is assumed they cannot make decisions for themselves, a situation that self-reinforces as a result. At least the U.S.encourages home ownership, gives fairly generous tax breaks for those that pay income tax and ensures that the benefits of working are not undermined. I suspect life has become more miserable over the last 35 years for the working poor, that or I've become more aware of their misery and struggles. I'm not sure which is closer to the truth.
2
There is no area of American life and culture which is pro-family. Most American families would be better off in any other first or second world country. We talk the talk and that's all we do. Healthcare, higher education, affordable housing and childcare are all for those who can afford it, Conservative Americans don't want a dime of their money spent on any safety-net program for anyone. Only the wealthy thrive in our country. Under the Trump Administration this anti-family rhetoric and policies will become more pervasive until there are no pro-family policies left. Six years from now we may not recognize us.
7
Politicians use their 'love of family' to get what they want - votes, political power and influence. They also use 'love of family' as the excuse for resigning from elective office or appointed political posts, when the truth more likely they were going to be fired, they were going to be exposed as having committed some sort of wrong, or, they just didn't want the job anymore.
The pro-life/anti-abortion movement claims a 'love of family' and 'life is precious', yet I don't recall seeing any of their people protesting the government tearing children away from their parents at the border.
If American policies are 'anti-family' then there lies the real truth about our country and our corporations - not the words that those in power espouse. Actions speak louder than words.
1
There is no contradiction at all. Progressives define family friendly policies as those that transfer wealth and benefits from one group of families to another, often in ways that incentivize behavior that is destructive to families and society as a whole. By contrast, conservative policies tend to protect liberty and allow individuals the freedom to thrive according to their circumstances, skill and initiative. The distinction is between progressives advocating free college versus conservatives lowering taxes so that families can save for college.
It is also important to recognize that children are often the lever into our perverse social welfare systems. Recall that one of our initial welfare programs, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, was designed to protect children but morphed into a system to support idle, under-performing adults. Similarly, the sympathy for children in our immigration system encourages the mass unlawful migration of unaccompanied children, as well as significantly increased immigration by people who believe that the presence of a child in their midst will shield the adults from detention and summary deportation.
For me a family supportive policy is one that protects my freedom and property, allows me to use the fruits of my labor for the benefit of my family, and helps the economy grow creating opportunities for prosperity. By the way, those are the principles, enshrined in our Constitution, upon which our country was founded.
4
Funny, to me a family supportive policy allows all families to thrive, not just the wealthy. A family friendly policy encourages thoughtful family planning, thus offering and encouraging the use of birth control, something your party of choice would like to deny women. A family friendly policy would allow for a better and fairer education system, so poor kids don't get left behind due to what school they are zoned to. A family friendly policy would include healthcare for all, so that families don't have to worry that losing a job due to illnes will lead to bankruptcy. A family friendly country would have had minimum wage rise with inflation, so that it allowed families to be supported on less than mom working three jobs. A family friendly policy would keep guns out of the hands of children, by requiring gun to be locked up. A family friendly policy would subsidize childcare, which can eat up a substantial amount of a family income and provide maternal and paternal leave.
Your family friendly country sounds like a libertarian land, filed with the idea that the poor suffer because they deserve to. I wonder whose idea of America will be endorsed at the polls. We know my version was endorsed by the popular vote in the last election.
10
The country was founded on — to begin with the Preamble to the Constitution — among other things, "a more perfect Union" and "to promote the general Welfare."
Unity and mutual aid, not "every man for himself."
2
Excellent post.
Americans claim they love families, but the truth is, too many of our families are broken. Somewhere along the line, we as a nation have forgotten how to care for each other, for our children. Our relationships have become increasingly fractured and our families have become increasingly dysfunctional. Our divorce rates indicate we as Americans simply do not know how how to treat each other in marriage. That dysfunction in the parent's relationship has trickle down impacts on the children.
So there is a good chance that the 63 million Americans who voted for Trump are looking at all the attention focused on child immigrants at the Southern border and saying, 'where was all that concern when my father was beating my mother?' 'where was all that concern when my mother was overdosing on opioids, begging for access to a treatment facility?' 'where was all that concern when I was homeless, sleeping in my mom's car because we had been kicked out of our home?'
There is plenty of child abuse, child neglect, childhood poverty in this country that gets very little attention from lawmakers. As soon as a Republican governor and Republican led state legislature take over a state government, the number of children covered by a state's safety net drops precipitously. Look at Kansas as an example.
Republican politicians have abandoned American children for going on four decades. Why the surprise when they have so little concern for children from other countries?
28
But in the meantime, we've had Democrats in majority congressional roles, and democratic presidents--why didn't we take care of children and families in that time frame under democratic majority--it hasn't been a straight 40 years of Republican rule, not by a long shot.
1
Any voter thinking 'where was all that concern when my father was beating my mother?' 'where was all that concern when my mother was overdosing on opioids, begging for access to a treatment facility?' 'where was all that concern when I was homeless, sleeping in my mom's car because we had been kicked out of our home?' would have never voted for Trump.
As usual in any issue like this common sense middle ground is the answer.
You don't want to be biased in favor of parents and children to the point where you undermine the rest of the population but you also don't want to make it difficult to raise kids.
From all I read re the rest of the world, America is clearly positioned in the latter and not the former.
3
I am delighted to hear that researchers are looking into valuing fathers. I am tired of a culture that repeatedly offers a pedestal to mothers, even bad ones, while repeatedly devaluing fathers for no reason. Heck, it is societally encoded (The man is always the problem. It is no longer cute when this translates to actual policies.). A semblance of balance here would be wonderful. We don't all live in our parents generation where the men didn't pitch in inside the house (and were busy bringing home the bacon).
5
There was a time--not in the too-distant past when fathers (i.e. males) were the head of the household and wives (women) were expected to bow down and follow everything the men desired. The reason the men were "busy bringing home the bacon" was because most women stayed home to raise the children--have you forgotten that? It was the cultural norm. Women were the ones devalued even though they worked a full-time job as keepers of the household (so that men could actually "bring home the bacon.)
“We don’t have family-friendly policies at all.”
This is correct. I'm an American living in a country that fully supports FAMILY, and especially women and children are protected in this country. I left America and had children late, 38 & 40 after a successful career. I had full health care and both times while working and pregnant I was put on leave (fully paid) to protect my child. Two years at home with both children, full coverage in health care for myself and children and my children, when they turned 18 continued to receive money monthly until the ages of 24. Education, in comparison to USA, is cheap and excellent. When a woman gets divorced here, no matter what the circumstances, the laws tends to protect her and the children FIRST.
I just reached the age where I am receiving a pension from this country (very few work years) and FULL medical benefits in my own name. Granted, its a small amount monthly but the health care is HUGE in terms of money and this is for the rest of my life. I actually know my doctors because they give TIME to know you and your needs. They did this (pension) because they count all the years of raising children into a pension and feel that this must and should be honored for all women! I would not have any of this in America with a family. Austrians love families and take care of human beings. All their social policies prove this and as an American I'm truly grateful to be here with my family.
The HILLS ARE ALIVE! With LOVE!
33
Saying something and doing it are two different things. Our country is full of contradictions. The history of this nation has been built on ignoring or taking advantage of others - freedom.
Many do not want to pay more taxes for any reason.
Many homes in our country have front porches. They are a symbol of welcoming others to your home. Do we use them? No, we pull into our garages and close the door.
6
A newborn in the US is welcomed with thousands of dollars in medical bills. And that’s for parents with excellent insurance (my wife is a state employee). This is based on the false premise that the patient is the mother. The patient is the new American citizen.
7
I cannot agree with the argument of this article that divorce and single parenting is the same as illegal entry into this nation. Children being separated from parents in the US court system is happening all the time and it is not the courts fault. It is the parents fault for committing the crime in the first place. Americans do love families but when the parents American or not do not follow American laws and polices there are consequences
6
These kinds of arguments based upon personal responsibility completely ignore the actual effect of such policies. Okay, the parent did something "bad." Why take out your anger on the child? Yes, you are, because separating the child from the parent will do more harm to that kid than any harm to our society caused by the parent's illegal crossing of our border.
4
Republicans began using "Family Values" in the '90s as a dog whistle to signal their anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage rhetoric. When George W won re-election in 2004, it was supposedly the "values voters" who put him over the top. We were to understand, reading between the lines, these were the anti-abortionists & anti-gay marriage voters.
People on the right use all manner of family issues as a cudgel against women and people of color. It's not that they particularly care about families. They've simply learned how sympathetic their base is to the *idea* of families. It's a cynical political move that has nothing to do with making a difference in the lives of families, and everything to do with getting elected and re-elected.
14
This article is on point, but could also be added to a short article earlier this week that didn't get much play.
Nikki Haley was incensed that a UN report put the US last in the developed word on many parameters of wellness, well-being, financial well being and social justice.
Of course family law would be included in that. But the US does lead the developed world on many measures of poverty, including access to healthcare, obesity, childbirth mortality, and others that are directly linked to current family laws that have been chipped away year after year to satisfy budget requirements.
Thus, US policy favors wealth, and wealthy families, but poor ones, not so much.
Haley can get angry all she wants, but data is data. The US does rank last in the developed world on the measures cited in the UN report.
61
One other area in which the US appears to rank last is in quality public education, the teacher strikes in some (southern mostly) states would indicate chronic public underfunding. If people had access to better education, had better critical thinking skills, they might not be so susceptible to Trumpism
2
A natural theme for the opposition party to have made
a very important priority would have been the flourishing
of families with health (including mental and addiction) care, after school enrichment education programs, preschool child care, environmental protection, and infrastructure +transportation all significant components.
The society cannot prosper when too many of its families
are incapable of flourishing, and struggle just to get by
each day.
All five of which would easily be crystal clear alternatives to the industry wide give aways freely given by the trumpicans with their empty vacuous promises as supporting rhetoric.
It would not be difficult to price each realistically, and work out how a different restructuring only of corporate and one percenter tax rates would pay for the necessary staffing in critical needs care infrastructure supporting such programs. For example, part of the repatriation of foreign profits would have gone into a special domestic investment fund to help pay for this. Moreover, no small business would have been seen its tax rate increase.
Such a program should have been the major focus and accomplishment of the first six months of 2017, which would
then have been rolled out in the country during national civic forums throughout this year with broad media coverage emphasized.
Instead too many irrelevant fights were fought on the
rhetorical distractions concocted to keep attention
diverted from what was really happening.
4
This comment section, for better or worse, is filled with personal stories that support deeply-held beliefs. Here's mine, FWIW: Where I live, in central Alabama, white people do not want black or brown people to have the same quality of life that they have. Thus, property taxes are not high enough to improve conditions at schools, to support adequate health care, or to fund equal protection under the law. Until People of Color are seen as other human beings, life here in the Bible Belt will not change. No amount of thoughts and prayers can do what the majority will not do, and the result will be that all suffer together. Our nation has never believed in the statement, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
31
This Op-Ed is written with little cohesion and much intellectual laziness. The emphasis on Family in US culture is a key component of American Exceptionalism and specifically, the role of individuals in supporting and nurturing a nuclear family. Other cultural trends then intercede and give rise to the issues described in this piece. The deeply embedded self-sufficiency myth makes many Americans disdain Welfare programs. Single incomes no longer support most families and two working parents fundamentally change the traditional family model. Machismo unlike any in the West gets in the way of gender equality. Children are brought up as much by their peers and the media as by their parents. A focus on the "right" to be happy and"zero tolerance" for infidelity are responsible for the breakdown of many nuclear families and trauma on children irrespective of how much effort is taken to co-parent or have well functioning "blended" families. A cultural hysteria about safety means the splitting up of families through excessively punitive incarceration and widespread recreational drug use further damages family units. Such cultural dynamics fly in the way of "the family" and provide the opportunity for politicians to take positions and pass legislation of the "anti-family" type discussed by the authors. So the reasons for the US has a less family oriented environment is due mainly to US culture. Politicians simply hijack cultural sentiments in a self-serving convenient blame game.
10
The headline makes a good point but the article, while interesting, presents a smaller arsenal of facts than I might have hoped. Isn't this a good place to mention that:
1) US maternity leave is stingier than the parental leave of Britain, Canada, Australia, and all Western European and Nordic countries. (Yes, I checked).
2) A new UN report shows that 40 million Americans live in poverty--including a lot of families and children. We know that poverty is bad for both the physical and mental health of parents and especially children.
3) Equal pay for women would help families in which only the mother works.
4) Families are the incubators of our future citizens. When we support them generously, we're supporting our own future.
40
equal pay for women would help some women become mothers.
2
Very often, to have a child today is like taking a vow of poverty.
3
Anima.....Yes, the article is disappointing---it neglects many points you mention.
See CNN and Washington Post on the new U.N. report --- “United Nations slams US inequality” and “U.N. Report shows America’s safety net was failing before Trump’s election. “ The NYT only has a brief AP sum up.
The report says “Among developed countries the U.S. has the highest rates of youth poverty, infant mortality, income inequality, and employee insecurity.
The goal of the GOP is smaller government. This very salient means less for everyone, services, safety net and all government programs for a LIberal democracy as the GOP then cut taxes to aid primarily the top 10% of voters who hold 60% of the Nation’s wealth while the bottom 90% have in total 20% of our country’s material wealth.
19
This very interesting article has significant problems, all of which appear to come from what seems like a clumsy effort to sound balanced between left and right on an issue on which the overwhelming weight of evidence supports the policies it associates with the left: (1) It seems to give credence to a claim from the right that divorce and single-parenthood separate children from families. Single parent families are families. Children of divorce can and in many cases do have both parents involved in their lives. (2) It suggests that the right and left agree on "helping parents support their children financially” –a remarkable statement in light of efforts on the right to reduce the already weak safety net. (3) The policy suggestions are inadequate to say the least. The article acknowledges that “the child welfare system shouldn’t mistake the consequences of poverty for child neglect” but does not address the fact that unless we as a society end child poverty, we are not taking care of children. To this end, we need among other things a high enough minimum wage so that people who work full-time are not living in poverty and adequate welfare supports for those who are unable to work or to find work. Both of these policies are opposed by the right.
38
The bigger the government, the smaller the individual. The bigger the government, the less the family cohesion. Those of us with cohesive families and cohesive small communities are glad not to have the government intrusion.
10
Spoken like a Pavlovian propagandized preacher, Observer.
Government levels the economic, judicial and social playing field between individuals and vulture capitalist Robber Barons who eat American wages and dignity for breakfast.
49
Then I hope you and your family never experience the kind of catastrophe that can happen to any family, like illness, an accident, even a job loss can challenge family cohesion. If one of the parents can no longer bring home a cheque, or treating an illness costs more than the family can pay, shouldn't there be some mercy? Shouldn't there be medical help for everyone whether they can afford it or not? Or unemployment insurance and job retraining? Isn't it he responsibility of a society to ensure that no child goes hungry? What is a society for if not to help people in need?
38
WHERE did you get that notion? You guys with cohesive families and cohesive small communities--and enough dough--don't have to pay attention to the suffering around them, I guess.
5
At this moment there is a ton of hand wringing about families: not enough white ones, too many brown ones, tens of thousands of foster children gone missing, cruel policies being enacted or proposed, etc., etc. To step back for a moment and take a look at the various causes for these problems requires a detachment from the emotions that are at the core of the conflicting perspectives. Occam's Razor is a useful tool in this endeavor, especially in the winner take all culture that has developed as amnesia settles over the land of the free and the home of the brave: words no longer more than cliches at this point. It's all about the dollars.
9
When politicians of either party talk about 'families', they are really talking about the families that are financially successful enough to afford health care and decent schooling. In America, the 'big fish eat the little fish'; the very wealthy use 'foundations' and off-shore tricks to pay little or no tax leaving the tax burden squarely on ordinary citizens and non-global companies. And then there's: 'pull yourself up by your own bootstraps', because my parents or grandparents did it for me.
35
It's nice to speak of some of these things without giving much thought to some of the other factors or consequences involved. Look at the prison visitation complaint about plexiglass. While one could argue about whether or not this is actually "trauma" or not (unpleasant yes, but devastation to the point of trauma??) it ignores the practical reality of WHY such restrictions are in place, and illustrates how we sometimes put competing demands before officials who are condemned one way or the other. Prison contraband, from cell phones to drugs, is a very serious problem with potentially lethal consequences in the correctional setting, and one means of reducing it is to prevent a ready means of passing prohibited items to and from prisoners. That is a very real and serious issue, and simply using emotion to demand barrier free visitation is irresponsible.
14
The idea of "family" is defined too narrowly and esssentialisitically. Instead of an essentialized biological institution, a "family" should be considered any social unit that includes loving members: foster families, adoptive families, pets as families, animal families, friends as families, books as families, extended families, grandparents as family, friends as families. The person who adopts a new cat should be able to take off work time if a pregnant worker can take off work time at the birth of their baby. What about policies that enable someone who is the parent of a movie to take off time to create the movie? And if we start to see animals as families, then what about our ongoing cruelty to animal mothers when we separate their children from them for slaughter? The milk from mother cows is used for humans instead of the baby cows for whom the milk was intended. The baby cows are taken away to be raised or to be slaughtered.
2
American public policy supports babies born to rich, Christian, white parents.....everyone else can go straight to Grand Old Poverty with collapsed public education, collapsed infrastructure, despicable public transportation, unaffordable college, a half-baked democracy, a 1%-hijacked tax code, salve wages, and the most expensive healthcare rip-off in the world in case they have the temerity to become sick or injured.
Republican family policy amounts to "thoughts and prayers" as American children are slaughtered in English class, "take two tax cuts and call me from the morgue", and "drop dead" from zero healthcare....a perfect concoction of cruel Calvinism.
It is the Democratic Party that demonstrated humanity by extending healthcare to over 10 million Americans, eliminated the pre-existing condition insurance company cruelty, extended children's insurance coverage to age 26 and eliminated 'lifetime caps' from insurance coverage --- these policies helped real individuals and families, while Republicans cried bloody murder.
We know what Greed Over People stands for and we know who's been successfully driving America over a greedy sociopathic cliff for decades.
And we know which party is the party of resistance to Republican madness, misanthropy and economic nihilism.
D for decency, diversity and democracy; R for racism, religion and Richie Rich.
Take your pick.
114
"D for decency, diversity and democracy; R for racism, religion and Richie Rich." What a great sum up. The Democrats should use it as a slogan for the upcoming elections.
Republicans offer lip service to families when it is the nation’s industrial engine that fills their coffers. Shoring up stressed families with adequate medical and food assistance will never occur on this party’s watch.
As a latest example of Republican values, there is no hidden message in Trump’s plan to combine the Education Department and the Labor Department. Children are to be educated to be cogs in the wheel. Trump prefers they be poorly educated cogs.
Let’s call the new federal agency what it intends to be - the Department of Child Labor.
45
The problem with your point on the Department of Education is that as a stand alone agency - recognizing that constitutionally the federal government has no education role, but it has been involved in one way or another for decades - is that it typifies a massive bureaucracy that has spent billions and YET we have not markedly improved educational outcomes since it began! But Heaven forbid if we try to change it or shift its dubious functions elsewhere - it's like the name alone is a totem that is valued just for being, regardless of its actual return to the country.
4
I start to wonder about "supporting families". From a financial standpoint, they are "supported" by the single tax payer subsidy. They are supported by singles, and childless "families" by paying school taxes. Those, who are poor, have Medicaid, SNAP and Aid to Dependent Children. They get much higher subsidies with health insurance. And, while teh waiting list is long, families get favored treatment fro subsidized housing. While the US is not Denmark, it certainly treats families with more favoritism, with the tax ode and some social safety net programs, than if one is single.
If you are single, and you have the same misfortune as a family, it is a very good chance you will end up homeless on the street. Tapping any of the programs, noted above, is far more difficult.
If one is elderly, it is almost as bad if one is single. Medicare helps; Social Security does not provide income to survive on it alone. With age discrimination rampant; getting a job is very difficult. A majority of baby boomers, with no pensions, are going to become a massive group of the new poor.
Again, while this is not Denmark, the US does far better on families, than it does with singles. this disabled, and the elderly. A major train wreck is coming with Baby Boomers, and some want to tax more to provide public school to 4 years olds. At the same time grand pa and grand ma may end up on the street or a large warehouse institution.
16
The U.S. spends far more on the elderly than on kids. We do need to spend more on kids, but in the form of increased quality of our schools and pre-natal and child healthcare, not in further subsidies to parents. , A big area in which child education/healthcare is pinched is in early diagnosis, treatment, and special education for children with autism, learning disabilities, and behavioral issues. It is easier to just drug the boys out with Ritalin. When boys spend most of their school year drugged on a medication which would land them in jail as an adult, they end up poorly educated and even more poorly acculturated, but it makes overly large class sizes more manageable and saves $.
12
allentown, when I went to school, in a very wealthy school district, on Long Island, each class had 30 kids in it. From first grade through 12th grade. Most of the graduates went on to college (90%). And, on top of all, there were several National Merit Scholars. At the time, mid 1970s, this district was one of the top in New York State.
So, please spare the large class size results in kids on drugs and being homeless. Why was my district so successful; involved parents, involved community, involved teachers, involved PTA and involved administration.
Today, parents want the schools to be the used for rearing children. They want class sizes less than 10 kids each. And, they do not want to see their kid from the time they drop the kid off at school, until they get home from work.
Sorry, 50 years ago, when I got home from school, a parent was there. During school breaks, a parent was there. If my parents had to be some place, I could go to a neighbor. The first thing I had to do, when I got home, was do something called "homework". Only after dinner, could I watch TV, if I finished my homework.
Today, much more money are thrown at the schools, with worse results. They do not need more money, they need to be leaned down at the administration level, more money to the class room, and more parents who get involved. I grew up in a working class family and ended up with two degrees. And I still remember the teachers who mentored me.
2
Could not have said it better myself.
We lack family friendly policies because the Republican Party lures voters who care about families to vote for them by "pro-life" "pro-family" rhetoric, which is only rhetoric, as exemplified by the Republican Congressman who was telling his mistress to get an abortion while his campaign ran anti-abortion ads against a Democrat.
Now Republicans are cutting food stamps, and aiming at Social Security and Medicare, to send us back to pre-Medicare pre-guaranteed Social Security days (remember that Republicans opposed both Medicare and Social Security).
Republicans are pro-WEALTHY family, as their tax bill exempts tens of millions of additional dollars from estate taxes even as the exploding deficits from the Republican/Trump tax bill are damaging the future solvency of Medicare.
As for saying that divorce is anti-family, what if someone is married to an abusive alcoholic? Isn't it better to raise the children away from that screaming and abuse, especially since so many women are murdered by their abusive husbands? And, how is NRA-donation controlled policies, such as opposition to background checks, "pro-family"?
Again, the pro-family votes of many well-meaning Americans have been hijacked by the anti-family Republican Party, thus blocking for decades the Democrats' serious pro-family and pro-children policy proposals.
The difference between Republican and Democratic rhetoric is that if Democratic proposals were put into effect, they actually would help families.
61
When we think of supporting families, our minds often think of children however elder care is a growing concern and financially much more expensive. The policies in the US are no better in supporting families in this situation either and families are even less prepared to have to deal with it.
That being said, what would really help is just children and people in general. No one wants to talk about this let alone politicians but the earth just can't continue to support 7.6 billion people; especially at American lifestyle levels. Why not a tax incentive for those that decide not to have children? The world is on gerbil wheel thinking its economies all need more and more people which is just hastening the earth's destruction.
17
The brevity of this article demonstrates how uninterested America is in truly supporting families.
It has only become more difficult for people with young children, sick children, disabled family members, aging parents, to survive economically and thrive in other ways. Our government does not make policy that helps nor does the private sector have any leadership that values parents or caregivers. We are sliding ever downward in comparison to other countries, while we raise the levels of infant and maternal mortality, employment loss for caregivers, unfinished education for students from the working class, food insecurity and housing insufficiency.
Workers in major cities are pushed farther away from the gentrified playgrounds of the Uber wealth, creating absurdly long commutes and increasing childcare, traffic and public transport nightmares. Our government avoids the difficult work of solving these problems with well researched policy by spending all of its energy engaged in partisan fighting over imagined external threats.
29
Yes we have policies that separate families but usually that's for the safety of the children, the families that are coming across the border are doing so for the safety of their children, so we should respect that and do our best to keep them as a family until it can be determined what we are going to do with them.
However the one thing we shouldn't be doing is being afraid of them which is what Trump wants.
17
As a teacher, I saw the impact of low wages and no benefits on hard working people and their families. Too often parents have to make the decision between working a second job so they can afford rent or being home for their kids. Paying adults a living wage would be a great step toward helping families have more time together.
The economic divide that is growing in this country has left the poor with fewer resources and assets. So a tax structure that actually benefits those at the bottom more, is essential to helping families. Along with this are paid family leave, ample sick days for parents to be home with their children when they are sick, and health care for all.
The right to life movement claims to take a moral high road when it comes to pregnancy and abortion, but that road dead ends at a cliff after a child is born. We did not hear from national right to life organizations on the kidnapping and jailing of infants taken from asylum seekers.
Even at the end of life, poor and working families often face disproportional expenses to care for their senior family members. Long term care should be affordable and accessible for all who require it.
As productivity increases, instead of letting the profits flow up to the rich, we should use them to support families, instead. Don't worry rich people, that money will be spent and you will still be better off than the workers who earned the profits for you.
80
Joe, as a lawyer and a hearing officer with decades of experience in a rural area (Trumpland), I agree with your observations. Kids are dreadfully shortchanged by policies that cater to the rich and the white.
I think corporations should institute policies where the CEOS make a certain reasonable multiple of the lowest paid worker. I think Walmart, etc., should reimburse the pubic coffers for the public benefits their workers receive, or should be required to pay decent wages.
We have a nation where the leaders are skilled at misdirection. Let's hate the drug addicts, let's hate the welfare recipients (especially the mythical ones that are fabulously wealthy). Let's hate immigrants (who have way way more work ethic than most of us). Let's not notice that our first family is stealing millions of dollars from misuse of power. Let's turn our heads from noticing institutions that prey on the poor and are bailed out by the gov't. Let's send the kids in my neighborhood to learn to kill and to be killed and disabled, rather than helping them learn math and science.
We have no positive goals for our country, only negative ones based on greed. To make the rich even richer, they need the poor to stay in place. They need women to be weak. They need minorities to be afraid. Melania's jacket is truly the current GOP slogan; they are indifferent to all who struggle.
46
Thank you for your post. The assistant principal at my younger son's school buys food for families whose kids are bused to the affluent area where I live. Out. Of. Her. Own. Money. Because they go to bed hungry and come to school hungry. It's heartbreaking.
35
The assistant principal makes double the wage needed to live in my area, and will get a similar pension plus cadillac healthcare in retirement. Maybe next year instead of burdening the community with a property tax ( or rent) increase to support a generous grid raise for the staff that is well above col increase, the wage grid increase could be reduced to col increase, so the family could have a little more in their pocket to put food on the table.
“There’s a basic inconsistency in saying we support families, we have family-friendly policies, when in fact we have the worst family policies of any developed high-income democracy,” said Dorothy Roberts, a professor of law and sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. “We don’t have family-friendly policies at all.”
Most Americans are trained from birth to erroneously believe they live in the greatest Nation in the World. That myth is quickly dispelled for the few who venture abroad and see first hand how bad we have it.
We have a 25% child poverty rate, students are drowing in ever increasing debt, copays/deductibles keep people from seeking healthcare and unaffordable rents.
So little of the news focuses on policies that really matter to most Americans. Instead, we are caught up in the Trump madness and daily tweets. And even mainstream Democrats advise caution in advocating polices that are viewed as too "liberal."
More and more people are waking up to the FACT both political parties are a con trying to convince us we cannot make real change to improve our lives. Hillary said, "never, ever" to Single Payer and the Democratic operatives refuse to support candidates who advocate for real policy changes.
Other civilized countries have figured it out. Sadly, we act as if solutions are impossible . . . While the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
142
Interesting how we could both have traveled the world and come home with completely opposite impressions of our welfare. My impression was how well we have it. It seems to be confirmed by the number of people who stay and the fact that people want to come here more than any other place.
5
J--"My impression was how well we have it." Does your "we" include the 25% of children living in poverty? Another unique American quality is defining "we" as my family and close friends.
3
It really does depend on which parts of the world you have traveled in. If you've gone the backpackers' route, you've seen a lot of desperately poor countries, for example.
Note, however, that while Europe was the greatest source of immigrants to the U.S. 100 or even 50 years ago, the overwhelming majority of immigrants to every major American city are from Latin America, Africa, Southeast Asia, India, the Middle East, Russia, i.e. the world's poorest and most repressive countries. You don't see a lot of Western Europeans coming here unless they've been hired for a specific job or are marrying an American.
Even more striking is that I began to hear people talking about emigrating around 2000. I don't know the exact numbers, but you never used to hear talk like that. I even know Americans who have renounced their citizenship after years of living overseas, not as a tax shelter---in fact, there are considerable financial penalties for a middle-income person doing so--but because they do not want to be associated with America's current foreign and domestic policies.
1
Good to see more of this information in print. Most Americans don't know it. I've had the fortune of living abroad and have experienced the benefits.
Middle class identity is in large part built on material comfort. Unfortunately we're in a position where a different kind of discomfort, political discomfort, is the only thing that will preserve that lifestyle. By this I mean developing new habits of communication with your elected officials. Voting and getting out the vote relentlessly. Informing yourself on the issues.
28
This speaks to the point that Hillary Clinton would have been the better president. She researched early childhood rights while she was still in college. She acted for healthcare changes way before the ACA. She served on educational and healthcare entities way before it might have become popular. She was instrumental in developing a State Children’s Health Insurance Program. She helped create an Office on Violence Against Women. And those are just starters.
Hillary Clinton was determined to make better lives for women and children. She made that her goal from very early on in her life.
Donald Trump is determined to destroy successful and fruitful lives for women and children.
Truth is, if women and children have opportunities to lead better lives, men will have better lives, too.
What we could have had, and what we have. No wonder this is a country now of sadness, psychological depression, cruelty, and danger.
97
Trump makes a complete travesty of professionalism.
1
I agree with everything you say. But her arrogance knew no bounds and she ended up bringing the Democratic Party and women and children down with her. This is her legacy, written by her.
2
@Mima: “what would have been…”
Oh, goodness, one just can't seem to let it go.
Hillary Clinton said ‘no, never’ to single payer; had a secret server in the basement of her upstate country house; just could not find tens of thousands of emails, many of which ended up on Anthony Weiner's laptop; Russia apparently engaged in a massive act of cyber war against the United States motivated apparently primarily because of HRC and her relationship with a critical foreign head of state; her campaign sabotaged Sanders and then froze him out; let's not forget as HRC stated 'one has to have a public and a private position'; throw in (advance notice) Brazile and (who cares about DNC neutrality) Wasserman; then there’s the fiasco of Benghazi for Clinton--oh, right, it’s America’s fault because somebody made a video--wrong; or how about "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders…." That is not the perspective I want a US President to have. As far as I’m concerned, No Border? No Country. Finally, they are illegal immigrants. Illegal. And actually, demonstrating some very poor parenting choices. To quote the NYT: “This is the reason I brought a minor with me,” said Guillermo T., 57, a construction worker who recently arrived in Arizona…he had been told that bringing his 16-year-old daughter would assure passage. He asked that only his first named be used to avoid consequences with his immigration case. “She was my passport,” he said of his daughter."
Another opinion column without data. The majority of America’s 73.7 million children under age 18 live in families with two parents (69 percent). The second most common family arrangement is children living with a single mother, at 23 percent Around half of single mothers have never married, half are divorced or widowed. About two thirds of single mothers are white. 2016/2017 Census data.
14
BTW, did the readers know that the percentage of two parent households in immigrant families is almost 10% higher than American born families?
15
I see another difference between the right and left attitude about families.
The right believes that individuals are responsible for their own choices: if someone decides to start a family without having the financial resources, then it's their own responsibility. They don't believe that the government should play a role, and they ignore the intergenerational problems caused by this lack of intervention. Basically, they punish the children for the sins of their parents, hoping that this will be a deterrence for poor choices. This is the stick approach.
The left senses that individual choices can be seriously limited by societal problems. Because of this, it is incumbent that government plays a role to support families with the idea that the next generation has enough advantages to make better choices in the future. This is the carrot approach.
Punishment for something outside of one's control vs support to overcome barriers. That's the right/left difference.
92
If the right really believed that people should not start a family until they were financially stable, they would support sex education and free contraception and they wouldn't oppose abortion.
5
Another way to put it is that there are some who believe in individual responsibility and liberty and there are some who who choose to be collectivists and wards of the state.
HN
If we could only have the opportunity to move to a country that supports what we believe in and just be able to lead our lives willing to pay more taxes, but feel a sense of humanity supported by that government.
Some of us, many of us, are just to old to see a way out of watching this humiliating government and its suppression of morality.
We’ve basically raised our families, our kids, but we are distraught seeing what our grandchildren have to witness and live in this present country.
MIMA
3
Against the backdrop of the 4th industrial revolution, we must evolve as a species - and that requisite evolution points to existing structures, systems, beliefs. The time we're living in about transformation - it's a collective spiritual lesson for those willing to heed it.
This transformation starts at the personal level - then family level, institutional level and societal level. Lasting systemic change is a slow moving ship and can be very painful in the process.
America was founded on the idea that out of many people we are one, and what comes with that responsibility is to create a society where we honor our differences, debate and learn to compromise. What other country was founded on this? What other country was founded on - 'we the people'?
We have a bifurcated culture that now splits into 'you're with us or you're against us'. Evolving painful systemic cultural issues - and yes this includes answering the questions about who are we, who are our families are and how to best support them - will be about balance, empathy, understanding the neighbor who doesn't believe what you believe, being willing to tell their story and above all else, compromise.
The very definition of compromise is an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
22
But the GOP either doesn't believe that, or maybe doesn't it.
American social and political policy is trapped in a never ending conflict between social religious conservatives and liberal activists. One side sees government's primary function as teaching citizens autonomy and self reliance. The other demands that government provide support to the less fortunate born and socially handicapped. Both see themselves as the answer to very complicated social policies. Christians and conservatives demand government stay out of family and local community decisions, but also insist that government regulate moral behaviors. Liberals demand that government moderate all public policy that infringes on our moral choices. So we see a conservative federal government that says it is supporting families when it breaks them up at the borders, or takes away their medical care, and a liberal state government that issues extra support to the poor or sanctuary cities that harbors illegal aliens. So far in our political history, our Constitution has forced each side to compromise their positions, except in the instance of the Civil War. We may be reaching a great reckoning again with Donald Trump leading the charge. This November will tell.
21
Great comment.
"One side sees government's primary function as teaching citizens autonomy and self reliance. The other demands that government provide support to the less fortunate born and socially handicapped. "
The either/or thinking that you imply is truly where so many are stuck....what's to say both don't coexist in any thoughtful agreements as to what are the best choices in all circumstances.....It is nonsense that we can ever fully support all people as much as it is nonsense that we throw people out to fend for themselves (and ultimately lean on others) We need to recognize both are needed strategies and for the most part is not even for us to choose but for the individuals involved.
I would not describe those people as "Christians ".
1
Religion has no place in US government. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" flatly says "no" to all legislation based on the projections of a human personality onto nature by people who never will grow up.
1
Not true about divorce and single parents not being logical extensions of condemning family separations. Most divorces spend a great deal of time working out the situation of the children, co-parenting, visitation rights and arrangements. Kids are NOT better off in a hostile or unhappy marriage. Single parents are also family units. Families are not just a mother, a father and kids. Siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins all make up a family. What a child needs is whatever makes him or her feel safe, loved and valuable.
178
Divorce and single parents isn't the logical extension of condemning single parents, but assuming the right would use condemning family separation as an excuse to attack single mothers and career mothers was a logical and predictable extension.
People need to spend time reading newspapers outside their comfort zone and be a little smarter.
When I tried to point this out earlier this week, the things people said about me online were mean. KTT isn't my name, but it's still hard to read such mean stuff about yourself.
I'm not against children, I'm not against immigrants. I just understand that a movement that is meant to help immigrants, but actually says (and if you read the articles, that _is_ what was actually said) that _in and of itself_ having a mother separated from her kids for any length of time causes irreversible harm--that movement opens women to attack from the right.
Just wait until we have the perfect candidate but we learn that she left her kids in a boarding school while she traveled for her job.
And--I think its _fine_ for kids to be away from their families for a few months. It's probably good for them. I love immigrants from south of the border and I think they will be great citizens someday. They have family values, entrepreneurial spirit, work ethic, their kids study hard, they go to church. Get support from the right by saying that, because it is true!
2
I'm personally dealing with this choice. When given the choice between being in an abusive marriage or being a single parent, I am choosing to be a single mother. The truth is that abuse is widespread. Touting the benefits of a 2 parent family without mentioning the harm of an abusive marriage is irresponsible and harmful. It preserves a patriarchal norm that abusive men use to excuse their behavior and guilt trip mothers into staying in dangerous situations. I think it is safe to assume that most women who become single mothers do so under circumstances that are beyond their control. It's rarely a "choice."
2
Supporting families means having:
* quality healthcare for all members, from prenatal to seniors;
* quality education for all members, from opportunities to learn and be cared for in qualified childcare settings, to well equipped K-12 schools with qualified teachers who are paid a wage that represents their importance to families and to society;
* free or affordable higher education for any and all students who want to pursue one, and/or training and continuing education opportunities for all want to improve their lives and the lives of their children;
* a healthful environment where the water is safe to drink and the air is safe to breathe;
* access to recreational opportunities, including public lands that are not at risk of privatization and development;
* a living wage for all workers, so that family income earners aren't forced to work more than one job;
* an economy that recognizes the dignity of all Americans, and that reinvests in the future (not in the bank accounts of a select few).
The list goes on and on. Right now we have a political system that rewards the rich through our tax structure at the expense of working families. If we addressed just that one weakness in the system -- and money in politics -- families might once again have a fighting chance.
172
What you are are speaking of preceded the Four Freedoms contained in his January 1941 State of the Union Address to Congress. As was frequently the case the sentiments came initially from Eleanor.
Eleanor Roosevelt was actually more terse in In her “My Day” newspaper column, datelined July 4, Hyde Park, Eleanor conveyed her understanding of the American Revolution’s enduring legacy.
“I personally want to continue to live in a country where I can think as I please, go to any church I please, or to none if that is my desire; say what I please, and within the limits of any free society, do what I please,” she wrote. “I want the right to work, and I want that opportunity to be extended to all my fellow citizens. I want them to have an equal opportunity for educational development, for health and for recreation, which is all part of the building of a human being capable of coping with the modern world.”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/roosevelt-four-freedoms-...
These are the things we need to do to make life better for our families. There are to be sure those in America that believe our ethos should be every man for himself, but the majority would agree with the French motto, All for One and One for All.
5
Thank you, Joel.
You're right - I have always identified as an FDR/New Deal Democrat.
As the richest country on earth we can easily afford to provide the basic necessities to our citizens and our families. That we don't says more about our country's values than our country's financial condition.
This article is fantastic. Thank you for connecting these dots. America loves children, childhood, the idea of family (though not all kinds of families), but fails to support them in so crucial ways. And this larger, systemic failure to support families is borne by women and mothers, grandmothers, aunts, older siblings...the list goes on.