From Robert P. Coutinho at The Moderate Voice:
What has not seemed to have been discussed in the over-all horror of the situation is the rationale for such malfesance. For instance, let us assume (I don’t, but that is beside the point for the observation) that:
1. One believes that harsh treatment of detainees will give a disincentive for them to enter the country.
2. One believes that it is acceptable to imprison people who come across the border illegally, regardless of their stated reasons.
3. One believes that the detainees need to be kept secretly (at least to the point of no visitation) because they may be harboring anti-social ideas.
4. One believes that a person who is in this status needs only to request repatritation in order to go back where they came from.
5. A person may be held responsible so long as they have chosen this action, regardless of age.
One of the specific claims of the investigators was that a young, teen girl was given a toddler to care for. The toddler was urinating on the floor and had no diaper. The girl just watched as it happened, not knowing what to do. Another claim was that the children had not been allowed to shower—or not until just a few days before the inspectors (who gave the government a 3-week notice) arrived. Other horrible situations also occurred.
We are talking about children here!
We are talking about some very young children here!
Even if you want to be so callous as to suggest that a ten-year-old child chose to come here illegally, that it is acceptable to jail such a child, even that the child should face harsh conditions as a deterrent to the other pre-pubescent scallywags; even given all of these assumptions, why the toddlers?