State Department Approves Child Brides – Legal Under U.S. Law


 

I will go out on a limb and opine that the approval of bringing in child brides into our country by our State Department is probably the result of the Muslim infiltration into our government. How else to explain the actions? Read the full AP story.

So now we have judges ruling FGM ban  unconstitutional and our government approving child abuse. So much for our Judeo-Christian values.

 

Federal Ban on Female Genital Mutilation Ruled Unconstitutional

Nov 21, 2018 – A federal judge in Michigan has dropped most of the charges against a Detroit doctor accused of female genital mutilation, concluding that Congress “overstepped its bounds” when it passed a law banning the practice. That 1996 law violates the Constitution and is unenforceable.

As a result, he dropped six federal charges against Jumana Nagarwala, who was accused of mutilating the genitals of multiple girls when they were about 7. Other defendants charged with assisting in the procedures have also had charges dropped.

NPR

 

The State Department has approved thousands of requests made by older men to bring child or adolescent brides to the country in the past decade, according to an Associated Press report published Friday and based on government data.

In nearly all the cases, the girls were the younger person in the relationship. In 149 instances, the adult was older than 40, and in 28 cases the adult was over 50, the committee found. In 2011, immigration officials approved a 14-year-old’s petition for a 48-year-old spouse in Jamaica. A petition from a 71-year-old man was approved in 2013 for his 17-year-old wife in Guatemala.

 

The State Department approved 5,556 requests made from adults who were looking to bring minor spouses or fiancées to the United States and 2,926 requests made by minors that were seeking to have older spouses brought in. The agency also reportedly approved 204 requests made by minors seeking to bring in spouses who were also minors.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the first step for consideration of petitions for spouses or fiancées.

Data gathered by the news agency revealed that in the majority of cases, girls were the youngest in the relationship. In nearly 150 cases, the man seeking to bring minor spouses or fiancées to the U.S. was over the age of 40.

H/T: The Hill

Full story over a the Associated Press

Advertisements

40 Responses to “State Department Approves Child Brides – Legal Under U.S. Law”

  1. State Department Approves Child Brides – Legal Under U.S. Law — BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades! – literature Says:

    […] via State Department Approves Child Brides – Legal Under U.S. Law — BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts… […]

    Like

  2. Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove Says:

    […] Bunkerville discusses the legality of bringing child brides into the U.S. […]

    Like

  3. Kid Says:

    An islamic bride asked her old husband “Ahmed how come you never carry me up to the bedroom anymore”. Well Fatima, you were 11 years old in those days !

    Yea, it is a serious subject, so whomp me with a newspaper.

    And when was the last time we heard of a moslem in America being charged for polygamy ?

    Judges have also ruled based on sharia because the parties involved were moslem. These people don’t care. The government doesn’t care any more than Macron, living in a castle, gives a rat’s behind about the French people having to live in hellholes while he continues to import moslem savages.

    If this situation is to be addressed at all, it will only be addressed by the citizens. At least we are still armed.

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      You cut to the chase. Our side is held to the law…but everyone else gets a pass. How about this new member of Congress who was married to someone as well as her brother? The law not for them. Right you are about Sharia.

      Like

      • Kid Says:

        No better example than our friend AOW (Always on Watch blog) – Slammed into on the road by an illegal with no license, no insurance, and no consequence. Meanwhile, she has chronic back/spinal damage that has been and will be with her for the rest of her life. The judge told her if the situation was reversed, she’d be taken to the cleaners to the point of having her life destroyed. Un – $^^$%###$^%^%$n Real.

        They don’t care about you. At all. At all. Lot more serious than a 1% tax on tea wouldn’t one think?

        Like

      • Kid Says:

        If it were me, I think I’d have hunted the SOB down and did some damage.

        Like

      • bunkerville Says:

        You and I feel that way Kid…. but we are small in number I am afraid.

        Like

      • Kid Says:

        Yes, we have become the pussy nation. Sorry no other way to put it.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. cherylpass Says:

    Re: Laura’s “unconstitutional” concerns above: I think she is describing the unconstitutional usurpations we have long suffered, such as Roe vs. Wade being one example of federal law taking precedence over state laws. The feds, though, have taken over states’ rights in so many areas, I wonder how we will ever walk that back. In the case of FGM, no moral society could ever allow such a horrifying, mutilating procedure to be done on any grounds and the perps should be prosecuted, including the parents of these children. Who prosecutes them…?? That’s the question. The courts at all levels have been so corrupted!!!
    On the child brides….why isn’t this considered child trafficking? Or as someone above said, pedophilia? I don’t give a tinker’s damn whether any religion approves of this. What happened to the “age of consent?”

    You are right Bunker……in so many ways, we are TOAST! SMH!

    Liked by 3 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      Considering all of the usurpations, this is not one I am prepared to fall on my sword over.
      Note the comment from the victorious party:

      “We’re thrilled with the court’s well-reasoned and thoughtful opinion,” Mary Chartier said. “We are confident that a trial would have shown that the religious procedure done in these cases was protected by the Constitution and far less invasive than male circumcision. No matter what future court proceedings may still occur, we’re committed to fighting for as long as it takes to prove Dr. Attar is innocent.”

      Anyone who read exactly the sickening details of what happened to these little girls would more likely agree. This is the first salvo. Just wait until they challenge any State laws. Anyone want ot bet its a federal “freedom of religion” case?

      Sick of all of it,

      Liked by 1 person

      • Laura Bernard Mielcarek Says:

        The inaccuracy in Chartier’s statement is that the decision does not prove that FGM is protected by the Constitution — it’s not, that’s absurd!

        FGM is an assault on girls — it’s a crime. islam is not a religion and it is completely incompatible with the Constitution, our culture, our values, and our laws. FGM conflicts on the state level, though because the states never delegated authority over it to the feds.

        The proper response to unconstitutional court rulings is to ignore them. States aren’t bound by unconstitutional decisions. States have the authority to push back against the feds, they just don’t use the authority because the feds have hamstrung them. The feds control the states by way of the money the feds ‘give’ to the states. The feds threaten to cut off the federal spigot to the states and they roll over.

        Nothing will change until the People and the states take back their power and then use that power to rein in the corrupt, unconstitutional federal government.

        Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        This opinion was from their attorney which I should have mentioned. Good points all the way around.. Thanks.

        Like

      • Laura Bernard Mielcarek Says:

        Are you upset with me, Bunker? Please don’t be upset. My family gets tired of me droning on and on about the Constitution, blah, blah, blah.

        People rally around ‘protecting the Republic’ or ‘restoring the Republic.’ A vital component of our structure as a republic is that we are a federal republic. We are a union of sovereign states. We are not a nation we are a federation. For our Country to endure, it’s crucial to restore and maintain the Constitutional balance of power between the feds and the states and among the three branches which make up fed and state governments.

        I will zip my lip, now.

        Like

      • bunkerville Says:

        Not in the least Laura…. I left a comment that I appreciated the discussion… I have just gotten more jaded than you. I can’t take the high ground as much..

        Like

  5. Mustang Says:

    According to UNICEF, FGM is a violation of human rights with indications of life-long health and psychological consequences. Yet, now the procedure has moved from the bedrooms of Islamic nitwits into our clinics and hospitals, and private medical offices. Before it was relatives of the victim who performed these abuses, now its doctors and nurse practitioners. But medical oaths require “first, do no harm.” How does one NOT do harm when the procedure is, according to the UN organization, a human rights violation? Even with this proclamation, however, there are medical professionals who will argue that there are “cultural benefits” to FGM. I fail to see it, but then again, I’m not one of those Islamic idiots. One thing we do know, though … there is a lot of money to be made in performing these procedures. Maybe that answers all our questions, but if it does, then let’s stop pretending that we give a damn about the health and safety of our children.

    As for cihld brides, how is this NOT pedophilia?

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      It is going to turn into a freedom of religion case… see above comment to Cheryl.

      Like

    • thetinfoilhatsociety Says:

      Well we let Jews circumcise 8 day old baby boys, and doctors do that as well for both Jews and non Jews. Yes, female circumcision is a lot more devastating but the principle is the same. To take away from both function and future sexual pleasure under the guise of religious mandate. That I believe is the reason the ban was ruled unconstitutional, because it would open a very LARGE can of worms regarding male circumcision as well.

      Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        I think the jury is out one way or another. These are from substantial medical journals’
        The American Academy of Pediatrics does not come out one way or another on the issue/

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039612/

        https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(17)30386-8/fulltext

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3042320/

        Like

      • the unit Says:

        Uh… oh well tinfoil, about the religious mandates.
        Mostly non-separation of religion and state ’cause of common sense.
        Had a medical school gross anatomy professor in ’63 who served in the army during WWII explain the merits of male circumcision from the perspective and experience of empirical evidence displayed down in the wet, muddy fox hole of war and combat. Nothing described about lost sexual pleasure from those days…or the Constitution.
        “Principle is the same”. You kidding me or pullin’ my leg. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • thetinfoilhatsociety Says:

        Not kidding you. That’s the reason it took hold in the US. Look it up. And there are very few reasons to circumcise, our male population as a whole survived for hundreds of thousands of years without it. Unless you’re looking at something like HPV or AIDS transmission there’s no reason to do this.

        Liked by 1 person

      • the unit Says:

        Reason… to do or not to do?
        I refrain from prepuce stories from years ago, but could tell you of the empirical experience and opinion by the gal who managed the marine fuel and supply station down at the docks from way back when and who was acquainted with quite a few of those done and not done.
        Express ‘you’re welcome’ in advance to Bunkerville for ‘thanks for not telling the stories’. 🙂

        Like

  6. Laura Bernard Mielcarek Says:

    Regarding the FGM issue, the judge was correct. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to ban FGM. The law must come at the state level.

    This was a proper rejection of an illegal federal law. The Constitution determines what authority the federal government has. The states and the People retained the powers not delegated to the feds. FGM falls under state jurisdiction and not federal.

    We need more judges following this judge’s lead. Restoring the correct division of powers between the feds and the states.

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      I recall the case at the time. I believe he took the way out to reach his conclusion. There were a number of Federal crimes other than the FGM issue alone. Transporting a minor across interstate lines starts the Federal clock as I recall. The infamous Interstate Commerce Clause that has caused all kinds of problems. I suggest checking out the charges. The same goes for coyotes bring in underaged children. It is considered a Federal crime not a State issue. Hate crimes have been added, often after the States refuse to charge a case. But your point is well taken.
      Agree that the respect for State’s rights are paramount

      Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        Female genital mutilation in the United States – Wikipedia
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation_in_the_United_States
        Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female circumcision or female genital cutting, … With the passage of the federal law ban, the Female Genital Mutilation Act in 1996, performing

        Liked by 1 person

      • Laura Bernard Mielcarek Says:

        I read about the case. Interstate commerce doesn’t apply because it was within the state not between states. Transporting a minor also doesn’t apply because they had the parents’ permission and because the reason the minors were being transported isn’t a federal crime. Also, there’s nothing in the Constitution that allows the feds to make transporting a minor across state lines a crime. That ‘law’ is unconstitutional, too. The federal government has very few Constitutional policing powers.

        The state law in MI was passed after this happened so the ‘care giver’ couldn’t be charged retroactively.

        It’s disgusting, despicable, reprehensible, but the states have to protect the citizenry against this, the feds don’t have the authority.

        Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        Not to argue but it is a federal crime. Crimes can be both State and Federal. Setting aside the Interstate issue.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Laura Bernard Mielcarek Says:

        There are very few areas in which the Constitution allows concurrent jurisdiction between the feds and the states. The feds are delegated authority over certain issues and the states and People retain the rest of the authority to make laws.

        Please don’t confuse all the unconstitutional laws the feds have passed with actual Constitutional authority. Much of the federal government’s laws are completely unconstitutional, but the populace isn’t aware of this because that’s how the feds want it. Tradition does not equal Constitutionality.

        FGM can’t be a federal crime because there is no authority to be found in the Constitution. Just because Congress passes a ‘law’ doesn’t mean that the ‘law’ is in fact a valid Constitutional law. The federal government has been operating extra-Constitutionally almost since it was formed.

        Going back to the founding of the Country the Framers of the Constitution cautioned us against allowing the feds to usurp authority. They were clear — the People are the judges of Constitutionality — not the government. They charged us with the duty to resist federal ‘laws’ that conflict with the Constitution.

        Too many people aren’t aware of this because it’s in the government’s best interest to keep us uninformed. The feds control education, they aren’t going to let the People be ‘educated’ on the government’s limitations.

        Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        Laura… good discussion… last comment I will make is to Cheryl in response to you at top.

        Like

  7. petermc3 Says:

    On second thought hasn’t the gov’t’s entitlement industry supported teen and pre-teen unwed mothers for decades, so whats the difference if some third world geezer living off our social programs gives a child a wedding band and keeps up the tradition of intergenerational ignorance and poverty? Isn’t that what we pay taxes for, huh?

    Liked by 2 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      Sounds like you are feeling a bit cynical this morning Peter!!

      Liked by 1 person

    • the unit Says:

      Geezer control.
      https://www.valleyvet.com/ct_detail.html?pgguid=d1a41cad-f1a9-4f7c-8097-a783e99ed7b5&itemguid=ec90270c-14ef-45cb-8eb4-9662cb97a59f

      Liked by 2 people

      • bunkerville Says:

        Complete with a gift registry

        Liked by 2 people

      • petermc3 Says:

        Ha!

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Always On Watch Says:

    Looks to me as we’re going down the same path as the UK. 😦

    Liked by 2 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      One judge decides it all… not far behind AOW.

      Liked by 1 person

      • petermc3 Says:

        Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        Perfect!!

        Like

  9. the unit Says:

    Out on a limb, eh? 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  10. petermc3 Says:

    The true meaning of No child’s behind being left behind?

    And how long before the prohibition of incest, polygamy and beastiality are judged unconstitutional?
    And how long before one can marry a tree once the court declare trees are people giving a whole new meaning to tree hugger?

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      The courts have ruled that the Forest service must represent the trees. Men are having wedding ceremonies with holograms… We are toast.

      Liked by 2 people


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: