My fellow congressmen of the United States oppose the Indian Removal Act, encouraged by Andrew Jackson, being passed. The purpose of this act was to remove the Indians from the federal territory west of the Mississippi River in exchange for their ancestral homelands. This act gave the government the power to relocate the Indians. This act also had an effect with finding gold in California. Some of the effects of this act were Jackson losing his popularity among the people, all of the Indians moving to the east, Georgia, and the Gold lottery, and the government authorized to negotiate and enforce treaties with the Indians.
1972 will forever remains to be a historically significant year with Indian community in America. The Adoption of the Indian Control of Indian Education Policy by the general assembly of the native Indians national brotherhood marked a new beginning in the way education was perceived and imparted among Indian children. The establishment of the department of Indian education affairs and subsequent delegation of powers to implement the contest of the policy indicated a new beginning in the Indian education system. The Indian education system had for a long time been dependent on federal government. Since its adoption in December 1972 when the then minister for Indian affairs the policy has had significant influence in the way Indian access education.
In the short story The Circuit, and the article Will India’s proposed rules of child labor help or hurt children? , it is evident that children shouldn’t be allowed to work full days as an alternative of going to school due to the loophole in child labor laws and the enjoyable opportunities school provides children with. To start off, the author of Will India’s proposed rules of child labor help or hurt children? informs, “In Surat, a fast-growing city of 4.6 million, the bosses of textile factories that make cloth regularly tell labor inspectors that the boys working in the factories are relatives” (2). This quote displays that the new child labor proposal has a loophole in which the bosses of factories can easily say that the kids working in the
This policy was meant to decrease the federal government’s involvement and financial responsibility for Indians in hopes that they would be more welcomed into modern American society (Lavin, 73). Therefore, the federal government established the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) in 1946 (Lavin, 73). The ICC created a federal court specifically designed to give the tribes an opportunity to sue the government for damages or lost land (Lavin, 73). This policy proved to be a success as the Navajos were able to elect chairmen and make much needed improvements in their communities (Lavin,
This statistical information suggests that there are more efforts made to place children of Indian decent with family, as mandated by the ICWA policy. There are multiple reports that state the Act is not being implemented and that the courts and agencies continue to fail at ensuring that the policy is being followed. The 2013 New York Times Article: The Indian Child Welfare Act Provides Necessary Protection, written by Terry Cross states “Yet, despite the law, Indian children continue to be placed outside of Indian homes, even when their families are willing and capable of raising them”. The actual impact of the policy also indicates multiple conflicts related to the lack of placement with individuals of non Indian decent. The 2016 article “American Indian child welfare law under fire, written by Barini Chakraborty, shed light on the backlash of the law.
A very controversial topic surges over the United States in an argument if Child Protective Services really does its job. What even is the Child Welfare system? An official government source describes Child Protective Sources as, “The child welfare system is a group of services designed to promote the well-being of children by ensuring safety, achieving permanency, and strengthening families.” Are we really protecting the children from abusive homes, or are we tearing families that may or may not be dysfunctional apart? Through close examination of statistics and studies we can conclude that Child Protective Services does both harm and help many children across the country.
The child welfare system is seen by many Americans as a good way for abused or endangered children to be removed from a threatful environment and placed into a safe one. However, as scholars look into the flaws of the child welfare system (in a form of black resistance), statistics uncover the deeply rooted racism behind child protective services, giving it a new title as “Family regulation system” (Strengthened Bonds, 431). The family regulation system is a way for government agencies to surveil and criminalize poor Black communities, allowing the state to separate Black families, perpetuating the social and economic disadvantages they have experienced generationally within America. The government's choice of funding with regards to children’s
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is a federal law that requires government officials to take children of Native American race away from caring foster families and place them with Native American families they (in most cases) have never met before. Now, knowing the terms of this law, imagine the anguish that an American couple-Rusty and Summer Page-experienced when their 6-year-old daughter Lexi, whom they raised in their home ever since taking her in as a foster child four years prior, was taken away and sent from her loving home in Santa Clarita, California, to live with a different family hundreds of miles away in Utah -- simply because Lexi is 1.5% Choctaw (Dynar and Sandefur). Solely because Lexi has a very distant Native American ancestor, she was taken from the Pages, who want to adopt her as their own, but can’t adopt her because they aren’t of Native American ancestry (Dynar and Sandefur). Normally, laws regarding adoption try to serve the best interests of children, but the ICWA forces courts to disregard this rule and place children, while also disregarding their individual needs, with members of Native American tribes -- even if these members have no connection to the children. Originally, the Indian Child Welfare Act was created out of a concern that state
Less than 1% of Canada's population is made up of immigrants each year, however, the impact of immigration is quite large. Although Canada has only a small amount of immigrants coming each year, they still need to be protected, which is why Canada has created the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This act was passed in 2001, and came into action in 2002. The IRPA was put in place to pursue social cultural and economical benefits for all canadians, reunite families, promote successful integration and, to represent the multicultural and bilingual character of Canada. The first section of benefits comes from economics.
More than four children die a day from child abuse and neglect; over 70% of these children are under the age of three. Abuse that is visible on the body creates easy detection, but sometimes there are forms that cannot be visually observed. Fortunately, it is possible to detect when someone needs help. When the abuser is a parent or relative, the child often feels confused and ashamed. Consequently, when this is the case, they are hesitant to speak up.
The Indian Act was first proposed in 1876. It was mainly used as a way for the federal government to control aspects of First Nations lives. During the 1880’s the federal government told Aboriginal families that if they wanted their children to have an education, it was to be done under them. These institutions would be known as Residential Schools. Residential Schools were not good for the First Nations due to the education being taught was there to “take away” the aboriginal heritage within the children, in other words, to make them act like they are not of First Nation descent.
The adoptive families have disadvantage of losing or investing a whole lot of money off of their pay checks to adopt a child, but children for whom the money is being invested can feel guilty when they do find out how much it actually cost to adopt them. Children are priceless and there are no price in the world that can buy them. Just because their adoptive families invested lots of resources to adopt them, it does not mean children needs to feel that they owe their parents, they do not need to feel like they were purchased. Children deserve to have a better life and have a family, but it is not morally right to put a cost on it. Nothing is free of cost in this world, to gain something we have to lose something, however there is no price on love and care.
Krugman’s was a pediatrician and he wanted to show that pediatrician’s day to day lives involve child advocacy. First, Krugman started by telling us the context of child negligence. Then, the article went on to tell us that individuals, families, communities, and federal/state are all the ways that you could be involved in child abuse advocacy. The main topic for this article would be that Child Advocacy could be done in a wide variety of ways. Some examples would be providing healthy food for a community with low income families or just by speaking up for the children because most of the time their voice will not be heard.
In conclusion, it took a long time for child care to be where it today and it is the best it has ever been, but more work needs to be done to make it better. They need to make so that anybody can take advantage, it should not matter if their rich or poor. They should be advertisement to make parents know that they are available because a lot do not know it exist. The amount of assistance available depends on how the government wants it to be. Some countries are domestic, meaning they rather the mothers stay at home and take care of the children instead of work, so the make child care assistance hard which forces mother to stay home.
If you were being raised by parents you had no biological connection to, would there not be a desire to reach out to your “real family”? Initially most would say yes, however when they look into the reality, they may decide otherwise. When adoptees meet their birth parents at a young age, it may fill their home with arguments over family and legal issues, which can lead to disruption in all areas of their lives. Refraining from doing so can prevent trauma for the children, and is more considerate to the adoptive parents, and in the majority of cases it is far more beneficial for the adoptee to delay meeting them until adulthood.
