Heidbrink--Wilson

I think it's a little presumptive to argue that the court deliberately sought "to protect and provide for this inherently vulnerable population" as its main motivation for enacting the reforms (1). I'm sure that that's the public front for the campaign but the measure would only have been politically feasible if the emphasis was on the expected gains in tax revenue from a new group of tax payers (and yes, most children wouldn't earn enough to be required to file taxes, but it's the principle of securing the loyalty of a new pool of payers, not to mention the gains from those who could actually pay taxes--baby-sitting money nearly became taxable income a few years ago, to give some idea of the government's propensity for inventing new ways to gain revenue). Diminishing the rights of parents who are not overtly abusing children is a hard sell to some legislators, though the reforms could make parents less likely to force a child into a factory due to the lack of incentive. However, I'm not sure how effective the reforms would be as a deterrent for parents to take advantage of children because a parent who could pressure a child into factory work is just as likely to pressure a child into giving up her income even if the law grants the child ownership of earnings. Child workers will remain an issue because if a household relies on a child's income, the child would probably find a way to provide if committed to the family--the reform could just encourage illegitimate forms of work or work that takes place after hours. And I do admit that the state does have a vested interest in a healthy population, and not purely for pecuniary reasons. A healthy, thriving population will not only produce more but be more likely to engage in civic activity i.e. voting, civil service, etc. The child remains a subject, however--just of a different parent, more furtive in her intentions.

I digress--was intending to discuss unaccompanied children but got caught up in the policy implications and some presumptions of my own. I was particularly struck by the image of Mario being dressed in a manner that would elicit sympathy from the court (13). Being told that the only way to get through important channels is to act a certain, if not insincere way, could be a blow to agency--a challenge to know oneself enough to be able to emerge without lasting effects or permanent changes. The court is a theatre in this way, just as effective as a film or West End production at setting a stage, calling upon a specific cast, remaking the participants, and presenting a message to an audience. The child who can recognise the falsity of a situation or when he is being manipulated already regains some of his agency.

(Sorry Lauren--I'm citing you! It's only a class-wide circulation, however! ^__^ )