Opinion

Donald Trump's cruel child separation policy profoundly disturbing

Dealing with mass illegal immigration is a complex issue challenging countries in Europe and other parts of the western hemisphere.

However, whatever the problem, the solution is definitely not the approach adopted by the United States, which attracted international opprobrium for forcibly separating more than 2,300 children from their parents who have crossed the border from Mexico.

Images of young children being held in cages and standing bewildered as border guards detain their mothers caused deep dismay. A harrowing audio recording of distressed youngsters crying out for their parents was profoundly disturbing and fuelled the outcry across the US and beyond.

Pope Francis added his voice to criticism of the Trump administration’s policy, supporting statements from the Catholic bishops branding the move “immoral” while Theresa May voiced concern at Westminster yesterday, saying the measure “is wrong”.

For those observing events from the outside, this latest controversy involving Donald Trump appeared insupportable even for a president known for his unpredictable and extreme behaviour.

Inflicting such suffering on small children is so obviously cruel and heartless that it is hard to believe it is the United States that introduced this vile policy.

However, it may come as little surprise that President Trump initially took a different view from the chorus of condemnation emanating from Republicans and Democrats, commentators, business, medical and religious leaders.

He has defended the measure and had the cheek to blame the Democratic Party for the dreadful state of affairs which shows that this is all about political advantage for Mr Trump, who is trying to leverage funding for his border wall.

He also knows he has support from his voters, who blame parents for bringing their children to the US illegally.

Nevertheless, last night he backed down under pressure, ending this repugnant practice which was so lacking in compassion that it could not possibly be defended.