Innocent migrant children and the humanitarian disaster at the southern US border

"Meanwhile, the situation for children stuck at overcrowded Border Patrol stations is growing more dire."

Sixteen-year-old Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez, who died after being diagnosed with a strain of the potent H1N1 flu virus, was the third child to die in Border Patrol custody since December.

Reported on NBC News by Julia Ainsley and Jacob Soboroff

WASHINGTON, DC — Migrant children at the Southwest US border increasingly find themselves caught in a bureaucratic purgatory, stuck sleeping on concrete benches or even outside at Border Patrol stations, while the agency that’s supposed to care for them is close to exceeding its capacity, according to three U.S. government officials and documents reviewed by NBC News.

Health and Human Services (HHS), the agency responsible for sheltering migrant children and matching them with a parent or sponsor, is operating at 97 percent capacity, far over its designated "red zone" of 90 percent. Because many facilities only take certain ages or genders, being so close to capacity significantly delays the ability of HHS to find children a place in its care.

HHS was warned in early January that its plans to close a tent facility for 3,000 children in Tornillo, Texas would mean overcrowding in facilities run by Border Patrol, the first agency to receive all undocumented migrants apprehended for crossing illegally, according to two of the U.S officials.

At the time, Tornillo had been the site of protests, including by now-Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke, for keeping "kids locked up." And children were being more rapidly placed in homes due to a change in screening procedures that allowed parents to claim their children without subjecting the entire household to a background check.

But officials from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the subdivision of DHS that runs the Border Patrol, projected a surge in the number of unaccompanied children arriving at the southern border as the weather improved into the spring. Rather than placing 250 children per day in HHS care, CBP said the agency should be taking in closer to 350 per day in order to keep from overcrowding.

Instead, HHS has been taking in about 300 per day, according to figures reviewed by NBC News.

DHS Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan, who was formerly the CBP commissioner, has warned that more children could die if they continue to wait in Border Patrol facilities for long periods of time.

Kevin McAleenan (This portrait causes me to ponder a resemblance to Dr. Fischer, Governor (Warsaw District), in the Government General of Poland in 1944.
Nazi look-a-like....

An average, children are spending 110 hours in Border Patrol custody, with 86 of those hours, or 3.5 days, spent waiting on a pickup from HHS, according to data reviewed by NBC News.

HHS has so far been reluctant to admit it has a capacity issue.
Officials from the Department of Homeland Security, the agency that oversees the Border Patrol, have publicly and privately warned that there will be more deaths of children at border stations if HHS does not increase its capacity. HHS contends that its hands are tied without more funding from Congress.

Meanwhile, the situation for children stuck at overcrowded Border Patrol stations is growing more dire.

As of May 31, 1,448 unaccompanied migrant children — those who cross the border without their parents — had been in Border Patrol custody more than 72 hours, the limit for a migrant of any age, according to data reviewed by NBC News. Of those, 333 were under the age of 12, including infants and toddlers. In total, 1,851 unaccompanied migrant children were in Border Patrol custody, and the vast majority — 1,402 of them were — had been processed by the Border Patrol and were waiting for HHS to designate a bed for them at one of their roughly 100 facilities across the country.

Border Patrol facilities in the Rio Grande Valley and El Paso, Texas and Yuma, Arizona are seeing the bulk of the overcrowding, according to data reviewed by NBC News.

Officials say some children there have had to sleep on concrete slabs, on floors with no mats, or even outside as they wait to be processed and sent to HHS care. Once at an HHS facility, children sleep in bunk beds, attend school and are assigned social workers who check in with them about their well-being and the status of their case.

A spokeswoman for HHS said the agency continues to receive children from DHS.

"To help estimate capacity needs, we are in daily contact with DHS regarding numbers of children being referred to HHS for care with priority given to minors pending placement," she said.

DHS (Homeland Security) and CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Sixteen-year-old Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez, who died after being diagnosed with a strain of the potent H1N1 flu virus, was the third child to die in Border Patrol custody since December. Border Patrol officials blamed his death in part on his six-day wait in a border station due to delays to move him to the custody of HHS, which is equipped to provide better living conditions and medical care.

At other times, there have been close calls. Recently a 1-year-old boy who crossed with his grandmother was kept in Border Patrol custody for nine days, according to two U.S. government officials. Because he did not cross with his legal guardian, U.S. law considered him an unaccompanied child and therefore designated to be cared for by HHS until he could be matched with a sponsor. During that time, he developed a fever of 105 degrees. Luckily, he survived and was eventually transferred to HHS custody, the officials said.

Another DHS agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has also taken criticism for the backlog of children in Border Patrol custody. ICE is responsible for transporting children between Border Patrol and HHS care. But an ICE official said the agency has seen no delays as long as there are beds available for children at HHS.

"This is largely indicative of the crush of a demographic we are not prepared for," the ICE official said about the backlog of children.

A former HHS official said the agency was aware late last year that there would be capacity issues, but without Congressional funding for more space, the agency's hands are tied. A recent supplemental budget request included more beds for migrant children, but has so far been rejected in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, where allocating money for President Donald Trump's immigration policies is met with extreme skepticism.

The former HHS official said due to protests around the Tornillo tent facility, HHS is unlikely to be able to use "non-traditional" shelters in emergencies in the near future.

Immigrant children moved to tent detention camps

Human Dignity
Immigration

California Catholic Conference

Children Remain Separated from Parents as Migrant Policies Stress “Zero Tolerance”

California Catholic Conference

During the last week of September 2018, more than 1,600 migrant children were quietly moved during the night to a new tent facility in Tornillo Texas. 

https://www.cacatholic.org/family_separation

After a national outcry over the separation of children and parents during the summer, the number of separated children remains high with no remedies in sight. Dr. Gráinne McEvoy, a regular contributor on the history of migration, looks at the ongoing situation:

“Children are not instruments of deterrence but a blessing from God.” - Bishop Joe S. Vásquez, Chairman of USCCB Committee on Migration

Last June, the nation’s attention was riveted by a new aspect of the Trump Administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy, one which resulted in the separation of more than 2,500 children from parents detained while crossing the southern border. The reports were heart-breaking: separation through subterfuge, children denied human touch or any comfort from supervising adults, and the evidence that at least 100 were under the age of five. The backlash was vociferous and widespread, and, in July, the administration was ultimately forced to walk back this tactic.

Gráinne McEvoy is an independent scholar based in South Bend, Indiana, and is currently writing a book on American Catholic social thought and immigration policy in the 20th century.

In recent months, there have been press reports of “missing” children, record levels of minors in detention, and preparations for family detention centers. The details are troubling, but the issues and policies have also been confused and conflated. It is vital that our citizenry take time to understand the practices and proposals at stake in the administration’s treatment of migrant families and children.

Family Separations

In early April, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that federal authorities would adopt a new policy of “zero tolerance” for illegal entry into the United States, particularly along the southwest border. This meant the prosecution of anyone who crossed the border between ports of entry, even those seeking asylum. The decision to ramp up detentions in this way had particular significance for migrant families. 

Under the terms of a 1997 federal court ruling Flores v. Reno, the government’s ability to keep children in immigration detention is limited, and so the prosecution and detention of parents entails the removal of their children to the custody of a separate federal agency, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Pointing to the Flores settlement, the administration repeatedly claimed that it was legally bound to separate detained families, and that, without legislative reform by Congress, its hands were tied. This deliberate obfuscation omitted the fact that previous administrations of both parties, noting serious moral and ethical questions, have generally avoided separation by exempting migrating families from prolonged detention. In both public statements and internal memos, the administration has demonstrated that the separations were a deliberate policy choice, designed to act as a deterrent to future border crossings.

At the end of June, a federal judge issued an injunction ordering the government to reunify families within 30 days, and 14 days for children under five-years-old. It soon became clear that the administration had no plan, nor had they made any advance provision, for reunification. It has only been through cooperation with non-profits and volunteer lawyers that federal authorities have been able to reunite the majority of children with either their parents or another relative. 

Nevertheless, as of mid-September, more than 400 children remain in custody. The parents of the majority of this group have already been deported and are proving extremely difficult to locate. The long-term effect of this policy foray on the mental health of thousands of children and their families remains to be seen.

Detention of Families and Unaccompanied Minors

In early September, in light of its truncated family separation tactic the administration announced a new proposed regulation aimed at family detention. This would effectively eliminate the Flores settlement and enable the authorities to detain families in federal facilities until the conclusion of typically far-off immigration hearings. Policy analysts interpret this proposal as another arrow in the “zero tolerance” quiver, and a second stab at deterring further unauthorized arrivals. A necessary accompaniment to this approach is an expansion of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) family detention capacity, a process which requires congressional authorization.

It has also come to light that a record number of unaccompanied minors, a five-fold increase over the past year, are being held in federal custody. As of mid-September, approximately 13,300 unaccompanied minors are currently spending an average of 59 days in shelters, foster homes, and, increasingly, “tent cities” run by the Department of Health and Human Services (HSS). Mostly older children fleeing violence and instability in countries like Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, they have arrived at the southern border without a parent or legal guardian, often intending to reunite with a family member in the U.S. The children still separated from their parents since the early summer comprise just a small fraction of the total number.

The reasons for this record level of child detention are complex, but a major factor is the dramatic drop in the rate at which children are discharged into the custody of relatives or sponsors. 

While it is true that the process for securing sponsor approval has become lengthier and more difficult, critics have pointed to the chilling effect of various Trump administration procedural changes that have discouraged potential sponsors from coming forward to claim their young relatives. These include a new policy of fingerprinting all household members and sharing that information with ICE, a major disincentive when many relatives may themselves be undocumented or at least live in mixed-status homes. Reports also emerged that ICE agents arrested 41 unauthorized immigrants who had come forward to take custody of unaccompanied children.

Holding Law-Makers (aka: Congress) to Account

It is true that certain aspects of the challenging family migration situation precede the tenure of the current administration and are not of its making. But critics and analysts have raised questions about the legality of current strategies explicitly aimed at “general deterrence” and their efficacy as regards reducing undocumented border crossings.

For instance, in a statement on the family separations last June, Bishop Joe S. Vásquez, Chairman of the USCCB Committee on Migration, described family unity as “a cornerstone of our American immigration system and a foundational element of Catholic teaching.” The position taken by Church leaders and immigration experts over many decades is the intersection at which these two traditions meet.

Since at least the 1920s, Catholic spokespersons have applied the teachings of Catholic social thought to immigration questions of the day, insisting upon both the right of sovereign nations to control their borders in the national interest, and the right of individuals and families to migrate in order to secure safety and a decent standard of living. When the restrictive immigration laws were enacted in the 1920s, Catholic representatives criticized the ways in which the new regulations resulted in the separation of immigrant men already in the U.S. from their wives and children still abroad. Through debates over Chinese exclusion, discrimination according to national origins, the practice of importing Mexican migrant labor, and refugee admissions, Catholic voices have insisted that the integrity of the family unit is the most important feature of a just, moral immigration policy, and, by extension, of a stable, humane society. Also recognizing the importance of the family unit, from the 1920s, law-makers introduced incremental protections of the migrating family unit. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 then enshrined the principle of family reunification as a central plank of American immigration law.

It is hard to avoid becoming distracted by the many pressing, high drama flashpoints in our current political life. In the meantime, the administration is detaining children and arresting their family members while simultaneously calling for Congressional action to prevent family separations. The contradictions are apparent but the solutions are still not in sight.

Immigrant family separations ~ irreparable psychological harm

The health impact of separating migrant children from parents

By Jessica Lussenhop BBC News, North America reporter

Pediatric and child trauma experts are sounding the alarm that separating migrant children from their parents at the US border can cause serious physical and psychological damage.

Official images of the tent city for migrant children in Tornillo, Texas

As more stories emerge about children being separated from their parents at the border between Mexico and the US, doctors and scientists are warning that there could be long-term, irreversible health impacts on children if they're not swiftly reunited.

The head of the American Academy of Pediatrics went so far as to call the policy "child abuse" and against "everything we stand for as pediatricians".

"We just know the science does not support that this is good for kids," says Charles A Nelson III, a professor of pediatrics and neuroscience at Harvard Medical School.

From mid-April to May this year, the US Department of Homeland Security says it has separated nearly 2,000 children from their parents, after the families crossed the border into the US. The adults are being jailed and prosecuted for illegal border crossing under a new "zero-tolerance" policy enacted by the Trump administration, while their children are moved into shelters overseen by the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

May figures from the Department of Health and Human Services show children are being held an average of 57 days, but there have been reports of months-long separations and parents deported back across the border without knowing where their children are located.

Department of Homeland Security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen told reporters on Monday that the children are well-looked after.

"We have high standards. We give them meals and we give them education and we give them medical care. There are videos, there are TVs," she said.

However, pediatric health care professionals say that just because the children are well-fed and physically safe doesn't address the risk of long-term negative impacts on their immune systems, the development of their brains and even the shape of their personalities.

"The only times we do this is in a child welfare system when the child is in imminent harm," says Chandra Ghosh Ippen, associate director of the Child Trauma Research Program.

"We're causing irreparable harm when it's not necessary."

Short-term impact
Scientists say the moment of separation is all but guaranteed to be traumatic and panic-inducing in both children and parents, which will trigger elevated levels of stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline, elevated heart and blood pressure, anxiety, and symptoms like headaches and an upset stomach.

Jack P Shonkoff, director of the Harvard University Center on the Developing Child, says it is incorrect to assume that some of the youngest children removed from their parents' care will be too young to remember and therefore relatively unharmed.

"When that stress system stays activated for a significant period of time, it can have a wear and tear effect biologically. The younger you are, the more serious the threat."

The children may eventually stop crying and some of the initial shock will diminish, says Shonkoff, but that's not a reason to believe they are no longer in distress.

"They're not flailing and screaming, [but] underneath in their bodies, their stress system is still highly activated - silently, invisibly," he says.

Ghosh Ippen says that emotionally, some children may be pushed into a state of "traumatic bereavement". Tantrum-like behaviour could be replaced with profound anxiety and depression.

"Everything they know has disappeared. The child is in despair," she says.

Long-term impact

The extent of the long-term damage done to children depends on the duration of separation, as well as the ages of the children, say researchers.

"Duration is very important," says Shonkoff. "Forcible separation for a few hours is very traumatic, but if the children are immediately reunited with their mothers and fathers they're going to be OK."

Eventually, Nelson says, highly-activated stress systems will begin to cause wear and tear on the physical structures of the brain.

Nelson is a principal investigator on the Bucharest Early Intervention Project, a long-term study of 136 abandoned infants and toddlers who wound up in orphanages in Romania in 2000. Nelson and his colleagues have been following the children for 18 years, and says they have observed very different patterns of brain activity in children who were placed in foster care versus those who stayed in an institution.

"What we see in kids who have been reared in institutions, that is separation from their parents, is a dramatic reduction in the brain's electrical activity," he says. "If they're then removed and put into good homes before the age of two, a lot of this recovers. But if they're older than two, meaning, say, the separation has occurred for two years, there's no recovery. The brain continues to produce dramatically less brain activity."

Over the long term, Nelson also observed that the brains of children who were separated from their parents had a "dramatic reduction in grey matter" and that even when placed in foster care, there was only a small recovery in white matter.

Children may develop long-term psychological conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder and separation anxiety, and run a higher risk of developing heart disease and diabetes later in life. There is also the possibility of behavioural impacts. Nelson says children - boys in particular - may begin exhibiting a "callous indifference" for the feelings of others. They may have difficulties with memory, impulse control and become more prone toward delinquent behaviour.

"The other complexity here is we don't know the kids' histories, so if they're fleeing a country that has a lot of conflict," says Nelson. "If the children have already been exposed to highly levels of trauma-related things, then this is going to be that much worse."

The broader impact

Ghosh Ippen says that even if we assume all the children will one day be reunited with their parents, there's no telling what the total collateral damage of this policy will be on the children, their parents, their extended families and even on the government workers who have been charged with attending to them.

"This is going to have negative ripple effects for years to come," she says.

Health care professionals are calling for the government to release more information about the kind of mental health care separated children are getting in shelters, but Shonkoff says that in some ways, debating those kinds of interventions is thinking about the problem backwards.

"The answer is, the best intervention by far is to reunite them with their parents," he says.

"[It's as] if children were being fed poison and we asked, 'What's the best treatment for the poison they're getting?' The logical and scientific question is not to come up with the antidote for the poison, it's to stop poisoning them."