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.

Refugees and progressive leadership

When the Vietnamese refugees arrived in 1975, to Subic Bay, Philippines, my husband and I were among the community of Americans who helped to receive them. To a person, these desperate refugees were traumatized.  There was no hesitancy in responding to their dire needs. Therefore, this particular essay is personal....

Vietnamese refugees wait to be taken aboard the amphibious command ship USS BLUE RIDGE (LCC-19).

When You Have an Administration that Wants to Welcome Refugees... "Vice-President Mondale’s diplomatic efforts and eloquent speech in Geneva, about Indonesian refugees, galvanized the world to respond."

An echo essay published in the History News Network (HNN) by Joel K. Goldstein

No historical analogy is required to be repelled by the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy which involved the separation of thousands of children from their parents. 

Vice President Walter Mondale 

"Let us honor the moral principles we inherit. Let us do something meaningful—something profound—to stem this misery"

“Anybody with a heart would feel very strongly about it,” said President Donald Trump when he belatedly signed an executive order ending the policy his administration had imposed. Trump and his subordinates had previously blamed the Democrats, Congress and the courts and justified the approach as good policy with Biblical support. Trump’s executive order did not, of course, repair the damage his administration had already caused – to the parents and children separated from each other, to America’s international standing, to America’s commitment to humane values.

Jimmy Carter’s response to the Indochinese refugee crisis forty years ago illustrates a quite different attitude toward refugees and to governing. It provides a case study that illustrates how the Trump administration’s perverse substantive values and Trump’s governing approach produce such disastrous policy as intentional family separation.

Eric Schwartz, the President of Refugees International and a former dean of the Humphrey School at the University of Minnesota, has recently recalled, as an “alternative vision” of American humanitarian leadership, Vice President Walter Mondale’s remarkable speech 39 years ago last month to a special meeting of about 60 governments in Geneva at a United Nations Conference on Indochinese Refugees. The Geneva meeting had been convened to address a refugee crisis that stemmed from repressive and discriminatory actions against ethnic, religious and national groups by the Vietnamese government that caused hundreds of thousands of people to flee for their lives, often by sea in decrepit craft, as well as by actions creating land migrations from Laos and Cambodia. Camps in neighboring countries were bursting with refugees, boats were being turned away, refugees were dying at sea.

Mondale’s diplomatic efforts and eloquent speech at the Geneva meeting galvanized the world to respond. After spending the first daymeeting with representatives of China and American allies, Mondale delivered his powerful speech. “[S]ome tragedies defy the imagination,” said Mondale. “Some misery surpasses the grasp of reason that language itself breaks beneath the train.” Mondale recalled that 41 years earlier an international conference at Evian had failed to act to save the Jews of Germany and Austria, an indifference that emboldened Hitler. Mondale challenged the world not to repeat the tragic mistake of Evian. “Let us honor the moral principles we inherit. Let us do something meaningful—something profound—to stem this misery. We face a world problem. Let us fashion a world solution. History will not forgive us if we fail. History will not forget us if we succeed.”

Nine years ago I called Mondale’s speech “one of the truly eloquent speeches in American history” in an article that prompted Mondale speechwriter Marty Kaplan to provide some of the backstory behind it. 

Rereading Mondale’s speech never fails to move me; you can find it here.

As inspirational as the speech was, it succeeded because it was part of a process that reflected an enlightened and capable approach to governing, one altogether absent in the Trump administration.

Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke had communicated with Mondale about the crisis and the obstacles impeding the Carter administration from an optimal response in spring 1979. Mondale took the problem to Carter and, with his support, brought together an inter-departmental group to address the problem. Mondale persuaded Carter to denounce the repressive policies, deploy the navy to rescue refugees from sea perils, admit 14,000 refugees per month (168,000/year), and seek additional funding to establish refugee processing centers and to assist in resettlement efforts.

Mondale took these concrete actions to Geneva. There, his diplomatic and oratorical efforts produced a strong positive response. America was able to persuade other nations to respond because in addition to Mondale’s inspiring words, he offered a seven-point plan for international action and the United States led by example, doubling the refugees it would accept and committing resources to save and resettle others.

It is instructive to consider the factors that produced the leadership of Carter and Mondale in contrast to Trump’s disastrous policy. Professor Schwartz rightly offers Mondale’s speech as “an alternative vision of U.S. humanitarian leadership” that vindicates American interests and values. Carter and Mondale believed in the Biblical teaching that we are our brothers’ keeper as a tenet of personal and political behavior in contrast to Trump’s version of empathy which seems concentrated on himself and his wealthy friends. And Carter and Mondale believed in human rights as an essential aspect of American foreign policy leadership in contrast to Trump’s affinity for authoritarian leaders.

But the Carter-Mondale “alternative vision” succeeded because Carter immersed himself in information and prioritized making the right choices, not those that catered to a political constituency. Carter created an administration in which talented people were not afraid to raise problems and think about them holistically. By contrast, it was predictable that Trump’s zero tolerance approach would produce the inhumane results it did, but Trump and his subordinates either did not think about the problem in a comprehensive way or were not offended by taking children from their parents, or both.

Government officials knew that Mondale could influence Carter and that he was willing to fight for initiatives even when they ran counter to Carter’s concern to limit government spending. Therefore, it was not surprising that the challenges involving Indochinese refugees came to Mondale and that he took the issue to Carter. Mondale understood that America could only persuade other nations if it brought a plan and an example as well as prose to Geneva.

Mondale’s eloquent speech at Geneva did represent “an alternative” and far more attractive vision of humane international leadership. We can be sure that those the navy saved from perilous seas viewed America quite differently than will the children who were locked in cages and the parents and children many of who still remain separated because the government cannot figure out how to reunite some of the families that it tore apart. In stark contrast to today, America’s 1979 actions showed the world a nation committed to stopping suffering, not creating it.

That episode demonstrated the importance of values but also of having a president engaged with information, not one oblivious to it; one who invited and often received criticism and bad news from Vice-President Mondale and others, not one who encourages sycophancy and limits his news feed; and of an administration where highly capable public servants think about problems in their complexity with empathy, not one where officials are surprised by predictable outcomes or complicit in designing and implementing programs that embarrass decent Americans and spark outrage around the world.

In a cage ~ The Holy Family in Indianapolis church

A church put Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus in a cage to protest the 'zero tolerance' policy

By Jessica Campisi and Saeed Ahmed, CNN 

A Christ Church Cathedral volunteer sets up a display of the Holy Family in a cage to protest US immigration policy.
The Rev. Canon Lee Curtis came up with the idea for the display.
"This symbol is something that speaks to every one of us at our most basic level, because of who we are as a church and as Christians," he told CNN.

(CNN)A church in Indianapolis has put up a display that shows the statues of Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus in a cage to protest 

the Trump administration's 'zero tolerance' policy.

The nativity statues at the Christ Church Cathedral are enclosed in a chain link fence lined with barbed wire. It's meant to resemble an immigration detention center, the church said.

The White House's "zero-tolerance" prosecution policy has resulted in the detention of families caught crossing illegally at the border.
Members of the church say the journeys of immigrant families are similar to that of the Holy Family.

Scripture says that Mary, Joseph and the infant Jesus were homeless and fled to Egypt, where they were welcomed, said the church's dean and rector, Steve Carlsen.

Near the caged Holy Family is a sign that reads, "#EveryFamilyIsHoly" and "CadaFamilyEsSagrada," its Spanish equivalent.

"We think faithful people across all faiths, races, cultures ... that we shouldn't be divided," Carlsen said.

The church has tried to advocate for immigrants through actions like accompanying them to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-ins, Carlsen said.

"According to the Golden Rule, we're supposed to love our neighbors as we love ourselves," he said.

Nobel Committee condemns Donald Trump

A member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee is condemning President Trump for the "zero tolerance" immigration policy that has resulted in separated families, saying that the president is "no longer the moral leader of his country or the world."

"What is happening at the border where he is separating children from their parents is a sign that he is no longer the moral leader of his country or the world," Thorbjorn Jagland, who is also the secretary general of a human rights watchdog, Council of Europe, said, according to Agence France-Press.

"He cannot speak on behalf of the so-called free world," he added.

Many lawmakers previously supported the idea of Trump being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in convening a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un earlier this month. But Jagland and many other heads of human rights groups have spoken out against Trump this week for his immigration policy.

Trump is facing outrage from Democratic and Republican lawmakers over the policy, which led to the separation of approximately 2,000 children from their families from mid-April to the end of May, according to The Associated Press.

The House and Senate are both moving forward with legislation that would end Trump's "zero tolerance" policy, though it remains unclear when it may emerge through Congress.

Jagland also said that the decision to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday is another example that shows Trump "does not want to be part of international treaties or international cooperation-based organizations."