1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees – Page 107

WASHPOST CHRONICLES THE TRUMP/SESSIONS SELF-CREATED HUMAN RIGHTS DISASTER — Incredible Cruelty, Incompetence, Bias, & Just Plain Old Stupidity!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/deleted-families-what-went-wrong-with-trumps-family-separation-effort/2018/07/28/54bcdcc6-90cb-11e8-8322-b5482bf5e0f5_story.html

Nick Miroff, Amy Goldstein, and Maria Sacchetti report for the Washington Post:

Social Issues

‘Deleted’ families: What went wrong with Trump’s family-separation effort

5:41

Why hundreds of migrant children are still separated from their parents

Hundreds of migrant children remain in custody after the Trump Administration scrambled to reunite separated families under a court-imposed deadline.(Jon Gerberg/The Washington Post)

By Nick Miroff, Amy Goldstein and Maria SacchettiJuly 28 at 1:15 PMEmail the author

When a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to reunify migrant families separated at the border, the government’s cleanup crews faced an immediate problem.

They weren’t sure who the families were, let alone what to call them.

Customs and Border Protection databases had categories for “family units,” and “unaccompanied alien children” who arrive without parents. They did not have a distinct classification for more than 2,600 children who had been taken from their families and placed in government shelters.

So agents came up with a new term: “deleted family units.”

But when they sent that information to the refugee office at the Department of Health and Human Services, which was told to facilitate the reunifications, the office’s database did not have a column for families with that designation.

The crucial tool for fixing the problem was crippled. Caseworkers and government health officials had to sift by hand through the files of all the nearly 12,000 migrant children in HHS custody to figure out which ones had arrived with parents, where the adults were jailed and how to put the families back together.

Compounding failures to record, classify and keep track of migrant parents and children pulled apart by President Trump’s “zero tolerance” border crackdown were at the core of what is now widely regarded as one of the biggest debacles of his presidency. The rapid implementation and sudden reversal of the policy whiplashed multiple federal agencies, forcing the activation of an HHS command center ordinarily used to handle hurricanes and other catastrophes.

After his 30-day deadline to reunite the “deleted” families passed Thursday, U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw lambasted the government for its lack of preparation and coordination.

“There were three agencies, and each was like its own stovepipe. Each had its own boss, and they did not communicate,” Sabraw said Friday at a court hearing in San Diego. “What was lost in the process was the family. The parents didn’t know where the children were, and the children didn’t know where the parents were. And the government didn’t know either.”

This account of the separation plan’s implementation and sudden demise is based on court records as well as interviews with more than 20 current and former government officials, advocates and contractors, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to give candid views and diagnose mistakes.

Trump officials have insisted that they were not doing anything extraordinary and were simply upholding the law. The administration saw the separations as a powerful tool to deter illegal border crossings and did not anticipate the raw emotional backlash from separating thousands of families to prosecute the parents for crossing the border illegally…

. . . .

********************************

Read “the team’s” entire much, much more detailed article at the link! By the end you will be disgusted by this Administrtion’s intentional dehumanization, stunning incompetence, dishonesty, and lack of any sense whatsoever of responsible government or prudent use of taxpayer resources.

No wonder deficits are soaring while essential services are being cut. This Administration consistently and intentionally misuses our taxpayer dollars on counterproductive and totally misguided efforts such as this which have little or nothing whatsoever to do with legitimate law enforcement. And think of the monumental amounts of attorney and court time being wasted because of the Government’s lawless, racially motivated actions! What if these efforts and resources were it toward actually solving problems, rather than creating them?

The Administraton’s explanations don’t make sense. In court before Judge Sabraw, DOJ attorneys have always conceded that intentional separation of children from parents for deterrence purposes would be unconstitutional. They initially claimed that there was no such policy.

But, it’s clear that separating children from parents for deterrence was exactly what Sessions, Nielsen, and others in the Administration intended. Moreover, they had no intention of ever reuniting the children with families, which is why they didn’t bother to set up a system to keep track of them,

This seems like a very clear and intentional violation of our Constitution and lack of candor before a tribunal by Sessions, not to mention failure to fully and in good faith comply with the court’s order. That should lead to civil liability under Bivens or punishment for contempt of court, or both.

Also, seems that the DOJ lawyers who misrepresented the nature of the program their boss was running should be in line for disciplinary action from the District Court and from their respective state bars. One would only have had to watch a Sessions news clip (as many reporters did) to know that what they were telling the court was untrue or at least required some further explanation from Sessions.

Back to Eugene Robinson. Why are we putting families seeking the protection of the law in jail instead of dishonest, disingenuous scofflaws like Jeff Sessions? Maybe “Ol Gonzo” shouldn’t be up in front of the young neo-Nazis leading “lock her up” chants. What goes around comes around!

And, if I were Judge Sabraw, I might want to know why Sessions was out there leading nationalist chants rather than busting his tail to comply fully with the court’s order for reunification of families.

We need regime change! Vote the scofflaws and their enablers out of office in November! Vote only for candidates pledged to hold Jeff Sessions and the other scofflaws in this Administration accountable for their actions through meaningful oversight (of which there has been none since Trump took office).

PWS

07-28-18

SEN. BRIAN SCHATZ (D-HI) @ LA TIMES: NO, FAILURE TO REUNITE MORE MIGRANT FAMILIES ISN’T JUST ABOUT THIS ADMINISTRATION’S UNDOUBTED INCOMPETENCE – IT’S REALLY ABOUT SESSIONS’S PURE, INTENTIONAL CRUELTY & RACISM! — “This policy reveals a darker side of America that has dehumanized black and brown people since our nation’s founding. Americans have stolen and enslaved black people, killed indigenous peoples and imprisoned Japanese Americans. The reason why this administration has pumped out racist rhetoric casting people as fish to be caught, infestations to be eradicated, and animals to be caged is because it has worked before.”

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-schatz-family-reunification-20180727-story.html

Senator Schatz writes:

The failure of the U.S. government to reverse the kidnapping of migrant children from their parents has been chalked up to incompetence. People want to believe that this act of extraordinary cruelty — and the Trump administration’s inability to fix it — stems from our leaders’ lack of experience or common sense.

But this too is a failure — of our collective imagination. Although the government claimed it met the Thursday deadline to reunite families, it admitted that hundreds of parents had been deported without their children. The separation policy was designed to inflict harm. And the resolution process is chaotic by design.

How else can we explain what has happened to these families? Some 14 million checked bags are managed by the Transportation Security Administration — and that’s just during Thanksgiving weekend. Even high school students can manage a coat check for an evening without losing everyone’s coats. They match each coat and owner with corresponding tickets, and do not store the coats outside the building, or even thousands of miles away from the event.

This administration will harm children in order to force Congress to agree to its absurd immigration policies.

The administration did not take even these basic measures when it began to separate children — not coats! — from their parents. It did not use corresponding numbers for the files of parents and children, or take photos of families together, or hand out hospital-style bracelets. It did not house families near one another, choosing instead to hold mothers in California and daughters in Chicago, fathers in Texas and sons in New York City.

In fact, the administration seems to have taken a comprehensive inventory of confiscated items — sneakers, toothpaste, rosaries — everything except which child belongs to which parent.

These are the actions of a government that intended to separate families but did not intend to reunite them. It meant to inflict so much suffering that other families wouldn’t make the dangerous trek. No matter how bad the violence might be in Central America, surely these families would choose to stay united rather than come and be separated.

In fact, through all the blather, the Trump administration has admitted as much.

“I would do almost anything to deter the people from Central America,” White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly said in 2017. Even separate children from their parents, asked CNN’s Wolf Blitzer? “Yes.”

“We expect that the new policy will result in a deterrence effect,” Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary Steven Wagner told reporters in June.

“Hopefully people will get the message,” Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions said casually on Fox News in June.

But according to the Department of Homeland Security, no one has been deterred. The number of families stopped at the border actually increased by 64% in the months after the administration began to separate families. So even if you could stomach traumatizing toddlers, this policy did not accomplish Sessions’ objective of sending a warning across the desert.

Still, cruelty has its uses. Across the country, Republicans have made the Trump administration’s immigration stance their rallying cry for reelection, running more than 14,000 campaign ads this year bragging about their efforts to “stop illegals.” And last month, Sessions spelled out the administration’s plan to use all the bad press for good.

“We do not want to separate parents from their children,” he clarified. “If we build the wall, if we pass legislation to end the lawlessness, we won’t face these terrible choices.”

In other words, this administration will harm children in order to force Congress to agree to its absurd immigration policies. But let’s be clear: No lawmaker of any party should ever accede to a legislative demand in response to the intentional infliction of harm.

The American people must also speak up. Our government has kidnapped children from their parents. It forces these lost boys and girls to say the Pledge of Allegiance while they are held captive in building wings named for U.S. presidents. (It is not hard to believe that President Reagan would be aghast.)

This is not who we are, we want to say, but that isn’t quite true. This policy reveals a darker side of America that has dehumanized black and brown people since our nation’s founding. Americans have stolen and enslaved black people, killed indigenous peoples and imprisoned Japanese Americans. The reason why this administration has pumped out racist rhetoric casting people as fish to be caught, infestations to be eradicated, and animals to be caged is because it has worked before.

Will it work again? That’s up to us.

Brian Schatz representsHawaii in the U.S. Senate.

*********************************************

Senator Schatz provides a clear, succinct, powerful statement as to why we need regime change if American is to remain a great, diverse nation that uses the full abilities and respects the lives, dignity, potential, and rights of all of those who reside here now and may do so in the future.

“MAGA” has always been a not-so-thinly veiled exhortation to “Keep America As White As Possible For As Long As Possible No Matter How Much Damage We Inflict.”

Yeah, I remember that after his confirmation, I was willing to give Sessions “the benefit of the doubt” and hope that he meant his sworn testimony that he would rise above his past as a partisan Senator and represent the rights and dignity of all Americans (which, of course, would include those Americans residing here and protected by our Constitution regardless of “status”).

However, it didn’t take long to see that it was just more of the perjury and lies that roll so effortlessly off Sessions’s tongue. What he actually intended all along was to use his good fortune in being somewhat unexpectedly elevated to the Attorney Generalship to carry out a heinous, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, restrictionist, extreme right program directed against people of color, women, children, and other vulnerable minorities. This is the type of horrible program that had always driven him, but that had been able to inflict little actual damage on America due to Sessions’s “outlier” position, even among his fellow GOP Senators.

To be fair, that’s precisely what Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Corey Booker, and the Black Caucus tried to tell the Senate and the rest of American during the confirmation process. But, they were silenced or ignored. Now, innocent kids, families, abused women, and the international reputation of our entire nation are all “paying the price” for Sessions as AG.

Vote for “regime change” this November. Vote for accountability, decency, the real “rule of law,” and to rein in and ideally remove Jeff Sessions from office before he can do further damage to humanity and to our country!

PWS

07-27-18

GONZO’S WORLD: HOW BAD WAS SESSIONS’S DECISION IN MATTER OF A-B-, GRATUITOUSLY REWRITING U.S. ASYLUM LAW TO STRIP WOMEN, VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, & GANG VIOLENCE OF ESSENTIAL ASYLUM PROTECTION? – So Bad, That House GOP-Controlled Appropriations Committee Unanimously Approved A Provision That Would Reverse Matter of A-B-!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-led-house-committee-rebuffs-trump-administration-on-immigrant-asylum-claim-policy/2018/07/26/3c52ed52-911a-11e8-9b0d-749fb254bc3d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e5e5bb03b491

Seung Min Kim reports for the Washington Post:

A GOP-led House committee delivered a rebuke of the Trump administration’s immigration policies this week — an unusual bipartisan move that may ultimately spell trouble for must-pass spending measures later this year.

The powerful House Appropriations Committee passed a measure that would essentially reverse Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s guidanceearlier this year that immigrants will not generally be allowed to use claims of domestic or gang violence to qualify for asylum. The provision was adopted as part of a larger spending bill that funds the Department of Homeland Security, an already contentious measure because of disputes over funding for President Trump’s border wall.

But one influential Senate Republican and ally of the White House warned that keeping the asylum provision could sink the must-pass funding bill, and other conservatives who support a tougher line on immigration began denouncing it Thursday.

“Why is @HouseAppropsGOP voting to undermine AG Sessions’s asylum reforms & throw open our borders to fraud & crime?” tweeted Sen. Tom Cotton (Ark.), who often has Trump’s ear on key issues. “The amendment they adopted [Wednesday] is the kind of thing that will kill the DHS spending bill.”

The amendment, written by Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.), would bar funding from government efforts to carry out Sessions’s asylum directive. It passed the committee unanimously.

Sessions laid out guidance last month that said victims of domestic abuse and gang violence that is “perpetrated by non-governmental actors” will generally not be allowed to obtain asylum in the United States, an effort he said was meant to cut down on fraud.

[Sessions: Victims of domestic abuse and gang violence generally won’t qualify for asylum]

But Democrats and immigrant rights advocates have criticized Sessions’s move, warning that it would disqualify tens of thousands of immigrants fleeing violence in their home countries. His decision came as the administration was implementing a “zero-tolerance” policy that subjected everyone who crossed the border illegally to criminal prosecution, causing migrant parents to be separated from their children.

One senior Republican official said it was unlikely that the provision would stay intact once the House and Senate merge their spending measures, adding that “not every vote taken is to make law, but to move the process forward.”

With their respective bills for DHS funding, the two chambers are already headed for a clash over border wall spending, with the House allocating about $5 billion for it, while the Senate sets aside $1.6 billion.

Still, both advocates and opponents of more generous immigration policies were surprised at the committee’s move to approve the asylum measure unanimously.

“I think there was a general impression that things like that, that would undermine what the administration’s policies are, would be partisan fights and partisan battles,” said Josh Breisblatt, a senior policy analyst for the American Immigration Council.

Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.), who leads the panel overseeing DHS funding, spoke in favor of the Democratic-sponsored provision, saying: “As a son of a social worker, I have great compassion for those victims of domestic violence anywhere, especially as it concerns those nations that turn a blind eye to crimes of domestic violence.”

Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, noted that Yoder flew on Air Force One just this week and that Trump had already singled out Yoder for praise on Twitter, thanking him for securing the $5 billion in wall money in the DHS spending measure.

“He got the funding for the wall in there, and the president endorsed him, and he approved this amendment and spoke in favor of it,” Krikorian said. “That basically makes the wall not all that useful, at least for immigration purposes.”

Seung Min KimSeung Min Kim is a White House reporter for The Washington Post, covering the Trump administration through the lens of Capitol Hill. Before joining The Washington Post in 2018, she spent more than eight years at Politico, primarily covering the Senate and immigration policy. Follow

****************************************

Well, at least Sessions’s scofflaw actions are creating some bipartisanship in the House of all places (even though, as the article suggests, there is almost no chance of this actually becoming law).

You know folks are doing the smart and right thing when leading restrictionist zanies like Sen. Tom Cotton and Mark Krikorian go bonkers!

PWS

07-27-18

TAL @ CNN: WHILE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS TO COURT THAT FAMILY REUNIFICATION HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL, IN FACT, THE SITUATION REMAINS A SELF-CREATED MESS, RIFE WITH UNNECESSARY CRUELTY, HEARTBREAK, UNFATHOMABLE CHOICES – The Ugliness Of What Trump & Sessions Have Done & How They Have Done It Will Haunt Our Country For Decades!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/26/politics/separated-parents-facing-deportation/index.html

TAL REPORTS ON CNN:

Washington (CNN)What strikes Lauren Kostes is the silence.

“It’s just depressed silence. It’s a heartbreaking kind of silence,” she said.

It’s the moment when she tells an immigrant parent they are set to be deported and must choose whether to take their child with them.

Judge ahead of family reunifications deadline: Progress ‘remarkable’ but still ‘deeply troubling’

“They know that with this, their relationship with their child will be forever changed. And you can clearly see them going through every consequence in their head,” said Kostes, an immigration attorney with legal assistance foundation Florence Project.

Thursday marks a court-ordered deadline for the government to reunite families it separated at the border. Of the nearly 2,600 children the government identified as separated from their parents, more than 460 have parents who are likely to already have been deported without them, something the government says was done with the parents’ consent.

Of the ones still in the US, 900 are facing final orders of removal that could result in them being deported as soon as the federal judge in the reunions lawsuit lifts a temporary hold he put on deporting separated families.

Even before the Trump administration deployed a policy that separated those thousands of immigrant families at the US border, immigration attorneys have at times had to inform clients that their children may have stronger claims to stay in the US than they do as a family. For some families, leaving the child behind is the only way they see to save that child’s life.

Migrant women remain in legal limbo while waiting to see their children

Under normal circumstances, that’s a difficult decision. So the American Civil Liberties Union is asking the judge to give parents seven days after reunification to make the decision, given the added trauma and confusion caused by the separation in the first place, as a part of the lawsuit it brought over the separations.

Audio obtained exclusively by CNN of mothers appearing in immigration court while separated from their children gives voice to the anguish they face. “I cannot continue with this anymore. What I want is to be with my son,” one woman pleads with the judge as he tries to conduct a hearing on whether she can pursue asylum in the US.

Those mothers were ordered deported by the judge but remain in the country, CNN confirmed. They have since been reunited with their children.

But for the parents facing deportation, in that moment, they are “thinking, ‘What does this mean? What does this mean for me, what does this mean for my child, what is the best decision?’ ” Kostes said. “It’s a silence of processing and working through every possibility.”

Separations lead to complicated court cases

When the administration began separating migrant families who had crossed the border without permission as part of its “zero tolerance” prosecution initiative, it split their immigration cases as well. Parents remained in detention near the border for the most part, moving rapidly through court dockets historically unfriendly to immigrants’ claims that found hundreds of them eligible for deportation. That process was only compounded by a reinterpretation of asylum law by Attorney General Jeff Sessions that made it nearly impossible for victims of gang and domestic violence to qualify for asylum in the US. Experts say that reversal has especially affected the Central American migrants who try to cross the southern border, thousands of whom cross each month.

Trump’s immigration policies were supposed to make the border safer. Experts say the opposite is happening.

The separated children were put into Health and Human Services custody and given their own court proceedings. Court settlements and anti-human-trafficking laws in the US also give children a different set of protections than families and adults have in the immigration system, generally meaning their court cases proceed much more slowly than their parents’ and giving them a better chance of qualifying for protections in the US.

Once the parent is given an order of deportation, they are presented with a form by the government, offering them to either be deported with their child or without.

The separation process is difficult for lawyers as well.

The ACLU has also argued that the separation has made offering legal advice to those families more complicated. Asylum claims require detailed evidence and testimony, and in some cases, the parent or child may have access to evidence the other does not. Parents are under extreme emotional distress during the separation, their attorneys say. Children, meanwhile, are given caseworkers, who may have worked with the child to determine possible claims they have in the US.

When they are reunited, there are other barriers to giving adequate legal advice. In a Wednesday court filing, the ACLU included an affidavit from Manoj Govindaiah of the nonprofit Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services. He described reunited families being inseparable and deeply suspicious of anyone, even those purporting to help.

“In one case, we had been discussing the complicated procedural posture of the father’s and his son’s cases, that he had received a negative expedited removal order and was facing deportation, while his son could still apply for asylum. When he asked for clarification of what that meant, I explained that it could result in his son remaining in the United States without him. We could not complete our meeting because his crying prevented us from effectively discussing his legal case,” Govindaiah wrote.

As key deadline looms, court filings suggest the family separation crisis isn’t over

Kostes said she and her colleagues will often have to counsel the parents over multiple visits regarding their options. The weight of the decision is often too much for one meeting, she said.

With separated parents in particular, she said, many have been asked to make this decision before they have seen their child and with little communication — at best.

“What we are seeing is the parents accept that for the child it’s best for them to stay here, but we’re hearing things like, ‘If they deport me, I just want to say goodbye to my child. I’ll accept deportation but I just want a chance to say goodbye,’ and that’s just really heartbreaking,” Kostes said.

A harrowing choice

Many thus far have opted to be deported alone.

Trump administration officials have portrayed the decision as an easy one. Asked by reporters about the potentially hundreds of parents deported without their children over the course of the zero tolerance policy, officials reiterated the parents had consented.

“Those individuals, as has always been our policy, were provided the opportunity to take their child with them pursuant to their removal. Those individuals declined to do so,” said Matthew Albence, chief of Enforcement and Removal Operations at Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “They are not going to generally take that child back with them after they’ve accomplished their smuggling.”

“Why we’ve seen many of these parents who have been removed decline to take their child is because they completed the smuggling act,” he said in a different call. “That was the intended goal of their illegal entry in the first place.”

The parents for the most part have been charged only with misdemeanor illegal entry to the US, if anything, and not with smuggling.

Attorneys like Kostes, who works with the nonprofit immigrant assistance program the Florence Project, say the reality for these parents is much starker and more difficult.

Impact of Sessions’ asylum move already felt at border

For many Central Americans, the journey north is spurred by gang threats, according to experts and immigration advocates. In one example, Lenni Benson, a New York Law School professor who’s executive director of the legal assistance program Safe Passage Project, had a recent client on the border who was facing deportation and had to decide whether to take her 17-year-old daughter with her. CNN has agreed to withhold her identity for safety considerations.

The Central American migrant ran a small business back home with her daughter. As the business grew, the blocked-number calls started.

The gangs began to threaten and try to extort her. She changed her number. They found her again and kept calling. Then the gangs began telling the mom, a survivor of assault herself, what her daughter looked like and what time the girl would leave home in the morning.

The mother told Benson the gangs “said that ‘she would pay the price. And I know what they do to people,’ ” Benson recounted the woman telling her.

The mother did not tell her daughter about the threats, but they packed up and sneaked into the US. The two were held together in family detention, but Benson had to tell the mother that if she failed to convince the government to re-hear her plea for asylum, her daughter may have an independent claim because of the nature of the threats.

“It was horrible to say, as a lawyer, as a law professor, as a mother, as a human being,” Benson said. “I said to myself, ‘What would I do?’ I would do what parents have always done and said, ‘My child comes first.’ “

Most of the children whose parents opt to leave them in the US are older, usually 11 and up, Kostes said. They are also likely to have family in the US who can care for them.

CNN spoke with one woman, Jennifer, who was in detention awaiting reunification with her 6-year-old daughter. She has not yet been ordered deported, but said that if she had to make the choice, she would take her child. CNN agreed to identify her only by her first name.

The options parents facing deportation have after they’ve been separated from their kids

“It was a really hard decision to make. I was going to decide to take my child because I didn’t know what else to do,” Jennifer said of her decision to flee to the US, as translated by CNN. “Of course I would take her (if deported). I can’t leave her. … Thank God I didn’t have to make the decision.”

But Jennifer says she cannot go home to Honduras, where the gangs are threatening her family even after she tried to move to the mountains away from them. “The gangs are everywhere,” she added.

“For those who were going to leave their kids behind … they would do it for a better future for the child,” Jennifer said. “In Honduras, for real, there’s nothing there for them.”

CORRECTION: This story has been updated to reflect that Lenni Benson is a professor at New York Law School.

CNN’s Nick Valencia and Catherine Shoichet contributed to this report.

****************************************

And, as stories elsewhere have shown, these cruel, unnecessary, and downright idiotic policies are far from promoting effective law enforcement. In fact, Sessions has actually abused his power by making the border and the country less safe in almost every conceivable way!

I go back to Eugene Robinson’s key question: why are the wrong individuals in jail here? Why aren’t those in this Administration, like Sessions, who knowingly and intentionally created this mess being held accountable?

PWS

07-27-18

SESSIONS & TRUMP: MS-13’S BEST FRIENDS! – Tal Kopan @ CNN Confirms What I Have Been Saying All Along! – Administration’s “Gonzo” Immigration Enforcement Strengthens, Empowers, Emboldens Gangs While Harming Victims!

Trump admin was warned a policy change could strengthen MS-13. They did it anyway.

By Tal Kopan, CNN

The Trump administration was warned that ending US protections for more than 300,000 Central Americans would strengthen and grow MS-13 and gangs that President Donald Trump has called “animals,” according to an internal report obtained by CNN.

But the administration went on to end the protections for citizens of El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras and Nicaragua regardless.

The warnings came from experts at the State Department in October 2017, and were attached to a letter from then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to then-acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke.

The State Department also warned that ending the “temporary protected status” program could also hurt US national security and economic interests, including by driving up illegal immigration.

The program covers migrants in the US of countries that have been hit by dire conditions, such as an epidemics, civil war or natural disasters. Previous administrations spanning party had all opted to extend the protections for Central America every roughly two years.

“Many of the deportees would be accompanied by their US-born children, many of whom would be vulnerable to recruitment by gangs,” warned the section on Honduras.

“The lack of legitimate employment opportunities is likely to push some repatriated TPS holders, or their children, into the gangs or other illicit employment,” warned the section on El Salvador.

“With no employment and few ties, options for those returning to El Salvador and those overwhelmed by the additional competition will likely drive increased illegal migration to the United States and the growth of MS-13 and similar gangs,” the report added.

Trump has called MS-13 “animals.” “We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in. … You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals,” he said in May, later explaining he was speaking about the vicious gang.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/07/25/politics/trump-gangs-temporary-protected-status/index.html

**************************************

Once again, ignorant and biased Administration political officials ignore the advice of the Government’s own experts!

This article doesn’t even focus on another major way in which Trump & Sessions empower MS-13. By unnecessarily sowing terror in ethnic communities in the U.S., they are precluding cooperation with local police against gangs, making young people in the community “easy marks” for gangs, and by dehumanizing all migrants they are sending a strong message that a young person can only be empowered and respected by joining a gang. Not only that, but the perception of “Old Anglo White Guys” like Trump & Sessions in charge of the Administration’s anti-gang initiatives makes them totally ineffective.

Combatting gangs in a difficult problem that requires well-considered, nuanced solutions involving local police, educators, social workers, positive role models, and local communities, including both documented and undocumented community members.

We’ve proven over and over again that “deportation only” approaches not only don’t solve gang problems, but make them much worse. When policies are driven by racism, bias, and White Nationalism, the result is almost certain to be stupidity and futility.

PWS

07-25-18

WASHPOST: THE LATEST VULNERABLE GROUP TARGETED BY THE TRUMP/SESSIONS DEATH SQUADS: LGBTQ REFUGEES!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-sending-lgbtq-migrants-back-to-hell/2018/07/24/eb305d72-8ec3-11e8-8322-b5482bf5e0f5_story.html?utm_term=.c1e37f62bd81

From the Washington Post Editorial Board:

Trump is sending LGBTQ migrants ‘back to hell’

by Editorial BoardJuly 24 at 7:45 PM

IN THE 1990s, the United States was among the first countries to start granting sanctuary to LGBTQ refugees and asylum seekers fleeing persecution stemming from their sexual orientation or gender identity in their home countries. Now the Trump administration, intent on turning back the clock on almost every major facet of immigration policy, is increasingly complicit in their mistreatment.

As administration officials have intensified their efforts to hollow out the asylum system — narrowing eligibility criteria, creating bottlenecks for would-be asylum seekers at legal ports of entry and tearing apart families as a means of deterring future applicants — LGBTQ individuals have suffered inordinately. That is particularly true in the case of those from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, the so-called Northern Triangle countries of Central America where sexual and gender-based violence is pervasive.

There are no statistics to indicate that LGBTQ asylum seekers are refused admittance to the United States more (or less) frequently than other applicants, though the rate at which migrants of all sorts are granted asylum seems to be plummeting because of the administration’s policies. However, sending LGBTQ migrants back across the southwestern border to Mexico subjects them to heightened risks: According to the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees, two-thirds of such individuals reported that they had suffered sexual or gender-based violence in Mexico after entering that country.

In the case of those deported to their countries of origin in the Northern Triangle, their fates are often even worse. A report last year from the rights group Amnesty International said LGBTQ deportees were effectively “sent back to hell,” based on the horrific conditions from which they fled in the first place. The UNHCR reported that 88 percent of LGBTQ asylum seekers had been victims of sexual and gender-based violence in their countries of origin.

Police and other law enforcement authorities in Central America and Mexico are often indifferent, and frequently overtly hostile, to the fate of LGBTQ individuals. A 34-year-old transgender woman interviewed by Amnesty International said she had fled El Salvador after receiving threats from a police officer who lived near her; when she tried to report him, she said, “the response was that they were going to lock me and my partner up.” She finally fled to Mexico, where she was harassed and abused by officials before finally being granted refugee status.

Another Salvadoran transgender woman interviewed by Amnesty International said that after reaching the United States, she was detained for more than three months in a cell with men — “they never took account of my sexuality or that I was trans.” (Immigration and Customs Enforcement sometimes, but not always, detains transgender women in a dedicated facility whose capacity is 60 beds.)

To qualify for asylum in the United States, migrants must prove they are subject to persecution in their home countries based on specific criteria, including identification with a particular social group, and that the government is either complicit in their mistreatment or powerless to stop it. By any reasonable assessment, many or most LGBTQ asylum seekers meet those criteria.

*******************************************

The qualification of LGBTQ individuals for asylum was established more than two decades ago by the BIA’s decision in Matter of Tobaso-Alfonso, 20 I&N Dec. 819 (BIA 1990, 1994).

Since then, scores of well-documented LGBTQ asylum cases have been granted by the USCIS Asylum Office and in Immigration Court. Indeed, in the Arlington Immigration Court the cases were so well-documented by the counsel for the respondents that most could be “pre-tried” between the Assistant Chief Counsel and respondent’s counsel and placed on the Immigration Court’s “short docket” for brief hearings and granting of asylum.

Like refugees fleeing domestic violence, I found these cases to involve some of the most badly abused, most deserving, most grateful, and potentially most productive refugees that I dealt with over my many decades of involvement in t he U.S. refugee and asylum systems.

Once again, the biased, racist, White Nationalism of Trump, Sessions and their cronies have taken a well-working part of the asylum system and made it problematic.

We need regime change!

PWS

07-25-18

TAL & CNN: LISTEN AS TRAUMATIZED MIGRANT MOMS BEG FOR THEIR LIVES AND THEIR CHILDREN IN IMMIGRATION COURT – BUT THERE IS NO MERCY, LAW, OR DUE PROCESS IN THE AGE OF SCOFFLAW CHILD ABUSER JEFF SESSIONS!

Exclusive: Listen to separated moms beg for their kids in court

By Tal Kopan and Nick Valencia, CNN

Washington (CNN)Newly obtained audio reveals the anguish of parents separated from their children, as it pours from them in immigration court while a judge finds them ineligible to stay in the United States.

In recordings of two court proceedings obtained by CNN, two women who have been separated from their children plead with an immigration judge to reunite them, as he asks them if they have any evidence to back up their asylum claims.

Their attorneys also ask the judge to give them another chance to make their cases, citing their mental health after the prolonged separation from their children.

In both cases, however, the judge denies the requests, and orders the women deported from the country. CNN has received permission from the women to share the audio of their hearings, but is not identifying them for their protection.

While the hearings are just two of thousands of similar proceedings regularly held across the country, they are an indication of the struggles of parents who have been separated from their children for weeks or longer in their quest to stay in the United States. Thousands of parents were separated from their children at the border under the Trump administration’s now-reversed “zero tolerance” policy that prosecuted all adults caught crossing the border illegally, including parents with their children.

Advocates for the immigrants broadly say the parents are being rejected for pursuing asylum at record numbers, in part because they are so distraught.

The hearings were conducted before Judge Robert Powell at the immigration court at the Port Isabel Detention Center on two separate days in July. During one of the hearings, the woman is audibly sniffling and distraught, telling the judge she feels too ill to continue. Neither lasts as long as 10 minutes.

“Well I’ll tell you what, ma’am, what I can do, I’ll put you on the back side of the calendar today, give you time to compose yourself,” Judge Powell tells her. “If you think you need to go to the medical unit, you can go to the medical unit. What do you want to do?”

“What I want is to be with my son,” the woman replies, via an interpreter.

More: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/exclusive-audio-separated-parents-in-court/index.html

**************************************************

Obviously, no Due Process here!

No excuse for proceeding with a hearing of any type under these conditions! Is this how we want to be remembered? If not, what have you done today to promote “regime change” and to force both Congress and the Article III Courts to live up to their responsibilities and stop this abuse of our laws and our Constitution? This is a charade of a “court” system, in prisons, run by scofflaw child abuser Jeff Sessions and featuring some “judges” unwilling to stand up to his abuses and enforce Due Process (not to mention common sense, respect, and human decency).

These folks are entitled to fair access to counsel, a reasonable chance to prepare and document a case, and a fair and impartial judge. That’s not happening right now.

PWS

07-25-18

HON. JEFFREY CHASE ON HOW MANY U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES ARE DENYING DUE PROCESS RIGHT AND LEFT TO ASYLUM SEEKERS BY NOT ALLOWING ATTORNEYS TO PARTICIATE IN THE CREDIBLE FEAR REVIEW AND RUBBER-STAMPING DENIALS WITHOUT ANY ANALYSIS!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/7/22/attorneys-and-credible-fear-review

Jul 22 Attorneys and Credible Fear Review

It is difficult not to cry (as I did) while listening to the recording of a recent immigration court hearing at a detention facility near the border. The immigration judge addresses a rape victim who fled to this country seeking asylum. She indicates that she does not feel well enough to proceed. When asked by the judge if she had been seen by the jail’s medical unit, the woman responds that she just wants to see her child (who had been forcibly separated from her by ICE), and breaks down crying. The judge is heard telling a lawyer to sit down before he can speak. The woman, still crying, repeats that she just wants to see her child. The immigration judge proceeds to matter-of-factly affirm the finding of DHS denying her the right to apply for asylum. The judge then allows the attorney to speak; he points out for the record that the woman was unable to participate in her own hearing. The judge replies “so noted.” He wishes the woman a safe trip back to the country in which she was raped, and directs her to be brought to the medical unit. He then moves on to the next case on his docket. Neither DHS (in its initial denial) nor the immigration judge (in his affirmance) provided any explanation or reasoning whatsoever for their decisions. According to immigration attorneys who have recently represented asylum seekers near the border, this is the new normal.

Under legislation passed in 1996, most non-citizens seeking entry to the U.S. at airports or borders who are not deemed admissible are subjected to summary removal by DHS without a hearing. However, those who express a fear of harm if returned to their country are detained and subjected to a “credible fear interview” by a USCIS asylum officer. This interview is designed as a screening, not a full-blown application for asylum. The noncitizen being interviewed has just arrived, is detained, often has not yet had the opportunity to consult with a lawyer, probably does not yet know the legal standard for asylum, and has not had the opportunity to compile documentation in support of the claim. Therefore, the law sets what is intended to be a very low standard: the asylum officer need only find that there is a significant possibility that the noncitizen could establish in a full hearing before an immigration judge eligibility for asylum.1

If the asylum officer does not find credible fear to exist, the noncitizen has one chance for review, at a credible fear review hearing before an immigration judge. This is an unusual hearing. Normally, immigration judges are trial-level judges, creating the record of testimony and other evidence, and then entering the initial rulings on deportability and eligibility for relief. But in a credible fear review hearing, the immigration judge also functions as an appellate judge, reviewing the decision of the asylum officer not to vacate an already entered order of removal. The immigration judge either affirms the DHS determination (meaning that the respondent has no right to a hearing, or to file applications for relief, including asylum), or vacates the DHS removal order. There is no further appeal from an immigration judge’s decision regarding credible fear.

Appeal courts do not hear testimony. At the appellate level, it is the lawyers who do all of the talking, arguing why the decision below was or was not correct. The question being considered by the immigration judge in a credible fear review hearing – whether the asylum officer reasonably concluded that there is not a significant possibility that the applicant could establish eligibility for asylum at a full hearing before an immigration judge – is clearly a lawyer question. The noncitizen applicant would not be expected to understand the legal standard.

At the present time, determining the legal standard is especially complicated. In light of the Attorney General’s recent decision in Matter of A-B-, all claims involving members of a particular social group fearing what the A.G. refers to as “private criminal actors” must clearly delineate the particular social group, explain how such group satisfies the requirements of immutability, particularity, and social distinction, meet a heightened standard of showing the government’s inability or unwillingness to protect, and show that internal relocation within the country of nationality is not reasonable.

An experienced immigration lawyer could make these arguments in a matter of minutes, by delineating the group, and explaining what evidence the applicant expects to present to the immigration judge to meet the required criteria.

However, the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge’s Practice Manual states the following:

(C) Representation. — Prior to the credible fear review, the alien may consult with a person or persons of the alien’s choosing. In the discretion of the Immigration Judge, persons consulted may be present during the credible fear review. However, the alien is not represented at the credible fear review. Accordingly, persons acting on the alien’s behalf are not entitled to make opening statements, call and question witnesses, conduct cross examinations, object to evidence, or make closing arguments. (emphasis added).

Therefore, at best, a credible fear review hearing consists of the immigration judge asking the respondent an abbreviated version of the questions already asked and answered by the asylum officer. Often, the judge merely asks if the information told to the asylum officer was true (without necessarily mentioning what the asylum officer notes contain), and if there is anything else they wish to add. If the issue was whether the respondent was believable, this might make sense.2 However, the issue is more often whether the facts will qualify for asylum under current case law.

I have canvassed retired immigration judges, as well as attorneys whose clients have been through such hearings. The good news is that it is the practice of a number of judges (past and present) to allow attorney participation. And in some cases, it is making a difference. One lawyer who recently spent a week in south Texas was allowed by the judge there to make summary arguments on behalf of the respondents; the judge ended up reversing DHS and finding credible fear in all but one case. In Fiscal Year 2016 (the last year for which EOIR has posted such statistics), immigration judges nationally reversed the DHS decision and found credible fear less than 28 percent of the time (i.e. in 2,086 out of 7,488 total cases).

However, other judges rely on the wording of the practice advisory to deny attorneys the right to participate. According to a July 14 CNN article, one lawyer recently had a judge deny 29 out of 29 separated parents claiming credible fear. Another lawyer was quoted in the same article citing a significant increase in credible fear denials since the Attorney General’s decision in A-B- last month. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/14/politics/sessions-asylum-impact-border/index.html This demonstrates why it is now even more important to allow attorney participation to assist judges in analyzing the facts of the respondent’s case in light of this confusing new decision that many judges are still struggling to interpret. And as I recently reported in a separate blog post, USCIS just recently issued guidelines to its asylum officers to deny credible fear to victims of domestic violence and gang violence under a very wrong interpretation of Sessions’ A-B- decision.

It is hoped that, considering the stakes involved, the Office of the Chief Judge will consider amending its guidelines to ensure the right to meaningful representation in credible fear review hearings.

Notes:

1. It should be noted that when legislation created the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum in 1980, both INS and the BIA seriously misapplied the standard until the Supreme Court corrected them seven years later. Although when it created the “credible fear” standard in the 1990s, INS assured that it would be a low standard, as credible fear determinations may not be appealed, there can be no similar correction by the federal courts.

2. Although credibility is not usually an issue, attorneys point out that while they are merely notes which contain inaccuracies and are generally not read back to the asylum-seeker to allow for correction, the notes are nevertheless often treated as verbatim transcripts by immigration judges.

Copyright Jeffrey S. Chase 2018. All rights reserved.

JEFF CHASE

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge, senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He is a past recipient of AILA’s annual Pro Bono Award, and previously chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

********************************

Amen, Jeffrey, my friend, colleague, and fellow fighter for Due Process and human rights! Jeffrey[s article was also republished by our good friend and colleague Dan Kowalski in BIBDaily here http://www.bibdaily.com/

Not that the EOIR OCIJ is going to do anything to change the process and further Due Process in the “Age of Sessions.” After all, they all want to hold onto their jobs, at any cost to the unfortunate human beings whose lives are caught up in this charade of a “court system.”

In what kind of “court system” don’t lawyers have a right to represent their clients? The Star Chamber? Kangaroo Court? Clown Court? And, to be fair, this outrageous “advice” from OCIJ on how to deny Due Process and fundamental fairness preceded even Sessions. The well had already been well-poisoned!

But, let’s not forget the real culprits here. First, the spineless Article III Courts who have shirked their duty to intervene and require U.S. Immigration Judges to comply with Due Process, respect human rights and dignity, and use at least a minimum of common sense.

And, the greatest culprit is, of course, Congress, which created this monstrosity and has failed for decades to take the necessary corrective action to comply with our Constitution!

PWS

07-23-18

HON. NANCY GERTNER: CAN THE LOWER ARTICLE III COURTS SAVE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY FROM TRUMP, SESSIONS, AND THE SPINELESS SUPREMES’ MAJORITY? — “Then there is the even more absurd claim that family separation deters asylum-seekers from coming to the U.S. Asylum-seekers will not be deterred by Trump’s cruelty; they have already decided to risk a dangerous trek from Central America to the U.S. because they believe their families will be killed if they stay.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-gertner-judiciary-trump_us_5b50d5a0e4b0b15aba8cc82b

Retired U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner writes in HuffPost:

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s final writing as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, his concurrence in the travel ban case, was a cri de coeur. It simply, even pathetically, lamented the court’s limited role in controlling a lawless executive.

Throwing up his hands, he wrote that the acts of government officials often are not subject to judicial scrutiny, while adding that this “does not mean those officials are free to disregard the Constitution and the rights it protects. The oath is not restricted to the actions that the Judiciary can correct.”

Wrong message, Mr. Justice.

Even though the travel ban the court upheld is not related to the asylum crisis — the travel prohibition is about immigrants coming here for all sorts of reasons, not asylum seekers fleeing violence in their country — to President Donald Trump, it does not matter. The high court’s decision is perceived as a vindication of all of his immigration policies, no matter how lawless, cruel and dysfunctional. And with Kennedy’s concurrence, it risks signaling that the judiciary will abdicate its own obligations to uphold our country’s laws and ideals.

Take “zero tolerance.” When asylum-seekers so much as step across the border, they are violating the law, according to this administration, even if they immediately present claims to an immigration official. The rule of law, the president insists, requires the prosecution of all crimes, no matter how trivial. This from the same man who pardoned former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio after he was found guilty of flouting a court order to stop racial profiling.

Then there is the even more absurd claim that family separation deters asylum-seekers from coming to the U.S. Asylum-seekers will not be deterred by Trump’s cruelty; they have already decided to risk a dangerous trek from Central America to the U.S. because they believe their families will be killed if they stay. In fact, the number of asylum requests has increased notwithstanding Trump’s policies; its driving force is violence in asylum-seekers’ home countries, not U.S. immigration policy.

Nor are these asylum-seekers miscreants intent on defrauding the U.S. or committing crimes. This year, fewer than 1 percent of those apprehended have presented claims found to be false. Studies show that in general, undocumented immigrants — of whom asylum-seekers are a part — commit fewer crimes than those born in this country.

Worse, Trump now wants to deport asylum-seekers without any review. We don’t need more judges, he says, just more border cops. Where is the rule of law here?

HANDOUT . / REUTERS

A view of inside a U.S. Customs and Border Protection detention facility in Rio Grande City, Texas, last month.

Subscribe to The Morning Email.

Wake up to the day’s most important news.

The Constitution’s due process requirement applies to anyone physically in the U.S., whether they have arrived legally or not. Likewise, international law requires us to review whether asylum-seekers’ claims of violence are credible, and if they qualify, let them in. And obviously, this government should not threaten to take children from their parents unless the families agree to voluntary deportation. That’s not just the absence of due process; it’s the presence of extortion.

If Kennedy signaled his belief that the court has very limited power to control an errant president, his putative replacement, federal Circuit Coury Judge Brett Kavanaugh, may well be worse. He does not just lament court’s limited power to control a president, he embraces it.

Kavanaugh has a particularly robust view of presidential power in certain areas — significantly, national security or immigration. In Klayman v. Obama, the D.C. Circuit ruled against a challenge to the National Security Agency’s metadata collection program on technical grounds, in a per curiam decision ― meaning an opinion of the entire court and not any individual judge. Kavanaugh, however, felt the need to file a concurring opinion.

Rather than simply signing on the decision, he went out of his way to make the breadth of the president’s national security power clear: Even if the collection program were the functional equivalent of a search, the government did not need to seek a warrant from a judge because the president said the program was necessary to combat terrorism and that need outweighed any impact on privacy.

Echoing Kennedy’s lament in the travel ban case, Kavanaugh added that while the chief executive and Congress may want to limit the program, until they do the judiciary was literally without the power to control it. Not only was the door to a constitutional challenge was firmly shut; he wanted to make certain that everyone knew it.

But there are judges who are not simply wringing their hands about the limits of judicial review over immigration issues, like Kennedy did, or who are bent on deferring to the president whenever he intones a national security rationale, as Kavanaugh might well do. They are working each day to prevent this president from running roughshod over the Constitution ― not just in the executive orders that he promulgates but in the way his orders and policies are implemented on the ground, in the day-to-day encounters on our borders.

A federal judge in California, a George W. Bush appointee, issued a nationwide injunction temporarily stopping the Trump administration from separating children from their parents at the border. Another in D.C. blocked the systematic detention of migrants who show credible evidence that they were fleeing persecution in their home countries, halting a practice that is an obvious and unlawful attempt to deter them and others from seeking refuge here.

There will surely be others, because these judges ― like the president ― also swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. But for them, unlike the president, it is not an empty promise.

Nancy Gertner served as a Massachusetts United States District Court judge from 1994 to 2011, when she retired to teach at Harvard Law School. Her first memoir, In Defense of Women, was published in 2011, and a judicial memoir, Incomplete Sentences, will be published in 2019.

***************************************

Almost everything that Trump and Sessions have said about asylum seekers and border policy is absurd — clearly refuted by the facts and by past failures.

Lies, racism, xenophobia, absurd positions, claims that are demonstrably false, just plain stupidity, fraud, waste, abuse, it’s all in a day’s work for Trump, Sessions, Miller, Nielsen, and the other White Nationalists firmly committed to the downfall of American democracy.

And, as Judge Gertner points out, they are aided and abetted by a spineless “go along to get along” Supreme Court majority unwilling to uphold their oaths of office and defend the Constitution and our country against the outrageously unconstitutional, cruel, unjustified, and immoral actions of the Trump Administration.

Can the lower Article IIIs stem the tide long enough for us to get “regime change” at the ballot box and save America? The answer is a resounding “maybe.”

Better get out the vote in November to throw the White Nationalists/Putinists and their fellow travelers out of office. Otherwise, it might be too late for the world’s most successful democracy.

PWS

07-22-18

WE MUST STOP DETAINING AND ABUSING CHILDREN! — Government’s Own Doctors “Blow Whistle” On How We Are Permanently Damaging Kids! — “[T]heir report uncovered problems including a child who lost a third of his body weight and an infant with bleeding of the brain that went undiagnosed for five days.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/us/migrant-children-family-detention-doctors.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fmiriam-jordan&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection

Miriam Jordan reports for the NY Times:

LOS ANGELES — The Trump administration, faced with a public outcry over the separation of migrant families at the Southwest border, has said it is exploring a major expansion of family detention centers. But two of the government’s own medical consultants said this week that they had identified a “high risk of harm” to migrant children housed at such facilities.

A series of 10 investigations over the past four years, conducted during both the Obama and Trump administrations, “frequently revealed serious compliance issues resulting in harm to children,” the two physicians, Scott Allen and Pamela McPherson, said in a letter to the Senate’s Whistleblower Protection Caucus.

The doctors said they had “watched in horror” as migrant children were separated from their families over the past several months in a bid to deter illegal border crossers. But they cautioned that the Trump administration’s fallback position may not be much better.

“The likely alternative — detention of children with a parent — also poses high risk of harm to children and their families,” said the doctors, who currently serve as “subject-matter experts” for the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. “In our professional opinion, there is no amount of programming that can ameliorate the harms created by the very act of confining children to detention centers.”

The examinations described in their report uncovered problems including a child who lost a third of his body weight and an infant with bleeding of the brain that went undiagnosed for five days.

In a separate filing this week with a court in Los Angeles, lawyers who conducted more than 200 interviews with migrant parents and children said they had collected “shocking and atrocious” reports about conditions at various government-run detention centers, especially at the initial processing centers operated by Customs and Border Protection along the Southwest border.

The interviews in that case were conducted over the past two months, although similar reports of unpleasant and even dangerous conditions in border processing facilities had emerged even before President Trump took office and imposed the current crackdown on the border.

In the latest interviews, migrants reported freezing conditions, filthy toilets, inadequate water and food that alternately was frozen or made them vomit. “The burritos were spoiled,” one wrote. “The ham looked green,” said another.

One woman, identified in the court filing as Lidia, said she and her 4-year-old son had to wait eight hours for water when they arrived at the processing center and were given only frozen sandwiches that could not be eaten. “My son was crying from hunger,” she said.

. . . .

**********************************

Read the rest of Mariam’s article about the shocking degradation of human rights, human dignity, common sense, and moral values being carried out by this Administration, outrageously (and falsely) in the “name of the people.”

We need to both remove unsuitable individuals like Trump, Sessions, and Nielsen from office, and hold them fully accountable for the abuses they are committing! There is nothing that folks like Trump and Sessions fear more than being held accountable for their intentional misconduct! Like all child abusers, they think they can “get away with it.”

PWS

07-21-18

FINALLY, SOME “PUSHBACK” IN THE ARTICLE III COURTS ON THE TRUMP/SESSIONS POLICY OF CHILD ABUSE AND DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS! – “New Lawsuit Seeks Due Process for Detained Kids”

Go on over to Dan Kowalski’s LexisNexis Immigration Community at this link to see how advocacy groups are striking back in behalf of defenseless children being tormented, tortured, and abused by our Government!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/immigration-law-blog/archive/2018/07/18/new-lawsuit-seeks-due-process-for-detained-kids.aspx?Redirected=true

********************************************

They come fleeing persecution in the Northern Triangle, only to find persecution and torture of a different type here. And, this is certainly “Government sponsored” persecution, even by “the Jeff Sessions test.”

Is this really how we want to be known to the world and remembered by future generations?

PWS

07-21-18

ATTENTION ALL JUDGES (ACTIVE & RETIRED): THE CANADIANS ARE COMING (Along with Judges From Other Western Hemisphere & EU Countries)! – MEET, GREET, SHARE NOTES, AND LEARN ALONG WITH YOUR INTERNATIONAL COLLEAGUES – HEAR KEYNOTE SPEAKER DORIS MEISSNER, ONE OF THE “ALL TIME GREATS” OF U.S. MIGRATION LAW, & MANY OTHER “SUPERSTAR” SPEAKERS FROM AROUND THE WORLD! – THERE’S STILL TIME TO REGISTER FOR THE AMERICAS’ CHAPTER CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REFUGEE & MIGRATION JUDGES @ THE BEAUTIFUL CAMPUS OF GEORGETOWN LAW IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 1-5, 2018!

HERE’S A LINK TO MY PRIOR BLOG WITH ALL THE REGISTRATION INFORMATION:

https://wp.me/p8eeJm-2D7

HERE’S FORMER INS COMMISSIONER DORIS MEISSNER’S PROFESSIONAL BIO:

Doris Meissner

Senior Fellow and Director, U.S. Immigration Policy Program

Doris Meissner, former Commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), is a Senior Fellow at MPI, where she directs the Institute’s U.S. immigration policy work.

Her responsibilities focus in particular on the role of immigration in America’s future and on administering the nation’s immigration laws, systems, and government agencies. Her work and expertise also include immigration and politics, immigration enforcement, border control, cooperation with other countries, and immigration and national security. She has authored and coauthored numerous reports, articles, and op-eds and is frequently quoted in the media. She served as Director of MPI’s Independent Task Force on Immigration and America’s Future, a bipartisan group of distinguished leaders. The group’s report and recommendations address how to harness the advantages of immigration for a 21st century economy and society.

From 1993-2000, she served in the Clinton administration as Commissioner of the INS, then a bureau in the U.S. Department of Justice. Her accomplishments included reforming the nation’s asylum system; creating new strategies for managing U.S. borders; improving naturalization and other services for immigrants; shaping new responses to migration and humanitarian emergencies; strengthening cooperation and joint initiatives with Mexico, Canada, and other countries; and managing growth that doubled the agency’s personnel and tripled its budget.

She first joined the Justice Department in 1973 as a White House Fellow and Special Assistant to the Attorney General. She served in various senior policy posts until 1981, when she became Acting Commissioner of the INS and then Executive Associate Commissioner, the third-ranking post in the agency. In 1986, she joined the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as a Senior Associate. Ms. Meissner created the Endowment’s Immigration Policy Project, which evolved into the Migration Policy Institute in 2001.

Ms. Meissner’s board memberships include CARE-USA and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Inter-American Dialogue, the Pacific Council on International Diplomacy, the National Academy of Public Administration, the Administrative Conference of the United States, and the Constitution Society.

***************************************

Colleagues:

My good friend and colleague Ross Pattee, Executive Director of the Immigration & Refugee Board of Canada just told me that the “Canadian Delegation” to the upcoming IARMJ conference will be 30 strong!

Never in my lifetime has the role of Immigration Judges and other judges involved in asylum, refugee, and immigration adjudication been more in the news or more important than now! We all know the stress, tension, and pressure, as well as excitement, that comes from such constant public attention.

Now is the perfect time to take a few days off from the bench to share notes, helpful suggestions, best practices, and otherwise get to know and appreciate your colleagues performing similar functions elsewhere in the world. Knowing that “you are not alone” and that many others share and are dealing with the same challenges as you are has been one of the best features of IRMJ membership and participation for me throughout the years. You’ll also be learning from, and in dialogue with, world-class speakers and scholars, like my long-time friend and “fellow Badger” Doris Meissner, in one of the best legal learning environments in America — the facilities at Georgetown Law.

As one of the original “founding members” of the IARMJ, I know that it has been many years since we have had an event of this magnitude and caliber here in the United States. Who knows when another such opportunity will come our way?

I sincerely hope that you can and will join me and my colleagues from the IARMJ in August.

All the best in solidarity and due process,

Paul

1ST CIR. EXPOSES BIA’S FLAWED ANALYSIS, HOSTILITY TO ASYLUM SEEKERS — BIA COMMITTED “MULTIPLE ERRORS” IN REVERSING ASYLUM GRANT – ROSALES JUSTO V. SESSIONS – Sessions’s Bias, Push to Truncate Already Flawed EOIR Process & Deny Asylum En Masse Could Lead To Absolute Disaster In Circuit Courts & Breakdown Of Entire System!

1stCirUnable17-1457P-01A

Rosales Justo v. Sessions, 1st Cir., 07-16-18, published

PANEL: Torruella, Lipez, and Kayatt Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: Judge Lipez

KEY QUOTE:

In sum, the BIA’s justifications for its holding that it was clearly erroneous for the IJ to find that the Mexican government is unable to protect Rosales reflect multiple errors. The BIA failed to consider evidence of the Mexican government’s inability to protect Rosales and his nuclear family, as distinct from evidence of the willingness of the police to investigate the murder of Rosales’s son. That error in conflating unwillingness

– 28 –

and inability was compounded when the BIA discounted country condition reports which, when combined with Rosales’s testimony about the particular circumstances of his case, were sufficient to support the IJ’s finding that the police in Guerrero would be unable to protect Rosales from persecution by organized crime.

The BIA committed further error by concluding that the IJ’s finding that Rosales did not report threats by organized crime to the police refuted the IJ’s ultimate finding of inability. The BIA both ignored our precedent stating that a failure to report a crime does not undermine an assertion of inability if a report would have been futile, and failed to consider evidence in the record that would support a finding of futility, thereby misapplying the clear error standard. Moreover, in another misapplication of the clear error standard, the BIA incorrectly concluded that the IJ’s inability finding was clearly erroneous because the Mexican government’s failure to protect Rosales was indistinguishable from the struggles of any government to combat crime, when the record before the IJ supported a finding that it was distinguishable.

Because of these errors, we grant Rosales’s petition and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See I.N.S. v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17 (2002) (per curiam) (holding that remand to the BIA is generally the appropriate remedy when the BIA commits a legal error).

So ordered.

*************************************************

Nice to see a Circuit Court, particularly a fairly conservative one like the First Circuit, take strong stand against the nonsense and mockery of Due Process and justice going on at EOIR under Sessions;
Expect more of these in the future as the “Just Find A Way To Deny & Deport” initiative by the xenophobic, scofflaw AG goes into high gear at EOIR;
Quite contrary to everything Sessions has been saying, which completely ignores the lessons of the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. Cardoza Fonseca, asylum law is supposed to be interpreted and applied generously in favor of those seeking life saving protection;
This case illustrates the importance of dissent at the BIA, as the First Circuit basically adopted the correct interpretation of the law and facts set forth by a dissenting (female) BIA Appellate Immigration Judge;
This also shows the importance of full three-judge review by the BIA on asylum cases, rather than single judge panels or summary denials;
The number of fundamental errors committed by the BIA panel majority in reversing this asylum grant and the persistence of the DOJ in advancing untenable legal positions before the Court of Appeals is simply appalling, even if consistent with Session’s own lack of scholarship and total disrespect for fundamental fairness to respondents in Immigration Court;
This case also highlights a chronic problem in EOIR asylum adjudication: conflating “willingness to protect” with “ability to protect.” Too many Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges seize on ineffective efforts by local police, cosmetic improvements by governments, and failure to seek (largely useless and perhaps actually harmful) police assistance to find that there has been “no failure of state protection;”
That’s exactly what Sessions himself did in his fundamentally flawed opinion in Matter of A-B-. He encouraged judges to conflate ineffective efforts to protect with actual ability to protect. And, his comparison of how domestic violence is policed and prosecuted in the United States with El Salvador’s pathetic efforts in behalf of domestic violence victims was simply preposterous;
This decision also addresses another chronic problem at EOIR: judges “cherry picking” the record and particularly Department of State Country Reports for the information supporting a denial, even though the record taken as a whole lends support to the respondent’s claim;
Once again, how would any unrepresented applicant make the kind of potentially winning asylum case presented by this respondent with the assistance of counsel? When are Courts of Appeals finally going to state the obvious: proceeding to adjudicate an asylum claim by an unrepresented respondent is a per se denial of Due Process!
This case should be taken as a message that Immigration Judges and BIA panels following the misguided Sessions’ dicta on “unwilling or unable to protect,” rather than applying the correct standards set forth by most Circuits are going to be getting lots of “do overs” from the Circuit Courts;
How could anybody justify “speeding up” a system with this many fundamental (and life-threatening) flaws to begin with? Under Sessions, EOIR is on track to becomes veritable “reversible error factory” — as well as a “Death Railroad!”

PWS

07-20-18

FRAUD, WASTE, & ABUSE: INFANTS ORDERED TO APPEAR IN U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS UNDER TRUMP & SESSIONS! – Shocking Stupidity, Inhumanity, & Waste Of Taxpayer Dollars!

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/07/18/immigrant-separated-families-infant-court-defend-donald-trump-zero-tol/

CHRISTINA JEWETT AND SHEFALI LUTHRA, REPORT FOR KAISER HEALTH NEWS IN THE TEXAS TRIBUNE:

The Trump administration has summoned at least 70 infants to immigration court for their own deportation proceedings since Oct. 1, according to Justice Department data provided to Kaiser Health News.

These are children who need frequent touching and bonding with a parent and naps every few hours, and some were of breastfeeding age, medical experts say. They’re unable to speak and still learning when it’s day versus night.

“For babies, the basics are really important. It’s the holding, the proper feeding, proper nurturing,” said Shadi Houshyar, who directs early childhood and child welfare initiatives at the advocacy group Families USA.

The number of infants under age 1 involved has been rising — up threefold from 24 infants in the fiscal year that ended last Sept. 30, and 46 infants the year before.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

The Justice Department data show that a total of 1,500 “unaccompanied” children, from newborns to age 3, have been called in to immigration court since Oct. 1, 2015.

Roughly three-fourths of the children involved are represented by a lawyer and they have to make their case that they should stay in the United States.

Officials who review such deportation cases say most children under 1 cross the border with a parent and their deportation cases proceed together.

But some of the infants were deemed “unaccompanied” only after law enforcement separated them from their parents during the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy. The children were sent to facilities across the U.S. under the supervision of the Department of Health and Human Services.

“This is to some extent a … crisis of the creation of the government,” said Robert Carey, who previously headed the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which takes custody of unaccompanied minors. “It’s a tragic and ironic turn of events.”

Younger children are also considered unaccompanied if they enter the United States with an older family member who is not yet 18. The data do not clarify which children arrived that way or which were separated from their parents.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for further data about where the children are housed. They could be in a foster care home, in a group home, with a relative or sponsor, or reunited with a parent. HHS, which operates the refugee resettlement office, did not provide comment by publication time.

In previous statements, the government has argued that separation — and its consequences — are unfortunate but unavoidable under the law.

“There is a surefire way to avoid separation from your children. Present yourself legally … or stay back at your home country, and go through the process others do,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar said on a media call earlier this month. “None of us want children separated from their parents. I want no children in our care and custody.”

The number of unaccompanied children called in to court since Oct. 1, 2015, swells to 2,900 if kids up to 5 are included. The total will rise between now and Sept. 30, when the fiscal year ends, noted Susan Long, a statistician at Syracuse University and director of TRAC, a repository of immigration and federal court data. There’s also an ongoing backlog in entering the data.

In June, a district judge in San Diego ordered the government to reunify families within a month, specifically directing them to unite children younger than 5 with parents by July 10.

HHS reunited about half of those children by July 12 — 57 out of 103. Others, the government said, could not be placed with a parent, citing in some cases “serious criminal history” or parents currently being in jail.

In 12 cases, those children’s parents had already been deported. In another, the government had failed to figure out where the child’s parent was located, and in another, the parent had a “communicable disease,” HHS said.

The Department of Homeland Security, which issues the court orders, also did not respond to a request for comment.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

In the removal cases, children have no right to an appointed lawyer, but rather to a list of legal aid attorneys that the child’s current caregiver can contact.

And young children rarely know the details of why they fled their home country, especially without a parent present, noted Eileen Blessinger, a Virginia-based immigration lawyer who has been aiding parents she was connected with through advocates on the Texas-Mexico border.

“Think about it as a parent. You’re not going to tell your child they might be killed, right?” she said. “A lot of the kids don’t know.”

Immigration court, which is an administrative unit of the Department of Justice, is different from typical courts. It handles “respondents” who may be too young to speak, but has no social workers or legal remedies focused on the best interest of a child.

Lenni Benson, a New York Law School professor and founder of the Safe Passage Project, which provides legal services to migrant youth, said she was recently at a large family detention center in Dilley talking to families. She said it’s rare for the families fleeing violence in Central America to bring infants, given the dangers of the journey, which include risks of abduction and a lack of clean water.

“There are people who do that because they are terrified for their child” in the home country, she said.

Benson recounted being in immigration court in 2014 when a judge asked for a crying baby to be removed from the courtroom. She said she paused to inform the judge that the baby was the next respondent on the docket — and asked that the child’s grandmother stand in.

The stakes for the babies, and any migrant fleeing violence, are high, said Paul Wickham Schmidt, a former immigration judge who retired in 2016 after 13 years on the bench in Arlington, Va.

“Final orders of deportation have consequences,” he said. “For something that has a very serious result, this system has been described as death penalty cases in traffic court.”

Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges and a judge specializing in juvenile cases in Los Angeles, acknowledged that the Trump administration narrowed a directive on how much judges can assist juveniles in court. Still, she said, judges do their best to ensure that young children get a fair hearing.

Justice Department data show that asylum denials are at a nearly 10-year high at 42 percent, and the Associated Press reported that the administration has raised the bar for making a successful case.

At the same time, children can be strapped for resources, Blessinger said.

She described one client whose 7-year-old daughter received legal support from a New York-based charity. Even in that case, she said, the organization acted simply as a “friend of the court” — rather than a full-fledged attorney — requesting delays in proceedings until the child and mother could be reunited. That finally happened Tuesday night, she said.

“It’s the saddest experience. These people are not going to be recovering anytime soon,” she said. “The parents are crying even after they’re reunited.”

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

KHN’s coverage of children’s health care issues is supported in part by a grant from the Heising-Simons Foundation.

*******************************************

Stupid policies driven by biased White Nationalist restrictionists squander judicial time, waste resources, make America look dumb!

Contrary to what HHS Secretary Alex Azar says, presenting oneself at a Port of Entry and applying for asylum has been a guarantee neither of prompt and professional processing of asylum applications nor that there will be no family separation. Indeed, the “credible fear” process has now been “gamed” by Sessions and USCIS so that many legitimate asylum applications are summarily denied and the individuals subjected to expedited removal without appeals. And, to date, several “real” Article III Courts (in particular, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals) have “twiddled their thumbs” and failed to intervene to prevent the gross abuses of Due Process and our international obligations being carried out on a daily basis by this Administration.

Infants in court, real substantive asylum claims rejected without hearings — no wonder the U.S. Immigration Court system is broken and there is no time for “real”cases. The long-term solution might well involve more Immigration Judges and staff. But, at this point, that would be “throwing good money after bad.”

Before there can be expansion, the U.S. Immigration Court system needs to be fixed and returned to its original Due Process focus with Immigration Judges in change and empowered to remove cases like this from the active docket and to sanction Government Attorneys (as well as private attorneys) who waste valuable court time with frivolous litigation. Indeed, Congress did provide Immigration Judges with authority to hold attorneys from both sides in contempt. However, the DOJ has thumbed its nose at that statutory authorization over several Administrations and has never implemented the statute. (This is a good example of what the “rule of law” really means in the USDOJ!)

Removing the Immigration Court system from the Executive Branch is a necessary first step in reforming it to serve its original (and only) purpose: guaranteeing Due Process and fairness for all!

Meanwhile, as pointed out by Christina and Shefali, the damage to the health and welfare children and families might be irreparable.

PWS

07-19-18

GONZO’S WORLD: REPORTS OF TORTURE & ABUSE OF KIDS IN SESSIONS’S “NEW AMERICAN GULAG!” – “Keylin says, U.S. Border Patrol guards would kick her body to keep her awake throughout the night. The 16-year-old, whose last name was redacted from court documents, told a lawyer that she would lie in fear on the cement floor of the Border Patrol station in Texas, surrounded by chain-link fence.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/migrant-children-detail-experiences-border-patrol-stations-detention-centers_us_5b4d13ffe4b0de86f485ade8

Angelina Chapin reports for HuffPost:

Over the course of four days in June, Keylin says, U.S. Border Patrol guards would kick her body to keep her awake throughout the night. The 16-year-old, whose last name was redacted from court documents, told a lawyer that she would lie in fear on the cement floor of the Border Patrol station in Texas, surrounded by chain-link fence. She was separated from her mother, who had been held at gunpoint three times in Honduras, after they crossed the U.S. border.

According to a court filing, Keylin says the female guards also made girls “strip naked” in front of them before taking a shower, so they could leer at their bodies (her mother, Daise, corroborated her daughter’s account in a statement she gave to a lawyer). She adds that guards called the group of migrants “filthy” and “made fun of us.”

Keylin barely ate because she says the food was frozen, and she wasn’t given a toothbrush or toothpaste. Though she says the cells were so cold that she shivered and developed pain in her leg, the teen kept quiet. The guards said that anyone with an injury would be detained longer, and she couldn’t take that chance.

“I was very frightened and depressed the entire time,” Keylin told a lawyer on June 29, after she had been transferred to a family detention center and reunited with her mother. “I am still depressed. I also have nightmares and a lot of anxiety because of the separation.” At the time of their June 29 declaration, there was no plan for Keylin and her mother’s release.

HuffPost learned that the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law filed a report in a federal court in Los Angeles on Monday with more than 200 accounts from migrant children and their parents, detailing the horrific conditions they face in Border Patrol stations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities and detention centers. The allegations, which HuffPost reviewed, include physical and verbal assault, untenable sleeping conditions and unsanitary drinking water.

JOHN MOORE VIA GETTY IMAGES

A girl from Central America rests on thermal blankets at a detention facility run by the U.S. Border Patrol on Sept. 8, 2014, in McAllen, Texas.

Peter Schey, the executive director of the law center’s foundation, wrote in the case filing that roughly 90 percent of the testimony he and a team of about 100 lawyers collected is “shocking and atrocious” and that the children they’ve spoken to were “crying, trembling, hungry, thirsty, sleepless, sick, and terrified.”

“The treatment of these children amounts to torture,” Schey told HuffPost, adding that the situation has become worse under the Trump administration. “We see a policy of enforced hunger, enforced dehydration and enforced sleeplessness coupled with routine insults and physical assaults.”

ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CPB) did not return HuffPost’s requests for comment.

Over the past two months, Schey and other lawyers have conducted interviews with migrant parents and children, some of whom were separated from one another under Trump’s zero tolerance policy, which stepped up the use of criminal prosecutions. The court filing does not include the current status of each child, and most said they were not told of their legal rights, including the right to be speedily released to a legal guardian or relative.

On July 27, the attorney will argue in federal court that the stations and facilities housing children are failing to meet the basic standards for hygiene, food, sleeping conditions and medical care, which are outlined in a 1997 court case called the Flores settlement.

Once migrants cross the border, they are put in short-term Border Patrol stations for a few days before being transferred to detention centers or shelters. While some kids have reported good conditions in longer-term shelters ― friendly staff, movie nights and field trips ― advocates and immigration experts have long considered Border Patrol facilities to be inhumane.

In May, Dixiana, whose last name is edited out along with those of all the other migrants interviewed in the court filing, says she was separated from her mother and taken to a Border Patrol station known as a “hielera” ― Spanish for “ice box” in reference to the cold temperature. The 10-year-old from Honduras told a lawyer her cell was so crowded that she and other girls had to sleep on the floor or while sitting up under bright lights.

She cried at the thought of never seeing her mother again, as did others in her cell.

For breakfast, Dixiana says a guard gave her a frozen ham sandwich but failed to bring her and her cellmates water. “The ham was black,” she told a lawyer. “I took one bite, but did not eat the rest because of the taste.” (One mother from Honduras said, “You could feel the ice when you bit into the sandwich.”)

After 12 hours, Dixiana was transferred to what she calls the “perrera”―Spanish for “dog house,” a reference to the chain-link fencing ― where she could see her mom in another cell. At one point when she was half asleep, Dixiana says a male officer kicked her awake while looking for a girl with a similar name to hers. Over the course of the next few days, she sat in a windowless cell with no idea if it was day or night, crying because she missed her mother.

Subscribe to the Politics email.

How will Trump’s administration impact you?

The statements collected by lawyers clearly show that Border Patrol stations are no place for children. One mother, Floridalma, described how she and her 3-year-old were put in a 10-by-10-foot room with three other mothers and their children. Since they had only two mattresses, the group slept with their heads on the padding and their bodies on the cement floor.

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION VIA REUTERS

Children at Customs and Border Protection’s Rio Grande Valley Centralized Processing Center in Rio Grande City, Texas, on June 17.

Ruth, the mother of a 7-year-old boy, says the Border Patrol station was so cold that children were crying and getting sick. While she was separated from her son, she watched other women’s children get fevers, vomit and cough, while the guards refused to provide medicine.

The Border Patrol stations also fail to meet basic hygiene standards, according to the court filing. Many of the children describe the guards giving them water that tasted like chlorine. “I only drank it twice because I didn’t trust it,” said Justin, a 13-year-old from El Salvador. “It made me feel funny in my stomach the times I drank it.“ One mother, named Yojana, said, “We had to drink water from the toilet to keep hydrated.”

Children described going more than five days without bathing and having limited access to soap, toothbrushes and toothpaste. Fatima says that her 8-year-old daughter had to wear soiled underwear for two days because the guards wouldn’t allow her to use the shower.

Children also spoke to lawyers about issues in family detention centers and Office of Refugee Resettlement shelters, where they are detained for longer periods of time. Since June 8, 15-year-old Elmer has been staying in Casa Padre, America’s largest migrant children’s shelter, which MSNBC’s Jacob Soboroff described as resembling a “prison or jail.”

Elmer says that he is always hungry because there’s not enough food and that he wasn’t allowed to see a doctor when he felt sick. The 16-year-old says he told a lawyer that, although the boys, ages 10 to 17, are allowed outside for two hours a day, it is “unbearable” because there is nothing to protect them from the scorching sun. Elmer says that the guards don’t allow him to go to church and that he is rarely given any alone time in his room to process his feelings of loneliness and anxiety.

In addition to the horrible conditions within stations and shelters, children complained about the staff. The case filing contains multiple accounts of kids who say they were kicked by guards while sleeping, as well as instances of verbal abuse. Sixteen-year-old Erick says the guards in a California Border Patrol station call him and the other Guatemalan boys “burros,” the Spanish word for “donkey” or “stupid.” Another youth, whose name was completely blacked out in the court filing, said to a lawyer: “When I told the CPB officer that my mother was killed they made fun of me and said that I was ‘weak.’ I did not feel comfortable after that sharing my fear.”

While pediatricians and counselors have spoken about the long-term trauma that will result from family separation, children say in the court filing that their guards are less sympathetic.

Since Sergio was separated from his father and taken to Casa Padre in early June, he’s become so consumed with worry he can’t sleep. The 16-year-old has only been able to speak with his dad for 20 minutes in the last 45 days, and he told a lawyer that his father is getting deported. When a guard found him crying in the bathroom one night, Sergio said the man accused him of being a “crybaby,” an insult he followed with an English phrase that another boy translated as “swear words.” “The way I have been treated makes me feel like I don’t matter,” he said, “like I am trash.”

Schey, who conducted interviews with children in Casa Padre last week, said the separated kids he spoke with are “traumatized.” “They are not getting mental health services. They are experiencing depression and anxiety… and nightmares and sleeplessness.”

The law center’s court filing, which is more than 1,500 pages long, paints a dark picture of the cruel conditions many migrant children suffer through. On July 27, Schey will present their declarations in federal court and ask U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee to appoint an independent monitor who has the power to make sure facilities are meeting the standards outlined in the Flores settlement.

“This story is more than just separating children from their parents,” he told HuffPost. “The bigger picture is forced starvation and sleeplessness and terrorizing these children.”

*********************************************

What kind of country puts innocent kids in abusive prisons while letting their abusers hold public office?

PW*

07-19-18

‘Deleted’ families: What went wrong with Trump’s family-separation effort

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Separations lead to complicated court cases

A harrowing choice

Related posts:

Related posts:

Trump is sending LGBTQ migrants ‘back to hell’

Related posts:

Related posts:

Jul 22 Attorneys and Credible Fear Review

Related posts:

Better get out the vote in November to throw the White Nationalists/Putinists and their fellow travelers out of office. Otherwise, it might be too late for the world’s most successful democracy.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Doris Meissner

Senior Fellow and Director, U.S. Immigration Policy Program

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: