uspol – Cheloneuniverse

chamerionwrites:

avita-creator:

chamerionwrites:

Putting this right at the top where everyone can see it: this regulation is open to public comment until November 6th 2018, RIGHT HERE. Further info and instructions on submitting comments is available here.

The Trump administration officially has a plan to detain families who enter the US without legal status for as long as it deems necessary — with no limit on how long children may be held with their parents. And it’s starting the process to turn that plan into official government practice.

The administration is proposing a regulation that would replace a court agreement from 1997, designed to protect immigrant children in government custody.

On Friday, the departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services will officially publish a draft of the new regulation. (An “unpublished” version has already been posted to the Federal Register website.) If codified, it’s expected to lead to the detention of thousands of families apprehended at the US-Mexico border, by eliminating extra legal protections for children who arrive with their parents…

Here’s what the proposed new regulation would actually do:

Tighten the standards for releasing migrant children from detention: Right now, most adults who arrive in the US without legal status have to be kept in immigration detention while they’re put through “expedited” deportation proceedings. Asylum seekers are allowed to be released into the US while they fight their asylum case, but only after they’ve passed a preliminary “credible fear” screening (which can take weeks).

But the standards for children weren’t as clear-cut. Judge Dolly Gee, the judge overseeing Flores, interpreted them to mean that the government had discretion to release children from custody, and ordered DHS to make a “continuous effort to release” children from immigration custody even if they were with their parents.

The new proposal holds everyone in DHS custody — children and parents alike — to the same restrictive standard. Children deemed “unaccompanied” will still be sent to the Department of Health and Human Services, but children arriving with their parents will be detained for as long as the government deems necessary. It typically takes several weeks for asylum seekers to pass a credible fear screening, and they can be detained even after passing such a screening — meaning that the regulation would ultimately result in families being held for months or possibly even years.

Detain families in facilities that haven’t been formally approved for licenses: Under the terms of the Flores settlement, children (and families) could only be detained by DHS in facilities licensed by state or local governments — but the available facilities weren’t nearly big enough to accommodate the number of families the Trump administration wants to detain.

The proposed regulation would essentially let the government detain families and audit the facility later. It would set baseline standards for how facilities ought to treat children — including requirements for educational programming and emotional and medical care. But it would declare that any facility that was audited by a third party to make sure it met those standards would qualify as a “licensed” facility.

Give facilities broad “emergency” loopholes for not meeting standards of care: Generally, children apprehended by Customs and Border Protection officials are supposed to be sent to another facility — either an HHS facility for unaccompanied children or a DHS one for families within 72 hours. Under the new regulation, that wouldn’t apply in cases of an “emergency” (which the government deliberately defines broadly) or an “influx” — which is defined in such a broad way that it would apply to pretty much every moment during the past several years.

Furthermore, the “emergency” loophole would also apply to the standards for care of children and families in immigration detention — something that advocates worry would allow employees at detention centers to punish families by denying them basic needs.

Make it easier for the government to revoke the legal protections for “unaccompanied” children: Minors who are labeled “unaccompanied alien children” get more legal protections than other migrants — they’re kept in child care facilities under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services while a sponsor (usually a relative) is found to house them, and they automatically get a hearing before an immigration judge without having to pass an asylum screening interview first.

Generally, once someone is labeled an “unaccompanied alien child,” that label — and the protections that come with it — sticks. But the proposed rule would make it clear that if an immigrant turns 18, or if a parent or guardian is found in the US who can care for them, the immigrant officially loses their “unaccompanied” status and can be treated just like any other unauthorized immigrant.

(The Trump administration has already been doing this for some immigrants who turn 18 — even arresting them on their 18th birthdays — but this would codify that practice.)

Because the majority of “unaccompanied” minors are placed with parents or guardians, this would substantially reduce the number of immigrants who benefit from these protections.

When the government publishes a proposed regulation, the public gets 60 days to comment. That period will formally start on Friday and end on November 6 (which is, for what it’s worth, Election Day).

Immigration and children’s rights advocates have been preparing for this regulation to come out for months, and are expected to raise serious questions about the current treatment of children by immigration officials — including a toddler who died this summer after contracting an infection in a family detention facility — and point to child psychologists’ concerns that keeping children in detention, even with their families, creates lasting trauma.

Why do they even bother holding a comment period? Do they just need something to burn so they can warm up their cold, disgusting hearts?

I’m assuming your question is rhetorical, but to go right ahead and answer it anyway: because it’s the law.

The process does not function as a vote and obviously neither one of us is naïve enough to believe that politicians necessarily care what we think, but comments are a matter of public record, and government agencies are theoretically required to address major criticisms in the final draft of a proposed regulation.

Trump’s new plan to detain immigrant families indefinitely, explained

chamerionwrites:

Massive content warning for child abuse and state violence, obviously. Grief and rage are the appropriate responses here, but I would strongly recommend against reading or especially listening to the audio if you have reason to suspect it will upset you for reasons deeper than the self-evident ones.

Otherwise please ask yourself: When does empathy become performative outrage? Where is the line between voyeurism and genuine attempts to understand? Do I recognize the difference? Do I see more than sensationalism and symbol? Do I care about human beings as human beings, or as cudgels with which to beat my political opponents?

Carry on.

The desperate sobbing of 10 Central American children, separated from their parents one day last week by immigration authorities at the border, makes for excruciating listening. Many of them sound like they’re crying so hard, they can barely breathe. They scream “Mami” and “Papá” over and over again, as if those are the only words they know.

The baritone voice of a Border Patrol agent booms above the crying. “Well, we have an orchestra here,” he jokes. “What’s missing is a conductor.”

Then a distraught but determined 6-year-old Salvadoran girl pleads repeatedly for someone to call her aunt. Just one call, she begs anyone who will listen. She says she’s memorized the phone number, and at one point, rattles it off to a consular representative. “My mommy says that I’ll go with my aunt,” she whimpers, “and that she’ll come to pick me up there as quickly as possible.”

An audio recording obtained by ProPublica adds real-life sounds of suffering to a contentious policy debate that has so far been short on input from those with the most at stake: immigrant children. More than 2,300 of them have been separated from their parents since April, when the Trump administration launched its “zero tolerance” immigration policy, which calls for prosecuting all people who attempt to illegally enter the country and taking away the children they brought with them. More than 100 of those children are under the age of 4. The children are initially held in warehouses, tents or big box stores that have been converted into Border Patrol detention facilities.

Condemnations of the policy have been swift and sharp, including from some of the administration’s most reliable supporters. It has united religious conservatives and immigrant rights activists, who have said that “zero tolerance” amounts to “zero humanity.” Democratic and Republican members of Congress spoke out against the administration’s enforcement efforts over the weekend. Former first lady Laura Bush called the administration’s practices “cruel” and “immoral,” and likened images of immigrant children being held in kennels to those that came out of Japanese internment camps during World War II. And the American Association of Pediatricians has said the practice of separating children from their parents can cause the children “irreparable harm.”

Still, the administration had stood by it. President Donald Trump blames Democrats and says his administration is only enforcing laws already on the books, although that’s not true. There are no laws that require children to be separated from their parents, or that call for criminal prosecutions of all undocumented border crossers. Those practices were established by the Trump administration.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has cited passages from the Bible in an attempt to establish religious justification. On Monday, he defended it again saying it was a matter of rule of law, “We cannot and will not encourage people to bring children by giving them blanket immunity from our laws.” A Border Patrol spokesman echoed that thought in a written statement.

In recent days, authorities on the border have begun allowing tightly controlled tours of the facilities that are meant to put a humane face on the policy. But cameras are heavily restricted. And the children being held are not allowed to speak to journalists.

The audio obtained by ProPublica breaks that silence. It was recorded last week inside a U.S. Customs and Border Protection detention facility. The person who made the recording asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation. That person gave the audio to Jennifer Harbury, a well-known civil rights attorney who has lived and worked for four decades in the Rio Grande Valley along the Texas border with Mexico. Harbury provided it to ProPublica. She said the person who recorded it was a client who “heard the children’s weeping and crying, and was devastated by it.”

The person estimated that the children on the recording are between 4 and 10 years old. It appeared that they had been at the detention center for less than 24 hours, so their distress at having been separated from their parents was still raw. Consulate officials tried to comfort them with snacks and toys. But the children were inconsolable.

The child who stood out the most was the 6-year-old Salvadoran girl with a phone number stuck in her head. At the end of the audio, a consular official offers to call the girl’s aunt. ProPublica dialed the number she recited in the audio, and spoke with the aunt about the call.

“It was the hardest moment in my life,” she said. “Imagine getting a call from your 6-year-old niece. She’s crying and begging me to go get her. She says, ‘I promise I’ll behave, but please get me out of here. I’m all alone.’”

The aunt said what made the call even more painful was that there was nothing she could do. She and her 9-year-old daughter are seeking asylum in the United States after immigrating here two years ago for the exact same reasons and on the exact same route as her sister and her niece. They are from a small town called Armenia, about an hour’s drive northwest of the Salvadoran capital, but well within reach of its crippling crime waves. She said gangs were everywhere in El Salvador: “They’re on the buses. They’re in the banks. They’re in schools. They’re in the police. There’s nowhere for normal people to feel safe.”

She said her niece and sister set out for the United States over a month ago. They paid a smuggler $7,000 to guide them through Guatemala, and Mexico and across the border into the United States. Now, she said, all the risk and investment seem lost.

The aunt said she worried that any attempt to intervene in her niece’s situation would put hers and her daughter’s asylum case at risk, particularly since the Trump administration overturned asylum protections for victims of gang and domestic violence. She said she’s managed to speak to her sister, who has been moved to an immigration detention facility near Port Isabel, Texas. And she keeps in touch with her niece, Alison Jimena Valencia Madrid, by telephone. Mother and daughter, however, have not been able to speak to one another.

The aunt said that Alison has been moved out of the Border Patrol facility to a shelter where she has a real bed. But she said that authorities at the shelter have warned the girl that her mother, 29-year-old Cindy Madrid, might be deported without her.

“I know she’s not an American citizen,” the aunt said of her niece. “But she’s a human being. She’s a child. How can they treat her this way?”

Listen to Children Who’ve Just Been Separated From Their Parents at the Border — ProPublica