Do not take my child away from me.
Ms. L.
vs
Government
Immigration Entities.
Introduction
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, women are being raped nearly
every one minute. Women have reported high levels of
sexual abuse in different cities of the country. The war in
Congo will never stop,
millions of people are dying, others are fleeing the country, and Congo is
falling apart. Imagine women and children’s living conditions. Wouldn’t you
desperately want to escape that horror?
Mommy don’t let them take me.
Ms. L. after escaping the Democratic Republic of Congo with her little
daughter who was 7 years old. Traveled “7,884 mi Distance to the
United States from Democratic Republic of Congo” and presented herself with her daughter S.S. to border
guards at the San Ysidro Port of Entry on
November 1, 2017. She told the officers the fear of going back to the Congo. She was given a credible fear
interview. The asylum officer concluded she had a credible fear
persecution. She was placed in formal
removal proceedings to pursue her asylum claim.
When
they initially arrived in the United States, they were detained together. Four
days later, the child was taken away from her and sent 2,000 miles away to a facility in Chicago.
She sobbed when leaving her mommy. Without further arguments the defendants
separated them. There was never any legitimate reason to separate them. Separating immigrant parents
from their children is unconstitutional. Ms L. and S.S were not able
to see each other, and every time they spoke on the phone S.S had been crying
and afraid. Ms. L likewise depressed, sad, and unable to eat or sleep. This separation is causing emotional and psychological harm and could potentially lead to permanent emotional trauma. After Ms.
L. filed a lawsuit, she was notified of her released just hours in advanced
from custody on March 6, 2018. No arrangements for a place to stay were made.
The child was not released and remained in custody alone in Chicago.
Question
“Let’s assume that due process is
afforded as constitutional right to mothers of another country who illegally
enter the United States with a child and are seeking asylum in the United
States. Before separating the mother and the child, what would be required to
afford them due process?
When it is determined that the parent to the child has a credible case for asylum, I would hope due process would go as follows:
ReplyDeletePresent the parent, in their native language, a detailed list of next steps in the asylum process.
Provide them the ability to consult with a government sponsored immigration attorney to ensure the parent understands their rights and the rights of their child.
Offer them the ability to receive voluntary deportation, along with their child, to their country of origin.
If the parent wishes to continue in the asylum process, the family remains together during the asylum process. The hope would be the additional troops deployed could assist with filing out all asylum paperwork to clear the backlog.
The United States is the land of justice and we do not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process.” This includes asylum seekers looking for a better life.
I was reading that immigrants in the U.S. have more rights than those at the border. It would be interesting to note what those differences are and whether the U.S. needs to rethink why those differences exist when both are American actions.
DeleteTodd, a good way to think about due process. Voluntary deportation is part of the asylum process. The government doesn't want to invest on any due process before separating the parents from the children. Yes, I agree, the family should remain together, parents and children. Right now the parents are pleading guilty and requesting deportation because they are afraid not to see their children anymore. In many cases that has happened. And no one knows where those kids are anymore. The United States is not only the land of justice but also the country of immigrants. Except my father in-law who is a native American, I haven't met any other person whose parents or ancestors haven't immigrated to these lands the U.SA, including yours I am pretty sure. In a way we all are immigrants or sought asylum.
DeleteThis comment is done on Behalf of Martha Ellis.
ReplyDeleteLet’s start with the fact that there is NO good reason to separate already traumatized immigrants seeking asylum in the USA from their children. No due process could ever make it right, reasonable or fair. The practice has been instituted as a deterrent and it is misrepresentative of our countries ideals and founding principles. To stand by idol and not be completely outraged by what has happened at our southern border, of late, is denying the very underpinning of what we claim to represent globally. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that many seeking asylum from Central and South America are fleeing countries that in all likelihood, the US has a hand in destabilizing. (Read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.) I think it is incredibly disingenuous to pretend that desperate mothers and fathers, in fear of their lives, who have witness atrocities that many in the US could never even conceive of, who have traveled countless miles by what ever means possible, could ever justly be separated from their children.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMartha, no reason is an excuse when it comes to fall families apart, I am with you. Well for sure we do not represent the country of immigrants anymore, it seems more like the country of selfishness. the U.S has been involved directly or indirectly with the issues of those countries. The U.S has the financial means to go to war but cannot invest money on implementing a legal process for those who seek asylum and are persecuted.
DeleteThis comment is posted on behalf of Tyrrell, who apparently is having problems posting the comment.
ReplyDeleteAs for what should happen—perhaps we should look to the research. The family case management program, a pilot started in January 2016, allowed families seeking asylum to be released together and monitored by caseworkers while their immigration court cases proceeded. Case managers provided asylum seekers with referrals for education, legal services and housing. They also helped sort out confusing orders about when to show up for immigration court and ICE check-ins. And they emphasized the importance of showing up to all court hearings, which can stretch over two or three years.
The pilot was implemented with around 700 families in five metropolitan areas, including New York and Los Angeles, and it was a huge success. About 99 percent of immigrants showed up for their hearings.
It also cut government spending. According to Katharina Obser--a policy adviser at the Women’s Refugee Commission—the program cost $36 per day per family, compared with the more than $900 a day it costs to lock up an immigrant parent with two children. This is just one example of what we could/should be doing.
Tyrrell, screening legal or illegal immigrants is very important. The government should invest in these programs such as the one you mentioned. $36 sounds too good to be true, but it is a good start. The government have unlimited resources to make due process possible. Also let's keep in mind that this country is prosperous because of all its immigrants including your ancestors.
DeleteThere a few thoughts that come to mind when I read this. There was a statute created in 1996 (The Illegal Immigration and immigrant Responsibility Act) that permits "expedited removal" by giving immigration officers authority to deport non-U.S. citizens without any form of due-process. Stemming from this led to a broadening of this statute and a "zero tolerance" policy was enacted leading to criminal prosecution of illegal immigrants, producing a whole other set of problems. This criminalizing led to children being separated because children cannot be held in custody.
ReplyDeleteSeems like a chain reaction from a simple statute that removed due process.
The due process would simply be giving them the same due process that U.S. citizens have (because that's constitutional). I liked Todd's ideas but first remove the statute of 1996 and decriminalize illegal immigration.
Jordan, that Act is applicable to this day as you described. However there is no due process on separating families who are seeking asylum. Asylum could be credible as Ms L. had a reason to stay, and she was provided a fear interview and put in removal proceeding. The issue was separating the child from her. The act is not actually unconstitutional. Its applicability is, when separating parents from their children. Maybe they should add something in the statute to give due process as many do when using the constitution, like same-sex marriage and other rights. I agree with you about Todd's ideas.
DeleteDue process is a 5th Amendment right that covers “people”. As Todd (and others) have said, it includes asylum seekers.
ReplyDeleteI 100% agree with and would support the family case management program, which allows families to be released together while their court cases proceed through the courts. With the statistics that Tyrrell has posted regarding its success in major metropolitan areas, it appears to be an obvious “win” vs the alternative—separating children from their mothers who are then placed in government custody or foster care. I can’t even imagine being a young child placed in the care of those I don’t know, who may very likely not speak the same language as I do, and not knowing where my mother is or what may have happened to her and whether I’ll ever see here again. The ACLU released a report in May 2018 which documented the verbal, physical and sexual abuse of unaccompanied children, which makes this situation even more terrifying. The U.S. should and CAN do more to afford better protections for families seeking asylum. Separation is not the answer here.
We all think the United States is the country of due process, and it is, except immigration. The problem here is how the administrative agencies are managed. It will be as simple as that if judges and officers are selected the way state and federal judges are. They will understand what the law is and its interpretation. Case by case. If you are seeking asylum go to the legal process and you will get protection. Obviously if you are a criminal in this country and were in your home country there is a way for scrutiny. The U.S has the resources to get information and they I agree shouldn't be permitted, but case by case. Today, many people are pleading guilty before a judge scared of losing their kids forever.
DeleteIn 1997, the Flores Settlement Agreement came about. A 15 year old girl by the name of Jenny Lisa Flores fled El Salvador in order to save her life. She presented herself at the US border claiming asylum. Her plan was to live with her aunt in the US. CNN says, "she was placed in a juvenile detention center, where she was handcuffed and strip-searched, according to the Marquette Law Review. The INS refused to grant her aunt custody of Jenny because it wouldn't release minors to "third-party adults."
ReplyDeleteFlores v Reno was a supreme court case that ruled in favor on protecting immigrant minors. Caselaw.findlaw.com states, "Respondents contend that they have a right under the Constitution and immigration laws to be routinely released into the custody of other "responsible adults." The District Court invalidated the regulatory scheme on unspecified due process grounds, ordering that "responsible adult part[ies]" be added to the list of persons to whom a juvenile must be released and requiring that a hearing before an immigration judge be held automatically, whether or not the juvenile requests it. The Court of Appeals, en banc, affirmed."
These stories make me so mad and sad. The government is not allowed to detain children more than 20 days in an unlicensed facility. All the government facilities for minors are unlicensed. It is ironic how ICE is so concerned about enforcing the law, but at the same time they are breaking the law. These men and women fleeing war torn countries have never experienced the right of due process. It is the obligation of the US to give these asylum seekers this unalienable right.
Raelene, one of the issues that ICE and other agencies of immigration enforcement have is that they do not follow a procedure of due process because judges and other officers are just hired by the U,S attorney general so they received orders from administrative offices. And most likely they are not well knowledgeable as most state and federal judges are. Now days the direct orders are to deport anyone regardless.
DeleteI like the process Todd suggested above but I wonder if part of the problem here is the lengthy and bureaucratic process. If it was determined that Ms. L had a credible fear of prosecution in her war-torn country, why not have an immediate proceeding (because she is caring for a minor who is dependent upon her) and why must they be separated in order to execute this proceeding? These stories are have become too common and it is terrifying to think this country is becoming less available to people fleeing the most dangerous and horrific of conditions. Further, it seems a bit counterintuitive to penalize people who are pursuing immigrating to the United States legally as that, I imagine, would encourage people to pursue entering the country illegally.
ReplyDeleteKate, I love your point. Many illegal immigrants enter the U.S in that condition. They do not want to face that proceeding of due process. Presenting themselves to an officer at the port of entry and seek asylum. Why bother!! But Not only that, many people go to the U.S embassies to apply for legal visas and they also get denied. This is just like a dog that doesn't eat the treat and neither let's the little puppy eat. Meaning, no matter in what condition you want to seek safety in the United States, I will not let you.
DeleteI cannot think of a reason why a parent would need to be separated from their child while moving through the asylum process, unless they are a danger to their child. Once it has been established they have a credible case, they should be allowed to proceed through the next steps as a family. These steps should be explained to them, and assistance should be provided to ensure they understand what is expected. Programs such as the Family Case Management program helped keep families together and also assisted immigrant families settle in while also making sure their charges made it to court. While it's been argued that this program was too costly, this feels more like due process to me. I also have a difficult time seeing that argument, as other measures still cost the country money in addition to the emotional toll it takes on those affected. As others have pointed out it seems to contradict what our country was founded upon.
ReplyDeleteRemoval of children from their parents also sounds like administrative inefficiency. I think John Oliver covered this issue twice this year, once regarding how children had to represent themselves in court regardless of age and another time noting the psychological trauma cause by family separation.
DeleteThe US is clearly applying cruel and unusual punishment. And the government justifies it all by using it against non-US citizens.
If it's the same John Oliver broadcast I'm thinking of, interested readers may be able to view it here. His reasoning might be a little hotheaded, but it's also difficult to refute.
DeleteI do not think that any parent and child should be separated. Some make the argument that it happens to American citizens all the time, but does that make it right? A child (and parent for that matter) during a time of extreme stress and insecurity needs a stabilizing force for their emotional and mental well-being; a parent can provide that. One of the biggest hurdles that I've recently discovered is not only due process but the disconnect that many third world parents have in dealing with first world countries. I watched a documentary of a family in Guatemala that was trying to come to America. The mother stayed behind in Guatemala while the father and young son tried to come into America illegally. Both were discovered and separated. The mother in Guatemala tried to get the child released to her sister, a legal immigrant. The US was willing to release the child, but needed to make sure that the sister was, in fact, the sister and not a random stranger. I remember the US office asking the mother to email back some papers. This woman lived in a cardboard shack and there was no way she could email any papers. The US was doing what they thought was proper and right, and the mother was doing what she thought was proper and right. No one was at fault, there was just a total disconnect. I realized that this problem of separating and reuniting children and families was much more complex than we realize and that despite everyone's best efforts, we will come up short in many ways.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Tricia. Where are your morals and compassion when separating children from their parents?, and the sad thing is that you don't see them again. Under emotional distress you get here and now they take your kids away from you. In your second statement, very ironic to know that reuniting the kid with the parent can be more expensive than separating them. haahahah. Do they know what they are doing?. I am from Peru, people called my country third world country, Thousands of Venezuelans flee their home country and enter Peru. Peru has admitted all Venezuelans into the country, gave them shelter, open special offices to request a residency through the legal process. Many can work legally and be part of the community. Peru is a country that is not used to diversity, the U.S in the contrary is. Most of us if not all, their ancestors immigrated this land in the north. Peru not having much was compassionate to open the doors of a country neighbored. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
Delete