Executive order signed overturning family separation

[Katy]

No details yet, but good news.

[ktgrok]

yes, maybe I'll be able to sleep tonight. 

That said, I can't help but think the whole thing was orchestrated by a certain deal maker to make us happy to settle for what he really wanted all along, detention centers for families along our border indefinitely. 

For anyone wondering if there is any other alternative, yes, there is. ATD, alternatives to detention, including things like case workers assigned to families, language help, and legal help, cost the US taxpayer a small fraction of what detention does, and is over 98 percent effective when it comes to making sure immigrants appear at their court dates. Legal, upholding our immigration laws, compassionate, and WAY cheaper. But we are supposed to be grateful we have entire families detained, at great human and fiscal cost. 

I'm relieved, sure, but feel played as well. 

https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/images/zdocs/The-Real-Alternatives-to-Detention-FINAL-06-27-17.pdf

 

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

 

Families should never have been separated, and this EO is not anything to celebrate.  I have some relief that children may be returned to their families in detention, but it’s not much.  

I have more thoughts but they are still processing in my mind. 

[AppleGreen]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

yes, maybe I'll be able to sleep tonight. 

That said, I can't help but think the whole thing was orchestrated by a certain deal maker to make us happy to settle for what he really wanted all along, detention centers for families along our border indefinitely. 

For anyone wondering if there is any other alternative, yes, there is. ATD, alternatives to detention, including things like case workers assigned to families, language help, and legal help, cost the US taxpayer a small fraction of what detention does, and is over 98 percent effective when it comes to making sure immigrants appear at their court dates. Legal, upholding our immigration laws, compassionate, and WAY cheaper. But we are supposed to be grateful we have entire families detained, at great human and fiscal cost. 

I'm relieved, sure, but feel played as well. 

https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/images/zdocs/The-Real-Alternatives-to-Detention-FINAL-06-27-17.pdf

 

Yes, children are not chess pieces. Don't we universally agree it's rather abhorrent when parents in custody issues treat children in such a manner? Children, all children, are people, not pawns. 

[Liz CA]

2 hours ago, Thatboyofmine said:

Good, but it should've been common sense not to do it in the first place.  Damage is done and probably irreparable. 

 

I heard it has been in effect since the Clinton administration. Evidently, a long standing policy that went unnoticed until now? I am just wondering why this was not addressed much sooner as in years ago.

[Spy Car]

We reap what we sew.

Bill

[Liz CA]

11 minutes ago, Thatboyofmine said:

I believe it went into affect April 6 of this year.   

 

The separation policy? I wonder what the woman at my gym was talking about then when she said on TV that this dates back to Clinton? Well, at least it was modified within months.

[SKL]

The policy that children could not be held in detention beyond 20 days goes back to the Clinton administration.  Children have been separated from their parents all these years.  Yes, it went largely unnoticed.

To some extent, previous administrations chose not to enforce the law i.e. they let adults out of custody and that meant they got to keep the kids with them (some of which were and some weren't their own kids).

What changed recently was that fewer adults were allowed out of custody, kids or no kids.

What the EO does is eliminate the side effect of kids being separated from their parents in certain cases when the parents are detained as part of law enforcement.

Whether that is what most of the parents actually wanted, I don't know.  Not sure they have been asked.

[Katy]

This is the best explanation of the truth that I've seen after a couple days of research:

 

[Liz CA]

Just now, SKL said:

The policy that children could not be held in detention beyond 20 days goes back to the Clinton administration.  Children have been separated from their parents all these years.  Yes, it went largely unnoticed.

To some extent, previous administrations chose not to enforce the law i.e. they let adults out of custody and that meant they got to keep the kids with them (some of which were and some weren't their own kids).

What changed recently was that fewer adults were allowed out of custody, kids or no kids.

What the EO does is eliminate the side effect of kids being separated from their parents in certain cases when the parents are detained as part of law enforcement.

Whether that is what most of the parents actually wanted, I don't know.  Not sure they have been asked.

 

I am now confused - not that it matters :). I posted that I heard on TV at the gym that this policy dated back to Clinton; another poster said it came into effect in April of this year??? I sure never heard anything in the media in April regarding separation.

[Amira]

There have been limited times in the past when family separations occurred, usually when it was considered the best interest of the child (like in cases of abuse, or when there wasn’t clear evidence of a genetic or legal relationship between an adult and a child).  So technically, yes, family separations were allowed in the past. But that is much different from what started this spring when family separations became the norm, even for many aslyum-seeking families who had a legal right to be in the US.  

[SKL]

11 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

I am now confused - not that it matters :). I posted that I heard on TV at the gym that this policy dated back to Clinton; another poster said it came into effect in April of this year??? I sure never heard anything in the media in April regarding separation.

There was no separation policy that went into effect in the past 1.5 years.  What went into effect this Spring was a tightening of which adults get detained after illegal border crossings.  Those who had kids with them (and who were detained longer than a couple hours) were separated because of the long-standing policy against detaining children with their detained parents.

[Liz CA]

4 minutes ago, Amira said:

There have been limited times in the past when family separations occurred, usually when it was considered the best interest of the child (like in cases of abuse, or when there wasn’t clear evidence of a genetic or legal relationship between an adult and a child).  So technically, yes, family separations were allowed in the past. But that is much different from what started this spring when family separations became the norm, even for many aslyum-seeking families who had a legal right to be in the US.  

 

Okay, so some of the issue was determining if a person was actually the legal guardian of the child they brought with them? I can see that this can get messy as it's feasible that someone has an extra kid with them. 

I heard of horror stories from one woman who was legal in the US but it took a while to get the daughter and someone else had to bring the child. Documentation was a nightmare (her words).

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Amira said:

There have been limited times in the past when family separations occurred, usually when it was considered the best interest of the child (like in cases of abuse, or when there wasn’t clear evidence of a genetic or legal relationship between an adult and a child).  So technically, yes, family separations were allowed in the past. But that is much different from what started this spring when family separations became the norm, even for many aslyum-seeking families who had a legal right to be in the US.  

I read that the asylum seekers who were detained were caught committing illegal border crossings and *then* tried to claim asylum. 

[Amira]

Ending family separation is a vital first step. But there is a lot more to this zero tolerance policy that needs to be addressed.  Indefinite detention for aslyum seekers is a very bad idea in every way.  Even if you don’t have a problem with locking people up for over a year while they’re waiting for a final decision on their asylum claim (the average wait is well over a year and there is a backlog of over 200,000 cases), it’s incredibly expensive to detain this many people.  There are more effective, cheaper, and mostly importantly, more humane ways to make sure we don’t lose track of aslyum seekers.   https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/images/zdocs/The-Real-Alternatives-to-Detention-FINAL-06-27-17.pdf

[Amira]

Just now, SKL said:

I read that the asylum seekers who were detained were caught committing illegal border crossings and *then* tried to claim asylum. 

And that is an entirely legitimate way to claim asylum.  Aslyum can be claimed within a year of entry, even if the entry was undocumented.  Once asylum is claimed and the case is moving forward, the asylum seeker has a legal right to be in the US until their case is decided, according to US law.

[Amira]

3 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

Okay, so some of the issue was determining if a person was actually the legal guardian of the child they brought with them?

Yes, that is always a concern that needs to be addressed.  The problem with the recent policy is that all children were being separated from their parents, instead of only those who were in a dangerous situation.  

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Amira said:

Ending family separation is a vital first step. But there is a lot more to this zero tolerance policy that needs to be addressed.  Indefinite detention for aslyum seekers is a very bad idea in every way.  Even if you don’t have a problem with locking people up for over a year while they’re waiting for a final decision on their asylum claim (the average wait is well over a year and there is a backlog of over 200,000 cases), it’s incredibly expensive to detain this many people.  There are more effective, cheaper, and mostly importantly, more humane ways to make sure we don’t lose track of aslyum seekers.   https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/images/zdocs/The-Real-Alternatives-to-Detention-FINAL-06-27-17.pdf

Right, I think it makes more sense to receive and consider the asylum requests while they are still outside the US.

[Amira]

Just now, SKL said:

Right, I think it makes more sense to receive and consider the asylum requests while they are still outside the US.

But that is not how aslyum works.  Asylum can only be requested in the US.  

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Amira said:

And that is an entirely legitimate way to claim asylum.  Aslyum can be claimed within a year of entry, even if the entry was undocumented.  Once asylum is claimed and the case is moving forward, the asylum seeker has a legal right to be in the US until their case is decided, according to US law.

When you cross the border illegally you have still committed the crime of illegal border crossing and that needs to be dealt with.

If there is no deterrent to crossing the border illegally and then claiming asylum, the number of people who would do it (without an actual claim to asylum) would skyrocket.

[regentrude]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Right, I think it makes more sense to receive and consider the asylum requests while they are still outside the US.

People seeking asylum fear for their lives in their home countries. Staying home and waiting for paperwork to be processed is not an option for them

Also, Border Patrol agents have been turning away people who were approaching the checkpoint when they found out the people were planning to ask for asylum. 

[Amira]

Just now, SKL said:

When you cross the border illegally you have still committed the crime of illegal border crossing and that needs to be dealt with.

If there is no deterrent to crossing the border illegally and then claiming asylum, the number of people who would do it (without an actual claim to asylum) would skyrocket.

There are very good reasons to allow undocumented people to claim asylum.  Ending that option would mean that the US would deport even more people back to countries where they are in danger.

[SKL]

I mean, if we're talking about changing laws (and we certainly are), then how asylum claims are received and addressed should also be on the table.

[regentrude]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

When you cross the border illegally you have still committed the crime of illegal border crossing and that needs to be dealt with.

If there is no deterrent to crossing the border illegally and then claiming asylum, the number of people who would do it (without an actual claim to asylum) would skyrocket.

So how do you propose asylum seekers seek asylum when they are not let into the border crossing ? 

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, regentrude said:

People seeking asylum fear for their lives in their home countries. Staying home and waiting for paperwork to be processed is not an option for them

Also, Border Patrol agents have been turning away people who were approaching the checkpoint when they found out the people were planning to ask for asylum. 

1) Yeah but these people have traveled through Mexico, so they have not just come from their home countries.

2) I heard that too. They said they were booked up and people needed to wait.  This is not unprecedented either.  This is another good reason to consider changing the laws about how, where, and when people can seek asylum.

[regentrude]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

1) Yeah but these people have traveled through Mexico, so they have not just come from their home countries.

Yes, because they have to be at a port of entry or IN the US to be able to apply for asylum. They cannot apply for asylum from their home countries.

[Amira]

And what are people supposed to do if they need asylum but the quota has already been met for that month or that year, or the US has detained so many people unnecessarily that no more asylees are allowed in?  Just go home?

[SKL]

Just now, regentrude said:

Yes, because they have to be at a port of entry or IN the US to be able to apply for asylum. They cannot apply for asylum from their home countries.

Like I said ... good reasons to consider a revision of the asylum laws.

[SKL]

Is Mexico not a safe place for people fleeing a Central American country?

[Amira]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Like I said ... good reasons to consider a revision of the asylum laws.

It would be utterly unworkable to allow aslyum claims outside the US.  In some countries, most of the population qualifies for asylum.  Getting to the US is a significant bar for the vast majority of asylum seekers.  

[Mergath]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Is Mexico not a safe place for people fleeing a Central American country?

 

I imagine that would depend entirely on who or what they're fleeing.

[Amira]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Is Mexico not a safe place for people fleeing a Central American country?

Not always, and many asylum seekers are from Mexico.  Aslyum seekers have the right to choose to apply in the US anyway.

[regentrude]

4 minutes ago, SKL said:

Is Mexico not a safe place for people fleeing a Central American country?

No, not for all groups. Some people seek asylum from Mexico because they are persecuted

 

ETA:http://www.msf.org/en/article/mexico-unsafe-country-thousands-refugees-fleeing-violence-central-america

[Amira]

2 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

 

The international agreement is that they apply in the first country they come to.  Mexico, Costa Rica,...there are other choices.

Refugees are supposed to be registered in the first country they arrive in and then have major restrictions on their movement.  Asylum seekers have more flexibility since they’re not formally registered.  The fact that the US has kept the UN from designating most Central Americans as refugees means they are much freer to travel to the US to claim asylum.

[ktgrok]

53 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

The separation policy? I wonder what the woman at my gym was talking about then when she said on TV that this dates back to Clinton? Well, at least it was modified within months.

That is a standard lie being told over and over until people believe it. 

[Amira]

4 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/20/business/economy/immigration-economic-impact.html?hpw&rref=business&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

scroll down to the infographic: The Flow of Migration Varies Around the World...kinda interesting...

That is a very interesting article, but I’m not sure what it has to do with this topic.

[ktgrok]

46 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

I am now confused - not that it matters :). I posted that I heard on TV at the gym that this policy dated back to Clinton; another poster said it came into effect in April of this year??? I sure never heard anything in the media in April regarding separation.

that's when it became a misdemeanor to cross the border, instead of a  civil matter. But it wasn't actually enforced in criminal court because it was a total waste of resources that were better used to go after "real" criminals crossing the border. 

[ktgrok]

28 minutes ago, SKL said:

When you cross the border illegally you have still committed the crime of illegal border crossing and that needs to be dealt with.

If there is no deterrent to crossing the border illegally and then claiming asylum, the number of people who would do it (without an actual claim to asylum) would skyrocket.

The deterrent was being deported via immigration proceedings. Now, they are first going through criminal court, then immigration proceedings, which has no real effect other than to cost us a whole crap ton of taxpayer money. But fine, want to charge them criminally? Use alternative detention methods as linked above by Amira. Great than 98 percent of people do show up for hearings if enrolled in those programs, the law gets enforced, and it costs us a fraction of the money that deportation does, and is more humane in every way. But....the powers that be would rather channel money to private prisons than to pay for social workers. 

[Amira]

Just now, HeighHo said:

 

In an earlier post, you had asked 'what are people to do'..this article tells you what people actually are doing.  The US is not the only place that one can flee too.

Thank you for clarifying that.  Telling a Guatemalan mother trying to claim aslyum in the US with her two children that she’s too late and can ask for help in Canada or Germany if she can get there doesn’t seem like a feasible option to me.

[ktgrok]

28 minutes ago, regentrude said:

People seeking asylum fear for their lives in their home countries. Staying home and waiting for paperwork to be processed is not an option for them

Also, Border Patrol agents have been turning away people who were approaching the checkpoint when they found out the people were planning to ask for asylum. 

Yes, this is being reported by churches on the border. They now have parishoners acting as volunteers who cross to the checkpoint with the asylum seekers, and that seems to help make sure they actually make it through. Otherwise they were being turned away which, from my understanding, is illegal. 

[ktgrok]

27 minutes ago, SKL said:

1) Yeah but these people have traveled through Mexico, so they have not just come from their home countries.

2) I heard that too. They said they were booked up and people needed to wait.  This is not unprecedented either.  This is another good reason to consider changing the laws about how, where, and when people can seek asylum.

Currently, the majority are FROM mexico. 

[ktgrok]

23 minutes ago, SKL said:

Like I said ... good reasons to consider a revision of the asylum laws.

And in the meantime? These are humans sitting at our border, with their children, in 100 degree heat. They can't sit around waiting in the desert for us to craft new laws. 

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

 

Me neither, but going south is a feasible option. I'm also wondering if relocating within the coo is feasible...perhaps its like moving from South Side of Chicago to a rural town.

If that was an option, don't you think they would take it??? I mean, who the heck leaves everything they know, risks death crossing a desert, to go to a country where they don't speak the language, when hey, they could have just moved to the suburbs. 

People don't leave until leaving is the only real option. 

[TechWife]

1 hour ago, Liz CA said:

 

Okay, so some of the issue was determining if a person was actually the legal guardian of the child they brought with them? I can see that this can get messy as it's feasible that someone has an extra kid with them. 

I heard of horror stories from one woman who was legal in the US but it took a while to get the daughter and someone else had to bring the child. Documentation was a nightmare (her words).

It’s not impossible. They have been conducting interviews for years to determine this. They can also use DNA testing in the case of biological children. Verifying adopted children would be harder, especially if the government of their home country is in tatters. However, interviews and witnesses would play a large part in those circumstances. 

[Amira]

1 minute ago, StellaM said:

I think perhaps this was mentioned earlier, but you don't actually need to care about humans to back release into community for these families. 

All you have to do is know that it's cheaper! Far cheaper! 

I heard $600/day quoted for detention....something around $30/day for tech which ensures compliance in the community.

Far fewer of your taxpayer dollars will go to families in the community awaiting hearings, than to families in detention. Anyone who believe in fiscal responsibility should do their sums on this one.

Apologies for no citations - this was a BBC word service item on the radio during the night - figures were quoted in this item.

 

This link has lots of details confirming this.  https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/images/zdocs/The-Real-Alternatives-to-Detention-FINAL-06-27-17.pdf

[TechWife]

46 minutes ago, Amira said:

Thank you for clarifying that.  Telling a Guatemalan mother trying to claim aslyum in the US with her two children that she’s too late and can ask for help in Canada or Germany if she can get there doesn’t seem like a feasible option to me.

Exactly. When my grandmother fled her home country, her mother (my great grandmother) kept a written record of the amount of money she earned selling their personal belongings (what she could sell, anyway). Then, as they fled, she kept track of how much money she paid for train and ship tickets, as well as how much she paid various train employees, who were requiring bribes of people to be allowed to continue to travel. Her entire region was unstable, from what I understand. Her father had already fled to avoid being conscripted into army of a terrible regime. Thankfully, his wife (my great grandmother)  and their two surviving children (others had starved to death in their home country - there was no food for the average citizen) were able to join him here in the US. People generally have to pick a destination and stick with it - financial and personal resources are limited. Turning around, choosing another port or another country isn’t feasible for most people who are fleeing for their lives. My grandmother, like many, said she cried when she saw the Statue of Liberty because it meant safety. My family’s story is not unique. It is more perilous than some, less perilous than others. Thousands  of people are in this situation and are right now, this very minute, trying to figure out how to travel, what and where to eat and who to trust. The alternative for many is certain death - by starvation, at the hands of gang members and some at the hands of their own government. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, StellaM said:

I think perhaps this was mentioned earlier, but you don't actually need to care about humans to back release into community for these families. 

All you have to do is know that it's cheaper! Far cheaper! 

I heard $600/day quoted for detention....something around $30/day for tech which ensures compliance in the community.

Far fewer of your taxpayer dollars will go to families in the community awaiting hearings, than to families in detention. Anyone who believe in fiscal responsibility should do their sums on this one.

Apologies for no citations - this was a BBC word service item on the radio during the night - figures were quoted in this item.

 

THIS would actually have a better chance of resonating with some people I know. Sadly. 

[TechWife]

1 hour ago, HeighHo said:

 

Me neither, but going south is a feasible option. I'm also wondering if relocating within the coo is feasible...perhaps its like moving from South Side of Chicago to a rural town.

No, it is not at all like moving from one of our cities to a suburb. Not. At. All.

[ktgrok]

32 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

 

Some people are taking those other options.  Reasons are economic, family....try the NYT, they've done some good journalistic work in the past few years.

  You sound like you think moving to the suburbs here in the U.S. equals avoiding a gang.   Okaaay. Have a great night.  

No, I'm saying that if not leaving their home country would work, they'd do it. Those that can do that, do that. Those that can't, try to find safe haven elsewhere. 

[regentrude]

13 minutes ago, Thatboyofmine said:

 What kind of country are we living in that people are caring more about the money than about these little children?  On fb, friends keep sharing these posts that say crap like ‘well, soldiers are separated from their families all the time’ or ‘aborted babies are separated from their families’.  How about we care about the children who are here right now.   We care about babies before they’re born.  We care about our military.  But when it comes to taking care of children who are right here, right now (whether from our country or some other), we drop the freaking ball and people don’t seem to give a crap.  I’m off topic and I’m rambling but crap, the way some of this country sees children is just sickening and disheartening.   And I’m so sick of the patriotic ‘we’re the greatest country’ stuff.  And it’s about to be all over the place because of July 4.   We’re not the greatest country.  I don’t know that we ever were. 

 This seems pertinent:

 

Dr. Seuss, 1941

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dr-seuss-adolf-wolf/