Quite a sight to see, Trump playing his base like a fiddle. Oh well, good for the kids and families that were being torn apart. I hope for their sake they can track down the parents of thousands of kids that were separated since Trump/Sessions enacted this policy.
Trump and Sessions most definitely did NOT, as it DID NOT, "enact this policy." To wit:
On January 28, 1997, the district court approved a settlement between the plaintiff class and the federal government establishing a “nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of minors in the custody of the INS.” Flores Settlement at ¶ 9. The “Flores Settlement” sets the minimum standards for the detention, housing, and release of non-citizen juveniles who are detained by the government, and obliges the government to pursue a “general policy favoring release” of such juveniles. Id. at ¶ 14. Pursuant to this goal, Paragraph 24A of the Settlement provides that a “minor in deportation proceedings shall be afforded a bond redetermination hearing before an immigration judge.” Id. at ¶ 24A. The question before us today is whether, in light of changes to the statutory law, this provision remains in effect in the case of unaccompanied minors.[SUP]1[/SUP]
Since the government agreed to the Flores Settlement, Congress has passed two statutes addressing the care and custody of unaccompanied, non-citizen minors.2 In 2002, Congress enacted the Homeland Security Act (the “HSA”), which transferred authority over the care and placement of unaccompanied minors to the Office of Refugee Resettlement of the Department of Health and Human Services (“ORR”). In 2008, Congress enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (the “TVPRA”), which paralleled certain aspects of the Flores Settlement and affirmed ORR’s responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied minors. The government asserts that these two laws terminated the bond-hearing requirement of the Flores Settlement with respect to unaccompanied minors. Plaintiffs disagree, and moved to enforce the Settlement and to require that ORR comply in full with Paragraph 24A.
The district court granted plaintiffs’ motion, finding that neither the HSA nor the TVPRA terminated any part of the bond-hearing requirement of the Settlement Agreement. This appeal followed. We hold that in enacting the HSA and TVPRA, Congress did not terminate Paragraph 24A of the Flores Settlement with respect to unaccompanied minors.
Our reading of the statutes is dictated by the ordinary tenets of statutory construction. By their plain text, neither law explicitly terminates the bond-hearing requirement for unaccompanied minors. Moreover, the statutory framework enacted by the HSA and TVPRA does not grant ORR exclusive and autonomous control over the detention of unaccompanied minors. Rather, the statutes leave ample room for immigration judges to conduct bond hearings for these children. Additionally, holding that the HSA and TVPRA do not deny unaccompanied minors the right to a bond hearing under Paragraph 24A affirms Congress’s intent in passing both laws. These statutes sought to protect a uniquely vulnerable population: unaccompanied children. In enacting the HSA and TVPRA, Congress desired to better provide for unaccompanied minors. Depriving these children of their existing right to a bond hearing is incompatible with such an aim.
[SUP]1[/SUP]
Last year, we held that the Flores Settlement applies to both accompanied and unaccompanied minors.
See Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2016). In doing so, we explicitly rejected the government’s argument that the Settlement’s applicability to accompanied minors had been modified by intervening law. Id. at 910. We did not, however, answer the question presented here. Id
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/07/05/17-55208.pdf
So when Trump says he is simply following the law, he is absolutely correct. Congress could have fixed the thing years ago, and didn't. The Federal decisions and governing law MANDATE separation of the minors from the adults, as described below.
In short, the Federal government - the sole arbiter of immigration - is under a 21-year old court order that minors - accompanied or unaccompanied - be released as soon as possible. Through a series of other hearings, including administrative hearings, civil rights lawyers and the Fed agreed that minors needed to be released within 20 days of capture. Twenty days. Those who enter the country illegally and claim asylum cannot - REPEAT, CANNOT POSSIBLY - receive a hearing within 20 days. We don't have the ******* manpower to do that for the tens of thousands entering illegally and claiming asylum.
Therefore, under this decree and under the later holding in Flores v. Sessions, the Fed must release minor children. They have no choice. So release where, you ask?
Release to care facilities with playgrounds, beds, meals, rooms, and schooling, at taxpayer expense. Calling these facilities baby jails and comparing the facilities to Nazi internment camps is not just stupid, it is a horrible lie. Why are these children held in these facilities? Because their parents demand an asylum hearing, knowing that their children will not be with them. If the parents ask to return home, they go home with their children.
Which brings up another point you so conveniently ignore. A huge number of these so-called parents are in fact NOT THE PARENTS OF THE CHILDREN, and are simply using the children as a shield. How badly are these children treated by their parents and native countries? Thousands of the unaccompanied children - grabbed by traffickers who them claim to be their parents - are under 12 years old. (
http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...tion-unaccompanied-minors-20140724-story.html)
How bad is it? Chris Cabrera, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agent and spokesperson for the National Border Patrol Council - who actually sees what is going on, unlike you - said Tuesday agents have seen girls coming across the border as young as 12 years old who are put on birth control
“because they know getting violated is part of the journey”.
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/06/19/border-patrol-immigration-plan-b-birth-control/
So these wonderful parents are sending their 10, 11, 12-year old kids by themselves, to travel across multiple nations, and seek illegal entry, knowing that the 12-year old girls are likely to be raped. Why? Because if the kids make it, the parents then are eligible for chain migration.
Great ******* parents. Great. Yeah, don't want to separate a sobbing 9-year old from a faux parent who is actually a human trafficker, and we should hurry to send the kid back to the parent who sent the pre-teens on his or her own to be molested, raped, taken advantage of while trying to cover thousands of miles to enter illegally and give the parent a "way in."
Those are the facts, Tibs. The fake outrage should be real anger, directed at the countries trying to dump tens of thousands of citizens into our country, ignoring the horrible toll their policies impart, and directed at the selfish, loathesome parents willing to have little kids raped by the human traffickers because, hey, it might "get me in."
**** them. But yeah, wagging your finger at Trump, that makes senses.
