State of Washington et al v. United States of America et al
Filing
1
COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against All Defendants (Receipt # 0981-5372043) Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party Commonwealth of Massachusetts(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party Commonwealth of Pennsylvania(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party Commonwealth of Virginia(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of California(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Delaware(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Illinois(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Iowa (pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Maryland(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Minnesota (pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of New Jersey(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of New Mexico(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of New York(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of North Carolina(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Oregon(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Rhode Island (pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Vermont(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Washington(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party The District of Columbia(pty:pla), filed by State of Minnesota, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Delaware, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Washington, The District of Columbia, State of North Carolina, Commonwealth of Virginia, State of New Mexico, State of California, State of Iowa, State of Rhode Island, State of New York, State of Vermont, State of New Jersey, State of Maryland, State of Illinois, State of Oregon. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibits 1-40, #2 Exhibit Exhibits 41-80, #3 Exhibit Exhibits 81-100, #4 Exhibit Exhibits 101-110, #5 Exhibit Exhibits 111-131, #6 Civil Cover Sheet, #7 Summons, #8 Summons, #9 Summons, #10 Summons, #11 Summons, #12 Summons, #13 Summons, #14 Summons, #15 Summons, #16 Summons, #17 Summons, #18 Summons, #19 Summons)(Clinton, Laura)
<![CDATA[
Exhibit 1
Kellyanne Conway: 'Nobody likes' policy separating migrant kids at the border
Page 1 of 4
Subscribe to Breaking News emails
You have successfully subscribed to the Breaking News email.
Subscribe today to be the first to to know about breaking news and special reports.
Enter your email
Sign Up
Sponsored by
Privacy
•
•
•
•
•
•
Politics
Border Crisis
Tech & Media
Business
International
THINK
• News
• Nightly News
Kellyanne Conway: 'Nobody likes' policy separating migrant kids at the border
• Meet The Press
• Dateline
• MSNBC
• Today
• Share this —
•
•
•
•
First Read
Kellyanne Conway: 'Nobody likes' policy separating migrant kids at the border
The White House senior adviser defended the president's rhetoric on the family separation policy, but denied it was a bargaining tool.
by Carrie Dann / Jun.17.2018 / 7:06 AM ET
Breaking News Emails
Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
SUBSCRIBE
WASHINGTON — Senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway said Sunday that "nobody likes" the separation of migrant children from their parents at the nation's
southern border but took issue with the idea that the Trump administration is using the children to force Democrats to the table on border security.
Breaking News Emails
Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
SUBSCRIBE
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/conway-nobody-likes-policy-separating-migr... 6/19/2018
Kellyanne Conway: 'Nobody likes' policy separating migrant kids at the border
Page 2 of 4
Kellyanne: 'As a mother, as a Catholic' nobody likes family separation policy
Jun.17.201801:35
"As a mother, as a Catholic, as somebody who has a conscience ... I will tell you that nobody likes this policy," Conway said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday.
But Conway also repeated President Donald Trump's assertion that the burden is on Democrats to end the separations — while also rejecting the idea that the White House
is using the public outcry over the separations as a way to exert leverage over Democrats resistant to Trump's most stringent proposed overhauls to the immigration system.
"I certainly don't want anybody to use these kids as leverage," she said, adding that she objects "very forcefully" to that implication.
Kellyanne: 'No' White House not using migrant children for political leverage
Jun.17.201801:23
That implication is one that White House officials themselves have reportedly confirmed. "The president has told folks that in lieu of the laws being fixed, he wants to use
the enforcement mechanisms that we have,” an unnamed White House official told the Washington Post this week. “The thinking in the building is to force people to the
table.”
Recommended
Meet the Press: June 17, 2018
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/conway-nobody-likes-policy-separating-migr... 6/19/2018
Kellyanne Conway: 'Nobody likes' policy separating migrant kids at the border
Page 3 of 4
Truth and Consequences at the White House
Conway suggested that that unnamed official should come forward.
"I want that person to say it to my face, I really do," she said. "I'll meet them at the White House today because I think that is a disgrace."
Still, Conway — as the president has — put the burden squarely on congressional Democrats to address broad immigration reforms in order to solve the larger crisis at the
border.
Related
Despite claims, GOP immigration bill would not end family separation, experts say
"If the Democrats are serious, and if a lot of Republicans are serious, they'll come together. They won't just talk about just this week, just the Dreamers, or just the wall, or
just catch and release. It's all of the above," Conway said.
Separating migrant families is a policy announced by the Trump administration this spring, and the White House has not identified any law that specifically requires it. "If
you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in May. "If you
don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
Conway indicated some agreement with the idea that many migrants are using their children as bargaining chips in their efforts to enter the U.S. illegally.
"Nobody likes seeing babies ripped from their mothers' arms, from their mothers' wombs, frankly, but we have to make sure that DHS' laws are understood through the
soundbite culture that we live in," Conway said, adding that "some adults are using children to gain access to the border."
Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, who also joined "Meet the Press" Sunday, called the separation policy flatly "immoral."
"What the administration is doing is they're using the grief, the tears, the pain of these kids as mortar to build their wall," he said. "And it's an effort to extort a bill to their
liking in the Congress. It's, I think, deeply unethical."
Breaking News Emails
Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
SUBSCRIBE
SPONSORED STORIES
by Taboola
It's Like Ebay, but Everything Sells in 90 Seconds
Tophatter
Say Goodbye to iPhone: This Could Be 40X Better
The Motley Fool
Coffee Break: Mansplaining
ReWork
The World's Most Powerful Woman Probably Isn't Who You Think It Is
Forbes.com
Is Camille Cosby filing for divorce now that husband Bill Cosby is heading to prison?
The Grio
To celebrate 10 years, Chobani wants to give every American free yogurt
Campaign US
Here Are The Best Vehicle GPS Tracking Devices
Yahoo Search
It's Like Amazon, but Everything Sells in 90 Seconds
Tophatter
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/conway-nobody-likes-policy-separating-migr... 6/19/2018
Kellyanne Conway: 'Nobody likes' policy separating migrant kids at the border
Page 4 of 4
MORE FROM news
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
About
Contact
Careers
Privacy policy
Terms of Service
SiteMap
Advertise
AdChoices
© 2018 NBC UNIVERSAL
•
•
•
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/conway-nobody-likes-policy-separating-migr... 6/19/2018
Exhibit 2
DHS considering proposal to separate children from adults at border - CNNPolitics
Page 1 of 2
DHS considering proposal to separate
children from adults at border
By Mary Kay Mallonee
Updated 3:31 AM ET, Sat March 4, 2017
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
The proposal is meant to deter the
exploitation of children, a DHS official said
The adults could be kept in detention, and
the children could be moved elsewhere
under protected status
here and stay."
(CNN) — The Department of Homeland Security is
considering a proposal to separate children from
adults when they are trying to enter the country
illegally at the southern border, a senior DHS official
confirmed to CNN on Friday.
The official said the proposal is meant to deter the
exploitation of children.
"We are trying to find ways to deter the use of
children in illegal immigration," he said. "We are
seeing kids essentially kidnapped and used to get
Currently, when adults enter the country accompanied by children, they are generally released into the
US and able to stay in the country, pending disposition of their cases, the official said.
The proposal would allow US immigration officials to separate children from the adults they came here
with. The adults could be kept in detention, and the children could be moved elsewhere under
protected status, possibly with family members already in the country or to state protective custody,
such as child protective services.
The official said children were being exploited in multiple ways, citing parents taking them on
dangerous journeys and smugglers and non-parents claiming the children as their own in order to enter
and stay in the United States. The official was unable to say how agents at the border determine family
relationships.
"People are taking advantage of the system," the official said, acknowledging there may be perception
issues with the proposal.
In a statement to CNN, DHS spokesman David Lapan said the agency "continually explores options that
may discourage those from even beginning the journey."
"The journey north is a dangerous one, with too many situations where children -- brought by parents,
relatives or smugglers -- are often exploited, abused or may even lose their lives," Lapan said.
No final decision has been made on the proposal, which is still being worked on by staff, the official
said.
Reuters first reported the proposal.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/03/politics/dhs-children-adults-border/
6/20/2018
DHS considering proposal to separate children from adults at border - CNNPolitics
Page 2 of 2
If enacted, the policy would be at odds with a pledge Trump made on the campaign trail in an August,
2015, interview with NBC.
At the time, he said, "We're going to keep the families together. We have to keep the families together.
... But they have to go."
Leon Fresco, a former DOJ official in the Obama administration, said the last administration considered,
but ultimately rejected, the move.
"It was never implemented because the idea was that it was too detrimental to the safety of the children
to separate them from their parents, and the thinking was it was always preferable to detain the family
as a unit or release the family as the unit," Fresco said.
He said he knew of career holdovers at the department who had been in favor of the move and said the
change was more likely to occur because those people were now in a position to make it happen.
Fresco also said the impetus for the change is the Flores v. Lynch court case, which held that the
government is required to release minors from detention expeditiously even if they are accompanied by
their parents, not just if they're unaccompanied. The ruling created problems for the government in
detaining undocumented families who were seeking entrance to the US, he said.
CNN's Tal Kopan and Eli Watkins contributed to this report.
Fellow alum: Kirstjen Nielsen
should resign now
13 Subscription Boxes For
Every Occasion
CNN Underscored
Are windowless planes the
future of travel?
AMC suspends Chris Hardwick
talk show after ex-girlfriend
makes…
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/03/politics/dhs-children-adults-border/
6/20/2018
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
How the Trump Administration Got Comfortable Separating Immigrant Kids from Their ... Page 1 of 6
THF.
NEWYORKER.
News Desk
How the Trump Administration Got
Comfortable Separating
Immigrant Kids from Their Parents
By Jonathan Blitnr
May 30, 2018
Stparatingf""'ilus tit the /Jorder is 1U1W an nplicit ttmtponmt ofth 'Prump .Administratitm's
zero-tolerrmre immigrtdifm pol"'J,
Photograph by John Moore / Getty
T
wo months into Donald Trump's Presidency, John Kelly, then the
Secretary ofH0111eland Security, publicly conmmed that his department
was considering separating inuwgrant parents from their children at the
border, as a way ofdiscouraging :families from crossing illegally. It was a
radical idea, one that past Administrations had considered and then di1:rnissed
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-trump-administration-got-comforta... 6/25/2018
How the Trump Administration Got Comfortable Separating Immigrant Kids from Their ... Page 2 of 6
as too extreme and too complicated. After coming under intense criticism
from the press, human-rights advocates, and members of Congress, Kelly
backed off from it. But the idea persisted. A few months later, in August,
2017, a group of officials at the Department of Homeland Security gathered
to brainstorm new ways to toughen immigration enforcement. Among those
leading the discussion was an official named Gene Hamilton, a former aide to
Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General, and a close ally of Stephen Miller, the
President's chief immigration adviser. "Hamilton told us that over the next
few days we'd need to generate paperwork laying out everything we could do
to deter immigrants from coming to the U.S. illegally," a person who attended
the meeting told me. Memos were drafted outlining a range of possible
policies; one of them was separating parents from their kids at the border. "All
the memos sucked," the person said. "The outcome was predetermined. We
didn't have time to work out any of the policy differences. Some of the ideas
didn't make sense. Some were illegal, and some, like separating kids, were just
immoral." Many of the proposals, including the one involving family
separation, "got bogged down in the clearance process, because of how
difficult and controversial it was," the person said. And yet every few months
the idea would resurface in discussions. "It would rear its head again."
Last summer, public defenders and immigration judges along the border
began noticing an alarming pattern. Parents who had crossed into the U.S.
with their children were arriving to detention facilities without them. The
reason had to do with the Department of Justice, which was pushing U.S.
Attorneys across the country to prosecute more border crossers for entering
the U.S. illegally. In the past, many of these people, especially those with
children, had been released pending the outcome of their civil immigration
cases; now they were being arrested and held for extended periods by the
D.H.S. The government was treating their children as though they'd come to
the U.S. alone, as unaccompanied minors, and turning them over to the Office
of Refugee Resettlement, a branch of the Department of Health and Human
Services. There appeared to be no coordination between the different
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-trump-administration-got-comforta... 6/25/2018
How the Trump Administration Got Comfortable Separating Immigrant Kids from Their ... Page 3 of 6
government agencies involved, so parents were losing contact with their own
children. "They have no idea where their child is," one assistant public
defender, in Arizona, told the Houston Chronicle last fall. In one judicial
order, a federal magistrate judge, in El Paso, Texas, asked the government,
''What are the arresting agency's procedures for providing information (e.g.
location and well-being) regarding the unaccompanied minor children of
undocumented alien defendants charged with a petty misdemeanor such as
illegal entry ... ?" Government lawyers didn't seem to have an answer.
At first, the Trump Administration denied there was a formal familyseparation policy in place. Then, as the evidence mounted, it claimed that it
was only trying to protect immigrant kids from smugglers and imposters
posing as their guardians. In February, the A.C.L.U. sued the government for
separating a Congolese mother from her seven-year-old daughter, for more
than three months, after they had arrived in San Diego seeking asylum. The
mother was held in California, while her daughter was sent to Chicago. The
D.H.S. claimed that it had doubts about whether the woman was truly the
child's mother, yet it waited four months to administer a DNA test. In April,
the Times reported that more than seven hundred families had been separated
since October, including more than a hundred children under the age of four.
A government spokesperson responded, "D.H.S. must protect the best
interests of minor children crossing our borders, and occasionally this results
in separating children from an adult they are traveling with."
Last month, the pretense fell away completely. On April 6th, Jeff Sessions and
Kirstjen Nielsen, the head of Homeland Security, announced a zero-tolerance
policy for immigrants at the border. Anyone who didn't cross the U.S. border
at an official port of entry would be criminally prosecuted, even if they were
seeking asylum, and those travelling with their children would be separated
from them. The policy was now official, and the Administration
acknowledged its rationale: it was separating families to discourage others
from travelling to the United States illegally. (A recent analysis, by Dara Lind
at Vox, shows how the D.H.S.'s own data undermines the argument that this
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-trump-administration-got-comforta... 6/25/2018
How the Trump Administration Got Comfortable Separating Immigrant Kids from Their ... Page 4 of 6
policy will act as a deterrent.) According to the D.H.S., six hundred and fiftyeight children were separated from their parents between May 6th and May
19th. Reports have surfaced of children, some as young as toddlers, being
wrested from family members, and of parents being deported before they
could locate their children, who remain stranded in the U.S. "Little kids are
begging and screaming not to be taken from parents, and they' re being hauled
off," Lee Gelernt, a veteran attorney for the A.C.L.U., told the Washington
Post. "It's as bad as anything I've seen in twenty-five-plus years of doing this
work." Research has shown that removing a young child from her primary
caregivers for even a short period can cause long-term psychological harm.
As my colleague Amy Davidson Sorkin has written, the message from senior
Administration officials has been unapologetic. Sessions likened immigrants
crossing the border with their own children to smugglers, warning them, "If
you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you, and that child will be
separated from you as required by law." Nielsen, for her part, simply waved
away questions about the policy's impact on children. 'What we'll be doing is
prosecuting parents who have broken the law, just as we do every day in the
United States of America," she said during a recent Senate hearing. "The
child, under law, goes to H.H.S."-the Department of Health and Human
Services-"for care and custody."
Yet the network of child shelters overseen by H.H.S. is already operating at
more than ninety-per-cent capacity. There's been talk of sending children to
military bases, where there's more space. "In the immigration context, the
government has never taken a stand against the protection of kids in this
country," Muzaffar Chishti, an immigration expert at the Migration Policy
Institute, told me. "For the first time, it is now formally taking a position that
explicitly goes against the best interests of kids."
I asked the person who had attended the D.H.S. meeting with Gene
Hamilton what had changed since last year, when the Administration was
reluctant to publicly embrace the family-separation policy. The person pointed
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-trump-administration-got-comforta... 6/25/2018
How the Trump Administration Got Comfortable Separating Immigrant Kids from Their ... Page 5 of 6
to the President. In the early days of Trump's Presidency, migrants were
anxious about how harsh his policies might prove to be. For a few months,
illegal border crossings declined-a fact that Trump bragged about and took
personal pride in. But by the end of the year the numbers had returned to
levels roughly consistent with where they'd been just before he took office.
Trump has complained that U.S. immigration laws are "pathetic" and riddled
with "loopholes," including, among other things, the "catch and release" of
asylum seekers. He's also held Nielsen personally responsible for the rise in
migration from Central America. "What you're seeing now is the President's
frustration with the fact that the numbers are back up," the person told me.
"The only tools the Administration has now, in the absence of legislation, is to
make life miserable for people."
0
Jonathan Blitz.er is a stajfwriter at The New Yorker. Read more »
Video
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-trump-administration-got-comforta... 6/25/2018
How the Trump Administration Got Comfortable Separating Immigrant Kids from Their ... Page 6 of 6
The Immigrants Deported to Death and Violence
Sarah Stillman reports on people who fled their home countries ftaringfar their lives, and the tragic
consequences when they were sent back.
CONDE NAST
© 2018 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site
constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (updated 5/25/18) and Privacy Policy and Cookie
Statement (updated 5/25/18). Your California Privacy Rights. The material on this site may not be
reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written
permission of Condé Nast. The New Yorker may earn a portion of sales from products and services that
are purchased through links on our site as part of our affiliate partnerships with retailers. Ad Choices
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-trump-administration-got-comforta... 6/25/2018
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12
Attorney General Announces Zero-Tolerance Policy for Criminal Illegal Entry | OPA |... Page 1 of 2
JUSTICE NEWS
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, April 6, 2018
Attorney General Announces Zero-Tolerance Policy for Criminal Illegal
Entry
Attorney General Jeff Sessions today notified all U.S. Attorney’s Offices along the Southwest Border of
a new “zero-tolerance policy” for offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), which prohibits both attempted
illegal entry and illegal entry into the United States by an alien. The implementation of the Attorney
General’s zero-tolerance policy comes as the Department of Homeland Security reported a 203 percent
increase in illegal border crossings from March 2017 to March 2018, and a 37 percent increase from
February 2018 to March 2018—the largest month-to-month increase since 2011.
“The situation at our Southwest Border is unacceptable. Congress has failed to pass effective
legislation that serves the national interest—that closes dangerous loopholes and fully funds a wall
along our southern border. As a result, a crisis has erupted at our Southwest Border that necessitates
an escalated effort to prosecute those who choose to illegally cross our border,” said Attorney General
Jeff Sessions. “To those who wish to challenge the Trump Administration’s commitment to public safety,
national security, and the rule of law, I warn you: illegally entering this country will not be rewarded, but
will instead be met with the full prosecutorial powers of the Department of Justice. To the Department’s
prosecutors, I urge you: promoting and enforcing the rule of law is vital to protecting a nation, its
borders, and its citizens. You play a critical part in fulfilling these goals, and I thank you for your
continued efforts in seeing to it that our laws—and as a result, our nation—are respected.”
On April 11, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a renewed commitment to criminal
immigration enforcement. As part of that announcement, the Attorney General issued a memorandum
to all federal prosecutors and directed them to prioritize the prosecution of certain criminal immigration
offenses.
Today’s zero-tolerance policy further directs each U.S. Attorney’s Office along the Southwest Border
(i.e., Southern District of California, District of Arizona, District of New Mexico, Western District of
Texas, and the Southern District of Texas) to adopt a policy to prosecute all Department of Homeland
Security referrals of section 1325(a) violations, to the extent practicable.
Attachment(s):
Download Zero-Tolerance Memorandum
Topic(s):
Immigration
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-crimi... 6/11/2018
Attorney General Announces Zero-Tolerance Policy for Criminal Illegal Entry | OPA |... Page 2 of 2
Component(s):
Office of the Attorney General
Press Release Number:
18-417
Updated April 6, 2018
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-crimi... 6/11/2018
Exhibit 13
Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcemen... Page 1 of 3
JUSTICE NEWS
Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcement Actions
of the Trump Administration
San Diego, CA ~ Monday, May 7, 2018
Thank you all for being here.
Thank you to Tom Homan. Tom, you have done outstanding work leading ICE. Thank you for your
more than 30 years of service in law enforcement. We are going to miss you.
Today we are here to send a message to the world: we are not going to let this country be
overwhelmed.
People are not going to caravan or otherwise stampede our border.
We need legality and integrity in the system.
That’s why the Department of Homeland Security is now referring 100 percent of illegal Southwest
Border crossings to the Department of Justice for prosecution. And the Department of Justice will take
up those cases.
I have put in place a “zero tolerance” policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you cross this
border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple.
If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you.
If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as
required by law.
If you make false statements to an immigration officer or file a fraudulent asylum claim, that’s a felony.
If you help others to do so, that’s a felony, too. You’re going to jail.
So if you’re going to come to this country, come here legally. Don’t come here illegally.
In order to carry out these important new enforcement policies, I have sent 35 prosecutors to the
Southwest and moved 18 immigration judges to the border. These are supervisory judges that don’t
have existing caseloads and will be able to function full time on moving these cases. That will be about
a 50 percent increase in the number of immigration judges who will be handling the asylum claims.
These actions are necessary. And they are made even more necessary by the massive increases in
illegal crossings in recent months. This February saw 55 percent more border apprehensions than last
February. This March saw triple the number from last March. April saw triple the number last April.
The trends are clear: this must end.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-discussi...
6/1/2018
Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcemen... Page 2 of 3
Eleven million people are already here illegally. That’s more than the population of Portugal or the state
of Georgia.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that those 11 million have 4.5 million children who are
American citizens. Combined, that group would be our fifth-most populous state.
This situation has been many years in the making.
For decades, the American people have been pleading with our elected representatives for a lawful
system of immigration that serves the national interest—a system we can be proud of.
That is not too much to ask. The American people are right and just and decent to ask for this. They
are right to want a safe, secure border and a government that knows who is here and who isn’t.
Donald Trump ran for office on that idea. I believe that is a big reason why he won. He is on fire about
this. This entire government knows it.
The American people have a right to expect that the laws that their representatives voted for are going
to be carried out. Failure to enforce our duly-enacted laws would be an affront to the American people
and a threat to our very system of self-government.
And these laws are the most generous immigration laws in the world. We accept 1.1 million lawful
permanent residents every year—that’s more than the population of Montana, every single year. These
are the highest numbers in the world.
I have no doubt that many of those crossing our border illegally are leaving difficult situations. But we
cannot take everyone on Earth who is in a difficult situation.
According to a Gallup poll from a few years ago, 150 million people around the world want to immigrate
to the United States. Gallup says that 37 percent of Liberians want to immigrate to the United States.
One fifth of Cambodians want to move here. One-in-six Salvadorans are already in the United
States—and another 19 percent tell Gallup they want to come here.
It’s obvious that we cannot take everyone who wants to come here without also hurting the interests of
the citizens we are sworn to serve and protect.
We have to have limits. And Congress has already set them.
And if you want to change our laws, then pass a bill in Congress. Persuade your fellow citizens to your
point of view.
Immigrants should ask to apply lawfully before they enter our country. Citizens of other countries don’t
get to violate our laws or rewrite them for us. People around the world have no right to demand entry in
violation of our sovereignty.
This is a great nation—the greatest in the history of the world. It is no surprise that people want to
come here. But they must do so properly. They must follow our laws—or not come here at all. Make
no mistake, the objections, the lawsuits, the sanctuary jurisdictions are often the product of a radical
open border philosophy. They oppose all enforcement.
And so this Department, under President Trump’s leadership, is enforcing the law without exception.
We will finally secure this border so that we can give the American people safety and peace of mind.
That’s what the people deserve.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-discussi...
6/1/2018
Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcemen... Page 3 of 3
Thank you.
Speaker:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Topic(s):
Immigration
Component(s):
Office of the Attorney General
Updated May 7, 2018
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-discussi...
6/1/2018
Exhibit 14
®ffite of t~e Attoruet? ~eneral
Basqingtnn. E. Qt. 20,s,so
APRIL 6, 2018
MEMORANDUM FOR FEDERAL PROSECUTORS ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BORDER
FROM:
THE ATTORNEY GENERA(W -----:, ,
~#118"
SUBJECT:
Zero-Tolerance for Offenses Under 8 U.S .C. § 1325(a)
On April 11, 2017, I issued a memorandum to all federal prosecutors entitled "Renewed
Commitment to Criminal Immigration Enforcement," in which I directed the prioritization of the
prosecution of certain criminal immigration offenses. I further directed each United States
Attorney's Office along the Southwest Border to work with the Department of Homeland Security
to develop guidelines for prosecuting offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a).
Those seeking to further an illegal goal constantly alter their tactics to take advantage of
weak points. That means we must effectively respond with smart changes also. The recent increase
in aliens illegally crossing our Southwest Border requires an updated approach. Past prosecution
initiatives in certain districts-such as Operation Streamline-led to a decrease in illegal activities
in those districts. We must continue to execute effective policies to meet new challenges.
Accordingly, I direct each United States Attorney's Office along the Southwest Border
to the extent practicable, and in consultation with DHS- to adopt immediately a zero-tolerance
policy for all offenses referred for prosecution under section 1325(a). This zero-tolerance policy
shall supersede any existing policies. If adopting such a policy requires additional resources, each
office shall identify and request such additional resources.
You are on the front lines of this battle. I respect you and your team. Your dedication and
insight into border reality is invaluable. Keep us informed, and don't hesitate to give us suggestions
for improvement. Remember, our goal is not simply more cases. It is to end the illegality in our
immigration system.
This guidance is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create, any right
or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United
States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
"
Exhibit 15
Asylum seekers reportedly denied entry at border as Trump tightens 'zero tolerance' i... Page 1 of 11
SUBSCRIBE
NOW
NEWS
IMMIGRATION
5 DAYS AGO
Asylum seekers reportedly denied entry
at border as Trump tightens 'zero
tolerance' immigration policies
Dianne Solis and Alfredo Corchado
Don't miss a story. Like us on Facebook.
Like 420K
EL PASO -- Immigration advocates are accusing U.S. border guards of refusing asylum-seekers entry to the
U.S. at a bustling pedestrian bridge into the downtown of this city next to the Rio Grande.
It isn’ the first time, nor the only port of entry. But the accusation that people are again being illegally
t
refused the opportunity to apply for asylum comes as tensions flare over “zero tolerance” measures
escalating the crackdown on legal and illegal immigration by the Trump administration.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/06/06/reports-turning-back-asylu... 6/11/2018
Asylum seekers reportedly denied entry at border as Trump tightens 'zero tolerance' i... Page 2 of 11
U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials say they are doing the best job they can with limited space for
immigrants and limited resources. Immigration advocates say the extreme immigration enforcement is
inhumane, and is taking a toll on El Paso and other cities along the border.
ADVERTISING
inRead invented by Teads
In recent months, migrant children have been separated from parents, immigration judges have been
ordered to speed up cases and federal prosecutors have been instructed to seek criminal charges against
anyone who crosses the border unlawfully. And a parade of federal officials including U.S. Vice President
Mike Pence, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen have all made
recent visits to the border to trumpet the new policies.
Women carrying children in their arms stand up to protest the opening remarks of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen (left) during
Nielsen's opening remarks before Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing last month on Capitol Hill. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/The
Associated Press)
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/06/06/reports-turning-back-asylu... 6/11/2018
Asylum seekers reportedly denied entry at border as Trump tightens 'zero tolerance' i... Page 3 of 11
"Federal authorities are essentially disrupting our border existence, our way of life of people going back and
forth to work, shop, visit relatives," says El Paso attorney Carlos Spector. "They're trying to deter asylum
seekers, and at the same time threaten everyone else... the common denominator with this and everything
we've been living is punishment, criminalization and now family separation as a deterrence."
Two weeks ago, a reporter for The Dallas Morning News walking from Juarez into El Paso on the pedestrian
bridge saw two CPB agents standing by the middle of the bridge, under a shaded canopy along the pedestrian
walkway. The sight of agents was unusual. They were standing at the line where the U.S. boundary begins,
selectively checking crossers, adding another layer of security before pedestrians can reach the official
checkpoint where visitors are asked to declare their citizenship. Those seeking refuge must also get to the
official checkpoint to officially request asylum.
Complaints about asylum-seekers not being allowed to ask for refuge are received “multiple times and on a
daily basis,” along the Texas border, said Houston-based attorney Edgar Saldivar of the ACLU of Texas.
SPONSORED CONTENT
Better Safety, Energy Efficiency and More:
Discover the Benefits of Smart Lighting
By ADT
One recent case of Central American asylum seekers being turned back after they entered U.S. territory, but
before they had the opportunity to apply for asylum at the border checkpoint, was first reported by Texas
Monthly. In that case, Ruben Garcia, founder of Annunciation House, a nonprofit that helps immigrants and
refugees in El Paso, said CBP agents simply told certain border-crossers they couldn’ receive them. That
t
didn’ allow the immigrants to get on U.S. soil and tell them of their fears and need for asylum, he said.
t
“If you look indigenous and you look Central American, they will stop you,” Garcia told The Dallas Morning
News. “They never ask why they are coming. They just say we can’ receive you.”
t
MEXICO
Families separated by Trump policies briefly reunite before Mother's Day for #HugsNotWalls
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/06/06/reports-turning-back-asylu... 6/11/2018
Asylum seekers reportedly denied entry at border as Trump tightens 'zero tolerance' i... Page 4 of 11
A group of a dozen people last Saturday was followed by Annunciation House staff and volunteers. Three got
past the border and CFB officers and walked to the border checkpoint to make their asylum plea, but another
nine Central Americans didn’ get past CFB officers who were on the bridge ahead of the border checkpoint,
t
Garcia said.
ADVERTISING
inRead invented by Teads
Garcia said one sunburned Guatemalan woman holding her 10-month-old son in her arms who was identified
only as Juana did manage to get across the international boundary line. “The supervisor says, ‘
Take her in.
She is already in,’“ Garcia recalled.
Then, Juana told them, “I fear for my life,” Garcia said.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials said, in written statements, that they are trying to manage the
flow of immigrants with what they portray as finite resources, involving translators to detention space. Case
complexity plays a role, too, they said in statements.
In general, the spokesman did say, “Individuals who are found to have a credible fear are referred to
immigration court, where they may apply for relief from removal, including asylum..."
But when asked more directly if CBP refuses to allow immigrants onto U.S. soil to ask for asylum at the El
Paso bridge checkpoint, the officer in an email, “The statement is all we have at this time.”
Others turned away
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/06/06/reports-turning-back-asylu... 6/11/2018
Asylum seekers reportedly denied entry at border as Trump tightens 'zero tolerance' i... Page 5 of 11
Complaints about asylum-seekers not being allowed to ask for refuge date back to at least 2016, immigration
lawyers say. That’ when there was a renewed border surge of immigrant families and immigrant minors
s
travelling alone from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala.
“We really saw an uptick of this practice in late October, November, leading into the year of 2018,” said
Karolina Walters, a lawyer with the American Immigration Council. “It is not just in Tijuana and El Paso.”
Months before, the American Immigration Council filed a federal suit in California challenging the alleged
practice of turning away asylum seekers at land ports along the entire length of the 2,000-mile border. The
case is still pending and the U.S. government seeks its dismissal.
One Honduran man, identified in the lawsuit as Jose Doe, said he tried to ask for asylum in Laredo, but U.S.
border officials “misinformed” him about his rights and denied him entry, according to the suit. The suit
alleges the Honduran and his family were threatened by gangs in Honduras and, then again, by gangs in
Nuevo Laredo.
IMMIGRATION
U.S. citizen kids face the deportation of their immigrant parents
Saldivar of the ACLU said asylum-seekers, by law, should present themselves at ports of entry. Immigration
law, the U.S. Constitution and international law guarantee their right, once they are on U.S. soil, to due
process. The 1951 Refugee Convention says a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face
serious threats to their life or freedom. The Refugee Convention also says that those seeking asylum
shouldn’ be punished for illegal entry if they present themselves without delay.
t
But that doesn’ mean a Central American who makes the 2,000-mile trek to the U.S., fleeing violence or
t
danger in their homeland, necessarily understands those rights. Federal agents can walk forward on the
bridge, remaining on U.S. soil but intimidating potential refugees by asking for IDs and saying centers are
full, advocates say.
Saldivar said claims that the CBP is doing the best it can with stretched resources isn’ a legitimate reason for
t
turning people away. “That is one of their common excuses,” he said, “But, again, it is unclear what steps
they are taking to ensure that people have access to asylum by the law.”
Demands of the crackdown
There’ no question that resources are stretched thin at the border. But there is a question about which
s
resources are being stretched thin.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/06/06/reports-turning-back-asylu... 6/11/2018
Asylum seekers reportedly denied entry at border as Trump tightens 'zero tolerance' i... Page 6 of 11
In April and May, Attorney General Jeff Sessions went to the border in California to announce that the
Departments of Justice and Homeland Security would unreel even tougher “zero tolerance” policies against
what was called unlawful immigration.
“If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you,” Sessions said. “It’s that simple. If you
smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we
will prosecute you and the child will be separated from you as required by law.”
Among the most controversial of the new measures is the systematic separation of migrant children from
their parents when families cross the border seeking asylum. NBC reported that the federal government
oversees shelters that care for more than 11,000 unaccompanied children.
About 100 shelters used for unaccompanied immigrant children are now so full the federal government may
send some children to military bases, including Fort Bliss in El Paso, according to The Hill.
It’s far more common for immigrants who cross the border unlawfully to be processed administratively
though the immigration courts. Those courts were already struggling with a huge backlog when Trump took
office in 2017. It has now soared by more than 100,000 cases to about 700,000 cases.
Criminal charges for crossing the border were used in some cases in the administrations of presidents George
W. Bush and Barack Obama, but recent policy changes through the Justice Department call for “100 percent
of illegal Southwest Border crossings” to be prosecuted by the federal criminal courts for a nonviolent
offense known as improper entry, a misdemeanor. A border reentry can be prosecuted as a felony.
The heavier caseload is already showing in the federal criminal courts: Federal criminal prosecutions of
those apprehended by CBP at the Mexican border jumped about 30 percent in April over March, according to
the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
It’s clear that Garcia in El Paso feels overwhelmed by all the policy changes. His next move will to organize
more witnesses of bridge crossings--and not just in El Paso. But, he adds, “Our resources are very limited.”
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IMMIGRATION — LEGAL AND ILLEGAL — IN THE TRUMP ERA
Dallas-area immigrants apply for Catholic church-issued IDs to ease deportation fears
Report says Trump’s immigration crackdown is ‘breeding a climate of fear’
57,000 Hondurans could face deportation as Trump phases out temporary protection status
More in this Collection
MORE FROM DALLAS NEWS
◾ Texas attorney who gave daughter $6 million quinceañera throws his son a $4 million 18th-birthday bash
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/06/06/reports-turning-back-asylu... 6/11/2018
Asylum seekers reportedly denied entry at border as Trump tightens 'zero tolerance' i... Page 7 of 11
◾ Man charged with murder in South Dallas shooting after woman dies
◾ Ted Cruz gets personal, attacking Beto O'Rourke over mother's tax fraud case
◾ Ted Cruz blasts 'knee-jerk partisanship' over Trump's claim of 'absolute right' to self-pardon
◾ 5 tortured bodies found stuffed in a vehicle in Cancun, bringing month's total to 57
Recommended by
VIEW COMMENTS
IMMIGRATION
SOCIAL JUSTICE
MEXICO
SPONSORED STORIES
By
Weekly Brief | Mack Weldon
Nestlé SA
Here's Why Guys Are Obsessed With This Underwear...
The quest for better packaging
Yahoo! Search
Home - Jetlaggin
The Early Signs of Hepatitis C. Learn about Symptoms &
Treatments
Forest Trail Cams Captures Some Of The Most Terrifying
Images Ever
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/06/06/reports-turning-back-asylu... 6/11/2018
Asylum seekers reportedly denied entry at border as Trump tightens 'zero tolerance' i... Page 8 of 11
NEWS
LOADING...
About Us
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Careers
Special Sections
Terms of Service
Advertise
FAQ
Site Map
©2018, The Dallas Morning News Inc. All Rights Reserved.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/06/06/reports-turning-back-asylu... 6/11/2018
Asylum seekers reportedly denied entry at border as Trump tightens 'zero tolerance' i... Page 9 of 11
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/06/06/reports-turning-back-asylu... 6/11/2018
Asylum seekers reportedly denied entry at border as Trump tightens 'zero tolerance'... Page 10 of 11
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/06/06/reports-turning-back-asylu... 6/11/2018
Asylum seekers reportedly denied entry at border as Trump tightens 'zero tolerance'... Page 11 of 11
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/06/06/reports-turning-back-asylu... 6/11/2018
Exhibit 16
Exhibit 17
Exhibit 18
Exhibit 19
Exhibit 20
Exhibit 21
Exhibit 22
Exhibit 23
Defiant Trump refuses to back off migrant family separations - POLITICO
Page 1 of 9
President Donald Trump's defiant posture comes amid a torrent of criticism as stories and images have
emerged of young children being ripped from their immigrant parents’ arms. | Evan Vucci/AP Photo
Defiant Trump refuses to back off migrant family separations
‘The United States will not be a migrant camp,’ the president said.
By LOUIS NELSON | 06/18/2018 10:21 AM EDT | Updated 06/18/2018 10:37 PM EDT
President Donald Trump and his Cabinet are refusing to publicly back down from their
intensely controversial practice of separating migrant families at the border, despite
pressure from fellow Republicans to ease up on what critics are calling a heartless policy.
“It is the Democrats fault for being weak and ineffective with Boarder Security and Crime,”
Trump tweeted on Monday, continuing to blame Democrats for his own administration’s
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/18/trump-immigration-child-separations-650875
6/20/2018
Defiant Trump refuses to back off migrant family separations - POLITICO
Page 2 of 9
policies. “Tell them to start thinking about the people devastated by Crime coming from
illegal immigration. Change the laws!”
Trump hit back at the criticism during a space policy event at the White House later on
Monday, saying the family separations are “so sad” and falsely stating that “we’re stuck with
these horrible laws.”
“If the Democrats would sit down instead of obstructing, we could have something done
very quickly. Good for the children, good for the country, good for the world,” Trump said.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen
Nielsen fiercely defended the child separation policy on Monday while delivering speeches
at the National Sheriffs' Association‘s annual conference in New Orleans.
"We do not have the luxury of pretending that all individuals coming to this country as a
family unit are, in fact, a family,” Nielsen said. “We have to do our job. We will not apologize
for doing our job. We have sworn to do this job. This administration has a simple message.
If you cross the border illegally, we will prosecute you.“
The defiant posture comes amid a torrent of criticism as stories and images have emerged of
young children being ripped from their immigrant parents’ arms and put in detention
facilities akin to prisons.
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
It is the Democrats fault for being weak and ineffective with
Boarder Security and Crime. Tell them to start thinking about the
people devastated by Crime coming from illegal immigration.
Change the laws!
6:53 AM - Jun 18, 2018
97.4K
78.1K people are talking about this
Over the weekend, a growing number of Republicans — including Sens. Susan Collins of
Maine and Jeff Flake of Arizona — put pressure on the administration to address the furor,
while Melania Trump’s office even put out a rare statement saying the first lady “hates to see
children separated from their families” and hopes both parties can reach a solution.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/18/trump-immigration-child-separations-650875
6/20/2018
Defiant Trump refuses to back off migrant family separations - POLITICO
Page 3 of 9
All four of the living former first ladies — Rosalynn Carter, Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush and
Michelle Obama — have also denounced the practice.
But Trump and his allies have falsely stated that their hands are tied. They’ve argued that
Democrats are to blame for the much-criticized practice and that the administration is only
enforcing laws that are already in place.
Neither argument has stood up to scrutiny. The separation policy was orchestrated not by
Democrats, the minority party on both sides of Capitol Hill, but by the Trump
administration, which sent a directive ramping up the practice and could send another
ending it. And while the White House has claimed that the law mandates that it separate
families who cross the border illegally, no such law exists. It is the administration’s new
“zero-tolerance” policy of prosecuting all illegal border-crossers as criminals that has
prompted the separations.
Nielsen on Monday evening again pushed blame onto Democrats and past administrations
for creating “this crisis.”
“The voices most loudly criticizing the enforcement of our current laws are those whose
policies created this crisis and whose policies perpetrate it,” Nielsen said at a White House
press briefing, saying the administration was limited in how it could hold families while it
prosecutes parents for crossing the border illegally.
"Until these loopholes are closed by Congress, it is not possible as a matter of law to detain
and remove whole family units who arrive illegally in the United States," she said.
Breaking News Alerts
Get breaking news when it happens — in your inbox.
Your email…
By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
She said most of the 12,000 children in custody had not been separated from their parents
but had instead arrived in the U.S. without them.
When asked whether the "policy" of splitting up families was “cruel,“ Nielsen dodged the
question: “It's not a policy. Our policy at DHS is to do what we're sworn to do, which is to
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/18/trump-immigration-child-separations-650875
6/20/2018
Defiant Trump refuses to back off migrant family separations - POLITICO
Page 4 of 9
enforce the law.“ She later ducked questions on why Trump had “offered no compassion” to
families separated at the border.
“What I believe is that we should exercise our democratic rights as Americans and fix the
problem. It's a problem. Let's fix it,” she later said after being pressed again about whether
the policy is “moral.”
Nielsen said the children being detained were not being used as bargaining chips to force
Congress to pass legislation.
"The children are not being used as a pawn. We are trying to protect the children," she said.
Amid a sometimes contentious interview on Monday night, White House counselor
Kellyanne Conway appeared to distance the administration from at least one previous
defense of the policy. John Kelly, then Homeland Security secretary, said in March 2017 that
separating children from their parents would act as a deterrent to other migrants. As White
House chief of staff, Kelly made similar comments in May to NPR when he said that “a big
name of the game is deterrence.“
"That was over a year ago and the homeland security secretary did not say that today,"
Conway told CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, when asked about Kelly‘s past comments.
Sessions, in his remarks on Monday morning, contended that if lawmakers would give in to
Trump’s demands — including a massive border wall — the issue of family separation would
no longer exist.
“We do not want to separate parents from their children,” Sessions said. “If we build the
wall, if we pass legislation to end the lawlessness, we won’t face these terrible choices.“
He also pitched the deterrent effect of strict policies. “We cannot and will not encourage
people to bring their children or other children to the country unlawfully by giving them
immunity in the process,” Sessions said.
“Let‘s remember,“ he continued. “We have a generous lawful system that admits over a
million people a year to permanent legal status in America.“
Sessions and Trump have both consistently pushed for hard-line immigration policies — a
message that plays well with Trump's base. A Quinnipiac University poll released Monday
found that 66 percent of American voters oppose the practice of separating children from
parents who illegally cross the border, but the results were highly partisan. While 91 percent
of Democrats oppose the policy, only 35 percent of Republicans do.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/18/trump-immigration-child-separations-650875
6/20/2018
Defiant Trump refuses to back off migrant family separations - POLITICO
Page 5 of 9
And Democrats are warning that the problem of family separations may only get worse. Sen.
Dianne Feinstein of California released what she said were new statistics from the
Department of Homeland Security showing that 2,342 children were taken from their
parents at the border between May 5 and June 9.
“The pace of separations has increased — from nearly 50 to nearly 70 per day — despite
widespread opposition throughout America,“ Feinstein said in a statement. “The White
House appears deaf to the wellspring of opposition and deep concern about the welfare of
children.“
EMPLOYMENT & IMMIGRATION
'Grim sight': Migrants await uncertain future at strained Border
Patrol facility
By ELANA SCHOR
In his tweets earlier in the day, Trump accused Democrats of holding up immigration
legislation in Congress to the benefit of gang members and drug cartels. He also incorrectly
warned that “crime in Germany is way up” — the crime rate there is at its lowest point since
1992 — because of an influx of immigrants who have “so strongly and violently changed”
Germany’s culture.
“The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the
already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over
Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their
culture!” Trump wrote, adding that “we don’t want what is happening with immigration in
Europe to happen with us!”
He expanded on that warning during the White House event.
“The United States will not be a migrant camp, and it will not be a refugee holding facility,”
Trump said in apparently impromptu remarks. “It won’t be. You look at what’s happening in
Europe, you look at what’s happening in other places, we can’t allow that to happen to the
United States.”
The president’s focus on immigration came as lawmakers from both parties are heaping
criticism on his administration over the separation policy.
Lawmakers and reporters were allowed over the weekend to tour facilities in Texas at which
children are held in fenced-in cages with green mats and foil blankets, stark images that
quickly circulated and prompted an outcry from opponents of the separation policy.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/18/trump-immigration-child-separations-650875
6/20/2018
Defiant Trump refuses to back off migrant family separations - POLITICO
Page 6 of 9
Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas), whose rural district encompasses a third of the total length of the
U.S.-Mexico border, said the policy “is something that is squarely within the hands of this
administration to ultimately change” and that stand-alone legislation to end the family
separation practice “would get north of 300 votes” in the House.
Asked whether such legislation might be forthcoming, Hurd told CNN that “you’d have to
ask” GOP leaders on Capitol Hill and that neither of the immigration bills currently under
consideration there appropriately address the family separation policy.
“What has happened for us to have to craft legislation to say don't pull kids out of the arms
of their mothers? We shouldn't be at this point,” Hurd said. “In the land of the free and the
home of the brave, we shouldn't be using kids for deterrence.”
EMPLOYMENT & IMMIGRATION
Pressure mounts for Trump to address family separations at
border
By BRENT D. GRIFFITHS and BURGESS EVERETT
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), in an interview with conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt,
said the practice of separating families is “not a sustainable situation” and “not the right
thing to be doing.” Toomey conceded that it has the potential to become a political liability
for the president on par with former President George W. Bush’s widely criticized handling
of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005.
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) was even more pointed in his criticism, writing on Facebook that
“family separation is wicked. It is harmful to kids and absolutely should NOT be the default
U.S. policy. Americans are better than this.” He added that “this bad new policy is a reaction
against a bad old policy,” the so-called “catch-and-release” practice adopted by the Obama
administration for asylum seekers entering the U.S.
And Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), the first-term lawmaker whose name is often floated
among potential 2020 challengers to Trump, called on Nielsen to resign over not just the
family separation policy, but also a slew of immigration policies and a lack of a
"commitment to transparency and accountability."
“The Department’s lack of transparency under Secretary Nielsen’s leadership combined with
her record of misleading statements including yesterday’s denial that the Administration
even had a policy of separating children at the border, are disqualifying,“ Harris' statement
said, referring to a claim Nielsen made on Twitter a day earlier. “We must speak the truth.
There is no law that says the Administration has to rip children from their families. This
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/18/trump-immigration-child-separations-650875
6/20/2018
Defiant Trump refuses to back off migrant family separations - POLITICO
Page 7 of 9
Administration can and must reverse course now and it can and must find new leadership
for the Department of Homeland Security.”
The House minority leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, also called on Nielsen to step
down following a trip to the U.S.-Mexico border Monday afternoon. Pelosi was joined by
roughly a dozen other House Democrats who toured a San Diego detention center housing
migrant children separated from their parents.
“I think she should resign,“ Pelosi told reporters. The California Democrat had a message for
Trump, as well: “Stop this inhumane, barbaric policy. Rescind your actions. Take
responsibility for it.“
Jeb Bush — who frequently tangled with Trump on the 2016 campaign trail and who
previously stated that many illegal immigrants come out of an “act of love” — had his own
terse message for the president.
“Children shouldn't be used as a negotiating tool,” the former Florida governor wrote on
Twitter. “@realDonaldTrump should end this heartless policy and Congress should get an
immigration deal done that provides for asylum reform, border security and a path to
citizenship for Dreamers.“
Jeb Bush
@JebBush
Children shouldn’t be used as a negotiating tool.
@realDonaldTrump should end this heartless policy and
Congress should get an immigration deal done that provides for
asylum reform, border security and a path to citizenship for
Dreamers.
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Children are being used by some of the worst criminals on earth as a
means to enter our country. Has anyone been looking at the Crime
taking place south of the border. It is historic, with some countries the
most dangerous places in the world. Not going to happen in the U.S.
8:18 AM - Jun 18, 2018
79.1K
32.2K people are talking about this
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/18/trump-immigration-child-separations-650875
6/20/2018
Defiant Trump refuses to back off migrant family separations - POLITICO
Page 8 of 9
Children shouldn’t be used as a negotiating tool. @realDonaldTrump should
end this heartless policy and Congress should get an immigration deal done
that provides for asylum reform, border security and a path to citizenship for
Dreamers. https://t.co/OOjv0vNeVg
— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) June 18, 2018
Republican Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, meanwhile, said he was pulling back on a
plan to send National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border because of the Trump
administration's “cruel and inhumane“ family separation policy.
“We told the National Guard to hold steady and to not go down to the border, period,“ Baker
said. “We won't be supporting that initiative unless they change the policy.“
Even longtime Trump allies have pushed the president to back away from the controversial
policy. Former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci, who wrote on
Twitter over the weekend that “separating innocent children from their families is not the
Christian way, the American way, nor what @POTUS wants,” told CNN on Monday that the
practice is “inhumane” and “cruel” and that “the President is a humane guy ... and he doesn't
need this type of visual.”
In Florida, Republican Gov. Rick Scott, a Trump ally whose Senate bid the president has
endorsed, said in a statement that “I do not favor separating families,“ placing blame on
“bipartisan inaction and failure from our federal government.” And Harvard law professor
Alan Dershowitz, who has defended the president on other issues, addressed Trump directly
during an appearance Monday on “Fox & Friends,” the morning news show the president is
known to prefer.
“Mr. President, it just has to stop,” he said. “There are better ways of doing this. You're
better than this. The American people are better than this. The American government is
better than this. So I implore you to stop it now.”
Rebecca Morin and Heather Caygle contributed to this report
About Us
Advertising
Breaking News Alerts
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/18/trump-immigration-child-separations-650875
6/20/2018
Defiant Trump refuses to back off migrant family separations - POLITICO
Page 9 of 9
Careers
Credit Card Payments
Digital Edition
FAQ
Feedback
Headlines
Photos
POWERJobs
Press
Print Subscriptions
RSS
Site Map
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
© 2018 POLITICO LLC
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/18/trump-immigration-child-separations-650875
6/20/2018
Exhibit 24
Exhibit 25
Trump Retreats on Separating Families, but Thousands May Remain Apart - The New Yo... Page 1 of 7
Trump Retreats on Separating Families, but
Thousands May Remain Apart
By Michael D. Shear, Abby Goodnough and Maggie Haberman
June 20, 2018
WASHINGTON — President Trump caved to enormous political pressure on
Wednesday and signed an executive order meant to end the separation of families at the
border by detaining parents and children together for an indefinite period.
“We’re going to have strong — very strong — borders, but we are going to keep the
families together,” Mr. Trump said as he signed the order in the Oval Office. “I didn’t like
the sight or the feeling of families being separated.”
But ending the practice of separating families still faces legal and practical obstacles. A
federal judge could refuse to give the Trump administration the authority it wants to
hold families in custody for more than 20 days, which is the current limit because of a
1997 court order.
And the president’s order does nothing to address the plight of the more than 2,300
children who have already been separated from their parents under the president’s
“zero tolerance” policy. Federal officials initially said those children would not be
immediately reunited with their families while the adults remain in federal custody
during their immigration proceedings.
“There will not be a grandfathering of existing cases,” said Kenneth Wolfe, a spokesman
for the Administration for Children and Families, a division of the Department of Health
and Human Services. Mr. Wolfe said the decision about the children was made by the
White House.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-executive-or... 6/23/2018
Trump Retreats on Separating Families, but Thousands May Remain Apart - The New Yo... Page 2 of 7
But later Wednesday evening, Brian Marriott, the senior director of communications for
the agency, said that Mr. Wolfe had “misspoke” and insisted that “it is still very early,
and we are awaiting further guidance on the matter.” Mr. Marriott said that
“reunification is always the goal” and that the agency “is working toward that” for the
children separated from their families because of Mr. Trump’s policy.
His statement left open the possibility, though, that the children could be connected with
other family members or “appropriate” sponsors living in the United States, not
necessarily the parent they were separated from at the border.
The president signed the executive order days after he said that the only way to end the
division of families was through congressional action because “you can’t do it through an
executive order.” But he changed his mind after a barrage of criticism from Democrats,
activists, members of his own party and even his wife and eldest daughter, who privately
told him the policy was wrong.
Mr. Trump had previously been told by advisers that there was no way for the policy to
be changed through an executive order, and it was unclear what the genesis of the
measure he signed was. But the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, had
concerns about moving ahead with an executive order that would face an uphill battle in
the courts.
The president’s chief of staff, John F. Kelly, did not voice major objections, according to a
White House official. The move also helped alleviate pressure on Kirstjen Nielsen, Mr.
Kelly’s protégée and handpicked successor at the Department of Homeland Security.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-executive-or... 6/23/2018
Trump Retreats on Separating Families, but Thousands May Remain Apart - The New Yo... Page 3 of 7
Undocumented migrants waiting for asylum hearings on Wednesday outside the port of entry in
Tijuana, Mexico. Sandy Huffaker for The New York Times
Stories of children being taken from their parents, audio of wailing toddlers and images
of teenagers in cagelike detention facilities had exploded into a full-blown political crisis
for Mr. Trump and congressional Republicans, who were desperate for a response to
those who have called the practice “inhumane,” “cruel” and “evil.”
The president’s four-page order says that officials will continue to criminally prosecute
everyone who crosses the border illegally, but will seek to find or build facilities that can
hold families — parents and children together — instead of separating them while their
legal cases are considered by the courts.
But the action raised new questions that White House officials did not immediately
answer. The order does not say where the families would be detained. And it does not
say whether children will continue to be separated from their parents while the facilities
to hold them are located or built.
Officials on a White House conference call said they could not answer those questions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-executive-or... 6/23/2018
Trump Retreats on Separating Families, but Thousands May Remain Apart - The New Yo... Page 4 of 7
Justice Department officials said the legal authority to end family separation relies on a
request they will make in the coming days to Judge Dolly M. Gee of the Federal District
Court in Los Angeles, the daughter of immigrants from China who was appointed by
President Barack Obama. She oversees a 1997 consent decree, known as the Flores
settlement, which prohibits immigration authorities from keeping children in detention,
even if they are with their parents, for more than 20 days.
The 1997 case imposes legal constraints on the proper treatment of children in
government custody, which stopped Mr. Obama after his administration began detaining
families together during a similar flood of illegal immigration several years ago.
“It’s on Judge Gee,” said Gene Hamilton, the counselor to Attorney General Jeff
Sessions. “Are we going to be able to detain alien families together or are we not?”
Mr. Hamilton said the judge’s previous rulings prohibiting extended detentions of
families has “put this executive branch into an untenable position.”
He said that the president’s order is a stopgap measure that could be fixed permanently
if Congress passes legislation to overhaul the immigration system. While the House is
scheduled to vote Thursday on two competing immigration bills, the president’s decision
appeared to lessen the urgency for lawmakers to address the issue.
With Republicans in the House and Senate pursuing different approaches to put a stop to
the heart-wrenching scenes at the border, no legislative breakthrough seemed imminent.
Republicans in the Senate have proposed narrow legislation that would end the practice,
while House Republican leaders are focused on a broader bill, though its passage was in
doubt on the eve of Thursday’s vote.
In the meantime, legal experts said it seems highly unlikely that the courts will agree to
the request by the Trump administration. That would mean the president is almost
certain to face an immediate legal challenge from immigration activists if the
government tries to detain families for more than the 20-day limit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-executive-or... 6/23/2018
Trump Retreats on Separating Families, but Thousands May Remain Apart - The New Yo... Page 5 of 7
“I don’t think anyone wants to see little children detained for long periods of time,” said
Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the Trump
administration’s separation of families. “If they start detaining families and kids in tents
or other places, I think you will see immediate lawsuits.”
Kevin Appleby, a senior director at the Center for Migration Studies, predicted such a
challenge.
Advocates said officials should jail only those immigrants who have committed other
crimes, are a flight risk or pose a danger to others.
“It is outrageous that the president is pushing the criminal detention of innocent children
as a solution to his own evil act,” Mr. Appleby said. “The best solution would be releasing
families to sponsors or placing them in community-based alternatives to detention
programs, which are less expensive and much more humane.”
Until Wednesday, Mr. Trump had refused to simply end his government’s zero-tolerance
policy that was announced last month and led to the separation of more than 2,300
children from their parents, saying that the alternative would be to fling open the
country’s borders and allow immigrants who cross the border illegally to remain in the
United States.
But the president, furious about the pummeling he has taken in the news media in recent
days, began casting about for a solution to the politically damaging situation, people
familiar with his thinking said.
He made his announcement flanked by Vice President Mike Pence and Kirstjen Nielsen,
the secretary of homeland security, and vowed not to relent in his administration’s
prosecution of people trying to enter the country illegally.
“We are keeping a very powerful border, and it continues to be a zero tolerance,” Mr.
Trump said. “We have zero tolerance for people that enter our country illegally.”
But he added, “The border’s just as tough, but we do want to keep families together.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-executive-or... 6/23/2018
Trump Retreats on Separating Families, but Thousands May Remain Apart - The New Yo... Page 6 of 7
In signing the order to end the separation of families, Mr. Trump also abandoned the
positions that he and his allies had stuck to for weeks: that Democrats were to blame for
the wrenching scenes of kids being torn from their parents, and that the administration
was helpless to fix the problem without action by Congress to overhaul immigration
laws.
In effect, though, the president was caught between his messaging and the likelihood of
inaction on Capitol Hill. That became clearer on Tuesday when Republicans in the
Senate and House moved in different directions on confronting the family separation
issue.
Mr. Trump acknowledged his position during remarks to reporters before his
announcement on Wednesday.
“The dilemma is that if you’re weak, if you’re weak, which some people would like you to
be. If you are really, really pathetically weak, the country’s going to be overrun with
millions of people,” Mr. Trump said. “And if you’re strong, then you don’t have any heart.
That’s a tough dilemma. Perhaps I’d rather be strong.”
In addition to the public condemnations of his policy — including by Pope Francis on
Wednesday — Mr. Trump had been lectured by the first lady, Melania Trump, and
Ivanka Trump, his eldest daughter, according to White House officials.
Melania Trump had been pushing her husband about the family separation policy from
the beginning, an official said, arguing that there was a middle way between opening
America’s borders and tearing children away from their parents. Separating children
from their mother and father, she told him, is wrong.
Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, were also pressing the president to find
a way to end the political crisis caused by the family separations at the border, according
to people familiar with their conversations.
But it is not clear what the political damage may be to Mr. Trump from having taken
actions that he repeatedly said he was not allowed to do.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-executive-or... 6/23/2018
Trump Retreats on Separating Families, but Thousands May Remain Apart - The New Yo... Page 7 of 7
As recently as Tuesday, in a speech to the National Federation of Independent Business,
the president insisted that there were “only two options: totally open borders or criminal
prosecution for law breaking.”
“And you want to be able to do that,” he said. “We don’t want people pouring into our
country.”
The president has also opened himself up to charges of hypocrisy. During the 2016
presidential campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly slammed Mr. Obama for abusing his
executive authority when he issued an executive order to protect the young immigrants
known as Dreamers.
As a candidate, Mr. Trump said he would use executive orders sparingly, adding that
“Obama, because he couldn’t get anybody to agree with him, he starts signing them like
they’re butter. So I want to do away with executive orders for the most part.”
Mr. Obama, whose administration also grappled with how to handle massive flows of
illegal immigrants from Central America, has remained mostly silent during the
controversy over the separation of children from their parents at the border. But in a
Facebook post on Wednesday, Mr. Obama denounced the lack of morality in a policy that
leads to the kinds of scenes that have played out across television screens during the
past several weeks.
“To watch those families broken apart in real time puts to us a very simple question: are
we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents’ arms, or are
we a nation that values families, and works to keep them together?” Mr. Obama wrote.
“Do we look away, or do we choose to see something of ourselves and our children?”
Michael D. Shear and Abby Goodnough reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York.
Katie Benner and Thomas Kaplan contributed reporting from Washington.
A version of this article appears in print on June 20, 2018, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: In Retreat, Trump Halts
Separating Migrant Families
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-executive-or... 6/23/2018
Exhibit 26
Trump signs order stopping his policy of separating families at border
Page 1 of 5
• Business
• International
• THINK
Trump signs order stopping his policy of separating families at border
•
•
•
•
•
Share this —
Immigration
Trump signs order stopping his policy of separating families at border
Government officials familiar with early drafts say the executive order would allow families to be held in immigration detention together.
by Adam Edelman / Jun.20.2018 / 9:24 AM ET / Updated Jun.20.2018 / 2:13 PM ET
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-says-he-ll-sign-order-stopping-sepa... 6/21/2018
Trump signs order stopping his policy of separating families at border
Page 2 of 5
Trump orders end to policy separating migrant families who enter U.S.
illegally
Jun.20.201803:11
Breaking News Emails
Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
SUBSCRIBE
President Donald Trump, under mounting political pressure from angry members of his own party, signed an executive order Wednesday reversing his
administration's policy of separating children from their parents at the border and allowing families to instead be detained together.
"It's about keeping families together while ensuring we have a powerful border," Trump said.
Breaking News Emails
Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
SUBSCRIBE
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-says-he-ll-sign-order-stopping-sepa... 6/21/2018
Trump signs order stopping his policy of separating families at border
Page 3 of 5
President Trump signs order halting family separation at border
Jun.20.201803:03
Trump said the order "will solve that problem" of children being separated from their parents, but that it wouldn't end his administration's "zero tolerance"
policy of charging everyone who attempts to cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally. The practice has led to thousands of migrant children, some under a
year old, being split from their parents or legal guardians and housed in detention centers.
Recommended
Obama asks America to end family separation at border as Trump backs down
'We have zero tolerance for your policy': Democrats call on DHS' Nielsen to resign
"I didn't like the sight or the feeling of families being separated," Trump said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-says-he-ll-sign-order-stopping-sepa... 6/21/2018
Trump signs order stopping his policy of separating families at border
Page 4 of 5
The executive order won't stop the detention of children — or Trump's "zero tolerance" policy of charging people with a misdemeanor for entering the
country illegally — but will allow them to be held with their parents pending "any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their
members."
The order directs the agency to "prioritize" hearings for families in detention to speed up processing and also directs Attorney General Jeff Sessions to file a
request in federal court to modify a longstanding federal court decree — known as the "Flores settlement" — that prohibits the government from holding
children in detention for longer than 20 days.
Such a modification would allow DHS "to detain alien families together" throughout pending criminal proceedings for improperly entering the country or
other immigration proceedings, according to the order.
The Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center said Trump's reversal still amounts to treating families like criminals by holding them in detention
facilities.
A statement from the president of the organization, Richard Cohen, says there are other alternatives available. And it says indiscriminate enforcement is
"shattering" communities across the country.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the order "seeks to replace one form of child abuse with another."
"Instead of protecting traumatized children, the president has directed his attorney general to pave the way for the long-term incarceration of families in
prison-like conditions," Pelosi said in a statement.
Under the order, the Defense Department must also provide and, "if necessary," construct facilities to house and care for the families.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis says the Pentagon will "respond if requested" to house migrants detained after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally.
When a reporter noted that federal agencies have assessed four military bases for potential use as temporary housing for detained migrants, including
unaccompanied children, Mattis said the Pentagon will "support whatever" the Department of Homeland Security says it needs. In the meantime, he said,
this is not a matter for the Pentagon to comment on.
It remains unclear how the government will get around the immediate separations that occur when parents are charged with a crime and taken to court for
entering the country illegally. But officials said they believe they have found a way to continue those charges without separating the children.
It also remains unclear how the administration will reunite the families that have already been separated at the border. In a call with reporters, a Department
of Justice official referred questions about the children who are currently without their parents to the Department of Health and Human Services and the
Department of Homeland Security.
The order marks an abrupt about-face for the president, who said as recently as Friday that when it came to keeping migrant families together, "you can't do
it through executive order." He had faced extraordinary pressure from Capitol Hill, even from some of his closest GOP allies, as well as from members of
his own family, to end his administration's policy of separating children from parents who cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally.
Many Republicans have demanded an end to the policy, and at least two bills to halt it are under consideration in the House.
Pressure grew Tuesday night after The Associated Press reported that administration officials have been sending babies and other young children forcibly
separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border to at least three "tender age" shelters in South Texas.
First lady Melania Trump has also been a factor, a source familiar with the matter told NBC News. According the source, Mrs. Trump has been having
private discussions behind the scenes in order to try to end the separation of kids and families at the border. Earlier this week, she uncharacteristically
waded into the immigration debate, pushing for bipartisan cooperation to end the practice.
The House is set to vote Thursday on two immigration bills: a more conservative measure written by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee, and a compromise measure.
Following Trump's remarks Wednesday, roughly two dozen House Republicans headed to the White House to discuss the measures.
Despite the order, Trump nevertheless doubled down on his hard-line stance on immigration, saying earlier in the day that he "likes to be strong" and that
migrants were "using the children as a ticket to get into" the country.
Trump also announced that he'd canceled a congressional picnic that had been scheduled for Thursday, saying the timing "just didn't feel right."
Breaking News Emails
Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
SUBSCRIBE
•
•
•
•
Contributors
Pete Williams,
Hallie Jackson,
Associated Press
SPONSORED STORIES
by Taboola
It's Like Ebay, but Everything Sells in 90 Seconds
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-says-he-ll-sign-order-stopping-sepa... 6/21/2018
Trump signs order stopping his policy of separating families at border
Page 5 of 5
Tophatter
Order Bulk Or Custom Flash Drives
Yahoo Search
Unwritten Office Etiquette Rules HR Won't Tell You About
Work + Money
6 Key Characteristics of Leading CFOs
Concur Resources
Philly woman accused of shoplifting shot and killed by New Jersey police
The Grio
China to Take From the Pension Rich, Give to the Pension Poor - Monthly Subscription for Only $…
Caixinglobal.com
Say Goodbye to iPhone: This Could Be 40X Better
The Motley Fool
Are You Making The Switch To SaaS? Here’s Why You Should Be
Microsoft
MORE FROM news
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
About
Contact
Careers
Privacy policy
Terms of Service
SiteMap
Advertise
AdChoices
© 2018 NBC UNIVERSAL
•
•
•
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-says-he-ll-sign-order-stopping-sepa... 6/21/2018
Exhibit 27
Trump falsely claimed for days that he couldn’t end family separations - POLITICO
Page 1 of 3
"This is the only solution to the border crisis,” Trump said Tuesday. “We have to stop child smuggling. This is
the way to do it.” | Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
Trump falsely claimed for days that he couldn’t end family
separations
The president is now reversing himself after facing fierce backlash for forcibly removing
thousands of children from their parents.
By MATTHEW NUSSBAUM | 06/20/2018 01:10 PM EDT
President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he would sign an executive order to pull back
on his administration’s highly controversial policy of separating undocumented immigrant
children from their parents.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/20/trump-false-claims-family-separations-656011
6/21/2018
Trump falsely claimed for days that he couldn’t end family separations - POLITICO
Page 2 of 3
It was a jarring reversal for the president who has been falsely stating for days that only
Congress could fix the problem.
Here are Trump and his allies incorrectly claiming this week that he could not end family
separations:
Trump, in a Tuesday address
“So what I’m asking Congress to do is to give us a third option, which we have been
requesting since last year — the legal authority to detain and promptly remove families
together as a unit. We have to be able to do this. This is the only solution to the border crisis.
We have to stop child smuggling. This is the way to do it.”
Trump on Twitter on Tuesday
“Homeland Security @SecNielsen did a fabulous job yesterday at the press conference
explaining security at the border and for our country, while at the same time recommending
changes to obsolete & nasty laws, which force family separation. We want ‘heart’ and
security in America!”
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on Monday
“Until these loopholes are closed by Congress, it is not possible, as a matter of law, to detain
and remove whole family units who arrive illegally in the United States. Congress and the
courts created this problem, and Congress alone can fix it. Until then, we will enforce every
law we have on the books to defend the sovereignty and security of the United States.”
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Monday
“There’s only one body here that gets to create legislation and it’s Congress. Our job is to
enforce it, and we would like to see Congress fix it. That’s why the President has repeatedly
called on them to work with him to do just that.”
Fox News host and Trump ally Sean Hannity, on Monday
"No one likes the idea of separating any child from any parent, but this issue has been in the
hands of Congress. And right now, the whole issue can be fixed. Every law can be changed,
and if they did their job, it would happen."
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/20/trump-false-claims-family-separations-656011
6/21/2018
Trump falsely claimed for days that he couldn’t end family separations - POLITICO
Page 3 of 3
About Us
Advertising
Breaking News Alerts
Careers
Credit Card Payments
Digital Edition
FAQ
Feedback
Headlines
Photos
POWERJobs
Press
Print Subscriptions
RSS
Site Map
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
© 2018 POLITICO LLC
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/20/trump-false-claims-family-separations-656011
6/21/2018
Exhibit 28
Vice President Mike Pence: Democrats Can Fix Family Separation At Border | Newsradio... Page 1 of 4
Join The Club
FOLLOW US
MENU
ON AIR ON DEMAND NEWS WEATHER TRAFFIC CONTESTS
LISTEN
Phone: 866-391-1020
Vice President Mike Pence:
Democrats Can Fix Family
Separation At Border
Pence adds families seeking asylum a ports of
entry are not separated.
THE MIKE PINTEK SHOW
JUNE 20, 2018 - 12:37 PM
LOCAL
OPINION
TRENDING
'Neighborhood' Producer Remembers Mr. Rogers'…
Pittsburgh Police Seek Missing Teen Visiting From…
Demonstrators Take To Grant St., Demand Answer…
African American Leaders Want State AG To Take…
Lawyer: No apparent justification for fatal shootin…
© Michael Clevenger-USA TODAY Sports
CATEGORIES: National, Local, Politics, Mike Pintek
Redistricting Legislation Awaits PA House Action
Hundreds Protest Following Fatal Police Shooting…
Torrential Rains Bring Flash Flooding
PITTSBURGH (Newsradio 1020 KDKA) - Vice President of the United States
Mike Pence discussed the issue of families being separated at the
southern border Wednesday.
Pence says there is a “crisis at our southern boarder” and that “no one
wants to see children taken away from their parents and the images, they
pull at the heart strings of every American including the President of the
United States and this Vice President.”
To solve the crisis Pence says that the first thing that needs to be done is
funding and construction of a southern border wall. He adds that there is
currently legislation being considered in Congress that would “fully fund
On Air Now
ON AIR NOW
View Full Schedule
John McIntire
8:00 PM TO 11:00 PM
LISTEN LIVE
ON DEMAND
https://kdkaradio.radio.com/articles/vice-president-mike-pence-democrats-can-fix-family-s... 6/21/2018
Vice President Mike Pence: Democrats Can Fix Family Separation At Border | Newsradio... Page 2 of 4
Join The Club
FOLLOW US
MENU
ON AIR ON DEMAND NEWS WEATHER TRAFFIC CONTESTS
LISTEN
Phone: 866-391-1020
with small children to make the long and arduous and dangerous trek up
LATEST TRAFFIC ALERTS
the peninsula to try to and illegally enter our country.”
Pence adds if those loopholes are cut off “we’ll cut off that inducement
entirely.”
According to Pence, President Trump supports legislation currently being
considered in Congress that would keep families together.
He stresses that families who come to a port of entry into the United
States are not separated from their families, it is only the ones that comes
to the country United States illegally that it happens.
Pence says they currently have two options. They can capture an illegal
immigrant, release them and give them a court date “but more often than
PODCASTS
More On The Death Of Antwon Rose
June 21, 2018
not folks never show back up for a court date.”
The other option is to “simply enforce the law. We can be a nation with not
Investigation Underway Into Fatal Poli…
June 21, 2018
only a border but with a rule of law but in doing that under current law, we
don’t incarcerate children with people that have been charged with a
Jill Schlesinger on Supreme Court Rul…
crime.” Pence add that is what is causing children to be separated from
June 21, 2018
their parents.
Both he and the president are calling for a change that would allow them
to enforce the law while keeping families together but it is the Democrats
that are obstructing any legislation that would allow change to the law.
“I think the American people want the Democrats to stop the obstruction,
to stop standing in the way of the kind of reforms at our border that will
end the crisis of illegal immigration. We can solve this issue of separation,”
Mr. Rogers Producer Talks About Fre…
June 21, 2018
Impact of South Dakota v. Wayfair SC…
June 21, 2018
Steve Futterman on Immigration Issu…
June 21, 2018
said Pence. “We can even solve the issue of people brought into the
country through no fault of their own over many years and the DACA
program even while we build a wall and close the loophole that are
facilitating this crisis on our border to begin with.”
Listen to the Mike Pintek Show weekdays from noon to 3 p.m. on
Newsradio 1020 KDKA.
___
Follow KDKA Radio: Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Listen to KDKA Radio on the Radio.com App - Download Now
https://kdkaradio.radio.com/articles/vice-president-mike-pence-democrats-can-fix-family-s... 6/21/2018
Vice President Mike Pence: Democrats Can Fix Family Separation At Border | Newsradio... Page 3 of 4
Join The Club
FOLLOW US
MENU
ON AIR ON DEMAND NEWS WEATHER TRAFFIC CONTESTS
LISTEN
Phone: 866-391-1020
KDKA Radio On-Demand
Vice President Mike Pence - FULL INTERVIEW with
Mike Pintek
KDKA Radio On-Demand
Newsradio 1020 KDKA Morning News Update 7AM 6/21/18
02:12
Vice President Mike Pence - FULL INTERVIEW with Mike Pintek
11:06
Newsradio 1020 KDKA Morning News Update 7AM 6/20/18
02:15
Shrine Circus Chairman Paul Leavy
02:51
TAGS: Vice President Mike Pence, Mike Pintek, KDKA Radio, Immigration Policy,
Democrats, President Donald Trump, Family Separation
More From the Web
Sponsored Links by Taboola
We Tried The IG Grandma Facemask And The Hype Is Real
Elle | Hanacure
The 50,000 Point Intro Bonus Has Arrived
CreditCards.com
Over 61? Your Biggest Asset Is Now A "Retirement Secret"
American Advisors Group
We Never Expected A Legend Like Him To Have A House Like This
InvestmentGuru
Keep Your Breasts Happy Through Old Age With These Tips
Health Central
The Cost Of 2018 Cruises Might Surprise You
Cruise | Sponsored Links
https://kdkaradio.radio.com/articles/vice-president-mike-pence-democrats-can-fix-family-s... 6/21/2018
Vice President Mike Pence: Democrats Can Fix Family Separation At Border | Newsradio... Page 4 of 4
Join The Club
FOLLOW US
MENU
ON AIR ON DEMAND NEWS WEATHER TRAFFIC CONTESTS
LISTEN
Phone: 866-391-1020
The KDKA
Radio Morning
News with Larry
Richert and
John Shumway
The Inside
Story With
Marty Griffin
The Mike Pintek
Show
The KDKA
Radio
Afternoon
News with
Robert Mangino
Complete
Schedule
CONTACT US
Listen Live
KDKA Traffic &
Weather
Together
Download our
App
Local
State
National
Politics
World
Business
Health
Entertainment
Facebook
Twitter
Newsletter
Events
Dollar Bank
Instant Access
Contact Station
Management
Advertise
Get My Perks
1Thing
Sustainability
PHONE: 866-391-1020
When texting this station, message & data rates
apply. Message frequency is recurring and
varies. Reply STOP to cancel. No purchase
necessary.
Search
CONTEST RULES
CAREERS
EEO PUBLIC FILES
PUBLIC INSPECTION FILE
PUBLIC FILE HELP
PRIVACY POLICY
TERMS OF USE
SEARCH
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
© ENTERCOM 2018
RADIO.COM NEWS
KDKA IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF CBS BROADCASTING INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
https://kdkaradio.radio.com/articles/vice-president-mike-pence-democrats-can-fix-family-s... 6/21/2018
Exhibit 29
Explaining Trump’s Executive Order on Family Separation - The New York Times
Page 1 of 5
Explaining Trumpʼs Executive Order
on Family Separation
By Charlie Savage
June 20, 2018
WASHINGTON — President Trump on Wednesday sought to quell the uproar over his
administration’s systematic separation of immigrant children from their families at the
border, signing an executive order he portrayed as ending the problem.
What caused the problem?
Previously, many families caught sneaking across the border — especially those seeking
asylum — were released into the United States while their immigration cases were
processed. But in April, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that federal
prosecutors would now pursue a zero-tolerance policy of criminally prosecuting every
adult who illegally crossed the border or tried to do so.
Sending adults to jail for prosecution prompted a set of court-imposed rules stemming
from a class-action lawsuit over how the government handled unaccompanied minors in
immigration detention. In the Trump administration’s view, the government cannot hold
children in immigration detention for over 20 days.
That meant that if adults were sent to jail or long-term indefinite detention while their
asylum requests or removal orders were processed, the children could not stay with
them. As a result, the Trump policy of prosecuting adults has also led to a practice of
separating families and holding children separately while trying to place them with
relatives or in a licensed facility.
Did Trumpʼs order restore the old approach?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/family-separation-executive-order.html
6/24/2018
Explaining Trump’s Executive Order on Family Separation - The New York Times
Page 2 of 5
No. His order explicitly states that the executive branch will continue to criminally
prosecute people who cross the border illegally, signaling that the zero-tolerance policy
remains in place.
What does the order change?
The order states that it is now the policy of the Trump administration to keep families
together. It appears to envision a system in which families will be housed together in ad
hoc detention centers, including on military bases, that the administration hopes a court
will approve. It calls for many agencies — including the Pentagon — to make available
“existing facilities,” or to construct them, for the Department of Homeland Security to
use “for the housing and care of alien families.”
Will this happen right away?
The answer is unclear. At a briefing organized by the White House on Wednesday
afternoon, Gene Hamilton, a counselor to Mr. Sessions, sidestepped a question about
whether a family that shows up now would be separated. He said that an
“implementation phase” would happen but that he was not sure precisely what the
Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services would do.
Since the administration has concluded that it can detain families together for up to 20
days under the existing rules, the start of the revised policy may turn on how much
family-style detention space is available and how many new families are apprehended.
Separately, a Justice Department official said that family separation was prompted in
the past when adults were taken into the custody of United States marshals, while
children were held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement for three days and then
transferred to the Health and Human Services Department. Under the new plan, the
official said, the entire family will stay in ICE’s hands. While the adults will still be
prosecuted, that will prevent the need to immediately separate family members. The
administration appears to be hoping that the courts or Congress will change the rules
within 20 days, allowing families to be detained together indefinitely.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/family-separation-executive-order.html
6/24/2018
Explaining Trump’s Executive Order on Family Separation - The New York Times
Page 3 of 5
What does the Flores case have to do with this?
The long-running class-action litigation over the treatment of children in immigration
custody ended with a 1997 consent decree known as the Flores settlement. Under it, the
government has been obligated to release children from immigration detention to
relatives or, if none can be found, to a licensed program within about three to five days. If
that is impossible, they must be held in the “least restrictive” setting appropriate to their
age and needs.
In the second term of the Obama administration, amid a surge of migrants, the
administration adopted a policy of detaining families headed by women together while
their cases were processed. After those conditions were challenged in court, Judge Dolly
M. Gee of Federal District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the
Flores settlement terms also applied to accompanied minors, so holding children with
their mothers in indefinite immigration detention was unlawful.
How much can Trump do without court permission?
The most important part of Mr. Trump’s order set in motion a request to get a court to
approve holding families together for longer than 20 days. The order directs Mr.
Sessions to promptly ask a federal court to “modify” the consent agreement in a manner
that would permit the Department of Homeland Security to hold families together
throughout immigration court proceedings. At his press briefing, Mr. Hamilton said that
unless Congress acted sooner to change the law, it would be up to Judge Gee to decide
whether the administration could keep families together.
What happens to the children already separated?
The administration initially said it would not try to reunite children and parents who
were separated at the border under the zero-tolerance policy, according to Kenneth
Wolfe, a spokesman for the Health and Human Services Department.
But the agency retreated later Wednesday evening, saying that “it is still very early, and
we are awaiting further guidance on the matter.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/family-separation-executive-order.html
6/24/2018
Explaining Trump’s Executive Order on Family Separation - The New York Times
Page 4 of 5
“Reunification is always the goal,” said Brian Marriott, the senior director of
communications for the agency, noting that the department was working toward that for
children affected by the president’s policy.
That statement left open the possibility, though, that the children could be reunited with
relatives or “appropriate” sponsors in the United States, not necessarily the parent they
were separated from at the border.
More than 2,300 children were separated from their parents at the border and placed in
government-licensed shelters or in temporary foster care with families across the
country.
How do these parents differ from others whose children were
removed by the government?
The migrant parents did not lose custody of the children because of poor parenting.
“Nobody judged these parents were incapable of taking care of their kids,” said Kay
Bellor, a vice president at Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.
Lutheran is one of several nonprofits that have found temporary foster families to care
for children separated from their parents at the border. Ms. Bellor said that none of them
have been reunited with their parents since the separation.
Was an order even necessary?
No. Mr. Trump likes the flourish of signing executive orders in front of cameras, but
most of his have amounted to asking his administration to conduct reviews and come up
with proposed solutions to problems, or they have consisted of directives that he could
have instead made with a phone call. This is one of those orders.
Katie Benner and Abby Goodnough contributed reporting from Washington, and Miriam Jordan from Los
Angeles.
Follow Charlie Savage on Twitter: @charlie_savage.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/family-separation-executive-order.html
6/24/2018
Explaining Trump’s Executive Order on Family Separation - The New York Times
Page 5 of 5
A version of this article appears in print on June 20, 2018, on Page A10 of the New York edition with the headline: Here Is What the Executive
Order Does, and Doesnʼt Do
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/family-separation-executive-order.html
6/24/2018
Exhibit 30
8/12/96
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Carlos Holguin
Peter A. Schey
256 South Occidental Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90057
(213) 388-8693
NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
Alice Bussiere
James Morales
114 Sansome Street, Suite 905
San Francisco, CA 94104
( 415) 453-3307
fl D
U.S. o~T1'1~ CO JRT
J~~ \ 1 \991
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Michael Johnson
Assistant United States Attorney
300 N. Los Angeles St., Rm. 7516
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Allen Hausman
Office of Immigration Litigation
Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Attorneys for Defendants
Additional counsel listed next page
UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JENNY LISETTE FLORES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-vsJANET RENO, Attorney General
of the United States, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 85-4544-RJK(Px)
Stipulated Settlement
Agreement
\
Plaintiffs' Additional Counsel
\
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTIIERN CALIFORNIA
Mark Rosenbaum
Sylvia Argueta
1616 Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Telephone: (213) 977-9500
STREICH LANG
Susan G. Boswell
Jeffrey Willis
1500 Bank of America Plaza
33 North Stone Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85701
Telephone: (602) 770-8700
Defendants' Additional Counsel:
Arthur Strathem
Mary Jane Candaux
Office of the General Counsel
U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service
425 I St. N. W.
Washington, DC 20536
I I I
2
STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have filed this action against Defendants, challenging, inter alia, the
constitutionality of Defendants' policies, practices and regulations regarding the detention and release of
unaccompanied minors taken into the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in
the Western Region; and
WHEREAS, the district court has certified this case as a class action on behalf of all minors
apprehended by the INS in the Western Region of the United States; and
WHEREAS, this litigation has been pending for nine (9) years, all parties have conducted
extensive discovery, and the United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the
challenged INS regulations on their face and has remanded for further proceedings consistent with its
opinion; and
WHEREAS, on November 30, 1987, the parties reached a settlement agreement requiring that
minors in INS custody in the Western Region be housed in facilities meeting certain standards,
including state standards for the housing and care of dependent children, and Plaintiffs' motion to
enforce compliance with that settlement is currently pending before the court; and
WHEREAS, a trial in this case would be complex, lengthy and costly to all parties concerned,
and the decision of the district court would be subject to appeal by the losing parties with the final
outcome uncertain; and
WHEREAS, the parties believe that settlement of this action is in their best interests and best
serves the interests of justice by avoiding a complex, lengthy and costly trial, and subsequent appeals
which could last several more years;
NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendants enter into this Stipulated Settlement Agreement
3
(the Agreement), stipulate that it constitutes a full and complete resolution of the issues raised in this
action, and agree to the following:
I
DEFINITIONS
As used throughout this Agreement the following definitions shall apply:
1. The tenn "party" or "parties" shall apply to Defendants and Plaintiffs. As the term applies to
Defendants, it shall include their agents, employees, contractors and/or successors in office. As the
term applies to Plaintiffs, it shall include all class members.
2. The term "Plaintiff' or "Plaintiffs" shall apply to the named plaintiffs and all class members.
3. The term "class member" or "class members" shall apply to the persons defined in Paragraph
10 below.
4. The term "minor" shall apply to any person under the age of eighteen (18) years who is
detained in the legal custody of the INS. This Agreement shall cease to apply to any person who has
reached the age of eighteen years. The term "minor" shall not include an emancipated minor or an
individual who has been incarcerated due to a conviction for a criminal offense as an adult. The INS
shall treat all persons who are under the age of eighteen but not included within the definition of
"minor" as adults for all purposes, including release on bond or recognizance.
5. The term "emancipated minor" shall refer to any minor who has been determined to be
emancipated in an appropriate state judicial proceeding.
6. The term "licensed program" shall refer to any program, agency or organization that is
licensed by an appropriate State agency to provide residential, group, or foster care services for
dependent children, including a program operating group homes, foster homes, or facilities for special
needs minors. A licensed program must also meet those standards for licensed programs set forth in
4
Exhibit 1 attached hereto. All homes and facilities operated by licensed programs, including facilities
for special needs minors, shall be non-secure as required under state law; provided, however, that a
facility for special needs minors may maintain that level of security permitted under state law which is
necessary for the protection of a minor or others in appropriate circumstances, e.g., cases in which a
minor has drug or alcohol problems or is mentally ill. The INS shall make reasonable efforts to provide
licensed placements in those geographical areas where the majority of minors are apprehended, such as
southern California, southeast Texas, southern Florida and the northeast corridor.
7. The term "special needs minor" shall refer to a minor whose mental and/or physical
condition requires special services and treatment by staff. A minor may have special needs due to drug
or alcohol abuse, serious emotional disturbance, mental illness or retardation, or a physical condition or
chronic illness that requires special services or treatment. A minor who has suffered serious neglect or
abuse may be considered a minor with special needs if the minor requires special services or treatment
as a result of the neglect or abuse. The INS shall assess minors to detennine if they have special needs
and, if so, shall place such minors, whenever possible, in licensed programs in which the INS places
children without special needs, but which provide services and treatment for such special needs.
8. The tenn "medium security facility" shall refer to a facility that is operated by a program,
agency or organization licensed by an appropriate State agency and that meets those standards set forth
in Exhibit I attached hereto. A medium security facility is designed for minors who require close
supervision but do not need placement in juvenile correctional facilities. It provides 24-hour awake
supervision, custody, care, and treatment. It maintains stricter security measures, such as intensive staff
supervision, than a facility operated by a licensed program in order to control problem behavior and to
prevent escape. Such a facility may have a secure perimeter but shall not be equipped internally with
5
major restraining construction or procedures typically associated with correctional facilities.
II
SCOPE OF SETTLEMENT, EFFECTIVE DATE, AND PUBLICATION
9. This Agreement sets out nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of minors
in the custody of the INS and shall supersede all previous INS policies that are inconsistent with the
terms of this Agreement. This Agreement shall become effective upon final court approval, except that
those terms of this Agreement regarding placement pursuant to Paragraph 19 shall not become effective
until all contracts under the Program Announcement referenced in Paragraph 20 below are negotiated
and implemented. The INS shall make its best efforts to execute these contracts within 120 days after
the court1s final approval of this Agreement. However, the INS will make reasonable efforts to comply
with Paragraph 19 prior to full implementation of all such contracts. Once all contracts under the
Program Announcement referenced in Paragraph 20 ·have been implemented, this Agreement shall
supersede the agreement entitled Memorandum of Understanding Re Compromise of Class Action:
Conditions of Detention (hereinafter "MOU"), entered into by and between the Plaintiffs and
Defendants and filed with the United States District Court for the Central District of California on
November 30, 1987, and the MOU shall thereafter be null and void. However, Plaintiffs shall not
institute any legal action for enforcement of the MOU for a six (6) month period commencing with the
final district court approval of this Agreement, except that Plaintiffs may institute enforcement
proceedings if the Defendants have engaged in serious violations of the MOU that have caused
irreparable harm to a class member for which injunctive relief would be appropriate. Within 120 days
of the final district court approval of this Agreement, the INS shall initiate action to publish the relevant
and substantive terms of this Agreement as a Service regulation. The final regulations shall not be
inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement. Within 30 days of final court approval of this
6
Agreement, the INS shall distribute to all INS field offices and sub-offices instructions regarding the
processing, treatment, and placement of juveniles. Those instructions shall include, but may not be
limited to, the provisions summarizing the terms of this Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
III
CLASS DEFINITION
I 0. The certified class in this action shall be defined as follows: "All minors who are detained
in the legal custody of the INS."
IV
STATEMENTS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
11. The INS treats, and shall continue to treat, all minors in its custody with dignity, respect
and special concern for their particular vulnerability as minors. The INS shall place each detained
minor in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor's age and special needs, provided that such
setting is consistent with its interests to ensure the minor's timely appearance before the INS and the
immigration courts and to protect the minor's well-being and that of others. Nothing herein shall
require the INS to release a minor to any person or agency whom the INS has reason to believe may
harm or neglect the minor or fail to present him or her before the INS or the immigration courts when
requested to do so.
V
PROCEDURES AND TEMPORARY PLACEMENT FOLLOWING ARREST
12.A. Whenever the INS takes a minor into custody, it shall expeditiously process the minor
and shall provide the minor with a notice of rights, including the right to a bond redetermination hearing
if applicable. Following arrest, the INS shall hold minors in facilities that are safe and sanitary and that
are consistent with the INS's concern for the particular vulnerability of minors. Facilities will provide
access to toilets and sinks, drinking water and food as appropriate, medical assistance if the minor is in
need of emergency services, adequate temperature control and ventilation, adequate supervision to
7
protect minors from others, and contact with family members who were arrested with the minor. The
INS will segregate unaccompanied minors from unrelated adults. Where such segregation is not
immediately possible, an unaccompanied minor will not be detained with an unrelated adult for more
than 24 hours. If there is no one to whom the INS may release the minor pursuant to Paragraph 14, and
no appropriate licensed program is immediately available for placement pursuant to Paragraph 19, the
minor may be placed in an INS detention facility, or other INS-contracted facility, having separate
accommodations for minors, or a State or county juvenile detention facility. However, minors shall be
separated from delinquent offenders. Every effort must be taken to ensure that the safety and
well-being of the minors detained in these facilities are satisfactorily provided for by the staff. The INS
will transfer a minor from a placement under this paragraph to a placement under Paragraph 19, (i)
within three (3) days, if the minor was apprehended in an INS district in which a licensed program is
located and has space available; or (ii) within five (5) days in all other cases; except:
1.
as otherwise provided under Paragraph 13 or Paragraph 21;
2.
as otherwise required by any court decree or court-approved settlement;
3.
in the event of an emergency or influx of minors into the United States, in which case
the INS shall place all minors pursuant to Paragraph 19 as expeditiously as possible; or
4.
where individuals must be transported from remote areas for processing or speak
unusual languages such that the INS must locate interpreters in order to complete
processing, in which case the INS shall place all such minors pursuant to Paragraph 19
within five (5) business days.
B. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "emergency" shall be defined as any act or event
that prevents the placement of minors pursuant to Paragraph 19 within the time frame provided. Such
8
emergencies include natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.), facility fires, civil
disturbances, and medical emergencies (e.g., a chicken pox epidemic among a group of minors). The
term "influx of minors into the United States" shall be defined as those circumstances where the INS
has, at any given time, more than l 30 minors eligible for placement in a licensed program under
Paragraph I9, including those who have been so placed or are awaiting such placement.
C. In preparation for an "emergency" or "influx," as described in Subparagraph B, the INS shall
have a written plan that describes the reasonable efforts that it will take to place all minors as
expeditiously as possible. This plan shall include the identification of 80 beds that are potentially
available for INS placements and that are licensed by an appropriate State agency to provide residential,
group, or foster care services for dependent children. The plan, without identification of the additional
beds available, is attached as Exhibit 3. The [NS shall not be obligated to fund these additional beds on
an ongoing basis. The INS shall update this listing of additional beds on a quarterly basis and provide
Plaintiffs' counsel with a copy of this listing.
13. If a reasonable person would conclude that an alien detained by the fNS is an adult despite
his claims to be a minor, the INS shall treat the person as an adult for all purposes, including
confinement and release on bond or recognizance. The INS may require the alien to submit to a
medical or dental examination conducted by a medical professional or to submit to other appropriate
procedures to verify his or her age. If the INS subsequently determines that such an individual is a
minor, he or she will be treated as a minor in accordance with this Agreement for all purposes.
VI
GENERAL POLICY FAVO RING RELEASE
14. Where the lNS determines that the detention of the minor is not required either to secure his
or her timely appearance before the INS or the immigration court, or to ensure the minor's safety or that
9
of others, the INS shall release a minor from its custody without unnecessary delay, in the following
order of preference, to:
A.
a parent;
B.
a legal guardian;
C.
an adult relative (brother, sister, aunt, uncle, or grandparent);
D.
an adult individual or entity designated by the parent or legal guardian as capable and
willing to care for the minor's well-being in (i) a declaration signed under penalty of
perjury before an immigration or consular officer or (ii) such other document(s) that
establish(es) to the satisfaction of the INS, in its discretion, the affiant's paternity or
guardianship;
E.
a licensed program willing to accept legal custody; or
F.
an adult individual or entity seeking custody, in the discretion of the INS, when it
appears that there is no other likely alternative to long term detention and family
reunification does not appear to be a reasonable possibility.
15. Before a minor is released from INS custody pursuant to Paragraph 14 above, the custodian
must execute an Affidavit of Support (Form I-134) and an agreement to:
A.
provide for the minor's physical, mental, and financial well-being;
B.
ensure the minor's presence at all future proceedings before the INS and the immigration
court;
C.
notify the INS of any change of address within five (5) days following a move;
D.
in the case of custodians other than parents or legal guardians, not transfer custody of the
minor to another party without the prior written permission of the District Director;
10
E.
notify the INS at least five days prior to the custodian's departing the United States of
such departure, whether the departure is voluntary or pursuant to a grant of voluntary
departure or order of deportation; and
F.
if dependency proceedings involving the minor are initiated, notify the INS of the
initiation of such proceedings and the dependency court of any immigration proceedings
pending against the minor.
In the event of an emergency, a custodian may transfer temporary physical custody of a minor prior to
securing permission from the INS but shall notify the INS of the transfer as soon as is practicable
thereafter, but in all cases within 72 hours. For purposes of this paragraph, examples of an
"emergency" shall include the serious illness of the custodian, destruction of the home, etc. In all cases
where the custodian, in writing, seeks written permission for a transfer, the District Director shall
promptly respond to the request.
16. The INS may terminate the custody arrangements and assume legal custody of any minor
whose custodian fails to comply with the agreement required under Paragraph 15. The INS, however,
shall not terminate the custody arrangements for minor violations of that part of the custodial agreement
outlined at Subparagraph 15.C above.
17. A positive suitability assessment may be required prior to release to any individual or
program pursuant to Paragraph 14. A suitability assessment may include such components as an
investigation of the living conditions in which the minor would be placed and the standard of care he
would receive, verification of identity and employment of the individuals offering support, interviews
of members of the household, and a home visit. Any such assessment should also take into
consideration the wishes and concerns of the minor.
11
18. Upon taking a minor into custody, the INS, or the licensed program in which the minor is
placed, shall make and record the prompt and continuous efforts on its part toward family reunification
and the release of the minor pursuant to Paragraph 14 above. Such efforts at family reunification shall
continue so long as the minor is in INS custody.
VII
INS CUSTODY
19. In any case in which the CNS does not release a minor pursuant to Paragraph 14, the minor
shall remain in INS legal custody. Except as provided in Paragraphs 12 or 21, such minor shall be
placed temporarily in a licensed program until such time as release can be effected in accordance with
Paragraph 14 above or until the minor's immigration proceedings are concluded, whichever occurs
earlier. All minors placed in such a licensed program remain in the legal custody of the INS and may
only be transferred or released under the authority of the INS; provided, however, that in the event of an
emergency a licensed program may transfer temporary physical custody of a minor prior to securing
permission from the INS but shall notify the INS of the transfer as soon as is practicable thereafter, but
in all cases within 8 hours.
20. Within 60 days of final court approval of this Agreement, the INS shall authorize the
United States Department of Justice Community Relations Service to publish in the Commerce
Business Daily and/or the Federal Register a Program Announcement to solicit proposals for the care of
100 minors in licensed programs.
21. A minor may be held in or transferred to a suitable State or county juvenile detention
faciJity or a secure INS detention facility, or INS-contracted facility, having separate accommodations
for minors whenever the District Director or Chief Patrol Agent determines that the minor:
A.
has been charged with, is chargeable, or has been convicted of a crime, or is the subject
12
of delinquency proceedings, has been adjudicated delinquent, or is chargeable with a
delinquent act; provided, however, that this provision shall not apply to any minor
whose offense(s) fall(s) within either of the following categories:
1.
lsolated offenses that ( 1) were not within a pattern or practice of criminal activity
and (2) did not involve violence against a person or the use or carrying of a weapon
(Examples: breaking and entering, vandalism, DUI, etc. This list is not
exhaustive.);
ii.
Petty offenses, which are not considered grounds for stricter means of detention in
any case (Examples: shoplifting, joy riding, disturbing the peace, etc. This list is
not exhaustive.);
As used in this paragraph, 11 chargeable 11 means that the INS has probable cause to
believe that the individual has committed a specified offense;
B.
has committed, or has made credible threats to commit, a violent or malicious act
(whether directed at himself or others) while in INS legal custody or while in the
presence of an INS officer;
C.
has engaged, while in a licensed program, in conduct that has proven to be unacceptably
disruptive of the normal functioning of the licensed program in which he or she has been
placed and removal is necessary to ensure the welfare of the minor or others, as
determined by the staff of the licensed program (Examples: drug or alcohol abuse,
stealing, fighting, intimidation of others, etc. This list is not exhaustive.);
D.
is an escape~risk; or
E.
must be held in a secure facility for his or her own safety, such as when the INS has
13
reason to believe that a smuggler would abduct or coerce a particular minor to secure
payment of smuggling fees.
22. The term "escape-risk" means that there is a serious risk that the minor will attempt to
escape from custody. Factors to consider when determining whether a minor is an escape-risk or not
include, but are not limited to, whether:
A.
the minor is currently under a final order of deportation or exclusion;
B.
the minor's immigration history includes: a prior breach of a bond; a failure to appear
before the INS or the immigration court; evidence that the minor is indebted to
organized smugglers for his transport; or a voluntary departure or a previous removal
from the United States pursuant to a final order of deportation or exclusion;
C.
the minor has previously absconded or attempted to abscond from INS custody.
23. The INS will not place a minor in a secure facility pursuant to Paragraph 21 ifthere are less
restrictive alternatives that are available and appropriate in the circumstances, such as transfer to (a) a
medium security facility which would provide intensive staff supervision and counseling services or (b)
another licensed program. All determinations to place a minor in a secure facility will be reviewed and
approved by the regional juvenile coordinator.
24.A. A minor in deportation proceedings shall be afforded a bond redetermination hearing
before an immigration judge in every case, unless the minor indicates on the Notice of Custody
Determination form that he or she refuses such a hearing.
B. Any minor who disagrees with the INS's determination to place that minor in a particular
type of facility, or who asserts that the licensed program in which he or she has been placed does not
comply with the standards set forth in Exhibit I attached hereto, may seek judicial review in any
14
United States District Court with jurisdiction and venue over the matter to challenge that placement
determination or to allege noncompliance with the standards set forth in Exhibit 1. In such an action,
the United States District Court shall be limited to entering an order solely affecting the individual
claims of the minor bringing the action.
C. In order to permit judicial review of Defendants' placement decisions as provided in this
Agreement, Defendants shall provide minors not placed in licensed programs with a notice of the
reasons for housing the minor in a detention or medium security facility. With respect to placement
decisions reviewed under this paragraph, the standard of review for the INS' s exercise of its discretion
shall be the abuse of discretion standard of review. With respect to all other matters for which this
paragraph provides judicial review, the standard of review shall be de novo review.
D. The INS shall promptly provide each minor not released with (a) INS Form 1-770, (b) an
explanation of the right of judicial review as set out in Exhibit 6, and (c) the list of free legal services
available in the district pursuant to INS regulations (unless previously given to the minor).
E. Exhausting the procedures established in Paragraph 37 of this Agreement shall not be a
precondition to the bringing of an action under this paragraph in any United District Court. Prior to
initiating any such action, however, the minor and/or the minors' attorney shall confer telephonically or
in person with the United States Attorney's office in the judicial district where the action is to be filed,
··:.
in an effort to informally resolve the minor's complaints without the need of federal court intervention.
VIII
TRANSPORTATION OF MINORS
25. Unaccompanied minors arrested or taken into custody by the INS should not be transported
by the INS in vehicles with detained adults except:
A. when being transported from the place of arrest or apprehension to an INS office, or
15
8. where separate transportation would be otherwise impractical.
When transported together pursuant to Clause B, minors shall be separated from adults. The INS shall
take necessary precautions for the protection of the well-being of such minors when transported with
adults.
26. The INS shall assist without undue delay in making transportation arrangements to the INS
office nearest the location of the person or facility to whom a minor is to be released pursuant to
Paragraph 14. The INS may, in its discretion, provide transportation to minors.
IX
TRANSFER OF MINORS
27. Whenever a minor is transferred from one placement to another, the minor shall be
transferred with all of his or her possessions and legal papers; provided, however, that if the minor's
possessions exceed the amount permitted normally by the carrier in use, the possessions will be shipped
to the minor in a timely manner. No minor who is represented by counsel shall be transferred without
advance notice to such counsel, except in unusual and compelling circumstances such as where the
safety of the minor or others is threatened or the minor has been determined to be an escape-risk, or
where counsel has waived such notice, in which cases notice shall be provided to counsel within 24
hours following transfer.
X MONITORING AND REPORTS
28A. An INS Juvenile Coordinator in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner for Detention
and Deportation shall monitor compliance with the terms of this Agreement and shall maintain an
up-to-date record of all minors who are placed in proceedings and remain in INS custody for longer
than 72 hours. Statistical information on such minors shall be collected weekly from all INS district
offices and Border Patrol stations. Statistical information will include at least the following: (1)
16
biographical information such as each minor's name, date of birth, and country of birth, (2) date placed
in INS custody, (3) each date placed, removed or released, (4) to whom and where placed, transferred,
removed or released, (5) immigration status, and (6) hearing dates. The INS, through the Juvenile
Coordinator, shall also collect information regarding the reasons for every placement of a minor in a
detention facility or medium security facility.
B. Should Plaintiffs' counsel have reasonable cause to believe that a minor in INS legal custody
should have been released pursuant to Paragraph 14, Plaintiffs' counsel may contact the Juvenile
Coordinator to request that the Coordinator investigate the case and inform Plaintiffs' counsel of the
reasons why the minor has not been released.
29. On a semi-annual basis, until two years after the court determines, pursuant to Paragraph
31, that the INS has achieved substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement, the INS shall
provide to Plaintiffs' counsel the information collected pursuant to Paragraph 28, as permitted by law,
and each INS policy or instruction issued to INS employees regarding the implementation of this
Agreement. In addition, Plaintiffs' counsel shall have the opportunity to submit questions, on a
semi-annual basis, to the Juvenile Coordinator in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner for
Detention and Deportation with regard to the implementation of this Agreement and the information
provided to Plaintiffs' counsel during the preceding six-month period pursuant to Paragraph 28.
Plaintiffs' counsel shall present such questions either orally or in writing, at the option of the Juvenile
Coordinator. The Juvenile Coordinator shall furnish responses, either orally or in writing at the option
of Plaintiffs' counsel, within 30 days of receipt.
30. On an annual basis, commencing one year after final court approval of this Agreement, the
INS Juvenile Coordinator shall review, assess, and report to the court regarding compliance with the
17
terms of this Agreement. The Coordinator shall file these reports with the court and provide copies to
the parties, including the final report referenced in Paragraph 35, so that they can submit comments on
the report to the court. In each report, the Coordinator shall state to the court whether or not the INS is
in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement, and, if the INS is not in substantial
compliance, explain the reasons for the lack of compliance. The Coordinator shall continue to report on
an annual basis until three years after the court determines that the INS has achieved substantial
compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
31. One year after the court's approval of this Agreement, the Defendants may ask the court to
determine whether the INS has achieved substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
XI
ATTORNEY-CLIENT VISITS
32.A. Plaintiffs' counsel are entitled to attorney-client visits with class members even though
they may not have the names of class members who are housed at a particular location. All visits shall
occur in accordance with generally applicable policies and procedures relating to attorney-client visits at
the facility in question. Upon Plaintiffs' counsel's arrival at a facility for attorney-client visits, the
facility staff shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of names and alien registration numbers for the
minors housed at that facility. In all instances, in order to memorialize any visit to a minor by
Plaintiffs' counsel, Plaintiffs' counsel must file a notice of appearance with the INS prior to any
attorney-client meeting. Plaintiffs' counsel may limit any such notice of appearance to representation
of the minor in connection with this Agreement. Plaintiffs' counsel must submit a copy of the notice of
appearance by hand or by mail to the local INS juvenile coordinator and a copy by hand to the staff of
the facility.
B. Every six months, Plaintiffs' counsel shall provide the INS with a list of those attorneys who
18
may make such attorney-client visits, as Plaintiffs' counsel, to minors during the following six month
period. Attorney-client visits may also be conducted by any staff attorney employed by the Center for
Human Rights & Constitutional Law in Los Angeles, California or the National Center for Youth Law
in San Francisco, California, provided that such attorney presents credentials establishing his or her
employment prior to any visit.
C. Agreements for the placement of minors in non-INS facilities shall permit attorney-client
visits, including by class counsel in this case.
D. Nothing in Paragraph 32 shall affect a minor's right to refuse to meet with Plaintiffs'
counsel. Further, the minor's parent or legal guardian may deny Plaintiffs' counsel permission to meet
with the minor.
XII
FACILITY VISITS
33. In addition to the attorney-client visits permitted pursuant to Paragraph 32, Plaintiffs'
cowisel may request access to any licensed program's facility in which a minor has been placed
pursuant to Paragraph 19 or to any medium security facility or detention facility in which a minor has
been placed pursuant to Paragraphs 21 or 23. Plaintiffs' cowisel shall submit a request to visit a facility
under this paragraph to the INS district juvenile coordinator who will provide reasonable assistance to
Plaintiffs' counsel by conveying the request to the facility's staff and coordinating the visit. The rules
and procedures to be followed in connection with any visit approved by a facility under this paragraph
are set forth in Exhibit 4 attached, except as may be otherwise agreed by Plaintiffs' counsel and the
facility's staff. In all visits to any facility pursuant to this Agreement, Plaintiffs' counsel and their
associated experts shall treat minors and staff with courtesy and dignity and shall not disrupt the normal
functioning of the facility.
19
XIII TRAINING
34. Within 120 days of final court approval of this Agreement, the INS shall provide
appropriate guidance and training for designated INS employees regarding the terms of this Agreement.
The lNS shall develop written and/or audio or video materials for such training. Copies of such written
and/or audio or video training materials shall be made available to Plaintiffs' counsel when such training
materials are sent to the field, or to the extent practicable, prior to that time.
XIV
DISMISSAL
35. After the court has determined that the INS is in substantial compliance with this
Agreement and the Coordinator has filed a final report, the court, without further notice, shall dismiss
this action. Until such dismissal, the court shall retain jurisdiction over this action.
XV
RESERVATIONOFRIGHTS
36. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit the rights, if any, of individual class members to
preserve issues for judicial review in the appeal of an individual case or for class members to exercise
any independent rights they may otherwise have.
XVI
NOTICE AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
3 7. This paragraph provides for the enforcement, in this District Court, of the provisions 0f this
Agreement except for claims brought under Paragraph 24. The parties shall meet telephonically or in
person to discuss a complete or partial repudiation of this Agreement or any alleged non-compliance
with the terms of the Agreement, prior to bringing any individual or class action to enforce this
Agreement. Notice of a claim that a party has violated the terms of this Agreement shall be served on
plaintiffs addressed to:
I I I
20
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Carlos Holguin
Peter A. Schey
256 South Occidental Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90057
NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
Alice Bussiere
James Morales
114 Sansome Street, Suite 905
San Francisco, CA 94104
and on Defendants addressed to:
Michael Johnson
Assistant United States Attorney
300 N. Los Angeles St., Rm. 7516
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Allen Hausman
Office of Immigration Litigation
Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
XVII PUBLICITY
38. Plaintiffs and Defendants shall hold a joint press conference to announce this Agreement.
The INS shall send copies of this Agreement to social service and voluntary agencies agreed upon by
the parties, as set forth in Exhibit 5 attached. The parties shall pursue such other public dissemination
of information regarding this Agreement as the parties shall agree.
XVIII ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS
39. Within 60 days of final court approval of this Agreement, Defendants shall pay to Plaintiffs
the total sum of $374, I 10.09, in full settlement of all attorneys' fees and costs in this case.
I I I
21
XIX
TERMINATION
40. All terms of this Agreement shall terminate the earlier of five years after the date of final
court approval of this Agreement or three years after the court determines that the INS is in substantial
compliance with this Agreement, except that the INS shall continue to house the general population of
minors in INS custody in facilities that are licensed for the care of dependent minors.
XX
REPRESENTA TIONS AND WARRANTY
41. Counsel for the respective parties, on behalf of themselves and their clients, represent that
they know of nothing in this Agreement that exceeds the legal authority of the parties or is in violation
of any law. Defendants' counsel represent and warrant that they are fully authorized and empowered to
enter into this Agreement on behalf of the Attorney General, the United States Department of Justice,
and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and acknowledge that Plaintiffs enter into this
Agreement in reliance on such representation. Plaintiffs' counsel represent and warrant that they are
fully authorized and empowered to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and
acknowledge that Defendants enter into this Agreement in reliance on such representation. The
undersigned, by their signatures on behalf of the Plaintiffs and Defendants, warrant that upon execution
of this Agreement in their representative capacities, their principals, agents, and successors of such
principals and agents shall be fully and unequivocally bound hereunder to the full extent authorized by
/7
law.
.
~
For Defendants: Signed: __
~--"'.._(1-<..AA'--_ _ - - ;__ ~'./J
·--~------'_Title: Commissioner, I NS
1_,,/_(_--+(__ ~ C, :, -
Dated:_ _
For Plaintiffs:
Signed: per next page
Title:- - - - - - - - -
Dated:
- - -- -- - - - 22
The foregoing stipulated settlement is approved as to form and content:
CENTER FOR HUMAN
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Carlos Holguin
Peter Schey
RIGHTS
AND
NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
Alice Bussiere
James Morales
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Mark Rosenbaum
Sylvia Argueta
STEICH LAN~
Susan G. B
ell
Date:
1. .9-..6__
.. ...
Date: ---'-11-+-/J.......,?
......
23
--
Exhibit 1
.
""
EXHIBIT 1
MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LICENSED PROGRAMS
A. Licensed programs shall comply with all applicable state child welfare laws and regulations
and all state and local building, fire, health and safety codes and shall provide or arrange for the
following services for each minor in its care:
1.
Proper physical care and maintenance, including suitable living accommodations, food,
appropriate clothing, and personal grooming items.
2.
Appropriate routine medical and dental care, family planning services, and emergency
health care services, including a complete medical examination (including screening for
infectious disease) within 48 hours of admission, excluding weekends and holidays,
unless the minor was recently examined at another facility; appropriate immunizations in
accordance with the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), Center for Disease Control;
administration of prescribed medication. and special diets; appropriate mental health
interventions when necessary.
3.
An individualized needs assessment which shall include: (a) various initial intake forms;
(b) essential data relating to the identification and history of the minor and family; (c)
identification of the minors' special needs including any specific problem(s) which
appear to require immediate intervention; (d) an educational assessment and plan; (e) an
assessment of family relationships and interaction with adults, peers and authority
figures; (f) a statement of religious preference and practice; (g) an assessment of the
minor's personal goals, strengths and weaknesses; and (h) identifying information
regarding immediate family members, other relatives, godparents or friends who may be
1
residing in the United States and may be able to assist in family reunification.
4.
Educational services appropriate to the minor's level of development, and
communication skills in a structured classroom setting, Monday through Friday, which
concentrates primarily on the development of basic academic competencies and
secondarily on English Language Training (ELT). The educational program shall
include instruction and educational and other reading materials in such languages as
needed. Basic academic areas should include Science, Social Studies, Math, Reading,
Writing and Physical Education. The program shall provide minors with appropriate
reading materials in languages other than English for use during the minor's leisure time.
5.
Activities according to a recreation and leisure time plan which shall include daily
outdoor activity, weather permitting, at least one hour per day of large muscle activity
and one hour per day of structured leisure time activities (this should not include time
spent watching television). Activities should be increased to a total of three hours on
days when school is not in session.
6.
At least one (l) individual counseling session per week conducted by trained social
work staff with the specific objectives of reviewing the minor's progress, establishing
new short term objectives, and addressing both the developmental and crisis-related
needs of each minor.
7.
Group counseling sessions at least twice a week. This is usually an informal process and
takes place with all the minors present. It is a time when new minors are given the
opportunity to get acquainted with the staff, other children, and the rules of the program.
It is an open forum where everyone gets a chance to speak. Daily program management
2
is discussed and decisions are made about recreational activities, etc. It is a time for
staff and minors to discuss whatever is on their minds and to resolve problems.
8.
Acculturation and adaptation services which include information regarding the
development of social and inter·personal skills which contribute to those abilities
necessary to live independently and responsibly.
9.
Upon admission, a comprehensive orientation regarding program intent, services, rules
(written and verbal), expectations and the availability oflegal assistance.
10.
Whenever possible, access to religious services of the minor's choice.
11.
Visitation and contact with family members (regardless of their immigration status)
which is structured to encourage such visitation. The staff shall respect the minor's
privacy while reasonably preventing the unauthorized release of the minor.
12.
A reasonable right to privacy, which shall include the right to: (a) wear his or her own
clothes, when available; (b) retain a private space in the residential facility, group or
foster home for the storage of personal belongings; (c) talk privately on the phone, as
permitted by the house rules and regulations; (d) visit privately with guests, as permitted
by the house rules and regulations; and (e) receive and send uncensored mail unless
there is a reasonable belief that the mail contains contraband.
13.
Family reunification services designed to identify relatives in the United States as well
as in foreign countries and assistance in obtaining legal guardianship when necessary for
the release of the minor.
14.
Legal services information regarding the availability of free legal assistance, the right to
be represented by counsel at no expense to the government, the right to a deportation or
3
exclusion hearing before an immigration judge, the right to apply for political asylum or
to request voluntary departure in lieu of deportation.
B. Service delivery is to be accomplished in a manner which is sensitive to the age, culture,
native language and the complex needs of each minor.
C. Program rules and discipline standards shall be formulated with consideration for the range
of ages and maturity in the program and shall be culturally sensitive to the needs of alien minors.
Minors shall not be subjected to corporal punishment, humiliation, mental abuse, or punitive
interference with the daily functions of living, such as eating or sleeping. Any sanctions employed shall
not: (1) adversely affect either a minor's health, or physical or psychological well-being; or (2) deny
minors regular meals, sufficient sleep, exercise, medical care, correspondence privileges, or legal
assistance.
D. A comprehensive and realistic individual plan for the care of each minor must be developed
in accordance with the minor's needs as determined by-the individualized need assessment. Individual
plans shall be implemented and closely coordinated through an operative case management system.
E. Programs shall develop, maintain and safeguard individual client case records. Agencies and
· organizations are required to develop a system of accountability which preserves the confidentiality of
client information and protects the records from unauthorized use or disclosure.
F. Programs shall maintain adequate records and make regular reports as required by the INS
that permit the INS to monitor and enforce this order and other requirements and standards as the INS
may determine are in the best interests of the minors.
4
Exhibit 2
EXHIBIT2
INSTRUCTIONS TO SERVICE OFFICERS RE:
PROCESSING, TREATMENT, AND PLACEMENT OF MINORS
These instructions are to advise Service officers of [NS policy regarding the way in which minors in
INS custody are processed, housed and released. These instructions are applicable nationwide and
supersede all prior inconsistent instructions regarding minors.
(a) Minors. A minor is a person under the age of eighteen years. However, individuals who have
been "emancipated" by a state court or convicted and incarcerated for a criminal offense as an adult are
not considered minors. Such individuals must be treated as adults for all purposes, including
confinement and release on bond.
Similarly, if a reasonable person would conclude that an individual is an adult despite his claims to be a
minor, the INS shall treat such person as an adult for all purposes, including confinement and release
on bond or recognizance. The INS may require such an individual to submit to a medical or dental
examination conducted by a medical professional or to submit to other appropriate procedures to verify
his or her age. If the INS subsequently determines that such an individual is a minor, he or she will be
treated as a minor for all purposes.
(b) General policy. The INS treats, and will continue to treat minors with dignity, respect and special
concern for their particular vulnerability. INS policy is to place each detained minor in the least
restrictive setting appropriate to the minor's age and special needs, provided that such setting is
consistent with the need to ensure the minor's timely appearance and to protect the minor's well-being
and that of others. INS officers are not required to release a minor to any person or agency whom they
have reason to believe may harm or neglect the minor or fail to present him or her before the INS or the
immigration courts when requested to do so.
(c) Processing. The INS will expeditiously process minors and will provide a Form I-770 notice of
rights, including the right to a bond redetermination hearing, if applicable.
Following arrest, the INS wil1 hold minors in a facility that is safe and sanitary and that is consistent
with the INS's concern for the particular vulnerability of minors. Such facilities will have access to
toilets and sinks, drinking water and food as appropriate, medical assistance if the minor is in need of
emergency services, adequate temperature control and ventilation, adequate supervision to protect
minors from others, and contact with family members who were arrested with the minor. The INS will
separate unaccompanied minors from unrelated adults whenever possible. Where such segregation is
not immediately possible, an unaccompanied minor will not be detained with an unrelated adult for
more than 24 hours.
If the juvenile cannot be immediately released, and no licensed program (described below) is available
to care for him, he should be placed in an INS or INS-contract facility that has separate
accommodations for minors, or in a State or county juvenile detention facility that separates minors in
INS custody from delinquent offenders. The INS will make every effort to ensure the safety and
well-being of juveniles placed in these facilities.
(d) Release. The INS will release minors from its custody without unnecessary delay, unless detention
of a juvenile is required to secure her timely appearance or to ensure the minor's safety or that of others.
Minors shall be released, in the following order of preference, to:
(i) a parent;
(ii) a legal guardian;
(iii) an adult relative (brother, sister, aunt, uncle, or grandparent);
(iv) an adult individual or entity designated by the parent or legal guardian as capable and
willing to care for the minor's well-being in (i) a declaration signed under penalty of perjury
before an immigration or consular officer, or (ii) such other documentation that establishes to
the satisfaction of the INS, in its discretion, that the individual designating the individual or
entity as the minor's custodian is in fact the minor's parent or guardian;
(v) a state-licensed juvenile shelter, group home, or foster home willing to accept legal custody;
or
(vi) an adult individual or entity seeking custody, in the discretion of the INS, when it appears
that there is no other likely alternative to long term detention and family reunification does not
appear to be a reasonable possibility.
(e) Certification of custodian. Before a minor is released, the custodian must execute an Affidavit of
Support (Form I~ 134) and an agreement to:
(i) provide for the minor's physical, mental, and financial wellMbeing;
(ii) ensure the minor's presence at all future proceedings before the INS and the immigration
court;
(iii) notify the INS of any change of address within five (5) days following a move;
(iv) if the custodian is not a parent or legal guardian, not transfer custody of the minor to
another party without the prior written permission of the District Director, except in the event of
an emergency;
(v) notify the INS at least five days prior to the custodian's departing the United States of such
departure, whether the departure is voluntary or pursuant to a grant of voluntary departure or
order of deportation; and
2
(vi) if dependency proceedings involving the minor are initiated, notify the INS of the initiation
of ft such proceedings and the dependency court of any deportation proceedings pending against
the minor.
In an emergency, a custodian may transfer temporary physical custody of a minor prior to securing
permission from the INS, but must notify the INS of the transfer as soon as is practicable, and in all
cases within 72 hours. Examples of an "emergency" include the serious illness of the custodian,
destruction of the home, etc. In all cases where the custodian seeks written permission for a transfer,
the District Director shall promptly respond to the request.
The INS may terminate the custody arrangements and assume legal custody of any minor whose
custodian fails to comply with the agreement. However, custody arrangements will not be terminated
for minor violations of the custodian's obligation to notify the INS of any change of address within five
days following a move.
(f) Suitability assessment. An INS officer may require a positive suitability assessment prior to
releasing a minor to any individual or program. A suitability assessment may include an investigation
of the living conditions in which the minor is to be placed and the standard of care he would receive,
verification of identity and employment of the individuals offering support, interviews of members of
the household, and a home visit. The assessment will also take into consideration the wishes and
concerns of the minor.
(g) Family reunification. Upon taking a minor into custody, the INS, or the licensed program in
which the minor is placed, will promptly attempt to reunite the minor with his or her family to pennit
the release of the minor under Paragraph (d) above. Such efforts at family reunification will continue as
long as the minor is in INS or licensed program custody and will be recorded by the INS or the licensed
program in which the minor is placed.
(h) Placement in licensed programs. A "licensed program" is any program, agency or organization
licensed by an appropriate state agency to provide residential, group, or foster care services for
dependent children, including a program operating group homes, foster homes, or facilities for special
needs minors. Exhibit 1 of the Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement describes the standards required
of licensed programs. Juveniles who remain in INS custody must be placed in a licensed program
within three days if the minor was apprehended in an INS district in which a licensed program is
located and has space available, or within five days in all other cases, except when:
(i) the minor is an escape risk or delinquent, as defined in Paragraph (i) below;
(ii) a court decree or court~approved settlement requires otherwise;
(iii) an emergency or influx of minors into the United States prevents compliance, in which case
all minors should be placed in licensed programs as expeditiously as possible; or
(iv) the minor must be transported from remote areas for processing or speaks an unusual
3
language such that a special interpreter is required to process the minor, in which case the minor
must be placed in a licensed program within five business days.
(i) Secure and supervised detention. A minor may be held in or transferred to a State or county
juvenile detention facility or in a secure INS facility or INS-contracted facility having separate
accommodations for minors, whenever the District Director or Chief Patrol Agent determines that the
mmor(i) has been charged with, is chargeable, or has been convicted of a crime, or is the subject of
delinquency proceedings, has been adjudicated delinquent, or is chargeable with a delinquent
act, unless the minor's offense is
(a) an isolated offense not within a pattern of criminal activity which did not involve
violence against a person or the use or carrying of a weapon (Examples: breaking and
entering, vandalism, DUI, etc.); or
(b) a petty offense, which is not considered grounds for stricter means of detention in
any case (Examples: shoplifting, joy riding, disturbing the peace, etc.);
(ii) has committed, or has made credible threats to commit, a violent or malicious act (whether
directed at himself or others) while in INS legal custody or while in the presence of an INS
officer;
(iii) has engaged, while in a licensed program, in conduct that has proven to be unacceptably
disruptive of the nonnal functioning of the licensed program in which he or she has been placed
and removal is necessary to ensure the welfare of the minor or others, as determined by the staff
of the licensed program (Examples: drug or alcohol abuse, stealing, fighting, intimidation of
others, etc.);
(iv) is an escape.risk; or
(v) must be held in a secure facility for his or her own safety, such as when the INS has reason
to believe that a smuggler would abduct or coerce a particular minor to secure payment of
smuggling fees.
"Chargeable" means that the INS has probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a
specified offense.
The term 11 escape-risk" means that there is a serious risk that the minor will attempt to escape from
custody. Factors to consider when determining whether a minor is an escape·risk or not include, but are
not limited to, whether:
.,,
(a) the minor is currently under a final order of deportation or exclusion;
4
(b) the minor's immigration history includes: a prior breach of a bond; a failure to appear before
the INS or the immigration court; evidence that the minor is indebted to organized smugglers
for his transport; or a voluntary departure or a previous removal from the United States pursuant
to a final order of deportation or exclusion;
(c) the minor has previously absconded or attempted to abscond from INS custody.
The INS will not place a minor in a State or county juvenile detention facility, secure INS detention
facility, or secure INS-contracted facility if less restrictive alternatives are available and appropriate in
the circumstances, such as transfer to a medium security facility that provides intensive staff
supervision and counseling services or transfer to another licensed program. All determinations to
place a minor in a secure facility will be reviewed and approved by the regional Juvenile Coordinator.
(j) Notice of right to bond redetermination and judicial review of placement. A minor in
deportation proceedings shall be afforded a bond redetermination hearing before an immigration judge
in every case, unless the minor indicates on the Notice of Custody Determination form that he or she
refuses such a hearing. A juvenile who is not released or placed in a licensed placement shall be
provided (1) a written explanation of the right of judicial review as set out in Exhibit 6 of the Flores v.
Reno Settlement Agreement, and (2) the list of free legal services providers compi)ed pursuant to INS
regulations (unless previously given to the minor.
(k) Transportation and transfer. Unaccompanied minors should not be transported in vehicles with
detained adults except when being transported from the place of arrest or apprehension to an INS office
or where separate transportation would be otherwise impractical, in which case minors shall be
separated from adults. INS officers shall take all necessary precautions for the protection of minors
during transportation with adults.
When a minor is to be released, the INS will assist him or her in making transportation arrangements to
the INS office nearest the location of the person or facility to whom a minor is to be released. The INS
may, in its discretion, provide transportation to such minors.
t
,;_
,-
Whenever a minor is transferred from one placement to another, she shall be transferred with all of her
possessions and legal papers; provided, however, that if the minor1s possessions exceed the amount
permitted normally by the carrier in use, the possessions must be shipped to the minor in a timely
manner. No minor who is represented by counsel should be transferred without advance notice to
counsel, except in unusual and compeUing circumstances such as where the safety of the minor or
others is threatened or the minor has been determined to be an escape-risk, or where counsel has waived
notice, in which cases notice must be provided to counsel within 24 hours following transfer.
(I) Periodic reporting. Statistical information on minors placed in proceedings who remain in INS
custody for longer than 72 hours must be reported to the Juvenile Coordinator by all INS district offices
and Border Patrol stations. Information will include: (a) biographical information, including the
minor's name, date of birth, and country of birth, (b) date placed in INS custody, (c) each date placed,
removed or released, (d) to whom and where placed, transferred, removed or released, (e) immigration
5
status, and (f) hearing dates. INS officers should also inform the Juvenile Coordinator of the reasons
for placing a minor in a medium-security facility or detention facility as described in paragraph (i).
(m) Attorney-client visits by Plaintiffs' counsel. The INS will permit the lawyers for the Flores v.
Reno plaintiff class to visit minors, even though they may not have the names of minors who are housed
at a particular location. A list of Plaintiffs' counsel entitled to make attorney-client visits with minors is
available from the district Juvenile Coordinator. Attorney-client visits may also be conducted by any
staff attorney employed by the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law of Los Angeles,
California, or the National Center for Youth Law of San Francisco, California, provided that such
attorney presents credentials establishing his or her employment prior to any visit.
Visits must occur in accordance with generally applicable policies and procedures relating to
attorney-client visits at the facility in question. Upon Plaintiffs' counsel's arrival at a facility for
attorney-client visits, the facility staff must provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of names and alien
registration numbers for the minors housed at that facility. In all instances, in order to memorialize any
visit to a minor by Plaintiffs' counsel, Plaintiffs' counsel must file a notice of appearance with the INS
prior to any attorney-client meeting. Plaintiffs' counsel may limit the notice of appearance to
representation of the minor in connection with his placement or treatment during INS custody.
Plaintiffs' counsel must submit a copy of the notice of appearance by hand or by mail to the local INS
juvenile coordinator and a copy by hand to the staff of the facility.
A minor may refuse to meet with Plaintiffs' counsel. Further, the minor's parent or legal guardian may
deny Plaintiffs' counsel permission to meet with the minor.
(n) Visits to licensed facilities. In addition to the attorney-client visits, Plaintiffs' counsel may request
access to a licensed program's facility (described in paragraph (h)) or to a medium-security facility or
detention facility (described in paragraph (i)) in which a minor has been placed. The district juvenile
coordinator wil1 convey the request to the facility's staff and coordinate the visit. The rules and
procedures to be followed in connection with such visits are set out in Exhibit 4 of the Flores v. Reno
Settlement Agreement, unless Plaintiffs' counsel and the facility's staff agree otherwise. In all visits to
any facility, Plaintiffs' counsel and their associated experts must treat minors and staff with courtesy
and dignity and must not disrupt the normal functioning of the facility.
6
Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 3
CONTINGENCY PLAN
In the event of an emergency or influx that prevents the prompt placement of minors in licensed
programs with which the Community Relations Service has contracted, INS policy is to make all
reasonable efforts to place minors in programs licensed by an appropriate state agency as expeditiously
as possible. An "emergency" is an act or event, such as a natural disaster (e.g. earthquake, fire,
hurricane), facility fire, civil disturbance, or medical emergency (e.g. a chicken pox epidemic among a
group of minors) that prevents the prompt placement of minors in licensed facilities. An "influx" is
defined as any situation in which there are more than 130 minors in the custody of the INS who are
eligible for placement in licensed programs.
1. The Juvenile Coordinator will establish and maintain an Emergency Placement List of at
least 80 beds at programs licensed by an appropriate state agency that are potentially available to accept
emergency placements. These 80 placements would supplement the 130 placements that the INS
normally has available, and whenever possible, would meet all standards applicable to juvenile
placements the INS normally uses. The Juvenile Coordinator may consult with child welfare
specialists, group home operators, and others in developing the List. The Emergency Placement List
will include the facility name; the number of beds potentially available at the facility; the name and
telephone number of contact persons; the name and telephone number of contact persons for nights,
holidays, and weekends if different; any restrictions on minors accepted (e.g. age); and any special
services that are available.
2. The Juvenile Coordinator will maintain a list of minors affected by the emergency or influx,
including (1) the minor's name, (2) date and country of birth, (3) date placed in INS custody, and (4)
1
place and date of current placement.
3. Within one business day of the emergency or influx the Juvenile Coordinator or his or her
designee will contact the programs on the Emergency Placement List to determine available
placements. As soon as available placements are identified, the Juvenile Coordinator will advise
appropriate INS staff of their availability. To the extent practicable, the INS will attempt to locate
emergency placements in geographic areas where culturally and linguistically appropriate community
services are available.
4. In the event that the number of minors needing emergency placement exceeds the available
appropriate placements on the Emergency Placement List, the Juvenile Coordinator will work with the
Community Relations Service to locate additional placements through licensed programs, county social
services departments, and foster family agencies.
5. Each year the INS will reevaluate the number of regular placements needed for detained
minors to determine whether the number of regular placements should be adjusted to accommodate an
increased or decreased number of minors eligible for placement in licensed programs. However, any
decision to increase the number of placements available shall be subject to the availability of INS
resources. The Juvenile Coordinator shall promptly provide Plaintiffs' counsel with any reevaluation
made by INS pursuant to this paragraph.
6. The Juvenile Coordinator shall provide to Plaintiffs' counsel copies of the Emergency
Placement List within six months after the court's final approval of the Settlement Agreement.
2
Exhibit 4
EXHIBIT 4
AGREEMENT CONCERNING F AC!LITY VISITS UNDER PARAGRAPH
33
The purpose of facility visits under paragraph 33 is to interview class members and staff and to
observe conditions at the facility. Visits under paragraph 33 shall be conducted in accordance with the
generally applicable policies and procedures of the facility to the extent that those policies and
procedures are consistent with this Exhibit.
Visits authorized under paragraph 33 shall be scheduled no less than seven (7) business days in
advance. The names, positions, credentials, and professional association (e.g., Center for Human
Rights and Constitutional Law) of the visitors will be provided at that time.
All visits with class members shall take place during normal business hours.
No video recording equipment or cameras of any type shall be permitted. Audio recording
equipment shall be limited to hand-held tape recorders.
The number of visitors will not exceed six (6) or, in the case of a family foster home, four (4),
including interpreters, in any instance. Up to two (2) of the visitors may be non-attorney experts in
juvenile justice and/or child welfare.
No visit will extend beyond three (3) hours per day in length. Visits shall minimize disruption
to the routine that minors and staff follow.
l
..
Exhibit 5
EXHIBIT 5
LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS TO RECEIVE INFORMATION RE: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Eric Cohen, Immig. Legal Resource Center, 1663 Mission St. Suite 602, San Francisco, CA 94103
Cecilia Munoz, Nat'! Council Of La Raza, 810 1st St. NE Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20002
Susan Alva, lmmig. & Citiz. Proj Director, Coalition For Humane Immig Rights of LA, 1521 Wilshire
Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90017
Angela Cornell, Albuquerque Border Cities Proj., Box 35895, Albuquerque, NM 87176-5895
Beth Persky, Executive Director, Centro De Asuntos Migratorios, 1446 Front Street, Suite 305, San
Diego, CA 92101
Dan, Kesselbrenner,, National Lawyers Guild, National Immigration Project, 14 Beacon St.,#503,
Boston, MA 02108
Lynn Marcus, SWRRP, 64 E. Broadway, Tucson, AZ 85701-1720
Maria Jimenez,, American Friends Service Cmte., !LEMP, 3522 Polk Street, Houston, TX 77003-4844
Wendy Young,, U.S. Cath. Conf., 3211 4th St. NE,, Washington, DC, 20017-1194
Miriam Hayward , International Institute Of The East Bay, 297 Lee Street , Oakland, CA 946 I 0
Emily Goldfarb,, Coalition For Immigrant & Refugee Rights, 995 Market Street, Suite l 108, San
Francisco, CA 94103
Jose De La Paz, Director, California Immigrant Workers Association, 515 S. Shatto Place , Los
Angeles, CA, 90020
Annie Wilson, LIRS, 390 Park Avenue South, First Asylum Concerns, New York, NY 10016
Stewart K woh, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, l 0 10 S. Flower St., Suite 302, Los Angeles, CA
90015
Warren Leiden, Executive Director, AILA, 1400 Eye St., N.W., Ste. 1200, Washington, DC, 20005
Frank Sharry, Nat'! Immig Ref & Citiz Forum, 220 I Street N.E., Ste. 220, Washington, D.C. 20002
Reynaldo Guerrero, Executive Director, Center For Immigrant's Rights, 48 St. Marks Place, New
York, NY 10003
1
Charles Wheeler, National Immigration Law Center, 1102 S. Crenshaw Blvd., Suite 101 , Los
Angeles, CA 90019
Deborah A. Sanders, Asylum & Ref. Rts Law Project, Washington Lawyers Comm., 1300 19th Street,
N. W., Suite 500 , Washington, D.C. 20036
Stanley Mark, Asian American Legal Def.& Ed.Fund, 99 Hudson St, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10013
Sid Mohn, Executive Director, Travelers & Immigrants Aid, 327 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1500,
Chicago, IL, 60604
Bruce Goldstein, Attornet At Law, Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc., 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 210,
Washington, DC 20009
Ninfa Krueger, Director, BARCA, 1701 N. 8th Street, Suite B-28, McAllen, TX 78501
John Goldstein, , Proyecto San Pablo, PO Box 4596,, Yuma, AZ 85364
Valerie Hink, Attorney At Law, Tucson Ecumenical Legal Assistance, P.O. Box 3007, Tucson, AZ
85702
Pamela Mohr, Executive Director, Alliance For Children's Rights, 3708 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 720, Los
Angeles, CA 90010
Pamela Day, Child Welfare League Of America, 440 1st St. N.W.,, Washington, DC 20001
Susan Lydon, Esq., Immigrant Legal Resource Center, 1663 Mission St. Ste 602, San Francisco, CA
94103
Patrick Maher, Juvenile Project, Centro De Asuntos Migratorios, 1446 Front Street,# 305, San Diego,
CA 92101
Lorena Munoz, Staff Attorney, Legal Aid Foundation of LA-IRO, 1102 Crenshaw Blvd., Los Angeles,
CA 90019
Christina Zawisza, Staff Attorney, Legal Services of Greater Miami, 225 N.E. 34th Street, Suite 300,
Miami, FL 33137
Miriam Wright Edelman, Executive Director, Children's Defense Fund, 122 C Street N. W. 4th Floor,
Washington, DC 20001
Rogelio Nunez, Executive Director, Proyecto Libertad, 113 N. First St., Harlingen, TX 78550
2
Exhibit 6
EXHIBIT6
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
"The INS usually houses persons under the age of 18 in an open setting, such as a foster or
group home, and not in detention facilities. If you believe that you have not been properly
placed or that you have been treated improperly, you may ask a federal judge to review your
case. You may call a lawyer to help you do this. If you cannot afford a lawyer, you may call
one from the list of free legal services given to you with this form."
1
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
2
I, Sonia Fuentes, declare and say as follows:
3
1. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to this action. I am
4
employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 256
5
South Occidental Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90057, in said county and state.
6
2. On January - - - 1 1997, I served the attached STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
7
on defendants in this proceeding by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope
8
addressed to their attorneys of record as follows:
9
Mr. Michael Johnson
Assistant U.S. Attorney
300 N. Los Angeles St. #7516
Los Angeles, CA 90012
10
11
12
and by then sealing said envelope and depositing the same, with postage thereon fully
13
prepaid, in the mail at Los Angeles, California; that there is regular delivery of mail between
14
the place of mailing and the place so addressed.
15
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
16
Executed this _th day of January, 1997, at Los Angeles, California.
17
18
19
20
I I I
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
CENTER FOR HUivlAN RIGHTS & CONSTITUflON '\L LAW
2
3
4
5
6
7
Carlos Holguin
Peter A Schey
Charles Song
256 South Occidental Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90057
Telephone: (213) 388-8693; Fax: (213) 386-9484
Ii
i '
lO
_,
,c..l
LATHAM & WATKINS
Steven Schulman
555 Eleventh St, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-2184
8
Of counsel
9
'YOUTH L -\\\ CENTER
10
11
12
13
\lice Bussiere
417 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 91104
Telephone: (415) SB-3379 x 3903
0
4110111n1s for pl111nt1ffs
l4
15
UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT
16
CE!-<TR-\L DISTRICT OF C -\LIFOKNI \
17
!ENNY LISETTE FLORES,
18
et al,
l'laintiffs,
19
21
Si ll'l L \JIU\ E\TE\DI\C
SLIILL\ff,.I \CRIT\iE\I \,DJ(1i'.
OTHER PURPOSES; AND ORDER
!! 1 :"l\!-~C)'\.
-vs] \'\l i ];i
'\<..
I, \llO!Ill'\ (__,L'IH.:'!'tll
of the l 11itccl Stales, cl ,11
) )
- -----------
-) ')
JC
-··
Case No C\' S'i-,:JSH-RJK(rx)
2
[TIS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties as follows:
3
l. Paragraph 40 of the Stipulation filed herein on January 17, 1997, is modified to read
4
as follows:
5
"All terms of this !\greement shall terminate tl~e earlier of five years after tl~e date of
6
final court approval of tl:is Agreement or three years after the court determines that
7
the !NS is in substantial compliance with this Agreemect, 45 dm;s following dcfmdrmfs'
8
p11bl1ca/1011 of/mnl 1eg11l!lt1011s 111Zplc111rntlllg tlm Ag1eenienl
9
eHept that Notunt/ista11dwg the f01 ego111g, the INS shall continue to house the general
JO
population of minors in lf'\S custod 1 in facilities that are state-licensed for the care of
11
dependent minors "
I I I
12
n
I+
15
16
17
[8
l9
)li
21
)
.
''
i'
I
.2 ;
2-i
F:;
2l,
! -:
b
2 !'or a period of six months from the date this Stipulation is tiled, plaintiffs shall not
2
initiate legal proceedings to compel publication of final regulations implementing this
3
Agreement Plaintiffs agree to work with defendants cooperatively to,,vard resolving
4
disputes regarding compliance with the Settlement The parties agree to confer regularly no
5
less frequently than once monthly for the purpose of discussing the implementation of and
6
compliance with the settlement agreement However, nothing herein shall require plaintiffs
7
to forebear legal action to compel compliance with this Agreement where plaintiff class
8
members are suffering irreparable injury
9
Dated: December 7, 200L
JO
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSTJTUTIOi\ \L L Wv
&
Carlos Holguin
Peter -'\ Schey
11
L >\THA\ l & \V \ T KINS
Steven Schulman
12
,/-'
1',
ir:/"
_7?;
YOUTH L.O.W CE'}{ER
l+
15
16
Car os
17
Dated: Dcccrnbe, :- 2lllll
IS
\1lhu1St1alhe111
Office ol the r;ene1<1l Counsel
[~ S ]Jll!lll½lilli,1]1 0:.: \.i.1lll!tl]i/clliOII
-----,
19
2~-i
-'- /
.21
)
i\•i·
_.lifd._,
icr
L1\ ,Yt1lhn1 i/,lli\111
.
)
ll l~'.)\li__)l~.lli 1;1 \)
2+
)
I
\rlbur c;tr<fthcfn, fen ,l,•f;,11,/n11f,,
) )
-
',(/A_
I >c11, d: I lcn·mlic,
,
}_1·
)
-
.h,
2001
L\Illi'Si \lhllhtl,lt
: '
! i
t
llllCI
~l t\
ll-l
DEC-07-2001
1
17:42
INS GENERAL COUNSEL
202 514 0455
P 02
';'
2 For a period of six months ft om the date this Stipulation is filed, plaintiffs shall not
2
initiate legal proceedings to compel publication of final regulations implementing this
3
Agreement Plaintiffs agree to work with defendants cooperatively toward resolving
4
disputes regarding compliance with the Settlement The parties agree to confer regularly no
5
less frequently than once monthly for the purpose of discussing the implementation of and
6
compliance with the settlement agreement. However, nothing herein shall require plaintiffs
7
to forebear legal action to compel compliance with this Agreement where plaintiff class
8
membe1s are suffering irreparable injury
9
Dated: December 7, 200L
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS &
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
10
11
Carlos Holguin
Peter A. Schey
12
LATHAM & WATKINS
Steven Schulman
13
YOUTH LAW CENTER
14
Alice Bussiere
15
16
------·--···-·---·---·-------
17
Carlos Holguin, for plaintiffs
18
19
Dated: December 7, 2001
Arthur Sti:athern
Office of the c:;eneral Counsel
US Immigration & }1laturalization Service
a /" . --~
Ii
I;
'20
21
2.'2
Arthur Strathern, fo1 defin,dants
Per fax authoti:-:::itiori
24
25
11 IS SO ORDERED
26
Dated: December 7, 2001
lTNITFfl .',r; !ES DISTRICT )liflGE
?.7
28
-
_)
-
PROOF OF SERVICI; BY i\1AIL
2
I, Carlos Holguin, declme and say as follows:
3
1 1 am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to this action I am
4
employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California My business address is 256
5
South Occidental Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90057, in said county and state
2 On December 7, 2001, I served the attached STIPULATION on defendants in this
6
7
proceeding by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed to their attorneys
8
of record as follows:
9
Arthur Strathern
Office of the General Counsel
US Immigration & Naturalization Service
425 I St N \\!
Washington, DC 20536
10
11
12
13
14
15
and by then sealing said envelope and depositing the same, with postage thereon fully
prepaid, in the mail at Los ,\ngeles, California; that there is regular delivery of mail betheen
the place of mailing and the place so addressed
I declare under penalt 1 of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct
16
Executed thisf-fi<dav o! December, 200 I, al Los ,\nge)<>s, C:ilifornia
17
1::-;
19
'
21
))
) '
-
'
2-l
,-
4
I
/
I
I
-
I,
1
I_/
I//
---
Exhibit 31
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 1 of 23 Page ID
#:17535
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
AUGUST E. FLENTJE
Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director
COLIN KISOR
Deputy Director
SARAH B. FABIAN
Senior Litigation Counsel
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Immigration Litigation
District Court Section
Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20442
Telephone: (202) 532-4824
Fax: (202) 616-8962
14
15
Attorneys for Defendants
16
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
19
20
JENNY LISETTE FLORES; et al.,
Plaintiffs,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
Attorney General of the
United States; et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 85-4544-DMG
DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM
THE FLORES SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 2 of 23 Page ID
#:17536
1
2
I.
INTRODUCTION
When the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) apprehends a
3
4
5
6
family with minor children illegally entering the United States outside a port of
entry, it traditionally has three options to choose from: (1) keep the family
together by placing the family members at an appropriate residential facility during
7
8
the pendency of their immigration proceedings; (2) separate the family by
9
detaining the parents and transferring the children to U.S. Health and Human
10
11
12
13
Services (“HHS”) custody; or (3) provide the family with a Notice to Appear for
removal proceedings, release the family members from custody into the interior of
the United States, and accept the now-common reality that families frequently fail
14
15
16
to appear at the required proceedings, thus remaining illegally in the United States.
Only the first option accomplishes the dual goals of enforcing federal law
17
18
and keeping families together. Accordingly, in 2015 the Government came to this
19
Court to explain the importance of family detention to both enforcing the
20
21
22
23
immigration laws while avoiding family separation. See Defendants’ Motion to
Modify Settlement Agreement, ECF 120 (Feb. 27, 2015). Unfortunately, however,
this Court’s construction of the Flores Settlement Agreement eliminates the
24
25
practical availability of family detention across the nation, thus creating a powerful
26
incentive for aliens to enter this country with children in violation of our criminal
27
28
and immigration laws and without a valid claim to be admitted to the United
1
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 3 of 23 Page ID
#:17537
1
States, as the Government previously explained. See Declaration of Tae D.
2
Johnson, ECF 120-1 at 2 ¶ 7 (Feb. 27, 2015).
3
4
5
6
Under current law and legal rulings, including this Court's, it is not possible
for the U.S. government to detain families together during the pendency of their
immigration proceedings. It cannot be done. One reason those families “decide to
7
8
make the dangerous journey to illegally enter the United States is that they expect
9
to be released from custody.” Id. (emphasis added). Following the July 2015
10
11
12
13
ruling, there was a 3 to 5-fold increase in the number of illegal family border
crossings. This surge is not a mere coincidence, it is the direct result of the
message sent to those seeking illegal entry: we will not detain and deport you.
14
15
16
These realities have precipitated a destabilizing migratory crisis: tens of
thousands of families are embarking on the dangerous journey to the United States,
17
18
often through smuggling arrangements, and then crossing the border illegally in
19
violation of our federal criminal law. And as the Government has previously
20
21
22
23
stated, once these families are released into the interior, a vast segment fail to
appear at their immigration hearings. See Declaration of Thomas Homan, ECF
184-1, at 14 ¶ 30 (Aug. 6, 2015) (in 2014-2015, out of 41,297 cases involving
24
25
families, 11,976 had already resulted in in abstentia removal orders). This entire
26
journey and ultimate crossing puts children and families at risk, and violates
27
28
2
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 4 of 23 Page ID
#:17538
1
criminal laws enacted by Congress to protect the border. Those illegal crossings
2
must stop.
3
Since 2015, the number of families illegally crossing the southwest border
4
5
6
has increased markedly, well beyond the high levels that led to the Government’s
request for modification in 2015. Undeniably the limitation on the option of
7
8
detaining families together and the marked increase of families illegally crossing
9
the border are linked. Illegal family crossings and apprehensions that were in the
10
11
12
13
range of 1,000 to 3,000 per month in early 2015 dramatically increased to a range
of 5,000 to 9,000 per month in the months after July 2015, when this Court ruled to
prevent the Government from detaining families together.1
14
In the absence of congressional action addressing border security and
15
16
immigration, the President has directed the Executive Branch to take three
17
18
immediate steps to ameliorate the crisis. First, the President has directed the
19
Secretary of Homeland Security to retain custody of family units through any
20
21
22
23
criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings, to the extent permitted by
law. Executive Order, Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family
Separation §§ 1, 3, 2018 WL 3046068 (June 20, 2018).2 Second, the President has
24
25
26
27
28
1
See https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompaniedchildren/fy-2016.
2
Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/affordingcongress-opportunity-address-family-separation/.
3
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 5 of 23 Page ID
#:17539
1
directed the Department of Justice to promptly seek relief from this Court from the
2
provisions of the Flores Settlement Agreement that “would permit the Secretary [of
3
4
5
6
Homeland Security] . . . to detain alien families together through the pendency of
criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration
proceedings.” Id. § 3(e). And the President has directed federal agencies to
7
8
marshal resources to support family custody and to speed up the resolution time for
9
immigration cases involving family units by “prioritiz[ing] the adjudication of
10
11
12
13
cases involving detained families.” Id. §§ 3(c), 3(d), 4.
This crisis at the border regarding illegal family crossings mandates that the
Government take action. Accordingly, we ask for immediate interim relief from
14
15
16
this Court that would permit family detention during immigration proceedings.
This Court should provide limited emergency relief in two respects. First, the
17
18
Court should provide a limited exemption from its construction of the Flores
19
Settlement Agreement’s release provisions so that ICE may detain alien minors
20
21
22
23
who have arrived with their parent or legal guardian together in ICE family
residential facilities. Second, the Court should determine that the Agreement’s
state licensure requirement does not apply to ICE family residential facilities.
24
25
These changes are justified by several material changes in circumstances—chief
26
among them the ongoing and worsening influx of families unlawfully entering the
27
28
United States at the southwest border.
4
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 6 of 23 Page ID
#:17540
1
2
The Government requests that this Court provide a prompt hearing relating
to its request. The government has moved expeditiously here given the President’s
3
4
5
6
direction, but is prepared to supplement this request with further factual
information in advance of that hearing or at a time requested by the Court,
including updating information submitted in connection with the Government’s
7
8
2015 request relating to the circumstances at ICE family residential centers. The
9
Government is also open to promptly discussing other options with Plaintiffs and
10
11
12
13
the Court that will permit families to be kept together at residential facilities during
the time needed to complete immigration processing. This Court, given its
ongoing exercise of jurisdiction over the Flores Settlement Agreement, has the
14
15
16
authority and responsibility to resolve these growing concerns by immediately
permitting family detention.
17
18
II.
BACKGROUND
19
In 2015, the Government filed a motion to modify the Flores Settlement
20
21
22
23
Agreement in order to exclude accompanied minors from the Agreement and
permit use of ICE family residential centers during immigration proceedings,
which would have allowed the Government to exercise this option to keep families
24
25
together to the greatest extent possible during removal proceedings. See
26
Defendants’ Motion to Modify Settlement Agreement, ECF 120 (Feb. 27, 2015).
27
28
In that filing, the Government explained that a “practice of general release
5
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 7 of 23 Page ID
#:17541
1
encourages parents to subject their children to this dangerous journey in order to
2
avoid their own detention” and puts “unrelated children at increased risk of
3
4
5
6
trafficking by smugglers who bring them across the border in an attempt to avoid
detention by representing themselves as a family unit.” Declaration of Tae D.
Johnson, ECF 120-1 at 5 ¶ 11 (Feb. 27, 2015).
7
8
9
In 2015, the Government apprised this Court that a result of not amending
the Flores Settlement Agreement could be the separation of families. The
10
11
12
13
Government explained that DHS required “additional, family-appropriate
immigration detention capacity to hold families apprehended at the border, without
requiring separation of parents from their children.” Defendants’ Opposition to
14
15
16
Motion to Enforce, ECF 121 at 1 (Feb. 27, 2015) (emphasis added). The
Government further explained that Plaintiffs’ opposition to family detention
17
18
units—based on an agreement that arose out of litigation that was limited to
19
unaccompanied children—“threatens family unity and ignores the significant
20
21
22
23
growth in the number of children . . . apprehended while unlawfully crossing the
southwest border” with and without parents. Id. at 2. The Government urged
against an application of the Flores Settlement Agreement that would “mak[e] it
24
25
impossible for ICE to house families at ICE family residential centers, and to
26
instead require ICE to separate accompanied children from their parents or legal
27
28
guardians.” Id. at 17 (emphasis added).
6
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 8 of 23 Page ID
#:17542
1
2
This Court denied that motion in July 2015, Order, ECF 177 (July 24, 2015),
and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that denial on July 6, 2016, holding that this Court
3
4
5
6
had not abused its discretion. Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898, 909-10 (9th Cir.
2016). In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Government’s request “to
exempt an entire category of migrants from the Settlement” was not “a ‘suitably
7
8
tailored’ response to the change in circumstances.” Id. at 910. The Ninth Circuit
9
acknowledged, however, that “relaxing certain requirements” might be appropriate
10
11
12
13
where a showing of changed circumstances has been made. Id. And in the face of
the Government’s warning that family separation could result from this Court’s
decision, the Ninth Circuit specifically envisioned separating parents from their
14
15
16
children under the terms of the Agreement – releasing the children while
maintaining detention of their parents. Flores, 828 F.3d at 908-09; see Appellants
17
18
19
Ninth Circuit Brief at 61, No. 15-56434 (Jan. 15, 2016).
The circumstances created by this application of the Agreement have
20
21
22
23
become untenable. After a significant reduction in family units crossing the border
in FY 2015 when the Government was holding families together, see ECF 184-1 at
8 ¶ 17, family crossings away from legal ports of entry nearly doubled in FY 2016,
24
25
as measured by apprehensions. Such apprehensions have only increased annually
26
since that time, except for a brief drop at the start of 2017—including an increase
27
28
this year that, when projected to cover the full year, represents a 17% increase over
7
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 9 of 23 Page ID
#:17543
1
the illegal family entries in 2017 and a 30% increase in illegal family entries in
2
2014, the year that prompted the Government’s prior filing with this Court. And
3
4
5
6
the increase in family entries over FY 2015 is 123%, from 39,838 in FY 2015 to a
number that, when projected to cover the full year, is 88,670 for FY 2018.3 The
year-to-year data follows:
7
8
SW Border Family Apprehensions:
9
Fiscal Year
Family Apprehensions
10
2012
11,116
11
2013
14,885
12
2014
68,445
13
2015
39,838
14
2016
77,674
15
2017
75,622
2018 (8 months)
59,113 (12 month projection: 88,670).4
16
17
18
The month-to-month figures show the sharp rise in family border crossings
19
20
during 2015—from a figure in the range of 1,600 to 4,000 before this Court’s July
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The simple projection is based on the assumption that illegal crossers for the
remaining four months will arrive at the same rate as in the prior eight months, a
projection that does not account for seasonal variations.
4
See https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration (2018);
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration-fy2017 (2017);
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompaniedchildren/fy-2016 (2012-2016). In addition, 34,650 family units who presented at
ports of entry on the southwest border this fiscal year were determined to be
inadmissible. Id.
3
8
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 10 of 23 Page ID
#:17544
1
2015 decision, to a figure ranging from 5,000 to nearly 9,000 in the months after
2
the decision:5
3
4
5
III.
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
6
The Government invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and
7
8
60(b)(6) in support of its request to modify the Flores Settlement Agreement.
9
A.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5)
10
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), the Court may relieve a
11
12
party from “a final judgment, order, or proceeding [if] applying [the prior action]
13
14
15
16
prospectively is no longer equitable.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b)(5); see Frew ex. rel.
Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 441 (2004); McGrath v. Potash, 199 F.2d 166,
167-68 (D.C. Cir. 1952). The party seeking relief “bears the burden of establishing
17
18
that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.” Rufo v.
19
Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992). That burden may be
20
21
met by showing “a significant change either in factual conditions or in law.” Id. at
22
384; see also Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 447 (2009) (“[T]he passage of time
23
24
25
frequently brings about changed circumstances—changes in the nature of the
underlying problem, changes in governing law or its interpretation by the courts,
26
27
28
5
See https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompaniedchildren/fy-2016.
9
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 11 of 23 Page ID
#:17545
1
and new policy insights—that warrant reexamination of the original judgment.”).
2
A motion under this section must be brought “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R.
3
4
5
6
Civ. Proc. 60(c)(1).
The Flores Settlement Agreement is an example of what the Supreme Court
has termed “institutional reform litigation.” Horne, 557 U.S. at 447 (quoting Rufo,
7
8
502 U.S. at 380). A district court’s ability to modify a decree in response to
9
changed circumstances is heightened in institutional reform litigation. Rufo, 502
10
11
12
13
U.S. at 380. “Because such decrees often remain in place for extended periods of
time, the likelihood of significant changes occurring during the life of the decree is
increased.” Id. And “the public interest is a particularly significant reason for
14
15
16
applying a flexible modification standard in institutional reform litigation because
such decrees ‘reach beyond the parties involved directly in the suit and impact on
17
18
the public’s right to the sound and efficient operation of its institutions.’” Id. at
19
381 (quoting Heath v. De Courcy, 888 F.2d 1105, 1109 (6th Cir. 1989)).
20
21
22
23
B.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows a Court to relieve a party
from “a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . any other reason that justifies
24
25
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b)(6). The rule generally is “used sparingly as an
26
equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice.” United States v. Alpine Land &
27
28
Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). The frustration of
10
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 12 of 23 Page ID
#:17546
1
performance of a settlement agreement may provide reason to grant a motion under
2
this Rule. Stratman v. Babbitt, 42 F.3d 1402, 1994 WL 681071, at *4 (9th Cir.
3
4
5
6
Dec. 5, 1994). A motion under this section must be brought “within a reasonable
time.” Alpine, 984 F.2d at 1049 (quoting In re Pacific Far East Lines, Inc., 889
F.2d 242, 249 (9th Cir. 1989)).
7
8
IV.
ARGUMENT
9
This Court should provide limited emergency relief to enable the
10
11
12
13
Government to keep alien families together. First, the Court should provide a
limited exemption from its interpretation of the Flores Settlement Agreement’s
release provisions so that U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) may
14
15
16
detain alien minors who have arrived with their parent or legal guardian together in
ICE family residential facilities. Second, the Court should exempt ICE family
17
18
residential facilities from the Agreement’s state licensure requirement. These
19
changes are justified by several material changes in circumstances—including the
20
21
22
23
worsening influx of families unlawfully entering the United States at the southwest
border.
The Government does not, at this time, ask to be relieved from the
24
25
Agreement’s substantive requirements on the conditions of detention in these
26
facilities. And it does not, at this time, ask to be relieved from any other provision
27
28
of the Flores Settlement Agreement that otherwise affects accompanied (or
11
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 13 of 23 Page ID
#:17547
1
unaccompanied) minors. Instead, in this motion, the Government asks for limited
2
relief that would promote an important, widely shared goal that has spanned
3
4
5
6
administrations: keeping families together while effectively carrying out removal
proceedings required by immigration law.
This Court has clear authority to grant these exemptions. It should exercise
7
8
that authority to help keep families together. The Government seeks this
9
emergency relief on an ex parte basis, to enable the Government both to maintain a
10
11
12
13
14
secure southwest border while also avoiding family separations.
A.
Significant Changes in Circumstances—Including the Ongoing,
Worsening Influx of Family Units on the Southwest Border—
Show that this Court Should Modify the Flores Settlement
Agreement.
15
16
17
18
This Court should modify the Flores Settlement Agreement in light of
“significant change[s] in circumstances.” Rufo, 502 U.S. at 383 (modification of a
consent decree is appropriate when “a significant change in circumstances warrants
19
20
revision of the decree”). This changed-circumstances standard is met where there
21
have been “changes in circumstances that were beyond the defendants’ control and
22
23
24
25
26
were not contemplated by the court or the parties when the decree was entered.”
Id. at 380-81 (discussing Philadelphia Welfare Rights Org. v. Shapp, 602 F.2d
1114, 1119-21 (3d Cir. 1979)). Several significant changes satisfy these standards.
27
28
12
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 14 of 23 Page ID
#:17548
1
2
First, since the Agreement was entered, the number of persons illegally
crossing the border in family units has dramatically increased and has materially
3
4
5
6
changed from what the parties or Court could reasonably have contemplated. That
increase has consisted in significant measure of children who are accompanied by
their parents. Although the Ninth Circuit previously found that the parties
7
8
“expressly anticipated an influx” when the Agreement was signed, Flores, 828
9
F.3d at 909, nothing suggests that the parties anticipated that this increase would
10
11
12
13
consist largely of children who were accompanied by their parents. Indeed, the
Agreement arose from litigation solely about unaccompanied minors. A
modification is warranted to account for the important, widely shared interest in
14
15
16
keeping families together.
The current situation is untenable. As the Government explained in 2015,
17
18
aliens cross the border illegally relying on promises from traffickers that “they will
19
not be detained but instead will be released.” Declaration of Tae D. Johnson, ECF
20
21
22
23
120-1 at 2 ¶ 7. (Feb. 27, 2015). Such an incentive structure increases the chances
that an alien without a valid claim for relief in the United States will be able to
remain here illegally or during lengthy removal proceedings. As the Government
24
25
explained in 2015, “detaining these individuals dispels such expectations, and
26
deters others from unlawfully coming to the United States.” Id. at 4 ¶ 8..
27
28
Moreover, many of these aliens are smuggled for “significant fees” and those
13
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 15 of 23 Page ID
#:17549
1
“payments are then used by cartels to fund additional illicit and dangerous
2
activities in the United States and Mexico.” Id. ¶ 9.
The more constrained DHS’s
3
4
5
6
ability to detain families together during the period necessary to promptly conduct
immigration proceedings, the more likely it is that families will attempt illegal
border crossing. As the Government explained in 2015, a “practice of general
7
8
release encourages parents to subject their children to this dangerous journey in
9
order to avoid their own detention” and puts “unrelated children at increased risk
10
11
12
13
of trafficking by smugglers who bring them across the border in an attempt to
avoid detention by representing themselves as a family unit.” Id. at 5 ¶ 11.
Second, neither the parties nor the Court anticipated that, when the
14
15
16
Government first began applying the Agreement to accompanied minors, as
required by this Court’s order, that shift in practice would lead to the current
17
18
situation that incentivizes a dangerous journey by family units with young
19
children, risky illegal entry attempts by families with children, and trafficking of
20
21
22
23
families through Mexico in a manner contrary to the intent of asylum treaties. As
explained above, the number of family units crossing the border illegally has
increased dramatically since the Government sought relief in 2015—by 30% since
24
25
the 2014 influx that led the Government to seek relief from this Court. Without the
26
option to keep families together during the pendency of removal proceedings, the
27
28
Government must choose between acquiescing to and incentivizing illegal
14
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 16 of 23 Page ID
#:17550
1
immigration by releasing all family groups, or detaining the parents but separating
2
the family (as a result of the Agreement, as interpreted). These are precisely the
3
4
5
6
sorts of changes that warrant “relax[ation] [of] certain requirements” of the
Agreement. Flores, 828 F.3d at 910.
Third, class-action litigation has been filed challenging the legality of family
7
8
separation. In one case, the plaintiffs seek class-wide relief requiring DHS to
9
discontinue family separation. See Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs
10
11
12
13
Enforcement, Motion, No. 18-428, ECF No. 48-1, at 26 (S.D. Cal.); see also
Mejia-Mejia v. ICE, No. 18-1445, Complaint ¶ 4 (D.D.C. filed June 19, 2018) (“If,
however, the government feels compelled to continue detaining these parents and
14
15
16
young children, it should at a minimum detain them together in one of its
immigration family detention centers”). Yet in declining the Government’s
17
18
previous request to amend the Flores Settlement Agreement, the Ninth Circuit held
19
that family separation is permissible under the Agreement, and reversed this
20
21
22
23
Court’s holding that the Agreement required the release of both the parents and
children to maintain family unity. See Flores, 828 F.3d at 910 (Flores Settlement
Agreement “provides no affirmative release rights for parents”). It cannot be the
24
25
case—nor is it consistent with immigration law—that the Government’s only
26
option, when facing a crisis of illegal border crossings, is simply to permit such
27
28
illegality by releasing all aliens after apprehension with full knowledge that later
15
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 17 of 23 Page ID
#:17551
1
voluntary appearance for removal proceedings is increasingly rare. This point was
2
true when the Government made it in 2015, and it remains true today.
3
4
5
6
Finally, the President has identified this issue as a significant problem
warranting focused attention throughout the Executive Branch. See Executive
Order, Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation (June 20,
7
8
2018). In doing so, he has directed significant resources to provide adequate
9
facilities where families can be together, and the prioritization of their immigration
10
11
12
13
proceedings to minimize the amount of detention. Id. § 4 (the “Attorney General
shall, to the extent practicable, prioritize the adjudication of cases involving
detained families”). Those efforts justify renewed consideration of family custody
14
15
16
17
18
19
under the Flores Settlement Agreement.
B.
Two Narrow Modifications to the Flores Settlement Agreement
Are Warranted to Address the Significant Changes in
Circumstances.
Given the circumstances set forth above, two “tailored” modifications to the
20
21
22
23
Agreement are warranted at this time. Rufo, 502 U.S. at 383 (once the moving
party has established that modification is warranted, “the court should consider
whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed
24
25
26
circumstance”).
First, the Court should provide the Government an exemption from
27
28
Paragraph 14 of the Agreement so that children may be placed in ICE custody with
16
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 18 of 23 Page ID
#:17552
1
their parent or guardian, rather than be released to another individual or placed into
2
HHS custody. See Flores Agreement ¶ 14 (requiring INS to “release a minor from
3
4
5
6
its custody” in certain circumstances). So long as paragraph 14 of the Agreement
is applied as written to accompanied children, ICE is required to separate parents
or guardians from their children in situations where the law requires detention or
7
8
ICE or an immigration judge determines that a parent or guardian should be
9
detained to prevent flight or danger to the community during removal proceedings.
10
11
12
13
Exempting ICE family residential centers from this requirement on the limited
basis proposed by the Government will permit DHS to more effectively prevent
large numbers of alien families from illegally entering the United States through
14
15
16
the southwest border, while also allowing families to stay together in specially
designed facilities during their criminal and removal proceedings.
17
18
19
Second, the Court should provide an exemption for ICE family residential
centers from the licensing provisions of the Agreement. Those provisions require
20
21
22
23
that minors “be placed temporarily in a licensed program.” Agreement ¶ 19;
Exhibit 1 (laying out the minimum standards for conditions in facilities holding
minors). A “licensed program” is one “that is licensed by an appropriate State
24
25
agency to provide residential, group, or foster care services for dependent
26
children.” Agreement ¶ 6. This exemption is necessary because of ongoing and
27
28
unresolved disputes over the ability of States to license these types of facilities that
17
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 19 of 23 Page ID
#:17553
1
house both adults and children. Exemption from this requirement is tailored to
2
address the immediate influx with which the Government is currently dealing,
3
4
5
6
while providing time for ongoing efforts in Congress to address these issues. And
the Government does not now object to the requirement that ICE family residential
facilities would continue to meet the standards laid out in Exhibit 1 to the
7
8
Agreement.
9
These are narrow, targeted requests aimed at addressing a specific and
10
11
12
13
growing problem. Notably, while the Government continues to believe that it was
incorrect to hold that the Flores Settlement Agreement applies to accompanied
minors, the Government does not seek here to “exempt an entire category of
14
15
16
migrants from the Settlement.” Flores, 828 F.3d at 910. Rather, at this time, the
Government seeks only to permit family detention under the Agreement given the
17
18
ongoing severe influx of family units at the border.6 The Government does not
19
seek through this motion to exempt accompanied minors—or any other group—
20
21
22
from all of the settlement provisions. The two requested exemptions are the sort of
“relax[ation] [of] certain requirements” of the Agreement that the Ninth Circuit
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
The Government continues to disagree that the Flores Settlement Agreement
covers accompanied minors and with other aspects of this Court’s rulings
interpreting the Agreement, and preserves its arguments in the event of further
review .
18
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 20 of 23 Page ID
#:17554
1
invited the Government to seek. Id. Relaxing these requirements would permit
2
family units to be kept together in appropriate facilities.
3
4
5
6
The equities and human considerations strongly support this narrow relief.
Family detention during the pendency of removal proceedings has been a
continuing goal of DHS for a considerable time, and across administrations. DHS
7
8
has viewed this authority as critical to addressing the growing influx of family
9
units illegally crossing the southwest border. The inability to employ this option
10
11
12
13
creates a continued incentive for parents to bring their children on the dangerous
journey to the United States and to enter the country illegally, rather than at ports
of entry. Entering illegally provides two opportunities to remain in the United
14
15
16
States for a family with no valid asylum claim—either if the family evades
detection entirely or if the family is caught and then released, the family unit
17
18
disappears. Proposed legislation in Congress seeks to address the issues created by
19
the limitations that the Agreement, as it has been interpreted, places on the
20
21
22
23
Government’s ability to use ICE family residential centers. This process is fluid,
but the emergency currently existing on the southwest border requires immediate
action. This Court can take such action to help address this urgent problem.
24
25
26
*
*
*
The Government is prepared to make a more thorough showing, if
27
28
necessary, in support of this request to amend the Flores Settlement Agreement.
19
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 21 of 23 Page ID
#:17555
1
The Government respectfully requests a prompt hearing on its request for
2
immediate relief, together with any additional proceedings the Court believes
3
4
5
6
appropriate.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Government respectfully asks this Court to grant
7
8
limited emergency relief that would: (1) exempt DHS from the Flores Settlement
9
Agreement’s release provisions so that ICE may detain alien minors who have
10
11
12
13
arrived with their parent or legal guardian together in ICE family residential
facilities; and (2) exempt ICE family residential facilities from the Agreement’s
state licensure requirement. The Government is not asking to be relieved from the
14
15
16
substantive language of the Agreement on the conditions of detention in these
facilities. The Government asks for immediate relief, along with a schedule to
17
18
allow the parties to more fully address the issues raised by this request.
19
20
DATED:
June 21, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
/s/ August E. Flentje
AUGUST E. FLENTJE
Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney
General
Civil Division
28
20
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 22 of 23 Page ID
#:17556
1
2
3
4
5
6
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director
COLIN KISOR
Deputy Director
/s/ Jeffrey S. Robins
JEFFREY S. ROBINS
Assistant Director
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
SARAH B. FABIAN
Senior Litigation Counsel
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Immigration Litigation
District Court Section
Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20442
Telephone: (202) 532-4824
Fax: (202) 616-8962
14
15
16
17
Attorneys for Defendants
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21
Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 23 of 23 Page ID
#:17557
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
2
I hereby certify that on June 21, 2018, I served the foregoing pleading on all
3
4
counsel of record by means of the District Clerk’s CM/ECF electronic filing
5
system.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/s/ August E. Flentje
August E. Flentje
Attorney for Defendants
Exhibit 32
Pentagon will make room for up to 20,000 migrant children on military bases - The Wash... Page 1 of 3
The Washington Post
Checkpoint
Pentagon will make room for up to 20,000 migrant children on military bases
by Dan Lamothe, Seung Min Kim and Nick Miroff June 21 Email the author
The Defense Department will house up to 20,000 unaccompanied migrant children on military bases in coming
months, a Pentagon official said Thursday, the latest twist in the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement
effort.
The agreement comes after the Department of Health and Human Services made the request. Army Lt. Col. Jamie
Davis, a military spokesman, said Thursday that the Pentagon will support it.
In a notification to lawmakers, the Pentagon said Wednesday night that officials at HHS asked whether beds could
be provided for children at military installations “for occupancy as early as July through December 31, 2018.”
[Trump administration preparing to hold immigrant children on military bases]
The plan seemingly will have similarities to 2014, when the Obama administration housed about 7,000
unaccompanied children on three military bases. As required under the Economy Act, the memo said, the Defense
Department would be reimbursed for all costs incurred.
The sites will be run by HHS employees or contractors working with them, the memo said. They will provide care to
the children, “including supervision, meals, clothing, medical services, transportation or other daily needs,” and
HHS representatives will be at each location.
The memo, first reported on by The Washington Post, was sent to lawmakers Wednesday after President Trump
reversed his administration’s unpopular policy to separate children from their parents as the migrants arrived at the
southern U.S. border.
The president’s executive order directed Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to “take all legally available measures” to
provide Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen with “any existing facilities available for the housing and care
of alien families” and the construction of new facilities “if necessary and consistent with law.”
The Trump administration spent months planning, testing and defending its family separation policy at the border,
taking more than 2,500 children from their parents in the six weeks before the president signed an executive order
Wednesday bringing the practice to a halt.
The U.S. government has been examining for weeks whether it can use military bases to house migrant children.
Representatives from HHS visited three bases in Texas — Fort Bliss, Dyess Air Force Base and Goodfellow Air Force
Base — last week to review their facilities for suitability, and they were scheduled to review Little Rock Air Force
Base in Arkansas on Wednesday, Davis said.
The Obama administration set up temporary centers in 2014 at three military bases: Fort Sill in Oklahoma,
Lackland Air Force Base in Texas and Naval Base Ventura County in California.
Asked about the possibility of military bases being involved again, Mattis said Wednesday that the Defense
Department would “see what they come up with” in HHS, and that the Pentagon would “respond if requested.”
Mattis dismissed concerns about housing migrants on military bases, noting that the Defense Department has
done it on several occasions and for several reasons.
“We have housed refugees,” he said. “We have housed people thrown out of their homes by earthquakes and
hurricanes. We do whatever is in the best interest of the country.”
The secretary, pressed on the sensitivities of the Trump administration separating children from their parents, said
reporters would need to ask “the people responsible for it.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/06/21/pentagon-asked-to-mak... 6/25/2018
Pentagon will make room for up to 20,000 migrant children on military bases - The Wash... Page 2 of 3
“I’m not going to chime in from the outside,” he said. “There’s people responsible for it. Secretary Nielson,
obviously, maintains close collaboration with us. You saw that when we deployed certain National Guard units
there, so she’s in charge.”
Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.) and Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.), the top Democrats on the Senate and House Armed Services
committees, wrote a letter to Mattis on Wednesday requesting assurances that members of Congress would have
access to any migrant facility established on a military base. The letter, sent before Trump dropped his
administration’s family-separation policy, said it was essential to have access even in cases where only short notice
is provided.
Mattis has approved temporarily detailing 21 military attorneys to the Justice Department to help with the glut of
immigration cases that have emerged on the border. The order, issued this month, calls for 21 attorneys with
criminal-trial experience to assist as special assistant U.S. attorneys for 179 days, Davis said. They will help in
prosecuting border immigration cases, he added, “with a focus on misdemeanor improper entry and felony illegal
reentry cases.”
The possibility was raised in a congressional hearing in May, and first reported as underway by MSNBC on
Wednesday night. U.S. law permits a judge advocate lawyer to be assigned or detailed to another agency, including
to provide representation in civil and criminal cases.
This report was originally published at 2:44 p.m. with an update at 4:39 p.m. when a Pentagon spokesman
confirmed that the Defense Department will support HHS’s request.
Correction: An earlier version of this post incorrectly listed Rep. Adam Smith’s state. He is a representative
from Washington state, not California.
308 Comments
Dan Lamothe covers the Pentagon and the U.S. military for The Washington Post. He joined the
newspaper in 2014. He has covered the military for more than a decade, embedding with U.S. troops
in Afghanistan on numerous occasions. Follow @danlamothe
Seung 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 @seungminkim
Nick Miroff covers immigration enforcement, drug trafficking and the Department of Homeland
Security on The Washington Post’s National Security desk. He was a Post foreign correspondent in
Latin America from 2010 to 2017, and has been a staff writer since 2006. Follow @NickMiroff
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/06/21/pentagon-asked-to-mak... 6/25/2018
Pentagon will make room for up to 20,000 migrant children on military bases - The Wash... Page 3 of 3
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/06/21/pentagon-asked-to-mak... 6/25/2018
Exhibit 33
Pentagon eyes temporary camps for immigrants at two bases | Reuters
Discover Thomson Reuters
Directory of sites
World Business Markets Politics TV
POLITICS
Page 1 of 4
Login
Contact
Support
Search...
JUNE 24, 2018 / 5:29 PM / UPDATED 7 HOURS AGO
Pentagon eyes temporary camps
for immigrants at two bases
Phil Stewart
3 MIN READ
EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska (Reuters) - The U.S. military is preparing
to build temporary camps at two military bases to house immigrants, Defense
Secretary Jim Mattis said on Sunday, in the latest sign of a growing U.S. military
support role for President Donald Trump’s politically charged immigration
policies.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-military/pentagon-eyes-temporary-ca...
6/25/2018
Pentagon eyes temporary camps for immigrants at two bases | Reuters
Page 2 of 4
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis testifies before the
Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing on funding for
the Department of Defense, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., May 9,
2018. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas
Mattis, speaking to reporters during a flight to Alaska, did not specify the names
of the bases or say whether they would house immigrant children or their
parents, or both.
“The details are being worked out ... about exactly how much capacity they need
at the two bases, what other kinds of facilities they need built,” Mattis said, as
he disclosed the request for the facilities from the government’s Department of
Homeland Security.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-military/pentagon-eyes-temporary-ca...
6/25/2018
Pentagon eyes temporary camps for immigrants at two bases | Reuters
Page 3 of 4
In the face of outrage at home and overseas over his crackdown on illegal
immigration, Trump was forced last week to abandon his policy of separating
children from parents who are apprehended for illegally crossing the
U.S.-Mexico border.
Even though the president has now ordered that families be kept together in
detention during immigration proceedings, it remained unclear where families
would be held while the parents face criminal charges.
The U.S. military, and Mattis in particular, have stressed that it is simply
providing logistical support to the Department of Homeland Security, which
deals with immigration issues.
Mattis said the U.S. military had for decades provided shelter to immigrants,
including for Vietnamese refugees in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.
“Providing shelter for people without shelter, we consider that to be a logistics
function that is quite appropriate,” he said, when asked whether he had any
concerns about a U.S. military role in immigration policies.
Although Mattis did not cite how many people could be housed at the bases, the
U.S. military said on Thursday it had been asked by the government to get ready
to house up to 20,000 immigrant children.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-military/pentagon-eyes-temporary-ca...
6/25/2018
Pentagon eyes temporary camps for immigrants at two bases | Reuters
Page 4 of 4
It said the government had already assessed three military bases in Texas and
would review another in Arkansas.
Trump has previously turned to the military to help with his border crackdown.
Earlier this year, U.S. National Guard forces were dispatched to border states to
help tighten security.
Reporting by Phil Stewart; Editing by Peter Cooney
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Apps Newsletters
Privacy
Advertise with Us
Advertising Guidelines
Cookies
Terms of Use
All quotes delayed a minimum of 15 minutes. See here for a complete list of exchanges and delays.
© 2018 Reuters. All Rights Reserved.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-military/pentagon-eyes-temporary-ca...
6/25/2018
Exhibit 34
Zero Tolerance Policy Could Lead to Navy Detainment Centers | Time
Page 1 of 3
Exclusive: Navy Document Shows Plan to Erect 'Austere'
Detention Camps
By PHILIP ELLIOTT and W.J. HENNIGAN June 22, 2018
The U.S. Navy is preparing plans to construct sprawling detention centers for
tens of thousands of immigrants on remote bases in California, Alabama and
Arizona, escalating the military’s task in implementing President Donald
Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy for people caught crossing the Southern
border, according to a copy of a draft memo obtained by TIME.
The internal document, drafted for the Navy Secretary’s approval, signals how
the military is anticipating its role in Trump’s immigration crackdown. The
planning document indicates a potential growing military responsibility in an
administration caught flat-footed in having to house waves of migrants
awaiting civilian criminal proceedings.
The Navy memo outlines plans to build “temporary and austere” tent cities to
house 25,000 migrants at abandoned airfields just outside the Florida
panhandle near Mobile, Alabama, at Navy Outlying Field Wolf in Orange Beach,
Alabama, and nearby Navy Outlying Field Silverhill.
The memo also proposes a camp for as many as 47,000 people at former Naval
Weapons Station Concord, near San Francisco; and another facility that could
house as many as 47,000 people at Camp Pendleton, the Marines’ largest
training facility located along the Southern California coast. The planning
memo proposes further study of housing an undetermined number of migrants
at the Marine Corps Air Station near Yuma, Arizona.
The planning document estimates that the Navy would spend about $233
million to construct and operate a facility for 25,000 people for a six-month
time period. The proposal suggests these tent cities be built to last between six
months and one year.
Capt. Greg Hicks, Navy’s chief spokesman, declined to provide details on the
matter. “It would be inappropriate to discuss internal deliberative planning
documents,” he told TIME.
Although the military has not yet been ordered to construct these new
detention facilities, it is clear it bracing to join a policy challenge that is
ricocheting throughout the whole of government. What began as a crackdown
on immigrants crossing the border illegally has now spread to the departments
of Justice, Homeland Security, Defense and Health and Human Services.
http://time.com/5319334/navy-detainment-centers-zerol-tolerance-immigration-family-sep... 6/25/2018
Zero Tolerance Policy Could Lead to Navy Detainment Centers | Time
Page 2 of 3
In the Navy document, military officials propose a 60-day timeline to build the
first temporary tent facility for 5,000 adults. After that, military officials
suggest they could add room for 10,000 additional individuals each month.
The memo was written by Phyllis L. Bayer, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Energy, Installations and Environment, in anticipation for a request from
the Department of Homeland Security. It recommends Navy Secretary Richard
Spencer sign off on the plan, which allocates roughly 450 square feet per
immigrant held for housing, support staff and security, and send it to Defense
Secretary James Mattis.
Mattis’ office declined to comment on the proposed plan obtained by TIME.
Trump on Wednesday ordered the Pentagon to work with the Department of
Homeland Security to house the tens of thousands of immigrants currently
being held awaiting criminal proceedings for crossing the U.S.-Mexican border
illegally. Under the administration’s so-called “zero-tolerance” immigration
policy, current facilities are at their breaking point and the immigration courts
face deep backlogs. At the same time, children who previously had been
separated from their parents are now going to be held with the adults, further
straining the system.
Read More: U.S. Attorney in West Texas Drops ‘Zero-Tolerance’ Charges
Against Migrants Who Came With Children
The Pentagon has been asked make preparations on military bases to house as
many as 20,000 house immigrant children who are apprehended at the
U.S.-Mexico border without an adult relative or separated from parents, U.S.
military officials said. Department of Health and Human Services completed
assessments this week at Goodfellow Air Force Base, Dyess Air Force Base, Fort
Bliss in Texas and Little Rock Air Force Base in Arkansas for potential use for
the Unaccompanied Alien Children program.
“While four bases (3 in Texas and 1 in Arkansas) have been visited by HHS for
possible housing, it doesn’t mean any or all children would be housed there,”
Army Lt. Col. Jaime Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement.
Earlier this week, Mattis deferred questions on the matter to the Department of
Homeland Security but did acknowledge the military’s willingness to help with
the Trump Administration’s latest crisis. “We have housed refugees,” he told
reporters Wednesday at the Pentagon. “We have housed people thrown out of
their homes by earthquakes and hurricanes. We do whatever is in the best
interest of the country.”
Currently, migrant children are being held in facilities run by the Office of
Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services.
http://time.com/5319334/navy-detainment-centers-zerol-tolerance-immigration-family-sep... 6/25/2018
Zero Tolerance Policy Could Lead to Navy Detainment Centers | Time
Page 3 of 3
One facility, a converted Walmart in Texas, was recently opened to reporters,
igniting a media firestorm.
Using military bases in this way is not new. In 2014, the Obama Administration
placed around 7,700 migrant children on bases in Texas, California and
Oklahoma. The temporary shelters were shuttered after four months.
http://time.com/5319334/navy-detainment-centers-zerol-tolerance-immigration-family-sep... 6/25/2018
Exhibit 35
Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification
Page 1 of 4
We only use cookies that are necessary for this site to function, and to provide you with the best experience.
Learn more in our Cookie Statement. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies.
23Share
Receive Updates
Go
Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and
Family Reunification
U.S. Department of Homeland Security sent this bulletin at 06/23/2018 10:17 PM EDT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 23, 2018
Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Health and Human Services (HHS)
have a process established to ensure that family members know the location of their
children and have regular communication after separation to ensure that those adults
who are subject to removal are reunited with their children for the purposes of removal.
The United States government knows the location of all children in its custody and is
working to reunite them with their families.
As part of the apprehension, detention and prosecution process, illegal aliens, adults and
children, are initially detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) before the
children are sent to HHS’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and parents to
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. Each entity plays a role in
reunification. This process is well coordinated.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
• CBP has reunited 522 Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) in their custody who
were separated from adults as part of the Zero Tolerance initiative. The reunions
of an additional 16 UAC who were scheduled to be reunited on June 22, 2018 were
delayed due to weather affecting travel and we expect they will all be reunited
with their parents within the next 24 hours. There will be a small number of
children who were separated for reasons other than zero tolerance that will remain
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHS/bulletins/1f98ad8
6/25/2018
Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification
Page 2 of 4
separated: generally only if the familial relationship cannot be confirmed, we
believe the adult is a threat to the safety of the child, or the adult is a criminal
alien.
• Because of the speed in which adults completed their criminal proceedings, some
children were still present at a United States Border Patrol (USBP) station at the
time their parent(s) returned from court proceedings. In these cases, the USBP
reunited the family and transferred them, together, to ICE custody as a family
unit.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
• ICE has dedicated the Port Isabel Service Processing Center as the primary family
reunification and removal center for adults in their custody.
• A parent who is ordered removed from the U.S. may request that his or her minor
child accompany them. It should be noted that in the past many parents have
elected to be removed without their children.
• ICE has posted information in all of its facilities advising detained parents who are
trying to locate, and/or communicate with, a child in the custody of HHS to call
the Detention Reporting and Information Line for assistance, which is staffed by
live operators Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 8 PM.
• The information provided by these parents to the call operators will be forwarded
to HHS for action. ICE and HHS will coordinate a review of their custodial data to
identify where each child is located, verify the parent/child relationship, and set
up regular communication and removal coordination, if necessary.
• Each ICE Field Office has Juvenile Coordinators who manage these cases
throughout the immigration court proceedings.
• Further, ICE maintains a publicly available online detainee locator which can be
used to locate adults detained by ICE. This site can be accessed at:
https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/index
ICE has completed the following steps toward reunification:
• Implemented an identification mechanism to ensure on-going tracking of linked
family members throughout the detention and removal process;
• Designated detention locations for separated parents and will enhance current
processes to ensure communication with children in HHS custody;
• Worked closely with foreign consulates to ensure that travel documents are issued
for both the parent and child at time of removal; and
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHS/bulletins/1f98ad8
6/25/2018
Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification
Page 3 of 4
• Coordinated with HHS for the reuniting of the child prior to the parents’
departure from the United States.
U.S. Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement
• Minors come into HHS custody with information provided by DHS regarding
how they illegally entered the country and whether or not they were with a parent
or adult and, to the extent possible, the parent(s) or guardian(s) information and
location. There is a central database which HHS and DHS can access and update
when a parent(s) or minor(s) location information changes.
• As of June 20th HHS has 2,053 separated minors being cared for in HHS funded
facilities, and is working with relevant agency partners to foster communications
and work towards reuniting every minor and every parent or guardian via wellestablished reunification processes. Currently only 17% of minors in HHS funded
facilities were placed there as a result of Zero Tolerance enforcement, and the
remaining 83% percent arrived to the United States without a parent or guardian.
• Parent(s) or guardian(s) attempting to determine if their child is in the custody of
the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in HHS Administration for Children and
Families should contact the ORR National Call Center
(www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/orr-national-call-center) at 1-800-203-7001, or via
email information@ORRNCC.com. Information will be collected and sent to HHS
funded facility where minor is located. The ORR National Call Center has
numerous resources available for children, parent(s), guardian(s) and sponsors.
• Within 24 hours of arriving at an HHS funded facility minors are given the
opportunity to communicate with a vetted parent, guardian or relative. While in
HHS funded facilities’ care, every effort is made to ensure minors are able to
communicate (either telephonic or video depending on the circumstances) with
their parent or guardian (at least twice per week). However, reasonable safety
precautions are in place to ensure that an adult wishing to communicate with a
minor is in fact that minor’s parent or guardian.
• Minors in HHS funded facilities are permitted to call both family members and/or
sponsors living in the United States and abroad. Attorneys representing minors
have unlimited telephone access and the minor may speak to other appropriate
stakeholders, such as their consulate, the case coordinator, or child advocate.
Additional information on telephone calls, visitation, and mail policies are
available in the policy guide.
• Under HHS’ publicly available policy guide for Unaccompanied Alien Children,
the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) releases minors to sponsors in the
following order of preference: parent; legal guardian; an adult relative (brother,
sister, aunt, uncle, grandparent or first cousin); an adult individual or entity
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHS/bulletins/1f98ad8
6/25/2018
Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification
Page 4 of 4
designated by the parent or legal guardian (through a signed declaration or other
document that ORR determines is sufficient to establish the signatory’s
parental/guardian relationship); a licensed program willing to accept legal
custody; or an adult individual or entity seeking custody when it appears that
there is no other likely alternative to long term ORR care and custody.
###
Having trouble viewing this message? View it as a webpage.
You are subscribed to updates from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Manage Subscriptions | Privacy Policy | Help
Connect with DHS:
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | LinkedIn | Flickr | YouTube
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
www.dhs.gov
Powered by
Privacy Policy | Cookie Statement | Help
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHS/bulletins/1f98ad8
6/25/2018
Exhibit 36
Trump will reunite separated families — but only if they agree to deportation - Vox
Page 1 of 9
Trump will reunite separated
families — but only if they agree to
deportation
Families are being offered an impossibly cruel choice: fight to stay in
the US apart, or give up and get sent back together.
By Dara Lind
dara@vox.com
Updated Jun 25, 2018, 11:39am EDT
Families who were caught together at the US-Mexico border and separated are now being offered the opportunity to
On Saturday night, the Trump administration finally announced its plan for
reuniting the 2,053 families who are still separated thanks to President
Donald Trump’s “zero-tolerance” prosecution policy: The administration will
reunite children with their parents — in order to deport them both.
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/25/17484042/children-parents-separate-reunite-plan-trump
6/25/2018
Trump will reunite separated families — but only if they agree to deportation - Vox
Page 2 of 9
Over weeks of chaos and confusion, it became clear that the various
departments and agencies involved in family separation — chiefly the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which handles immigration
enforcement, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
which takes separated kids reclassified as “unaccompanied alien children”
into custody — were so badly coordinated that it was nearly impossible for
parents and immigration attorneys to locate children.
The Trump administration is promising to fix that — but only in some
circumstances.
Parents in immigration detention will be helped to get in touch with their
children and speak to them regularly, and the Trump administration will
make sure — from a “reunification and removal” facility in Port Isabel, Texas
— that when a parent is ordered deported, her child will be sent back to their
home country beside her.
For parents who are trying to fight to stay in the US (for example by
pursuing asylum claims, as they are legally entitled to do), though, this isn’t
much of a promise. It’s a horrible choice.
Either a parent can keep fighting for asylum and accept that he may not be
able to see his children for the months or years his case might take — or he
can give up, waive both his own rights and the rights of his child, and agree
to be reunified with his child en route to the country both of them fled to
begin with.
DHS is promising to reunite parents once they’ve been
ordered deported — but not while they’re still fighting an
asylum claim
The “fact sheet” released Saturday night by DHS and HHS claimed that the
Trump administration “knows the location of all children in its custody and
is working to reunite them with their families.”
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/25/17484042/children-parents-separate-reunite-plan-trump
6/25/2018
Trump will reunite separated families — but only if they agree to deportation - Vox
Page 3 of 9
But the process that the government has in place for reunification isn’t for
all families separated by the administration between May 5 and June 20,
when the “zero tolerance” policy separated more than 2,300 children from
their parents at the border. It is solely “to ensure that those adults who are
subject to removal are reunited with their children for the purposes of
removal” (emphasis added).
There is no such assurance for parents who are fighting deportation
because they are trying to claim asylum (or another form of relief) in the
United States.
What this means, in practice, is that a parent who is currently trying to
pursue an asylum claim but wants to see her child as quickly as possible will
have to waive two sets of rights: her own and her child’s. She’ll have to
withdraw her own asylum case and agree to be deported instead. And she’ll
have to agree that her child should withdraw their own case to remain in the
US — which is a separate case in the legal system because the child is now
considered “unaccompanied” — in order to accompany her back to her home
country.
Lawyers are already claiming to see this at the Port Isabel facility. “We have
people in there who are considering not continuing on with really strong
asylum claims because they think they’ll get reunited with their kids faster if
they give up their claim,” civil-rights lawyer Sirine Shebaya told the
Washington Post. And the Texas Tribune reported that one asylum-seeker
had agreed to be removed voluntarily “out of desperation” because he was
told he’d be reunited with his daughter if he did — a claim that Department of
Homeland Security officials were unable to verify or disprove without
getting the man’s name or case number (which the Texas Tribune declined
to provide).
The Department of Homeland Security stresses that they are not pressuring
anyone to withdraw their asylum claims, or explicitly telling anyone to
choose between pursuing a claim and reunification.
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/25/17484042/children-parents-separate-reunite-plan-trump
6/25/2018
Trump will reunite separated families — but only if they agree to deportation - Vox
Page 4 of 9
This is a choice that some untold number of parents have already made.
Even before family separations became widespread in early May, lawyers
told reporters of cases where parents had felt pressured to withdraw their
asylum claims so that they could be reunited with their children. And Jacob
Soboroff of MSNBC reported Sunday morning that “separated parents were
quickly given the option to sign paperwork leading to deportation” — and
that “many” chose to do so.
We don’t know how many parents were deported before President Trump
signed an executive order June 20 that has resulted in an end to widespread
family separation (at least for the moment, as the various agencies involved
try to figure out how the heck to implement Trump’s instructions).
We do know that not all of the parents already deported were, in fact,
deported with their children. In fact, reporters have unearthed many cases
in which they were deported without their children — and even cases in
which parents agreed to deportation to see their children again, only to be
deported alone.
Parents might have to choose between access to their
children and access to lawyers
While “zero tolerance” was in full effect, a pile of logistical problems often
made it impossible or near-impossible for parents to even find out where
their children were being held, much less communicate with them. Some
immigrants couldn’t call government hotlines for a slew of reasons: they
lacked money to make the call; hotline calls went unanswered; parents
couldn’t receive calls in immigration detention; a parent who was
successfully able to call her child once might not be able to get anyone at
that number to pick up the next time she called; or government officials
were unwilling to give information about a child’s location to her parent’s
lawyers.
The Trump administration is now promising to streamline this process.
According to Saturday’s fact sheet, parents separated from their children
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/25/17484042/children-parents-separate-reunite-plan-trump
6/25/2018
Trump will reunite separated families — but only if they agree to deportation - Vox
Page 5 of 9
will be held in a single immigration detention facility, where staff will
coordinate with HHS to make sure parents are put in touch with their
children (at least, if HHS feels there’s enough information to prove the
parent really is related to the child) and allowed to speak to them at least
twice a week.
But people who are apprehended crossing the US between ports of entry
don’t usually stay in immigration detention very long. They’re generally
subject to deportation without a court hearing and deported in a matter of
days. The only parents likely to be in immigration detention for any length of
time are those who are fighting to stay in the US legally by making, for
example, an asylum claim.
Even in a best-case scenario, an asylum-seeker is likely to get held in
detention for at least six weeks: She has to have a screening interview
scheduled, conduct the screening interview, wait to see if she has passed
the screening interview, and then, if she passes, wait to get a hearing with
an immigration judge at which the judge can set bond, so she doesn’t have to
stay in detention during the months or years it will take for her full asylum
claim to be approved or denied.
Detainees may not have much (or any) access to a lawyer during that period.
There’s no right to a lawyer in immigration court, and especially before the
initial screening interview, it can be hard for pro-bono lawyers to get in
touch with asylum-seekers in time.
In general, it’s much easier for a lawyer to help an immigrant put her case
together once she’s out of detention. Most asylum-seekers pass initial
screenings, but most of those still ultimately lose their cases — but asylumseekers who have lawyers are much, much more likely to have their cases
approved.
But the Trump administration isn’t making any promises about keeping
parents in touch with their children even after they’ve left detention. It’s not
clear that it’s going to be any easier for released parents to locate, talk to,
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/25/17484042/children-parents-separate-reunite-plan-trump
6/25/2018
Trump will reunite separated families — but only if they agree to deportation - Vox
Page 6 of 9
and reunite with their children than it has been for the last several weeks —
when it’s been nearly impossible.
Parents who are freed from detention might lose access to
children
Immigrants and lawyers alike have assumed that the best chance for a
family to be reunited is for the parent to get released from immigration
detention on bond while she fights her case, then get her child back from the
Office and Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
But under the government’s new “reunification for removal” plan, a parent
freed from detention might lose the ability to communicate regularly with
her child, much less be reunited with him.
In theory, the ORR — the office within HHS tasked with taking care of the
children — isn’t supposed to keep “unaccompanied alien children” in its
custody for any longer than necessary. It’s supposed to place them with
sponsors: either their parents, close relatives, family friends, or some other
form of long-term foster care (in that order of preference).
But ORR is also responsible for carefully vetting potential sponsors to make
sure that they are who they say they are — and that the child isn’t being put
at risk by being placed with them. The office has recently come under attack
for “losing” hundreds or thousands of children (a story that blew up into a
brief social panic when some critics falsely assumed that losing contact
with a child meant the child had been placed with human traffickers).
Vetting requires the sponsor to submit extensive documentation proving
their own identity, their relationship with the child, and their own address. It
also requires them to demonstrate they can provide “adequate care,
supervision, access to community resources, and housing” for the child —
something an immigrant who’s just been released from immigration
detention may not be able to prove to the satisfaction of government
officials.
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/25/17484042/children-parents-separate-reunite-plan-trump
6/25/2018
Trump will reunite separated families — but only if they agree to deportation - Vox
Page 7 of 9
The federal government isn’t guaranteeing that ORR will release children to
their parents if the parent has been released from detention while her
asylum claim is pending. Instead, the agency maintains it’s going to keep its
typical screening process in place.
In other words, the Trump administration is making no distinction between a
parent who was separated from her 6-year-old child just a few weeks ago
and the parent of a 17-year-old who arrived unaccompanied. And it’s going
to hold parents who have just been released from immigration detention to
standards of care provision designed for people who are well established in
the US.
Furthermore, it’s not even clear if relatives of separated families who could
qualify to sponsor the children will be allowed to do so.
Because ORR’s first preference is to reunite children with their parents,
HHS officials have implied that they are trying to keep children in custody
close to where their parents are being detained so that if the parent is
deported it is easy to send the child with them. (This hasn’t always
happened in practice.)
Some relatives of separated children have tried to apply as sponsors — to
little success. The Wall Street Journal reported on one case last week:
For 30 days, Ms. Serrano and her husband, who live in suburban Maryland, have
been struggling to gain temporary custody of (their nephew) Danny. They have
navigated a bureaucratic thicket to get Ms. Serrano named Danny’s “sponsor”:
A home inspection; fingerprinting for background checks; frequent phone calls
with Danny’s social worker in New York, Lupe in Texas and relatives back in
Honduras. Ms. Serrano said she is still waiting for approval.
The government isn’t saying categorically that it won’t reunite children with
their parents if the parent is out of detention and waiting for her asylum case
to be resolved. But we know from the past several weeks how apparently
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/25/17484042/children-parents-separate-reunite-plan-trump
6/25/2018
Trump will reunite separated families — but only if they agree to deportation - Vox
Page 8 of 9
insurmountable the obstacles can be for such parents. And those obstacles
are not being removed under the new policy.
Parents who choose between asylum and reunification
might end up getting neither
The government’s stance is that parents who accept deportation will be
reunited, and parents who do not — who choose to continue the fight for
asylum instead — may not.
But the artificial choice between asylum and reunification doesn’t actually
mean that parents are guaranteed even one of the two.
Parents who choose to stay in the US and pursue their asylum claims, even
if they pass their initial screenings, may well find those claims ultimately
denied and face deportation anyway. The approval rates for asylum claims
among Central Americans are a lot lower than the pass rates for the initial
screening — which is why Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other Trump
administration officials are trying to tighten standards to pass the screening
interview. And Sessions is currently trying to make it harder for asylumseekers to have their claims approved based on being the victims of
domestic or gang violence — the basis on which many parents’ claims are
likely to rest.
A parent who waits in detention for weeks or months, or is released from
detention while her case takes months or years, might find that she is
ultimately ordered deported anyway — and has just wasted all that time
separated from a child for exactly the same result she would have gotten if
she’d chosen quick deportation and reunification.
On the other hand, the government can’t guarantee that accepting
deportation means being reunited with children.
It can’t guarantee that because we already know that some parents have
accepted deportation and been deported alone.
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/25/17484042/children-parents-separate-reunite-plan-trump
6/25/2018
Trump will reunite separated families — but only if they agree to deportation - Vox
Page 9 of 9
According to DHS and HHS, some parents have agreed to be deported alone.
But reports from the New York Times, Houston Chronicle, and others have
documented that some parents who were deported alone thought they had
agreed to be deported with their children. Maybe they misunderstood what
they were agreeing to; maybe some parents agreed to be deported alone,
but in other cases, the government failed to reunite families prior to
deporting them.
The only assurance the government is making now is that parents who
accept deportation (or are ordered deported once their asylum claims are
denied) will be rewarded with reunification. Even that assurance may not be
a reliable one. And to get that assurance now, asylum-seeking parents will
have to give up — on their own behalf and that of their children — the thing
they came to the US to seek: humanitarian protection and the ability to stay.
UPDATE: This piece has been updated to reflect the contention of the
Department of Homeland Security that agents are not actively pressuring
parents to withdraw asylum claims.
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/25/17484042/children-parents-separate-reunite-plan-trump
6/25/2018
Exhibit 37
Exhibit 38
Detained migrants say they were promised they would be reunited with their children if th... Page 1 of 6
M E NU
Kids in exchange for deportation: Detained
migrants say they were told they could get
kids back on way out of U.S.
In a detention center near Houston, an asylum seeker from Honduras said he
agreed to sign a voluntary removal order from the U.S. after federal officials
promised to reunite him with his 6-year-old daughter.
BY JAY ROOT AND SHANNON NAJMABADI
JUNE 24, 2018
10 AM
Undocumented immigrant children at a U.S. Border Patrol processing center in McAllen, Texas.
Customs and Border Protection
U.S.
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/24/kids-exchange-deportation-migrants-claim-they-... 6/25/2018
Detained migrants say they were promised they would be reunited with their children if th... Page 2 of 6
The Trump administration's “zero tolerance” immigration policy, which led to the separation of children from
adults who crossed the border illegally, has fueled a national outcry. Sign up for our ongoing coverage. Send
story ideas to tips@texastribune.org. MORE IN THIS SERIES
HOUSTON — Central American men separated from their children and held in a detention
facility outside Houston are being told they can reunite with their kids at the airport if they
to sign a voluntary deportation order now, according to one migrant at the facility and two
immigration attorneys who have spoken to detainees there.
A Honduran man who spoke to The Texas Tribune Saturday estimated that 20 to 25 men
who have been separated from their children are being housed at the IAH Polk County
Secure Adult Detention Center, a privately-operated U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement facility for men located 75 miles outside Houston. He said the majority of
those detainees had received the same offer of reunification in exchange for voluntary
deportation.
The 24-year-old detainee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity and requested the Trib
use the pseudonym Carlos because he feared retaliation, told the Tribune that he abandone
asylum case and agreed to sign voluntary deportation paperwork Friday out of “desperation
see his 6-year-old daughter, who was separated from him after the pair illegally crossed the
in late May. The man said two federal officials suggested he’d be reunited with his daughter
airport if he agreed to sign the order, which could lead to him being repatriated to his violen
torn home country in less than two weeks.
“I was told I would not be deported without my daughter,” said Carlos, adding that he's now
hoping to revoke the voluntary deportation order he signed and get legal help to fight his ca
signed it out of desperation… but the truth is I can’t go back to Honduras; I need help.”
The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.
Carlos said he’s only spoken to his daughter once — on June 21 — since the pair were separa
three weeks ago in McAllen. He said he paid a smuggler $7,000 for the 10-day journey from
Honduras because he feared being caught up in the violence waged by organized crime synd
and gangs in the country. He and his daughter turned themselves in to Border Patrol officer
shortly after illegally crossing into the United States on a raft that pushed off from the bank
Rio Grande on the Mexico side near Reynosa, Carlos said.
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/24/kids-exchange-deportation-migrants-claim-they-... 6/25/2018
Detained migrants say they were promised they would be reunited with their children if th... Page 3 of 6
He said he wanted a better life for his only daughter and hoped U.S. officials would grant the
asylum. He was told he did not pass the first hurdle — proving he had "credible fear" of
persecution or torture in Honduras — but volunteer attorneys have instructed him to revoke
paperwork he signed and appeal his credible fear ruling before an immigration judge.
Anne Chandler, Houston director of the Tahirih Justice Center, a national organization that
advocates for immigrant women and girls, said she’s heard an almost identical account from
another Central American migrant detained at the Livingston facility, a taupe and blue build
surrounded by two chain link fences lined with coils of razor wire.
Carl Rusnok, an ICE spokesman, said Saturday evening that the agency "cannot research vag
allegations" but would do so if given specific details about the migrants who made the claim
"It is unprofessional and unfair for a media outlet to publish such allegations without provid
names, dates and locations so that these allegations can be properly researched," Rusnok sa
Tribune declined to give Rusnok the detainees’ identifying information.
A Homeland Security and Health and Human Services fact sheet released Saturday said
parents ordered removed from the U.S. can "request that his or her minor child
accompany them" but that "many parents have elected to be removed without their
children."
The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.
More than 2,500 migrant children have been separated from their parents since early May, a
the federal government cracked down on border crossers and began pressuring federal prose
on the southwest border to pursue charges against anyone alleged to have entered or tried t
the country without authorization.
Homeland Security said Saturday that 522 unaccompanied minors have been reunified with
members since the "zero tolerance" policy began, and that they have a reunification plan fo
who remain in federal custody.
But both Chandler and Cynthia Milian, a private attorney working with Tahirih, questioned
whether the offers that the immigrants have reported receiving could be honored by the
government, given the sprawling and slow-moving nature of the nation's immigration
bureaucracy.
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/24/kids-exchange-deportation-migrants-claim-they-... 6/25/2018
Detained migrants say they were promised they would be reunited with their children if th... Page 4 of 6
While migrant adults are prosecuted by the Justice Department and then detained by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, their children are placed in shelters funded and
overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services. Chandler said it could take
between one to two months to secure the release of an unaccompanied migrant child.
Many immigrant parents have been placed in removal proceedings and some have
already been deported without their children.
Milian, who has spoken to Carlos, said his situation is a “parent’s worst nightmare” and tha
was highly unlikely he would be met at the airport by his daughter. “I doubt they would put
child on a plane to get her to where he would get deported out from, especially if she’s in
Arizona,” where Carlos was told she is being held. “I just don’t see that happening.”
IAH Secure Adult Detention Facility in South Livingston.
website
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Carlos said he worries about the conditions in the facility where his daughter is being held,
whether she’s receiving proper care for her asthma and how she will find her way to an aunt
Los Angeles if he is deported back to Honduras without her.
When they spoke on Thursday, Carlos said his daughter was “very sad … and wanted me to g
her out of there.”
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/24/kids-exchange-deportation-migrants-claim-they-... 6/25/2018
Detained migrants say they were promised they would be reunited with their children if th... Page 5 of 6
The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.
Carlos is one of the thousands of migrants impacted by the "zero tolerance" directive
announced by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in April, which requires federal
prosecutors along the U.S.-Mexico border to prosecute nearly all allegations of unauthorized
border crossings. The policy inundated already backlogged federal courts; several courtrooms,
including one in McAllen where Carlos was charged in May, have held mass hearings where
dozens of migrants plead guilty to illegal entry charges at once — a scene critics have likened to
assembly-line justice.
After the new crackdown sparked bipartisan outrage, President Donald Trump signed a
hastily-written executive order Wednesday that keeps most families together through
the pendency of their cases. But there are divisions within the Trump administration
about whether it’s possible to continue pursuing every case of illegal entry.
Despite assurances that there are reunification plans in place, confusion and chaos reign on the
ground about how families separated at the height of the zero tolerance policy will be put back
together.
An MSNBC correspondent tweeted Sunday morning that a Homeland Security official
said "separated parents were quickly given the option to sign paperwork leading to
deportation. Many chose to do so."
Bob Etnyre, a Houston-based attorney and immigration law expert, said Carlos’ case highlights a
"particularly diabolical aspect" of the family separations — dangling reunification as an incentive
to drop an asylum claim.
Carlos said his daughter was taken away from him on the day he went to the McAllen courthouse
to plead guilty to illegal entry. He said officials at the detention facility he knew as “la hielera,” or
the “ice box,” told him she would be taken to an aunt in California — “pure lies,” he said.
“She’s a prisoner,” he told the Tribune through a plexiglass partition in the facility’s visitation
room. “She can't talk, she cries because she's locked up.”
“The kids aren't to blame for what's going on,” he added. “We only came because we can't live in
our country. We are looking for somewhere to live where our children can have a better future. In
our country we can't do it.”
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/24/kids-exchange-deportation-migrants-claim-they-... 6/25/2018
Detained migrants say they were promised they would be reunited with their children if th... Page 6 of 6
Carlos' mother, reached by phone in Honduras, said she hasn't been able to speak to her son or
granddaughter since they were detained. She's been told her granddaughter was ill with an upper
respiratory ailment. "We've been worrying and suffering over this," she said.
The aunt of 6-year-old Alison Jimena Valencia Madrid, another Central American girl separated
from her parent and currently being held in an Arizona facility, said she can imagine the distress
both Carlos and his daughter are feeling.
Madrid garnered national attention when she was heard on audio, surreptitiously
recorded in a Customs and Border Protection facility and provided to ProPublica,
persistently asking authorities to call her aunt – whose phone number she’d memorized. “Are you
going to call my aunt so that when I’m done eating she can pick me up?” Madrid can be heard
saying, as other Central American children weep and sob “Mami” and “Papá” in the background.
“It’s inhumane for them to be separated,” said the aunt, who lives in Houston and spoke to the
Tribune on the condition of anonymity. “And that’s a pain she will always have. That little
creature will grow up with that forever. It’s a psychological and emotional wound for both of
them, because people don’t come here to lose their children.”
Help us build a more engaged, informed Texas
There are hundreds of headlines competing for your attention every day. But
none come with a mission like ours: creating a more engaged and informed Texas
with every story we cover, every event we convene and every newsletter we send.
As a nonprofit newsroom, we rely on members to help keep our stories free and
our events open to the public. Do you value our journalism? Show us with your
support.
YES, I'LL DONATE TODAY
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/24/kids-exchange-deportation-migrants-claim-they-... 6/25/2018
Exhibit 39
Sen. Warren visits detention center, says no children being returned to parents there - The ... Page 1 of 3
The Washington Post
Immigration
Sen. Warren visits detention center, says no children being returned to parents there
by Maria Sacchetti, Michael E. Miller and Robert Moore June 24 at 10:56 PM Email the author
LOS FRESNOS, Tex. — A visibly upset U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren visited the detention center where the Trump
administration said separated migrant families would be reunited and deported and said she’d seen no evidence
that the process was underway.
The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement late Saturday that U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement has “dedicated the Port Isabel Service Processing Center as the primary family reunification and
removal center for adults in their custody.”
But Warren (D-Mass.) spent two hours inside the facility speaking with immigration officials and detained immigrant
mothers Sunday night and said there were no reunifications to report. She said she spoke with nine women: “In
every case, they were lied to. In every case, save one, they have not spoken with their children. And in every case,
they do not know where their children are.”
“It’s clear,¨ Warren said. “They’re not running a reunification process here.”
Advocates interviewed outside the locked gates earlier in the day described desperate parents giving up their hopes
of asylum to get their children back in their arms more quickly. They also noted that the Port Isabel facility is not set
up to house minors.
“This is the most inefficient, preposterous system that I have ever encountered,” said Sirine Shebaya, a
Washington-area civil rights lawyer who had flown to South Texas with a team that spent Friday and the weekend
interviewing parents.
“We have people in there who are considering not continuing on with really strong asylum claims because they
think they’ll get reunited with their kids faster if they give up their claim,” Shebaya said. “That’s just wrong.”
[Trump says undocumented immigrants should not get due process]
The Trump administration said it was taking steps to return some 2,053 “separated minors” who had been taken
into custody as part of Trump’s border crackdown, after the government elected to criminally prosecute all adults
caught crossing the border. The statement said 522 children had been returned as of Saturday, and another 16
were expected to be with their parents within 24 hours.
The parents — many of whom say they are seeking asylum and fleeing gang violence or domestic abuse — have
typically pleaded guilty to entering the country illegally and been transferred to adult immigration jails run by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement to await deportation. Their children, meanwhile, are sent across the country
to shelters run by the Department of Health and Human Services, or placed by the federal agency in foster care.
“The United States government knows the location of all children in its custody and is working to reunite them with
their families,” the statement read. “This process is well coordinated.”
Shebaya said Port Isabel, a remote, 1,200-person facility surrounded by a wind farm, a wildlife refuge and miles of
empty prairie crawling with coyotes, falcons and bull snakes, “seems to be at capacity” and is “not equipped to hold
children.”
“That kind of begs the question,” she said. “ ‘Where are they going to put the children?’ ”
A senior administration official, who declined to be identified, said officials never intended to send busloads of
children to Port Isabel for a massive reunion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/desperate-to-get-children-back-migra...
6/25/2018
Sen. Warren visits detention center, says no children being returned to parents there - The ... Page 2 of 3
Instead, the official said, they plan to reunite families on an individual basis once a parent has lost his or her
deportation case. Parents may ask for their children to join them so that they can be deported together, the official
said.
Shebaya said most migrants she interviewed were on a “fast-track” deportation process for recent border crossers,
which is delayed only if they express a fear for their lives. Such a declaration triggers an interview to see whether
they have a valid asylum claim. If they do, they could have a court hearing. If they don’t, they could be deported,
with limited avenues to appeal that decision.
Eileen Blessinger, a Virginia immigration attorney, estimated that 25 percent of the roughly 100 parents she and
two colleagues interviewed at Port Isabel had been able to speak to their children as of Sunday afternoon.
Some parents had special-needs children they had not heard from in weeks, including a woman who said she had
not heard from her deaf and mute child. When one woman finally heard from her 7-year-old, the child said, “You
don’t love me, you left me,” the mother told Blessinger.
One father said in a telephone interview from inside Port Isabel that he hadn’t spoken to his 13-year-old daughter
since they were separated almost two weeks ago. “I have no idea where she is, if she’s eating, if she’s scared,” said
the 37-year-old, who asked to go by his middle name, Roel, because he faced death threats back in Honduras. “All
of us parents here are so worried.”
“She is the only child I have,” he said. “I’ve cried many times in here. Many times.”
Sophia Gregg, another Washington-area immigration attorney working inside Port Isabel, said the group had spoken
to parents who had experienced horrible trauma on the way to the United States, yet they were focused on the
whereabouts of their children.
“We’ve heard stories of women being held captive, enslaved in cartel homes,” she said. “And that’s secondary to
that they don’t know where their child is.”
Natasha Quiroga, another attorney in the group, said one father who hadn’t spoken to his daughter in more than a
month became so desperate he wrote her a letter, telling her to self-deport.
One mother who said she had fled threats from drug traffickers in Honduras gave Blessinger a letter to deliver to
her 7-year-old boy, with whom she hadn’t spoken to since they were separated two weeks ago. The handwritten
letter is addressed to “My reason of my life.”“Be strong and fight. Don’t get sad,” it says. “Your mommy loves you
and they will never separate us again.”
[On U.S.-Mexico border, ‘zero-tolerance’ meets desperation]
Ruby Powers, an immigration attorney from Houston, said a Honduran client of hers at a privately operated ICE
facility in Livingston, Tex., was not allowed to speak to his 6-year-old daughter for three weeks.
Only after he signed a request for voluntary removal was he allowed to speak to the child, who has asthma and was
being held in a shelter in Arizona. Powers, who is now trying to rescind his request, said the 24-year-old father had
fled violence in Honduras, where his cousin had been killed.
The Saturday night statement, jointly issued by the Department of Homeland Security and HHS, said ICE will
implement a system for tracking separated family members and reuniting them before their deportation as a unit.
Parents will begin receiving more information about the whereabouts of their children and telephone operators will
provide more frequent communication.
“There will be a small number of children who were separated for reasons other than zero tolerance that will remain
separated,” it said. “Generally only if the familial relationship cannot be confirmed, we believe the adult is a threat
to the safety of the child, or the adult is a criminal alien.”
In El Paso, a DHS bus pulled up outside Casa Vides, a shelter for migrants, on Sunday afternoon and disgorged
about 30 people who had been held on misdemeanor immigration charges until the charges were dropped
Thursday and Friday. The migrants will get access to legal help, focusing on finding their children, said Ruben
Garcia, executive director of Annunciation House, the nonprofit that runs the shelter.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/desperate-to-get-children-back-migra...
6/25/2018
Sen. Warren visits detention center, says no children being returned to parents there - The ... Page 3 of 3
They are free on their own recognizance while their immigration court proceedings continue, and some will probably
wear ankle monitors. It remains unclear how the reunification process the federal government announced Saturday
night will be implemented for this group. Garcia said he had been told the parents had to call an 800 number that
the government has provided in recent days. Taylor Levy, the group’s legal services director, said if people get
through at all, they are told that someone will get back to them several days later.
Garcia and Levy said the reunification process is further clouded by a new agreement that calls for the Office of
Refugee Resettlement, which cares for and attempts to place minors apprehended at the border, to share
information with ICE and Customs and Border Protection. Anyone seeking to take custody of a child from ORR must
agree to submit fingerprints of all adults in the household to ICE, a frightening prospect for many undocumented
immigrants.
Levy criticized President Trump for his tweet earlier Sunday that said when somebody arrives at the border, they
should be immediately deported without legal proceedings.
“That is not what our country stands for,” she said. “These people are fleeing for their lives, they are refugees, they
are not economic migrants. The vast majority of them are coming here because they have no other option and they
want to survive, and they want their children to survive. And they have every right under United States laws and
under international treaties to fight their cases and be given the process that is due.”
Sacchetti reported from Port Isabel. Moore reported from El Paso. Nick Miroff contributed to this report.
391 Comments
Maria Sacchetti covers immigration for The Washington Post. She previously reported for the Boston
Globe. Follow @mariasacchetti
Michael E. Miller is a reporter on the local enterprise team. He joined The Washington Post in 2015
and has also reported from Afghanistan. Follow @MikeMillerDC
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/desperate-to-get-children-back-migra...
6/25/2018
Exhibit 40
Trump Calls for Depriving Immigrants Who Illegally Cross Border of Due Process Rights... Page 1 of 6
Trump Calls for Depriving Immigrants
Who Illegally Cross Border of Due
Process Rights
By Katie Rogers and Sheryl Gay Stolberg
June 24, 2018
President Trump unleashed an aggressive attack Sunday on unauthorized immigrants
and the judicial system that handles them, saying that those who cross into the United
States illegally should be sent back immediately without due process or an appearance
before a judge.
“We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country,” Mr. Trump tweeted while
on the way to his golf course in Virginia. “When somebody comes in, we must
immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came.”
It was another twist in a head-spinning series of developments on immigration since the
administration announced a “zero tolerance” policy two months ago, leading to the
separation of children from parents who cross the border illegally and an outcry from
Democrats and many Republicans.
Mr. Trump signed an executive order to end the separations last week, but the sudden
shifts have led to confusion along the border about how children and parents will be
reunited and to turmoil in Congress as the House prepares to vote on a sweeping
immigration bill this week.
Still, the president, who has always dug his heels in when criticized, has not backed back
down from his hard-line talk, even amid a national outcry over a detainment policy that
has resulted in the separation of more than 2,300 children from their families.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/us/politics/trump-immigration-judges-due-process.h... 6/25/2018
Trump Calls for Depriving Immigrants Who Illegally Cross Border of Due Process Rights... Page 2 of 6
He has instead gone on the offensive, complaining to aides about why he could not just
create an overarching executive order to solve the problem, according to two people
familiar with the deliberations. Aides have had to explain to the president why a
comprehensive immigration overhaul is beyond the reach of his executive powers.
And privately, the president has groused that he should not have signed the order
undoing separations.
“Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order,” Mr. Trump
tweeted Sunday, adding, “Our Immigration policy, laughed at all over the world, is very
unfair to all of those people who have gone through the system legally and are waiting on
line for years! Immigration must be based on merit.”
But Mr. Trump’s call to ignore due process faced both constitutional questions and
dissension from Republicans in Congress, some of whom have insisted that the number
of judges be increased so migrant families can have their cases heard more quickly.
Federal immigration courts faced a backlog of more than 700,000 cases in May, and
cases can take months or years to be heard.
Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, has proposed doubling the number of judges to
roughly 750, while Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the
Senate Homeland Security Committee, said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that
he believes an additional 225 judges are needed. He noted that only 74 of the current
immigration judges are serving at the border.
“We need to increase that,” Mr. Johnson said. “The Trump administration is going to try
and come up with another 15,000 beds for family units. But none of this is easy.”
The House bill up for a vote this week would beef up border security and provide a path
to citizenship for the young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers, while also
effectively codifying Mr. Trump’s executive order by allowing migrant families to be
detained together indefinitely.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/us/politics/trump-immigration-judges-due-process.h... 6/25/2018
Trump Calls for Depriving Immigrants Who Illegally Cross Border of Due Process Rights... Page 3 of 6
Many on Capitol Hill believe legislation is necessary to deal with the order, since it
allows indefinite detentions. Under a 1997 consent decree known as the Flores
settlement, migrant families can be detained for no more than 20 days, leaving the
order’s status in court in doubt.
But the president’s conflicting statements are complicating legislative efforts, said
Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona.
“It makes it very difficult,” Mr. Flake said on ABC’s “This Week,” continuing, “It’s
difficult in any event, right, in an election year where the president has decided to have
this at the forefront of the Republican election strategy to paint the Democrats as soft on
immigration.”
He added: “I don’t know how in the world we’re going to fix this in the short term, given
the Flores decision and given the lack of infrastructure, judges to process these claims.
It’s really a big mess.”
Mr. Trump’s tweets on Sunday threw new legal questions into the puzzle. Laurence H.
Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard, said in an email that the Supreme Court
has repeatedly held that “the due process requirements of the Fifth and 14th
Amendments apply to all persons, including those in the U.S. unlawfully.”
“Trump is making the tyrannical claim that he has the right to serve as prosecutor, judge
and jury with respect to all those who enter our country,” Mr. Tribe said. “That is a
breathtaking assertion of unbounded power — power without any plausible limit.”
The Fifth Amendment mandates the due process of law, and the 14th Amendment, in
part, expanded due process rights for immigrants, with case law asserting those rights
dating back to 1886. But Justice Department lawyers under both Democratic and
Republican administrations have argued that noncitizens apprehended at the border
lack due process protections, said Adam Cox, a law professor at New York University,
and the Supreme Court has never clearly resolved the dispute.
Since Mr. Trump was elected, his administration has been working to expand the terms
of a 1996 statute that allows immigration officials to quickly deport undocumented
immigrants as well as those whose papers are believed to be fraudulent. The Trump
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/us/politics/trump-immigration-judges-due-process.h... 6/25/2018
Trump Calls for Depriving Immigrants Who Illegally Cross Border of Due Process Rights... Page 4 of 6
administration has the ability to expand the statute to encompass the entire country and
apply it to any noncitizen who has not been in the country for more than two years, Mr.
Cox said.
“One of the things that is being considered is an expanded expedited removal to the full
statutory limit,” he said, adding that “it is already true that a lot of people show up at the
border get removed with no access to immigration courts or the judicial process.”
Mr. Cox said the president could be reacting to seeing a high number of people held in
detention centers claiming they face harm back home. The White House did not
immediately respond to a request for comment on whether the president knew the legal
ins and outs of his demand.
“Many members of the administration seem to think that the high rate necessarily
means a lot of fraud,” Mr. Cox said of asylum claims, “so what they could like to do is
remove that process.”
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has made illegal immigration a focus of his career,
has moved to back up the president’s words with action in recent months. In April, Mr.
Sessions announced a “zero tolerance” immigration policy, which set off the mass
separation of families that the president sought to end with his executive order last
week.
Criminal prosecutions for illegally crossing the southwestern border jumped to 8,298 in
April, the month Mr. Sessions announced the zero-tolerance policy, an increase of 30
percent from March, according to data from the Transactional Records Access
Clearinghouse, a research institute at Syracuse University. Last week, the Defense
Department lent 21 lawyers to the Justice Department to focus on prosecuting a backlog
in border crossing cases. And on Sunday, the defense secretary, Jim Mattis, said the
Pentagon was looking at using two bases to hold an unknown number of migrants,
though he would not comment on their location or whether they would house children.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/us/politics/trump-immigration-judges-due-process.h... 6/25/2018
Trump Calls for Depriving Immigrants Who Illegally Cross Border of Due Process Rights... Page 5 of 6
Omar Jadwat, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties
Union, called the president’s demand to dispense with due process illegal. “Any official
who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws should disavow it
unequivocally,” he said.
Mr. Trump’s call to end due process is not a total surprise — he has alluded to taking
similar measures for weeks. While in Las Vegas on Saturday, Mr. Trump told supporters
that he thought the immigration system needed fewer judges. Mr. Trump also suggested
last week that he opposed adding judges because many of them could be corrupt.
He has long been a critic of immigration judges, saying they were not effective in
stopping the flow of people coming into the country, sometimes using incorrect numbers
to make his point.
“We have thousands of judges. Do you think other countries have judges?” Mr. Trump
said during a round-table discussion in May. “We give them, like, trials. That’s the good
news. The bad news is, they never show up for the trial. O.K.?”
There are actually fewer than 400 judges dedicated to such work, according to the
website PolitiFact.
Mr. Trump also tweeted on Friday that Republicans should “stop wasting their time” on
the broad House immigration bill, but Representative Michael McCaul, Republican of
Texas and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said on “Fox News
Sunday” that he had spoken to the White House, which had assured him that Mr. Trump
was “still 100 percent behind us.”
Mr. Trump’s careening from one extreme to another has been a staple of his campaign
and presidency, allowing people to hear what they want in what he says — and leaving
his White House to sort through a messy pile of conflicting directives and Congress to
grasp for clues about which bills he might support.
The prospects for the House bill are iffy at best; some conservatives are balking at the
citizenship provisions, which critics regard as “amnesty.” If it fails, Mr. McCaul said the
House may be forced to consider a narrower measure — a so-called skinny bill — that
would address only the issues surrounding detention of migrant families.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/us/politics/trump-immigration-judges-due-process.h... 6/25/2018
Trump Calls for Depriving Immigrants Who Illegally Cross Border of Due Process Rights... Page 6 of 6
“I think we at a minimum have to deal with the family separation,” Mr. McCaul said.
“I’m a father of five. I think this is inhumane and I think the pictures that we have seen
— that’s not the face of America.”
Katie Benner, Maggie Haberman and Thomas Gibbons-Neff contributed reporting.
A version of this article appears in print on June 24, 2018, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Wants No Due Process At
U.S. Border
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/us/politics/trump-immigration-judges-due-process.h... 6/25/2018
]]>
