Word Association (2024)

[webfact]

New Trump immigration efforts aim to stop child border crossers

By Mica Rosenberg

 

FILE PHOTO: A girl sitting on the shoulders of her father holds a sign reading "Keep Families Together" at a protest against U.S. President Donald Trump's proposed end of the DACA program that protects immigrant children from deportation in New York City, U.S., August 30, 2017. REUTERS/Joe Penney/File Photo

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Many of the immigration initiatives launched by the Trump administration in recent weeks target one kind of migrant: children.

 

The measures are aimed at expelling young people already in the United States illegally and preventing new ones from crossing into the country.

 

Some of the policy shifts have generated headlines, including Trump's decision in September to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. That measure, put in place by former President Barack Obama in 2012, allowed nearly 800,000 young people brought to the United States illegally as children the ability to live, work and study in the country without fear of deportation.   

 

Other proposals and actions have received far less attention.

 

The Trump administration has recently intensified scrutiny of abused and neglected foreign minors applying to stay in the United States. It is seeking to restrict who qualifies for special protections granted to children crossing the border alone. And it is stepping up prosecutions of adults who paid smugglers to bring unaccompanied kids to the United States.

 

The White House also announced this fall it will end a programme allowing Central American minors to apply for U.S. asylum while still living abroad. At the same time, the administration is exploring ways to scrap legal protections that limit how long and under what conditions children can be held in immigration detention centres.

 

In response to questions about the changes in immigration policy focussed on children, the White House said that relevant agencies were reviewing ways to help "law enforcement professionals to do their jobs and keep the country safe."

 

(For a graphic on Trump policies targeting young immigrants, see: http://tmsnrt.rs/2zaT2BK)

 

Trump came to office promising to crack down on immigration. That message grew stronger this week in the wake of a terrorist attack in New York by a 29-year-old immigrant awarded a green card through a visa lottery programme the president has now vowed to end.

 

Some of his messaging on child immigrants also reflects security concerns. In a speech in Long Island in July, Trump called out "alien minors" as responsible for gang-related killings in the United States. 

 

"These are animals," he said of members of the notorious Central American gang MS-13.

 

In addition, the administration says it wants to prevent children from undertaking perilous journeys to the United States and eliminate fraud from programs for young immigrants.

 

"The President wants to stop the incentives for vulnerable children to come here illegally," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a speech in Texas in October. In another speech last month, he blamed "dirty immigration lawyers" for encouraging clients to game the process.

 

Some immigration advocates see the president's focus on young border crossers differently. Children are perceived sympathetically by the public and have more legal protections than other immigrants, giving authorities less flexibility to deport them, they say.

 

It is "in the administration’s interest to paint unaccompanied children as gang bangers and not as asylum seekers fleeing violence and abuse," said American Civil Liberties Union attorney Michael Tan. "The administration wants the public to perceive these children as monsters and not people deserving of refuge."

 

'UNWORKABLE' DETENTION POLICY

 

President Trump is not the first president to try to crack down on minors crossing the border illegally. Obama prioritised the removal of young immigrants after the number of unaccompanied minors apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border peaked at more than 68,000 in 2014, most of them from violence-torn Central America.

 

Trump campaigned on a promise to toughen enforcement further, saying Obama's policies had failed. After he took office early in 2017, apprehensions of unaccompanied minors dropped sharply, to a low of just over 990 in April from more than 4,400 in January.

 

But the number of arrests has begun rising again, with nearly 3,000 unaccompanied minors caught in August, according to government data.

 

One target of the administration is a legal agreement dating back to 1997 that bars the government from holding child immigrants for long periods.

 

The so-called Flores settlement addressed what advocates said were harsh conditions for kids held in immigration detention facilities. To settle a class-action lawsuit, the government agreed to release minors quickly to adult relatives or licensed childcare programs, or to put them in the "least restrictive" setting possible if other options were not available.

 

Faced with 2014 surge in illegal crossings, the Obama administration fought broad legal interpretations of the agreement in court to make it easier to detain families. The Trump White House now wants to scrap it altogether.

 

An internal memo dated Sept. 8 written by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and reviewed by Reuters called the two-decade-old legal agreement "unworkable," and presented four options to fight or end it.

 

Among them: DHS could ask a federal court to dissolve the Flores deal, a move the memo acknowledged could prove difficult given past rulings that have bolstered the agreement.

 

A DHS spokesperson said the agency would not comment on "internal working documents."

 

'ABUSE' OF PROGRAMME FOR ABUSED KIDS

 

The administration is focussed not just on stopping illegal border crossings by children but also on limiting their ability to stay once they reach the United States.

 

One of its targets is SIJS, or special immigrant juvenile status, a programme for foreign minors who have been abused, abandoned or neglected.

 

To qualify, children have to prove their mistreatment in U.S. family court, after which they are protected from deportation and allowed to apply for green cards.

 

SIJS applications ballooned following the 2014 surge in unaccompanied minors. The programme's numbers hit 19,475 in the 2016 fiscal year, a more than 1,000 percent increase from 1,646 in fiscal year 2010.

 

The White House and immigration hard-liners in Congress say lawyers have taken advantage of the programme by using it for kids who are not in the kind of peril the statute was intended to address. Chief among their complaints is that children abandoned by one parent can apply for SIJS even if another parent is providing adequate care. The administration is already taking steps to limit the programme.

 

Immigration attorneys say government scrutiny of SIJS petitions has increased, slowing the approval process and leaving kids in limbo.

 

Approvals from April to June totalled 1,862, down more than 50 percent from the previous three-month period, according to data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

 

USCIS acknowledged that it has stepped up scrutiny of petitions "to ensure that they meet criteria for approval." But the agency stressed that the majority of applications are still approved.

 

From January through June of this year 5,671 SIJS petitions were approved while 403 applications were denied. Meanwhile pending applications are ballooning, totalling 22,745 through June, as new petitions grow.

 

The delays are creating confusion for young immigrants such as 20-year-old Drucilla.

 

She says her mother neglected her after bringing her to the United States illegally from Jamaica when she was three years old following her father's murder. Drucilla eventually moved in with an aunt in New York and applied for SIJS last year in order to stay in the country.

 

Drucilla, who asked only be identified by her first name, said she is nervous about the outcome of her case after U.S. officials recently requested additional documents to substantiate her claims.

 

"Growing up, nothing was ever in my control," she said. "I have a lot of anxiety."

 

See how the administration’s actions affect people, communities, institutions and companies at The Trump Effect http://www.reuters.com/trump-effect

 

(Reporting by Mica Rosenberg; Editing by Sue Horton and Marla Dickerson)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-03

 

[lovelomsak]

I always thought immigration  was a way of supplying needed labour resources a country was in need of.

  Not an open border for welfare cases.Young people like Drucilla who come from homes were no on even cares for them ,bring nothing of worth with them. Why would any country in their right mind open their doors to people like this.Send them back. Study learn something in your own country try again.

[Darron]

1 hour ago, lovelomsak said:

I always thought immigration  was a way of supplying needed labour resources a country was in need of.

  Not an open border for welfare cases.Young people like Drucilla who come from homes were no on even cares for them ,bring nothing of worth with them. Why would any country in their right mind open their doors to people like this.Send them back. Study learn something in your own country try again.

OK what is her own country? She was brought to the US when she was three. Does a three year old voluntarily go anywhere? Especially across borders! She has no knowledge of her home country. What can you remember from when you were three?

 

Cases like this are the ones that are being debated.

[lovelomsak]

15 hours ago, Darron said:

OK what is her own country? She was brought to the US when she was three. Does a three year old voluntarily go anywhere? Especially across borders! She has no knowledge of her home country. What can you remember from when you were three?

 

Cases like this are the ones that are being debated.

Her home country certainly is not the USA. So America has no business detaining her send her back.People like this are not America,s responsibility and America should make that clear to people who think they can walk in to the country as they please and expect to have no consequences. 

[Darron]

1 hour ago, lovelomsak said:

Her home country certainly is not the USA. So America has no business detaining her send her back.People like this are not America,s responsibility and America should make that clear to people who think they can walk in to the country as they please and expect to have no consequences. 

It may not be her birth country, but is is her "home" country. She was three which means she has no knowledge of her birth country. She only knows America as being home. Please tell me how much you remember from when you were three regarding anything.

 

Sure illegal immigration is a problem, but don't punish children who had no control and have absolutely no knowledge of their birth country. Call me a bleeding heart or whatever, but children do not deserve to suffer because of their parents sins. Sure she wasn't born in the US, but it's the only home she has ever known.

 

Regular crime is also a problem, should the children of all criminals be punished? Oh your dad was a drug dealer, so you should go to prison too etc. If you want children punished for their parents crimes, then how far should that go?

[lovelomsak]

15 hours ago, Darron said:

It may not be her birth country, but is is her "home" country. She was three which means she has no knowledge of her birth country. She only knows America as being home. Please tell me how much you remember from when you were three regarding anything.

 

Sure illegal immigration is a problem, but don't punish children who had no control and have absolutely no knowledge of their birth country. Call me a bleeding heart or whatever, but children do not deserve to suffer because of their parents sins. Sure she wasn't born in the US, but it's the only home she has ever known.

 

Regular crime is also a problem, should the children of all criminals be punished? Oh your dad was a drug dealer, so you should go to prison too etc. If you want children punished for their parents crimes, then how far should that go?

To stop this kind of abuse. Abuse of the law abuse of young children by parents etc. Some people have to suffer or it will never end.When people see this happening maybe they will stop abusing immigration laws.If they know there is no protection for them and illegally entering America could be worse than staying at home and putting the effort in to have a better life there Then maybe they will stop coming unwilling to take the risk. Now it s to easy with bleeding hearts speaking for them.

  As far as the all criminal reference. Criminals are a different subject. They make be American. This is not about criminal it is about immigration. and citizenship. 

  Why would a country wish to help people from parents who have no respect for law or borders? Good chance they will turn out the same as their parents.

Edited November 3, 2017 by lovelomsak

[Darron]

44 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

To stop this kind of abuse. Abuse of the law abuse of young children by parents etc. Some people have to suffer or it will never end.When people see this happening maybe they will stop abusing immigration laws.If they know there is no protection for them and illegally entering America could be worse than staying at home and putting the effort in to have a better life there Then maybe they will stop coming unwilling to take the risk. Now it s to easy with bleeding hearts speaking for them.

  As far as the all criminal reference. Criminals are a different subject. They make be American. This is not about criminal it is about immigration. and citizenship. 

  Why would a country wish to help people from parents who have no respect for law or borders? Good chance they will turn out the same as their parents.

Is that the same for criminals? Good chance they will end up like their parents? Australia should be exactly like Mad Max then.

Laws are laws (immigration and criminal) and that is understandable. If you are old enough to understand the law and choose to break it then be punished. But if you were too young to have any understanding then the case should be handled differently and on a per case basis. Imagine arresting someone as they turn 18 because they took a candy bar from a shop when they were three (or even worse like arresting them when they are three).

Edited November 3, 2017 by Darron

[lovelomsak]

The children are collateral damage for bad parent judgement. If America can prove to these illegals that their children do not have a safe haven in America,they will think real hard about coming illegally. In the old days we used to call it making an example of them. So others will not do the same.

  The parents are to blame and the child isnot the responsibility of a foreign country or government plain and simple.

  Bad parenting raises its ugly head in many areas of people lives. Let,s hope in the future parents stay in their home country and do not risk their children,s lives in such a manner.

  

[Scott]

There is no doubt a problem with unaccompanied minors coming to the US as well those who face difficulty if returned to their home country. 

 

As a very general rule, children belong with their parents, so if the parents are in are in the home country, then the child should be with them, unless they would have a refugee claim on their own right.  

 

Children should not be held responsible for the actions taken by their parents and should not face deportation if they are otherwise law abiding.   If they have spent most of their formative years in the US, they should be given a path to citizenship.

 

For those who can't and don't, it's a good time for the gov't to call on the NGO's to assist in setting up facilities for young people when they are returned.   Numerous programs similar to this have been done in countries and have been largely successful, but the return needs to be done reasonably quickly.  

 

Under UN guidelines for unaccompanied minors, their were two criteria, one for actual refugee children and a 2nd one for durable solution (and possible resettlement) for those in need but who are not refugees.  For the majority of children, return to the family is the best option.

 

 

[lovelomsak]

Children should not be held responsible for the actions taken by their parents and should not face deportation if they are otherwise law abiding.   If they have spent most of their formative years in the US, they should be given a path to citizenship.(quote from post 9)

  Scott you are so wrong on this one sorry.

 The children are nor responsible or taking responsibility. But they are obligated to go home to the nation of their citizenship. The children are taking responsibilty for nothing. Simply being sent home after being smuggled in to a foreign country. Not their fault not their responsibility. But the responsibility of America to see them safely back to their home country where they can sort it out. 

    As far as being law abiding,that should go without question. In reality they are not law abiding they are illegals.

  Also think about child smugglers making money off this lucrative business.Do you condone smuggling of children? 

  Human trafficking at its worst.

Edited November 4, 2017 by lovelomsak

[farcanell]

17 hours ago, Darron said:

Is that the same for criminals? Good chance they will end up like their parents? Australia should be exactly like Mad Max then.

What?

what?

you were making sense for awhile.... but mad max was post apocalyptic  fiction... the last one ( at least) made in the USA... much like “the walking dead”... that’s a better comparison, surely

 

but seriously, these laws/ statutes/ whatever, should be grandfathered,, such that someone who has been in the country for 17 of her 20 years, is unaffected

 

sure, keep out the little monsters as shown in the topic picture... you can see she’ll grow up to be a bad un.... but tossing out those that know  no other way of life, seems harsh, making her an alien in an alien world... albeit her homeland ( I can’t see this as a vote winner)

[zydeco]

On 11/3/2017 at 2:53 PM, webfact said:

The delays are creating confusion for young immigrants such as 20-year-old Drucilla.

 

She says her mother neglected her after bringing her to the United States illegally from Jamaica when she was three years old following her father's murder. Drucilla eventually moved in with an aunt in New York and applied for SIJS last year in order to stay in the country.

A twenty year old is an adult, not a juvenile. 

[mrwebb8825]

I think this is more about that young girl in TX that crossed illegally just to demand an abortion and wanting the government to pay for it, or the 13 yr old with CP that was shipped over and abandoned.

Clearly the 20 yr old in the story doesn't qualify as a juvenile.

[ilostmypassword]

34 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

I think this is more about that young girl in TX that crossed illegally just to demand an abortion and wanting the government to pay for it, or the 13 yr old with CP that was shipped over and abandoned.

Clearly the 20 yr old in the story doesn't qualify as a juvenile.

Where do you get your news from? The government was not asked to pay for the abortion. It was done with private funds.

"The ACLU sued on her behalf, and a federal judge ruled the federal government must “promptly and without delay” allow the teenager to see a doctor to have the abortion she sought. A U.S. appeals court upheld that ruling on Oct. 24, and she had the abortion — paid for with private funds — early the next day, before the administration could lodge an emergency appeal in the high court. "

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/News-of-the-day-from-across-the-nation-Nov-3-12330232.php

[mrwebb8825]

17 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Where do you get your news from? The government was not asked to pay for the abortion. It was done with private funds.

"The ACLU sued on her behalf, and a federal judge ruled the federal government must “promptly and without delay” allow the teenager to see a doctor to have the abortion she sought. A U.S. appeals court upheld that ruling on Oct. 24, and she had the abortion — paid for with private funds — early the next day, before the administration could lodge an emergency appeal in the high court. "

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/News-of-the-day-from-across-the-nation-Nov-3-12330232.php

What happened in the end wasn't what was originally being asked for.

[ilostmypassword]

57 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

What happened in the end wasn't what was originally being asked for.

I'm sure you can provide a citation for that.

[mrwebb8825]

19 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I'm sure you can provide a citation for that.

No, I'm 100% sure that you're correct. After humping her brains out and getting pregnant, she contacted the ACLU and organized private funding BEFORE sneaking across the border illegally. 

[ilostmypassword]

9 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

No, I'm 100% sure that you're correct. After humping her brains out and getting pregnant, she contacted the ACLU and organized private funding BEFORE sneaking across the border illegally. 

You mean she crossed the border with the intention of being detained by immigration and getting a government paid sponsor? You're the one making assumptions here. And they seem pretty shaky. Not just that but saying that a young pregnant woman got that way because she was"humping her brains out" says something very significant about you  but not so much about her..