U.S. judge suspends deportations of reunited immigrant families

[webfact]

U.S. judge suspends deportations of reunited immigrant families

By Marty Graham

 

Anita Areli Ramirez Mejia, an asylum seeker from Honduras separated from her six year-old son Jenri near the Mexico-U.S. border, is reunited with him in Harlingen, Texas, July 13, 2018. REUTERS/Loren Elliott

 

SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - A U.S. judge temporarily barred the U.S. government on Monday from the rapid deportation of immigrant parents reunited with their children, while a court considers the impact on children's rights to seek asylum.

 

The government is working to meet a court order to reunite around 2,550 children who were separated by U.S. immigration officials from their parents at the U.S.-Mexican border.

 

The families had been separated as part of a broader crackdown on illegal immigration by the administration of President Donald Trump, sparking an international outcry. The president ordered the practice stopped on June 20.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union said in court papers on Monday that, once reunited, immigrant parents who face deportation should have a week to decide if they want to leave their child in the United States to pursue asylum separately.

 

"A one-week stay is a reasonable and appropriate remedy to ensure that the unimaginable trauma these families have suffered does not turn even worse because parents made an uninformed decision about the fate of their child," the rights group wrote.

 

Judge Dana Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego asked the government to respond and set a July 24 date for the next hearing. In the meantime, he halted rapid deportations.

 

At Monday's hearing, the judge pressed back on a suggestion by a government attorney that quick deportations aided reunifications by creating more room for families in detention.

 

"The idea this would slow or stop reunifications, that's not an option," said Sabraw. "If space is an issue, the government will make space."

 

Sabraw last month set a July 26 deadline for the government to reunite children who were separated from their parents at the border.

The majority have been matched with a parent, but the government is still trying to find a parent for 71 children in its care, Jonathan White, from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told the court. All the children under the age of five have been reunited, the government said.

 

"I have every confidence you're the right person to do this," the judge told White.

 

However, Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the ACLU, said after the hearing that he found it "extremely troubling that there are 71 children whose parents they haven't been able to identify, much less reunify."

 

Many of the immigrants separated from their children were seeking asylum after fleeing violence and crime in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.

 

Children were sent to multiple care facilities across the country, and their parents were incarcerated in immigration detention centres or federal prisons - in keeping with the government's "zero tolerance" policy under which all adults crossing the border illegally would face prosecution.

 

(Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware and Daniel Trotta in New York; Editing by Rosalba O'Brien, Noeleen Walder and Frances Kerry)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-07-17

[Ulic]

Once again I am left scratching my head. The families must be reunited because it is a human right and they can't be separated, but parents can leave their children behind so that would mean separation. But that is exactly what they knew would happen (separation) if they crossed the border illegally. 

[Scott]

This is part of where the administration has created a problem for itself.   Once the children are separated, then they are an unaccompanied minor.   They are under the jurisdiction of someone other than the parents.   That means that they may present a separate claim for asylum, independent of the family.  

 

One of the reasons for keeping families together is so that any asylum claim can be processed for the entire family.   Once separated, it is no longer one family unit with one possible claim.   It is now two separate claims and the asylum claim for children is more time consuming that the parents.  

 

When I worked with refugee status determination cases in S.E. Asia, we had cases where the parents ended up in a refugee camp in the Philippines and one of the children ended up in a camp in Hong Kong.   Countries didn't allow for the transfer of anyone to the other country, so they were screened separately and sometimes the parents were screened out, and the child was granted resettlement.   This was rare, but it did happen.  

 

There is another problem, and it is a BIG problem.   Once the parents are removed from the country, it's not easy to get the child(ren) back.   Some gov'ts refuse, want proof of citizenship and other roadblocks.   In some cases, the parents, once returned, can't be easily located and the home country isn't always helpful in finding them or giving information about them.  

 

[55Jay]

2 hours ago, Ulic said:

Once again I am left scratching my head. The families must be reunited because it is a human right and they can't be separated, but parents can leave their children behind so that would mean separation. But that is exactly what they knew would happen (separation) if they crossed the border illegally. 

Not forgetting parents who send their kids over the border on their own.

 

Was just reading along these lines, the problem in Europe with asylum seekers falsely claiming to be minors because it provides additional protections and leverage.

Quote

Being a minor guarantees certain rights and privileges such as more complex care and a ban on deportation. In case of a criminal act, they will be treated according to the criminal law relating to young offenders which is less severe. Minor refugees are also exempt from the Dublin-regulation, meaning they are not bound to the country where they have filed their first asylum request.

http://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/6851/how-is-age-of-asylum-seekers-determined

[thaibeachlovers]

It'll just go back to the SCOTUS, and probably have same outcome as the last one. I don't understand how, when the president is given constitutional authority over immigration a judge can single handedly decide to take that authority to themselves.

Anyway, it's time ( both sides of ) congress did their job and pass immigration reform. The present situation isn't helping anyone.

[sukhumvitneon]

5 hours ago, Scott said:

This is part of where the administration has created a problem for itself.   Once the children are separated, then they are an unaccompanied minor.   They are under the jurisdiction of someone other than the parents.   That means that they may present a separate claim for asylum, independent of the family.  

 

One of the reasons for keeping families together is so that any asylum claim can be processed for the entire family.   Once separated, it is no longer one family unit with one possible claim.   It is now two separate claims and the asylum claim for children is more time consuming that the parents.  

 

When I worked with refugee status determination cases in S.E. Asia, we had cases where the parents ended up in a refugee camp in the Philippines and one of the children ended up in a camp in Hong Kong.   Countries didn't allow for the transfer of anyone to the other country, so they were screened separately and sometimes the parents were screened out, and the child was granted resettlement.   This was rare, but it did happen.  

 

There is another problem, and it is a BIG problem.   Once the parents are removed from the country, it's not easy to get the child(ren) back.   Some gov'ts refuse, want proof of citizenship and other roadblocks.   In some cases, the parents, once returned, can't be easily located and the home country isn't always helpful in finding them or giving information about them.  

 

The best way to avoid these "what if" scenarios is to not immigrate illegally in the first place.

[The Theory]

Those who cross the border illegally are aware of the law and what is waiting for them. They mostly have relatives or friends in the US  

I used to work for a small company (in late 90s). One day the front desk secretly (Mexican) told me that: “she will go to Tijuana Mexico tomorrow”.

I asked: for fun ?

she replied: No, actually the whole family. We are going to bring one of our relatives child to this side. Now I know who “DACA children” are. 

 

[Scott]

5 hours ago, sukhumvitneon said:

The best way to avoid these "what if" scenarios is to not immigrate illegally in the first place.

The situation was created by Trump.   If people appear at the border and request asylum, don't prevent them entry and keep the family together.

 

Each child, under law, will be appointed a lawyer and a guardian ad litem.   The detention business for them is now a half-billion dollar industry.