Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: Trump’s Zero-Tolerance Immigration Policy Treats Parents like Criminals By Walter Ewing for Immigration Impact

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: Trump’s Zero-Tolerance Immigration Policy Treats Parents like Criminals By Walter Ewing for Immigration Impact

    Trump’s Zero-Tolerance Immigration Policy Treats Parents like Criminals

    by


    Since the implementation of a “zero-tolerance” policy in April 2018 toward illegal entry (as well as attempted illegal entry) into the United States, criminal prosecutions of unauthorized border-crossers under the Trump administration have started to rise.

    Criminal prosecutions of migrants apprehended by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) along the southwest border with Mexico jumped a full 30 percent from March to April. Since January alone, criminal prosecutions are up 60 percent—from 5,191 in January to 8,298 in April.

    The greatest number of prosecutions in April took place in the Western District of Texas (2,767), followed by the Southern District of Texas (1,959). However, while Texas dominated in terms of absolute numbers, the greatest increase in prosecutions from January to April occurred in New Mexico, where prosecutions jumped 110 percent.

    This increase follows Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ announcement on April 6, 2018, that anyone caught crossing the border would now face prosecution, as opposed to to their countries of origin without facing criminal charges. The Attorney General told U.S. Attorney’s Offices all along the southwest border to adopt this enforcement philosophy and “prosecute those who choose to illegally cross over our border.” This edict is even being applied to migrants fleeing dangerous conditions in their home countries who come here seeking protection.

    The new zero-tolerance policy builds upon Operation Streamline , under which migrants who illegally crossed into the United States in certain border sectors automatically faced prosecution. Streamline was created in 2005 during the George W. Bush administration and continued under the Obama administration as well. Under President Trump, a new variant of Streamline is spreading along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.

    Treating all undocumented immigrants like hardened criminals is cruel enough, but the Trump administration has added a particularly vicious twist.

    Guided by a highly punitive enforcement philosophy, government agencies are separating migrant families, removing children from parents who are criminally charged. In theory, forced family separation—like mandatory prosecution—is supposed to have a deterrent effect on would-be undocumented migrants who are thinking about making the trip across the U.S.-Mexico border.

    However, a new study out this month says there is no evidence that these prosecutions have an impact on migrants’ decisions to come to the United States. All this process does is clog the courts and erode due process.

    The zeal with which Attorney General Sessions and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen are using children as weapons against their own parents runs counter to American ideals of due process, proportionality, and basic fairness. Taking away someone’s child as a form of punishment against the parent fails to consider the terror and trauma suffered by the child, who has done nothing wrong. Nor does it account for the fact that the inflicted terror and trauma is far out of proportion to the parent’s offense of seeking a better life for his or her family.

    The Trump administration nevertheless continues to ramp up its put-them-all-behind-bars (and take-away-their-children) approach to border enforcement. For instance, during a 13-day span of time in May, 638 parents who crossed the border with their children were prosecuted—and, presumably, had their children taken away from them.

    As more and more immigrant families are torn apart in the coming months, it is important to keep in mind that the majority of people being locked up are not dangerous criminals; they are asylum seekers and job seekers.

    This post originally appeared on Immigration Impact. © 2018 Immigration Impact. All rights reserved.


    About The Author

    Walter Ewing Walter Ewing, Ph.D., is Senior Researcher at the American Immigration Council. In addition to authoring numerous reports for the Council, he has published articles in the Journal on Migration and Human Security, Society, the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, and the Stanford Law and Policy Review. He also authored a chapter in Debates on U.S. Immigration, published by SAGE in 2012. Mr. Ewing received his Ph.D. in Anthropology from the City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate School in 1997. Follow him on Twitter @WalterAEwing.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

      Posting comments is disabled.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It's the Law by Kristie De Pena
      ImmigrationDaily

      08-21-2018, 03:12 PM
    • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
      ImmigrationDaily
      Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

      CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

      https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/polit...ent/index.html

      Presidential use of "national security"
      ...
      08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
      ImmigrationDaily

      If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      ImmigrationDaily
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      ImmigrationDaily
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
      ImmigrationDaily

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

      by


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
    Working...
    X