Why are we taking children from their parents on the border?

Over recent weeks, the Trump Administration’s zero tolerance policy towards people crossing the border illegally has been making the news, especially in regard to the separation of parents from their children when they are caught crossing the border. Parents are being arrested and their children are being placed into the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, which then tries to place them in homes, either the homes of relatives legally living in the US, or in foster care.

The parents are then held in detention centers until their plea hearings. They then face a choice: they can plead guilty to the misdemeanor charge of illegal entry, which often results in being sentenced to “time served,” allowing them to be reunited with their children, or they can plead not guilty, which will result in them being kept in custody, away from their children, until their trial. Most of these parents are choosing to plead guilty, so that they can get back to their children sooner.

It is an open question as to whether this guilty plea will hinder the parents’ ability to obtain asylum, though the Justice Department claims it will not. A single misdemeanor isn’t normally considered a particularly serious crime, and thus grounds for refusing asylum, but that is at the judge’s discretion. And a criminal record of any kind can impede the immigration process, even apart from the asylum hearing.

So, here is the question: What is the purpose of charging these parents with illegal entry and separating them from their children? This might affect their ability to apply for asylum and be granted legal residence here in the US, but as stated before, the Justice Department is claiming that it will not. So why are we putting them through this at taxpayer expense?

First, let’s take the Justice Department at their word. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has claimed that the intense crackdown on people crossing the border without proper documentation is intended to act as a deterrent to people crossing the border. And, while he claims that the separation of families was not the goal of the policy, he clearly considers it to simply act as a further deterrent to families crossing the border.

Here is the question, though: what kind of deterrent is the possibility of prosecution in the US to people fleeing extreme poverty and gang violence?

Mexico, which is the country of birth for nearly half of all current undocumented residents of the US, had over 20,000 people displaced from their homes due to violence last year alone.

And Central American immigrants, who account for the majority of new undocumented people crossing the southern US border, are also fleeing horrific conditions.

Guatemala, which is the country of birth for more undocumented immigrants in the US than any other country except Mexico, has been hard-hit by poverty, especially in rural communities inhabited by indigenous Guatemalans. For many of these desperate poor people, the only choices are join one of the gangs extorting money from others, try to scrape together payments to the extortion gangs, driving them further into poverty, face the possibility of kidnapping if they don’t pay the extortion gangs, or flee.

After Guatemala, El Salvador is the country of birth for the next largest group of undocumented in the US. El Salvador has a homicide rate 15 times that of the US. And when the gangs there extort money, it is under threat of death for the person being extorted and their family, not kidnapping. Nearly 1 in 4 Salvadorans were the victim of a crime in 2016, According to a study by Central American University. And about 40% of Salvadorans are actively trying to leave the country.

The country of birth for the next largest group of undocumented is Honduras. Over 60% of Hondurans live in poverty, and about 20% of Hondurans live in extreme poverty, at less than $1.90 a day. And, while Honduras is not as violent as El Salvador, it still has a homicide rate of nearly 9 times that of the US.

This is where the people crossing the border are coming from. Will facing the possibility of being arrested if they are caught crossing deter them? I think not. Will the prospect of facing separation from their children stop them from trying to get their children away from the poverty and violence in their home countries? No.

Now, Sessions has said that people who think that they have a legitimate asylum claim should present themselves at ports of entry. So it could be simply that he is trying to deter people from not following proper procedure for seeking asylum. Except Customs and Border Patrol has actively been preventing prospective asylum seekers from applying for asylum at ports of entry, either by turning them away and telling them to come back later, or sometimes by even actively preventing asylum seekers from crossing into the US.

So, again we ask, why are we separating hundreds of parents from their children, prosecuting them for misdemeanor illegal entry, then sentencing to time served?

If it is to deter people from coming to this country at all, it is not going to be very effective, thus serving to be cruelty without purpose.

I think it is more likely that it is an attempt to reduce the number of asylum seekers the US takes in. If the US can get more of the people seeking asylum to do so at ports of entry, then either force them to wait a long time to be processed, or bar them entry into the US altogether, than they can better control the number of asylum seekers granted asylum. And if this process does not result in more people going to ports of entry to seek asylum, then the Justice Department could call for the misdemeanor charges to count against asylum seekers, even if they don’t result in an immediate denial of asylum.

So, the Justice Department and the current administration are cruelly tearing apart families in order to exert control over how many asylum seekers we have to take. This is unconscionable. Our country is not being overrun with asylum seekers. We are not facing a pressing need to reduce how many we take in. Yet our country is doing all of this in its attempt to work around international law pertaining to accepting asylum seekers.

It is clear that the parents are distraught about being separated from their children. But what about the children? They start by being held at border stations. The Department of Health and Human Services has such a backlog in processing their cases that over half of the 550 children currently held at border stations have been there longer than the 72 hour maximum allowed by law. After their stay at these places, they are transferred to holding facilities run by HHS. It is taking an average of 45 days to place the children with sponsors.

We don’t know the conditions in these holding facilities. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Or) was denied entry into one of these places when he attempted to visit one. Jeff Sessions admitted that he had not visited any of these facilities. So the whole process is happening with little to no transparency.

This cruel process needs to end. Now. These people, fleeing violence and extreme poverty, are coming to the Land of the Free, only to have their families ripped apart. We are trying to bar entry to everyone we can, even those who need it most.

I am ashamed of my country.

Still No Fix, with March 5 Looming

Tomorrow, I will get back to posting about gun violence, but I need to address another important thing that happened this week.

Some of you may have read that I put forth that Congress should pass one of the bipartisan immigration bills in the works that would grant legal status to DACA recipients, forcing the President to veto or sign it in a blog post last week.

Well, they didn’t.

On Thursday, the Senate rejected multiple bills that would have protected the DACA recipients. The one that got the most votes, a bipartisan bill that would have provided legal status and a path to citizenship for DACA recipients, got 54 votes in favor, but it needed 60 in order to pass. The White House actively campaigned against this bill, saying that it didn’t do enough to bolster border security or limit legal immigration. This is despite the fact that it committed $25 billion to strengthen border security over the next ten years and would have put restrictions on family reunification immigration, preventing DACA recipients from sponsoring their parents for citizenship.

The bipartisan bill I mentioned in my previous post, the one put forward by Senators McCain and Coons, only obtained 52 votes. It was a slimmer bill, focusing solely on border security and legalization for DACA recipients, without touching on broader immigration policy. The White House also campaigned against this bill.

Another bill, one backed by the White House, also would have provided legalization and a path to citizenship for DACA recipients. but it would have allocated $25 billion to border security immediately in order to fund the border wall, restricted family reunification immigration, reduced total legal immigration, and eliminated the diversity visa lottery program, as well. That bill only got 39 votes in favor, with 14 Republican Senators voting against it, despite the White House’s endorsement.

Now, some Senators are looking to possibly pass a temporary extension to DACA to give Congress time to find a bill they can pass.

President Trump is blaming Democrats for the failure. He says that, if they were serious about helping DACA recipients, they would let him have his funding for his wall and all of the legal immigration restrictions he wants. He says this despite the fact that his administration went to bat against two different bipartisan bills that helped DACA recipients.

It is President Trump who is holding the lives of these people hostage in order to get everything he wants, despite opposition by members of his own party and the majority of the American people.

I’ll say it again: Congress should have passed one of the bipartisan immigration bills and forced the President to either make good on his threat to veto it, or bow to the will of the people and sign it.

But they didn’t. Not that I’m surprised. But time is running out. Something needs to be done. And it is up to us.

Contact your Senators and Representatives. Make sure they pass a temporary extension for DACA so that innocent people don’t get their lives torn apart while a more permanent solution is found. Reach out to your church and talk about the possibility of it providing sanctuary to those who might be deported, like the church in Arizona did. If you know any DACA recipients, show your support encouragement for them. Let them know that you stand with them.

We didn’t take away the President’s cover. So now, let’s provide some for DACA recipients.

Faith, Shaken or Stirred

I am currently taking an online writing class called Rewriting Narratives. For one of my assignments this past week, I had to write a piece from the perspective of a demonized character. I chose the Roman Emperor Nero, and I wrote this poem:

 

Do not listen to the conspiracy theorists.

Rome was not an “inside job”.

I was just as frightened as you.

I did not fiddle,

I watched in horror at what the terrorists wrought.

And while they didn’t claim responsibility,

I have it on good authority

That a dangerous religious sect out of the Middle East

Was to blame.

Did I immediately rebuild Rome,

Making it more beautiful than before?

Of course I did;

If we let the conflagration stop us,

The terrorists win.

Did I hunt down these terrorists,

Then feed them to fire and lions?

I will not deny it.

Let them have a taste of the fear

They loosed upon the city.

There is no reasoning with these people.

They have no respect for gods or empire.

And by claiming the symbol of the Crucified Man

They show themselves for the anarchists they are.

They may have burned Rome,

But they won’t be satisfied until they burn the World.

And yet, there are these disgusting rumors.

This ingratitude is appalling.

I have done my level best to protect you from

These monsters.

And yet, you vilify me.

Even so, I will be your champion.

I will protect the empire from this threat.

It is my duty as emperor,

And I will see it through, no matter what.

 

I did this as a thought experiment, but it got me thinking: What if the arsonists were Christians? Maybe they just loved fire, like arsonists of today. Maybe they were thieves who used the fire to enable them to plunder the city. Maybe it was an accident. Maybe it was misguided religious extremists who viewed Rome as a den of false gods and iniquity. But if the fire were set by Christians, rather than them just being Nero’s scapegoats, what would that change?

If there were early Christian terrorists, would that affect your view of Christianity back then? What about Christianity today? If you yourself are Christian, would that shake your faith?

If you would argue that it wasn’t all Christians, it went against what Peter and Paul were teaching, and so Nero’s persecution of Christians was still unjust, then I have another question for you:

Do you extend the same benefit of the doubt to Muslims today? After all, not all Muslims are terrorists. Thousands of their imams and other religious leaders have spoken out against terrorism. And so, isn’t discrimination against Muslims based on the actions of the few unjust?

And if you are a Christian whose faith would not be shaken by new evidence that showed that Rome was actually burned by Christian terrorists (or, for that matter, whose faith is not shaken by the existence of Christian terrorists around the world throughout recent history, right up to today), shouldn’t we not fault Muslims who do not lose faith, even as extremist terrorists try to co-opt and subvert their faith?

Just some food for thought.

Take Away the President’s Cover

At midnight tomorrow, the US government faces another possible shutdown. The House passed another continuing resolution to fund the government through March 23, but it is not likely to pass the Senate, where it will need Democratic votes in addition to Republican ones. Meanwhile, the congressional leadership is frantically trying to cobble together an actual budget. (Nothing like getting multiple extensions on your class project and still waiting until the last minute to get it done, am I right?) Whether they succeed or not is left to be seen. (Here is a piece from Business Insider detailing the current budget situation.)

All that being said, what I want to discuss here is not what a budget should entail or whether or not they will succeed in passing one. Instead, I want to discuss the issue that led to a three-day government shutdown at the end of the last continuing resolution; the same issue that has President Trump saying that he would “love to see a shutdown” this time. That issue is immigration reform.

As I am sure you know, President Trump has set March 5 to be the day that DACA (or, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) expires. When he set this expiration date, it was ostensibly because something like DACA should be legislation, not an executive order. At first, Trump indicated a willingness to work with Congress to get DACA on the books as legislation, but he very quickly added the caveat that any immigration legislation include funding for his wall.

Because of differences between views of what immigration reform should look like, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has thus far blocked any open floor debate on immigration, all while promising the Democrats that it would come. When Senate Democrats saw the March 5 DACA deadline looming, they refused to support yet another continuing resolution without addressing DACA. This led to the short government shutdown last month. On the third day of the shutdown, Democrats agreed to a very short continuing resolution (the one that ends at midnight tomorrow) in exchange for a promise from Mitch McConnell that there would be an open floor debate in the Senate on DACA and immigration. That still hasn’t happened, which is why Senate Democrats are highly unlikely to support the continuing resolution that the House just passed.

Now, there are two immigration policy issues that seem to be sticking points for the politicians in Washington: DACA and the Border Wall. The Democrats want DACA legislation passed before the DACA executive order expires on March 5. Trump wants any immigration legislation to include funding for his Border Wall. At first, it would seem that both the Democrats and Trump are simply digging in on their pet issues, issues that are important to their respective bases. But here is the thing: the American people want a way for DACA recipients to have some sort of legal residency here in the US, provided they meet certain requirements. A CBS News poll last month indicated that 87% of Americans are in favor of allowing DACA recipients to stay in this country. That same poll indicated that only 35% of Americans are in favor of building the wall along the US-Mexican border. So clearly, one of these issues has the backing of the American people, while the other does not.

Currently, there are multiple immigration bills in Congress being considered. Those bills include DACA legislation, as well as include a funding boost for border security for things like drone surveillance of the border. None of them include funding for the wall. Now, maybe these bills could pass Congress, and maybe they couldn’t. There are hardliners on both sides of the aisle who will refuse to support them. But one thing is for sure: there will not be enough votes to override a veto. So, they drag their feet, try to make backroom deals, and still do not open it up for a floor debate.

Here is what I think they should do:

1. Pick one of the immigration bills currently introduced, either the bipartisan McCain-Coons bill in the Senate or the bipartisan House immigration bill introduced by Reps Will Hurd (R-Texas) and Pete Aguilar (D-Calif), along with 52 other co-sponsors, split evenly between Democrats and Republicans.
2. Open it up for floor debate.
3. Retool it as necessary in order to get it to pass.
4. Send it to the President.
5. Make him make the choice.

If President Trump vetoes a DACA bill, especially one that also funds a boost in border security, then he will be actively opposing the vast majority of the American people. He will be opposing the vast majority of the Republican Party. If Congress does not send a DACA bill to the President, then they provide him with cover. Take away his cover. Make him stand alone.