Part 1 here.
Since the original Flores Agreement didn't mention 20 days, why do people keep saying that? Well, the initial agreement didn't state anything about a length of time that children should be released, but DHS was sued for breaching that agreement in 2015. Here's a short summary of how we got from 'kids are placed at the least restrictive level of detainment' to 'release all kids at 20 days'.
Since the original Flores Agreement didn't mention 20 days, why do people keep saying that? Well, the initial agreement didn't state anything about a length of time that children should be released, but DHS was sued for breaching that agreement in 2015. Here's a short summary of how we got from 'kids are placed at the least restrictive level of detainment' to 'release all kids at 20 days'.
20 Days
In 2015, DHS wanted to modify the agreement because it had been 20 years, and the influx of unaccompanied minors had risen to insane levels (in 2014, almost 69,000 unaccompanied minors were caught by Border Patrol Agents) and the recent phenomenon of families illegally crossing the border en masse (38,000 more accompanied minors). The Flores Agreement was made at a time when 130 beds being filled by kids was 'an emergency', and in 2014, it had risen to 110,000. Thanks, Obama.
In 2015, DHS wanted to modify the agreement because it had been 20 years, and the influx of unaccompanied minors had risen to insane levels (in 2014, almost 69,000 unaccompanied minors were caught by Border Patrol Agents) and the recent phenomenon of families illegally crossing the border en masse (38,000 more accompanied minors). The Flores Agreement was made at a time when 130 beds being filled by kids was 'an emergency', and in 2014, it had risen to 110,000. Thanks, Obama.
The Judge Gee's response referenced Flores and other laws extensively, but still doesn't mandate that every child is released after 20 days: "Families who are determined to have a credible fear or reasonable fear by DHS will be released under this provision as expeditiously as possible (in light of necessary screenings and assessments that reflect legitimate government interests) and in any case within an average of 20 days from the day that such families arrive in ICE custody." (highlighting mine)
The following time isn't included in that 20 days:
"b. The following time will not count against the time within which release must occur:
"b. The following time will not count against the time within which release must occur:
(i) Any time in ICE custody before the families have expressed a fear of persecution or torture if returned to their country of origin.
(ii) The time between a negative credible fear or reasonable fear determination by DHS and a finding of credible fear or reasonable fear by the EOIR.
(iii)Time requested by the family or counsel to adjourn or delay the credible fear or reasonable fear interview or service of the determination by DHS.
(iv) Any time where exceptional circumstances, such as natural disasters or medical emergencies, preclude conducting credible or reasonable fear interviews."
(ii) The time between a negative credible fear or reasonable fear determination by DHS and a finding of credible fear or reasonable fear by the EOIR.
(iii)Time requested by the family or counsel to adjourn or delay the credible fear or reasonable fear interview or service of the determination by DHS.
(iv) Any time where exceptional circumstances, such as natural disasters or medical emergencies, preclude conducting credible or reasonable fear interviews."
In addition, "3. Consistent with Paragraph 14 of the Agreement, if Defendants determine that there are no conditions under which release is appropriate, or if a family does not meet the conditions of release set by Defendants [DHS, INS] or by EOIR, the family may remain in an ICE Family Residential Center."
Another example, "Recognizing the principle of family unity, in cases where only an accompanied child (but not the accompanying parent) is determined to have a credible or reasonable fear or is otherwise placed in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, the accompanied child may, in Defendants’ discretion, remain with the accompanying parent if the parent so requests until the accompanying parent’s release or removal. If Defendants determine that the accompanying parent will not be released, Defendants will consider the preferences of the accompanying parent and, in the case of a child aged 14 years or older, the preference of such child."
What discretion do they have? That's also in the order: "In determining whether to release, Defendants shall determine whether any family member poses an unreasonable risk of flight, a danger to themselves or to others, or a threat to national security".
Now, why would the government like to hold them rather than immediately release them? Well, there's a few public safety reasons. They want to vet the people coming in so that they can determine who is coming in. They want to perform health check ups and vaccinate anyone who will be released into the US. Our government has largely wiped out Polio, Smallpox, Measles, Diphtheria and more with vaccines. The Americans most at risk are the ones who haven't been vaccinated and are susceptible to diseases which have been wiped out in this country. Finally, there's the compassionate side which wants to ensure that they are not being released into terrible situations, at least they're safe in these detention centers.
No comments:
Post a Comment