Source: https://www.mplg.us/memo-regarding-zero-tolerance-policy-family-separation-policy/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:51:30+00:00

Document:
With all of the rapid changes taking place with regard to President Trump’s zero tolerance policy and family separation actions, MPLG has put together a detailed overview of the legal roots of these policies, where these policies stand as of the release of this memorandum, as well as the implications of these policies.
IntroductionAccording to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as of June 20th 2017, 2,053 children have been separated from their parents, and have been placed in the health and human services funded facilities. Once these children have been separated from their parents they are placed in the custody of Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). According to a statement by Steve Wagner, Acting Assistant Secretary Administration for Children and Families, between October and December 2017, ORR was unable to determine with certainty the whereabouts of 1,475 UAC. On March 2017, the ORR had 755 referrals, while in March 2018, ORR had 4,204 referrals.While the family separation component of the administration’s zero-tolerance policy has been rescinded, the administration has failed to provide a method of reuniting children who have already been separated from their parents. The rescission of the family separation component of this policy arguably results in a violation of law.This article will discuss (1) the administration’s zero-tolerance policy, (2) the Flores Settlement and the laws regarding unaccompanied alien children, (UAC) (3) the implications of the zero-tolerance policy, and how it has led to massive family separations, and (4) lastly, it will analyze the difference between how the Obama administration and Trump administration have handled the treatment of UAC once they have been apprehended at the southern border.
Zero Tolerance Policy- What Does This Policy Do? On April 6, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the Administration’s “zero-tolerance policy” for offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), which prohibits both attempted illegal entry and illegal entry into the United States by an alien. President Trump’s “zero tolerance policy” requires all undocumented immigrants who have been apprehended after crossing the border illegally to be criminally prosecuted, a stark departure from the previous policy that was in place at the border.Previously, illegal entry into the United States was not met with criminal prosecution; undocumented immigrants were processed under the “catch and release” policy, in which undocumented immigrants were held together as a family in ICE custody and/or issued a Notice to Appear in immigration court, and thereafter released. Undocumented immigrants being held in ICE custody were evaluated based upon “immigration priorities:” Undocumented immigrants without a criminal record were not a priority and therefore were subject to the catch and release policy.Those with criminal records were subject to prosecution.
Under the zero-tolerance policy, adults are placed in federal prison instead of an immigration detention center as they await their criminal trials. As a result of the new criminal prosecution policy, children are separated from the parents before going to federal prison: children, by law, cannot be held in a federal prison, and cannot be detained for longer than twenty days if they are held with their parents. We note that the administration has announced an end to the family separation component of this policy on Wednesday, June 20, 2018, allowing parents to remain with their children by being held in an immigration detention center. We discuss the implications of this policy later in this article.
Up until the end of the family separation component of the administration’s “zero tolerance policy,” parents were in federal custody and being prosecuted while their children were taken away with no clear requirement that they be returned after the prosecutions. Children were transferred to the ORR, an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ORR is then tasked to find an adult sponsor for the child that resides in the United States (i.e., a relative or family friend). If one is not available, children are released to a foster family. Until then, children are held in ORR shelters. The administration has not announced a method or process for reuniting parents and children separated before June 20th.
This de facto family separation policy inflicts trauma on separated family members, restricts due process and violates fundamental norms of family unity and decency. The President of the American Physiological Association, Jessica Daniel stated, “We remain gravely concerned about the fate of the more than 2,300 children who have already been separated and are in shelters. These children have been needlessly traumatized and must be reunited with their parents or other family members as quickly as possible to minimize any long-term harm to their mental and physical health. “She further stated that psychological research has proven that children separated from their parents can suffer severe psychological distress, resulting in anxiety, loss of appetite, sleep disturbances, withdrawal, aggressive behavior and decline in educational achievement. The longer the parent and child are separated, the greater the child’s symptoms of anxiety and depression become.
What was the government’s reasoning for the zero-tolerance policy?This policy was implemented as a deterrent to illegal immigration—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cited a 203 percent increase in illegal border crossings into the U.S. from March 2017 to March 2018 in support of the policy. While the administration highlights a “crisis of illegal immigration,” to the contrary government data also shows that monthly border crossings have dramatically decreased since 1999.We note that the majority of migrants apprehended at the Southwest border are from Central America as opposed to Mexico. The administration’s new zero tolerance policy primarily impacts Central Americans, often who are seeking asylum and fleeing violence in their home countries. Applicants must physically be in the United States to apply for asylum, which requires their physical presence and entry at the U.S. border to do so.
How the Flores Settlement Agreement and Various Laws Play a Role in the Administration’s Zero-Tolerance PolicyThe administration used the Flores Settlement Agreement of 1997 and the UAC statute as a legal basis for the recent widespread separation of parents from their children while carrying out its zero tolerance policy. We discuss the various laws that played a role in the zero-tolerance policy as they apply to UAC below.
The Flores Settlement Agreement of 1997 In the 1980s, the U.S. experienced an influx of alien children from Central America to the U.S.During this period, a class action lawsuit on behalf of immigrant children who had been detained by the legacy Immigration Naturalization Service (INS) resulted in the foundation of the U.S.’s policies on UACs. The lawsuit was the result of years of litigation regarding the detention of UACs who crossed the border from Central America in the 1980’s at that time fleeing primarily Civil Wars. The case, Reno v. Flores, challenged the procedures regarding detention conditions, treatment of children in detention, and created terms governing the release of children from detention. The first case, which sparked the need for reform was Flores v. Messe, 934 F.2d 991 (9th Cir. 1990. In this case, the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional law filed the class action lawsuit against the Attorney General, Messe. The respondents were a class of alien minors arrested by (INS) and then detained pending deportation hearings pursuant to the regulation 8 CFR § 242.24, which provides for the release of detained minors only to their parents, close relatives, or legal guardians, except in unusual and compelling circumstances. One of those children was fifteen-year-old UAC Jenny Flores, who crossed the border without inspection in 1985 and was caught by INS. She was detained with adults, strip searched daily, and was not able to be released to anyone aside from her legal guardians. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The panel found that there was no due process violation. The Court said that even if a minor had a right to be released to an unrelated adult, that right was not fundamental, and was thus subject to reasonable restriction. Absent a fundamental right, minimal scrutiny of the regulation sufficed. The panel cited the plenary power of the U.S. to control its’ borders, and the limited nature of juveniles’ rights compared to adults’ rights, as the reason for the ruling.
The plaintiffs then sought rehearing en banc on August 9, 1991. The en banc Ninth Circuit held that the INS’ blanket detention of children during the pendency of deportation proceedings was unconstitutional. The court explained that undocumented immigrants had due process rights, ny detaining the, during their deportation proceedings. The court stated that the interests of minors was not within the agency’s area of expertise, and therefore the minors were not entitled to the usual deference. Therefore, the en banc court held that the INS’s policy was unconstitutional, and they held in favor of the plaintiffs. Flores v. Meese, 942 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder).
Building from Flores v. Messe, the Supreme Court decided to hear the case of Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 113 S. Ct. 1439 (1993) in order to determine whether the ruling that alien juveniles should be released to responsible adults was constitutional. The court examined the language in the uniform deportation-exclusion rule, 8 C.F.R. § 242.24 (1992), in order to determine whether the ruling mandating that alien juveniles be released to responsible adults violated their due process rights. The court held that INS’s regulations and procedures regarding the detention and release of UACs did not violate the minors’ substantive due process rights or the equal protection clause. In 1997, the case was remanded to the District Court, which resulted in the two parties agreeing to the Flores Settlement Agreement.
The Flores Settlement Agreement established the immigration obligations and policies for the treatment of UACs. The Flores Settlement Agreement required that immigration officials detaining minors provide (1) food and drinking water, (2) medical assistance in emergencies, (3) toilets and sinks, (4) adequate temperature control and ventilation, (5) adequate supervision to protect minors from others, and (6) separation from unrelated adults whenever possible.
Through this Act, the ORR was also tasked with screening children to determine whether they may have a claim for humanitarian relief.
These Laws Were Intended to Protect the Constitutional and Human Rights if UACs, and Not to Traumatize Children Through Forced Family Separation.The progression and development of the protections of UACs can be seen through the UAC statute, the Flores Settlement Agreement, the Homeland Security Act, and the TVPRA. The intent of these laws and agreements was to ensure that the vulnerable group of UAC minors’ constitutional and human rights are protected while they are being detained away from their parents.Yet, the current administration used these policies and legal obligations as the legal basis for separating parents from their children.Under the zero-tolerance policy, undocumented immigrants who have been caught at the border are referred to federal court for criminal prosecution. When this occurs, undocumented immigrants are sent to federal jail, rather than held in immigration detention facilities until they have hearings in front of a federal judge. During this time, parents are separated from their children, because children cannot be held in adult detention centers, including federal prisons. This is because the Flores Settlement Agreement places limits on the length of detention for children, and mandates that they are housed in the least restrictive conditions possible if they cannot be released to a guardian or licensed facility. Thus, this allowed the administration to justify the separation of parents from their children.
Exempt ICE family residential facilities from the Agreement’s state licensure requirement.
Separation of Children from Parents as well as Prolonged Detention When Seeking Asylum Violates Human Rights Law.As a member of the Organization of America States (OAS), the U.S. has various obligations under international law. According to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR), IACHR’s 2010 Report on Immigration in the United States, Detention and Due Process, all deprivations of liberty must have a legitimate aim, be proportionate to the aim pursued and have a fair balance struck between the concerning interests. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention further explained this, and affirmed that the detention of asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants in an irregular situation is a measure of last resort and that the necessity to have recourse to a detention on measure must be evaluated in each individual case. According to the Working Group, mandatory or automatic detention must be considered arbitrary. According to the IACHR’s 2010 Report on Immigration in the United States, Detention and Due Process, the Commission stated that, “detention is only permissible when a case‐ specific evaluation concludes that the measure is essential in order to serve a legitimate interest of the State and to ensure that the subject reports for the proceeding to determine his or her immigration status and possible removal. Therefore, the detention of immigrants, when they are seeking asylum should be a measure of last resort. Furthermore, deprivations of liberty must be proportionate and have a legitimate aim. Immigrants seeking asylum are vulnerable, as they are fleeing persecution in their home country. These immigrants should not be separated from their children, during this time. Since detention for this group is a matter of last resort under international law, this administration has violated international norms.
“1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
The convention acknowledges that asylum seekers may break immigration rules when seeking refuge. The convention, for example, would prohibit penalties against asylum seekers for minor immigration or criminal offenses through the process of seeking asylum. The convention further prohibits arbitrary detention on the basis of seeking asylum.
These principles demonstrate that the U.S. as a party to these treaties has several obligations regarding the treatment of refugees. The U.S. violates international human rights law when it arbitrarily detains those who come to its borders seeking asylum, without giving them due process of law, which consists of the ability to have their case heard in front of an immigration judge.
The Obama Administration dealt with a surge in migrants by detaining families together in administrative facilities, or releasing them, with a Notice to Appear in court.  In 2014, the Obama administration authorized the detention of hundreds of families and UAC who had crossed the border.During the year of 2014, the Border Patrol apprehended more than 69,000 UAC and 68,000 family units, compared to 38,000 and 15,000, in 2013. Initially, children who arrived with their parents were not detained or quickly deported during this time. Pursuant to statutes, there are strict limits and policies regarding children in immigration detention.Therefore, under the Obama administration many families were released from detention with a notice to appear in immigration court, rather than separating the children from their parents.
Furthermore, in November 2014, President Obama announced a number of other changes in immigration enforcement including an agency-wide policy of applying immigration priorities to prosecution. This policy identified categories of removable noncitizens that should be the highest priority for enforcement. The highest priority for ICE and CBP included “national security threats, noncitizens apprehended immediately at the border, gang members, and noncitizens convicted of felonies or aggravated felonies as defined in immigration law.”  As a result, undocumented immigrants without a criminal record were not pursued or sought for removal proceedings after with the same rigor as undocumented violent immigrants.
In 2015, the Ninth Circuit held that the requirements laid out in the Flores Settlement applied to UAC along with “accompanied” children. The Judge ordered DHS to release parents with their children. Yet, the requirement that parents be released with their children was reversed in 2016 on appeal.  While Flores does not state that parents may be released, under the Obama administration families were often released together after 20 days.
As discussed in the sections above, the Trump administration took the zero-tolerance policy that existed under previous presidents and imposed family separation, and removed discretionary authority from Border Patrol officers. While this administration claims it was acting according to the policies on the books, the actions taken up through June 20, 2018 were in stark contrast to the policies that were in effect under both Bush and Obama: children were not separated from families, and children and families were released after 20 days.
While rescinding its family-separation policy, the Trump administration is looking to circumvent other protections afforded to UACs under the Flores Settlement Agreement. President Trump is seeking for an amendment to the Flores Settlement Agreement, which allows families with children to be detained for undetermined periods of time.
The Trump administration has made its anti-immigration platform very clear in its many policy changes since January 2017. Previous administrations have exercised discretion and really, humanity, by ensuring children and their parents are not separated and are not kept in sub-par conditions. Many of the immigrants coming to our border are seeking refuge and fleeing violence and persecution. This administration is looking to curtail immigration by whatever means necessary, even if it means treating families and their children, and other asylum applicants who have trekked thousands of miles to legally seek refuge like criminals.
 The Obama Record on Deportations: Deporter in Chief or Not?, Migration Policy Institute, January 26, 2017, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not.
 See 8 U.S. Code § 1158 – Asylum, available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158.
 See. Stipulated Settlement Agreement at 3, 7–18, 20, Flores v. Reno, No. CV 85-4544- RJK(Px) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 1997), https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/flores_settlement_final_plus_extension_of_settlement011797.pdf.
 Flores v. Meese, 934 F.2d 998 (9th Cir. 1990) (Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace).
Executive Summary, Report no. I-2001-009, September 28, 2001.
 Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA; P.L. 107-296), P.L. 107-296, Section 462.
 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, P.L. 110-457, §235(a)(2)(A).
 §§235(a)-235(d) of TVPRA; 8 U.S.C. §1232(b)(2).

References: § 1325
 v. 
 v. 
 § 242
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 242
 § 1158
 v. 
 v. 
 §235
 §1232