Lawsuits and criminal investigations over immigrant family separations have led to backlash as the number of Central American families allowed in the US has dwindled. According to the Homeland Security Department, the US deterred over 18,900 family unit crossings in February.
This is not a permanent policy change; the policy is known as “metering.” Therefore, not every family who seeks asylum is denied by officials. Some of those families are allowed in, while others are turned away to make a case between trying to cross the border again and waiting months in Mexico, in hope of being chosen for asylum at a port of entry.
Even for those migrants who are processed by officials, agents may have to shut the door to their petition for asylum. As a result, these families are flown back to their home countries–mostly Central America–as per the law that requires fast-track deportation for asylum-seekers.
At the very center of this deterrence strategy is the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program. As per the MPP program, which recently expanded to Harlingen, TX, is sending back at least 2,100 asylum-seekers to Ciudad Acuña, Chihuahua. While approximately 415 last week were returned there on buses by ICE, sending families back through the U.S. border’s port of entry and shifting them back in Mexico to Ciudad Acuña is an unusual practice.
Two of the few lawyers to represent asylum-seekers inside Ciudad Acuña–Jessica Robles Morales and Nadine Melo–are seeing these returns multiply every day. Family members reveal in interviews telling stories of suffering by being stranded in Mexico–with the protection of the US government 60 feet away across the border.
In recent years, tens of thousands of Central American families have fled war and gang violence to the US seeking asylum. These trends were not noticed by the Trump administration. “But since President Trump took office and called for increased border security, including a border wall, the numbers have skyrocketed,” writes reporter Sarah Lynch.
The US government reclassified asylum-seekers as a top priority national security issue, viewing Central American families–which currently make up 55% of Border Patrol’s apprehensions–as a blow to the president’s image and his policies.
These policies are new and they have weakened the country’s asylum system–quick processing times, limits on appeal, and quick deportation orders. A 1997 law requires quick and categorical hearings for applicants labeled as “credible fear” cases before “fear of persecution” cases.
“Attorneys and migrant advocates say this framework creates clear conflicts between raising children in countries with resources and safety, compared to facing the prospect of deportation and violence back home,” writes Lynch.
In a recent report, Human Rights First said that this process is “fundamentally broken.”
“Family casework is not being handled quickly or fairly.” The Flores agreement–recently expanded by a federal judge–which determines the time families can be detained by the government, is the result of a 1997 federal court settlement. The settlement allows detained families to be released from custody to sponsors in the US within 20 days of being apprehended.
Meanwhile, US attorneys are fighting against the 5,000 beds allowed by the Flores agreement, stating that housing families together in detention demoralizes children and ultimately does not aid the parent in court.
Lawsuits are filed that defend the Flores agreement and criminal investigations led by state and federal prosecutors have created a swell of backlash in the pace of such family separations, leading to staffing shortages, while also improperly compensating some of these children in detention.
As a result, physically and psychologically abused children became a wall-to-wall problem–and both parents and their children faced long wait times in full-capacity shelters such as Casa Padre, operated by Casa San Diego in Brownsville, Tex.
It is noteworthy to mention that US the administration’s drastic family separations policy had stopped within two months of its implementation due to the overwhelming coverage (including the legislative, policy, and public backlash) preventing an all-around institutionalization of this inhumane practice.
What has been the recent backlash against family separations and the effects of the policies?
Leave a Reply