Marielys Padua Soto— Law Student and President of the Immigration Law Student Society at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico
Gruesome images of a Salvadoran father and daughter’s death caused an enormous uproar around the world last summer. Alberto Martínez and two- year-old Angie Martínez were found face down in murky waters near Matamoros, Mexico. This family was attempting to cross the Rio Grande river in South Texas in order to seek asylum in the United States, but the powerful currents of the river didn’t show them any mercy. Both father and daughter drowned along with their hopes of having a better future. This terrible tragedy is a reminder of the harsh realities of the migration crisis we are facing in America today.
The president of the United States, Donald Trump, has implemented new immigration policy changes in order to deter the massive migration coming in from countries such as Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. With a restrictive and conservative outlook on these issues, Trump has implemented several changes that make the migration process more difficult for immigrants. However, the governments of these countries from Central America have not coordinated efforts to prevent this heartbreaking crisis. These countries are submerged in extreme poverty, high crime, and injustice, and this has had a domino effect that is overwhelming the immigration system of the United States. Thus, Donald Trump has undertaken extreme measures to secure the border and deter immigrants from trying to embark on the terrible journey of crossing the border. Here is a short summary of the newest and most significant immigration policy changes adopted by the current administration:i.
i. Family Separation Mandatory at Ports of Entry
On May 7, 2018, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that separation of children from their parents was now official policy in the U.S. government. Upon being separated from their parents, children are now officially designated as “unaccompanied alien children” by the U.S. government, a category that typically describes people under the age of 18 who come to the U.S. without an adult relative arriving with them. Under federal law, unaccompanied alien children are sent into the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The ORR is responsible for identifying and screening the nearest relative or family friend living in the U.S. to whom the child can be released. Between October 1, 2017 and May 31, 2018, at least 2,700 children have been split from their parents (Dara Lind, The Trump Administration’s Separation of Families at the Border, Explained, Vox, August 14, 2018).
ii. Judicial Discretion Restricted
On May 17, 2018, the Department of Justice unilaterally eliminated the authority of judges to administratively close cases, except in very limited circumstances. The former Attorney General’s directive on administrative closure striped away the authority of judges to make independent decisions. For the government, this opened a door to restart deportation proceedings against thousands of people who judges had previously decided deserved to have their cases paused. Administrative closure was a powerful tool for immigrants with mental health issues (Alison Frankel, Jeff Sessions ‘Unprecedented’ Legacy in Immigration Court, November 8, 2018).
iii. Priority Release for Pregnant Women Denied
On March 29, 2018, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a new directive stating that they would no longer prioritize the release of pregnant women from detention facilities. As a result, there have been more pregnant women in detention. Many of the pregnant women worry that they are not receiving adequate prenatal care and nutrition, and that the stress of immigration detention will cause long term harm to themselves and their babies (Greg Kaufmann, Pregnant Women Say They’ve Been Denied Medical Care in Detention Centers, October 12, 2017).
iv. Bond Access Denied
In 2013, the Ninth Circuit ruled in Rodriguez v. Robbins that it was unconstitutional to detain certain immigrants for more than six months without access to a bond hearing. In February of 2018, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jennings v. Rodriguez reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision, which means that thousands of immigrants can now be mandatorily and indefinitely detained without bond, a violation of their fundamental human rights. Also, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is holding on to more than $200 million in bond money that belongs to immigrants who have been in the agency’s custody, cash that has yet to be returned to thousands of immigrant families or the U.S. citizens who bailed them out (Meagan Flynn, ICE is Holding $204 Million in Bond Money, and Some Immigrants Might Never Get it Back, April 26, 2018).
v. Outsourcing Border Plan
On November 1, 2018, President Trump announced a plan to issue an expansive Executive Order illegally restricting the ability of people to seek asylum in the United States and detaining asylum seekers and other immigrants indefinitely. The Executive Order stated that anyone who crossed the border between ports of entry would be ineligible for asylum. Also, on December 20, 2018, the President announced a new plan that would require asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their asylum claims are adjudicated. Asylum claims can take months, or even years, to process, and this plan endangers the lives of vulnerable migrants while they wait. This plan will also prevent asylum seekers from accessing legal resources and justice during the process of seeking asylum (Luis Gómez Romero, How the U.S. is Outsourcing Border Enforcement to Mexico, November 29, 2016).
In order for the United States to deter the massive migration coming in from Central America, it has been forced to undertake extreme measures that might appear as inhumane and insensitive to some. The truth is that the immigration problem is very complicated, with both sides providing valid viewpoints on how these policy changes are right or wrong. However, it is quite impossible and unfair for the United States to shoulder the responsibility of three countries whose governments have failed to protect and provide for their citizens. These countries should be held accountable for their negligence, which has resulted in death.
Comentários