Safe and Sanitary

ABA Criminal Justice Standards on Treatment of Prisoners

Standard 23-3.5 Provision of Necessities

(a) Correctional authorities should maintain living quarters and associated common areas in a sanitary condition.  Correctional authorities should be permitted to require prisoners able to perform cleaning tasks to do so, with necessary materials and equipment provided to them regularly and without charge.

“'Border Patrol agents told us some of the detainees had been held in standing-room-only conditions for days or weeks,’ the inspector general’s office said in its report, which noted that some detainees were observed standing on toilets in the cells ‘to make room and gain breathing space, thus limiting access to the toilets.’"

(b) Correctional authorities should provide prisoners with clean, appropriately sized clothing suited to the season and facility temperature and to the prisoner’s work assignment and general, in quantities sufficient to allow for a daily change of clothing.  Prisoners should receive opportunities to mend and machine launder their clothing if the facility does not provide these services.  Correctional authorities should implement procedures to permit prisoners to wear street clothes when they appear in court before a jury.

“Children as young as 7 and 8, many of them wearing clothes caked with snot and tears, are caring for infants they’ve just met, the lawyers said.  Toddlers without diapers are relieving themselves in their pants.  Teenage mothers are wearing clothes stained with breast milk."

(c) Correctional authorities should provide prisoners, without charge, basic individual hygiene items appropriate for their gender, as well as towels and bedding, which should be exchanged or laundered at least weekly.  Prisoners should also be permitted to purchase hygiene supplies in a commissary.  

“Most of the young detainees have not been able to shower or wash their clothes since they arrived at the facility, those who visited said.  They have no access to toothbrushes, toothpaste or soap.

‘There is a stench,’ said Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, one of the lawyers who visited the facility. ‘ The overwhelming majority of children have not bathed since they crossed the border.’”

Consider this one of the semi-regular reminders that we have a humanitarian crisis of our own creation at the border.  From descriptions from the lawyers who have been able to go into the detention facilities and speak with their immigrant clients, we have hundreds of children and young people detained in the most deplorable conditions possible. 

Elora Mukherjee, the director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School and one of the lawyers who has visited the facilities, said the conditions in the Clint facility were the worst she had seen in any facility in her twelve year career.  “So many children are sick, they have the flu, and they’re not being properly treated,” she said.

“The children are locked in their cells and cages nearly all day long,” Ms. Mukherjee said.  “A few of the kids said they had some opportunities to go outside and play, but they said they can’t bring themselves to play because they are trying to stay alive in there.”

The children told the lawyers that they were given the same meals every day, repetitive and not enough.  “Nearly every child I spoke with said that they were hungry.”

Similar conditions have been discovered at six other facilities in Texas.  At the Border Patrol’s Central Processing Center in McAllen, Texas, the lawyers found a 17-year-old mother from Guatemala who couldn’t stand because of complications from an emergency C-section, and who was caring for a sick and dirty premature baby.  “They wouldn’t give her any water to wash her.”

We know these conditions are deplorable, and yet our government is arguing that basic sanitation should not be mandated under the legal settlement governing the facilities.  The guidelines require that a facility for children must be “safe and sanitary.”  And our government has argued that soap and toothbrushes are not necessary for safe and sanitary. The Justice Department’s lawyer, Sarah Fabian, argued that the settlement agreement did not specify the need to supply hygienic items and that, therefore, the government did not need to do so.

Here’s the thing - as we can see above, we treat prisoners better than we are treating migrant children at the border.  We make sure that prisoners - murderers, thieves, rapists, predators - we make sure they have clean clothes, they have soap, the are able to wash, to make sure they are fed and clean.  To not do so would be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

So why is it okay to forgo all those necessities at the border?

Is it just out of sight, out of mind?

Or have we really de-humanized them that much?  

Because they are not American?

Or, because they are brown?

Are we that callous as a society?

I know there is a part of society that assumes that everyone crossing the border deserves this fate because they are not coming the right way.  Despite the fact that illegal crossing was previously a misdemeanor - punished by a fine or very minimal incarceration.  Even if we were to treat these migrants as the most heinous criminals, we still see that our treatment of them does not match our traditional punishment for crimes.

That’s even overlooking the minor detail that these are children.  Children we are subjecting to the worst and most inhumane treatment we can offer.

“‘Are you arguing seriously that you do not read the agreement as requiring you to do anything other than what I just described: cold all night long, lights on all night long, sleeping on concrete and you’ve got an aluminum foil blanket?’  Judge William Fletcher asked Ms. Fabian. ‘ I find it inconceivable that the government would say that is safe and sanitary.’”

Me too.

The Caravan

"These aren't people.  These are animals."

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best.  They're bringing drugs.  They're bringing crime.  They're rapists.  And some, I assume, are good people."

"That's an invasion.  I don't care what they say.  I don't care what the fake news media says.  That's an invasion of our country.  Build the wall."

"I am telling the caravans, the criminals, the smugglers, the trespassers marching toward our border, turn back now, because you are not getting in.  Turn back."

"Many Gang Members and some very bad people are mixed into the Caravan heading to our Southern Border.  Please go back, you will not be admitted into the United States unless you go through the legal process.  This is an invasion of our Country and our Military is waiting for you!"

"The Caravans are made up of some very tough fighters and people.  Fought back hard and viciously against Mexico at Northern Border before breaking through.  Mexican soldiers hurt, were unable, or unwilling to stop Caravan.  Should stop them before they reach our Border, but won't."

"Why do we want these people from all these shithole countries here?  We should have more people from places like Norway."

--------------------

The irony of the comments Trump has made regarding the caravan and current immigration should not be lost on anyone.  While we are a nation of immigrants, more than any other on this planet, we have a history of wanting to close the door once our particular branch gets in.

The quotes are not hard to find and are all cringeworthy.

"Few of their children in the country learn English ... The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages ... Unless the stream of their importation could be turned they will soon so outnumber us that all the advantages we have will not be able to preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious.

Benjamin Franklin, founding father, on German immigration to Pennsylvania, 1750s

"We should build a wall of brass around the country."

John Jay, first chief justice of the Supreme Court, regarding "Catholic alien invaders," 1750s

"What means the paying of the passage and empyting out upon our shores such floods of pauper emigrants - the contents of the poor houses and the sweeping of the streets? - multiplying tumults and violence, filling our prisons, and crowding our poor-houses, and quadrupling our taxation, and sending annually accumulating thousands to the poll to lay their inexperienced hand upon the helm of our power?"

Lyman Beecher, Leader of the Second Great Awakening, on English immigrants, 1834

"Standing behind them are Christian employers of this land, who would rather import heathen willing to work for barely enough to sustain life than retain a brother Christian at a wage sufficient to live as becomes a Christian.  We do not want Opium or the Chinese who grow it."

Terence Powderly, Irish-American labor leader, 1892

"The people of this country are too tolerant.  There's no other country in the world where they'd allow it ... After all we built up this country and then we allow a lot of foreigners, the scum of Europe, the offscourings of Polish ghettos to come and run it for us."

John Dos Passos, early 20th century novelist, on US immigration policy

"They are coming in such numbers and we are unable adequately to take care of them ... It simply amounts to unrestricted and indiscriminate dumping into this country of people of every character and description ... If there were in existence a ship that could hold three million human beings, then three million Jews of Poland would board to escape to America."

Congressional hearing, 1920

The last two are particularly hard, for they were trying to escape, and we know what from.  This has to represent one of the lowest parts of our history.  It makes me think of the voyage of the MS St. Louis - the "Voyage of the Damned." The ship set sail from Hamburg to Cuba on May 13, 1939 carrying 937 passengers, mostly Jewish refugees seeking asylum from Nazi Germany.  The ship, helmed by a non-Jewish German made sure his passengers were treated well, a great change from their treatment in Germany.  Upon arrival at Cuba, the Cuban government refused to accept the foreign refugees.  After five days of negotiation, only 29 passengers were allowed to disembark.  The vessel then headed toward the United States, hoping for permission to enter here, but was prevented by the Coast Guard.  The St. Louis then headed to Halifax, Nova Scotia, but were denied again.  The refugees were finally accepted in various European countries, including Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France.  It is estimated that approximately a quarter of the passengers died in death camps during World War II.  All because no one wanted to deal with the refugees.

The caravan that is coming to this country has been blown out of proportion for political gain.  This is not the first migrant caravan to come through Central America to the United States, though it is a larger one. It is not as large as it has been reported, instead containing only around 4,000 people and growing smaller as the journey continues.  This has not been orchestrated by George Soros or the liberals in America to bring in a large swath of constituents or to drum up a wedge issue.

And contrary to what you may believe, the caravan is not looking to enter the country illegally - they are looking to claim asylum.  "The vast majority of Central Americans have been presenting themselves and requesting asylum.  It's not a picking-somebody-up-if-they're-sneaking-across-the-border situation.  When they encounter the Border Patrol, they're saying they need protection."  That's why the people in the caravan are willing to walk 2,500 miles to get here.  Why they press on despite illness, the weather, and even potential death.  Why they are willing to press on despite potential incarceration at the border, despite a very uncertain reception.  They are not looking to sneak in.  They are walking here as a last ditch effort to ask for help.

For they believe the promise we make of a better life here.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We've got to better than an increased presence of active duty military at the border.  We have to do better than family separation as a deterrent, a horrendous policy we are still trying to put right.  We have to do better than a threat to end a time-honored practice of birthright citizenship.  We have to do better than to turn off all avenues of legal immigration.

We have to do better than this -

Mexico should move the flag waving Migrants, many of whom are stone cold criminals, back to their countries. Do it by plane, do it by bus, do it anyway you want, but they are NOT coming into the U.S.A. We will close the Border permanently if need be. Congress, fund the WALL!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 26, 2018

It's fundamental to who we are.

"Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists."

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Birthright Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1

There is a current movement in this country to end birthright citizenship - that is to end the automatic citizenship of children born in this country.  It's a measure designed to end the manufactured crisis of "anchor babies" or "birth tourism."  Designed to curb illegal immigration by making sure the children of illegal immigrants would still be illegal as well.

We are one of around thirty five countries that have this concept of citizenship by birth.  Birthright citizenship, or jus soli (right of the soil), has a long history in America.  It stems from the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."  This clause was meant to override the 1857 Dred Scott case that denied African Americans citizenship.  And while the Amendment seems clear and direct, the controversy and potential for ambiguity comes with the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  It is this phrase which Trump and other conservatives are using to point to the possibility of changing birthright citizenship to exclude children of non-citizens or residents.

There is support for this particular tactic in the Amendment's history.  The sponsor of the Amendment Jacob Howard argued the clause had the same content as the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and should be read to exclude American Indians who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."  However, this merely goes to framers intent which is persuasive but not controlling on our governance.  In fact, you can also find support in the Amendment's history from three senators, including the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 Lyman Trumbull and President Andrew Johnson who argued that children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens and not foreign diplomats would become citizens by birth, with no opposition.

Further, the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), looking squarely at the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase.  In the case, the had to decide whether a child born in the United States to parents of Chinese descent, who were subjects of China but had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States at the time of the child's birth.   The court decided the "Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." 

If there were any question as to the courts intent in Wong Kim Ark, the court re-affirmed this principle in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).  Though the Plyler case focuses on a state statute denying funding for the education of undocumented immigrant children in the United States, the opinion contains a dictum footnote in the majority opinion that stated that according to Wong Kim Ark, the Fourteenth Amendment's phrases "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and "within its jurisdiction" were essentially equivalent, both referring primarily to physical presence, not political allegiance, and that Wong Kim Ark benefited the children of illegal as well as legal aliens.  It's also important to note that while the dissent may have disagreed with the overall opinion in Plyler that the children had a right to a public education, they agreed with the majority regarding the applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction to illegal aliens.  It would seem that birthright citizenship at this point is "settled law" and should rightly be considered so.

So when Trump says the following "It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment.  Guess what?  You don't.  You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress.  But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order.  We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits.  It's ridiculous.  It's ridiculous.  And it has to end," be aware.  He cannot do it with an executive order.  That would be unconstitutional for it's not in his powers.  An Act of Congress could be enacted, but its constitutionality would be challenged given the Supreme Court precedent and it would need to be decided by the court.  

Let's pray this does not need to go that far.  Let's pray we affirm a fundamental principle in our Constitution, for we are not a country that is defined by race, origin, or creed.  We are a nation of immigrants born here or naturalized and dedicated to an idea.  A dream open to all who want to partake in it.

Continued Consequences of Zero Tolerance - Toddlers Ordered to Court Alone

I had really hoped not to write any more on the immigration crisis at the border.  To not have to write anymore on the problems with the zero-tolerance policy and the separation of families that was required as a result.  I had hoped that though the process would be time-consuming and require a lot of trial and error, that the decision to reverse the separation policy would be beneficial in the long run and that the problems that we created could be worked out.

Then I came across a news item that offends me to my core as a parent, as an attorney, and as a human being.

Immigrant children as young as three are being ordered into court alone for their deportation proceedings, according to attorneys in Texas, California, and Washington, D.C.

Now, before any whataboutits starts, requiring unaccompanied minors to go through deportation proceedings alone is not new.  Like the previous detention of children that is pointed to under the Obama administration, such a process would occur when children arrived to the United States as unaccompanied minors.  Meaning, they crossed the border alone or without any accompanying adults (so there would be no parent here to be at their deportation hearing in any instance).

The large difference here, is that the United States has created a large influx of these cases by forcibly separating children from their parents at the border.  That has not previously occurred.  This means that more young children, including toddlers who typically would not have typically been in the unaccompanied minors group, are having to go through the deportation proceedings alone.

And it still did not make it a great practice then.  Civil rights groups have been long fighting to at least require attorney assistance in such cases, with senators trying to pass a bill that would require it.  To no avail, of course.

Because we have determined that the Sixth Amendment protection requiring assistance of counsel does not apply to deportation proceedings (INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984)), since they are technically a civil proceeding, these children are currently essentially required to represent themselves.  They are however, given a list of legal services organizations that might help them.

Even worse, we have judges that believe a three or four year old can represent themselves in immigration court.  "I've taught immigration law literally to 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds.  It takes a lot of time.  It takes a lot of patience.  They get it.  It's not the most efficient, but it can be done."  Judge Jack H. Weil, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in EOIR's Office of the Chief Immigration judge, which sets and oversees policies for the nation's 58 immigration courts and coordinates the Justice Department's training of immigration judges.  Judge Weil offered this statement in a deposition as the Justice Department's expert witness in opposition to a court case seeking required legal assistance for unaccompanied minors.  I've also read comments from immigration attorneys on this subject as well.  One had a four-year-old client who was too scared to enter the court room and had to be carried in to face the EOIR judge.  The attorney insisted that their client was not able to understand the nature of the proceedings, but the judge disagreed and went forward.

And again, because of the make up of the group of immigrants that have be affected by the zero-tolerance policy, many of the children affected are part of families who were seeking asylum.  In such a case, the child is now required to articulate the reasons they are seeking asylum on their own.  In previous cases, parents have been tried alongside their young children and have been the ones to explain why asylum is requested.

And though generally children seeking asylum tend to make their case in a non-adversarial office setting with a hearing officer, that is not always the case, and many are being pulled into full court, as the four-year-old above.

Finally, for good measure, let's remember most of these children do not speak English, so any information must be relayed through an interpreter.  Another substantial hurdle in communication and source of fear and trepidation for the child.

...

As a parent of a pretty bright four-year-old, I know she would not be able to articulate reasons for seeking asylum in a sufficient manner in English, let alone in another country or language.  We're still working with her to get her to understand the concept of city, state, and country so she can fully explain where she is from.  She can say "Wills Point Texas" in a rote manner now, but does not completely understand yet that Wills Point and many other cities are in Texas and that Texas is in the United States.  It's part of our current summer projects.

Were she given a list of organizations to help her, she would not be able to pick one, at least not with any thought to it.  It would be a random point and choose, if anything.  Likely, she would be having to proceed truly alone.

I cannot imagine how I would react if I knew she had been taken from me and was being put through legal proceedings without any form of representation.

We generally assume that children are incapable of making complex and binding decisions.  It's why they are not able to contract, why they are tried in juvenile courts when accused of a crime, and why any steps to establish capacity (to try them as an adult, to become emancipated, etc.) require an affirmative showing and finding to rebut the presumption.

Why do we change our stance in this situation?  Is it because they are not "our" kids?  Because they are not citizens?  Somehow that makes it okay?  Again, is it because they are brown, by and large?

At its best, my job basically breaks down into advocate.  To speak for those who are not able to do so.

It's time we all stand up and become advocates for these kids.

Lord knows they need them.

The Golden Door Is Closed

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Sometimes a delay works out for the best (at least for this blog).  This was supposed to go up last week, but now it has a particularly new relevance.

Though our current crisis at the border has been averted for now, one thing has become clear in this administration's language and policies: the golden door is closed.  Immigrants need not apply.  (Unless your rich.  Different rules always apply to the rich.)

The push to end many family visas by narrowly construing the limits of a family.  The refusal to accept refugees, stating a policy number half the historic average, but actively driving that number far lower.  Ending asylum for domestic violence and gang violence, and effectively ending asylum based on a "credible fear of persecution."  Stopping migrants from reaching our border, lying to them and telling them that the 'port of entry is at capacity and we cannot process any more asylum claims'.  This latter point creates a particularly nasty 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario, as we have a zero-tolerance policy jailing anyone who would enter illegally and try to claim asylum, but we are stopping them before they get here and telling them to come back later for those who want to enter legally and claim it.  As a result, there are applicants camping out for days on end just outside our borders.

And now our highest court has affirmed the imposition of a travel ban to the United States from certain countries.  The Supreme Court in Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Hawaii et al., 585 U.S. _____ (2018), reversed the appellate court that stayed the ban, remanding the case for further decision in the lower courts.  The opinion is a very sausage-making heavy opinion regarding the statutory construction surrounding the authorization of the President to limit immigration into the country.  In doing so, the court recognizes the very, very broad powers the President has in invoking such a limitation, bypassing any potential Establishment Clause issue by focusing solely on the printed text of the proclamation and not the ample evidence of motive and interpretation by the administration surrounding it.

It sends a clear message.  Immigration to America, even legal immigration is done.

Ironic for a nation that is 99.1% immigrant.

Think about that.  Only 0.9% of Americans can trace their roots back to indigenous people.  Everyone else here immigrated at some point.  And for nearly 100 years, we did not have immigration laws as we would think of them.  If you could get here, and stay here, you could become a citizen (with the unfortunate time period appropriate caveats).  Beyond that, it took us 150 years to put caps on the total number of immigrants a year.

We have to fix our immigration policies and we have to do so soon.  It's fundamental to who we are, or at least who we were.  If we want to make America great again, why don't we remember that part.

"Bartholdi's gigantic effigy was originally intended as a monument to the principles of international repblicanism, but 'The New Colossus' reinvented the statue's purpose, turning Liberty into a welcoming mother, a symbol of hope to the outcasts and downtrodden of the world."

Paul Auster

I feel the Lady now weeps.

"I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind to whatever nation they might belong."

George Washington

"Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists."

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Why It Matters

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Unalienable.  It's a funny word.  One that most everyone has memorized, but likely give little thought to its meaning.  "Incapable of being alienated, surrendered or transferred."  "Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor."  A right that belongs to a person that cannot be destroyed.  Regardless of gender, age, race, color, creed, orientation, or nationality.  Something imbued in the person by God that man cannot diminish.  We recognize these are not rights of American citizens only.  They are by nature human rights.  They are part of that great moral code that supersede every country and law.  The higher authority we answer to.

We recognize certain additional human rights that belong to children, for we appreciate the vulnerable state they are in. As citizens of the world, we have codified these in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a human rights treaty setting out the civil, political, economic, social, health, and cultural rights of children (any human being under the age of eighteen, unless the age of majority is attained earlier under national legislation).  The United States played an active role in drafting this Convention and signed it on February 16, 1995, but has not ratified it.  We are the only United Nations member state that is not a party to the treaty.

This distinction is important because we are committing a human rights violation under the Convention against children at the border by separating them from their families.

Article 9
1. State Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.  
...
4. Where such separation results from any action initiated by a State Party, such as the detention, imprisonment, exile, deportation or death (including death arising from any cause while the person is in the custody of the State) of one or both parents or of the child, the State Party, shall, upon request, provide the parents, the child or, if appropriate, another member of the family with the essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family unless the provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of the child.

{emphasis added}

We are separating babies and toddlers from their families to send them to a "tender care" facility.  A TrumpCamp. 

Children separated from their families are ending up in Michigan, clear across the country.

Children have been forcibly injected with medicine and force fed pills, with the children saying they were "held down and injected" with drugs that "rendered them unable to walk, afraid of people, and wanting them to sleep constantly."  One child's prescription cocktail included Clonazepam, Duloxetine, Guanfacine, Geodon, Olanzapine, Latuda, and Divalproex - medications used to control depression, anxiety, attention deficit disorder, bipolar disorder, mood disorders, schizophrenia, and seizures.

A former head of ICE has warned that if families are not reunited soon, there will be potentially hundreds of children that will never see their families again.  Read that again carefully.  If we do not reunite them soon, the United States government has played a role in creating orphans.

This is far bigger than a political issue.  This is a moral issue.  And we as a nation failed by instituting this policy in the first place.

Thankfully, as of this writing the President has "found" the authority to put an end to this practice and to end the policy of separating families.  It seems we have a lot to thank our living first ladies for, including the current First Lady, Melania.

There is, however, still work to be done.

• Write, call, email, pester, hound your Congressmen and women to let them know this policy was unacceptable and that laws should be enacted to prevent it from ever occurring again.
• Let them know we should ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.  
• Let them know we should remain a part of the Human Rights Council.
• Let them know the value of asylum.
• Donate to Kids in Need of Defense. https://supportkind.org/
• To the ACLU.  Here.
• To The Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES).  Here.
• Volunteer with the Texas Civil Rights Project, particularly if you speak Spanish.  Here.
• Foster.  If you are able to offer a foster home to an undocumented child caught up in this process, find out from your state authorities about how to become licensed to do so.

The enforcement of this policy may be ending, but the battle is not over.

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."

Desmond Tutu

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out - 
Beacuse I was not a Trade Unionists.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me."

Martin Niemoller

Fox News Finds A New Low - Internment "Summer" Camps

Pushing next Disney blog back to next week.  To much to discuss this week.

--------------------

Just when you think they can not dig any deeper, they find a bigger shovel.

If you ever had a doubt that Fox News presented a very biased agenda, you need look no further.  Fox News host Laura Ingraham had to weigh in on the Trump administration policy of separating immigrant families at the border as part of its "zero tolerance" enforcement of immigration law.

"More kids are being separated from their parents and temporarily housed in what are essentially summer camps, or as The San Diego Union Tribune described them today, as basically looking like boarding schools.  The American people are footing a really big bill for what is tantamount to a slow-rolling invasion of the United States." {emphasis added}

Oh yes.  I remember summer camps where we were kept inside chain-link cages and were heard wailing for our parents, but not allowed to be comforted.  I remember summer camp in a tent city in west Texas summers.  And I remember going to summer camp and being away from any family when I was under 2 as well.

It seems a lot of people supporting this issue have forgotten the maxim, "it is better to remain silent and let the world believe you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Ms. Ingraham did, at least, partially correctly quote the San Diego Union Tribune.  They did report that the Casa San Diego facility for immigrant children has "classrooms, a play area with soccer goals and a medical clinic with superheroes like Wonder Woman, Superman and the Hulk on the walls."  She apparently though suffers from the same lack of reading comprehension that Jeff Sessions has shown.  Had she continued, she would have noticed how the paper also described the prison-like setting.  "On closer inspection, details about the California-licensed child care facility run by Southwest Key Programs reflect the situation of the children it serves.  It's surrounded by fencing that is backed by privacy netting, and a sign at the gate warns visitors that it's under video surveillance 24 hours per day.  If someone opens the front door of the facility without first swiping a badge, an alarm blares through the hallway, warning of a potential escape."

I know they get their marching orders from the administration and are given the thankless task of trying to put as much spin on the effects as possible.  But you would think they might choose their words a little more carefully.

At some point this has to rise above party.  Above the liberal and conservative divide.

At some point, this has to appall everyone at a basic human level.

We can debate immigration policy.  We can even disagree on approaches.  But everyone should recognize that this is inhumane.  NO OTHER COUNTRY has a policy of separating families of those seeking asylum.  Crossing our border illegally is a misdemeanor.  This is the equivalent of arresting a person for a speeding violation and sending the driver to jail and their children in the car to a "detention facility" across town.

Even worse, we are most often doing this to people seeking asylum.  Seeking refuge.  Are we that xenophobic and/or flat out racist that we are going to turn away people in need?  In need of protection from gang violence in their native countries?  In need of protection from domestic abuse that goes unprosecuted in their native land?  We're that callous as to reject any claim of a "credible fear" for their lives in their previous homes.

Is it because they are brown?

I'm seriously searching for justification as to how this can possibly be okay.  And the only thing I can come up with is that we have determined that these immigrants don't matter.

If your justifications are butwhatabout sputters (what about Obama, what about..., etc.), it's still a bad policy.

If your justifications are that they broke the law, again, it's just a misdemeanor.  It's usually a fine and turning them away (as a whole family).  It's still a bad policy.

If your justifications are that this is the Democrats' fault, that they are the ones who left the administration with the law in the first place, then you should remember that YOU ARE THE ONES IN THE BEST POSITION TO CHANGE THE LAW NOW.  Seriously, Trump administration, you cannot use an excuse of being saddled with this law when you have control of the executive, legislative, and a majority of the judicial branches.  You can change the law.  That would also require such a law to actually exist, which it does not.  This horrible incident is occurring because of instructions regarding enforcement of the policy, which are completely within the control of the executive branch.  If you are using it as a bargaining chip to get your wall built, get over it, change the enforcement of the policy, and then focus on building the wall.

Because right now, we're just continuing to try and justify our actions while thousands of children and families are being traumatized, humiliated, and degraded.

All this while we are withdrawing from the United Nations Human Rights Council.  Yeah, really.

We're better than this.  At least we should be.

There is a meme going around that posits "If you ever wondered what you would have done in 1930s Germany or during the civil rights moment, congratulations: you're doing it now."

I don't know that we're there yet.

But we're getting closer.