Deena Flinchum
In a complex world, it is difficult to do just one thing. The chaos that we are seeing at our southern border is a prime example.
The situation is too often presented as a simple question of helping women and children, but it is far more complicated than that.
The types of persons crossing the border illegally have evolved in the last decade. Initially most border-crossers were men, some only in their teens.
They were looking for work, and there have always been enough members of the business community who were willing to hire these illegal workers. Some might bring their families with them or attempt to smuggle them in later.
After President Barack Obama began promoting DACA to give young illegal immigrants protection from deportation and work permits, the border faced a tsunami of unaccompanied minors, primarily from Central America.
It appears that the families of many of these UCAMs (unaccompanied Central American minors) erroneously thought that they would be covered by DACA even though they would have been arriving too late for the DACA deadline. Lately, more family units have been arriving along with unaccompanied minors.
The Flores vs. Reno settlement agreement from 1997 began our current dilemma by stating that minors taken at the border must be released to state-licensed facilities within 20 days.
In 2016 the Ninth Circuit Court expanded this agreement to cover even minors accompanied by adults. Unfortunately, such facilities for both adults and minors are not readily available.
It takes much longer than 20 days to adjudicate an asylum case, especially with the current backlog. The easiest solution was “catch and release;” that is, release the family into the US with a court date.
The Trump administration’s decision to separate families at the border is understandable but ill-advised, especially as there appears to have been little thought put into how maintaining the connections between adults and children would work.
A good systems analyst could have pointed out the flaws in the plan with ease; however, modifying the settlement regarding children would almost have to have been made to keep families together in detention.
The Flores settlement coupled with recent court decisions has forced the government to revert to catch and release if there is a chance of asylum so long as an adult arrives with a child.
It is not surprising that those hoping to enter the US and be released bring a child and a story of “credible fear,” and there is no doubt that those arriving are aware of this benefit.
In a recent article, the New York Times (NYT) quotes Guillermo T, an unemployed Guatemalan construction worker who recently arrived in Arizona with his 16-year-old daughter.
“This is the reason I brought a minor with me…She was my passport,” he said.
It is difficult to misconstrue this statement: bringing a child is a free pass, as catch and release kicks in.
As more children are released into the US, we are merely assembling a second army of DREAMERS—children brought to the US through no fault of their own and presenting a sympathetic case for amnesty.
They might even be included in a future amnesty involving those who are part of the current DACA program, after which they could be instrumental in securing amnesty for their parents.
There are two elements that could best help in solving the situation at the border: E-Verify, which can determine if a person is legally eligible to work in the US, and expedited removal as a family.
Mandatory E-Verify can end an illegal entrant’s finding a job. Expedited removal of a family coupled with the modification of laws involving the holding of children can enable the family to remain together until it is more quickly repatriated as a unit or cleared for asylum status.
When those arriving at the southern border learn that they not only will be expeditiously removed if they don’t qualify for asylum—and few do qualify—but also will not be able to work if they succeed in entering the US illegally, the border crisis will ease.
Most people requesting asylum at the border are here primarily for economic reasons and a better life regardless of what they say to officials on arrival.
Once they are released into the US with a court date that may be months or years in the future, they can disappear and work with a fake identity.
The exemption for children has meant that most arriving from Central America who are not detained do not show up for their hearings in immigration court; in fact, ICE set the number of those who do not show at 80 percent.
An ankle monitor can be removed; and the less likely a person is to be able to stay, the more likely they are to disappear into the community and work illegally.
As someone who volunteered at the Alexandria City jail back in the 80s during the crack cocaine epidemic, I can attest that separation of families, especially children, is sad no matter the circumstances and even if the blame for the separation can be placed squarely on the person who broke the law.
Still it is important to recognize that our lax enforcement of immigration laws has been a main contributor to family separation by encouraging parents to enter the US illegally to work, sometimes abandoning their families back home.
This separation has been going on for a long time. A 2014 article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has this remarkable quote: “A peasant leader in Guatemala asked last year if I (author David Stoll) could help him get several men deported from the United States. Why? They were no longer sending money to their children, and their wives hoped they could be deported back to their responsibilities.”
It is time for the US to recognize the role that years of our tolerating illegal entry has played in separating families.
Deena Flinchum is a retired IT professional who has lived in the New River Valley since 2002. She serves on the board of the NRV Agency on Aging and as an RSVP volunteer. She also serves the Agency on Aging as an insurance counselor.