If the large number of op-eds, editorials, and news stories is any gauge, the pressure to end the Trump Administration’s present policy of separating children from their presumed parents at the border is reaching the boiling point. At The Volokh Conspiracy Ilya Somin rejects the idea that the law, including compliance with Flores v. Reno, requires such separation. Keep in mind when reading it that Mr. Somin supports open borders, a policy I think is cruel and racist since its costs fall most heavily on blacks and Hispanics. The decline in wages for people without high school educations does not support the claim of heavy demand for workers with limited skills. The rapid adoption of ordering kiosks in fast food restaurants will further erode such demand.
What then to do? As I see it there are several alternatives. What I favor is for Congress to make more funds available to detain families with children together under safe and humane conditions and to expedite their asylum petitions. The other prospective solutions are just opening the border, to release these families together on their own recognizance pending the decisions which presents serious problems of moral hazard, or just to turn them back at the border, which would be a failure of due process.
Can anybody think of any other solutions?
Release the family to a sponsor on condition the sponsor is solely responsible for the family and presents them for hearing. A cash bond, if possible, would help.
Otherwise, a motel six with a locked chain link fence sounds about right.
Is there any country in the world that has an open borders policy? No? Wonder why not?
One of the problems is that it takes time to identify such a sponsor and in some cases none can be found. And there are court orders involved as well. They can’t just hold families in facilities for adults for safety reasons—that’s been litigated.
Your “Motel 6 with a chainlink fence” takes money which is why I say that Congress needs to appropriate the funds.
I do not think there will be any problem finding sponsors. Actually, the Progressives will be fighting each other for the privilege, and I am sure that there are several people here who would sponsor a family or two.
Money is probably why the detention centers are the way they are, however, in this age of deficit awareness, somebody will gladly give up funding for say mass transit, climate change research, defense contracts in Congressional leadership districts, etc because of the imperative need to do something now (or at least until the next outrage d’jour).
FWIW, Feinstein has introduced Keep Families Together act which solves the problem by telling folks to not do that. Mildy unsuprized an amnesty wasn’t included.
I don’t think anyone other than the solidly libertarian crew (not just the conservatives who want to smoke pot types) want open borders. I would say increase funding somewhat. If we don’t have enough space release them. As Doug noted, 99% come to their hearings.
Steve
I do have to say, just slightly off topic, that I find it pretty depressing how the Trump people are obviously lying about what they are doing this time, and the Trump believers believe anything they say. Is it possible at this point to differentiate between a cult and Trump supporters?
Steve
I can’t imagine a more powerful argument for open borders than the idea we have to make children scream and cry in order to stop this supposed abomination from happening.
Personally, I doubt many Americans believe in open borders, but I also doubt most Americans confuse that concept with letting an invading army through, which is what the racist wing of the GOP thinks is happening when people seek asylum.
More importantly, this is not going away, even if the policy ends. Nobody is going to get the rehabilitation that John Yoo and his torture freaks received after Iraq.
And by the way, imagine how deranged you would have to be to support a bunch of border guards mocking young children screaming for their parents because a celebrity said a mean thing about the guy who ordered this to happen. Why not just call yourself filth straight up and be done with it?
These parents are unfit to rear a child. If they were US citizens, family services would remove the children, immediately.
That was a good opinion piece even though I don’t agree completely. It’s good to read people actually engaging the arguments of opponents.
One that the author didn’t address though is whether or not it’s true that many of the kids can’t be verified as kin of the adults that they traveled with and might be victims of trafficking. Hard to know what percentage falls in that category, but the solutions that automatically keep the kids with the adults should address that possibility as well as the moral hazard of it.
What I’d like to see happen is for charities and billionaire philanthropists to get involved in offering to build shelters. I think politicians and some activist groups are using kids as leverage which is unconscionable, and people who legitimately want to solve the problem should step up and put them to shame.
If the cost factors were removed, the politicians could do some horse trading on terms of amnesty and border control and be done with it (if only that was their actual motivation,)
“I think politicians ”
You. Trump is holding out to get money for his wall. He changed the way they enforce existing law to try to force that.
“Hard to know what percentage falls in that category”
I would leave that to the investigators at the border. Man and woman show up with three kids including a toddler, and they all look alike, I think it will be easy to figure out.
Steve
I would leave that to the investigators at the border. Man and woman show up with three kids including a toddler, and they all look alike, I think it will be easy to figure out.
Give me a break. I happen to have a Guatemalan child but I’d be hard pressed to distinguish between his birth parents and other adults who come from the same region.
Many of the agents themselves are expressing the difficulty of figuring this out. Some of those agents are likely motivated by genuine concern while others might be hardliners using this as a rationalization. There’s apparently a debate about whether DNA testing is appropriate- obviously that would introduce another cost and would bring up privacy concerns. Would be nice if investigators had the magical ability to determine family ties I guess.
I pretty much agree with Somin’s arguments, as well as the ones here.
As far as what to do, it needs to be split into short term and long term. In the short term, I think the Trump administration should reverse it’s present policy – at the very least when it comes to those seeking asylum.
In the long term, Congress must pass legislation. There’s no way around that.
Yes, that’s a very good article, Andy. Consider this part:
a point I’ve been making here for some time. I choose #2.