When Trump officials explain why they want to end the Flores agreement that has protected the rights of migrant children since 1997, they often mention a “loophole.”

They’re referring to a2015 court decision ([link removed]) that found children who enter the U.S. with their parents can’t be held in detention for more than 20 days ([link removed]) . According to Trump officials ([link removed]) , migrant families are taking advantage of this ruling by crossing the border with children as a means to avoid detention.

The Trump administration reiterated this argument when it announced last month that it would replace Flores with new regulations.

“The Flores loophole essentially gives a free pass into the interior of the United States to many aliens who arrive at the border with a minor,” the White House said in a statement ([link removed]) . “Smugglers have used this loophole as a selling point for aliens who want to cross the border and be released into the interior of the country, exploiting migrant children for profit.”

Child advocates and lawyers have raised concerns that the government’s plan does away with key safeguards for the children, and could lead to their indefinite detention ([link removed]) . Lawyers representing children in the Flores court case are challenging the government’s rules, which are supposed to take effect Oct. 22.

In new court records, immigration experts refuted the “loophole” claim ([link removed]) and said ending the Flores agreement won’t deter migration. Families in Central America are not aware of the intricacies of immigration policy in the U.S., the experts wrote, and are trying to escape violence and poverty in their home countries.

Here are a few excerpts from the court declarations:
* “These children and families are coming to the United States because their home countries are deeply afflicted by corruption, crime, violence and poverty. ... Few to none are even aware of the existence of the Flores Settlement Agreement.” – Fernando Chang-Muy, professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law

* “No matter the combination of underlying factors, state instability can make remaining at home untenable for families. The more the region destabilizes, the more families may be forced to make this choice.” – Amy Thompson, scholar at the Colegio de Sonora in Mexico

* “Ensuring the safety of all children … should be a primary consideration of all policymakers. The arrival of family units at the border, regardless of how significantly the numbers fluctuate, does not change this fundamental principle.” – Susan F. Martin, former executive director of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform

Judge Dolly Gee will ultimately decide the future of the Flores agreement after hearing arguments from the government and the children’s lawyers. Meanwhile, the new rules have also been challenged in another court ([link removed]) by 19 states and the District of Columbia.

Read the filings here. ([link removed])

SUPREME COURT: TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CAN BAR MOST ASYLUM-SEEKERS

In July, the Trump administration announced that it was drastically curbing asylum-seekers at the border by denying asylum to migrants who failed to seek refuge in Mexico or Guatemala on their way to the United States.

The new rule is expected to bar most Central Americans, including unaccompanied children, from seeking asylum, the principal avenue for migrants fleeing violence and instability to obtain legal status in the United States.

Two federal judges soon issued conflicting rulings on the new policy. One judge refused to stop ([link removed]) the rules, while another blocked ([link removed]) the new policy in part because the government created it without following proper legal procedures.

The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in last week ([link removed]) and ruled in a brief order ([link removed]) that the Trump administration can enforce its new asylum rules while the policy change is challenged in court.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

“Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution. Although this Nation has long kept its doors open to refugees – and although the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher – the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input generally required by law,” Sotomayor wrote.

3 THINGS WE’RE READING

1. The government will no longer allow seriously ill immigrants to stay in the U.S. for medical treatment.
(Philadelphia Inquirer ([link removed]) )

Earlier this month, the Trump administration quietly ended a small humanitarian program that allowed sick immigrants, including children, to remain in the country while they received lifesaving medical treatment. The change directly affects two brothers and their undocumented parents in Pennsylvania.

The kicker: Only the intricate, advanced care of the American medical and therapeutic systems — and the devotion of their undocumented immigrant parents — enables Kevin and Luis, both American citizens, to live semblances of normal lives.

2. An undocumented man from Guatemala died after an encounter with Florida deputies. His cause of death is unclear. (Tampa Bay Times ([link removed]) )

Baudilio Morales Velásquez moved to Clearwater, Florida, nine months ago so he could work and send money back to Guatemala to pay off his mother’s medical bills. After an encounter with deputies last month, Morales Velásquez was placed on life support and died 13 days later.

The kicker: Morales Velásquez was not under arrest when he ran. The Sheriff’s Office said the investigation is still open and would not say whether he was the man on the bike that deputies were looking for, or if he would have faced any charges had he survived.

3. The largest shelter for migrant children sits near several Superfund pollution sites containing high levels of arsenic, lead and mercury. (Miami New Times ([link removed]) )

A new report released by a South Florida immigrant rights group says that the Homestead influx shelter stands next to several Superfund sites. The group is asking the government to conduct soil and pollution testing at the shelter.

The kicker: “Given the widespread distribution of contamination around the shelter and the lack of data at the shelter, children housed at the shelter will likely be exposed to unsafe levels of hazardous chemicals both in the soil and emanating from the soil and shallow groundwater into the air."

Your tips have been vital to our immigration coverage. Keep them coming: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) .

– Laura C. Morel

Photo caption: Families with young children protest the separation of immigrant families with a sit-in at the Hart Senate Office Building, Thursday, July 26, 2018, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Credit: AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
Fact-based journalism is worth fighting for.
Yes, I want to help! ([link removed])
Your support helps give everyone access to credible, unbiased facts.
============================================================

This email was sent to [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
why did I get this? ([link removed]) unsubscribe from this list ([link removed]) update subscription preferences ([link removed])
The Center for Investigative Reporting . 1400 65th St., Suite 200 . Emeryville, CA 94608 . USA