I am loathe to have to talk about this, again. This litigation has simmered since. . . 1985. Yes, since when Edwin Meese was the US AG. Under Reagan -- last millennium.
We as a nation have sworn to be better than this, by treaty. The lady in new york harbor promised the huddled masses. . . better than this. We need to treat people. . . as people, when they come to us, seeking asylum. Here is the lastest status report, where it is alleged that individual agents at the border are directly (even tonight) violating the USDC Judge's orders, out of LA:
. . .[T]he guidance CBP issued to ensure compliance is plainly insufficient. Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court order further remedial measures to protect children’s safety. Specifically, Plaintiffs request the Court order Defendants issue new guidance requiring that: (1) CBP immediately begin arranging transport for class members who are directed to proceed to and/or remain at an open-air site; (2) CBP ensure class members have immediate access to drinking water and that their other immediate medical and safety needs are met; and (3) CBP document a child’s length of stay at open-air sites beginning at the time CBP first encounters and directs a child to proceed to and/or remain in an open-air site. . . .
This same pattern has persisted throughout this litigation—CBP consistently claims that it does not direct or transport noncitizens to open-air sites while the evidence on the ground plainly demonstrates otherwise. See April 3 Order at 8; Pls. Response at 3-4; cf. Declaration of Brent L. Schwerdtfeger ¶ 15, March 15, 2024 [Doc. # 1398-1] (“Schwerdtfeger Dec.”).
Because CBP’s guidance fails to acknowledge the reality that CBP agents are directing noncitizens to open-air sites, it does not include directives necessary to comply with the Court’s order. In other words, if a CBP agent encounters a noncitizen child suspected to be inadmissible and is unable to immediately transport the child, the current guidance tells the agent what not to do but does not provide affirmative instructions as to what the agent must do. As a result, children are left in unsafe conditions while CBP attempts to avoid responsibility. . . .
[W]hile the Court ordered that statistical information be “inclusive of the amount of time any Class Member spends in the open-air sites,” April 3 Order at 12 ¶ 4, CBP’s guidance indicates that length of time in custody begins at the time of apprehension. As just discussed, CBP appears to define apprehension much more narrowly than the Court’s order and thus the CBP guidance does not count the time a child is held at an open-air site toward the child’s length of stay. The CBP Juvenile Coordinator’s report indicated that length of time in custody is calculated from the time of the field interview, which may occur long after a child is first directed to an open-air site. . . .
Alarmingly, the guidance indicates that sectors may provide limited humanitarian aid but does not require agents to take any steps to ensure that class members are safe and are treated “with special concern for their particular vulnerability as minors.” FSA ¶¶ 11-12. In recent weeks CBP agents have directed children to walk for miles to open-air sites in extremely hot temperatures without offering water or taking other minimal steps to ensure the child’s immediate safety. See Pinheiro Dec. ¶¶ 9, 11. CBP agents have also directed injured children to walk to open-air sites without providing any medical assistance. . . .
Please -- let us no longer make this a sound-bite issue. Children are not. . . sound bites. Ever. We owe them. . . protection -- all of us do. None of us are exempt from this responsibility. Onward, to Simone. . . tonight.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment