Recently, with all the controversy about migrants being held
in detention camps on the Southern Border, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the
Family fame (he's no longer with the organization), visited one of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facilities and
gave a report.
I’ve been asked to give my opinion on his observations and
conclusions, as both a Christian and an immigration lawyer.
I’m glad that Dr. Dobson took the time to visit the
facility. I’m also glad he felt
compassion for those being held. How
could any decent person not? I wish more
evangelical leaders shared the same concern.
I’ll include some quotes below from his letter for convenience, but the
link to the entire letter is provided here.
https://stream.org/dr-dobsons-visit-to-the-border-an-open-letter/.
"The children looked traumatized and frightened. Tears flooded
my eyes as I stood before them. They had no toys or dolls, except for a few
items bought for them by compassionate border patrol agents. One tiny little
girl clutched something that resembled a doll bought for her by an agent."
The conditions Dr. Dobson observed are direct results of
government policy. They should elicit
tears of compassion. He notes that they
had no toys, except some provided by agents.
When I visited a similar facility in South Texas for women and children,
the CBP and private prison forbade us to bring in even crayons for the
children. We weren’t allowed to hug or
touch the children.
Make no mistake about it.
These are prison camps where women and children, who have committed no
crimes, are treated like dangerous criminals.
Guards are everywhere. We went
through strict security every day. We
weren’t allowed to bring in phones, lest we document some of the embarrassing
conditions. During my volunteer week
there (and many others from my office have also volunteered there at other
times), I was appalled at the prison conditions applied to persons at our
border seeking help.
We documented with affidavits numerous instances of neglect
of children in these private prisons. In
several cases that I was personally aware of, children were forced to wait for
hours in the hot South Texas sun, waiting to see a doctor, only to be told to
drink more water, even though they had had a fever for more than a week. No medicine was dispensed. It’s no wonder we are now seeing deaths of
children in custody, although none had died in the 10 years before the Trump
administration.
The recent discovery of a secret Facebook page with over
9,000 members where CBP officers, current and former, joked about deaths in
custody, should give you some pause about government policy in this area. Are you aware that some CBP agents also
destroy water bottles left in the desert for migrants, which can mean the
difference between life and death?
The corruption is at the top and it filters down through the
agencies. The president has been
anti-immigrant from the first announcement of his candidacy and this gives
license to those below inclined to mistreat immigrants or otherwise ignore the
law. We observe this at all levels of
immigration policy, from the dramatically increased denials of highly skilled
professional workers to the treatment of refugees and would be asylum
applicants.
Much of the fault, I believe, lies in the policy of detention
in private for-profit prisons, and this policy of using for-profit prisons
preceded the Trump administration. When
prison officials are motivated by profit, neglect occurs. It’s no coincidence that the stock of the
largest private prisons rose overnight dramatically when Trump was
elected. It’s also no surprise that the
boards of the largest private for-profit prisons (who are the recipients of
no-bid government contracts) are infested with former government officials,
including John Kelly, Trump’s former Chief of Staff; Richard L. Armitage,
former U.S. deputy secretary of state; Michael Corbin, former ambassador to the
United Arab Emirates; Michael V. Hayden, former director of the Central
Intelligence Agency and of the National Security Agency; Donald M. Kerr Jr.,
former deputy director of science and technology at the CIA; Anthony C. Zinni,
former commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command and former U.S. Envoy to the
Middle East; and Stephen F. Loftus, former director of the Office of the Budget
for the United States Navy.
This is the very definition of “the swamp” that the President
has said he wants to drain. It’s a
public policy obscenity. The no-bid
contracts with the prison industry award $775 per child per day, and yet the
government argues in court that it can’t afford to provide soap and toothpaste
to children held in camps at 2-3 times the capacity for those facilities. To act as if the administration is doing the
best it can under difficult circumstances is, charitably, pollyannaish.
I’m glad that you told one of the children that God loves
him, and that you do too. I believe that
also. In fact, I can point to (and you
can too, I believe) many passages of scripture where God makes it clear that
his heart is for immigrants and other marginalized people. He pronounces curses on people who oppress
immigrants and commands us to welcome them.
Nations are judged for the way they treat immigrants. They are, in every way, our neighbors (whom
Jesus commands us to love).
But it’s not enough to say we love them. We should advocate for policies that treat
them humanely, and sadly, I believe you have dodged this issue. Instead, you want to attach partisan blame to
Congress, Democrats, and liberals.
But it is this administration that has declared war on
immigrants and especially refugees and asylum seekers. They have initiated, for the first time ever,
a policy of separation of children from their families, as a deterrent to
further migration. They are the ones who
still haven’t had the will to restore family unity and didn’t even keep
sufficient records to allow separated children to be returned to their
families. They are the ones responsible
for numerous deaths in custody. They have drastically reduced the number of
refugees we are willing to take. They
are the ones returning asylum seekers to Mexico to wait, possibly for years to
have their asylum claims heard, where they aren’t safe and don’t have work
permits or access to resources to help in their asylum cases. They are the ones who have changed the very
definition of asylum despite decades of judicial precedent so to eliminate
virtually all legitimate asylum claims from Latin American countries. They are the ones imposing quotas on
immigration judges to remove asylum applicants more quickly. They are the ones who tried (unsuccessfully
and unconstitutionally) to say that immigrants couldn’t apply for asylum unless
they entered legally, and then wouldn’t allow them to enter legally. They are the ones imposing mandatory
detention on asylum seekers. And
numerous other policy changes not mentioned here, all with the design of
denying human rights to our neighbors asking for help.
Even though you want to blame Congress for not giving in to
the CBP funding request, you should know that this has now happened (after your
article was written). This was done
despite fears by many members of Congress that the President would try to
divert money meant for immigrants to build his wall, as he has already done
with other budgetary items.
I hope you also realize that there are those who believe that
much of this overcrowding crisis was manufactured by CBP to get more
money. By law, the CBP is only permitted
to hold children for 72 hours and then turn them over to the Office of Refugee
Resettlement (ORR), which then can place them with relatives or hold them in
safe facilities designed for children.
In violation of this, CBP continued to hold children for weeks and even
months in horrible, prison camp situations, without turning them over to ORR,
even though ORR has empty beds for them.
This recent crisis was about getting more money for detention (which
goes to the private prison industry).
Moreover, there is no law that requires asylum seekers to be
detained for months or years at a time.
This again is a policy by this administration designed to be a deterrent
to further asylum seekers. With a policy
of mandatory detention (remember how the president decried “catch and
release”?), the capabilities are quickly overrun and necessitating more
expenditures on private prisons and policies to deny asylum seekers their human
rights.
But it does not have to be this way. Asylum seekers can be screened and released
with protections to assure their return for their hearings. They can post reasonable bonds or have ankle
bracelets. I’m not fond of either of
these, because they have a dehumanizing effect, but they are effective to
assure return for asylum hearings and more compassionate than endless inhumane
detention.
To approach this situation and not even acknowledge that the
President’s policies are a big part of the problem is partisan and extremely
naïve.
"Here’s something else you should know. I have been under the
impression that these would-be immigrants try to cross the Rio Grande River and
outrun or evade the agents. That is not true of most. They come in large
groups, from 100 to 400 people at a time. As I write this letter, a record
1,200 people arrived together at El Paso. The refugees quickly gave themselves
up to agents. That is why they have made this journey. They know they will be
fed, medicated, and treated humanely, even if they are in holding areas while
they are in our custody. Then they will be released on American soil."
You are correct that very few of these neighbors are from
Mexico. Most are, in fact, from three
countries referred to as the “Northern Triangle,” Honduras, El Salvador, and
Guatemala. But you have really avoided
the real reason they are coming. They
aren’t coming because they know they will be “fed, medicated, and treated
humanely.” In many cases, they are not
even given that.
But the real reason they are coming is the disastrous
conditions in their own countries. I
wish you had explored that more instead of concluding that are coming here to
get government freebies. Over 90% of the
persons arriving from those countries are determined by our government to have
a “credible fear of persecution.” This
doesn’t allow them to stay permanently in the U.S. but does give them the right
to have a claim for asylum heard before an immigration judge, where the
difficult standard to meet is a “well founded fear of persecution.” I wish you had heard some of women’s stories
of why they left their homeland. If you
had, I think you would be convinced as I am that they are incredibly heroic in
making the decision to come here to try to save their families. Not just from poverty, but from persecution
by corrupt governments and those their governments are unwilling to control, on
account of their helpless condition.
But, as mentioned above, this administration is doing everything it can
to limit who can qualify for that, despite our laws and international
standards.
But there is something even more insidious in your suggestion
as to the reasons they come. That is,
that they are a drain on society. I
think the opposite is true. If admitted
to the U.S., they will contribute to our society both economically and
culturally. Many economic studies have
shown this. Even the poorest of the
poor, over time, contribute more to our society economically than they take
from it. Sadly, the administration
clearly believes that every immigrant is a burden that diminishes our own
happiness and is to be avoided if possible.
In a country of aging workers and low unemployment rates, that is a
profoundly stupid conclusion from an economic standpoint.
"This is the system set up by a liberal Congress and judges.
It is a well-known fact that President Obama’s administration established many
of these unworkable policies, and Congress is steadfastly unwilling to change
them. Every effort at reform has been overridden or ignored. It is set in
stone. Democrats want massive numbers of immigrants who will someday become
voters. Some Republicans support the policies because they want cheap labor for
agricultural purposes. The border could be fixed, but there are very few in
authority who seem to care."
This is where your partisanship is really showing. You fail to assign any responsibility to an
administration that, in my observation, hates immigrants.
Stephen Miller, the presidential advisor who is the architect for the
President’s immigration policy, reportedly said that he would be happy if no
more refugees ever set foot on American soil.
You want to blame the Obama administration (and I also have some
criticisms of policy during that era), but fail to tell us what “unworkable
policies” he initiated? If anything, the
Obama administration was harsher on immigrants than the previous Bush
administration.
But I’m wondering what policies you don’t like? That immigrants have the right to seek
asylum? And what immigration reform
proposals has congress avoided? The
Republicans controlled both houses of congress for two years. What reforms did they propose? Instead, the President repeatedly sought to
do by executive order what was unconstitutional. On the other hand, the House this year has
passed an immigration reform bill which the Republican controlled Senate has
refused to even consider.
And the comment about “Democrats want massive numbers of
immigrants who will someday become voters” is ridiculous on its face. First, there is nothing that says that any
immigrant will necessarily become a Democratic voter. If Republicans are concerned about that
demographic, why don’t they reach out to them?
Lots of immigrants are Republicans in my experience. I’m sure you realize that persons admitted
to the U.S. to seek asylum don’t have the right to vote. Only citizens can vote and even if these
asylum seekers are part of the lucky few that are given asylum, they can’t
become citizens until many years later.
And by then, who knows who they will vote for? Or do you suppose that there is something
inherent in the Republican party that will not appeal to non-white voters? I hope not.
Or are you subtlety suggesting that the immigrants admitted
to seek asylum will illegally vote in large numbers? That canard, repeatedly suggested by
conservatives, has been debunked even by this administration. So why are you assigning a corrupt motive to
Democrats? Perhaps they care about
compassion and justice – ie. Christian virtues in our society?
When you say the “border can be fixed” what do you mean? We know the president means a wall where we
don’t have to deal with the problems to our south any longer. Although this is pure fantasy on his part, do
you really think a wall will fix this humanitarian crisis, or will it just
allow us to not have to see it? I can
think of many much more humanitarian, and Christian, approaches to this. Jesus said that his opponents have neglected
the “weightier matters of the law – justice, mercy, and faith.” Where is any of that in any Republican
proposals about the border?
"The would-be immigrants are taken to the center and given
cursory medical exams. Then they are segregated by sex and age and placed in
the fenced-in areas to be held for the next 20 days until they are processed
and given a Notice to Appear. If that sounds inhumane, what would you or I do?
There is simply no other place to “house” them."
What would I do? I
would determine if they have a credible fear of persecution, or other immigrant
remedies, issue them a notice to appear, and release them to relatives in the
U.S., with some kinds of assurances that they return for their hearings. This can be done, as I said, with reasonable
bonds and/or ankle monitors. Studies
have shown these to be effective to assure return for their hearings. Do you find this repugnant that they can stay
in the U.S. awaiting trial? This has
been our policy for many administrations before Trump. Surely this is more humane than the current
policy of indefinite detention or return to Mexico and other active measures to
prevent or deter even the applications for asylum.
And yes, there are other places to “house” them in a
compassionate way. But where the fault
lies is our assumption that they must be detained to await a trial before an
immigration judge. They are not
criminals and shouldn’t be treated that way.
Your section on “Fake Families” is really disappointing. You criticize the Flores decision, and yet it
is that decision that says that children should be kept in safe and sanitary
conditions. Do you oppose that?
You say that a “single male typically seeks to find a child
and a woman to help him ‘game the system.’”
Although there may be some anecdotal evidence of this occurring, there
is no evidence that this is “typical.”
And final approval of family units would require proof of family
relationship, even if they have to resort to DNA evidence. You suggest, without evidence, that many of
these are “fake families.” Does this
assuage our conscience for our failure to reunite children with their families,
following an administration policy (which is still happening) of separating
children from their parent as a deterrent to further immigration? Oh well, probably a lot of those are “fake
families”?
"These people are given a court case and released. The vast
majority are never seen again. Most then become “anchor babies” who are
citizens with rights to bring members of their families. Others are given
transportation to an American city where they disappear into the culture."
That the “vast majority are never seen again” is flatly false
by any measure of statistics. Not sure
what your source is, but the Department of Justice (DOJ) reports 23% didn’t
show up over a five-year period. Not
great, but also not a “vast majority.”
For those seeking asylum, only about 10% were no shows, according to the
DOJ.
There is much in your paragraph above which is simply
nonsensical. Any comment that uses the
term “anchor babies” displays a real ignorance of the law and is used to poison
the discussion. You are using that term,
but I don’t think you know what it means.
First, any child admitted to the U.S. at the border does not qualify as
an “anchor baby,” because, by definition, they are not born here. But babies that are born here are not
“anchoring” anything. It is true, they
are U.S. citizens in the same way that you became a U.S. citizen by being born
here (consistent with the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution), but that
doesn’t prevent their parents from being deported. Parents of U.S. citizens are being deported
every single day in this country.
Children born here cannot even petition for parents to come to the U.S.
until they turn 21, and even then, the parents may have accrued bars to legally
coming to the U.S. Hardly an anchor, but
the terms serves to rile up conservatives, which I assume was your point in
using it.
"In addition to this influx of people from places around the
world steeped in poverty and despair, Senator Chuck Schumer authored and helped
pass a “lottery” system, whereby winners are brought to the United States. They
become permanent residents, who then begin bringing their families to our
shores. Thank you, Senator."
I know members of Congress often rail against the “green card
lottery” and want to eliminate it, but I’m not sure what the problem is? I know many persons who have benefitted from
this program and they are wonderful people who provide much economic and
cultural benefit to the U.S. The program
was conceived as a way of bringing diversity to the U.S., so only certain
countries qualify for the program. Do
you find diversity threatening? I’m not
sure what the problem is. Is there
evidence that diversity winners are more likely to be criminals (they undergo
background checks), or more likely to go on welfare? The answer to both is “no.”
And why are you targeting Chuck Schumer, other than the fact
that he’s a Democrat? The diversity
program was approved by Congress with bipartisan support and signed by George
H.W. Bush. The kingdom of heaven will be
composed of people from “every tribe and tongue.” The U.S. isn’t the kingdom of heaven, but I
don’t see any reason why we should fear diversity. It’s one of the strengths of our nation of
immigrants.
And as far as “bringing their families to our shores,” I’m
not sure what the problem there is either.
I know it is raising the specter of “chain migration,” but understand
that someone who comes on this program isn’t eligible for citizenship for five
years, and after that, it may take many more years or decades to bring
immediate relatives, such as parents, adult children, or siblings to the
U.S. The principle in our law that
supports this is called “family unity.”
Surely you support families getting to stay together?
"Ten years ago, 90 percent of illegals apprehended at the
border were single males, mainly from Mexico. Now, more than 50 percent show up
with babies and children, and 90 percent of them are from countries other than
Mexico, with 64 percent being family units or unaccompanied alien children.
Together, they claim to be “families” and within three weeks, they will be home
free in America. Is there any doubt why there have been more than half a
million illegal immigrants this year alone?"
Please don’t use the word “illegal.” It is pejorative and dehumanizing. The fact that now most at the border are with
babies and children doesn’t mean that there is more fraud going on, as you
suggest. It means that conditions in
their countries are so bad that it’s women and children who are most vulnerable
and are fleeing for their lives. They
are “families” and they aren’t “home free” in America in three weeks. The surge in migrants fleeing Honduras, El
Salvador, and Guatemala, have to do with the conditions in those
countries. These conditions are well
documented through the UNHCR and other human rights organizations, but you seem
to think that the real reason is to take advantage of the U.S. and take
something you think belongs solely to you.
Lastly, you have your homage to the CBP.
"They obviously care about the detainees, and I respect them
highly. They work tirelessly feeding people three times a day and providing
clean clothing. They must also maintain the portable toilets in the cells. It
is a never-ending task. There are only two large showers in the facility, one
for males, the other for females. Their capacity is for only 20 people at a
time, which is insufficient."
While I do know that many CBP officers are in fact
compassionate and conflicted about their jobs, we, as a nation, are falling
short in our care for our neighbors.
Have you heard about the other recent visits to the facilities, other
than your own? Where CBP officers are
asking other children to care for the younger children? Where diapers aren’t changed? Where diseases are spreading and children
have died? Let’s not try to whitewash
the situation. Law enforcement deserves
our praise, but also deserves our accountability. There are extremely high rates of turnover in
this agency (as well as ICE), and I believe part of the reason is that they are
conflicted. There is an injustice about
much of what they have to do to uphold the law.
Why don’t you look at the for-profit prison industry when you look at
the conditions in the prisons? Can they
provide better care for the $775 per child per day they receive, or does their
profit margin forbid it? Greed, as you
know, is a sin.
Your suggestion that CBP agents are so consumed with caring
for refugees that the borders are neglected is way off base. Most contraband, including drugs, comes
through guarded ports of entry. There is
no suggestion that these have been left unmanned to care for detained asylum
applicants. Proposals have been floated
in Congress to increase protections at the border points of entry but have been
rejected by the administration in favor of funding for a vanity wall.
I agree with you that our agents deserve our prayers. They also need to be accountable to justice
and bad agents should be removed. The
Facebook page referred to above and recently discovered is inexcusable and
anyone associated with that or abuse of immigrants should be fired. Good agents should be rewarded but I’m not
going to whitewash abuse simply because they are involved in law
enforcement. Again, much of the blame
for abuse, in my mind, falls on the administration, which has encouraged this
in the same way it has encouraged torture and turned the other way when
subordinates act accordingly.
You conclude with a plea for the “overhaul of the law.” I would like more specifics on what overhaul
you would like to see? I’m afraid that
is revealed in the rest of your paragraph.
"I can only report that without an overhaul of the law and the
allocation of resources, millions of illegal immigrants will continue flooding
to this great land from around the world. Many of them have no marketable
skills. They are illiterate and unhealthy. Some are violent criminals. Their
numbers will soon overwhelm the culture as we have known it, and it could
bankrupt the nation.
America has been a wonderfully generous and caring country
since its founding. That is our Christian nature. But in this instance, we have
met a worldwide wave of poverty that will take us down if we don’t deal with
it. And it won’t take long for the inevitable consequences to happen."
Sadly, your real feelings about immigration are revealed
here. You, like generations before you,
worry about illiteracy and violent criminals with no marketable skills and
“overwhelming our culture” and “bankrupting the nation.” This is hogwash. Our immigration system screens for criminal
aliens, and immigrants as a whole are much less likely to be criminal than
native born. Economically, we need
immigrants to be a great nation, and it is immigration in large part, that has
made this a great nation. Even the
poorest unskilled immigrants add value to our economy over time. To think that the few immigrants we admit
each year have the potential to bankrupt the nation is ridiculous fear
mongering.
What I am seeing is a fear that you think immigrants will
take something that you believe you are entitled to. Even if this is true, and I think it is not,
can you honestly say that this is what Jesus would do?
I hope as a Christian you will see that a true focus on
family has to be more than just U.S. families.
If the U.S. family focusses only on itself and its own needs, it will
not be blessed. I hope my comments are
not perceived as too critical of you personally, but frankly, I think your
response to this crisis is more about partisan politics than about Christian
ethics. As a fellow believer, I think if
all we have to offer in this crisis is a wall, we are lost.
Thanks for letting me set the record straight.