News

/News

USCCB letter in support of the Dream Act of 2019, the American Promise Act of 2019, and the Venezuela TPS Act of 2019

May 21, 2019

 

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on the Judiciary

2138 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

 

VIA EMAIL

 

Dear Representative,

I write on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration (USCCB/COM) to urge you to support the ‘‘Dream Act of 2019,’’ the “American Promise Act of 2019,” and the “Venezuela TPS Act of 2019,” which are all scheduled to be marked up by the House Judiciary Committee this Wednesday, May 22. These important bills, as written, would provide lawful permanent residency and a path to citizenship for qualifying Dreamers and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) holders, as well as TPS for qualifying Venezuelans in the U.S.

The Dream Act of 2019 provides critical protection to Dreamers, immigrant youth who entered the United States as children and know America as their only home. The bill offers young people who qualify “permanent resident status on a conditional basis” and a path to full lawful permanent residency and eventual citizenship. To receive the conditional status, the youth must, among other requirements, have entered the U.S. as a child, been continuously present in the United States for at least four years prior to enactment of the bill, meet certain admissibility and security requirements, and have obtained or be pursuing secondary education.

The American Promise Act of 2019 similarly offers essential protections to TPS and DED holders. The bill provides lawful permanent resident status for eligible individuals from countries designated for TPS or DED as of January 1, 2017, and who have been living in the U.S. for at least three years. Eligible individuals must also meet criminal and national security requirements for admissibility, including passing a background check.

My brother bishops and I support these two bills, as written, and the populations they seek to protect. We believe in defending the dignity of every human being, particularly that of our children and families, and have long stood in solidarity with Dreamers, TPS holders, and their families. These young people contribute to our economy, defend our country through military service, excel academically in our universities, and are leaders in our parishes and communities. It is both our moral duty and in our nation’s best interest to protect them and allow them to reach their God-given potential.

Because of the ongoing political unrest, violence, and shortages of food and resources in Venezuela, we believe providing a TPS designation for Venezuela is a moral and compassionate response.  Further, the Justice and Peace Commission of the Venezuelan Bishops Conference has recently noted the numerous violations of fundamental human rights inflicted by the police and threats to citizens’ access to health and medicine.[1] These alarming conditions have been well-documented and seen firsthand by our Catholic partners on the ground and are reflected in the Department of State’s recent travel advisory.[2]

Consequently, we urge you to support the Venezuela TPS Act of 2019, which would designate Venezuela for TPS for an initial period of 18 months. This bill would give Venezuelans here in the United States an opportunity to live with dignity, work lawfully, and provide for their families’ well-being until they can safely return home. Also, this would ensure that Venezuelans who qualify here in the U.S. are not returned to dangerous and life-threatening situations.

Thank you for your consideration of our recommendation to support the Dream Act of 2019, the American Promise Act of 2019, and the Venezuela TPS Act of 2019. We urge you to oppose any amendments to these bills that seek to undermine the critical protections for these valuable members of our communities.

Sincerely,

Most Rev. Joe S. Vásquez, Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration

Click here for a PDF Version of the Letter

[1] Linda Bordoni, Venezuelan Bishops Urge Prosecutors to Uphold Human Rights in the Face of Violations, Vatican News (Feb. 20, 2019), available at https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2019-02/venezuela-bishops-justice-human-rights-violations.html.
[2] Venezuela Travel Advisory, Department of State (March 12, 2019), https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/venezuela-travel-advisory.html.
2019-05-21T16:30:28-04:00News|

USCCB/CRS Letter to Secretary Pompeo Objecting to Funding Cuts in Northern Triangle

The Honorable Mike Pompeo
Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Mr. Secretary,

We, the undersigned, write on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committees on International Justice and Peace and Migration, and Catholic Relief Services (CRS) to urge you to continue funding poverty-reducing development and humanitarian assistance at Congressionally appropriated levels to the people of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador from Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018. Poverty-reducing programs, like the ones implemented by CRS in partnership with local faith-based agencies in the region, help meet the basic needs of families, offer hope to youth impacted by violence, and provide economic opportunities so that families can thrive on their land and resist the push factors of migration. Furthermore, poverty-reducing and civil-society-building programs directly affect regional security and stability, providing local populations with self-determination and hope in their struggle against corruption and transnational criminal organizations operating in the area. We
urge the Administration and Congress to strengthen the U.S. commitment to the Northern Triangle and uphold our country’s values as a generous nation that alleviates suffering and cultivates just and peaceful societies.

CRS partners with the U.S. government in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to help address the root causes of migration – violence and lack of protection, food insecurity, and lack of economic opportunity. Across the region, CRS has partnered with more than 400 businesses and worked with over 9,000 youth, helping roughly 70% of program participants return to school, find a job, or start an entrepreneurial venture. In a recently completed Food for Peace program, the number of people living on less than $1.25 per day was reduced by more than half and chronic malnutrition in children under five went down more than five times the national average. CRS also works to improve the quality of life for 200 communities in 30 municipalities in rural Guatemala, supporting more than 23,500 community members to design 156 community development plans. Furthermore, with U.S. government support, CRS has served millions of school meals, trained thousands of teachers, and supported hundreds of school infrastructure projects to improve school attendance and literacy among school-aged children and create a better future for themselves, their families, and their communities.

In our hemisphere, the United States has consistently provided crucial leadership in the areas of international humanitarian and development assistance, helping the countries of the Northern Triangle lay the foundation for civil societies to respond effectively to poverty, corruption, and violence. No other country but our own can provide this leadership. If we revoke funding now, we run the risk of impeding developmental successes and creating a vacuum for increased poverty, instability, and migration. We must continue to collaborate with local civil societies to improve the conditions in the Northern Triangle. Governments in the region must be held accountable, but civil society and poor and vulnerable communities, dependent as they are on U.S. development leadership, should not suffer more because of these countries’ governments. We urge the Administration to reconsider redirecting poverty-reducing foreign assistance funds  from Central America from Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018; and, instead, target funds toward effective programming that promotes human security, good governance, and communal
prosperity in the region. Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely yours,

Most Reverend Timothy P. Broglio Chairman, USCCB Committee on International Justice

Most Reverend Joe S. Vásquez, Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration

Mr. Sean Callahan, President/CEO, Catholic Relief Services

2019-05-17T10:56:57-04:00News|

USCCB/CRS Letter Advocating for TPS Status for Venezuelans

The Honorable Kirstjen Nielsen

Secretary, Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528

 

The Honorable Michael Pompeo

Secretary, Department of State

Washington, DC, 20520

 

VIA EMAIL

RE: TPS Designation for Venezuela

Dear Secretary Nielsen,

We write on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration (USCCB/COM) and Catholic Relief Services (CRS) to urge you to designate Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), pursuant to Section 244(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.[1] Given the unprecedented humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, its nationals cannot safely be returned home at this time. Our nation has the legal ability, as well as the moral responsibility, to provide Venezuelans in the U.S. with temporary protection.

The ongoing political unrest, violence, and shortages in Venezuela have caused millions of citizens to flee the country. The Justice and Peace Commission of the Venezuelan Bishops Conference have recently noted the numerous violations of fundamental human rights inflicted by the police and threats to citizens’ access to health and medicine.[2] And, as you well know, while stability in Venezuela has been tenuous since 2015, it is continuing to deteriorate at an alarming rate, which is evidenced by the Department of State’s (DOS) issuance of a Level 4 “Do Not Travel” advisory for Venezuela on March 12, 2019. This advisory came just a day after DOS announced that it would be temporarily suspending operations at the U.S. Embassy in Caracas and withdrawing diplomatic personnel from the country. In issuing the subsequent travel advisory, DOS explained that in addition to violent political demonstrations and shortages in basic necessities (food, water,electricity, and medical care), the country suffers from high rates of violent crime, such as homicide, armed robbery, and kidnapping.[3]

These well-documented conditions have also been seen firsthand by our Catholic partners on the ground. Catholic Relief Services supports partners who report that of 15,000 children under age 5 being monitored, 76 percent show signs of nutritional deficit, and another 13 percent are living with acute malnutrition.[4]

For these reasons, we urge you to immediately designate Venezuela for TPS for a period of 18 months. The distressing conditions discussed above show that such a designation would be appropriate and could be made either on the grounds that: (1) Venezuela is suffering from “ongoing armed conflict within the state” and, consequently, return of nationals to the country would “pose a serious threat to their personal safety,”[5] or (2) that it is facing “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent nationals “from returning to the state in safety.”[6]

We believe providing a TPS designation for Venezuela is also a moral, compassionate and needed response. TPS would ensure that an estimated 150,000 qualifying Venezuelans here in the U.S. are not returned to dangerous and life-threatening situations[7] and give them an opportunity to live with dignity, work lawfully, and provide for their families’ well-being until they can safely return home.

We appreciate your consideration of this request. We are praying for Venezuela’s swift recovery and for the day when those who have fled to the safety of other countries may return home.

Respectfully,

Most Rev. Joe S. Vásquez, Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration

Sean Callahan, President and CEO, Catholic Relief Services

 

For a PDF version of the letter, click here

 

[1] 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a).
[2] Linda Bordoni, Venezuelan Bishops Urge Prosecutors to Uphold Human Rights in the Face of Violations, Vatican News (Feb. 20, 2019), available at https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2019-02/venezuela-bishops-justice-human-rights-violations.html.
[3] Venezuela Travel Advisory, Department of State (March 12, 2019), https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/venezuela-travel-advisory.html.
[4] Catholic Relief Services, Venezuela Humanitarian Crisis 1 (Jan. 25, 2019), available at https://www.crs.org/resource-center/venezuela-humanitarian-crisis-emergency-fact-sheet.
[5] 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(1)(A).
[6] Id. at § 1254a(b)(1)(C).
[7] US: Offer Venezuelans in US Temporary Protection, Human Rights Watch (March 8, 2019), https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/08/us-offer-venezuelans-us-temporary-protection (“The Venezuelan American National Bar Association estimates that there are about 150,000 Venezuelan nationals in the US who would qualify for Temporary Protected Status.”).

 

 

 

2019-04-04T16:03:55-04:00News|

Written Testimony of Most Reverend Mario Eduardo Dorsonville-Rodríguez For a Hearing of the House Committee on the Judiciary “Protecting Dreamers and TPS Recipients”

Click here for the full testimony

My name is Mario Eduardo Dorsonville-Rodríguez. I am the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Washington and the incoming Chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration (USCCB/COM). On behalf of USCCB/COM, I would like to thank the House Committee on the Judiciary, as well as the Committee Chair, Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NJ), and the Ranking Member, Representative Doug Collins (R-GA), for holding this important hearing and for inviting me to testify before the Committee.

The Catholic bishops have long supported and will continue to support Dreamers,[1] as well as holders of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED).[2] We recognize these individuals as children of God, and we will remain focused in our efforts to ensure that they and their families can live dignified lives and reach their God-given potential. In this testimony, I provide a brief overview of USCCB’s work in serving immigrants and advocating for immigration reform, discuss the importance of finding a permanent solution for Dreamers and TPS holders, and share our key recommendations for Congress as it seeks a legislative solution for these individuals.

 

Catholic Social Teaching and Migration

The work of our Committee on Migration is carried out by USCCB’s Migration and Refugee Services (USCCB/MRS). USCCB/MRS works to advance the migration-related priorities of our Committee, which include advocacy and policy advancement around humane and comprehensive immigration reform, just and proportionate immigration enforcement, and improved access to justice and due process for immigrants and refugees seeking refuge and fleeing persecution. Among its many activities, USCCB/MRS is also a long-standing government partner, providing support for and assistance through the Catholic Charities network to refugees, foreign national and U.S. citizen human trafficking survivors, Cuban and Haitian entrants, and unaccompanied immigrant children.

Our work assisting and advocating on behalf of immigrants and refugees stems from the belief that every person is created in God’s image. We follow the teaching of the Gospel, and in his own life and work, Jesus identified himself with newcomers and with other marginalized persons in a special way: “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” (Mt. 25:35). When we see Jesus’s example we reflect those values.

Dreamers and TPS and DED holders are our neighbors, parishioners, and – most importantly – fellow children of God. We, as a Church, have long advocated for their legal protection, full inclusion into our country and the overall wellbeing of them and their families. USCCB worked with Members of the House and Senate in helping to draft the first versions of the DREAM Act in 2000 and 2001, and it has been calling for passage of the measure since that time .[3] Even as we welcomed the announcement of the Deferred Action for Childhoods Arrivals (DACA) program in 2012, our Committee noted that it was not a substitute for enactment of the DREAM Act or similar legislative protections.[4] We steadfastly believe that Dreamers need permanent legal protection, with a path to citizenship, enacted by Congress.

Similarly, for years, USCCB has advocated for TPS for those seeking safety from the ravages of violence, environmental disasters, and despair. In fact, USCCB worked closely with Senator Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) and Representative Joe Moakley (D-MA) to support enactment of the authority for TPS in the Immigration Act of 1990.[5] Through its global presence and the work of Catholic Relief Services (CRS), the official humanitarian and development agency of the  Catholic community, the Catholic Church has assisted and ministered to those who have experienced firsthand the ravages of armed conflict, violence, and environmental disasters in their home countries. Given this global presence, the Catholic Church consistently advocated for protections of nationals living in the United States when Congress began debating the concept of temporary protected status in various forms during the 1980s.[6]

Over the years, the USCCB and other Catholic entities have encouraged various Presidential Administrations to designate countries for TPS in situations of environmental disasters and political instability.[7]  In 2017, USCCB/COM led delegation trips to Haiti[8] and to El Salvador and Honduras[9] in order to explore conditions and the need to extend TPS for these countries. The reports found that despite some improvements by home countries, the conditions still existed for the extension of TPS, most notably as most of the home countries could not adequately handle the return and reintegration of their nationals as required by the statute.[10]

In addition to our call to protect the individuals directly impacted, the Church also views the need to protect Dreamers and TPS recipients as the need to protect families – the very foundation of our country and of our Church. Not only do Dreamers and TPS recipients deserve a chance to stay and fully integrate in the U.S. through permanent protections – they deserve to be able to stay with their families. Dreamers and TPS holders and their families should not face family separation. Family unity is vital for the strength of our country, our Church, and our communities.

 

Dreamers

Knowing the many contributions of DACA youth to our nation, it was with extreme concern that we witnessed the Administration’s attempt to terminate the program in 2017.[11] And, while the DACA termination has been partially and temporarily halted due to ongoing litigation, we know that DACA youth continue to face great uncertainty. Furthermore, we know that many of the over 1.8 million Dreamers do not have DACA protection.  For these young people, Congressional action is the only solution.

We see and hear about this uncertainty every day in our dioceses and in our parishes. I have been personally impacted by the stories I have heard from DACA youth in the Archdiocese of Washington. I have witnessed their tears, their secret concerns not only for their futures but for their families. Many ask: What will happen to me? What will happen to my family?

Dreamers are exemplary youths.  Like their name implies, they are examples of the American Dream. They are contributors to our economy, academic standouts in our universities, and leaders in our parishes. These young people have grown up in our country, some even choosing to put their lives on the line to serve in our armed forces. They truly exemplify the extraordinary contributions that immigrants have long provided to our nation. I have been privileged to meet so many of these ambitious young people who want nothing more than to work and achieve in this country so that they may better themselves and their families. This is the only home that they know and where they are sure they will be able to succeed because they are part of the language, the culture and they have their roots here.

Dreamers are young people like Edith. Edith is a 19-year-old DACA recipient and student at the University of New Mexico. Born in Mexico, Edith was brought to the U.S. as a toddler by her mother and father. She grew up in Santa Fe, New Mexico with her parents and her two younger sisters, both of whom are U.S. citizens. As Edith states: “America is my home . . . . Despite being born in Mexico, I [] always felt at home here, where I have grown up since arriving as a two-year-old.” Edith worked incredibly hard in school and graduated her high school class as valedictorian. She continues to excel in college and is double majoring in psychology and math. Her passion is helping others, and she finds time in her busy school schedule to volunteer at the Campus Agora Crisis Center, which handles area-wide crisis calls. Edith dreams of becoming a U.S. citizen so that she can one day work as a behavioral analyst for the F.B.I.

Providing Dreamers, like Edith, with a path to citizenship will advance the common good and allow these young people to reach their God-given potential.

Finding such a solution will further help families. Take, for example, Maria, a native of Peru, 21-year-old DACA recipient, and student at William Joseph University. Her parents, both undocumented, brought her to California when she was only four years old. As Maria explains: “This is the country I know. This is the country I grew up in. I know the language; I know the history. I know it better than I know the country I was born in.” Maria has been a role model for her three younger sisters who are all U.S. citizens. Given that her parents are both undocumented and the uncertainty surrounding her DACA status, Maria worries about the possibility of deportation and the implications for her family: “My sisters, who are U.S. citizens, would be left without anyone.”

Dreamers are young, educated, tax-paying individuals who are valuable members of American families, our work force, and our communities. They have not only the support of the Church but of the American public as well. Finding a solution for these admirable young people is both the moral and common-sense path. On behalf of the USCCB Committee on Migration, I urge Congress to act now to ensure that Dreamers have permanent legal protection that includes a path to citizenship.

 

TPS and DED Holders

Over the past few years, we have also expressed our deep concern over the Administration’s attempt to terminate the TPS designations for many countries, including Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. These termination decisions have left hundreds of thousands of individuals and their families in a state of uncertainty and fear. While the terminations are subject to multiple lawsuits, an estimated 320,000 TPS holders – some of whom have lived in the U.S. for over twenty years – face potential loss of status and family separation if Congress does not act. TPS holders need a permanent legal solution that only Congress and the President, working together, can provide.

Like Dreamers, TPS and DED holders are part of our country and our communities.  Many also are a part of our Church. They worship in our local parishes, own homes and businesses, and contribute to our economy. Many TPS recipients have families in the U.S., including over 273,000 U.S. citizen children.[12]  It is, again, the issue of family unity that is so pressing to the Catholic Church in the case of TPS holders. Given the large number of U.S. citizen children who have TPS holder parents, we must think about what the terminations of TPS would do to these families. What type of choices would these families have to make? Would families endure separation of parents living apart from their children in order to ensure U.S. citizens receive the educational opportunities in the United States to which they are entitled? These are questions that we as the Church are facing, and, more importantly, TPS holders and their families are grappling with every day.

TPS holders are individuals like Blanca,[13] who was originally from El Salvador but has been living in the U.S. for over 16 years. Blanca currently works as a school aide at a local public school. She is married and has four children (ages 16, 15, 11 and 9), all of whom are U.S. citizens. Blanca is actively engaged with her community. She attends Mass regularly and teaches Catechesis to children in her parish. She also finds time to volunteer in her children’s school. Blanca worries about what will happen if there is no legislative solution for TPS recipients. She does not want to be torn from her children, but she also knows that their home is in the U.S. As Blanca explains, it is important to remember that “many TPS holders have families they have to feed and can’t afford to be separated from them.”

I know that Blanca is not the exception – I have met and spoken with many similar TPS holders and their families. In April 2018, I welcomed my brother bishops from El Salvador to Washington, D.C., and during their visit, I had the opportunity to join them not only in their meetings with the U.S. government but also in their community dialogues. During the community dialogues, which were held in conjunction with special Masses hosted at St. Camillus Parish, in Silver Spring, Maryland, the Shrine of the Sacred Heart, in Washington, D.C., and the Cathedral of St. Thomas More, in Arlington, Virginia, I repeatedly heard of TPS holders’ many ties to the U.S. and the anxiety they and their families face given the possibility of being separated.

Since the announced terminations, I have also learned of many TPS holders who are fearful for their safety and livelihoods if they return to their countries of origin. These are individuals like Mitsu and her brother, who were born and raised in Haiti but came to the U.S. on student visas to attend college. In 2010, during the course of their studies, Haiti was hit with a 7.0-magnitude earthquake, which devastated the country. Due to the severity of the earthquake, the U.S. government designated Haiti for TPS. Mitsu and her brother applied for and received TPS, providing them protection and permitting them to continue their studies. Mitsu now works as a physician assistant, allowing her to provide financial support to her parents back in Haiti.  She speaks to her parents frequently, hearing about conditions in Haiti.  She knows that the country has not yet recovered from the earthquake and subsequent hurricanes. “Haiti is nowhere near in a condition to support its current residents let alone receive citizens currently living abroad.” Mitsu hopes that Congress will take action and find a permanent solution for TPS recipients. “We have done everything the right way [in applying for TPS and consistently renewing]; yet, still find ourselves entangled within the immigration debate.”

Finding a solution for TPS holders will ensure that hardworking individuals are not ripped from their homes, families, and businesses. It is the just and right course of action – not only for these families but for our communities.

 

Recommendations

As Congress contemplates a solution for these groups, we strongly encourage it to ensure that any legislation:

  1. Protects All Dreamers and Offers Them a Path to Citizenship. A legislative solution should address the entire Dreamer population, as there are many young people who were brought here as children but were prevented from obtaining DACA due to the program’s age cut-offs and filing fees. Additionally, most of these young people know the United States as their only home and should not be denied the opportunity to obtain U.S. citizenship and fully participate and integrate into American civic life.
  1. Provides a Path to Citizenship for TPS and DED Holders. A solution should ensure a path to citizenship for individuals who have personal equities that are closely associated with U.S. interests, such as U.S. citizen children, businesses, and home mortgages.
  1. Maintains Existing Protections for Unaccompanied Children, Asylum Seekers, and Family-Based Immigrants. A solution for Dreamers and holders of TPS and DED must not be achieved at the expense of other immigrant children and families. Such a tradeoff would be heartless and untenable. We ask that you ensure any solution maintains existing protections for unaccompanied children and asylum seekers, as these protections help prevent trafficking and abuse, as well as ensure access to adequate care and due process. We also ask that you ensure that any solution for Dreamers and TPS recipients, at a minimum, maintain existing avenues for family-based and diversity-based immigration. Eliminating or reducing these avenues would be inconsistent with our values and encourage irregular flows of migration by people desperate to be reunited with close family members, from whom they have been separated from.

 

Conclusion

We appreciate the Committee on the Judiciary’s attention to this important issue. And, we encourage all members of Congress to work towards a humane and just solution for these vital members of our communities. As always, the Catholic Church stands ready to work with you in achieving this goal and will continue to stand in solidarity with Dreamers, TPS holders and their families.

 

[1] Dreamers are young people who were brought to the United States without authorization as children by their parents or family members. Dreamers include those young people who have received Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), those who are eligible and did not apply for DACA, as well as other undocumented individuals of a similar age group who did not make the age-cut off for DACA (as they were slightly older or younger at the time). The Catholic Church advocates for permanent legal protection and a path to citizenship for all Dreamers, not just the DACA recipient population.
[2] TPS was established by Congress through the Immigration Act of 1990. TPS is intended to protect foreign nationals in the United States from being returned to their home countries if the home country became unsafe to return to during the time in which the individuals were in the U.S. Countries are designated for TPS due to armed conflict, environmental disaster, or other extraordinary and temporary conditions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254a. First used in 1990, DED is a discretionary and temporary stay of removal that is granted to individuals from certain designated countries. Nationals from a certain country are designated for DED by the President under his constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations. Adjudicator’s Field Manual, Section 38.2 – Deferred Enforced Departure, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-16606/0-0-0-16764.html (last visited March 1, 2019).
[3] USCCB, et al., Letter to Senators Hatch and Durbin on DREAM Act (March 6, 2003) (on file with USCCB).
[4] Statement of Archbishop Gomez, Bishops Welcome President’s Deferred Action on Dream Eligible Youth, Urge Congressional Action on DREAM Act (June 15, 2012), available at http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-110.cfm.
[5] See, e.g., USCCB, Letter to President George W. Bush on TPS for El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua (April 4, 2001) (on file with USCCB); USCCB, Letter to President George W. Bush on TPS for Haiti (Oct. 8, 2008) (on file with USCCB).
[6] Claire Bergeron, Temporary Protected Status after 25 Years: Addressing the Challenge of Long-Term “Temporary” Residents and Strengthening a Centerpiece of US Humanitarian Protection, 2 Journal on Migration and Human Security 22, 26-28 (2014).
[7] See, e.g., USCCB, Letter to President Barack Obama on TPS for Haiti (Jan. 15, 2010), available at http://www.usccb.org/news/2010/10-013.cfm; USCCB/COM, et al., Letter to Secretary Jeh Johnson and Secretary John Kerry on Protection for and Aid to Haitians after Hurricane Matthew (Nov. 1, 2016), available at https://justiceforimmigrants.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Catholic-Partners-Haiti-Letter-11.1.16-FINAL1.pdf.
[8] USCCB/COM, Haiti’s Ongoing Road to Recovery: The Necessity of an Extension of Temporary Protected Status (2017), available at http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-policy/fact-finding-mission-reports/upload/mrs-haiti-trip-report.pdf.
[9] USCCB/COM, Temporary Protected Status: A Vital Piece of the Central American Protection and Prosperity Puzzle (2017), available at http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-policy/fact-finding-mission-reports/upload/el-salvador-honduras-report-20171016.pdf.
[10] Id.; supra note 8.
[11] Statement of Cardinal DiNardo, et al., USCCB President, Vice President and Committee Chairmen Denounce Administration’s Decision to End DACA and Strongly Urge Congress to Find Legislative Solution (Sept. 5, 2017), available at http://www.usccb.org/news/2017/17-157.cfm.
[12] Robert Warren and Donald Kerwin, Center for Migration Studies, A Statistical and Demographic Profile of the US Temporary Protected Status Populations from El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti, 5 Journal on Migration and Human Security 577 (2017).
[13] Name changed to protect client confidentiality.
2019-03-06T11:12:34-04:00News|

Written Statement For a Hearing of the House Committee on the Judiciary “Oversight of the Trump Administration’s Family Separation Policy”

For a PDF of this testimony, Click Here

My name is Bill Canny. I am the Executive Director of the Department of Migration and Refugee Services (MRS) within the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). On behalf of USCCB/MRS, I would like to thank the House Judiciary Committee, as well as the Committee Chair Representative, Jerrold Nadler (D-NJ), and the Ranking Member, Representative Doug Collins (R-GA), for the opportunity to submit this written statement for the record.

The treatment of immigrants and protection of family unity are of profound importance to the Catholic Church. USCCB/MRS has long supported and served unaccompanied children and immigrant families. And, in the wake of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) April 6, 2018 “Zero Tolerance” memorandum, USCCB/MRS had the opportunity to assist the federal government in its effort to comply to reunify separated families. Through this effort, USCCB/MRS worked on a charitable basis to reunify and serve nearly 900 of the separated and reunified families. With this experience, USCCB/MRS, through the national Catholic Charities network, is the single largest service-provider for this vulnerable population. While USCCB/MRS appreciated the opportunity to assist and reunify these families, the Church has been and continues to be a vocal opponent of forcible family separation. As Cardinal DiNardo, President of the USCCB, and Bishop Vasquez, Chairman of the USCCB Committee on Migration noted: separating babies from their mothers is immoral.

In this statement, I provide a brief overview of USCCB/MRS’ experience serving separated children and reunified families and then share recommendations to promote their humane and just treatment by the U.S. government.

 

  1. USCCB’s History of Serving Immigrant Children and Families

USCCB/MRS has operated programs, working in a public/private partnership with the U.S. government, to help protect unaccompanied children from all over the world for nearly 40 years. Since 1994, USCCB/MRS has operated the “Safe Passages” program. This program serves undocumented immigrant children apprehended by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and placed in the custody and care of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Through cooperative agreements with ORR, and in collaboration with community-based social service agencies, the Safe Passages program provides community-based residential care (foster care and small-scale shelter placements) to unaccompanied children in ORR custody, as well as family reunification services (pre-release placement screening and post-release social services for families). In fiscal year 2018, the USCCB/MRS Safe Passages program served 1,125 youth who arrived as unaccompanied children—907 through the family reunification program and 218 children through the residential care programs.

Additionally, the Catholic Church in the United States has long worked to support immigrant families, providing them with legal assistance, pastoral accompaniment, and visitation within immigrant detention facilities, as well as social and integration assistance upon release.

  1. Experience Serving Separated Children and Reunified Families

Serving Separated Children

As a long-time service provider for unaccompanied children, I note that separation of families at the U.S./Mexico border has been occurring for years in instances in which child protection concerns exist. Beginning in August 2017, however, our program began to receive a notable increase in referrals of separated children. Our staff and partners saw firsthand the terrible trauma that these children suffered after being torn away from their parents. Many of these children suffered terrible anxiety and, in some cases, developmental delays.

The President signed an Executive Order on June 20th, calling for end of family separations. Unfortunately, we are seeing that these unjust separations have not entirely halted. Take for example, the following case that USCCB/MRS learned of through our Safe Passages program:

Gloria was forced to flee Central America with her two sons, Marco, age 14, and Juan, age 9.[1] The family had been the target of extortion in their home country. After Gloria reported the extortion, the police retaliated – not only did they beat her, breaking her arm, but they also claimed she was gang affiliated. After receiving a death threat shortly thereafter, Gloria took her sons and headed to the U.S. in search of protection. She was apprehended by Border Patrol officers on June 20, 2018 and taken into custody, where she and Juan were separated from Marco. Although Juan fell ill and began to vomit, he received no medical attention. After five days in custody, she and Juan were transferred to a family detention center while Marco was deemed unaccompanied and sent into ORR care. After a brief stint in family detention, she was told that she would be separated from Juan due to her “criminal history” (the false gang affiliation claimed by the police in her home country). Despite Gloria’s attempts to explain her asylum claim and lack of criminal history, including sharing the police report she filed against the corrupt police officers, she and Juan were separated. She was given five minutes to say goodbye to her son on July 1, 2018 before he was dragged away screaming to be deemed by the U.S. government an unaccompanied child. The trauma Juan faced was compounded by the fact that he has autism, ADHD, disruptive behavior disorder, and language delays. And while the family eventually was able to reunite, it was nearly three months before they were all together again.

While the magnitude of the family separation crisis significantly lessened after the June 20th Executive Order and June 26th preliminary injunction in Ms. L., et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., the problem has not been solved – families like Gloria’s continue to be ripped apart unnecessarily.

Serving Separated and Reunified Families

In addition to serving unaccompanied and separated children through the Safe Passages program, from July 2nd through July 30th, USCCB/MRS worked in partnership with Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS) to assist both DHS and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in their work reunifying separated families. Besides providing initial humanitarian and reunification assistance, USCCB/MRS provided access to social and legal service and case management. USCCB/MRS provided these charitable services because of our belief that such services would help support the separated families, reduce their ongoing trauma, and help ensure positive compliance outcomes.

As detailed in our joint report, “Serving Separated and Reunited Families: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward to Promote Family Unity,”[2] HHS had initially contacted USCCB/MRS on July 2nd about possible engagement with the soon to be reunited families. HHS expressed concern about the well-being of the families upon release and noted a desire to ensure that the families would have access to social services. Subsequently, on July 5th, DHS contacted both USCCB/MRS and LIRS to similarly discuss reunification operations. While neither DHS nor HHS had a clearly developed plan for reunification at the time, both departments wanted to ensure that families had support upon release.

During the reunifications, USCCB/MRS partners provided released families with immediate shelter, a hot meal, change of clothes, shower, and assistance with making travel arrangements to the reunified family’s intended destination in the United States. The two agencies served a combined 1,112 families, with USCCB/MRS and its on-the-ground partners serving 897 of these families. While serving these families was an incredibly rewarding experience, the process was not without its challenges. As an initial matter, many families were dropped off at reception sites well into the night – placing a strain not only on the staff at the sites but also adding to the families’ confusion and stress.

Coordination, both intra- and inter-agency, also appeared tenuous or lacking in many instances. For example, USCCB/MRS documented instances in which DHS’s Transportation Security Administration officers at certain airports refused to accept the families’ identification documents provided by DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials. This lack of coordination resulted in newly reunited families experiencing long delays, missed flights, and additional hurdles as they sought to reach their final destinations.

Another major challenge faced by all of the USCCB/MRS reception sites was that many of the newly reunified and released families arrived at the reception centers with their immigration paperwork, such as the Notice to Appear (NTA) and the ICE check-in information, completed with the wrong address. Rather than listing their final destination, the documents would list the address of the particular reception site or the immigrant detention facility itself. Upon elevating this issue, ICE attempted to change the addresses of those families who were to be reunified and released prospectively. Some of the reception centers, however, continued to receive NTAs for families that had already moved on to their final destinations in other cities. Further, USCCB/MRS partners reported that many families faced challenges with timely filing their change of address forms and change of venue requests with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

The biggest challenge, however, has been addressing the families ongoing needs. USCCB/MRS and LIRS made the commitment to provide to each of the reunified families they served with up to three months of post-release services in their final destination cities. These services included social services, a legal orientation, and a referral to a qualified and trustworthy low or pro bono legal services provider. While not all families desired post-release services, USCCB/MRS was able to provide further assistance to nearly 700 families. Through this process, USCCB/MRS found that many of the reunited families are experiencing symptoms of trauma, including separation anxiety. Further, longer-term post-release services are clearly needed. The three months of services provided by the agencies could typically only address the families’ immediate needs in their new communities. Often, it is only at the point in which these immediate needs are addressed that families are ready to start tackling the trauma and stress from which they suffer.

 

III.      Recommendations

In light of our experience serving separated children and families, and in recognition of their ongoing trauma and vulnerabilities, we would like to share the following recommendations for the Administration and Congress.[3]

  • Rescind the Zero-Tolerance Policy. DOJ should formally rescind its April 6th memorandum on “Zero-Tolerance for Offenses Under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a).” This is not to suggest that prosecutions could never be brought for such offenses, but it would restore federal prosecutors’ ability to utilize their discretion and balance various factors when determining whether it is appropriate to bring such a case forward. At a minimum, exceptions should be explicitly made to the memorandum to address families seeking protection.
  • Absent reasonable child protection concerns, the S. government should not separate children from their parents. While there are times when separation is appropriate due to abuse or trafficking concerns, unnecessarily separating families is in direct conflict with basic child welfare principles, causes children life-long harm, and is ineffective to the goals of deterrence and safety. Separating families will not cure the pervasive root causes of migration existing in the Northern Triangle of Central America today. Factors such as community or state-sanctioned violence, poverty, lack of educational opportunity, forcible gang recruitment, and domestic abuse are compelling children and families to take the enormous risks of migration, including the possible additional risk of family separation at the border.
  • Institute Clear Criteria for “Good Cause” Separations and Require Detailed Documentation for Separations. In consultation with HHS and NGOs with relevant expertize, DHS should develop and make publicly available detailed criteria it uses to determine when it is in the best interest of a child to be separated from his or her parent or legal guardian (“good cause separations”). Further, every incidence of family separation should be clearly recorded and the explanation for separation, including specific criminal charges, should also be documented. This information needs to be readily shared and accessible to all component agencies of DHS, as well as ORR. In particular, the location of the separated family member needs to be shared with ORR at the time of the child’s referral in order to ensure prompt communication between child and parent, if appropriate. Additionally, DHS policy guidance should denote that even if family relationships are questioned, the alleged relationship must be documented.
  • Delineate Administrative Responsibility on Family Unity and An official “Family Unity” Ombudsman should be appointed to monitor future incidences of family separation. This position should be within DHS as it is the agency with the greatest visibility at the point of separation.
  • Create a Standing Interagency Task The Family Unity Ombudsman should lead the creation of an interagency task force on family separation that meets quarterly with NGO and government stakeholders. The task force should be required to provide DHS-OIG, DHS-CRCL, and Congress with annual reports on family separation that include, in part, aggregate data on family separations broken out by reason for separation, including specific category of “criminal history.” It should also be responsible for monitoring monthly reports by DHS and ORR on family separation rates and cases. In the event that that the monthly number of family separation cases increases by more than 20% from the previous month, the Family Unity Ombudsman should be required to issue a report to Congress, as well as a corresponding public press release, within 30 days. This report and press release should discuss the increase in separated families, suspected causes, and any remedial actions being taken. Finally, the task force should issue a one-time report to Congress on: (i) the number of children separated from parents or legal guardians by DHS during FY 2017 and FY 2018 prior to the court’s preliminary injunction during; (ii) the percent of such children released by ORR to category one, two, and three sponsors, respectively; and (iii) the percent of these children that received government-funded post-release services.
  • Ensure Immigration Paperwork Reflects Families’ Final Destination Cities. As a general practice, DHS should issue NTAs and other discharging immigration paperwork with a family’s final destination address, rather than the address of the reception site or the site of the immigration detention facility court. Failing to put the correct address on immigration paperwork makes it difficult for families to attempt to comply with their proceedings. In the family detention context, ICE already lists the final destination address of the individual that they release. We urge ICE to ensure that the appropriate address is listed for all arriving families.
  • Streamline Change of Address and Venue DOJ should streamline the process for non-citizens to change their address and move to change their venue for immigration hearings. EOIR should collaborate with DHS to formulate a single unified change of address form (available in Spanish and other languages) that, when submitted physically or electronically to EOIR or any ICE office or contractor, would automatically trigger an update of a noncitizens address with all relevant immigration agencies and EOIR. This unified form would streamline the process, reducing the burden for not only the noncitizen but also for DHS and EOIR.
  • Support Robust Funding for Post-Release Ser Congress should ensure, through the appropriations process, that all separated children released to parents or guardians receive post-release services from ORR to address their trauma. Further, given their ongoing needs, Congress should also ensure that federal funding is dedicated to providing additional support services to the reunified and released families.
  • Support Additional Trafficking and Trauma-Informed Training of CBP Officers. Congress should ensure, through the appropriations process, that DHS has resources to institute additional training for its Customs and Border Protection officers. These trainings should engage NGOs with relevant expertise in identification of human trafficking and in trauma-informed and child-friendly interviewing techniques.
  • Maintain Existing Protections for Unaccompanied and Accompanied Children. Congress should ensure that it maintains critical protections for all immigrant children; it should reject any legislation that seeks to alter existing safeguards relating to detention of children in unlicensed facilities and processing of unaccompanied children at the border. Immigrant children should be viewed as children first and foremost.

 

  1. Conclusion

Immigration policies implemented by our government must be humane and uphold human dignity. While our nation will never be able to rectify the life-long trauma it has inflicted upon separated families, we can and must ensure that no child or parent ever has to face unjustifiable separation again. As always, USCCB/MRS stands ready to work with the Administration and Congress to help develop policies that uphold family unity and the best interest of the child.

 

[1] Names and identifying information changed to protect client confidentiality.
[2] U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Serving Separated and Reunited Families: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward to Promote Family Unity (2018), available at https://justiceforimmigrants.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Serving-Separated-and-Reunited-Families_Final-Report-10.16.18-updated-2.pdf.
[3] Please find a full list of recommendations available in our report, “Serving Separated and Reunited Families: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward to Promote Family Unity.” Id.
2019-02-25T14:32:00-04:00News|

USCCB Requests for Continued FY2019 Appropriations Process

Re: USCCB Requests for Continued FY2019 Appropriations Process

Dear Senator:

As a Church at the service of all God’s people, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) stands ready to work with the leaders of both parties to protect impoverished and marginalized people, promote human life and dignity, and advance the common good. As Congress contemplates the end of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 appropriations process, many USCCB policy offices have already expressed or will later express their views on appropriations matters under their purview. Together, these views represent the breadth of concern of the USCCB. Today, I write on behalf of the USCCB Committee on Migration to request your support for our funding priorities with respect to three outstanding accounts for FY 2019: Commerce Justice Science, Department of Homeland Security, and State Foreign Operations. These three accounts are crucial for immigrants, refugees, unaccompanied children, and trafficking victims and are currently being funded through a Continuing Resolution until December 7, 2018. As you finalize FY 2019 funding levels, please consider the following requests:

Commerce Justice Science and Related Agencies (CJS)

The House Full CJS Committee allocated funding for 100 immigration judge teams in FY2019 as a completion of a two-year plan (which includes FY 18) to hire a total of 200 additional immigration judge teams and to increase availability of court facilities to address the large docket backlog of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). We urge you to accommodate this request.

We also ask that Congress appropriate funding at the Senate S. 3071 level of $10.4 million for the Administrative Review and Appeals/ Executive Office of Immigration Review (APA/EOIR) line item for the Legal Orientation Program (LOP), the Information Help Desks, and the Legal Orientation Program for Custodians of Unaccompanied Children (LOPC). These programs help ensure court efficiency and individuals’ greater knowledge of their legal rights and responsibilities, as well as increase the likelihood of compliance in immigration proceedings.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Immigration Enforcement
For FY2019, the President requests $5.6 billion for 65 miles of new wall in the Rio Grande Valley sector, 750 new Border Patrol officers and 2,000 new ICE agents, increased deportation capacity, and detention capacity totaling 52,000 beds. Congress likewise continues to propose increased enforcement funding, with the House recommending $3.05 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement/Enforcement and Removal Operations (ICE/ERO) Custody Operations, (which funds the immigrant detention system), and the Senate recommending $2.89 billion for the same account. Similarly, the House recommended $5 billion for construction of 200 miles of new wall at the U.S./Mexico border through Customs and Border Protection Procurement, Construction & Improvements, and the Senate requested $1.6 billion for construction of new wall at the U.S./Mexico border for the same account.

The Catholic Church acknowledges the right of nations to control their borders and governments’ responsibility to protect the people within their borders. At the same time, we believe that those rights and responsibilities should be exercised in a manner consistent with their moral obligation to protect migrants and refugees. Enforcement measures should be proportionate and humane. For these reasons, we do not support further funding for new wall construction at the U.S./Mexico border and urge Congress, to the extent possible, to limit this funding, and at a minimum not to appropriate past the $1.6 billion set in the Senate’s FY 2019 bill, S.109. Additionally, we oppose further funding increases for the ICE/ERO/Custody Operations and support the FY 2019 Senate S.109 recommendation of $2.89 billion. We are deeply concerned about the massive increases in immigrant detention particularly, the large average daily population numbers of detained which exceeds Congress’s instructions set forth in the FY 2018 DHS appropriations law.

We urge Congress to direct DHS to further evaluate and monitor alternatives to detention (ATD) programs for cost effectiveness and compliance. We note with appreciation the FY 2019 House recommendation for $213 million for the ICE/ERO/ATD line item, but we urge lawmakers to direct use of all ATD funding increases for community-sponsored case management programs, particularly those that enroll families and vulnerable populations, instead of using ankle monitors. We believe that alternatives to detention, particularly those that leverage community support and utilize case management, can be, for certain populations, a way forward that is cost-effective, ensures compliance with immigration laws, and most importantly is more humane than immigrant detention. We also urge you to direct the reinstatement of the family case management alternative to detention program as presented and passed as Amendment 3 in the FY 2019 House DHS Mark Up.

We further request that Congress provide $6.7 million to Customs and Border Protection Operations and Support to enable Border Patrol agents to identify and protect trafficking victims, particularly children. We also support the FY 19 House Report Language on family separation. Lastly, we support the FY 2019 Senate DHS Report 115-283 language, requesting reporting on the detention of pregnant women. In general, we do not think it appropriate to hold pregnant immigrants in custody if it is not essential for public safety and order, and we are committed to ensuring that detained pregnant women and their unborn children receive suitable care and are treated in a manner that respects their human dignity.

Other Important Immigration Priorities
We note that the FY 2019 Continuing Resolution extended the expiring Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa program until December 7, 2018. We ask that Congress include language that would permanently reauthorize these statutory provisions in any bill appropriating funds for DHS for FY 2019. We also ask that Congress include in any DHS appropriations vehicle it passes a Hyde-like provision to ensure that federal funds not be used to fund elective abortions.

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPs)

For FY 2019, we urge Congress to fund SFOPs refugee related accounts at the S. 3108 funding level of $3.4 billion for Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA), $1 million for Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA), and $4.4 billion for International Disaster Assistance (IDA). These are amounts we believe would ensure ongoing service to displaced populations while responding to numerous, grave humanitarian crises. Further, we urge the Administration to make full use of ERMA during FY 2019.

MRA funds the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), providing overseas assistance to displaced refugees and funding for lifesaving services, including resettlement, while supporting U.S. allies and stabilizing refugee host countries in sensitive regions. ERMA is urgently needed due to escalating violence and record forced displacement in many parts of the world. The IDA account funds USAID to provide humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons. Meeting the needs of internally displaced persons helps prevent them from having to flee their countries of origin and become refugees.

Finally, we urge Congress to appropriate $40 million, the funding level set in S. 3108, for the Department of State’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Person Office (J/TIP) for efforts to end human trafficking. J/TIP needs these resources to ensure that it can administer anti-trafficking programming and research.

Thank you for considering our recommendations. Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss these suggestions further.

Sincerely,

Most Reverend Joe S. Vásquez,
Chairman, Committee on Migration

 

For a PDF of this document, click here

2018-12-04T14:47:49-04:00News|

DHS Docket No. ICEB-2018-0002, Comments in Response to Proposed Rulemaking on “Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and Unaccompanied Alien Children

Submitted via Email: ICE.Regulations@ice.dhs.gov

Ms. Debbie Seguin

Assistant Director, Office of Policy
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Department of Homeland Security
500 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20536

 

Dear Ms. Seguin,

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (“USCCB”), the public policy agency of the Catholic Bishops in the United States, offers the following comments to the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM” or “proposed rule”) to implement and amend regulations relating to the apprehension, processing, care, and custody of immigrant children under the Flores Settlement Agreement (“FSA”),1 published in the Federal Register on September 7, 2018 (83 Fed. Reg. 45,486).2

USCCB’s Department of Migration and Refugee Services (“USCCB/MRS”) has operated programs, working in collaboration with the U.S. government, to help protect unaccompanied children from all over the world for nearly 40 years. Since 1994, USCCB/MRS has operated the “Safe Passages” program. This program serves undocumented immigrant children apprehended by DHS and placed in the custody and care of HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”). Through cooperative agreements with ORR, and in collaboration with community-based social service agencies, the Safe Passages program provides residential care (i.e., foster care and small-scale shelter placements) to unaccompanied children in ORR custody, as well as family reunification services (i.e., pre-release placement screening (“home studies”) and post-release social services for families (“post-release services” or “PRS”)). In fiscal year 2017, the USCCB/MRS Safe Passages program served 1,294 youth who arrived as unaccompanied children—1,042 through the family reunification program and 252 through residential care programs.

Additionally, the Catholic Church in the United States has long worked to support immigrant families who have experienced immigrant detention, through the provision of legal assistance, visitation, and pastoral accompaniment to those in immigrant detention facilities, as well as social services assistance to those released. USCCB/MRS has also operated several alternatives to detention programs to assist immigrant families and other vulnerable populations.3 Through all of this work, we have seen first-hand the importance of the protections set forth in the FSA, and we have worked to help implement and ensure government compliance with these requirements.

We understand that parties to the FSA contemplated, in the 2001 stipulation, the publication of regulations implementing the agreement’s terms.4 The stipulation modified the provision providing for termination of the agreement, noting that the FSA would terminate “45 days following defendants’ publication of final regulations implementing this Agreement.”5 This language, however, also makes clear that the parties and the court envisioned such regulations as reflecting or “implementing” the terms of the agreement, not seeking to expand or change them. Nevertheless, the NPRM published by DHS and HHS proposes substantial changes to the terms of the FSA. This proposal is, unfortunately, an attempt to amend unilaterally the conditions to which the government previously agreed and which were entered by the Flores court, and, if implemented would drastically undermine protections for children.

While the proposed rule would make myriad changes to the FSA, USCCB is particularly concerned with:

 

  1. DHS’s proposal to revise the definition of “licensed facility” in a manner that is contrary to the plain terms of, and child welfare principles embodied in, the FSA, as well as numerous judicial orders, and which present grave public policy concerns;

 

  1. DHS’s proposal to create an alternative federal licensing scheme for family residential centers (“FRCs”), which would fail to provide substantially similar protections for children as compared to the current state licensing standards required by the FSA;

 

  1. DHS’s suggested definition of “non-secure facility,” given how the proposed definition seemingly conflicts with existing state definitions and judicial determinations; and

 

  1. DHS’s and HHS’s efforts to revise the definition of “emergency” and the corresponding emergency exceptions to the FSA requirements, as it would provide the government with more leeway to breach the agreement’s terms.

 

Additionally, in a fifth subsection, USCCB/MRS offers its concerns and suggestions in response to HHS’s specific request for comments on the possibility of adding regulations regarding the standards for home studies and post-release services.

USCCB/MRS recognizes that both DHS and HHS will have corresponding responsibilities under the proposed rule and that a separate set of rules would apply accordingly. DHS will revise 8 CFR § 236.3 while HHS will create a new 45 CFR Part 410. USCCB’s comments are related to both proposed sections. These comments turn first to the DHS sections and then to the HHS sections.

  1. 8 CFR § 236.3(b)(9) – DHS’s Revised Definition of “Licensed Facility” Seeks to Circumvent Court Decisions and Expand an Inhumane and Costly Practice.

The FSA requires that children be placed in facilities that are non-secure and “licensed by an appropriate State agency,” unless placement in a secure facility is otherwise required.6 The three FRCs – Karnes County Residential Center, Berks Family Residential Center, and South Texas Family Residential Center – currently operate a combined 3,326 beds.7 These facilities, however, are not licensed for childcare in their respective states and, as such, fail to meet basic child welfare requirements currently set forth in the FSA.

The proposed rule seeks to create an alternative federal licensing scheme for such facilities when state licensing schemes for detention of accompanied children are “not available.”8 This revision would allow for FRCs that cannot be licensed in the state in which they operate to detain accompanied children if they meet the standards set forth in 8 CFR § 236.3(i)(4). DHS proposes to employ an independent entity to monitor compliance with these standards. As detailed below, we object to this proposal because it contravenes the FSA on its face, seeks to circumvent numerous decisions by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and raises serious public policy concerns.

As an initial matter, the plain language of the FSA requires that facilities holding immigrant children be licensed by the state.9 This language leaves no room for ambiguity or alternative interpretation, and DHS cannot post-hoc supply an alternative licensing definition simply because the state schemes do not currently allow for licensing of its FRCs. In fact, Judge Gee, for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, has repeatedly found during recent litigation regarding the FSA that “[t]he fact that the family residential centers cannot be licensed by an appropriate state agency simply means that, under the Agreement, class members cannot be housed in these facilities except as permitted by the Agreement.”10 Further, when the government specifically requested an exemption to the temporal limitations placed on detention of children in unlicensed facilities earlier this year, the court denied the request.11 In its justification for the NPRM, DHS makes the same arguments that failed before that court. Its proposed rule is consequently no more than an improper effort to find an end-run around the existing limitations and judicial decisions, via rulemaking.

In addition, DHS’s suggested definition would allow for vastly expanded use of family detention. The proposal would permit DHS to detain many of the accompanied children entering the country with their parents in the existing FRCs through the duration of their immigration proceedings. As discussed below, such a proposal presents significant public policy concerns given the negative impact it would have on accompanied children, their families, and the U.S. taxpayer.

The severe health and safety consequences of detaining children in DHS custody is well documented.12 Unfortunately, the negative consequences of family detention are neither minor nor short-term. The American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”) has reported that detained children experience developmental delay, poor psychological adjustment, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and other behavioral problems.13 The AAP has further found that detention, even for brief periods, negatively effects not only the child, but also the adult and family structure.14 For example, it has noted that “[d]etention itself undermines parental authority and [parents’] capacity to respond to their children’s needs.”15

Furthermore, two medical and psychiatric experts hired by DHS itself recently expressed their concerns with the practice of family detention in a letter to the Senate Whistleblowing Caucus.16 After repeated investigations, the experts explained that: “The fundamental flaw of family detention is not just the risk posed by the conditions of confinement – it’s the incarceration of children itself.”17 The experts further noted that “[i]ndefinite detention, even for short periods, exacerbates the stress associated with detention and therefore increases the risk of harm.”18 They therefore recommended that DHS halt family detention except in very limited circumstances.19 A similar recommendation has also been made by DHS’s Advisory Committee on Residential Centers.20

DHS’s justification for proposing to alter the FSA’s licensing requirements not only fails to address these concerns, but it also consistently dismisses the fact that it has a spectrum of humane, proven, and cost-effective alternatives to detention (ATDs) that it can utilize – and is utilizing in some cases – to monitor families released from custody. Such alternatives are typically preferable, as they avoid inflicting unnecessary and long-lasting trauma on children and families. Additionally, detaining families that do not present a flight or safety risk is an unnecessary use of limited DHS resources. DHS has projected that in Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2019 family detention will cost approximately $319 per individual/per day.21 This compares to just over $4 per individual/per day for those enrolled in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (“ISAP”) III22 ATD program or $36 per family/per day for those in ICE’s former Family Case Management Program.23 Consequently, even though it takes longer to process individuals’ immigration cases when they are not detained,24 the government – and by extension the U.S. taxpayer – would save, on average, an estimated $22,512 per family (one parent, one child) if DHS released the family and placed the parent on ISAP III, rather than detaining them in an FRC.25 For these reasons, we urge DHS to minimize the use of family detention. DHS should revisit existing policy and program options currently available to it, such as ATD programs and family case management rather than seeking to unilaterally amend the FSA.

Additionally, even assuming that DHS’s federal licensing scheme is theoretically permissible and otherwise meets the FSA requirements – and, as discussed below, it does not – the proposed definition essentially allows DHS to self-certify its facilities for compliance with the licensing requirements. While the proposal contemplates hiring an outside entity, this entity would be employed by ICE, which calls into question such an entity’s ability to truly be independent and ensure compliance. In contrast, the FSA requires certification by an outside and fully independent entity with expertise in child safety – the state’s child welfare agency.26 Furthermore, DHS already contracts with Nakamoto Group, Inc. to inspect some of its adult detention facilities, but DHS’s Office of Inspector General has found that the contractor is unable to provide effective oversight because its “inspection practices are not consistently thorough, [and] its inspections do not fully examine actual conditions or identify all compliance deficiencies.”27 DHS’s proposal to allow certification by an entity that is not wholly independent of the agency is extremely problematic, in light of the serious deficiencies with DHS’s current compliance contractors, as well as the compliance issues that have already been documented in the FRCs.28 To allow such a scheme would run directly counter to the stated child welfare protections in the FSA.

 

2. 8 CFR § 236.3(i) – DHS’s Proposed Federal Scheme for Licensing Family Detention Centers Fails to Adequately Mirror the FSA.

Even assuming that an alternative federal licensing scheme for detention centers should be permitted – and, as discussed above, it should not – DHS’s proposed scheme fails to adequately implement the terms of the FSA. DHS suggests that its proposed licensing scheme is sufficient because the standards set forth in 8 CFR § 236.3(i)(4) “mirror the requirements in Exhibit 1 of the FSA and the current ICE Family Residential Standards.”29 It further claims that its proposed federal licensing scheme “provide[s] materially identically assurances about the conditions of such facilities.”30 For the following reasons, we disagree with this assertion and are deeply troubled by DHS’s proposal.

First, DHS’s assumption that the FSA Exhibit One standards, coupled with ICE’s Family Residential Standards (“FRC standards”), are adequate to meet the terms of the FSA, is flawed. The title of FSA Exhibit One, “Minimum Standards for Licensed Programs,” shows that the standards are seen as a floor, not a ceiling, to be supplemented by state standards. DHS might have a more persuasive argument if the existing FRC standards provided for essentially the same protections as the state licensing requirements. But, they do not. While ICE’s FRC standards note that they were written after a review of the state codes in Texas and Pennsylvania (where the current FRCs operate),31 in many instances, the state licensing standards for residential facilities caring for children are much more rigorous than the FRC standards. For example, under the licensing regulations in Texas, mechanical restraints32 may only be administered by Residential Treatment Centers (i.e., therapeutic care facilities).33 Even in these facilities, however, Texas standards clearly state that handcuffs and other devices with metal wrist or ankle cuffs cannot be used.34 In contrast, while ICE’s FRC standards place certain limitations on general use of mechanical restraints,35 they allow use of these restraints on children over 14 (and some children under 14 with prior approval).36 ICE’s standards also specifically allow for handcuffs to be used as a form of restraint on minors.37 Further, Texas standards delineating use of mechanical restraints place a strict time limit on use of such devices. For children over the age of nine, the maximum time for which a facility can employ mechanical restraints is one hour.38 ICE’s FRC standards provide no such time limitation on the use of mechanical restraints. Rather, ICE’s FRC standards note that “staff may not remove restraints until the resident has regained self-control,”39 and merely note that checks must be made on the detainee’s condition every 15 minutes.40

These are clear and concerning differences between the Texas state and ICE FRC standards that impact the safety and wellbeing of children in federal custody. Not only do ICE’s FRC standards fail to mirror the state requirements contemplated by the FSA, but there is no reasonable justification to eliminate these requirements. Detaining a child with his or her parent(s) does not inherently necessitate use of handcuffs or prolonged restraint.

In other instances, even where it may be the intent of ICE to replicate state requirements, the FRC standards do not always adequately accomplish this purpose. For example, Texas regulations require that licensed residential facilities “feed an infant whenever the infant is hungry.”41 This unambiguous directive is not matched in ICE’s FRC guidelines. Rather, the FRC standards state that a facility must meet the “minimal nutritional needs of toddlers and infants” and “meet recommended government guidelines for well-baby and well-child growth and development.”42 While one might assume that ICE is referring to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service’s guidelines,43 this would be entirely speculative since as no specific government guidelines are provided. In fact, the exact requirements remain ambiguous and leave room for various interpretations as the FRC standards neither footnote the guidelines nor attach them as an appendix. Given this ambiguity, ICE’s FRC standards fail to provide infants with the same clearly defined protections as the Texas state licensing requirements.

These examples highlight the manner in which ICE’s standards fail to adequately mirror state standards and illustrate how the federal licensing scheme proposed by DHS is insufficient under the FSA. If it is determined that a federal scheme is appropriate, DHS should conduct a detailed review of each individual provision of the state licensing standards in Texas and Pennsylvania to determine whether it is: i) relevant and transferrable to facilities detaining accompanied children; and ii) stricter than the existing FRC standards, if any exist on the topic. Without such a review and revision of ICE’s FRC standards, the agency’s assertions that the federal scheme “mirrors” the state standards is unfounded at best.

Finally, even if such a review is performed and state standards are adequately incorporated by DHS,44 any federal scheme must require ongoing analysis of state licensing requirements. This would include analysis of additional states’ regulations should new FRCs open in other states outside of Texas and Pennsylvania. It would also include annual analysis of the Texas and Pennsylvania standards to ensure that any updates to the state standards are timely incorporated into the federal licensing standards. Without such ongoing analysis, DHS could not reasonably claim that the federal standards provide “materially identically assurances” to state standards.

 

3. 8 CFR § 236.3 (b)(11) – DHS’s Definition of “Non-Secure Facility” Cannot Appropriately Be Used to Classify FRCs, or Similar Facilities, as Non-Secure.

As noted above, the FSA requires that children be placed in facilities that are “non-secure,” unless placement in a secure facility is otherwise required.45 The FSA does not, however, define the term “non-secure.”46 DHS seeks to supply a definition for this term in the proposed rule. To the extent that this definition would allow the existing FRCs, or similar facilities built in the future, to be deemed non-secure, it is unacceptable and contrary to prior determinations of the court.

DHS states that when a definition of “non-secure” is not provided for by the state in which a facility is located, “non-secure facilities” shall be defined as those in which “egress from a portion of the facility’s building is not prohibited through internal locks within the building or exterior locks and egress from the facility’s premises is not prohibited through secure fencing around the perimeter of the building.”47 In its justification for this provision, DHS notes that it looked to the Pennsylvania code as “a starting point for the proposed definition.”48 DHS’s proposed definition, however, turns Pennsylvania’s definition on its head. In Pennsylvania, a facility is deemed secure if egress from any portion of the facility is prohibited through locks.49 In contrast, under the natural reading of DHS’s definition, a facility could have multiple egress points that are locked and still not be deemed “secure” as long as one egress point is lock-free. If DHS intended to match the Pennsylvania state definition, DHS should consider rewriting its definition to state clearly that a facility is only non-secure if egress is not prohibited in any section of the facility. DHS provides no justification for this significant deviation nor clarity on its definition to this point.

The proposed definition is unacceptable to the extent that DHS is seeking to provide a definition that would allow the existing FRCs, or any similar facilities built in the future, to be deemed non-secure. DHS cannot unilaterally supply a definition of “non-secure,” particularly one that is not as rigorous as existing state definitions, to further its own agenda. Moreover, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has already found the existing FRC facilities to be secure.50 Thus, these facilities, and any similarly designed facilities DHS constructs in the future, cannot be appropriately classified as non-secure. Promulgating such a definition would undermine the purpose of the FSA’s protections on this issue, protections that seek to ensure that children are placed in the least-restrictive environment that is appropriate.51

 

4. 8 CFR § 236.3(b)(5), 8 CFR § 236.3(g)(2), and 45 CFR § 410.101 – DHS’s and HHS’s Revised Definition of “Emergency” and Corresponding References Seek to Inappropriately Expand the FSA’s Exception.

The FSA provides an exception to the requirement for timely placement of children in licensed facilities by the government when there is an “emergency.”52 It states that emergencies “include, natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.), facility fires, civil disturbances, and medical emergencies (e.g., a chicken pox epidemic among a group of minors).”53 In both DHS’s and HHS’s proposed regulations, however, “emergency” is defined as “an act or event (including, but not limited to a natural disaster, facility fire, civil disturbance, or medical or public health concerns at one or more facilities) that prevents timely transport or placement of minors, or impacts other conditions provided by this section.”54

The agencies’ proposals to revise and expand the emergency exception ignore the fact that the government voluntarily entered into the FSA and negotiated its terms. Had the government wanted to create a broader emergency exception, it should have attempted to do so before signing the agreement in 1996. Emergency exceptions were clearly a topic of consideration and negotiation between the parties. Indeed, parties to the FSA specifically incorporated the emergency exception in certain sections of the agreement (e.g., in the provisions on transfer to licensed facilities) but chose not to provide similar exceptions for other provisions, such as those that limit housing children with unrelated adults. DHS even admits that its proposal does not adhere to the FSA’s terms, stating that its definition of the term emergency “reflects DHS’s recognition that emergencies may not only delay placement of minors, but could also delay compliance with other provisions of this proposed rule, or excuse noncompliance on a temporary basis.”55 Despite the operational realities that DHS may be facing, such an effort to expand unilaterally the emergency exception and create a safeguard to excuse future breaches of the FSA’s terms is untenable – due to the voluntary nature of the agreement, the fact that the Flores court approved the Agreement, the fact that the parties clearly contemplated when emergencies should excuse non-compliance, and larger public policy concerns.

From a public policy perspective, the proposed definition gives serious cause for concern. It provides DHS and HHS with broad discretion to define what constitutes an emergency. This is a fact that DHS admits in its justification, noting that the proposed definition “is flexible and designed to cover a wide range of possible emergencies.”56 Consequently, under the proposed definition, DHS could, in theory, define “emergency” to include lack of available staffing due to the flu. Because DHS’s proposed rule also creates a new emergency exception excusing non-compliance with limitations for holding minors with unrelated adults,57 it could then theoretically use its lack of staffing as an excuse for holding children with unrelated adults for more than 24 hours. To do so would put such minors at increased risk for abuse and harm, and it directly contravenes the plain language and intent of the FSA. The FSA strictly limits placement of children with unrelated adults to 24 hours.58

For these reasons, DHS’s and HHS’s proposals contravene the FSA and raise significant public policy concerns. We urge DHS and HHS to revise their proposed definitions of “emergency,” and corresponding references, in the final rule to reflect the terms the government agreed to in the FSA. And, if DHS and HHS feel that broadening the exception is essential to their operations, they should negotiate this with opposing counsel, and attempt to secure the court’s agreement thereto. As Judge Gee has noted, “the parties are always free to meet and confer regarding any contractual amendments on which they can mutually agree. This is basic contract law.”59

 

5. 8 CFR § 410.302(e) – HHS Should Provide Flexibility in Home Study and Post-Release Services Requirements to Ensure Ability to Timely Respond to Emerging Child Protection Needs

In its discussion of 8 CFR § 410.302(e), HHS specifically invites comments on whether it should set forth in the final rule policies regarding requirements for home studies, denial of release to sponsors, and post-release services.60 As a long-time provider of home studies61 and post-release services,62 we encourage HHS not to include these requirements in the final rule. Instead, we recommend ORR develop specific guidelines and minimum requirements for these services in its Policy Guide.63

Family reunification services are vital to promote safe and stable placements of children in appropriate environments. As social service providers, we have seen that unaccompanied children are particularly vulnerable to human trafficking, forced domestic servitude, and other exploitative situations. Standards for determining which children receive family reunification services have developed over time, responding to newly identified needs and vulnerabilities. Take, for example, the development of new home study categories in response to the Marion, Ohio egg farm case. Over a period of four months in 2014, ORR released eight children into the care of human traffickers. None of the children received home studies, and, after release, the children were subjected to labor trafficking on an egg farm in Marion.64 Local and federal officers discovered the trafficking situation during a raid of the farm in December 2014.65 In response to this incident and a corresponding investigation by the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs’ Subcommittee on Permanent Investigations, ORR announced in July 2015 that it was adding two discretionary categories of home studies66 for: (i) all unaccompanied children 12 years of age and under who are to be placed with a Category 3 sponsor; and (ii) any proposed sponsor who is a non-relative and is seeking to sponsor multiple children or has previously sponsored a child and is seeking to sponsor additional children.67

As new areas of vulnerability or concern are identified, it is important that ORR have the flexibility to respond and improve home study and post-release standards as quickly as possible. We caution against setting these standards via rulemaking as it likely would not allow ORR this necessary flexibility. For example, while the response was certainly not immediate after the Marion trafficking case, discussed above, had the standards been regulated in a manner requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking prior ORR’s addition of new home study categories, the regulatory process would have delayed ORR’s programmatic response by months.68

USCCB supports and encourages the continuing development of minimum standards for family reunification services. To allow it the necessary flexibility, we suggest ORR do this through its Policy Guide. Standards should be developed with input and feedback from services providers and other organizations with expertise in this area. Further, while ORR has made some progress in improving and expanding family reunification services to promote the safety of children, the fact is that the vast majority of children released from ORR care do not receive these vital services,69 and it must continue to address new needs and vulnerabilities that are identified. To that end, ORR should facilitate annual engagement, at a minimum, with service providers and other key organizations to discuss the existing standards and evaluate new and additional risk factors for placement of unaccompanied children.70

At a minimum, if ORR decides to issue regulations on family reunification standards, we urge it to ensure that these standards are framed as minimum requirements. To do so would help ensure ORR has the flexibility it needs in the future to timely respond and improve standards that promote safety of children, without conflicting with the existing regulations.

In sum, USCCB supports the development of minimum standards for family reunification services, but we caution against the use of rulemaking to do so.

 

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the proposed rule fails to adequately implement the terms of the FSA, and DHS and HHS lack the authority to unilaterally make the changes they propose to the FSA. Even if the proposed rule were legally permissible, however, it is objectionable from a public policy standpoint. The NPRM repeatedly seeks to undermine existing protections for children — protections which have served to safeguard immigrant children from neglect, abuse, and exploitation. We urge DHS and HHS either to abandon this rulemaking or to revise the proposed rule to mirror the conditions agreed upon in the FSA.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Anthony R. Picarello, Jr.

Associate General Secretary and General Counsel

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

 

 

1 Settlement Agreement, Flores, et al. v. Reno, et al., Case No. CV 85-4544 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 1, 1997), available at https://cliniclegal.org/sites/default/files/attachments/flores_v._reno_settlement_agreement_1.pdf.
2 Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and Unaccompanied Alien Children, 83 Fed. Reg. 45,468 (Sept. 7, 2018).
3 See, e.g., U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops/Migration and Refugee Serv., et al., The Real Alternatives to Detention, JUSTICE FOR IMMIGRANTS, available at https://justiceforimmigrants.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The-Real-Alternatives-to-Detention-FINAL-06.27.17.pdf (last visited on Sep. 25, 2018).
4 Stipulation Extending Settlement Agreement, Flores v. Reno, Case No. CV 85-4544 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 7, 2001).
5 Id.
6 Settlement Agreement, Flores, supra note 1, ¶¶ 6,19, 23.
7 83 Fed. Reg. at 45,512.
8 Id. at 45,525.
9 Settlement Agreement, Flores, supra note 1, ¶ 6.
10 Order on Motion to Enforce at 12-13, Flores, et al. v. Johnson, et al., cv-85-4544 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2015); Order on Motion to Enforce at 29, Flores, et al. v. Sessions, et al., cv 85-4544 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2017) (quoting the July 24, 2015 order).
11 Order Denying Application for Limited Relief, Flores, et al. v. Sessions, et al., cv 85-4544 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2018).
12 J. M. Linton, et al., Detention of Immigrant Children, 139 PEDIATRICS 1-13 (2017).
13 Id. at 6.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Scott Allen, MD & Pamela McPherson, MD, Letter to Senate Whistleblowing Caucus (July 17, 2018), available at https://www.whistleblower.org/sites/default/files/Original%20Docs%20Letter.pdf.
17 Id. at 2.
18 Id. at 4.
19 Id. at 3.
20 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CENTERS, REPORT OF THE ICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CENTERS 2 (OCT. 2016), available at https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report/2016/acfrc-report-final-102016.pdf.
21 DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. IMMIGRATIONS AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT BUDGET OVERVIEW CONGRESSIONAL JUSTIFICATION, FISCAL YEAR 2010, 111 (2018), available at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/U.S.%20Immigration%20and%20Customs%20Enforcement.pdf
22 Id. at 147.
23 Aria Bendix, ICE Shuts Down Program for Asylum-Seekers, THE ATLANTIC (June 9, 2017), https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/06/ice-shuts-down-program-for-asylum-seekers/529887/.
24 This also is assuming that the government could detain a family through the completion of their immigration proceedings.
25 Calculated as $638 per day for a family of two in an FRC ($319 x 2 = $638) and multiplied by the average time to process an individual on the detained docket, 40 days ($638 x 40 = $25,520). For ISAP, calculated as the daily rate for the head of household to be enrolled and multiped by the average time to process an individual on the non-detained docket, 752 days ($4 x 752 = $3,008). Thus, on average, a savings of $22,512 can be estimated if the family is kept on ISAP III as opposed to detaining the parent and child in an FRC. Please note that docket length averages utilized were those supplied by DOJ to the Senate. See Joseph Edlow, Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Hearing on “The Implications of the Reinterpretation of the Flores Settlement Agreement for Border Security and Illegal Immigration Incentives” (Sept. 18, 2018), available at https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/the-implications-of-the-reinterpretation-of-the-flores-settlement-agreement-for-border-security-and-illegal-immigration-incentives (during questioning by Sen. Johnson).
26 Settlement Agreement, Flores, supra note 1, ¶ 6.
27 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY – OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, ICE’S INSPECTIONS AND MONITORING
OF DETENTION FACILITIES DO NOT LEAD TO SUSTAINED COMPLIANCE OR SYSTEMATIC IMPROVEMENTS 4 (2018), available at https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2018-06/OIG-18-67-Jun18.pdf.
28 Scott Allen, MD & Pamela McPherson, MD, supra note, 16 at 1.
29 83 Fed. Reg. at 45,501.
30 Id. at 45,488.
31 E.g., U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, ICE/DRO RESIDENTIAL STANDARD: DISCIPLINE AND
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 2 (2007), available at https://www.ice.gov/doclib/dro/family-residential/pdf/rs_discipline_and_behavior_management.pdf.
32 “A type of emergency behavior intervention that uses the application of a device to restrict the free movement of all or part of a child’s body in order to control physical activity.” 26 Texas Admin. Code, Part I, Chapter 748, Subchapter B, Division 1, Rule § 748.43(37).
33 26 Texas Admin. Code, Part I, Chapter 748, Subchapter N, Division 1, Rule § 748.2451.
34 26 Texas Admin. Code, Part I, Chapter 748, Subchapter N, Division 7, Rule § 748.2705.
35 Note that ICE’s standards use the general term “restraint,” rather than “mechanical restraint,” even when they are referring to devices that would be considered “mechanical restraints” under the Texas regulations (e.g., handcuffs).
See U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, ICE/DRO RESIDENTIAL STANDARD: USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE AND RESTRAINTS 3 (2007), available at https://www.ice.gov/doclib/dro/family-residential/pdf/rs_use_of_force.pdf.
36 Id.
37 Id. at 10, 3.
38 26 Texas Admin. Code, Part I, Chapter 748, Subchapter N, Division 9, Rule § 748.2801.
39 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE AND RESTRAINTS, supra note 31 at 3.
40 Id.
41 26 Texas Admin. Code Part I, Chapter 748, Subchapter J, Division 7, Rule § 748.1691.
42 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, ICE/DRO RESIDENTIAL STANDARD: FOOD SERVICE 16 (2007), available at https://www.ice.gov/doclib/dro/family-residential/pdf/rs-food-service.pdf.
43 Guidelines for Feeding Healthy Infants, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, https://wicworks.fns.usda.gov/resources/guidelines-feeding-healthy-infants (last visited Sept. 26, 2018).
44 E.g., U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, DISCIPLINE AND BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT, supra note 31,
at 2.
45 Settlement Agreement, Flores, supra note 1, ¶¶ 6, 23.
46 See id.
47 83 Fed. Reg. at 45,525.
48 Id. at 45,497 n. 14.
49 55 Pa. Code § 3800.5 (stating a secure care facility is one in which “voluntary egress is prohibited through one of the following mechanisms: (i) Egress from the building, or a portion of the building, is prohibited through internal locks within the building or exterior locks. (ii) Egress from the premises is prohibited through secure fencing around the perimeter of the building.”).
50 2015 Order on Motion to Enforce, Flores, et al. v. Johnson, supra note 10, at 15 (“[E]ven if the Court disregards the conditions in, and the unlicensed status of, the facilities, the facilities are secure, which violates the Agreement’s requirement[s].”).
51 See Settlement Agreement, Flores, supra note 1, ¶ 11.
52 Id. at ¶ 12(B).
53 Id.
54 83 Fed. Reg. at 45,525 (emphasis added); accord id. at 45,529.
55 Id. at 45,496 (emphasis added).
56 Id.
57 Id. at 45,526.
58 Settlement Agreement, Flores, supra note 1, ¶ 12 (“The INS will segregate unaccompanied minors from unrelated adults. Where such segregation is not immediately possible, an unaccompanied minor will not be detained with an unrelated adult for more than 24 hours.”).
59 Order Denying Ex Part Application for Limited Relief at 7, Flores et al. v. Sessions et al., Case No. CV 85-4544 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2018), available at https://www.aila.org/File/Related/14111359ac.pdf.
60 83 Fed. Reg. at 45,507.
61 During a home study, a community-based case worker assesses the safety and suitability of the proposed caregiver and placement, including the caregiver’s capacity to meet the child’s unique needs, any potential risks of the placement, and the caregiver’s motivation and commitment to care for the child. Home studies result in a recommendation on whether placement with the proposed caregiver is in the child’s best interest.
62 Post-release services include risk assessment and action-planning with families around areas of need and concern, connection to community services, and provision of a referral to legal services. Consequently, these services are not only critical to ensuring a child’s safe placement, but they also mitigate the risk for family breakdown, facilitate community integration, and help the family understand the need to comply with their immigration court proceedings.
63 Children Entering the United States Unaccompanied, OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT (Aug. 30, 2018), https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/children-entering-the-united-states-unaccompanied.
64 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, PROTECTING UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN FROM TRAFFICKING AND OTHER ABUSES 1
(2016), available at
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Majority%20&%20Minority%20Staff%20Report%20-
%20Protecting%20Unaccompanied%20Alien%20Children%20from%20Trafficking%20and%20Other%20Abuses
%202016-01-282.pdf.
65 Abbie Van Sickle, Overwhelmed Federal Officials Released Immigrant Teens to Traffickers in 2014, THE
WASHINGTON POST (Jan. 26, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/failures-in-handling-unaccompanied-migrant-minors-have-led-to-trafficking/2016/01/26/c47de164-c138-11e5-9443-7074c3645405_story.html?utm_term=.d4002785484e.
66 Those that are not specifically required by statute.
67 PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS, supra note, 64 at 20.
68 While ORR could try to invoke the “good cause” exception to the Administrative Procedure Act requirements,
this would open the door to litigation. 5 U.S.C. §553(d)(3); MAEVE P. CAREY, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, THE FEDERAL RULEMAKING PROCESS 7 (2013), available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32240.pdf (“A federal agency’s invocation of the good cause exception (or other exceptions to notice and comment procedures) is subject to judicial review.”).
69 In FY 2017, ORR provided family reunification services for less than thirty-two percent of the 42,416 children released from its care – with only 7% of youth receiving home studies. See Facts and Data, OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT (June 25, 2018), https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/about/ucs/facts-and-data.
70 In USCCB/MRS’s experience, for example, factors such as a youth being a pregnant or parenting teen should be added to the list necessitating a discretionary home study.
2018-10-26T14:16:10-04:00News|

U.S. Bishops’ Office of Migration and Refugee Services and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service Release Report on Agencies Assisting Trump Administration with Family Reunification

October 17, 2018

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Office of Migration and Refugee Services (USCCB/MRS) and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS), released its report today, entitled Serving Separated and Reunited Families: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward to Promote Family Unity, which documents the work of Catholic and Lutheran agencies who assisted the Administration with reuniting separated families during the month of July.

Bishop Joe S. Vásquez of Austin, Texas, Chairman of the USCCB Committee on Migration, in a letter of introduction of the report states:  “I am proud of the response of USCCB/MRS, LIRS and of our Catholic (in particular CCUSA and the Catholic Charities network) and Lutheran partners around the country, including my brother bishops, to be able to work with the Administration to provide support to these vulnerable families.”  He further states: “USCCB/MRS (in collaboration with 75 Catholic Charities agencies) and LIRS continue to provide assistance including helping families comply with their immigration obligations. I believe the recommendations made [in this report] are important and should be seriously considered in order to avoid pain and suffering in the future caused by the separation of families.”

In July 2018, USCCB/MRS and LIRS assisted over 1200 families who were reunified after being separated due to the Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” policy. The report highlights the work that was undertaken by Catholic and Lutheran partners on the ground and gives a unique data point regarding the separated and reunited families.

Resources and information about family separation and the report are available on the Justice for Immigrants website www.justiceforimmigrants.org. Included is a backgrounder on family separation and information about the current release practices of immigrant families at the U.S./Mexico border and their immigration compliance requirements.

The full text of the report can be found here.

2018-10-17T09:48:18-04:00News|