What Is It Like to Be a Nielsen Family
Why Kirstjen Nielsen Is Denying That the Policy of Separating Families Is a Family Separation Policy
On Monday, Sen. Kamala Harris chosen on Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to resign, saying she had misled the public nearly the Trump administration's credible practice of splitting upwards families at the border. Harris cited a tweet from over the weekend in which Nielsen said that the government had no such policy.
Harris might confused about what Nielsen meant here because over the past few days, a number administration officials—including Nielsen herself—take said different things about the apparent practice.
In an interview published with the New York Times on Saturday, Trump senior policy adviser Stephen Miller said that separating families was a "simple conclusion" and necessary to send the bulletin "that no 1 is exempt from immigration law."
Terminal week, Jeff Sessions cited a bible poesy famously used to justify slavery to defend the apparent current practice.
Trump had previously—and untruthfully—blamed Democrats for the apparent practice, but on Monday he seemed to at to the lowest degree acknowledge that the assistants had some part in it, citing his desire to prevent the U.S. from condign like Europe every bit part of his rationale.
Chief of Staff John Kelly as recently every bit last month, meanwhile, described the practice equally a "deterrent."
On Monday, Nielsen herself seemed to admit some sort of policy that led to the separation of parents from children. "We do not accept the luxury of pretending that all individuals coming to this country as a family unit of measurement are in fact a family unit," she said. "Nosotros have to practise our task, nosotros will not apologize for doing our job."
As former White House Director of Communications Anthony Scaramucci said on Monday, these seemingly contradictory messages brand the assistants'southward position difficult to decipher:
There's likely a reason, though, why Nielsen has insisted categorically that no such policy exists. That reason is that such a policy would almost certainly violate the due procedure clause of the Constitution. In rejecting the government'due south asking to dismiss an ACLU lawsuit challenging the do earlier this calendar month, District Court Judge Dana Sabraw opined that a policy of indefinite family unit separation would be "brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of off-white play and decency" and a "articulate" violation of the "constitutional right to family integrity." The judge, who is yet to rule on the merits of whether or not child separation is actually in fact what's taking place, practical that logic as to asylum seekers who accept presented themselves lawfully at a port of entry and those who take been prosecuted for illegal entry and served their time. Those who had applied for asylum at a port of entry and saw their children taken away without whatsoever apparent lawful footing, also as asylum seekers who had seen their children separated lawfully while they were detained for clearing offenses and had served their sentences were "on equal footing … for purposes of pursuing [a] due process claim," the approximate ruled.
That means the gauge has written that indefinite child separation of aviary seekers—even in cases where a parent had been convicted of illegal entry—would be unconstitutional if it were happening. And so in guild to proceed the do going, the government has to deny publicly that information technology is in fact happening, equally Nielsen did over the weekend.
As my colleague Mark Joseph Stern noted terminal week, in that failed motion to dismiss the due procedure grounds of the ACLU lawsuit, the government best-selling it was making the choice to separate families, justifying it as an unreviewable "discretionary" decision. In that legal cursory, the Section of Justice argued it was in its discretion to both indefinitely separate parents who had been convicted of the law-breaking of illegal entry and those who had lawfully sought asylum by presenting their family at a port of entry. "Ice's discretionary […] conclusion to detain an alien in a particular facility is not judicially reviewable," the government argued. This is essentially an acknowledgment that the decision to agree families separately is a option that Donald Trump's government is making.
Evidence is piling up of what that looks similar in practice. The ACLU lawsuit is full of declarations, including from parents who presented themselves lawfully at a U.S. port of entry, describing kid separation. On Monday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein reported that two,342 children had been separated from their parents at the border betwixt May five and June 9. The Washington Examiner reported that—including children who arrived at the edge past themselves—the administration could be holding xxx,000 undocumented immigrant children by August. And for those who are willing to allow themselves to feel what kid separation sounds like in practice, ProPublica has published an sound recording of one such separation taken from inside a U.S. Customs and Edge Protection facility.
Source: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/why-kirstjen-nielsen-denies-that-a-family-separation-policy-exists.html
0 Response to "What Is It Like to Be a Nielsen Family"
Post a Comment