Classical Argument on Detention of Immigrant Children

Classical Argument on Detention of Immigrant Children

Introduction

Amongst the current issues that has turned out to be controversial in the United States is the zero tolerance policy that has led to the separation of immigrant children from their parents, along with their subsequent detention. By description, the zero-tolerance policy on immigration mainly refers to the laws that have been enacted with the objective of ensuring that illegal immigration into the United States is stopped. To attain this, the zero-tolerance policy allows the government, through the Homeland Security department, to detain immigrants found crossing the border into the United States for indefinite periods of time as a deterrence to those seeking to enter the United States illegally. The present administration of President Donald Trump has often perceived the zero tolerance immigration policy it enacted as being an escalated attempts geared towards addressing the unlawful immigration crisis at the US borders regardless of the indications that the arrests were lower than in earlier decades. Further, the policy also directs the prosecution of every immigrant who has unlawfully entered the United States, and as resulted in the observed separation of the children and their parents who traveled into the country together. While the policy might be prompted as effective in reducing immigration into the United States, it remains not only unlawful but also has a number of negative consequences for the United States and might not attain its objectives in the long run. This paper has, therefore, been written with the objective of presenting arguments on why the zero-tolerance is ineffective and unlawful.

Discussion

Since taking the oath of office, President Trump has been fixated on the need to end the extant catch-and-release immigration policies. Under the catch-and-release immigration policies, the immigrant who had immigrated into the United States illegally and had been apprehended were accorded the right to a court hearing, and after that were let go as the determination of their cases were being considered. However, President Trump has developed the conviction that permitting individuals who have crossed into the United States unlawfully is prone to inspire others to follow suit. As such the president’s objective is mainly to hold the illegal immigrants in detention camps for as long as possible so as to discourage other immigrants. One, therefore, question the legality of such actions against immigrants and their children, as well as the possible outcomes of the zero-tolerance policy, and whether it has been effective in attaining its intended objective. Even though in over one hundred nations the detention of children with regards to the immigration purposes is a worldly acknowledged practice, studies on the subject have indicated that it present potential harm to the children both physically and psychologically. Regardless of the findings of such studies, the administration of President Trump has continued to detain children and separate them from their parents illegally. A number of reasons underlying the rebuffing of the zero-tolerance immigration policies.

Firstly, the zero-tolerance immigration policies instituted by President Trump in recent times are illegal and should, therefore, not be executed. It is worth observing that the rights and freedoms of every immigrant and their children are protected by the international laws and treaties, of which the United States is part of. For instance, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is amongst a number of laws that safeguards the rights of immigrants including those who have been apprehended by the administration of President Trump. The United States ratified the treaty in 1992 and it mandates that upon the apprehension, detention and imprisonment of any individual by a government, the individual has to be treated in a humane manner as well as with the intrinsic respect with regards dignity of the individual. The indefinite detention of immigrants, and particularly the immigrant children, by the United States’ government tends to breach the covenant. Thus, according to the findings of an observational study carried out by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the conditions within the United States’ detention facilities that also entailed the children being coerced to sleep on the cold cemented floors, continuous exposure to light, open toilets, lack of bathroom facilities, exposure to the extreme cold temperatures, as well as inadequate water and food, and such conditions have been observed to be traumatizing for the child immigrants (Sellers and Bruce 522). Further, the detention of the immigrant children has also raised several conflicts in relations to the domestic laws too. Thus, according to Cruz and Katie (339), the indefinite detention of children tends to infringe the court settlement of 1997 that stipulated that immigrant children must be released from detention within a duration o/f 20 days. The fact that President Trump also called for the instant deportation of every illegal immigrant in the United States devoid of any court hearing and review.

Over and above the infringement of the above laws, the zero tolerance immigration policies additionally infringes on the due process clause within the US Constitution, which stipulates that the government cannot deprive any individual of their liberty, life and property devoid of the process of the law. Following President Trump’s direction, the Supreme Court declined to make decisions with regards to the legality surrounding the detention of the child immigrants and asylum seekers for prolonged periods devoid of any bail hearing. As a result, the arguments presented by the dissenting judge observed that the detention of the immigrants for prolonged durations devoid of the essential judicial review was unconstitutional. According to the judge, the Due Process Clause, which reflects the spirit of Magna Carta, is meant to avert arbitrary detentions while safeguarding the freedoms from the bodily restrictions has often been central to the liberty safeguarded by the law.

Further, the Trump administration is currently seen as pursuing means that are similar to those used by Bush’s administration in preventing unlawful immigration. According to Sheppard (16), President George W. Bush administration depended heavily on the propagation of the fear related to terrorism in justifying the torture, kidnapping, as well as the inhumane and cruel treatment of various detainees. This resulted in various courts throughout the globe condemning such human rights laws violations. In a similar fashion, at present, President Trump’s administration is involved in similar activities though with the zero tolerance immigration policies. The President has been on record defending the zero tolerance immigration policies through the assertions that those opposing the laws including his political opponents did not care about the rising crime rates linked to immigrants and therefore, wanted the illegal immigrants regardless of the criminal backgrounds to enter and infest the United States. On most occasion, the president has referred to criminal gang groups such as MS-13, Mara Salvatrucha, which is a global criminal gang, which paradoxically was founded in Los Angeles and has spread its membership throughout the American continent (Martínez, Jeremy and Ricardo, 187). Such assertions have been made with the objective of creating fear amongst citizens in addition to offering the necessary pretext for the government of the United States to defy the various basic principles of the international laws with regards to the manner in which it treats immigrants from varied parts of the globe (Correa-Cabrera, Guadalupe, and Tony, 4).

The separation of children from the parents has also been observed to be a more direct repudiation of the various family-centered attitudes found at the core of the American la, religion and culture (Pierce, Jessica and Andrew, 13). As a result of this, the zero tolerance immigration policies have been referred to as immoral, heart wrenching and cruel. However, it is worth noting that such types of diversions for the traditions and norm are often accompanied by a price, and in this case, the repute of the United States, to the conscience of Americans that includes fairness moral, civil and unique society. This, therefore, lead to the question on how a nation known globally for treating immigrant families in an inhumane manner be positively exceptional. In instances where the costs of the zero tolerance policies tend to be very high, chances are that the returns to be gained from them will be very meager. However, the administration of president Trump perceives them as potent deterrents to prospective illegal immigration into the United States. Nevertheless, the administration seems to have overestimated the projected impacts. Moreover, prior to taking on the long trek to the United States, families take into account several factors including the advantages and disadvantages of moving to the United States. However, the threat of getting apprehended and detain will only be added to other notable risks that include getting robbed, killed or raped in the course of the trek, and after that contrasted against remaining in nations that have been violence wrecked such as Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

Further, President Trump’s administration, on the other hand, perceives the zero tolerance policy as an effectual bargaining tool. Thus, through the assumption of the hard-liner position with regards to deportation of “dreamers”, (immigrants that were brought to the US as children) and the separation of families, the administration of President Trump have developed the conviction that it is possible for all Americans to support and fund the policies including the building of border wall fences to deter immigrants from Mexico and other parts of South America. However, such proposals have not been received well by Americans thereby making them look unpopular amongst the citizens.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, the zero tolerance has been seen to work infrequently as a policy or political tool given the simple observation that the globe is a highly intricate and nuanced place. The zero tolerance policy, therefore, implies that there will be not probable means of making a case-by-case determination of legal and illegal migration, minimal chance at compromising and sturdy opportunities of attaining outcomes that are increasingly counterproductive. Thus, at the United States borders and the borders of other nations, there are a number of human means of tackling the issue of illegal immigrants as opposed to apprehension, detention and separation of families. Amongst the notable means entail ensuring that the children and their parents are detained together as family units in family detention centers. Moreover, the administration may also make use of the ankle bracelets for effective tracking and thereafter release them even as their asylum and refugee applications are being processed. As such, it is nearly impossible for the administration to justify the family separation policies that are draconian. Lastly, even though the illegal border crossing into the United States tend to rise in the initial months of the year, a drastic reduction has been observed over the last 20 years (Wood 22). For instance, in the year 2000, a total of 1.7 million individuals were arrested while making attempts at crossing the border into the United States unlawfully. However, only 311, 000 were caught in 2017. Owing to this, there is an urgent need for the President Trump to review the zero tolerance immigration policies so as to prevent the likely negative outcomes.

Works Cited

Correa-Cabrera, Guadalupe, and Tony Payan. “Political Turpitude: The Negative Impact of           Zero-Tolerance Immigration Policies on Irregular Labor Markets.” Issue Brief 7 (2018):       1-5.

Cruz, Edgar, and Katie Dingeman-Cerda. “Macías-Rojas, Patrisia, From Deportation to Prison:     The Politics of Immigration Enforcement in Post-Civil Rights America.” Canadian            Journal of Sociology 43.3 (2018): 333-336.

Martínez, Daniel E., Jeremy Slack, and Ricardo Martínez‐Schuldt. “The Rise of Mass      Deportation in the United States.” The Handbook of Race, Ethnicity, Crime, and          Justice (2018): 173-201.

Pierce, Sarah, Jessica Bolter, and Andrew Selee. “US Immigration Policy under Trump: Deep       Changes and Lasting Impacts.” (2018): 1-29.

Sheppard, Barry. “Protests mount after Trump’s fake order on immigrant child       separations.” Green Left Weekly 1186 (2018): 16.

Sellers, Brian G., and Bruce A. Arrigo. “Virtue Jurisprudence and the Case of Zero-Tolerance       Discipline in US Public Education Policy: An Ethical and Humanistic Critique of      Captivity’s Laws.” New Criminal Law Review: In International and Interdisciplinary             Journal 21.4 (2018): 514-544.

Wood, Laura CN. “Impact of punitive immigration policies, parent-child separation and child       detention on the mental health and development of children.” BMJ paediatrics open2.1        (2018). 15-28.