Obama’s Plan to Deal With Unaccompanied Minors Is Aggravating Immigration Advocates

A proposal to change the law to allow for “voluntary removal” of undocumented children is not going over well with everyone.

Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson testifies at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, July 10, 2014. 
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Fawn Johnson
July 11, 2014, 1 a.m.

An ob­scure hu­man-traf­fick­ing law that passed Con­gress un­der the Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion with no ob­jec­tion is likely to be changed, much to the chag­rin of refugee and im­mig­ra­tion ad­voc­ates.

The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion is seek­ing the abil­ity to of­fer “vol­un­tary re­mov­al” of un­doc­u­mented chil­dren from Cent­ral Amer­ica back to their home coun­tries, which the traf­fick­ing law now pro­hib­its. Re­pub­lic­ans also are de­mand­ing the change as one of the con­di­tions for ap­prov­ing $3.7 bil­lion in emer­gency fund­ing to deal with the surge of chil­dren on the bor­der.

This idea has raised alarm bells among im­mig­ra­tion and refugee ad­voc­ates, who say vol­un­tary re­mov­al is of­ten co­erced from vul­ner­able chil­dren. They be­lieve the bor­der patrol is ill-equipped to handle the some­times dif­fi­cult in­ter­views with kids who have taken a long and dif­fi­cult jour­ney flee­ing vi­ol­ence at home.

Some Demo­crats agree with the ad­voc­ates, and the con­tro­versy could set up a le­gis­lat­ive battle that could delay the fund­ing re­quest un­til Septem­ber. That would put the Home­land Se­cur­ity De­part­ment in­to a fund­ing crisis. DHS Sec­ret­ary Jeh John­son told the Sen­ate Ap­pro­pri­ations Com­mit­tee Thursday that bor­der fund­ing would run out in Au­gust.

The White House plans to send a sep­ar­ate re­quest to Con­gress to al­low DHS to of­fer vol­un­tary re­mov­al to all un­ac­com­pan­ied chil­dren who are picked up at the bor­der, John­son said. Right now, the bor­der patrol can of­fer that op­tion only to chil­dren who cross the bor­der from Mex­ico. The of­fi­cials of­fer those chil­dren the op­por­tun­ity to go home safely and be de­livered in­to the cus­tody of Mex­ic­an child-wel­fare of­fi­cials without any kind of de­port­a­tion pun­ish­ment. Ad­voc­ates say the in­ter­views are con­fus­ing and in­tim­id­at­ing for a child.

About three-quar­ters of the  chil­dren cross­ing the bor­der in the Rio Grande Val­ley in the re­cent surge are from El Sal­vador, Guatem­ala, and Hon­dur­as. Most of the rest of these un­ac­com­pan­ied minors are from Mex­ico, and those kids are sent back to Mex­ic­an child-wel­fare of­fi­cials re­l­at­ively quickly.

“What we have in mind is treat­ing un­ac­com­pan­ied minor chil­dren from the three Cent­ral Amer­ic­an coun­tries as be­ing from con­tigu­ous coun­tries, i.e., Mex­ico,” John­son said. “We of­fer a child the abil­ity to ac­cept a vol­un­tary re­turn, and a lot of them ac­tu­ally do ac­cept a vol­un­tary re­turn.”

The Amer­ic­an Im­mig­ra­tion Law­yers As­so­ci­ation vehe­mently dis­agrees. The group says the traf­fick­ing law should ac­tu­ally be changed in the op­pos­ite dir­ec­tion. The group says that the Mex­ic­an “loop­hole” should be closed such that all un­ac­com­pan­ied chil­dren who are ap­pre­hen­ded at the bor­der are placed in­to the cus­tody of the Health and Hu­man Ser­vices De­part­ment. “There is no val­id reas­on for treat­ing vul­ner­able un­ac­com­pan­ied chil­dren dif­fer­ently based on their coun­try of ori­gin. All chil­dren should re­ceive care­ful and ro­bust screen­ing and pro­tec­tion to en­sure their safety and well-be­ing,” the group said in state­ment sent to Con­gress.

Even be­fore John­son’s state­ment, civil-rights ad­voc­ates were bra­cing for the pos­sib­il­ity that the traf­fick­ing law could change. Privately, some of them said that their con­cerns about weak­en­ing the law led to Obama keep­ing the change out of his $3.7 bil­lion emer­gency re­quest for ad­di­tion­al bor­der fund­ing.

But once the pro­pos­al landed on Cap­it­ol Hill, it be­came clear al­most im­me­di­ately that the money would not be forth­com­ing without a change to the traf­fick­ing law. Re­pub­lic­ans said they didn’t un­der­stand why the pres­id­ent would talk about quick re­pat­ri­ation of Cent­ral Amer­ic­an ali­en minors and then not fol­low through in his fund­ing re­quest. The not­able ab­sence of the pro­vi­sion pro­voked some of them to ques­tion Obama’s motives, pos­it­ing that the emer­gency re­quest is a polit­ic­al move.

“The money is go­ing to med­ic­al treat­ment and bus trips and plane trips to where they want to go,” said Rep. Dar­rell Issa, R-Cal­if.

In­deed, the cur­rent traf­fick­ing law re­quires that HHS take care of the un­doc­u­mented chil­dren who cross the bor­der if they are not from Mex­ico. (The ex­cep­tion in the traf­fick­ing law also ap­plies to Canada, but few people are ap­pre­hen­ded on the north­ern bor­der.) The chil­dren are provided with med­ic­al care, men­tal health screen­ings, and edu­ca­tion. They are also giv­en some leg­al ser­vices, al­though not ac­tu­al rep­res­ent­a­tion.

Issa says that amounts to free babysit­ting for people who crossed the bor­der il­leg­ally. It’s hard to ar­gue with him. The testi­mony of HHS of­fi­cials this week on Cap­it­ol Hill de­scrib­ing the care of the chil­dren in their care can al­most be read like an ad­vert­ise­ment for cross­ing the bor­der. “The chil­dren in our shel­ters re­ceive phys­ic­al, men­tal, dent­al, edu­ca­tion, and phys­ic­al activ­it­ies,” said Mark Green­berg, act­ing as­sist­ant sec­ret­ary for chil­dren and fam­il­ies at HHS at a Wed­nes­day hear­ing of the Sen­ate Home­land Se­cur­ity Com­mit­tee.

Once they are healthy, HHS at­tempts to find par­ents or guard­i­ans in­side the U.S. where they can place the chil­dren. About half of the un­ac­com­pan­ied minors in HHS’s care are re­leased to par­ents already in­side the coun­try, per HHS Sec­ret­ary Sylvia Bur­well. Many of those par­ents are un­doc­u­mented, al­though HHS does not ask for their im­mig­ra­tion status at the time they turn over the chil­dren, so it isn’t clear how many don’t have pa­pers.

At Thursday’s hear­ing, sev­er­al Re­pub­lic­ans pressed ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials about the 2008 law. “[Obama] said last Monday that he had some changes he wanted to make, and we need to know what those are,” said Sen. Lamar Al­ex­an­der, R-Tenn.

But the traf­fick­ing law is sac­rosanct among many civil-rights ad­voc­ates. It is the res­ult of dec­ades of work with sev­er­al vet­er­an elec­ted of­fi­cials still in Con­gress, in­clud­ing Sen. Di­anne Fein­stein, D-Cal­if. She told John­son at Thursday’s hear­ing that she pro­posed the spe­cial con­di­tions for un­ac­com­pan­ied minors in the traf­fick­ing law after wit­ness­ing a teen­age girl in chains and tears be­fore an im­mig­ra­tion at­tor­ney. The girl had been trans­por­ted in a cargo con­tain­er from China. Her par­ents had died along the way.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.