TOMORROW IS THE COURT-ORDERED DEADLINE FOR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO REUNITE THOUSANDS OF SEPARATED CHILDREN WITH THEIR
PARENTS.
THIS ISSUE LANDED IN COURT BECAUSE THE AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION FILED A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILIES.
RECENTLY, THE FEDERAL JUDGE OVERSEEING THE CASE SAID THERE
HAS BEEN QUOTE “GREAT PROGRESS” REUNITING FAMILIES SINCE THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S “ZERO TOLERANCE” CRACKDOWN ON ILLEGAL
IMMIGRATION.
I GOT PERSPECTIVE ON THIS FROM BILL NEWMAN DIRECTOR OF THE ACLU
IN WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS AND PETER VICKERY, A MEMBER OF THE
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION.
I FIRST ASKED NEWMAN WHY THE ACLU BROUGHT THE CASE.
>> THIS IS FROM THE JUDGE'S ORDER OF JUNE 26TH.
11 WEEKS AGO PLAINTIFFS LEVELED THE SERIOUS ACCUSATION THAT OUR
GOVERNMENT WAS ENGAGED IN A WIDESPREAD PRACTICE OF
SEPARATING MIGRANT FAMILIES AND PLACING MINOR CHILDREN WHO WERE
SEPARATED FROM THEIR PARENTS IN GOVERNMENT FACILITIES FOR,
QUOTE, UNACCOMPANIED MINORS.
>> LET ME INTERVENE HERE, WHAT DO YOU THINK IN REACTION TO THE
ACLU'S DECISION TO FILE THIS LAWSUIT?
>> I WELCOME THE DECISION TO FILE THE SUIT.
LET ME START BY SAYING I'M VERY GLAD I LIVE IN A COUNTRY PEOPLE
FLEE TO AND NOT FROM AND WHERE THE RULE OF LAW IS STILL ALIVE
AND WELL SO WHEN THE ACLU SUES, AND IT IS IN ORDER LIKE THE ONE
FROM THE JUDGE, IT COMPLIES.
THEY DIDN'T EVEN APPEAL.
THEY ARE MAKING EVERY EFFORT TO XIE.
>> YOU MEAN THE JULY 10TH DEADLINE INITIALLY SET?
>> THE IMPENDING, THE LOOMING DEADLINE --
>> OF JULY 26TH.
>> CORRECT.
>> THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT DEADLINES AT PLAY.
EARLIER DEADLINE MISSED FOR CHILDREN AGES 5 AND YOUNGER AND
THERE ARE CHILDREN OLDER THAN 5 WHO ARE SUBJECT TO A DEADLINE
THAT'S TAKING PLACE THIS THURSDAY.
>> YES.
ALSO TO BE CLEAR, THE AMBITION OF THE ADMINISTRATION IN
ENFORCING THE LAW CONSISTENTLY WITH THE ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY I
THINK IS AN ADMIRABLE AMBITION.
HOWEVER, WHAT THEY DIDN'T DO BEFOREHAND IS MAKE SURE THE
REASONABLY FORESEEABLE INFLUX OF CHILDREN HAD ACCOMMODATION.
THEY FAILED TO DO THAT.
AND I THINK THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION ON JUNE 20TH, HIS
EXECUTIVE ORDER FOR FAMILY REUNIFICATION AND END THE POLICY
OF SPLITTING FAMILIES UP IS A WISE ONE, BUT IT SHOULD HAVE
HAPPENED BEFORE THE ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY WAS
IMPLEMENTED.
>> ATTORNEY NEWMAN?
>> I DEFER TO THE JUDGE WHO SAID THIS, THE UNFOLDING EVENTS, ZERO
TOLL TOLERANCE POLICY, E.E.A., EXECUTIVE ORDER AND D.H.S.,
HOMELAND OF SECURITY FACT SHEET, THE ALLEGATION, THE FACTS
PORTRAY RESPONSES TO CONNECT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S OWN MAKING.
THEY BELIED, MEASURED AND ORDERED GOVERNANCE WHICH WAS
CENTRAL TO THE DUE PROCESS AND TRYING IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
IN OTHER WORDS, OUR GOVERNMENT AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAD
BEEN RUNNING ROUGHSHOD OVER THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
ENSHRINED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
I THINK ALL PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN DUE PROCESS IN THE RULE OF
LAW SHOULD BE APPALLED NOT ONLY WITH WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DID BUT
HOW BADLY THEY HAVE MANAGED TO TRY TO UNDO THE CHAOS THAT THE
GOVERNMENT CREATED.
THEY MISSED THE DEADLINE, AND, ACCORDING TO THE MOST RECENT
NUMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN RELEASED, IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO MEET THIS NEW DEADLINE -- THIS NOT NEW --
>> I WANT TO LET ATTORNEY VICKERY HAVE A CHANCE TO
RESPOND.
>> I WAS APPALLED TOO EVEN BACK IN 2014 WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA DID
SOMETHING SIMILAR.
TO HIS CREDIT, I THINK, HE HAD THE CANDOR TO SAY HE WAS DOING
THIS AS A DETERRENT.
HE WARNED MIGRANT FAMILIES THAT THEIR FAMILIES WOULD BE
DISUNITED, THAT FAMILY DISUNITY WOULD BE A LIKELY AND VERY
FORESEEABLE OUTCOME OF ENTERING THE UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY.
AND SOME DISTRICT COURT JUDGE SAID DETERRENTS IS NOT A
SUFFICIENT RATIONAL FOR THAT KIND OF POLICY.
IT WAS WRONG THEN, AND IT WAS WRONG THIS TIME.
>> DO YOU THINK WE'LL FIND A SIMILAR RULING FROM THE COURT
GIVEN WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE REACTION FROM WHEN THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION TRIED SOMETHING SIMILAR?
>> I THINK THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WAS EXPLICIT
ABOUT DOING IT AS A DETERRENT.
AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS BEING CAREFUL NOT TO USE
DETERRENT.
THE POLICY CHANGED, THE ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY IS NOW
OVERLAY OF FAMILY INTEGRITY BEING MAINTAINED.
BUT I THINK THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS NOT GOING TO
FALL INTO THE TRAMP THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION FELL INTO
SAYING WE ARE DOING THIS TO DETER ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION OR
PEOPLE SEEKING ASYLUM OR REFUGEES.
AND THE NUMBERS ARE, OF COURSE, GOING UP.
27,000 LAST YEAR FROM VENEZUELA ALONE.
OF COURSE, THAT PORT OF ENTRY WAS MIAMI, WHERE MOST OF THE
PEOPLE CROSSING THE SOUTHERN BORDER ARE FLEEING VIOLENCE AND
PERSECUTION IN EL SALVADOR, HONDURAS, GUATEMALA.
BUT THE NUMBERS WILL KEEP INCREASING AND I THINK
CONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW IS KEY SO LONG AS WE HAVE
THE FACILITIES TO HOUSE THE CHILDREN THAT WE CAN REASONABLY
FORESEE WILL BE BROUGHT ACROSS THE BORDER.
>> THE GOVERNMENT WAS BACK IN COURT ON MONDAY.
AMONG SOME OF THE NUMBERS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP, THE GOVERNMENT
SAYS 917 PARENTS ARE EITHER NOT ELIGIBLE OR NOT YET KNOWN TO BE
ELIGIBLE FOR REUNIFICATION.
AND THEY'RE DEFINING ELIGIBILITY IN FOUR SEFK WAYS I WANT TO READ
OUT HERE.
THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, PARENTS WHOM THE GOVERNMENT HAVE
NOT LOCATED, PARENTS WHO ARE CURRENTLY IN CRIMINAL CUSTODY,
PARENTS WITH AN ALLEGED CRIMINAL HISTORY THAT WOULD PRESENT A
DANGER TO THE CHILD, OR PARENTS WHO HAVE A COMMUNABLE DISEASE.
I REALLY WANT TO FOCUS ON THE LAST TWO.
IF YOU'RE A PARENT TODAY AND YOU'RE NOT A MIGRANT WHO'S COME
ACROSS THE BORDER AND YOU HAVE A COMMUNICABLE DISEASE, ARE YOU
SEPARATED FROM YOUR CHILD BECAUSE OF THAT?
>> I WOULD DEFER TO MR.
VICKERY.
I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY BASIS TO DO THAT.
BUT IF THERE'S A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE, I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON
PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES WHETHER THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE
DONE TO AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND IF THE GOVERNMENT COULD SEPARATE
A CHILD FROM THE PARENT BECAUSE OF THE DANGER TO THE CHILD UNDER
ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE LAW, THEN THAT WOULD MAKE SOME
SENSE.
IF IT'S SOMETHING BEING APPLIED TO MIGRANTS AND IMMIGRANTS,
OBVIOUSLY, IT'S OBJECTIONABLE.
>> AND THIS IS NOT ON A WHIM, LET ME ADD.
THIS IS NOT BECAUSE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WISHES TO DO
THIS.
IT'S THE LAW.
THERE'S A STATUTE THAT GOVERNS TO WHOM D.H.S.
AND H.H.S.
CAN RELEASE CHILDREN.
AND IT'S THE STATUTE THAT SETS FORTH THOSE CRITERIA.
IS IT FAIR, IS IT RIGHT?
WELL, THAT'S A QUESTION FOR CONGRESS.
BUT I THINK THE ADMINISTRATION IS TAKING CARE TO COMPLY WITH
THE STATUTES.
>> SO FOR ELIGIBILITY, THAT ONE SPECIFICALLY I POINTED OUT, IS
CURRENTLY UPHELD BY THE LAW?
>> I BELIEVE IT'S REQUIRED BY THE LAW.
I CAN'T CITE YOU THE U.S. CODE IN QUESTION BUT THE LAST I READ,
THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY D.H.S.
HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT FASTER.
H.H.S.
IS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY CANNOT
RELEASE ALL CHILDREN INTO PARENTAL CUSTODY UNTIL ALL OF
THOSE CRITERIA ARE SATISFIED.
THAT'S WHY 200-PLUS PARENTS WITH CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS HAVE NOT
BEEN REUNITED WITH THEIR CHILDREN.
>> YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD.
>> LET ME SAY WHAT THE JUDGE SAID IN THE ORDER, UNLESS THERE
IS A DETERMINATION THAT THE PARENT IS UNFIT OR PRESENTS A
DANGER TO THE CHILD OR THE PASCH THE AFFIRMATIVELY KNOWINGLY AND
VOLUNTARILY DECLINES TO BE REUNITED WITH THE CHILD, A,
DEFENDANTS -- THAT'S THE GOVERNMENT, DEFENDANTS -- MUST
REUNIFY ALL CLASS MEMBERS, THOSE ARE THE PARENTS, WITH THEIR
MINOR CHILDREN WHO ARE UNDER THE AGE OF 5 WITHIN 14 DAYS OF ENTRY
OF THE WORD.
AND THE GOVERNMENT DIDN'T DO THAT.
THE SECOND PART WAS DEFENDANTS MUST REUNIFY ALL CLASS MEMBERS
WITH THEIR MINOR CHILDREN AGES 5 AND ABOVE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF
ENTRY OF THE ORDER.
AGAIN, SUBJECT TO THE CAVEATS THAT THE PARENT IS NOT UNFIT OR
DOES NOT PRINT A DANGER TO THE CHILD.
THAT'S WHAT THE JUDGE ORDERED AND THAT'S WHAT THE GOVERNMENT
HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH AGAIN.
>> I WANT TO ASK ANOTHER QUESTION, THE PARENTS WITH THE
ALLEGED CRIMINAL HISTORY, THAT STOOD OUT TO ME BECAUSE IN THIS
COUNTRY WE ALL KNOW THE PHRASE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
SO WHY WOULD AN ALLEGED CRIMINAL HISTORY BE A REASON TO SEPARATE
PARENT FROM CHILD?
>> GOOD QUESTION FOR CONGRESS.
I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES.
AGAIN, UNFITNESS OR COMMUNICABLE DISEASE, THESE ARE NOT WHIMS THE
ADMINISTRATION IS ACTING ON.
IS IT FAIR, IS IT RIGHT?
GOOD QUESTION FOR CONGRESS.
>> LET'S MOVE ON TO THE DEADLINE, WHICH IS THURSDAY, THE
26TH.
WHERE DO YOU SEE THIS CASE GOING?
>> SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE IS WHAT I THINK THE JUDGE SAID HE
SAW MOST RECENTLY.
SO I IMAGINE THAT THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION WILL EITHER MEET
OR COME PRETTY DARN CLOSE TO MEETING IT.
THAT DOESN'T SOLVE THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM.
IT'S COMPLYING WITH ONE JUDGE'S ORDER.
SIMPSON PEOPLE -- SOME PEOPLE ON MY SIDE OF THE AISLE TAKE
UMBRAGE OF DISTRICT COURTS ISSUING ORDERS THEY SEE FLY IN
THE FACE OF THE NATIONAL POLICY.
THAT'S FOLT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.
PUTTING ASIDE WHAT THIS JUDGE HAS DONE IS ISSUED A VERY
WELL-REASONED ORDER TO DEAL WITH A PARTICULAR SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A POLICY WAS IMPLEMENTED POORLY, NOT WELL
THOUGHT OUT.
I THINK THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING, IT LOOKS LIKE ACCORDING TO THE
JUDGE, THEY'RE DOING THEIR BEST TO COMPLY.
>> ATTORNEY NEWMAN, WHERE DO YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO GO?
>> WELL, THAT'S HARD TO SAY.
I CAN'T READ THE GOVERNMENT'S MIND.
I DON'T KNOW REALLY WHAT EFFORTS ARE BEING MADE.
DON'T KNOW WHY THEY HAVE FAILED SO BADLY TO MEET THE JUDGE'S
ORDER IN THE DEADLINES.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE GOVERNMENT SEPARATED CHILDREN
FROM THEIR FAMILIES AND DIDN'T EVEN KEEP RECORDS IN A LOT OF
CASES OF WHERE THE CHILDREN ARE, WHERE THE PARENTS ARE.
THEY JUST SEPARATED THEM AND SAID WELL, IF THEY EVER GET BACK
TOGETHER, MAYBE THEY WILL OR MAYBE THEY WON'T, AND THAT'S OUR
NATIONAL POLICY AND PRACTICE?
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO.