The tried-and-true alternatives to detaining immigrant families
By Ruthie Epstein
With his hastily issued executive order on family separation last week, President Trump presented America with a false choice: If you don’t want me to tear infants from their mother’s arms, I’ll just put entire families in jail.
Specifically, Trump directed the Department of Homeland Security to keep families in custody “during the pendency of any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their members.” He also directed the Department of Defense and all other federal agencies to let DHS use their facilities so that family jail space can be expanded as quickly as possible.
Trump’s plan is inhumane and wrong. The American Academy of Pediatrics and other child-welfare experts have found that jailing children and parents can severely damage their physical and mental health, even irreversibly. When President Obama expanded family detention in 2014, his actions were met with swift condemnation from immigrants’ rights, civil rights and criminal reform organizations, including the ACLU. A federal court put the brakes on that expansion, applying a longstanding rule that prohibits the detention of children in substandard facilities and favors their release.
Rather than jailing families who are in deportation proceedings, the government should release anyone who is not a flight risk or whose flight risk can be mitigated by an alternative to detention. Such alternatives are designed to ensure court appearance and compliance with any final court orders, but they do even more: They allow families to live outside prison walls while their cases move through the system. That allows them to more easily find attorneys and prepare their defense — and non-detained immigrants with legal representation are far more likely to win legal relief. It also means that parents can raise their own children as normally as possible, limiting the long-term trauma to the families.
Despite these obvious advantages, in June 2017, the Trump administration canceled the Family Case Management Program, which was run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement as an alternative to detention for families seeking asylum. The program operated in five regions: New York City/Newark, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, and Baltimore/Washington, D.C. It provided case management, referrals for support services, and legal orientation in partnership with community-based non-governmental organizations in order to make sure that vulnerable families’ most urgent needs were met and that they had the information they needed to comply with legal obligations.
The Trump administration would have you believe that releasing immigrants while their cases proceed in court encourages them to disappear from the government’s radar. That’s just false. The Family Case Management Program had a 99 percent effectiveness rate — meaning that almost every single person who was enrolled in the program showed up for all immigration appointments and court hearings. And it was fiscally responsible — just $36 per day per family, compared to $319 per day per person for family detention.
And not all families need the level of support provided by the Family Case Management Program. The government still has the option of releasing families on recognizance, bond, or parole while their cases proceed, and it should be doing so when more intensive supervision is unnecessary to mitigate flight risk. In March, the ACLU, Human Rights First, and the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies sued the administration for jailing asylum seekers indefinitely rather than following their own policy and releasing them on humanitarian parole. That case is pending.
The administration must reinstate the Family Case Management Program or other alternatives that provide families with community-based support services. It must use its authority to release families on recognizance, bond, and parole. It must reverse its plan to build new jails for children and their parents. And Congress must refuse to fund family detention beds.
Family separation is a crisis of the Trump administration’s own making — a crisis it is trying to replace with a new one. Jailing thousands of asylum-seeking families is unnecessary and the wrong way forward. If the president thinks his executive order will bring the nationwide outrage over his border policies to an end, he is deeply mistaken.
Ruthie Epstein works in ACLU’s National Political Advocacy Department.
Articles related to “The tried-and-true alternatives to detaining immigrant families”
As Hispanics support Trump’s immigration policies, GOP has lessons to learn
A merit-based immigration system would help Americans — and skilled foreigners
