Connect with us

U.S.

Administration Wrongfully Separated Over 900 Migrant Children, ACLU Says

Published

on

  • A new court filing from the ACLU revealed that that the Trump administration is still separating migrant families, despite officially ending the separation policy in June 2018.
  • According to the ACLU, data given to them by the government shows that more than 900 migrant children were separated from their parents in the last year.
  • The ACLU said that many of the separations were based on “minor criminal history” such as traffic violations, decades-old infractions, and “allegations or arrests without convictions.”
  • They also said that many of the separations were based on “highly dubious allegations of unfitness” like being HIV positive or eating at a restaurant that gang members also ate at.

ACLU Court Filing

Court documents filed Monday by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) revealed that the Trump administration has separated more than 900 migrant children from their parents in the year since the administration officially ended the separation policy.

The ACLU filing asks that the court come up with more specifically outlined standards for separating families to ensure compliance with a federal ruling from June 2018, which required the Trump administration to stop separating migrant children from their families.

The same month, Donald Trump himself issued an executive order to end family separations except in cases where parents may pose a risk to their child.

However, the Trump administration is still separating families according to government data given to the ACLU as part of the court order. 

“The government is systematically separating large numbers of families based on minor criminal history, highly dubious allegations of unfitness, and errors in identifying bona fide parent-child relationships,” the court filing said.

The ACLU also said that the original court ruling from June 2018 specified that children could be separated from parents who had criminal histories.

However, that did not include immigration offenses, and as the document says “The Court made clear, however, that it was not blessing separations based on any criminal history, regardless of gravity.”

“Rather, the Court’s decision relied on traditional due process and child custody standards, which permit the drastic step of separating a child and parent only where the criminal history is so significant that it bears on whether the parent is a danger to the child or is an unfit parent,” it continued.

The ACLU filing goes on to say that the government is “separating young children based on such offenses as traffic violations, misdemeanor property damage, and disorderly conduct violations. Some of the separations are for offenses that took place many years ago. And some are for mere allegations or arrests without convictions.”

They also added that families have been separated based on the governments “assertion that the parent does not appear to be doing a proper job parenting” or “that the parent has not sufficiently proven his or her relationship to the child.”

The ACLU additionally noted that the children being separated from their families were increasingly younger than before. According to the filing, 481 children, which is more than half of those separated, were under the age of 10.

Around 20 percent of separated children were under five-years-old, which is a huge increase from last year when only four percent of children separated were under five.

Examples of Criminal Histories

The ACLU filing provided numerous examples of children being separated from their parents for reasons they believe violate the court’s previous ruling.

Of the 911 separations, 678 were because alleged criminal history. 

According to the ACLU, the data on family separations the administration gave them consisted of lists with the name of the parent who was separated from their child, and “a cryptic, summarized reason for the separation—often just a few words or a line of text—that states the allegations against the parent.”

“Sometimes the entry will simply be ‘due to parent’s criminal history,’ with no further explanation,” the document added.

The ACLU went on to describe the lists, saying they provided minimal information and did not include key data, like how old the convictions are, and noting that only 179 cases provided “reliable date information,” adding “the most recent dated charge was on average 10 years old.”

They gave specific examples, like one child who was separated from their parent because of a “‘false police report / hit and run’ conviction from 26 years ago.” Another parent was separated from their child “based on a 3-day jail sentence for misdemeanor assault from 20 years ago.”

Additionally, despite the fact that the court had explicitly decided that parents could not be separated from their children because of immigration offenses, “[the] list of separations reports hundreds of cases that include such convictions as part of the reasons for separation, including cases where the unlawful entry or reentry conviction was combined with other minor offenses, such as DUIs or traffic offenses.”

Examples of “Unfit” Parents

The ACLU also gave multiple examples where parents who had no criminal records were separated from their children because they were deemed “unfit.”

In one example, a dad was separated from his three young children because he had HIV, and despite requests, the government still never explained why being HIV positive made the dad a threat to his children. 

Another example said that a 5-year-old was separated from their mother who broke her leg at the border “and was briefly hospitalized for emergency surgery.”

In another case, a father in a detention center was separated from his one-year-old daughter because he did not want to wake up her to change her wet diaper. 

Other parents were separated from their children because Border Patrol agents did not believe they were actually their parents.

In one case, Border Patrol separated a father from his three-year-old daughter because his name was not on her birth certificate, despite the fact he had other proof he was her dad. The agents took away his daughter and refused to give him a paternity test.

Lawyers eventually intervened and were able to confirm he was the father, but during the time they were separated his three-year-old was sexually abused in government care.

The court documents also said that 44 parents were separated from their children because of alleged connections to gangs.

However, these included examples like a mother who was separated from her two children because she “ate at a restaurant frequented by gang members.” Another mother was separated from her child because she was seen leaving a store “while a group of gang members were being arrested nearby.”

One mother had her child taken from her because she had been abused by a gang member. Those are just some examples from the 218-page filing.

Trump Administration

The ACLU’s filing comes just a few weeks after acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan said in testimony before a House committee that family separations were “rare” and made only “in the interest of the child.”

“This is carefully governed, it’s overseen by a supervisor when those decisions are made,” the acting secretary said.

However, the ACLU disagrees. Their filing says that the court must come up with more specific standards because the current ruling seems to give too much power to Border Patrol agents to decide who should be separated.

“They’re taking what was supposed to be a narrow exception for cases where the parent was genuinely a danger to the child and using it as a loophole to continue family separation” Lee Gelernt, the lead attorney in the family separation lawsuit and deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in an interview.

“What everyone understands intuitively and what the medical evidence shows, this will have a devastating effect on the children and possibly cause permanent damage to these children, not to mention the toll on the parents,” he added.

See what others are saying: (NPR) (The Washington Post) (Fox News)

Advertisements

U.S.

US Records 4.8 million Job Gains in June, But Let’s Look at the Full Picture

Published

on

  • The jobs report for June showed that the U.S. gained 4.8 million jobs back last month and the unemployment rate fell to 11.1% from 13.3% in May.
  • President Trump touted the report in a press conference, saying the U.S. is seeing record-breaking numbers and that economy was coming back strong.
  • However, as many pointed out, unemployment is still the highest its been since World War II and over 1 million people are still filing for unemployment every week.
  • Others also noted that the data from the report is from the week of June 12 and does not show the recent business closures made by governors in several states reimposing restrictions due to coronavirus spikes.
  • Economists have warned that the renewed closures in some states and the fact that many other states have slowed their planned reopenings will result in more layoffs.

June Jobs Report

The U.S. economy gained 4.8 million jobs in June and the unemployment rate fell to 11.1% from 13.3% the month before, according to a monthly report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Thursday.

Following the publication of the June report, President Donald Trump touted the new numbers during a press conference Thursday morning.

“Today’s announcement proves that our economy is roaring back,” he said. “It’s coming back extremely strong.” 

“This is not just luck, what’s happening. This is a lot of talent,” he continued. “All of this incredible news is the result of historic actions my administration has taken working with our partners in Congress to rescue the U.S. economy.”

Trump also repeatedly claimed the job gains and employment numbers provided in the BLS report were record-breaking on multiple fronts.

However, many have noted that the only reason the U.S. is seeing record-breaking job gains is because it has experienced the record-breaking job losses. 

That fact has even been echoed by members of Trump’s administration, including Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, who acknowledged that unemployment is still extremely high by historical standards at the press conference Thursday.

Throughout the pandemic, American’s have seen unemployment rates similar to that of the Great Depression. Even now, unemployment is still the highest its been since World War II.

What the Data Shows

There are still over 17 million American’s unemployed, according to the BLS report. While it is true that we gained 4.8 million jobs back last month, more than 1 million people filed for unemployment every week in June including this past week, which saw 1.4 new claims.

There are also a number of other indicators in the BLS data that show that American’s are hurting.

For example, while the number of people temporarily laid off decreased by 4.8 million, the number of permanent job losses actually increase last month, rising by over half a million to 2.9 million total. 

That suggests that many of the people going back to work are those who were furloughed during the shutdowns, meaning that the economy is simply getting back jobs it had temporarily lost, not adding or creating new jobs. 

That fact was also noted by numerous Twitter users who sought to point out the holes in the president’s remarks. 

“No, Trump did NOT create 4.8 million jobs in June – some people went back to their old jobs,” one user wrote.

Many other users also compared the unemployment rates of Black people and other people of color to that of white people, likely in response to Trump championing minority job growth while speaking at the press conference Thursday.

“African-American workers, really happily for me, made historic gains, with 400,000 jobs added last month alone and that’s a record,” he said. “Hispanic employment is up by 1.5 million jobs, a record by a lot.” 

However, the BLS data minority unemployment has consistently remained higher than white unemployment— especially for Black people. In fact, according to a report from Reuters, the gap in U.S. Black and white unemployment rates is widest its been five years.

“Jobless rates for both groups fell in June, but the rate for whites came down at a much faster rate. The white unemployment rate fell 2.3 percentage points to 10.1% from 12.4%, while the rate for Blacks dropped 1.4 points to 15.4% from 16.8%,” the report said.

According to the BLS data, unemployment fell from last both groups in general, the unemployment rate among Black men over 20 actually rose from May to June, growing from 15.5% to 16.3%

While the discrepancy between Black and white unemployment was the most significant, white unemployment is still quite a bit lower than Hispanic unemployment which was 14.5% last month, and Asian unemployment, which was 13.8%.

Those numbers appear to support the claims of numerous experts who have said that people of color have been disproportionately hurt by the economic crisis.

“Disproportionately, the layoffs have been in lower wage occupations, in lower wage positions,” Gary Burtless, a labor economist at the Brookings Institution told the New York Times. “That has disproportionately affected African-Americans and Hispanics.”

Growing Concerns

While the BLS report does show the discrepancies between Trump’s rosy outlook and reality, it is only part of the picture.

There are several issues with the BLS data, and the agency has made readily apparent. It has repeatedly warned that the actual unemployment numbers are higher than what has been reported because of flaws in the data collection process. On Thursday, the BLS said that it believes the official unemployment rate for June is actually a whole percentage point higher.

But that is not the only problem. Arguably the biggest issue is that the data in this report was taken the week ending June 12, and since then, a number of states have shut down businesses again in response to the recent spikes in coronavirus cases.

Just in the last week, the governors of Florida and Texas have shut down bars and other commercial activities. California has stopped indoor restaurant dining and closed movie theaters in most major cities. Arizona has also shut down water parks, bars, and gyms.

Numerous other states have postponed their planned reopenings. As a result, some workers are now reportedly getting laid off for the second time. 

Those closures and delays are expected to grow as cases continue to surge. On Thursday, the U.S. reported a new record of 50,000 coronavirus cases on a single day. New cases have risen a whopping 50% in the last month, according to the Washington Post

With those numbers rising and states with huge economies like Texas and California reimposing restrictions, many economists are worried that Americans will see more layoffs.

“The virus drives the economics,” Betsey Stevenson, a member of former President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers told the Times. “We’re not going to have people going back to work. In fact, we’re going to see more people staying home.”

See what others are saying: (NPR) (The New York Times) (The Washington Post)

Advertisements
Continue Reading

U.S.

Jeffrey Epstein Confidante Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested

Published

on

  • Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite and confidante of Jeffrey Epstein, was arrested by the FBI in New Hampshire Thursday morning.
  • Maxwell has long been accused of helping Epstein in an alleged scheme to sex traffic underage girls. 
  • She is being charged with: enticement of a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, two related conspiracy charges, and two perjury charges. 
  • According to the indictment against her, Maxwell would befriend young women for Epstein, knowing he would later abuse them. She would also allegedly help create and normalize the environment in which they were abused, and in some cases was present for their abuse. 
  • She has repeatedly denied the allegations against her and is expected to appear in front of a federal court Thursday afternoon.

Maxwell Arrested in New Hampshire

Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s long time associate who has been accused of helping him in his alleged sex trafficking schemes, was arrested on Thursday morning in New Hampshire.

Maxwell has been charged with six counts, enticement of a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, two related conspiracy charges, and two perjury charges. She has consistently denied allegations that she procured minors for Epstein.

Last year, Epstein was charged with sex trafficking and later died in his jail cell in August, with authorities ruling his death a suicide. Epstein, a wealthy financier who ran in powerful social circles, had long been accused of grooming underage girls for sex. In 2008, he was convicted of procuring a minor for prositution in Florida. 

Maxwell is a British socialite known to be Epstein’s close friend, and at one point, girlfriend. After he was charged in 2019, she seemingly went off the grid. News tabloids speculated on her whereabouts for months, as she was connected to the high profile case and implicated by many of Epstein’s alleged victims. 

“Maxwell assisted, facilitated, and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims known to Maxwell and Epstein to be under the age of 18,” an unsealed indictment claims. “The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by Maxwell and Epstein, both of whom knew that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18.”

In addition to this, the indictment claims that Maxwell attempted to conceal her crimes and lied when she was questioned about her conduct, including one instance where she was under oath in 2016. 

Details of Indictment

According to the indictment, Maxwell would attempt to befriend underage girls by asking them about their lives. She and Epstein would take them to the movies or on shopping trips. During these outings, the victims were either allegedly alone with Maxwell or Epstein, or with both of them at once.

“Having developed a rapport with a victim, Maxwell would try to normalize sexual abuse for a minor victim by, among other things, discussing sexual topics, undressing in front of the victim, being present when a minor victim was undressed, and/or being present for sex acts involving the minor victim and Epstein,” the indictment continues. 

Apparently, having Maxwell in the room during these interactions “helped put the victims at ease because an adult woman was present.”

The indictment said Maxwell normalized abuse by massaging Epstein in front of victims, and then encouraging the victims to massage Epstein themselves. Many of those massages involved a minor being nude or partially nude, and then led to Epstein sexually abusing them. 

According to the indictment, these crimes happened at Epstein’s residences in New York, Palm Beach, New Mexico and London. While many have accused Maxwell of partaking in this behavior for a long time, this indictment specifically refers to crimes alleged to have happened between 1994 and 1997. 

Maxwell is expected to appear in front of a federal court Thursday afternoon.

See what others are saying: (NBC News) (The Guardian) (Bloomberg)

Advertisements
Continue Reading

U.S.

NYC Cuts $1 Billion From Police Budget as Protestors Occupy City Hall

Published

on

Photo by Reed Dunlea for Rolling Stone

  • New York’s City council announced that they were cutting $1 billion from the police budget⁠—a demand made by protesters who have been occupying the area in front of City Hall for over a week.
  • However, less than half of the proposed “cuts” actually cut money. Most of the funding being taken away from the police department is just being shifted to other departments.
  • Even then, the largest cut is to overtime pay, and DeBlasio has openly said he’s not sure if the cuts can be made if the protests continue. The biggest funding shift is to place school safety officers under the purview of the Education Department⁠—which already pays for the officers.
  • Numerous activists and city councilmembers condemned the plan, saying it falls way short, including the Council Speaker, who helped draft the proposal, and who blamed Mayor Bill De Blasio for the lacking legislation. 

New York City Council Announces Cuts

The New York City Council announced Tuesday that it was cutting $1 billion from the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) $6 billion operating budget, and moving some of those funds to education and social services.

The decision comes amid intensifying pressure for cities nationwide to reduce the amount of funding allocated to their police departments⁠— which represents the single highest budget expenditure for most major cities. 

While several cities have taken steps to scale back police funding at ⁠some level, many have been closely watching New York City, which is home to the largest and most expensive police force in the country.

With the city’s July 1 budget deadline looming, there has been increased pressure for officials to act. Over the last week, hundreds of protesters have been occupying the area outside of city hall— with many camping out overnight— to demand deeper cuts to the police budget.

The protest first started last Tuesday when about 100 people occupied City Hall Park, and since then, it has grown significantly. Some activists have reportedly said they will still stay after the budget deadline, but the general aim of the organizers who put together the demonstrations was to get the city council to cut the police budget by $1 billion.

NYPD Budget Cuts

While Tuesday’s announcement may sound like the city council gave the protesters exactly what they wanted, that is not the case for a number of reasons.

First of all, less than half the so-called “cuts” actually cut any funding. According to a press release from Mayor Bill De Blasio’s office, only $430 million will be actually cut from the department’s budget, while the $537 million will just be shifted to other departments.

Even then, some of the cuts are still up in the air. For example, the biggest single cut is more than $350 in overtime pay, but De Blasio has said that might not be possible if protests or other things that require a lot of police happen.

Just since George Floyd’s death on May 25, NYPD paid out $115 million in overtime.

There are also some major holes in the funding that’s being shifted to other departments. For example, over $400 million of funds they say they are shifting will be moved to school safety officers to be under the purview of the Department of Education. 

However, according to the city’s Independent Budget Office, the Education Department already funds that program and gives the Police Department $300 million a year to operate it. In other words, one of the biggest funding “shifts” is not a shift at all— it just means that the Education Department will now operate a program it was already funding.

Responses

Numerous people have responded to the announcement with anger, arguing that the move is simply smoke and mirrors and that the city is just shifting the money around without making any substantive cuts to the police budget.

“Defunding police means defunding police,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said in a statement. “It does not mean budget tricks or funny math.”

“It does not mean moving school police officers from the NYPD budget to the Department of Education’s budget so the exact same police remain in schools. It does not mean counting overtime cuts as cuts, even as NYPD ignores every attempt by City Council to curb overtime spending and overspends on overtime anyways,” she continued.

“These proposed ‘cuts’ to the NYPD budget are a disingenuous illusion. This is not a victory. The fight to defund policing continues.”

A number of protest leaders and organizers echoed that sentiment, saying the proposal was not what they asked for.

“We are being gaslit,” said activist Jawanza James Williams. “This movement is about so much more than the $1 billion, and this means they don’t understand what we’re saying.”

Numerous city council members also voiced their dislike of the plan, including Council Speaker Corey Johnson, who helped lead the process in drafting the proposal.

“To everyone who is disappointed — and I know that there are many, many people who are disappointed that we could not go further, I am disappointed as well,” he said. “I wanted us to go deeper.”

“This is a budget process that involves the mayor who would not budge on these items,” Johnson added, placing the blame squarely on De Blasio.

Other council members also said the cuts did not go far enough, like Councilman Brad Lander, who voted no on the proposal and called it “more budget-dancing than meaningful reductions.”

However, at the same time, there were plenty of council members that opposed the cuts because they did not want the police budget to be reduced at all.

“We know what we’re doing and we know that what we’re doing will create a more violent city, and yet we’re doing it anyway,” said Councilman Joseph Borelli.

“Black folks want to be safe like everyone else, we just want to be respected,” Councilman I. Daneek Miller, co-chairman of the Council’s Black, Latino and Asian Caucus, said. “We can’t allow folks from outside our community to lecture us about Black lives and what we need in our communities.”

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (TIME) (The New York Post)

Advertisements
Continue Reading