- A new rule proposed by the Trump administration would allow it to effectively detain migrant families indefinitely.
- The rule would roll back the 1997 Flores agreement which has conditions that limit unlicensed detention centers from holding migrant children and their parents for more than 20 days.
- Under the new rule, families would be held in detention facilities until their cases could be heard. Officials have said that process would take on average two to three months, but others have pointed out that the backlog of cases could lead to families being detained for years.
New Trump Rule
The Trump administration rolled out a new rule Wednesday that would allow it to indefinitely detain migrant families found crossing the border illegally.
The rule would officially end the Flores agreement, a 1997 legal settlement that requires the government to ensure that migrant children are held in safe and sanitary conditions.
Flores was made as part of a federal class-action lawsuit that claimed migrant children held in detention facilities for extended periods of time suffered emotional and physical harm.
In 2015, District Judge Dolly Gee ruled that under Flores, migrant children can only be held in border facilities for 20 days before they have to be transferred to a licensed facility, where they also must be provided with access to sanitary facilities, medical treatment, and given the ability to contact family members.
However, states do not license family detention centers, and because children had to be moved to licensed facilities, the 2015 ruling also mandated that the 20-day rule applied to parents who arrived at the border with their children.
Over the last year, the Trump administration has been trying to scrap Flores, arguing that limiting detentions of families has caused the recent surge of immigration.
“The Government will now seek to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement, a loophole that results in most alien families being released into the country after 20 days,” the White House said in a press release Wednesday.
“Smugglers have used this loophole as a selling point for aliens who want to cross the border and be released into the interior of the country, exploiting migrant children for profit,” the statement concluded.
Now, under the proposed rule, the administration would be able to hold families until their immigration cases are decided and they are either granted asylum or deported.
According to reports, administration officials said that cases could be resolved in two or three months, but they also noted that because of the massive backlog of immigration cases already in the system, many cases could drag on for months or even years. This means that, at a minimum, children would be kept in detention centers nearly three times longer than they currently are held.
The administration is expected to formally publish the rule later this week. Once it is published, it will go into effect in 60 days, but it first has to be approved by Judge Gee, who has been overseeing the Flores litigation.
However, administration officials expect the legal process to take longer, as immigration advocates have already said that they plan to challenge the new rule in court.
Advocates have argued that the Flores agreement is essential to provide protection for immigrant children, many of whom are seeking asylum from violence and poverty.
They say the Trump administration has violated the agreement and harmed migrant children by holding them in facilities with horrible conditions and separating hundreds of them from their parents.
Others have noted that over the last year, at least seven migrant children have either died in government custody or right after they were released.
“We don’t disagree with detaining children when it’s necessary — namely, if they’re a flight risk or they’re a danger to themselves or others, we agree,” Peter Schey, one of the lead attorneys for the Flores plaintiffs told reporters.
“It’s the unnecessary detention of [a] child that this settlement sought to end,” he continued. “So these regulations really reflect a flagrant disregard on the part of President Trump and his administration for the safety and the well-being of children in the care of the federal government.”
Administration officials have said that the new rule will meet the legal standards set forth by Flores because the detention facilities will be subject to audits to ensure they comply with licensing standards.
They have also said that the rule is not indefinite detention because migrant families will eventually have their cases heard, even if it takes years.
“This single ruling has substantially caused and continued to fuel the current family unit crisis and the unprecedented flow of Central American families and minors illegally crossing our border,” Department of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan said at a press conference Wednesday. “The new rule closes the legal loophole that arose form the reinterpretation of Flores.”
Schey also said he expects Judge Gee to reject the administration’s new rule.
“These regulations do not implement the settlement. In fact, it abrogates the settlements. And so I think their efforts will be futile,” he said.
If Gee does not approve the rule, the Trump administration is expected to appeal her decision, and that could drag on for even more months or years, according to legal experts.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (Fox News)
Top Universities Move To Guard International Students From ICE’s Deportation Policy
- Following ICE’s announcement on Monday that it would revoke visas for international students at schools shifting to online-only formats, a number of colleges and universities have responded.
- While schools like Columbia quickly announced that they would begin offering hybrid models, Harvard and MIT filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the policy.
- At the same time, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said she expects K-12 public schools to be “fully operational” in the fall, and President Donald Trump has threatened to pull funding if they don’t.
Schools Move to Protect International Students
Colleges and universities are scrambling to protect their international students following a controversial move from U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement that threatens to deport those students taking only online classes in the fall.
For the Spring and Summer semesters, ICE temporarily eased existing rules that require international students to attend in-person classes and essentially limit them to only one online course each semester. On Monday, the agency announced that it would largely not be extending those flexibilities into fall, though it would still allow international students to take more online classes than normal.
Many schools are afraid to offer in-person classes with the COVID-19 pandemic still sweeping across the country. Because of that, many international students fear they will be deported, and if they are, they could face added difficulty traveling home considering current international travel restrictions, some of which could bar them from their own countries.
In response, Harvard and MIT filed a joint lawsuit against the Trump administration Wednesday in an attempt to seek a temporary restraining order prohibiting the government from enforcing ICE’s policy.
“ICE’s action proceeded without any indication of having considered the health of students, faculty, university staff, or communities…or the absence of other options for universities to provide their curricula to many of their international students,” the suit reads.
In a personal statement alongside the lawsuit, Harvard President Larry Bacow said the university “will not stand by to see our international students’ dreams extinguished by a deeply misguided order.”
Other schools have worked to reassure their international students in different ways. New York University—which has the highest number of international students in the U.S—has stressed that its hybrid program would accommodate most of its international students.
However, it added that the new guidance from ICE “will be disruptive to some who will now be forced to rethink their fall schedules to ensure they include live classes.”
“Additionally, requiring international students to maintain in person instruction or leave the country, irrespective of their own health issues or even a government mandated shutdown of New York City, is just plain wrong and needlessly rigid,” school administration said in its statement on Tuesday.
Also in New York, Columbia University announced that it now plans to organize hybrid classes with both in-person and remote learning opportunities. It will also offer pop-up learning centers for students who can’t return to Columbia.
On the West Coast, Stanford—which had previously announced that it would hold mostly online classes—now said it will support international students. As to what that might look like, it hasn’t yet said.
At the University of California, Berkeley, students are reportedly trying to create a course for international students solely to circumvent this ICE policy. That news came after a student said they had found a faculty member willing to sponsor a class that would be “only for students who are international and need a physical component to remain in the United States.”
However, nothing has been confirmed by the university. For now, such a class remains only speculation. A number of people have also questioned how such a class would be drafted and if it would conflict with immigration fraud laws.
Still, before, that post was ultimately deleted, it was shared over 24,000 times, highlighting the attempts international students are making to try to find some way to remain in the country.
Many of those students are reportedly signing up for any in-person class they can find—even if it’s outside of their major or not a general education requirement. Others are reportedly trying to swap for in-person classes with American students as those classes fill up.
DHS Defends ICE Policy
Kenneth Cuccinelli, acting deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, defended ICE’s policy Tuesday on CNN, repeatedly stressing that the agency was allowing more flexibility than it ever had before. Anchor Brianna Keilar pushed back against those claims, saying that the COVID-19 pandemic in an exceptional situation that requires great flexibility.
“So you’re basically forcing universities to reopen even if they have personally determined that they shouldn’t be doing that for public health reasons?” Keilar asked.
“Oh, we’re not forcing universities to reopen,” Cuccinelli responded, “however, if a university… if they don’t reopen this semester, there isn’t a reason for a person holding a student visa to be present in the country. They should go home, and then they should return when the school opens. That’s what student visas are for, and we want to accommodate that for schools, and we’re working hard to do that.”
Keilar continued to hit back, saying that for some students, they will return home to countries with internet restrictions that might not allow them to appropriately conduct research or work for classes.
In the interview, Cuccinelli also said that this policy was designed, in part, to “encourage schools to reopen.”
DeVos: Schools “Fully Operational” By Fall
In recent days, the Trump administration has become increasingly adamant that public K-12 schools should reopen for the upcoming academic year.
“Corrupt Joe Biden and the Democrats don’t want to open schools in the Fall for political reasons, not for health reasons!” President Donald Trump tweeted on Monday. “They think it will help them in November. Wrong, the people get it!”
Trump continued to push for full reopenings in the fall on Tuesday, specifically criticizing Harvard for its plan to operate fully online.
“I think it’s ridiculous,” he said. “I think it’s an easy way out. I think they ought to be ashamed of themselves if you want to know the truth.”
“We’re very much going to put pressure on governors and everybody else to open the schools,” he added.
“We don’t want people to make political statements or do it for political reasons. They think it’s gonna be good for them politically and they keep the schools closed” — Trump suggests Democrats are using the coronavirus to conspire against him pic.twitter.com/WhBSE8tiOG— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 7, 2020
That idea was further pushed by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos the same day, with DeVos saying, “Ultimately, it’s not a matter of if schools need to open, it’s a matter of how.”
“They must reopen, they must be fully operational,” she added. “And how that happens is best left to education and community leaders.”
DeVos appeared to push for that hardline reopening plan, disavowing hybrid models that suggest students only physically go to school a few times a week.
“A choice of two days per week in the classroom is not a choice at all,” DeVos told governors in a conference call.
“Students across the country have already fallen behind,” she added. “We need to make sure that they catch up. It’s expected that it will look different depending on where you are, but what’s clear is that students and their families need more options.”
DeVos also compared the coronavirus risk to “learning to ride a bike” and being “shot off in a rocket into space,” saying schools “already deal with risk on a daily basis.”
Vice President Mike Pence claimed on that call that if all schools remained closed into the upcoming academic year, the U.S. economy would take a $50 billion hit.
Trump continued to push for reopening schools Wednesday morning, saying he may cut off funding if they don’t open. In a tweet, he compared the situation in the U.S. with that of Germany, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; however, those countries have all managed to suppress the virus one way or the other.
In a follow-up tweet, Trump went on to say he disagrees with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidelines to reopen, calling them “very tough & expensive.”
Currently, if a school wishes to reopen, the CDC recommends that desks should be six-feet apart, that groups of students stay together, and that students shouldn’t share objects. It also recommends a hybrid schedule, such as the one DeVos has criticized.
However, it also notes that wearing face masks will likely be challenging for students—especially younger ones—to wear all day.
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, “More and more data has been coming out around the severity of the illness, and the likelihood of infection for children, both of which are substantially lower than they are for adults.”
It now “strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school.”
The AAP lists several reasons for bringing children back to school, including potential negative impacts such as interruption of support services, as well as difficulty for schools to identify learning deficits, sexual abuse, substance abuse, and depression.
While there is some evidence to suggest children are less susceptible to the virus, it’s not clear how strong that evidence is. Some hypothesize that schools closing in the early stages of the pandemic could have helped to contribute to lower infection rates.
See what others are saying: (The Wall Street Journal) (Forbes) (The Hill)
Is It Too Late for Kanye West to Run for President in 2020?
- Kanye West announced Saturday that he will be running for president of the United States in 2020.
- However, reports say he has not yet formally registered his campaign with the Federal Election Commission and has missed the deadline to file as an independent in at least six states.
- He technically still has time to meet other states’ fast-approaching filing deadlines, but some believe his announcement is just a promotional stunt for a new project or new music.
- Others believe that West, a known Trump supporter, is hoping to pull votes, specifically Black votes, away from former Vice President Joe Biden.
Kanye West announced that he is running for president in the 2020 U.S. election.
In a tweet posted on the Fourth of July, he wrote: “We must now realize the promise of America by trusting God, unifying our vision and building our future. I am running for president of the United States 🇺🇸! #2020VISION”
That tweet was met with a ton of support, earning over 1 million likes by Monday morning and prompting responses from other notable figures. For instance, his wife Kim Kardashian retweeted the post with an American flag emoji, meanwhile, Tesla CEO Elon Musk commented “You have my full support,” beneath Kanye’s tweet.
You have my full support!— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 5, 2020
If you’re familiar with West, you know that running for president is actually an idea he’s thrown around for some time now. In fact, he actually made headlines in 2015 after first announcing plans to do so at the MTV Video Music Awards.
However, he’s more recently suggested that he would actually run in 2024.
So for some, the new announcement wasn’t totally surprising, but of course, there were a bunch of people who criticized the move because Kanye has been very public about his support for President Donald Trump.
Because of that allegiance, some think Kanye running is an attempt to pull votes, specifically Black votes, away from the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
Aside from that argument, there are people who generally dislike Kanye for offensive comments he’s made in the past, like the time he suggested slavery was a choice. Meanwhile, others worry that people will vote for West to be funny.
Others believe his whole announcement is just a publicity stunt for a new project or new music. That’s because it comes off the heels of his new single “Wash Us in the Blood,” and follows the announcement of his new album, “God’s County.”
Can He Run?
On top of that, many pointed out that West hasn’t taken the necessary step he needs to run. According to CNN, West still needs to register with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), present a campaign platform, and collect enough signatures to get on the November ballot, among other things.
According to Ballotpedia, he’s already missed the deadline to file as an independent candidate in states like North Carolina, Texas, New York, Maine, New Mexico, and Indiana. He does still have time to file in several other states where deadlines are set for sometime in July and August if not later.
In the places where he was too late, he could technically run as a write-in candidate, though rules for write-in-candidates vary from state to state.
Ballotpedia states that, “33 states require a write-in presidential candidate to file some paperwork in advance of an election. In nine states, write-in voting for presidential candidates is not permitted. The remaining states do not require presidential write-in candidates to file special paperwork before the election.”
So, a real presidential run is not impossible at this point, but as of now, there aren’t any public filings that show that West is really moving to do so. Even if he does, people feel like he might not be fully aware of what he could be getting himself into
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee weighed in on Kanye’s announcement in a weekend appearance on Fox and Friends where he said, “Look, it’s a free country. He can certainly run. I think he’s going to be surprised to find out all of the incredible limitations upon his entertainment career the moment he becomes an official candidate for president.”
“All of the vast financial reporting that he’s going to be required to do and all of the disclosures, some of which are not going to be pleasant for someone in the entertainment industry, and all of the limitations on the money he can earn and how he can spend it. I think it’s going to be a rude awakening,” he continued.
As of now, West has not made any further statements regarding his plans to run for president.
See what others are saying: (Business Insider) (NBC News) (CNN)
Federal Court Orders Immigration Officers to Stop Enforcing Trump’s Asylum Ban
- On Tuesday, a U.S. Circuit Judge in D.C. ruled that the Trump administration’s third-country asylum rule is illegal.
- That rule went into effect last year and bars immigrants from claiming asylum in the United States if they pass through another country on their way to the U.S.
- In his decision, Judge Timothy Kelly said the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not giving Americans enough time and opportunity to weigh in on policy changes.
- On Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security ordered asylum officers to stop applying the policy for new applicants, as well as those currently awaiting a decision.
Judge Rules Third-Country Asylum Rule Illegal
The Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday ordered asylum officers to stop applying a controversial asylum policy meant to greatly diminish the number of migrants seeking refuge at the United States’ southern border.
The announcement came a day after Timothy J. Kelly, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled that the policy is illegal.
The policy, imposed by the Trump administration in July 2019, was aimed predominantly at Central Americans crossing through “third” countries to get to the U.S. border. For example, to get to the U.S. from Guatemala, migrants would first need to cross through Mexico.
Under that policy, if a migrant crossed through Mexico to get to the U.S. border, they would not be able to immediately qualify for asylum. In fact, to be able to even potentially qualify for U.S. asylum, they would first have to apply for and be denied asylum in Mexico.
Immigrant nonprofits and asylum seekers argued that the rule violated a number of laws, including the Immigration and Nationality Act. That act generally allows anyone arriving to the U.S. to apply for asylum, though there are some exceptions for people with criminal records.
In his ruling, Kelly didn’t give a decision either way on the Immigration and Nationality Act. Instead, he agreed with immigrant rights groups that the Trump administration violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that Americans be given ample time and opportunity to voice their opinions on policy changes.
In fact, Kelly ruled that the administration also gave an insufficient explanation as to why it didn’t allow the public to see and comment on a draft of the policy before it was enacted.
For its part, the Trump administration argued that it didn’t give advance notice of the third-country requirement because that would have triggered a surge of applicants seeking to evade the rule before it took effect.
However, Kelly said almost all of the government’s argument was based on one newspaper article from October 2018. That article suggests that when the Trump administration ended its policy of separating immigrant families at the border, the proportion of asylum seekers with children increased.
“There are many circumstances in which courts appropriately defer to the national security judgments of the Executive,” Kelly said in his decision. “But determining the scope of an APA exception is not one of them.”
This is not the first time Trump’s third-country restriction has been halted. Last July, a federal judge in San Francisco entered a preliminary injunction against the ban because of a “mountain” of evidence suggesting migrants couldn’t safely seek asylum in Mexico. In September, the Supreme Court then reversed that injunction and allowed the administration to keep enforcing the policy.
Praise From Immigrant Rights Groups
Following this ruling, ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt praised Kelly’s decision.
“The court properly recognized that the Trump administration has once again skipped important steps mandated by Congress to ensure transparency and input from the public,” Gelernt said. “This is yet another instance in which this administration has sought to bypass Congress where the lives of asylum seekers are at stake.”
Human Rights First executive Hardy Vieux also praised the outcome, saying that Kelly’s ruling “is proof that the administration cannot do an end-run around the law. In the United States of America, we follow the rule of law, even when it benefits asylum-seekers demonized by this administration.”
Conversely, the Justice Department stressed that Kelly’s ruling was “a matter of procedural mechanics.”
“It was not a ruling on the substance of the asylum policy,” an official added.
That much seems to be backed up by the basis of Kelly’s ruling, which was made because the Trump administration failed to follow procedure when announcing the policy. Therefore, the administration will likely try to appeal this decision.
Impact of New Ruling May Be Limited
The order handed down from DHS on Wednesday applies not only to new asylum applicants but also to applicants waiting to receive their final decisions.
Still, even as Kelly noted in his decision on Tuesday, the impact of this ruling appears to be limited—at least for now. That’s because DHS has already been turning away thousands of asylum seekers at the border.
Those restrictions began earlier this year in response to the coronavirus outbreak. In May, the Trump administration then extended the measure indefinitely, arguing that the move was necessary to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.
In fact, according to The Washington Post, between March 21 and May 13, the U.S. granted asylum to just two people.