Immigrant Child Protection Policy Upheld by Judge
A policy that has been safeguarding immigrant children in federal custody for almost thirty years will continue to do so. This decision was made by a federal judge who turned down a request to abolish the policy made by the previous administration.
Details of the Ruling
Los Angeles-based District Judge dismissed the appeal to terminate the policy, a week following a meeting with government representatives and legal advocates for the immigrant children in custody. The judge found the hearing to be a repeat of past events, referencing the government's prior attempt to dissolve the protective agreement in 2019.
She emphasized that there weren't any changes in the facts or law that would warrant an end to the policy. The judge mentioned that the government's argument that the policy was preventing the court from enforcing the agreement was insufficient for its termination.
The Government's Stance
The government's contention was that there have been significant changes since the policy was enacted in 1997. They argued that the current standards and policies for the care of immigrant children align with both the agreement and relevant legislation.
The judge did recognize the government's efforts to improve conditions for the children, but she noted that these improvements were direct evidence that the policy was working as intended. The idea of abandoning the policy because some progress has been made was deemed illogical by the judge.
Government representatives expressed their belief that the policy was hampering their plans to increase detention space for families. They claimed that the government had been given the power to hold families in detention indefinitely due to a financial bill, even though funds had been allocated in that bill for the construction of new immigration facilities.
The Flores Agreement
The policy, known as the Flores Agreement, is named after a teenage plaintiff. The agreement was the outcome of over ten years of legal battles between the attorneys advocating for migrant children's rights and the government, following allegations of widespread mistreatment in the 1980s.
The agreement established standards for licensed shelters, including provisions for food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, sanitation, temperature control, and ventilation. It also set a limit on how long child immigrants could be detained by Customs and Border Protection – a maximum of 72 hours.
After this period, the Department of Health and Human Services takes custody of the children. An attempt to partially terminate the agreement was successful last year, with the judge ruling that special court supervision may end when the Department of Health and Human Services takes custody, but exceptions were made for certain types of facilities for children with more severe needs.
Opposition to the Termination of the Agreement
Those opposing the total termination of the agreement argue that the government was detaining children beyond the established time limits. There were reported instances where child immigrants were held for periods exceeding a week, with some being detained for over two weeks. Additionally, some toddlers were held for over 20 days in April.
Presently, the government is looking to expand its immigration detention facilities, including the construction of more centers. However, there have been allegations of violations of detainees' constitutional rights at these facilities.