Last time conditions for kids sucked at the Border, they were ordered RELEASED ...
Now conditions are even worse, what with the lack of soap and toothbrushes. And I believe kids are ending up stuck for a lot longer in these hell-holes.
Seems like this same decision should apply ... at least in cases where a parent or relative can be located, either in custody (in which case, release them as well), or living in teh USA.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/us/detained-immigrant-children-judge-dolly-gee-ruling.html
From the 2015 NY Times article:
Initially, Homeland Security officials said they were detaining the families to send a message to others in Central America to deter them from coming to the United States illegally. In February, a federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled that strategy unconstitutional. Officials stopped invoking deterrence as a factor in deciding whether to release mothers and children as they seek asylum in the United States.
But many women and children remained stalled behind bleak walls and fences month after month with no end in sight. Mothers became severely depressed or anxious, and their distress echoed in their children, who became worried and sickly.
Under the Flores settlement, officials were required to try first to release a child to a parent, legal guardian or close relative. Judge Gee concluded that if the mother was also detained, Homeland Security officials should release her with the child, as long as she did not present a flight or security risk. She gave the administration one week to devise a plan to release children and mothers “without unnecessary delay.”
For children who could not be released, the Flores agreement required officials to place them in nonsecure facilities run by agencies licensed for child care.
Note that these kids are NOT being held in 'nonsecure' facilities (i.e. non-jail-like) NOR are they 'licensed for child care'.
From Judge Gee's 2015 ruling:
Plaintiffs proffer evidence, in the form of numerous declarations from recent detainees, testifying to conditions that do not meet the “safe and sanitary” standard described in Paragraph 12 of the Agreement. These conditions include extreme cold ... Numerous declarants referred to CBP facilities as hieleras or “iceboxes” and described being given coverings of aluminum foil that were inadequate to keep them warm ...
Recent detainees also testified to overcrowding. Children and their mothers were held for one to three days in rooms with 100 or more unrelated adults and children, which forced children to sleep standing up or not at all ...
Inadequate nutrition and hygiene were also reported. (See, e.g., D_V_A Decl. ¶ 5 (“The cell had only two toilets for all of us to use. . . . There was no waste basket in the stalls, so people had to throw used Kotex and used toilet paper on the floors.”);
The immigration officials, when the people asked for something to drink or to eat they answered that it wasn’t their country, it wasn’t their house. So they didn’t bring them anything.”); Ps’ First Set, Exh. 39 (“S_B_D Decl.”) ¶ 5 (“We were fed twice, and both times it was just bread with ham and a juice box.”)
Furthermore, with respect to the temperature of the cells, the provision of mylar coverings, the absence of trash cans, and the policy of keeping the lights on at all times, Defendants have only confirmed the veracity of Plaintiffs’ testimony in the course of attempting to justify these conditions. Finally, Defendants have said nothing to contradict Plaintiffs’ accounts of inadequate nutrition, nor to offer impossibility or similar doctrines as a defense to the apparent contractual violation.
In light of the voluminous evidence that Plaintiffs have presented of the egregious conditions of the holding cells, the Court finds that Defendants have materially breached the Agreement’s term that Defendants provide “safe and sanitary” holding cells for class members while they are in temporary custody.
= new reply since forum marked as read
