Every Single Living First Lady Is Against Separating Children From Their Parents at the Border

Last week, Kirstjen Nielsen, the Homeland Security Secretary, testified once again in front of Congress in an attempt to justify the federal government’s ongoing actions against undocumented people at the border. Among her assertions, Nielsen said that the chain-link enclosures used to hold undocumented children could not really be described as cages, and that some parents who had been separated from their children at the border were subsequently deported without their kids. These grim updates to the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy of immigrant family separation shortly preceded a report from the New York Times that revealed the extent to which family separation remains ongoing — despite a federal judge’s order to halt the practice some nine months ago.

“The latest data reported to the federal judge monitoring one of the most controversial of President Trump’s immigration policies shows that 245 children have been removed from their families since the court ordered the government to halt routine separations under last spring’s ‘zero tolerance’ border enforcement policy,” reads the March 9 Times report.

The Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) reports that the total number of immigrant children removed from their families since the summer of 2018 may be even higher. In the six months after Trump issued an Executive Order to end the practice, the organization interviewed nearly 10,000 immigrants and asylum-seekers who entered US border custody at or near McAllen, Texas. Through that process, the TCRP identified 272 adults who said they had been forcibly separated from one or more children under the age of 18.

“The government has admitted what we’ve known for months: they never stopped separating families who came to this country seeking safety,” Efrén C. Olivares, the Racial and Economic Justice Program Director at Texas Civil Rights Project, said in a statement made available to us. “The Trump Administration has tried every strategy it can think of in our courts to continue taking children away from their parents, with no transparency about how these decisions are made, no plan to reunite them, and no accountability.”

According to the TCRP, among the 272 adults they spoke to who said they had been separated from child family members, 38 were parents or legal guardians who reported being separated from a total of 46 children were separated. 25 of these children were reportedly under the age of 10. The youngest infant impacted was 8.5 months old at the time of separation from her mother.

“To date, the government has not reported these children to anyone — neither to the courts nor to Congress — and the government has admitted it may be impossible to find all separated children,” TCRP reports.

The TCRP report recounts an interview with a father who was allegedly separated from his seven-year-old son because of a misdemeanor conviction for battery over 10 years ago. Another father was reportedly separated from his one-year-old daughter and nine-year-old son on “uncorroborated allegations of gang affiliation.” A woman, who fled her country because she was being held captive as a sexual slave, was reportedly separated from her child because officials said she was “a danger to society and unfit to be a parent” after they learned she had shot her captor non-fatally in self-defense. The list goes on and on.

According to NBC News, immigration officials can separate children “if the adult is not the parent or legal guardian of the child” and “if the safety of the child is at risk or because of ‘serious criminal activity’ by the adult.” Legal recourse can be limited for these parents.

But there is hope. Earlier this year, we reported that several law firms including the Southern Poverty Law Center have filed a lawsuit on behalf of 10,000 detained immigrant children due to allegations of unfit facilities, illegal prolonged stays, sexual abuse, and much more.

On March 8, in a promising victory for undocumented families, US District Judge Dana Sabraw ruled in favor of a separate lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against the Trump administration and said that “all migrant families separated during the government’s border crackdown should be included in a class-action lawsuit,” the Texas Tribunereports.

“The hallmark of a civilized society is measured by how it treats its people and those within its borders,” Sabraw wrote in a 14-page ruling. “That Defendants may have to change course and undertake additional effort to address these issues does not render modification of the class definition unfair; it only serves to underscore the unquestionable importance of the effort and why it is necessary (and worthwhile).”

(Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

From the get-go, a major priority of the Trump administration’s anti-immigration policy has been the restriction of “chain migration,” the trickle-down immigrant sponsorship process by which many families — including his wife Melania’s — immigrate to the US. To this end, the administration has rolled out one policy after another that specifically targets immigrant families, from separations at the US-Mexico border to threats on birthright citizenship. The administration has also made it nearly impossible for immigrants to become citizens if they’ve used social services like children’s health insurance or SNAP.

All the while, the president and his staff have repeatedly insisted that the country would continue to welcome skilled “legal” immigrants who would be an asset to the economy, even announcing a plan to increase the number of H-1B visas the US would give. Now, the Trump administration is targeting tens of thousands of those same, highly skilled visa holders at the family level by moving to eliminate their spouses’ legal right to work in the United States.

On Wednesday, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reportedly submitted a proposed regulation to the White House Office of Management and Budget that would put an end to a program that gives work permits to the spouses of H-1B visa holders who are waiting to receive green cards — a process that can take years.

H-1B visas are temporary work visas provided to foreign-born workers in “specialty services,” such as a STEM field. The visas are chosen through a random lottery that workers must apply for in advance. Spouses or dependents of H-1B visa holders who are above age 21 have, in the past, been able to apply for H-4 visas so that they can work while their partners wait to receive permanent residency. The rule that permits certain spouses of H-1B visas to qualify for temporary work visas of their own was only put into place in 2015, under the Obama administration.

Ending the program would mean some 90,000 people who are married to temporary work visa holders will lose their ability to work legally in the US. According to Bloomberg, most of the spouses who will be impacted by this policy change are women from India.

“USCIS continues reviewing all employment-based visa programs,” USCIS spokesperson Jessica Collins said in a statement Thursday. “No decision about the regulation concerning the employment eligibility of certain H-4 spouses is final until the rule-making process is complete.”

The Trump administration announced its intentions to alter these programs in the spring of 2017, when the president signed the “Buy American and Hire American” executive order. The order outlines the administration’s general plans to exclude more and more foreign-born workers from the American workforce and to discourage the purchase of certain products made outside the US. Following this order, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services indicated that it would do away with the H-4 program, according to Wired.

Very soon after the Obama administration implemented the H-4 program for the spouses of certain H-1B visa-holders, a group of IT workers calling themselves “Save Jobs USA” filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, claiming that the government was illegally taking jobs from US-born citizens. The group was represented by John Miano, an attorney for the Center for Immigration Studies, a far-right anti-immigration group. But now there’s no longer a need for the lawsuit to continue on, as the government will be ending the program itself — a win for the far-right groups who supported the suit.

In a 2018 Wired article about those who stand to lose their ability to work with the end of the H-4 program, one woman, Sampada Khanapurkar, summarized how this change is acting as a deterrent for families like hers. “I mean, I’ve been here so long, I just thought, ‘These people are mine.’ And now people aren’t accepting me. It’s not a good feeling,” Khanapurkar said. “I told my husband yesterday, if this is how we’re feeling and this is how we’re going to be feeling every single day of our lives, living in fear, never know when our visas will be revoked, never know when we’ll be accepted here legally, in spite of being legal, we might as well go to a place where people are accepting of us.”

Deterring Black and brown immigrants from coming to the US, or staying in the US, is exactly what these policies are designed to do. The administration spelled out clearly that the cruel policy of separating children from their parents at the US-Mexico border was intended as a deterrent measure, to scare asylum-seekers and migrants from even attempting to come to the US. The new proposed policy represents yet another example of a measure that creates a hostile environment for individuals who wish to immigrate.

What do you think? Tell us on Twitter @BritandCo.

(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Are you a small business owner looking for a good loan to grow your business? California Small Business Loan Match makes it easier to find the right loan for you. Loan Match pre-vets mission-driven lenders and matches you with the best lender for your business, at no-cost. Get started in less than 10 minutes with a brief pre-application and no credit check required!

Loan Match is powered by IBank, a state government agency that helps to promote healthier economies and improve quality of life in California communities. All lenders are enrolled in IBank’s Loan Guarantee Program, which helps bridge the gap between responsible lenders and small businesses.

Photo by RDNE Stock project

Wondering if you're eligible? Any business operating in the state of California, with 1 to 750 employees, is eligible. You just need to be a business entity (Sole Proprietor, LLC, Cooperative, Corporation, Partnership, S-Corporation, or Not-For-Profit), and operate in an eligible industry according to the 2022 NAICS codes (read: a legit business).

Here’s how it works:

Step 1: Fill out a short pre-application questionnaire that takes just minutes to complete. No credit check required!

Step 2: Based on your eligibility, they’ll match you with lenders who fit your needs.

Step 3: Review details about each lender, select the one you like, and they’ll connect you with them.

Step 4: The lender will reach out within three business days to complete the application process. (You’ll also get their contact info so you can follow up directly.)

Most California Small Business Loan Match lenders are certified as Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), which means they offer competitive rates but specialize in helping borrowers who don’t meet the rigid lending criteria of traditional banks — for example, small businesses that have a lower credit score, a prior defaulted loan, or no up-front collateral. CDFIs specialize in helping people in lower-income communities too, and offer a much more flexible and affordable repayment plan than online lenders or Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) loans.

Check them out to help you grow your business, meeting our mission to help you succeed! Good luck!

Hero photo by Amina Filkins