Skip to content

Obama’s Family Detention Policy: Threaten Rape Victims With Criminal Prosecution

This is the second part in a series unraveling a trove of recently filed evidence that illuminate for the first time many of  the profoundly unlawful, immoral, and unconscionable conditions of the Obama administration’s family detention centers.

One set of documents included a declaration on the Karnes County Family Residential (Jail) Center and supporting documents, which included an English and Spanish Residential Handbook.

Given what is contained in these handbooks, it’s likely that no one in the government reviewed the contents before filing them as evidence. First, a refresher:

ICE began to detain children and mothers in KCRC in August of 2014. Since then, there have been numerous reports of sexual assault committed by staff against detainees as well as detainees against detainees.

Last month, the Huffington Post reported that “a woman locked locked in a Texas immigrant detention center is alleging that her 12-year-old daughter was sexually abused by another detainee there last month.”

Despite this report, ICE’s public defense as to why the mother and child were still detained months after the reported sexual abuse was simply that  “The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Child Advocacy Centers and the Karnes County (Texas) Sheriff’s Department  closed the case on April 20 because the “information provided by the minor could not be corroborated, and the case lacked evidence to pursue any further action.”

But the a lack of corroborating evidence is not a basis to close an investigation into sexual abuse given that in many sexual assault cases, there is no corroborating evidence. And that was clearly the case here because the factual allegations–hat an unrelated adult female “flashed the child and touched the child’s genitals–would likely not produce physical, corroborating evidence.

The only other evidence to corroborate or conversely disprove the allegation  would be accounts of eyewitnesses to the acts of sexual abuse. ICE does not claim that there was any detrimental evidence to the child’s account and as such, it is reasonable to conclude that the investigation into the child’s allegations of abuse was a sham.

Indeed, it was not the first time an investigation into sexual abuse  of a child disappeared as if nothing ever happened, as a whistleblower described in a declaration: 

“After the teenagers were all housed in rooms without any parents, it is my understanding that five boys began bullying another effeminate boy. I understood there were allegations that several assaulted the effeminate boy. All six boys involved, including the victim, were eventually placed in isolation with their families for days.

The KCRC’s Policies on Sexual Assault Should be Called the Prison Rape Enabling Act

The DHS implemented federal regulations to come into compliance with The Prison Rape Elimination Act. The KCRC policies do not only disregard the PREA regs, but also enable sexual assault by creating an environment rife with fear.

 PREA, a federal law created to prevent rape in prisons, jails, or detention centers.

On Page 6 of the KCRC’s residential handbook (Rev. March or May 2016), there is a heading titled INAPPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIPS WITH STAFF. Below it is provided in its entirety in both the English and Spanish version:

“Mothers and children should be aware of how to handle situations in which they perceive themselves to be the object of sexual advances or other inappropriate behavior by staff members. Any type of sexual advance by any staff member directed toward any mother or child is a strict violation of policy. Similarly, it is a violation of the rules for a mother or child to direct advances towards resident advisors or other staff. Resident advisors or other staff may not solicit a mother or child in any way for any type of sexual favors. Doing so may result in criminal prosecution. The same applies for a mother or child. This includes any conversations that might lead to sexual involvement. (emphasis added)”

Los Residentes deben tener cuidado con el modo en que manejan ciertas situaciones en las cuales se consideren objeto de insinuaciones sexuales u otro comportamiento inapropiado por parte de los miembros del personal. Todo tipo de insinuaciónes sexual que un miembro del personal realice a un residente constituye una violación grave a la política de la institución. Similarmente, es una violación de las reglas para los residentes hacer avances directos al personal. El personal no puede solicitar los residentes de cualquier manera para cualquier tipo de favores sexuales. Si lo hace, puede dar lugar a enjuiciamiento penal. Lo mismo se aplica para los residentes. Esto incluye todas las conversaciones que podrían conducir a la relación sexual.

 

I was so shocked when I first read this paragraph, I had to read it through several times to make sure I had not lost my mind.

 The handbook clearly states that if a staff member solicits a mother or child for any type of sexual favor, it may result in criminal prosecution to the staff member, the mother or child, or both. The sentence “The same applies for a mother or child” immediately follows the previous sentence of “doing so may result in criminal prosecution”, thus creating an unequivocally clear message to its targeted audience–mothers and children–that if they are caught in any form of sexual acts with a staff member they can be criminally prosecuted. 

The highlighted text directly contradicts both statutory and regulatory definitions of what constitutes sexual assault in a detention center and, above all, has an unmistakable effect of discouraging mothers and children victims of sexual abuse from filing complaints with Government officials. “Even if you fit the definition of a victim of criminal sexual assault under the law, you will be criminally prosecuted for it” is precisely what the text states.

It doesn’t stop there.

Below, DHS and GEO provide Mothers and Children with a false definition of sexual assault and then, yet again, threaten to discipline mothers and children who may be victims of sexual assault under federal law.

SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS:

DEFINITIONS:

Resident-on-Resident Sexual Abuse/Assault: One or more residents engaging in, or attempting to engage in a sexual act with another resident or the use of threats, intimidation, inappropriate touching or other actions and/or communications by one or more residents aimed at coercing and/or pressuring another resident to engage in a sexual act.

Staff-on-Resident Sexual Abuse/Assault: Staff member engaging in, or attempting to engage in a sexual act with any resident or the intentional touching of a resident’s genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, arouse, or gratify the sexual desires of any person. Sexual abuse/assault of residents by staff or other residents is an inappropriate use of power and is prohibited by ICE policy and the law.

Staff Sexual Misconduct is: Sexual behavior between a staff member and resident which can include, but is not limited to indecent, profane or abusive language or gestures and inappropriate visual surveillance of residents.

PROHIBITED ACTS:

A mother and/or child, who engages in inappropriate sexual behavior with or directs it at others, can be charged with the following Prohibited Acts under the Resident Disciplinary Policy.

Code 112: Use of Vulgar, Abusive, or Obscene Phrases/ Language Code

209: Verbal Sexual Harassment of a Resident

Code 303: Rape/Sexual Assault

CONOCIMIENTO SOBRE LOS ASALTOS SEXUALES Definiciones:

Asalto/Abuso sexual de un Residente por parte de otro Residente: Uno o mas de un residente que participen o intenten participar en un acto sexual con otro residente; o el uso de amenazas, intimidaciones, manoseos inapropiados u otras acciones y/o comunicaciones de parte de uno o más de un residente con el objetivo de obligar y/o presionar a otro residente para que participe en un acto sexual.

Asalto/Abuso sexual de un Residente por parte de un miembro del personal: Un miembro del personal que participe o intente participar en un acto sexual con cualquier residente; o el manoseo intencional de los genitales, el ano, la ingle, el pecho, la parte interior del muslo o los glúteos con la intención de abusar, humillar, acosar, degradar, excitar o satisfacer los deseos sexuales de cualquier persona. El asalto/abuso sexual de los residentes por parte del personal o de otros residentes se considera un uso inapropiado del poder y tanto la política de ICE como la ley lo prohíben.

Conducta sexual inadecuado por parte del Personal: El comportamiento sexual entre un miembro del personal y un residente, que puede incluir pero no limitada, a lenguaje o gestos indecentes, profanos, u ofensivos y vigilancia de forma inapropiada de los residentes.

Actos Prohibidos

Un Residente que participe en un acto sexual inapropiado con o dirigido a otras personas, puede ser acusado de los siguientes Actos Prohibidos, según la Política Disciplinaria del Residente.

Código 112: Uso de lenguaje vulgar, o frases obscenas/abusivas Código

209: Acoso sexual verbal de un residente

Código 303: Violacion/Acoso Sexual

The definition of sexual assault is found in the DHS’ PREA regulations and the U.S. Code. 

The PREA regulations definition of sexual assault can be found at 6 CFR 115.6(5):

“Sexual abuse of a detainee by a staff member, contractor, or volunteer includes any of the following acts, if engaged in by one or more staff members, volunteers, or contract personnel who, with or without the consent of the detainee, engages in or attempts to engage in:”

The above regulations reflects the federal 8 U.S.C. 2243(b), Sexual Abuse of a Ward:

Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who is 

(1) in official detention; and

(2) under the custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority of the person so engaging

or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

The KCRC handbook does not explicitly state nor does it ever mention that it is a legal impossibility for a mother or child to have “consensual” sex with a GEO or ICE staff member.

Mothers and children are literally in the custody of the GEO and ICE staff. This scenario is the equivalent of children who are totally dependent on their custodians and other adults who are able to exert control over them. Just like a 14 year old cannot consent to sex with an adult, a mother or child at KCRC cannot consent to sex with a GEO or ICE staff member.

The KCRC policy stated above, simply put, threatens victims of felony rape with criminal prosecution if they are a victim of rape by a staff member of KCRC. 

In the last section, the manual at Karnes tells mothers and children that if they engage in any sexual inappropriate behavior with or directed at others, they may be charged with Sexual Assault or Rape.

Again, mothers and children are led to believe that any sexual conduct with anyone, even if it was without the mother or child’s consent, can result in being charged with rape and sexual assault.

Lastly, the KCRC finishes the victim blaming tirade with an ourtrageous list of tips to avoid becoming a victim of sexual assault:

AVOIDING SEXUAL ASSAULT:

Here are some things you can do to protect yourself against sexual assault:

  • Carry yourself in a confident manner. Many offenders choose victims who look like they would not fight backor who they think are emotionally weak.
  • Do not accept gifts or favors from others. Most gifts or favors come with strings attached to them.
  • Do not accept an offer from another adult resident and/or child to be your protector.
  • Find a staff member with whom you feel comfortable discussing your fears and concerns. Report concerns!
  • Do not use drugs or alcohol; these can weaken your ability to stay alert and make good judgments.
  • Avoid talking about sex. Other residing here may believe you have an interest in a sexual relationship.
  • Be clear, direct and firm. Do not be afraid to say NO or STOP IT NOW.
  • Stay in well-lit areas of the facility.
  • Choose your associates wisely. Look for people who are involved in positive activities like educationalprograms, work opportunities, or counseling groups. Get involved in these activities yourself.
  • Trust your instincts. Be aware of situations that make you feel uncomfortable. If it does not feel right orsafe, leave the situation. If you fear for your safety, report your concerns to staff

Evitando las Agresiones Sexuales

Aquí hay algunos consejos para protegerse de las agresiones sexuales:
• Siga adelante demostrando seguridad. Muchos agresores eligen víctimas que lucen como personas que no se resistirían o que consideran que son débiles emocionalmente.

.No acepte regalos o favores de los demás. La mayoría de los regalos y favores traen aparejados otros compromisos.

.Si otro residente le ofrece ser su protector, no lo acepte.

Encuentre a un miembro del personal con quien se sienta cómodo para hablar sobre sus miedos y preocupaciones. ¡Reporte preocupaciones!

No consuma drogas ni alcohol, ya que pueden debilitar su capacidad para estar alerto y tomar

buenas decisiones.

Evite hablar sobre sexo. Otros residentes pueden pensar que usted tiene interés en una relación sexual.

Sea claro, directo y firme. No tenga miedo de decir NO o BASTA.

Manténgase en áreas bien iluminadas de la institución.

Elija bien a sus compañeros. Busque personas que participen en actividades positivas, como

programas educativos, oportunidades laborales o grupos de consejería. Participe también en estas actividades.

Confíe en sus instintos. Sea consciente de las situaciones que lo hacen sentir incómodo. Si no se siente bien ni seguro, retírese. Si teme por su seguridad, infórmele sus preocupaciones al personal.

In other words,  “If you do not talk about sex and are a good girl or boy, you probably won’t be raped!”

There is one other significant gigantic misrepresentation I will point out.

Juanita Hester, the Assistant Field Office Director (AFOD) in charge of supervising the KCRC, wrote in her sworn declaration to Judge Dolly Gee that:

“There is a 24-hour walk-in medical clinic, and some dental care is provided on-site.”

This is pure false statement according to ICE’s own handbook, which also has differing descriptions of the KCRC policy for medical treatment. The English version, which ICE claims was revised in March of 2016 despite the cover page and first 11 pages stating May of 2016, describes what one must do to receive medical attention:

Professional staff members provide medical services for persons housed at this facility. Sick call slips are reviewed and put into order by priority cases, which are seen within twelve (12) hours. Medical staff will gather sick call requests each shift and see patients. If you feel you have a medical problem of an emergency nature, notify any staff member and you will be evaluated by the medical staff for more immediate treatment.

  • You must sign yourself up for sick call. The resident advisor(s) or another mother cannot do it for you.
  • Sick call requests must be deposited into one (1) of the medical drop boxes located in any of the facilitydayrooms and/or dining hall. Write your request and place in the mailbox located in the dayroom or dining

    hall.

  • Someone from the medical department will pick up all requests on each shift seven (7) days per week.
  • You will be instructed when to report to medical when scheduled by the medical staff.
  • You will not be charged for medical services while a residing at this facility

If a mother or her child is sick, they must go through an lengthy process. First, the mother must herself fill out a sick call slip, deposit it in some mailbox, and then wait up to 12 hours to be seen for an appointment.

In a world where children aren’t imprisoned, if a child is sick enough to cause a parent to call the doctor, the child is seen that same day.

In an even more bizarre twist, the Spanish version of the medical policy is materially different:

El personal professional de salud les brinda servicios de atención médica para los que estan detenidos en este centro. Mientras está aquí, si está enfermo y siente que necesita atención médica, el personal del departamento de médico pueden verlo durante las visitas médicas. Las solicitudes de visita médica son revisadas y organizadas empezando con los casos prioritarios, que generalmente, se citan el día siguiente. Si siente que tiene algún problema de salud y siente que es de emergencia, comuníqueselo al personal de KCRC y será evaluado por el personal de médico para recibir un tratamiento más inmediato.

  • Usted tiene que apuntarse para solicitar las visitas médicas. El personal de KCRC u otro residente no puede hacerlo por usted.
  • Escriba su solicitud y depositelo en una de las cajas de médico localizadas en las salas de estar y en el comedor.
  • Alguien del departamento de medico recogerá las solicitudes los siete (7) dias de la semana.
  • Usted será acompañado al departamento de médico cuando se solicita por el departamento demedico.
  • No se le cobrará por los servicios de medico mientras sea un residente de este centro.

Thus, the Obama administration represented to a U.S. District Court Judge three factually different polices policies for medical treatment at KCRC.

In Spanish, DHS states that the sick call requests will generally be seen the following day. The following day could mean that the sick child or mother will likely have to wait from over 12 hours and potentially in excess of 24 hours from the moment they deposit a sick call slip the moment they are evaluated  by the medical staff at KCRC.

In sum, the Obama administration’s own evidence reveal  unconscionable policies that threaten rape victims with criminal prosecution and that the Obama administration made yet even more reckless false statements to a Federal Judge, the public, media, and the Plaintiffs.

 

Obama’s Fictionalized Account of Berks County Children Jail

Introduction

At 11 pm this past Friday, the Obama administration filed  a trove of documents with U.S. District Court Judge Dolly Gee to defend against allegations that their continued detention of thousands of children has  “…consistently violated the Settlement since the summer of 2014 and this Court’s Orders since August 2015…Their conduct is lawless and contemptuous.”

Ironically, the most most recent disclosed emphatically shows  that the Obama administration has nothing but contempt for the Judicial branch. Leon Fresco, Obama’s lead family detention lawyer, claimed that the attorneys for the children “make claims that are inaccurate, misleading, or an attempt to improperly substitute their judgment regarding the operations of ICE family residential centers in place of the judgment of those authorized by Congress to administer these facilities”

Fresco must have had a freudian slip because the evidence his client submitted proves the only misleading party to the lawsuit is the Obama administration.

This will be the first in several articles that analyzes the Feds’ voluminous evidence dump and shows that the Obama administration is committing an elaborate, systematic fraud on the Court, the Plaintiffs, Congress, and the U.S. public.

To defend allegations regarding Family Detention Centers  or Family Residential Centers (FRC) and border patrol holding cells, the DHS submitted 29 exhibits.

Each declaration from ICE addresses distinct subject. This article will address to ICE’s specific allegations regarding the conditions of detention at the Berks County Residential Center.

However, every declaration ICE submitted with respect to family detention centers alleges overlapping facts to defend prolonged detention of families. This general and more complex subject will be addressed in a later article.

Berks County Children Jail

Joshua Reid, an Assistant Field Office Director in ICE’s Philadelphia Office, made both direct and indirect misrepresentations of facts in a failed attempt to erase its brazen, ongoing breach–detaining dozens of children for 4 to 10 months in secure detention facilities–of  U.S. District Court Judge Dolly Gee’s orders issued in July and August of 2015.

Reid’s declaration states in  Paragraph 13 under the heading Complaints  Regarding Observational Checks at Night, that:

“Several declarants indicated that ‘guards’ shine flashlights on the residents several times (15 minute intervals) at night making it difficult to sleep. As an initial matter,  there are no ‘guards’ at the BCRC. Counselors are stationed throughout the facility to ensure the safety and security of residents and to assist with any issues or needs.”

A current Berks County Job Posting for “Shelter Care Counselor” directly contradicts Mr. Reid’s claims. As you can see below, part of the job requirement to be a “counselor” is the “Ability to  restrain residents of all ages” and to provide “care for dependent children and families within a minimum secure , residential environment.”

In response to mothers’ complaints that guards at Berks shine flashlights on mothers and children every 15 minutes throughout the night, Mr. Reid continued to openly misrepresent both facts and law:

“Observational checks are required by 55 Pa. Code 3800.57(a): “While children are at the facility, children shall be supervised during awake and sleeping hours by conducting observational checks of each child at least every  hour. During overnight hours, BCRC staff conduct room checks every 15 minutes. BFRC implemented 15 minute checks after consulting and agreeing with Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (PA DHS) that it would be best practice…BFRC is currently working with PA DHS to change the nighttime room check requirements from every 15 minutes to once every hour.”

There are multiple dishonest components in just this one paragraph. First, Mr. Reid did not disclose that BFRC’s is currently following 55 PA. Code 3800.274(7), which states “The following additional requirements apply to facilities in which secure care is provided:…(7)

(7)  Children shall be supervised by conducting observational checks of each child within 15 minute intervals during sleeping hours.”

In other words, the BFRC continues to operate as a secure care detention facility, which was a critical factor in PA DHS’ decision to effectively revoke BFRC’ state license:

“[the PA DHS] believes that the current use of the Berks County Residential Center (BCRC) as a family  residential center is inconsistent with its current license as a child residential facility…If the County commits to cease its current use of the BCRC as a secure facility for  refugee families and provides a plan to transition the facility to a use that is consistent with its existing license.”(emphasis added)

ted dallas letterIt is illegal under PA law to house children such as those at BFRC in secure care facilities. Therefore, PA DHS would not state that 15 minute nighttime observational checks–which is solely a requirement for children detained in secure care facilities–are “best practice.”

Moving along Mr. Reid’s train wreck of a declaration, he responds to several mothers who complained that they are unable to freely leave BFRC without permission:

“The BFRC is an un-secured facility  where residents can  freely move about within its non-restricted areas and its outdoor recreational spaces. Insofar as the residents are in ICE custody, they are prohibited from leaving the center and its grounds without authorization or supervision. If a resident were to leave BFRC without authorization, they could be considered a fugitive and subsequently may  be arrested by ICE officers depending on the circumstances…These counselors do not have the authority to arrest a resident”

“BFRC is an un-secured facility; there are no physical impediments to a resident departing the facility. If a resident were to leave BFRC without authorization, however, they could be considered a fugitive and subsequently may be arrested by ICE officers…”

ICE’s claim that BFRC is an un-secured facility is a reckless lie.

Mr. Reid attempts to persuade the Court that Berks is un-secure  by fraudulently representing that it is the inverse of the PA Code’s definition of “secure-care” facilities for children  as stated  by 55 Pa. Code 3800.5:

Secure care—Care provided in a 24-hour living setting to one or more children who are delinquent or alleged delinquent, from which voluntary egress is prohibited through one of the following mechanisms:

(i)   Egress from the building, or a portion of the building, is prohibited through internal locks within the building or exterior locks

(ii)  Egress from the premises is prohibited through secure fencing around the perimeter of the building.

But ICE’s own evidence directly contradicts Mr. Reid’s claims. The Berks Family Residential Handbook repeatedly states that there is, in fact, physical impediments to departing the facility:

The Center is comprised of two floors and an outdoor campus. The first floor, where you first entered the Center is the activity (A) floor and the second floor is the bedroom (B) floor. The outdoor campus is outlined by a post and rail fence. P. 16. 

When not participating in an organized activity, residents must stay within the boundaries of the post and rail fence. Should you need to leave this area, to retrieve a ball, etc., you must first notify staff supervising the area.

Additionally, Guards are physical impediments to stop Mothers and Children from leaving the facility. The fact that Guards are living organisms does not preclude them from being a physical impediment to prevent children and moms from departing BFRC.

The contract between Berks County and ICE to operate BFRC specifically requires that Berks provide the following:

E .Guard Services: The Service Provider agrees to provide stationary guard services on demand by the COTR or Contracting Officer and shall include, but is not limited to, escorting and guarding residents/detainees to medical or doctor’s appointments, hearings, ICE interviews, and any other location requested by the COTR.

Furthermore, the Contract specifically calls for Berks County to have plans in place to apprehend residents who attempt to escape.

Attempts to apprehend the escapee(s) shall be in accordance with the Emergency Plan, which should comply with ICE Detention Operations Manual regarding Emergency Plans. •

Although Berks County guards do not have the authority to make an  official “arrest”, the contract requires Berks County staff to apprehend residents who attempt to escape the BFRC.

Mr. Reid (again, certainly assisted by a DOJ lawyer) intentionally used the word “arrest” instead of “apprehend” or “restrain” to create future space for plausible deniability. If the Court aggressively questions its claims that Berks is “un-secure”,  ICE will say that it’s policy was always to restrain or apprehend any mothers or children who attempt to escape the facility.

Mr. Reid, instead, only said that ICE may or may not arrest and prosecute mothers and children with the federal crime of escape.

After all, ICE residential standard 2.10, Use of Physical Force and Restraints begins with, “…staff is authorized to use the minimum force necessary…for prevention of escape…”

Mr. Reid’s defended allegations that detained men are commingled with with detained mothers and children at Berks with the following:  “Both male and female residents are precluded from entering the bedrooms of occupied by an adults.”

A PA DHS violation report dated April 28, 2016, ordered Berks County to stop placing female children in rooms with unrelated adult males after making finding the following violation

“Child shared a bedroom and bathroom with 2 male children and 2 adult males. The resident bathrooms located in each bedroom do not have solid doors for entry. The entryway is covered by a curtain…There is 13″ of mesh at the top of the curtain, and a 17″ opening at the bottom.”

Perhaps Mr. Reid believes he can claim he did not perjure himself  because he  only claimed that the rules preclude children of the opposite sex from sharing a bedroom but did not claim that the rules were adhered to.  But Mr. Reid was directly responding to the specific, factual allegations of  Declarants Celina and Karen and  thus cannot avail himself of any defense to perjury. The allegations are either true or not. Mr. Reid claimed the allegations were not true. 

In sum, Mr. Reid’s declaration is a fictionalized account of the Berks County Residential Center designed to lull readers into believing its numerous false statements of fact.

ICE Boss: “My officers don’t have the authority” to enter homes

ERO  boss,  Thomas Homan, testified to the following at a Senate Judiciary Committee on February 23, 2016 regarding unaccompanied minors. 

“The Spanish media, the Spanish Newspapers, a lot of NGOs are educating these folks on how not to comply with law enforcement, so there has been many situations where we have been at the residence and we know they are there,  but they won’t open the door, and my officers don’t have the authority of course to go into that house. So, it’s getting more difficult…

Democrats’* Deterrence Strategy Continues To Spectacularly Fail At Dissuading Children From Escaping Deadly Violence

Today, the Customs and Border Protection released the number of apprehensions of Unaccompanied Children and Family Units for the month of April, 2016.

In April of 2016, 5,219 unaccompanied children were apprehended at the Southwest U.S./Mexico border, almost 2000 more than the previous fiscal year.

uac-april-graph-20160517

For Family Unit subjects, 5,616 individuals were apprehended compared to 3,087 in the previous fiscal year. Importantly, the April numbers are remarkably close to the 6,511 individuals apprehended in FY 2014.

fmua-april-graph-20160517

When will the Obama administration learn that detaining and deporting children will do nothing mothers from saving their children from a violent death?

That is almost beyond the point given that the Democratic party is more interested in the illusion of being tough on the border while failing catastrophically at its purported mission.

*22 Democratic Senators, including leaders Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, declined to  oppose President Obama’s much-publicized 2016 deportation raids against families and unaccompanied children.

As such, Obama’s strategy of deterrence–which includes detaining and deporting children in the United States, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador as well as a strident media blitz in those same countries urging them to refrain from saving their own lives–must also be attributed to the entire Democratic party.*

CHILDREN SEEKING ASYLUM ASK FEDERAL COURT TO END THEIR DETENTION AND APPOINT A MONITOR TO OVERSEE OBAMA’S DETENTION POLICY

 

From attorneys Peter Schey and Carlos Holguin of the Center For Human Rights And Constitutional Law.:

Claiming that the conditions of their detention are “deplorable” and “inhumane,” and that they are being illegally held in remote detention centers commingled with hundreds of unrelated adults, children seeking asylum in the United States today asked a federal court in Los Angeles to order their prompt release and the release of their detained mothers.

The request was presented to federal district court Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles. Judge Gee is presiding over a class action case dealing with the conditions of detention of immigrant children and the process for releasing them. In a nationwide settlement reached in 1997, the government agreed that children taken in to custody would immediately be held in humane conditions and “without unnecessary delay” would be released in order of first preference to a parent – even if the parent was apprehended with the child. The settlement also requires that if a parent or other relatives or suitable custodians are unavailable, children must be promptly placed in non-secure facilities licensed for the care of dependent children. Lawyers for the children claim that in response to a temporary surge in apprehensions of children along the US-Mexico border in the spring of 2014, the Obama administration stopped complying with the 1997 settlement and started holding children for weeks or months in sometimes dangerous and unhealthy secure detention facilities comingled with hundreds of unrelated adults.

In August 2015 Judge Gee decided that the Department of Homeland Security’s policy of detaining children and their mothers violated the 1997 Flores settlement and ordered the government to comply with the settlement within ninety days. Now the plaintiff children are asking Judge Gee to order the Department of Homeland Security to come into compliance with the settlement within thirty days. The children’s lawyers argue that because of the government’s failure to comply with the court’s prior rulings, Judge Gee should appoint an independent Special Monitor to oversee and report on the government’s family detention policy and compliance with the 1997 settlement.

Peter Schey, President of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and a court-appointed class counsel for the detained children, said upon the filing of the federal court request: “The evidence filed today shows that in violation of the court’s previous orders, conditions at border patrol detention facilities remain deplorable with children forced to sleep for one to several nights in over-crowded cells on concrete floors with no mattresses or blankets, no change of clothes, no soap, towels or washing facilities, and inadequate food and dirty drinking water. In disregard of the court’s prior orders, the Department of Homeland Security is not making efforts to promptly reunite children with family members and children are being illegally held for months in lock-down facilities commingle

Children Seeking Asylum Ask Federal Court To End Their Detention May 19, 2016 Page 2 with hundreds of unrelated adults. The treatment of these refugee children is appalling. It places children’s safety and well-being at risk in pursuit of an irrational, unworkable and indefensible deterrence policy.”

Another inhumane and ineffectual component of the administration’s campaign to “deter” Central Americans from seeking refuge in the U.S. is an increase in U.S. support for Mexico’s Plan Frontera Sur, an iron-fisted campaign under which the government of Mexico is now interdicting and summarily deporting thousands of Central American children asylum seekers yearly. Carlos Holguin, General Counsel of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, said today: “The Obama administration has repeatedly claimed—and statistics confirm—that unauthorized entries across the U.S.’s southern border are now at historically low levels not seen since the 1970s. The administration’s fixation with throwing back impoverished Central Americans is an unnecessary and perverse response to human wretchedness and suffering that is unworthy of a great and compassionate nation.”

Victor Nieblas, President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) which has been working with CLINIC, the American Immigration Council, and RAICES as part of the CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project to provide legal representation to detained children and their mothers, said today: “Detaining and re-traumatizing children and their mothers fleeing widespread violence in Central America is a shameful legacy for President Obama to leave behind. This detention and rapid deportation policy is fundamentally inhumane, undermines refugees’ access to legal counsel and fair process, and is in violation of federal Court Orders issued in the Flores class action case. It has already resulted in the wrongful deportation of children and families back into the very violence from which they fled and must end once and for all.”

The children’s lawyers have asked the White House to drop what they call a “failed policy to deter defenseless children from fleeing for their lives,” and to “temporarily suspend all deportations of Central American children and grant deserving Central Americans temporary protected status.”

The case is Flores v. Lynch, No. CV 85-4544 DMG (C.D. Cal.) Copies of the court motion, proposed court Orders and children’s and mother’s declarations (with family names redacted) may be viewed and downloaded on our website or directly through the links provided below.

Copies of a recent human rights petition filed by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and other groups with the Organization of American States against the U.S. and Mexico addressing the externalization of the deterrence policy may be viewed and downloaded here. * * * * * * To access the recently filed court documents in Flores v. Lynch please use the following links: Motion to Enforce Settlement and for Appointment of Special Master Proposed Order Appointing Special Master Proposed Order Enforcing Settlement Exhibits in Support of Motion to Enforce Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6

1000 reasons why Obama Belongs in Jail For Illegally Detaining and Deporting Children

Leon Fresco

Leon Fresco is Obama’s Chief Immigration Lawyer. He is the legal architect of family detention as well as the child rocket docket. Chuck Schumer contracted Fresco out to the Obama administration on behalf of the Democratic Party Leadership, who needed to look tough on the border, at the height of the border crisis (08/2014) to detain and deport as many children from Central America as possible.

Today,  attorneys representing immigrant children in the Flores case filed 1052 pages of evidence demonstrating that Obama administration officials–including but not limited to Barack Obama, Jeh Johnson, Sarah Saldana, and Chuck Schumer’s hired anti-immigrant gun, Leon Fresco–are willfully and openly defying U.S. District Court Judge’s August 21, 2015 order which commanded DHS to release children from secure, unlicensed detention facilities within 3-5 days of their initial apprehension.

Although the lawyers for the Children have not asked Judge Gee to hold the above-referenced officials in contempt of court, the evidence leaves little doubt that the Obama administration has and continues to illegally detain children in intentional defiance of the Court’s order.

On advice from their Chief Immigration Lawyer, Leon Fresco, Obama administration officials believe the law does not apply to them. Instead, the Obama administration officials believe they  can commit illegal acts solely because they are acting on behalf of the most powerful individuals in the world –the President of the Executive Branch of the United States Federal Government.

Below are links to all of the separate exhibits, with the last one the motion to enforce:

Mother, Daughter, & 4-month-old Granddaughter murdered in Ciudad Delgado

valentina

Valentina Rivas, 4 months and 21 days old, was shot by gunmen pretending to be Police Officers. She died in her father’s arms, after being rushed to the hospital. 

Armida Marisol Mendez, 42-years-old, her daughter Alexia Marisol Rivera, 22, and her grandchild, Valentina Rivas, 4 months and 21 days old, were murdered in their home in  the Santa Marta Neighborhood of Ciudad Delgado, San Salvador.

The triple crime was allegedly committed by two subjects who had knocked on the door pretending to pass as police officers in the middle of the night this past Monday.

According the the information, the murderers directly shot at the mother and daughter, while the baby was struck by the bullets that were fired at her mother Alexia Marisol. The baby, still alive, was transported to the hospital Benjamin Bloom, but died in the arms of her father, according to the information.

Another child was saved from death because fortunately she went to sleep at the home of close by relatives.

Armida Marisol Mendez was pregnant according to the report from the Attorney General of the Republic (FGR).

The public ministry does not have a hypothesis for the triple crime, although the police do not rule out that it is related to settling of scores (revenge: translator note). Nevertheless, close family members did not know that they were threatened. One version claims that both women  had links to gangs.

This will have been the 9th massacre of this month, according to police and prosecutor records. Furthermore, this will be the second triple femicide recorded in April, the first was of a mother and her two daughters this past 4th of April during a robbery of their home in the Quezaltepec de Santa Tecla neighborhood.

For his part, the Chief Attorney for the Defense of Human Rights, David Morales, lamented this act of violence, “which is evidence of the cruelty, hate, evil and senseless violence with which the criminal elements are attacking society and now are costing the life of three women of the same family,” he said in a statement.

The Attorney Morales expressed his concern for the triple crime in Ciudad Delgado, as well as the increase in the cases that have been recorded in the last months in which women and girls have been victims. The official demanded that the Attorney General of the Republic prioritize the investigation of this crime.

Two Massacres Against Women

The crime in Ciudad Delgado will be the second massacre of three women in a period of 10 days.

This past 4th of April, a woman of 40 years and her daughters, of 20 and eight years-old, were murdered in cold blood in their home in the  Quezaltepec de Santa Tecla neighborhood.

The murderers had killed their victims with a firearm after having them tied up for 3 hours, according the the National Civil Police.

The three femicides were committed by subjects that knew their victims and to ensure there were no witnesses  they killed all of them, after robbing them of $20 thousand.

The triple femicide against the mother, daughter, and granddaughter, committed this past Monday night in Ciudad Delgado, could be linked to gangs, according to the PNC. For the first crime, three suspects are being processed while for the second massacre there have still been no one apprehended as suspects.

9 Massacres

Between April 3 and April 12, there have been nine massacres recorded in the country.

6 Women

In the two massacres of women registered in April six women have died.