Talk:Trump administration family separation policy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Article 31 of Refugee Convention

This is not "media criticism", the criticism has been raised by the Children’s Border Project. It also seems that Human Rights First has raised concern about violation of this article in relation to other Trump administration policies. This should be attributed differently, and we should probably look for something more like a UN condemnation.--Pharos (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess I've mostly dealt with it, though would prefer other sources too.--Pharos (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Well done. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Page view stats

don't seem to be working. Could this be fixed? Gandydancer (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

There are stats for yesterday. I'm not sure why the previous days are not showing up. You can report the issue here, but I suggest reading the instructions and being more descriptive than the previous poster.- MrX 🖋 14:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The issue is that the page views tool does not take account of redirects. You can see a fuller picture here.-Pharos (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Needs to note Stephen Miller's influence

Per recent NY Times story.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The whole history and evolution from Bush and Obama era policies, reported in that NYT article, should be covered here too in the 'History' section.--Pharos (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
We have something on Obama now, I think it would be good to add something on Bush. Trump's policy is a break from both of the them, and according to the NYT article the Bush administration considered but ultimately rejected this approach.--Pharos (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The Trump administration initially considered doing this in Feb 2017

Trump admin discussed separating moms, kids to deter asylum-seekers in Feb. 2017[2]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Even earlier. The NYT published a story on Dec. 21, 2017 [3] SlowJog (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Congressional Republicans

There are no mentions beyond Susan Collins. We should have both support and opposition. I think maybe Cruz, Sasse, Graham, Ryan, would be people to consider for inclusion as well.--Pharos (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Strong support Just including Susan Collins gives undue weight to her, especially if the perspective of the Speaker of the House is left out. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Tender Age Shelters TAS

I I am of the thinking that a separate article for tender age shelters would be appropriate. Wikipietime (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure yet, but coincidentally, moments ago I just redirected Tender age shelter to this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


Discussion at talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the immigration section include material about Trump's family separation policy?

 You are invited to join the discussion at talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the immigration section include material about Trump's family separation policy?. - MrX 🖋 18:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of family unit

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states mentions:

family units (defined as a parent, typically a mother, traveling with children)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/18/how-to-mislead-with-statistics-dhs-secretary-nielsen-edition/ mentions:

46 cases of fraud — “individuals using minors to pose as fake family units” — in fiscal 2017, the period from October 2016 through September 2017

Does the phrase fake family unit (the quote sounds like Bump is saying this originates from DHS, would be interested in seeing if we can find it in use in official DHS document) have an antonym? Something like "verified family unit"?

Whatever you would call an FFU (VFU or otherwise) what is the appropriate hypernym for such terms?

This JPG has the phrase "Southwest border family-unit apprehensions" at the top of it, so the proper term might be family-unit with a hyphen rather than family unit in official DHS vernacular, so the proper FFU stylization might be fake family-unit instead. I would be interested in knowing if we could identify what docuent this image is from.

Regarding the meaning of this bar chart. Since it totals "apprehensions" do the totals used to construct the bars include the "fake family unit" population or not? In encountering arguments that these numbers reflect VERIFIED families I think it is important to know that. If the bars include FFU this means that the bars do not mean that.

FMUA short for Family Unit Aliens may be the official term to use based on this...

  • Vitiello, Ronald (23 February 2016). "The Unaccompanied Children Crisis: Does the Administration Have a Plan to Stop the Border Surge and Adequately Monitor the Children?". Apprehensions of Family Unit Aliens (FMUA), consisting of children who are apprehended with one or more parent or legal guardian, were approximately 68,445 in FY 2014; in FY 2015, CBP apprehended over 39,838. FMUA generally kept together unless one member of the family group is deemed harmful to another member.

I'd be curious if we could figure out how far back the FMUA initialism has been used, what its criteria were when first established, and if they have changed over time. This seems valuable in understanding fluctuating policies on family detention. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sound clip of children crying

Anyone know what the copyright status of that sound clip (originally posted here [4]) of children crying while Border Patrol makes jokes is? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

According to that article, it was provided to Jennifer Harbury by an anonymous client, who passed it to ProPublica. ProPublica posts its stories under a (restrictive) CC license, so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility to ask permission from them, but I think it might be too much with a secret recording and a secret recorder. Probably we can get more multimedia (photos, etc) out of the federal government, which we already have some of on this article.--Pharos (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
There might be a case for justifying an excerpt from the sound clip as fair use, as minimal usage, historically important, and for the purposes of comment and identification, under Wikipedia's fair use policy. -- The Anome (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
That wouldn't fly under fair use. You'd have to both: 1) Demonstrate that the topic of "Trump administration family separation policy" cannot be satisfactorily demonstrated without the media, and 2) That no other, perhaps worse quality or less significant, media couldn't suitable demonstrate the topic either. That'd be nearly impossible.--v/r - TP 00:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I emailed them and asked if they will release it for Wikipedia’s use. Hopefully.Casprings (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

ProPublica uploaded the sound clip to YouTube under a CC attribution license making it fair game as far as I can tell. ~Awilley (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This was a rather draconian edit, IMO

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_administration_family_separation_policy&diff=846805660&oldid=846799993

but rather than revert it, I thought I'd toss it here to discuss. IMO the lede should not be cut so much.

It seems like a good faith edit by a new editor. Some material was trimmed from the lead and some was added. I'm not sure what the concern is.- MrX 🖋 01:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I do sympathize with the idea that the intro was getting over-long. We want something digestible to readers, though I'm not necessarily endorsing this cut.--Pharos (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It went from too long to too short, IMO soibangla (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump's reference to "that law"

@Muboshgu: re special:diff/846559594 is this possibly a matter of perspective and specifics? More specifics needed regarding what "that law" refers to. In 2014 it appears children were being handed over to DHHS, then at some unknown point it got changed, and by 2018 it got changed back? It's hard to follow, do you know any source explaining the specific dates when the DHHS > family detention > DHHS change happened? While it's true that the current administration widened the scope of crimes so that criminal prosecution applies to 1st-time offenders in addition to re-entries (instead of administrative/civil removal as an initial warning) which increases the number of jailed adults (and thus by extension, separation of jailed adults from minors found with them) we should also be looking at when/if policy changed regarding whether accompanying minors were put in jail with the adults they were with, or cared for by DHHS. ScratchMarshall (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Multiple sources say that Trump has falsely blamed the Democrats for the law. You would have to ask Trump what law he was referring to, but the rest of the planet is obviously referring to the enforcement policy enacted by Trump in April.- MrX 🖋 14:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@ScratchMarshall: Snopes to the rescue. The law is complicated, says and does various things. The Trump administration has changed the way the government enforces the law to enact these family separations. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Also note was Politifact has to say about this. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The article on Politifact by John Kruzel mentions "By law, when adults are detained and criminally prosecuted, their children cannot be housed with them in jail." Does anyone know when this law was passed and who passed it? It goes on to mention:

"Obama generally refrained from prosecution in cases involving adults who crossed the border with their kids," said Peter Margulies, an immigration law and national security law professor at Roger Williams University School of Law.

So is there necessarily a "new law" here, or simply an enforcement of existing law? A comparison is also made to Bush's Operation Streamline:

while the 2005 program referred all illegal immigrants for prosecution, it made exceptions for adults traveling with children.

Another thing from this Politifact article which may lead to an answer:

In 2014, amid an influx of asylum seekers from Central America, the administration established large family detention centers to hold parents and children — potentially indefinitely — as a means of deterring other asylees. The practice eventually lost a legal challenge, resulting in a 2016 decision that stopped families from being detained together.

Does anyone know what this "2016 decision" refers to? Perhaps something we have in an article? ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not clear on this 2014/2016 situation. I am learning quite a bit about the separation requirement. Per CNN: "A 1997 court settlement agreed to by the US government in a case called Flores v. Reno, which remains in effect today, requires the government to release children from immigration detention without unnecessary delay to, in order of preference, parents, other adult relatives or licensed programs willing to accept custody. If children cannot be released, Flores requires the government to hold them in the "least restrictive" setting available. The 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, signed by President George W. Bush, codified parts of the settlement into federal law." I'm adding wikilinks here because I think these need pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Unless "Flores v. Reno" refers to Reno v. Flores? Which was in 1993. But the settlement was reached in 1997? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, this article talks a bit about what the Obama administration did in 2014. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I found some older articles about it...

  • Carcamo, Cindy (6 July 2016). "U.S. must release child migrants held in family detention, court says". latimes.com. President Obama's immigration policy was dealt another blow Wednesday when the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's opinion that child migrants who are accompanied by a parent and currently in family detention should be quickly released. It left the fate of the parents up in the air, however. The case centers on a 1997 legal settlement — known as the Flores agreement — that set legal requirements for the housing of children seeking asylum or in the country illegally. ee In July 2015, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles found the government had violated key provisions of the court settlement that put restrictions on the detention of migrant children.
  • Morales, Claudia (2 November 2016). "Families crossing the border: 'We are not criminals'". cnn.com. So far in 2016 there have been a total of 44,558 recorded bookings in family detention.

But I'm not sure which Wikipedia article (if any) describes the autumn 2016 controversy. Immigration_detention_in_the_United_States#Immigration_detention_under_Obama only covers up to 2015. It does sound like this was more a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Perhaps Trump is referring to the fact that Dolly M. Gee was appointed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California in 2009 by Obama?

I can't find a Flores agreement article for the 1997 legal agreement yet. 2014_American_immigration_crisis#From_the_public mentions Flores v. Meese but the source it cites https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/aclu_irp_legal_backgrounder_on_children_july_2014_final.pdf says "the 1996 settlement agreement in Flores v. Meese" so there may be some inconsistency here between LA Times and ACLU on whether this case was 1997 or 1996. Perhaps 1996 was when the case began and 1997 was when the settlement finalized? https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/immigrants/flores_v_meese_agreement.pdf ends with a pair of Jan'97 and Nov'96 sigs, which could explain the confusion. Given recent events it seems that both this 96/97 case and the subsequent 2016 case it influenced (still reaching for a name) could benefit from articles. Anyone have experience starting trial stubs?

I think you might be right about this being related to Reno. ACLU's "flores_v_meese_agreement.pdf" says Janet Reno is the defendent. I'm not really sure who Meese refers to yet, searching document for that word being used... this is a bit of a reach but I noticed on page 22:

For Defendants: Signed ???? Meissner Title: Commissioner, INS Dated 9/16/96

It was hard to read the signature, but searching for INS Commissioners called Meissner I got Doris_Meissner#Tenure_as_INS_Commissioner_(1993_to_2000) so I think it's clear that's who signed for the defendants, despite page 1 listing only "Reno .. et al".

I think perhaps because there was already a 1993 "Flores v Reno" they chose to call this "Flores v. Meissner" instead, and the ACLU's pdf perhaps erroneously wrote "Meese" instead of "Meissner"? I won't jump to assuming this was ACLU though. https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=9493 for example mentions:

Case Name Flores v. Reno [later Meese, Johnson, Kelly, Sessions]

If this is a single case and Flores v. Reno only describes the 1993 incarnation, if Meese was 96/97 it makes me wonder what years the Johnson/Kelly/Sessions versions happened and if we also have coordinate articles like Flores v. Johnson, Flores v. Kelly, or Flores v. Sessions to explain those. If not separate articles, if such names are used they could possibly redirect to new sections on the "v. Reno" article which seems to mostly focus on just the 1993 version and not mention these other names...

Hm actually I'm beginning to think these are entirely different cases, 93's Reno v. Flores has Reno as plaintiff and Flores as defendant, the 96/97 appears to swap that with Reno (then others) as Defendant and Flores as plaintiff. I guess this is like a countersuit?

I'm now considering the Meissner > Meese assumption based on this:

Kamen, Al (16 June 1993). "WATCHING THE WALLS AT JUSTICE". Washington Post. Meanwhile, five months after Inauguration Day, INS legal matters are being handled by general counsel Grover Joseph Rees III, who dates from the department of Edwin Meese III.

My bolding for emphasis. There's clearly an Edwin Meese but he left office in 1988 so I'm not sure how he'd be involved in a 1993 suit 5 years later, much less 1996. Grover_Rees_III#Chief_Justice_of_the_High_Court describes activities from 1986-1991 then 1995-2001 so there is a 1992-1994 gap where involvement in a 1993 suit (and subsequent countersuit) could fit. "Rees" seems just as close to "Meese" as "Meissner" is. I'm wondering if we can find an earlier source than 28 June 2011 of ACLU or anybody else calling this case "vs. Meese", perhaps that could provide context. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

We currently have the article Reno v. Flores (not Flores v. Reno). --Chris Howard (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
About the 1993 and 1997 dates, it seems that the 1997 settlement was in fact a follow-up of the 1993 decision: "The Supreme Court ruled the children had no constitutional right to be released to unrelated adults in a 6-3 opinion, but because detention standards remained substandard, a fight continued until the government agreed to a national settlement in 1997" [5]. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Building on that...

Here "Flores v. Reno" is a link to https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_10-117_Sep10.pdf published 9 September 2010. Page 1 says:

The Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement governs the policy forthe treatment of unaccompanied alien children in federal custody.

The table of contents mentions "CBP’s Compliance With Terms of the Flores Agreement" and we can see on page 2:

These individuals must be treated according to provisions of the Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement (Flores Agreement), which set forth policy for the

detention, treatment, and release of minors in CBP custody.

This establishes Flores Agreement as a supported government abbreviation, the only difference from LA Times being the uppercasing of the A. If we were to have an article about this agreement/Agreement what are people's thoughts on what the primary name should be? Should it be the full "v. Reno Settlement" or just use the first/last word as parenthesized? I'm thinking if the "v." did change from Reno to others as time went on that omitting the defendant surname might be a good idea. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Why not just make a new section at the bottom of Reno v. Flores, and split it off as it grows?--Pharos (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Firstly because I'm not sure it really counts as part of the original case, since plaintiff/defendant seem swapped. Plus the growing confusion on what to title such a section/article. @The Anome: just redlinked Flores v. Lynch in addition to the above titles, based on the following:

  • Mallonee, Mary (March 3, 2017). "DHS considering proposal to separate children from adults at border". CNN. Retrieved June 18, 2018. Fresco also said the impetus for the change is the Flores v. Lynch court case, which held that the government is required to release minors from detention expeditiously even if they are accompanied by their parents, not just if they're unaccompanied

This has me further confused since Lynch doesn't appear in the title of https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/IM-CA-0002-0005.pdf despite it using a more informative title than the ACLU ("Flores v. Reno [later Meese, Johnson, Kelly, Sessions] - Stipulated Settlement Agreement"). Where does L fit in the RMJKS (Reno>Meese>Johnson>Kelly>Sessions) ordering? Further reason to just call the section "Flores agreement" or "Flores agreement" I guess? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I have started a section at Reno v. Flores#1997 settlement agreement, and also have some subsequent developments there, feel free to expand.--Pharos (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
This report from NPR addresses some of the Flores rulinghttps://www.npr.org/2018/06/20/621489166/family-separation-is-trumps-immigration-policy-here-s-why-he-won-t-own-it ([[--GDevi17745 (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)]]) Excuse me if this is all done wrongly; I am learning how to edit on talk page for a wikipedia training module.

HR 5005 Nov 25, 2002 Sec 462 gives power to the Director of The Office of Refugee Settlement of The Department of Health and Human Services to place unaccompanied alien minors in detention facilities until a proper caretaker or guardian can be found. With the end of catch and release, all adults are arrested and by definition the minors then become unaccompanied minors. The policy is an end to catch and release where now violators are arrested and by consequence of the law they are now separated. See https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf otherwise known as public law 107-296 (alt soruce https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/5005). So the title should be change to reflect the policy was not "we are going to separate families" the policy was "we are going to prosecute all who illegally cross the border". The policy simply has legal consequences. OttoVfrank (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Expand on move rationale

For anyone wondering, in the summary of my recent move, I was referring to this FactCheck.org article and to quote:

Under the 1997 settlement, DHS could detain unaccompanied children captured at the border for only 20 days before releasing them to foster families, shelters or sponsors, pending resolution of their immigration cases. The settlement was later expanded through other court rulings to include both unaccompanied and accompanied children.
The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 requires unaccompanied minors from countries other than Mexico and Canada to be placed in the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, or relatives in the U.S., while they go through removal proceedings. The bipartisan bill was approved by unanimous consent and signed by Bush.
[...] But neither the court settlement nor the 2008 law require the Trump administration to “break up families.” They require the government to release children from custody after a certain period of detainment, said Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. But they don’t require that parents continue to be held in immigration detention. “The government absolutely has the option to release the parents,” as well, Pierce said. That’s as long as they aren’t a flight or safety risk, she added.

Emphasis is mine. wumbolo ^^^ 13:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The move from a descriptive term ("family separation policy") to the Trump administration's own branding ("zero tolerance") is absurd. I do not for the life of me understand what you think the FactCheck.org piece shows or has to do with the new title, despite the cherry-picked and misleading quotes. The FactCheck.Org piece makes abundantly clear that this is a policy that the administration is not required to do ("neither the court settlement nor the 2008 law require the Trump administration to “break up families.”") and that other administrations did not separate families ("Since at least the administration of George W. Bush, a Republican president, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has held many parents and children who crossed the border seeking asylum in family detention centers. Those families have been kept together until they go before an immigration judge or are formally removed from the U.S."). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

We're going to describe it by reliable sources, so let me list reliable sources:

Please don't edit above, as I will be editing it so it doesn't end up in an edit conflict. wumbolo ^^^ 13:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done I am done with adding reliable sources to my list above. wumbolo ^^^ 14:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I look forward to reading your arguments. - MrX 🖋 13:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The way I see this, "family separation policy" (or practice) is part of the greater "zero tolerance policy", which in turn is part of the "greater immigration policy". I don't see the current title as non-neutral, and it is recognizable, natural, and reasonably precise, concise and consistent.- MrX 🖋 14:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree "Zero tolerance" fails at WP:PRECISE, as this term applies to the bulk of the administration's immigration policy, including rescission of DACA, etc.--Pharos (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Pharos: Do you have a reliable source that "zero tolerance" applies to DACA? wumbolo ^^^ 16:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
"Zero tolerance", like law and order, is an extremely generic term that Trump has been using in immigration rhetoric since 2016. I don't think it's particularly tied to DACA, but it is to his overall program, which is largely a reversal of aspects of selective enforcement.--Pharos (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe this is also relevant here. HR 5005 Nov 25, 2002 Sec 462 gives power to the Director of The Office of Refugee Settlement of The Department of Health and Human Services to place unaccompanied alien minors in detention facilities until a proper caretaker or guardian can be found. With the end of catch and release, all adults are arrested and by definition the minors then become unaccompanied minors. The policy is an end to catch and release where now violators are arrested and by consequence of the law they are now separated. See https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf otherwise known as public law 107-296 (alt soruce https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/5005). So the title should be change to reflect the policy was not "we are going to separate families" the policy was "we are going to prosecute all who illegally cross the border". The policy simply has legal consequences.OttoVfrank (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump administration will stop prosecuting migrant parents who cross the border illegally with children, official says?

I think this is the white flag.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/06/21/trump-administration-will-stop-prosecuting-migrant-parents-who-cross-the-border-illegally-with-children-official-says/ Casprings (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The URL says "stop prosecuting" but the actual title on display phrases "stop referring ... for prosecution". Is there any subtle difference in meaning here? Of course that's all dependent on whether or not BP is able to confirm parenthood, and "parent" may not necessarily include "guardian". There's also no indication as to who the "senior U.S. Customs and Border Protection official" is, or when (by what date) the word "will" refers to. Within a week? Within a decade? WashPo is quick to jump on anything for clickbait but until we get more specifics it doesn't really seem that significant. I'd be more interested in the executive order they linked to from previous day https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-signs-order-ending-his-policy-of-separating-families-at-the-border-but-reprieve-may-be-temporary/2018/06/20/663025ae-74a0-11e8-b4b7-308400242c2e_story.html?utm_term=.3da76a5bf0dd which also raises the question, if this happens, for how long? Stop prosecuting for a day, a week, a month, a year? Category:Executive_orders_of_Donald_Trump only goes up to Executive Order 13813 from October 2017, I'd like to find out the number of this one. It definitely sounds significant enough for an article, but most sources I find reporting on it just refer to "an executive number" without a number or title. Reading the order (whatever its number is) at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/affording-congress-opportunity-address-family-separation/ this part stands out when defining the term alien child "has a legal parent-child relationship to an alien who entered the United States with the alien child at or between designated ports of entry and who was detained". This presumably means to apply that classification, for there to be a "legal parent-child relationship", would require some level (which I do not know) of legal argument/proof. I'd like to know if any sources have yet announced the criteria used by the US Border Patrol to assess a "legal relationship". ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Are hypothetical figures relevant?

In the article it says: "If the policy had continued, an estimated 30,000 children could have been detained by August 2018." In my opinion that hypothetical figure is not a good representation of what has happened actually, therefore I propose removing that sentence and merging with the following paragraph that states the estimate of separated children. Any issue with that? --Micru (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No, that seems fine to me. Perhaps we could put in a figure for the growth rate at the point the policy was amended, to replace it. -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the use of including a projection like that, as it assumes without evidence that the policy would be logistically sustainable to that point. It would be better to show the rate of growth of separate detention up until the practice is ended. Note that the practice is continuing for already-separated families, despite the executive order, which represents a plateau for the time being. bd2412 T 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind dropping the projection from the lede. It's OK in the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed the line (with references) from the lead, as there seems to be an agreement to do that.--Micru (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Why add estimates that could not happen? Seems like rather useless information. PackMecEng (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Because it explains what the policy would do if implemented. We frequently cover estimates and projections by credible sources on things that have not actually been implemented yet (e.g. AHCA, Brexit, legalization of undocumented immigrants). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The what if does not matter at this point, also looks like the sources supporting it are from before the change that made their guesses irrelevant. PackMecEng (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually it does. This isn't going away. Either Congress passes a law, which isn't going to happen, or 20 days are up at which point Trump's EO comes into conflict with existing law (probably purposefully), at which point it's either back to family separations or status quo-ante (unlikely, given Sessions and Miller's continued influence on the policy making process).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Well if/when that happens we can address it. As the situation sits right now, it is not relevant. I doubt there is any real will pretty much anywhere to get a permanent fix it looks like. Sad PackMecEng (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure. But as far a the text itself, I don't see a problem with it being in the body of the article, though yeah it shouldn't be in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
What happens in 20 days? Does some existing law change on July 10th? ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2018

Under the "Executive Order to suspend new separations and detain families" section, the word "Aadministration" should be corrected to "Administration". 2601:281:C902:1938:F0F7:9C6:53C7:2DBC (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2018

HR 5005 also known as Public Law 107-296 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/5005) needs to be mentioned as the basis for the separation and source for Trumps claims. This is the law that grants the placing children and infants under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as also stated in source 3. However this is a far better source because it cites actual law. It also contains legal definitions that are important. Under this law the Director of the Office of Refugee Settlement of the Dept. of Health and Human Services is shall be responsible for (D) implementing the placement determinations; [of] unaccompanied alien children. Where Placement is defined as (1) the term ‘‘placement’’ means the placement of an unaccompanied alien child in either a detention facility or an alternative to such a facility; and (2) the term ‘‘unaccompanied alien child’’ means a child who— (A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States; (B) has not attained 18 years of age; and (C) with respect to whom— (i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or (ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.

As a result of implementing a policy where all adults who cross the border are prosecuted with zero tolerance, children accompanying them become by legal definition an ‘‘unaccompanied alien child’’ because there is either no parent or legal guardian available or able to take custody, said individuals were arrested. This LAW then requires the separation and placement in detention centers or alternatives until such time as a parent or legal guardian can be found.

Please set aside your hatred of Trump and make sure people are aware that NO, the policy was not specifically about separating families and YES there is a law that binds them to this and although NO it was not a Democrat law, many democrats did vote in favor of it. The roll calls are public. Do the right thing for the sake of truth. OttoVfrank (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

See "Does a Specific Law Mandate Family Separation and Detention of Minors?". Snopes.com. Public Law 107-296...did not mandate that children be separated from their families DylanHock6 (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there a source for the proposition that this law is the basis for the separation? Specifically, since family separations were not being carried out on this substantial scale prior to April of this year, there must be some document indicating the basis for this change (law enforcement agencies under Trump did not carry out such a policy even for the first fifteen months of Trump's term), and such a document would indicate the asserted legal basis. Also, it is ambiguous to say that "many" Democrats voted for the statute in question. Based on the roll call vote, a substantial majority of Democrats (about 3/5) voted against this law, while 95% of Republicans voted for it. bd2412 T 00:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I Really Don’t Care

This is almost as funny as it is dystopian. Melania Trump wears a jacket emblazoned with the words "I Really Don’t Care, Do U?" on it when she travelled to visit immigrant children at the border.[22][23][24][25] - MrX 🖋 19:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Insensitive, yes, but this is clearly not notable.--Pharos (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree it's a blip and not worth including. Usually "I Really Don't Care" for all the assessment of female fashion because it's sexist, but this does seem like a really weird intentional choice. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It's bizarre, but so is pretty much everything about this administration. At best, it's really poor judgement by her and her staff; at worst, a cry for help or a message to the immigrants. Of course it's not very encyclopedic or directly related to the more serious aspects of this subject.- MrX 🖋 20:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Are we really going to add critics of what the first lady wore while boarding a plane? Let's at least try not be silly. PackMecEng (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it is relevant to this article. But it might be relevant to the Melania Trump article; the bizarre collision of fashion choice and political symbolism, particularly for a role as highly stage-managed as that of First Lady, is truly peculiar, and has attracted a lot of coverage in WP:RS. -- The Anome (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Put it in the Melania article. Unless it gets bigger for some reason (you never know with this stuff).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@MrX: Do you know what is as funny as it is dystopian? 'Fake news' articles assuming in bad faith that the jacket was related to immigrants, when the jacket was actually about fake news! [26]
(1) The "fake news" media did not assume that it was related to immigrants. (2) Melania's own spokesperson said that it wasn't related to anything. (3) What is funny is that after misrepresenting news sources again you uncritically accept and find great joy in one of two completely incompatible statements from this administration. Actually, no. It's not funny, it's sad. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure glad Mr. Trump cleared that up. Doubleplusgood Be best.- MrX 🖋 02:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Image usage problems

Per MOS:LEADIMAGE the lead should only have 1 image. Another problem is that there are no photos in the rest of the article! They are all in the lead! We must pick 1 image for the lead and relocate the others to the relevant positions in the article.– Lionel(talk) 11:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I just read that section. It doesn’t say that a lead section must have 1 image.Casprings (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The style guide doesn't limit a lead to only one image. Also, it's a style guide.- MrX 🖋 14:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"Trump's decision to enforce the current immigration law is . . ."

Has the statute or other law in question been identified? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It's the normal law against unauthorized border crossings. In past administrations, parents were not usually detained for extended periods, and families were able to stay together until the case was resolved. "Zero tolerance" throws discretion in enforcement out the window.--Pharos (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
How unfortunate, that the family separation law is "current" or "normal" but nobody knows when or why it was made, or even whether it has a name. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Aha. "Technically, there is no Trump administration policy stating that illegal border crossers must be separated from their children. But the “zero tolerance policy” results in unlawful immigrants being taken into federal criminal custody, at which point their children are considered unaccompanied alien minors and taken away." -From the the Saturday June 16 NYTimes article cited elsewhere. So, the action apparently fits various old (still unidentified) acts and policies; it merely takes them to a logical conclusion, which previous US Administrations declined to reach lest it get them into trouble. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, there is no change in the family separation policy, it actually is based on current law and a court ruling. What has changed is the enforcement of the law. To say that the Trump Administration has a family separation policy is disingenuous. I changed the article to a more neutral title.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
If you want to change the title, you should read WP:TITLE first and review sources, then request a move so that consensus can be determined. Sources extensively use "Trump administration family separation policy" and none that I can find use "Family separation of border crossers". - MrX 🖋 03:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Separating children isn't the policy. Despite the rhetoric that media "sources" are spouting. The change is policy is to immediately detain and prosecute those who cross the border illegally rather than releasing them with future court dates. Thus all minors that are with them become unaccompanied alien minors as per HR 5005/Public Law 107-296 and as per HR 5005/Public Law 107-296 they are to be detained until a proper care giver or guardian can be found. Since that is difficult due to language barriers, lack of documentation, and inability to verify information (as well as the volume of people) we have the current issue. Alternatively we could detain the minors with their parents but that would mean actually imprisoning kids and it would no longer satisfy the definitions set for in sec 462 of HR 5005. Then you run into issues with the Flores Agreement (more so than now). The only other solutions are to simply immediately deport all crossers (put catch them and put them on a bus heading back a few hours later) or return to catch and release which is essentially open borders style (illegal) immigration. Again without documentation it is near impossible to follow up with release people to ensure they show up to court hearings - even if there was a good chance they could claim amnesty and not face deportation.OttoVfrank (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Border separation of children is an effect of charges for illegal crossing, not the name of a policy. Markbassett (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

Family separation policy? More like MEDIA CIRCUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Yoandri Dominguez Garcia: If you want to make any specific changes, please identify specific examples of bias with proposed text to change it to. Otherwise, this post is not constructive. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Its almost half the article so itll take time to point out Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 22:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs)

The article has a lot of hearsay & punditry. This invalidates objectivity, especially as this is a CURRENT EVENT. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 22:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs)

This article is biased, literally from start to finish. Every other sentence is an NPOV or accuracy violation. NPOV-tag it immediately, so we can have time to improve it. 2601:248:8005:34C0:CA3:D6B6:AAF9:13F (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please point to at least one specific thing or I'm taking off that POV tag. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

NOTAGODDAMNFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yoandri Dominguez Garcia and 2601:248:8005:34C0:CA3:D6B6:AAF9:13F Please don't post vague complaints and sweeping generalizations. The talk page is for discussing specific edits to improve the article. - MrX 🖋 14:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Let us not be absurd .... admit the obvious of emotions and contention here, put a tag on it and then move on to edit discussions, OK ? Markbassett (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Things that the lede should preferably cover

Things that the lede should preferably cover:

  • The various and shifting rationales and statements by administration officials about the policy. From Kelly and Miller's assertions that the policy is wise because it deters to Sessions' and Sanders' arguments that its biblical to Nielsen's claim that there is no policy.
  • Fact-checkers clarifying that the policy is new and that the administration is not required to do it.
  • The fiscal costs associated with the policy.
  • The health impact on the children per experts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that these are all good ideas and I did add a couple of criticisms re the children's health but the lead is already fairly long and I don't see how there is room for much more. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose- the current lead is fine. Leads are supposed to be a overview, not include details or statements. Furthermore, they are supposed to be neutral, not push a certain narrative.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The first sentence - that whole paragraph - is terrible. It needs to be broken down. I think rational should certainly get a mention ans should a general timeline, including the sudden public outcry and the ostensible reversal via executive order. It would also be good to give some sense of the two sides of the debate. Perhaps fiscal costs doesn't need to be there, and maybe not the effects on children as well. Mozzie (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose — follow WP:LEAD. Lead comes from the article body, not edited separately. Do NOT engage in creative writing for lead or OR editorial discussions that are not from the article content or that are not WP:DUE by external prominence. Just identify the topic, context, notability, and then summarize the article. A lead written first can/should be reverted. Markbassett (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump to jail kids with parents

It looks like the new plan is to jail the kids with the parents. Might need to change title to reflect this. https://nyti.ms/2I7wWAA?smid=nytcore-ios-share Casprings (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That would be a different, and in some ways opposite policy, see - Family detention and Family Detention Practices in the International Context, from the Women's Refugee Commission. It might well call for a new article.--Pharos (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
It would be different, more closely related to this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I hear this is just a deferral of any more separations for a few weeks. Prior detainees I think are not being reunited, and future detainees face the question after 20 days of detention ... either they are done deporting them, release them, or separate them. Markbassett (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(Obama era) 14 year olds say they were left nude in concrete cells

Immigrant children as young as 14 housed at a juvenile detention center in Virginia say they were beaten while handcuffed and locked up for long periods in solitary confinement, left nude and shivering in concrete cells. Needs adding: https://apnews.com/afc80e51b562462c89907b49ae624e79 Casprings (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It just keeps on going. Words fail me. -- The Anome (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The key word is "say" of course. The development specialist "never witnessed staff abuse teens first-hand". This also says "lawyers for the detention facility have denied all allegations of physical abuse." We should wait until the July 3rd hearing in Virginia to be reported on before following up. ScratchMarshall (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
This is not related to this article. As noted in the article "They were not the children who have been separated from their families under the Trump administration’s recent policy and are now in the government’s care." PackMecEng (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
This may very well not be related to the policy, and regardless, we have to be very careful with how we treat this information. Juvenile detention is for incarceration of criminals, and in some cases, incorrigible children. That is way different than separating innocent children from their parents. - MrX 🖋 13:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding that, does anyone know at what age minors can be held accountable for the crime of illegal immigration? I'm not sure what the earliest is that they've pressed charges for it. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This belongs to the parent article. Not only do we not have a connection to the zero tolerance policy, these kids (mostly) weren't taken away from their families, which is not in the scope of this article (many editors want this article only to focus on the family separation aspect of the zero tolerance policy, which makes the article have a bunch of DHS-blaming coatrack; see the above requested move). wumbolo ^^^ 21:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Casprings -- I have adjusted the title of this section since that cite is talking from 2015 under Obama when one character was 14, thru to when he was 17 in August 2017, and officials testimony in April 2018. It predates the Trump zero-tolerance policy that this article is about. It's not the first claim of issues under the Obama administration having tens of thousands of unaccompanied children thru shelters and that era's separation of families, but folks seem to have forgotten 2014 or 2015 ever happened. Might be substance for an article 'Obama administration child immigrant detention' or something, but is OFFTOPIC for this article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trump_administration_family_separation_policy/Archive_1&oldid=1045690219"