What’s the End Game?

As the United States government continues to abuse children in unprecedented fashion by ripping them out of their migrant parents’ arms, there is one question no one has addressed? What’s the end game?

90

From Politico

As of May 2018, the United States government was holding nearly 11,000 migrant children in detention. The numbers are growing so rapidly that the administration is now holding nearly 1,500 of these children in a former Wal-Mart store in Brownsville, Texas, which is now the largest licensed shelter in the country. Even worse is the plan to house children in a tent city in Tornillo, Texas to hold an additional 450 children. Indeed, the the U.S. government has already proven it cannot handle the number of these children as it has lost track of nearly 1500 of them last year alone.

Although the administration claims that its practice of forcibly separating children from their parents is a deterrent to migration, that claim has no merit, because the numbers of families crossing the border continues to rise. There were over 50,000 arrests for illegal border crossings in May, which was the third month in a row that the number was so high. This is up 160% over May, 2017.

Since ripping children away from their parents and placing  them in tent cities has not proven to deter parents who are fleeing horrific condition from taking their chances to come to the United States, in addition to  demanding family unification, the Administration must be asked the following questions:

  1. How many children does the United States government have the capacity to detain?
  2. How long does it intend to detain migrant children?
  3. What services will it provide to detained children while they reside in U.S. detention centers?
  4. Is there any plan to ever reunite migrant children with their parents?

In addition to feeding and clothing these children, the Administration has probably forgotten that in 1982, the Supreme Court decided in a case called Plyler v. Doe that immigrant children have just as much of a right to an education as American children. As the high court said in this landmark decision.

“[B]y denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation. Such discrimination can hardly be considered rational.”

Even the dissent noted that,  “is senseless for an enlightened society to deprive any children—including [unauthorized immigrants]—of an elementary education.

Of course, the right to a public education includes the right of children with disabilities to special education. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), parents have a legal right to participate in the evaluation and education planning for their children with disabilities. How will the Administration comply with this provision when it is responsible for removing these children from their parents?

The most likely reason no one is discussing the end game of mass detention of children is that the United States government has rarely engaged in such horrific human rights abuses. Even the shameful detention of Japanese-Americans during World War 2 did not include separating children from their parents.

As all decent Americans work to end this horrific practice of mass child detention, advocates should ask these questions of both the Administration and their members of Congress. Perhaps after thinking just a little further down the road, the United States government will realize that it has started down a path with no good outcomes, and will begin to wind down and ultimately end its human rights abuse of these migrant children and their parents.

You can make these points by contacting the Administration and your members of Congress. You can also support the many groups fighting this horrific practice. Click here for a great article which includes links to many ways you can play a role to end this nightmare.

____________________________________________________

For more information on how I can help you accomplish effective, progressive systems change contact Jeff Spitzer-Resnick by visiting his website: Systems Change Consulting.

Advertisements

In Praise of Civil Rights Lawyers

Lawyers are the butt of many jokes, none of which are complimentary. Here’s a classic:

Q: What’s the difference between a jellyfish and a lawyer?
A: One’s a spineless, poisonous blob. The other is a form of sea life.

Even Shakespeare famously penned,

The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.

Shakespeare gave this line to Dick the Butcher in Henry VI. In what could be a prescient prediction of our current times, Dick the Butcher was a follower of the rebel Jack Cade, who thought that if he disturbed law and order, he could become king.

Although my elementary school teachers had me pegged to become a lawyer by the time I was in 5th grade, probably due to my argumentative nature, by high school, all the societal negativity around the legal profession sufficiently dissuaded me from pursuing a legal career. In fact, my intention behind my undergraduate degree in American history was to pursue a Ph.D. in history and become a history professor.

Before doing so, I took 3 years off after receiving my Bachelor’s degree to do some traveling and earn some money. By the middle of that 3rd year, it dawned on me that my advocacy skills were better suited to a career in the law, than a career in academia. More importantly, my decision to go to law school was predicated on a decision that the only kind of law I would practice would be true to my values: civil rights.

140407085556-14-civil-rights-horizontal-large-gallery

President Lyndon Johnson shakes hands with Martin Luther King Jr. after signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Most of my law school classmates scoffed at my pursuit of a career as a civil rights lawyer, suggesting that I would never be able to pay my law school loans off. At some level, their skepticism was appropriate. Finding work as a civil rights lawyer is not easy and none of the various jobs I have held in my 31 years as a civil rights lawyer have paid well. However, I paid my law school loans off a long time ago, and despite some rough financial patches, overall, I have been able to keep my finances in the black.

Recently, I have taken a lot of pride in my choice of career. On a personal level, I can confidently say that I have never taken a case that I was not personally and ethically proud to take. On a professional level, I know that many of my cases have helped to enforce the civil rights of both my individual clients and many others who are impacted either by the class actions I have pursued or the precedents that my cases have set. Indeed, just yesterday, I successfully obtained a court order to reunite a loving mother with her son who had been wrongly taken from her a few months ago by the county.

But my pride in being a civil rights law goes far beyond my own personal practice. It extends to the entire field of civil rights law. We are living in a time when the President of the United States scoffs at civil rights and denigrates judges. The U.S. Senate has just confirmed the new Attorney General, who has made a career out of weakening or attacking civil rights, including:

  • voting against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act; and
  • voting for a constitutional ban on same sex marriage.

While it is certainly true that judges make mistakes, that is why we have Courts of Appeal and ultimately the Supreme Court. The concept of judicial review has been the bedrock of our Constitutional system of checks and balances ever since Chief Justice John Marshall enshrined it as a bedrock principle in the 1803 decision of Marbury v. Madison.

But courts do not make decisions or protect civil rights if civil rights attorneys do not bring the cases before them. As I listened to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals historic oral argument in the State of Washington v. Donald J. Trump, a few days ago, I took professional pride in the attorney for the State of Washington who was defending the civil rights of immigrants and refugees and noted that the attorney defending the Executive Order banning entry of so many innocent people seemed like he would have preferred to be elsewhere.

I have learned the hard way that the path of a civil rights lawyer is not an easy one. The system is stacked against those who need civil rights protection the most and many judges and juries prefer to naively believe that we live in a discrimination free nation where civil rights do not need a vigorous defense. However, this uphill battle is exactly why the public at large should appreciate the work of civil rights attorneys, because you never know when it will be your rights that need a vigorous legal defense.

_________________________________________________________________

For more information on how I can help you accomplish effective, progressive systems change contact Jeff Spitzer-Resnick by visiting his website: Systems Change Consulting.