SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
texas civil rights project
'Calculated Cruelty': Report Details Lasting Harms of Trump Family Separation Policy
Up to 1,360 children who were separated from their parents under the Trump administration have not been reunited six years later, according to the new report from a trio of human rights groups.
Dec 16, 2024
A report published Monday by a coalition of human rights groups estimates that as many as 1,360 children who were separated from their parents under the first Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy have yet to be reunited, causing immense suffering for families ensnared in the punitive effort to deter border crossings.
The 135-page report was produced by Human Rights Watch (HRW), the Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP), and the Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School, and it comes as immigrant rights advocates brace for President-elect Donald Trump's return to power alongside officials who helped develop and implement the large-scale family separations.
"Forcible separation of children from their families inflicted harms that were severe and foreseeable," states the report, which examines public and internal government documents, materials from legal proceedings, and the findings of government investigations and features interviews with parents and children who were forcibly separated by the Trump administration.
"Once parents realized they would not be immediately reunited with their children, they were distraught," the report continues. "Some children sobbed uncontrollably. Many felt abandoned. Nearly all were bewildered, not least because immigration officials would not tell them where their parents were or gave responses that proved to be lies."
The groups estimate that the first Trump administration separated more than 4,600 children from their families during its four years in power, and nearly 30% of the children are unaccounted for and "may remain separated from their parents."
"A government should never target children to send a message to parents."
While family separations predated Trump's first term and have continued under President Joe Biden, experts argue the Trump administration's policy was uniquely expansive and cruel. The groups behind the new report said the Trump administration's family separation efforts "constituted enforced disappearance and may have constituted torture."
"We need to take away children," Jeff Sessions, then Trump's attorney general, reportedly said during a May 2018 call with five federal prosecutors, the report observes, citing handwritten notes from one of the prosecutors.
Michael Garcia Bochenek, senior children's rights counsel at HRW and an author of the new report, said in a statement Monday that "it's chilling to see, in document after document, the calculated cruelty that went into the forcible family separation policy."
"A government should never target children to send a message to parents," Bochenek added.
The separations traumatized both parents and children, according to the report.
"Migrant children who have been forcibly separated from their parents demonstrate greater emotional and behavioral difficulties than children who have never been separated," the report notes. "Parents repeatedly told Al Otro Lado, a legal services organization based in Tijuana, that forced separation from their children was 'the worst thing they had ever experienced' and reported 'continued disturbances in sleep, nightmares, loss of appetite, loss of interest, fear for the future, constant worry, hopelessness, and loss of the ability to concentrate.'"
"In May 2018," the report adds, "a man killed himself after [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] agents forcibly separated him from his children."
HRW, TCRP, and the Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic called on Congress and the Biden administration to "put in place comprehensive measures to remedy the wrongs these families suffered" and urged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—soon to be led by far-right South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem—to "adopt standards that presumptively keep families together, separating them only when in a child's best interest."
Trump campaigned during the 2024 election on a pledge to launch the "largest domestic deportation operation in American history," and he said during an interview aired last week that "we don't have to separate families."
"We'll send the whole family, very humanely, back to the country where they came," Trump said, suggesting he'll also deport children who are U.S. citizens.
When pressed on whether he intends to revive the "zero tolerance" policy, Trump said, "We need deterrence."
"When somebody comes here illegally, they're going out. It's very simple," he added. "Now if they come here illegally but their family is here legally, then the family has a choice. The person that came in illegally can go out, or they can all go out together."
The ACLU, which has represented separated families in court, has pledged to take swift legal action if the incoming Trump administration brings back "zero tolerance."
"I am hopeful that the Trump administration recognized the outpouring from the American public and the worldwide revulsion to ripping little children away from their parents and will not try to separate families again," ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt toldTIME magazine last month. "But if it does we will be back in court immediately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Major Victory for Voting Rights,' Texas Court Overturns Crystal Mason's Conviction
"I was thrown into this fight for voting rights and will keep swinging to ensure no one else has to face what I've endured for over six years," Mason said following her acquittal.
Mar 29, 2024
Crystal Mason, the Texas woman sentenced in 2018 to five years in prison for casting an illegal ballot in the 2016 election, was cleared Thursday by a state appeals court, which found no evidence that she knew she was ineligible to vote.
The 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth formally acquitted Mason, a grandmother and mother of three who was on supervised release for felony tax fraud when she filled out a provisional ballot that was never counted in the 2016 presidential election. Her prosecution was based on an affidavit she signed before voting that required her to swear that she had "completed all my punishment including any term of incarceration, parole, supervision, period of probation, or I have been pardoned."
Mason's parole supervisor testified at her trial that no one from the office informed her that she was ineligible to vote.
"Crystal Mason was unfairly targeted because of bad faith actors in this state who are determined to use every tool at their disposal to attempt to intimidate voters, especially Black and Brown voters."
The court's ruling states that prosecutors' primary evidence "was that Mason read the words on the affidavit, but even if she had read them, they are not sufficient—even in the context of the rest of the evidence in this case—to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she actually knew that being on supervised release after having served her entire federal sentence of incarceration made her ineligible to vote by casting a provisional ballot when she did so."
Mason contended that she did not carefully read the affidavit and that she would never have risked her freedom by knowingly casting an illegal ballot.
"I am overjoyed to see my faith rewarded today," Mason said Thursday in a statement published by the ACLU. "I was thrown into this fight for voting rights and will keep swinging to ensure no one else has to face what I've endured for over six years, a political ploy where minority voting rights are under attack."
"I've cried and prayed every night for over six years straight that I would remain a free Black woman," Mason added. "I thank everyone whose dedication and support carried me through this time and look forward to celebrating this moment with my family and friends."
Christina Beeler, voting rights attorney at the Texas Civil Rights Project, said that "this ruling gives us hope not just for Ms. Mason, but for the broader fight for voting rights in Texas."
"Crystal Mason was unfairly targeted because of bad faith actors in this state who are determined to use every tool at their disposal to attempt to intimidate voters, especially Black and Brown voters, but that approach will not work here in Texas," she continued.
"We are proud to have assisted in securing Ms. Mason's freedom, and we are proud of Ms. Mason—instead of intimidating Ms. Mason through her unlawful prosecution, the state has empowered Ms. Mason to continue fighting for voting rights alongside other advocates," Beeler added.
Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said: "Crystal Mason has bravely fought this grave injustice for years now. No one should be forced to endure what she has, and Crystal's victory today is an inspiration and cause for celebration."
Mason's case attracted international attention and widespread condemnation, with voting rights defenders comparing her conviction and sentencing to white offenders who received more lenient punishments.
For example, Russ Casey, a justice of the peace in the same county where Mason was convicted, admitted to submitting fake signatures on documents required to secure a spot on a primary ballot. Initially sentenced to two years behind bars, Casey had his punishment reduced to five years' probation. He also resigned from his job.
On Wednesday, a Georgia judge ruled that Brian Pritchard—a vice-chair of the state Republican Party, right-wing talk show host, and prominent 2020 election denier—voted illegally nine times from 2008-10 while he was on probation for felony check forging. Pritchard will not serve any prison time; instead he was fined $5,000 and will receive a public reprimand from the State Election Board.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Supreme Court Lets Texas Enforce 'Unconstitutional and Extreme' Border Law
"Allowing this law to be implemented as the case makes its way through the legal process needlessly puts people's lives at risk," said one campaigner. "We remain committed to the fight to permanently overturn S.B. 4."
Mar 19, 2024
Update:
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday night issued a decision that put the Texas law back on hold, blocking once again enactment of legislation that would allow local and state law enforcement to detain or deport migrants believed to have crossed the border illegally.
Earlier:
Rights advocates on Tuesday blasted the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court for allowing Texas to enforce Senate Bill 4, a contested law empowering local and state authorities to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants.
"Today's decision is disappointing and threatens the integrity of our nation's immigration laws and bedrock principles of due process," said Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "But it is only preliminary and turned on the specific posture of the case. We'll continue to fight against S.B. 4 until it is struck down once and for all."
After Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill in December, the national and state ACLU joined Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) in filing a lawsuit on behalf of American Gateways, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and El Paso County. The U.S. Department of Justice has also argued that "it is flatly inconsistent with federal law in all its applications, and it is therefore preempted on its face."
U.S. District Judge David Ezra last month issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect while it is challenged on constitutional grounds. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay, which the justices left in place on Tuesday.
In a concurring opinion that Law Dork's Chris Geidner called "embarrassingly absurd," Justice Amy Coney Barrett—joined by fellow right-winger Brett Kavanaugh—highlighted that this was just a stay decision and they weren't yet weighing in on the merits.
The high court's three liberal members—Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor rejected—dissented. Kagan briefly explained why she would not have allowed S.B. 4 to take effect while Sotomayor, joined by Jackon, penned a lengthier dissent warning that the majority decision "invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement."
Those behind the ongoing legal battle against S.B. 4 issued similar warnings on Tuesday. Adriana Piñon, legal director at the ACLU of Texas, declared that "the implementation of this unconstitutional and extreme anti-immigrant law will likely be disastrous for both Texans and our legal system."
Tami Goodlette, director of TCRP's Beyond Borders Program, said that "allowing this law to be implemented as the case makes its way through the legal process needlessly puts people's lives at risk. Everyone, no matter if you have called Texas home for decades or just got here yesterday, deserves to feel safe and have the basic right of due process."
"We remain committed to the fight to permanently overturn S.B. 4 to show the nation that no state has the power to overtake federal immigration authority," she pledged.
The law's other challengers also expressed their disappointment and stressed that they remain determined to defeat S.B. 4.
"While today's Supreme Court decision is another setback for immigrants and refugees, we will continue to advocate for civil rights and dignity for people fleeing persecution," said American Gateways co-executive director Rebecca Lightsey. "We all recognize that our current immigration system is broken. It's past time to take a look at realistic solutions that will help not only those coming and seeking protection, but also the communities that are receiving them."
Jennifer Babaie, director of advocacy and legal services Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, was also undeterred, saying that "make no mistake, this decision does not change our commitment to this fight."
"Everyone, regardless of race or immigration status, has the freedom to move and the freedom to thrive," Babaie added. "We will continue to use every tool at our disposal to ensure this anti-immigrant and unconstitutional law is struck down for good, and Texans are protected from its inherent discrimination."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular