UPDATE (6/21/2018): On June 20, President Trump issued an Executive Order, purporting to end the family separation policy. But that doesn’t end the humanitarian crisis, which he created. The executive order offers no plan to reunite the thousands of children who remain separated from their parents. The administration has signaled that it will now detain all families with children, regardless of whether they are asylum seekers, or pose a flight risk or a danger to the community. These children don’t belong in jail at all, under any set of circumstances.
With nearly 2,000 immigrant children from their parents in just six weeks alone, there is an unprecedented human rights disaster unfolding at our border. As public outrage mounts, members of Congress demand access to government-run facilities, and the United Nations us, the Trump administration is attempting to shift the blame — fast.
In the past week, the administration has made several misleading statements, trying to justify the systematic separation of children from their parents. On Monday, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen held a where she doubled down on family separation, denying that the separation of children from their parents amounts to child abuse because, “We give them medical care. There’s videos; There’s TVs.”
All the while, horror stories are emerging: among them, , a Honduran father, who killed himself after being separated from his wife and child; taken from their parents who were told that they couldn’t hug each other in the shelter they were placed in; and parents who were deported ago and are still waiting for the U.S. to return their baby.
The level of cruelty is difficult to comprehend, and that’s how the administration wants it. Here’s what you need to know to understand family separation.
Is there a law that requires family separation?
Donald Trump has repeatedly family separation on a law enacted by Democrats. On June 15, he reporters, “I hate the children being taken away,” and added, “The Democrats have to change their law — that’s their law.” Secretary Nielsen repeated this falsehood at a briefing on Monday saying, “Surely it is the beginning of the unraveling of democracy when the body who makes the laws, instead of changing them, tells the enforcement body not to enforce the law.”
There is no law that requires the Trump administration to separate families.
This crisis stems from a series of policy choices the Trump administration made. In fact, reports arose as early as December 2017 that the administration was considering a plan to separate border-crossing parents from their children. In March, then-DHS Secretary John Kelly confirmed this, it would help deter Central Americans from coming to the United States.
Do the courts require family separation?
Absolutely not — despite the claims of GOP leadership to the contrary. Both and have blamed family separation on the courts, specifically a decades-old court agreement (known as the Flores settlement) which established protections for children to prevent their indefinite detention in unlicensed facilities.
Getting rid of the protections in the Flores settlement would only further the administration’s goal of being able to indefinitely imprison families. But ending family separation doesn’t require family prisons. The Trump administration knows full well that alternatives exist — because it went out of its way to sabotage them.
In June 2017, the administration ended the , which allowed families to be placed into a program, together, that connected them with a case manager and legal orientation that ensured they understood how to apply for asylum and attend immigration court proceedings.
The program had a appearance rate at immigration court hearings for those enrolled in the program. It’s not only a more humane alternative to family prisons; it’s far less costly for taxpayers.
Despite that success, the administration chose to end this program only a few months after it was first reported that Kelly — then-Secretary of Homeland Security — was considering family separation as a deterrent strategy.
Does Paul Ryan’s bill end family separation?
This week House Republicans will vote on a bill that purports to protect Dreamers and end family separation but does neither. Known as the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2018, the bill would put DACA-eligible individuals on a long and convoluted path to citizenship — which is all subject to whether Trump gets his border wall. The changes in the bill would make it harder to apply for asylum and includes dangerous provisions making it easier to jail children and families.
The bill would not do anything to stop Sessions’ zero-tolerance prosecutions — which is the main driver of family separation.
Is the administration separating asylum-seeking families who enter at ports of entry?
Yes, despite claims to the contrary. On June 17, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen took to to defend family separation, saying, “For those seeking asylum at ports of entry, we have continued the policy from previous administrations and will only separate if the child is in danger, there is no custodial relationship between 'family' members, or if the adult has broken a law.”
In case Secretary Nielsen forgot, she’s currently a defendant in our class action lawsuit, where we represent families who entered at ports of entry to seek asylum and had their children taken away.
Ms. L, a Congolese mother who sought asylum at a port of entry, had her seven-year-old daughter taken away from her for four months. Immigration authorities made no meaningful attempt to verify their relationship during that time, only doing so after we filed our lawsuit.
, a mother from Honduras, came to the U.S. with her young son on Feb. 20, 2018. She presented herself to immigration authorities and sought asylum, committing no crime. During her interview, Mirian provided immigration officers with several identification documents for her child which listed her as his mother. The next morning, Border Patrol agents took away her 18-month-old son with no explanation. She did not see him again for two months.
What is happening to people who cross the border between ports of entry?
On April 6, Attorney General Jeff Sessions all U.S. Attorney’s Offices along the southwest border to adopt a new policy of “zero-tolerance” for illegal entry into the United States. On May 7, Sessions announced that the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security would partner together to prosecute anyone who crosses the border between U.S. ports of entry.
As Sessions put it, “If you don’t want your child to be separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally.” Crossing the border without proper documentation is a misdemeanor that typically carries the penalty of a few days in jail if you’re prosecuted.
Here’s what the attorney general failed to mention: The government is not giving the kids back. Our client, Ms. C, experienced this firsthand. Ms. C, an asylum seeker, was separated from her 14-year-old son after the government chose to prosecute for entering the country illegally. She served her time, but then had to wait eight months before her son was given back to her.
In addition, both Sessions and Nielsen are avoiding another crucial point — in several cities along the border, Customs and Border Protection officers have been asylum seekers away, telling them that the port of entry is at capacity. who traveled to the border met asylum seekers who experienced just that. Secretary Nielsen this as well, saying that asylum seekers are not being turned away per se, they are being told come back later.
Who can end family separation?
The Trump administration is choosing to separate families. It’s a policy decision that could be stopped at any time by the president without legislation.
The president’s own party has been vocal about his authority to stop this — from former First Lady to senior Republican Senators , , , and . In the words of Republican Senator Trump can end this “with a phone call.”
Mr. President, make the call.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Immigrants' Rights
ACLU FOIA Litigation Reveals ICE Actively Considering Proposals to Expand Immigration Detention NationwideACLU FOIA Litigation Reveals ICE Actively Considering Proposals to Expand Immigration Detention Nationwide
NEW YORK – New documents obtained by the ACLU reveal that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is actively considering proposals to expand its immigration detention capacity in at least six states across the country, including in California, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Washington state. The records, obtained as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the ACLU in September 2024, disclose that private prison corporations, as well as other corporate entities that provide services to build temporary facilities, monitor compliance, and staff facilities submitted proposals for expanded immigration detention in response to ICE’s contract requests. The discovery comes just weeks after the ACLU received its first tranche of FOIA documents revealing that ICE is considering expanding detention in three different facilities in New Jersey. “You cannot have mass deportations without a significant expansion of ICE detention capacity in states across the country and that’s exactly what the incoming Trump administration is preparing to do,” said Eunice Cho, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s National Prison Project. “Rather than permanently shutting down abusive detention facilities, the Biden administration is paving the way for President-elect Donald Trump to make good on his cruel and inhumane mass deportation proposals.” The FOIA documents reveal that GEO Group, Inc., CoreCivic, and the Management & Training Corporation (MTC) submitted contract proposals to Requests for Information (RFI) to expand detention capacity and facilities, several of which have a lengthy history of abusive conditions. The proposals for expanded immigration detention facilities include: Midwest Regional Reception Center in Leavenworth, KS – formerly known as Leavenworth Detention Center – which has a track record of abusive conditions, which led the federal government to end its contract with the facility in 2021. South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, TX – a facility where children as young as 19 months have died as a result poor medical care. Nevada Southern Detention Center in Pahrump, NV – which has been subject to a federal invesitgation for medical negligence, racial discrimination, and verbal abuse of detained people. Cibola County Correctional Center in Milan, NM — which has been the site of numerous deaths in recent years, with incidents of neglect, abuse, and lack of medical care. Torrance County Detention Facility in Estancia, NM – which Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General cited in 2022 due to poor conditions. California City Correctional Center in California City, CA – which was previously used as a California Department of Corrections prison until March 2024. ICE also withheld a number of documents in its FOIA disclosure, obscuring the names of the specific facilities. However, the documents produced indicate that the following detention facilities are likely under consideration by ICE: Lea County Correctional Facility in Hobbs, NM (Proposal by GEO Group, Inc. for the El Paso Field Office) Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, WA (Proposal by GEO Group, Inc. for the Seattle Field Office) Golden State Annex in McFarland, CA (Proposal by GEO Group, Inc. for the San Francisco Field Office) Mesa Verde Detention Center in Bakersfield, CA (Proposal by GEO Group, Inc. for the San Francisco Field Office) MTC facility in South Texas, which may include the Willacy County Jail in Raymondville, TX (Proposal by MTC for the Harlingen Field Office) GEO Group, Inc. facility in IL, IN, WI, MI, KT, or KS (Proposal by GEO Group, Inc. for Chicago Field Office) GEO Group, Inc. facility in South Texas, which may include the Brooks County Detention Center, Falfurrias, TX; Coastal Bend Detention Center, Robstown, TX; or the East Hidalgo Detention Center in LaVilla, TX (Proposal by GEO Group, Inc. For the Harlingen Field Office) Other corporate entities, including Kastel Enterprises, LLC., and Active Deployment Systems, which provide services to build temporary facilities, and Sabot Consulting, which provides compliance monitoring and detention staffing services, also submitted responses to ICE’s request. As the ACLU has previously documented, the federal government’s immigration detention system overwhelmingly relies on private prison corporations. Private prison corporations, like the GEO Group, CoreCivic, LaSalle Corrections, and the Management & Training Corporation have pocketed billions from ICE detention contracts over the past two decades. The FOIA records are available here: /documents/multi-state-detention-facility-support-foia-documents-request-for-information -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Immigrants' Rights
Trump’s Remarks on Birthright Citizenship, ExplainedTrump’s Remarks on Birthright Citizenship, Explained
The president-elect has said he intends to end birthright citizenship. We break down why that’s clearly unconstitutional. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Immigrants' Rights
ACLU FOIA Litigation Reveals New Information Regarding ICE’s Plans to Expand Immigration Detention in New JerseyACLU FOIA Litigation Reveals New Information Regarding ICE’s Plans to Expand Immigration Detention in New Jersey
NEW YORK – New documents obtained by the ACLU reveal that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is actively considering proposals to expand its immigration detention capacity across the state of New Jersey. The records, obtained as a result of a FOIA lawsuit filed by the ACLU in September 2024, disclose that ICE capacity could increase by approximately 600 beds in at least two facilities in New Jersey. The discovery comes as President-elect Donald Trump continues to double down on his campaign promise to implement the largest mass deportation and detention program in the nation’s history. For months, the ACLU of New Jersey and advocates have raised concerns with the Biden administration’s plans to expand detention in New Jersey, as well as in potentially sixteen other states identified by ICE. “Instead of closing abusive detention facilities once and for all, the Biden administration is simply paving the way for the incoming Trump administration to conduct mass detention and deportation of immigrant communities nationwide,” said Eunice Cho, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU’s National Prison Project. “The Biden administration must instead work to close these facilities now.” These facilities under consideration include the Elizabeth Detention Center, located in Elizabeth, New Jersey and owned and operated by CoreCivic, Inc., and the Albert M. “Bo” Robinson Center (ARC) in Trenton, New Jersey, which was formerly owned by the GEO Group, Inc. Both facilities have significant records of poor conditions. Investigations of conditions at ARC exposed abusive conditions including “robbery, sexual assault, [and] menacing of the weak.” Meanwhile, the Elizabeth Detention Center has also come under fire for consistent medical neglect, cramped and unsanitary living quarters, and abusive treatment from guards. The ACLU obtained these documents as a result of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation, which sought in part records responsive to a contract solicitation for additional ICE detention space in the Newark, New Jersey area. The solicitation, originally issued on June 26, 2024, sought “comprehensive detention services for adult male and female noncitizens” to “provide for general population, intake, segregated housing, and medical beds at a contractor-owned/contractor-operated detention facility or facilities.” The documents provided by ICE provide a limited glimpse of the detention proposals, as the production appears to include only the environmental impact statement portions of the proposals submitted by CoreCivic, Inc. and GEO Group, Inc. to ICE. It is unclear from the documents whether there are additional New Jersey facilities that responded to ICE’s solicitation, or how much it would cost taxpayers. For example, the GEO Group, Inc. claimed in litigation earlier this year that it has readied the Delaney Hall Facility, located in Newark, New Jersey, to conform with ICE operating requirements. “New Jersey has already taken steps to oppose immigrant detention by phasing out ICE contracts and closing county-run ICE jails. But as federal plans to expand detention in New Jersey continue, the need for protections grows by the day. That’s why it’s imperative that the Biden administration immediately halt any efforts to expand this abusive detention machine,” said ACLU-NJ campaign strategist Ami Kachalia. “We also urge the New Jersey Legislature to quickly pass the Immigrant Trust Act so that New Jersey is not complicit in separating families or depriving our residents of due process.” State officials and members of New Jersey’s congressional delegation have opposed the expansion of ICE detention in the state. Earlier this year, eight Representatives and Senator Cory Booker raised concern regarding the development of additional private ICE detention facilities in the state. Prior to that, the New Jersey state legislature passed AB 5207 in 2021, which prohibited state and local entities and private detention facilities from entering, renewing, or expanding immigration detention contracts. Both CoreCivic, Inc., and GEO Group, Inc. filed suit to stop enforcement of the law, which has been enjoined pending appeal. The ACLU of New Jersey filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of 28 community organizations in support of New Jersey's anti-detention law. The FOIA records are available here: /documents/foia-documents-re-nj-ice-detention-rfi