Trump administration seeks to end basic rights and protections for child immigrants in its custody
The Trump administration is trying to end a cornerstone immigration policy that requires the government to provide basic rights and protections to child immigrants in its custody.
The protections, which are drawn from a 1997 consent decree known as the Flores Settlement Agreement, limit the amount of time children can be detained by immigration officials. It also requires the government to provide children in its custody with adequate food, water and clean clothes.
The administration's move to terminate the Flores agreement was long anticipated. In a court motion filed Thursday, the justice department argued that the Flores agreement should be 'completely' terminated, claiming it has incentivized unauthorized border crossings and 'prevented the federal government from effectively detaining and removing families'.
Donald Trump also tried to end these protections during his first term, making very similar arguments.
Related: Ice arrests at immigration courts across the US stirring panic: 'It's terrifying'
The move to end protections follows a slew of actions by the Trump administration that target children, including restarting the practice of locking up children along with their parents in family detention. Immigration advocacy groups have alleged in a class-action lawsuit filed earlier this month that unaccompanied children are languishing in government facilities after the administration unveiled policies making it exceedingly difficult for family members in the US to take custody of them. The president and lawmakers have also sought to cut off unaccompanied children's access to legal services and make it harder for families in detention to seek legal aid.
'Eviscerating the rudimentary protections that these children have is unconscionable,' said Mishan Wroe, senior attorney at the National Center for Youth Law. 'At this very moment, babies and toddlers are being detained in family detention, and children all over the country are being detained and separated from their families unnecessarily.'
The effort to suspend the Flores agreement 'bears the Trump administration's hallmark disregard for the rule of law – and for the wellbeing of toddlers who have done no wrong', said Faisal al-Juburi of the Texas-based legal non-profit Raices. 'This administration would rather enrich private prison contractors with the $45bn earmarked for immigrant detention facilities in the House's depraved spending bill than to uphold basic humanitarian protections for babies.'
The Trump administration in 2019 asked a judge to dissolve the Flores Settlement Agreement, but its motion was struck down. During the Biden administration, a federal judge agreed to partially lift oversight protections at the Department of Health and Human Services, but the agreement is still in place at the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies.
'Children who seek refuge in our country should be met with open arms – not imprisonment, deprivation and abuse,' said Sergio Perez, executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law.
The settlement is named for Jenny Flores, a 15-year-old girl who fled civil war in El Salvador and was part of a class-action lawsuit alleging widespread mistreatment of children in custody in the 1980s.
Since the settlement agreement was reached in 1997, lawyers and advocates have successfully sued the government several times to end the mistreatment of immigrant children. In 2018, attorneys sued after discovering unaccompanied children had been administered psychotropic medication without informed consent.
In 2024, a court found that CBP had breached the agreement when it detained children and families at open-air detention sites at the US southern border without adequate access to sanitation, medical care, food, water or blankets. In some cases, children were forced to seek refuge in portable toilets from the searing heat and bitter cold.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
32 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A different kind of D-Day, laden with anxiety among old allies
Advertisement 'The enemy underestimated the strength of the Allied war cause,' he said from a podium before a modest international crowd and about two dozen American World War II veterans, most around 100 years old, watching from wheelchairs nearby. 'Without the sacrifices of American, French, British and other Allied powers, we would not have a free world ," he said. To many, the speech came as a relief. But still, there was an elephant on the perfectly kept cemetery lawn. D-Day is typically a time to commemorate sacrifice and unity among Allied countries fighting for freedom and liberty against the authoritarianism and tyranny of Nazi Germany. Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Ukraine's resistance has become a central part of the ceremonies as a strong echo from the past. Last year, President Biden vowed that America would not 'walk away' from the fight, defending a Ukraine that had been 'invaded by a tyrant bent on domination.' Advertisement 'Were we to do that, it means we'd be forgetting what happened here on these hallowed beaches,' he said. 'Make no mistake: We will not bow down. We will not forget.' However, the Trump administration has a very different view of its allies and the Russian invasion. President Trump has said the European Union was created to 'screw the United States' and is threatening it with 50 percent tariffs. He has blamed Ukraine for a war that Russia started. On Thursday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, during a visit to the Oval Office, reminded Trump of the anniversary of D-Day and pressed him to use American power to force Russia's retreat. Trump responded by comparing the war to two fighting children in a hockey game, when the referee lets them 'go for a little while before you pull them apart.' Hegseth has similarly shown little interest in supporting Ukraine against its Russian invader. On his last trip to Europe, he announced that a return to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders was 'an unrealistic objective' and ruled out NATO membership for Kyiv. Almost immediately after being sworn into the job, Hegseth dumped America's leadership of the Contact Group — a collection of more than 50 nations to coordinate shipments of military and humanitarian aid to Kyiv. He didn't show up to the group's latest meeting this week. Then, there were his comments on a Signal chat group, created before the American military attack on Houthi militia in Yemen and inadvertently shared with a journalist from The Atlantic. It all cast a shadow on the annual D-Day ceremony — making an event meant to celebrate friendship and shared values feel, as Denis Peschanski, a French historian, put it, 'less comfortable.' Advertisement 'There was no contradiction between the democratic values upheld by the Biden administration and the historical sacrifice of these Americans, as well as these British, these Canadians, well, all those who landed, and the French who were fighting in the Resistance also for the success of this landing,' said Peschanski, who was in charge of the 80th anniversary's scientific advisory board. It was 'obvious' that this year's commemoration would feel awkward without those shared values, he said. The celebration of what Hegseth called the 'greatest amphibious assault in the history of mankind' was more muted than last year. But that had nothing to do with American foreign policy — 81 isn't considered as auspicious as 80, and off-round number years rarely draw huge crowds or heads of state. Still, American and Canadian flags fluttered from hedges, World War II enthusiasts screeched along the narrow roads in vintage jeeps, and ceremonies were planned throughout the 50-mile ribbon of beaches and cliffs. No mention of American aggression was made by French Defense Minister Sébastien Lecornu, either. Instead, he thanked the veterans, saying they embodied the 'unique friendship between our two countries.' To some, Hegseth's criticism of Europe was not entirely off-point, if only because its spine has yet to stiffen sufficiently. 'The problem is, he is right. The EU is pathetic,' said Gérard Araud, former French ambassador to Washington, referring to Hegseth's text. 'In face of US hostility from JD Vance and Trump himself and then Hegseth, there is no appetite for retaliation or responding. They are totally terrified at the prospect of the US dumping Ukraine.' Advertisement Though European countries are committed to continuing to materially and financially help Ukraine maintain its opposition, most believe American support — particularly in intelligence — is essential. So, Araud said of Hegseth, 'everything will be done by the French to seduce him, to try and convince him we are serious on defense and we are working with the Americans and basically, please stay.'
Wall Street Journal
33 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
The Score: Tesla, Cleveland-Cliffs, Dollar General and More Stocks That Defined the Week
The Score is a weekly review of the biggest stock moves and the news that drove them. U.S. steelmakers rallied on President Trump's recent move to double steel and aluminum tariffs to 50%.
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump banned travel from 12 countries, but included some exceptions to avoid legal battles
MIAMI (AP) — The new travel ban on citizens of 12 countries that restricted access to people from seven others includes some exceptions, part of the administration's efforts to withstand the legal challenges that a similar policy known as the 'Muslim ban' faced during Donald Trump's first administration. The ban announced Wednesday applies to people from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The restrictions are for people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela, who are outside the United States and don't hold a visa. Some exceptions apply only to specific countries, like Afghanistan. Others are for most of the countries on the list, or are more general and unclear, like the policies for foreign visitors planning to come to the U.S. for the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, two of the events President Donald Trump has said he is more excited to host. Some experts agree that the current ban includes exceptions and has fixed some issues that were subject to litigation in the first travel ban. 'Absolutely, the administration is trying to avoid the problems that they had with the first proclamation,' said Jeff Joseph, president-elect at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. He anticipated, nonetheless, that lawsuits are 'going to come anyway.' In one of the most confusing moments of his first administration, Trump issued an executive order in 2017 banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. People from those countries were barred from getting on flights to the U.S. or detained at U.S. airports after landing. Among them were students, faculty, businesspeople, tourists and people visiting family. The order, dubbed as 'Muslim ban' by critics, faced legal challenges in the courts for about a year and was amended twice after opponents argued in the courts that it was unconstitutional and illegal. A version of the first travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The new ban takes effect Monday at 12 a.m. It does not have an end date. __Green card holders __Dual citizens, including U.S. citizens who have citizenship of the banned countries __Some athletes and their coaches traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup, Olympics or other major sporting events __Afghans who worked for the U.S. government or its allies in Afghanistan or are holders of special visas __Iranians from an ethnic or religious minority who are fleeing prosecution __Certain foreign national employees of the U.S. government that have served abroad for at least 15 years, and their spouses and children __People who were granted asylum or admitted to the U.S. as refugees before the travel ban took effect __People with U.S. family members who apply for visas in connection with their spouses, children or parents __Diplomats and foreign government officials on official visits __People traveling to the U.N. headquarters in New York on official U.N. business __Representatives of international organizations and NATO on official visits in the United States __Children adopted by U.S. citizens Trump said nationals of the countries included in the ban pose 'terrorism-related' and 'public safety' risks, as well as risks of overstaying their visas. Some of these countries, he said, had 'deficient' screening or have refused to take back their citizens. The Proclamation includes exceptions for lawful permanent residents, existing visa holders, certain visa categories and individuals whose entry serves U.S. national interests. Critics of the 2017 ban said that it was racial and targeted Muslim countries. Now the policy is broader and includes countries like Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela — nations that don't have many Muslims. This will make the argument about racial animus, said Joseph, the immigration attorney. The government has also included potential end dates, and the State Department will evaluate the proclamation every 90 days and determine if it should be extended. The list can be changed, the administration said in a document, if authorities in the designated countries make 'material improvements' to their own rules and procedures. New countries can be added 'as threats emerge around the world.' The travel ban has barred most Afghans hoping to resettle in the U.S. permanently and those hoping to come temporarily, but there are several exemptions. One of them is for special immigrant visa holders who supported the United States' two-decades-long war in Afghanistan. Another exception applies to all countries on the travel ban and allows spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens to enter the U.S. The U.S. government can decide to admit or decline their entrance on a case-by-case basis, considering if they serve a 'United States national interest.' Iran, a soccer power in Asia, is the only targeted country to qualify so far for the World Cup that will be co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico next year. Cuba, Haiti and Sudan are in contention. Sierra Leone might stay involved through multiple playoff games. Burundi, Equatorial Guinea and Libya have very outside shots. But all should be able to send teams if they qualify because the new policy makes exceptions for 'any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, the Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the secretary of state.' About 200 countries could send athletes to the Summer Games, including those targeted in the travel restrictions, and the exceptions should apply to them if the ban is still in place in its current form. Fans from the target countries willing to travel to the World Cup and the Olympics are not mentioned in the exceptions. Traveling from abroad for the World Cup and the Summer Games is expensive. In many cases, those who can afford the travel are wealthy individuals or people living in the diaspora, who may have different visa options. ___
