Family deportation raids: too tough, or not enough?

The Department of Homeland Security began raids targeting illegal immigrants, including families, over the weekend. Responding to a dramatic uptick of migrants from Central America has proven a difficult balancing act for the Obama administration. 

Carlos Barria/Reuters
A girl holds a sign at an anti-deportation protest outside the White House in Washington, December 30. Immigrants and supporters rallied outside the White House in protest against the Obama administration's planned series of raids to remove hundreds of undocumented families as early as January in the first such large-scale effort targeting the recent flood of border crossers.

Raids criticized sharply by multiple sides of the immigration debate began this weekend, as the Department of Homeland Security prepared to deport hundreds of families who illegally entered the United States during dramatic spikes over the past two years, as gang violence and drought drove tens of thousands of Central Americans north.

At least 121 people were taken into custody this weekend, officials said Monday. 

"This should come as no surprise," Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said in a statement. "I have said publicly for months that individuals who constitute enforcement priorities, including families and unaccompanied children, will be removed." 

But the 2014 immigration crisis, which had dwindled but then picked up again in late 2015, has proven a challenge for the Obama administration as it seeks to appease both humans rights and immigration advocates and others concerned about border security. Roughly 100,000 families have entered the country since early 2014, mostly coming from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. 

Plans for the raids were leaked in late December to The Washington Post, suggesting dissent within the administration about how to balance security needs with humanitarian concerns.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that the president supported the raids, with a focus on deporting "felons, not families," and recent immigrants who entered the United States illegally. 

"Certainly, people should take from this the understanding that the administration is quite serious about enforcing our immigration laws," Mr. Earnest said.

Yet the raids are targeting illegal immigrants, many of them families, whose asylum claims have been rejected by immigration courts. Deportations for single adults increased as early as the summer of 2014, as the number of families and unaccompanied minors crossing the border soared.

In the last months of 2015, those numbers picked up once more: 12,500 families and 10,588 unaccompanied children were apprehended in October and November, twice the number from 2014. Typically, immigration slows during the fall as colder weather approaches. 

As immigration officials struggled to deal with the inflow, many were released and told to appear later for asylum hearings. Others were sent to family detention centers in Texas and Pennsylvania, which still hold around 1,700.

But reports of unsafe conditions have pressured the administration to release families, and in August, a federal judge ruled that Homeland Security had violated a decree to treat minors in custody humanely and give them a prompt hearing, and ordered the centers to begin releasing families and unaccompanied children.

President Obama sought to prevent the deportation of 5 million illegal immigrants via executive action in November 2014, but was blocked by the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The administration has asked the Supreme Court to hear the case in 2016.

"This is the last thing we expected from the administration at this point, given the court decision," Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, told The Wall Street Journal. "It is time that the administration acknowledged once and for all that these mothers and children are refugees just like Syrians."

Honduras has the highest homicide rate of any country, according to a 2014 report from the United Nations: 90.4 per 100,000 people. El Salvador was third, at 41.2 per 100,000. 

Statistics like those make many advocates say that the White House needs to be more compassionate in its attitude towards illegal immigrants, and treat them as refugees. Many Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of deporting mothers and children fleeing violence, but soaring gang activity means that young men and teens could also be extremely vulnerable if forced to return.

Advocates are also opposed to the current raid tactic of searching neighborhoods, frequently used during President George W. Bush's two terms in office. In the past, the Obama administration has preferred to have local law enforcement detain illegal immigrants when and where they happen to find them, according to Vox. 

Some defended the raids as a message to discourage Central American families from following friends or family to the United States, but others said that, given the violence many are fleeing, they might have little choice.

"The raids may serve a political purpose for the Administration, but it will not deter the flight of refugees from Central America," Kevin Appleby, international migration policy director for the Center for Migration Studies, told Politico. "It only sends vulnerable families back to danger, many of whom did not receive adequate due process protections from our legal system."

Meanwhile, other think tanks voiced continued criticism of Obama for what they describe as a lenient record on border security. 

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Washington Post that the raids were "enforcement theater," amounting to just a "drop in the bucket compared to the number they've admitted into the country." 

More than 11 million unauthorized immigrants live in the United States. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported 235,413 during the 2015 fiscal year, down from 315,943 in 2014

This report contains material from Reuters

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.