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
Demonstrators in Chicago protested against the Trump administration's policy of separating children from their parents after families cross the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum. (Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
As Judge Slams Family Separation as 'Brutal, Offensive' Conduct, Lawsuit Challenging Trump's Policy Advances
The Trump administration's forcible separation of parents and children at the southern border is "emblematic of the exercise of power without any reasonable justification," argued a federal judge
Jun 07, 2018
Slamming the Trump administration's attempt to deter asylum seekers by separating immigrant children from their parents as "brutal," a federal judge declared Wednesday that the ACLU's lawsuit challenging the policy would be allowed to proceed.
"We are enormously pleased with the ruling about an issue that has galvanized so many and outraged the country," Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project, told the New York Times. "The judge left no doubt that he viewed the practice of separating young children from their parents as inhumane."
Judge Dana Sabraw's ruling follows nationwide protests this week against President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions' policy of criminally prosecuting all undocumented immigrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border, and separating parents from their children after the parents are apprehended by authorities.
Sabraw wrote in his opinion that the ACLU's arguments against the policy "sufficiently describe government conduct that arbitrarily tears at the sacred bond between parent and child, and is emblematic of the exercise of power without any reasonable justification."
The forcible separation of parents and children violates the families' constitutional right to due process, the ACLU argued in its suit. In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the Trump administration claimed that asylum seekers have no constitutional right to be kept together--an argument Sabraw rejected.
"Such conduct...is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency," the judge wrote.
Plaintiffs represented by the ACLU in the case include a Congolese woman who was held in a detention center in Southern California after applying for asylum, while her seven-year-old daughter was taken to a shelter in Chicago for four months before they were reunited.
Another plaintiff, an asylum seeker from Honduras, was separated from her 18-month-old child for more than two months.
Immigrant rights advocates expressed hope on Thursday that the judge's ruling was a step toward a possible injunction halting the Trump administration's policy.
The ACLU's motion requesting a nationwide injunction is pending.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Slamming the Trump administration's attempt to deter asylum seekers by separating immigrant children from their parents as "brutal," a federal judge declared Wednesday that the ACLU's lawsuit challenging the policy would be allowed to proceed.
"We are enormously pleased with the ruling about an issue that has galvanized so many and outraged the country," Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project, told the New York Times. "The judge left no doubt that he viewed the practice of separating young children from their parents as inhumane."
Judge Dana Sabraw's ruling follows nationwide protests this week against President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions' policy of criminally prosecuting all undocumented immigrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border, and separating parents from their children after the parents are apprehended by authorities.
Sabraw wrote in his opinion that the ACLU's arguments against the policy "sufficiently describe government conduct that arbitrarily tears at the sacred bond between parent and child, and is emblematic of the exercise of power without any reasonable justification."
The forcible separation of parents and children violates the families' constitutional right to due process, the ACLU argued in its suit. In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the Trump administration claimed that asylum seekers have no constitutional right to be kept together--an argument Sabraw rejected.
"Such conduct...is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency," the judge wrote.
Plaintiffs represented by the ACLU in the case include a Congolese woman who was held in a detention center in Southern California after applying for asylum, while her seven-year-old daughter was taken to a shelter in Chicago for four months before they were reunited.
Another plaintiff, an asylum seeker from Honduras, was separated from her 18-month-old child for more than two months.
Immigrant rights advocates expressed hope on Thursday that the judge's ruling was a step toward a possible injunction halting the Trump administration's policy.
The ACLU's motion requesting a nationwide injunction is pending.
Slamming the Trump administration's attempt to deter asylum seekers by separating immigrant children from their parents as "brutal," a federal judge declared Wednesday that the ACLU's lawsuit challenging the policy would be allowed to proceed.
"We are enormously pleased with the ruling about an issue that has galvanized so many and outraged the country," Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project, told the New York Times. "The judge left no doubt that he viewed the practice of separating young children from their parents as inhumane."
Judge Dana Sabraw's ruling follows nationwide protests this week against President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions' policy of criminally prosecuting all undocumented immigrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border, and separating parents from their children after the parents are apprehended by authorities.
Sabraw wrote in his opinion that the ACLU's arguments against the policy "sufficiently describe government conduct that arbitrarily tears at the sacred bond between parent and child, and is emblematic of the exercise of power without any reasonable justification."
The forcible separation of parents and children violates the families' constitutional right to due process, the ACLU argued in its suit. In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the Trump administration claimed that asylum seekers have no constitutional right to be kept together--an argument Sabraw rejected.
"Such conduct...is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency," the judge wrote.
Plaintiffs represented by the ACLU in the case include a Congolese woman who was held in a detention center in Southern California after applying for asylum, while her seven-year-old daughter was taken to a shelter in Chicago for four months before they were reunited.
Another plaintiff, an asylum seeker from Honduras, was separated from her 18-month-old child for more than two months.
Immigrant rights advocates expressed hope on Thursday that the judge's ruling was a step toward a possible injunction halting the Trump administration's policy.
The ACLU's motion requesting a nationwide injunction is pending.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.