The Separation of Children and Families, and Human Rights at the U.S. Border
The Green Party of Connecticut affirms that migration and asylum are human rights. The current situation at the United States border is a sad example of the inhumane treatment of children and families seeking refuge and is in violation of United Nations mandates and international law. The U.S.'s past bipartisan support for military interventions and recent U.S. policies in Central America have contributed to, and in many cases are causing, the influx of refugees crossing the border from nations like Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. Over the last 100 years, a brutal U.S. foreign policy and U.S. support for murderous regimes, such as then Sec. of State Hillary Clinton's support for the 2009 coup in Honduras, has created a disastrous situation for much of the Americas and for people seeking asylum and seeking migration from brutal and murderous conditions.
Green Party of Connecticut
For Immediate Release:
July 4, 2018
Donald Trump's recent executive order is a victory for public activism and direct action in general but its true intent is to deceive the voters of the United States in order to create a legal situation in which the current law regarding the maximum time limit for detention can be challenged.
Additionally, there is no plan for adequate housing of families in detention or reuniting seized children with their families in humane conditions or even to be kept together beyond the current legal 20 day detention limit, per the 1993 Flores v. Reno Supreme Court case. Neither is there a plan to find the previously reported 1500 children that the administration has lost track of.
The forcible removal of children from their parents at the southern border and their housing in prison camp conditions and/or on military bases is government-sanctioned child abuse. Transporting these children hundreds of miles away to shelters in New York and around the country will make family reunification extremely difficult and is state-sponsored kidnapping.
The Green Party of CT understands that there are no provisions within this executive order for due process under the law, nor for an orderly or compassionate resolution of the status of these children or their parents. Trump's executive order makes no distinction between legitimate petitions for asylum and other situations in which the U.S. border is crossed without authorization.
The U.S. Green Party platform states that "all persons fleeing political, racial, religious, or other types of persecution must be welcomed and given permanent resident status. The history of arbitrary denial of political asylum claims must be ended. Particular attention should be given to those minorities who are political exiles and refugees and those whose lives would be at risk if asylum is not granted."
The Platform goes further to say, "It also must be acknowledged that the trigger for such an influx of immigrants in this country has been largely due to unfair US trade policies. If it were economically possible to provide for their families many would choose to remain in their native countries. Any immigration policy should be seen as a way to address all people's humanitarian needs as we undo the damage to local communities and chart a course toward sustainable local economies."
CT Greens are also outraged by the President's apparent effort to use these children and their parents as bargaining chips in a political leverage game against the Democrats, who themselves are incapable of championing a resolution that maintains human rights and a reasonable path to regularization of immigration status.
The Green Party of CT calls for the U.S. Congress to put a stop to the cruelty of the Trump administration. We support strongly the abolition of ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and its replacement with an immigration agency that respects the rule of law, the U.S. Bill Of Rights, and international conventions of human rights, and guarantees the right of all people to be treated in a humane and compassionate way.
1993 Reno vs. Flores ruling: