Feds ask judge to rethink freeing immigrant children |

Feds ask judge to rethink freeing immigrant children

The Associated Press
Getty Images
MCALLEN, TX - AUGUST 07: U.S. Border Patrol agents detain undocumented immigrants after they crossed the border from Mexico into the United States on August 7, 2015 in McAllen, Texas. The state's Rio Grande Valley corridor is the busiest illegal border crossing into the United States. Border security and immigration have become major issues in the U.S. presidential campaigns. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

SAN ANTONIO — The government has asked a federal judge to reconsider her ruling calling for the immediate release of children and their mothers caught entering the United States illegally from Mexico, saying recent changes mean federal authorities are no longer violating a ban on holding immigrant children in secure facilities.

In late July, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee ordered the release of all children from immigrant family detention centers “without unnecessary delay,” along with any mothers not deemed a flight or national security risk.

Justice Department lawyers late Thursday filed documents at the California Central District Court urging Gee not to implement her decision, saying the Department of Homeland Security intends to turn the centers into short-term processing facilities that her ruling “addressed practices and policies that no longer exist.”

The government says detention time has been reduced to only a few weeks for most families, and that reducing it further would hinder processing asylum claims and could force the separation of mothers from their children in the event of another wave of migration.

Moreover, further limits on detention “would heighten the risk of another surge in illegal migration,” the filing said, “by incentivizing adults to bring children with them on their dangerous journey as a means to avoid detention and gain access to the interior of the United States.”

The government asked for another chance to argue its case before the judge, citing the “potentially far-reaching scope of the remedies proposed,” and the short time — 90 days — it would have to put them in place.

Laura Lichter, a Denver immigration lawyer working with detained families, said the government had “doubled down” on family detention and is “enamored of it as a tool, even though a judge has called it both illegal and ineffective.”

Homeland Security spokeswoman Marsha Catron said the agency has asked the judge to reconsider, “taking into account the current legal landscape and considerable changes we have already made to address the situation.”

The government poured millions of dollars into two large detention centers in Texas for women and children after tens of thousands of immigrant families, mostly from Central America, crossed the Rio Grande into the United States last summer. Many have petitioned for asylum after fleeing gang and domestic violence back home.

The centers in Karnes City and Dilley, both south of San Antonio, hold some 1,400 women and children combined, down from more than 2,000 in June. A third, smaller facility is located in Berks County, Pa. All three are overseen by Immigration and Customs Enforcement but managed by private prison operators.

In her ruling, Gee found that detaining children violated parts of a 1997 settlement in another case barring immigrant children from being held in secure facilities.

She said the settlement covered all children in the custody of immigration officials, even those who entered the country illegally with a parent, and that the facilities were not properly licensed to care for children.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.