Migrant Children: Leaving their Conditions for Worse Ones?

On April 26, 2018, Steven Wagner, an official at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), stated during a Senate Homeland Security subcommittee oversight hearing that HHS had lost track of 1475 migrant children in 2017. The migrant children had all been placed into HHS custody when trying to cross the Mexican border into the U.S, unaccompanied by adults.

When migrant children attempt to cross the border on their own, the Department of Homeland Security places them into the custody of the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), who provides them with food, shelter, clothing, and other necessities, until sponsors are selected and approved for the children.

Officials at HHS maintain that once the ORR places migrant children into the care of sponsors, it is no longer the responsibility of HHS to keep track of them. HHS did, however, follow up with a survey of over 7,000 of the migrant children, and this is apparently how they discovered that almost 1500 of them are unaccounted for.

According to Snopes, “From October to December 2017, HHS called 7,635 children the agency had placed with sponsors, and found 6,075 of the children were still living with their sponsors, 28 had run away, five had been deported and 52 were living with someone else. The rest were ‘missing,’ said Steven Wagner, acting assistant secretary at HHS.”

But this does not excuse the HHS’ complete lack of concern for following up on the safety and well-being of these children, which could be illustrated by Senator Rick Santorum’s comment on CNN’s State of the Union: “I mean, we lose people all the time in a lot of other government programs.”

Usually, a sponsor is a parent or other close family member, but sometimes, the sponsor is not related, or is a distant relative. When HHS releases migrant children to the care of sponsors, the children become the responsibility of the sponsors. On the one hand, with no oversight or follow-up from HHS, migrant children, if not in the hands of familiar and trusted relatives or family members, could be ripe for human trafficking.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), chairman of the Senate subcommittee, in response to the revelation the HHS had lost track of 1475 migrant children, cited the case of a group of Guatemalan boys who had been forced to work on an Ohio egg farm after the HHS had released them to the care of human traffickers posing as family members (and hence approved as sponsors).

“These kids, regardless of their immigration status, deserve to be treated properly, not abused or trafficked,” Portman said in the subcommittee. “This is all about accountability. …We’ve got these kids. They’re here. They’re living on our soil,” he told PBS. “And for us to just, you know, assume someone else is going to take care of them and throw them to the wolves, which is what HHS was doing, is flat-out wrong. I don’t care what you think about immigration policy, it’s wrong.”

On the other hand, with the Trump administration’s no-holds-barred approach to undocumented immigration (including the recent announcement that the Justice Department would begin to prosecute 100 percent of those who attempt to cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally), some feel that it’s not altogether bad that the HHS hasn’t caught up with all of the migrant children.

It’s possible that some of these migrant children and their sponsors have not responded to HHS calls because they have chosen to go “off the grid” in order to avoid the risk of deportation or prosecution. There are many other possible explanations for their “disappearance, including explanations as simple as an outdated phone number, or a decision not to answer the phone.

Whether we agree or not with the Trump administration’s policies regarding immigration, it is not ok to put any children, no matter what their status, at any level of risk for human trafficking. Just as true, though, is that undocumented migrant children are quite likely trying to flee a traumatic situation at home, and it is not ok, simply because we “can’t take on everyone in a difficult situation,” to subject these or any children to childhood trauma, whether through government negligence by formal policy.

Outrage over reports of ‘missing’ immigrant children – Daily Mail | Daily Mail [2018-05-28]

Federal Government Lost Track Of 1,500 Immigrant Children | Wochit Politics [2018-05-26]

Is Donald Trump Above Indictment?

If Special Counsel Robert Mueller finds evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Donald Trump, can Trump be indicted? His supporters, including Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, emphatically say, “No.” Many of Trump’s opponents say a confident “Yes.” The more accurate answer to whether Trump could be indicted lies somewhere in between.

Since 1973, according to Warren Richey of the Christian Science Monitor, “The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has maintained a policy that a sitting president may not be prosecuted or indicted.”

But this does not mean that the president is above the law. Most people are aware that when a president is found guilty of serious wrongdoing or commits a breach of public trust, the Constitutional remedy would be impeachment by the House of Representatives. Impeachment is akin to indictment, and would be the first step in the process of removal from office, which could then lead to criminal prosecution. Though impeachment is akin to indictment, we’ve learned from the Clinton years that impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office.

Following impeachment by the House, (and still prior to removal from office), the next step would be a conviction by the Senate. Here’s what the U.S. Constitution says about impeachment:

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” (U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7)

One could interpret the above clause this way: Impeachment does not go beyond removal from office and disqualification from holding any future public office. But if the president is impeached (by the House), convicted (by the Senate), and removed from the office of the Presidency, he or she could then be indicted, stand trial, and receive punishment in a regular court of law.

During the Clinton administration, the policy that a sitting president could not be indicted or prosecuted was reaffirmed, with this statement: “The policy seeks to insulate the nation’s chief executive from prosecutorial pressures that would ‘impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.’”

It’s true that we would not want a president, perhaps especially Donald Trump, to be distracted by the pressures of an indictment or a prosecution. This could place Americans at peril and jeopardize many aspects of our government’s workings.

On the other hand, if a president were found guilty of wrongdoing or of breaching public trust, would we really want that president to continue his or her duties as our leader? This answer is undoubtedly not clear-cut; for those who would support Donald Trump’s indictment, the answer is a simple “No.” But for those who support Trump, even an indictment and subsequent prosecution would likely not be enough to deter their backing.

Rudy Giuliani says Mueller won’t indict Trump | Fox Business [2018-05-16]

Senator: Giuliani is wrong. Trump can be indicted. | CNN [2018-05-16]