# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Trump ordered the end of his child separation policy, and a court has ordered the reunification of parents who were separated from their children. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has said it will stop referring parents, but many conservatives felt that the family separation was a positive development in the fight against illegal immigration and even required by law, so here is a review of nine of their most common defenses of the policy.

1. "It's the law, and that's what the law states." ‑White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders

No, it doesn't, and in many cases, the law prohibits criminal prosecutions.

No law requires immigrant children to be separated from their parents. Under the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy, DHS chose to refer to the Department of Justice (DOJ) twice as many border crossers-and far more parents-for prosecution for "improper entry" under 8 U.S.C. 1325. This law provides that "any alien who... attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers... shall... be fined... or imprisoned not more than 6 months." Those who claim that this statute requires separation must defend the view that it 1) requires referring all offenders for prosecution, 2) requires separating children during that referral, 3) requires prosecutors to seek jail time, and 4) allows no exceptions.

None of these four claims are true. 1) The "shall" in this statute doesn't require prosecution of every single offender, but rather limits the penalties to be imposed ("shall be... not more than"). As DOJ's own manual affirms, "the prosecutor has wide latitude in determining when, whom, how, and even whether to prosecute... [as] has been recognized on numerous occasions by the courts" (citing a half a dozen cases). The statute, however, specifies the maximum or minimum penalties should the prosecutor decide to prosecute. 2) In any case, nothing in this statute requires that-in the process of DHS's referral for prosecution-a parent be separated from their child, and 3) the statute explicitly allows prosecutors not to seek jail time. In response to an ACLU lawsuit, DOJ even admitted to the court that the detention and prosecution decisions are entirely "discretionary."

4) As importantly, 8 U.S.C. 1158 provides that "Any alien who... arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival...), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum..." In other words, it is completely legal for illegal immigrants to apply for asylum not at a designated port of entry. Congress enacted the statute permitting asylum in 1980 after it criminalized improper entry in 1952, indicating that it did not envision asylees being prosecuted. Moreover, the United States is a party to the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention. Article 31 prohibits, with some exceptions, "penalties, on account of illegal entry or presence" on refugees because "the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules." The DHS Office of Inspector General has found prosecuting asylum seekers at the border "may violate U.S. treaty obligations" under the Convention.

Congress has certainly never made it mandatory to separate families. In fact, the House Committee on Appropriations in 2005 under Republican control stipulated in its report attached to the annual appropriations bill that it "expects DHS to release families or use alternative to detention such as the Intensive Supervised Appearance Program whenever possible," and that if detention is temporarily necessary or otherwise unavoidable, it "directs DHS to use appropriate detention space to house them together."

2. "If you are seeking asylum for your family, there is no reason to break the law and illegally cross between ports of entry." ‑DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen

False. Secretary Nielsen has admitted DHS is turning back many asylum seekers at ports of entry and that it is still separating many families who are admitted at ports.

In January 2017, the American Immigration Council (AIC) filed a complaint about the DHS's practice of turning away asylum seekers at ports of entry. Human Rights First documented numerous other cases in May 2017, concluding that the policy "is pushing some asylum seekers to dangerously cross the border between formal entry points." In July, AIC filed a class action lawsuit challenging the policy. In December 2017, NPR reported that DHS officials at a port in San Diego were telling asylees from Central America "they can't come in." In June 2018, the Atlantic published video of asylum seekers being turned back at ports of entry-one man was turned back 20 times in four days. This forced them to sleep homeless under a bridge in Mexico. The same month, the Intercept reported on the officials in Texas rejecting asylum seekers from Central America, producing video of the illegal actions, and the Washington Post reported on a father with a 15‐​year‐​old son whom CBP officials had rejected nine times over the course of nine days. Here are many other cases.

In April 2018, Secretary Nielsen herself admitted this was happening and said, "We are metering, which means that if we don't have the resources to let them in on a particular day, they are going to have to come back." It is illegal under 8 U.S.C. 1158 to refuse to allow a person to submit an asylum application. It takes minimal resources to process an asylum claim, so the idea that they need to stop processing now is baseless. Moreover, because the practice has forced homeless, hungry, and desperate people to cross between the ports, DHS still has to process the claims, while at the same time, it has chosen to expend resources to arrest them, refer them for criminal prosecution, and house the children in detention facilities-all of which is more expensive than processing the original claim.

Finally, DHS is still separating some families who presented themselves at ports of entry for asylum. Secretary Nielsen has stated that "for those seeking asylum at ports of entry... we only separate if the child is in danger, there is no custodial relationship between 'family' members, or if the adult has broken the law." The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a woman who DHS separated from her 7‑year‐​old daughter after she turned herself in at a port of entry. DHS eventually returned the child five months later without an apology. In December 2017, DHS separated four fathers from their children, claiming that it couldn't verify their relationships. Many other cases have been documented by Erika Pinheiro, policy and litigation director at Al Otro Lado. The separation policy is far broader than DHS maintains.

3. "If you as a parent break into a house, you will be incarcerated by police and thereby separated from your family. We're doing the same thing at the border." ‑DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen

No, it's not the same. Burglary is a serious crime and generally a felony. Illegal entry is not.

Ignoring the illegality of prosecuting asylum seekers and setting aside the fact that there is no requirement to prosecute, illegal entry is a misdemeanor offense. Illegal entry is most similar to technical violations of motor vehicle law, such as driving without a license, not breaking and entering, because it amounts to nothing more than movement without a proper permit. Many misdemeanors do not even require police to take a person into custody at all. A variety of traffic offenses-including driving without a license, operating an unregistered vehicle, speeding, and other offenses-are misdemeanors in dozens of states. In general, police simply issue a summons to appear in court (for an example, see the Virginia code here). If a child is in the vehicle, they are not separated from the parent pending the final dispensation of the case.

In the unusual cases in which a parent is brought into custody for such a violation, the children either wait in the police station while the parent is processed or are handed off to a relative. For example, in the case of Gail Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, a local police officer arrested Atwater for a seatbelt violation with children in the car. The officer initially said that the children could come to the police station, but allowed a friend of Atwater to pick them up. In other words, there is a massive difference between the treatment of minor offenses committed by Americans and these parents coming to the border. Moreover, if U.S. parents and children are separated for these types of offenses-as in the Atwater case-it is an outrage, not a justification for further separations.

4. "The separation of parents and their children is because of a court ruling." -Speaker Paul Ryan

No, it only requires the government to treat children humanely.

No court case requires the separation of parents and children. Defenders of the Trump policy point to the Flores settlement agreement and the Ninth Circuit's 2016 interpretation of it, but neither requires family separation.

In 1985, Border Patrol arrested a 15‐​year‐​old Salvadoran girl named Jenny Lisette Flores attempting to cross the border illegally. She was attempting to reunite with her mother who had come to the United States during El Salvador's long and bloody civil war. She-and all other minors in government custody- were subject to abuse, detained alongside adults, and forced to undergo daily strip searches, which a judge found violated the Constitution in 1988. After more than a decade of litigation over her case, the Clinton administration settled, entering into an agreement that specified standards for facilities for minors and required the government to quickly place minors in "the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor's age and special needs." The Ninth Circuit in 2016 found that it "unambiguously applies both to minors who are accompanied and unaccompanied by their parents."

Nothing in the Flores settlement or the Ninth Circuit decision mandates that children be separated from their parents-just the opposite: Flores requires that they be reunited with them if they happen into government custody alone. Minors are only to be separated from "unrelated adults." The Trump administration argues that because Flores mandates the release of children within 20 days, it requires them to separate children from their parents who are still in custody. This is false. Flores does not prohibit the release of parents, which would keep the family unit together as long as their case is pending (argument #5 below shows how this can be workable).

In any case, Flores was not the origin of the family separation policy because it only governs DHS custody determinations. The separation of children and parents started up in earnest this year because DHS decided to transfer to DOJ-and DOJ decided to prosecute-parents who had crossed the border with children.

5. "Adults and children were simply being released in the country [when] we refused to prosecute these adults for illegal entry." -Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Prosecution doesn't prevent eventual release, and alternatives to detention work and save money.

Prosecutions for illegal entry do not prevent release into the United States. After the 9 th Circuit clarified that Flores applied to all minors, the Obama administration did decide to release both parents and children pending determinations on their asylum claims, rather than separate the children from the parents. But prosecutions for illegal entry only delay deportation for those without a credible asylum claim and do not prevent release of asylum seekers by the DHS after DOJ is finished prosecuting them. In fact, the criminal prosecutions often only take a few days to process because defendants are prosecuted in mass, and most plead guilty as quickly as possible (particularly when they are separated from their children). After the prosecution, the parents are sent back to DHS custody- just not with their kids.

While families were released in 2015 and 2016, the Obama administration created alternatives to detention that included bonds, electronic monitoring, and community management. These programs resulted in high levels of compliance among asylum seekers pursuing their claims in immigration court. In 2016, 83 percent of those released on bonds showed up in court. The Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) resulted in appearance rates of 99.6 percent. The Family Case Management Program (FCMP) uses caseworkers to help immigrants comply, and 100 percent of the immigrants in the program showed up for their court hearings. Nonetheless, the Trump administration terminated this program in June 2017. The Family Placement Alternatives program which relies on community monitoring achieved a 97 percent appearance rate, at a cost of just $50 per day per family, compared to the estimated detention cost of $798 per family. In other words, there are cheaper alternatives to detention.

6. "It would be a tough deterrent." -White House Chief of Staff John Kelly

[empty‐​para]

Family separation has failed to deter people from coming, and it is cruel and illegal to deter asylum seekers from seeking safety in the United States.

No evidence has emerged that family separation has done much to deter illegal immigration. DHS experimented with family separation in a single border sector around El Paso from July to November 2017. As Dara Lind at Vox first reported, the number of families coming through that sector actually increased 64 percent during the experiment from 231 to 379. May was the first month that saw the policy applied across the entire border, and the number of families stayed virtually the same from April through the end of May. In general, the number of families has increased from a monthly average of 6,301 in 2017 to 7,389 in 2018, despite increasingly harsh enforcement.

In any case, it is entirely legal to seek asylum at or between ports of entry, and prosecuting asylum seekers in order to deter them from fleeing violence is illegal and cruel. Kelly has said that he wants to deter them because the journey is so dangerous. But the migrants are aware of the risks. A UNICEF report from 2016 highlights stories of Central Americans who are planning to travel or have attempted to travel to the United States, including a boy who lost his leg falling from a train on the way. Still, he predicts that his siblings will eventually make their own attempts to get to the United States. As UNICEF concludes, "Anyone who fled from a gang or other criminal organizations is at high risk of being attacked, raped or killed upon returning home." Dozens of deported Central Americans, including some children, have already been murdered. The repeated attempts of people who were deported further highlights that they consider the dangerous journey a risk worth taking.

7. "The kids are being used as pawns by the smugglers and the traffickers." - DHS Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen

False. DHS statistics show that 99.8 percent of all families were not alleged smugglers.

DHS alleges that 237 individuals of the 106,724 who entered as a family unit from October 2016 to February 2018 pretended to be the parent of a unrelated child-that is 0.2 percent of all family members. It is important to remember that this is just what DHS alleges, not what it has proven in court. Some of these parents dispute DHS's findings, claiming that they are the parents of the children, and have now been wrongfully separated from them.

8. "Our issue is strong borders, no crime; their issue is open borders, let MS-13 all over our country." - President Trump

False. Latin American immigrants, including illegal immigrants, are less likely to commit crimes.

In 2016, immigrants from Latin America were about half as likely to end up committing crimes and being incarcerated in the United States as native‐​born Americans. Even illegal immigrants from Latin America-who can be incarcerated in detention and prisons purely for immigration offenses (as the administration is doing)-are significantly less likely to be incarcerated in the United States than people born in the United States. A substantial body of research now shows that immigration has reduced crime rates in general across the United States.

9. "Such a difference in the media coverage of the same immigration policies between the Obama Administration and ours." - President Trump

Obama's flawed policies don't justify Trump's, and while Obama did occasionally separate some families, Trump not only increased the practice dramatically-he made it mandatory.

President Obama never had an explicit policy of separating families. Nonetheless, the Obama administration's activities should not be downplayed. Virtually all the actions that the Trump administration has taken are ramped up versions of policies and practices of the prior administration. American Immigration Council filed a complaint on behalf of five asylum seekers denied access to ports of entry in early January 2017 before President Trump took office and called the practice "systematic." Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Women's Refugee Commission, and Kids in Need of Defense published a report the same month describing numerous reports of family separation as a consequence of criminal prosecutions.

But DHS turned the problematic procedures under the Obama administration into official policy-indeed, appearing to even intentionally target parents with children as a deterrent. Under Obama, DOJ's policy was generally not to prosecute parents traveling with children (though it is clear that DHS did not always refrain from referring parents to DOJ for criminal prosecution). In any case, under Trump, the share of border crossers that were prosecuted shot up from 30 percent to 60 percent (not quite "zero tolerance," but moving in that direction). DHS has not published statistics on the number of separated families over time, but in May through June 2018, the policy separated between 2,300 and 3,000 children from their parents. The number of cases before the policy is unknown, but likely in the dozens per month or fewer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Defenses of Separating Children from Parents-And Why They're Wrong

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Trump ordered the end of his child separation policy, and a court has ordered the reunification of parents who were separated from their children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Psychologists Respond to a Mental Health Crisis at the Border

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Clinicians, researchers and advocates support families who are suffering in the wake of the family separation policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LOS ANGELES - On the same day the Trump administration said it would reunite thousands of migrant families it had separated at the border with the help of a "central database," an official was admitting privately the government only had enough information to reconnect 60 parents with their kids, according to emails obtained by NBC News.

"[I]n short, no, we do not have any linkages from parents to [children], save for a handful," a Health and Human Services official told a top official at Immigration and Customs Enforcement on June 23, 2018. "We have a list of parent alien numbers but no way to link them to children."

In the absence of an effective database, the emails show, officials then began scrambling to fill out a simple spreadsheet with data in hopes of reuniting as many as families as they could.
Click here and here to read the emails.
The gaps in the system for tracking separations would result in a months-long effort to reunite nearly 3,000 families separated under the administration's "zero tolerance" policy. Officials had to review all the relevant records manually, a process that continues.

Nearly a year later, as many as 55 children separated last year under zero tolerance are still in Health and Human Services (HHS) custody at shelters around the country. The shortage of data has also complicated efforts to find many other children, potentially thousands, separated prior to zero tolerance. The administration's lawyers have said in court filings that reunification could take years.

'We may not have some of it'

On June 20, 2018, President Donald Trump ended his separation policy by executive order amidst immense public pressure. Three days later, the Department of Homeland Security issued a fact sheet proclaiming the "United States government knows the location of all children in its custody and is working to reunite them with their families."

The document said that DHS and HHS, the agency that cares for undocumented children when they are separated from their parents, "have a process established to ensure that family members know the location of their children," with "a central database which HHS and DHS can access and update."

But at the time, there was no database with information for both parents and children. Some of the necessary information was missing altogether. Behind the scenes, officials began exchanging emails, provided to NBC News by the House Judiciary Committee, that revealed how unprepared the agencies were to reunite families.

On the afternoon of June 23, Thomas Fitzgerald, a data analyst at HHS, e-mailed Matthew Albence, then the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's enforcement and removal operations and now the acting head of ICE. ICE was and remains the agency responsible for detaining, releasing or deporting separated parents.

Fitzgerald asked for "alien numbers" of separated parents to be filled into a spreadsheet of 2,219 children, along with whether or not the parent was already deported, among other information. Alien numbers are assigned to every migrant apprehended by Border Patrol and are how the government tracks them.

Albence replied several hours later. The first line of his email asks, "[A]re you saying you don't have the alien number for any of the parents?"

"[T]he type and volume of what you are requesting," Albence said, "is not something that we are going to be able to complete in a rapid fashion, and in fact, we may not have some of it."

Fitzgerald wrote back to Albence, confirming HHS did not have a way to connect the thousands of children to their parents. He said he had information for a handful of parents, "about 60."

The emails confirm a finding by the DHS Office of Inspector General last September. In a report on family separations, the IG said that conversations with ICE employees indicated there was "no evidence" of a centralized database "containing location information for separated parents and minors."

A former administration official told NBC News that there was a central database, "but the database did not contain enough information to successfully reunite parents and kids. ...The information sharing from DHS provided initially was not enough to be able to quickly reunite parents and kids."

Former DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and other government officials repeatedly claimed that the Trump administration was keeping track of separations. In a June 19, 2018, press conference at the White House, Nielsen insisted all separated children were being tracked.

"It is not that I don't know where they are," said Nielsen. "I'm saying that the vast majority of children are held by Health and Human Services."

Albence did not respond to a request for comment. Fitzgerald referred questions to DHS. DHS said that DHS and HHS took the information about parents entered on spreadsheets and added it to a SharePoint site already populated by HHS with information about unaccompanied children.

HHS referred NBC News to a June 26, 2018 quote from Secretary Alex Azar: "There is no reason why any parent would not know where their child is located. I've sat on the ORR portal with just basic keystrokes, within seconds could find any child in our care for any parent."

In a statement, HHS spokesperson Evelyn Stauffer said, "HHS knows where each and every unaccompanied child in HHS custody is at any given time, and that was true during the summer of 2018. What Secretary Azar said was true and is still true today."

'They didn't communicate'

Three days after the emails between Fitzgerald and Albence, Judge Dana Sabraw of the Southern District of California ordered the Trump administration to reunite families within 30 days.

Once that deadline passed with hundreds of families still waiting in limbo, Sabraw expressed his frustration with the government agencies responsible for reunifying families.

"Each had its own boss," Sabraw said in his San Diego courtroom. "And they didn't communicate, so what was lost in the process was the family. The parents didn't know where the children were, and the children didn't know where the parents were. And the government didn't know, either."

Lee Gelernt, lead lawyer for the ACLU in the separations case, said Wednesday, "It is now clear beyond doubt that the government never had a proper tracking system but unfortunately they pretended in the beginning that they did. It is likely there's still much more for the public to learn about how bad things really were."

Adiel Kaplan contributed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emails show Trump admin had 'no way to link' separated kids to parents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LOS ANGELES - On the same day the Trump administration said it would reunite thousands of migrant families it had separated at the border with the help of a "central database," an official was admitting privately the government only had enough information to reconnect 60 parents with their kids, according to emails obtained by NBC News.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Impact of punitive immigration policies, parent-child separation and child detention on the mental health and development of children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In recent months, the Trump administration has been subject to damning condemnation from child health and human rights experts for their pursuit of a 'zero tolerance' immigration strategy requiring the detention and federal prosecution of all adults apprehended for illegal entry at the US-Mexico border, including those seeking asylum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
UPDATE: President Trump signed an executive order which would end the practice of separating minor children from their parents at the border. Families USA is analyzing the impact of the executive order, but continues to call on Congress to pass legislation to ban this shameful practice. Government Agencies Are Not Equipped to Care for Thousands of Children Separated from their Families
The Trump administration's zero-tolerance policy went into effect on April 6, separating children from parents who arrive without documentation-including those legally seeking asylum--at the U.S. border. Between April 19 and May 31, 2018, nearly 2,000 children were separated from their parents under the new policy. Although not the first administration to separate immigrant children from their parents, the Trump administration's zero-tolerance policy means that the practice of separating families has grown dramatically and will continue to grow, overwhelming an already precarious system, with devastating consequences for children, families, neighborhoods, and communities across the country.

Notably, this policy involves two different federal agencies with two different systems of detention facilities and placement. First, once apprehended at the border, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) under the Department of Homeland Security removes children from their parents and places them in a CBP facility. Then-in principle within 72 hours--CBP transfers them to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) under the Department of Health and Human Services, which is responsible for finding homes for unaccompanied children who enter the country without parents.

Stories about poor and unsafe conditions at CBP facilities are not uncommon. Recent stories and testimonials about the conditions in CBP processing centers paint a grim picture, with images emerging of facilities that hold children in fenced enclosures with only concrete floors and large foil sheets scattered to be used as blankets. Although only intended to be temporary holding stations, we have heard that in some cases, children are being held for longer periods in these facilities. According to a recent report, about 550 children are in CBP custody, and of those, nearly 300 have spent more than 72 hours in these facilities - half of them under the age of 12.

Once transferred to ORR, children are placed in a new government facility where they are under staff supervision at all times. Children who are separated from their parents spend an average of 56 days in ORR shelters. ORR is responsible for identifying a parent, close or distant relative, or a family friend who can safely and appropriately care for children while their immigration cases proceed. But until a sponsor is identified, ORR houses children in a network of 100 facilities in 14 states. According to reports, ORR facilities are now operating at 95 percent capacity, housing as many as 11,200 children - a notable increase since April when the zero tolerance policy went into effect.

We and others with experience in early childhood, child welfare, and immigration policy have longstanding concerns about the care children receive in ORR custody. ORR is not a child welfare agency and is not equipped to care for or manage the placement of children. Now ORR is faced with the added responsibility of finding placements for the thousands of children the government has forcibly taken from their families. The zero-tolerance policy is straining an already overwhelmed system and it is unclear whether ORR has adequate staff, resources or training to provide developmentally-appropriate care - including routine medical, dental and mental health services - to all children in its custody.

Multiple news outlets are now confirming that babies and the youngest children are being forcibly separated from their parents at the border and sent to at least three "tender age" shelters in South Texas where visitors describe "play rooms of crying preschool-age children in crisis." By taking babies and young children away from their parents and placing them in these facilities, the government is essentially forcibly institutionalizing the very young, a practice long ago recognized as inappropriate for young children by our child welfare system. We expect more young children to come into ORR custody as a result of this policy, and ORR is not equipped to care for their needs. In general, these facilities are not licensed to care for babies and young children, nor should they.
Family Separation Poses Significant Health Risks for Children
Another new policy is making it more difficult to reunite children with their families once in custody and leading to longer stays in ORR shelters. The Trump administration now requires family members who want to take custody of unaccompanied children to be fingerprinted. This information is shared with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This means that undocumented family members are much less likely to come forward as sponsors for fear of arrest and deportation, and children will continue to languish in government facilities for an even more extended time period.

A large body of research looking at early childhood adversity and later health outcomes tells us that early adversity can have lasting impacts on one's health and well-being. We know that when strong, frequent or prolonged adverse experiences are endured without adult support, stress can be said to be "toxic" and lead to disruptions in the child's stress regulatory, neuroendocrine and immune systems and brain architecture. For a young child, separation from a parent can have both immediate and long-term consequences. In the short-term, children may exhibit loss of appetite, difficulty sleeping, regressive behaviors, physical symptoms such as stomachaches and detachment -- all common signs of post-traumatic stress disorder in young children. In the longer term, family separation can have negative impacts on both the emotional and physical health and well-being of separated parents and children.

This connection is not simple. As a developmental psychologist who has spent years studying resiliency in children exposed to trauma, the research indicates that children are incredibly resilient, show a tremendous ability to thrive despite adversity and that supportive early relationships are critical and can buffer the effects of stress. Yet the absence of such relationships - as we see in cases where children are abruptly separated from their parents -- can imperil the brain's capacities for managing stress and its recovery. In that sense family separation poses a double health risk -- the trauma itself and the loss of a primary source of protection to help the child cope with that trauma. And longer periods of separation lead to greater psychological distress and increased risk for anxiety, depression and other disruptions in development.
Current Status of the Zero Tolerance Policy
Our nation's child welfare system is increasingly built around the evidence-based and practice-confirmed finding that children do best when they remain with their families. Federal and state child welfare policy has been reformed around the principle that removing a child from his or her parents should only happen in extreme cases and removal from home itself is often a traumatic event. The experience of separation, even one as brief a few hours can result in distress. For the very young, forced separation is highly stressful and can have lasting impacts. These lessons are even more applicable in the current immigration context: early childhood separation, especially one that is involuntary, with no opportunity to prepare, in a chaotic and unfamiliar environment is certainly traumatic for a child.

As stories of families separated at the border flood news outlets, several GOP members of Congress, including Senators Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska), Susan Collins (R- Maine), James Lankford (R- Oklahoma), Lindsay Graham (R-South Carolina) and Representative Will Hurd (R-Texas) have stepped forward, joining Democrats in calling for an immediate end to the Trump Administration's zero-tolerance policy. Two Republican Governors, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan and Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker have announced that they will not deploy National Guard resources near the U.S. Mexico border, citing the Administration's immigration policy. And outrage continues to build. All four former first ladies have, along with current First Lady Melania Trump joined in expressing horror at what is happening at the border. Former First Lady Laura Bush called the practice "cruel" and "immoral." She went on to say that "our government should not be in the business of warehousing children in converted box stores or making plans to place them in tent cities in the desert outside of El Paso." And she's right. ORR should not be in the business of caring for children.

Meanwhile, House Republicans are attempting to move two immigration bills -- the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act (the "Ryan bill") and H.R. 4760, the Securing America's Future Act (the "Goodlatte bill") -- which deal primarily with separate immigration issues. Neither of these bills outlaw family separation. At the same time, Democrats have been trying to advance legislation to stop family separation. The Keep Families Together Act, introduced by Senator Feinstein (D-CA) aims to keep undocumented families together. There are also similar bills introduced in the House. These include:

The Help Separated Families Act of 2018, which would make policy changes to keep children of detained or deported parents united with their families.

The HELP Separated Children Act, intended to protect the safety and well-being of minor children who have been left alone and vulnerable after their parents have been arrested or detained by U.S. immigration authorities.

Both introduced by Representative Royball-Allard (D-CA), these bills are unlikely to advance but raise the importance of keeping families together in the midst of immigration enforcement activities.

What we know without a doubt is that separating children from their parents is harmful to children, traumatic for families and goes against our basic American values. This Trump administration must stop this cruel practice and instead put the best interest of children and families ahead of its own political agenda. The president can and should immediately end this practice of family separation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Family Separation Is Harmful to Children's Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Trump administration's zero-tolerance policy went into effect on April 6, separating children from parents who arrive without documentation-including those legally seeking asylum--at the U.S. border. Between April 19 and May 31, 2018, nearly 2,000 children were separated from their parents under the new policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The United States and Mexico share vitally important security, energy, and economic interests that require extensive cooperation and trust to achieve success. As Mexico's president-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador prepares to take office in December, I believe the next chapter in U.S.-Mexico relations will be critical to building on current efforts and increasing positive results for both Americans and Mexicans alike.

Our two countries have a long history as neighbors, and we are deeply integrated on many critical security priorities. Violence in Mexico affects U.S. border towns, growing amounts of fentanyl and precursor chemicals from China are transiting Mexico to the United States, and opium poppy cultivation in Mexico continues to surge, contributing to the U.S. opioid crisis.

At the same time, U.S. demand for drugs and illegal arms trafficking flowing south fuels the insecurity plaguing Mexico. Transnational criminal organizations also viciously compete for territory to supply surging U.S. demand, escalating violence in local communities and diversifying their activities to include money laundering, fuel theft, illegal mining and human trafficking.

Last year, there were twenty-nine thousand murders in Mexico, including twelve journalists, making Mexico the world's most violent country for journalists outside a war zone. At least 130 politicians in Mexico were also killed in the run-up to its elections in July. While Mexico has taken significant steps to address this spiraling security situation, corruption and impunity continue to challenge efforts.

I have spent a large part of my life advancing U.S. security interests, and I firmly believe the U.S.-Mexico relationship is unique in its importance and impact to the American people. This relationship is equally significant to Mexicans. Both countries have a vested interest in strengthening our security efforts to combat criminal groups and their illicit activities that poison our populations.

Even amidst challenges, Mexico has made substantial strides in addressing its security situation and professionalizing its defense and justice institutions. Under the Mérida Initiative, a key partnership between both countries, our cooperation has enabled joint drug interdiction, new training standards for police and judges, a new accusatorial justice system, and a new communication network for Mexican agencies in its southern border region.

The United States rightly places a high priority on securing its borders, and its partnership with Mexico is essential to achieving U.S. objectives. Mexico has been a transit country for many migrants from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras who have fled violence or lack of jobs. However, Mexico has worked to strengthen security on its southern border, and it has seized billions of dollars in illicit drugs and currency.

Military exercises like Operation Hornet, which focus on threat networks along Mexico's southern border, have also identified at least thirty-six illicit organizations in Mexico and throughout the hemisphere. Recently, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and Mexico announced additional strategies to fight the financial infrastructure of Mexico's drug cartels.

Mexico is also a member of the Inter-American Defense Board, which plays a critical role in training militaries in the region, and this year, will host the Eighth Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas in October. Mexican officers participate in the U.S. Joint Taskforce-South (JIATF-S) to counter threat networks, and Mexico has provided significant humanitarian and disaster assistance to countries in the region and contributed military personnel for peacekeeping operations around the world.

In my view, Mexico's leadership in these areas has been vital, and Mexico has shown itself to be a dependable, committed U.S. security partner. Although we can improve our cooperation to combat corruption, modernize border technology and energy infrastructure, and better support human rights, in the days ahead, I believe the United States should do more to prioritize its security partnership with Mexico and together build on efforts that are achieving results.

Rep. Paul Cook represents the 8th District of California and is Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. Cook served as an infantry officer and retired after twenty-six years as a colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps. During his time in combat, he was awarded the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts.
Image: A U.S. border patrol officer sits in his vehicle looking out over Tijuana, Mexico from San Ysidro, California February 25, 2015. U.S. Senate leaders took a tentative step on Tuesday that could avert a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, but it was unclear if House Speaker John Boehner and restive conservatives would support a new concession to Democrats. REUTERS/Mike Blake

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Importance of U.S.-Mexico Border Security

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States and Mexico share vitally important security, energy, and economic interests that require extensive cooperation and trust to achieve success. As Mexico's president-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador prepares to take office in December, I believe the next chapter in U.S.-Mexico relations will be critical to building on current efforts and increasing positive results for both Americans and Mexicans alike.