Zero-Tolerance policy by Trump

Name

Institution

Course’s Name

Date

Zero-Tolerance policy by Trump

Introduction

In April 2018, the US Attorney General publicized the zero-tolerance policy on unauthorized immigrants. The policy aimed at ramping up the criminal trial of individuals caught migrating into the United States illegally. This meant that the illegally migrated parents traveling with their children would be caught, detained, and prosecuted, hence separating them from their children. As a result, there was a public outrage in the United States due to the family separation strategy and treatment of individuals traveling to the country (Barbara, 183). Previous governments deported lawbreakers from the country instead of making use of funds from the criminal justice system to impeach them. There has been a rare usage of criminal acts in cases of parents families or children coming across the U.S. border. This is different from the zero-tolerance policy which is deemed to be primarily cruel, since there exist clear suggestions showing that the government is still persistent in pursuing a family confinement policy. This paper aims to present an argument against the zero-tolerance policy by Trump.

Discussion

The Separation of Children from their Parents

The policy interferes with the duties of the United States government to foreigners who are deprived of their human rights. The detainment and prosecution of adults in the criminal justice system for illegal immigration mean that the children cannot be housed with their parents in jails (Valerie, 11). As a result, children separated from their parents were placed in detention facilities, which were deemed to be unfit for human survival. In one news report, children were "placed in a concrete-floor cage and provided with bottled food and water, and thin mattress pads."  It was noted and reported that the detention facility workers were incapable of providing a comforting environment to the children (15).

Moral Objections on the Policy

There has been less attention on the zero-tolerance policy underlying this predicament and the exploitations associated with the mass unlawful prosecutions of immigrants. In 2017, immigration was viewed as a good thing for the U.S. About 84 percent supported a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants if they were eligible for citizenship. However, Davis and Shear report that moral debates and disagreements have arisen about the concern on migration on whether political societies have the right to impose their borders. This is because there are restrictions to which political communities can execute their rights. The government, however, cannot employ forceful measures against individuals seeking asylum or basic human rights protection, since it would be morally unacceptable.

As stated by the President of the American Academy of Paediatrics, children were to be incarcerated for less than 72 hours but this was not the case. It is not clear whether this was a result of difficulties in trying to locate the relatives of the children or whether it was because of mismanagement by an over-burdened agency. In cases where it was difficult to establish a family relationship, child trafficking was suspected. It is inhumane and traumatizing to children and does not take into consideration that most immigrants are escaping gang violence in Central America, which makes them seek asylum. Although both the Obama and Trump administrations have tried to establish more capacity to detain children and families, instead of releasing them, the zero-tolerance policy is actually the first policy applied that involves the separation of families (Harrison et al., 123).

Although the administration’s reasoning for the implementation of the policy is that it is following the existing federal guidelines and laws for children who arrive at the U.S. border, they denied the claims to justify the reports. They blamed the Democrats and claimed that a policy is required to act as a deterrent, whether ideal or not. However, in May, the Attorney General defended the strategy of family separation by claiming that, "If you don't want your child to be separated, then don't bring them across the border illegally. It's not our fault that somebody does that." Correspondingly, John Kelly, the Chief of Staff said, "A big name of the game is deterrence…The children will be taken care of—put into foster care or whatever—but the big point is they elected to come illegally into the United States, and this is a technique that no one hopes will be used extensively or for very long" (Barbara, 185).

Additionally, in an effort to discourage illegal migrations, the United States' responsibilities to asylum seekers and foreigners deprived of their human rights have been shirked by the administration. The country and its citizens have an ethical duty to those who are prosecuted. However, most of these ethical duties have been organized in local or global laws. Even if people try to justify the applicable agreements and laws, as an obligation of humanitarianism, basic human civility, or communal support, it proves to be very difficult to deny that a country ought to be a sanctuary, for people who have nowhere to go (Harrison et al 125).

If Trump’s administration used the techniques administered by the past government, there would be no moral objection to the policy. It becomes a moral objection when the administration's response to the individuals seeking asylum is to detain and prosecute them for illegally migrating into the United States. It becomes contradictory when they request the asylum seekers to voluntarily present themselves at the designated entry ports and claim not to prosecute those who conform to the rules. This portrays an unreasonable and illegal demand and prosecuting individuals seeking asylum is termed to be a breach of Article 31 of the Refugee Convention and Protocol. The report by Davis & Shear discloses that most asylum seekers fail to honor these demands because they are suspicious of the government officials, whereas some of them have escaped the officials who might have persecuted them directly or permitted other officials to take action on them. Other reasons include the fact that the agents at the authorized entry ports have ignored petitions put forth by the asylum seekers. The Attorney General goes ahead to publicize that the administration would make it even harder for the claims by asylum seekers to be successful by restraining the acceptable explanations for asylum.

Harrison et al. disclose that President Obama implemented a policy similar to the zero-tolerance policy (131). After 2014, he used the separation of families during the prosecution of immigrant offenders as a warning against unlawful border entry, as more families and children escaped violence in Central American republics. Nevertheless, since 2017, immigration support claims that the new zero-tolerance policy by Trump against United States entry, and desecrations will lead to an increase in the number of family separations than before.  The Obama administration was seeking to assist people to attain citizenship if they bore their children in the United States in connection with other features that made them qualified for citizenship. From the Obama administration's strategy, individuals who suffered from gang violence and domestic abuse do not qualify for refuge. This means that they can only acquire protection in the United States through illegal migration (129).

How to Address Illegal Immigration

There has been a discussion, over the past few years, on various approaches that address unauthorized immigration. The application of the mass deportation method may be harsh but the action is consistent with federal law, which requires that people who enter the United States illegally should be deported and exempt no one from immigration law, hence ending a strong deterrent signal. Another approach is offering opportunities for acquiring citizenship to families who bore children in the United States (Barbara, 187). Obama indicated that giving citizenship to these individuals is a reasonable, compassionate, and thoughtful way to address the current deportation of non-criminal refugees whose only reason for entering the country illegally would be to work hard for a living and realize the American Dream.

In addition to this, providing a provisional reprieve from deportation without a pathway to citizenship allows most immigrants to stop hiding from government officials and enable them to seek better job opportunities, improve their English skills, start family businesses, and contribute to the economic and social environments of the United States just as it was done after the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in 1986. A report by Davis and Shear underlines the Refugee Convention's Article, which outlines that "Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."

Finally, the U.S. government can offer immigrant status to the rising number of unaccompanied minors running away from their home countries. Mismanagement of asylum cases and discouraging immigrants from seeking asylum by separating families and children and impeaching people is not only dangerous but also inhumane (Valerie, 17). All these actions contradict what the United States government is required to do to expand economic environments and security in other countries. It is the duty of the United States administration to offer a safe haven for immigrants and stimulate a local solution to confront these problems.

How Expensive is the Zero-tolerance Policy?

The policy is assumed to be very expensive. In a report by Davis & Shear, it is estimated to cost around 200 dollars per immigrant daily in the detention center. During the fiscal year of 2018, around 50,000 people are assumed to be held in detention facilities each day and stay for about 40 days. In May and July, detainment facilities that were occupied by children were estimated to have cost the U.S. government approximately 15 million dollars per day. As a result, funds amounting to 200 million dollars, have been reallocated from the national health programs to facilitate the zero-tolerance policy. From this, it can be concluded that the zero-tolerance policy does more harm than good to the United States economic environment.

Conclusion

The Immigration and Naturalization Act plainly permits the prosecution of individuals who illegally migrate or try to re-enter United States soil. The policy by Trump has been used before in the Obama administration. The challenge observed is whether prosecution and the resulting separation of children from their relatives to deter asylum seekers is lawful. The administration should not punish individuals seeking asylum, who violate immigration laws if they willingly visit the authorities. The U.S. government always upholds its right to arrest asylum seekers until their claims are heard and, when considered important, they impeach immigration offenses too (Barbara, 188; Harrison et al, 145).  However, the Trump government complicates the U.S. duties under the agreement regarding the refugees' status and practices.

A report by Davis and Shear underlines the Refugee Convention's Article, which outlines that "Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence." The zero-tolerance policy by Trump on the prosecution and imprisonment of unauthorized immigrants evidently conflicts with the information stated in the Act.

Works Cited

Barbara, Bardes. American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials 2008, 2008. Pg. 183-188.

Davis J, & Shear MD. How Trump Came to Enforce a Practice of Separating Migrant Families. The New York Times. June 16, 2018. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/us/politics/family-separation-trump.html.

Harrison et al. American Democracy Now. Mc Grawedusson.com Hill Education, 2017. Pg. 122-150.

Valerie, Polakow. The Public Assault on America’s Children: Poverty, Violence, and Juvenile Injustices, 2000. Pg. 11-20.