Immigration Research Archives

Unaccompanied Alien Children

Most UACs Released to Sponsors Without (Legal) Status

U.S. government completing the conspiracy to smuggle minors

By Andrew R. Arthur on April 29, 2019

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics, through March 2019, 35,898 UACs have been apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol entering the United States illegally in the first six months of FY 2019. That compares to 50,036 in all of FY 2018, and 41,435 in FY 2017.

Read the report here.

“A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies analyzes how a 1997 legal settlement called the Flores Settlement helped to crack open U.S. detention laws and directly lead to today’s “family separation” asylum crisis. By requiring that all alien minors in detention are held no longer than 20 days, Flores leaves DHS with only two options: Either catch-and-release entire families, or “separate” parents from children by holding the parents for detention and prosecution after their children are released.”

Center for Immigration Studies

The History of the Flores Settlement

How a 1997 agreement cracked open our detention laws

By Matthew Sussis on February 11, 2019

Matt Sussis is the assistant director of communications at the Center for Immigration Studies.

“In April 2018, the Trump administration implemented new guidelines as part of its “zero tolerance” policy toward illegal entry, in response to the rising number of illegal aliens showing up with their children at the southern border. Under these guidelines, the Justice Department prosecuted every border infiltrator for the crime of entry without inspection.

After detaining the parents, the government could either put the children in a shelter (due to legal prohibitions on keeping children in detention for over 20 days), or release the entire family into the interior of the country — “catch-and-release” — and hope that they don’t simply disappear into the illegal immigrant population. The first of these two options has been decried by critics as one of “family separation”.

To understand how this conundrum arose, one must learn the history of the Flores settlement agreement.

Digging into its history bolsters the theory that the Clinton administration was well aware of what it was doing when it signed the agreement, and may have shared more in common with the activist plaintiffs than originally thought with regard to loosening the rules governing asylum.

Key takeaways:

• The consequences of the Flores settlement, a 1997 agreement between immigration activist groups and the government, have been central to the debates over President Trump’s “zero-tolerance” policy at the border and accusations of family separations. A full understanding of this agreement requires understanding its history.
• Beginning in 1985, the activist groups began a series of lawsuits against the federal government over its perceived mistreatment of alien minors in detention facilities (notably a 15-year-old Salvadoran girl named Jenny Flores), culminating in a consent decree, the Flores settlement, more than a decade later.
• This 1997 settlement led to the government agreeing to set immigration detention standards for unaccompanied alien children (UACs), particularly regarding facility conditions and the timing and terms of the UACs’ release.
• When the government entered into the Flores settlement agreement, its stated intention was to finally resolve years of litigation against the INS, but this is only partially true. Recent comments and actions by Clinton administration officials indicate that they were at least partially motivated by a desire to cooperate with the activist plaintiffs to loosen asylum rules.
• Since 1997, Flores has been significantly expanded upon by federal judges with loose border proclivities, and is now interpreted to mean that all minors in detention — accompanied by their parents or not — cannot be held for more than 20 days.
• Partially driven by Flores, the number of apprehended aliens who claim credible fear (the first step in applying for asylum) has soared — up 67 percent in FY 18 vs. FY 17, and up over 10-fold from a decade ago. Moreover, only 3.5 percent of UACs are ever removed, according to DHS.
• Congress could pass a law superseding Flores, but has yet to do so. Please read the entire CIS report here.

Border Patrol Agents encountered 58 large groups (100+ people) so far this FY compared to 13 in FY18. Here.

U.S. Border Patrol Southwest Border Apprehensions FY 2019

*Note: Family Unit represents the number of individuals (either a child under 18 years old, parent or legal guardian) apprehended with a family member by the U.S. Border Patrol.

In January, 47,893 people were apprehended between ports of entry on the Southwest Border, compared with 50,749 in the month of December and 51,857 in November. In FY18, a total of 396,579 individuals were apprehended between ports of entry on our Southwest Border.

For breakdown by Sector, visit USBP Southwest Border Apprehensions by Sector

Office of Field Operations Southwest Border Inadmissibles FY 2019

CIS.org

Skipping Court

U.S. Immigration Courts & Aliens Who Disappear Before Trial

Key Takeaways

• 43 percent of all aliens free pending trial failed to appear for court in 2017.
• Since 1996, 37 percent of all aliens free before trial disappeared from court.
• Aliens abscond from court more often today than they did before 9/11.
• Deportation orders for failing to appear in court exceed deportation orders from cases that were tried by 306 percent.
• 46 percent of all unaccompanied children disappeared from U.S. immigration courts from 2013 through 2017.
• 49 percent of unaccompanied children failed to appear in U.S. immigration courts in 2017.

Introduction

U.S. immigration courts recently released their numbers to Congress for fiscal year 2017. Hoped-for improvements are largely absent and problems that have defined the courts since their beginning persist. Most persistent of all is the failure of aliens to appear for their trials. These no-shows remain high, with 43 percent of all those free before trial — 41,302 aliens out of 95,342 — disappearing from court in 2017.¹ More to the point, these numbers add up.

Failures to Appear in Court

American immigration courts consistently have the highest failure to appear (FTA) rates of any state or federal courts in the country.²From 1996 through 2017, 37 percent of all aliens free pending trial disappeared. From the 2,680,598 foreign nationals that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released on their own recognizance, 1,320,000, received deportation orders, 75 percent of them (993,593) for failure to appear. Only 25 percent of this group — some 324,402 people altogether — actually tried their cases.³ This dynamic, first reported at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on June 17, 2010, eventually prompted heated denial by the Obama Justice Department⁴ but it is not solely a problem of Democrat administrations. Administrations of both parties have failed to effectively address it.⁵

Immigration trial courts issued three times more deportation orders for failure to appear in court than deportation orders for cases that were actually tried (993,593 ÷ 324,402) over the last 22 fiscal years. (See Figure 1.) On average, more than 45,000 people each year disappeared from court since 1996, making failures to appear the single greatest source of deportation orders in the immigration court system.⁶  

Read the rest here.

Non-Citizens Committed a Disproportionate Share of Federal Crimes, 2011-16

21% of those convicted of non-immigration crimes were non-citizens — 2.5 times their share of the population

Because it is easier to make an immigration case, federal prosecutors sometimes charge illegal immigrants only with immigration violations, even when they have committed serious non-immigration crimes. Once convicted, an immigrant will still normally serve some time and then be deported, which is often seen by prosecutors as good enough. This, of course, does not happen with citizens. But because of this, conviction data for non-immigration crimes will tend to understate the level of criminal activity among non-citizens.

Among the findings of the new data:

Areas where non-citizens account for a much larger share of convictions than their 8.4 percent share of the adult population include:

• 42.4 percent of kidnapping convictions;
• 31.5 percent of drug convictions;
• 22.9 percent of money laundering convictions;
• 13.4 percent of administration of justice offenses (e.g. witness tampering, obstruction, and contempt);
• 17.8 percent of economic crimes (e.g. larceny, embezzlement, and fraud);
• 13 percent of other convictions (e.g. bribery, civil rights, environmental, and prison offenses); and
• 12.8 percent of auto thefts.

Areas where non-citizens account for a share of convictions roughly equal to their share of the adult population include:

• 9.6 percent of assaults;
• 8.9 percent of homicides; and
• 7.5 percent of firearm crimes.

Areas where non-citizens account for a share of convictions lower than their share of the adult population include:

• 4.1 percent of sex crimes;
• 3.3 percent of robberies;
• 4.5 percent of arsons; and
• 0 percent of burglaries.

Read it here from CIS.org 

IERB complaints: responses to responses

1) The 1982 SCOTUS Plyler v Doe decision made us do it:

Plyler v. Doe has essentially guaranteed a right to pursue a high school diploma to all students (children) regardless of immigration status. It applies to K-12 education.

An easy to read and accurate synopsis: Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down both a state statute denying funding for education to undocumented immigrant children and a municipal school district’s attempt to charge undocumented immigrants an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each undocumented student to compensate for the lost state funding.[1] The Court found that any state restriction imposed on the rights afforded to children based on their status as immigrants must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a “substantial” government interest.

The application of Plyler v. Doe has been limited to K-12 schooling. Other court cases and legislation such as Toll v. Moreno 441 U.S. 458 (1979) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996[2] have allowed some states to pass statutes that deny undocumented immigrants students eligibility for in-state tuition, scholarships, or even bar them from enrollment at public colleges and universities.

Plyler v Doe applies to admittance, enrollment and education of illegal alien students in K-12 . It does not provide for any education of parents of students. Neither does it mean that school systems can or should provide any public benefit to parents (adults) in the name of furthering the education of the child/student. The argument that parents of illegal aliens are somehow exempt from proving eligibility for public benefits because of Plyler v Doe is absurd. Do we also exempt parents from proving work eligibility under Georgia’s E-Verify laws? Are parents of illegal aliens excluded for the affidavit process in 50-36-1 and 13-10-91 because they have children in Georgia K-12 schools? (No).

The USDOE has distributed guidance letters which are linked below. Although many of the responses from Georgia school districts cite Plyler v Doe and these letters as evidence of the legality of adult education for already enrolled K-12 students, the letters all clearly address enrollmentof K-12 students, not adult education.

The (English) guidance documents:
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201405.pdf
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201405.pdf
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-factsheet-201405.pdf

Lastly, the argument that verifying the eligibility/immigration status of parents for public benefits or not providing illegal aliens parents (adults) of K-12 students language classes hinders the education of the child can be expanded to say that we cannot verify the legal status of the parents for a teaching or contractor job in the school system and that use of the E-Verify or SAVE system aimed at a parent is a “civil rights violation” or somehow damages the child’s education. Taken to extremes, use of the E-Verify system for parents of any or all Georgia K-12 students could be said to hinder the education of an illegal alien’s child because the parent cannot lawfully be employed. Shorter: The Plyer v Doe argument is intended for people who do not know the law.

2) Title lll made us do it and authorizes English classes for illegal alien parents of K-12 students already enrolled in Georgia’s school system.

I do not dispute that there is language in Title lll concerning parents and English language assistance. But partial quoting of Title lll without noting the federal requirement that all programs be in compliance with individual state law is incomplete and deceptive.

I insert a link to Title III text here

Title III — Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students

Please note Section 3116 Local Plans “(a) PLAN REQUIRED – Each eligible entity desiring a subgrant from the State educational agency under section 3114 shall submit a plan to the State educational agency at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the State educational agency may require.

(b) CONTENTS – Each plan submitted under subsection (a) shall —

…(1) each local educational agency that is included in the eligible entity is complying with section 3302 prior to, and throughout, each school year;

(2) the eligible entity annually will assess the English prof iciency of all children with limited English proficiency participating in programs funded under this part;

(3) the eligible entity has based its proposed plan on scientifically based research on teaching limited English proficient children;

(4) the eligible entity will ensure that the programs will enable children to speak, read, write, and comprehend the English language and meet challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards; and

à(5) the eligible entity is not in violation of any State law, including State constitutional law, regarding the education of limited English proficient children, consistent with sections 3126 and 3127.

And Section 3126 LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER STATE LAW.

à“Nothing in this part shall be construed to negate or supersede State law, or the legal authority under State law of any State agency, State entity, or State public official, over programs that are under the jurisdiction of the State agency, entity, or official.

SEC. 3127. CIVIL RIGHTS.

Nothing in this part shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with any Federal law guaranteeing a civil right. Use of Funds Requirements in OMB Circular A – 87

3) Title lll and Title l made us do it:

“Translation and Interpretation for English Learners – Requirements under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Related to National Origin Discrimination and Use of Funds Under Title III, Part A andTitle I, Part A of the ESEA.” See linked info ( for some reason, the link must be pasted into your browser to open the fed document).https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/titleititleiii421.pdf

“Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A – 87 requires that the use of funds for a specific purpose be: necessary and reasonable for the proper and efficient performance and administration of the program; and authorized and not prohibited under State and local laws or regulations.

—