In a hearing in federal court on Thursday, a judge weighed whether to order the reunification of children separated from two immigrant parents who sued the federal government, before the pending July 26 deadline set by a judge in California.
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman oversaw a hearing in the case of three immigrant families separated from their children who sought for the court to intervene and reunite them with their children promptly. One of the parents has been reunited with her three children since the case began, but the other two in the case remain apart from their children.
The judge said that he needed more information from both the lawyers for the parents and from the government before he could issue an order in the case. Friedman must determine whether to grant plaintiffs a temporary restraining order, which would call for better communication and information for the parents, and a preliminary injunction, which would call for the quick reunification of the two remaining families.
Friedman quizzed lawyers for the immigrant parents on why he should intervene and order the two parents reunified with their children given that a federal judge in California had already ordered certain parents to be reunified by July 26. He asked Jerome Wesevich, one of the lawyers representing the parents, to explain why they should be reunited with their kids in 72 hours, as opposed to by July 26.
Wesevich argued that there is “no specific reason” and no evidence that the government should not reunite families as quickly as possible. Earlier in the hearing, Wesevich argued that the government “has enormous power to act” and that the proof that the government is doing everything it can is “underwhelming.”
The judge noted that the government said in a memo made public on Wednesday that it currently anticipates that it will reunify at least one additional parent in the case, identified with the initials A.P.F., with his child by July 26. However, Wesevich argued that the government’s plans are subject to change.
Friedman suggested that he had at least some sympathy for the parents separated for their kids and any harm caused by continued separation.
“I get the argument that each day is irreparable harm,” he said, adding that the medical and anecdotal evidence from the parents is “persuasive.”
Yet, Friedman asked how additional information on reunification plans, which the lawyers for the parents have asked for in a temporary restraining order, would help reduce any harm.
Wesevich argued that it causes emotional damage “to not know where your children are” and that the damage caused to the children will impact their relationship with their parents upon reunification.
“Their irreparable harm is their parents’ irreparable harm,” Wesevich said.
The lawyer arguing for the government, Nicole Murley, said that it’s not fair to say that the government is not trying to reunite families, citing the announcement Thursday morning that 57 young children had been reunified with their parents.
Friedman noted, however, that the lawyers for the parents claimed in a filing last week that case managers, who would be able to provide updates on the children, are often unavailable or unresponsive. Murley replied that the government is trying to provide information and asked that the plaintiffs bring concerns directly to lawyers for the government.
The bulk of the Thursday hearing was spent discussing the status of one of the parents in the case, identified by her initials E.F. The government argued that E.F., who failed her initial test to qualify for asylum, certified on a waiver that she would want to be deported without her child. However, the lawyers for E.F. argued that their client did not understand the waiver and does not want to be removed from the country without her child. Friedman said that he had insufficient information on the wishes of E.F., and asked both the plaintiffs and defendants to submit updates on Friday about her status.
“Unless they’re dog-sitting or something, I’m sure they will get back to them at their earliest convenience,” she added.
Meanwhile … ~if you see steam - its virtually finding its way from my ears through to your screen!
AP: Detaining Immigrant kids is now a billion dollar industry
Rev. White needs to read her Bible.
Jesus and his parents had to flee from Judea to Egypt as refugee from Herod. They, I am sure, did not present American passports and appropriate visa’s to enter the country because … A. such things did not exist then and B. there was no time to arrange for them if they did. And angle told them to flee right then and there as they were. It’s believed they were in Egypt for four years as refugees hiding from agents of Herod who would most certainly killed them if they were found. They stayed in Egypt until Herod had died.
Rev. White likes to change scripture to fit her preconceived notions of immigration and race.
And just so I am not accused of “taking this out of context”…
Here is a rather scholarly take on Jesus’ sojourn in Egypt. And for accuracy it should be noted that Judea and Israel at the time were independent states.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/jesus-was-a-refugee/
I see no reason that trump cannot be brought up on charges of aiding and abetting child abuse. Except that Kavanaugh seems to think that a sitting president is above any law at all…if that president claims to be a republican. If a democrat…well then it is a ‘horse of a different riding academy’ (as my dad used to say). All it takes then is one solitary lie and a stain on a blue dress which is soooooooooooo much worse than incarcerating babies in diapers.
As John Wayne said in “The Longest Day”…“I sometimes wonder which side God’s on”.
Well as head of the Executive Branch and a man in love with singing EOs then the blame falls squarely on him. Nielsen, Sessions, and Azar and their department heads are culpable too.
God I hope there are tapes.