New proof surfaces that family separation was about deterrence and punishment
The 60 Minutes story also includes an interview with a child psychologist, who discusses the acute harm caused to children by cumulative traumatic stresses, such as separation from their loved ones. (I go through this scholarship in greater detail in my earlier post). These proven harms include permanent detachment from their family members, delays in reaching developmental milestones, difficulties in forming and maintaining relationships, diminished and faulty cognitive functioning, and permanent trouble regulating emotions. In short, permanent psychological harm. Indeed, the segment shows a heartbreaking “reunion” of a 3-year old boy with his parents in which the boy clearly cannot reconnect with his mother, causing everyone great distress. It’s tough to watch. Needless-to-say, the report drew Trump’s ire: it’s a “phony story” by “fake 60 Minutes,” he tweeted Sunday night.
The predictable harms to children by forcible family separations are also detailed in a new article written by two colleagues—Dr. Daryn Reicherter and Dr. Ryan Matlow—recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. As part of the public comment process, the article discusses—and opposes—proposed regulations that would dismantle the protections provided by the Flores settlement, a consent decree that governs the detention of children. The new regulations proposed by the Trump administration would give legal cover to many of the abusive practices undertaken during the period of time in which forcible family separation was in place.
Van Schaack concludes:
The key lesson from the 60 Minutes story is that the underlying intent of the policy was deterrence. This is revealed in un-redacted government documents obtained by the reporters, including the DHS order to arrest and detain all adults who crossed the border illegally to seek asylum. The document clearly states the reason for the policy is deterrence, because it would have “the greatest impact on current flows” of immigrants.
Torture is a specific intent crime under international and domestic law. This means that to prove that a policy or practice constitutes torture, it must be shown not only that severe pain and suffering was inflicted, but that it was done for particular purposes, including to:
· Obtain from the victim or a third person information or a confession,
· To punish the victim for an act s/he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or
· To intimidate or coerce the victim or a third person, or
· For any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
There is little question that the policy caused severe harm to children and their parents, but proving this specific intent on the part of the Trump administration was more elusive. In the documents obtained by 60 Minutes, we now have definitive proof that the purpose was to punish current asylum-seekers in order to intimidate or coerce others from exercising their human right to seek asylum here. As I wrote in my earlier post:
The separated and detained children are thus suffering for the immigration transgressions of their parents or to deter future potential border-crossers
Incidentally, as has been shown at Just Security, and elsewhere, the policy doesn’t even work as an effective deterrent, which makes the harm caused all the more cruel and arbitrary. The proposed regulations should be rejected, and the Flores settlement maintained.
On family separations, see our prior coverage here (history of the policy and litigation in response), here (Flores explainer), here (Congress finally holds hearings), and here (testing the waters with a pilot program in El Paso in 2017). A timeline of relevant events can be found here.
Read the article: “New Proof Surfaces That Family Separation Was About Deterrence and Punishment,” Just Security (27 November 2018)
