Alex Jones speaks during a rally for candidate Donald Trump near the Republican National Convention in July 2016. (Reuters/Lucas Jackson)
Confrontational characters spouting conspiracy theories and promoting fringe ideas have been with us since the invention of American broadcasting. First on radio, then on television, the American audience has consistently proven eager to consume the rants of angry and bitter men. Before Alex Jones and InfoWars, there was Glenn Beck. A decade ago, Beck was hawking his conspiracy theories on HLN and Fox News. Beck eventually left HLNand lost the Fox News job, just as the inflammatory Morton Downey Jr. lost his lucrative syndicated broadcast decades earlier. And before Morton Downey Jr., there was Joe Pyne, the war hero who eventually ended up railing against “hippies, homosexuals and feminists” on the airwaves in the 1960s. Before Pyne, there was Father Coughlin, “the radio priest.” Coughlin was eased off CBS in the 1930s when he refused to allow the network to vet his inflammatory commentary. You get the idea. Alex Jones is not unique. Nor do I believe, as a historian of American media, that he will be the last of his kind.
Father Charles E. Coughlin broadcasts in Royal Oak, Michigan, in 1936. (AP photo) Public airwaves in private hands
Earlier this week, Jones’ InfoWars content was banned by Apple, Facebook, YouTube, Spotify and other web content distributors. It apparently violated policies against hate speech and inciting violence. Whether you agree or disagree with the decision to constrict the reach of Jones’ toxic InfoWars videos, the upholding of these speech policies by commercial corporations represents a thorny historical issue in existence since the inception of broadcasting in the U.S. Traditionally, it’s not been state censorship that’s cleansed American public debate. Rather, since the advent of electronic communication, commercial corporations have often acted out of fear of reprisal - from both the government and the public. The U.S. regulatory system for broadcasting began in 1912, when the Commerce Department assumed an administrative role that up until then had been haphazardly applied by different governmental agencies. That system lasted until it was struck down by a U.S. federal court ruling in 1926, which resulted in Congress establishing the the Federal Radio Commission the next year and its successor, the Federal Communications Commission in 1934. Each regulatory entity generally ceded supervision of broadcast content to independent, commercial entities acting as licensees of the airwaves. This means the U.S. government has entrusted, and continues to entrust, private corporations with structuring public debate and discussion. Regulators are empowered to act but rarely do because the expectation that independent outlets remain responsible and civic-minded is deeply ingrained in the American system.
Screenshot from InfoWars website, August 6, 2018. (InfoWars) The web is governed by different protocols than broadcast media. The web was invented to share information widely and open up new spaces for community interaction, exchange and engagement that the old mass media made difficult (if not impossible). The web’s inventors saw their role in contrast to broadcast media: as facilitating rather than censoring. The regulatory system that specifically indemnifies and protects them from content posted under their banners is a recognition of this status. So, despite this new, open, democratic and accessible ideal of the web – the opposite of corporate-owned traditional broadcast media – the fact that mass web access to the American public remains largely controlled by corporate gatekeepers such as Facebook and Google may seem surprising. Yet history, in the guise of Alex Jones and InfoWars, seems to have cast these social media and search engine giants into a more traditional role. Google and Facebook might not want to police the marketplace of ideas, but it appears that they have little choice at this point. The creation they spawned is now littered with crackpots and conspiracy theorists, and it’s been exploited by a foreign government to damage the American political system. But strong believers in the unfettered exchange of ideas as embodied by the First Amendment can take comfort in knowing the moves to limit peddlers of hate and lies like InfoWars won’t actually change much. There will be another Alex Jones in existence eventually. It’s the American way.
A 1955 flyer alleging water fluoridation was a communist plot. (Wikipedia) In societies where everyone knows their place – say, in the caste system of India or the traditional aristocratic hierarchies of Europe – the lack of personal opportunity and social mobility often creates apathy and acquiescence. But in the United States, where everyone is officially born equal, we are supposedly empowered to make of ourselves what we will. Whether it’s unscientific anti-vaccination theories, anti-Semitic rantings, or baldfaced scientific racism, anybody can be an “expert” in America simply by proclaiming their expertise. Though this expertise might be assisted by celebrity, it’s in no way beholden to education or class. That’s the American way.
Failure begets conspiracy thinking
The Alex Joneses, Glenn Becks and Father Coughlins in our media world represent fissures in our dominant ideology of success. When the American Dream isn’t working out well, scapegoats must be found. And a large audience of disappointed people looking for excuses will always exist. Their civics textbooks and teachers taught them that hard work, diligence, obedience to authority and responsible living inevitably results in economic prosperity. But it often doesn’t work out that way. They feel lied to, and InfoWars exists to confirm their suspicions. Because there will always exist a rabble to be aroused, this is the space that rabble-rousers historically exploit. They speak to – and claim to speak for – not simply the downtrodden and downwardly-mobile; they also speak to those feeling wronged and forgotten. They simultaneously soothe and stoke the anxieties and insecurities of Americans living in a world that’s increasingly complex and beyond comprehension. Author Julia Belluz interviewed Jones’ fans and wrote, “I learned that Jones’s listeners felt let down by government, medicine and the media.” People turn to Alex Jones and Glenn Beck for the same reason they tuned in the earlier incarnations – to obtain answers that explain their experience. That’s a rational choice that sadly often results in an irrational outcome. The conspiracy theorists are always very good at giving details, but they tend to be far less effective at imparting information and knowledge. Alex Jones promotes InfoWars as educational, but its pedagogical function resembles nothing so much as Trump University, which was sued by New York state for “… making false promises to convince people to spend tens of thousands of dollars … for lessons they never got.” Trump settled that suit. Whether Jones believes his theories or not – and there exists some question about this – InfoWars looks like little more than a classic American con job. Even Alex Jones’ attorneys have argued that “no reasonable person” could believe what he says. That’s ultimately why Jones is just a symptom. Conspiracies are interwoven into the fabric of our national culture, and, as Jesse Walker pointed out in “United States of Paranoia,” they are so cyclical and persistent as to be thematically detectable across centuries. As long as insecurity and anxiety can be exploited, there will be new versions of InfoWars to pollute our nation. How’s that for a conspiracy theory?
Super LTD recently announced it has acquired ACTIVE MEASURES, a film from director Jack Bryan that details a decades long connection between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, including shocking new reporting on Trump's dealings with Russian mob figures, and expert analysis on the largest and most effectively executed espionage operation in history—Russia's meddling in the 2016 US Presidential Election.
The film made its world premiere at this year's Hot Docs, and will be released on August 31, day and date with exclusive theatrical engagements in New York and Los Angeles and on digital platforms.
In ACTIVE MEASURES, Bryan exposes a 30-year history of covert political warfare devised by Vladmir Putin to disrupt, influence, and ultimately control world events, democratic nations through cyber attacks, propaganda campaigns, and corruption.
In the process, the filmmakers follow a trail of money, real estate, mob connections, and on the record confessions to expose an insidious plot that leads directly back to The White House.
Unravelling the true depth and scope of "the Russia story," as we have come to know it, it is a jarring reminder that some conspiracies hide in plain sight.
ACTIVE MEASURES is essential viewing in today's world.
⏩ The film features original interviews with experts on Russia and Putin, including: Senator John McCain, Hillary Clinton, former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Steven Hall (former CIA Chief of Russia Operations), author Michael Isikoff, John Podesta (Chair, Hillary for America, Founder, Center for American Progress), Jeremy Bash (former CIA Chief of Staff and Pentagon Chief of Staff), James Woolsey (former CIA director), Evan McMullin (2016 Presidential candidate), and many more.
Produced by Shooting Films' Bryan, Laura DuBois, and Marley Clements, ACTIVE MEASURES was co-written by Bryan and Clements.
"When we embarked on this project we thought we'd find a scandal but what we uncovered was the greatest threat to democracy in almost a century. It is impossible to understand what is happening today unless you know how it started and why. Once you do the news becomes terrifyingly predictable," said director Jack Bryan.
➤ "Active Measures" is a Soviet term for the actions of political warfare conducted by the Soviet and Russian security services to influence the course of world events, in addition to collecting intelligence and producing "a politically correct" assessment of it.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today called on Republican Party leaders and elected officials to repudiate Donald Trump's "aggressively racist and misogynistic" rant at a rally last night in Montana.
⏩ In his speech, Trump repeated his use of the racist slur "Pocahontas" to target Sen. Elizabeth Warren, mocked the #MeToo movement and falsely claimed that an African-American congresswoman has a "low IQ."
Trump Unloads in Montana: President Mocks #Metoo, 'Low IQ' Maxine Watersand Elizabeth 'Pocahontas' Warren (Click here to watch the video)
In a statement, CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awadsaid:
"Republican Party leaders and elected officials should no longer ignore or excuseDonald Trump's aggressively racist, white supremacist and misogynistic views and policies. Instead, they must stand up for the integrity of their party and the unity of our nation by publicly repudiating an individual who does daily damage to his office and to America's founding principles. Last night's hate rally in Montana was reminiscent of the dark days of the 1930s during which demagogues promoted hatred of minority groups to advance their own twisted political agendas. As representatives of the party in control of all branches of the national government, it is up to GOP leaders to take a principled stance against the very dangerous and un-American views and policies championed by the current occupant of the White House."
CAIR has repeatedly expressed concern about Islamophobic, white supremacist and racist Trump administration policies and appointments.
The Washington-based civil rights organization recently applauded the decision by members of the United Nation's International Organization for Migration (IOM) to reject President Trump's nominee for the position of director general to lead the organization because of his history of Islamophobic statements.
CAIR has reported an unprecedented spike in bigotry targeting American Muslims, immigrants and members of other minority groups since the election of Donald Trump as president.
Earlier this year, CAIR released its 2018 Civil Rights Report, "Targeted," which showed a 17 percent increase in bias-motivated incidents against American Muslims from 2016 to 2017, and a 15 percent increase in the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes in that same time period.
Child survivors of Auschwitz are seen in this 1945 photograph.
(Creative Commons)Children and family have been central to the institution of the concentration camp from its beginnings 120 years ago. Wikipedia has now added the notorious American border detention centres to its list of concentration camps, and the #FamiliesBelongTogetherTwitter hashtag has brought up frequent comparisons. The merits of the comparison between detention centres and concentration camps have been debated elsewhere, but can we learn anything from this dreadful history of children behind barbed wire, even as the Trump administration finally moved to end the practice? The British constructed camps during the 1899-1902 South African War in order to divide families. They hoped that Boer men who were fighting British forces would give up once they discovered that their wives and children were held in camps.
A deceased young girl is seen at a concentration camp where the British housed Boer women and children during the Second Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902.(Creative Commons)Similar to the Trump administration’s apparent hope that the breakup of families would deter unwanted migration, the British sought to deter Boer fighters. British parliamentarians critical of the policy labelled these “concentration camps,” alluding to the Spanish policy of the “reconcentration” of civilians during the Spanish-American War (1898). Conditions in the British-run camps were horrific, particularly for children, with mortality rates upwards of 25 per cent. An epidemic of measles accounted for roughly 40 per cent of childhood deaths in these camps, and other diseases such as typhus and dysentery were also devastating. Families broken up in former Soviet Union The Soviet Union’s system of camps that reached their peak during Joseph Stalin’s rule from the 1930s to the 1950s also reveals the destruction of families. While mass arrests broke up the family, and children of “enemies of the people” were separated from their parents, there were also many children in the Gulag itself. Prison camps developed an infrastructure that, on the surface, supported pregnancy and childbirth. There were maternity wards in some camp clinics, as well as nurseries, and pregnant women and nursing mothers officially received increased rations. In practice, the system was regularly a nightmare. Children born in the camps were separated from their mothers, who only managed to see them at set times for nursing. Hava Volovich, whose own daughter died in the camps, remembers that hundreds of camp children died each year, meaning that there were “plenty of empty beds in the infants’ shelter even though the birth rate in the camps was relatively high.” At the age of two, many of the surviving children were sent either to orphanages or to relatives — a forced redistribution of children away from their parents, who, as Gulag prisoners, were at best stigmatized, and at worst seen as a major threat to Soviet society. The Gulag also held camps for young offenders, where teenagers worked as forced labourers and faced horrific living conditions. Nazis crushed families Nazi policy included both large-scale deportations and large-scale importations of population groups, with major implications for families. The Nazis removed citizenship from German Jews then, during the Second World War, sent most Jews, from Germany and elsewhere, to camps outside the borders of pre-war Germany. Yet, as the war progressed, Germany brought in huge numbers of forced labourers from all over Europe (U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ claim that German-run camps were designed to keep Jews in, rather than out, is unfounded). Nazi family policy was a pivotal part of the concentration camp. Once the death camps were operational, the Nazis crushed the family unit among undesirable populations, focusing on Jews. The selection process at Auschwitz could result in the temporary survival of one or both parents, if they were physically fit (or just lucky), but children were usually sent directly to their deaths.
The late Elie Wiesel is seen in this 2012 photograph.(AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)Jewish writer Elie Wiesel lost his mother and sister right away, and only survived selection because he lied about his age, claiming he was 18 and not 15, his actual age. The unimaginable cruelty of many practices —the smashing of babies’ heads against walls, the medical experimentation, particularly on twins —reveals an extreme dehumanization. Even at the show camp of Terezin, which included a family camp, only 150 of the roughly 15,000 children sent there survived. High mortality rates What do these historical cases have in common? All involved the separation, either immediate or eventual, of children from one or both parents, and all involved horrific conditions and extremely high mortality rates for the children. In all cases, the dehumanization of the unwanted population was a key starting point. As historian Aidan Forth writes of the South African case, Gen. Herbert Kitchener referred to the Boers as “savages with only a thin white veneer,” and British officials often described the Afrikaners as “dirty, careless, [and lazy.]” Former Gulag prisoners frequently reported that guards and officials referred to them as animals or as “scum.” As one former prisoner wrote, quoting a camp boss: “A person? … There aren’t any here! Here are enemies of the people, traitors of the motherland, bandits, crooks. The dregs of humanity, scum, riff raff, that’s who is here!” The dehumanization of the Nazi camps is well known, as Nazi propaganda frequently likened the Jews to vermin or to an infectious disease, making Trump’s tweet about asylum seekers particularly chilling:
Democrats are the problem. They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can’t win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!
Another commonality can be found in the experiences of the victims. In all cases, children separated from parents could not have known if they would ever see their parents again, or under what circumstances. The children of the camps had to rely, for the most part, on other children, for any support or security. Often, the separation was permanent. These comparisons only take us so far, however. Some commentators have looked not at European powers, but to a long North American history — including slavery and residential schools — of separating non-white children from their parents.
Children at a residential school in Fort Resolution, Northwest Territories, are seen in this undated photo.(National Archives of Canada)If there is any optimism to be found in the historical examples of children in concentration camps, perhaps the history of public reactions can provide some hope. In South Africa, reports by Emily Hobhouse and then the Fawcett Commission, particularly on starving children, galvanized public pressure to force the British government to improve conditions at the camps. Outcry helped end practice In contrast, in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, there could be neither public nor parliamentary discussion of inhumane internment conditions. Bu today, some U.S. reporters and lawmakers have visited the American detention centres, and non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International and even the Methodist Church, as well as many elected officials, maligned the policy. The public discussion, and the public outcry against the separation of children from their parents that eventually caused U.S. President Donald Trump to cave and end the policy, perhaps makes the American case more similar to that of South Africa than either the Nazi or Soviet camps. This similarity, however, depends on the actions now of the Trump administration, which for several weeks before its reversal included denial, deflecting blame and even justification. But with reports of children being torn away from their mothers’ arms while breastfeeding, the more notorious concentration camps of the 20th century must serve as a stark reminder that the act of dehumanization is a slippery slope towards violence and further atrocities. About Today's Contributor: Wilson T. Bell, Assistant Professor of History and Politics, Thompson Rivers University
Immigrant rights advocates speak against Trump’s policies in New Mexico. (AP Photo/Russell Contreras, File)There are those who say that comparing President Donald Trump’s rhetoric to that of Adolf Hitler is alarmist, unfair and counterproductive. And yet, there has been no dearth of such comparisons nearly one and a half years into his term. Many commentators have also drawn parallels between the conduct and language of Trump supporters and Holocaust-era Nazis. Recent news of ICE agents separating immigrant families and housing children in cages have generated further comparisons by world leaders, as well as Holocaust survivors and scholars. Trump’s use of the word “infest” to refer to immigrants coming to the U.S. is particularly striking. Nazis referred to infestations of Jewish vermin, and Rwandan Hutu’s labeled Tutsi as cockroaches. In August 2017, in the wake of the Charlottesville violence, the president used a familiar rhetorical strategy for signaling support to violent groups. He referenced violence on “both sides,” implying moral equivalence between protesters calling for the removal of Confederate statues and those asserting white supremacy. His comments gave white supremacists and neo-Nazis the implied approval of the president of the United States. Many of these groups explicitly seek to eliminate from the U.S. African-Americans, Jews, immigrants and other groups, and are willing to do so through violence. As co-directors of Binghamton University’s Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention, we emphasize the importance of recognizing and responding to early warning signs of potential genocide and other atrocity crimes. Usually, government officials, scholars and nongovernmental organizations look for these signals in other parts of the world – Syria, Sudan or Burma. But what about the U.S.? President Trump’s executive order halting family separations provides Congress an opportunity to act. How the legislators respond will be an important indicator of where the U.S. is headed.
Is it possible in the US?
The term “genocide” invokes images of gas chambers the Nazis used to exterminate Jews during World War II, the Khmer Rouge killing fields of Cambodia and thousands of Tutsi bodies in the Kagera River in Rwanda. On that scale and in that manner, genocide is highly unlikely in the United States. But genocidal violence can happen in the U.S. It has happened. Organized policies passed by elected U.S. lawmakers have targeted both Native Americans and African-Americans. Public policies defined these groups as not fully human and not protected by basic laws. Current policies treat immigrants the same way. The threat of genocide is present wherever a country’s political leadership tolerates or even encourages acts with an intent to destroy a racial, ethnic, national or religious group, whether in whole or in part. While genocide is unlikely in the United States, atrocities which amount to mass violations of human rights and crimes against humanity are evident. The U.N. defines crimes against humanity as any “deliberate act, typically as part of a systematic campaign, that causes human suffering or death on a large scale.” Unlike genocide, it does not need to include the actual destruction or intent to destroy a group. According to Holocaust survivors, the current visual and audio accounts of children separated from their parents in border detention facilities reminds them of practices of the Nazis in ghettos and concentration and extermination camps. The Holocaust took the international community by surprise. In hindsight, there were many signs. In fact, scholars have learned a great deal about the danger signals for the risk of large-scale violence against vulnerable groups. In 1996, the founder and first president of the U.S.-based advocacy group Genocide Watch, Gregory H. Stanton, introduced a model that identified eight stages – later increased to 10 – that societies frequently pass through on the way to genocidal violence and other mass atrocities. Stanton’s model has its critics. Like any such model, it can’t be applied in all cases and can’t predict the future. But it has been influential in our understanding of the sources of mass violence in Rwanda, Burma, Syria and other nations.
The 10 stages of genocide
The early stages of Stanton’s model include “classification” and “symbolization.” These are processes in which groups of people are saddled with labels or imagined characteristics that encourage active discrimination. These stages emphasize “us-versus-them” thinking, and define a group as “the other.”
As Stanton makes clear, these processes are universally human. They do not necessarily result in a progression toward mass violence. But they prepare the ground for the next stages: active “discrimination,” “dehumanization,” “organization” and “polarization.” These middle stages may be warning signs of an increasing risk of large-scale violence.
Classification, symbolization, discrimination and dehumanization of Muslims, Mexicans, African-Americans, immigrants, the media and even the political opposition may be leading to polarization, stage six of Stanton’s model. Stanton writes that polarization further drives wedges between social groups through extremism. Hate groups find an opening to send messages that further dehumanize and demonize targeted groups. Political moderates are edged out of the political arena, and extremist groups attempt to move from the former political fringes into mainstream politics. Do Trump’s implied claims of a moral equivalence between neo-Nazis and counterprotesters in Charlottesville move us closer to the stage of polarization? Does housing children in cages at border detention facilities in the name of deterrence represent a deepening dehumanization? Certainly, there are reasons for deep concern. Moral equivalence – the claim that when both “sides” in a conflict use similar tactics, then one “side” must be as morally good or bad as the other – is what logicians call an informal fallacy. Philosophers take their red pens to student essays that commit it. But when a president is called on to address his nation in times of political turmoil, the claim of moral equivalence is a lot more than an undergraduate mistake. Similarly, when warehousing children in cages and tent cities is justified as a policy of deterrence, this is more than an academic policy debate. We suggest this is a deliberate effort to dehumanize and polarize, and an invitation to what may come next. While the U.S. may not be on the path to genocide in the sense of mass killings, it clearly is engaging in other crimes against humanity – deliberately and systematically causing human suffering on a large scale and violating fundamental human rights.
Responding and preventing
Polarization is a warning of the increased risk of violence, not a guarantee. Stanton’s model also argues that every stage offers opportunities for prevention. Extremist groups can have their financial assets frozen. Hate crimes and hate atrocities can be more consistently investigated and prosecuted. Moderate politicians, human rights activists, representatives of threatened groups and members of the independent media can be provided increased security.
Encouraging responses have come from the international community, the electorate, business leaders and government officials. German Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned the racist and far-right violence displayed in Charlottesville, and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May harshly criticized Trump’s use of moral equivalence. More recently, Pope Francis and the governments of various countries have spoken out about U.S. family separation practices. The recent withdrawal of the U.S. from the U.N. Human Rights Council suggests that international pressure may not be effective. Domestic actors may have more luck. Individuals and groups are following the recommendations presented in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s guide to combating hate in supporting victims, speaking up, pressuring leaders and staying engaged. Business leaders have also expressed their discontent with Trump’s polarizing statements and actions. The American Academy of Pediatrics has gone so far as to label the immigrant family separations a form of mass child abuse. Local governments are struggling to maintain their status as sanctuary cities or cities of resistance. These cities try to provide refuge for immigrants despite ICE raids and arrests. The general public and politicians of both parties and at all levels are speaking out about the separations, and it appears they may be heard. In our assessment, these actions represent essential forms of resistance to the movement toward escalating atrocities. The executive order issued by President Trump this week provides the elected representatives in Congress with an important opportunity. Will they be complicit in or act to prevent further atrocities? It also provides the general public an opportunity to strongly assert a commitment to human rights. How Congress responds will be a clear indicator of whether our democratic checks and balances are functioning to stop atrocities from escalating, or whether we are continuing down a dangerous path. About Today's Contributors: Nadia Rubaii, Co-Director, Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention, and Associate Professor of Public Administration, Binghamton University, State University of New York and Max Pensky, Co-Director, Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Binghamton University, State University of New York
Children at an immigrant family separation protest in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)A recent poll shows that two-thirds of Americans oppose the Trump administration’s policy of separating immigrant families apprehended along the U.S.-Mexico border. Amid a firestorm of criticism, President Donald Trump has blamed Democrats and inaction in Congress for the family separation policy. Only Congress can provide the comprehensive immigration reform that would address the fundamental problems plaguing the American immigration system, including the statuses of undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S. However, current immigration laws give the executive branch considerable discretion in deciding which immigrants to detain and release from custody. Trump has at his disposal a variety of alternatives – other than separating families – that would promote his stated goal of deterring migration from Central America. Those alternatives could avoid violating international human rights norms.
Immigrant detention by past administrationsMany presidents have used the detention of migrants as a tool to enforce immigration law. At the same time, the courts have rejected heavy-handed attempts to deter migration that infringe on the rights of noncitizens. For example, in Orantes-Hernandez v. Thornburgh, a court of appeals in 1990 found mass immigrant detention and various related policies by the Reagan and first Bush administrations to be unlawful. The policies included detaining immigrants in remote locations where it was difficult for them to retain legal counsel. Together, they formed a concerted effort to deter Central Americans from pursuing asylum claims. Similarly, in 2014, the Obama administration’s mass detention of Central Americans brought many – and many successful – lawsuits. In Flores v. Lynch in 2016, the court of appeals found that a settlement agreement in a lawsuit required the release of detained children. Under Trump’s administration, the policy of separating families in order to detain adults has struck a nerve and generated an unprecedented political outcry. Several lawsuits have been filed seeking to end the policy of family separation, including one filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in federal court in San Diego. The courts have played major roles in moderating the Trump administration’s immigration policies. For example, they’ve issued rulings to block Trump’s “Muslim” or “travel ban” and his attempt to cut federal funding to “sanctuary” cities that refuse to fully cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts. Although it ultimately may take a court ruling to stop family separations, it doesn’t have to be this way. President Trump has many other policy options available to him that he can implement without any Congressional action.
Detention without separation
In 2014, the Obama administration faced a large number of Central American migrants crossing the border without inspection. Reports at that time suggest it was a much larger influx than what Trump is facing today. With increasing numbers of families being apprehended by immigration agents at the border, the Obama administration began using what’s called “family detention.” Entire families were detained together in one facility. Family detention centers operated in Pennsylvania, Texas and, for a time, New Mexico. Although critics argued that family detention was also inhumane, it certainly did not generate the same level of outrage at Trump’s policy of family separation.
Bonds for immigrants
Currently, migrants apprehended at the border are placed in detention; migrant families are separated. Detention under the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy is mandatory, without the possibility of being released on bond. Prior to this policy, when someone was detained by U.S. immigration authorities, they were allowed a hearing and the opportunity to post a bond for release. Rather than remaining detained, they were released into the community until a hearing was scheduled to evaluate their asylum or other claim. This is the norm for anyone held in detention in the United States. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that this is a constitutional requirement. President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have both denigrated the ordinary approach to posting bonds when it comes to dealing with noncitizens who cross the border without documentation, even if they have a bona fide claim to asylum. Trump signed a memo to end the release of immigrants into the community in April. Some critics argue that those who are released fail to appear in court when the time comes. However, data show that the vast majority of families who are apprehended and bond out of custody subsequently appear at their removal hearings. The Trump administration could allow bond hearings for immigrant families and release them if they are not a flight risk or danger to the community. Children could be bonded out with their families and families would remain together. Devices like ankle bracelets could be used to help ensure court appearances. Previous administrations have responded to similar situations at the U.S.-Mexico border, but none have resorted to the separation of families as a device to deter migration from Central America. The president has said that Congress should fix it. But the president has the power to do that himself. About Today's Contributor: Kevin Johnson, Dean and Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, University of California, Davis
How’s that for a conspiracy theory?
But with reports of children being torn away from 
Immigrant rights advocates speak against Trump’s policies in New Mexico. (AP Photo/Russell Contreras, File)
It also provides the general public an opportunity to strongly assert a commitment to human rights. How Congress responds will be a clear indicator of whether our democratic checks and balances are functioning to stop atrocities from escalating, or whether we are continuing down a dangerous path.
Previous administrations have responded to similar situations at the U.S.-Mexico border, but none have resorted to the separation of families as a device to deter migration from Central America. The president has said that Congress should fix it. But the president has the power to do that himself.
Posts
Follow
