DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus ‘There Is a Stench’: No Soap and Overcrowding in Detention Centers for Migrant Children

‘There Is a Stench’: No Soap and Overcrowding in Detention Centers for Migrant Children

By Caitlin Dickerson
June 21, 2019

A chaotic scene of sickness and filth is unfolding in an overcrowded border station in Clint, Tex., where hundreds of young people who have recently crossed the border are being held, according to lawyers who visited the facility this week. Some of the children have been there for nearly a month.

Children as young as 7 and 8, many of them wearing clothes caked with snot and tears, are caring for infants they’ve just met, the lawyers said. Toddlers without diapers are relieving themselves in their pants. Teenage mothers are wearing clothes stained with breast milk.

Most of the young detainees have not been able to shower or wash their clothes since they arrived at the facility, those who visited said. They have no access to toothbrushes, toothpaste or soap.

“There is a stench,” said Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, one of the lawyers who visited the facility. “The overwhelming majority of children have not bathed since they crossed the border.”

Conditions at Customs and Border Protection facilities along the border have been an issue of increasing concern as officials warn that the recent large influx of migrant families has driven many of the facilities well past their capacities. The border station in Clint is only one of those with problems.

In May, the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security warned of “dangerous overcrowding” among adult migrants housed at the border processing center in El Paso, with up to 900 migrants being held at a facility designed for 125. In some cases, cells designed for 35 people were holding 155 people.

“Border Patrol agents told us some of the detainees had been held in standing-room-only conditions for days or weeks,” the inspector general’s office said in its report, which noted that some detainees were observed standing on toilets in the cells “to make room and gain breathing space, thus limiting access to the toilets.”

Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas on Friday announced the deployment of 1,000 new National Guard troops to the border to help respond to the continuing new arrivals, which the governor said have amounted to more than 45,000 people from 52 countries over the past three weeks.

“The crisis at our southern border is unlike anything we’ve witnessed before and has put an enormous strain on the existing resources we have in place,” Mr. Abbott said, adding, “Congress is a group of reprobates for not addressing the crisis on our border.”

Editors’ Picks

How ‘Fleabag’ Seduces Us, Then Accuses Us

How a Dallas Photojournalist Captured an Image of a Gunman Mid-Attack

When ISIS Killed Cyclists on Their Journey Around the World
The number of border crossings appears to have slowed in recent weeks, possibly as a result of a crackdown by the Mexican government under pressure from President Trump, but the numbers remain high compared to recent years. The overcrowding crisis has been unfolding invisibly, with journalists and lawyers offered little access to fenced-off border facilities.

The reports of unsafe and unsanitary conditions at Clint and elsewhere came days after government lawyers in court argued that they should not have to provide soap or toothbrushes to children under the legal settlement that gave Ms. Mukherjee and her colleagues access to the facility in Clint. The result of a lawsuit that was first settled in 1997, the settlement set the standards for the detention, treatment and release of migrant minors taken into federal immigration custody.

Ms. Mukherjee is part of a team of lawyers who has for years under the settlement been allowed to inspect government facilities where migrant children are detained. She and her colleagues traveled to Clint this week after learning that border officials had begun detaining minors who had recently crossed the border there.

She said the conditions in Clint were the worst she had seen in any facility in her 12-year career. “So many children are sick, they have the flu, and they’re not being properly treated,” she said. The Associated Press, which first reported on conditions at the facility earlier this week, found that it was housing three infants, all with teen mothers, along with a 1-year-old, two 2-year-olds and a 3-year-old. It said there were dozens more children under the age of 12.

Ms. Mukherjee said children were being overseen by guards for Customs and Border Protection, which declined to comment for this story. She and her colleagues observed the guards wearing full uniforms — including weapons — as well as face masks to protect themselves from the unsanitary conditions.

Together, the group of six lawyers met with 60 children in Clint this week who ranged from 5 months to 17 years old. The infants were either children of minor parents, who were also detained, or had been separated from adult family members with whom they had crossed the border. The separated children were now alone, being cared for by other young detainees.

“The children are locked in their cells and cages nearly all day long,” Ms. Mukherjee said. “A few of the kids said they had some opportunities to go outside and play, but they said they can’t bring themselves to play because they are trying to stay alive in there.”

When the lawyers arrived, federal officials said that more than 350 children were detained at the facility. The officials did not disclose the facility’s capacity but said the population had exceeded it. By the time the lawyers left on Wednesday night, border officials told them that about 200 of the children had been transferred elsewhere but did not say where they had been sent.

“That’s what’s keeping me up at night,” Ms. Mukherjee said.

Some sick children were being quarantined in the facility. The lawyers were allowed to speak to the children by phone, but their requests to meet with them in person and observe the conditions they were being held in were denied.

The children told the lawyers they were given the same meals every day — instant oats for breakfast, instant noodles for lunch, a frozen burrito for dinner, along with a few cookies and juice packets — which many said was not enough. “Nearly every child I spoke with said that they were hungry,” Ms. Mukherjee said.

Another group of lawyers conducting inspections under the same federal court settlement said they discovered similar conditions earlier this month at six other facilities in Texas. At the Border Patrol’s Central Processing Center in McAllen, Tex. — often known as “Ursula” — the lawyers encountered a 17-year-old mother from Guatemala who couldn’t stand because of complications from an emergency C-section, and who was caring for a sick and dirty premature baby.

“When we encountered the baby and her mom, the baby was filthy. They wouldn’t give her any water to wash her. And I took a Kleenex and I washed around her neck black dirt,” said Hope Frye, who was leading the group, adding, “Not a little stuff — dirt.”

After government lawyers argued in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco this week that amenities such as soap and toothbrushes should not be mandated under the legal settlement originally agreed to between the government and migrant families in 1997 and amended several times since then, all three judges voiced dismay.

Among the guidelines set under the legal settlement are that facilities for children must be “safe and sanitary.”

The Justice Department’s lawyer, Sarah Fabian, argued that the settlement agreement did not specify the need to supply hygienic items and that, therefore, the government did not need to do so.

“Are you arguing seriously that you do not read the agreement as requiring you to do anything other than what I just described: cold all night long, lights on all night long, sleeping on concrete and you’ve got an aluminum foil blanket?” Judge William Fletcher asked Ms. Fabian. “I find that inconceivable that the government would say that is safe and sanitary.”

Miriam Jordan in Los Angeles and Dave Montgomery in Austin, Tex., contributed reporting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/migrant-children-border-soap.html?smid=fb-nytimes

Under Trump, under GOP rule, this is who we have become? If you are not ashamed of this then you are deplorable and have earned the description.

bruh... smfh




this question nails it.

Pure Double talk... Typical of this Admin.

#What-Leadership-Looks-Like

I agree with AOC.

The conditions these children are in is absolutely appalling. A country like ours should have way higher standards than that.

But the country we’re supposed to be is clearly an illusion.

Concentration camps are awful places.

I’m sure the “slaves were well fed” people will disagree with you.

so what?

This would be deplorable if it was actually happening to human beings.



Find something else to whine about, flake.

There is a similar Stench in many of our most Liberal Cities.

It is the Stench of American Citizens, homeless, without soap, toothpaste, toothbrushes or bathrooms, without even thermal blankets, living in our streets.

Please continue to pretend you care about the human condition when you are unwilling to care for even your first priority, our own citizens.

Point your crooked finger at others.

Shame!

lol thats funny, because everytime we try to do something about it, you whine about big government and a nanny state.

you dont even know what you want, so what credibility do you have to talk about this?

I agree. We should put a stop to this now. Send them home.

Your troll like behavior is old. When you can't call something so inhumane as being simply wrong, you've lost your soul.

And until then.......

The deplorables have no answers, only fear and hate.

Stop letting them in. Remove all incentive they might have to come here. No more health care, food stamps, welfare, or jobs. Problem solved.

You do understand what asylum laws are don't you? Are you suggesting we should be one of the only free nations who allow people who are under extreme threat not be able to apply for asylum or just those brown people from south of the border?

I'm not sure how any of that excuses mistreating children. But I'm sure you'll come up with something.

So you want to do away with all health care, food stamps, welfare, and jobs?

Perhaps YOU don't understand the laws of asylum?

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/asylum/asylum-law-and-procedure

https://www.britannica.com/topic/asylum

https://ijrcenter.org/refugee-law/

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-united-states



There IS a process to claiming asylum.

They are undocumented immigrants, which are basically like criminals; don't confuse them with actual human beings....

I've already posted the most viable solution.....legitimize the drug trade and bring billions of dollars in tax revenue to central and south America....this money could be used to address education, health care, infrastructure, etc...etc...etc...All while dramatically reducing violence as cartels no longer need to engage in tit-for-tat killings as a means of protecting their interests.....Any disagreements could be negotiated in a board room, or even through the court system...…

This immigration crisis is a side effect of the US War on Drugs....it has created a lucrative black market, fueled violence, and driven legitimate enterprises from many Central and South American countries....

I do understand it. Actually I have no problem with those who have already received deportation notices to be deported. That's what Trump claims he plans to do.

Once a person applies for asylum, they are to receive a hearing. That hearing decides whether they fall under the guidelines that make them eligible for asylum or not. It's the legal process that currently exists.



These are portions of the information shown to outline the defensive immigration standards.

What I'm actually against are the fear tactics and deception being used to work up the emotions of people when it comes to immigration.

Paco isn't supplying our nation with drugs in his back pack. The vast majority of drugs enter our nation through legal points of entry.

Most of the immigrants enter our country come here for jobs and for the betterment of their families. They're not criminals and human traffickers.

Building a wall is not immigration reform policy. It's like having five cuts on your arm and putting a band aid on one of them and saying everything is fine now. That's not a solution to our immigration laws or problems. That's a campaign slogan.

Trying to claim the Democrats are for open borders. That's simply a lie. The debate between the parties is the best way to go about securing the border. Dems think drones and electronic surveillance is a better way to go about it.

Don't you ever just get tired of the rhetoric and look for a solution to our entire immigration policy?

But in the mean time, could you please address why any of this is an excuse not to have beds, tooth brushes, tooth paste and soap for children that did nothing wrong?

Yes. We should legally subsidize the ruining of American lives just so other countries can profit selling drugs.

That sounds reasonable.

So, you don't6 understand the rules of Asylum. Thanks.

Sure I do. You don't seem to comprehend that if they give a reason that qualifies as legitimate they will receive a hearing. And that they can stay until they receive that hearing.

You posted some links and I gave you not only a link but the explanation of the law. But some people just like to toss crap and not really say anything.

I don't think you even read your link.




Just because they might be poor is not a legal claim to unlawfully enter a country. Period.

Plus, there's paper work to do.

You think the illegals entering this country are doing that? Filling out paperwork?????

Its the most reasonable solution....whether you like it or not.....As long as the drug war continues, the immigration problem will continue....

You might want to think on that for a while.

I think those who apply for assylum are. It's exactly as I said it was. When filling out the paperwork, if their reasons qualify as within the guidelines of asylum, they are given a hearing.

You keep trying to beat that same dead horse. Of course they have to have a legitimate reason for a hearing and I NEVER said "just being poor" was a legitimate reason to seek asylum. Where do you get this crap from?

In case you missed it, those who are applying for asylum are at record numbers and there is a huge back up in the hearing process because there aren't enough judges to take on the case load.

Once again you are painting everyone who crosses the border as being the same. They are not.

I guess you're right. Asylum hearings are so backed up because they aren't applying for asylum.. lmao

You still have avoided the actual thread.... again. Why is any of this an excuse to refuse a bed, blankets, even soap to these children? Of course since there is no legitimate reason for this I know you'll dodge this question as per usual.

You honestly think most of the people illegally crossing the border are people that are filling out paperwork? Come on. You aren't that dense.

To date it's the biggest shame of this admin, and shame is in bountiful supply.

And I typed my comment slowly just for you...
If we ended benefits for non citizens, they wouldn't come here.

j/c:

I have a statement and a question for those that aren't totally biased one way or the other.

I've taught quite a few illegals and have met most of their families. I have also talked to some that have worked in our neighborhood.

I understand that there are illegals who sell drugs and are bad people, but I haven't met any of them. The ones I have met came here to work. They work in lawn care, service industries, agriculture, etc.

I have also read a ton about how many illegals work in states where produce is huge. They pick. They pack.

In short, I have found that most illegals come here to work and that they work for a lot less money than American citizens will accept. This helps keep the prices down when buying your fruit at the market or your meal at a restaurant or getting your grass cut.

Now, to my question. Are we better served rounding up illegals and sending them to unsanitary camps that will still cost the tax payers money or should we allow them to work and help to keep prices down in multiple markets?

I want to expand on my last post. I spoke about how I think it costs the American government more to round up the illegals and keep them in camps than it would to just let them work.

Now, to take this a step further........let's examine if it's okay to exploit illegals by not paying them minimum wage and demanding they work long hours under tough conditions? Most of us morally sound folks would say we should not exploit them in that way.

However, is that a worse ethical choice than putting them into unsanitary camps? Is it a huge crime if they are willing to work under such conditions?

Part III:

I think many Americans have lost sight of what helped make America great. Immigrants came here and worked under tough conditions because the opportunities here were better than i their homeland.

They came here to escape: religious persecution, political repression, and in search of better economic opportunities.

They came here w/hope for better opportunities. Hope is the fuel that propels one to a better future. Many came here illegally at the time. They couldn't speak the language. They didn't have a place to live. They didn't have a job. But, they had hope!

The American dream was--and still should be--to come to a land of immense opportunities and work your damn ass off to make a better living for yourself and also help your new country at the same time.

The dream is to work hard and have your children become educated and have a much better future than what you ever dreamed of for yourself.

I have found that the illegals that I have met are hard-working folks who dream of a better future for their children. There are bad people in all walks of life and stories about this crime or that crime can severely persuade others that all illegals are similar. That is simply not true.

Most are hard working folks in search of better opportunities, just like many of our ancestors were.

I feel that if you have laws you should stick to them. If you have a problem with the laws then vote to change them.

Its not morally acceptable to keep detainees in unsanitary conditions, just out of human decency.

Its not morally acceptable to exploit illegals and pay them less than minimum wage.

Illegals are here illegally. As in against the law. They should be sent home.

And are welcome to come back in a legal fashion.

Thats my opinion.


Its also my opinion that the immigration laws put forth a process that is more expensive and time consuming than needs to be. Some of that needs to be reworked.

I'm not slow-witted, Eve.............and I think it might be time to rethink the immigration laws. I believe, and I think you see it to, that we are biting off our noses to spite our face.

The current immigration laws are ridiculous. They make it darn near impossible for poor folks in search of better opportunities to legally enter the country. I think both you and I understand "why" the immigration laws are written that way. Thus, it is understandable why folks enter illegally.

Which leads to my overall point. Are we better served w/the current immigration laws or should we rethink them?

I never implied you are slow witted.

This has always been my stance since Day 1.

My view is we have taken a strong zero tolerance policy where one shouldn't exist. If someone is here illegally then we should work to get then legal and with papers and tax IDs . Any other measure is cutting off our nose to spite our face. Deportation is costly and drives people underground and benefits criminal enterprise.

Attached to this however, we need to have Mexico not allow migrants from other central American countries to pass through. Asylum seekers should be able to apply for asylum at the first safe port. That's how the EU does it. Mexico is safe enough. And closer.

I wasn't saying you said I was slow-witted. LOL

I was pretty much agreeing w/your post.

I think people grunt and growl a lot on this subject, but really don't look into it deep enough. It's more about bias than logic.