Skip to main content

Migrant children are suffering at the border. But reporters are kept away from the story.


#MigrantChildren #Border #Housing #Journalists #Advocates

Overcrowded facilities. Sick, filthy and hungry children sleeping on concrete floors. Young children taking care of infants and toddlers in the enforced absence of their parents.

News stories emerged last week about squalid conditions at a Border Patrol detention facility housing about 300 migrant children on the U.S.-Mexico border. The media accounts described the facility in Clint, Tex., near El Paso, that houses children separated from their parents by order of the Trump administration.

Apart from their appalling specifics, the stories were notable for one element: They were all based on secondhand accounts. Reporters were unable to see the facilities themselves or speak to any of the children. Instead, they relied on descriptions provided by lawyers and advocates who were granted access under a legal settlement with the Border Patrol.

The blackout on press access has left Americans largely in the dark about conditions in government facilities designed to handle migrants who have crossed the border. Photographs and TV images are both rare and often dated. Rarer still are interviews with federal agency managers and employees and with the children themselves.

Journalists, government officials and migrant advocates agree that permitting reporters to see the facilities firsthand would change public perceptions about the treatment of migrants. There’s disagreement, however, about how it would change.

“If journalists had access to the detention centers at the border where children are being held in filthy conditions, those centers would not exist,” said Elora Mukherjee, an attorney who interviewed children at the Texas facility and described them to reporters last week. “If videos were released there would be massive changes” because the public outcry would be enormous.

Mukherjee, who directs the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, said the conditions she witnessed at the federally run facility in Clint were the “worst ever” in the dozen years she has been representing and interviewing migrant children in federal custody.

Government officials say legal issues, especially privacy concerns, make unfettered media access to border facilities a non-starter. According to one official, the general counsel’s office of the Department of Homeland Security, which supervises border law-enforcement agencies, has advised the agency that it is unlawful for third parties to take photographs or videos of “pretrial detainees,” especially of children, who cannot legally consent to such media portrayals.

Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, which supervises many of the detention facilities, have periodically given tours of the facilities to journalists on the condition that no images or recordings are made.

The restrictive media policy, however, is under debate within the two agencies. Some officials argue that more transparency would be beneficial because it would allow the public to see the extensive efforts made by government employees and contractors dealing with a spike in the number of migrants. Even images that document inadequacies at the facilities might be beneficial because they could help build popular support for more resettlement funding from Congress.

A DHS spokesman declined to comment. Customs and Border Protection officials didn’t reply to a request for comment.

Caitlin Dickerson, who covers immigration for the New York Times, said gaining access to the detention facilities — never easy under any circumstances — has gotten harder since December, when two children died in federal custody. (Since then, at least five more have died.) Dickerson isn’t sure if officials are intentionally barring reporters or if they’re simply unable to deal with an upsurge in the news media’s requests for entry.

In any case, she said, the press tours that officials have permitted are typically short and highly structured, with no interviews or follow-up allowed. Access is usually restricted to only part of a facility.

Reporters on the beat say they often have to use indirect and secondary means to get information, including talking to contractors, adult relatives of the children and lawyers advocating for the children. An infamous audio recording of children wailing while held at one facility last year was obtained by a civil rights attorney and published by ProPublica.

“We’re doing our best as journalists with the information that’s available to us,” said Martha Mendoza, an Associated Press investigative reporter who broke last week’s story about the Clint facility with colleagues Cedar Attanasio and Garance Burke. “We’re using all the tools we can find to hold everyone accountable, which is what our role is.”

Burke said that the child-migrant issue predates the Trump administration and that “conditions for children held in custody have never been good.” The difference this time, she said, is there are more children than ever living under unhealthful conditions.

Burke and Mendoza last year obtained confidential government documents that revealed about 5,400 detained migrant children were in government-run or supervised shelters, almost twice the number of a year earlier. The two reporters were part of a team of AP journalists whose coverage became a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize this year in national reporting.

Their work suggests sunlight can have positive effects.

On Monday, four days after the AP reported on conditions at the Texas center, Border Patrol officials removed most of the children from it. Just 30 children remained at the facility, down from some 300 before the news stories emerged. Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Tex.), whose district covers El Paso, complained to Customs and Border Protection leadership following the news reports. She said most of the children had been moved to a temporary site nearby with rollout mattresses, showers, medical facilities and air conditioning.

In a statement emailed to the AP on Monday, the Border Patrol offered no apologies. “Our short-term holding facilities were not designed to hold vulnerable populations,” it said, “and we urgently need additional humanitarian funding to manage this crisis.”

By Paul Farhi -Washingtonpost.com

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Are we really listening to what MLK had to say?

#MartinLutherKingJr #MLK #CivilRights #DrKing In 2020, the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday falls in a national election year, one that reminds us of the importance of voting rights, citizenship and political activism to the health of our democracy. King imagined America as a "beloved community" capable of defeating what he characterized as the triple threats of racism, militarism and materialism. The passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, alongside the 1954 Brown Supreme Court decision, represents the crown jewels of the civil rights movement's heroic period. Yet King quickly realized that policy transformations alone, including the right to vote, would be insufficient in realizing his goal of institutionalizing radical black citizenship toward the creation of the "beloved community." King argued that justice was what love looked like in public. 2020 also marks the 55th anniversary of the passage of the Voting...

Coping With Moods: The Challenge of the Turbulent Mind

#Mood #Impulses #selfregulate #selfsoothe  #Triple5LightTherapy #BlackMaleTherapist #Psychotherapy The power of moods and impulses can be overwhelming, but we can learn to self-regulate and self-soothe through awareness practices like meditation and mindfulness. By developing a healthy dialogue with our emotional nature, we can access deeper parts of ourselves and become more resilient in the face of stress and pressure. Rather than being swept away by our ever-shifting moods, we can learn to pause and reflect before acting. by Gillian McCann, Ph.D., and Gitte Bechsgaard, RP

9 things about MLK's speech and the March on Washington

 #MLK  #MartinLutherKingJr  #MarchonWashington #IHaveaDream "I have a dream this afternoon that my four little children will not come up in the same young days that I came up within, but they will be judged on the basis of the content of their character, not the color of their skin." The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke these words in 1963, but this was not the speech that would go down as one of the most important addresses in US history. King spoke these words in Detroit, two months before he addressed a crowd of nearly 250,000 with his resounding "I Have a Dream" speech at the March on Washington for Freedom and Jobs on August 28, 1963. Several of King's staff members actually tried to discourage him from using the same "I have a dream" refrain again. As we all know, that didn't happen. But how this pivotal speech was crafted is just one of several interesting facts about what is one of the most important moments in the 2...

A call for equality and freedom, it became one of the defining moments of the civil rights movement

       #MLK #MartinLutherKingJr #IHaveaDream I Have a Dream, speech by Martin Luther King, Jr., that was delivered on August 28, 1963, during the March on Washington. A call for equality and freedom, it became one of the defining moments of the civil rights movement and one of the most iconic speeches in American history. Some 250,000 people gathered at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., for the March on Washington. The one-day event both protested racial discrimination and encouraged the passage of civil rights legislation; at the time, the Civil Rights Act was being discussed in Congress. The march featured various speeches as well as musical performances before King, a celebrated orator, appeared as the final official speaker; A. Philip Randolph and Benjamin Mays ended the proceedings with a pledge and a benediction, respectively. Early in his prepared speech, King referenced Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address with “Five score years ago….” He then spoke a...