Incarcerating Entire Families Cannot Be the Solution to the
Separation of Children
This column was published by the Center for American Progress" (www.americanprogress.org)
By Philip Wolgin
Getty/Joe Raedle
People protest the separation of children from their parents in front of
the El Paso Processing Center, June 19, 2018.
-WI) as well as legislation from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC).

While family separation goes against the very ideals of America as a nation, simply incarcerating entire families cannot be the solution.
Locking up children along with their parents in unlicensed facilities severely damages the welfare of children. The United States can meet this
challenge with proven alternatives to detention that allow children and families to remain in the community while still completing their asylum
and/or deportation proceedings.

Family incarceration is inhumane
Since 2001, the government has had facilities to detain parents along with their children. From 2001 through 2014, family incarceration was
mainly limited to a small facility in a former nursing home in Berks County, Pennsylvania. The one exception was a failed three-year experiment
starting in 2006, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) opened a much bigger family facility in a former prison in Texas. In
studying the T. Don Hutto Residential Center, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS) and Women’s Refugee Commission
(WRC) found a litany of abuses, including guards using family separation or the threat of separation as a method of discipline as well as
children experiencing signs of psychological and physical trauma. The Obama administration removed families from the Hutto facility in 2009.
Facing a large increase of children and families seeking asylum, the Obama administration brought back large-scale family detention starting
in 2014. In reviewing conditions in these new facilities, LIRS and WRC discovered children who were denied access to toys and other
appropriate development activities. In addition, there were children who refused to eat and were losing weight as well as those who were
guarded by people “empowered only to watch children, not to respond to their needs.” They concluded that “family detention cannot be carried
out humanely.” Unsurprisingly, the American Association of Pediatrics statement on the Detention of Immigrant Children argues that
“Department of Homeland Security facilities do not meet the basic standards for the care of children in residential settings” and “no child
should be in detention centers or separated from parents.”

There are proven, humane alternatives to detention
Rather than incarcerate children and families, the government has at its disposal a host of alternatives to detention, which range from release
into the community with regular check-ins with ICE to methods such as ankle monitors and more intense supervision. To be clear, there is no
reason to jail someone exercising their legal right to claim asylum. The question is, and should be, whether families going through the asylum
process are complying with all requirements for check-ins with ICE, court hearings, and the like. These alternatives are a proven way of
ensuring that individuals comply and cost a fraction of what it takes to incarcerate someone. Most importantly, unlike family separation or
incarceration, alternatives would not inflict severe trauma on children and their families.

Among the most effective alternatives to detention for families arriving at the border was the Family Case Management Program, which allowed
families to be released and receive intensive case supervision; help with child care and education; connections to legal counsel; and more
rather than simply be detained. The program was 99 percent effective at having families show up for check-ins and court appearances and
also ensured departure from the United States for those who did not win asylum. And, at a cost of only $36 per day per family, it was far
cheaper than family detention, which costs over $300 per person per day. The Trump administration shut down the program last June, but it
should be brought back immediately.

While private prison companies with spotty records when it comes to protecting immigrants run many of these alternatives—including the
Family Case Management Program—they are still far better than either incarceration or separation. As CAP has previously argued, unless
there is a clear and compelling reason for detaining families (for example, if they are a security or flight risk) the default should be release—not
incarceration.

Additionally, access to legal counsel matters. A Human Rights First analysis of Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse data from 2014
through 2017 found that nearly all families and children (97 and 98 percent, respectively) who had access to legal counsel had appeared at
their court hearings. (And immigrants who are not detained have a far better shot at getting legal counsel in the first place.) A prime way, then,
of ensuring that families complete their immigration proceedings—and, not to mention, have a fair shot at winning protection—is to ensure that
they have access to a competent lawyer.

Conclusion
In FY 2017, just less than 76,000 people in family units were apprehended at the southern border. To put this issue into perspective, that
number represents only .02 percent of the total U.S. population. In fact, border apprehensions remain at near-historic lows.

As CAP senior fellow Michael H. Fuchs has written, “ripping children away from their families will tarnish America’s image” abroad. And yet we
can meet the challenge of families fleeing unspeakable violence and seeking protection in the United States in a way that lives up to our values
as a nation and in a way that neither separates nor incarcerates children.

Ultimately, congressional action—such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) Keep Families Together Act and the House companion version by
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), rather than the Ryan, Cruz, or Meadows bills—can help ameliorate the issue of family separation. But more than
anything, this is an issue that the Trump administration created. President Trump could end this today with just a phone call—all without
instead incarcerating families. The onus is on the president and his administration to end family separation once and for all.

Philip E. Wolgin is the managing director for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress. He thanks Michelle Brané of the Women’s
Refugee Commission for her assistance with this column.
Over the past two weeks, as the public has learned more and more about
the Trump administration’s policy of separating children from their parents
and keeping them in cages—a practice that former First Lady Laura Bush
termed “eerily reminiscent of the internment camps … during World War II”—
anger and outrage at the practice has echoed throughout all corners of the
nation.

Republicans in the House and Senate are scrambling to find solutions to
this national crisis, with more than a dozen calling upon the president to end
family separation immediately. Earlier today, President Donald Trump
signed an executive order that purports to end family separation but would
instead simply lock up families together—leaving children behind bars for
prolonged periods of time. It does nothing to rescind the underlying “zero
tolerance” policy used to prosecute parents that led to their separation in the
first place. And, likewise, every legislative proposal that Congressional
Republicans float would end family separation by instead jailing children
alongside their asylum-seeking parents in immigrant detention. Such
proposals include a revised bill from Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R