Affording Congress an Opportunity To Address Family Separation

Background

Impact on Policy and Enforcement

The executive order issued in June 2018 intended to realign the federal administration’s approach towards family separations at the U.S. border. It allowed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to maintain custody of immigrant families pending legal proceedings, aiming to enforce immigration laws assertively while trying to preserve family unity. This order, in response to public outcry and legal challenges, modified previous zero-tolerance policies that resulted in widespread family separations. By focusing on detaining families together, the order prompted operational adjustments within federal agencies to facilitate shared detention facilities, marking a significant shift from the separation tactics that had drawn criticism.

Legal and Institutional Changes

The directive prompted a series of legal and institutional actions, notably affecting the ongoing Flores Settlement Agreement. The order required the Attorney General to file requests with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify this agreement, which historically limited the detention of minors. Attempts to lengthen detainment times for children with their families were scrutinized and contested, illustrating legal challenges encountered in pursuing this policy direction. Furthermore, this led to dialogues about appropriations and resource allocations necessary to implement provisions ensuring family detention capabilities. However, the fulfillment of these responsibilities remained constrained by existing legal frameworks and court rulings.

Social and Administrative Repercussions

Socially, the order sparked extensive debate, marked by divided public opinion and advocacy efforts. While some viewed it as a necessary realignment to ensure lawful immigration practices, others considered it an insufficient or even harmful approach due to the complexities entailed in changing family detention conditions. Administratively, the policy necessitated notable cooperation between federal and military resources, as it required the Department of Defense to make facilities available for detaining families. This interdepartmental cooperation highlighted the order's expansive reach, impacting various segments of governmental operations, including resource logistics, budget considerations, and procedural strategic planning.

Reason for Revocation

Shift Towards Humanitarian Ideals

The revocation of the executive order by President Biden symbolized a broader ideological pivot towards emphasizing human rights and humanitarian treatment of immigrants. The decision, rendered within the early days of Biden's presidency, underscored a departure from the zero-tolerance policies associated with the previous administration. Biden's approach focused on addressing the border challenges through systemic changes rather than punitive measures, marking a shift to restore measures perceived as more humane, and was explicit in advocating for the reunification of separated families as a policy priority.

Rejection of Controversial Policies

Revoking the order was part of Biden's effort to dismantle many of the Trump administration’s controversial immigration practices that were often criticized for their harshness and lack of compassion. The criticisms surrounding family detentions and separations were highlighted as core issues that the Biden administration aimed to resolve. Moreover, the revocation aligned with promises to address what Biden described as "moral and national shame" resulting from those policies. This promise catered both to progressive constituents and international observers concerned about America's immigration policies under Trump.

Strategic Legislative Realignment

In pursuing a comprehensive immigration agenda, the revocation was intended to catalyze legislative action. Biden's administration sought a cooperative relationship with Congress to enact reforms addressing the root causes of migration, especially from Central America. By rescinding the policy, the administration aimed to alleviate the legal and financial burdens previously faced under the previous directives. The revocation signaled an openness to multidimensional solutions, including legal pathways and international cooperation aimed at addressing the root causes of migration, further showcasing an ideological shift from aggressive enforcement to legislative reform.

Reputation and International Relations

From an international relations perspective, revoking the order was also strategically beneficial in rebuilding the United States' reputation as a leader in advocating for human rights. The previous practices had drawn global criticism, affecting diplomatic relationships with neighboring countries and allies. Therefore, Biden's executive order to reverse the Trump-era directive was also a gesture aimed at improving the U.S.'s standing on the global stage with respect to adhering to international human rights standards.

Winners

Immigrant Families and Advocacy Groups

The revocation of the order significantly benefited immigrant families who were less likely to face separation under the Biden administration's stance. Advocacy groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and immigrant rights organizations, saw this legislative action as a victory towards reestablishing the rights and humane treatment of migrants at the U.S. border. These groups had long argued against family detention practices, emphasizing the emotional and psychological impacts on children and advocating for policies that respect the integrity and unity of families.

Legal Institutions and Human Rights Organizations

Legal institutions and human rights organizations benefited as the revocation aligned with their long-standing arguments against policies described as draconian and contrary to international laws. These groups advocated for the protection of immigrant rights under human rights treaties to which the United States is a party, and the revocation provided a platform to push for further reforms in the system. Moreover, it allowed them to redirect efforts towards achieving broader immigration reform goals without the hindrance of contentious family detention practices.

Governmental Agencies and Financial Allocation

The Department of Homeland Security, along with other agencies like ICE, benefited from the activation of alternative strategies to manage immigration challenges without the legal quagmires attached to the policies of mandatory family detention. By avoiding the complexities of long-term familial detention logistics, resources could be allocated more effectively towards setting up processes that expedite cases, identify humane alternatives, and foster collaborative efforts with international bodies addressing migration.

Losers

Private Detention Facilities

Private detention facility operators, who previously benefited from government contracts under policies requiring increased detainment space, stood to lose from this revocation. The focus of alternative policies was to reduce detention reliance, potentially resulting in decreased profits and the need for diversifying operational strategies. Companies such as the GEO Group and CoreCivic, which operate numerous detention centers, faced pressure to re-evaluate their business models in light of reduced governmental demand for extensive detention capabilities.

Political Factions Advocating Strict Immigration Enforcement

Factions within the political landscape that advocated for stringent immigration enforcement characterized the revocation as a step back from what they deemed necessary security measures. Members of this faction viewed the order’s initial issuance and implementation as crucial regulation for combatting illegal immigration and endorsed zero-tolerance as a central strategy. They criticized the shift in policy as compromising border security and potentially encouraging noncompliance with established immigration laws.

Legislative and Judicial Resources

The judicial system and legislative resources faced an increased burden as debates and legal challenges arose surrounding the dismantling of established practices. The necessity to propose new solutions or amendments entailed further appropriations and legal considerations. As structures previously dedicated to enforcing these practices reallocated, questions concerning budget allocations and procedural efficacy required addressing, creating additional layers of complexity in navigating immigration reform effectively.