‘We didn't see the daylight': Migrant families describe prolonged detention in border facilities
Migrant families with young children, including toddlers, were held for days and sometimes weeks in US Customs and Border Protection facilities, some with jail-like conditions, according to interviews conducted by attorneys tied to immigrant advocacy groups and submitted Tuesday in federal court.
The filings reveal details of families being detained this year in border facilities, which are not designed for that purpose, for extended periods of time despite a steep drop in migrant crossings, raising alarm among attorneys who argue CBP detention is not equipped to care for people, especially children.
The court filings are part of a decades-old legal agreement governing conditions for migrant children in government custody. Tuesday's motion requests that CBP stop detaining children for prolonged periods of time in poor conditions and requests more precise data from the agency after recent discrepancies.
'During their extended detention, CBP holds children in increasingly harsh conditions, including in ports of entry ('POE'), which are meant to hold individuals for only a few hours, in violation of (the settlement). Children are particularly vulnerable to the trauma caused by the confusion, cruelty, and deprivation endemic to CBP custody,' the motion reads.
The 1997 Flores settlement, as it's known, requires the government to release children from government custody without unnecessary delay to sponsors, such as parents or adult relatives, and dictates conditions by which children are held. It applies to children who crossed the US-Mexico border alone, as well as those who arrived with family.
Attorneys who represent the Flores settlement class are permitted to meet with children and their family members in government custody to interview them.
In one case, a mother and her toddler, separated from her father, were held at a border facility in California for 42 days, according to the family's telling in a court declaration. The officers allowed the father to visit two times.
'Since being separated from her father, (redacted)'s behavior has changed. She used to speak a lot before, and now she's not speaking anymore. She previously used five or six words, like 'mom' 'dad' and 'yes,' now she doesn't talk at all,' the filing states, detailing a room where 23 women and children were held with no windows.
'It was so crowded that we couldn't even step forwards or backwards,' the declaration says. 'We spent all 42 days in that same place. We didn't see the daylight. We only went outside when we went to the different place where the showers are.'
CNN has reached out to CBP for comment.
The Flores settlement agreement doesn't prohibit the federal government from deporting a child and their family, but it states that children can't be kept in immigration detention for prolonged periods and should be considered for release.
According to Tuesday's filings, 'Instead, CBP keeps accompanied children in its custody until it removes them from the United States or transfers them to ICE custody where they can request parole from ICE.'
Attorneys found that even though migrant crossings have plummeted at the US southern border, 301 children were detained in CBP custody for more than 72 hours in February. Of those, the majority were detained for more than seven days.
In April, when US Border Patrol encounters hovered around 8,300, 213 children were held more than 72 hours and 14 children were held for more than 20 days, including toddlers, according to the filing. The data is based on reports provided by CBP.
'The number of children crossing our borders is the lowest in decades, but the cruelty they are experiencing in government custody is at an all-time high,' said Leecia Welch, deputy litigation director at Children's Rights, who interviewed some of the families and children in custody.
'We are heaping trauma on defenseless children who came here seeking our protection. With this motion, we return to court once again asking for nothing more than government accountability to ensure the humane treatment of children,' she added.
Previous administrations, including the Biden administration, wrestled with border surges that strained federal resources and resulted in unaccompanied children, families and adults staying in border custody for days. Border facilities are intended for relatively short stays.
CBP generally releases or transfers those in custody within 72 hours as a matter of practice, though that can often be extended in the event of space limitations for transfers to other agencies, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In the past, CBP has also paroled people into the United States on a case-by-case basis, depending on the individual or family circumstance.
The Trump administration has moved to terminate the Flores settlement, arguing that it has hamstrung the federal government's policymaking and ability to respond to changing conditions along the border, including surges in recent years.
'The Executive has not been able to react fully and meaningfully to these changes because the (Flores settlement agreement) has ossified federal-immigration policy,' the Trump Justice Department said in a recent court filing. 'Successive Administrations have tried unsuccessfully to free themselves from the strictures of the consent decree and this Court's gloss on it. But detention of juvenile aliens continues to be—as it has been for more than a generation—dominated by the strictures of a 1997 agreement.'
But the combination of low border numbers and extended stays in CBP facilities has raised questions for attorneys, including whether some people are coming into CBP facilities from interior enforcement actions.
'The lengths in detention are lengthening despite the requirements of Flores and CBP policies and practices themselves. We're seeing a broader variety of troubling sites being put into play,' said Sergio Perez, executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and part of the Flores legal team.
A family with a 5-year-old son was taken into custody after a traffic stop in Ohio. The parent and child were taken to an office building in the state where they stayed in a room for five days, according to a court declaration.
'The room had no windows to the outside. We couldn't tell whether it was day or night. There was a large window that looked out on the office space and agents working on their computers. All the agents were men,' the declaration states.
'The room had a toilet that was completely visible to anyone walking by the room. We could only go pee because it was so uncomfortable to go to the bathroom within the view of all those men,' it continues, adding that lights were left on at night.
In another case, an 11-year-old and their mother were apprehended when they landed in the United States. They were held at O'Hare International Airport for five days, according to a court declaration.
The filings include descriptions from migrants of border facilities with cold rooms, limited access to sanitary items, thin mattresses on the floor, mylar blankets, and limited or no access to the outdoors. The filings also include allegations that CBP officers used profanity, and in one case, told children to 'go home' when they asked for food.
One family with two sons, including a 1-year-old and an infant who's only a 'few months,' was detained in a border facility for a month.
'It was extremely cold. My sons both got sick there because it was so cold. They did not allow us extra clothes for the kids. We had only aluminum blankets,' the declaration reads, adding: 'The lights were on all night, they never turned off. We spent these days inside without even seeing the sun.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Frantically Tries to Stop MAGA Civil War Over Iran
Donald Trump is trying to stave off a MAGA civil war over America's involvement in the Middle East that threatens to tear apart his conservative base. After the president abruptly left the G7 in Canada to meet with his national security team in Washington, the White House went into overdrive to assuage 'America First' die-hards who are angered that the U.S. could be dragged into Israel's battle against Iran. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding,' he posted on Truth Social on Tuesday, calling for Iran's 'unconditional surrender." 'He is an easy target, but is safe there - we are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' As tensions simmered, Vice President J.D. Vance took to social media to talk up the 'remarkable restraint' the president had shown in trying to keep American troops and citizens safe. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared on Fox News to assure people there had been no change in the military's defense posture in the region. On social media, Trump's rapid response team posted video after video to demonstrate that he 'has always been consistent' on Iran. And at the White House, his communications team fired off a press release documenting 15 times that Trump stated Iran 'cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon'. The messaging efforts point to the dilemma Trump faces as he tries to balance his support for Israel with ongoing demands from within his base to avoid another war in the Middle East. Having come to office promising no more 'endless wars,' Trump must now decide whether to help Israel destroy a deeply buried Iranian nuclear enrichment facility at Fordow using a 30,000 pound U.S. bomb known as a 'bunker buster'. But such a move would risk any remaining chance of the nuclear disarmament deal Trump has been pursuing and further divide the very base that got him elected. 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,' Trump said on Tuesday. 'Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, but it doesn't compare to American made, conceived and manufactured 'stuff'. Nobody does it better than the good ol' USA.' Others in MAGA, however, are not convinced of America's ongoing role. Carlson, a former Fox News host, entered the fray last week, calling Trump complicit and suggesting that the administration 'drop Israel [and] let them fight their own wars.' This led to Trump suggesting on Monday that he was irrelevant now that he no longer had his own television show, which in turn, led to Trump ally Marjorie Taylor Greene siding with Carlson. 'Tucker Carlson is one of my favorite people. He fiercely loves his wife, children, and our country. Since being fired by the neocon network Fox News, he has more popularity and viewers than ever before,' she said. Turning Point USA leader Charlie Kirk had earlier warned the issue could cause 'a massive schism in MAGA and potentially disrupt our momentum and our insanely successful Presidency.' MAGA activist Jack Posobiec agreed, saying that 'a direct strike on Iran right now would disastrously split the Trump coalition.' But Vance's lengthy post on X sought to de-escalate tensions. Noting the 'crazy stuff' that was being put out on social media, he said that Trump had been 'amazingly consistent, over 10 years, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.' 'He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment,' Vance added. 'That decision ultimately belongs to the president. And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.'
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
TACO Trump Punts Decision on Bombing Iran in Wild New Twist
President Donald Trump will decide whether to attack Iran within the next two weeks, and has issued a plea to stave off the backlash in his MAGA base: Trust in Trump. As a MAGA civil war over military intervention threatens to tear his party apart, the president has left the door open to a diplomatic off-ramp. 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' he said, in a direct message issued through his White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt. The unexpected twist is reminiscent of the two week window Trump regularly gives Russia to start negotiating a genuine ceasefire with Ukraine. It comes after the president left the nation on edge for days about the possibility that he would help Israel destroy a deeply buried nuclear enrichment facility at Fordow, in northeast Iran, using a 30,000 pound bomb known as a 'bunker buster'. Trump gave numerous mixed messages, insisting the strikes could be imminent and saying it was 'too late' to talk while also insisting that there was scope for negotiations. On Wednesday, he even boasted that 'nobody knows what I'm doing' when it comes to Iran. Tensions escalated this week when he abruptly departed the G7—despite having meetings locked with global allies including Australia and India—to rush to Washington to deal with the issue. For the next three days, he then huddled with his national security advisers to decide whether the U.S. military helps Israel's bombing campaign. But such a move would risk any remaining chance of the nuclear disarmament deal Trump has been pursuing and threatened to tear apart the very base that got him elected. The MAGA civil war over the Iran put conservatives such as pro-Israel war hawks Laura Loomer and Mark Levin on one side, and America First firebrands such as Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon and Jack Posobiec on the other. 'We can't have another Iraq,' Bannon warned at a breakfast with reporters hosted Wednesday by The Christian Science Monitor. Earlier today, he was spotted at the White House but Leavitt declined to say what he was doing there. The issue also spilled out onto screens this week, with conservative pundit Tucker Carlson—who accused the president of being 'complicit' in the Middle East conflict—skewering Texas Senator Ted Cruz over his support for regime change. Asked what the president would say to those who voted for his 'America First' doctrine and didn't want the nation involved in another foreign war, Leavitt replied: 'Trust in President Trump.' 'President Trump kept America and the world safe in his first term as president, implementing a 'peace through strength' foreign policy agenda,' she said. 'With respect to Iran, nobody should be surprised by the President's position that Iran absolutely cannot obtain a nuclear weapon. He's been absolutely unequivocal about this.' Trump's announcement was immediately mocked online. One critic on social media described it as 'beyond parody' while another joked: 'He's going to announce it during Infrastructure Week when the healthcare plan comes out.' Leavitt was also quizzed about the issue in the briefing room, with one reporter noting that Trump had regularly given Russia two week deadlines on Ukraine, with no outcome. However, she blamed the Biden administration, saying both were complicated global conflicts that the president had inherited.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Boasts ‘Nobody Knows What I'm Doing' as MAGA Civil War Rages
President Donald Trump has boasted that 'nobody knows what I'm doing' when it comes to Iran as a MAGA civil war rages over the prospect of a U.S. military attack. Speaking with reporters for the first time since meeting with his national security council on Tuesday, the president refused to say whether the U.S. is moving closer to helping Israel strike Iranian nuclear facilities. 'You don't seriously think I'm going to answer that question,' Trump said, mockingly. 'Will you strike the Iranian nuclear component, and what time exactly? Sir, sir, would you strike it? Will you please inform us so we can be there and watch? 'I mean, you don't know that I'm going to even do it. You don't know. I may do it; I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.' Trump's comments come as a MAGA civil war has been brewing for days between pro-Israel war hawks such as Laura Loomer and Mark Levin on one side, and America First firebrands such as Charlie Kirk and Jack Posobiec on the other. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson also entered the fray last week, calling Trump complicit and suggesting that the administration 'drop Israel [and] let them fight their own wars.' Carlson also clashed with Texas Senator Ted Cruz this week, lashing out over Cruz's support for military intervention in Iran despite his apparent lack of knowledge about the country. While a U.S. attack on Iran could have serious consequences for the region, Trump's rhetoric has shifted considerably in recent days, with the president admitting that his patience is wearing thin on finding a diplomatic solution to stop Iran from building its nuclear arsenal. On Wednesday, Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hit back at the president for his 'absurd rhetoric' after Trump demanded Iran's 'complete surrender' and issued an ominous warning on X: 'The US entering this matter (war) is 100% to its own detriment. The damage will be far greater than any harm that Iran may encounter.' But Trump doubled down on his push for Iran to surrender, telling reporters that Tehran should have negotiated weeks ago. Only now were they rethinking their strategy, he said. 'They even suggested coming to the White House,' he claimed. A U.S. defense official told the Daily Beast it was moving the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group to the Middle East to protect U.S. forces in the region. Vice President JD Vance also posted on X that after showing 'remarkable restraint,' Trump 'may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment.' As the president weighed options, some Democrats on Capitol Hill called for Congress to act. Senator Tim Kaine introduced a resolution to prevent the U.S. from using military force against Iran without congressional approval while several others backed Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' bill to prevent the use of funds for military force against Iran without congressional authorization. But Democrats were deeply divided over the response to Iran. Senator John Fetterman, who has often bucked his party to fiercely defend Israel, said he would vote against Kaine's resolution. He told reporters he was a 'hell yes' on the U.S. making preemptive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. Senate Majority Leader John Thune rejected that the president would need authorization from Congress to strike Iran. 'I think right now the president's within his authorities,' Thune told reporters on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. 'He obviously has a lot of authorities as Commander in Chief to respond to incidents that happen around the world.' Thune said if it goes on for a period of time, there would be discussions on what the role of Congress should be and whether it needed to take action. 'I think right now, let's hope and pray for the best outcome,' he said. Senate Foreign Committee Chair Jim Risch emphasized on Tuesday 'this is not our war' and praised the president for threading the needle when it came to Iran. While the House is not in session this week, in a rare moment of bipartisanship, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie was joined by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna to introduce a resolution to prohibit the U.S. from getting involved in the conflict. 'This is not our war,' Massie wrote in a post. 'Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.'
