SALAHUDDIN HAIDER (Washington): Difficult to analyze. Opinion varies from people to people. Some believe Donald Trump has been doing it deliberately to dilate or swing to favoritism wave of mounting criticism against his policies on children immigration, and the boost he got from the Supreme Court upholding his travel ban on select Muslim countries’ citizen.
Others think he is out to see his harsh policies as permanent measure to firm up America’s internal strength, to enable his nationals have greater role on domestic front.
But then media has different perceptions about both these controversial issues. CNN and CNBC, two major TV networks treat it as threat to democracy in United States. A persistent debate is on since past two weeks whether United States, considered champion of human rights, and freedom of speech and association, can really benefit from the thinking relentlessly pursued by the head of State of world’s undisputed super power.
But their campaigning has very little or practically zero effect on the President who believes in “America First” watchword and refuses to give in ignoring street protestations or opposition from intelligentsia.
New York Times, meanwhile reported that a federal judge in California issued a nationwide injunction late Tuesday temporarily stopping the Trump administration from separating children from their parents at the border and ordered that all families already separated be reunited within 30 days.
Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the Federal District Court in San Diego said children under 5 must be reunited with their parents within 14 days, and he ordered that all children must be allowed to talk to their parents within 10 days. “The unfortunate reality is that under the present system, migrant children are not accounted for with the same efficiency and accuracy as property,” the judge wrote. Judge Sabraw’s order, which is likely to prompt a high-profile legal battle with the Justice Department, came on the same day that President Trump won a landmark legal victory when the Supreme Court upheld his travel ban, ending a 17-month legal fight.
But the judge’s ruling in the family separation case raises the stakes on an issue that had already become an intensely difficult political crisis for Mr. Trump. The president last week issued an executive order seeking to bring family separations to an end, but saying little about reuniting families.
The American Civil Liberties Union had filed a lawsuit to stop the separations before the president’s executive order. In his order, Judge Sabraw said that children may be separated at the border only if the adults with them present an immediate danger to the children.not be deported from the United States without their children. “The facts set forth before the court portray reactive governance — responses to address a chaotic circumstance of the government’s own making,” the judge wrote in the opinion. “They belie measured and ordered governance, which is central to the concept of due process enshrined in our Constitution. This is particularly so in the treatment of migrants, many of whom are asylum seekers and small children.” Hostility against Trump philosophy has kept increasing.
In a nationwide injunction temporarily stopping the Trump administration from separating families at the border, and he ordered that all families already separated be reunited within 30 days. In another case, a woman from Brazil, identified as “Ms. C,” crossed the border illegally with her 14-year-old son, who was separated from her and also sent to a facility in Chicago. The mother and son were apart for nearly eight months, according to the lawsuit. “During the five months she was detained, Ms. C. did not see her son, and they spoke on the phone only ‘a handful of times,’” the lawsuit says. “Ms. C. was ‘desperate’ to be reunited with her son, worried about him constantly and did not know when she would be able to see him.”
Earlier Tuesday, seventeen states sued Mr. Trump for his administration’s practice of separating immigrant parents from their children, saying that the tactic is causing “devastating harm,” even as a top official said the government was struggling to reunite families fractured by the policy.