quote:The Border Patrol agent, a veteran with 13 years on the job, had been assigned to the agency’s detention center in McAllen, Texas, for close to a month when the team of court-appointed lawyers and doctors showed up one day at the end of June.
Taking in the squalor, the stench of unwashed bodies, and the poor health and vacant eyes of the hundreds of children held there, the group members appeared stunned.
Then, their outrage rolled through the facility like a thunderstorm. One lawyer emerged from a conference room clutching her cellphone to her ear, her voice trembling with urgency and frustration. There’s a crisis down here, the agent recalled her shouting.
At that moment, the agent, a father of a 2-year-old, realized that something in him had shifted during his weeks in the McAllen center. I don’t know why she’s shouting, he remembered thinking. No one on the other end of the line cares. If they did, this wouldn’t be happening.
As he turned away to return to his duties, the agent recalled feeling sorry for the lawyer. I wanted to tell her the rest of us have given up....
When asked about Pence’s comments, the agent said the damning descriptions of the facilities are more substantiated than not. And, while he didn’t embrace the term concentration camp, he didn’t dispute it either. He searched out loud for a term that might be more accurate. Gulag felt too strong. Jail didn’t feel strong enough.
He came around to this: It’s kind of like torture in the army. It starts out with just sleep deprivation, then the next guys come in and sleep deprivation is normal, so they ramp it up. Then the next guys ramp it up some more, and then the next guys, until you have full blown torture going on. That becomes the new normal.
Referring back to the grim conditions inside the Border Patrol holding centers, he said: Somewhere down the line people just accepted what’s going on as normal. That includes the people responsible for fixing the problems.
Wouldn't it be best for you to examine the evidence?
I really think you should spend two weeks in the same clothes without bathing, eat nothing but baloney sandwiches and "sleeping" in a closet so crowded you can only stand up.
Re: You really want me to take such fake news seriously?
Well, Mike Pence said the claims are unsubstantiated and "Every family I spoke to said they were being well cared for, and Republican politicians never lie. Also "After seeing one site where almost 400 men were being held in cages in the sweltering heat, Pence acknowledged, This is tough stuff". And I was not surprised by what I saw, I knew we’d see a system that was overwhelmed.
Re: You really want me to take such fake news seriously?
Bunch of gossipy assertions, not clearly facts.
How about this, which clearly does scare the crap out of you because you can't just lie about it to avoid facing rality:
So we've established that Faith is in favor of the horrendous treatment of migrants at the border. The cruelty is the point, and she loves cruelty. So why does Faith think Obama did bad things? Because he wasn't barbaric enough?
Again, from an official US Government report:
There are no human rights abuses at our border according to many who have visited there to find out.
No, Faith, those photos and the report and the testimony of Border Patrol agents say there are appalling human rights abuses at our border.
Remember back in June, when a lawyer for the United States (Sarah Fabian) told a panel of incredulous Ninth Circuit judges that it is safe and sanitary to confine immigrant children in facilities without soap or toothbrushes and to make them sleep on concrete floors under bright lights and with only "space blankets"? And there was no need for hot meals or bathroom access or toothbrushes? And the outcry that followed?
Well, the Ninth Circuit opinion is out, and it's a doozy. I especially like the two word reply "not so".
quote:In June 2017, after an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion to enforce. In its order (the Order), the court found that the government was violating the Agreement’s express requirements to provide adequate access to appropriate food and water and adequate temperature controls at a reasonable and comfortable range. The court further found that although the Agreement makes no mention of the words ‘soap,’ ‘towels,’ ‘showers,’ ‘dry clothing,’ or ‘toothbrushes,’ . . . these hygiene products fall within the rubric of the Agreement’s language requiring ‘safe and sanitary’ conditions. Certain Border Patrol stations, the district court found, were violating paragraph 12A of the Agreement by failing to provide such sanitary necessities.
The district court also determined that although the word ‘sleep’ does not appear in the Agreement, . . . whether Defendants have set up conditions that allow class members to sleep in the [Border Patrol] facilities is relevant to the issue of whether they have acted in a manner that is consistent with ‘the INS’s concern for the particular vulnerability of minors’ as well as the Agreement’s ‘safe and sanitary’ requirement. Citing evidence that many minors in Border Patrol custody are forced to sleep on concrete floors, with no bedding aside from pieces of thin polyester foil, and are subjected to cold temperatures, serious overcrowding, and constant lighting, the district court found that the government was violating the Agreement at certain Border Patrol stations by holding
...
The government also argues that the phrase safe and sanitary is so vague that either it cannot be enforced, see Oral Argument at 33:57—34:09, Flores v. Barr, No. 17- 56297 (9th Cir. Jun. 18, 2019), https://www.ca9.uscourts.g ov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000015907, or it leaves the specifics of compliance [with paragraph 12A] up to the government. Not so.
The district court’s interpretation of the Agreement is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the language of paragraph 12A, which does provide a standard sufficiently clear to be enforced. The court found, among other things, that minors (1) were not receiving hot, edible, or a sufficient number of meals during a given day, (2) had no adequate access to clean drinking water, (3) experienced unsanitary conditions with respect to the holding cells and bathroom facilities, (4) lacked access to clean bedding, and access to hygiene products (i.e., toothbrushes, soap, towels), and (5) endured sleep deprivation as a result of cold temperatures, overcrowding, lack of proper bedding (i.e., blankets, mats), [and] constant lighting. After so finding, the district court concluded that these conditions fall short of paragraph 12A’s requirement that facilities be safe and sanitary, especially given the particular vulnerability of minors. Those determinations reflect a commonsense understanding of what the quoted language requires. Assuring that children eat enough edible food, drink clean water, are housed in hygienic facilities with sanitary bathrooms, have soap and toothpaste, and are not sleepdeprived are without doubt essential to the children’s safety.6 The district court properly construed the Agreement as requiring such conditions rather than allowing the government to decide whether to provide them.
("The Agreement" is the Flores agreement.)
They're brutalizing those kids to deter more migrants. And not only do they admit they are, they're arguing it's OK. In the United States of America.
That's the problem you're denying. The conditions are inhumane and barbaric. I don't know how to solve it. Apparently nobody else does.
But you still defend the conditions themselves. Do you think because the problem is intractable the conditions are therefore not inhumane and barbaric?
Remember, the official position of the Government, as argued in court, is that yeah, they are holding kids without showers, without soap, without toothbrushes, without clean clothes, with restricted access to bathroom facilities, sleeping on concrete floors with the lights on and flimsy space blankets in cold cages, without hot meals, severely overcrowded, without access to medical care and legal representation, and held in those conditions for weeks longer than the legally allowed 72 hours.
But the official Government position is that it's OK because those are "safe and sanitary conditions". And you agree
The first step toward solving the problem is acknowledging the problem. You are arguing, without evidence or facts, that there is no problem.
I really think you should live in those circumstances for couple of weeks and come back and tell us if you felt "safe and sanitary".
You can stop with the lying accusations any time now. All it does is identify you as a Leftist since that's their modus operandi.
I haven't made any lying accusations. I've posted an official Government report, including photographs of horrific conditions. I've posted quotes from Border Patrol officers detailing the horrors. I've posted a legal opinion that boils down to "What the fuck?" and is the law of the land (pending possible reversal by the Supremes).
Those identify me as someone with a civilized attitude towards the illegal and heinous treatment of other humans, especially children, and not as anyone with any particular political philosophy.
You are obviously scared shitless to address the real issue of the hellish conditions. You really, really want those kids tortured to satisfy your hate.
Yes you are accusing me. Based on nothing. If there is a cause of the problem that can be found, find it and correct it.
Nope. If there is a problem, acknowledge it, find the cause of the problem that can be found, find it and correct it. You still say there's no problem.
ABE: As I recall the patrol said they weren't required to do something specific, change diapers or something like that? I didn't remember but you are making it sound like they aren't required to supply necessary things for health and comfort and we know that is not true.
We know it's true, because the necessary things they did not supply have been listed in the last day. IN THE MESSAGE TO WHICH YOU REPLIED!! Obviously you aren't reading the messages before you reply. Here's a partial list from that message:
quote:Remember, the official position of the Government, as argued in court, is that yeah, they are holding kids without showers, without soap, without toothbrushes, without clean clothes, with restricted access to bathroom facilities, sleeping on concrete floors with the lights on and flimsy space blankets in cold cages, without hot meals, severely overcrowded, without access to medical care and legal representation, and held in those conditions for weeks longer than the legally allowed 72 hours.
But the official Government position is that it's OK because those are "safe and sanitary conditions". And you agree
See Message 2577 for the excerpts that prove this. Whether or not the ninth circuit is liberal -leaning (they are), that's what the Government argued.
ABE You are correct that the guards would not change diapers. Since there were no other adults the kids had to do it. Without anything to wipe off the shit.
I don't know why you don't know or seem to care but I think it is a problem with funding. So get the funding.
Make up your mind. Is there a problem or not? You've been arguing there is no problem.
The issue is whether or not the existing conditions at the border are acceptable in the United States of America. We can discuss solutions and blame after you acknowledge that fact.
quote:Recent detainees assert that Defendants failed to provide them with adequate access to food. In addition to food standards under the Agreement, Plaintiffs point to the CBP National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search (TEDS Manual), which lays out standards for meals and snacks for class members in detention. Def. Supp., Ex. 30 (TEDS Manual) [Doc. # 298-2]. According to the CBP’s own standards, minors will be offered a snack upon arrival and a meal at least every six hours thereafter, at regularly scheduled meal times. At least two of those meals will be hot. TEDS Manual 5.6. Additionally, the food provided must be in edible condition (not frozen, expired, or spoiled) and minors must have regular access to snacks, milk, and juice. Id. 4.13, 5.6.
Despite the TEDS Manual standards and Paragraph 12A of the Agreement, many detainees attested to, among other things, not receiving hot, edible, or a sufficient number of meals during a given day spent at a CBP facility. See, e.g., Declaration of Walter A. (Walter A Decl.) 5—6 (The only food we got was sandwiches of 2 pieces of dry bread and one thin slice of ham and a small box of juice. We were fed three times over the two days we were there. We were hungry, very cold, scared, and unable to sleep.) [Doc. # 202-1 at 58]; Deposition of Karina V. (Karina V. Depo.) at 28 (she and her three-year old son were offered a sandwich with frozen ham with a kind of ice under the bread as the first meal) [Doc. # 287-4]; Declaration of Karina V. 7 (Karina V. Decl.) (stating son got diarrhea within an hour of eating the sandwich) [Doc. # 342-5 at 37]; Declaration of Franklin R. (Franklin R. Decl.) 8 (received a cookie for breakfast, a sandwich (2 pieces of bread with one thin slice of meat) for lunch, and another cookie for dinner. I was very hungry all day because this was not enough food.) [Doc. # 202-2 at 40].
Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’ evidence. To support their argument, Defendants rely upon the declaration or deposition testimony of chief patrol agents of the various CBP Sectors4 , CBP field operations directors, and other officials in leadership positions within ICE and CBP. These witnesses generally discuss the policies and practices at the CBP stations. See e.g., Declaration of Manuel Padilla, Jr. (Padilla Decl.) 46—48 (Chief Patrol Agent for the RGV Sector describing policy to provide scheduled meals to class members and what they consist of) [Doc. # 211-1]. Such witnesses also highlight contracts with third party entities that address certain CBP conditions. See, e.g., id. 46 (describing RGV Sector’s contract with Deployed Resources LLC to provide for a menu conforming to a culturally Hispanic diet and that [p]ursuant to the statement of work, the meals provided must meet Texas Department of Agriculture Food & Nutrition guidance and additional quality control requirements) (internal quotation marks omitted).
None of this generalized evidence, however, undermines the veracity of Plaintiffs’ firsthand experiences. Defendants repeat what they did before in response to Plaintiffs’ 2015 Motion to Enforce: point to their own policies and practices. But [t]he mere existence of those policies tells the Court nothing about whether those policies are actually implemented, and the current record shows quite clearly that they were not. July 24, 2015 Order, 212 F. Supp. 3d at 881—82. Defendants do introduce data logs from a CBP computer system known as the e3 Detention Module (e3DM), which allows Defendants to track and monitor when Border Patrol agents have provided certain detainees with meals, water, and other amenities. Declaration of David Strange (Strange Decl.) 2—3 [Doc. # 344-2]. Defendants cite to the e3DM logs for a handful of detainees to show that the records contradict their statements as to the number of meals received and whether they were served hot or cold. See Def. Resp. at 11—12.
There are several problems associated with the activity logs that undermine their reliability. For example, they do not identify the type of meal provided. The logs also show that some detainees went for extended periods (e.g., 11 hours) without food, which Defendants themselves admit is an error. See, e.g., Strange Decl., Ex. F (arrest time of 1:00 p.m. for Dina P., Alison A., Anderson A., Susan A. with first meal not served until 12:10 a.m. the following day); id., Ex. A (arrest time of 5:15 a.m. for Franklin C. with first meal not served until 3:22 p.m.); id., Ex. I (arrest time of 2:00 p.m. for Jenyffer G. and Angel T. with first meal not served until 2:00 a.m. the following day); Deposition of Manuel Padilla, Jr. (Padilla Depo) at 26—27 [Doc. # 287-1 at 31].5
Defendants fail to explain these time-gap discrepancies or what efforts, if any, they undertook to monitor the accuracy of the records entered. See Deposition of Paul Beeson at 45— 46 (Chief Patrol Agent of Tucson Sector answered No when asked if he was aware of what training agents undergo with respect to inputting data into the e3DM system or what efforts exist to monitor the accuracy of meal records entered) [Doc. # 287-1 at 73]. At oral argument, when the Court asked government counsel to address the discrepancies Plaintiffs raised with respect to activities entered in the e3DM logs, counsel merely reiterated Defendants’ policy of feeding children snacks every three hours and attributed the errors to e3DM being a new system rolled out with new monitoring procedures that would require some time before agents are . . . fully compliant. Hearing Tr. dated Jan. 30, 2017, at 40. In any event, to the extent some discrepancies exist between a detainee’s claim regarding the frequency and quality of food and the corresponding e3DM log, Defendants only point to a small number of discrepancies.6 See Def. Resp. at 11-12. This pales in comparison to the large volume of statements by detainees who described receiving inadequate food. In short, the Court does not find that Defendants’ e3DM records undermine the credibility of the detainee statements presented regarding the frequency and quality of the food Defendants served them.
Given the above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ have satisfied their burden of establishing Defendants’ substantial non-compliance with the Agreement and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce as to the RGV Sector on the issue of adequate access to food.
Footnote 6 Even with these limited examples, not all of the e3DM records show that the detainee’s statements are inaccurate or misleading. For instance, Defendants argue that the e3DM record contradicts Franklin R’s claim that he received only two cookies and one ham sandwich during his first day in CBP custody. See Franklin R. Decl. 8 (The first day that I was there they gave me a cookie for breakfast, a sandwich (2 pieces of bread with one thin slice of meat) for lunch, and another cookie for dinner); Def. Resp. at 11 (Border Patrol records indicate that he was provided ten meals in the just over 48 hours he was in custody). But an examination of the e3DM record for this detainee shows he was arrested on January 22, 2016 at 5:15 a.m. Strange Decl., Ex. A. Within the next 24 hours, Defendants’ own record indicates that Franklin R. received his first meal at 3:22 p.m. (1522) and a second meal at 11:36 p.m. (2336). Id. He received his third meal on January 23, 2016 at 7:16 a.m. Id. The e3DM record does not contradict Franklin R.’s declaration that he received two cookies and a ham sandwich as the Defendants’ records do not indicate what type of meal they served detainees. If anything, based on Defendants’ position at oral argument, they would probably suggest that another anomaly occurred with the data entry because Franklin R.’s e3DM record suggests he was not fed for a 10-hour period following apprehension.
I say I can't trust anything you have to offer so you offer more?
Do you really think I faked an hour-long official court proceeding? Are you so rabidly dedicated to your right-wing bubble that a video of the administration's official position is tainted because I posted it? That sure is some heavy reality avoidance.
But it does confirm, for the nth time, that you have no interest in reality or truth. Your seething hate is all you have or want.
And by the way the dates mentioned in the document are 2015 and 16 which was Obama's watch. Why is this coming up now?
The references to 2015 explicitly refer to previous similar orders, which have no bearing on what current conditions are.
quote:Defendants repeat what they did before in response to Plaintiffs’ 2015 Motion to Enforce: point to their own policies and practices. But [t]he mere existence of those policies tells the Court nothing about whether those policies are actually implemented, and the current record shows quite clearly that they were not. July 24, 2015 Order, 212 F. Supp. 3d at 881—82.
I don't know why the reference to 2016 is there. Perhaps a typo. But it came up in June 2017 under Trump's watch.
And shouldn't you be addressing the problem of our having to deal with uninvited "immigrants" in the first place? Not that they should be mistreated, but they ARE here illegally.
You'll do anything to avoid addressing the current topic, won't you? The influx of migrants is indeed a problem we need to solve. But we are discussing the treatment of those migrants, and you're dancing as fast as you can to avoid even looking at those conditions.
I supply the truth. Official government reports. Video of a trial. Transcripts of court findings.
I take your views into account and provide appropriate responses.
other points of view that may impinge on the facts that most interest you
Irony, thy name is Faith.
You have no facts, but reject all of them that are handed to you.
I don't call you names for failing to share my views. I call you names because you won't even look at solid factual evidence for fear you might actually brush against reality.
quote:In May 2019, we issued a management alert about dangerous overcrowding observed in the El Paso area during our unannounced inspections of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) holding facilities.1 During the week of June 10, 2019, we traveled to the Rio Grande Valley in Texas and again observed serious overcrowding and prolonged detention in Border Patrol facilities requiring immediate attention. ...
During our visits to five Border Patrol facilities and two ports of entry in the Rio Grande Valley,2 we reviewed compliance with CBP’s Transport, Escort, Detention and Search (TEDS) standards, which govern CBP’s interaction with detained individuals,3 and observed serious overcrowding and prolonged detention of unaccompanied alien children (UACs),4 families, and single adults that require immediate attention. Specifically, Border Patrol was holding about 8,000 detainees in custody at the time of our visit, with 3,400 held longer than the 72 hours generally permitted under the TEDS standards.5 Of those 3,400 detainees, Border Patrol held 1,500 for more than 10 days. ...
In addition to holding roughly 30 percent of minor detainees for longer than 72 hours, several Rio Grande Valley facilities struggled to meet other TEDS standards for UACs and families. For example, children at three of the five Border Patrol facilities we visited had no access to showers, despite the TEDS standards requiring that reasonable efforts be made to provide showers to children approaching 48 hours in detention.8 At these facilities, children had limited access to a change of clothes; Border Patrol had few spare clothes and no laundry facilities. While all facilities had infant formula, diapers, baby wipes, and juice and snacks for children, we observed that two facilities had not provided children access to hot meals as is required by the TEDS standards9 until the week we arrived.10 Instead, the children were fed sandwiches and snacks for their meals. Additionally, while Border Patrol tried to provide the least restrictive setting available for children (e.g., by leaving holding room doors open), the limited space for medical isolation resulted in some UACs and families being held in closed cells.
Figure 1. Overcrowding of families observed by OIG on June 10, 2019, at Border Patrol’s McAllen, TX, Station. Source: OIG
Figure 2. Overcrowding of families observed by OIG on June 11, 2019, at Border Patrol’s McAllen, TX, Centralized Processing Center. Source: OIG
Figure 3. Overcrowding of families observed by OIG on June 11, 2019, at Border Patrol’s Weslaco, TX, Station. Source: OIG
In the Border Patrol facilities we visited, we also observed serious overcrowding and prolonged detention among adult detainees. TEDS provides that under no circumstances should the maximum [cell] occupancy rate, as set by the fire marshal, be exceeded.11 However, at one facility, some single adults were held in standing room only conditions for a week and at another, some single adults were held more than a month in overcrowded cells (see figures 4 and 5).
Figure 5. Fifty-one adult females held in a cell designated for male juveniles with a capacity for 40 (left), and 71 adult males held in a cell designated for adult females with a capacity for 41 (right), observed by OIG on June 12, 2019, at Border Patrol’s Fort Brown Station. Source: OIG
In these overcrowded conditions, CBP was unable to meet TEDS standards. For example, although TEDS standards require CBP to make a reasonable effort to provide a shower for adults after 72 hours,12 most single adults had not had a shower in CBP custody despite several being held for as long as a month. At some facilities, Border Patrol was giving detainees wet-wipes to maintain personal hygiene. Most single adult detainees were wearing the clothes they arrived in days, weeks, and even up to a month prior. Further, although TEDS standards require agents to remain cognizant of detainees’ religious and other dietary restrictions,13 many single adults had been receiving only bologna sandwiches. Some detainees on this diet were becoming constipated and required medical attention.14
That's official Trump administration documentation.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
