Children at the Border, Conditions and Family Separations
Washington, D.C., January 28, 1997
During the early years of President Clinton’s second term, the government brought to an end the long and tortured history of two important and related cases. Flores v. Meese and Reno v. Flores examined the policy of separating and incarcerating migrant families crossing the U.S. border illegally. The consent agreement process resulted in the Flores Settlement Agreement of 1997 (FSA), which, according to the Congressional Research Service, was intended to be a temporary measure.
(On a side note, a fact-check may be pertinent in this post, simply as a cautionary note. If one searches for “Flores Settlement Agreement,” a 2018 article from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) pops up. It reports that the agreement arose out of Flores v. Reno and further reports that it is a 1987 California case. With little very research, one quickly finds that the NCSL is mistaken. The late 80s case was actually a class-action suit, Flores v. Meese, and 90s case was Reno v. Flores. I may be accused of splitting hairs, but failure to report even such a minor point correctly calls into question the basic facts that are out there, and much that is written about the FSA, as with that written by the NCSL, appears to be somewhat careless in regard to factually reporting on the history and legacy of the case. Therefore, let us confine ourselves to the civics of the matter.)
Among the enumerated powers of Congress, one is immigration. Article I, Section 8 states, “The Congress shall have the Power…To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization. However, key components of our system of immigration and naturalization today rests on the FSA and a handful of Executive Orders. Most actual legislation since 1965 and 1990 have been focused on amnesty, as opposed to improving the process for legal immigration.
Why is it that Congress busies itself with interfering in aspects of citizenship and life that are not granted to it by the Constitution while utterly neglecting the duties charged to it in the Constitution?
It is TRUE that the security of border and an effective system of immigration and naturalization are key responsibilities of Congress. It is FALSE that Congress is taking its responsibilities in these areas seriously.
Just think what our society would be like if our social contract were determined solely by settlement agreements that result from court cases and by the executive orders of an individual (i.e., the President), who in issuing such orders that, in effect, make law as opposed to enact law, becomes a de facto tyrant. In both situations, both of which define significant parts of our immigration and naturalization system, we are being governed by judges and dictators, not by our elected representatives. The voice of We the People is not being raised or heard.
And what is the result when you and I, the good citizens of this land, are shut out? What happens is the humanitarian crisis at our border and the wretched treatment of those human being who risk life and limb to come here. The sickness, rape, addiction and death, which are hallmarks of passage across the border, must be squarely placed at the steps of Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court.
Congress has abdicated it Constitutional duty.
Presidents for generations have coveted this duty, which belongs to Congress.
Supreme Court judges have made themselves law makers instead of adjudicators.
Think of all the other situations in which we are ruled by Executive Orders and court decrees. It’s not limited to the border. Make no mistake, our representative republic is on a path that departs from the greatest system of self-rule ever known. We must rediscover our American civics, lest we lose the freedom to rule ourselves.
