Two children detained by the Border Patrol in a holding cell in Nogales, Ariz. This image has been widely shared on social media in recent days, offered as an example of the Trump administration’s cruel policies toward immigrants, but in fact the picture was taken in 2014.
Devrai-je sacrifier mon enfant premier-né pour payer pour mon crime, le fils, chair de ma chair, pour expier ma faute? On te l’a enseigné, ô homme, ce qui est bien et ce que l’Eternel attend de toi: c’est que tu te conduises avec droiture, que tu prennes plaisir à témoigner de la bonté et qu’avec vigilance tu vives pour ton Dieu. Michée 6: 7-8
Laissez les petits enfants, et ne les empêchez pas de venir à moi; car le royaume des cieux est pour ceux qui leur ressemblent. Jésus (Matthieu 19: 14)
Quiconque reçoit en mon nom un petit enfant comme celui-ci, me reçoit moi-même. Mais, si quelqu’un scandalisait un de ces petits qui croient en moi, il vaudrait mieux pour lui qu’on suspendît à son cou une meule de moulin, et qu’on le jetât au fond de la mer. Jésus (Matthieu 18: 5-6)
Une civilisation est testée sur la manière dont elle traite ses membres les plus faibles. Pearl Buck
Le monde moderne n’est pas mauvais : à certains égards, il est bien trop bon. Il est rempli de vertus féroces et gâchées. Lorsqu’un dispositif religieux est brisé (comme le fut le christianisme pendant la Réforme), ce ne sont pas seulement les vices qui sont libérés. Les vices sont en effet libérés, et ils errent de par le monde en faisant des ravages ; mais les vertus le sont aussi, et elles errent plus férocement encore en faisant des ravages plus terribles. Le monde moderne est saturé des vieilles vertus chrétiennes virant à la folie. G.K. Chesterton
Je crois que le moment décisif en Occident est l’invention de l’hôpital. Les primitifs s’occupent de leurs propres morts. Ce qu’il y a de caractéristique dans l’hôpital c’est bien le fait de s’occuper de tout le monde. C’est l’hôtel-Dieu donc c’est la charité. Et c’est visiblement une invention du Moyen-Age. René Girard
Notre monde est de plus en plus imprégné par cette vérité évangélique de l’innocence des victimes. L’attention qu’on porte aux victimes a commencé au Moyen Age, avec l’invention de l’hôpital. L’Hôtel-Dieu, comme on disait, accueillait toutes les victimes, indépendamment de leur origine. Les sociétés primitives n’étaient pas inhumaines, mais elles n’avaient d’attention que pour leurs membres. Le monde moderne a inventé la « victime inconnue », comme on dirait aujourd’hui le « soldat inconnu ». Le christianisme peut maintenant continuer à s’étendre même sans la loi, car ses grandes percées intellectuelles et morales, notre souci des victimes et notre attention à ne pas nous fabriquer de boucs émissaires, ont fait de nous des chrétiens qui s’ignorent. René Girard
L’inauguration majestueuse de l’ère « post-chrétienne » est une plaisanterie. Nous sommes dans un ultra-christianisme caricatural qui essaie d’échapper à l’orbite judéo-chrétienne en « radicalisant » le souci des victimes dans un sens antichrétien. René Girard
J’espère offrir mon fils unique en martyr, comme son père. Dalal Mouazzi (jeune veuve d’un commandant du Hezbollah mort en 2006 pendant la guerre du Liban, à propos de son gamin de 10 ans)
Nous n’aurons la paix avec les Arabes que lorsqu’ils aimeront leurs enfants plus qu’ils ne nous détestent. Golda Meir
Les Israéliens ne savent pas que le peuple palestinien a progressé dans ses recherches sur la mort. Il a développé une industrie de la mort qu’affectionnent toutes nos femmes, tous nos enfants, tous nos vieillards et tous nos combattants. Ainsi, nous avons formé un bouclier humain grâce aux femmes et aux enfants pour dire à l’ennemi sioniste que nous tenons à la mort autant qu’il tient à la vie. Fathi Hammad (responsable du Hamas, mars 2008)
L’image correspondait à la réalité de la situation, non seulement à Gaza, mais en Cisjordanie. Charles Enderlin (Le Figaro, 27/01/05)
Oh, ils font toujours ça. C’est une question de culture. Représentants de France 2 (cités par Enderlin)
La mort de Mohammed annule, efface celle de l’enfant juif, les mains en l’air devant les SS, dans le Ghetto de Varsovie. Catherine Nay (Europe 1)
Il y a lieu de décider que Patrick Karsenty a exercé de bonne foi son droit à la libre critique (…) En répondant à Denis Jeambar et à Daniel Leconte dans le Figaro du 23 janvier 2005 que « l’image correspondait à la réalité de la situation, non seulement à Gaza, mais en Cisjordanie », alors que la diffusion d’un reportage s’entend comme le témoignage de ce que le journaliste a vu et entendu, Charles Enderlin a reconnu que le film qui a fait le tour du monde en entrainant des violences sans précédent dans toute la région ne correspondait peut-être pas au commentaire qu’il avait donné. Laurence Trébucq (Présidente de la Cour d’appel de Paris, 21.05.08)
Voilà sept ans qu’une campagne obstinée et haineuse s’efforce de salir la dignité professionnelle de notre confrère Charles Enderlin, correspondant de France 2 à Jerusalem. Voilà sept ans que les mêmes individus tentent de présenter comme une « supercherie » et une « série de scènes jouées » , son reportage montrant la mort de Mohammed al-Doura, 12 ans, tué par des tirs venus de la position israélienne, le 30 septembre 2000, dans la bande de Gaza, lors d’un affrontement entre l’armée israélienne et des éléments armés palestiniens. Appel du Nouvel observateur (27 mai 2008)
This is not staging, it’s playing for the camera. When they threw stones and Molotov cocktails, it was in part for the camera. That doesn’t mean it’s not true. They wanted to be filmed throwing stones and being hit by rubber bullets. All of us — the ARD too — did reports on kids confronting the Israeli army, in order to be filmed in Ramallah, in Gaza. That’s not staging, that’s reality. Charles Enderlin
Dans le numéro 1931 du Nouvel Observateur, daté du 8 novembre 2001, Sara Daniel a publié un reportage sur le « crime d’honneur » en Jordanie. Dans son texte, elle révélait qu’à Gaza et dans les territoires occupés, les crimes dits d’honneur qui consistent pour des pères ou des frères à abattre les femmes jugées légères représentaient une part importante des homicides. Le texte publié, en raison d’un défaut de guillemets et de la suppression de deux phrases dans la transmission, laissait penser que son auteur faisait sienne l’accusation selon laquelle il arrivait à des soldats israéliens de commettre un viol en sachant, de plus, que les femmes violées allaient être tuées. Il n’en était évidemment rien et Sara Daniel, actuellement en reportage en Afghanistan, fait savoir qu’elle déplore très vivement cette erreur qui a gravement dénaturé sa pensée. Une mise au point de Sara Daniel (Le Nouvel Observateur, le 15 novembre 2001)
Les Israéliens ne savent pas que le peuple palestinien a progressé dans ses recherches sur la mort. Il a développé une industrie de la mort qu’affectionnent toutes nos femmes, tous nos enfants, tous nos vieillards et tous nos combattants. Ainsi, nous avons formé un bouclier humain grâce aux femmes et aux enfants pour dire à l’ennemi sioniste que nous tenons à la mort autant qu’il tient à la vie. Fathi Hammad (responsable du Hamas, mars 2008)
Les pays européens qui ont transformé la Méditerranée en un cimetière de migrants partagent la responsabilité de chaque réfugié mort. Erdogan
Mr. Kurdi brought his family to Turkey three years ago after fleeing fighting first in Damascus, where he worked as a barber, then in Aleppo, then Kobani. His Facebook page shows pictures of the family in Istanbul crossing the Bosporus and feeding pigeons next to the famous Yeni Cami, or new mosque. From his hospital bed on Wednesday, Mr. Kurdi told a Syrian radio station that he had worked on construction sites for 50 Turkish lira (roughly $17) a day, but it wasn’t enough to live on. He said they depended on his sister, Tima Kurdi, who lived in Canada, for help paying the rent. Ms. Kurdi, speaking Thursday in a Vancouver suburb, said that their father, still in Syria, had suggested Abdullah go to Europe to get his damaged teeth fixed and find a way to help his family leave Turkey. She said she began wiring her brother money three weeks ago, in €1,000 ($1,100) amounts, to help pay for the trip. Shortly after, she said her brother called her and said he wanted to bring his whole family to Europe, as his wife wasn’t able to support their two boys alone in Istanbul. “If we go, we go all of us,” Ms. Kurdi recounted him telling her. She said she spoke to his wife last week, who told her she was scared of the water and couldn’t swim. “I said to her, ‘I cannot push you to go. If you don’t want to go, don’t go,’” she said. “But I guess they all decided they wanted to do it all together.” At the morgue, Mr. Kurdi described what happened after they set off from the deserted beach, under cover of darkness. “We went into the sea for four minutes and then the captain saw that the waves are so high, so he steered the boat and we were hit immediately. He panicked and dived into the sea and fled. I took over and started steering, the waves were so high the boat flipped. I took my wife in my arms and I realized they were all dead.” Mr. Kurdi gave different accounts of what happened next. In one interview, he said he swam ashore and walked to the hospital. In another, he said he was rescued by the coast guard. In Canada, Ms. Kurdi said her brother had sent her a text message around 3 a.m. Turkish time Wednesday confirming they had set off. (…) “He said, ‘I did everything in my power to save them, but I couldn’t,’” she said. “My brother said to me, ‘My kids have to be the wake-up call for the whole world.’” WSJ
Personne ne dit que ce n’est pas raisonnable de partir de Turquie avec deux enfants en bas âge sur une mer agitée dans un frêle esquife. Arno Klarsfeld
La justice israélienne a dit disposer d’une déposition selon laquelle la famille d’un bébé palestinien mort dans des circonstances contestées dans la bande de Gaza avait été payée par le Hamas pour accuser Israël, ce que les parents ont nié. Vif émoi après la mort de l’enfant. Leïla al-Ghandour, âgée de huit mois, est morte mi-mai alors que l’enclave palestinienne était depuis des semaines le théâtre d’une mobilisation massive et d’affrontements entre Palestiniens et soldats israéliens le long de la frontière avec Gaza. Son décès a suscité un vif émoi. Sa famille accuse l’armée israélienne d’avoir provoqué sa mort en employant des lacrymogènes contre les protestataires, parmi lesquels se trouvait la fillette. La fillette souffrait-elle d’un problème cardiaque ? L’armée israélienne, se fondant sur les informations d’un médecin palestinien resté anonyme mais qui selon elle connaissait l’enfant et sa famille, dit que l’enfant souffrait d’un problème cardiaque. Le ministère israélien de la Justice a rendu public jeudi l’acte d’inculpation d’un Gazaoui de 20 ans, présenté comme le cousin de la fillette. Selon le ministère, il a déclaré au cours de ses interrogatoires par les forces israéliennes que les parents de Leila avaient touché 8.000 shekels (1.800 euros) de la part de Yahya Sinouar, le chef du Hamas dans la bande de Gaza, pour dire que leur fille était morte des inhalations de gaz. Une « fabrication » du Hamas dénoncée par Israël. Les parents ont nié ces déclarations, réaffirmé que leur fille était bien morte des inhalations, et ont contesté qu’elle était malade. Selon la famille, Leïla al-Ghandour avait été emmenée près de la frontière par un oncle âgé de 11 ans et avait été prise dans les tirs de lacrymogènes. Europe 1
Donald Trump aurait (…) menti en affirmant que la criminalité augmentait en Allemagne, en raison de l’entrée dans le pays de 1,1 million de clandestins en 2015. (…) Les articles se sont immédiatement multipliés pour dénoncer « le mensonge » du président américain. Pourquoi ? Parce que les autorités allemandes se sont félicitées d’une baisse des agressions violentes en 2017. C’est vrai, elles ont chuté de 5,1% par rapport à 2016. Est-il possible, cependant, de feindre à ce point l’incompréhension ? Car les détracteurs zélés du président omettent de préciser que la criminalité a bien augmenté en Allemagne à la suite de cette vague migratoire exceptionnelle : 10% de crimes violents en plus, sur les années 2015 et 2016. L’étude réalisée par le gouvernement allemand et publiée en janvier dernier concluait même que 90% de cette augmentation était due aux jeunes hommes clandestins fraîchement accueillis, âgés de 14 à 30 ans. L’augmentation de la criminalité fut donc indiscutablement liée à l’accueil de 1,1 millions de clandestins pendant l’année 2015. C’est évidement ce qu’entend démontrer Donald Trump. Et ce n’est pas tout. Les chiffres du ministère allemand de l’Intérieur pour 2016 révèlent également une implication des étrangers et des clandestins supérieure à celle des Allemands dans le domaine de la criminalité. Et en hausse. La proportion d’étrangers parmi les personnes suspectées d’actes criminels était de 28,7% en 2014, elle est passée à 40,4% en 2016, avant de chuter à 35% en 2017 (ce qui reste plus important qu’en 2014). En 2016, les étrangers étaient 3,5 fois plus impliqués dans des crimes que les Allemands, les clandestins 7 fois plus. Des chiffres encore plus élevés dans le domaine des crimes violents (5 fois plus élevés chez les étrangers, 15 fois chez les clandestins) ou dans celui des viols en réunion (10 fois plus chez les étrangers, 42 fois chez les clandestins !). Factuellement, la criminalité n’augmente pas aujourd’hui en Allemagne. Mais l’exceptionnelle vague migratoire voulue par Angela Merkel en 2015 a bien eu pour conséquence l’augmentation de la criminalité en Allemagne. Les Allemands, eux, semblent l’avoir très bien compris. Valeurs actuelles
Je vous demande de ne rien céder, dans ces temps troublés que nous vivons, de votre amour pour l’Europe. Je vous le dis avec beaucoup de gravité. Beaucoup la détestent, mais ils la détestent depuis longtemps et vous les voyez monter, comme une lèpre, un peu partout en Europe, dans des pays où nous pensions que c’était impossible de la voir réapparaître. Et des amis voisins, ils disent le pire et nous nous y habituons. Emmanuel Macron
Il y a des choses insoutenables. Mais pourquoi on en est arrivé là ? Parce que justement il y a des gens comme Emmanuel Macron qui venaient donner des leçons de morale aux autres. Il y a une inquiétude identitaire » en Europe, « c’est une réalité politique. Tous les donneurs de leçon ont tué l’Europe, il y a une angoisse chez les Européens d’être dilués, pas une angoisse raciste, mais une angoisse de ne plus pouvoir être eux, chez eux. Jean-Sébastien Ferjou
Our message absolutely is don’t send your children unaccompanied, on trains or through a bunch of smugglers. We don’t even know how many of these kids don’t make it, and may have been waylaid into sex trafficking or killed because they fell off a train. Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it, they’ll get sent back. More importantly, they may not make it. Obama (2014)
I also think that we have to understand the difficulty that President Obama finds himself in because there are laws that impose certain obligations on him. And it was my understanding that the numbers have been moderating in part as the Department of Homeland Security and other law enforcement officials understood that separating children from families — I mean, the horror of a father or a mother going to work and being picked up and immediately whisked away and children coming home from school to an empty house and nobody can say where their mother or father is, that is just not who we are as Americans. And so, I do think that while we continue to make the case which you know is very controversial in some corridors, that we have to reform our immigration system and we needed to do it yesterday. That’s why I approved of the bill that was passed in the Senate. We need to show humanity with respect to people to people who are working, contributing right now. And deporting them, leaving their children alone or deporting an adolescent, doing anything that is so contrary to our core values, just makes no sense. So I would be very open to trying to figure out ways to change the law, even if we don’t get to comprehensive immigration reform to provide more leeway and more discretion for the executive branch. (…) the numbers are increasing dramatically. And the main reason I believe why that’s happening is that the violence in certain of those Central American countries is increasing dramatically. And there is not sufficient law enforcement or will on the part of the governments of those countries to try to deal with this exponential increase in violence, drug trafficking, the drug cartels, and many children are fleeing from that violence. (…) first of all, we have to provide the best emergency care we can provide. We have children 5 and 6 years old who have come up from Central America. We need to do more to provide border security in southern Mexico. (…) they should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, because there are concerns whether all of them should be sent back. But I think all of them who can be should be reunited with their families. (…) But we have so to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay. So, we don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey. Hillary Clinton (2014)
Over the past six years, President Obama has tried to make children the centerpiece of his efforts to put a gentler face on U.S. immigration policy. Even as his administration has deported a record number of unauthorized immigrants, surpassing two million deportations last year, it has pushed for greater leniency toward undocumented children. After trying and failing to pass the Dream Act legislation, which would offer a path to permanent residency for immigrants who arrived before the age of 16, the president announced an executive action in 2012 to block their deportation. Last November, Obama added another executive action to extend similar protections to undocumented parents. “We’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security,” he said in a speech on Nov. 20. “Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for her kids.” But the president’s new policies apply only to immigrants who have been in the United States for more than five years; they do nothing to address the emerging crisis on the border today. Since the economic collapse of 2008, the number of undocumented immigrants coming from Mexico has plunged, while a surge of violence in Central America has brought a wave of migrants from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. According to recent statistics from the Department of Homeland Security, the number of refugees fleeing Central America has doubled in the past year alone — with more than 61,000 “family units” crossing the U.S. border, as well as 51,000 unaccompanied children. For the first time, more people are coming to the United States from those countries than from Mexico, and they are coming not just for opportunity but for survival. The explosion of violence in Central America is often described in the language of war, cartels, extortion and gangs, but none of these capture the chaos overwhelming the region. Four of the five highest murder rates in the world are in Central American nations. The collapse of these countries is among the greatest humanitarian disasters of our time. While criminal organizations like the 18th Street Gang and Mara Salvatrucha exist as street gangs in the United States, in large parts of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador they are so powerful and pervasive that they have supplanted the government altogether. People who run afoul of these gangs — which routinely demand money on threat of death and sometimes kidnap young boys to serve as soldiers and young girls as sexual slaves — may have no recourse to the law and no better option than to flee. The American immigration system defines a special pathway for refugees. To qualify, most applicants must present themselves to federal authorities, pass a “credible fear interview” to demonstrate a possible basis for asylum and proceed through a “merits hearing” before an immigration judge. Traditionally, those who have completed the first two stages are permitted to live with family and friends in the United States while they await their final hearing, which can be months or years later. If authorities believe an applicant may not appear for that court date, they can require a bond payment as guarantee or place the refugee in a monitoring system that may include a tracking bracelet. In the most extreme cases, a judge may deny bond and keep the refugee in a detention facility until the merits hearing. The rules are somewhat different when children are involved. Under the terms of a 1997 settlement in the case of Flores v. Meese, children who enter the country without their parents must be granted a “general policy favoring release” to the custody of relatives or a foster program. When there is cause to detain a child, he or she must be housed in the least restrictive environment possible, kept away from unrelated adults and provided access to medical care, exercise and adequate education. Whether these protections apply to children traveling with their parents has been a matter of dispute. The Flores settlement refers to “all minors who are detained” by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and its “agents, employees, contractors and/or successors in office.” When the I.N.S. dissolved into the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, its detention program shifted to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Federal judges have ruled that ICE is required to honor the Flores protections for all children in its custody. Even so, in 2005, the administration of George W. Bush decided to deny the Flores protections to refugee children traveling with their parents. Instead of a “general policy favoring release,” the administration began to incarcerate hundreds of those families for months at a time. To house them, officials opened the T. Don Hutto Family Detention Center near Austin, Tex. Within a year, the administration faced a lawsuit over the facility’s conditions. Legal filings describe young children forced to wear prison jumpsuits, to live in dormitory housing, to use toilets exposed to public view and to sleep with the lights on, even while being denied access to appropriate schooling. In a pretrial hearing, a federal judge in Texas blasted the administration for denying these children the protections of the Flores settlement. “The court finds it inexplicable that defendants have spent untold amounts of time, effort and taxpayer dollars to establish the Hutto family-detention program, knowing all the while that Flores is still in effect,” the judge wrote. The Bush administration settled the suit with a promise to improve the conditions at Hutto but continued to deny that children in family detention were entitled to the Flores protections. In 2009, the Obama administration reversed course, abolishing family detention at Hutto and leaving only a small facility in Pennsylvania to house refugee families in exceptional circumstances. For all other refugee families, the administration returned to a policy of release to await trial. Studies have shown that nearly all detainees who are released from custody with some form of monitoring will appear for their court date. But when the number of refugees from Central America spiked last summer, the administration abruptly announced plans to resume family detention. (…) From the beginning, officials were clear that the purpose of the new facility in Artesia was not so much to review asylum petitions as to process deportation orders. “We have already added resources to expedite the removal, without a hearing before an immigration judge, of adults who come from these three countries without children,” the secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, told a Senate committee in July. “Then there are adults who brought their children with them. Again, our message to this group is simple: We will send you back.” Elected officials in Artesia say that Johnson made a similar pledge during a visit to the detention camp in July. “He said, ‘As soon as we get them, we’ll ship them back,’ ” a city councilor from Artesia named Jose Luis Aguilar recalled. The mayor of the city, Phillip Burch, added, “His comment to us was that this would be a ‘rapid deportation process.’ Those were his exact words.” (…) “I arrived on July 5 and turned myself in at 2 a.m.,” a 28-year-old mother of two named Ana recalled. In Honduras, Ana ran a small business selling trinkets and served on the P.T.A. of her daughter’s school. “I lived well,” she said — until the gangs began to pound on her door, demanding extortion payments. Within days, they had escalated their threats, approaching Ana brazenly on the street. “One day, coming home from my daughter’s school, they walked up to me and put a gun to my head,” she said. “They told me that if I didn’t give them the money in less than 24 hours, they would kill me.” Ana had already seen friends raped and murdered by the gang, so she packed her belongings that night and began the 1,800-mile journey to the U.S. border with her 7-year-old daughter. Four weeks later, in McAllen, Tex., they surrendered as refugees. Ana and her daughter entered Artesia in mid-July. In October they were still there. Ana’s daughter was sick and losing weight rapidly under the strain of incarceration. Their lawyer, a leader in Chicago’s Mormon Church named Rebecca van Uitert, said that Ana’s daughter became so weak and emaciated that doctors threatened drastic measures. “They were like, ‘You’ve got to force her to eat, and if you don’t, we’re going to put a PICC line in her and force-feed her,’ ” van Uitert said. Ana said that when her daughter heard the doctor say this, “She started to cry and cry.” (…) Many of the volunteers in Artesia tell similar stories about the misery of life in the facility. “I thought I was pretty tough,” said Allegra Love, who spent the previous summer working on the border between Mexico and Guatemala. “I mean, I had seen kids in all manner of suffering, but this was a really different thing. It’s a jail, and the women and children are being led around by guards. There’s this look that the kids have in their eyes. This lackadaisical look. They’re just sitting there, staring off, and they’re wasting away. That was what shocked me most.” The detainees reported sleeping eight to a room, in violation of the Flores settlement, with little exercise or stimulation for the children. Many were under the age of 6 and had been raised on a diet of tortillas, rice and chicken bits. In Artesia, the institutional cafeteria foods were as unfamiliar as the penal atmosphere, and to their parents’ horror, many of the children refused to eat. “Gaunt kids, moms crying, they’re losing hair, up all night,” an attorney named Maria Andrade recalled. Another, Lisa Johnson-Firth, said: “I saw children who were malnourished and were not adapting. One 7-year-old just lay in his mother’s arms while she bottle-fed him.” Mary O’Leary, who made three trips to Artesia last fall, said: “I was trying to talk to one client about her case, and just a few feet away at another table there was this lady with a toddler between 2 and 4 years old, just lying limp. This was a sick kid, and just with this horrible racking cough.” (…) Attorneys for the Obama administration have argued in court, like the Bush administration previously, that the protections guaranteed by the Flores settlement do not apply to children in family detention. “The Flores settlement comes into play with unaccompanied minors,” a lawyer for the Department of Homeland Security named Karen Donoso Stevens insisted to a judge on Aug. 4. “That argument is moot here, because the juvenile is detained — is accompanied and detained — with his mother.” Federal judges have consistently rejected this position. Just as the judge reviewing family detention in 2007 called the denial of Flores protections “inexplicable,” the judge presiding over the Aug. 4 hearing issued a ruling in September that Homeland Security officials in Artesia must honor the Flores Settlement Agreement. “The language of the F.S.A. is unambiguous,” Judge Roxanne Hladylowycz wrote. “The F.S.A. was designed to create a nationwide policy for the detention of all minors, not only those who are unaccompanied.” Olavarria said she was not aware of that ruling and would not comment on whether the Department of Homeland Security believes that the Flores ruling applies to children in family detention today. (…) As the pro bono project in Artesia continued into fall, its attorneys continued to win in court. By mid-November, more than 400 of the detained women and children were free on bond. Then on Nov. 20, the administration suddenly announced plans to transfer the Artesia detainees to the ICE detention camp in Karnes, Tex., where they would fall under a new immigration court district with a new slate of judges. That announcement came at the very moment the president was delivering a live address on the new protections available to established immigrant families. In an email to notify Artesia volunteers about the transfer, an organizer for AILA named Stephen Manning wrote, “The disconnect from the compassionate-ish words of the president and his crushing policies toward these refugees is shocking.” Brown was listening to the speech in her car, while driving to Denver for a rare weekend at home, when her cellphone buzzed with the news that 20 of her clients would be transferred to Texas the next morning. Many of them were close to a bond release; in San Antonio, they might be detained for weeks or months longer. Brown pulled her car to the side of the highway and spent three hours arguing to delay the transfer. Over the next two weeks, officials moved forward with the plan. By mid-December, most of the Artesia detainees were in Karnes (…) One of McPhaul’s colleagues, Judge Gary Burkholder, was averaging a 91.6 percent denial rate for the asylum claims. Some Karnes detainees had been in the facility for nearly six months and could remain there another six. (…) “I agree,” Sischo said. “We should not be spending resources on detaining these families. They should be released. But people don’t understand the law. They think they should be deported because they’re ‘illegals.’ So they’re missing a very big part of the story, which is that they aren’t breaking the law. They’re trying to go through the process that’s laid out in our laws.” Wil S. Hylton (NYT magazine, 2015)
It was the kind of story destined to take a dark turn through the conservative news media and grab President Trump’s attention: A vast horde of migrants was making its way through Mexico toward the United States, and no one was stopping them. “Mysterious group deploys ‘caravan’ of illegal aliens headed for U.S. border,” warned Frontpage Mag, a site run by David Horowitz, a conservative commentator. The Gateway Pundit, a website that was most recently in the news for spreading conspiracies about the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., suggested the real reason the migrants were trying to enter the United States was to collect social welfare benefits. And as the president often does when immigration is at issue, he saw a reason for Americans to be afraid. “Getting more dangerous. ‘Caravans’ coming,” a Twitter post from Mr. Trump read. The story of “the caravan” followed an arc similar to many events — whether real, embellished or entirely imagined — involving refugees and migrants that have roused intense suspicion and outrage on the right. The coverage tends to play on the fears that hiding among mass groups of immigrants are many criminals, vectors of disease and agents of terror. And often the president, who announced his candidacy by blaming Mexico for sending rapists and drug dealers into the United States, acts as an accelerant to the hysteria. The sensationalization of this story and others like it seems to serve a common purpose for Mr. Trump and other immigration hard-liners: to highlight the twin dangers of freely roving migrants — especially those from Muslim countries — and lax immigration laws that grant them easy entry into Western nations. The narrative on the right this week, for example, mostly omitted that many people in the caravan planned to resettle in Mexico, not the United States. And it ignored how many of those who did intend to come here would probably go through the legal process of requesting asylum at a border checkpoint — something miles of new wall and battalions of additional border patrol would not have stopped. (…) The story of the caravan has been similarly exaggerated. And the emotional outpouring from the right has been raw — that was the case on Fox this week when the TV host Tucker Carlson shouted “You hate America!” at an immigrants rights activist after he defended the people marching through Mexico. The facts of the caravan are not as straightforward as Mr. Trump or many conservative pundits have portrayed them. The story initially gained widespread attention after BuzzFeed News reported last week that more than 1,000 Central American migrants, mostly from Honduras, were making their way north toward the United States border. Yet the BuzzFeed article and other coverage pointed out that many in the group were planning to stay in Mexico. That did not stop Mr. Trump from expressing dismay on Tuesday with a situation “where you have thousands of people that decide to just walk into our country, and we don’t have any laws that can protect it.” The use of disinformation in immigration debates is hardly unique to the United States. Misleading crime statistics, speculation about sinister plots to undermine national sovereignty and Russian propaganda have all played a role in stirring up anti-immigrant sentiment in places like Britain, Germany and Hungary. Some of the more fantastical theories have involved a socialist conspiracy to import left-leaning voters and a scheme by the Hungarian-born Jewish philanthropist George Soros to create a borderless Europe. NYT
With the help of a humanitarian group called “Pueblo Sin Fronteras” (people without borders), the 1,000 plus migrants will reach the U.S. border with a list of demands to several governments in Central America, the United States, and Mexico. Here’s what they demanded of Mexico and the United States in a Facebook post: -That they respect our rights as refugees and our right to dignified work to be able to support our families -That they open the borders to us because we are as much citizens as the people of the countries where we are and/or travel -That deportations, which destroy families, come to an end -No more abuses against us as migrants -Dignity and justice -That the US government not end TPS for those who need it -That the US government stop massive funding for the Mexican government to detain Central American migrants and refugees and to deport them -That these governments respect our rights under international law, including the right to free expression -That the conventions on refugee rights not be empty rhetoric. The Blaze
La photographie du 12 juin de la petite Hondurienne de 2 ans est devenue le symbole le plus visible du débat sur l’immigration actuellement en cours aux Etats-Unis et il y a une raison pour cela. Dans le cadre de la politique appliquée par l’administration, avant son revirement de cette semaine, ceux qui traversaient la frontière illégalement étaient l’objet de poursuites criminelles, qui entraînaient à leur tour la séparation des enfants et des parents. Notre couverture et notre reportage saisissent les enjeux de ce moment. Edward Felsenthal (rédacteur en chef de Time)
La version originale de cet article a fait une fausse affirmation quant au sort de la petite fille après la photographie. Elle n’a pas été emmenée en larmes par les patrouilles frontalières ; sa mère l’a récupérée et les deux ont été interpellées ensemble. Time
Cette enfant n’a pas été séparée de ses parents. Sa photo reste un symbole. L’Obs
De nombreuses photos et vidéos circulent sur internet depuis que Donald Trump a mis en place sa politique de tolérance zéro face à l’immigration illégale, ce qui a mené plus de 2.300 enfants à être séparés de leurs parents à la frontière entre Etats-Unis et Mexique. Mais beaucoup d’entre elles ne correspondent pas à la réalité. Vendredi, après la publication d’un décret du président américain marquant son revirement vis-à-vis de cette politique, le doute demeurait sur le temps que mettront ces mineurs à retrouver leurs familles. (…) Au moins trois images, largement partagées sur les réseaux sociaux ces derniers jours, illustrent des situations qui ne sont pas celles vécues par les 2.342 enfants détenus en raison de leur statut migratoire irrégulier. La première montre une fillette hondurienne, Yanela Varela, en larmes. Elle est vite devenue sur Twitter ou Facebook un symbole de la douleur provoquée par la séparation des familles. (…) La photo a été prise le 12 juin dans la ville de McAllen, au Texas, par John Moore, un photographe qui a obtenu le prix Pulitzer et travaille pour l’agence Getty Images. Time Magazine en a fait sa Une, mettant face à face, dans un photomontage sur fond rouge, la petite fille apeurée et un Donald Trump faisant presque trois fois sa taille et la toisant avec cette simple légende: « Bienvenue en Amérique ». Un article en ligne publié par Time et portant sur cette photo affirmait initialement que la petite fille avait été séparée de sa mère. Mais l’article a ensuite été corrigé, la nouvelle version déclarant: « La petite fille n’a pas été emmenée en larmes par des agents de la police frontalière des Etats-Unis, sa mère est venue la chercher et elles ont été emmenées ensemble ». Time a néanmoins utilisé la photo de la fillette pour sa spectaculaire couverture. Mais au Honduras, la responsable de la Direction de protection des migrants au ministère des Affaires étrangères, Lisa Medrano, a donné à l’AFP une toute autre version: « La fillette, qui va avoir deux ans, n’a pas été séparée » de ses parents. Le père de l’enfant, Denis Varela, a confirmé au Washington Post que sa femme Sandra Sanchez, 32 ans, n’avait pas été séparée de Yanela et que les deux étaient actuellement retenues dans un centre pour migrants de McAllen (Texas). Attaqué pour sa couverture, qui a été largement jugée trompeuse, y compris par la Maison Blanche, Time a déclaré qu’il maintenait sa décision de la publier. (…) Un autre cliché montre une vingtaine d’enfants derrière une grille, certains d’entre eux tentant d’y grimper. Il circule depuis des jours comme une supposée photo de centres de détention pour mineurs à la frontière mexicaine. Mais son auteur, Abed Al Ashlamoun, photographe de l’agence EPA, a pris cette image en août 2010 et elle représente des enfants palestiniens attendant la distribution de nourriture pendant le ramadan à Hébron, en Cisjordanie. Enfin, une troisième image est celle d’un enfant en train de pleurer dans ce qui semble être une cage, et qui remporte un grand succès sur Twitter, où elle a été partagée au moins 25.000 fois sur le compte @joseiswriting. Encore une fois, il s’agit d’un trompe-l’oeil: il s’agit d’un extrait d’une photo qui mettait en scène des arrestations d’enfants lors d’une manifestation contre la politique migratoire américaine et publiée le 11 juin dernier sur le compte Facebook Brown Berets de Cemanahuac. La Croix
Au moins 150 migrants centraméricains sont arrivés à Tijuana au Mexique, à la frontière avec les États-Unis. Ils sont décidés à demander l’asile à Washington. Plusieurs centaines de migrants originaires d’Amérique centrale se sont rassemblés dimanche 30 avril à la frontière mexico-américaine au terme d’un mois de traversée du Mexique. Nombre d’entre eux ont décidé de se présenter aux autorités américaines pour déposer des demandes d’asile et devraient être placés en centres de rétention. « Nous espérons que le gouvernement des États-Unis nous ouvrira les portes », a déclaré Reyna Isabel Rodríguez, 52 ans, venu du Salvador avec ses deux petits-enfants. L’ONG Peuple Sans Frontières organise ce type de caravane depuis 2010 pour dénoncer le sort de celles et ceux qui traversent le Mexique en proie à de nombreux dangers, entre des cartels de la drogue qui les kidnappent ou les tuent, et des autorités qui les rançonnent. « Nous voulons dire au président des États-Unis que nous ne sommes pas des criminels, nous ne sommes pas des terroristes, qu’il nous donne la chance de vivre sans peur. Je sais que Dieu va toucher son cœur », a déclaré l’une des organisatrices de la caravane, Irineo Mujica. L’ONG, composée de volontaires, permet notamment aux migrants de rester groupés – lors d’un périple qui se fait à pied, en bus ou en train – afin de se prémunir de tous les dangers qui jalonnent leur chemin. En espagnol, ces caravanes sont d’ailleurs appelées « Via Crucis Migrantes » ou le « Chemin de croix des migrants », en référence aux processions catholiques, particulièrement appréciées en Amérique du Sud, qui mettent en scène la Passion du Christ, ou les derniers événements qui ont précédé et accompagné la mort de Jésus de Nazareth. Cette année, le groupe est parti le 25 mars de Tapachula, à la frontière du Guatemala, avec un groupe de près de 1 200 personnes, à 80 % originaires du Honduras, les autres venant du Guatemala, du Salvador et du Nicaragua, selon Rodrigo Abeja. Dans le groupe, près de 300 enfants âgés de 1 mois à 11 ans, une vingtaine de jeunes homosexuels et environ 400 femmes. Certains se sont ensuite dispersés, préférant rester au Mexique, d’autres choisissant de voyager par leurs propres moyens. En avril, les images de la caravane de migrants se dirigeant vers les États-Unis avaient suscité la colère de Donald Trump et une forte tension entre Washington et Mexico. Le président américain, dont l’un des principaux thèmes de campagne était la construction d’un mur à la frontière avec le Mexique pour lutter contre l’immigration clandestine, avait ordonné le déploiement sur la frontière de troupes de la Garde nationale. Il avait aussi soumis la conclusion d’un nouvel accord de libre-échange en Amérique du Nord à un renforcement des contrôles migratoires par le Mexique, une condition rejetée par le président mexicain Enrique Pena Nieto. France 24
Il faut noter que les migrants qui veulent demander l’asile se rendent facilement aux agents de patrouille aux frontières. Ce ne sont pas des migrants sans papiers classiques, ils viennent avec autant de documents que possible pour obtenir l’asile politique. Dans ce groupe se trouvaient une vingtaine de femmes et d’enfants. La plupart venaient du Honduras. (…) J’avais remarqué une mère qui tenait un enfant. Elle m’a dit que sa fille et elle voyageaient depuis un mois, au départ du Honduras. Elle m’a dit que sa fille avait 2 ans, et j’ai pu voir dans ses yeux qu’elle était sur ses gardes, exténuée et qu’elle avait probablement vécu un voyage très difficile. C’est l’une des dernières familles à avoir été embarquée dans le véhicule. Un des officiers a demandé à la mère de déposer son enfant à terre pendant qu’elle était fouillée. Juste à ce moment-là, la petite fille a commencé à pleurer, très fort. J’ai trois enfants moi-même, dont un tout petit, et c’était très difficile à voir, mais j’avais une fenêtre de tir très réduite pour photographier la scène. Dès que la fouille s’est terminée, elle a pu reprendre son enfant dans ses bras et ses pleurs se sont éteints. Moi, j’ai dû m’arrêter, reprendre mes esprits et respirer profondément. J’avais déjà photographié des scènes comme ça à de nombreuses reprises. Mais celle-ci était unique, d’une part à cause des pleurs de cette enfant, mais aussi parce que cette fois, je savais qu’à la prochaine étape de leur voyage, dans ce centre de rétention, elles allaient être séparées. Je doute que ces familles aient eu la moindre idée de ce qui allait leur arriver. Tous voyageaient depuis des semaines, ils ne regardaient pas la télévision et n’avaient aucun moyen d’être au courant de la nouvelle mesure de tolérance zéro et de séparation des familles mise en place par Trump. (…) Cela fait dix ans que je photographie l’immigration à la frontière américaine, toujours avec l’objectif d’humaniser des histoires complexes. Souvent, on parle de l’immigration avec des statistiques, arides et froides. Et je crois que la seule manière que les personnes dans ce pays trouvent des solutions humaines est qu’elles voient les gens comme des êtres humains. Je n’avais jamais imaginé que j’allais un jour mettre un visage sur une politique de séparation des familles, mais c’est le cas aujourd’hui. John Moore
Pourquoi aurait-elle fait subir ça à notre petite fille ? (….) Je pense que c’était irresponsable de sa part de partir avec le bébé dans les bras parce qu’on ne sait pas ce qui aurait pu arriver. Denis Hernandez
Interrogé par le Daily Mail, Denis Varela a indiqué que sa femme voulait expérimenter le rêve américain et trouver un travail au pays de l’Oncle Sam, mais qu’il était opposé à l’idée qu’elle parte avec sa fille : « Elle est partie sans prévenir. Je n’ai pas pu dire « Au revoir » à ma fille et maintenant la seule chose que je peux faire, c’est attendre. » Le couple a aussi trois autres enfants, un fils de 14 ans, et deux filles de 11 et 6 ans. « Les enfants comprennent ce qu’il se passe. Ils sont un peu inquiets mais j’essaye de ne pas trop aborder le sujet. Ils savent que leur mère et leur sœur sont en sécurité. » Il a ajouté qu’il espère que « les droits de sa femme et de sa fille sont respectés, parce qu’elles sont des reines […] Nous avons tous des droits. » Ouest France
Protecting children at the border is complicated because there have, indeed, been instances of fraud. Tens of thousands of migrants arrive there every year, and those with children in tow are often released into the United States more quickly than adults who come alone, because of restrictions on the amount of time that minors can be held in custody. Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner. Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing. (…) [Jessica M. Vaughan, the director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies] said that some migrants were using children as “human shields” in order to get out of immigration custody faster. “It makes no sense at all for the government to just accept these attempts at fraud,” Ms. Vaughan said. “If it appears that the child is being used in this way, it is in the best interest of the child to be kept separately from the parent, for the parent to be prosecuted, because it’s a crime and it’s one that has to be deterred and prosecuted.” NYT
Over the weekend, you may have seen a horrifying story: Almost 1,500 migrant children were missing, and feared to be in the hands of human traffickers. The Trump administration lost track of the children, the story went, after separating them from their parents at the border. The news spread across liberal social media — with the hashtag #Wherearethechildren trending on Twitter — as people demanded immediate action. But it wasn’t true, or at least not the way that many thought. The narrative had combined parts of two real events and wound up with a horror story that was at least partly a myth. The fact that so many Americans readily believed this myth offers a lesson in how partisan polarization colors people’s views on a gut emotional level without many even realizing it. As other articles have explained, the missing children and the Trump administration’s separation of families who are apprehended at the border are two different matters. (…) These “missing” children had actually come to the United States without their parents, been picked up by the Border Patrol and then released to the custody of a parent or guardian. Many probably are not really missing. The figure represents the number of children whose households didn’t answer the phone when the Department of Health and Human Services called to check on them. The unanswered phone calls may warrant further welfare checks, but are not themselves a sign that something nefarious has happened. The Obama administration also detained immigrant families and children, as did other recent administrations. This past weekend, some social media users circulated a photo they said showed children detained as a result of President Trump’s policies, but the image was actually from 2014. (…) Long-running social science surveys have found that since the 1980s, Republicans’ opinions of Democrats and Democrats’ opinions of Republicans have been increasingly negative. At the same time, as Lilliana Mason, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, writes in a new book, partisan identity has become an umbrella for other important identities, including those involving race, religion, geography and even educational background. It has become a tribal identity itself, not merely a matter of policy preferences. So it’s not that liberals didn’t care about immigrant children until Mr. Trump became president, or that they’re only pretending to care now so as to score political points. Rather, with the Trump administration’s making opposition to immigrants a signature issue, the topic has become salient to partisan conflict in a way it wasn’t before. Mr. Trump’s treatment of immigrant families and children, when refracted through the lens of partisan bias, affirms liberals’ perception of being engaged in a broader moral struggle with the right, making it feel like an urgent threat. Mr. Obama’s detaining of immigrant children, by contrast, felt like a matter of abstract moral concern. Identity polarization means “you want to show that you’re a good member of your tribe,” Sean Westwood, a political scientist at Dartmouth College who studies partisan polarization, said in an interview early last year. “You want to show others that Republicans are bad or Democrats are bad, and your tribe is good.” Sharing stories on social media “provides a unique opportunity to publicly declare to the world what your beliefs are and how willing you are to denigrate the opposition and reinforce your own political candidates,” he said. Accurate news can serve that purpose. But fake news has an advantage. It can perfectly capture one side’s villainous archetypes of the other, without regard for pesky facts that might not fit the story line. The narrative that President Trump’s team lost hundreds of children after tearing them away from their parents combines some of the main liberal critiques of the administration: that it is racist, that it is authoritarian and that it is incompetent. The administration’s very real policy of separating families already plays to the first two archetypes. By adding in the missing children, the story manages to incorporate an incompetence angle as well. NYT
Nous ne voulons pas séparer les familles, mais nous ne voulons pas que des familles viennent illégalement. Si vous faites passer un enfant, nous vous poursuivrons. Et cet enfant sera séparé de vous, comme la loi le requiert. Jeff Sessions
Le dilemme est si vous êtes mou, ce que certaines personnes aimeraient que vous soyez, si vous êtes vraiment mou, pathétiquement mou… le pays va être envahi par des millions de gens. Et si vous êtes ferme, vous n’avez pas de coeur. C’est un dilemme difficile. Peut-être que je préfère être ferme, mais c’est un dilemme difficile. Donald Trump
Time has not responded to a request for comment from The Post, but in a statement sent to media outlets, the magazine said it’s standing by its cover. Washington Post
La photographie du 12 juin de la petite Hondurienne de 2 ans est devenue le symbole le plus visible du débat sur l’immigration en cours aux États-Unis et il y a une raison pour cela. Dans le cadre de la politique appliquée par l’administration, avant son revirement de cette semaine, ceux qui traversaient la frontière illégalement étaient l’objet de poursuites criminelles, qui entraînaient à leur tour la séparation des enfants et des parents. Notre couverture et notre reportage saisissent les enjeux de ce moment. Edward Felsenthal (rédacteur en chef de Time).
The Time cover is an illustration that interprets a wider issue being reported on within the magazine. The photograph I took is a straightforward and an honest image; it shows a brief moment in time of a distressed little girl, whose mother is being searched as they are both taken into custody. I believe this image has raised awareness of the zero tolerance policy of the current administration. Having covered immigration for Getty Images for 10 years, this photograph for me is part of a much larger story. John Moore
Obviously this child never met the president, it’s not misleading at all in that sense. I think that the power of it is in the juxtaposition of the two figures, of the child who quickly came to represent all of the children that we’re talking about, and the president who was making the decisions about their fate. Nancy Gibbs (former editor of Time)
It was well within the parameters of editorial license. This is a caustic, sharp-edged cover. But it’s a caustic, sharp-edged cover about an issue that is deeply emotional that has divided America. Moore’s photos are « iconic » and will be remembered alongside historic images of Emmett Till and the photo of a naked little girl running from a Naplam attack in Vietnam. Bruce Shapiro (Columbia University)
Il existe aux Etats-Unis un grave problème d’immigration illégale. Trump a commencé à prendre des décisions pour le régler. Les entrées clandestines dans le pays par la frontière Sud ont diminué de 70 pour cent. Elles sont encore trop nombreuses. Les immigrants illégaux présents dans le pays ne sont pas tous criminels, mais ils représentent une proportion importante des criminels incarcérés et des membres de gangs violents impliqués, entre autres, dans le trafic de drogue. Jeff Sessions, ministre de la justice inefficace dans d’autres secteurs, est très efficace dans ce secteur. Les Démocrates veulent que l’immigration illégale se poursuive, et s’intensifie, car ils ont besoin d’un électorat constitué d’illégaux fraîchement légalisés pour maintenir à flot la coalition électorale sur laquelle ils s’appuient et garder des chances de victoire ultérieure (minorités ethniques, femmes célibataires, étudiants, professeurs). La diminution de l’immigration clandestine leur pose problème. Les actions de la police de l’immigration (ICE; Immigration Control Enforcement) suscitent leur hostilité, d’où l’existence de villes sanctuaires démocrates et, en Californie, d’un Etat sanctuaire(démocrate, bien sûr). Ce qui se passe depuis quelques jours à la frontière Sud du pays est un coup monté auquel participent le parti démocrate, les grands médias américains, des organisations gauchistes, et le but est de faire pression sur Trump en diabolisant son action. La plupart des photos utilisées datent des années Obama, au cours desquelles le traitement des enfants entrant clandestinement dans le pays était exactement similaire à ce qu’il est aujourd’hui, sans qu’à l’époque les Démocrates disent un seul mot. Les enfants qui pleurent sur des vidéos ont été préparés à être filmés à des fins de propagande et ont appris à dire “daddy”, “mummy”. Le but est effectivement de faire céder Trump. Quelques Républicains à veste réversible ont joint leur voix au chœur. Trump, comme il sait le faire, a agi pour désamorcer le coup monté. On lui reproche de faire ce qui se fait depuis des années (séparer les enfants de leurs parents dès lors que les parents doivent être incarcérés) ? Il vient de décider que les enfants ne seront plus séparés des parents, et qu’ils seront placés ensemble dans des lieux de rétention. Cela signifie-t-il un recul ? Non. La lutte contre l’immigration clandestine va se poursuivre selon exactement la même ligne. Les parents qui ont violé la loi seront traités comme ils l’étaient auparavant. Les enfants seront-ils dans de meilleures conditions ? Non. Ils ne seront pas dans des conditions plus mauvaises non plus. Décrire les lieux où ils étaient placés jusque là comme des camps de concentration est une honte et une insulte à ceux qui ont été placés dans de réels camps de concentration (certains Démocrates un peu plus répugnants que d’autres sont allés jusqu’à faire des comparaisons avec Auschwitz !) : les enfants sont placés dans ce qui est comparable à des auberges pour colonies de vacances. Un enfant clandestin coûte au contribuable américain à ce jour 35.000 dollars en moyenne annuelle. Désamorcer le coup monté ne réglera pas le problème d’ensemble. Des femmes viennent accoucher aux Etats-Unis pour que le bébé ait la nationalité américaine et puisse demander deux décennies plus tard un rapprochement de famille. Des gens font passer leurs enfants par des passeurs en espérant que l’enfant sera régularisé et pourra lui aussi demander un rapprochement de famille. Des parents paient leur passage aux Etats Unis en transportant de la drogue et doivent être jugés pour cela (le tarif des passeurs si on veut passer sans drogue est de 10.000 dollars par personne). S’ils sont envoyés en prison, ils n’y seront pas envoyés avec leurs enfants. Quand des trafiquants de drogue sont envoyés en prison, aux Etats-Unis ou ailleurs, ils ne vont pas en prison en famille, et si quelqu’un suggérait que leur famille devait les suivre en prison, parce que ce serait plus “humain”, les Démocrates seraient les premiers à hurler. Les Etats-Unis, comme tout pays développé, ne peuvent laisser entrer tous ceux qui veulent entrer en laissant leurs frontières ouvertes. Un pays a le droit de gérer l’immigration comme il l’entend et comme l’entend sa population, et il le doit, s’il ne veut pas être submergé par une population qui ne s’intègre pas et peut le faire glisser vers le chaos. Les pays européens sont confrontés au même problème que les Etats-Unis, d’une manière plus aiguë puisqu’en Europe s’ajoute le paramètre “islam”. La haine de la civilisation occidentale imprègne la gauche européenne, qui veut la dissolution des peuples européens. Une même haine imprègne la gauche américaine, qui veut la dissolution du peuple américain. Les grandes villes de l’Etat sanctuaire de Californie sont déjà méconnaissables, submergées par des sans abris étrangers (pas un seul pont de Los Angeles qui n’abrite désormais un petit bidonville, et un quart du centre ville est une véritable cour des miracles, à San Francisco ce n’est pas mieux). Il n’est pas du tout certain que le coup monte servira les Démocrates lors des élections de mi mandat. Nombre d’Américains ne veulent pas la dissolution du peuple américain. Guy Millière
Sur le plateau de la NBCNews, l’ancien président du Comité national du parti Républicain, Michael Steele, vient de comparer les centres dans lesquels sont accueillis les enfants de clandestins aux Etats-Unis à des camps de concentration. Il s’adresse alors aux Américains : « Demain, ce pourrait être vos enfants ». La scène résume à elle seule la folie qui s’est emparée de la sphère politico-médiatique après que Donald Trump a ordonné aux autorités gardant la frontière mexicaine d’appliquer la loi et de séparer les parents de leurs enfants entrés illégalement aux Etats-Unis. Passons sur la comparaison. Aussi indécente que manipulatrice : ces enfants ne sont pas enfermés en attendant la mort. Quant à la mise en garde, elle est grotesque. Aucun Américain ne se verra subitement séparé de ses enfants. A moins d’avoir commis un crime ou un délit puni de prison. Quand un citoyen lambda est condamné à une peine de prison, personne ne s’offusque jamais de cette séparation … Jusqu’à ce que cela touche des clandestins. Leur particularité étant de n’avoir aucun logement dans le pays dont ils viennent de violer la frontière, leurs enfants sont donc pris en charge dans des camps, en attendant que la situation des adultes soit examinée. Aux frais des Américains. (…) Reste que les parents, prévenus de la loi que nul n’est censé ignorer, sont les premiers responsables du sort qui menace leurs enfants, en choisissant de la violer. Ce sont eux qui font payer leur délit à leur propre progéniture. Les clandestins sont des adultes tout aussi responsables que n’importe quel autre adulte : leur retirer leur capacité de décision, leur liberté et donc leur responsabilité n’est pas exactement les respecter. Mais (…) remontons à 2014, époque bénie du président Barack Obama. Cette année-là, 47.017 mineurs sont appréhendés, alors qu’ils traversent la frontière… seuls. Des enfants, envoyés par leurs parents qui n’ont apparemment pas eu peur de s’en séparer pour leur faire prendre des risques inconsidérés. Comment est-ce possible ? L’administration américaine d’alors avait affirmé que les étrangers envoyaient leurs enfants seuls, persuadés qu’ils seraient ainsi mieux traités que des adultes. Le New York Times avait donné raison à l’administration : « alors que l’administration Obama a évolué vers une attitude plus agressive d’expulsion des adultes, elle a, dans les faits, expulsé beaucoup moins d’enfants que par le passé. » Les clandestins le savent, tout comme ils connaissent aujourd’hui les risques qui pèsent sur leurs propres enfants. On apprend également qu’à l’époque, les enfants mexicains sont directement reconduits de l’autre côté de la frontière et que les autres sont « pris en charge par le département de la Santé et des Services humanitaires qui les place dans des centres temporaires en attendant que leur processus d’expulsion soit lancé. » En 2013, 80 centres accueillaient 25 000 enfants non accompagnés. Et ce, dans les mêmes conditions aujourd’hui dénoncées. Si similaires d’ailleurs que certains ont voulu critiquer la politique migratoire de Donald Trump en usant de photos datant de… 2014 ! Rien n’a changé. A un détail près. Les enfants dont on parle en ce mois de juin 2018 sont parfois accompagnés d’adultes. Comme sous l’administration Obama, les enfants sont séparés de ces adultes lorsqu’il y a un doute sur le lien réel de parenté, en cas de suspicion de trafic de mineurs ou par manque de place dans les centres de rétention pour les familles. Restent les enfants effectivement accompagnés de leurs parents et malgré tout séparés de ces derniers qui partent en prison. Chaque mois, 50.000 clandestins entrent aux Etats-Unis, parmi lesquels 15% de familles. Une fois arrêtés, les clandestins sont pénalement poursuivis avant toute demande d’asile. (…) Mais il a suffi de quelques images, publiées en même temps que la sortie du très attendu rapport sur la possible partialité du FBI lors des dernières élections présidentielles américaines, pour que l’opinion politico-médiatique hurle au scandale. Jusqu’à la première dame du pays, Mélania Trump, qui a confié « détester » voir les clandestins séparés de leurs enfants. Le Président lui-même a fini par douter publiquement : «Le dilemme est si vous êtes mou, ce que certaines personnes aimeraient que vous soyez, si vous êtes vraiment mou, pathétiquement mou… le pays va être envahi par des millions de gens. Et si vous êtes ferme, vous n’avez pas de coeur. C’est un dilemme difficile. Peut-être que je préfère être ferme, mais c’est un dilemme difficile.» Donald Trump a subi l’indignation générale (à moins d’en profiter), au point de montrer au monde que même lui avait du cœur en annonçant la signature d’un décret mettant fin à cette séparation forcée. Tout le monde s’est félicité du résultat de la mobilisation : enfin, les enfants vont pouvoir rejoindre leurs parents en prison ! Quelle victoire… Charlotte d’Ornellas
Cette administration a installé des camps de concentration à la frontière sud des États-Unis pour les immigrés, où ils sont brutalisés dans des conditions inhumaines et où ils meurent. Il ne s’agit pas d’une exagération. C’est la conclusion de l’analyse d’experts. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (18.06.2019)
Ils regardent avec horreur les enfants arrachés à leur famille et jetés dans des cages. Michelle Obama (2020)
Cette administration a arraché des bébés des bras de leur mère, et il semble que ces parents aient été, dans de nombreux cas, expulsés sans leurs enfants et n’ont pas été retrouvés. C’est un scandale, un échec moral et une tache sur nos valeurs nationales. Joe Biden (2020)
Attention: une manipulation peut en cacher beaucoup d’autres !
Au lendemain de la révélation que la petite Hondurienne de deux ans dont les larmes avaient fait le tour du monde comme symbole de la séparation des familles de migrants aux Etats-Unis …
N’avait en fait jamais été séparée de sa mère, comme a bien dû le reconnaitre – problème de « mauvaise formulation », s’il vous plait ! – le célèbre « Time magazine » lui-même qui en avait fait sa couverture …
Ayant même, selon les dires du père resté seul avec leurs trois autres enfants, été emmenée à son insu par sa mère après une première tentative il y a cinq ans non de fuir la violence de son Honduras natal comme il avait été dit mais de « réaliser son rêve américain »…
Et sans compter la fausse attribution à l’Administration Trump de photos d’enfants détenus datant de 2014 et donc, comme d’ailleurs la pratique elle-même (mesure de protection des enfants – faut-il le rappeler ? – que, sauf en Corée du nord, l’on n’emprisonne normalement pas avec leur parents délinquants), de l’Administration Obama qui l’avait précédée …
Comment ne pas repenser …
Au-delà de la véritable situation de chaos, y compris par le simple effet de leur nombre dans les centres de rétention, que fuient et subissent depuis au moins dix ans nombre de demandeurs d’asile …
Des enfants boucliers humains du Hamas au petit Mohammed ou au petit Aylan ou même tout dernièrement à la petite Leila de Gaza …
A non seulement, dévoyant et détournant ce singulier souci des plus faibles qui fait la singularité de l’Occident judéo-chrétien, l’irresponsabilité voire de l‘intention clairement criminelle de tous ces parents, appuyés par militants et ONG sansfrontieristes, qui exploitent ainsi la misère de leurs enfants …
Mais aussi à la lourde responsabilité de médias qui, entre deux « mauvaises formulations » ou manipulations, leur servent de caisse de résonance ou même les encouragent …
Et qui aujourd’hui n’ont que le mot « fake news » à la bouche quand il s’agit de qualifier les dires du président Trump ou des rares médias qui le défendent encore ?
Immigration. Pendant plusieurs jours, les médias du monde entier ont fait tourner en boucle des images d’enfants clandestins séparés de leurs parents à la frontière mexicano-américaine. Au point d’empêcher toute possibilité de réflexion.
Sur le plateau de la NBCNews, l’ancien président du Comité national du parti Républicain, Michael Steele, vient de comparer les centres dans lesquels sont accueillis les enfants de clandestins aux Etats-Unis à des camps de concentration. Il s’adresse alors aux Américains : « Demain, ce pourrait être vos enfants ».
La scène résume à elle seule la folie qui s’est emparée de la sphère politico-médiatique après que Donald Trump a ordonné aux autorités gardant la frontière mexicaine d’appliquer la loi et de séparer les parents de leurs enfants entrés illégalement aux Etats-Unis. Passons sur la comparaison. Aussi indécente que manipulatrice : ces enfants ne sont pas enfermés en attendant la mort. Quant à la mise en garde, elle est grotesque. Aucun américain ne se verra subitement séparé de ses enfants. A moins d’avoir commis un crime ou un délit puni de prison.
Quand un citoyen lambda est condamné à une peine de prison, personne ne s’offusque jamais de cette séparation … Jusqu’à ce que cela touche des clandestins. Leur particularité étant de n’avoir aucun logement dans le pays dont ils viennent de violer la frontière, leurs enfants sont donc pris en charge dans des camps, en attendant que la situation des adultes soit examinée. Aux frais des Américains.
Parce qu’un rappel n’est pas inutile dans le débat : franchir illégalement la frontière d’un pays est une violation de la loi. Un délit, puni d’emprisonnement aux Etats-Unis. Avec sa raison et non ses bons sentiments irrationnels, l’homme politique interrogé aurait donc pu être plus juste : si vous commettez un crime ou un délit passible de prison, vous aussi pourriez être séparés de vos enfants.
Reste que les parents, prévenus de la loi que nul n’est censé ignorer, sont les premiers responsables du sort qui menace leurs enfants, en choisissant de la violer. Ce sont eux qui font payer leur délit à leur propre progéniture. Les clandestins sont des adultes tout aussi responsables que n’importe quel autre adulte : leur retirer leur capacité de décision, leur liberté et donc leur responsabilité n’est pas exactement les respecter.
Certains ont voulu critiquer la politique migratoire de Donald Trump en usant de photos datant de… 2014
Mais penchons-nous plus précisément sur ce qui se passe à la frontière mexico-américaine. Et plutôt que de regarder la situation actuelle, qui ne saurait être analysée de manière raisonnable maintenant que Trump préside les Etats-Unis, remontons à 2014, époque bénie du président Barack Obama. Cette année-là, 47.017 mineurs sont appréhendés, alors qu’ils traversent la frontière… seuls.
Des enfants, envoyés par leurs parents qui n’ont apparemment pas eu peur de s’en séparer pour leur faire prendre des risques inconsidérés. Comment est-ce possible ? L’administration américaine d’alors avait affirmé que les étrangers envoyaient leurs enfants seuls, persuadés qu’ils seraient ainsi mieux traités que des adultes. Le New York Times avait donné raison à l’administration : « alors que l’administration Obama a évolué vers une attitude plus agressive d’expulsion des adultes, elle a, dans les faits, expulsé beaucoup moins d’enfants que par le passé. »
Les clandestins le savent, tout comme ils connaissent aujourd’hui les risques qui pèsent sur leurs propres enfants. On apprend également qu’à l’époque, les enfants mexicains sont directement reconduits de l’autre côté de la frontière et que les autres sont « pris en charge par le département de la Santé et des Services humanitaires qui les place dans des centres temporaires en attendant que leur processus d’expulsion soit lancé. » En 2013, 80 centres accueillaient 25 000 enfants non accompagnés. Et ce, dans les mêmes conditions aujourd’hui dénoncées. Si similaires d’ailleurs que certains ont voulu critiquer la politique migratoire de Donald Trump en usant de photos datant de… 2014 !
Rien n’a changé. A un détail près. Les enfants dont on parle en ce mois de juin 2018 sont parfois accompagnés d’adultes. Comme sous l’administration Obama, les enfants sont séparés de ces adultes lorsqu’il y a un doute sur le lien réel de parenté, en cas de suspicion de trafic de mineurs ou par manque de place dans les centres de rétention pour les familles.
Restent les enfants effectivement accompagnés de leurs parents et malgré tout séparés de ces derniers qui partent en prison. Chaque mois, 50.000 clandestins entrent aux Etats-Unis, parmi lesquels 15% de familles. Une fois arrêtés, les clandestins sont pénalement poursuivis avant toute demande d’asile. Or Trump a été élu pour une tolérance zéro : la loi est donc strictement appliquée. Cette même loi américaine ne permet pas que les enfants puissent suivre leurs parents lorsque ces derniers sont poursuivis pénalement. La séparation était donc une conséquence logique, même très pénible, du choix des Américains.
«Le dilemme est si vous êtes mou, le pays va être envahi par des millions de gens. Et si vous êtes ferme, vous n’avez pas de coeur»
C’est d’ailleurs ce qu’a immédiatement répondu le ministre américain de la justice Jeff Session : « Nous ne voulons pas séparer les familles, mais nous ne voulons pas que des familles viennent illégalement. Si vous faites passer un enfant, nous vous poursuivrons. Et cet enfant sera séparé de vous, comme la loi le requiert ».
Mais il a suffi de quelques images, publiées en même temps que la sortie du très attendu rapport sur la possible partialité du FBI lors des dernières élections présidentielles américaines, pour que l’opinion politico-médiatique hurle au scandale. Jusqu’à la première dame du pays, Mélania Trump, qui a confié « détester » voir les clandestins séparés de leurs enfants.
Le Président lui-même a fini par douter publiquement : «Le dilemme est si vous êtes mou, ce que certaines personnes aimeraient que vous soyez, si vous êtes vraiment mou, pathétiquement mou… le pays va être envahi par des millions de gens. Et si vous êtes ferme, vous n’avez pas de coeur. C’est un dilemme difficile. Peut-être que je préfère être ferme, mais c’est un dilemme difficile.»
Donald Trump a subi l’indignation générale (à moins d’en profiter), au point de montrer au monde que même lui avait du cœur en annonçant la signature d’un décret mettant fin à cette séparation forcée. Tout le monde s’est félicité du résultat de la mobilisation : enfin, les enfants vont pouvoir rejoindre leurs parents en prison ! Quelle victoire… Mais Donald Trump a insisté sur sa détermination à stopper l’immigration illégale en même temps, appelant de ses vœux un vote du Congrès pour « changer les lois ». Depuis son accession à la présidence, notamment due à un discours extrêmement ferme sur l’immigration, Donald Trump est empêché par les démocrates, comme par son administration : ils bloquent son projet de mur à la frontière, l’immigration fondée sur le mérite ainsi que tous les ajustements proposés pour les forces de l’ordre.
La situation finit par le servir, et il ne pouvait l’ignorer : il vient de faire une concession, il appelle maintenant le Congrès à voter contre les « anciennes lois horribles » en adoptant la sienne. Nul ne connaît la suite. Mais pour Donald Trump, le défi est immense. S’il n’a pas été élu sur la seule promesse d’une tolérance zéro vis-à-vis de l’immigration illégale, le sujet reste l’une des préoccupations majeures de ses électeurs.
Voir aussi:
Yanela, symbole des enfants séparés dans « Time magazine »… tout n’était pas tout à fait vrai
C’est une image qui a fait le tour du monde en quelques heures. Pour illustrer sa dernière Une, consacrée à la polémique autour de la politique migratoire de Donald Trump, le célèbre « Time Magazine » a réalisé un photomontage sur fond rouge qui met en scène une fillette en pleurs, sous les yeux du président, un sourire en coin. Le titre ? « Welcome to America » (Bienvenue en Amérique).
Sur le site de l’hebdomadaire, le photographe de l’agence Getty John Moore expliquait mercredi les coulisses du cliché, pris le 11 juin dernier à la frontière entre le Texas et le Mexique. Il a été réalisé au moment où les policiers étaient en train de fouiller la mère de la petite fille, âgée de 2 ans. « Dès qu’ils ont eu terminé, elles ont été mises dans un camion (…) Tout ce que je voulais, c’est la prendre avec moi. Mais je ne pouvais pas. »
Le photographe laisse également entendre que la mère et l’enfant, originaires du Honduras, ont pu être séparées par la suite, comme l’ont été au moins 23.000 enfants sans papiers depuis avril dernier, dans le cadre de politique de tolérance zéro menée par l’administration en matière migratoire. Face au tollé international, le président américain a annoncé mettre fin à ces séparations, expliquant également avoir été influencé par son épouse Melania.
Quid de la petite fille en une de « Time » ? Depuis la parution du magazine, de nombreux internautes ont relayé un appel pour aider à la retrouver, soutenus par de nombreuses personnalités comme les écrivains Don Winslow et Stephen King. Interrogé mercredi par le site américain Buzzfeed, un porte-parole de la police des frontière affirmait toutefois que mère et fille n’avait pas été séparées, sans donner plus de précision.
C’est finalement le père de la fillette qui a donné de ses nouvelles, ce vendredi. Dans un entretien téléphonique accordé au Daily Mail depuis le Honduras, Denis Javier Valera Hernandez, 32 ans, révèle que l’enfant s’appelle Yanela et qu’elle n’aurait pas été séparée de sa mère, Sandra. « Vous imaginez ce que j’ai ressenti lorsque j’ai vu la photo de ma fille. J’en ai eu le coeur brisé. C’est difficile pour un père de voir ça. Mais je sais maintenant qu’elles sont hors de danger. Elles sont plus en sécurité que lorsqu’elles ont fait le voyage vers la frontière. »
Denis Hernandez explique que sa femme et sa fille ont quitté leur pays en bateau, le 3 juin dernier, depuis le port de Puerto Cortes, sans le prévenir, afin de rejoindre des membres de sa famille déjà installés aux Etats-Unis. Pour effectuer le voyage, la mère aurait payé 6.000 dollars à un passeur. Depuis leur arrestation, Il affirme qu’elles sont détenues ensemble dans la ville frontalière de McAllen, au Texas, dans l’attente de l’examen d’un dossier de demande d’asile que la mère a déposé. S’il est refusé, elles seront contraintes de rentrer au Honduras.
« J’attends de voir ce qui va leur arriver », réagit le père dans un autre entretien accordé à l’agence de Reuters, qui a eu confirmation des faits par Nelly Jerez, la ministre des Affaires étrangères du Honduras. Ni les autorités américaines, ni « Time Magazine », n’ont commenté ces informations pour le moment. Et certains internautes continuent de les mettre en doute, tant que Yanela et sa mère n’auront pas été filmées par les caméras de télévision…
Quoi qu’il en soit, cet imbroglio vient mettre en lumière la difficulté de réunir les familles, dans la foulée de la décision spectaculaire de la Maison Blanche. D’après Jodi Goodwin, avocate spécialisée dans l’immigration au Texas, l’organisme ayant pris en charge les enfants ne dispose pas d’un système pour se synchroniser avec les autorités migratoires qui détiennent les parents et assurer ainsi une fluidité des informations.
« Lorsque je parle avec les parents, ils ont le regard fixé dans le vide parce qu’ils ne peuvent tout simplement pas comprendre, ils ne peuvent accepter, ils ne peuvent croire qu’ils ignorent où se trouvent leurs enfants et que le gouvernement américain les leur a retirés », a-t-elle expliqué à l’AFP. Un discours partagé dans les médias par de nombreuses ONG pour qui le revirement de Donald Trump n’est qu’une étape.
Rappelons que le décret, signé par le président américain devant les caméras, stipule que des poursuites pénales continueront à être engagées contre ceux qui traversent la frontière illégalement. Mais que parents et enfants seront détenus ensemble dans l’attente de l’examen de leur dossier. La petite Yanela et sa mère bénéficieront-elles de la clémence de la Maison Blanche ?
Voir de même:
La fillette en larmes sur la couverture du « Time » n’avait pas été séparée de sa mère
La petite fille éplorée lors de l’arrestation de sa mère hondurienne à la frontière n’a pas été séparée d’elle.
Delphine Bernard-Bruls
Le Monde
22.06.2018
Sur sa dernière couverture, le magazine américain Time a réutilisé une photographie déjà célèbre montrant une fillette en larmes alors que sa mère est arrêtée par la police à la frontière entre les Etats-Unis et le Mexique. Placée face au président américain, Donald Trump, et à l’expression « Bienvenue en Amérique », la photo devait illustrer la politique migratoire de « tolérance zéro » qui a mené à plus de 2 000 séparations entre parents et enfants clandestins. Sauf que, contrairement à ce que de nombreux observateurs ont laissé penser, la mère et la fille n’ont pas été séparées à leur arrivée à McAllen, au Texas.
Le photographe de Getty Images, John Moore, savait que la fillette au gilet rose et sa mère arrivaient du Honduras, rien de plus. S’il ignorait que son cliché illustrerait le mouvement d’indignation contre la politique migratoire de M. Trump – contre laquelle ce dernier a finalement signé un décret le 20 juin – il ne savait pas plus que mère et fille n’avaient pas été séparées mais internées ensemble. Dans le Time, M. Moore a expliqué avoir photographié la mère et la fille dans la nuit du 12 au 13 juin alors qu’elles achevaient un mois de marche en direction des Etats-Unis.
Mise à jour tardive
Interrogé sur CNN, le photographe a souligné en début de semaine ne pas avoir été témoin d’une quelconque séparation, mais a rapporté que mère et fille « ont été envoyées vers un centre où elles ont peut-être été séparées », comme quelque 2 000 familles au cours de ces deux derniers mois. Le Time a lui-même fait l’erreur : après avoir d’abord affirmé le 19 juin que mère et fille avaient été séparées, le magazine a ajouté une mise à jour au bas de son article.
« La version originale de cet article a fait une fausse affirmation quant au sort de la petite fille après la photographie. Elle n’a pas été emmenée en larmes par les patrouilles frontalières ; sa mère l’a récupérée et les deux ont été interpellées ensemble. »
A des milliers de kilomètres de là, au Honduras, Denis Javier Varela Hernandez a reconnu la bambine en larmes figurant sur la photo devenue virale, et assuré qu’il s’agissait de sa fille, qu’il n’avait pas vue depuis plusieurs semaines. Il a d’abord affirmé cela, mardi sur la chaîne de télévision hispanophone Univision : « Cette photo… dès que je l’ai vue j’ai su que c’était ma fille. » Il a répété cette affirmation au quotidien britannique Daily Mail, précisant que sa compagne ne l’avait pas mis au courant de ses projets de migration vers les Etats-Unis. Sans nouvelles d’elle depuis son départ, il a appris la semaine dernière qu’elle avait été interpellée à son arrivée au Texas, mais internée avec sa fille.
D’autres sources sont venues corroborer les propos du père, resté au Honduras : « La mère et la fille n’ont pas été séparées », a déclaré une porte-parole des autorités douanières et frontalières au Daily Beast. Côté hondurien, la ministre adjointe des relations internationales, Nelly Jerez, a confirmé le récit du père auprès de l’agence de presse Reuters. Optimiste, ce dernier a estimé que « si elles sont déportées, ça ne fait rien, tant qu’ils ne laissent pas l’enfant sans sa mère ».
Voir de plus:
Que devient la fillette qui a ému l’Amérique ?
« Elles sont détenues dans un établissement du Texas mais elles vont bien », a déclaré Denis Javier Varela Hernandez, père de la petite Yanela, 2 ans, et mari de Sandra Sanchez, 32 ans. Interrogé par différents médias, cet homme de 32 ans vivant à Puerto Cortes au Honduras dit avoir reconnu sa fille sur cette photo qui a fait le tour du monde. « Mon cœur était en miette quand j’ai vu ma petite fille sur cette image », a-t-il expliqué à Univision,
La mère et sa fille n’ont pas été séparées
Denis Varela a précisé que sa femme et sa fille n’ont pas été séparées quand elles ont été interceptées le 12 juin par la patrouille des frontières, à proximité de la ville d’Hidalgo, au Texas. Depuis le 5 mai, plus de 2 300 enfants ont été écartés de leurs parents alors que ces familles tentaient de passer la frontière entre le Mexique et les États-Unis.
Yanela et sa mère se trouveraient actuellement dans un centre de rétention à Dilley, au sud du « Lone Star State ». Parties du Honduras le 3 juin, Sandra Sanchez et Yanela ont parcouru près de 2 900 kilomètres pour arriver jusqu’aux États-Unis.
Le rêve américain
Interrogé par le Daily Mail, Denis Varela a indiqué que sa femme voulait expérimenter le rêve américain et trouver un travail au pays de l’Oncle Sam, mais qu’il était opposé à l’idée qu’elle parte avec sa fille : « Elle est partie sans prévenir. Je n’ai pas pu dire « Au revoir » à ma fille et maintenant la seule chose que je peux faire, c’est attendre. »
Le couple a aussi trois autres enfants, un fils de 14 ans, et deux filles de 11 et 6 ans. « Les enfants comprennent ce qu’il se passe. Ils sont un peu inquiets mais j’essaye de ne pas trop aborder le sujet. Ils savent que leur mère et leur sœur sont en sécurité. » Il a ajouté qu’il espère que « les droits de sa femme et de sa fille sont respectés, parce qu’elles sont des reines […] Nous avons tous des droits. »
Voir encore:
Cette photo bouleverse le monde entier et illustre les effets de la politique de « tolérance zéro » revendiquée par Donald Trump sur la politique de séparation des familles pour lutter contre l’immigration illégale.
Une petite fille en pleurs, vêtue d’un tee-shirt rose et de chaussures assorties. Du haut de ses 2 ans, elle regarde avec effroi un garde-frontière qui vient d’arrêter sa mère, une immigrée hondurienne qui tentait de passer la frontière entre les États-Unis et le Mexique. La photo a été prise le 12 juin et a, depuis, fait le tour du monde. Elle donne un visage aux 2 000 enfants séparés de leurs parents depuis que l’administration de Donald Trump a abruptement décrété début mai une politique de « tolérance zéro », sous la houlette de l’ultraconservateur ministre de la Justice, Jeff Sessions.
L’auteur de cette image, John Moore, s’efforce depuis dix ans d’illustrer l’immigration et ses souffrances. Mais cette photo restera unique à ses yeux. Ce correspondant spécial de Getty Images, titulaire du prix Pulitzer et auteur du livre de photos Undocumented (« Clandestin » en français), répond aux questions de franceinfo et nous raconte l’émotion de cette scène.
Franceinfo : Dans quelles circonstances avez-vous photographié cette famille ?
John Moore : J’étais à McAllen, dans la vallée du Rio Grande, dans le sud du Texas, près de la frontière avec le Mexique. Je suivais les patrouilles aux frontières pendant leurs opérations. Cette nuit-là, un groupe de migrants a atteint les États-Unis. Ils ont été arrêtés et réunis au bord d’une route en terre par les patrouilles. Il faut noter que les migrants qui veulent demander l’asile se rendent facilement aux agents de patrouille aux frontières. Ce ne sont pas des migrants sans papiers classiques, ils viennent avec autant de documents que possible pour obtenir l’asile politique. Dans ce groupe se trouvaient une vingtaine de femmes et d’enfants. La plupart venaient du Honduras. Tous ces migrants ont dû se débarrasser de leurs effets personnels, ils ont dû se défaire de leurs sacs, de leurs bijoux et même des lacets de leurs chaussures. Il ne leur restait plus que leurs vêtements. Ils ont ensuite été fouillés avant d’être embarqués dans un van qui allait les emmener dans un centre de rétention.
Pourquoi la petite fille pleure-t-elle sur votre photo ?
J’avais remarqué une mère qui tenait un enfant. Elle m’a dit que sa fille et elle voyageaient depuis un mois, au départ du Honduras. Elle m’a dit que sa fille avait 2 ans, et j’ai pu voir dans ses yeux qu’elle était sur ses gardes, exténuée et qu’elle avait probablement vécu un voyage très difficile. C’est l’une des dernières familles à avoir été embarquée dans le véhicule. Un des officiers a demandé à la mère de déposer son enfant à terre pendant qu’elle était fouillée.
Juste à ce moment-là, la petite fille a commencé à pleurer, très fort. J’ai trois enfants moi-même, dont un tout petit, et c’était très difficile à voir, mais j’avais une fenêtre de tir très réduite pour photographier la scène. Dès que la fouille s’est terminée, elle a pu reprendre son enfant dans ses bras et ses pleurs se sont éteints. Moi, j’ai dû m’arrêter, reprendre mes esprits et respirer profondément.
Comment avez-vous vécu la scène ?
J’avais déjà photographié des scènes comme ça à de nombreuses reprises. Mais celle-ci était unique, d’une part à cause des pleurs de cette enfant, mais aussi parce que cette fois, je savais qu’à la prochaine étape de leur voyage, dans ce centre de rétention, elles allaient être séparées. Je doute que ces familles aient eu la moindre idée de ce qui allait leur arriver. Tous voyageaient depuis des semaines, ils ne regardaient pas la télévision et n’avaient aucun moyen d’être au courant de la nouvelle mesure de tolérance zéro et de séparation des familles mise en place par Trump.
Même maintenant, quand je regarde ces photos, cela m’attriste toujours, alors que je les ai maintenant vues de nombreuses fois. Cela fait dix ans que je photographie l’immigration à la frontière américaine, toujours avec l’objectif d’humaniser des histoires complexes. Souvent, on parle de l’immigration avec des statistiques, arides et froides. Et je crois que la seule manière que les personnes dans ce pays trouvent des solutions humaines est qu’elles voient les gens comme des êtres humains. Je n’avais jamais imaginé que j’allais un jour mettre un visage sur une politique de séparation des familles, mais c’est le cas aujourd’hui.
Je suis actuellement de retour chez moi, dans le Connecticut. Je suis très heureux d’être à la maison, avec mes enfants, pendant un moment. Ma dernière semaine de reportage m’a rappelé que nous ne pouvons jamais prendre la présence de nos êtres aimés pour acquise.
Voir aussi:
The crying Honduran girl on the cover of Time was not separated from her mother
The widely shared photo of the little girl crying as a U.S. Border Patrol agent patted down her mother became a symbol of the families pulled apart by the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy at the border, even landing on the new cover of Time magazine.
But the girl’s father told The Washington Post on Thursday night that his child and her mother were not separated, and a U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed that the family was not separated while in the agency’s custody. In an interview with CBS News, Border Patrol agent Carlos Ruiz, who was among the first to encounter the mother and her daughter at the border in Texas, said the image had been used to symbolize a policy but “that was not the case in this picture.”
Ruiz, who was not available for an interview Friday, said agents asked the mother, Sandra Sanchez, to put down her daughter, nearly 2-year-old Yanela, so they could search her. Agents patted down the mother for less than two minutes, and she immediately picked up her daughter, who then stopped crying.
“I personally went up to the mother and asked her, ‘Are you doing okay? Is the kid okay?’ and she said, ‘Yes. She’s tired and thirsty. It’s 11 o’clock at night,” Ruiz told CBS News.
The revelation has prompted a round of media criticism from the White House and other conservatives.
“It’s shameful that dems and the media exploited this photo of a little girl to push their agenda,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted Friday. “She was not separated from her mom. The separation here is from the facts.”
The heart-wrenching image, captured by award-winning Getty Images photographer John Moore, was spread across the front pages of international newspapers. It was used to promote a Facebook fundraiser that has collected more than $18 million to help reunite separated families.
And on Thursday, hours before the little girl’s father spoke out, Time magazine released its July 2 cover using the child’s image — without the mother — in a photo illustration that shows her looking up at President Trump, who is seen towering above her.
“Welcome to America,” the cover reads.
Time has not responded to a request for comment from The Post, but in a statement sent to media outlets, the magazine said it’s standing by its cover.
Time also has added a correction to an online article and gallery that ran Tuesday, before the cover was released: “The original version of this story misstated what happened to the girl in the photo after she [was] taken from the scene. The girl was not carried away screaming by U.S. Border Patrol agents; her mother picked her up and the two were taken away together.”
Moore, the photographer, told The Post in an email that Time corrected the story after he made a request minutes after it was published. He said that the picture “is a straightforward and honest image” showing a “distressed little girl” whose mother was being searched by border officials.
“I believe this image has raised awareness to the zero-tolerance policy of this administration. Having covered immigration for Getty Images for 10 years, this photograph for me is part of a much larger story,” Moore said, adding later: “The image showed a moment in time at the border, but the emotion in the little girl’s distress has ignited a response. As a photojournalist, my job is to inform and report what is happening, but I also think it is important to humanize an issue that is often reported in statistics.”
Moore told The Post’s Avi Selk that he ran into the mother and toddler in McAllen, Tex., on the night of June 12. He knew only that they were from Honduras and had been on the road for about a month. “I can only imagine what dangers she’d passed through, alone with the girl,” he said.
Moore photographed the girl crying as the border agent patted down the mother.
Moore said the woman picked up her daughter, they walked into the van, and the van drove away. When he took the picture, he said he did not know whether the mother and her daughter would be separated, “but it was a very real possibility,” given the slew of family separations carried out by the Trump administration.
He said he’s glad that although the two were detained, “they are together.”
[‘We make kids disappear’: Activists alter billboard to condemn separation of migrant families]
In Honduras, Denis Javier Varela Hernandez recognized his daughter in the photo and also feared that she was separated from her mother, he told The Post.
But he said he learned this week that his 32-year-old wife and daughter were, in fact, detained together at a facility in McAllen. Honduran Deputy Foreign Minister Nelly Jerez confirmed Varela’s account to Reuters.
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman said in a statement to The Post that Sanchez was arrested by the U.S. Border Patrol near Hidalgo, Tex., on June 12 while traveling with a family member. She was transferred to ICE custody on June 17 and is being housed at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Tex., according to ICE.
ICE said Sanchez was previously deported to Honduras in July 2013.
Sanchez and her daughter left for the United States from Puerto Cortes, north of the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa, on June 3, Varela said. Sanchez had told her husband that she hoped to go to the United States to seek a better life for her children, away from the dangers of their home country. But she left without telling him that she was taking their youngest daughter with her. Varela, who has three other children with Sanchez, feared for the little girl’s safety, he said. Yanela is turning 2 years old in July.
After Sanchez left, Varela had no way to contact her or learn of her whereabouts. Then, on the news, he saw the photo of the girl in the pink shirt.
“The first second I saw it, I knew it was my daughter,” Varela told The Post. “Immediately, I recognized her.”
He heard that U.S. officials were separating families at the border, before Trump reversed the policy Wednesday. Varela felt helpless and distressed “imagining my daughter in that situation,” he said.
[Time magazine’s major mistake on the crying-girl cover]
This week, Varela received a phone call from an official with Honduras’s foreign ministry, letting him know his wife and daughter were detained together. While he doesn’t know anything about the conditions of the facility or what is next for Sanchez and Yanela, he was relieved to hear they were in the same place.
As news emerged late Thursday that the mother and child were not separated, conservative media jumped on the story, portraying it as evidence of “fake news” surrounding the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
It was the most prominent story on the home page of the conservative news outlet Breitbart, which called it a “fake news photo.” Infowars, owned by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, singled out Time and CNN for using the “completely misleading” image to push “open border propaganda.”
Donald Trump Jr. has been talking about the photo on Twitter on Friday.
“No one is shocked anymore. There is a no low they won’t go to for their narrative,” the president’s eldest son tweeted.
Varela pushed back against the portrayals of his daughter’s story, saying it should not cast doubt on the “human-rights violations” taking place at the border.
“This is the case for my daughter, but it is not the case for 2,000 children that were separated from their parents,” Varela said.
At least 2,500 migrant children have been separated from their parents at the border since May 5.
Varela said he felt “proud” that his daughter has “represented the subject of immigration” and helped propel changes in policy. But he asked that Trump “put his hand on his heart.”
He hopes that U.S. officials will grant asylum to his wife and daughter, he said.
Asked whether he would also like to come to the United States, he said, “Of course, someday.”
Voir de même:
- Denis Javier Varela Hernandez spoke out about the status of his wife Sandra, 32, and daughter, Yanela, 2
- Yanela became the face of the immigration crisis after a Getty photographer snapped a photo of her in tears
- Speaking to DailyMail.com Hernandez said he has still not been in direct contact with his wife Sandra because he does not have a way of communicating
- Denis said a Honduran official in the US told him that his wife and daughter are together and are doing ‘fine’
- Sandra was part of a group that were caught by Border Patrol agents after making their way across the Rio Grande river on a raft
- She set out on her journey from Puerto Cortes, Honduras to the U.S. at 6am on June 3 and allegedly paid $6,000 for a coyote
- Hernandez said he did not support his wife’s decision to make the journey with their young daughter in her arms and never got to properly say goodbye
The father of the Honduran girl who became the face of the family separation crisis has revealed that he still has not been in touch with his wife or daughter but was happy to learn they are safe.
Denis Javier Varela Hernandez, 32, said that he had not heard from his wife Sandra, 32, who was with his two-year-old daughter Yanela Denise, for nearly three weeks until he saw the image of them being apprehended in Texas.
In an exclusive interview with DailyMail.com, Hernandez, who lives in Puerto Cortes, Honduras, says that he was told on Wednesday by a Honduran official in the US that his wife and child are being detained at a family residential center in Texas but are together and are doing ‘fine.’
‘You can imagine how I felt when I saw that photo of my daughter. It broke my heart. It’s difficult as a father to see that, but I know now that they are not in danger. They are safer now than when they were making that journey to the border,’ he said.
A spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has told DailyMail.com that Sandra had been previously been deported from the US in 2013.
The spokeswoman said that she was ‘encountered by immigration officials in Hebbronville, Texas’ in and sent back to Honduras 15 days later under ‘expedited removal.’
Sandra current immigration proceedings are ‘ongoing’ and she is being housed at a family detention center in Texas.
Denis said that his wife had previously mentioned her wish to go to the United States for a ‘better future’ but did not tell him nor any of their family members that she was planning to make the trek.
‘I didn’t support it. I asked her, why? Why would she want to put our little girl through that? But it was her decision at the end of the day.’
He said that Sandra had always wanted to experience ‘the American dream’ and hoped to find a good job in the States.
Denis, who works as a captain at a port on the coast of Puerto Cortes, explained that things back home were fine but not great, and that his wife was seeking political asylum.
He said that Sandra set out on the 1,800-mile journey with the baby girl on June 3, at 6am, and he has not heard from her since.
‘I never got the chance to say goodbye to my daughter and now all I can do is wait’, he said, adding that he hopes they are either granted political asylum or are sent back home.
‘I don’t have any resentment for my wife, but I do think it was irresponsible of her to take the baby with her in her arms because we don’t know what could happen.’
The couple has three other children, son Wesly, 14, and daughters Cindy, 11, and Brianna, six.
‘The kids see what’s happening. They’re a little worried but I don’t try to bring it up that much. They know their mother and sister are safe now.’
Denis said that he believes the journey across the border is only worth it to some degree, and admits that it’s not something he would ever consider.
He said he heard from friends that his wife paid $6,000 for a coyote – a term for someone who smuggles people across the border.
‘I wouldn’t risk my life for it. It’s hard to find a good job here and that’s why many people choose to leave. But I thank God that I have a good job here. And I would never risk my life making that journey.’
The heart-breaking photo was taken by Getty photographer John Moore close to midnight on the night of June 12 near McAllen, Texas, as the row over Donald Trump’s separation of migrant parents and children escalated.
Denis said that he hopes to use the photo and his family’s situation to help him reunite with his daughter.
‘I don’t want money, what I want is someone to tell me that my daughter is going to be OK.’
When asked about his views on Trump’s border policy, Denis said: ‘I’ve never seen it in a positive light the way others do. It violates human rights and children’s rights. Separating children from their parents is just wrong. They are suffering and are traumatized.
‘The laws need to be modified and we need to have a conversation. It’s just not right.
‘[Illegal] Immigration and drug smuggling across the United States border is never gonna stop. They can build a wall and it’s never going to stop,’ he said.
Sandra was part of a group that were caught by Border Patrol agents after making their way across the Rio Grande river on a raft.
Moore’s photo showed Yanela crying on a dirt track as her mother is patted down by a Border Patrol agent.
For many the photo summed up the cruelty of Trump’s ‘zero tolerance’ policy towards migrants which has caused 2,300 children to be separated from their mothers and fathers.
A photo of Yanela was used on the front cover of TIME magazine to show the devastating effect of the policy, which was brought in in April.
But actually Yanela remained with her mother after she arrived in the US after making the perilous 1,800 mile journey North through Central America and Mexico,
TIME magazine later issued a clarification saying that the original version of its story accompanying the cover was wrong because Yanela ‘was not carried away screaming by Border Patrol Agents’.
TIME’s editor in chief Edward Felsenthal said in a statement that it stood behind the wider point which is that Yanela was ‘the most visible symbol of the ongoing immigration debate’
Among those who have Tweeted DailyMail.com’s story have been White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
She wrote: ‘It’s shameful that dems and the media exploited this photo of a little girl to push their agenda. She was not separated from her mom. The separation here is from the facts’.
Moore, who has worked on the border with Mexico for years and has won a Pulitzer for his photography, has said the the image of Yanela was the last one he took that night.
Speaking to People magazine he said that the girl’s mother was the last to be searched and a female agent asked her to put Yanela down so she could pat her down
Moore said: ‘The mother hesitated and then set down the little girl and the child immediately started crying.
‘As a father, it was very emotional for me just to hear those cries. When I saw this little girl break down in tears I wanted to comfort this child.
‘But as a photojournalist we sometimes have to keep photographing when things are hard. And tell a story that people would never see.’
Moore crouched 6ft from the girl as she looked up at her mother and took seven shots, Yanela’s mother’s hands spread out on the Border Patrol truck.
The image was a major factor in pressuring Trump to do a U-turn on his immigration policy and sign an executive order allowing families to stay together.
The President said that he wanted to look strong but admitted that the ‘zero tolerance’ policy made him look like he had ‘no heart’.
Trump’s climb down came after worldwide outrage including British Prime Minister Theresa May who called his policy ‘deeply disturbing’ while Pope Francis said it was ‘immoral’.
The climb down was a rare one from Trump, who almost never apologizes and rarely backs down.
But he had not choice when his policy created a wall of opposition between him and others, including his own wife Melania, Democrats, Republicans, every living former First Lady, Amnesty International and the United Nations.
Voir encore:
John Moore has been photographing immigrants and the hardship and heartbreak of crossing the U.S.-Mexico border for years — but this time, he said, something is different.
The Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer for Getty Images said the Trump administration’s policy of separating children from their parents — part of its “zero tolerance” stance toward people who illegally cross into the U.S. — has changed everything about enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border and resulted in a level of despair for immigrants that Americans can no longer ignore.
“It’s a very different scene now,” he said. “I’m almost positive these families last week had no idea they’d be separated from their children.”
Moore’s image last week of a 2-year-old Honduran girl crying as a U.S. Border Patrol agent patted down her mother has become a symbol of the human cost — and many critics say cruelty — of President Donald Trump’s hard line on immigration. The crying girl has become the face of the family separation policy, which has been criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike.
“When the officer told the mother to put her child down for the body search, I could see this look in the little girl’s eyes,” Moore told TIME. “As soon as her feet touched the ground she began to scream.”
Moore said the girl’s mother had a weariness in her eyes as she was stopped by Border Patrol agents. The father of three said his years of experience did not inoculate him from feeling intense emotions as he watched agents allowed the mother to pick up her child and loaded them both into a van. But, he said, he knew he had to keep photographing the scene.
“This one was tough for me. As soon as it was over, they were put into a van. I had to stop and take deep breaths,” he said. “All I wanted to do was pick her up. But I couldn’t.”
More than 2,000 children have been taken away from their parents since April, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced at “zero tolerance” policy that refers all cases of illegal entry at the border for prosecution. The Trump administration has said Border Patrol agents separate children from parents because children cannot be locked up for the crimes of their mothers and fathers.
Moore has followed immigrant families and enforcement efforts since 2014 and recently published a book of some of his most stirring photographs, Undocumented: Immigration and the Militarization of the United States-Mexico Border. He said despite the tough new policy, immigrants are not likely to lose the determination that drives them to make the dangerous journey to the United States.
“It’s been very easy for Americans to ignore over the years the desperation that people have to have a better life,” Moore said. “They often leave with their children with their shirts on their backs.”
Footage released Monday of a detention facility where families arrested at the border and children taken from their parents are held echo a photo Moore took in 2014 of a Honduran child watching Casper in the same facility, alone except for a guard keeping watch. That photo, taken at the same detention center in McCallen, Texas where children are now being grouped inside cages, has stayed with Moore over the years.
While he is not sure if that boy was an unaccompanied minor or what happened to him, he said many of the other children at the facility were without their parents. “That picture is still haunting for me.”
Most of the photos below come from Moore’s 2018 book, published by powerHouse Books.
Correction (Posted June 19): The original version of this story misstated what happened to the girl in the photo after she was taken from the scene. The girl was not carried away screaming by U.S. Border Patrol agents; her mother picked her up and the two were taken away together.
Voir par ailleurs:
NEW YORK (FOX5NY) – A 6-year-old Costa Rican boy was rescued by U.S. Border Patrol agents after he was abandoned on a border road in Arizona on Tuesday evening.
The agents discovered the boy just north of the border west of Lukeville in temperatures over 100 degrees.
The child claimed that he was dropped off by « his uncle » and that Border Patrol would pick him up. Agents say the boy said he was on his way to see his mother in the U.S.
They say that the child was found in good condition. He was taken to Tucson to be checked out and processed. It was unclear what would happen to him next.
The Border Patrol says the incident highlights the dangers faced by migrants at the hands of smugglers. Children in particular are extremely vulnerable, not only to exploitation, but also to the elements in the environment.
They added that Arizona’s desert « is a merciless environment for those unprepared for its remote, harsh terrain and unpredictable weather. »
Voir aussi:
Ceux qui disent cela ajoutent qu’il se conduit de manière infâme vis-à-vis des enfants à la frontière Sud des Etats-Unis. Des photos sont fournies à l’appui, montrant des enfants dans des lieux décrits comme des “camps de concentration”. Des vidéos ont été montrées où on voit des enfants pleurer de manière déchirante en appelant leurs parents, dont un agent de l’immigration vient de les séparer, et ils utilisent des mots anglais (ce qui est normal puisqu’ils viennent de pays où on parle espagnol et puisqu’ils ne parlent pas un mot d’anglais).
Ceux qui disent cela ajoutent aussi que “sous une large pression”, Trump vient de signer un executive order permettant d’éviter que les enfants soient séparés de leur famille et a donc dû se conduire de manière un peu moins infâme.
Ceux qui disent cela ne disent pas un seul mot de ce qui est en train de se passer par ailleurs aux Etats-Unis. L’Etat profond anti-Trump est en train de s’effondrer. Il résiste, certes, mais il est désormais très mal en point, comme c’était prévisible.
Disons ici ce qui doit l’être, car ce ne sera pas fait ailleurs, j’en suis, hélas, certain.
1. Il existe aux Etats-Unis un grave problème d’immigration illégale. Trump a commencé à prendre des décisions pour le régler. Les entrées clandestines dans le pays par la frontière Sud ont diminué de 70 pour cent. Elles sont encore trop nombreuses. Les immigrants illégaux présents dans le pays ne sont pas tous criminels, mais ils représentent une proportion importante des criminels incarcérés et des membres de gangs violents impliqués, entre autres, dans le trafic de drogue. Jeff Sessions, ministre de la justice inefficace dans d’autres secteurs, est très efficace dans ce secteur.
2. Les Démocrates veulent que l’immigration illégale se poursuive, et s’intensifie, car ils ont besoin d’un électorat constitué d’illégaux fraîchement légalisés pour maintenir à flot la coalition électorale sur laquelle ils s’appuient et garder des chances de victoire ultérieure (minorités ethniques, femmes célibataires, étudiants, professeurs). La diminution de l’immigration clandestine leur pose problème. Les actions de la police de l’immigration (ICE; Immigration Control Enforcement) suscitent leur hostilité, d’où l’existence de villes sanctuaires démocrates et, en Californie, d’un Etat sanctuaire(démocrate, bien sûr).
3. Ce qui se passe depuis quelques jours à la frontière Sud du pays est un coup monté auquel participent le parti démocrate, les grands médias américains, des organisations gauchistes, et le but est de faire pression sur Trump en diabolisant son action. La plupart des photos utilisées datent des années Obama, au cours desquelles le traitement des enfants entrant clandestinement dans le pays était exactement similaire à ce qu’il est aujourd’hui, sans qu’à l’époque les Démocrates disent un seul mot. Les enfants qui pleurent sur des vidéos ont été préparés à être filmés à des fins de propagande et ont appris à dire “daddy”, “mummy”. Le but est effectivement de faire céder Trump. Quelques Républicains à veste réversible ont joint leur voix au chœur.
4. Trump, comme il sait le faire, a agi pour désamorcer le coup monté. On lui reproche de faire ce qui se fait depuis des années (séparer les enfants de leurs parents dès lors que les parents doivent être incarcérés) ? Il vient de décider que les enfants ne seront plus séparés des parents, et qu’ils seront placés ensemble dans des lieux de rétention. Cela signifie-t-il un recul ? Non. La lutte contre l’immigration clandestine va se poursuivre selon exactement la même ligne. Les parents qui ont violé la loi seront traités comme ils l’étaient auparavant. Les enfants seront-ils dans de meilleures conditions ? Non. Ils ne seront pas dans des conditions plus mauvaises non plus. Décrire les lieux où ils étaient placés jusque là comme des camps de concentration est une honte et une insulte à ceux qui ont été placés dans de réels camps de concentration (certains Démocrates un peu plus répugnants que d’autres sont allés jusqu’à faire des comparaisons avec Auschwitz !) : les enfants sont placés dans ce qui est comparable à des auberges pour colonies de vacances. Un enfant clandestin coûte au contribuable américain à ce jour 35.000 dollars en moyenne annuelle.
5. Désamorcer le coup monté ne réglera pas le problème d’ensemble. Des femmes viennent accoucher aux Etats-Unis pour que le bébé ait la nationalité américaine et puisse demander deux décennies plus tard un rapprochement de famille. Des gens font passer leurs enfants par des passeurs en espérant que l’enfant sera régularisé et pourra lui aussi demander un rapprochement de famille. Des parents paient leur passage aux Etats Unis en transportant de la drogue et doivent être jugés pour cela (le tarif des passeurs si on veut passer sans drogue est de 10.000 dollars par personne). S’ils sont envoyés en prison, ils n’y seront pas envoyés avec leurs enfants. Quand des trafiquants de drogue sont envoyés en prison, aux Etats-Unis ou ailleurs, ils ne vont pas en prison en famille, et si quelqu’un suggérait que leur famille devait les suivre en prison, parce que ce serait plus “humain”, les Démocrates seraient les premiers à hurler.
6. Les Etats-Unis, comme tout pays développé, ne peuvent laisser entrer tous ceux qui veulent entrer en laissant leurs frontières ouvertes. Un pays a le droit de gérer l’immigration comme il l’entend et comme l’entend sa population, et il le doit, s’il ne veut pas être submergé par une population qui ne s’intègre pas et peut le faire glisser vers le chaos. Les pays européens sont confrontés au même problème que les Etats-Unis, d’une manière plus aiguë puisqu’en Europe s’ajoute le paramètre “islam”. La haine de la civilisation occidentale imprègne la gauche européenne, qui veut la dissolution des peuples européens. Une même haine imprègne la gauche américaine, qui veut la dissolution du peuple américain. Les grandes villes de l’Etat sanctuaire de Californie sont déjà méconnaissables, submergées par des sans abris étrangers (pas un seul pont de Los Angeles qui n’abrite désormais un petit bidonville, et un quart du centre ville est une véritable cour des miracles, à San Francisco ce n’est pas mieux). Il n’est pas du tout certain que le coup monte servira les Démocrates lors des élections de mi mandat. Nombre d’Américains ne veulent pas la dissolution du peuple américain.
7. Le coup monté m’est pas arrive par hasard, à ce moment précisément. Le rapport de l’inspecteur général Michael Horowitz, même s’il est édulcoré, contient des éléments accablants pour James Comey, John Mc Cabe, l’enquêteur appelé Peter Strzoc. Le Congres procède à des auditions très révélatrices. Ce n’est que le début. L’Etat profond anti-Trump est en train de s’effondrer, disais-je. La monstruosité totalitaire que fut l’administration Obama finissante et le caractère criminel des activités d’Hillary Clinton commencent tout juste à être mis au jour. Des peines de prison suivront. L’équipe sinistre conduite par Robert Mueller avance dans le vide : tout ce qui lui sert de prétexte se révèle être une gigantesque imposture. La complicité des grands médias américains et mondiaux ne pourra pas être cachée indéfiniment. Un écran de fumée devait monter dans l’atmosphère pour détourner l’attention et éviter qu’on parle de l’effondrement de l’Etat profond. Le coup monte a servi d’écran de fumée. Que nul ne soit dupe. La révolution Trump ne fait que commencer.
Voir de plus:
Selon les déclarations d’un homme présenté comme le cousin de l’enfant, rendues publiques par Israël, les parents de la fillette morte mi-mai auraient touché 8.000 shekels (1.800 euros).
La justice israélienne a dit disposer d’une déposition selon laquelle la famille d’un bébé palestinien mort dans des circonstances contestées dans la bande de Gaza avait été payée par le Hamas pour accuser Israël, ce que les parents ont nié.
Vif émoi après la mort de l’enfant. Leïla al-Ghandour, âgée de huit mois, est morte mi-mai alors que l’enclave palestinienne était depuis des semaines le théâtre d’une mobilisation massive et d’affrontements entre Palestiniens et soldats israéliens le long de la frontière avec Gaza. Son décès a suscité un vif émoi. Sa famille accuse l’armée israélienne d’avoir provoqué sa mort en employant des lacrymogènes contre les protestataires, parmi lesquels se trouvait la fillette.
La fillette souffrait-elle d’un problème cardiaque ? L’armée israélienne, se fondant sur les informations d’un médecin palestinien resté anonyme mais qui selon elle connaissait l’enfant et sa famille, dit que l’enfant souffrait d’un problème cardiaque. Le ministère israélien de la Justice a rendu public jeudi l’acte d’inculpation d’un Gazaoui de 20 ans, présenté comme le cousin de la fillette. Selon le ministère, il a déclaré au cours de ses interrogatoires par les forces israéliennes que les parents de Leila avaient touché 8.000 shekels (1.800 euros) de la part de Yahya Sinouar, le chef du Hamas dans la bande de Gaza, pour dire que leur fille était morte des inhalations de gaz.
Une « fabrication » du Hamas dénoncée par Israël. Les parents ont nié ces déclarations, réaffirmé que leur fille était bien morte des inhalations, et ont contesté qu’elle était malade. Selon la famille, Leïla al-Ghandour avait été emmenée près de la frontière par un oncle âgé de 11 ans et avait été prise dans les tirs de lacrymogènes. L’armée israélienne, en butte aux accusations d’usage disproportionné de la force, a dénoncé ce cas comme une « fabrication » de la part du Hamas, le mouvement islamiste qui dirige la bande de Gaza et contrôle les autorités sanitaires, et auquel Israël a livré trois guerres depuis 2008.
Voir également:
Fake News. Donald Trump aurait donc menti en affirmant que la criminalité augmentait en Allemagne, en raison de l’entrée dans le pays de 1,1 million de clandestins en 2015. Pas si simple…
Nouveau tweet, nouvelle agitation médiatique. Les commentateurs n’ont pas tardé à s’armer de leur indéboulonnable mépris pour le président des États-Unis pour dénoncer un « mensonge », au lieu d’user d’une saine distance permettant de décrypter sereinement l’affirmation de Donald Trump.
« Le peuple allemand se rebelle contre ses gouvernants alors que l’immigration secoue une coalition déjà fragile », a donc entamé le président des États-Unis dans un tweet publié le 18 juin, alors que le gouvernement allemand se déchirait sur fond de crise migratoire. Propos factuel si l’on en croit un récent sondage allemand qui révèle que 90% des allemands désirent plus d’expulsions des personnes déboutées du droit d’asile.
Le chiffre ne laisse aucune place au doute : la population allemande penche du côté du ministre de l’Intérieur qui s’applique, depuis quelques jours, à contraindre Angela Merkel à la fermeté.
Et Donald Trump de poursuivre avec la phrase qui occupe nombre de journalistes depuis sa publication : « la criminalité augmente en Allemagne. Une grosse erreur a été commise partout en Europe : laisser rentrer des millions de personnes qui ont fortement et violemment changé sa culture. » Que n’avait-il pas dit. Les articles se sont immédiatement multipliés pour dénoncer « le mensonge » du président américain.
Pourquoi ? Parce que les autorités allemandes se sont félicitées d’une baisse des agressions violentes en 2017. C’est vrai, elles ont chuté de 5,1% par rapport à 2016.
Est-il possible, cependant, de feindre à ce point l’incompréhension ? Car les détracteurs zélés du président omettent de préciser que la criminalité a bien augmenté en Allemagne à la suite de cette vague migratoire exceptionnelle : 10% de crimes violents en plus, sur les années 2015 et 2016. L’étude réalisée par le gouvernement allemand et publiée en janvier dernier concluait même que 90% de cette augmentation était due aux jeunes hommes clandestins fraîchement accueillis, âgés de 14 à 30 ans.
En 2016, les étrangers étaient 3,5 fois plus impliqués dans des crimes que les Allemands, les clandestins 7 fois plus
L’augmentation de la criminalité fut donc indiscutablement liée à l’accueil de 1,1 millions de clandestins pendant l’année 2015. C’est évidement ce qu’entend démontrer Donald Trump.
Et ce n’est pas tout. Les chiffres du ministère allemand de l’Intérieur pour 2016 révèlent également une implication des étrangers et des clandestins supérieure à celle des Allemands dans le domaine de la criminalité. Et en hausse. La proportion d’étrangers parmi les personnes suspectées d’actes criminels était de 28,7% en 2014, elle est passée à 40,4% en 2016, avant de chuter à 35% en 2017 (ce qui reste plus important qu’en 2014).
En 2016, les étrangers étaient 3,5 fois plus impliqués dans des crimes que les Allemands, les clandestins 7 fois plus. Des chiffres encore plus élevés dans le domaine des crimes violents (5 fois plus élevés chez les étrangers, 15 fois chez les clandestins) ou dans celui des viols en réunion (10 fois plus chez les étrangers, 42 fois chez les clandestins !).
Factuellement, la criminalité n’augmente pas aujourd’hui en Allemagne. Mais l’exceptionnelle vague migratoire voulue par Angela Merkel en 2015 a bien eu pour conséquence l’augmentation de la criminalité en Allemagne. Les Allemands, eux, semblent l’avoir très bien compris.
Voir par ailleurs:
La caravane des migrants a atteint la frontière avec la Californie
30/04/2018
Au moins 150 migrants centraméricains sont arrivés à Tijuana au Mexique, à la frontière avec les États-Unis. Ils sont décidés à demander l’asile à Washington.
Plusieurs centaines de migrants originaires d’Amérique centrale se sont rassemblés dimanche 30 avril à la frontière mexico-américaine au terme d’un mois de traversée du Mexique.
Nombre d’entre eux ont décidé de se présenter aux autorités américaines pour déposer des demandes d’asile et devraient être placés en centres de rétention. « Nous espérons que le gouvernement des États-Unis nous ouvrira les portes », a déclaré Reyna Isabel Rodríguez, 52 ans, venu du Salvador avec ses deux petits-enfants.
« Nous ne sommes pas des criminels »
L’ONG Peuple Sans Frontières organise ce type de caravane depuis 2010 pour dénoncer le sort de celles et ceux qui traversent le Mexique en proie à de nombreux dangers, entre des cartels de la drogue qui les kidnappent ou les tuent, et des autorités qui les rançonnent. « Nous voulons dire au président des États-Unis que nous ne sommes pas des criminels, nous ne sommes pas des terroristes, qu’il nous donne la chance de vivre sans peur. Je sais que Dieu va toucher son cœur », a déclaré l’une des organisatrices de la caravane, Irineo Mujica.
L’ONG, composée de volontaires, permet notamment aux migrants de rester groupés – lors d’un périple qui se fait à pied, en bus ou en train – afin de se prémunir de tous les dangers qui jalonnent leur chemin. En espagnol, ces caravanes sont d’ailleurs appelées « Via Crucis Migrantes » ou le « Chemin de croix des migrants », en référence aux processions catholiques, particulièrement appréciées en Amérique du Sud, qui mettent en scène la Passion du Christ, ou les derniers événements qui ont précédé et accompagné la mort de Jésus de Nazareth.
Cette année, le groupe est parti le 25 mars de Tapachula, à la frontière du Guatemala, avec un groupe de près de 1 200 personnes, à 80 % originaires du Honduras, les autres venant du Guatemala, du Salvador et du Nicaragua, selon Rodrigo Abeja. Dans le groupe, près de 300 enfants âgés de 1 mois à 11 ans, une vingtaine de jeunes homosexuels et environ 400 femmes. Certains se sont ensuite dispersés, préférant rester au Mexique, d’autres choisissant de voyager par leurs propres moyens.
La colère de Donald Trump
En avril, les images de la caravane de migrants se dirigeant vers les États-Unis avaient suscité la colère de Donald Trump et une forte tension entre Washington et Mexico. Le président américain, dont l’un des principaux thèmes de campagne était la construction d’un mur à la frontière avec le Mexique pour lutter contre l’immigration clandestine, avait ordonné le déploiement sur la frontière de troupes de la Garde nationale.
Il avait aussi soumis la conclusion d’un nouvel accord de libre-échange en Amérique du Nord à un renforcement des contrôles migratoires par le Mexique, une condition rejetée par le président mexicain Enrique Pena Nieto.
Avec AFP et Reuters
Voir aussi:
‘You Hate America!’: How the ‘Caravan’ Story Exploded on the Right
Jeremy W. Peters
NYT
WASHINGTON — It was the kind of story destined to take a dark turn through the conservative news media and grab President Trump’s attention: A vast horde of migrants was making its way through Mexico toward the United States, and no one was stopping them.
“Mysterious group deploys ‘caravan’ of illegal aliens headed for U.S. border,” warned Frontpage Mag, a site run by David Horowitz, a conservative commentator.
The Gateway Pundit, a website that was most recently in the news for spreading conspiracies about the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., suggested the real reason the migrants were trying to enter the United States was to collect social welfare benefits.
And as the president often does when immigration is at issue, he saw a reason for Americans to be afraid. “Getting more dangerous. ‘Caravans’ coming,” a Twitter post from Mr. Trump read.
The story of “the caravan” followed an arc similar to many events — whether real, embellished or entirely imagined — involving refugees and migrants that have roused intense suspicion and outrage on the right. The coverage tends to play on the fears that hiding among mass groups of immigrants are many criminals, vectors of disease and agents of terror. And often the president, who announced his candidacy by blaming Mexico for sending rapists and drug dealers into the United States, acts as an accelerant to the hysteria.
The sensationalization of this story and others like it seems to serve a common purpose for Mr. Trump and other immigration hard-liners: to highlight the twin dangers of freely roving migrants — especially those from Muslim countries — and lax immigration laws that grant them easy entry into Western nations.
The narrative on the right this week, for example, mostly omitted that many people in the caravan planned to resettle in Mexico, not the United States. And it ignored how many of those who did intend to come here would probably go through the legal process of requesting asylum at a border checkpoint — something miles of new wall and battalions of additional border patrol would not have stopped.
“They end up in schools on Long Island, some of which are MS-13!” declared Brian Kilmeade on the president’s preferred morning news program, “Fox & Friends,” referring to the predominantly Central American gang.
The coverage became so distorted that it prompted a reporter for Breitbart News who covers border migration, Brandon Darby, to push back. “I’m seeing a lot of right media cover this as ‘people coming illegally’ or as ‘illegal aliens.’ That is incorrect,” he wrote on Twitter. “They are coming to a port of entry and requesting refugee status. That is legal.”
In an interview, Mr. Darby said it was regrettable that the relatively routine occurrence of migrant caravans — which organizers rely on as a safety-in-numbers precaution against the violence that can happen along the trek — was being politicized. “The caravan isn’t something that’s a unique event,” he said. “And I think people are looking at it wrong. If you’re upset at the situation, it’s easier to be mad at the migrant than it is to be mad at the political leaders on both sides who won’t change the laws.”
As tends to be the case in these stories, the humanitarian aspects get glossed over as migrants are collapsed into one maligned category: hostile foreign invaders.
In November, Mr. Trump touched off an international furor when he posted a series of videos on Twitter that purported to show the effects of mass Muslim migration in Europe. Initially circulated by a fringe ultranationalist in Britain who has railed against Islam, the videos included titles like “Muslim migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches!” “Muslim Destroys a Statue of Virgin Mary!” and “Islamist mob pushes teenage boy off roof and beats him to death!”
The assailant in one video the president shared, however, was not a “Muslim migrant.” And the other two videos depicted four-year-old events with no explanation.
These items tend to metastasize irrespective of the facts, but contain powerful visual elements to which Mr. Trump is known to viscerally respond.
Last February, Mr. Trump insinuated that some kind of terror-related episode involving Muslim immigrants had taken place in Sweden. “Who would believe this? Sweden,” he said at a rally in Florida, leaving Swedes and Americans baffled because nothing out of the ordinary had happened at all. “They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible.”
Like the caravan story, which apparently came to Mr. Trump’s attention as he watched “Fox & Friends,” the president was referring to something he had seen on cable news. And he later had to clarify that he was referring to a Fox News segment on issues Sweden was having with migrants generally, not any particular event.
The conservative National Review later called the piece in question “sensationalistic” and pointed out that a lack of government data made it virtually impossible to determine whether crime rates in the country were related to immigration.
When the president himself has not spread stories about immigration that were either misleading or turned out to be false, his White House aides have. Last year, the White House joined a pile-on by the conservative news media after it called attention to the account of a high school student in Montgomery County, Md., who said she was raped at school by two classmates, one of whom is an undocumented immigrant. The case became a national rallying cry on the right against permissive border policies and so-called sanctuary cities that treat undocumented immigrants more leniently. Fox News broadcast live outside the high school for days.
Prosecutors later dropped the charges after they said the evidence did not substantiate the girl’s claims.
The story of the caravan has been similarly exaggerated. And the emotional outpouring from the right has been raw — that was the case on Fox this week when the TV host Tucker Carlson shouted “You hate America!” at an immigrants rights activist after he defended the people marching through Mexico.
The facts of the caravan are not as straightforward as Mr. Trump or many conservative pundits have portrayed them. The story initially gained widespread attention after BuzzFeed News reported last week that more than 1,000 Central American migrants, mostly from Honduras, were making their way north toward the United States border. Yet the BuzzFeed article and other coverage pointed out that many in the group were planning to stay in Mexico.
That did not stop Mr. Trump from expressing dismay on Tuesday with a situation “where you have thousands of people that decide to just walk into our country, and we don’t have any laws that can protect it.”
The use of disinformation in immigration debates is hardly unique to the United States. Misleading crime statistics, speculation about sinister plots to undermine national sovereignty and Russian propaganda have all played a role in stirring up anti-immigrant sentiment in places like Britain, Germany and Hungary. Some of the more fantastical theories have involved a socialist conspiracy to import left-leaning voters and a scheme by the Hungarian-born Jewish philanthropist George Soros to create a borderless Europe.
Anyone watching Fox News this week would have heard about similar forces at work inside “the caravan.”
“This was an organized plan and deliberate attack on the sovereignty of the United States by a special interest group,” said David Ward, whom the network identified as a former agent for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “They rallied a bunch of foreign nationals to come north into the United States to test our resolve.”
Humanitarian group that organized migrant ‘caravan’ headed to US issues list of demands for refugees
One thousand Central American migrants are headed to the United States border. Adolfo Flores, a BuzzFeed News reporter, has been traveling with the group of migrants and wrote that “no one in Mexico dares to stop them.” President Donald Trump reacted to the report and called off all negotiations with Democrats over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) if the migrants arrive.
With the help of a humanitarian group called “Pueblo Sin Fronteras” (people without borders), the 1,000 plus migrants will reach the U.S. border with a list of demands to several governments in Central America, the United States, and Mexico.
Here’s what they demanded of Mexico and the United States in a Facebook post:
-That they respect our rights as refugees and our right to dignified work to be able to support our families
-That they open the borders to us because we are as much citizens as the people of the countries where we are and/or travel
-That deportations, which destroy families, come to an end
-No more abuses against us as migrants
-Dignity and justice
-That the US government not end TPS for those who need it
-That the US government stop massive funding for the Mexican government to detain Central American migrants and refugees and to deport them
-That these governments respect our rights under international law, including the right to free expression
-That the conventions on refugee rights not be empty rhetoric
“The border is stained red!”
“Because there they kill the working class!”
“Why do they kill us? Why do they murder us…”
“If we are the hope of Latin America?”
Sincerely,
2018 Refugee Caravan “Migrantes en la Lucha”
Pueblo Sin Fronteras
Voir enfin:
American Nightmare
The shame of America’s refugee camps
Wil S. Hylton
The NYT magazine
February 2015
As the months ticked by in Artesia, many detainees began to wonder if they would ever be free again. “I arrived on July 5 and turned myself in at 2 a.m.,” a 28-year-old mother of two named Ana recalled. In Honduras, Ana ran a small business selling trinkets and served on the P.T.A. of her daughter’s school. “I lived well,” she said — until the gangs began to pound on her door, demanding extortion payments. Within days, they had escalated their threats, approaching Ana brazenly on the street. “One day, coming home from my daughter’s school, they walked up to me and put a gun to my head,” she said. “They told me that if I didn’t give them the money in less than 24 hours, they would kill me.” Ana had already seen friends raped and murdered by the gang, so she packed her belongings that night and began the 1,800-mile journey to the U.S. border with her 7-year-old daughter. Four weeks later, in McAllen, Tex., they surrendered as refugees.
Ana and her daughter entered Artesia in mid-July. In October they were still there. Ana’s daughter was sick and losing weight rapidly under the strain of incarceration. Their lawyer, a leader in Chicago’s Mormon Church named Rebecca van Uitert, said that Ana’s daughter became so weak and emaciated that doctors threatened drastic measures. “They were like, ‘You’ve got to force her to eat, and if you don’t, we’re going to put a PICC line in her and force-feed her,’ ” van Uitert said. Ana said that when her daughter heard the doctor say this, “She started to cry and cry.”
In October, as van Uitert presented Ana’s case to an immigration judge, the lawyer broke down in the courtroom. “I’m starting to make these arguments before the judge, and I just couldn’t,” she said. “I sounded like a barking seal, just sucking and gasping, and because I was crying, a lot of people started crying. The attorney next to me was crying, Ana was crying, her little girl started crying. I looked over at the bailiff, who actually ended up being my friend when I went back another time. He had tears in his eyes.” The judge granted Ana’s release on bond; she is currently waiting for an asylum hearing in North Carolina.
Many of the volunteers in Artesia tell similar stories about the misery of life in the facility. “I thought I was pretty tough,” said Allegra Love, who spent the previous summer working on the border between Mexico and Guatemala. “I mean, I had seen kids in all manner of suffering, but this was a really different thing. It’s a jail, and the women and children are being led around by guards. There’s this look that the kids have in their eyes. This lackadaisical look. They’re just sitting there, staring off, and they’re wasting away. That was what shocked me most.”
The detainees reported sleeping eight to a room, in violation of the Flores settlement, with little exercise or stimulation for the children. Many were under the age of 6 and had been raised on a diet of tortillas, rice and chicken bits. In Artesia, the institutional cafeteria foods were as unfamiliar as the penal atmosphere, and to their parents’ horror, many of the children refused to eat. “Gaunt kids, moms crying, they’re losing hair, up all night,” an attorney named Maria Andrade recalled. Another, Lisa Johnson-Firth, said: “I saw children who were malnourished and were not adapting. One 7-year-old just lay in his mother’s arms while she bottle-fed him.” Mary O’Leary, who made three trips to Artesia last fall, said: “I was trying to talk to one client about her case, and just a few feet away at another table there was this lady with a toddler between 2 and 4 years old, just lying limp. This was a sick kid, and just with this horrible racking cough.”
***
IN EARLY AUGUST, a paralegal from Oregon named Vanessa Sischo arrived at the camp. Raised in a small town near Mount Hood, Sischo did not realize until high school that her parents brought her into the United States from Mexico as an infant without documentation. She gained protection from deportation under the president’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in 2012. When Sischo learned that children arriving from Central America were being incarcerated in Artesia, she volunteered immediately. She arrived a week after Christina Brown, and like Brown, she stayed. After about a month, AILA and another nonprofit, the American Immigration Council, hired Brown as the pro bono project’s lead attorney. Brown recommended Sischo for the job of project coordinator. The two women began rooming together in the small yellow house near Main Street.
Brown and Sischo make an unlikely pair. Brown, who has a sturdy build and dark brown hair, has an inborn skepticism and a piercing wit. Sischo is six years younger and preternaturally easygoing. Until she discovered her own immigration background, she had little interest in political affairs and spent much of her time in Oregon as a competitive snowboarder. For both, Artesia was a jarring shift from life at home. As they sat together one evening in December, they described a typical week. “The new volunteers come in on Sunday, go through orientation, and by Wednesday night, everyone is crying,” Brown said. “A lot of the attorneys come in and say: ‘I’ve been doing this for 20 years. I’ve seen all of this before. I’ll be fine.’ ”
“I remember the first time I went in,” Sischo said. “I just stopped, and all I could hear was a symphony of coughing and sneezing and crying and wailing.”
“Kids vomiting all over the place,” Brown said.
“There was a big outbreak of fevers,” Sischo said. “It sent an infant into convulsions.”
“Pneumonia, scabies, lice,” Brown said.
Officials for ICE say these accounts are exaggerated. But they declined multiple requests to visit the Artesia facility and took weeks to answer questions about its facilities. Brown, who oversaw more than 500 detainee cases as lead attorney, was also unable to gain access to the camp’s housing, dining, medical and educational facilities. “I requested three times to be taken on a tour,” she said. “I sent it through the appropriate channels. No one ever responded, to date, to my request.”
Visitors who did gain access to the facility have raised troubling questions about the ethics — and legality — of how it handled children. The Flores settlement requires the government to provide regular schooling for juveniles in detention, but the mayor of Artesia, Phillip Burch, said that on several visits to the compound, the classrooms were always empty. “I was told that children were attending classes,” he recalled. “Did I personally witness it? No. And none of the tours that I made did I see the children actually in class.” Members of the New Mexico Faith Coalition for Immigrant Justice, who toured the facility in October, say that officials also showed them the empty school. When one member asked why the building was empty, an ICE official replied that school was temporarily closed. Detainees have consistently told their lawyers that the school was never reliably open. They recall a few weeks in October when classes were in session for an hour or two per day, then several weeks of closure through November, followed by another brief period of classes in December.
In response to questions about the school, ICE officials would say only that “regular school instruction began Oct. 13, 2014, and ended Dec. 17.” Asked whether the school was open consistently, and for how many hours, ICE officials declined to respond. The senior counselor for immigration issues at the Department of Homeland Security, Esther Olavarria, said that she was aware “there were challenges” at the Artesia school, but couldn’t say exactly when it was open or for how long. Olavarria has a distinguished record as advocate for refugees and previously served as a top immigration adviser for Senator Edward M. Kennedy. She said that she was under the impression that attorneys in Artesia were granted access to the facility, and she could not explain why Brown was not. She also believed that the meal service in Artesia was adapted to reflect the dietary norms of Central America and that medical care was adequate and available. After hearing what detainees, attorneys, faith advocates and elected officials described in Artesia, Olavarria promised to look into these issues and provide further documentation. Despite several attempts to elicit that documentation, she provided none. In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said: “The regular school instruction began Oct. 13, 2014, but was suspended shortly thereafter in order to ensure appropriate vetting of all teachers.” Officials say that school resumed on Oct. 24 and continued through Dec. 17.
Attorneys for the Obama administration have argued in court, like the Bush administration previously, that the protections guaranteed by the Flores settlement do not apply to children in family detention. “The Flores settlement comes into play with unaccompanied minors,” a lawyer for the Department of Homeland Security named Karen Donoso Stevens insisted to a judge on Aug. 4. “That argument is moot here, because the juvenile is detained — is accompanied and detained — with his mother.”
Federal judges have consistently rejected this position. Just as the judge reviewing family detention in 2007 called the denial of Flores protections “inexplicable,” the judge presiding over the Aug. 4 hearing issued a ruling in September that Homeland Security officials in Artesia must honor the Flores Settlement Agreement. “The language of the F.S.A. is unambiguous,” Judge Roxanne Hladylowycz wrote. “The F.S.A. was designed to create a nationwide policy for the detention of all minors, not only those who are unaccompanied.” Olavarria said she was not aware of that ruling and would not comment on whether the Department of Homeland Security believes that the Flores ruling applies to children in family detention today.
***
AS THE PRO BONO project in Artesia continued into fall, its attorneys continued to win in court. By mid-November, more than 400 of the detained women and children were free on bond. Then on Nov. 20, the administration suddenly announced plans to transfer the Artesia detainees to the ICE detention camp in Karnes, Tex., where they would fall under a new immigration court district with a new slate of judges.
That announcement came at the very moment the president was delivering a live address on the new protections available to established immigrant families. In an email to notify Artesia volunteers about the transfer, an organizer for AILA named Stephen Manning wrote, “The disconnect from the compassionate-ish words of the president and his crushing policies toward these refugees is shocking.” Brown was listening to the speech in her car, while driving to Denver for a rare weekend at home, when her cellphone buzzed with the news that 20 of her clients would be transferred to Texas the next morning. Many of them were close to a bond release; in San Antonio, they might be detained for weeks or months longer. Brown pulled her car to the side of the highway and spent three hours arguing to delay the transfer. Over the next two weeks, officials moved forward with the plan.
By mid-December, most of the Artesia detainees were in Karnes, and Brown and Sischo were scrambling to pack the contents of their home and office. On the afternoon of Dec. 16, they threw their final bags into a U-Haul, its cargo area crammed with laundry baskets, suitcases, file boxes and hiking backpacks, all wedged precariously in place, then set out for the eight-hour drive across the desert to central Texas.
The next morning, a law professor named Barbara Hines was also speeding into San Antonio. Hines is a wiry woman in her 60s with a burst of black curls and an aspect of bristling intensity. In the battle over refugee detention, she is something of a seminal figure for advocates like Brown and Sischo. As co-director of the Immigration Law Clinic at the University of Texas, Hines helped lead the 2007 lawsuit against the Hutto facility, which brought about its closure in 2009 and the abolition of widespread family detention until last summer. When the Obama administration announced plans to resume the practice in Artesia, Hines was outraged; when officials opened the second facility in Karnes, just two hours from her home in Austin, Hines began to organize a pro bono project of her own. Although she’d never met Brown or Sischo, she had been running a parallel operation for months. Now that they were in Texas, Hines was eager to meet them.
But first, she had a client to represent. Hines pulled into a parking lot behind the immigration court in downtown San Antonio and rushed inside, up a clattering elevator to the third floor and down a long hallway to a cramped courtroom. At the front, behind a vast wooden desk, sat Judge Glenn McPhaul, a tidy man with slicked hair and a pencil mustache. He presided from an elevated platform, with a clerk to his right, an interpreter to his left, and a large television monitor in the corner. On screen was the pale and grainy image of a dozen exhausted Central American women.
These were just a few of the Karnes detainees, linked by video feed to the courtroom. Another 500 women and children were in the compound with them. There was no legal distinction between their cases and those of the women in Artesia; they had simply been sent to a different facility, weeks or months earlier. Each of them, like the women in Artesia, had already been through the early stages of the asylum process — presenting herself to immigration authorities, asking for refugee status and passing the “credible-fear interview” to confirm a basis for her claim. But the odds of release in Karnes were worse. One of McPhaul’s colleagues, Judge Gary Burkholder, was averaging a 91.6 percent denial rate for the asylum claims. Some Karnes detainees had been in the facility for nearly six months and could remain there another six.
***
THE SITTING AREA of the courtroom was nearly empty, save for half a dozen attorneys. Many of the volunteers at Karnes are friends and former students of Hines, who has been drafting every licensed lawyer she can find. As she slid down the long bench to a seat, she nodded to some of the attorneys in the room and stopped to whisper with another. Then she spent a few minutes fidgeting with her phone until the clerk called her client’s name, and Hines sprang forward, slipping past the bar rail to a table facing the judge. On the television screen, her client, Juana, was stepping toward the camera at Karnes. She was a young woman with a narrow face and deep eyes. Her hair was pulled back to reveal high cheekbones and a somber expression.
McPhaul asked the stenographer to begin transcription, then he commenced with the ritualized exchange of detention proceedings, recording the names of the attorneys, the detainee and everyone on the bench. He noted the introduction of a series of legal documents and confirmed that Juana was still happy to be represented by Hines. There was a stream of legal jargon and a few perfunctory remarks about the status of the case, all of it in clipped judicial vernacular and a flat, indifferent tone. Then McPhaul set a date for the next hearing, at which Hines could begin to present an argument for Juana’s release on bond.
For now, Juana’s turn was over; the whole affair took less than 10 minutes, without any meaningful discussion of her case or its merits. As Hines stepped out of the courtroom, Juana was turning away from the camera to return to her children in Karnes. It was impossible to say how much of the hearing she understood, since none of the proceedings were translated into Spanish. The courtroom interpreter was there only to translate the judge’s questions and the detainees’ responses; everything else was said exclusively in English, including the outcome. For all that Juana knew, she might have been granted reprieve or confined for another six months.
Over the next two hours, the scene would repeat a dozen times. Each time McPhaul called a name, a new lawyer would step forward, taking a seat before the bench and proceeding through the verbal Kabuki. In a few cases, McPhaul offered the detainee the opportunity to post bond — usually around $3,000. But the courtroom interpreter was not allowed to convey this news to the detainee, either. If the pro bono attorney spoke Spanish fluently, there might be a few minutes at the end of the session to explain what happened. If not, the detainee would return to custody and might not discover that she had been granted bond until, or unless, someone paid it.
These, of course, were the lucky women with an attorney to represent them at all. Although the families in Artesia and Karnes have been detained in an environment that closely resembles incarceration, there is no requirement in American law to provide them with the sort of legal representation afforded to other defendants. Unlike the Artesia project, where the involvement of AILA brought in hundreds of volunteers from across the country, Hines could scrape together only so many friends and compatriots to lend their time. She formed a partnership with the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, or Raices, in San Antonio, and the law firm Akin Gump assigned a young lawyer named Lauren Connell to help organize the Karnes project. But there still weren’t enough lawyers to represent the detainees, and Hines and Connell were forced to evaluate which cases were most likely to win. The remaining refugees would proceed to court alone. They would understand little of what happened, and most would be deported.
It was difficult for Hines to think about what might happen to those women next. The refugees who are returned to Central America can be subject to even greater harassment by gangs for having fled. Hector Hernandez, a morgue operator in Honduras, has said that children who come back from U.S. detention “return just to die.” Jose Luis Aguilar, the city councilor for Artesia, recalled a group deportation on the day in July when Secretary Jeh Johnson visited the facility. “He came in the morning, and that same night, they took 79 people and shipped them to El Salvador on the ICE plane,” Aguilar said. “We got reports later that 10 kids had been killed. The church group confirmed that with four of the mortuaries where they went.”
***
HINES WAS HOPING the attorneys from Artesia would help represent the women in Karnes, but she had no idea whether they would be willing to do so. This was her agenda for the first meeting with Christina Brown, which took place that afternoon in a sunlit conference room in the downtown offices of Akin Gump. Hines sat at the head of a long table, with Lauren Connell to her left and an attorney from Raices named Steven Walden to her right. After a few minutes, Brown appeared in the doorway. She was wearing the same green T-shirt and black leggings she had been wearing the day before in Artesia, and she smiled sheepishly, offering a handshake to Hines.
“I’m really sorry,” Brown said with a small laugh. “I want to let you know that I believe very strongly in first impressions — but I am living out of a U-Haul right now.”
Hines smiled sympathetically as they sat down. “So,” she said. “What are you all going to do here?”
Brown paused. “Well, we know we’re going to be continuing our cases,” she said.
“Mmm-hmm,” Hines said.
“And I’m working on cleaning up our spreadsheet and figuring out who’s here,” Brown said. “Many of our clients who were transferred here had already been granted bond.”
“Wait,” Connell said. “They transferred them here to have them bond out?”
Brown sighed. “Yes,” she said.
“That’s ridiculous,” Connell said.
“We’ve had numerous fights on this issue,” Brown said. “We’ve had family members go to pay, and they can’t because the client is already in transit to Karnes.”
Hines shook her head in disbelief.
“It’s been kind of a nightmare,” Brown said.
“Do you have people who have been detained more than 90 days?” Hines asked.
“Every one we’re going forward with on merits has been detained more than 90 days,” Brown said. “So I want to see how you all are moving forward, so I can see what resources are here for Artesia clients.”
Hines laughed. “We can barely staff our cases,” she said. “My hope was that people who were at Artesia, after they’re finished your cases, are going to help with ours.”
“If she says that enough, maybe it will come true,” Connell said.
Brown shook her head. “At the moment, I can commit to nothing,” she said. “Right now, I’m the only attorney, and there’s no guarantee that other volunteers are coming.”
Hines and Connell exchanged a look. Even if the Artesia lawyers could double or triple their workload, the number of detainees would soon overwhelm them. The day before, officials in Karnes had approved a plan to expand the detention facility from about 500 beds to roughly 1,100. At the same time, two hours west of Karnes, in the little town of Dilley, the Department of Homeland Security was about to open another refugee camp for women and children. It would be the largest detention facility in the country, with up to 2,400 beds. If Hines and Brown had trouble finding lawyers to represent a few hundred women and children, there was little chance of generating support for more than 3,000.
***
AFTER THE MEETING, Brown returned to her motel and spent the afternoon searching for an apartment, but the options were limited, and by late afternoon, she and Sischo still had nowhere to live. They decided to spend their first evening in Texas at a vegetarian restaurant downtown. As they settled into a booth at the back of the cafe, they talked about the situation they’d left behind in Artesia, where much of the town opposed the detention facility and the lawyers with equal measure. Town-hall meetings in Artesia became so heated that city officials asked the police to stand guard.
“For people there, it’s a resource issue,” Brown said. “They blame the immigrant community for coming in and being jailed, and for us having to educate their children, when they would like more resources put into their own schools.”
Sischo nodded. “That’s what a guy at the electronics store said: ‘Oh, you’re helping the illegals?’ That’s how they view it. I remember a sign that a protester was holding that was like, ‘What about our children?’ ”
“It’s a legitimate question,” Brown said. “They don’t have a lot of resources in that town, and they should have more.”
“I agree,” Sischo said. “We should not be spending resources on detaining these families. They should be released. But people don’t understand the law. They think they should be deported because they’re ‘illegals.’ So they’re missing a very big part of the story, which is that they aren’t breaking the law. They’re trying to go through the process that’s laid out in our laws.”
For Sischo, seeing the families struggle — families much like her own — was almost more than she could stand. On visits to her parents in Oregon, she struggled to maintain composure. “Every time I’ve gone home, I’ve just cried pretty much nonstop,” she said. “It’s grief and anger and hopelessness and confusion as to how this could happen and whether we’re making a difference.”
For Brown, by contrast, the same experiences seemed to have amplified her energy and commitment. “I haven’t had time to go home and cry yet,” she said. “Maybe I’ll get a job at Dilley, because then I won’t have to process anything!” Brown laughed, but she acknowledged that some part of her was ready to commit to the nomadic life of a legal activist, parachuting into crises for a few months at a time. “That appeals to me,” she said. “It’s nice to be where people need you.”
As dinner came to an end, Brown and Sischo stepped outside into the night. They had parked the U-Haul in a nearby lot, and it had just been towed.
***
IN THE COMING YEAR, most of the families who are currently in detention will wend their way through the refugee system. Some will be released on bond to await their asylum hearing; others will remain in custody until their hearings are complete. Those without an attorney will most likely fail to articulate a reason for their claim in the appropriate jargon of the immigration courts and will be deported to face whatever horror they hoped to flee. Of the 15 families who have been shepherded through the process by the volunteer lawyers so far, 14 have received asylum — “Which should be all you need to know about the validity of their claims,” Brown said.
By late spring, the construction of the new facility at Dilley should be complete. It already represents a drastic departure from the refugee camp in Artesia. Managed by the Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in the country, the South Texas Family Residential Center has its own promotional website with promissory images of the spacious classrooms, libraries, play areas and lounges that will eventually be available to refugees in long-term detention. Architectural drawings for the site show eight distinct neighborhoods on the campus, with dormitory housing, outdoor pavilions, a chapel and several playgrounds. How much of this will ultimately materialize remains to be seen. Last week, C.C.A. listed job openings for child care workers, library aides and mailroom clerks at the site.
Esther Olavarria, the senior counselor for immigration issues at the Department of Homeland Security, acknowledged that there had been shortcomings in Artesia but described the Dilley facility as a correction. “We stood up Artesia very, very quickly and did the best that we could under the circumstances,” Olavarria said. “As concerns were brought to our attention by advocates, we worked with them to try to address the concerns as quickly as possible.”
Many advocates have expressed concerns about the Dilley facility as well. Its management company, C.C.A., is the same firm that ran the Hutto detention center, and it has been at the center of other significant controversies in recent years. In 2006, federal investigators reported that conditions at a C.C.A. immigration jail in Eloy, Ariz., were so lacking that “detainee welfare is in jeopardy.” Last March, the F.B.I. started an investigation of C.C.A. over a facility the company ran in Idaho, known by inmates as the “Gladiator School” because of unchecked fighting; in 2010, a video surfaced of guards watching one inmate beat another into a coma. Two years ago, C.C.A. executives admitted that employees falsified 4,800 hours of business records. The state has now taken control of the facility.
The management contract at Dilley was also created with unusual terms. In their hurry to open the new facility, officials for the Obama administration bypassed normal bidding procedures and established Dilley under an existing contract for the troubled C.C.A. jail in Eloy. Although the Dilley camp is nearly 1,000 miles away from Eloy, all federal funding for the new camp in Texas will flow through the small town in Arizona, which will keep $438,000 of the annual operating budget as compensation. Eloy city officials say they do not expect to monitor, or even visit, the Dilley facility.
Any new refugees who surrender this spring may spend more than a year in Dilley before their asylum hearings can be scheduled. Olavarria said that officials hope the process will move more quickly, but it will depend on the immigration courts in San Antonio, which fall under the Department of Justice. “From what I’ve heard from the Justice Department, generally it’s not taking 18 months,” Olavarria said. “We’re hearing that cases are being completed in a shorter time. But it’s a case-by-case situation that depends on the complexity, it depends on continuances that are provided to seek counsel, to prepare for cases, all those kinds of things.” The cost to house each detainee at Dilley is about $108,000 per year. A study funded by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, of more than 500 detainees between 1997 and 2000, found that 93 percent will appear in court when placed in a monitoring program. The savings of such a program for the 2,400 detainees at Dilley would be about $250 million per year.
Officials from the Department of Homeland Security say the facilities in Karnes and Dilley are still insufficient to house the detainees they expect to process in the coming year. “Last year, we saw 60,000 families come in,” Olavarria said. “We’re hoping we don’t see those kinds of numbers this year, but even if we see half, those two facilities would hold a fraction of those numbers.” Olavarria said the department was not yet considering additional facilities. “We are in the middle of a battle with the Congress on our funding, so there’s very little discussion about long-term planning,” she said.
For now, the Artesia facility is closed, its bunk beds and hallways empty. Brown and Sischo remain in Texas; they rescued their U-Haul from an impound lot and found an apartment soon thereafter. That same week, an email from the mayor of Artesia, Phillip Burch, was circulating among city residents. “The pro bono attorneys have left our community,” he wrote. “Hopefully not to return.”
Wil S. Hylton is a contributing writer at The New York Times Magazine and the author of Vanished. His complete archive is available on Longform.
Voir par ailleurs:
Les fausses images d’enfants séparés de leurs parents à la frontière USA-Mexique
La Croix
23/06/2018
De nombreuses photos et vidéos circulent sur internet depuis que Donald Trump a mis en place sa politique de tolérance zéro face à l’immigration illégale, ce qui a mené plus de 2.300 enfants à être séparés de leurs parents à la frontière entre Etats-Unis et Mexique.
Mais beaucoup d’entre elles ne correspondent pas à la réalité.
Vendredi, après la publication d’un décret du président américain marquant son revirement vis-à-vis de cette politique, le doute demeurait sur le temps que mettront ces mineurs à retrouver leurs familles.
Que vérifie-t-on et que sait-on?
Au moins trois images, largement partagées sur les réseaux sociaux ces derniers jours, illustrent des situations qui ne sont pas celles vécues par les 2.342 enfants détenus en raison de leur statut migratoire irrégulier.
La première montre une fillette hondurienne, Yanela Varela, en larmes. Elle est vite devenue sur Twitter ou Facebook un symbole de la douleur provoquée par la séparation des familles.
Cette image a même contribué à déclencher des donations d’un total de plus de 18 millions de dollars à une association texane d’aide aux migrants appelée RAICES.
La photo a été prise le 12 juin dans la ville de McAllen, au Texas, par John Moore, un photographe qui a obtenu le prix Pulitzer et travaille pour l’agence Getty Images.
Time Magazine en a fait sa Une, mettant face à face, dans un photomontage sur fond rouge, la petite fille apeurée et un Donald Trump faisant presque trois fois sa taille et la toisant avec cette simple légende: « Bienvenue en Amérique ».
Un article en ligne publié par Time et portant sur cette photo affirmait initialement que la petite fille avait été séparée de sa mère. Mais l’article a ensuite été corrigé, la nouvelle version déclarant: « La petite fille n’a pas été emmenée en larmes par des agents de la police frontalière des Etats-Unis, sa mère est venue la chercher et elles ont été emmenées ensemble ».
Time a néanmoins utilisé la photo de la fillette pour sa spectaculaire couverture.
Mais au Honduras, la responsable de la Direction de protection des migrants au ministère des Affaires étrangères, Lisa Medrano, a donné à l’AFP une toute autre version: « La fillette, qui va avoir deux ans, n’a pas été séparée » de ses parents.
Le père de l’enfant, Denis Varela, a confirmé au Washington Post que sa femme Sandra Sanchez, 32 ans, n’avait pas été séparée de Yanela et que les deux étaient actuellement retenues dans un centre pour migrants de McAllen (Texas).
Attaqué pour sa couverture, qui a été largement jugée trompeuse, y compris par la Maison Blanche, Time a déclaré qu’il maintenait sa décision de la publier.
« La photographie du 12 juin de la petite Hondurienne de 2 ans est devenue le symbole le plus visible du débat sur l’immigration actuellement en cours aux Etats-Unis et il y a une raison pour cela », a affirmé dans un communiqué aux médias américains le rédacteur en chef de Time, Edward Felsenthal.
« Dans le cadre de la politique appliquée par l’administration, avant son revirement de cette semaine, ceux qui traversaient la frontière illégalement étaient l’objet de poursuites criminelles, qui entraînaient à leur tour la séparation des enfants et des parents. Notre couverture et notre reportage saisissent les enjeux de ce moment », argumente M. Felsenthal dans son communiqué.
Un autre cliché montre une vingtaine d’enfants derrière une grille, certains d’entre eux tentant d’y grimper. Il circule depuis des jours comme une supposée photo de centres de détention pour mineurs à la frontière mexicaine.
Mais son auteur, Abed Al Ashlamoun, photographe de l’agence EPA, a pris cette image en août 2010 et elle représente des enfants palestiniens attendant la distribution de nourriture pendant le ramadan à Hébron, en Cisjordanie.
Enfin, une troisième image est celle d’un enfant en train de pleurer dans ce qui semble être une cage, et qui remporte un grand succès sur Twitter, où elle a été partagée au moins 25.000 fois sur le compte @joseiswriting.
Encore une fois, il s’agit d’un trompe-l’oeil: il s’agit d’un extrait d’une photo qui mettait en scène des arrestations d’enfants lors d’une manifestation contre la politique migratoire américaine et publiée le 11 juin dernier sur le compte Facebook Brown Berets de Cemanahuac.
Que peut-on conclure?
Les trois photographies mentionnées et amplement partagées sur internet ont été sorties de leur contexte et détournées, et ne peuvent servir de preuves des conditions de vie dans les centres de détention de mineurs clandestins.
Voir enfin:
Cette enfant n’a pas été séparée de ses parents. Sa photo reste un symbole
Cette fillette en pleurs a fait la couverture du « Time », où elle illustre la dureté de la politique de Trump en matière d’immigration.
Plus de 2.300 enfants ont été séparés de leurs parents à la frontière entre les Etats-Unis et le Mexique, en raison de la politique de tolérance zéro de Donald Trump face à l’immigration illégale. Une politique largement critiquée à travers le monde, et que le président américain a fini par infléchir par décret vendredi : les enfants ne seront plus séparés de leurs parents mais… placés dans des centres de rétention avec eux.
De nombreuses photos et vidéos circulent sur internet pour illustrer cette politique.
La plus célèbre d’entre elles montre une fillette hondurienne, Yanela Varela, en larmes. Elle a été prise le 12 juin dans la ville de McAllen, au Texas, par John Moore, un photographe qui a obtenu le prix Pulitzer et travaille pour l’agence Getty Images.
Le magazine « Time » en a fait sa couverture, mettant face à face, dans un photomontage sur fond rouge, la petite fille apeurée et un Donald Trump faisant presque trois fois sa taille et la toisant avec cette simple légende : « Bienvenue en Amérique ».
La fillette et sa mère n’ont pas été séparées
Un article en ligne publié par Time et portant sur cette photo affirmait initialement que la petite fille avait été séparée de sa mère. Mais l’article a rapidement été corrigé, la nouvelle version déclarant :
« La petite fille n’a pas été emmenée en larmes par des agents de la police frontalière des Etats-Unis, sa mère est venue la chercher et elles ont été emmenées ensemble. »
« La fillette, qui va avoir deux ans, n’a pas été séparée » de ses parents, a aussi fait savoir à l’AFP la responsable de la Direction de protection des migrants au ministère des Affaires étrangères du Honduras.
Confirmation également du père de l’enfant, Denis Varela, qui a dit au « Washington Post » que sa femme Sandra Sanchez, 32 ans, n’avait pas été séparée de Yanela et que les deux étaient actuellement retenues dans un centre pour migrants de McAllen, au Texas.
Le camp Trump s’est rapidement saisi de l’affaire pour crier à la fausse nouvelle.
« Il est honteux de la part des démocrates et des médias d’exploiter la photo de cette petite fille pour faire avancer leurs idées », a tweeté vendredi Sarah Sanders, la porte-parole de la Maison-Blanche.
« Le ‘Time’ a dépassé les bornes. Ils se sont séparés de la vérité », a aussi réagi Ari Fleischer, ancien porte-parole de George W. Bush.
Le « Time » maintient
Critiqué, le magazine « Time » a toutefois défendu sa position. Dans un communiqué aux médias américains, le rédacteur en chef du magazine, Edward Felsenthal, explique :
« La photographie du 12 juin de la petite Hondurienne de 2 ans est devenue le symbole le plus visible du débat sur l’immigration actuellement en cours aux Etats-Unis et il y a une raison pour cela. »
Il poursuit :
« Dans le cadre de la politique appliquée par l’administration, avant son revirement de cette semaine, ceux qui traversaient la frontière illégalement étaient l’objet de poursuites criminelles, qui entraînaient à leur tour la séparation des enfants et des parents. Notre couverture et notre reportage saisissent les enjeux de ce moment. »
Le père « fier » de sa fille
« Je crois que cette image a éveillé les consciences sur la politique de zéro tolérance de cette administration », commente John Moore, le photographe, auprès du « Washington Post ». Il explique que le « Time » a modifié son article à sa demande, quelques minutes après l’avoir publié, et poursuit :
« Cette image montrait un moment précis à la frontière, mais […] la détresse de la petite fille ont provoqué une réponse. »
Au-delà de la prise de conscience, la photo de la petite fille a même contribué à déclencher des donations d’un total de plus de 18 millions de dollars à une association texane d’aide aux migrants appelée RAICES.
Quant au père de la fillette, également interrogé par le « Washington Post », il estime que la photo ne doit pas permettre de douter des « violations des droits humains » en cours à la frontière et se dit « fier » que sa fille « représente la question de l’immigration » et ait conduit à une modification de la politique de Donald Trump.
COMPLEMENT:
Not Every Concentration Camp Is Auschwitz
Why it’s fair to use the controversial phrase in the debate over U.S. immigrant detentions.
As one of the few journalists permitted to tour the government’s new internment camp, about 40 miles from the southern border, the New York Times correspondent tried to be scrupulously fair. Forcing civilians to live behind barbed wire and armed guards was surely inhumane, and there was little shelter from the blazing summer heat. But on the other hand, the barracks were “clean as a whistle.” Detainees lazed in the grass, played chess, and swam in a makeshift pool. There were even workshops for arts and crafts, where good work could earn an “extra allotment of bread.” True, there had been some clashes in the camp’s first days—and officials, the reporter noted, had not allowed him to visit the disciplinary cells. But all in all, the correspondent noted in his July 1933 article, life at Dachau, the first concentration camp in Nazi Germany, had “settled into the organized routine of any penal institution.”
In the days since U.S. border protection agents released video of immigrants being kept in cages, and the first detained children began arriving behind the barbed-wire fences of a new government camp at Tornillo, Texas, people across the country have been struggling over how to think about what the Trump administration is doing. Some, horrified by the images and a leaked recording of children plaintively crying for the mothers and fathers from whose arms they’d been torn, have drawn comparisons to concentration camps of the past—particularly the most notorious ones of all, those of Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. For others that comparison is going too far. “Stop already with the Nazi and Hitler analogies. Really. Stop,” conservative writer John Podhoretz tweeted. “What’s happening is its own kind of bad and you court discrediting the seriousness of your complaints about it by overstating things so tastelessly and wrongly.”
This is not just a debate over semantics. How we categorize what is happening on the Southern border has everything to do with how the public and lawmakers will respond. That is why Trump administration officials have spent so much time trying to justify, lie, and shift blame for their new policy. Even Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced to confront the concentration camp label on Fox News, which he tried incoherently to deflect. It’s obviously true that the Customs and Border Protection camp at Tornillo is no Auschwitz. But in dismissing any such historical comparisons out of hand, people are making the common mistake of reading history backward—looking only at the endpoint of a decadeslong process and ignoring the hard lessons humanity has learned, again and again, about where a policy like the one President Donald Trump and his supporters are now implementing can go. To see what I mean, you have to start at the beginning of the short and brutal history of the concentration camp.
Concentration camps were born out of war—not in Europe, but Latin America. In 1896, the Spanish empire was trying desperately to hold onto one of its last remaining colonies, Cuba. Independence wars had been raging there for three decades, and the fight wasn’t going well for Spain. Cuban revolutionaries, known as mambises, used ambushes, dynamite, and their deep knowledge of Cuba’s mountainous countryside to defeat colonial reinforcements. Believing the mambises’ advantage lay in the support and intelligence they received from rural communities, the island’s Spanish governor, Gen. Valeriano Weyler y Nicolau, declared a new policy he called, euphemistically, reconcentración. Starting on Oct. 21, 1896, all civilians had to move behind the barbed wire of a handful of garrison towns controlled by the Spanish army. Any Cuban found moving freely or transporting food through the countryside was subject to execution. Knowing from the start that controlling the people required controlling information, Weyler also set out to aggressively censor any news critical of what he was doing.
The immediate result was a humanitarian catastrophe. Hundreds of thousands died of disease and hunger. An assistant U.S. attorney, Charles W. Russell, who toured the island in January 1898, told the New York Times he had seen “women and children emaciated to skeletons and begging everywhere about the streets of Havana” and cities where a fifth of the population had died in the previous three months. A previous Spanish governor-general had considered, then decided against, implementing the policy, knowing full well how brutal its effects would be. But Weyler was a hard-liner who saw no difference between mambises and Cuban civilians. He believed it was his duty to starve and demoralize the people into surrender. But the unintended consequences of reconcentración doomed his war effort. Even Cubans who had been ambivalent about independence now resolved to fight to the death, since that seemed to be the only option either way. Worse for Spain, the horrific reports scandalized Cuba’s neighbors in the United States. When the battleship USS Maine exploded in Havana Harbor in February 1898, for reasons that still remain unknown, advocates for U.S. entry into the war only had to remind the public of the concentration camps to convince them the fading European power was capable of any evil.
But Americans would be next to put concentration camps into action. America’s entry into the Spanish-Cuban war mushroomed into a conflict on two continents, in which the United States annexed the Spanish territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, as well as previously independent Hawaii. (We effectively took over Cuba, too, and established a naval station at Guantánamo Bay, where a century later another infamous prison camp would be built.) U.S. officials were especially pleased with the capture of the Philippines, a resource-rich archipelago and source of new land on China’s doorstep. Filipinos were not as enthusiastic about one imperial overlord replacing another, and in 1899 a new war broke out. As a guerrilla insurgency mounted, Gen. James Franklin Bell ordered Filipinos herded into “protected zones,” where they would be prisoners of the U.S. Army. As in Cuba, violators would be shot. “While Army officers … claimed that the camps were healthy and not overcrowded,” the military historian Brian McAllister Linn has written, the cost in human suffering was “unquestionably high.” Americans were shocked to learn their forces had adopted the tactics of “Butcher Weyler.” An anti-imperialist senator read into the record an anonymous U.S. soldier’s letter describing an American concentration camp in the Philippines as “some suburb of hell.” Such reports helped undermine public support for the war, though the U.S. occupation of the Philippines would continue until after World War II.
Those first experiments helped establish a pattern that concentration camps would follow from then on: punishing civilians through mass detention and keeping them separate from society. Some observers, looking even further back, see foreshadows in other parts of history, including the breaking up of African and black American families during slavery, and the forcible displacement of Native Americans in the conquest of North America. But researchers note key, specific characteristics that set the concentration camp apart from other atrocities. Camps “require the removal of a population from society with all its accompanying rights, relationships, and connections to humanity,” author Andrea Pitzer writes in her 2017 book One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps. “This exclusion is followed by an involuntary assignment to some lesser condition or place, generally detention with other undesirables under armed guard.”
Removal, exclusion, denial of rights, mass detention—those tactics appeared again in the concentration camps Britain used to subdue the Dutch-descended Boers of South Africa in 1900, the imprisonment of “enemy alien” civilians on all sides in World War I, and the Soviet Union’s “corrective labor camps,” better known by the Russian acronym for the agency that administered them: Gulag. The United States used them on its own territory in World War II to imprison its own citizens of Japanese descent. Not yet fully discredited as a term, President Franklin D. Roosevelt himself suggested in a 1936 memo, written five years before the attack on Pearl Harbor that, should Japan strike, the Navy should prepare to put Hawaii residents of Japanese descent into a “concentration camp in the event of trouble.”
Which brings us back, historically speaking, to Nazi Germany. When Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, he made no secret of his intentions to punish those he viewed as enemies, stamp out “undesirables,” and restore an imagined Teutonic greatness of the past. His government built its first concentration camp at Dachau just over a month after he became chancellor, to house political opponents of the new regime. Hitler knew the histories of Spain, Britain, and the United States. He had experienced the strategies of stripping citizenship from and forcibly imprisoning civilian populations during World War I. As he consolidated power, his staff ramped up pre-emptive arrests of anyone it deemed a target or threat, gaining confidence with every step.
It is important to understand that at the time, no one—not even Nazis—thought of such camps as places for extermination. Concentration camp—Konzentrationslager in German—was still a euphemism for forcible relocation and imprisonment, not murder. Even Auschwitz wasn’t “Auschwitz” at first—at least not in the sense we mean it today. When the Nazis built what would become their most notorious camp in German-occupied Poland, in 1940, it was used first for criminals, then expanded in anticipation of receiving Soviet prisoners of war. Despite seeming in retrospect to have been masterfully planned, historians believe, Nazi rule was mostly “chaotic and improvisatory,” taking advantage of circumstances as they arose. It was not until 1942, as the Nazi high command decided on a campaign of total genocide against the Jewish people, that camps were redesigned for mass murder. By the end, an initial population of a few thousand prisoners had ballooned to more than 1.3 million who passed through Auschwitz’s iron gates. Most would never return.
After the war, when the scale and horror of the genocide became clear to the world, anything associated with Nazism, including the term concentration camp, became an explosive insult. But as ridiculous as it would be for modern generals not to study tactics the Nazis used, it would be absurd for people today to ignore modern parallels with the most dangerous parts of history just because invoking them risks an imperfect comparison with the Holocaust. It’s an unavoidable fact that one of the major reasons the Nazis were able to kill so many people so easily, once they decided to, was the dehumanization and isolation created by their original concentration camps. Convincing a bureaucracy to massacre civilians is hard. Subjecting legal prisoners to Sonderbehandlung, or “special treatment,” as the killing of 6 million Jews and many others was officially called, was easier. As the philosopher Hannah Arendt, a refugee from the Nazis who spent time imprisoned in a French concentration camp before the German invasion, later observed: “All [concentration camps] have one thing in common: The human masses sealed off in them are treated as if they no longer existed, as if what happened to them were no longer of any interest to anybody, as if they were already dead.”
We are not there yet in this country. But what is happening near the Southern border is an unmistakable step down that road. In a Tuesday tweet defending his new policies, Trump blamed his political enemies, the Democrats, for being “the problem,” and accused them of conspiring with immigrants who want to “pour into and infest our Country.” He has repeatedly accused the people he is now detaining from across Central America, including presumably their children, of being reinforcements for a Salvadoran-American criminal gang. Forget for a second that illegal immigration to the United States has declined consistently since its peak more than a decade ago in 2007, that immigrants commit less crime than native-born Americans, or that most of the Central American children, women, and men imprisoned on the border are fleeing violence and poverty fueled by civil wars in which the United States played a leading role. Trump’s language, using a verb—infest—usually reserved for vermin or disease, is exactly in line with the kind of rhetoric and action that has defined concentration camps since 1896: the denial of rights, isolation, and concentration of undesirables by force.
Some may hope that these revitalized horrors will stay limited to the most vulnerable people—even including families who have risked everything to travel thousands of miles in hopes of reaching safety. But as the path from Spanish reconcentración to the gulags and death camps of the 20th century showed, once it is tolerated by society, a tactic does not tend to stay bottled up for long. Already the Trump administration has signaled its intention to begin stripping U.S. citizenship from those it feels don’t deserve it. Considering how even U.S. citizens deemed enemy combatants have already been treated under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, there is no telling what treatment people formally stripped of their most fundamental rights might expect if these new policies are allowed to continue.
Like with camps of the past, the Trump administration has tried to control the flow of information about what is going on inside the barbed wire. CBS News’ David Begnaud, one of the few allowed to see the cages at Central Processing Station “Ursula” in McAllen, Texas, reported after his visit that his team was not allowed to talk to anyone detained. Not only could the journalist not learn about the detainees’ experiences, but he was not allowed to put names or human faces on anyone being held. When information does get out, officials like Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen are instructing supporters not to believe it—a tactic that, as all authoritarian regimes have proved, often works.
Nonetheless, a clear majority of Americans are opposed to the most hard-line tactics being implemented on the border. Those numbers are likely to grow as stories mount about conditions in the sweltering heat at Tornillo and the baby jails of South Texas. Protests are underway, with nationwide marches planned for June 30. Some in the administration and its supporters are trying to stop the backlash by noting that inhumane deportation and detention practices existed under previous administrations as well—a fact that has been widely covered for years. But everyone builds on what comes before them.
Voir aussi:
An Expert on Concentration Camps Says That’s Exactly What the U.S. Is Running at the Border
« Things can be concentration camps without being Dachau or Auschwitz. »
Surely, the United States of America could not operate concentration camps. In the American consciousness, the term is synonymous with the Nazi death machines across the European continent that the Allies began the process of dismantling 75 years ago this month. But while the world-historical horrors of the Holocaust are unmatched, they are only the most extreme and inhuman manifestation of a concentration-camp system—which, according to Andrea Pitzer, author of One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps, has a more global definition. There have been concentration camps in France, South Africa, Cuba, the Soviet Union, and—with Japanese internment—the United States. In fact, she contends we are operating such a system right now in response to a very real spike in arrivals at our southern border.
“We have what I would call a concentration camp system,” Pitzer says, “and the definition of that in my book is, mass detention of civilians without trial.”
Historians use a broader definition of concentration camps, as well.
« What’s required is a little bit of demystification of it, » says Waitman Wade Beorn, a Holocaust and genocide studies historian and a lecturer at the University of Virginia. « Things can be concentration camps without being Dachau or Auschwitz. Concentration camps in general have always been designed—at the most basic level—to separate one group of people from another group. Usually, because the majority group, or the creators of the camp, deem the people they’re putting in it to be dangerous or undesirable in some way. »
Not every concentration camp is a death camp—in fact, their primary purpose is rarely extermination, and never in the beginning. Often, much of the death and suffering is a result of insufficient resources, overcrowding, and deteriorating conditions. So far, 24 people have died in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the Trump administration, while six children have died in the care of other agencies since September. Systems like these have emerged across the world for well over 100 years, and they’ve been established by putative liberal democracies—as with Britain’s camps in South Africa during the Boer War—as well as authoritarian states like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Camps set up with one aim can be repurposed by new regimes, often with devastating consequences.
History is banging down the door this week with the news the Trump administration will use Fort Sill, an Oklahoma military base that was used to detain Japanese-Americans during World War II, to house 1,400 unaccompanied migrant children captured at the border. Japanese internment certainly constituted a concentration-camp system, and the echoes of the past are growing louder. Of course, the Obama administration temporarily housed migrants at military bases, including Fort Sill, for four months in 2014, built many of the newer facilities to house migrants, and pioneered some of the tactics the Trump administration is now using to try to manage the situation at the border.
The government of the United States would never call the sprawling network of facilities now in use across many states « concentration camps, » of course. They’re referred to as « federal migrant shelters » or « temporary shelters for unaccompanied minors » or « detainment facilities » or the like. (The initial processing facilities are run by Border Patrol, and the system is primarily administered to by the Department of Homeland Security. Many adults are transferred to ICE, which now detains more than 52,000 people across 200 facilities on any given day—a record high. Unaccompanied minors are transferred to Department of Health and Human Services custody.) But by Pitzer’s measure, the system at the southern border first set up by the Bill Clinton administration, built on by Barack Obama’s government, and brought into extreme and perilous new territory by Donald Trump and his allies does qualify. Two historians who specialize in the area largely agree.
Many of the people housed in these facilities are not « illegal » immigrants. If you present yourself at the border seeking asylum, you have a legal right to a hearing under domestic and international law. They are, in another formulation, refugees—civilian non-combatants who have not committed a crime, and who say they are fleeing violence and persecution. Yet these human beings, who mostly hail from Central America’s Northern Triangle of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador—a region ravaged by gang violence and poverty and corruption and what increasingly appears to be some of the first forced migrations due to climate change—are being detained on what increasingly seems to be an indefinite basis.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration continually seeks new ways to stop people from applying for asylum, and to discourage others from attempting to. The current regime has sought to restrict the asylum criteria to exclude the exact issues, like gang or domestic violence, that these desperate people often cite for why they fled their homes. The administration has sought to introduce application fees and work-permit restraints. They have tried to prohibit migrants from seeking asylum « if they have resided in a country other than their own before coming to the U.S., » which would essentially eliminate anyone who traveled to the border through Mexico. Much of this has been struck down in federal court.
But most prominently, Trump’s Department of Homeland Security has used « metering » at the border, where migrants are forced to wait for days or weeks on the Mexican side—often sleeping in makeshift shelters or fully exposed to the elements—until they are allowed across border checkpoints to make their asylum claims and be processed. That processing system is overwhelmed, and the Obama administration also used metering at various points, but it remains unclear whether the wait times need to be as long as they are. (DHS did not respond to a request for comment.) There are no guarantees on how long migrants will have to wait, and so they’ve increasingly turned to crossing illegally between checkpoints—which constitutes « illegal entry, » a misdemeanor—in order to present themselves for asylum. This criminalizes them, and the Trump administration tried to make illegal entry a disqualifier for asylum claims. The overall effort appears to be to make it as difficult as possible to get a hearing to adjudicate those claims, raising the specter that people can be detained longer or indefinitely.
All this has been achieved through two mechanisms: militarization and dehumanization. In her book, Pitzer describes camps as “a deliberate choice to inject the framework of war into society itself. » These kinds of detention camps are a military endeavor: they are defensible in wartime, when enemy combatants must be detained, often for long periods without trial. They were a hallmark of World War I Europe. But inserting them into civil society, and using them to house civilians, is a materially different proposition. You are revoking the human and civil rights of non-combatants without legal justification.
« In the origins of the camps, it’s tied to the idea of martial law, » says Jonathan Hyslop, author of « The Invention of the Concentration Camp: Cuba, Southern Africa and the Philippines, 1896–1907, » and a professor of sociology and anthropology at Colgate University. « I mean, all four of the early instances—Americans in the Philippines, Spanish in Cuba, and British in South Africa, and Germans in Southwest Africa—they’re all essentially overriding any sense of rights of the civilian population. And the idea is that you’re able to suspend normal law because it’s a war situation. »
This pairs well with the rhetoric that Trump deploys to justify the system and his unconstitutional power grabs, like the phony « national emergency »: he describes the influx of asylum-seekers and other migrants as an « invasion, » language his allies are mirroring with increasing extremism. If you’re defending yourself from an invasion, anything is defensible.
That goes hand-in-hand with the strategy of dehumanization. For decades, the right has referred to undocumented immigrants as « illegals, » stripping them of any identity beyond an immigration status. Trump kicked off his formal political career by characterizing Hispanic immigrants as « rapists » and « drug-dealers » and « criminals, » never once sharing, say, the story of a woman who came here with her son fleeing a gang’s threats. It is always MS-13 and strong, scary young men. There’s talk of « animals » and monsters, and suddenly anything is justifiable. In fact, it must be done. Trump’s supporters have noticed. At a recent rally, someone in the crowd screamed out that people arriving at the border should be shot. In response, the president cracked a « joke. »
« It’s important here to look at the language that people are using, » Hyslop says. « As soon as you get people comparing other groups to animals or insects, or using language about advancing hordes, and we’re being overrun and flooded and this sort of thing, it’s creating the sense of this enormous threat. And that makes it much easier to sell to people on the idea we’ve got to do something drastic to control this population which going to destroy us. »
In a grotesque formulation of the chicken-and-the-egg conundrum, housing people in these camps furthers their dehumanization.
« There’s this crystallization that happens, » Pitzer says. « The longer they’re there, the worse conditions get. That’s just a universal of camps. They’re overcrowded. We already know from reports that they don’t have enough beds for the numbers that they have. As you see mental health crises and contagious diseases begin to set in, they’ll work to manage the worst of it. [But] then there will be the ability to tag these people as diseased, even if we created [those conditions]. Then we, by creating the camps, try to turn that population into the false image that we [used] to put them in the camps to start with. Over time, the camps will turn those people into what Trump was already saying they are. »
Make no mistake: the conditions are in decline. When I went down to see the detention facility in McAllen, Texas, last summer at the height of the « zero-tolerance » policy that led inevitably to family separation, Border Patrol agents were by all appearances doing the very best they could with limited resources. That includes the facilities themselves, which at that point were mostly built—by the Clinton administration in the ’90s—to house single adult males who were crossing the border illegally to find work. By that point, Border Patrol was already forced to use them to hold families and other asylum-seekers, and agents told me the situation was untenable. They lacked requisite staff with the training to care for young children, and overcrowding was already an issue.
But according to a report from Trump’s own government—specifically, the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security—the situation has deteriorated significantly even since then. The facilities are overcrowded, underfunded, and perhaps at a perilous inflection point. It found adult detainees are « being held in ‘standing-room-only conditions’ for days or weeks at a border patrol facility in Texas, » Reuters reports. But it gets worse.
This was at Paso del Norte, a facility near El Paso, which has a stated capacity of 125 detainees. But when DHS inspectors visited, it was holding 900. For a period, Border Patrol tried housing migrants in cage under a nearby bridge. It was ultimately scrapped amid public outcry. When migrants and asylum-seekers are transferred to ICE, things can get worse. Queer and trans migrants face exceptionally harsh treatment, with reports of high levels of physical and sexual abuse, and the use of solitary confinement—considered torture by many psychologists—is widespread. As a reminder, by DHS’s own assertion, these detainments are civil, not criminal, and are not meant to be punitive in the way of a prison. Many of these people have not even been accused of a crime.
Again: these are inhuman conditions, and crystalize the dehumanization. So, too, does the Trump administration’s decision, reported by The Washington Post, to cancel classes, recreational programs, and even legal aid for the children held at facilities for unaccompanied minors. Why should these kids get to play soccer or learn English? Why should they get legal assistance? They’re detainees.
The administration is citing « budget pressures » related to what is undoubtedly a dramatic spike in arrivals at the border last month: 144,000 people were detained in May. It remains unclear how much of this is tied to the Trump administration’s border policies, like metering, which have severely slowed the process of declaring oneself for asylum and left people camped on the Mexican border for days or weeks after a thousand-mile trek through Mexico. Or Trump’s recent all-out push to seize money for a border wall and declare « we’re closed, » which some speculate led to a surge of people trying to get over the line before that happened.
It’s also in dispute how many of these people actually need to be detained. Vox‘s Dara Lind suggests releasing migrants from Guatemala or Honduras isn’t straightforward as « many newly arrived asylum seekers aren’t familiar with the US, often speak neither English nor Spanish, and may not have appropriate clothing or funds for bus fare. » But release with ankle bracelets has proven very effective as an alternative to detention: 99 percent of immigrants enrolled in one such program showed up for their court dates, though ICE claims it’s less effective when someone is set to be deported. Those subjected to the bracelets say they are uncomfortable and demeaning, but it’s better than stuffing a detention cell to five-times capacity. Unless, of course, that’s exactly what you want to happen.
« At one point, [the administration] said that they were intentionally trying to split up families and make conditions unpleasant, so the people wouldn’t come to the U.S., » Beorn, from UVA, says. « If you’re doing that, then that’s not a prison. That’s not a holding area or a waiting area. That’s a policy. I would argue, at least in the way that [the camps are] being used now, a significant portion of the mentality is [tied to] who the [detainees] are rather than what they did.
« If these were Canadians flooding across the border, would they be treated in the same manner as the people from Mexico and from Central and South America? If the answer is yes, theoretically, then I would consider these places to be perhaps better described as transit camps or prison camps. But I suspect that’s not how they’d be treated, which then makes it much more about who the people are that you’re detaining, rather than what they did. The Canadian would have crossed the border just as illegally as the Mexican, but my suspicion is, would be treated in a different way. »
It was the revelation about school and soccer cuts that led Pitzer to fire off a tweet thread this week outlining the similarities between the U.S. camp system and those of other countries. The first examples of a concentration camp, in the modern sense, come from Cuba in the 1890s and South Africa during the Second Boer War.
« What those camps had in common with what’s going on today is they involved the wholesale detention of families, separate or together, » Pitzer says. « There was very little in the way of targeted violence. Instead, people died from poor planning, overloaded facilities and unwillingness to reverse policy, even when it became apparent the policy wasn’t working, inability to get medical care to detainees, poor food quality, contagious diseases, showing up in an environment where it became almost impossible to get control of them.
« The point is that you don’t have to intend to kill everybody. When people hear the phrase ‘Oh, there’s concentration camps on the southern border,’ they think, ‘Oh, it’s not Auschwitz.’ Of course, it’s not those things, each camp system is different. But you don’t have to intend to kill everyone to have really bad outcomes. In Cuba, well over 100,000 civilians died in these camps in just a period of a couple years. In Southern Africa during the Boer War, fatalities went into the tens of thousands. And the overwhelming majority of them were children. Fatalities in the camps ended up being more than twice the combat fatalities from the war itself. »
In-custody deaths have not reached their peak of a reported 32 people in 2004, but the current situation seems to be deteriorating. In just the last two weeks, three adults have died. And the Trump administration has not readily reported fatalities to the public. There could be more.
« There’s usually this crisis period that a camp system either survives or doesn’t survive in the first three or four years. If it goes past that length of time, they tend to continue for a really long time. And I think we have entered that crisis period. I don’t yet know if we’re out of it. »
Camps often begin in wartime or a crisis point, and on a relatively small scale. There are then some in positions of power who want to escalate the program for political purposes, but who receive pushback from others in the regime. There’s then a power struggle, and if the escalationists prevail over the other bureaucrats—as they appear to have here, with the supremacy of Stephen Miller over (the reliably pliant but less extreme) Kirstjen Nielsen—the camps will continue and grow. Almost by definition, the conditions will deteriorate, even despite the best intentions of those on the ground.
« It’s a negative trajectory in at least two ways, » Beorn says. « One, I feel like these policies can snowball. We’ve already seen unintended consequences. If we follow the thread of the children, for example, the government wanted to make things more annoying, more painful. So they decided, We’re going to separate the children from the families. But there was no infrastructure in place for that. You already have a scenario where even if you have the best intentions, the infrastructure doesn’t exist to support it. That’s a consequence of policy that hasn’t been thought through. As you see the population begin to massively increase over time, you do start to see conditions diminishing.
« The second piece is that the longer you establish this sort of extralegal, extrajudicial, somewhat-invisible no-man’s land, the more you allow potentially a culture of abuse to develop within that place. Because the people who tend to become more violent, more prejudiced, whatever, have more and more free rein for that to become sort of the accepted behavior. Then, that also becomes a new norm that can spread throughout the system. There is sort of an escalation of individual initiative in violence. As it becomes clear that that is acceptable, then you have a self-fulfilling prophecy or a positive feedback loop that just keeps radicalizing the treatment as the policy itself becomes radicalizing. »
And for a variety of reasons, these facilities are incredibly hard to close. « Unless there’s some really decisive turn away, we’re going to be looking at having these camps for a long time, » Pitzer says. It’s particularly hard to engineer a decisive turn because these facilities are often remote, and hard to protest. They are not top-of-mind for most citizens, with plenty of other issues on the table. When Trump first instituted the Muslim Ban—now considered, in its third iteration, to be Definitely Not a Muslim Ban by the Supreme Court—there were mass demonstrations at U.S. airports because they were readily accessible by concerned citizens. These camps are not so easily reached, and that’s a problem.
« The more authoritarian the regime is, and the more people allow governments to get away with doing this sort of thing politically, the worse the conditions are likely to get, » Hyslop says. « So, a lot of it depends on how much pushback there is. But when you get a totally authoritarian regime like Stalin’s regime in the Soviet Union, there’s no control, or no countervailing force, the state can do what it likes, and certainly things will then tend to break down.
« It’s more of a political question, really. Are people prepared to tolerate the deteriorating conditions? And if public opinion isn’t effective in a liberal democratic situation, things can still get pretty bad. »
Almost regardless, the camps will be difficult to dismantle by their very nature—that extrajudicial « no-man’s land » Beorn mentioned. The prison at Guantanamo Bay is a perfect example. It began in the early 1990s as a refugee camp for people fleeing Haiti and Cuba. The conditions were bad and legally questionable, Pitzer found, and eventually the courts stepped in to grant detainees some rights. In the process, however, they granted the camps tacit legitimacy—they were allowed to continue with the approval of the judiciary.
Suddenly, they were enshrined in the law as a kind of gray area where detainees did not enjoy full human rights. That is actually why it was chosen by the Bush administration to house terror suspects: it was already rubber-stamped as a site for indefinite detention. By the time President Obama came into office with promises to close it, he found the task incredibly difficult, because it had been ingrained in the various institutions and branches of American constitutional government. He could not get rid of it. As courts continue to rule on the border camp system, the same issues are likely to take hold.
Another issue is that these camp systems, no matter where they are in the world, tend to fall victim to expanding criteria. The longer they stay open, the more reasons a government finds to put people in them. That’s particularly true if a new regime takes control of an existing system, as the Trump administration did with ours. The mass detention of asylum-seekers—who, again, have legal rights—on this scale is an expansion of the criteria from « illegal » immigrants, who were the main class of detainee in the ’90s and early 2000s. Asylum seekers, particularly unaccompanied minors, began arriving in huge numbers and were detained under the Obama administration. But there has been an escalation, both because of a deteriorating situation in the Northern Triangle and the Trump administration’s attempts to deter any and all migration. There is reason to believe the criteria will continue to expand.
« We have border patrol agents that are sometimes arresting U.S. citizens, » Pitzer says. « That’s still very much a fringe activity. That doesn’t seem to be a dedicated priority right now, but it’s happening often enough. And they’re held, sometimes, for three or four days. Even when there are clear reasons that people should be let go, that they have proof of their identity, you’re seeing these detentions. You do start to worry about people who have legally immigrated and have finished paperwork, and maybe are naturalized. You worry about green-card holders. »
In most cases, these camps are not closed by the executive or the judiciary or even the legislature. It usually requires external intervention. (See: D-Day) That obviously will not be an option when it comes to the most powerful country in the history of the world, a country which, while it would never call them that, and would be loathe to admit it, is now running a system at the southern border that is rapidly coming to resemble the concentration camps that have sprung up all over the world in the last century. Every system is different. They don’t always end in death machines. But they never end well.
« Let’s say there’s 20 hurdles that we have to get over before we get to someplace really, really, really bad, » Pitzer says. « I think we’ve knocked 10 of them down. »
Publié par jcdurbant 
Laissez les petits enfants, et ne les empêchez pas de venir à moi; car le royaume des cieux est pour ceux qui leur ressemblent. 
