Keep Hurting Families
The zero-tolerance policy implemented by Donald Trump´s Administration keeps hurting families. U.S. government deported at least 463 parents who were separated from their children at the border between the months of May and June. This number is not final, more people could be affected. Most of these parents have been sent back to Central America. In the meantime, their children, between 5 and 17 years old, are still in the United States in federal custody. The government has not explained when or how these families are going to be reunited.
A federal judge´s order to have reunited 2.551 minors by today looks like is not going to happen.
As of Monday, the government reported that they had reunited 879 parents with their children and that 538 more were approved for reunification. This basically adds up to half of the cases demanded by the judge.
On top of this, ACLU has reported that there are many instances in which parents signed their deportation order right after been separated from their children and with no access to legal counsel. They believe that finding the parents in their home countries and reuniting them with their children will be extremely difficult. We are very concerned about this. Our immigration attorneys and our specialized staff encourage everyone to contact your Senate and Congress representatives to push for a change and immigration reform.
Related posts

The Future of Habeas Corpus: Legal Challenges and Constitutional Safeguards
Summary The blog explains how habeas corpus, a fundamental legal right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, ensures protection against unlawful detention. It highlights the current

Can Entrepreneurs and Business Owners Qualify for a TN Visa?
Summary If you’re a Canadian or Mexican entrepreneur living in the U.S. or planning to launch a business here, you may be wondering: Can I

Recent Habeas Corpus Cases: Legal Precedents and Their Implications
Summary The article explains how recent habeas corpus cases, including Rivers v. Guerrero and W.M.M. v. Trump, have significant implications for the interpretation of the