A Senator, a long-time critic of the policy of detaining non-criminal families consisting of mothers and children us demanding that the Obama administration conform to a federal judge’s current ruling. The ruling states that the government is going against a 1997 ruling that governed the way immigrant children were detained and when they should be released.
The New Jersey Democrat stated that the mothers and children being detained in the family detention centers should be released as soon as possible; these mothers and children are alleged to have fled the violence and poverty in the Central Americas – they had crossed the Rio Grande and arrived into the country. Many of them were seeking political asylum, having been kept in detention facilities and are awaiting a resolution of their case.
The senator said, “They are neither a flight nor a national security risk. Family detention policies are not only inhumane and unnecessary, they’re also illegal.” He went on to add, “what we want now that the court has ruled is swift enforcement of the court’s ruling,” Menendez said. “The government has to stop unnecessary detention, which is costly and inhumane.”
The senator also stated that the detention of immigrants in general should be transformed to give more attention to criminals, not people who have violated civil immigration rights.
A lot is going on against family immigrant detention in the United States, and critics of the policy see the practice being routed out eventually.
Attorneys for immigrant families have filed this week for women and children detained in these facilities to be released without bond. House Democrats in Washington held a discussion on the camp-style facilities, where it was alleged that inmates were seriously mistreated and there were attempts to cover up any problems.
It has been many months since advocates have been vouching for the detention of women and children seeking refuge in the country to end. Their pleadings combined with court rulings could help to achieve that eventually. For the time being, however, there has been an increasing outcry by attorneys, critics and others who allege that there is rampant confusion, man-handling and mistreatment in the family detention centers.
It was stated by a U S District Court Judge that the family detention policy violates the 1997 Flores Agreement, a settlement that regulates the way the DHS handles undocumented children. It states that “undocumented children should be kept in the least restrictive environment possible and that DHS should generally adopt a policy favoring release.”
Many of the women and children who escaped from their countries to flee from the violence in their home countries state that atmosphere was punishing in the detention facility.
When one is applying for a visa in the United States – be it for a green card or for filing adjustment of status it is mandatory to appear for the Immigration Medical Examination. In this exam the status of the applicant’s health and overall health condition is verified by the officials, through appointing USCIS-approved Civil Surgeons. Even those medical conditions are identified which require follow up and medical care to be initiated once the adjustment of status or the green card is issued.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A MEDICAL CONDITION IS REVEALED DURING THE IMMIGRATION MEDICAL?
If medical conditions like depression, hypertension, diabetes, cardio problems or heart disease or chronic conditions like asthma are discovered during the course of the medical examination there are generally no problems. The problems occur when infectious diseases like HIV / AIDS, TB in an active state or mental conditions that could be dangerous to others afflict the applicant.
If an applicant has any of the problems above or any other medical condition that would affect the eligibility of taking the exam then it is best to carry as many records as possible to be shown to the Civil Surgeon. A letter from the applicant’s personal doctor stating the success of any treatment could also be obtained and shown to the Civil Surgeon.
As Donald Trump delivers a strictly anti-immigration message towards the GOP presidential polls, the immigration debate is being opened by the House Republicans with legislation that would crack down on what are being called “sanctuary cities,” the hundreds of localities that give safe harbor to undocumented immigrants.
It’s the first sign that the uproar that was started by Trump — after the shooting death of a woman allegedly committed by an undocumented immigrant is having a ripple effect. And Democrats are taking the opportunity to try and brand the GOP as in the thrall of the real estate mogul — calling the sanctuary cities bill passed by the House Thursday as the “Donald Trump Act.”
Unmoved, Republicans pressed forward on legislation that would block funding for sanctuary cities as an opening move in a broader immigration fight. GOP leaders have promised the rank-and-file that more enforcement legislation is coming, though they haven’t mentioned specific bills.
Although immigration reform was resisted by the House Republicans for the last two years, House Republicans are responding to the national outcry over sanctuary cities after the shooting death of the woman in San Francisco — allegedly at the hands of an immigrant here illegally who was released by local authorities, even though he was asked to be detained. Trump’s surge, they say, is an example of the same wave of public concern.
