Unaccompanied Migrant Children

by

“Why can’t we just send them back?”

This has been the question (and solution) posed by many Americans, including our Congressional representatives, in response to the influx of unaccompanied migrant children at the southern border. Given the recent debates over immigration policy in the United States, this response is not particularly surprising, but the irony has become too thick to ignore.

A mere three months ago, a militant group called Boko Haram allegedly kidnapped over 200 young girls from their school in Northern Nigeria. Americans hastily began spreading the word of this tragedy and denouncing the actions of Boko Haram members. Through the use of the latest and greatest political tool – social media – celebrities and political leaders alike posted images of themselves holding signs that read: Bring Back Our Girls. As a nation, we felt both united and appalled on behalf of these innocent African schoolgirls. “Bring them back!” we cried. Yet when the world’s most desperate children, fleeing gang violence, starvation, and rape are placed on our front doorstep, we say: “send them back.” I’m no mathematician, but something doesn’t add up.

For starters, the United States prides itself on being the land of the free, a protector of those who cannot protect themselves. We are quick, if not the quickest, to condemn those nations that fail to uphold basic and internationally recognized human rights. Unlike thosecountries, we are the melting pot where all people may come and live freely. This is the very reason we are proud to be American and the core of our self-proclaimed identity. How is it possible, then, that Americans are blissfully unaware of the actual definition of human rights?

One need not be an expert in refugee law to understand the topic, but in the spirit of brevity, it would suffice to simply be aware of its central underlying principle: non-refoulement. This French term means, literally, “do not return them.” It also means that all (yes, all) immigrants have a right to remain in the United States if their home country’s government is failing to protect them from certain types of harm. This is a legal right, and it is no less concrete than the freedom of speech, press, and association found in the Constitution. It is nothing new. Decades ago, our country signed on to the United Nations Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, and consequently the obligation to protect refugees fleeing persecution. The text of our own domestic immigration laws mirrors the principles found therein as well. So when a United States Congressperson says we should send these refugee children back to the violence from which they have fled, it doesn’t just sound harsh – it sounds unintelligent.

But it doesn’t stop there. Some elected officials have even claimed that these children are flowing into our country due to the Obama administration’s recent implementation of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). Politics aside, this is borderline comical. I cannot speak for all immigrant children, but I can speak for many. Aside from the fact that DACA would not apply to these children, they possess no awareness of “deferred” action, nor are they motivated by the administration’s enforcement measures, or lack thereof. They are fleeing Central America, home to the most dangerous countries in existence. And that’s not emotionally fueled hyperbole. According to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, Honduras consistently tops the charts as having the highest per capita murder rate in the world. This ranking is a direct result of the country being controlled by criminal organizations, such as the Maras gangs, which extort “rent” from hardworking families. In the United States, we pay rent in exchange for a living space. In Honduras, you pay rent in exchange for your life and for the lives of your children.

Indeed, the trip through Mexico is also perilous, with children often riding atop trains and encountering rape, extortion, and abuse along the way. What good parent would send their child on such a formidable journey? Well, probably a parent who doesn’t want their child to remain in the most dangerous country in the world. There is no question that our treaty obligation – a promise to protect refugees – applies to every single migrant child sitting in a Texas detention center right now. They have reached American soil, and they have a right to receive protection if they qualify for it. This is not an argument based on morality – it is simply the law. The very idea of an undocumented immigrant crossing the U.S. border carries a stigma of criminality, but therein lies the paradox: if we send them back without a chance to be heard, we are the ones breaking the law.

Still need more irony? Pay a visit to the Statue of Liberty. You will undoubtedly see the words, beautifully engraved: “Give me your tired, your weak, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Kara Kelly is Vice President of the Immigration Law Students Association.

Like What You’ve Read? Support CounterPunch
Weekend Edition
August 28-30, 2015
Randy Blazak
Donald Trump is the New Face of White Supremacy
Jeffrey St. Clair
Long Time Coming, Long Time Gone
Mike Whitney
Looting Made Easy: the $2 Trillion Buyback Binge
Alan Nasser
The Myth of the Middle Class: Have Most Americans Always Been Poor?
Rob Urie
Wall Street and the Cycle of Crises
Andrew Levine
Viva Trump?
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
Behind the Congressional Disagreements Over the Iran Nuclear Deal
Lawrence Ware – Marcus T. McCullough
I Won’t Say Amen: Three Black Christian Clichés That Must Go
Evan Jones
Zionism in Britain: a Neglected Chronicle
John Wight
Learning About the Migration Crisis From Ancient Rome
Andre Vltchek
Lebanon – What if it Fell?
Charles Pierson
How the US and the WTO Crushed India’s Subsidies for Solar Energy
Robert Fantina
Hillary Clinton, Palestine and the Long View
Ben Burgis
Gore Vidal Was Right: What Best of Enemies Leaves Out
Suzanne Gordon
How Vets May Suffer From McCain’s Latest Captivity
Robert Sandels - Nelson P. Valdés
The Cuban Adjustment Act: the Other Immigration Mess
Uri Avnery
The Molten Three: Israel’s Aborted Strike on Iran
John Stanton
Israel’s JINSA Earns Return on Investment: 190 Americans Admirals and Generals Oppose Iran Deal
Bill Yousman
The Fire This Time: Ta-Nehisi Coates’s “Between the World and Me”
Scott Parkin
Katrina Plus Ten: Climate Justice in Action
Michael Welton
The Conversable World: Finding a Compass in Post-9/11 Times
Brian Cloughley
Don’t be Black in America
Kent Paterson
In Search of the Great New Mexico Chile Pepper in a Post-NAFTA Era
Binoy Kampmark
Live Death on Air: The Killings at WDBJ
Gui Rochat
The Guise of American Democracy
Emma Scully
Vultures Over Puerto Rico: the Financial Implications of Dependency
Chuck Churchill
Is “White Skin Privilege” the Key to Understanding Racism?
Kathleen Wallace
The Id(iots) Emerge
Andrew Stewart
Zionist Hip-Hop: a Critical Look at Matisyahu
Gregg Shotwell
The Fate of the UAW: Study, Aim, Fire
Halyna Mokrushyna
Decentralization Reform in Ukraine
Norman Pollack
World Capitalism, a Basket Case: A Layman’s View
Sarah Lazare
Listening to Iraq
John Laforge
NSP/Xcel Energy Falsified Welding Test Documents on Rad Waste Casks
Wendell G Bradley
Drilling for Wattenberg Oil is Not Profitable
Joy First
Wisconsin Walk for Peace and Justice: Nine Arrested at Volk Field
Mel Gurtov
China’s Insecurity
Mateo Pimentel
An Operator’s Guide to Trump’s Racism
Yves Engler
Harper Conservatives and Abuse of Power
Michael Dickinson
Police Guns of Brixton: Another Unarmed Black Shot by London Cops
Ron Jacobs
Daydream Sunset: a Playlist
Charles R. Larson
The Beginning of the Poppy Wars: Amitav Ghosh’s “Flood of Fire”
David Yearsley
A Rising Star Over a Dark Forest
August 27, 2015
Sam Husseini
Foreign Policy, Sanders-Style: Backing Saudi Intervention
Brad Evans – Henry A. Giroux
Self-Plagiarism and the Politics of Character Assassination: the Case of Zygmunt Bauman