Transcripts For CSPAN3 Unaccompanied Children From Central America 20141103

Trust is everything to me. Thats why for all we have accomplished in state gos government, our job is not done until we clean up the corruption. So im appointing a new independent commissioner led by top officials from all across the great state to investigate and prosecute wrong doing. Politicians in albany wont like it, but i work with the people and i wont stop fighting until we all have a government we can trust. Andrew cuomo is spending millions of our tax on ads that are not true. Guess what state ranks dead last in Economic Outlook . Cuomos new york. Has the highest property taxes in the nation, cuomos new york. Andrew cuomos policies have new york last in too many categories, and no amount of taxpayer ads could change that. New york has a proud history of fighting for the nation. Its shocking rob astorino has violated Discrimination Laws for years. Hes the only county executive who refuses to comply. 10 million in penalties for civil rights violations. The New York Times on astor o astorino. It wont work now. So far right hes wrong for new york. Recent polls shows this race as solid democrat. You can watch the candidates debate any time online on cspan. Org. Next, remarks from the salvadoran ambassador to the u. S. On the recent migration of unaccompanied minors from Central America. His comments came during an allday conference on immigration policy held by the Georgetown University law center. Its an hour and a half. Okay, i think were going to get started. Welcome back from lunch. I know it was a little shorter perhaps than you like. But he had fascinating panels this morning. In addition to director rodriguez speaking, we started out really well, so the challenge for my panel will be to continue that. I know that theyre very capable of doing that. To this panel were going to focus in particular with the treatment of unaccompanied minors in the United States as well as the situation for them and their sending country both before they leave and if they are returned what sort of plans exist at least in one of the major sending countries. I just want to make say a couple words before i introduce our panelist, each of whom will talk for about 10, 15 minutes then well open it up to a full q a. Once again when we get to q a, please come down to the microphones and introduce yourselves. This, we know that the unaccompanied minors from three Central American country, salvador, guatemala and honduras, have been coming to the United States for quite some time and that in recent years the numbers started to increase, and they increased first gradually and then somewhat significantly one could say. But this year they were called a crisis. I just want to remind us in the global context of crises, the arrival of this number of unaccompanied children, whether it was 60,000 people were talking about, 90,000 or whatever, that is not the definition of a crisis in the global community. A crisis is what is happening in syria and a crisis is what happens every time theres huge movements of forced migrants who have to flee for safety reasons. Now, what the children have in common with many of those is that theres no question that the violence in their communities was one of the major factors in their flight. Thats not something thats really been debated. Many, weve learned, who are also coming to join families. Were going to have a full discussion, though, of whats happened since they came here. Weve also learned very recently in these past year or two that more of them were younger and were more female, so larger percentages of younger children and more girls, ask yourselves why. So to talk about whats going on in the sending country in terms of trying to ensure that kids dont have to flee violence and in terms of their returns if and when that takes place, we have the ambassador of el salvador the United States, hes next to my right, and to talk about the Just Department Immigration Courts in particular are handling the increased numbers of children in a variety of ways we have barbara leen who is the counsel to the director of the executive office of immigration review directly to the ambassadors right and to barbaras right we have maria woltshin who is not only a professor at the university of chicago where shes a teaches a variety of courses on immigrationrelated issues but shes the director of the young center for immigration childrens rights who has been working to develop a significant core of child advocates. So for lawyers in the room, heres a different role that lawyers can play in the process when children arrive from abroad in a country. So i would ask maria to talk about what her, her organization, the young center does, how the most recent increases in numbers have affected the organization and particularly about the concept of best interests of the child and how that is being deployed and some of the challenges with that. So were going to begin with ambassador altshoal. Youll see some will sit, some will stand. Ive invited them to do whatever is most comfortable. Well begin with you, ambassador. Thank you very much. First, let me thank the organizers of this event for giving me the opportunity of sharing this panel with such distinguished persons and with you all as was said by andrew, immigration is not true, even the immigration of unaccompanied children is not necessarily new. Just in the case of el salvador in 2009 theres records of 1200 unaccompanied children coming here to the United States. In fiscal year 2012, this increased to 3300. And fiscal year 2004, which is referred to as the crisis, we had 16,000. Unaccompanied kids. So it is new, but it has increased and has increased considerably. So one question is why. As im sure you all know, the issue of migration, theres not one single cause. There are multiple causes or push factors that have to do with migration. And all of them exist right now. In the case of el salvador, in the case of the northern triangle countries. It is always mention that economic reasons are a fundamental cause, and it is true. I mean, people migrate because they cannot find the opportunities in our own countries to satisfy their most basic human needs, lack of jobs, lack of opportunities, health opportunities, Education Opportunities and so forth. So thats always been a push factor. And a cause for migration. But things havent gotten worse in el salvador, so that is not in itself an explanation of why this surge in unaccompanied children. The same could be said about the security issues. It is true. I mean, there is we are all living in a very violent situation. The crime rate, et cetera, the Gang Violence and so forth clearly are push factors. Actually, right now honduras is considered to be the most violent country in the world and in san pedro its considered the most violent capital in the world. This is a questionable membership that san salvador and el salvador had three years ago. But so this is going on. Its true. They are push factors. But in the case of el salvador, at least, things havent gotten worse. They even have improved. So that by itself doesnt explain either this surge. Another important factor was mentioned already is the family reunification. Again, talking about el salvador, we have thousands of salvadorans, just a pps ben fisheries. We have those who have been living here, working here for at least 12 years, probably more. They left the country. They probably left their Young Children there. You havent seen them in tens of years. So now they have the means, they have the stability. They say this is the moment for me and i can pay for somebody to bring my kids back. So that is also a factor in all this. But again that itself does not explain the situation. What is it that has changed in my perception, which explains this, its basically i think, an issue of the smugglers, the coyotes. The coyotes had discovered if they send a message that if the kids come to the states and they came in, they were not going to be deported. We know they were telling people a green card, they might be given citizenship. So this is something that was a marketing strategy, a very successful marketing strategy. I think that explains why. Because what we see i had the opportunity to visit the border three or four weeks ago. We were in a Detention Center and i had the opportunity to talk to mothers there and the kids. And we asked how long did the trip take . Well, 10 days, 12 days, 15 days. We know traditionally this journey took two months, three months. And how did you travel . Well, we took a bus. So clearly this is not the normal process of immigration that we have been used to for all this time. This is a new way. Actually, it is referred to as the vip treatment or the express treatment. We know that people pay 8,000, 12,000 to bring people in. This has become a big, big business. I think this is what explains without taking any relevance or importance to the other push factors but this is what explain the surge. Now, i think its important to also see that in these three issues, the Economic Situation we are facing the security situation were facing and the issue of family reunification, but thats a shared responsibility with the United States because if we are now seeing the effects of economic policies that have been coming for many years that create the marginalized population and excluded great numbers of our people, this was in part also the responsibility of the u. S. Police ya at those times supporting military dictators in Central America and authoritarian regimes and supporting the ruling parties that created this situation. In the case of security, there is also some sort of shared responsibility because the majority of the violence that were having in our countries has to do with Drug Trafficking. And we are, unfortunately, in a very important geodwraskal situation because the drugs are produced in the south, theyre consumed in the north and they have to come through our countries. So its basically by geographical reasons that we are suffering a lot of this. And in terms of the family reunifications, i would say as well theres some shared responsibility because many of the policies, migration policies that you very well know have prevented and at least has not facilitated this family reunification process. So i say this not because i want to blame anybody, but to say the solution to the problems are still a matter of mutual cooperation and shared responsibility. And what is the solution . There are shortterm responses to this crisis. We have reinforced our consular offices in the border states, we have opened a new consulate general in texas, weve increased our cooperation with i. C. E. And with the u. S. Authorities. We have improved our capabilities in el salvador. Were organizing networks of support at the local level throughout our consulates to provide support for the kids that are going to eventually stay here or while they are still here, Legal Assistance in education, in medical health, Mental Health is very important. And so forth. But we are very clear that is longterm and the solution has to be in providing Economic Development and better conditions of life for the people. That is our main responsibility but again its an opportunity for joint and shared cooperation. At this moment, you might remember that a couple of weeks ago the three Central American president s from guatemala, san salvador and honduras were here in washington and had a meeting with president obama to analyze the situation of the kids. And one of the things that came out there was that countries would prepare with the help of the american interdevelopment bank a plan to address the situation. This plan has already been its already been in the works. Its still a road map, but i think it has very important innovations. One, it is prepared by the countries. It is not, as other plans, Economic Development plans that were basically elaborated here or through the multilateral institutions. This is something thats been the work of our thee governments working together, which is very important. Its not very easy that three countries come together and come with a plan. Second, the idea is not to do a Big Development plan, but to focus on the specific territories which produce the largest number of migrants. So its to implement concrete projects in those territories to provide better security, better job opportunities, better education, Better Health care in order to create the conditions that would, if not prevent, at least mitigate the migration. That is what we are we know very well that we believe that that is the way to go. We can do shortterm solutions but unless we address the root cause of migration, which is providing better conditions, security, economic and opportunities of life, we will not be able to stop that phenomenon. So i would like to leave it here and gladly answer questions. Thank you very much, ambassador. Ill ask each of our panelists to speak first, then well be opening it up to questions. So, barbara. Thank you. Thank you very much for having me here this afternoon. As many of you know the Immigration Court system and the Immigration Court of appeals, after the kids came through this summer, you know, there was a lot of focus on their immediate care, immediate feeding and shelter our agency focused a little bit more on what the longterm way to process these children are because after they go through the border and where theyre temporarily and reunified, they come to us for their Legal Proceedings. And so the children are typically with us for quite a bit of time with respect to their Legal Proceedings and how theyre processed through the system. So im going to talk a little bit about some of the changes that happened at our agency with respect to processing some of the kids, then ill speak to representation and a bit about some of our next steps. So many of you know one of the things we did in response to the influx this summer was that we added additional groups to our preexisting party for detained cases. So what that meant was that we were prioritizing the cases of recent border crossers, which was loosely defined sort of as people who came on or after may 1st. Dhs identifies who those people are, and typically its four different categories. Its unaccompanied children, adults with children who are detained, adults with children at least into the alternatives for Detention Program and all other detained aliens. And so those are sort of used the recent border crosser priority caseload. Im going to focus today on the kids because thats the topic of this discussion. So we started processing priority cases july 18th. And so what that means is that when we get a party case as identified by dhs as an unaccompanied child, that child receives their first master calendar hearing no less than ten days and no more than 21 days of the filing with the Immigration Court. So that goal is just for their first hear. We just need to make sure they get in and start their case. Within that 21day period. So you know, one thing thats on everyones mind and we get asked a lot of questions about is representation and access to Legal Services for their children. We work really closely with other Government Agencies as well as nonprofit organizations to explore ways in which we, as the court system, can assist in trying to help these kids get access to Legal Services. This summer we issued some guidance with respect to how to utilize friend of the court services. In the past weve issued guidance to Immigration Judges on how to employ Child Friendly Court practices and sort of reiterated that with our judges as we knew that they were going to see a lot more cases. And what the procedures that they can take in order to improve pro bono participation in the court system. We created specialized childrens dockets in all courts that see children so that we can ensure that children are not coming to court the same time as adults and so those child friendly procedures can be implemented in that special time when the kids are there. We, in addition, we expanded immigration judge training and we expanded the Legal Orientation Program for the custodians of unaccompanied alien children. So its important to note that that program is something that the office of energy resettlement does run rights presentation for the children but our program focusing on their custodians so when the kids are with their custodians we provide services to the custodians to let the custodians know whats going on, let them understand whats happening to the child, help them understand what, you know, their responsibilities are with respect to making sure the child comes to court, making sure they know what resources are available to them for legal access. The other thing that we did this summer because that program, the lopc program is what we call it, doesnt operate everywhere. We expanded a National Call center that allows custodians that are in areas where this program, the inperson program is not currently operational, to be able to call in to a center and ask questions, try to understand whats going on with the kids. You know, get an understanding of what, you know, what they have to do, what the kids have to do when they get to court and to help them understand what resources might be available in their communities to help them. In addition, some of you probably saw we announced this summer a partnership with the corporation for National Community service. A lot of you know that as the americorps or Vista Program where they put 2 million of its funds to start whats called the Justice Americorps program, where well be funding about 100 attorneys and parallels to provide direct representation to qualifying children. These are typically children that are under that are 15 years of age and under who are going to Immigration Court. So we expect that to be operating at about 15 cities and, you know, its basically utilizing the Americorps Program what you can imagine were utilizing the Americorps Program to get lawyers into the courtrooms with the kids. And so its a new partnership and its really exciting. We expect the attorneys and the parallels to be on the ground to report in about january, the beginning of the year. For us, were anxiously participating that program getting on the ground and operating in a lot of our courts. Were happy we work very closely with the office of refugee settlement because they work to provide services to the children, so we work in tandem to make sure that were trying to get adequate coverage in the country. And also to set up programs that will allow us to study what the impact of direct legal representation is for the kids. We understand that its important that when we have Government Programs to look at them, see what they do, both sort of on a more anecdotal level in terms of social science gathering with respect to conversations about how the kids feel when they go through, but then also just the hard statistics about what impact this could have on the court system. So were working on that with the Justice Americorps program. We also launched a small representation pilot in baltimore where were going to have some direct Legal Services there as well. And so in addition to that, we are undergoing a lot of outreach. I see a couple of faces in the room that i know ive met with a few times this summer and probably will continue to meet with this year. Right now our director and Deputy Director is in texas. Theyre going to the six cities that have the most unaccompanied alien children in them in order to meet with Legal Service providersand adjudicators and people on the ground in these cities to see what it is that the agency can do to help process these kids through the Immigration Court. In a way that, you know, assists the Legal Services groups in the area in being able to have access to provide the kids greater levels of Legal Services. And so were really trying to go out, understand whats happening on the ground in the courts and work with the communities in order to make sure that we are working together to try and make sure that these kids get through the Legal Process the first time in a way that makes everybody very comfortable. In addition, were also having model hearing programs to try and train the naup profit attorneys. I think a lot of you are Immigration Attorneys so you know what youre doing when you get to court. Sometimes you get a real Estate Attorney in there whos doing a good pro bono effort, but you want to make sure theyre well trained before they get in there. Our judges are volunteering their time to go in and try and teach some of those real Estate Attorneys how Immigration Court goes. So those are a few things were doing to try to Work Together with groups, you know, with the national groups, with the local groups to try and increase access to Legal Services. A lot of people are asking us, well, great, you know, you have this caseload. We get it. What about everyone else . What about my asylum client who ive been working with for several years and, you know, not to put too fine a point on it. As those cases of those kids and some of the recent border crosses, there are other cases that simply are not priorities. And so what ends up happening is that some of the cases for nondetained individuals who are not considered priority caseload do get bumped back. And they get bumped out further. You know, you dont have to tell me that those cases are waiting a long time in our court system. We know. And so were evaluating options for what to do with some of those cases that are either going off the calendars or going way far out into the future for their individual hearings. Weve made our resource needs very clear. I think the administration has done a very good job of making our resource needs very clear. Were continuing a hiring effort. You know, we should get about 25 new judges on this year. Were looking we recently advertised 48 immigration judge positions in anticipation of a budget that i hope someday will come from congress. That will tell us exactly what we can do. And how many judges we can hire. But, you know, hearing time is our most precious asset a lot of times in the Immigration Court. And we simply need more judges, and we need more court staff to support those judges. And so we are trying to hire what we can, and were making our case. And the administration is making its case to congress with respect to the resources that we need to handle the full caseload that we have thats increasing. And the other thing were looking at is were trying to find ways sort of on the margins to increase some of the efficiencies in Immigration Court. You know, seeing what we can do about trying to encourage prehearing conferences. You know, doing proffers, that sort of thing. Just in the normal course of what you might expect in a Court Proceeding that arent typically institutionalized practices in Immigration Court to see how we can more, you know, to utilize some of those resources and institutionalize some of those practices in a way that allows us to, you know, efficiently process those cases while making sure everybody is heard. And i look forward to taking any of your questions. Okay. Thank you very much, barbara. Im going to stand up. I just want to start by thanking andy and don and npi for inviting me here today. Its really great to get to talk to all of you and see so many faces that i know. I have to say after this mornings panel, the last panel, a lot of this is just going to seem pie in the sky or at least it did to me after the last panel because were advocating that there be a best interest standard for unaccompanied children and that all decisions be made in accordance with the childs best interests. But i also think that we need to keep our eye on what may happen next and also going back to this mornings panel, if theyre right and they all seem to agree, if the democrats lose the senate, if the house moves farther to the right, we may all start seeing children being deported in insignificant numbers. So i want to start with really whats going to be my last point, which is that in all of our other systems in the u. S. , when we move a child, theres a process. We have whats called interstate compact. So in all 50 states, if were going to move a child from illinois to california, california is involved, illinois is involved, and theres an assessment of whether that child will be safe if hes moved. Child protective services, if a child is removed from the home because of abuse, five relatives come forward to take care of that child, theyre all vetted. And its the same with o. R. They dont release a child without going through the process of looking at that sponsor. But in our current system, we have nothing in place for ensuring that child will be safe, and we have really no system in place for even making a minimum inquiry about that. So i want to add what andy said in the beginning about whats happening right now. The number of children arriving at the border has decreased, or our beds are at about 65 capacity. So the numbers today are each day approximately 55 children are arriving at the border. In june, it was 300 children a day. So its a significant drop. The causes are uncertain. We dont yet know. We dont yet know if its going to be as a result of the hot weather at the end of the summer. Or if there are other reasons, for example, bolstered borders by guatemala, mexico deporting many more children beefing up enforcement. What we do know is the children are being deported from the mexico border. The mexico guatemala border. And the violence has not abated in the three Central American countries. 68,000 children arrived last year, and they are here. As barbara pointed out, the initial impact was on office of Refugee Resettlement, but and they modified their systems for releasing children, but now this is all going to hit the Immigration Courts and all of the other systems. Its really going to start impacting how these agencies work. So were based at the university of chicago, and we serve as child advocate for unaccompanied children. And this is very similar in Child Protection systems to a bestinterest guardian ad litem. I will also tell you we have no bestinterest statute in our Immigration Law. But having said that, thats our job, and so we advocate for their best interests, even in the absence of the law. Child advocate was provided for in the tdpra of 2008. It provides that hhs has the authority to appoint independent child advocates. And in a slightly backwards way says the role is to advocate for the best interests of the child. I think one of the things thats really important about that law is it requires the child advocates be independent. We are not the attorneys who represent the children, even though some of us are attorneys who work on these cases. We dont work for the attorneys representing the children. We also dont work for any agencies that provide any other services. Home studies, postrelease services, or care and custody. And why is this important . Because oftentimes we have to advocate with all of these Different Services providers. And sometimes even with attorneys, we do see situations in which kids are represented by attorneys who are hired by traffickers in the case of chinese kids. So we get involved in those cases. And sometimes were arguing that a child has a case when she may have been screened initially and we may have a lot more information. So were going back and advocating on behalf of that child. We dont get assigned to all of the children, only the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. So tenderage kids where theres a custody issue, a child who has a Mental Health issue, a child who has been abused, a girl whos pregnant as a result of rape, a child whos recognized by everybody in the system as being at risk if hes returned, but he wont give enough information. He wont talk about what happened to him. And yet everybody in the shelter, the lawyers, lots of people think this kid is going to be at risk if he is sent back to his home country. So whats been the impact of the influx on our organization . Well, first of all, were just unbelievably busy. We have an office in harlingen, texas, where most of the kids are coming in. Those cases are the most difficult and complicated. Very Young Children. You know, situations of abuse. Situations where we dont know who the parents are. And then we have an office in chicago. And i think the influx has affected a lot of what the government is doing right now. So although there was a provision in the law providing for expansion of child advocate programs, it hasnt happened until now. So the government has asked us to open offices in three locations, houston, new york and washington, d. C. So thats just one of the side things that have happened as a result of the influx. So our philosophy, though, is that best interests should be driven by childrens rights. And so what this means is that what the child wants is very, very important. And in most cases, we will not go against that unless the childs safety is at issue. We cant just say that honduras is dangerous and he shouldnt go back. We have to have very factspecific information about that child. We have to be subject to crossexamination, by the childs attorney, by the judge, by the Trial Attorney. We have to prove what were saying. Okay. Best interests, i just want to talk a little bit about that. First of all, its the law of all 50 states. Its also the law, obviously, of the convention on the rights of the child and the crc, that language in the crc came from our laws. And yet when it comes to immigrant children, there is no bestinterest standard. So what does best interests mean . Well, theres really not a precise definition. It really varies case by case, depending on the childs situation. But in state court, it means that a judge, when theyre placing a child or making a decision about that child, has to consider is the child going to be safe . Is the child going to be separated from family against a childs will or against the parents will . And is this what the child wants . So this is really i would say this is also really important for immigrant children and that we theyd to have a system in place where we make an assessment of whether a child will be safe, whatever the decision is, whether the child is going to stay or is going to return, that the child should be able to express their own opinion and that we will only oppose that childs expressed wishes if he or she is going to be in danger. So we dont have federal law to look to. So we have to look to international law, convention on the rights of the child, we look at comparative law, cases from other countries, and then we look at the law of the state where the child is in custody and we analyze the childs case according to those factors. And then we take that information, put it into a report, and then put it in the hands of the decisionmaker, be it the immigration judge, the i. C. E. Officer, whoever, o. R. R. , whoever is making a decision about that child. So i said earlier we dont have bestinterest standard, but i also would like to say there has been progress. So over the last year, agencies have been involved in getting together as a group with ngos to develop a bestinterest framework for unaccompanied children. And theyre doing this in the absence of an actual statute. This is being done through the Interagency Working Group on unaccompanied children. Its a project funded by the mcarthur foundation. And the idea is to come out with a framework so that people in these agencies can take the childs best interests into consideration when making decisions. It is not going to be required. Nobody is going to sign this document certainly. But it will, when its finished, be a document that everyone participated in drafting. And i just want to be clear about best interests. This does not mean that the decisionmaker, the immigration judge or i. C. E. , has to make a decision that is in the childs best interests. That judge can also consider safety to the community, national security. There may be a myriad of other factors that that judge can consider. But what it means is that judge has to look at whats in that childs best interests, that childs safety, and that it should be a very important factor, especially if were going to be removing a child, separating them from family, from all they know. It should be a factor. So, okay. Back to whats happening right now. As barbara said, its prioritizing cases involving children. Theyre getting speedier times when they have to appear in court. Some judges are still granting lengthy continuances, but some judges are granting much shorter continuances. And as you all know, kids have to find their own attorneys. I also think its fantastic that all of the Government Agencies, eoar and o. R. R. Are working to provide attorneys for kids. And i think thats also another side benefit to the influx is that agencies are much more concerned with having attorneys for the kids. I also think and this is my own personal belief that neither judges nor immigration officers like having to make a decision about a child in front of them without an attorney representing them. And so i think that theres an impetus in the agencies to have representation for kids. The other fantastic thing thats happened is that there are now dockets for released children. So it used to be, for example, in chicago, a child who is released in or around chicago came to court, any given day of the week, any given time to any different judge, and so there was absolutely no way for anybody to serve these kids. No way for a lawyer to be present and represent all the kids. And thats changed. Eoar is now having all of its courts set up dockets for released children. I think this is really important and a big step towards getting representation for these kids. So heres the other reality about right now. Were really not deporting kids right now. The kids who came in recently during this recent influx, they are not being removed. But and this goes back to that earlier panel today, which was pretty much doom and gloom, if things change, we may start seeing lots of kids deported in very significant numbers. So i think were really faced with two problems when it comes to kids. Has that child been able to Access Protection . And that just goes back to did they get a lawyer . And then even if they have a lawyer, are they going to qualify for any of the forms of relief that are available . Because our system for the most part was built for adults. I also think that theres a misconception among some, although probably nobody in this room, but among others that if the child is determined not to be eligible for any form of relief, hell be safe if he goes back. And i think thats really untrue. First of all, many kids still dont have attorneys. I think it is nigh impossible for children to get emigration relief without an attorney. Nobody is going to disagree with that. I think pro bono programs are fantastic and really critical, but there needs to be money for the agencies that have to mentor those attorneys. As barbara said, that real Estate Attorney really doesnt know what hes doing when he goes into Immigration Court without an Organization Backing him up. I think asylum is very difficult to establish. Its difficult for an adult. Its difficult for a child that onaccountof language and these five factors. These kids have to make that same case, and its really difficult. We do have special immigrant juvenile visas for kids who have been abused, abandoned and neglected. Its wonderful. Its a good law. I think, you know, countries in europe are very envious that we have this law. Very imperfect. In chicago, in cook county, children cannot get into our Juvenile Court if they are detained, for the most part. In lots of parts of the country, its impossible to get into juvenile excuse me, Juvenile Court for a variety of reasons. And so we really do need a bestinterest standard because a lot of these kids, even if they go through the system, even if they get a lawyer sometime, there may not be any form of relief available to them. So i just want to talk a little bit, too, go the gap cases. And thats what i mean by kids who dont qualify. And that was a term coined by andy. So, you know, what it means is the childs case doesnt fit neatly within a form of protection. But its not in the childs best interests, safety or wellbeing for him to return. So a couple of examples. Childs parents are in the United States. 12yearold boy in home country, lets say honduras, is living with grandparents. One of the grandparents dies. The grandmother gets really ill and can no longer take care of the child. So she sends the child to the United States. His parents are here. His parents are undocumented. So whats in this childs best interests . He wants to do the right thing. He wants to go to court. He wants to do all thats expected of him. But hes not going to qualify for these forms of relief. And yes, there is prosecutorial discretion. And in some places, that is available. The Trial Attorney will exercise discretion. But that child still has no avenue for permanency, and really, its another person added to the 11 million in this country. Its also very difficult in some jurisdictions to get prosecutorial discretion. Another example, a girl from china, she comes, Everybody Knows shes got all these kids come, they get smuggled over here. The parents typically make the arrangement. And the kid has an 80,000 debt. Shes still in custody. She hasnt begun working. And so shes destined for trafficking. But the trafficking hasnt yet happened. And the second problem is how does she prove coercion . It was her parents who sent her. Now, i would argue that you do what your parents say. In not my kids, but lots of other peoples. But shes got thats a burden of proof for her in establishing trafficking for labor case. So then there are the cases that i think are really complicated for judges. Where the child and weve seen this a lot and we call it detention fatigue. A child has been in custody for a very long period of time. And theyve given up. Its a child whos probably eligible for some form of relief. You know, my example is, says two of my friends were killed. I know ill be killed if i go back, and i want to go home. So we recently had a case involving a 17yearold boy from Central America. He fled. His mother was a drug trafficker. He was deeply distressed by that and wanted to get away from her. His dad died when he was very young. And he was being threatened by the gangs. So not an uncommon situation. In the u. S. , he was hoping to reunify with a man. He was an american tourist he had met. And it was determined that this guy had he was a registered sex offender. So there was an investigation. Office of Refugee Resettlement obviously determined this boy cannot be released to this man, but the boy had no other sponsors in the United States. Hes been detained for five months. And he just cant take it anymore. And i want to say, you know, shelter, people who work there are absolutely wonderful. The kids are cared for very well. But youre locked up. You cannot leave. Many places. You have to be escorted from one room to another. Its really tough on kids to be in custody. But the child tells his attorney, i want to go. I want you to ask for voluntary departure. And if you cant get that, i want removal. So this child has a child advocate, and the child advocate goes to the judge and tells the judge all the reasons this child wont be safe. Hes got nobody to go back to. Hes been threatened by the gangs. He has said and even said in the court that he wants a quick death. Its better for him than sitting in custody. So what should happen . The judge listens in this case but doesnt know what to do because theres no guidance on a case like this. What our judge in chicago does is punt. She will continue the case for a month, and shell tell the child im going to continue and ask the child, is that okay . And most kids are going to say yes, judge, thats fine. And then shell admonish everybody to work really hard to get this child out of this restrictive placement. And in most cases, the child will change his or her mind. Not in every case, but in many cases. But that doesnt solve the larger issue, which is that this judge is being called on to make a decision about a child when knowing or having factual information that this child might not be safe if that order of removal is issued. So i think we need a plan, a process. I also think, you know, were all in this together. This is a regional problem. We have to work with el salvador, honduras, guatemala to figure out whats going to happen next if kids are going to be deported. As you heard this morning, families are being deported. Its not yet happening to children, but we dont know whats going to happen in the next few months. We certainly thought it was going to happen at the beginning of the summer. And from what weve been told, nothing is really taken off the table at this point. So it could still happen. And so one of the questions is what are the sending countries doing . Are they going to be capable of receiving thousands of kids back in their countries . So i just want to go back to my original point, which was in our country, in every system, we have a system in place before we send a child, we check to make sure theyre going to be safe. We check to make sure there arent red flags. At the very least, there are no red flags to say this child is going to be in danger if he goes back. And really at essence, when it comes to determining best interests, thats what it is about. It is about safety. So thank you very much for your attention. Thank you very much, maria. So why is Immigration Law different from every other aspect of american law . Well pick that up after you have a chance to start asking questions. So for those who would like to pose any questions to our panelists, please come forward to the mikes. And ill ask that you identify yourself. And if youre directing your attention to any particular panelist, to let that panelist know who youre directing your questions to. Thanks. Hi. Im diane eikenberry. Im a senior attorney, and i work with detained children in o. R. Custody in virginia and maryland. I sort of have two questions but theyre related to training and stakeholder relations and sort of two parts for barbara and maria. First maria, i want to thank you so much for the wonderful work that the young center does. Thanks. Ive had the pleasure of working with one of your child advocates out of the office in harlingen. Im so excited youre opening new offices because we need more of your work. Thanks. But barbara, you mentioned theres expanded training for the Immigration Judges. Can you speak a little bit about that . And also maybe generally about what kind of training, if any, is required for Immigration Judges around issues relating to these unaccompanied minors. So we have done some training with the Immigration Judges, you know. Some of you know because of budgetary issues, weve had to have our conferences on dvd for our judges. We had planned a conference actually this summer, a live inperson conference that we had to postpone in part because of the surge, and we didnt want to take all the judges off the dockets for a week. But we are planning on having a conference at some point where we expect to have a full day of a kids track for for the judges that handle kids cases. And, you know, like marias a frequent appearer at all of those. You know, we really do try and bring in the outside experts, bring in the people who do some of the work more directly with the kids, the stuff that comes before they get to see the judge. So, you know, and we listen well reach out to some of the judges and say what are you interested in knowing more about . You know, we look at whats happening sort of this summer and, you know, have looked at what are things that might be more important . You know, should we have a particular panel on, you know, asylum claims that are really specific to these types of kids so . So we anticipate having a full day just for kids. And i expect, what i understand from the judges ive talked to, i expect its going to be really popular given the fact that we have so many judges now hearing the kids cases. And when we have our training, we record it all. So that, like, if theres a judge who really wants to go to another panel at that time, they can request to see it at another time like on dvd. You know, we understand that training is important. So we are expanding it with respect to dealing with the kids and how to make sure that procedures are appropriate for the kids and to the specialized needs of what the kids both need in a courtroom and there are types of relief that are just for them, right . Like special immigration juvenile status, you know. Thats just for them. So to talk about what some of those things are as well. Professor, may i ask a question . Sure, go ahead. Maria, just speaking of stakeholder relations, you mentioned the bestinterest document, this being worked on by the Interagency Working Group. Is that the main way in which the young center has had relations with dhs . Do you guys have another any other sort of stakeholder relationships, especially with the office of chief counsel, and do you anticipate this is a document, once completed, that could be, you know, we could be providing or sort of collaborating with the Trial Attorneys . Yeah, i mean, we work with all of the agencies. And i just have to say that i mean, dhs has been one of the really good agencies to work with. I mean, the enforcement people have been wonderful. And again, i go back to this point that i think those charged with enforcement and decisionmaking have a really hard time having to do this with a child. In terms of the document, you know, we hope to finish it in the next couple of months. It has to go to the full interagency. Its been a subcommittee. It has to go to the full Interagency Working Group, and thats all of the agencies plus ngos, most of whom are in this room today. And yes, that will be shared. I mean, it will be in two pieces. One will have footnotes. And the other piece, though, will be kind of a stepbystep heres what you would do if youre in the field to make sure youre looking at a childs best interests. So yes, that will thats the intention is to share it widely. Yes. Sounds wonderful. Thank you. Thanks for those questions, diane. Well go from side to side. On this side, please identify yourself. My name is constance freeman, and i work with the Community Outreach program. I work with a lot of the children after the o. R. R. Process. So i see them months, sometimes years, after theyve been released from the shelters. And im concerned, one about how many of the 14 to 15yearolds specifically that are not enrolled in school. And i want to know, how can we get that collaboration with the agencies to make sure that they are staying in school . Because i dont have a problem with accepting children and making sure theyre in school, but if theyre 14 years old and theyre out, im not sure that were not putting them at risk, that theyre run ago way from. And then also, i have a followup question for the ambassador from el salvador. I was amazed at how many children in those three countries are not in school. And i noticed in one of the south american countries, kids get, like, 80 or something to go to school, and if they get good grades, they get 100 bolivianos. I was wondering if those three countries could use funds from the Multinational Companies to fund so that the kids are in school and theyre not coming here without a day of education. So, i mean, ill take the first question. I mean, i think there arent enough resources anywhere. None of the agencies well, eoar doesnt have enough or o. R. R. Doesnt have enough. I will also say that recently ive heard that o. R. R. Is doing a lot to start providing more postrelease services for children. And i think theyve recently issued grants to start providing so after the child is released, theres somebody who is available to stay in contact, a social worker, for example. And to help make sure the kids go to school. So, again, though, i mean, i think some of it goes back to resources. And of course, everybody wants the kids in school, but i think we need more resources so that there can be more postrelease services for the kids. And i agree that after the kids get released i mean, sometimes theyre even more to the extent that the child wants, kids can lose us, if they really want to. But i think this you know, we need these postrelief services for many more kids. You were right. One of the unfortunately, we have so many other countries with fairly low level of school attendance. Now, a couple of things. The new government has established three priorities. One of them being education. So education is going to be a priority in this administration. Second, there is a program thats starting now of conditional Cash Transfer precisely around those lines to give some economic support to families that keep the kids in school. Similar to something thats happening already in terms of health. Theres a task Condition Program to support mothers who take regularly their kids to the Health Clinics for control and so forth. And the third thing is that ironically, one of the reasons that we have had a lot of youth involvement in the gangs is that at some point during the 80s, in order to make more efficient the school infrastructure, schools started working on two shifts. So kids would be go in the morning, a group of kids would be in school in the morning, and another group of kids would go in the afternoon. What happened is that you have a lot of kids having a lot of free time. And this was something that created, among other things, many other things, but this also was a part of wha lot of kids joined the gangs. So one of the things that are being done now is to expand the program called fulltime schooling. The idea is to keep the kids as much time as possible in the school doing extracurricular activities. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. My name is anna gutierrez. Im a state legislator here in maryland. Originally from el salvador. Many questions, but i want to concentrate on something that we have been advocating for both locally, we formed a d. C. , maryland and Virginia Coalition to work with the students. And i think many of us in the audience probably are dealing more with what to do with those students once they come to our neighborhoods and in our states because it doesnt end with the federal role. But the federal role is important. One of the issues that we did was bring up Service Providers from around the nation to seek the legal representation issue. And im surprised that you havent mentioned or anybody has mentioned the disparities in the way that the legal the courts are working. We raised it, and what we saw are some states like maryland has a very friendly it has the first hearing, according to your 21day guideline, and then maybe the second one with sufficient time to prepare to get legal representation. There are other states, new york and california, where the Service Providers are just are just in desperation because of the rocket dockets. Could you address, what are the possibilities of your organization, barbara, to provide something more than just a 21day guidance . Because the response we heard was that a lot of the Immigration Courts are being left to the discretion of the state and of that court. And therefore, youre seeing this in unequal application and practices from one state to the other. And i think thats a very serious concern. So i just want to clarify that your question is about the Immigration Court system and not the Juvenile Court system in the state. No, not the Juvenile Court. No, the ones who are dealing with the children, the ones that have that first hearing. Right. I mean, the two are bizarrely interconnect, as maria mentioned. Juvenile courts are state court. Correct. Theyre not being called to a Juvenile Court. Theyre being called well, some of them are. With respect to one thing thats really interesting about this group of cases for our system, which can be very frustrating at times, is that some of the relief that is available to these children, and the relief that they seek, is adjudicated outside our court system. And so one of the forms of relief that they seek is special immigration juvenile status. So when a judge is trying to figure out, you know, how much time he should give a child thats looking to seek special immigrant juvenile status, they have to figure, okay, well, uscis is going to have to adjudicate a benefits application. Before the kid can go foreward, they have to go to state court juvenile proceedings. And so, you know, that does provide a real logistical challenge for us because there are states in which, you know, ancounties in which, you know, as maria mentioned, a child can go to state Court Proceedings and get an order in three days. There are other places, chicago being one of them, where it takes just a really long time. And so when a judge is trying to figure out when to reschedule the kid, those things can come in. Now, with respect to what our guidance has been to judges for Immigration Court, the guidance that we give Immigration Judges is nationwide. Right . So its not were limited. We have one Immigration Court that has 59 locations. Its like what we like to say is the guidance that we give judges. It doesnt vary by being in one state or another. The guidance that weve given is that the children that are identified by dhs as priority cases get their first hearing within 21 days. Thereafter, the judge can continue if the child asks for a continuance, can continue the case in accordance with the law thats on the books right now. Its a goodcause standard. And then the judge determines in his or her discretion how long that continuance should be. And that and so it will vary with respect to the facts and circumstances of the particular case. What weve heard is that as routine in these two states, they are being called for their second appearance very shortly after the first appearance, without any possibility of legal representation to be, one, identified, and two, to be prepared. And that that is really even interfering because they then have to go in and file another motion. Im not a lawyer, but this is what ive heard over and over again is whats been happening. So it seems to me that because you are one centralized system with 59 representatives, that clarification of what would be expected. And even if there is no best interest of the child in written law, clearly in every state, i can tell you in my state, that is the guiding principle. And if that is not what is in practice being respected, i think theres something wrong. Right. So we did issue guidance on september 10th. That specifies that there are no there are no extra laws relating to how short continuances need to be or how long they need to be with respect to children. Only just that they do take a priority on the docket so that the continuance should be granted with respect to the facts and circumstances of the case rather than the courts docket. So, you know, we heard this concern, and we did issue guidance on september 10th. Yes . Yes. Go right ahead. Thanks. My name is ashima. Im an immigration attorney turned documentary filmmaker. Were working on a film specifically about this issue, Central American refugees filming in Central America but also some of the issues that were seeing in the u. S. My question is more for barbara as well. I wanted you to address some of the concerns identified by attorneys who have been volunteering at our facility. I know thats, you know, a family Detention Center, but nevertheless, some of the concerns thats putting it lightly, just some of the fasttrack deportations, the no access to sometimes translators, interpreters, longdistance judges who arent well versed in the law or the cases. I know things are improving, but from, you know, some of the reports i read, and people i talked to, its nowhere near where it should be. Do you have a specific concern in mind that you want me to address . Well, i mean, i havent read anything because i have been researching this particular topic. I havent read anything that the government has put forth to talk about artesia, but i read a lot from attorneys. Right. So i think with you know, with respect to family detention, i guess its somewhat germane given that there are children there, too. Theyre not accompanied. You know, with respect to the detention of families, you know, the artesia facility was put up quickly in response to the surge this summer. I think whats frustrating for i think us as an agency is that so much of the Detention Center and the concerns with respect to the Detention Center are out of our hands with respect to decisionmaking. You know, i. C. E. Handles detention. So when there are larger issues that i think people have brought to our attention, you know, so, for example, people have said, look, the tvs there are really tiny. And so when the judge is beaming in, you know, what you see on the side of the detainee is, you know, the individual the families who are there, theyre having a hard time seeing the judge. When we hear that kind of stuff, and people are very vocal with us to let us know what the issues are, you know, we cant buy new tvs and install them, right . Dhs does that. Its their facility. What we can do is go to dhs and say look, wed really like to change these tvs out. And so i think what were doing is on a very daily basis, having a lot of conversations with our counterparts at dhs about how to respond to some of the things that we can respond to. I think a lot of the criticism that weve heard overall from some of the advocates is that there is, you know, a generalized belief that families shouldnt be detained. Right . And so, to the extent that thats that that is what were hearing, you know, i with tell you that that is you know, thats a decision thats made sort of out of my hands, and certainly out of my logistical hands. And so one of the things we also heard was, look, youve got judges in one time zone. Youve got artesia in another time zone. Thats causing just confusion. So we changed from the judges in arlington hearing the cases to the judges in denver hearing the cases because now theyre all in the same time zone. And so we are trying were also working a lot, i think, with, you know, the bar in denver even before the cases got moved to denver were really active in trying to do pro bono with the folks in artesia. And so, you know, denver was a good spot because we thought we could assist in trying to make it a little easier on some of the pro bono attorneys there. So i think were doing what we can, you know, recognizing that, you know, we have to continue a dialogue with people. About what are the things we can do, particularly some of the smaller, you know, what are some of those small things that seem, well, why cant you just do it . Why cant you just buy the bigger tvs kind of thing, right . And working with our partners. I mean, understanding, of course, that there are a lot of limitations on us as the agency dealing with the Detention Center that we dont have control over. Thank you, barbara. Thank you. Hi there. My name is deana. Im a student here at georgetown law. Im here with fellow classmates of mine. We are part of a Campus Organization that has created the International Migrants bill of rights. And our specific project this semester is focused on Detention Centers in mexico. And we are creating a list of indicators to suggest that these Detention Centers go through. My indicator is focused on family unification. So i was wondering if anyone on the panel is able to offer myself and my classmates some advice and realities on what is going on in these Detention Centers, specifically with unaccompanied minors, whether their family or guardians are in mexico or country of origin or in the United States. Excellent start to conducting research on that issue. Its due thursday. Does anybody want to tell deana what we know about that situation . To the extent we know anything . I dont know much at all. Why dont we know much . Maria . Because we need students to do some research. And tell us whats going on. Were all looking forward to reading your results. And you need to travel there and talk to people and really yeah, and figure out whats going on. If georgetown funds our travels, that would be great. Im focused on new mexico right now. So perhaps, though, the ambassador, you talked about, i guess, both having a consulate in border states. I assumed you were talking about u. S. Border states. But after all, mexican southern border plays a huge role here. Maybe the borders of other states on the way up for the children particularly in roles here. Do we know anything about that . Well, what we have done is, we are mostly working with guatemala in establishing a joint consulates in mexico, particularly in the road, or the path of the migrants. So the idea is that if guatemala has a consulate in this town and we dont have one, that we can share those facilities and vice versa. We have increased our conversations with the Mexican Government also to try to provide a little bit more protection to the migrants. And i dont have any specifics on how this is going. What i can tell you is that there is an Excellent Network of shelters and of efforts provided by Civil Society who are doing an incredible, incredible job in assisting the migrants, providing them with shelter, with food, et cetera. And there is theres a serious, serious network of these type of support going on in mexico. I think more than ill leave it like that. Okay. Thank you. Have you had good cooperation with the Mexican Government over these issues . In some cases, yes. There have been, as you are very well aware, very horrendous incidents that happened. A group of 60, 70 migrants had been killed. In those cases, there have been sometimes mixed results because it is presumed that there is involvement of at certain levels of some authorities. The drug dealers are a big problem, a big problem. It is very clear that Drug Trafficking network is now together with the smuggling. And as i mentioned before, its become even in some cases, they say Better Business to Human Trafficking and smuggling than Drug Trafficking. Thank you. Mr. Ambassador. Ashley. Good afternoon. My name is ashley. Im with the Georgetown Institute for women, peace and security. The panel mentioned that were seeing a particularly large increase in the number of girls that are crossing the border. I was wondering if you could address why that is, what particular genderbased vulnerabilities were seeing at play. And then as a twopart question, how the system is treating that in particular in trainings, at eoar when youre working with these young girls. Thank you. Talk about the training. Yeah. I mean, i think were seeing more girls. I mean, i think its because of the safety issues in these countries and, you know, if youre a parent here and i also want to add, i mean, 55 of the kids are being are coming and reunifying with parents which goes back to the whole issue around no cir. But if youre a parent here and youre worried about your daughter, youre going to youre going to bring her. And i think that we work with a number of girls who are victimized by the gangs. You know, rape is one of the things that they use against the girls. So i think thats the primary reason why were seeing more girls. And i dont know if this has slowed down at all, but we have seen many more younger kids under the age of 13. And again, i think this is for the same reason. You have either parents in home country who are worried about their kids and want them to be safe or, you know, youve got family here that want their children to be safe. I think with respect to certain with the sensitivities to young girls in particular, so its important to note that while there are increases in the number of young girls, an increase in the number of tenderaged children, its still you know, the majority were still seeing is, like, older boys. Didnt the age drop to 13, 14 compared to 16, 17 . Thats what the government reported back in late june. Am i wrong about that . Yeah, i think were seeing more in this group. Right. But i think overall, if youre looking at how many kids are currently processing through the Immigration Court system, you know, were still very heavy on older boys. But to be, you know, but as were responding to this group thats coming in and were seeing them now, you know, weve always known, and theres always been a group of vulnerable young girls in our courts. And so when weve had trainings on childsensitive issues, weve looked into talking to the judges about some of the issues that might be not exclusive to young girls but more prone in terms of prostitution and the trafficking. And, you know, rape on the way here and how to handle that kind of thing. You know, and judges judges will, and i think, you know, maria gave some example of this to say, you know, look, it looks like somethings going on here. Youre not ready to talk about whats happened to you. And then they look you know, this goes back to, you know, a judge being able to look at the individual facts and circumstances of the case. And say, okay, this looks like a case where i might have to give, you know, this kid a continuance for a lot longer and talk to a Legal Service provider that might be there and say, look, is this something that you can, you know, try and get this kid some help so that they can better articulate whats going on. But again, this may go towards looking at some of the genderbased asylum claims, looking at issues and that kind of thing. You know, with respect to the funding that we had for Legal Services and the Justice Americorps program, we focused on the program will serve children who are 15 and under. And in part, thats a response to the increased tenderage kids that we were seeing. Because the funding will only go so far. We will only be able to serve so many kids. And so knowing that those kids are probably, you know, a little bit more vulnerable or less able to articulate themselves, thats where we concentrated our funding. Thanks, barbara. Maria, you want to add . I just wanted to add one thing. I think its not only the judges, but i think there can be training for lawyers and anybody who works with kids. I mean, we have done this, asked the judge to close the courtroom because its somebody, either a girl whos got to testify about very specific and traumatizing information or a boy or, i mean, you can do that. And i think, though, there needs to be more training for anybody whos representing kids. And the other thing ill say and its something that i wish we could import from the Child Protection system. In Child Welfare we have Child Advocacy centers, and theyre in most jurisdictions, if the child is abused in some way, the child goes to the Child Advocacy center. Everybody sits in a room behind a they call it mirrored glass. Somebody who knows how to intera child, and they interview the child. The police are behind the glass, the person representing the child. So the child only has to be interviewed once and that report is made available. Its something that i wish that we it would probably mean we need to get i. C. E. To work with the Child Advocacy centers around the country, to start doing that. Its so much better for kids. They have to tell their stories over and over and over and its really difficult. Were running out of time. Two of the three questioners who are former students, well allow each of them to pose a question. But do me a favor, michael, start with a question. Ill have each of you just pose your question, then well have the group answer them as a whole, if thats okay with everybody. Well start with michael. Thank you. Ill try to be fast. Im a member of the new york city bar associations immigration nationality committee, and right to due process and right to counsel. I would like to ask a question about the right to counsel. We framed that issue in terms of what we call the three cs, complexity, capacity and consequences. Immigration law is extremely complex. Maybe second only to tax law here in the United States. Children simply dont have the capacity to represent themselves even though the Immigration Courts presume they do. The way we framed it is, when you bring the three factors together, the confluence of those three really is a perfect storm of due process violation. So my main question to you is, its great that we see resources being poured into this from cities, from states, and from the federal government. And that were sort of rallying the pro bono crowd to the cause. But from my perspective, thats really a needs based approach rather than a rights based approach. So im wondering what we can do to vindicate what we see as an absolute right to counsel. Thank you, michael. My name is jonathan ryan. We provide Legal Services to the unaccompanied children in san antonio. We spent the greater part of our summer working with the children at Lackland Air Force base. Between june 9 and july 28th, we met with over 2,100 children. We provided legal consultations and determined over 63 of them have strong cases for asylum or other forms of humanitarian relief. That is a number ratified by the unhdr findings and that were receiving positive adjudications in those cases. Motivations for these children to come, ive heard that, these are the most dangerous countries in the world that theyre coming from, but really, theyre just coming here because of the rumors spread by smugglers. Thats like saying people are jumping out of burning buildings because firemen are down there to catch them. These are refugees. Regarding the id like to know how its ensuring that the children are returned to their country, and whether youre taking any measures currently who are preventing children from exiting your country. Id also like to know from the Immigration Court, if you could unpack some of the reasons and motivations for the prioritizations. Ive been practicing in Immigration Courts for over ten years. What im seeing currently right now is a whole lot of nothing going on. The judges do not make many adjudications in the cases of the unaccompanied children. Im seeing the judge talking to the little children, saying, thats a nice pink shirt you have, how are you doing, and resetting the cases. There arent a lot of decisions being made right now in the san antonio Immigration Court. We have active 42a, longterm permanent residents waiting even longer waiting to get their cases heard. The children can wait, meanwhile the important cases seem to be pushed back. Id like to know what was the reason for that. Thanks for bringing that out. Last, but not least. Not a lot has been said about the root causes, not the topic of the panel, but a question that needs to be said, that a lot of kids are showing up vulnerable and terrorized and victimized as a direct result of the u. S. Policies in the region. And the countries are client states from the United States, weve been intervening financial aid, and militarily in the last 100 years. And so my question is, it doesnt seem like anything is going to change in regards to those policies anytime soon. So while the numbers of kids may go up and down, it doesnt seem like in the medium or long term this is going to change. Our federal agencies, providers, people representing kids in court, are they thinking strategically for the long term in how to deal with these kids, how do we protect them and take care of them, you know, 10, 20, 30 years from now . Its hard to believe the flow is going to end. Thank you, daniel. So i think the best way to proceed, given that we now have physically run out of time is just ask each of our panelists to say a few words. I would encourage you to address any of the particulars of the questions towards you, for example. Why dont we start with you, ambassador, and well go down the route. First, if i didnt i thought i said that i still believe that the traditional causes of migration, violence, looking for Economic Opportunities and family reunification were all the reasons for immigration. That didnt explain the specific surge weve seen in the past two years. That is where i think the roles of the smugglers comes. And this is not to diminish the importance of the other causes. Which are, of course, the more structural causes of the problem. What are we doing in our country to try to prevent this . We are doing campaigns, media campaigns to educate people about the risks, and about the fallacy that they are going to receive green cards and citizenship. So those perhaps do not explain by itself, that the increase in the numbers of kids coming. There are weather reasons, and cyclical reasons that i mentioned. But these campaigns are going on in the three countries, and are starting to have an impact. We are also working in strengthening the control of our borders, and going after the trafficking networks. In terms of as i mentioned also, these are not shortterm measures. This resolution is not shortterm. These are medium to longterm solutions. In security, for example, which is very complex, we started now doing certain concrete things, like implementing fullfledged community policing. This is an idea in which the police, instead of just being a force that will react to a 9 11 corridor, or whatever, the idea is that they are members of the community, the police stay there. They are local actors, and become local actors. And this is by far been proving to be one of the best policies to confront violence and provide better citizen security. As i said, the longterm solution is Economic Development. This is something that cannot be done from one day to the other one. But that is where we are all aiming in the medium and short term to invest in the territory that are the ones that produce the more number of migrants. Thank you, mr. Ambassador. Barbara . So, to the first issue about the right versus needs based counsel. Were sued by folks, so i cant really speak to that one. Got a couple of my lawyers in the back over there. So well leave that to the advocates to talk about. Lawyers dont let you talk, right. No. Beads of sweat on their faces. The next one with the rationale. The rationale for setting sort of that 21day goal for the first master calendar, it was our agencys response to the president s directive to process the kids. I think with respect to, you know, there are cases, if you look at our adjudication time lines and how long it takes to get the kids through the Immigration Courts, there are courts if you you filed a notice for the kids, they wouldnt get a hearing for a year. The idea is you get the kids started in the process. So if what happens is that the judge says, look, do you want an attorney, heres a list, if you want to start trying to find an attorney, this is what you need to do. Or here are the types of relief that could be available to you. Talk to me about what your circumstance is. And essentially, to start at the beginning of the process, start early, in whats your story, whats going on with you, to try and figure it out a year earlier than maybe it would have happened three years ago. I dont think there is an expectation that the childs case is going to be over in 21 days. Like i said before, there are a lot of aspects of relief for these kids. The uscis is first. The visas are handled by uscis. A lot of the sij is handled by uscis. So to the extent theres a sense that judges are a ringleader, i think thats not a great term. But i would say, you know, they do sort of oversee a lot of things going on with these kids. And they arent necessarily in charge of the force of relief that may be available to them. But i think there is a benefit to starting the process, and saying to the kids, lets figure out whats going on with you. But this is one of the reasons that our judges have discretion to continue cases, to, you know, allow the appropriate time for the adjudication of the case. And i trust our judges. I think they know what theyre doing. And they know how to assess the facts and circumstances of cases in order to make sure that a childs Due Process Rights are protected. Thank you, barbara. Maria . Okay, well, ill go back to the question about the right to counsel. Obviously, i dont think anybody in this room would not agree that children need counsel, and that there should be a right to counsel. I dont think youll find anybody here well, i dont think so. I wasnt looking at you for a reason. I think we need a change in the law. I think theres some in the government that think that we cant provide counsel for everyone. I think its a beginning that uir are providing, paying for attorneys to provide direct representation. Its a beginning. Its not everything. We did get a provision there was a provision in the senate bill last year that would have provided counsel for all children. So its a start. I think were all going to have to start over on that. I guess in terms of root causes, i dont think on my side of the table, were doing enough. I think its something we all have to talk about, because i think it is a regional issue. I think we need to work with el salvador when we have a child whos at risk of going back to el salvador, and they have to go back to work with people in the government there, to try to get the child back safely, or connect him or her with somebody to receive him. And i think obama wanted more money to deal with root causes. Of course, he didnt get that. And its probably you know, its a lot of money. I think we just need a lot more resources for everyone, for the countries in the region, for the agencies doing this work. And we need a right to counsel. And we need a best interest standard. And ill stop. Thanks, maria. I want to thank all of you for your questions. I want to thank the panelists. Please join me in giving them a round of applause. [ applause ] throughout campaign 2014, cspan has brought you more than 130 debates across the country. This tuesday night, watch cspans live Election Night coverage. To see who wins, who loses, and which party will control the house and senate. Our coverage begins at 8 00 p. M. Eastern with the results and analysis. Youll also see candidate victory and concession speeches, in some of the most closely watched races. We want to hear from you, your calls, Facebook Comments and tweets. Campaign 2014 Election Night coverage on cspan. Recently the National Press club labor secretary thomas perez discussed jobs and the u. S. Economy. He also talked about pushing congress to raise the minimum wage and urging companies to bring jobs back to cities, like detroit. This is an hour. Good afternoon. And welcome. My name is myron belkind. Im an adjunct professor at the school of washington media and public affairs, and the 107th president of the National Press club. The National Press club is the worlds leading professional organization for journalists, committed