OPERATION STREAMLINE: Zero Tolerance, Family Separations & International Obligations

 

This situation has been many years in the making.” – Attorney General Jeff Sessions[i]

President G.W. Bush initiated Operation Streamline in December 2005 to target three sectors of the Southwest border,[ii] responding to an increase in illegal alien entries from countries other than Mexico in the preceding years. [iii] Border Patrol uses Streamline to target aliens who illegally enter or re-enter the United States through defined geographic regions, and then refers these aliens to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal prosecution.[iv] The program “eliminate[s] the discretion traditionally reserved by United States Attorney’s officers” and requires them to prosecute the cases.[v] The goal of Streamline is to reduce rates of alien illegal re-entry recidivism,[vi] which is a severe problem on the border.[vii]

Streamline was continued by President Obama, and was in effect when the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reviewed the program for effectiveness in 2015.[viii] Border Patrol compared Streamline recidivism to voluntary return recidivism by tracking the number of times the same alien crossed during a fiscal year. The short-term conclusion was that Streamline was a more effective deterrent to recidivism between the two.[ix] Costs to Border Patrol are harder to analyze because they are absorbed through other initiatives, and costs incurred by DOJ were beyond the scope of review.[x] However, contained in Appendix C of the OIG report were additional comments by Border Patrol, including the following: “While Streamline is effective, it is not the ultimate answer to solving cross-border illegal activity issues. It is also not a zero-tolerance initiative. Streamline, properly framed, is a geographically focused, impact-driven operation used to achieve certain specific operational objectives.”[xi]

Nevertheless, on May 7, 2018, Attorney General Sessions made the following pronouncement: “I have put in place a ‘zero tolerance’ policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple.[xii] This expansion of Streamline, far beyond original intent, has brought previously identified (but largely ignored) concerns into sharper focus. The program’s alignment with U.S. treaty obligations, its effectiveness as a deterrent, and its true costs are disputed. In addition, the separation and reunion of families, inherent to the program’s execution, may simply not be within the existing capabilities of the government, as well as receiving extremely poor public reception.

 

International Obligations: The United States ratified the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees in 1968,[xiii] which bound the nation to Articles 2 through 34 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.[xiv] Under the Protocol, “no Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”[xv] Furthermore, countries “shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…, enter or are present…without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”[xvi]

These obligations were highlighted in the 2015 OIG report, which raised the issue on its on volition: “Using Streamline to refer aliens expressing fear of persecution, prior to determining their refugee status, may violate U.S. obligations under the [Protocol]….”[xvii] The OIG was specifically referencing our responsibility to refrain from penalizing refugees from entering the country illegally. Border Patrol defended the practice in the report, differentiating between the criminal and administrative processes: “CBP can prosecute an undocumented alien criminally, while at the same time the alien makes a claim to credible fear administratively. Neither process affects the outcome of the other.”[xviii] More recently, a border patrol attorney (deputized by DOJ) stated, “the government’s position is if you cross away from the port of entry, you’ve committed a crime…and you are outside the Protocol.”[xix] However, the Protocol does not make such these distinctions but instead prohibits penalties for illegal entry.[xx]

The Protocol’s prohibition on penalties is not absolute. Contained within the relevant article itself are a number of qualifiers: the alien must meet the definition of a refugee, they must be coming directly from the country of persecution, they must turn themselves over to authorities, and they must show good cause for their illegal entry.[xxi] Furthermore, “[e]very refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself, which require in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of public order. [xxii] Border Patrol seemed to reference that when they said, “[t]he claim of credible fear cannot be used as a criterion to exclude an undocumented alien from a possible prosecution for a criminal act.”[xxiii]

In the absence of a definitive judicial decision on the matter, it remains unclear as to whether the U.S. has violated its legal obligations by using Streamline. The Supreme Court seems to be prepared to accept international law as a guide only vis-à-vis those federal statutes that confer substantial amounts of discretion to bureaucratic administrators, permitting flexibility of application in accordance with the political climate.[xxiv] This legal approach reached its high-water mark in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, where the Court held that refugees intercepted on the high seas could be forcibly repatriated without screening for asylum claims and remain consistent with nonrefoulment.[xxv] The recently issued Matter of A-B-[xxvi] presumes that the overwhelming majority of aliens caught in Streamline would fail to meet the definition of a refugee.[xxvii] Consequently, the appeal to international legal obligations may not carry the day in federal court.

Also worth mentioning here is that the Protocol and Convention on Refugees were designed in and for a different era. The purpose of the Convention was not intended to combat the root causes of refugees and displacement,[xxviii] and the implementing body maintains that “voluntary repatriation of refugees to their country of origin is [the] ‘preferred’ solution” when country conditions permit it.[xxix] The unintended effect of the Convention has been to promote exile, allow nations to continue to engage in persecution, disproportionately impact certain host countries, prioritize refugees of means over those without, shift financial support for the world refugee effort to domestic refugee processing, allow the asylum channel to be exploited by a criminal/fraudulent element, and to generally turn public opinion against asylum seekers.[xxx] If the Protocol is not having its intended effect, then the United States and the international community may want to revisit the agreement instead of blindly following it.[xxxi]

 

Domestic Obligations: Because aliens are crossing the border en masse, Streamline has resulted in “a burgeoning number of federal criminal prosecutions in all districts bordering Mexico.”[xxxii] “[I]llegal entry and illegal reentry made up 67 percent of federal magistrate criminal cases between February 2017, the first full month under Trump, and November 2017, the most recent available date.”[xxxiii]

The U.S. Constitution guarantees rights to persons within the United States regardless of status, rights that include due process.[xxxiv] Unfortunately, the conduct of these criminal proceedings may be violating due process because of the inclination to conduct them en masse: “To accommodate the enormous number of referrals for prosecution under this program, “a magistrate judge is assigned to preside over a group hearing of fifty to seventy defendants charged with petty misdemeanor violations of illegal entry. The hearing combines the defendants’ initial appearances, guilty pleas, and sentencing hearings into one proceeding.”[xxxv] Because bail in Streamline cases is rare, accepting a plea guarantees less prison time – resulting in a nearly perfect guilty plea rate.[xxxvi]

The 9th Circuit has repeatedly held that such proceedings have a high risk of violating the district court’s duty to inform the defendant alien of their rights before entering a plea.[xxxvii] So while the Border Patrol may refer, and DOJ may prosecute, aliens under Streamline, the sheer number of referrals overwhelms district courts and their ability to uphold due process in criminal proceedings. This is a point of critical concern as the number of aliens referred increases.

 

Domestic Impact: The expansion of Streamline has resulted in the increased number of separated families. Attorney General Sessions explicitly stated “If you are smuggling a child [across our border], then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law.[xxxviii] There is no specific law that mandates family separation,[xxxix] but there are overlapping court rulings, policy decisions, and practical realities that result in family separation. Most important, is the 1997 Flores agreement,[xl] which “sets out nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of minors in the custody of INS,” including both accompanied and unaccompanied minors.[xli] The Flores agreement provides only two options for the long-term placement of families – (1) parental detention and family separation, or (2) keeping families together, by releasing them into the community.[xlii] The latter option has not been viewed as acceptable by this Administration, so it is limited to family separation.

When separated, the parents remain in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) while the children are transferred to Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS operates more than 100 shelters for minors in 17 states, and has roughly 100,000 minors under its care right now.[xliii] Only 17% (2,053) of those minors were placed there as a result of Streamline.[xliv] Once the parent’s criminal proceedings and sentence are completed, the children should be reunited with their parents, but there has been disagreement as to how effective reunification efforts have been.[xlv] There are trafficking concerns in some rare cases[xlvi] and concerns for the child’s welfare in others;[xlvii] DHS has also stated that “in the past many parents have elected to be removed without their children,” which complicates reunification.[xlviii] But even under the best circumstances, coordination and communication between DHS and HHS has been lacking.[xlix]

Furthermore, reunification is a tactic used as a way to encourage aliens to drop their asylum claims. The DHS Fact Sheet for family reunification provides for family reunification only for adults “who are subject to removal” so that they may be “reunited with their children for the purposes of removal.”[l] In other words, parents who hope to be quickly reunited with their children must abandon their own asylum claims and agree to withdraw their children’s claims to remain in the United States.[li]

The new policy may be a direct reaction to ever-increasing numbers of migrants from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, arriving at the border. “In the United States, more individuals sought asylum from the Northern Triangle in the three-year period from 2013 to 2015 than in the prior fifteen years combined.”[lii] National outcry prevented the Administration from continuing the policy of family separation, and President Trump signed an executive order to temporarily end the practice but otherwise continue Streamline.[liii] But doing so forces the Administration to abide by Flores and quickly release family units. Attorney General Sessions filed an ex parte application seeking relief from the Flores Settlement Agreement to allow the federal government to detain families indefinitely at non-licensed facilities,[liv] though the request was denied on July 9, 2018.[lv] In anticipation of the need to detain more and more people, the Pentagon has agreed to construct migrant camps on two naval bases and to host up to 20,000 unaccompanied migrant children.[lvi]

The costs of Streamline to Border Patrol are obscured, as mentioned supra. Costs to the DOJ and the judicial branch have not been fully analyzed, but American Immigration Council (AIC) believes that Streamline imposes heavy costs on the federal government. “There is no clear accounting of the costs – which include time expended by prosecutors, judicial resources, public defenders, and expenses associated with incarceration – but they are undoubtedly massive.”[lvii] One conservative estimate was a $7 billion price tag between 2005 and 2015.[lviii] Some alternatives to detaining aliens, including those caught up in Streamline, have been outlined by the AIC and other groups as more cost-effective.[lix] However, alternatives are mostly pilot programs coordinated with charitable institutions that have only handled a very limited number of aliens and there is no indication they could be successfully employed to monitor aliens in the tens of thousands.[lx] Given the court backlog, most alternative detention proposals smack of nothing more than a temporary labor program with a built-in option to increase equities. So it is not clear if there truly are more cost-effective approaches than Streamline that would faithfully align with U.S. laws on border security and illegal entry. But detention is unwieldy and atrociously expensive.

The question remains as to whether Streamline is actually an effective deterrent. The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University (TRAC) reports that since January 2018, criminal prosecutions were up 60 percent, rising from 5,191 in January to 8,298 in April.[lxi] This does not indicate the effectiveness of Streamline as a deterrent against targeted recidivism, as the program originally intended.[lxii] Streamline was never intended to prevent the initial illegal entry of all aliens. But the expanded program seems to imply that deterrent illegal entry in the first instance is now covered, per the Attorney General: “So if you’re going to come to this country, come here legally. Don’t come here illegally.[lxiii]

Unfortunately, “[r]esearch strongly suggests entry-related prosecutions do not deter future migration; rather, migration to the United States is driven primarily by factors such as economic conditions and the security situation in their home country or having family in the United States.”[lxiv] The annual number of criminal prosecutions for illegal entry doubled between 2007 and 2008, and has averaged around 85,000 over the past decade.[lxv] But migrants from the Northern Triangle kept coming.[lxvi] In fact, migrants from all over the world keep coming – and keep crossing the border illegally.[lxvii] A counter-argument to this increase is that Streamline previously targeted certain sectors of the Southwest border and it was not advertised and promoted in the same way that the Trump Administration has done. While the spring/summer illegal entry numbers remain high, that only continues a historical trend.[lxviii] The implementation of the expanded Streamline program under President Trump cannot be evaluated for effectiveness as a deterrent as data is not yet available.

 

Streamline was created on questionable legal grounds, potentially posing problems under international obligations and definitely raising due process concerns. Its expansion is susceptible to the same defects on a mass scale. The costs and effectiveness of the program have not been borne out because of a lack of critical assessment and the need for more time to pass to evaluate the effects. It is also possible that the judicial branch will intervene in some way, probably within the 9th Circuit. Regardless, illegally crossing the border will remain a crime in the United States, and crimes carry penalties – sometimes including jail time. The Executive Branch has a duty to faithfully execute the laws surrounding illegal entry and this Administration has shown its enthusiasm to do just that. “And if you want to change our laws, then pass a bill in Congress. Persuade your fellow citizens to your point of view.[lxix]

 

Ryan Morgan Knight is an associate attorney with Haynes Novick Immigration in Washington, DC, focusing his practice on a broad spectrum of employment-based nonimmigrant and immigrant visas.

[i] Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration, San Diego, California, May 7, 2018.

[ii] TRAC Immigration: Criminal Prosecutions for Illegal Border Crossers Jump Sharply in April, June 4, 2018. Id.

[iii] Streamline: Measuring Its Effect on Illegal Border Crossing, Office of the Inspector General, OIG-15-95 (May 15, 2015).

[iv] Id.

[v] In re Approval of Judicial Emergency Declared in Dist. Of Ariz., 639 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 2011).

[vi] Streamline: Measuring Its Effect on Illegal Border Crossing, Office of the Inspector General, OIG-15-95 (May 15, 2015).

[vii] Punishing Refugees and Migrants: The Trump Administration’s Misuse of Criminal Prosecutions, by Human Rights First (January, 2018): Human Rights First inadvertently highlighted this problem in their report on the program: ‘Domingo presented his claim, was denied, then tried to enter illegally; Yesenia presented her claim, was denied, and then tried to enter illegally.’ So even when aliens are afforded the opportunity to have their claims heard, it is not uncommon for them to attempt to enter the U.S. illegally if they are unsuccessful in the asylum process and removed.

[viii] Streamline: Measuring Its Effect on Illegal Border Crossing, Office of the Inspector General, OIG-15-95 (May 15, 2015).

[ix] Id.

[x] Id.

[xi] Id. (emphasis added).

[xii] Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration, San Diego, California, May 7, 2018.

[xiii] Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, done Jan. 31, 1967, entered into force Oct. 4, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, 606 U.N.T.S. 267; realized by the Refugee Act of 1980, Refugee Act, Pub. L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102, see INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 436 (1987) (“[i]f one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of ‘refugee,’ and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol.”)

[xiv] 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, done July 28, 1951, entered into force Apr. 22, 1954, 189 U.N.T.S. 137.

[xv] UN General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 33, section 1, July 28, 1951, United Nations.

[xvi] UN General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 31, section 1, July 28, 1951, United Nations (emphasis added).

[xvii] Streamline: Measuring Its Effect on Illegal Border Crossing, Office of the Inspector General, OIG-15-95 (May 15, 2015).

[xviii] Id.

[xix] Punishing Refugees and Migrants: The Trump Administration’s Misuse of Criminal Prosecutions, by Human Rights First (January, 2018).

[xx] UN General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 31, section 1, July 28, 1951, United Nations (emphasis added).

[xxi] Id.

[xxii] UN General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 2, July 28, 1951, United Nations (emphasis added).

[xxiii] Streamline: Measuring Its Effect on Illegal Border Crossing, Office of the Inspector General, OIG-15-95 (May 15, 2015).

[xxiv] See Joan Fitzpatrick, The International Dimension of U.S. Refugee Law, 15 Berkeley J. Int’l Law 1, 8 (1997).

[xxv] Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1993); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992).

[xxvi] Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018).

[xxvii] See also Stop the Horrific Practice of Separating Children from Parents, by Cyrus Mehta & Sophia Genovese (June 19, 2018) (http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2018/06/stop-the-horrific-practice-of-separating-children-from-parents.html); The American Immigration Council states: “Despite domestic and international legal obligations to protect migrants fleeing persecution and torture, the U.S. government regularly subjects individuals seeking asylum or other forms of protection in the United States to criminal prosecution or incarceration.” American Immigration Council: Prosecuting Migrants for Coming to the United States, AILA Doc. No. 18050137 (May 1, 2018). This statement is misleading because the United States does not have any obligations to protect migrants, whether they be fleeing persecution or not. Instead, the U.S. has an obligation to protect refugees, which not a status conferred by media reports or advocacy groups, but a status conferred by an established administrative process. The UNHCR FAQs recognize the critical difference between migrants and refugees. The terms are not synonymous.

[xxviii] Can the Convention resolve refugee problems? People become refugees, either on an individual basis or as part of a mass exodus, because of political, religious, military and other problems in their home country. The Convention was not designed to tackle these root causes, but rather to alleviate their consequences by offering victims a degree of international legal protection and other assistance and eventually to help them begin their lives anew. Protection can contribute to an overall solution, but as the number of refugees increased dramatically in recent decades, it has become clear that humanitarian work cannot act as a substitute for political action in avoiding or solving future crises. http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/stories/2001/6/3b4c06578/frequently-asked-questions-1951-refugee-convention.html

[xxix] Is a Convention signatory required to give permanent asylum to all refugees?

The Convention does not provide automatic or permanent protection. There will be situations where refugees will integrate permanently in their country of asylum, but alternatively a person may cease to be a refugee when the basis for his or her refugee status ceases to exist. Voluntary repatriation of refugees to their country of origin is UNHCR’s ‘preferred’ solution, but only when conditions in that state permit their safe return. http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/stories/2001/6/3b4c06578/frequently-asked-questions-1951-refugee-convention.html

[xxx] The Problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention, by Adrienne Millbank, Research Paper 5 2000-01, Social Policy Group (September 5, 2000).

[xxxi] See https://qz.com/1273510/all-the-international-agreements-the-us-has-broken-before-the-iran-deal/: The U.S. has a history of breaking treaties and international agreements, signing treaties without ratifying them, un-signing treaties, and even refusing to sign after pushing other countries to do so. Starting with hundreds of treaties with American Indian tribes that were broken or not ratified, the United States has proven to be an unreliable partner when it comes to international agreements. For example, the U.S. never signed the 1954 Geneva Agreement ending the Korean War. The U.S. signed but never ratified the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, the 1949 International Labor Convention, the 1966 ICESCR, the 1979 CEDAW, the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and notably, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, a landmark human rights achievement.

[xxxii] In re Approval of Judicial Emergency Declared in Dist. Of Ariz., 639 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 2011).

[xxxiii] Punishing Refugees and Migrants: The Trump Administration’s Misuse of Criminal Prosecutions, by Human Rights First (January, 2018).

[xxxiv] See Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886); Wong Win v. United States (1896); Plyler v. Doe (1982); and Zadvydas v. Davis (2001).

[xxxv] United States v. Aguilar-Vera, 698 F.3d 1196, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012); see also American Immigration Council: Prosecuting Migrants for Coming to the United States, AILA Doc. No. 18050137 (May 1, 2018); Punishing Refugees and Migrants: The Trump Administration’s Misuse of Criminal Prosecutions, by Human Rights First (January, 2018) (“For most illegal entry defendants prosecuted in courts visited by Human Rights First (and most illegal reentry defendants in Tucson and Yuma), the entire case is completed in one day: defendants meet with their attorneys in the morning, then make an initial appearance, waive a preliminary hearing, plead guilty, waive a presentence report, and are sentenced by the late morning or afternoon. They are then immediately transferred either to prison to serve their sentence, or to immigration custody if sentenced to ‘time-served.’”)

[xxxvi] Punishing Refugees and Migrants: The Trump Administration’s Misuse of Criminal Prosecutions, by Human Rights First (January, 2018).

[xxxvii] See United States v. Arqueta-Ramos, 730 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2013), (9th Cir. 2013); United States v. Aguilar-Vera, 698 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. Escamilla-Rojas, 640 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 101 (2012); United States v. Roblero-Solis, 588 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2009).

[xxxviii] Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration, San Diego, California, May 7, 2018.

[xxxix] Stop the Horrific Practice of Separating Children from Parents, by Cyrus Mehta & Sophia Genovese (June 19, 2018) (http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2018/06/stop-the-horrific-practice-of-separating-children-from-parents.html)

[xl] Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993).

[xli] Washington v. U.S., No. __, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, paragraph 86 (June 26, 2018).

[xlii] Washington v. U.S., No. __, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, paragraph 87 (June 26, 2018).

[xliii] No Clear Plan Yet on How to Reunite Parents with Children, By Nomann Merchant and Colleen Long, published by the Associated Press (June 20, 2018).

[xliv] U.S. Department of Homeland Security Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification (June 23, 2018).

[xlv] Compare U.S. Department of Homeland Security Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification (June 23, 2018) with No Clear Plan Yet on How to Reunite Parents with Children, By Nomann Merchant and Colleen Long, published by the Associated Press (June 20, 2018).

[xlvi] Experts Cast Doubt on DHS Claim that Traffickers Are Posing as Families at the Border, by Tim Stelloh, published by NBC News (June 21, 2018).

[xlvii] U.S. Department of Homeland Security Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification (June 23, 2018).

[xlviii] Id.

[xlix] No Clear Plan Yet on How to Reunite Parents with Children, By Nomann Merchant and Colleen Long, published by the Associated Press (June 20, 2018).

[l] U.S. Department of Homeland Security Fact Sheet: Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification (June 23, 2018).

[li] Washington v. U.S., No. __, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, 100 (June 26, 2018).

[lii] Punishing Refugees and Migrants: The Trump Administration’s Misuse of Criminal Prosecutions, by Human Rights First (January, 2018).

[liii] Executive Order 13841: Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation, see 83 FR 29435 (June 25, 2018).

[liv] Flores, et al. v. Sessions, et al, et al., Case No. CV 85-4544-DMG (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 435-1 at 1, 13.

[lv] Jenny L. Flores, et al. v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, et al., CV 85-4544-DMG, p. 7 (AGRx), C.D.Ca (July 9, 2018) (“It is apparent that Defendant’s Application is a cynical attempt, on an ex parte basis, to shift responsibility to the Judiciary for over 20 years of Congressional inaction and ill-considered Executive action that have led to the current stalemate.”).

[lvi] Washington v. U.S., No. __, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, 98-99 (June 26, 2018).

[lvii] American Immigration Council: Prosecuting Migrants for Coming to the United States, AILA Doc. No. 18050137 (May 1, 2018).

[lviii] Id.

[lix] AILA: Expanding Family Detention Is Not the Answer to Cruel Family Separation Policy, AILA Doc. No. 18062036 (June 20, 2018).

[lx] Id.

[lxi] TRAC Immigration: Criminal Prosecutions for Illegal Border Crossers Jump Sharply in April, June 4, 2018.

[lxii] Streamline: Measuring Its Effect on Illegal Border Crossing, Office of the Inspector General, OIG-15-95 (May 15, 2015).

[lxiii] Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration, San Diego, California, May 7, 2018.

[lxiv] American Immigration Council: Prosecuting Migrants for Coming to the United States, AILA Doc. No. 18050137 (May 1, 2018).

[lxv] Id.

[lxvi] https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

[lxvii]  Experts Cast Doubt on DHS Claim that Traffickers Are Posing as Families at the Border, by Tim Stelloh, published by NBC News (June 21, 2018) (“But Bill Holsten, a pro-bono asylum lawyer and executive director of North Texas Human Rights Initiative, said…that many of his clients only had the vaguest idea of how to apply for asylum. He recalled a woman from Eritrea who floated across the Rio Grande on an inner tube — then looked for an American flag to present herself to authorities.”)

[lxviii] https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration; Expect illegal immigration across the Mexican border to double next year, by Steven Kopits, published by The Hill (October 27, 2017).

[lxix] Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration, San Diego, California, May 7, 2018.