Using the readings , discuss the following: How is law used as a tool to oppress and harm vulnerable populations? What rights and resources exist to help people protect their rig

Using the readings , discuss the following: How is law used as a tool to oppress and harm vulnerable populations? What rights and resources exist to help people protect their rights or meet their needs? Essay must be a minimum of 800 words. For written assignments, please use double-spacing, 12-point font, and insert page numbers. MLA style when formatting citations, you may use footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography, as you prefer.
8/31/2021Civil Rights | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights1/7LII >Wex >Civil RightsCivil RightsOverviewA civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by anothergives rise to an action for injury. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interferedwith because of the individual’s membership in a particular group or class. Variousjurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person’srace, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, nationalorigin, and in some instances sexual orientation.Civil Rights and Civil LibertiesPeople often confuse civil rights and civil liberties. Civil rights refer to legalprovisions that stem from notions of equality. Civil rights are not in the Bill ofRights; they deal with legal protections. For example, the right to vote is a civilright. A civil liberty, on the other hand, refers to personal freedoms protected bythe Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment’s right to free speech is a civilliberty.Reconstruction EraThe Reconstruction Era was the period following the Civil War in whichthe federal government attempted to pass laws aimed at helping victims of slavery,primarily African-Americans. Reconstruction AmendmentsThe Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United StatesConstitution constituted the largest expansion of civil rights in the history of theUnited States. The Thirteenth Amendment outlawed involuntary servitude. TheFourteenth Amendment made it illegal for a state to pass laws “which shall abridge
8/31/2021Civil Rights | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights2/7the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States… [or] deprive anyperson of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, [or] deny to anyperson within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The FifteenthAmendment prohibits the U.S. or any state to deny a citizen the right to vote basedon that person’s “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” TheseAmendments are called the Reconstruction Amendments because they were passedduring the Reconstruction Era. Some Reconstruction LawsDuring the Reconstruction Era, Congress enacted numerous civil rights statutes.Many of these are still in force today and protect individuals from discrimination andfrom the deprivation of their civil rights. Section 1981 of Title 42 (Equal RightsUnder the Law) protects individuals from discrimination based on race in makingand enforcing contracts, participating in lawsuits, and giving evidence. See 42U.S.C. ? 1981. Other statutes, derived from acts of the reconstruction era, thatprotect against discrimination include: Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights (See 42U.S.C. ? 1983); Conspiracies to Interfere With Civil Rights (See 42 U.S.C. ? 1985);Conspiracy Against Rights of Citizens (See 18 U.S.C. ? 241); Deprivation of RightsUnder Color of Law, (See 18 U.S.C. ? 242); The Jurisdictional Statue for Civil RightsCases (See 28 U.S.C. ? 1443); and Peonage Abolished (See 42 U.S.C. ? 1994).Civil Rights Act of 1964 The most prominent civil rights legislation since Reconstruction is the Civil RightsAct of 1964. Congress, using its power to regulate interstate commerce, enactedthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Title 42, Chapter 21 of the United States Code.Discrimination based on “race, color, religion, or national origin” in publicestablishments that have a connection to interstate commerce or are supported bythe state is prohibited. See 42 U.S.C. ? 2000a. Public establishments include placesof public accommodation (e.g., hotels, motels, and trailer parks), restaurants, gasstations, bars, taverns, and places of entertainment in general. The Civil Rights Actof 1964 and subsequent legislation also declared a strong legislative policy againstdiscrimination in public schools and colleges which aided in desegregation. Title VIof the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs. TitleVII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination where the employeris engaged in interstate commerce. Congress has passed numerous other lawsdealing with employment discrimination. The judiciary, most notably the Supreme Court, plays a crucial role in interpretingthe extent of the civil rights, as a single Supreme Court ruling can alter therecognition of a right throughout the nation. The federal courts have been crucial in
8/31/2021Civil Rights | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights3/7mandating and supervising school desegregation programs and other programsestablished to rectify state or local discrimination.Twenty-Fourth Amendment The Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1964, bannedpoll taxes. A poll tax is a tax imposed on anybody who votes at a polling place. Polltaxes discouraged poorer citizens from voting, disproportionately affectingminorities. As such, poll taxes interfere with the civil right of voting.Voting Rights Act of 1965 The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is codified in 52 U.S. Code ? 10101. The act states:”All citizens of the United States who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at anyelection by the people . . . shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections,without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”Civil Rights Act of 1968 The Civil Rights Act of 1968 is also known as the Fair Housing Act. This Act protectsagainst numerous sorts of housing discrimination, including rentals, sales, realestate transactions, and brokerage services. The Act “prohibits discrimination in thesale, rental and financing of dwellings based on race, color, religion, sex or nationalorigin.” Congress also created housing discrimination protections for individualswith disabilities through the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans withDisabilities Act of 1990. These Acts, in essence, expanded upon the scope of theCivil Rights Act of 1968. Congress also expanded housing protection to the elderlyin the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995.State Civil Rights Efforts In addition to federal guarantees, some states provide further protection of civilrights. New York’s New York State Human Rights Law is one such example.Numerous international agreements and declarations recognize human rights. TheUnited States has signed some of these agreements, including the InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights.Disenfranchisement Disenfranchisement refers to the removal of civil rights, primarily the the right tovote. States are able to place certain restrictions on who can vote, includingrestrictions based upon someone’s criminal record.
8/31/2021Civil Rights | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights4/7The Supreme Court affirmed in Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974) thatunder Section Two, states can prohibit convicted felons from voting after servingtheir prison sentence.Vermont and Maine do not practice felon disenfranchisement; Florida, Virginia,Iowa, and Kentucky do not allow felons to vote; the other 44 states have some sortof criminal disenfranchisement law. As an example, Florida has its felon disenfranchisement law included in its stateConstitution. As such, in order to change the policy, the state would need to pass astate constitutional amendment. Further Reading For more on the Voting Rights Act, see this Columbia Law Review articleFor more on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, see these articles from a BostonUniversity Law Review Symposium.For more on the Civil Rights Act of 1968, see this Villanova Law Review article.menu of sourcesFederal MaterialU.S. Constitution and Federal StatutesThe United States ConstitutionChapter 21 (Civil Rights) of Title 42 of The United States CodeCRS Annotated ConstitutionFederal Agency RegulationsCode of Federal Regulations:28 C.F.R., Part 42 – Dept. of Justice29 C.F.R., Chapt. XIV – Equal Employment Opportunity Commission34 C.F.R., Chapt. I – Office for Civil Rights, Dept. of Educ.45 C.F.R., Chapt. VII – Civil Rights CommissionFederal Judicial DecisionsU.S. Supreme Court:Recent Civil Rights DecisionsHistoric Constitutional Law Decisionsliibulletin Oral Argument PreviewsU.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals: Recent Decisions on Civil Rightsstate materialState Statutes
DATE DOWNLOADED: Tue Aug 31 04:41:16 2021SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnlineCitations:Bluebook 21st ed.
Prashasti Bhatnagar, Children in Cages: A Legal and Public Health Crisis, 34 GEO.IMMIGR. L.J. 181 (2019). ALWD 6th ed. Bhatnagar, P. ., Children in cages: A legal and public health crisis, 34(1) Geo.Immigr. L.J. 181 (2019). APA 7th ed. Bhatnagar, P. (2019). Children in cages: legal and public health crisis. GeorgetownImmigration Law Journal, 34(1), 181-186. Chicago 17th ed. Prashasti Bhatnagar, “Children in Cages: A Legal and Public Health Crisis,”Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 34, no. 1 (Fall 2019): 181-186 McGill Guide 9th ed. Prashasti Bhatnagar, “Children in Cages: A Legal and Public Health Crisis” (2019)34:1 Geo Immigr LJ 181. AGLC 4th ed. Prashasti Bhatnagar, ‘Children in Cages: A Legal and Public Health Crisis’ (2019)34(1) Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 181. MLA 8th ed. Bhatnagar, Prashasti. “Children in Cages: A Legal and Public Health Crisis.”Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, vol. 34, no. 1, Fall 2019, p. 181-186.HeinOnline. OSCOLA 4th ed. Prashasti Bhatnagar, ‘Children in Cages: A Legal and Public Health Crisis’ (2019) 34Geo Immigr LJ 181Provided by: UCLA Law Library — Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline’s Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at https://heinonline.org/HOL/License– The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.– To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your license, please use:Copyright Information
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTSCHILDREN IN CAGES: A LEGAL AND PUBLICHEALTH CRISISPRASHASTI BHATNAGAR*Donald Trump has been one of the most assertive chief executives inmodem America when it comes to immigration policies.1 Since 2017, hisadministration has continued to push forward an apparently hate-seeped,tough-on-law immigration agenda through limiting legal immigration,2reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States,3 imposingtravel bans,4 and arresting over 458,000 families at the border, amongothers.6 The government’s recent policies have maintained this agenda. It hasendangered the health of children by separating families and children from* Prashasti Bhatnagar, JD-MPH Candidate, 2022, Georgetown University Law Center and JohnsHopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; B.S. Sociology, summa cum laude, 2018, University ofMinnesota Twin Cities. ? 2019, Prashasti Bhatnagar.1. Sarah Pierce, Immigration Related Policy Changes in the First Two Years of Trump, MIGRATIONPOLICY INST. 1 (2019).2. See Inadmissibility on Pub. Charge Ground, 84 Fed. Reg. 41,292 (Aug. 14, 2019) (to be codifiedat 8 C.F.R. pts. 103, 212, 213, 214, 245, 248); IMMIGRANT LEGAL RES. CTR., Pub. Charge (2019),https://www.ilrc.org/public-charge (changing the definition of public charge to “a person who receivesany number of public benefits for more than an aggregate of 12 months over any 36-month period oftime,” thereby making the process harder for immigrants seeking green card); see also Jesus Krogstad& Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, Key Facts About U.S. Immigration Policies & Proposed Changes, PEwRESEARCH CTR. (2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/17/key-facts-about-u-s-immigration-policies-and-proposed-changes/ (estimating permanent residents to decline to one-third under Trumpadministration).3. See Krogstad, supra note 2 (highlighting the fiscal cap of 2019 refugee admissions to be at 30,000in comparison to 84,995 in 2016).4. See Exec. Order No. 13780, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the U.S., 82Fed. Reg. 13,209 (Mar. 9, 2017).5. See U.S. CUSTOMS BORDER AND PROT., Sw. Border Migration FY 2019, https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration; Nicole Narea, The Trump Administration Will Start Sending MostImmigrant Families Arrested at the Border Back to Mex., Vox (Sep. 24, 2019), https://www.vox.com/2019/9/24/20882070/immigrant-families-mexico-catch-release.6. See generally Pierce, supra note 1.
GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JouRNAL[Vol. 34:181each other,7 caging children in unsanitary and unsafe conditions, and has pro-posed detaining children indefinitely.8 As a means to achieve these health-harming immigration policies, the Trump administration has repeatedlyattacked the Flores settlement;9 fortunately, active public outcry and judicialinvolvement have played an important role in defeating the administration.0The Flores settlement dictates “a nationwide policy for the detention,release, and treatment of minors” detained in Immigration and NaturalizationService (INS) custody.1 One of the broad purposes of this settlement is toensure that children are not held in detention for long periods and are releasedwithout unnecessary delay.12 This is not surprising. Extensive research byhealth experts shows that long-term detention for children leads to chronicstress and trauma, deteriorating mental health, and substantial and detrimen-tal impacts on early child development.13 According to the 2017 AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics report, detained immigrant children experience highlevels of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) bothduring and after detention.14 Health experts across the world agree thatneglecting children, especially in institutional settings, is extremely harmfulto their health, wellbeing, and development.15 This is because, when7. The Department of Human Services (HHS) estimated about 2,637 children separated from theirparents in its care in June 2018; however, “thousands” more children may have been separated. See U.S.DEP’T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS) OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., Separated Children Placed inOffice of Refugee Resettlement Care (Jan. 2019), https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-BL-18-0051 1.pdf.8. See Pierce, supra note 1 at 20; see also Flores v. Barr, 934 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2019);Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and Unaccompanied Alien Children, 84Fed. Reg. 44,392 (Aug. 23, 2019) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pts. 212 and 236); Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer, AFederal Judge Blocked a Trump Administration Rule That Would Allow Children to be DetainedIndefinitely. Here’s What You Need to Know, THE WASH. POST (Sep. 28, 2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/24/new-trump-administration-rule-allows-children-be-detained-indefinitely-heres-what-you-need-know/.9. Flores v. Reno, Stipulated Settlement Agreement (hereinafter “Flores Agreement”) (1997),https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/flores settlement final plus extension of settlementOl1797.pdf.10. See Flores, 934 F.3d 910; Flores v. Barr, 2019 WL 4781312, at *915 16, fn. 6 (C.D. Cal. Sept.27, 2019); see also Flores v. Sessions, CTR. FOR HUM. RIGHTS & CONST. L., https://www.centerforhumanrights.org/Unaccompanied%201mmigrant%20Minors/Flores%2OCase.html; DocumentsRelating to Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement on Minors in Immigration Custody, AM. IMMIGR. LAW.ASS’N (Sept. 27, 2019), https://www.aila.org/infonet/flores-v-reno-settlement-agreement.11. Flores, 934F.3d 910 at912.12. A twenty-day detention period falls within this agreement. See Flores v. Sessions, 394 F. Supp.3d 1041, 1062 (C.D. Cal. 2017), appeal dismissed, No. 18-55063, 2018 WL 3472723 (9th Cir. Apr. 27,2018), and appeal dismissed sub nom. Flores v. Barr, 934 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2019).13. See Kelley-Widmer, supra note 8; What Research Shows About Long-Term Psychological Damage ofImmigrant Children Being Detained Indefinitely, KAISER HEALTH NEWS (Aug. 23, 2019), https://khn.org/moming-breakoutwhat-research-shows-about-long-term-psychological-damage-of-immigrant-children-being-detained-indefinitely/; Rhitu Chatterjee, Lengthy Det. of Migrant Children May Create Lasting Trauma,Say Researchers, NPR (Aug. 28, 2019, 1:48 PM), https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/23/753757475/lengthy-detention-of-migrant-chidren-may-create-asting-trauma-say-researchers (explainingthat chronic stress and adversity “affects regions of the brain and functions that have to do with cognition,intellectual process, with judgment, self-regulation, social skills …and there will be thousands andthousands of children who will be scarred for life.”).14. Julie Linton et al., Detention of Immigrant Children, 139 AM. ACAD. PEDIATRICS 1, 6 (2017).15. Laura Santhanam, How Detention Causes Long-Term Harm to Children, PBS NEWS HOUR:HEALTH (Aug. 22, 2019, 6:18 PM), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/how-detention-causes-long-
2019] CHILDREN IN CAGES 183neglected, “children lose out on stimulating activities to promote how theythink and learn, [and] their health and happiness. Out of fear and anxiety,their stress hormone cortisol surges and obstructs new neural connectionsand breaks down old ones, [thereby] causing long-term psychological andphysical damage.”16Despite these public health concerns, the Trump administration believesthat making detainment “aggressive” will help deter people from crossing theborder.17 However, years of research show that such deterrence policiesrarely work.18 In light of this evidence, these long and cruel detainmentsappear especially inhumane and unnecessary. Predictably, the court in Floresplaced a permanent injunction on this proposed rule of detaining childrenindefinitely on the basis that it is inconsistent with the substantive and rele-vant terms of the underlying agreement.19Another mandate of the Flores settlement requires the government to pro-vide the following basic needs to detained children: “safe and sanitary facili-ties, toilets and sinks, drinking water and food, medical assistance,temperature control, supervision, and contact with family members, amongother requirements. ,2 The absence of access to water and sanitation leads topoor hygiene, and has lasting impacts on children’s health and social devel-opment.21 Additionally, several studies show that food plays a critical role inbrain development, learning, physical growth, positive mental health, and arobust immune system, especially for young children.22term-harm-to-children (comparing mental health and experiences of children placed in neglecting orpha-nages in Romania with migrant detention camps).16. Id. (quoting Pia Rebello Britto, the chief of early childhood development for UNICEF).17. See Veronica Stracquialursi, Trump Immigration Official Says New Rule Detaining FamiliesIndefinitely is a ‘Deterrent.’ CNN POLITICS (Aug. 23, 2019, 10:27 AM), https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/23/politics/ken-cuccinelli-flores-settlement-cnntv/index.html; see also Eleanor Emery, Asylum Seekers I MeetFlee Something Even Worse Than Trump’s Unethical Immigration Agenda, USA TODAY (Sep. 24,2019,6:00AM), https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/Voices/2019/09/24/flores-settement-immigration-detention-asylum-trump-colun/2417906001/ (explaining that “the principle of deterrence is based on the idea that…if you are able to increase the associated negative outcomes, then you may ultimately reach a tipping pointwhere it is no longer in the actor’s best interests to perform the act.”).18. See Emily Ryo, Detention as Deterrence, 71 STAN. L. REV. ONLINE (Mar. 2019), https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/detention-as-deterrence/; Tom Wong, Do Family Separation and Det.Deter Immigration?, CTR. FOR AM. PROGRESS (Jul. 24, 2018), https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2018/07/24/453660/family-separation-detention-deter-immigration/; Anna Oltman,Does Separating Families at the Border Discourage Immigration? Here’s What the Research Says,WASH. POST (May 31, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/31/does-separating-families-at-the-border-discourage-immigration-heres-what-the-research-says/.19. See Flores v. Barr, 2019 WL 4781312, at *16 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2019) (“Defendants cannotsimply ignore the dictates of the consent decree merely because they no longer agree with its approach asa matter of policy.”).20. Flores Agreement, supra note 11 at 12A.21. See Sanitation Fact Sheet, WORLD HEALTH ORG. (“WHO”) (June 14, 2019), https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/sanitation (explaining that lack of sanitation and proper hygiene leads tomajor diseases such as cholera, schistosomiasis, trachoma, diarrhea); see also WHO, Poor SanitationThreatens Pub. Health (2008) (highlighting that more than 800 children die as a result of diarrhealdiseases, which are linked to poor hygiene).22. See generally AM. PSYCHOLOGICAL ASS’N, What are the Psychological Effects of Hunger onChildren, https://www.apa.org/advocacy/socioeconomic-status/hunger.pdf.
GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JouRNAL[Vol. 34:181As Judges Gee and Berzon opined, access to basic necessities suchas food, water, and basic hygienic items, like toothbrushes and soap, iscommon-sense for the safety of children.23 Yet, the administration arguedthat children were not entitled to “toothbrushes, soap, and water,>4 despiterich medical and public health evidence and many firsthand testimonies andreports detailing the unsafe and unsanitary nature of the detention facilities.25In 2019 alone, the detention facility in Clint, Texas saw outbreaks of scabies,shingles, and chickenpox-diseases linked with overcrowding, poor sanita-tion, and poor hygiene.26 In the McAllen, Texas facility, thirty-two migrantstested positive for influenza, and one detainee died of it.27 Testimonies high-lighted that children were being locked in cells and cages all day long andwere not being provided proper treatment when they were contracted the fluor other illnesses.2 About 155 detainees were observed standing on toilets”to make room and gain breathing space,” in a facility that can only holdthirty-five people.29 Children were sleep-deprived, underfed and hungry, asthey tried to fill their bellies with instant oats, instant noodles, and frozen bur-ritos,3″ while girls were left out to sit in their menstrual blood because theywere allowed only one sanitary pad per day.31 The court understandably ruledthat when children are forced to “sleep in concrete floors, with no beddingaside from pieces of thin polyester foil and are subjected to cold tempera-tures, serious overcrowding, and constant lighting” it is neither safe nor sani-tary.32 Especially in light of imagining masked and armed guards watching23. Flores v. Ban, 2019 WL 4781312, at *914 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 27,2019).24. See Oral Argument at 33:57 34:09, Flores v. Barr, No. 17- 56297 (9th Cir. Jun. 18, 2019),https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view video.php?pk vid=0000015907; see also Manny Fernandez,Lawyer Draws Outrage for Defending Lack of Toothbrushes in Border Det., N.Y. TIMES (Jun. 25, 2019),https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/25/us/sarah-fabian-migrant-lawyerdoj.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer.25. See, e.g., Clara Long, Written Testimony: Kids in Cage. Inhuman Treatment at the Border, HUMANRIGHTS WATCH (Jul. 11, 2019), https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/07/1 1/written-testimony-kids-cages-inhumane-treatment-border; Dahlia Lithwick, Some Did Not Have Socks. Their Hair Was Dirty, SLATE (Jul. 1, 2019),https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/kids-at-clint-border-cisis-immigration-lawyer-weighs-in.html.26. See Christina Potter, Outbreaks in Migrant Det. Facilities, JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCH.OF PUB. HEALTH (Jul. 11, 2019), https://www.outbreakobservatory.org/outbreakthursday-1/7/11/2019/outbreaks-in-migrant-detention-facilities.27. Id.28. See Caitlin Dickerson, ‘There is a Stench’: Soiled Clothes and No Baths for Migrant Children ata Texas Center, N.Y. TimEs (Jun. 21, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/migrant-children-border-soap.html?module=inline; see also Nicole Acevedo, Migrant Children Face More Serious HealthRisks With Longer Det., Groups Warn, NBC NEWS (Aug. 21, 2019), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/migrant-children-face-more-serious-heath-risks-longer-detentions-groups-nlO45031 (highlightingthat at least three children died of infectious diseases such as flu while being held in the detentionfacilities).29. See Dickerson, supra note 28.30. Id.31. See Alanna Vagianos, Menstruating Migrant Girls’ ‘Visibly’ Bleeding Through Pants WhileDetained, Lawsuit Says, HuFFPOST (Aug. 30, 2019), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/migrant-girls-border-detention-menstruating-bleedingpads n 5d694102e4b02bc6bb38d026?fbclid=IwAR3mySgbhl7kDkfooAjTOSuxGE4QXB5XIaX2SUHgREUWa7bXtZjYZJmO7YQ.32. See Flores v. Barr, 934 F.3d 910, 915 (9th Cir. 2019).
CHILDREN IN CAGESover these harmful conditions, these vivid examples hardly seem “safe andsanitary.”33To justify withholding basic necessities from detained children, the gov-ernment argued that the “safe and sanitary conditions” in the mandate wastoo vague to be enforced.34 However, the court highlighted that the Floresrequirements of providing safe and sanitary conditions can be interpretedwithin its ordinary meaning using common sense.3″ Moreover, beyond theFlores “safe and sanitary” language, the government’s own Customs andBorder Protection (CBP) policies hardly seem vague.36 According to theCBP’s “National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search”(“TEDS”), detained children must “be offered a snack upon arrival and ameal at least every six hours thereafter,” food that is “not frozen, expired, orspoiled,” and “clean drinking water along with clean drinking cups.’37Additionally, the policies also mandate access to basic personal hygieneitems, including access to clean bedding, showers, soap, and a clean towel.38These CBP policies seem to reflect more of the “common-sense” understand-ing of what is “safe and sanitary” at issue in Flores.In light of the extensive public health research related to detaining childrenand denying their access to basic necessities, it is fortunate that the govern-ment has not succeeded in their argument against providing “safe and sani-tary” conditions in keeping with the Flores settlement. Yet, the scaryimplication of the desired policies of the Trump administration, regardingtreatment of child immigrants, is that it is clear that their sought-after deten-tion conditions would have negative and long-lasting impacts on the healthand development of children. Consequently, it is concerning that thesedetained children appear to merely be pawns in a hate-seeped immigrationagenda.33. See Dickerson, supra note 28.34. See Oral Argument at 33:57 34:09, Flores v. Barr, No. 17- 56297 (9th Cir. Jun. 18, 2019).35. See Flores, 934 F.3d at 915 16.36. Id.37. Id.; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROT., Nat’l Standards on Transport, Escort, Det., and Search(“TEDS”) at 18 (Oct. 2015).38. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROT., supra note 37 at 16.2019]

AnnualReviewofCriminologyPerspectivesonPolicing:PhillipAtibaGoffPhillipAtibaGoffCenterforPolicingEquityandYaleUniversity,NewHaven,Connecticut06511,USA;email:[email protected]:27??32FirstpublishedasaReviewinAdvanceonNovember23,2020TheAnnualReviewofCriminologyisonlineatcriminol.annualreviews.orghttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-093020-022549Copyright?2021byAnnualReviews.AllrightsreservedKeywordspolicing,publicsafety,racism,structuralracism,abolition,criminologyAbstractTheEditorialCommitteeoftheAnnualReviewofCriminologyhaslaunchedanewsectionwithinthejournalinwhichweinviteoneormoreauthorstowriteamorepersonalandyetscholarlyarticlethatputsforththeirperspec-tiveonanimportantandtimelytopic.ForVolume4,weaskedDr.PhillipAtibaGoffandDr.CynthiaLumtoprovidetheirperspectivesonpolicing.Wehopeourreadersenjoythisnewandexcitingseriesof??Perspectives.??27
1.TRANSFORMATIONOFPOLICINGISANIMPORTANTTOPICINTHENEWSGLOBALLY.MANYINTHEPUBLICAREPROFOUNDLYDISSATISFIEDWITHPOLICINGASITEXISTSTODAY.WHATARETHEKEYFEATURESOFWHATSHOULDREPLACEWHATCURRENTLYEXISTS?Thefirstthingtounderstandabouthowlawenforcementneedstochangeisthatmorethanlawenforcementneedstochange.Onemightbeforgivenforbelievingthatthemonths-longprotestsinthestreetsoftheUnitedStatesandaroundtheworldweremostlyaboutvulnerablecommunities??dissatisfactionwiththearmedapparatusofpublicsafety.ButIdonotbelieveitwasacoincidencethatthenewscycleintheUnitedStatespivotedsoquicklyfrompublicuprisingsfocusedonlawenforcementtopublicoutrageaboutConfederatemonuments.ThroughoutUShistory,fromLosAngelestoFergusontoWattstoNewarktoChicago,policingisoftenthespark,butthetinderisthegenerations-longabuseandneglectofBlackcommunities.Afailuretoac-knowledgethattruthmayresultinnotjustamisdiagnosisofthemomentbutalsosolutionsthatareill-fittedtotheproblem.AfullaccountingofUSstateviolenceanditscosts??particularlytoBlackcommunities??isnecessarybeforeconceptualizingafulsomesetofresponsesispossible.Thatisnottosaythatbecausetheproblemisbiggerthanlawenforcementthattheproblemisnotlawenforcement.Thereisareasonitissooftenthespark.SowhatcanandshouldlawenforcementdoaspartofalargerreckoningwiththeUShistoryofanti-Blackness?First,Ithink,istounderstandatleastonedefinitionofabolitioninthecontextofpolicing.Therearesomecitiesthatdidnothaveformallawenforcementuntilslaveownersfeltitnec-essarytoemployafull-timepublicforcetopreventslavesfromescaping(Walkeretal.2012).Inothermunicipalitieswithoutthishistory,lawenforcementwastaskedfromitsinceptionwithen-forcingexplicitlyracistlawsmeanttocircumscribeBlackpeople??ssocial,political,economic,andphysicalmobility(Bass2001).AndduringBlackpeople??spublicstruggleagainstthoselaws,theex-cessesoflawenforcementprovokednationalrevulsionandinternationalcondemnation??astheyhaveinthissummerof2020(Muhammad2019).Whatdoesabolitionhavetodowiththis?Sim-ply,itisnotpossibletolookhonestlyatthehistoryoflawenforcementintheUnitedStatesandimagineitwasnotintended??formostofitsexistence??asameansofBlackoppression.Similarly,therehasbeennotimeinthenation??shistorywhenthismissionhasbeenexplicitlyacknowledged,repudiated,andcorrected.Onemeaningofpoliceabolition,then,issimplyacalltoabolishthismissionandempowerthosetaskedwithmaintainingpublicsafetywithadifferentone.Althoughthewordabolitionmayseemfrighteningtosome,thenotionofinterruptingthehistoricallegacyofexplicitanti-Blacknessshouldnotbe.How,then,arecities,states,andanationtogoaboutthisprojectofabolition?Thereshouldbe,asIseeit,twooverarchinggoals:First,communitiesshouldhavetheresourcestoreducetheneedtocalllawenforcement.Second,communitiesshouldhavemoreoptionswhenexperiencingacrisisthanfire,medical,orlawenforcement.Thisisparticularlytrueforeconomicallyandraciallymarginalizedcommunities.2.NOWTHATYOUHAVEPROVIDEDYOURVISIONOFTHEGOAL,WHAT,TOYOURMIND,ARETHEPRIMARYIMPEDIMENTSTOACHIEVINGTHATGOAL?Iseemajorobstaclestocommunity-centeredsystemsofpublicsafetyexistinginthreecategories:logistics,racialpolitics,andourcollectiveunderstandingof/responsestoviolence.First,withregardtologistics,althoughtheremaybeviableexamplesofcommunity-centeredpublicsafety,therearenoexamplesofhowtotransformpublicsafetyfromaroughly$115billionannual28Goff
industryintoanyofthosemode

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.