The U.S. Department of Justice is currently considering making payments of $450,000 to every immigrant affected by family separation policies at the border. These payments would serve as compensation for lasting psychological harm resulting from previous border policy.
Almost needless to say, this plan drew instant backlash from Republican politicians. They argue that the family separation policy was essentially forced by the Flores Settlement Agreement, which occurred during the Clinton administration and put restrictions on the detention of alien minors. The terms of this settlement, they say, forces the administration to choose between family separation and catch-and-release policies. Additionally, they argue that such a payment only incentivizes more illegal immigration than our borders can handle.
But, even if you accept this criticism, these payments are possibly cheaper than the alternative. These $450,000 payments are essentially settlement offers. Legal experts say that if such a claim went to trial, a jury could foreseeably award much greater amounts in damages. This plan, then, can be thought to maximize accountability at a minimized cost.
No matter which side you fall on the issue, the DOJ’s plan to make these payments raises interesting questions about the consequences of our border policy. If the terms of the Flores Settlement truly force an administration to choose between family separation or catch-and-release, how should the government address the consequences of that dichotomy? If both policies produce negative consequences, how does the government minimize harm?
This blog post is part of the CIMA Law Group Blog. If you are in need of legal help, the CIMA Law Group is a law firm in Phoenix, Arizona which possesses expertise in Immigration Law, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Government Relations.
CIMA Law Group Blog 