Why Is America So Keen on Separating Families?
January 27, 2022
This week we’re going to talk about families, and a uniquely American hypocrisy surrounding them. On the one hand, politicians are always talking about supporting strong, nuclear families, and in some ways, we do. We give tax breaks to people who get married and have children. Kids eat free at Denny’s on Tuesdays. Yet, also in America, government officials at the federal, state, and local levels are tearing families apart by the thousands under the cover of our laws.
For example, in the Trump administration, the Department of Homeland Security forcibly separated more than 5,000 migrant parents from their children – some as young as 4 months old – under Trump’s “zero tolerance” border policy. To this day, a thousand children and maybe more are yet to be reunited with their families. They remain stranded and alone.
Candidate Joe Biden had called the policy “criminal. But in December the Justice Department walked away from settlement talks with lawyers representing those families.
And immigration enforcement isn’t the only way we destroy families. The criminal justice system and the child welfare system do it too, in astonishing numbers, and usually to the most vulnerable among us.
To discuss this double-standard–propping up some families while destroying others–the and the continued trauma and ongoing battle of separated families is Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who has steered the border separation litigation from the beginning. Joining him is Shanta Trivedi, assistant professor at the University of Baltimore Law School and faculty director of the Meyerhoff Center for Families, Children, and the Courts – a foremost expert on the law around family trauma.
In this episode
Shanta Trivedi
This Episode Covers the Following Issues
Related Content
-
Press ReleaseMar 2026
Immigrants' Rights
Human Rights
Federal Court Orders Ice To Provide People Detained At “alligator Alcatraz” Detention Facility Access To Legal Counsel. Explore Press Release.Federal Court Orders ICE to Provide People Detained at “Alligator Alcatraz” Detention Facility Access to Legal Counsel
FORT MYERS, Fl. – A federal court granted a preliminary injunction today that requires Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Florida Department of Emergency Management to provide access to legal counsel for people detained at the Everglades Detention Facility, commonly referred to as “Alligator Alcatraz.” The ruling comes more than a month after the court heard oral arguments and client testimony during a two-day hearing, where people formerly detained at the Everglades Detention Facility described horrific conditions, being denied the opportunity to speak with an attorney, and even the denial of access to papers and pencils. Specifically, the preliminary injunction issued by federal district judge Sheri Polster Chappell requires ICE to provide readily-available confidential outgoing legal calls to people detained at the facility, as well as publish information about how attorneys and people detained may contact one another. The order also states that ICE must continue their newly enacted policy of allowing attorneys to visit the facility without prescheduling visits, on behalf of the entire class. The court also certified the case as a class action, which means that it protects all people currently at the Everglades Detention Facility, and persons held there in the future. Quotes from co-counsel and plaintiff organizations are as follows: “Today’s ruling is a major victory and underscores what we’ve known to be true all along: access to legal counsel is a constitutional right – not a privilege – for all people in this country, and the State of Florida and ICE cannot lock people up with no way to speak to an attorney,” said Corene Kendrick, Deputy Director of the National Prison Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. “We won’t stop fighting until this abusive facility is shut down once and for all.” “Access to counsel is one of the most basic safeguards in our legal system,” said Paul R. Chavez, Director of Litigation & Advocacy at Americans at Immigrant Justice. “Today’s ruling reinforces the importance of meaningful access to legal counsel for people in immigration detention. Confidential communication with an attorney is essential to a fair legal process, and people navigating detention deserve a genuine opportunity to understand and exercise their rights. We will continue working to ensure these protections are fully implemented.” “Access to an attorney is essential for people in immigration detention—especially at a time when we are witnessing due process being sidelined,” said Amy Godshall, Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Florida. “As mass deportation policies expand and Florida deepens its use of 287(g) agreements, access to legal counsel is one of the last safeguards protecting people from unjust deportation or family separation. No one should have to fight deportation alone and without counsel from inside a detention center—it’s a basic constitutional right.” "When a facility obstructs timely and confidential access to counsel, it makes meaningful legal representation virtually impossible,” said Katie Blankenship, Founder of Sanctuary of the South and an organizational plaintiff in this case. “That is not a minor barrier; it is a direct violation of due process. People are left to navigate life-altering immigration proceedings without the ability to communicate with their attorneys. This is unconstitutional and unacceptable. The Court correctly recognized that these policies are unlawful and are inflicting serious harm every day." A copy of the ruling is available here: https://www.aclu.org/cases/c-m-v-noem?document=Class-Cert-and-PI-OrderCourt Case: H.C.R. v. NoemAffiliate: Florida -
News & CommentaryMar 2026
Privacy & Technology
+2 Issues
How One Playwright Is Using Theatre To Expose The Surveillance State. Explore News & Commentary.How One Playwright is Using Theatre to Expose the Surveillance State
As the ACLU fights to protect people’s privacy, playwright Matthew Libby discusses his play about the private companies fueling the government’s surveillance of immigrants.By: Allegra Harpootlian -
News & CommentaryApr 2026
Privacy & Technology
+2 Issues
All The Ways Palantir Is Assisting Trump’s Abusive Removal Campaign. Explore News & Commentary.All the Ways Palantir is Assisting Trump’s Abusive Removal Campaign
How culpable is the company for the constitutional and human rights violations of the deportation drive?By: Sophie Feng, Jay Stanley -
Press ReleaseMar 2026
National Security
Human Rights
Legal Experts Underscore Illegality Of U.s. Boat Strikes At Inter-american Commission On Human Rights Hearing. Explore Press Release.Legal Experts Underscore Illegality of U.S. Boat Strikes at Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Hearing
GUATEMALA CITY — On Friday, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights held the first hearing of its kind on the legality of U.S. boat strikes in the Caribbean and the harm they are causing communities across Latin America. The ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, International Crisis Group and UN human rights experts presented to the commission on how the United States’ lethal-strike policy violates both domestic and international law. U.S. representatives were in attendance, and decried the attempt to hold them accountable. “We are doing everything in our power to hold the Trump administration responsible for its egregious violations of both U.S. and international law, and that includes asking the widely respected Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to investigate these heinous killings,” said Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program. “The administration can act as outraged and indignant as they want, but Friday’s hearing was a vital first step for establishing international accountability for the lawless policy that claimed the lives of at least 156 people and created another dangerous example of state-sanctioned violence with impunity. The fact that the Trump administration is lashing out at the ACLU and at the Commission is just another preposterous attempt to evade accountability and deflect attention from the government’s crimes.” At the convening, the human rights experts highlighted that under both U.S. and international law, it is flagrantly illegal to use the military to kill civilians suspected only of crimes. The United States is not in an armed conflict with anyone in Latin America. That means the people on these boats are civilians. Civilians, including those suspected of smuggling drugs, are not lawful targets. The Commission also heard arguments on the U.S. government’s duty under international treaties to investigate these extrajudicial killings and hold officials accountable for the murders of at least 156 people. Ben Saul, the U.N. special rapporteur for protecting fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, accused the U.S. of “responding with lawless violence that flagrantly violates human rights, in its phony war on so-called narco-terrorism.” The special rapporteur also made clear that “drug trafficking is a crime, not war,” and that the portrayal of suspected drug traffickers as being responsible for “speculative drug overdoses” did not constitute a “permissible law enforcement action in personal self-defense or the defense of others.” In addition, the groups outlined the illegal nature of these strikes and how they violate the UN charter and human rights obligations that bind the United States The groups’ called on the commission to declare the U.S. boat strike policy in violation of international law, to conduct an investigation into the policy, and to convene a special meeting with OAS member states affected by the U.S. policy, and make recommendations on how to refrain from aiding or abetting or otherwise being complicit in the U.S. government’s violations of international law. “These extrajudicial killings were poorly veiled cover to justify the illegal overthrow of the Venezuelan government, as admitted by White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles,” said Angelo Guisado, senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. “The administration’s desire to play imperial superpower in the region cannot be a reason to completely displace the foundations of international law.” Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) and Sara Jacobs (D-CA) also sent a letter to the commission urging them to “scrutinize this administration’s policy and help advance accountability in the international arena.” Last week’s hearing was one of many legal avenues the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights are taking to hold the Trump administration accountable for these strikes. They also represent two of the victims’ families in their efforts to seek redress and separately are suing for the release of the Trump administration’s legal memo justifying these strikes. Video of the hearing is available hereCourt Case: Burnley v. U.S.: Demanding Accountability on Caribbean Boat Strikes