Immigration

Family separations

A federal judge in California issued a nationwide injunction Tuesday that forbids the Department of Homeland Security from separating any more children from parents, and orders officials to reunite more than 2,000 children with their parents within 30 days.

U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, ruled that the administration must establish “regular communication” between parents and their children within 10 days. Children under the age of 5 must be reunited with their parent within 14 days, and all other minors must be reunited within 30 days.

The judge chastised the administration for mismanaging the separation process, writing that the federal government

After receiving backlash from immigrants, Democrats and Republicans, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on June 20 to end the practice of separating parents from their children after being arrested.

But the order did not end the administration’s policy of referring all migrants caught illegally crossing the border for criminal prosecution. The order says the administration will “rigorously enforce” immigration laws and “initiate proceedings” accordingly. And Trump said after signing the order that officials will have “zero tolerance” for people crossing the border illegally.

What has changed is that immigration agents have temporarily stopped charging border crossers with children.

On Monday, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan said he instructed agents to stop charging parents with illegal entry, which is what prompts family separations. But he said his agency is working with the Department of Justice to find a way to continue criminally charging all illegal border crossers while keeping them detained with their children.

“The (executive order) supports zero tolerance, though family unity must be maintained,” McAleenan said.

Travel ban

if they arrive

The Supreme Court handed Trump one of his biggest legal victories Tuesday when it upheld the third version of his controversial travel ban targeting majority-Muslim countries.

The first two versions were struck down by federal courts, which argued that the president’s statements about instituting a Muslim ban violated federal law and due process protections enshrined in the Constitution. A 5-4 majority of the high court concluded that the third version did not suffer from religious animus and was instead a legal exercise of a president’s authority to ban foreigners if they are deemed “detrimental to the interests of the U.S.

Legal scholars said the ruling opens the door for the administration to institute travel bans against more countries.

Congressional (in)action

Despite repeated calls from the White House and immigration advocacy groups for Congress to step into the fray, both GOP-run chambers have been unable to pass any kind of legislation.

The latest failure came Wednesday, when a “compromise” bill negotiated between different GOP factions was voted down in the House 301-121.

The Senate has not taken up any immigration-related bills since February.