The practice of separating migrant children from their parents has increasingly gained attention lately because of the ethics and ethos surrounding it. For this reason, President Trump recently signed an executive order to halt his administration from continuing with the practice. The opinion by the New York Times article suggests that signing of the order was an issue of conscience for the president as he felt morally forced to tackle the humanitarian crisis attributed to the zero tolerance border policy that he came up with. The article argues that the separation of immigrant families, especially children is immoral and a violation of basic human rights (The New York Times, 2018). However, this paper seeks to contend that despite some cases of human rights violations associated with the executive order, the overall motive of the order is moral, justified and meant to achieve the common good for the American people. The zero tolerance policy came about as a result of the increasing concern about insecurity. The borders had become too porous and certain individuals were using the loophole to get into the country with ulterior motives. The basic notion is that the zero tolerance policy sought to bring the security problem associated with migrants to an end.
The article argues that migrant children should not be separated from parents seeking asylum at the border of the country. It further asserts that signing of the order was done as a matter of conscience. President Trump felt morally compelled to tackle the humanitarian crisis caused by his own zero tolerance border policy. Despite his attempt to salvage the situation, the editorial suggests that the crisis is far from over because hundreds of children are still separated from parents. In addition, many of the children reunited to their families continue being rounded up in government detention centres, despite now being at least held together (New York Times, 2018). Zero-tolerance barbarism enabled the Trump administration to do a substantial amount of damage in quite a short period. In the period when the policy was effective, the article reports that at least 26000 children taken from parents with zero planning or thought for the way the families may eventually be reunited. Also, despite the court issuing a temporary injunction, the government failed to honor it. The article further reports that there is mixed progress with innocents still suffering. Separation trauma has been reported by volunteers working with the families. Medical professionals still warn about long-term psychological damage and emotional distress, including depression, trust issues, memory problems and developmental delays.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The context of the article is the seizing of children at the borders and separating them from their parents. The continuing tragedy, according to the article, is a result of the executive order issued by President Trump. The tragedy is important because it is immoral. The article also suggests that it is a violation of the basic human rights. By separating children from their parents, the article suggests that the order that brought out this trend was not carefully thought out. Despite the government trying to amend its wrongs, it has left behind large scars that will continue haunting it (New York Times, 2018). The continued violation of court orders and mixed progress in addressing the issue suggest that the government is not committed towards ensuring that it is addressed fruitfully. The basic argument is that the Trump administration’s order on children separation was immoral and an outright violation of human rights. The steps taken to address the issue have been unsuccessful and ineffective. There is need for humans to care because of the long-run psychological damage and emotional distress that children will be exposed to. Medical professionals assert that these children could be vulnerable to developmental delays and memory problems and this means that the society should become concerned about the issue.
The first argument is that seizing children at the borders is immoral. The article suggests that it is immoral for the authorities to seize children at the border and separate them from their parents. Whereas this argument appears to be valid, it misses the major point which is that the order seeks to tighten border security (Gonzales, 2018). The administration of President Trump has been trying to balance the rigorous enforcement of immigration laws while pursuing a policy of sustaining family unity. Many still forget the fact that Trump’s administration was placed in the position of separation of alien families in order to effectively enforce the law since Congress had failed to act. Trump’s main objective was to improve security but not to cause psychological harm to the children and their families.
The second argument is that the Trump administration has done little to salvage the situation. The violation of court orders and the administration’s little enthusiasm for cleaning up the mess than it did for making it are the major arguments that have been raised. However, the issuing of an executive order to stop the separation illustrates that the administration recognizes the existence of a problem that needs to be addressed (Gonzales, 2018). Trump would not have issued the order without considering the plight of children and families that are suffering. There is much that the administration has done and continues to do to help children and families that had been adversely affected. Whereas it acknowledges having made some mistakes, it is committed to making amends.
Finally, the article contends that the executive order has not solved the problem but only led to more trauma for children since they will be placed within facilities that are not fit for the minors. The foundation for this argument is that there are at least 2000 children who are already separated from their parents, and the executive order does not do anything to tackle the nightmare (Gonzales, 2018). The other argument is that the order leads to the creation of family prisons that threaten children’s wellbeing. However, elimination of the Flores Settlement is the quickest means of solving the issue. The government has been grappling with the option of either separating the family through detention of the parent and releasing the child or just allowing the parent to also go. It decided at first to separate families, but has relented on this option after realizing that it caused more harm to the families.
It is agreeable that there have been some issues with the executive order issued by Trump. The overall motive was to improve border security and tighten laws on immigrant entry. The borders had become so porous that some were using the gaps to get into the country. The separation of families was not an easy choice for the government, but it had to make the decision (Gonzales, 2018). Immigration has increasingly been a source of security issues and it was time that the government did something about it. Whereas the order may have been deemed by some as a failure, it could be perceived as a good starting point by some on the right. The crucial thing is that there is need to evaluate the pros and cons prior to opting for better immigration policies that can make it difficult for terrorists and aliens to get into the country.
It is imperative that the Trump administration gets sufficient support in trying to address the elusive issue of immigration. Many agree that lax immigration policies have been the triggers for some of the security issues witnessed in the country. Rather than merely criticize the government, it is time that citizens came up with viable solutions that can enable the administration to tackle immigration and security-related issues. It is important that the country remains united on issues that face it. Whereas there may be some challenges in implementation and enforcement of some of the policies, there is need to acknowledge that the administration is committed to human rights and dignity. The media amplification of the issue has not helped, and there is need for responsibility on the part of all stakeholders.
Overall, the article has highlighted that the executive order that led to the separation of children from their families was immoral and violated the basic human rights of those affected. It further suggests that the separated children are vulnerable to psychological problems, emotional distress and developmental delays. Whereas these remain unascertained, it is worth noting that the core motive of the order was to control immigration and manage security at the borders. The penetrability of the borders had for a long period threatened security in the country.
References
Gonzales, R. (June 20, 2018). Trump's Executive Order On Family Separation: What It Does And Doesn't Do . NPR.org. https://www.npr.org/2018/06/20/622095441/trump-executive-order-on-family-separation-what-it-does-and-doesnt-do
New York Times (2018). The Continuing Tragedy of the Separated Children. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/opinion/family-separation-trump-zero-tolerance.html
