Migrant Children: Leaving their Conditions for Worse Ones?

On April 26, 2018, Steven Wagner, an official at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), stated during a Senate Homeland Security subcommittee oversight hearing that HHS had lost track of 1475 migrant children in 2017. The migrant children had all been placed into HHS custody when trying to cross the Mexican border into the U.S, unaccompanied by adults.

When migrant children attempt to cross the border on their own, the Department of Homeland Security places them into the custody of the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), who provides them with food, shelter, clothing, and other necessities, until sponsors are selected and approved for the children.

Officials at HHS maintain that once the ORR places migrant children into the care of sponsors, it is no longer the responsibility of HHS to keep track of them. HHS did, however, follow up with a survey of over 7,000 of the migrant children, and this is apparently how they discovered that almost 1500 of them are unaccounted for.

According to Snopes, “From October to December 2017, HHS called 7,635 children the agency had placed with sponsors, and found 6,075 of the children were still living with their sponsors, 28 had run away, five had been deported and 52 were living with someone else. The rest were ‘missing,’ said Steven Wagner, acting assistant secretary at HHS.”

But this does not excuse the HHS’ complete lack of concern for following up on the safety and well-being of these children, which could be illustrated by Senator Rick Santorum’s comment on CNN’s State of the Union: “I mean, we lose people all the time in a lot of other government programs.”

Usually, a sponsor is a parent or other close family member, but sometimes, the sponsor is not related, or is a distant relative. When HHS releases migrant children to the care of sponsors, the children become the responsibility of the sponsors. On the one hand, with no oversight or follow-up from HHS, migrant children, if not in the hands of familiar and trusted relatives or family members, could be ripe for human trafficking.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), chairman of the Senate subcommittee, in response to the revelation the HHS had lost track of 1475 migrant children, cited the case of a group of Guatemalan boys who had been forced to work on an Ohio egg farm after the HHS had released them to the care of human traffickers posing as family members (and hence approved as sponsors).

“These kids, regardless of their immigration status, deserve to be treated properly, not abused or trafficked,” Portman said in the subcommittee. “This is all about accountability. …We’ve got these kids. They’re here. They’re living on our soil,” he told PBS. “And for us to just, you know, assume someone else is going to take care of them and throw them to the wolves, which is what HHS was doing, is flat-out wrong. I don’t care what you think about immigration policy, it’s wrong.”

On the other hand, with the Trump administration’s no-holds-barred approach to undocumented immigration (including the recent announcement that the Justice Department would begin to prosecute 100 percent of those who attempt to cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally), some feel that it’s not altogether bad that the HHS hasn’t caught up with all of the migrant children.

It’s possible that some of these migrant children and their sponsors have not responded to HHS calls because they have chosen to go “off the grid” in order to avoid the risk of deportation or prosecution. There are many other possible explanations for their “disappearance, including explanations as simple as an outdated phone number, or a decision not to answer the phone.

Whether we agree or not with the Trump administration’s policies regarding immigration, it is not ok to put any children, no matter what their status, at any level of risk for human trafficking. Just as true, though, is that undocumented migrant children are quite likely trying to flee a traumatic situation at home, and it is not ok, simply because we “can’t take on everyone in a difficult situation,” to subject these or any children to childhood trauma, whether through government negligence by formal policy.

Outrage over reports of ‘missing’ immigrant children – Daily Mail | Daily Mail [2018-05-28]

Federal Government Lost Track Of 1,500 Immigrant Children | Wochit Politics [2018-05-26]

Tighter Gun Control for Fewer Gun Deaths: Just a Myth?

What is the relationship between gun control measures and shooting deaths (or reduced shooting deaths)? Those who support stiffer gun restrictions argue that it’s obvious that the result will be a reduction in the number of deaths by firearm.  Those who support gun rights (particularly those who equate “gun control” with “taking away our guns”) don’t acknowledge a relationship, and continue to insist that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

Though there is not an abundance of research (the National Rifle Association sponsored a law in 1996 that bars federal agencies from conducting firearms research), the evidence that does exist says that U.S. states that have stricter gun control laws have fewer firearm deaths than states whose regulations are not as strict.

For example, Louisiana, Alabama, and Alaska have loose gun control policies. The average rate of firearm deaths in these states per 100,000 people is over four times greater than in the four states with the strictest gun control laws: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Hawaii.

Though these numbers suggest a logical correlation between tighter gun regulation and fewer deaths by firearm, research does not widely support a cause-and-effect relationship. In other words, though the relationship seems obvious, existing research does not show positively that stricter gun control has been the reason for fewer gun deaths in areas where guns are more regulated.

In rural areas, for example, where the rate of gun-related suicides is higher than in urban areas, other factors besides guns may be at play, such as mental health issues, inability to get adequate or timely medical care, or some other undetermined factor.

But though proponents of less-stringent gun control cling to the lack of a cause-and-effect relationship, evidence shows that the more guns per person in a state, the more firearm homicides there are in that state. For example, a Boston University School of Public Health study found a roughly 0.9 percent increase in the gun homicide rate for every one percent increase in gun ownership.

According to Vox, in a study of the impact of firearm buybacks on gun deaths, Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University found that “the largest falls in firearm deaths occurred in states where more firearms were bought back.”

David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis, both of Harvard University, reached similar conclusions from their examination of multiple studies. “First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates.”

With respect to gun control, how do we compare with the rest of the world? The United States has more guns, overall, than any other country (88.8 civilian-owned guns per 100 people). The country in second place, though significantly behind the U.S., is Yemen, with 54.8 guns per 100 people. The United States has significantly more deaths by firearm than any other developed nation, and considerably more civilian-owned guns per person than any other nation.

According to BBC News, the number of guns per 100 people in Great Britain is six. (Remember the above figure of 88.8 guns per 100 people in the U.S.?) In 2016, the number of deaths by firearms in England and Wales together was 26. In the U.S. in 2016, it was 15,079.

Though it’s true that other factors besides a lack of gun control measures, such as alcohol consumption, drug abuse, or poverty, can contribute to homicide and suicide rates by gun, stricter control of access to guns could help keep these numbers down. Can we really, with a straight face, continue to insist that there is no correlation between gun control and reduced gun fatalities?

Gun Crime in America in Numbers | BBC News [2017-10-03]

Would stricter gun laws have prevented tragedy in Texas? | Fox News [2018-05-20]