Supreme Court rules against Roe v. Wade; shakes up and angers AANHPI communities

A woman wept after hearing the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade.

Even though the Supreme Court's decision on a woman's right to make decisions about her own healthcare was expected, today's ruling sent shockwaves reverberating throughout the Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities.

The National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF)  condemned the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women Health Organization. Today’s final ruling overturns nearly 50 years of legal precedent on federally protected access to abortion.

“This is a direct and pernicious assault on people of color, including Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities where the path to abortion care is riddled with language barriers, cultural stigmas, and low rates of insurance coverage among our most vulnerable community members,” says Isra Pananon Weeks, interim executive director and chief of staff of National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF). 

The radical conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade on Friday, ending the constitutional right to abortion in those states restricting abortion and threatening access to reproductive healthcare nationwide.

The NAPAWF statement was issued after the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was issued along ideological lines, with all three liberal justices in opposition.

"With sorrow—for this court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent," wrote Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer in their seething 59-page dissent.

“We believe in a Constitution that puts some issues off limits to majority rule. Even in the face of public opposition, we uphold the right of individuals — yes, including women — to make their own choices and chart their own futures. Or at least, we did once,” wrote the three moderate justices.

About one-fifth of pregnant Asian Americans may seek an abortion, a rate comparable to that of non-Hispanic white women, according to a study by City University of New York.

The restrictions approved by SCOTUS could take effect almost immediately in 13 states who have laws waiting for the Supreme Court ruling.

Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming—Republican-controlled legislatures have put in place "trigger bans" designed to outlaw abortion once Roe is overturned.

“This is a dark moment for our country,” said Caliofrnia's Attorney General Bonta, the first Filipino American AG for the state. “This court’s decision is outrageous, unprecedented, and dangerous. It blasts our nation back into the dark ages. Millions are now facing a stark reality when it comes to their right to choose. People all across the nation — their bodies, futures, and families — will be hurt by this decision."

California is home for the largest number of AANHPI in the country making up about 17% of the population, or about 6 million, based on the 2020 Census.

"In California, we refuse to turn back the clock and let politicians exert control over a person’s body. Despite the decision, abortion remains fully protected here in California," says Bonta. "We’ll keep fighting to strengthen and expand access to safe and legal abortion. ... Abortion remains a legally protected right in our state and, in California, we won’t backslide.”

“The cultural, economic, and logistical barriers for AAPI community members, especially those working for low-wages in frontline, service jobs, make traveling and getting an abortion often difficult if not impossible,” says Weeks.

AAPI women are overrepresented in the frontline and service industry, often working without health insurance and paid medical or family leave. Sixty-six percent of Asian Americans and 30% of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders also speak a primary language other than English at home which creates difficulties in accessing health care due to overwhelming language barriers. In addition, nearly two-thirds of Asian Americans and one-fifth of Pacific Islanders are foreign-born.

Nikki Tran of Maryland protested outside the Supreme Court last May. Since then, Chief Justice
John Roberts joined the five Justices on her poster in today's ruling.

“As the country’s fastest growing racial and ethnic group, a third of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders now live in one of the 26 states where abortion access has vanished. Gutting Roe cuts off access to abortion care and puts the well-being and financial stability for millions of AAPI women and families at tremendous risk,” says Weeks. The AAPI population, for instance, in Georgia and Texas has grown 138% and 128%, respectively since 2000. Both states are now primed to ban abortion following today’s Supreme Court ruling.

“The decision in Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization is tragically wrong – overturning decades of established precedent, eroding basic human rights for millions of Americans and taking our country backwards and endangering many other civil liberties we take for granted," said John Yang, president of Advancing Justice, legal rights advocates. 

"We filed an amicus brief in this case with the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum because of our concern for the Asian American and broader immigrant community," continued Yang. "Given that Asian Americans are among the fastest-growing populations nationwide with nearly two-thirds of the population being foreign-born, we have grave concerns about the impact this decision will have on our communities. 

"Bans on abortion care are going to heighten fears of adverse immigration consequences for undocumented individuals, refugees, and other immigrants regardless of their immigrant status. We will need to come together to find a way to support our communities while we explore every course of action to reclaim this fundamental human right.”

Justice Thomas' opinion said that he and his fellow right-wing justices are not done  taking away Americans' rights in other areas, as well.

“Today’s devastating reversal is not only about reproductive rights, but protections for the LGBTQ community, voting rights, and marriage equality. With legislators across the US repealing early voting and mail-in ballot expansions, and the Supreme Court refusing to protect the Voting Rights Act, AAPI interests, including the right to an abortion, are being sidelined,” says Weeks.

“After two years of increasing anti-Asian hate, NAPAWF is no stranger to legislators overlooking our concerns or witnessing attacks on our health and safety," continued  Weeks. "We will not back down. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, other communities of color, and a majority of all voters support legalizing abortion. It is time for elected officials to act on our interests.”

"The Supreme Court has now mandated forced pregnancy, taking away an intensely personal freedom for pregnant people to make decisions about our own bodies with a doctor or loved one, and instead bringing politicians into your decision and your bedroom," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "Every woman, every family, every pregnant person should fear what this means for their futures."

"It is important that Americans understand that this Supreme Court and Republicans in Congress will not stop here," Jayapal continued. "In the opinion, the [conservative] justices say explicitly that the court should reconsider 'all substantive due process precedents,' including the right to contraception, to same-sex marriage, and to same-sex relationships."

EDITOR'S NOTES: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow @DioknoEd on Twitter.

Judge acquits Chinese American researcher of espionage charges

University of Tennessee Professor Anming Hu

A federal judge from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee acquitted University of Tennessee (UT) Engineering Professor Anming Hu of all charges after his trial resulted in a mistrial when the jury deadlocked. 

"Dr. Hu is finally free to return to his life and be reunited with his family," said John C. Yang, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, said in a statement. But the "scars of the prosecution and investigation on Dr. Hu and his family are deep and long-lasting."

Dr. Hu’s case was the first to go to trial under the controversial U.S. Department of Justice's controversial China Initiative. The decision came after the U.S. government’s announcement to retry the case in July despite serious concerns voiced by elected officials, civil rights groups, and the Asian American community over the FBI’s conduct during the course of its investigation of Dr. Hu. 

U.S. District Judge Thomas A. Varlan  wrote in his rulings: "[E]ven viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, no rational jury could conclude that defendant acted with a scheme to defraud NASA" in failing to disclose his affiliation with the Beijing University of Technology to UTK.

The judge added "there was no evidence presented that defendant ever collaborated with a Chinese university in conducting his NASA-funded research, or used facilities, equipment, or funds from a Chinese university in the course of such research."

The case against Hu was the first attempt at prosecuting a suspect under the Trump administration's China Initiative, that has come under fire from civil rights and AAPI community organizations.

"Although we celebrate this moment, we cannot forget the life-long consequences this injustice has had on Dr. Hu and his family," said John C. Yang, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC. 

"Dr. Hu has lost years of his life, his job, his immigration status, his ability to obtain future federal grants, and possibly his career," he added.

Yang continued: "What happened to Dr. Hu and his family is not an isolated event and is part of systemic racial bias, discrimination, and profiling by our federal government against scientists and researchers of Asian descent across the country. ... We must put a stop to the racial profiling and the criminalization of our communities today, starting with ending the China Initiative.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: For more commentary and references, follow me on Twitter @dioknoed.

Affirmative action at risk; Supreme Court wants to hear from the Biden administration on the Harvard admissions complaint

Asian Americans demonstrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court Building.

ANALYSIS

The U.S. Supreme Court's action asking for the opinion of the Biden administration on the Harvard admissions case may indicate that the justices are unsure if the case merits a ruling from the nation's high court.

Critics of Harvard's admission process, which they claim discriminates against Asian American applicants, appealed the case to the Supreme Court hoping the justices' conservative majority would reverse the decisions of two lower courts and rule in their favor.

Although Trump's Department of Justice already filed a friend of the court brief in favor of the plaintiffs, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), most legal experts expect that the Biden DOJ would reverse that brief.

The justices reviewed the case Thursday to decide whether or not to accept to hear the appeal. Instead, they requested a “call for the views of the Solicitor General” — known as a CVSG, not an unusual action.

However, Biden has not yet named a Solicitor General. That role is being filled by Acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.  In this case, the CVSG may delay a decision on the petition until the fall, though the case could still be heard during the Court’s 2021-2022 term that begins in October with a ruling delivered in 2022.

The Supreme Court set no deadline for the filing in the admissions case that is filed by SFFA on behalf of Asian American students, although none of the student plaintiffs offered in-person testimony in the lower courts. 

SFFA claims Harvard's consideration of race in evaluating a student's application works against Asian Americans who scored higher in standardized tests than some of the applicants who were accepted.

SFFA President Edward Blum, an anti-affirmative action crusader, wrote in an email that the Supreme Court’s invitation for the current administration's position was not unexpected.

“Students for Fair Admissions remains hopeful that, regardless of the views of the solicitor general, the justices will grant to hear our case and end race-based affirmative action in college admissions,” he wrote.

Harvard did not comment on the justices' decision.

John C. Yang, president of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, which filed a brief backing Harvard's admission practices, said that the evidence reviewed by the two lower courts is proof that the Supreme Court should deny SFFA’s petition. “We think the evidence is clear, as demonstrated by both the District Court and the 1st Circuit opinion that there was no discrimination against Asian Americans. And we don’t think that this is a case that is worthy of Supreme Court review,” said Yang.

Yang said the evidence also proved that using race as one among many factors in admissions has helped to increase diversity in higher education more broadly, and that it is a “permissible goal, according to a long line of Supreme Court precedents.”

“And we have seen the damage that has been done when race is not allowed to be considered. So from a statistical perspective, it is clear,” added Yang. Statistics confirm that Harvard dropped the consideration of race in its application process, African American and Hispanic enrollment would decline from 14 percent to 6 percent and 14 percent to 9 percent, respectively.

Initially, the SFFA complaint, which was first filed 2014, was portrayed by mainstream media emphasized the irony of a minority protesting a program meant to help them, giving the impression that the majority of Asian Americans were against affirmative action. That more sensational image was far from the truth.  Recent surveys by  API Data indicates that 70% of AAPI support affirmative action.

“But just as important to us is the humanity of this," said Yang. "We cannot see how a student can tell their story without including race in many of their applications.”

EDITOR'S NOTE: A word of caution -- this aanalysis is news laced with opinion, readers are encouraged to seek multiple sources to form their own opinion.

ADL REPORT; When Trump caught COVID-19, attacks against AAPI increase

In the 12 hours after the president’s initial tweet about his and the first lady’s COVID-19 diagnosis, there was an 85 percent increase in anti-Asian language and conspiracy theories tracked on the social media platform. according to a new study.

The Anti-Defamation League study of Twitter conversations and activity, conducted by ADL’s Center for Technology and Society, found From October 2-5, the percentage of anti-Asian language on Twitter remained higher than usual. Besides the spike of anti-Asian tweets, similarly, the rate of discussions about various conspiracy theories increased 41 percent, with some of those conversations also taking on antisemitic overtones.

The ADL unveiled the new findings Oct. 9 in a virtual press conference hosted by Rep. Judy Chu (CA-27), Chairwoman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. Also joining were Reps. Grace Meng (NY-06) and Brad Schneider (IL-10), and John Yang, President and Executive Director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC).

“As this report shows, when confronted with news that reflects poorly on the president, like his COVID-19 diagnosis, his supporters respond with attacks that Asians or Jews are to blame – rhetoric that we know leads to violence," said Chu.

"That is why, since the very beginning of this crisis, we have urged leaders to avoid misinformation and xenophobia," said Chu. "But at every turn, Republicans not only doubled down on the use of slurs like ‘China virus’ and ‘Kung flu,’ they also denied the impact their own words were having on innocent Asian Americans who have been terrified by the anti-Asian hate we have witnessed throughout this pandemic." 

“The level of hatred and vitriol that was aimed at Asian Americans and Chinese people on social media is simply staggering,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, ADL CEO. “The hate speech and stereotyping are irresponsible and can spillover into real world violence. With the alarming increase in physical attacks and hate crimes against Asian Americans in recent months, it is clear that all leaders, including our president, need to stop blaming others for spreading the virus.”

ADL (the Anti-Defamation League) today issued a new study showing a dramatic spike in anti-Asian sentiment and conspiracy theories about the spread of coronavirus in conversations on Twitter in the days immediately following the president’s first tweet about his positive diagnosis on October 2.

ADL unveiled the new findings this morning in a virtual press conference hosted by Congresswoman Judy Chu (CA-27), Chairwoman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. Also joining were Reps. Grace Meng (NY-06) and Brad Schneider (IL-10), and John Yang, President and Executive Director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC).

The data was gathered with the ADL Online Hate Index (OHI), a new tool that uses state of the art technologies such as machine learning to investigate the prevalence of hate speech on social media platforms. This language was also analyzed with help from tools developed by The Alan Turing Institute.

ADL also found that one of the most common beliefs expressed by conspiracy theories was that a “New World Order” or “NWO” would be implemented – supposedly run by secretive actors who either gave President Trump the virus or plan to assassinate him under cover of his illness. Other common online conspiracy theories suggest the virus is a bioweapon created by the Chinese government, that Bill Gates caused the virus, and that the virus was “engineered” by humans.

These Twitter discussions also mention elements of the QAnon conspiracy theories, calling on “patriqts” deliberately misspelled to signal fellow believers in Q, to rescue the president. Some tweets made antisemitic claims such as President Trump is a “crypto Jew” or a “Zionist agent,” or that he is a pawn caught up in the machinations of Jewish interests.

“Misinformation and xenophobia are dangerous. That is why the CDC and WHO have both warned not to associate COVID-19 with a specific people or country because of the stigma it causes. And now, thanks to the ADL’s report, we are able to see that harmful impact in real time,” said Chu. “As the ADL’s report shows, the alarming anti-Asian hate incidents we have witnessed in recent months are not an accident. They are the result of an atmosphere of xenophobia and bigotry that is thriving on Twitter and other online platforms.”

The findings are based on an analysis of more than 2.7 million tweets between 8 p.m. UTC on Oct. 2 through 9 p.m. UTC on Oct. 5. Some of the tweets analyzed harkened back to remarks made by the president on September 29 in the first presidential debate, when he suggested that the pandemic was “China’s fault,” and referred to the virus as the “China plague,” the latest in a pattern of inflammatory remarks over many months.

Global anxiety about the outbreak of the coronavirus has spawned misinformation and scapegoating. Since the spread of the virus in the U.S., there has been a surge of incidents of bias, harassment, and violence against Asian Americans, immigrants, and Orthodox Jewish communities.

Building on ADL’s century of experience working toward a world without hate, the Center for Technology and Society (CTS) serves as a resource to tech platforms and develops proactive solutions to fight hate both online and offline. CTS works at the intersection of technology and civil rights through education, research and advocacy.

“This new ADL report showing a rise in anti-Asian bigotry on Twitter is sad and extremely disturbing. But unfortunately, it comes as no surprise," said Meng. "It is just a continuation of the ugliness we have seen; ugliness that has been fueled by the discriminatory and disparaging rhetoric that continues to come from President Trump and others." 

US wants to double naturalization fees, do away with waivers

The cost of becoming a US citizen is going up almost double the current fee.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently released a notice that it will raise the naturalization application fee to $1,170. This is an increase of 83% over the current fee of $640. The cost of applying for naturalization is already a barrier for many aspiring U.S. citizens.

USCIS also announced it will abolish available fee waivers for naturalization. With this change, USCIS has made clear its intent to reserve US citizenship for only the wealthiest immigrants.

“At a time where 40% of Americans cannot cover a $400 emergency expense, it’s not a stretch to see how this announced fee increase adds a greater financial burden to applicants and puts citizenship even further out of reach," John C. Yang, president and executive director of Advancing Justice | AAJC. 

"The Asian Americans Advancing Justice affiliation will oppose the fee increase and the elimination of naturalization-related fee waivers. We will work alongside partner immigrants’ rights advocates to ensure citizenship remains accessible and affordable to all.”

In response to the USCIS announcement, Asian Americans Advancing Justice affiliate organizations are urging eligible Americans to naturalize before these new measures take effect.

"This proposal is a blatant attempt to prevent low-income immigrants from becoming U.S. citizens. High filing fees are an insurmountable obstacle for many of the individuals Advancing Justice serves," said Stephanie Cho of Advancing Justice - Atlanta. 

"Naturalization is a crucial pathway to empowerment for marginalized communities of color in the South and an important protection for Asian Americans and other immigrant families. We strongly encourage community members who might be eligible to naturalize to attend one of our free citizenship clinics before the end of the year." 

Before these announced changes take effect, Advancing Justice – Los Angeles, Advancing Justice | AAJC, and Advancing Justice – Atlanta urge lawful permanent residents who have been considering applying for naturalization begin the process immediately while the current rules, including the fee waiver and reduced fee, are still in place. 

The administration proposal would give priority to those would-be citizens who can prove that they would not be using any government assistance and are able to financially support themselves. Preference will be given to those who work in professions that would benefit the US. 

At the same time, the administration would de-emphasize family reunification, which had been the main pool of new citizens.

Christine Chen, project director for Advancing Justice-LA, responded: “As an organization that assists thousands of naturalization applicants, of whom over 60% are low income, we recognize that this proposal will deeply hurt low-income immigrants and vulnerable communities of color. 

"The message from this administration about who they deem 'worthy' of citizenship is loud and clear--that only those with means can apply. This change does not reflect our principles and values embedded in our history and our Constitution. This administration has repeatedly attacked immigrants and is committed to making it harder for low-income immigrants to access the nation’s lawful immigration system and become citizens. 

Advancing Justice-LA and other immigration advocates encourage community members who may be eligible to apply for naturalization to contact our office to receive free legal assistance as soon as possible. 

In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court Wednesday by a coalition of communities and immigrant aid organizations seeks to delay the implementation of the proposed rule. The complaint argues that Ken Cuccinelli’s appointment as acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services violated federal law. 

If the court agrees, Cuccinelli’s actions since taking over the agency in June would be invalid, including a new rule on application fee waivers for naturalization and other benefits. The plaintiffs have also asked for an injunction to prevent the implementation of the new waiver guidelines. 

The City of Seattle and several immigrant services agencies, including Catholic Legal Immigration Network, and Immigrant Legal Resource Center, are named as plaintiffs in the complaint challenging the new rule and Cuccinelli’s appointment, which they say violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA).

“The American promise must be open to all,” Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan said in a press release. “Wealth is not and should never be a requirement of being an American citizen. Seattle will fight for the promise of America and against a pay-to-play approach to citizenship.”

AAAJ affiliates in Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C. and our many partners involved in the New Americans Campaign, regularly hold citizenship workshops to provide low-cost, and in many cases free, legal assistance to guide eligible Americans through the naturalization application process. Information about upcoming workshops in the Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C. metropolitan areas is available through Advancing Justice–LA’s multilingual helpline:

Chinese (Mandarin/Cantonese): 800-520-2356
Korean: 800-867-3640
Tagalog: 855-300-2552
Thai: 800-914-9583
English/Other: 888-349-9695 

Download our fee waiver factsheet for more resources.

Immigration advocates use courts to stymie Trump's immigration restrictions

The Donald Trump administration continues to create barriers to make it difficult for people to immigrate to the US to become citizens. And immigration advocates find themselves scrambling to counter to Trump's xenophobic and racist policies.

A coalition of immigration advocacy groups and legal organizations on Wednesday (Oct. 30) mounted the first legal challenge against a sweeping proclamation Trump issued earlier this month, reports CBS News. The new rule would allow the immigration authorities to reject visa applications from immigrants it determines will not be able to afford health insurance or pay for medical costs.

If visa applicants are unable to show some proof of their ability to pay for insurance or medical costs, overseas consular offices can deny their applications. According to an estimate from the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, the new requirements could deny entry to approximately 375,000 would-be immigrants each year.

“It is terrifying for US citizens to think that they may never be able to reunite in person with their loved ones because of this proclamation," said AILA Federal Litigation Director Jesse Bless. "The proclamation represents the latest attempt to separate families and undermine due process solely on the basis of cultural and national origin-based bias. It’s as unAmerican as the public charge rule,” he said in a statement.

The US District Court in Oregon was asked to block the Trump administration from implementing the new policy, which is slated to take effect Sunday. 

Another barrier faces the possibility of a lawsuit. On Friday (Oct. 25), the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced changes to the naturalization process that could prevent citizenship for tens of thousands of non-wealthy applicants each year.

Under current policy, there is a $725 application fee. US Citizenship and Immigration Services currently waives the fee for those who cannot afford to pay it, which is approximately 40% of applicants. Under rules in place since 2010, lawful permanent residents (also called green card holders) who receive benefits from another government agency are automatically entitled to a fee waiver, making the process easy for USCIS to administer and for applicants and service providers to complete.

The new rules will make it much harder to qualify for a fee waiver, and will severely curtail naturalization applications, particularly from low-income applicants. Recent research from Stanford University’s Immigration Policy Lab suggests that the new rules could reduce the number of naturalization applications filed each year by as much as 10 percent.

“This rule change is about changing the complexion of future immigrants from black and brown to white and furthers a class-based society that is discriminatory and unwelcoming," said John C. Yang, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice. 

"We cannot allow our government policies to reject the time-tested promise on the Statue of Liberty of a country that is accepting of the potential of the tired, poor, and huddled masses who yearn to breathe free in America,” said Yang. 

Advancing Justice-AAJC, Protect Democracy, the Seattle City Attorney’s Office, and Mayer Brown LLP are preparing to file suit in California on behalf of organizations and communities who will be harmed by these changes.

The lawsuit on the health care requirement and the pending lawsuit limiting the citizenship fee waiver are the latest barriers being challenged. Last summer, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) tried to implement the so-called "public charge" rule that would allow the denial of visas and green cards to people who use or might use certain public benefits like food stamps and government-subsidized housing. That rule is currently held up in court, while a companion State Department regulation has not been implemented because the agency has yet to clear a new form to be used by visa applicants.

Other anti-immigrant attempts include the Muslim ban, severely limiting refugees or those seeking asylum, the continuing deportation of Southeast Asians who had run afoul of the law, new limits on the family reunification guidelines, by slowing to a trickle those seeking asylum at the US southern border that includes separating children from their parents to dissuade those same asylum seekers and the obsessive push for a wall on the US-Mexico border.

Judge orders reunification of migrant families in 30 days.

SCREEN CAPTURE / CBS

Over 2000 children remain separated from their parents.

A FEDERAL JUDGE ordered that all children affected by Donald Trump's "zero tolerance" immigration policy back with their parents in 30 days. 

"These families thought they might never see each other again. Tonight's court ruling will change lives," said Lee Gelernt of the ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project.

Kids younger than 5 must be reunited with parents within 14 days; older children must be reunited within 30 days, according to the Los Angeles Times. 

"Families belong together in communities, not in cages. Despite Trump's attempt to clean up his manufactured crisis, the executive order issued last week keeps children in jail and continues to treat families cruelly and inhumanely," said John Yang, executive director for Asian Americans Advancing Justice. 

In a ruling brought about by a "chaotic circumstance of the government's own making," US District Judge Dana Sabraw noted "the unfortunate reality" of cars, money, and other personal items being tracked better than the more than 2,000 children who've so far been taken from their parents, per Politico. "Certainly, that cannot satisfy the requirements of due process."

Under Sabraw's mandate, parents also can't be detained or deported without their kids, unless it's shown a parent is unfit or otherwise poses a danger, and prompt phone contact between parents and kids must be allowed, per NBC News. 

The court-ordered injunction was a response to a class-action lawsuit on behalf of two women separated from their children, including a Congolese woman who made headlines. 

Sabraw's ruling comes on the heels of an executive order from Donald Trump that was supposed to remedy the separations, but which stayed "silent on the issue of reuniting families that have already been separated or will be separated in the future," wrote Sabraw, a George W. Bush appointee.

 "Tears will be flowing in detention centers across the country when the families learn they will be reunited," said Gelernt.

In a scathing 24-page order, U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw granted the American Civil Liberties Union the preliminary injunction the group had been seeking since March.

Sabraw said that it was of note that the government is capable of keeping track of “personal property of detainees in criminal and immigration proceedings ... money, important documents, and automobiles, to name a few ... yet, the government has no system in place to keep track of, provide effective communication with, and promptly produce alien children.”

As of yet, despite Trump's executive order, there are doubts the federal government could comply with the judge's order. According to media reports, the government hasn't revealed any plans for reuniting the approximately 2000 children -- including infants and toddlers who have not learned to speak yet - with their parents who remain in detention.

The Department of Homeland Security said that it would revert to the procedure employed during the Obama administration when families stayed together in detention.

According to a ruling based on the Flores v. United States, the government cannot detain children longer than 20 days. During the Obama era, when the 20 days were reached, the parents were released along with the children with the promise that they would return to the courts when a decision had been reached on their status.

“Unfortunately, more than ever, it is important that we look to the past and remember the lessons of Japanese internment," said Rep. Mark Takano, D-CA. "It took 40 years for the American government to admit to its cruel and racist mistakes. I pray this Administration learns those lessons now and stops ripping families apart, swiftly reunites every family this has happened to, and ends it’s unnecessary “zero tolerance” policy of criminalizing refugees and asylum seekers.”

________________________________________________________________________________