The Secret History of Trump’s Family Separation Policy

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Next, we turn to one of the darkest and cruelest chapters in recent American history. The Trump administration’s forced family separation policy. In a failed attempt to prevent illegal immigration, thousands of children were deliberately separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border. There was no method to trace any of them. And four years later, hundreds of children have still not been reunited with their parents. Most of whom were deported. “The Atlantic’s”, Caitlin Dickerson discovered the true horror of what actually happened and why. She tells Hari Sreenivasan about her report which was titled, “We Need to Take Away Children”.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

HARI SREENIVASAN, CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Caitlin Dickerson, thanks much for joining us. First of all, it has been a little while. So, if you could, just refresh our audience on what the Zero Tolerance Policy was from the administration and what it did.

CAITLIN DICKERSON, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Sure. So, Zero Tolerance is really the culmination of this idea called prevention by deterrence. It’s an approach to immigration enforcement that comes out of 9/11 and escalates in the form of consequences that are applied first toward people crossing the border illegally to work. And then eventually toward asylum seekers. So, Zero Tolerance was the Trump administration’s official and publicly announced policy to separate families who cross the border so that the adults could be prosecuted. But separations actually began a year earlier under the Trump administration which helps to kind of support this idea that I document throughout my piece that, you know, the separations were in fact the goal. And it was only after a year of separations that were carried out in secret that the administration decided to try to acknowledge publicly, yes, we are doing this. And to pursue it even more aggressively than in the past.

SREENIVASAN: So, how long did it last? How many parents and children were impacted by this?

DICKERSON: One of the biggest problems that I discovered in reporting this story is that we still don’t have a really good firm number on separations that were carried out under the Trump administration because record-keeping was so poor. But we do know that at least 4,000 families were separated under the Trump administration. More than 2,000 of them during that Zero Tolerance Policy we just discussed. And then others that took place beforehand in pilot programs where this idea was tested out regionally first and in different parts of the border. And then it expanded later. But also, in these administrative separations that took place against families who presented themselves legally at ports of entry and requested asylum. So, it’s really this broad and sweeping phenomenon. You know, most of the separations took place under Zero Tolerance. But again, you know, we’re still really waiting for a full accounting, to some degree, to this day because the record-keeping the took place was so bad.

SREENIVASAN: So, let me ask maybe a basic question here. If the record- keeping was bad in the first place, are there still children in U.S. custody who are separated from their families because we don’t know how to put them back together?

DICKERSON: There’s a very large number of children who have still not been officially reunited with the parents that they were separated from, more than 700 of them to this day. So, what happened in those cases is that these children were in government custody. Government contractors identified somebody in the United States who could sponsor these children. That might have been an extended relative, it might have been a family friend, and it could have even been a long-term foster parent who took the child in. That means that these children were released from federal custody. They’re no longer in our government’s care. But they still haven’t been reunited with their parents. And there are over 150 separated children whose parents, to this day, the U.S. government has not even located. So, again, that just speaks to this poor record-keeping per planning. And how four years later, we’re still dealing with the consequences of this policy in practice.

SREENIVASAN: Your investigation was a year and a half long. It has thousands and thousands of documents that you’ve uncovered. Hundreds of interviews that you’ve done. I guess, one of the things that I want to know is, what was the most startling to you? Because it wasn’t, like, one person who’d do any or all of this. There has to be a systemic failure.

DICKERSON: That’s right. You know, I think that was one of the biggest takeaways from me is that, you know, when you heard these controversial policies that the Trump administration introduced. You know, family separation being, probably, the pinnacle of them. A lot of the blame immediately went to people like Stephen Miller, you know, well-known immigration hawk who had very aggressive views and was public about them for many years. But this policy of separating families never could have come to be without the buy-in of, you know, dozens of members of leadership in government and people holding a political positions. And so, it was very striking to me how many of them in interviews said to me that they didn’t think this was a good idea. They didn’t believe in it. But they didn’t say so. And they really, still to this day, I think many of them don’t fully understand, you know, the role that they played in helping to allow this to come to fruition. You know, they would walk out of meetings and say, you know, Stephen Miller, again, President Trump’s chief immigration adviser was talking about his outlandish ideas and just, sort of, rolling their eyes. And feeling like these ideas that were being discussed were bad. But those opportunities to speak up. Those were opportunities to speak from their expertise. And say, you know, I don’t think we should move forward with this. And many of them stayed quiet because of this idea that you know, they really felt that if they were to show any kind of reservation around, you know, an aggressive immigration policy, that it could really put their career in jeopardy. And so, as a result of that, a lot of people stayed quiet and allowed this to happen.

SREENIVASAN: One of the core arguments that the Trump administration made was that the separation of children from families was an unfortunate byproduct. What is your reporting reveal? Is that true?

DICKERSON: It’s not true. And I found evidence, you know, before, during, and after Zero Tolerance showing that the goal of that policy was to separate families as a deterrent. And starting with Tom Homan, who was the head of ICE under the Trump administration and who came up with the idea to separate families. I mean, he spoke to me on the record in the story and he was very, very straightforward. You know, sort of acknowledging that other people have been a little bit wriggly about what their actual goals were, you know. He says, I proposed it. He initially proposed it under the Obama administration, and later under President Trump, who actually agreed to do it. And he said, you know, no family wants to be separated. And so, he thought that that was necessary in order to try and to discourage migration to the United States despite lots of evidence that I write about showing that that theory actually doesn’t hold up. And then some of those records that you asked about also reflect again during the policy as it’s being carried out. And then after its culmination and after its conclusion continue to show that, you know, people within the immigration enforcement apparatus believed really strongly in this idea of separating families. Not just prosecuting families but actually taking children away from them.

SREENIVASAN: There’s a piece of audio I want to play. And this was about an inside customs and Border Patrol facility. And you can hear children in it. And this was obtained by ProPublica. Let’s take a listen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Daddy. Daddy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mommy.

SREENIVASAN: How are these children separated from their families?

DICKERSON: It was really important for me to get a firsthand perspective on what the separation themselves look like. I thought that was really important. And I’ve been hearing stories from parents and children for years that they were very chaotic. That they were sometimes even violent. That they were very tearful, emotional, and dramatic. And met parents and children really weren’t given any information at all about what was going on and why this was happening. You know, that was something that I brought over the years to government officials who said to me, no, these were down humanely. They were done calmly. I tried to figure that out first by requesting documents, you know, training records. Any sort of information that, you know, told Border Patrol agents how to carry out these separations humanely and could never get a hold of it. And then I finally — I was able to interview one of the only government officials who was actually present for the separations and has been willing to talk about them on the record. Her name is Neris Gonzalez (ph) and she worked for the Salvadoran Consulate but was based in an American Border Patrol facility. She says that the separations were harrowing. That there was screaming. There was crying. That — she watched, literally, as children were yanked on one arm by a Border Patrol agent and the other arm by their parents. You know, the parents were screaming and crying. Begging for information and were given none. She’s still very much haunted. She says, by just the sound of those facilities and what she saw to this day.

SREENIVASAN: So, you had a chance to reach out to several of the officials who were in charge of ultimately executing this wish of the president at the time. And what did they say now? Are they regretful? Are they remorseful? I mean, it’s hundreds of interviews. So, I’m sure it’s not one answer. But who spoke to you?

DICKERSON: There was a real mix of perspectives today on family separations. You know, talk about someone like Tom Homan, who I mentioned, who came up with this idea originally. I think he acknowledges that the planning was insufficient. And I would argue even nonexistent. And that the policy was carried out very chaotically. But I think to this day, it’s clear that he still believes in this idea. And he was one of many who talked in interviews about how he felt the family separation was effective or would have been effective if only it had been left in place longer. Really, kind of blaming the executive order President Trump signed ending the practice for why, you know, it didn’t, “Work”. I heard a lot of that. You know, these interviews were very emotional. And people were really, kind of, disturbed and distressed by the role that they played, even if they weren’t fully able to articulate or sort of grapple with, you know, their individual responsibility. You know, this — the strong public reaction to this policy, I think, makes people very nervous about the role that they played in it. But there wasn’t a whole lot of apology. And in fact, as I said, you know, many people who still feel that this was, you know, a good idea. That it would have worked. And, you know, even when presented with data and with evidence showing that that just isn’t true. Which is part of why, you know, we talked in the story about how there are a lot of people who would like to see this really implemented today or under a future Trump administration or any administration that will like it.

SREENIVASAN: And how possible is that? If President Trump or someone who even believes in this policy, takes office, can this happen again?

DICKERSON: It could. There’s no law preventing family separations and no policy preventing family separation. You know, Trump administration could re-implement them tomorrow. You know, if — you know, they were in office. You know, there is a federal court case that called for the reunification of separated families which is really the only reason why we’ve seen so many hundreds of those families brought together. But even that case didn’t really grapple with the sort of, baseline legality of this idea. Just, sort of, left that to the side because there is no, you know, no law in place that says one way or the other whether this is OK. And it’s striking because there was a time when there was consensus in Congress, even among congressional Republicans. Kind of, at the height of distress over family separations were outlying them, that seems to have disappeared. And the threat of them coming back is very real.

SREENIVASAN: You mentioned Stephen Miller and the president. Did you reach out to them for comment? Did they say anything?

DICKERSON: I did. I write in the story that I tried really hard to reach Stephen Miller throughout the reporting of this story. You know, he knew about it for over a year. And, you know, he — because he was somebody who believes so strongly in separating families. And I wanted to ask him why that was. You know, why he pushed so hard for this to take place. And he refused to engage on the record for the story. And so, I had to rely on, you know, perspectives of lots of his close friends and colleagues who helped me, kind of, understand. You know, he’s got this sort of, commitment to eliminating border crossings that seems to know no bounds. That seems to have no limitations. But I think what’s even more important to take away from this story is how he used it to convince people who didn’t agree with him to go along with him. You know, the pressure that he exerted despite the low level he had, actually, in the chain of command is really significant and worth remembering. Because again, that sort of thing could happen again. When these basic structures and basic systems that exist in government to prevent bad policies from being implemented are attacked and are minimized and are undermined in the way that he did it, you know, this is what can result from that.

SREENIVASAN: You spoke to two DHS secretaries, John Kelly and Kirstjen Nielsen. What did they have to say about some of that pressure that was coming? About what their personal opinions were and what they tried to do.

DICKERSON: So, you know, John Kelly and Kirstjen Nielsen talked about the overwhelming pressure from above them, again, which we’ve discussed and was expected. But also, from below. Also, from the bureaucracy. People who really got on board with this idea to separate families. I think out of the years of frustration over, you know, just feeling like the border crossings were increasing and, you know, there was no Congress really had left the Border Patrol to figure it out on its own. And so, both secretaries, Nielsen and Kelly, came up with different strategies to try to discourage the Trump administration from moving forward. But they did it in a way that was, sort of, measured. So, you know, they would talk about the logistical problems with the policy. They would talk about the lack of resources that it would, likely, result in chaos and perhaps even losing track of parents and kids. But, you know, I think that one of the problems there, they were right in saying that, you know, they felt that, you know, a moral argument wasn’t going to be compelling to someone like Stephen Miller or President Trump. But the problem is that today, people like Miller can say, well, I didn’t know that Kelly opposed in separating families. I thought he was just concerned about resources. So, I got them more resources. So, these strategies that were employed, I think, to try to block family separations from happening but also to kind of protect their own careers, ultimately just were not successful.

SREENIVASAN: What is the status of congressional investigations or — I guess, any efforts to try to make this right? What is the Biden administration tried to do? Where does that sit now?

DICKERSON: So, soon after taking office, President Biden signed an executive order forming a task force to try to continue reunifying as many of the separated families as possible. And they’ve had success for reunifying several hundred of them. We’re leading up to the midterm elections and, you know, controversial topics like immigration are just really not — they don’t seem to be on the table right now before Congress. But it is a bit surprising again given there was a time when there really was bipartisan support for this idea of outlying the separation of families. It’s something that in general members of Congress when asked about it, will say they agree with. But they have not done anything to actually prevent this from happening in the future despite that there are many people who work in immigration enforcement who still believe strongly in this idea.

SREENIVASAN: Has anyone that was involved with implementing this policy faced any consequences?

DICKERSON: Not significant consequences, to be honest with you. You know, not legal consequences. Not financial consequences. And not really career consequences. You know, Matt Albence, he was a deputy at ICE who worked right under Tom Homan. And — who sent emails trying to block families from being reunited when he discovered that it was taking place in Border Patrol facilities. He’s just starting a new job at one of the biggest private prison contractors working with the Biden administration on immigration detention. He’s an executive there. Still working in immigration enforcement despite, you know, actively trying to prevent separated families from being brought back together. Most of these officials, you know, Kevin McAleenan, who was the head of Customs and Border Protection which sits above the Border Patrol, you know, runs a very successful company that continues to work in border issues today. These individuals continue to have influence over, you know, immigration in the United States. And continue to be very successful in their careers. There really has been a lack of accountability when I asked our current DHS Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas about this. He said that it really fell to DOJ to hold the officials who were responsible for Zero Tolerance and family separations accountable. But the DOJ, under President Biden, has been defending family separations in court, in cases brought by these separated families against these individuals and government.

SREENIVASAN: The piece is in “The Atlantic”. It’s 30,000 words long, but it is worth the read. You can find it at your new stand in the September issue or online. Caitlin Dickerson, the article is called, “We Need to Take Away Children”. Thanks so much for joining us.

DICKERSON: Thank you for having me.