The new executive order on “zero tolerance policy” against illegal immigrants passed by President Donald Trump on Wednesday was yet again slammed by Indian-American lawmakers and rights activists who termed the internment camps ‘cruel and inhumane’. Although the new executive order calls for indefinite detention of families who illegally enter the country even though it stopped the practice of separation of children from their parents.

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal termed the immigrant internment camps as “cruel and inhumane”, saying that the new order is absolutely unacceptable.

“Moreover, lengthy or unnecessary detention of children has been ruled unlawful. If the Trump administration wants to now detain families during a criminal court case, that is unprecedented and will likely be challenged in court. Family separation is wrong. So is throwing families in jail,” Jayapal said.

President Donald Trump reversed the immigration legislation passing a new executive order after receiving flak from Democrats, fellow Republicans and the international community, over children being separated from their families and placed in detention facilities.

The new executive order came after more than 2,300 children were separated from their parents and relatives which now, requires agencies and Pentagon to place families together in family units who have entered the country illegally.

Jayapal criticised the new order saying that Trump “could have ended the family separation with a simple phone call”.

Senator Kamala Harris from California said that the executive order fails to fix the crisis and questioned the ordeal of the 2,300 children who were separated under the earlier law.

“When will they see their parents again? They must be reunited immediately,” Harris said.

Indian American Neera Tanden, who heads Centre for American Progress, a top US think-tank close to the Democratic party, also criticised the order and said, “This is and has always been a policy choice of this administration. Rather than end it, Trump is taking advantage of the outrage over the inhumanity of his family separation policy to ramp up the mass incarceration of children and parents.”

Resonating views with Tanden and Jayapal, Congressman Ro Khanna expressed his content that children would no longer be separated from their parents, however, he believes that the new order “does not come close to fixing the problem”.

“But it simply just replaces one problem with another by locking up families in detainment together,” Khanna said.

For all the latest World News, download Indian Express App</s>WASHINGTON — In less than 800 words, President Trump's executive order on immigrant children seeks a balance between his "zero tolerance" policy for families crossing the border and ending the practice of separating children from their parents.

But a careful reading of the order shows that Trump hasn't eliminated the problem with a stroke of a pen, and that it still could face legal, budgetary and practical hurdles.

Executive orders are increasingly rhetorical as well as legal documents, and even in the title, Trump is making a point: Congress is ultimately responsible for fixing the problem, not him.

In an indication of how hastily drafted the order was, the original version on the White House web site misspelled the word "seperation." Regardless of the spelling, the title sends the message that Trump sees his order as a short-term solution, and expects Congress to pass an immigration bill.

The executive order doesn't have a number yet. That's assigned by the National Archives when it's published in the Federal Register, which is the official version. This one will likely be Executive Order 13841.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., it is hereby ordered as follows:

The format of executive orders are actually governed by — what else — another executive order. In 1962, President Kennedy signed Executive Order 11030, which requires that every executive order contain "a citation of the authority under which it is issued."

Here, Trump is claiming that he's not encroaching on congressional authority because Congress already gave the president broad immigration powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

The 'why' of the executive order

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of this Administration to rigorously enforce our immigration laws. Under our laws, the only legal way for an alien to enter this country is at a designated port of entry at an appropriate time. When an alien enters or attempts to enter the country anywhere else, that alien has committed at least the crime of improper entry and is subject to a fine or imprisonment under section 1325(a) of title 8, United States Code. This Administration will initiate proceedings to enforce this and other criminal provisions of the INA until and unless Congress directs otherwise. It is also the policy of this Administration to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources. It is unfortunate that Congress's failure to act and court orders have put the Administration in the position of separating alien families to effectively enforce the law.

The first section of an executive order usually doesn't do anything — it simply explains the policy, signaling to the public and the government why the president is taking a particular action.

Here, Trump is: (1) defending the "zero tolerance" policy that led to the separation of immigrant children from their families; (2) expressing a policy of maintaining family unity; and (3) continuing to blame Congress for the border crisis.

Trump has also used this section in anticipation of lawsuits in order to signal to the courts why he's taking action. His second travel ban executive order, for example, contained a 19-paragraph policy section after his first travel ban was struck down in the courts.

In accordance with Government Printing Office style, common nouns referring to the United States or its government — like "Administration" — are capitalized.

Definitions: Who it applies to

Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order, the following definitions apply:

(i) any person not a citizen or national of the United States who has not been admitted into, or is not authorized to enter or remain in, the United States, who entered this country with an alien child or alien children at or between designated ports of entry and who was detained; and

(b) "Alien child" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States who

(i) has not been admitted into, or is not authorized to enter or remain in, the United States;

(ii) is under the age of 18; and

(iii) has a legal parent-child relationship to an alien who entered the United States with the alien child at or between designated ports of entry and who was detained.

These definitions are pretty straightforward, but it's important to note that the order does not apply to so-called unaccompanied alien children, who cross the border without parents and are already held in separate facilities from adults.

And it makes clear that there must be a "legal parent-child relationship," so the order would not apply to smugglers who pose as parents.

What the executive order actually does

Sec. 3. Temporary Detention Policy for Families Entering this Country Illegally. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their members.

This provision is an instruction to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to hold families that cross the border. But it also includes an important caveat: "to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations."

Executive orders cannot trump laws passed by Congress, so if any law conflicts with this order, the law prevails. And the president also cannot spend money without approval from Congress, so this order doesn't spend any money the agency doesn't already have.

But that also means that the effect of this executive order relies largely on how quickly and efficiently the government can implement it.

(b) The Secretary shall not, however, detain an alien family together when there is a concern that detention of an alien child with the child's alien parent would pose a risk to the child's welfare.

In short: Border agents can still separate children from their parents in cases of suspected abuse or domestic violence.

(c) The Secretary of Defense shall take all legally available measures to provide to the Secretary, upon request, any existing facilities available for the housing and care of alien families, and shall construct such facilities if necessary and consistent with law. The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis seemed to be taken by surprise Wednesday when asked which military bases would be used to detain families crossing the border.

"I think you need to talk to another department about that. I handle the stuff beyond the border," he told reporters outside the Pentagon. "We support DHS and right now this is their lead and we'll respond if requested."

(d) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent consistent with law, make available to the Secretary, for the housing and care of alien families pending court proceedings for improper entry, any facilities that are appropriate for such purposes. The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.

Similar to the above paragraph, this provision would allow Homeland Security to look for other federal facilities to detain immigrant families.

(e) The Attorney General shall promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 ("Flores settlement"), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.

The Flores settlement is a 20-year-old consent decree in which the Clinton administration settled a long-standing lawsuit concerning the treatment of immigrant children. Among other things, that settlement puts a 20-day limit on the amount of time that children can be held in detention.

Trump's zero tolerance policy gets around this limit because the children — while separated from their parents — aren't legally detained. They're in foster care, as if they were abandoned by their parents.

Here's Trump's problem: If he detains children with their parents, the children may run into the 20-day limit before the parents' case is resolved. That means the administration must either violate the court order, re-separate the families, or release the parents as with the children after 20 days — a modified "catch and release" system that would violate the zero tolerance policy.

Another problem: The Flores settlement requires immigrant children to be held in state-licensed foster care facilities. Immigration detention facilities for adults don't qualify.

On Thursday, the Justice Department asked a federal judge in California to approve a change in the settlement to allow Trump's order to go into effect.

Sec. 4. Prioritization of Immigration Proceedings Involving Alien Families. The Attorney General shall, to the extent practicable, prioritize the adjudication of cases involving detained families.

In part because of that 20-day limit, the president is asking prosecutors to put family cases to the front of the line, seeking a quick decision on amnesty and deportation.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

All of these provisions are commonly found in most executive orders, and each has its own purpose and history.

The last one, in paragraph (c), is particularly relevant here. It makes clear that immigrant families cannot sue an agency for failing to follow the executive order.

What the order doesn't say

As important as what's in the executive order is what's not. For example: There's no provision for reunifying families already separated at the border.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which is caring for children of parents accused of crossing the border illegally, says those issues remain unresolved.

"It is still very early and we are awaiting further guidance on the matter," said Brian Marriott, an HHS spokesman.</s>WASHINGTON — In less than 800 words, President Trump's executive order on immigrant children seeks a balance between his "zero tolerance" policy for families crossing the border and ending the practice of separating children from their parents.

But a careful reading of the order shows that Trump hasn't eliminated the problem with a stroke of a pen, and that it still could face legal, budgetary and practical hurdles.

Executive orders are increasingly rhetorical as well as legal documents, and even in the title, Trump is making a point: Congress is ultimately responsible for fixing the problem, not him.

In an indication of how hastily drafted the order was, the original version on the White House web site misspelled the word "seperation." Regardless of the spelling, the title sends the message that Trump sees his order as a short-term solution, and expects Congress to pass an immigration bill.

The executive order doesn't have a number yet. That's assigned by the National Archives when it's published in the Federal Register, which is the official version. This one will likely be Executive Order 13841.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., it is hereby ordered as follows:

The format of executive orders are actually governed by — what else — another executive order. In 1962, President Kennedy signed Executive Order 11030, which requires that every executive order contain "a citation of the authority under which it is issued."

Here, Trump is claiming that he's not encroaching on congressional authority because Congress already gave the president broad immigration powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

The 'why' of the executive order

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of this Administration to rigorously enforce our immigration laws. Under our laws, the only legal way for an alien to enter this country is at a designated port of entry at an appropriate time. When an alien enters or attempts to enter the country anywhere else, that alien has committed at least the crime of improper entry and is subject to a fine or imprisonment under section 1325(a) of title 8, United States Code. This Administration will initiate proceedings to enforce this and other criminal provisions of the INA until and unless Congress directs otherwise. It is also the policy of this Administration to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources. It is unfortunate that Congress's failure to act and court orders have put the Administration in the position of separating alien families to effectively enforce the law.

The first section of an executive order usually doesn't do anything — it simply explains the policy, signaling to the public and the government why the president is taking a particular action.

Here, Trump is: (1) defending the "zero tolerance" policy that led to the separation of immigrant children from their families; (2) expressing a policy of maintaining family unity; and (3) continuing to blame Congress for the border crisis.

Trump has also used this section in anticipation of lawsuits in order to signal to the courts why he's taking action. His second travel ban executive order, for example, contained a 19-paragraph policy section after his first travel ban was struck down in the courts.

In accordance with Government Printing Office style, common nouns referring to the United States or its government — like "Administration" — are capitalized.

Definitions: Who it applies to

Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order, the following definitions apply:

(i) any person not a citizen or national of the United States who has not been admitted into, or is not authorized to enter or remain in, the United States, who entered this country with an alien child or alien children at or between designated ports of entry and who was detained; and

(b) "Alien child" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States who

(i) has not been admitted into, or is not authorized to enter or remain in, the United States;

(ii) is under the age of 18; and

(iii) has a legal parent-child relationship to an alien who entered the United States with the alien child at or between designated ports of entry and who was detained.

These definitions are pretty straightforward, but it's important to note that the order does not apply to so-called unaccompanied alien children, who cross the border without parents and are already held in separate facilities from adults.

And it makes clear that there must be a "legal parent-child relationship," so the order would not apply to smugglers who pose as parents.

What the executive order actually does

Sec. 3. Temporary Detention Policy for Families Entering this Country Illegally. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their members.

This provision is an instruction to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to hold families that cross the border. But it also includes an important caveat: "to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations."

Executive orders cannot trump laws passed by Congress, so if any law conflicts with this order, the law prevails. And the president also cannot spend money without approval from Congress, so this order doesn't spend any money the agency doesn't already have.

But that also means that the effect of this executive order relies largely on how quickly and efficiently the government can implement it.

(b) The Secretary shall not, however, detain an alien family together when there is a concern that detention of an alien child with the child's alien parent would pose a risk to the child's welfare.

In short: Border agents can still separate children from their parents in cases of suspected abuse or domestic violence.

(c) The Secretary of Defense shall take all legally available measures to provide to the Secretary, upon request, any existing facilities available for the housing and care of alien families, and shall construct such facilities if necessary and consistent with law. The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis seemed to be taken by surprise Wednesday when asked which military bases would be used to detain families crossing the border.

"I think you need to talk to another department about that. I handle the stuff beyond the border," he told reporters outside the Pentagon. "We support DHS and right now this is their lead and we'll respond if requested."

(d) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent consistent with law, make available to the Secretary, for the housing and care of alien families pending court proceedings for improper entry, any facilities that are appropriate for such purposes. The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.

Similar to the above paragraph, this provision would allow Homeland Security to look for other federal facilities to detain immigrant families.

(e) The Attorney General shall promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 ("Flores settlement"), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.

The Flores settlement is a 20-year-old consent decree in which the Clinton administration settled a long-standing lawsuit concerning the treatment of immigrant children. Among other things, that settlement puts a 20-day limit on the amount of time that children can be held in detention.

Trump's zero tolerance policy gets around this limit because the children — while separated from their parents — aren't legally detained. They're in foster care, as if they were abandoned by their parents.

Here's Trump's problem: If he detains children with their parents, the children may run into the 20-day limit before the parents' case is resolved. That means the administration must either violate the court order, re-separate the families, or release the parents as with the children after 20 days — a modified "catch and release" system that would violate the zero tolerance policy.

Another problem: The Flores settlement requires immigrant children to be held in state-licensed foster care facilities. Immigration detention facilities for adults don't qualify.

On Thursday, the Justice Department asked a federal judge in California to approve a change in the settlement to allow Trump's order to go into effect.

Sec. 4. Prioritization of Immigration Proceedings Involving Alien Families. The Attorney General shall, to the extent practicable, prioritize the adjudication of cases involving detained families.

In part because of that 20-day limit, the president is asking prosecutors to put family cases to the front of the line, seeking a quick decision on amnesty and deportation.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

All of these provisions are commonly found in most executive orders, and each has its own purpose and history.

The last one, in paragraph (c), is particularly relevant here. It makes clear that immigrant families cannot sue an agency for failing to follow the executive order.

What the order doesn't say

As important as what's in the executive order is what's not. For example: There's no provision for reunifying families already separated at the border.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which is caring for children of parents accused of crossing the border illegally, says those issues remain unresolved.

"It is still very early and we are awaiting further guidance on the matter," said Brian Marriott, an HHS spokesman.</s>President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday ending his administration's policy of separating migrant children from their parents who were detained as they attempted to enter the U.S. illegally.

The action came after a firestorm of protest from administration opponents and allies, reacting to pictures and sounds of young children traumatized by their separation from their parents at the hands of U.S. authorities.

"So we're going to have strong — very strong borders, but we're going to keep the families together. I didn't like the sight or the feeling of families being separated," said Trump.

He is, in effect, ordering family separation to be replaced with the detention of whole families together, even after earlier arguing that "you can't do it by executive order."

What does the executive order say?

The president says his administration is trying to balance rigorous enforcement of U.S. immigration laws and pursue its policy of maintaining family unity. He says his administration was put "in the position of separating alien families to effectively enforce the law" due to "Congress's failure to act" and "court orders."

What court orders is he talking about?

The administration has consistently said that it was forced to separate families due to a court case known as "the Flores Settlement." That settlement, reached in 1997, required the government to limit the time it kept unaccompanied minors in detention, and to keep them in the least restrictive setting possible. The settlement was later modified to say that children should not be held longer than 20 days.

The executive order directs the attorney general to promptly file a request with U.S. District Judge Dolly Gree in the Central District of California to modify the Flores Settlement and allow detained migrant families to be held together "throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings ... or other immigration proceedings."

What else did Trump order?

The president directed Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to maintain custody of detained families during criminal proceedings and as their asylum claims are adjudicated. Also, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and the heads of other agencies are ordered to find or construct facilities to house the detained families. Finally, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is directed to prioritize the adjudication of cases involving detained families.

What does the executive order mean for the plans of House Republicans to pass their own legislation to address the crisis?

After visiting Capitol Hill Tuesday night to rally a broad immigration bill, Trump said Wednesday he still hopes that Congress will act.

"We will be going through Congress. We're working on a much more comprehensive bill," Trump said before signing the order. But as The Washington Post reports, few people are predicting either House measure will pass.

So what happens to the children who have been separated from their parents?

It is not immediately clear whether, or when, detained children will be reunited with their parents.

A spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, Kenneth Wolfe, told The New York Times that detained children won't be joining their detained parents soon.

"There will not be a grandfathering of existing cases," said Wolfe, as quoted by the Times.

Reyna Torres Mendivil, Mexico's consul general in San Antonio, told NPR's Audie Cornish that the process would be hampered by the U.S. separation process, which keeps parents in ICE custody while moving children into facilities controlled by the Department of Health and Human Services.

"The U.S. authorities create different files for the children than for the parents, and it's very difficult to follow up on those cases," Torres said.

What's the reaction to the executive order?

Immigrant advocates say the president's executive order is no solution, and will only create more trauma for children, as they will be placed in facilities that are unfit for minors.

"First, there are more than 2,000 children already separated from their parents; the executive order does nothing to address that nightmare," said Michelle Brané, director of the Migrant Rights and Justice Program at the Women's Refugee Commission. "Second, this executive order effectively creates family prisons, which we already know are a threat to the well-being of children."

"The president doesn't get any Brownie points for moving from a policy of locking up kids and families separately to a policy of locking them up together," said Karen Tumlin, director of Legal Strategy at the National Immigration Law Center. "Let's be clear: Trump is making a crisis of his own creation worse."

Some on the right are equally dismayed.

"According to any fair reading of the order, it represents a massive capitulation by the administration," wrote National Review senior writer David French.

But Mark Krikorian, executive director of the D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies supported the president.

"Getting rid of the Flores Settlement is the quickest way to solve the problem," Krikorian told The Washington Post. "The government has been faced with the choice of either splitting the family by detaining the parent and releasing the kid, or just letting the parent go too."</s>Bowing to pressure from anxious allies, President Donald Trump abruptly reversed himself Wednesday and signed an executive order halting his administration's policy of separating children from their parents when they are detained illegally crossing the U.S. border.

It was a dramatic turnaround for Trump, who has been insisting, wrongly, that his administration had no choice but to separate families apprehended at the border because of federal law and a court decision.

The order does not end the "zero-tolerance" policy that criminally prosecutes all adults caught crossing the border illegally. But, at least for the next few weeks, it would keep families together while they are in custody, expedite their cases and ask the Defense Department to help house them. It also doesn't change anything yet for the some 2,300 children taken from their families since the policy was put into place.

The news in recent days has been dominated by searing images of children held in cages at border facilities, as well as audio recordings of young children crying for their parents — images that have sparked fury, questions of morality and concern from Republicans about a negative impact on their races in November's midterm elections.

Until Wednesday, the president, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and other officials had repeatedly argued the only way to end the practice was for Congress to pass new legislation, while Democrats said Trump could do it with his signature alone. That's just what he did.

"We're going to have strong, very strong borders, but we're going to keep the families together," said Trump, who added that he didn't like the "sight" or "feeling" of children separated from their parents.

Under a previous class-action settlement that set policies for the treatment and release of minors caught at the border, families can only be detained for 20 days. A senior Justice Department official said that hasn't changed.

"This is a stopgap measure," said Gene Hamilton, counsel to the attorney general. Justice lawyers were planning to file a challenge to the agreement, known as the Flores settlement, asking that a judge allow for the detention of families until criminal and removal proceedings are completed.

So Trump's order is likely to create a fresh set of problems and may well spark a new court fight. It's unclear what happens if no changes to law or the settlement take place by the time families reach the detainment deadline. The language also leaves room to separate children from parents if it's best for the child's welfare.

And it didn't do much for the teeming outrage over the issue. The Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center said the order didn't go nearly far enough.

U.S. President Donald Trump displays an executive order he signed that will end the practice of separating family members who are apprehended while illegally entering the United States on June 20, 2018 in Washington, DC.

"The administration still plans to criminalize families — including children — by holding them in prison-like detention facilities. There are workable alternatives," president Richard Cohen said in a statement.

It's also unclear what will happen to the children already separated. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said his department will start reuniting detained immigrant children with their parents — but he made no specific commitment on how quickly that can be accomplished. And officials said the cases of the children already separated and turned over to their custody would proceed as usual.

A White House official said first lady Melania Trump had been making her opinion known to the president for some time that she felt he needed to do all he could to help families stay together, whether by working with Congress or acting on his own.

And daughter Ivanka Trump tweeted, "Thank you @POTUS for taking critical action ending family separation at our border."

Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill Wednesday, and those on the fence over pending immigration legislation headed to the White House to meet with Trump. Assessments for possible detention facilities at military bases have already been done in Texas and another is expected in Arkansas on Thursday.

Two people close to Nielsen said she was the driving force behind the turnabout that led to the new order keeping families together. Those people were not authorized to speak publicly and commented only on condition of anonymity.

One of them said Nielsen, who had become the face of the administration's policy, had little faith that Congress would act to fix the separation issue and felt compelled to act. She was heckled at a restaurant Tuesday evening and has faced protesters at her home.

Trump had tweeted early Wednesday, before issuing his order: "It's the Democrats fault, they won't give us the votes needed to pass good immigration legislation. They want open borders, which breeds horrible crime. Republicans want security. But I am working on something - it never ends!"

U.S. President Donald Trump, with Dept. of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen & Vice President Mike Pence, displays an executive order he signed that will end the practice of separating family members.

The "zero tolerance" policy put into place last month moves adults to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service and sends many children to facilities run by the Department of Health and Human Services.

The policy had led to a spike in family separations in recent weeks, with more than 2,300 minors separated from their families at the border from May 5 through June 9, according to Homeland Security.

The Flores settlement, named for a teenage girl who brought the case in the 1980s, requires the government to release children from custody and to their parents, adult relatives or other caretakers, in order of preference. If those options are exhausted, authorities must find the "least restrictive" setting for a child who arrived without parents.

Peter Schey, class-appointed counsel in the Flores case, said Wednesday there was nothing in the agreement that prevents Homeland Security officials from detaining children with their parents, "as long as the conditions of detention are humane and the child remains eligible for release, unless the child is a flight risk, or a danger to herself or others, or the child's parent does not wish the child to be released."

He said he was looking into whether the court could block deportation of parents until they have been reunited with their children, and whether it could force the Trump administration to reunite those separated.

In 2015, a federal judge in Los Angeles expanded the terms of the settlement, ruling that it applies to children who are caught with their parents as well as to those who come to the U.S. alone. Other recent rulings, upheld on appeal, affirm the children's rights to a bond hearing and require better conditions at the Border Patrol's short-term holding facilities.

In 2016, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that child migrants who came to the border with parents and were held in custody must be released. The decision did not state parents must be released. Neither, though, did it require parents to be kept in detention, apart from their children.

Associated Press writers Zeke Miller, Eric Tucker, Ken Thomas and Alan Fram in Washington and Amy Taxin in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.</s>Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Donald Trump: "You're going to have a lot of very happy people"

US President Donald Trump has bowed to public pressure and signed an executive order promising to "keep families together" in migrant detentions.

Mr Trump reversed his own policy amid international fury over the separation of undocumented parents and children.

He said he had been swayed by images of children who have been taken from parents while they are jailed and prosecuted for illegal border-crossing.

But the order does not address families already separated by the policy.

US immigration officials say 2,342 children were separated from 2,206 parents between 5 May and 9 June.

"It's about keeping families together," Mr Trump said at the signing ceremony on Wednesday.

"I did not like the sight of families being separated," he said, but added the administration would continue its "zero tolerance policy" of criminally prosecuting anyone who crosses the border illegally.

More on child migrants crisis

The executive order calls for:

Immigrant families to be detained together while their legal cases are considered

Expediting immigration cases involving families

Requesting the modification of a court ruling that dictates how long immigrant children can be detained

The president said his wife, Melania, and daughter, Ivanka, who reportedly have been applying pressure on him to drop the policy, "feel strongly" about ending the practice of separating migrant families.

"I think anybody with a heart would feel very strongly about it," he said. "We don't like to see families separated."

Vice-President Mike Pence and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, who has emerged as the face of the White House policy, were both present for the signing of the order on Wednesday.

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption US youth shelter worker quit after being ordered to separate siblings

Before his U-turn on Wednesday the president had previously said "you can't do it through an executive order", insisting that only Congress could fix the policy by passing immigration reform.

Republican congressional leader Paul Ryan said the House of Representatives will vote on Thursday "on legislation to keep families together".

He did not immediately provide details of the bill, but said it resolves the issue of so-called Dreamers, undocumented adult migrants who entered the US as children, "in a very elegant way".

Trump backs down

Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington

For days administration officials have insisted they were simply following the law as written and their "zero tolerance" policy for illegal border crossings meant they "have to take the children away", in the president's words.

Critics have countered that Mr Trump unilaterally created the situation that produced the heart-rending accounts of children separated from their parents, and he could unilaterally fix it.

By taking executive action, the president is effectively acknowledging they were correct.

Now the fight will probably move to the courts, with legal challenges to the administration's decision to hold detained families together while their immigration status is adjudicated.

That is more politically hospitable ground for Republicans, who already face challenging mid-term congressional elections.

Read more of Anthony Zurcher's analysis

Why the uproar?

In April, the US attorney general announced a "zero-tolerance" policy to criminally charge and jail undocumented border crossers.

As children cannot legally be jailed with their parents, they are kept in separate facilities.

US immigration officials say more than 2,300 children have been taken from some 2,200 parents since 5 May.

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The sound of migrant children separated from parents

Pictures of dozens of children sleeping in fenced enclosures and audio of them crying emerged in recent days, provoking widespread criticism.

Under previous US administrations, immigrants caught crossing the border for the first time tended to be issued with court summonses and released.

Six American airlines have told the Trump administration not to use their aircraft to transport child migrants who have been separated from their parents.

Alaska, American, Delta, Frontier, Southwest and United airlines all said the policy contravened their values.

Where are the children taken?

Holding cells: They are first detained at Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facilities, where chain-link fenced enclosures are used, though the children can only be legally held there for three days.

Detention centres: They are then supposed to be moved to one of around 100 detention centres run through the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), part of the Department of Health and Human Services. US officials recently showed reporters around a converted Walmart Supercenter in Texas which was housing migrant boys aged 10-17. They apparently had access to beds, classes and games.

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Migrant boys detained in a former Walmart in Texas

"Tender age shelters": AP news agency reports that babies and toddlers are being taken to three "tender age shelters" in southern Texas. A CBP official said it is up to the discretion of border agents whether to detain "tender-aged" children, who are typically less than five years old.

Tent camps: US officials have set up a tent camp for migrant children in Tornillo, Texas.

Family members: Under US law, the children are meant to be released to stay with relatives or foster carers "without delay". In practice, the ORR says this process takes about two months.

How are they reunited? Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has set up a hotline for parents to call after they are released from custody. However, a former ICE director has said some family separations are "permanent".

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The US teens training in border patrol

What happens now?

Mr Trump's order says that families could remain together in detention instead of separating children from parents illegally crossing into the country.

But immigrant children are only allowed to be held for 20 days, according to a 21-year-old landmark court decision known as the Flores agreement.

The order also calls for the justice department to request to modify the Flores agreement to allow children to be held longer, but it is unclear what will happen if the law does not change.

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The missing - consequences of Trump's immigration crackdown

The Trump administration is likely to become tangled in legal battles with immigration activists on behalf of detained migrants if it is unable to overturn the Flores agreement before the 20-day deadline.

"This is a stopgap measure," said Gene Hamilton, counsel to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The order also did not provide any date or timeline on when it would be implemented and does not address how the more than 2,000 children already stripped from their families would be reunited.

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar has said his department will begin working to return detained immigrant children to their families, but did not give a timeline.

A top HHS official told Agence France-Presse on Tuesday they have no system in place to do so.</s>WASHINGTON — In less than 800 words, President Trump's executive order on immigrant children seeks a balance between his "zero tolerance" policy for families crossing the border and ending the practice of separating children from their parents.

But a careful reading of the order shows that Trump hasn't eliminated the problem with a stroke of a pen, and that it still could face legal, budgetary and practical hurdles.

Executive orders are increasingly rhetorical as well as legal documents, and even in the title, Trump is making a point: Congress is ultimately responsible for fixing the problem, not him.

In an indication of how hastily drafted the order was, the original version on the White House web site misspelled the word "seperation." Regardless of the spelling, the title sends the message that Trump sees his order as a short-term solution, and expects Congress to pass an immigration bill.

The executive order doesn't have a number yet. That's assigned by the National Archives when it's published in the Federal Register, which is the official version. This one will likely be Executive Order 13841.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., it is hereby ordered as follows:

The format of executive orders are actually governed by — what else — another executive order. In 1962, President Kennedy signed Executive Order 11030, which requires that every executive order contain "a citation of the authority under which it is issued."

Here, Trump is claiming that he's not encroaching on congressional authority because Congress already gave the president broad immigration powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

The 'why' of the executive order

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of this Administration to rigorously enforce our immigration laws. Under our laws, the only legal way for an alien to enter this country is at a designated port of entry at an appropriate time. When an alien enters or attempts to enter the country anywhere else, that alien has committed at least the crime of improper entry and is subject to a fine or imprisonment under section 1325(a) of title 8, United States Code. This Administration will initiate proceedings to enforce this and other criminal provisions of the INA until and unless Congress directs otherwise. It is also the policy of this Administration to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources. It is unfortunate that Congress's failure to act and court orders have put the Administration in the position of separating alien families to effectively enforce the law.

The first section of an executive order usually doesn't do anything — it simply explains the policy, signaling to the public and the government why the president is taking a particular action.

Here, Trump is: (1) defending the "zero tolerance" policy that led to the separation of immigrant children from their families; (2) expressing a policy of maintaining family unity; and (3) continuing to blame Congress for the border crisis.

Trump has also used this section in anticipation of lawsuits in order to signal to the courts why he's taking action. His second travel ban executive order, for example, contained a 19-paragraph policy section after his first travel ban was struck down in the courts.

In accordance with Government Printing Office style, common nouns referring to the United States or its government — like "Administration" — are capitalized.

Definitions: Who it applies to

Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order, the following definitions apply:

(i) any person not a citizen or national of the United States who has not been admitted into, or is not authorized to enter or remain in, the United States, who entered this country with an alien child or alien children at or between designated ports of entry and who was detained; and

(b) "Alien child" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States who

(i) has not been admitted into, or is not authorized to enter or remain in, the United States;

(ii) is under the age of 18; and

(iii) has a legal parent-child relationship to an alien who entered the United States with the alien child at or between designated ports of entry and who was detained.

These definitions are pretty straightforward, but it's important to note that the order does not apply to so-called unaccompanied alien children, who cross the border without parents and are already held in separate facilities from adults.

And it makes clear that there must be a "legal parent-child relationship," so the order would not apply to smugglers who pose as parents.

What the executive order actually does

Sec. 3. Temporary Detention Policy for Families Entering this Country Illegally. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their members.

This provision is an instruction to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to hold families that cross the border. But it also includes an important caveat: "to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations."

Executive orders cannot trump laws passed by Congress, so if any law conflicts with this order, the law prevails. And the president also cannot spend money without approval from Congress, so this order doesn't spend any money the agency doesn't already have.

But that also means that the effect of this executive order relies largely on how quickly and efficiently the government can implement it.

(b) The Secretary shall not, however, detain an alien family together when there is a concern that detention of an alien child with the child's alien parent would pose a risk to the child's welfare.

In short: Border agents can still separate children from their parents in cases of suspected abuse or domestic violence.

(c) The Secretary of Defense shall take all legally available measures to provide to the Secretary, upon request, any existing facilities available for the housing and care of alien families, and shall construct such facilities if necessary and consistent with law. The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis seemed to be taken by surprise Wednesday when asked which military bases would be used to detain families crossing the border.

"I think you need to talk to another department about that. I handle the stuff beyond the border," he told reporters outside the Pentagon. "We support DHS and right now this is their lead and we'll respond if requested."

(d) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent consistent with law, make available to the Secretary, for the housing and care of alien families pending court proceedings for improper entry, any facilities that are appropriate for such purposes. The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.

Similar to the above paragraph, this provision would allow Homeland Security to look for other federal facilities to detain immigrant families.

(e) The Attorney General shall promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 ("Flores settlement"), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.

The Flores settlement is a 20-year-old consent decree in which the Clinton administration settled a long-standing lawsuit concerning the treatment of immigrant children. Among other things, that settlement puts a 20-day limit on the amount of time that children can be held in detention.

Trump's zero tolerance policy gets around this limit because the children — while separated from their parents — aren't legally detained. They're in foster care, as if they were abandoned by their parents.

Here's Trump's problem: If he detains children with their parents, the children may run into the 20-day limit before the parents' case is resolved. That means the administration must either violate the court order, re-separate the families, or release the parents as with the children after 20 days — a modified "catch and release" system that would violate the zero tolerance policy.

Another problem: The Flores settlement requires immigrant children to be held in state-licensed foster care facilities. Immigration detention facilities for adults don't qualify.

On Thursday, the Justice Department asked a federal judge in California to approve a change in the settlement to allow Trump's order to go into effect.

Sec. 4. Prioritization of Immigration Proceedings Involving Alien Families. The Attorney General shall, to the extent practicable, prioritize the adjudication of cases involving detained families.

In part because of that 20-day limit, the president is asking prosecutors to put family cases to the front of the line, seeking a quick decision on amnesty and deportation.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

All of these provisions are commonly found in most executive orders, and each has its own purpose and history.

The last one, in paragraph (c), is particularly relevant here. It makes clear that immigrant families cannot sue an agency for failing to follow the executive order.

What the order doesn't say

As important as what's in the executive order is what's not. For example: There's no provision for reunifying families already separated at the border.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which is caring for children of parents accused of crossing the border illegally, says those issues remain unresolved.

"It is still very early and we are awaiting further guidance on the matter," said Brian Marriott, an HHS spokesman.</s>related media assets (image or videos) available. Click to see the gallery.

2 related media assets (image or videos) available. Click to see the gallery.

U.S. President Donald Trump backed down on Wednesday on an immigration policy that sparked outrage at home and abroad, signing an executive order to end the separation of children from their parents when immigrant families are caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally.

WASHINGTON: U.S. President Donald Trump backed down on Wednesday on an immigration policy that sparked outrage at home and abroad, signing an executive order to end the separation of children from their parents when immigrant families are caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally.

The order requires that immigrant families be detained together when they are caught entering the country illegally, although it was not immediately clear for how long.

It also moves parents with children to the front of the line for immigration proceedings. The order does not end a "zero tolerance" policy that calls for criminal prosecution of immigrants crossing the border illegally.

“It's about keeping families together while at the same time making sure that we have a very powerful, very strong border,” Trump said as he signed the order in a hastily arranged Oval Office gathering.

Videos of youngsters in cages and an audiotape of wailing children had sparked anger in the United States from groups ranging from clergy to influential business leaders, as well as condemnation from abroad, including Pope Francis.

Trump, a frequent viewer of cable television newscasts, had recognised the family separation issue was a growing political problem, White House sources said. First lady Melania Trump, in private conversations with the president, urged him to do something, a White House official said.

"The first lady has been making her opinion known to the president for some time now, which was that he needed to do all he could to help families stay together," an official said.

Wednesday's move marked a rare instance since Trump took office in January 2017 in which he has changed course on a controversial policy, rather than digging in.

Trump has made a tough stance on immigration central to his presidency. In recent days, the Republican president had insisted his hands were tied by law on the issue of family separations and had sought to blame Democrats, although it was his administration that implemented the policy of strict adherence to immigration law.

The Republican-controlled U.S. Congress is also considering legislation to address the issue. The House of Representatives planned to vote on Thursday on two bills designed to halt the practice of separating families and to address other immigration issues.

But Republicans said they were uncertain if either measure would have enough support to be approved. Trump told House Republicans on Tuesday night he would support either of the immigration bills under consideration but did not give a preference.</s>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump backed down and abandoned on Wednesday his policy of separating immigrant children from their families on the U.S.-Mexico border, after images of youngsters in cages sparked outrage at home and abroad.

Trump signed an executive order requiring that immigrant families be detained together when they are caught entering the country illegally for as long as their criminal proceedings take. That may violate a court settlement on how long children may be held, setting up a potential legal fight, unless Congress acts on the issue.

The Trump order, an unusual reversal by him, also moves parents with children to the front of the line for immigration proceedings. The order does not end a 10-week-old “zero tolerance” policy that calls for criminal prosecution of immigrants crossing the border illegally.

“It’s about keeping families together while at the same time making sure that we have a very powerful, very strong border,” Trump said as he signed the order in a hastily arranged Oval Office gathering minutes before departing for a campaign event.

The videos of kids sitting in cages and an audiotape of wailing children had sparked anger in the United States from groups ranging from clergy to influential business leaders, as well as condemnation from abroad, including by Pope Francis.

Trump, an avid viewer of cable television news, recognised that the family separation issue was a growing political problem, White House sources said.

First Lady Melania Trump, in private conversations with the president, urged him to do something, a White House official said. In the Oval Office, Trump said he had heard from his daughter Ivanka about the policy, too.

“Ivanka feels very strongly. My wife feels very strongly about it. I feel very strongly about it. I think anybody with a heart would feel very strongly about it,” Trump said.

Wednesday’s move was the most significant policy reversal by Trump since he took office in January 2017. Instinctively combative and fond of chaos, Trump usually digs in on controversial policies, rather than backing down.

But the volume of condemnation on breaking up families, from inside and outside the White House, finally overwhelmed Trump.

The reversal also creates a series of new headaches for the administration, as it wrestles with where to house families that are detained together, possibly for long periods, and how to reunite families that already have been separated.

“This executive order would replace one crisis for another. Children don’t belong in jail at all, even with their parents, under any set of circumstances. If the president thinks placing families in jail indefinitely is what people have been asking for, he is grossly mistaken,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement.

Parents referred by border agents for prosecution are held in federal jails, while their children have remained in U.S. Customs and Border Protection custody or have been moved into detention facilities managed by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, a Department of Health and Human Services agency.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said on Tuesday that 2,342 children had been separated from their parents at the border between May 5 and June 9.

The order directs the U.S. Justice Department to seek a modification of a court order to permit families that enter the United States illegally to be detained together until their criminal proceedings are concluded, a text of the order shows.

It also directs the Department of Defense to take steps to house detained immigrant families as needed.

Trump has made a tough stance on immigration central to his presidency. In recent days, he had insisted his hands were tied by law on the issue of family separations and blamed Democrats for the problem, even though his administration implemented the policy of strict adherence to immigration law.

The Republican-controlled U.S. Congress is also considering legislation to address the issue. The House of Representatives planned to vote on Thursday on two bills designed to halt family separations and address a range of other immigration issues.

“We are working on a much more comprehensive bill,” Trump said.

Republicans said they were uncertain if either House measure would have enough votes to pass. Trump told House Republicans on Tuesday night he would support either of the bills.

Both House bills, which Democrats and immigration advocacy groups have blasted, would fund Trump’s proposed wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as reduce legal migration, in part by denying visas for some relatives of U.S. residents and citizens living abroad, sometimes called “chain migration.”

The more conservative bill from Republican Representative Bob Goodlatte also would deny the chance of future citizenship to “Dreamers,” who are immigrants brought illegally into the United States years ago as children.

House Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters that compromise legislation under discussion would provide funding to allow the Department of Homeland Security enough resources to house and care for families as they stayed together during the process.

“Under this bill, when people are being prosecuted for illegally crossing the border, families will remain together under DHS custody throughout the length of their legal proceedings,” he said.</s>President Donald Trump signed an executive order to end separation of immigrant families on the US-Mexico border, after images of children in cages sparked global outrage.

Trump signed the executive order following widespread protests against the move of his administration to separate children from their parents who illegally enter the country. In recent weeks, more than 2,500 such children were separated from their parents.

"We're keeping families together, and this will solve that problem. At the same time, we are keeping a very powerful border and it continues to be a zero-tolerance. We have zero tolerance for people that enter our country illegally," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office of the White House as he signed the executive order.

The executive order, signed by Trump, asks the Department of Homeland Security to keep families together while people await trial for illegal border crossing. But cases where there is a concern that parents "would pose a risk to the child's welfare" have been exempted from the executive order.

Trump said the executive order is about keeping families together while at the same time making sure that they have a very powerful and strong border. "And border security will be equal, if not greater than previously. We are going to have very strong borders, but we're going to keep the families together," he said.

Trump said he didn't like the sight or the feeling of families being separated. "It's a problem that's gone on for many years, as you know, through many administrations. We are working very hard on immigration. It's been left out in the cold. People haven't dealt with it, and we are dealing with it," he said.

Trump's opponents, however, were not satisfied with the executive order, asserting that this was not enough.

"The President's Executive Order seeks to replace one form of child abuse with another. Instead of protecting traumatised children, the President has directed his Attorney General to pave the way for the long-term incarceration of families in prison-like conditions," said Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.

"It is particularly galling that President Trump seeks to continue violating children's human rights to justify and gin up support for the anti-family language included in Speaker Ryan's anti-immigrant bill," she said.

Pelosi said using terrified small children as "leverage" to push the President's anti-immigrant agenda represents an "unspeakably appalling moral low-point for our nation”.

Top Democratic leader Congressman Joe Crowley said while this order stops the separation of children from their parents, it does not end the administration's despicable policy of unreasonably detaining asylum seekers and families fleeing violence.

"Instead of pushing legislation that endorses the Trump administration's policy of detaining families, House Republicans should join Democrats in calling for an end to the policy and in making sure we reunite the families that have been ripped apart," he said.

"The thousands of children who have spent days, weeks, and months without the love and support of their parents deserve nothing less," Crowley added.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio welcomed the executive order. "But Congress still needs to act because what they're doing, while very humane, violates something called the 'Flores Settlement', which means someone's going to take this to court and they're going to get it thrown out," he said.

On Wednesday, Rubio introduced a bill that basically allows people who unlawfully entered to the country to be held together with their children. "And we also add new judges so that we can expedite the hearing they're entitled to, and dispose of their case either by sending them back together as a family or admitting them into the country as a family. We have to act and I hope we can pass that law," he said.

Anastasia Tonello, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association said the detention of families – parents and children – who pose no flight risk or danger to the community is simply "unacceptable, abrogates international responsibilities to refugees, and goes against our country's most fundamental values".

"We need to embrace our legacy as a safe haven for the persecuted and stop subjecting bona-fide refugees to further trauma by locking them up while they pursue their lawful claims to relief," Tonello said.
U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order to "maintain family unity", amid global outrage over the separation of migrant children from their families, reversing the administration's policy. It affirms the U.S. policy of "detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources".