The Trump Administration's "Zero Tolerance" Immigration Enforcement Policy

The Trump Administration’s “Zero
Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy
Updated February 2, 2021
Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov
R45266
The Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy
Summary
For the last decade, Central American migrant families have arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border in
relatively large numbers, many seeking asylum. While some request asylum at U.S. ports of entry,
others do so after entering the United States “without inspection” (i.e., illegally) between U.S.
ports of entry. On May 7, 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) implemented a “zero tolerance”
policy toward illegal border crossing both to discourage illegal migration into the United States
and to reduce the burden of processing asylum claims that Trump Administration officials
contended are often fraudulent.
Under the zero tolerance policy, DOJ prosecuted all adult aliens apprehended crossing the border
illegally, with no exception for asylum seekers or those with minor children. DOJ ’s policy
represented a change in the enforcement of an existing statute rather than a change in statute or
regulation. Prior administrations had prosecuted illegal border crossings relatively infrequently.
Data are not available on the rate and/or absolute number of family separations resulting from
illegal border crossing prosecutions under prior administrations, limiting the degree to which
comparisons can be made with the Trump Administration’s zero tolerance policy
Criminally prosecuting adults for illegal border crossing requires detaining them in federal
criminal facilities where children are not permitted. While DOJ and the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) have broad statutory authority to detain adult aliens, children must be detained
according to guidelines established in the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA), the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. A 2015
judicial ruling held that children can remain in family immigration detention for no more than 20
days. If parents cannot be released with them, children must be treated as unaccompanied alien
children and transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS’s) Office of
Refugee Resettlement (ORR) for care and custody.
The widely publicized family separations were a consequence of the Trump Administration’s zero
tolerance policy, not the result of an explicit family separation policy. Following mostly critical
public reaction, President Trump issued an executive order on June 20, 2018, mandating that
DHS maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal trial or immigration
proceedings. DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP) subsequently stopped referring most
illegal border crossers to DOJ for criminal prosecution. A federal judge then mandated that all
separated children be promptly reunited with their families. Another rejected DOJ ’s request to
modify the FSA to extend the 20-day child detention guideline. DHS has since reverted to some
prior immigration enforcement policies, and family separations continue to occur based upon
DHS enforcement protocols in place prior to the 2018 zero tolerance policy. On January 26, 2021,
during the first month of the Biden Administration, the Department of Justice formally rescinded
the zero tolerance policy.
During the six weeks the policy was active, DHS separated 2,816 children—subsequently
included in a class action lawsuit—from their parents or guardians. Almost all have since been
reunited with their parents or placed in alternative custodial arrangements. In 2019, DOJ
disclosed the separations of an additional 1,556 children prior to the zero tolerance policy but also
during the Trump Administration who were included in the lawsuit class. As of December 2020, a
steering committee assembled to locate separated children in this second group had not yet
established contact with the parents of 628 children. In the period since the zero tolerance policy
was effectively paused in June 2018, at least 1,000 additional children were separated, bringing
the total reported number of separated children to between 5,300 and 5,500.

Trump Administration officials and immigration enforcement advocates argued that measures like
the zero tolerance policy were necessary to discourage migrants from coming to the United States
and submitting fraudulent asylum requests. They maintained that alien family separation resulting
from the prosecution of illegal border crossers mirrored that which occurs regularly under the
U.S. criminal justice system policy where adults with custody of minor children are charged with
a crime and may be held in jail, effectively separating them from their children.
Immigrant advocates contended that migrant families were fleeing legitimate threats from
countries with exceptionally high rates of gang violence, and that family separations resulting
from the zero tolerance policy were cruel, unconstitutional, and violated international human
rights law. They maintained that the zero tolerance policy was hastily implemented and lacked
planning for family reunification following criminal prosecutions. Some observers questioned the
Trump Administration’s capacity to marshal sufficient resources to prosecute all illegal border
crossers without additional resources. Others criticized the family separation policy in light of
less expensive alternatives to detention.
Family separation-related legislation introduced during the 116th and 115th Congresses focused
primarily on preventing or limiting the practice. Few of the bills saw congressional action.

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Enforcement and Asylum Policy for Illegal Border Crossers .................................................. 3
Illegal U.S. Entry....................................................................................................... 3
Asylum .................................................................................................................... 4
Detention ................................................................................................................. 5
Removal .................................................................................................................. 6
Prosecution of Aliens Charged with Illegal Border Crossing in Prior Administrations ................ 6
Prosecution of Aliens Charged with Illegal Border Crossing during the Trump
Administration ............................................................................................................. 8
Timeline on Family Separation .................................................................................... 9
2017................................................................................................................... 9
2018................................................................................................................. 10
2019................................................................................................................. 15
2020................................................................................................................. 18
2021................................................................................................................. 19
Policy Perspectives........................................................................................................ 20
Enforcement Perspectives ......................................................................................... 20
Immigrant Advocacy Perspectives.............................................................................. 22
Congressional Activity ................................................................................................... 25
116th Congress ................................................................................................... 25
115th Congress ................................................................................................... 26
Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 26

The Zero Tolerance Policy Under the Biden Administration

This report is a historical document about the zero tolerance immigration enforcement policy and the resulting
practice of separating children from parents and legal guardians under the Trump Administration. On January 26,
2021, Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson, during the first month of the Biden Administration, issued a DOJ
memorandum formally rescinding the zero tolerance policy.1 This report will not be updated.
Introduction
In recent years, Central American migrant families have been arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border
in relatively large numbers, many seeking asylum. 2 While some request asylum at U.S. ports of
entry, others do so after attempting to enter the United States illegally between U.S. ports of
entry. 3 On May 7, 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of
Justice (DOJ) implemented a “zero tolerance” policy toward illegal border crossing, both to
discourage illegal migration into the United States and to reduce the burden of processing asylum
claims that Trump Administration officials contended are often fraudulent. 4
Under the zero tolerance policy, DOJ prosecuted 100% of adult aliens 5 apprehended crossing the
border illegally, making no exceptions for whether they were asylum seekers or accompanied by
minor children. Illegal border crossing is a misdemeanor6 for a first time offender and a felony7
for anyone who has previously been “denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed, or has
departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation or removal is outstanding and
1
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Memorandum for all Federal Prosecutors, “Rescinding
the Zero-T olerance Policy for Offenses Under 8 U.S.C. §1325(a),” January 26, 2021.
2 Asylum is a protection granted to a foreign national physically present within the United States or at the U.S. border
who meets the definition of a refugee. A refugee is a person who is outside his or her home country (a second country
that is not the United States) and is unable or unwilling to return because of persecution, or a well-founded fear of
persecution, on account of five possible criteria: (1) race, (2) religio n, (3) nationality, (4) membership in a particular
social group, or (5) political opinion. INA 1101(a)(42)(A). In recent years, particularly following the surge of
unaccompanied children at the Southwest border in 2014, courts have grappled with whether th e statutory definition of
asylum can encompass threats like gang violence. In some cases, asylum has been granted on such grounds. For more
information, see CRS Report R45539, Immigration: U.S. Asylum Policy.
3
A port of entry is a harbor, border town, or airport through which people and goods may enter a country. T he United
States currently has 328 ports of entry. For background information related to ports of entry and border security, see
CRS Report R43356, Border Security: Immigration Inspections at Ports of Entry; and CRS Report R42138, Border
Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry.
4
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the
Immigration Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration,” May 7, 2018.
5
Alien refers to anyone who is not a citizen or a national of th e United States; INA §101(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(3). In
this report, alien is synonymous with foreign national. Unauthorized alien refers to a foreign national who is
unlawfully present in the United States and who either entered the United States illegally (“without inspection”) or
entered lawfully and temporarily (“with inspection”) but subsequently violated the terms of his/her admission, typically
by “overstaying” a visa duration.
6
A misdemeanor, under federal law, is a criminal offense that is generally regarded as less serious than a felony and
punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment for a period of one year or less. See 18 U.S.C. §3559; see also Black’s Law
Dictionary, 10 th ed., 2014.
7A felony is a criminal offense punishable by a term of imprisonment for more than one year or by death. See 18
U.S.C. §3559; see also Black’s Law Dictionary, 10 th ed., 2014.
Congressional Research Service 1

thereafter enters, attempts to enter or is found in the U.S.”8 Both such criminal offenses can be
prosecuted by DOJ in federal criminal courts.
DOJ’s “100% prosecution”9 policy represented a change in the level of enforcement of an
existing statute rather than a change in statute or regulation. 10 The George W. Bush
Administration and Barack Obama Administration prosecuted illegal border crossings relatively
infrequently, in part to avoid having DOJ resources committed to prosecuting sizeable numbers of
misdemeanors. At different times during those administrations, illegal entrants would be
criminally prosecuted in an attempt to reduce illegal migration, but exceptions were generally
made for families and asylum seekers.
Illegal border crossers who are prosecuted by DOJ are detained in federal criminal facilities.
Because children are not permitted in criminal detention facilities with adults, detaining adults
who crossed illegally requires that any minor children under age 18 accompanying them be
treated as unaccompanied alien children (UAC)11 and transferred to the care and custody of the
Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS’s) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
The widely publicized family separations were therefore a consequence of the Trump
Administration’s policy of 100% prosecution of illegal border crossings, and not the result of a
direct policy or law mandating family separation.
The family separations garnered extensive public attention. The Trump Administration and
immigration enforcement advocates maintained that the zero tolerance policy was necessary to
dis-incentivize migrants from coming to the United States and clogging immigration courts with
fraudulent requests for asylum. 12 Immigrant advocates contended that migrant families were
fleeing legitimate threats of violence and that family separations resulting from the zero tolerance
policy were cruel and violated international human rights law. 13
Following mostly critical public reaction, President Trump issued an executive order that
effectively terminated the zero tolerance policy. 14 During the six weeks that the policy was in
place, “under 3,000” children were estimated to have been separated from their parents, including
at least 100 under age five. 15 A subsequent class action lawsuit was filed by the American Civil
8 8 U.S.C. §1326.
9
DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) referred to the “zero tolerance” policy as the “100%
prosecution” policy. CRS consultation with ICE Legislative Affairs, June 8, 2018.
10 See T im O’Shea, T heresa Cardinal Brown, “Why Are Families Being Separated at the Border? An Explainer,”
Bipartisan Policy Center, June 13, 2018; and Weekend Edition Saturday, “Jeh Johnson On Imm igration And T rump,”
National Public Radio, June 9, 2018.
11 Unaccompanied alien children (UAC) are defined in statute as children who lack lawful immigration status in the
United States, who are under the age of 18, and who either are without a parent or legal guardian in the United States or
without a parent or legal guardian in the United States who is available to provide care and physical custody; 6 U.S.C.
§279(g)(2). In this report, children refers to minors under age 18 unless otherwise indicated. For more information, see
CRS Report R43599, Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview.
12
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the
13
See for example, American Immigration Council, “Asylum in the United States, Fact Sheet,” May 14, 2018; and
International Justice Resource Center, Asylum and the Rights of Refugees, accessed by CRS on July 12, 2018, at
https://ijrcenter.org/refugee-law/.
14
T he White House, Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation, Executive Order 13841, June
20, 2018.
15
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “HHS Issues Statement on Ms. L, et al., Status Report Regarding
Plan for Compliance for Remaining Class Members,” press release, July 13, 2018. T his figure was also reported in
several news reports, including Dan Diamond, “HHS says hundreds more migrant kids may have been separated than

Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of 2,816 children that ORR ultimately identified as having
been separated as of June 26, 2018. More children were separated prior to and subsequent to the
six-week period.
This report briefly reviews the statutory authority for prosecuting persons who enter the United
States illegally and the policies and procedures for processing apprehended illegal border entrants
and any accompanying children. It explains enforcement policies under past administrations and
then discusses the Trump Administration’s zero tolerance policy on illegal border crossers and the
attendant family separations. The report concludes by presenting varied policy perspectives on
the zero tolerance policy and briefly reviews recent related congressional activity.
Enforcement and Asylum Policy for Illegal

Border Crossers
Aliens who wish to enter the United States may request admission 16 at a U.S. port of entry or may
attempt to enter illegally by crossing the border surreptitiously between U.S. ports of entry. Aliens
who wish to request asylum may do so at a U.S. port of entry before an officer with the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of Field
Operations or upon apprehension between U.S. ports of entry before an agent with CBP’s U.S.
Border Patrol. DHS has broad statutory authority both to detain aliens not legally admitted,
including asylum seekers, and to remove aliens who are found to be either inadmissible at ports
of entry or removable once in the United States. Aliens requesting asylum at the border are
entitled to an interview assessing the credibility of their asylum claims. 17
Illegal U.S. Entry

Aliens who enter the United States illegally between ports of entry face two types of penalties.
They face civil penalties for illegal presence in the United States, and they face criminal penalties
for having entered the country illegally. Both types of penalties are explained below.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) establishes civil penalties for persons who are in the
United States unlawfully (i.e., without legal status). These penalties apply to foreign nationals
who entered the United States illegally as well as those who entered legally but subsequently
violated the terms of their admission, typically by “overstaying” their visa duration. Foreign
nationals who are apprehended for such civil immigration violations are generally subject to
removal (deportation) and are placed in formal or expedited removal proceedings (described
below in “Removal”).
The INA also establishes criminal penalties for (1) persons who enter or attempt to enter the
United States illegally between ports of entry, (2) persons who elude examination or inspection
by immigration officers, or (3) persons who attempt to enter or obtain entry to the United States
through fraud or willful misrepresentation. 18 In addition, the INA provides criminal penalties for
earlier count,” Politico, July 5, 2018; and Caitlin Dickerson, “ T rump Administration in Chaotic Scramble to Reunify
Migrant Families,” The New York Times, July 5, 2018.
16 For more information on legal admissions, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10150, Immigration Laws Regulating the
Admission and Exclusion of Aliens at the Border; and CRS Report R45020, A Primer on U.S. Immigration Policy.
17
INA §235(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(1).
18INA §275, 8 U.S.C. §1325 treats improper entry by aliens (first -time illegal entry) as a federal misdemeanor,
punishable by fines and/or up to six months in prison.

persons who unlawfully reenter the United States after they were previously removed from the
country. 19 Foreign nationals apprehended for criminal immigration violations are subject to
prosecution by DOJ in federal criminal courts. This report only addresses criminal penalties for
illegal entry and reentry between ports of entry.
Foreign nationals who attempt to enter the United States without authorization often do so
between U.S. ports of entry on the U.S. border. If apprehended, they are processed by CBP. They
are typically housed briefly in CBP detention facilities before being transferred to the custody of
another federal agency or returned to their home country through streamlined removal procedures
(discussed below). All apprehended aliens, including children, are placed into removal
proceedings that occur procedurally after any criminal prosecution for illegal entry. Removal
proceedings generally involve formal hearings in an immigration court before an immigration
judge, or expedited removal without such hearings (see “Removal” below).
In general, CBP refers apprehended aliens for criminal prosecution if they meet criminal
enforcement priorities (e.g., child trafficking, prior felony convictions, multiple illegal entries).
Such individuals are placed in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service (DOJ ’s enforcement arm)
and transported to DOJ criminal detention facilities for pretrial detention. After individuals have
been tried—and if convicted, have served any applicable criminal sentence—they are transferred
to DHS Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody and placed in immigration
detention. 20 ICE, which represents the government in removal hearings, commences removal
proceedings.
If CBP does not refer apprehended aliens to DOJ for criminal prosecution, CBP may either return
them to their home countries using streamlined removal processes or transfer them to ICE
custody for immigration detention while they are in formal removal proceedings. 21
Asylum
Some aliens at the U.S.-Mexico border seek asylum in the United States. Asylum is not
numerically limited and is granted on a case-by-case basis. Asylum can be requested by foreign
nationals who have already entered the United States and are not in removal proceedings
(“affirmative” asylum) or those who are in removal proceedings and claim asylum as a defense to
being removed (“defensive” asylum). The process in each case is different. 22
Arriving aliens who are inadmissible, either because they lack proper entry documents or because
they attempt U.S. entry through misrepresentation or false claims to U.S. citizenship, are put into
a streamlined removal process known as expedited removal (described below in “Removal”). 23
19INA §276, 8 U.S. C. §1326 treats illegal reentry as a felony, punishable by fines and/or up to two years in prison.
Higher penalties apply for migrants with criminal records.
20 Sentences for first -time illegal entry under INA §275 are typically a matter of days or weeks, with pretrial detention
usually counted as part of the sentence; T im O’Shea, T heresa Cardinal Brown, “Why Are Families Being Separated at
the Border? An Explainer,” Bipartisan Policy Center, June 13, 2018.
21
For more information on formal and streamlined removal processes, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10150, Immigration
Laws Regulating the Admission and Exclusion of Aliens at the Border.
22
For more information on the two ways of obtaining asylum, see U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servi ces,
“Obtaining Asylum in the United States,” https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/obtaining-
asylum-united-states, updated September 22, 2020.
23INA §212(a)(7) and §212(a)(6)(C) are inadmissibility sections that apply to expedited removal. Expedited removal
was introduced as part of the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. According to the statute
(INA §235(b)(1)(A)(iii)), expedited removal can be applied to an alien who meets the expedited removal
inadmissibility criteria described above, has not been admitted or paroled, and cannot affirmatively show continuous

Aliens in expedited removal who express a fear of persecution are detained by ICE and given a
credible fear interview with an asylum officer from DHS’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS). 24 The purpose of the interview is to determine if the asylum claim has
sufficient validity to merit an asylum hearing before an immigration judge. Those who receive a
favorable credible fear determination are taken out of expedited removal, placed into formal
removal proceedings, and given a hearing before an immigration judge, thereby placing the
asylum seeker on the defensive path to asylum. Those who receive an unfavorable determination
may request that an immigration judge review the case. Aliens in expedited removal who cannot
demonstrate a credible fear are promptly deported.
Detention
The INA provides DHS with broad authority to detain adult aliens who are in removal
proceedings. 25 However, child detention operates under different policies than that of adults.
Children are detained according to broad guidelines established through a court settlement
agreement (applicable to all alien children) and two statutes (applicable only to unaccompanied
alien children).
The 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) established a nationwide policy for the detention,
treatment, and release of alien children, both accompanied and unaccompanied. The Homeland
Security Act of 2002 charged ORR with providing temporary care and ensuring custodial
placement of UAC with suitable and vetted sponsors.26 Finally, the William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) directed DHS to ensure
that all UAC be screened by DHS for possible human trafficking. 27 The TVPRA mandated that
UAC from countries other than Mexico or Canada—along with all UAC apprehended in the U.S.
interior—be transferred to the care and custody of ORR, and then be “promptly placed in the least
restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child.”28 In the course of being referred to ORR,
UAC are also put into formal removal proceedings, ensuring they can request asylum or other
types of immigration relief before an immigration judge.
As a result of a 2015 judicial interpretation of the Flores Settlement Agreement, children
accompanying apprehended adults cannot be held in immigration detention for more than 20
physical presence for the prior two years. As a matter of policy, however, expedited removal to date has been limited to
persons apprehended within 100 miles of the U.S. border and who have been present in the United States for less than
14 days. Executive Order 13767 issued on January 25, 2017, instructs the DHS Secretary to implement the expansion
of expedited removal to the full extent of the statute. T hat implementation was recently halted by a federal judge. For
more information, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10336, The Department of Homeland Security’s Nationwide Expansion
of Expedited Removal.
24 Credible fear means that there is “a significant possibility,” taking into account the credibility of the statements made
by the alien in support of the alien’s claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could establish
eligibility for asylum. INA §235(b)(1)(B)(v); 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(1)(B)(v).
25 For background information, see archived CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention.
26
P.L. 107-296, §462, codified, as amended, at 6 U.S.C. §279(g)(2).
27
P.L. 110-457, §235.
28
For UAC from Mexico or Canada, CBP personnel must screen each child within 48 hours of apprehension to
determine if he or she (1) is at risk of becoming a trafficking victim, (2) has a possible asylum claim, and (3) is unable
to make an independent decision to voluntarily return to his/her country of nationality or last habitual residence. If any
response is affirmative, CBP must refer the child to ORR within 72 hours of this determination. If CBP personnel
determine the minor to be inadmissible under the INA (i.e., if responses are not affirmative), they can permit the minor
to voluntarily return to his/her country of nationality or last habitual residence. For more information, see CRS Report
R43599, Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview.

days, on average. If the parents cannot be released with them, such children are typically treated
as UAC and referred to ORR.
Removal
Under the formal removal process, an immigration judge from DOJ’s Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR) determines whether an alien is removable. The immigration judge
may grant certain forms of relief (e.g., asylum, cancellation of removal), and removal decisions
are subject to administrative and judicial review.
Under streamlined removal procedures, which include expedited removal and reinstatement of
removal (i.e., when DHS reinstates a removal order for a previously removed alien), opportunities
for relief and review are generally limited. 29 Under expedited removal (INA §235(b)), an alien
who lacks proper documentation or has committed fraud or willful misrepresentation to gain
admission into the United States may be removed without any further hearings or review, unless
he or she indicates a fear of persecution in their home country or an intention to apply for
asylum. 30
If apprehended foreign nationals are found to be removable, ICE and CBP share the responsibility
for repatriating them. 31 CBP handles removals at the border for unauthorized aliens from the
contiguous countries of Mexico and Canada, and ICE handles all removals from the U.S. interior
and removals for all unauthorized aliens from noncontiguous countries. 32
Prosecution of Aliens Charged with Illegal Border

Crossing in Prior Administrations
Prior to the Trump Administration, aliens apprehended between ports of entry who were not
considered enforcement priorities (e.g., a public safety threat, repeat illegal border crosser,
convicted felon, or suspected child trafficker) were typically not criminally prosecuted for illegal
entry but would be placed directly into civil removal proceedings for unauthorized U.S.
presence. 33
In addition, aliens apprehended at and between ports of entry who sought asylum and were found
to have credible fear generally were not held in immigration detention if DHS did not assess them
as public safety risks. Rather, they were administratively placed into removal proceedings,
instructed by DHS to appear at their immigration hearings, and then released into the U.S.
29
For more information, see CRS Report R45314, Expedited Removal of Aliens: Legal Framework.
30 T wo other removal options, often referred to as “returns”—voluntary departure and withdrawal of petition for
admission—require aliens to leave the United States promptly but exempt them from certain penalties associated with
other types of removal. For background information, see CRS Report R43892, Alien Removals and Returns: Overview
and Trends.
31 Ibid.
32
For more detail on laws governing border enforcement, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10150, Immigration Laws
Regulating the Admission and Exclusion of Aliens at the Border.
33CRS consultation with ICE Legislative Affairs, June 8, 2018. For one historical perspective on the p olicy of family
separation as a migration deterrent, see Noah Lanard, “An Explosive Government Report Exposed Family Separations
and Other Immigration Horrors—in 1931,” Mother Jones, October 27, 2020.

interior. This policy became more prevalent after 2015 when a federal judge ruled that children
could not be kept in immigration detention for more than 20 days. 34
DHS officials justified this “catch and release” approach in the past because of the lack of
detention bed space and the considerable cost of detaining large numbers of unauthorized aliens
and family units for the lengthy periods, often stretching to years, between apprehension by CBP
and removal hearings before an EOIR judge. 35 Immigration enforcement advocates criticized the
“catch and release” policy because they contended that many apprehended individuals fail to
appear subsequently for their immigration hearings, an argument that others have refuted. 36
According to some observers, prior administrations made more use of alternatives to detention
that permitted DHS to monitor families who were released into the U.S. interior. 37 Such practices
are needed to monitor the roughly 2 million aliens in removal proceedings given that ICE’s
current budget funds about 45,000 beds, which are prioritized for aliens who pose public safety or
absconder risks. 38
Data are not available on the rate and/or absolute number of family separations resulting from
illegal border crossing prosecutions under prior administrations, limiting the degree to which
comparisons can be made with the Trump Administration’s zero tolerance policy. 39
DHS states that the agency referred an average of 21% of all illegal border crossing “amenable
adults” for prosecution from FY2010 through FY2016. 40 DHS maintains that it has an established
policy of separating children from adults when it
34 T he federal judge ruled that under the Flores Settlement Agreement, minors detained as part of a family unit cannot
be detained in unlicensed facilities for longer than “a presumptively reasonable period of 20 days,” at which point, such
minors must be released or transferred to a licensed facility. Since most jurisdictions do not offer licensure for family
residential centers, and because none of ICE’s family detention centers is licensed, DHS rarely detains families for
more than 20 days. See Flores v. Lynch, 212 F. Supp. 3d 907 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
35
Lori Robertson, “Did the Obama Administration Separate Families?,” FactCheck.org, June 20, 2018.
36 T he issue of whether immigrants show up for their court hearings is debated. For example, see Mark Metcalf, U.S.
Immigration Courts & Aliens Who Disappear Before Trial, Center for Immigration Studies, January 24, 2019; and
Mark Metcalf, Absent attendance and absent enforcement in America’s immigration courts, Center for Immigration
Studies, March 19, 2017. For opposing views, see Ingrid Eagly and Steven Shaft er, Measuring In Absentia Removal in
Immigration Court, American Immigration Council, January 28, 2021; American Immigration Council, Immigrants
and Families Appear in Court: Setting the Record Straight, July 30, 2019; and T ransactional Records Access
Clearinghouse (T RAC), Most Released Families Attend Immigration Court Hearings, June 18, 2019.
37 See for example, Ana Campoy, “ T he $36-a-day alternative to jailing immigrant families favored by Obama,” Quartz,
June 23, 2018; Alex Nowrasteh, “ Alternatives to Detention Are Cheaper than Universal Detention,” Cato Institute,
June 20, 2018; and Alexia Fernández Campbell, “ T rump doesn’t need to put families in detention centers to enforce his
immigration policy. T here are better options,” Vox, June 22, 2018. For more information on alternatives to detention,
see United Nations High Commission for Refugees, “ Guiding Questions for the assessment of Alternatives to
Detention,” UNHCR Beyond Detention Toolkit, May 2018; and American Immigration Lawyers Association, The Real
Alternatives to Detention, Document 17071103, July 11, 2017. For a critical perspective on alternatives to detention,
see Dan Cadman, Are ‘Alternative to Detention’ Programs the Answer to Family Detention? , Center for Immigration
Studies, June 28, 2018. For background information, see CRS Report R45804, Immigration: Alternatives to Detention
(ATD) Programs.
38
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, “U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement’s Alternatives to Detention (Revised),” OIG-15-22, February 4, 2015. For FY2021, ICE requested
funding for 60,000 detention beds (55,000 for adults, 5,000 for families; an increase of 12,226 and 2,500 beds,
respectively, from current levels); see U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, FY2021 Congressional Budget
Justification, Operations and Support, pp. 14-15.
39See Lori Robertson, “Did the Obama Administration Separate Families?,” FactCheck.org, June 20, 2018.
40U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Myth vs. Fact: DHS Zero -T olerance Policy,” press release, June 18, 2018.
However, as some observers note, this percentage does not reveal how many children were separated from the adults

 cannot determine the family relationship or otherwise verify identity,

 determines that the child is being smuggled or trafficked or is otherwise at risk
with the parent or legal guardian, or
 determines that the parent or legal guardian may have engaged in criminal
conduct and refers them for criminal prosecution. 41
Prosecution of Aliens Charged with Illegal Border

Crossing during the Trump Administration
During 2017, prior to the zero tolerance policy, news outlets had reported on pilot programs that
separated family units that were apprehended at certain locations along the Southwest border. 42
One migrant advocacy organization issued a report documenting a range of DHS policies and
practices that led to family separations, including the criminal prosecution of illegal entry. 43
On April 6, 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “zero tolerance” policy under
which all illegal border crossers apprehended between U.S. ports of entry would be criminally
prosecuted for illegal entry or illegal reentry. 44 This policy made no exceptions for asylum seekers
and/or family units. 45 To facilitate this policy, the Attorney General announced that he would send
35 additional prosecutors to U.S. Attorney’s Offices along the Southwest border and 18 additional
immigration judges to adjudicate cases in immigration courts near the Southwest border. 46
According to a subsequent DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) report, DHS had expected to
separate at least 26,000 children when it began the policy. 47
Consequently, if a family unit was apprehended crossing illegally between ports of entry, the zero
tolerance policy mandated that CBP refer all illegal adult entrants to DOJ for criminal
prosecution. Accompanying children, who are not permitted to be housed in adult criminal
detention settings with their parents, were to be processed as unaccompanied alien children in
who were referred for prosecution. See Lori Robertson, “Did the Obama Administration Separate Families?,”
FactCheck.org, June 20, 2018.
41
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Myth vs. Fact: DHS Zero -T olerance Policy,” press release, June 18, 2018.
42See Julia Edwards Ainsley, “Exclusive: T rump administration considering separating women, children at Mexico
border,” Reuters, March 3, 2017; and Lomi Kriel, “T rump moves to end ‘catch and release’, prosecuting parent s and
removing children who cross border,” Houston Chronicle, November 25, 2017.
43
Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), Women’s Refugee Commission, and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service,
Betraying Family Values: How Immigration Policy at the United States Border is Separating Families, January 10,
2017.
44
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Memorandum for Federal Prosecutors Along the
Southwest Border, “Zero-T olerance for Offenses Under 8 U.S.C. §1325(a),” April 6, 2018. T he policy was
implemented on May 7, 2018; U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Attorney General Sessions
Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcement Actions of the T rump Administration,” May 7, 2018.
45
Immigration and human rights advocates cautioned that prosecuting persons who cross into the United States in order
to present themselves before a CBP officer and request asylum raises concerns about whether the United States is
abiding by a number of human rights and refugee-related international protocols. For background information, see
Jonathan Blitzer, “T he Trump Administration Is Completely Unravelling the U.S. Asylum System,” The New Yorker,
June 11, 2018.
46
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Justice Department Announces Additional Prosecutors and
Immigration Judges For Southwest Border Crisis,” May 2, 2018.
47U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, DHS Lacked Technology Needed to
Successfully Account for Separated Migrant Families, OIG-20-06, November 25, 2019, pp. 17-18.

accordance with the TVPRA. They were transferred to the custody of ORR, which houses them in
agency-supervised, state-licensed shelters. If feasible given the circumstances, ORR attempted to
place them with relatives or legal guardian sponsors or place them in temporary foster care. 48
At the time the zero tolerance policy was in effect, ORR had over 100 shelters in 17 states 49 that
were reportedly at close to full capacity. 50 Consequently, at one point, the agency was evaluating
options for housing children on Department of Defense (DOD) installations to handle the surge of
separated children resulting from increased prosecution of parents crossing between ports of
entry. 51
As noted earlier, after adults have been tried in federal courts for illegal entry—and if convicted,
have served their criminal sentences—they are transferred to ICE custody and placed in
immigration detention. Typically, parents are then reunited in ICE family detention facilities with
their children who have either remained in ORR custody or have been placed with a sponsor.
Requests for asylum can also be pursued at this point.
Timeline on Family Separation

The following section provides a timeline of events directly related to the separation of families at
the Southwest border in conjunction with the zero tolerance policy as well as prior and
subsequent to that policy. 52
2017
Between March 2017 and November 2017, CBP’s U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) conducted a pilot
program to increase prosecutions for illegal entry and allow for the prosecution of adults within
family units. According to DOJ, this initiative resulted in the separation of about 280 families. It
also reportedly reduced family unit apprehensions by 64% in El Paso TX, one of the primary
locations where it was initiated. 53 According to a subsequent DOJ internal review of the zero
48 Most unaccompanied alien children who arrive at the Southwest border alone are placed with sponsors or in ORR-
arranged foster care; for more information, see CRS Report R43599, Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview. It
is not clear whether such placements are as likely for UAC who arrive with parents. During the peak of the UAC
apprehension surge in 2014, UAC spent an average of 35 days in ORR shelters. Most r ecently, ORR reported that the
average length of stay in its shelters was 50 days. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Fact Sheet, “Unaccompanied Alien Children Program,”
October 2, 2019.
49
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, “Unaccompanied Alien Children
Frequently Asked Questions,” website, July 9, 2018, accessed by CRS on February 20, 2019.
50 One news article at the end of May 2018 reported ORR shelter capacity at 95%; see Nick Miroff, “T rump’s ‘zero
tolerance’ at the border is causing child shelters to fill up fast,” Washington Post, May 29, 2018.
51 Letter from Alex M. Azar II, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, to T he Honorable Jim
Mattis, Secretary of Defense, March 8, 2018. Similar arrangements were made in June 2014, when apprehensions of
UAC reached an all-time high. ORR coordinated with DOD to temporarily allow UAC to be housed at Lackland Air
Force Base in San Antonio, T X, and at Naval Base Ventura County in Oxnard, CA. Arrangements at both sites ended
August 2014.
52
See also Southern Poverty Law Center, “Family separation under the T rump administration – a timeline,” June 17,
2020, https://www.splcenter.org/news/2020/06/17/family-separation-under-trump-administration-timeline; and U.S.
House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Majority Staff Report, The Trump Administration’s Family
Separation Policy: Trauma, Destruction, and Chaos, October 2020.
53U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Review of the Department of Justice’s Planning and
Implementation of Its Zero Tolerance Policy and Its Coordination with the Departments of Homeland Security and
Health and Human Services, 21-028, January 2021, p. 32.

tolerance policy, the separations and federal agencies’ inability to reunite the families caused
concern among prosecutors and other stakeholders, but did not prompt the DOJ to seek additional
information to identify the deleterious consequences that resulted from this pilot program .54
In FY2017, CBP apprehended 75,622 alien family units and separated 1,065 (1.4%) of them.55 Of
those separations, 46 were due to fraud and 1,019 were due to medical and/or security concerns.
In the first five months of FY2018, prior to enactment of the zero tolerance policy, CBP
apprehended 31,102 alien family units and separated 703 (2.2%), of which 191 resulted from
fraud and 512 from medical and/or security concerns. 56
2018
Prior to Attorney General Sessions’s announcement of the zero tolerance policy, the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against ICE (referred to as “Ms. L. v. ICE”) on
behalf of two families separated at the Southwest border: a woman from the Democratic Republic
of the Congo who was separated from her 6-year-old daughter at a port of entry for five months;
and a woman from Brazil who had crossed into the United States illegally between ports of entry
and was separated from her 14-year-old son for eight months. 57 The lawsuit, filed in February,
was subsequently expanded in March 2018 to a class-action lawsuit filed by the ACLU against
ICE on behalf of all parents who were separated from their children by DHS.
In the early months of the policy, the Trump Administration repeatedly updated the number of
children separated from their families. According to CBP testimony in May 2018, 658 children
were separated from 638 adults who were referred for prosecution between May 7 and May 21. 58
DHS subsequently reported that 1,995 children had been separated from their parents between
April 19 and May 31. 59 DHS updated these figures in June 2018, reporting that 2,342 children
were separated from their parents between May 5 and June 9. 60 DHS then reported that CBP had
since reunited with their parents 538 children who were never sent to ORR shelters.61 HHS
Secretary Alex Azar then reported that “under 3,000” minor children (under age 18) had been
54
Ibid. See also Lisa Riordan Seville and Hannah Rappleye, “T rump admin ran ‘pilot program’ for separating migrant
families in 2017,” NBC News, June 29, 2018.
55Because FY2017 began on October 1, 2016, some of these separations—unspecified in CBP’s correspondence to
CRS—occurred during the last four months of the Obama Administration.
56 Email correspondence from CBP Legislative Affairs to CRS, June 8, 2018. Figures represent separated family units,
not the number of separated children; the latter is likely higher given that some family units consist of more than one
child.
57 See Ms. L v. ICE, No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2018).
58 T estimony of Richard Hudson, Deputy Chief of the Operations Program, Law Enforcement Operations Directorate,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee o n the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Border
Security and Immigration, TVPRA and Exploited Loopholes Affecting Unaccompanied Alien Children , 115 th Cong., 2 nd
sess., May 23, 2018.
59 T hese figures were obtained from DHS by the Associated Press on June 15, 2018. See Colleen Long, “DHS reports
about 2,000 minors separated from families,” Associated Press, June 16, 2018.
60
On June 18, Senator Dianne Feinstein reportedly released DHS statistics showing that 2,342 children were separated
from their parents between May 5 and June 9. See Arit John and Jennifer Epstein, “ All About the U.S. Separating
Families at Its Border,” Bloomberg, June 18, 2018.
61U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “ Fact Sheet: Zero-T olerance Prosecution and Family Reunification,” June
23, 2018.

separated from their families in total, including roughly 100 under age 5. 62 As of July 13, 2018,
HHS reported that 2,551 children ages 5 to 17 remained separated. 63
On June 20, 2018, following considerable and largely negative public attention to family
separations stemming from the zero tolerance policy, President Trump issued an executive order
(EO) mandating that DHS maintain custody of alien families “during the pendency of any
criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their member,” to the extent
permitted by law and appropriations. 64 The EO instructed DOD to provide and/or construct
additional shelter facilities, upon request by ORR, and it instructed other executive branch
agencies to assist with housing as appropriate to implement the EO. 65 The EO mandated that the
Attorney General prioritize the adjudication of detained family cases, and it required the Attorney
General to ask the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which oversees the
Flores Settlement Agreement, to modify the agreement to permit detained families to remain
together.
On June 25, 2018, CBP announced that, because of ICE’s lack of family detention bed space, it
had temporarily halted the policy of referring adults who cross the border illegally with children
to DOJ for criminal prosecution. 66 According to a White House announcement, the zero tolerance
policy could be reinstituted once additional family detention bed space became available. 67 Also
on June 25, 2018, DOD announced plans to permit four of its military bases to be used by other
federal agencies to shelter up to 20,000 UAC and family units. 68 DOD subsequently announced
that 12,000 persons would be housed on its facilities, 69 before another report appeared suggesting
the number was 32,000 UAC and family units. 70 Despite these announcements, apprehended
UAC or family units were not subsequently housed on military installations. 71
On June 26, 2018, in response to the ACLU class action lawsuit, Judge Dana Sabraw of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California issued an injunction against the Trump
Administration’s practice of separating families and ordered that all separated families be
reunited within 30 days. 72 The judge ruled that children under age five must be reunited with their
parents within 14 days, all children must have phone contact with their parents within 10 days,
children could be separated at the border only if accompanying adults presented an immediate
62Dan Diamond, “HHS says hundreds more migrant kids may have been separated than earlier count,” Politico, July 5,
2018; and Caitlin Dickerson, “ T rump Administration in Chaotic Scramble to Reunify Migrant Families,” The New York
Times, July 5, 2018.
63Dan Diamond, “ T rump administration expedites reunifications for 2,551 migrant children,” Politico, July 13, 2018.
64
T he White House, Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation , Executive Order, June 20,
2018.
65 Up to that date, only DOD had made arrangements with ORR to provide housing for alien families and children .
66 Ron Nixon, Erica L. Green and Michael D. Shear, “ Border Officials Suspend Handing Over Migrant Families to
Prosecutors,” The New York Times, June 25, 2018.
67 Ibid.
68Michael D. Shear, Helene Cooper and Katie Benner, “U.S. Prepares to House Up to 20,000 Migrants on Military
Bases,” The New York Times, June 21, 2018. It was unclear what proportion of the DOD facilities would have been
used for UAC shelters versus immigrat ion detention for families.
69
U.S. Department of Defense, “ DHS Requests DoD House Up to 12,000 Migrants,” Defense.gov, June 28, 2018.
70 Lara Seligman, “ Pentagon Says It Won’t Pay for Housing of Immigrants,” Foreign Policy, July 9, 2018.
71
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Legislative Affairs, email to CRS, January 29, 2021.
72Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Classwide Preliminary Injunction, Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Case 3:18-cv-428, Document 83 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018).

danger to them, and parents who were removable were not to be removed unless they had been
reunited with their separated children. 73
In response to the June 26 injunction, the Trump Administration reportedly instructed DHS to
provide all parents with final orders of removal and whose children were separated from them
with two options. 74 The first was to return to their countries of origin with their children. This
option fulfilled the mandate from the June 26 court order to reunite families, but also forced
parents and children to abandon any claims for asylum. The second option was for parents to
return alone to their country of origin. This option would leave the children in the United States to
apply for asylum on their own. Parental decisions were to be recorded on a new ICE form. 75
On June 27, 2018, CBP issued guidance to its immigration officers on compliance with Judge
Sabraw’s injunction against family separation. The guidance indicated that children could be
separated from their parents only for the following reasons:
1. referral of a parent/legal guardian for prosecution for a felony;
2. the parent/legal guardian presents a danger to the child;
3. the parent/legal guardian has a criminal conviction(s) for violent misdemeanors
or felonies; or
4. the parent/legal guardian has a communicable disease. 76
On July 9, 2018, Judge Dolly Gee of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
which oversees the Flores Settlement Agreement, ruled against a DOJ request to modify the
agreement to permit children to remain with their parents in family detention. Judge Gee held that
no basis existed for amending the court’s original decision requiring the federal government to
release alien minors in immigration detention after 20 days, regardless of any unlawful entry
prosecution of the parents. 77
On July 10, ICE officials reportedly indicated that parents reunited with their children would be
enrolled in an alternative detention program, such as the use of ankle bracelets that permit
electronic monitoring, and then released into the U.S. interior, essentially reverting to the prior
73 Michael D. Shear, Julie Hirschfeld Davis, T homas Kaplan, and Robert Pear, “Federal Judge in California Halts
Splitting of Migrant Families at Border,” The New York Times, June 26, 2018.
74
Nick Valencia and T al Kopan, “ T he options parents facing deportation have after they've been separated from their
kids,” CNN, July 3, 2018; Julia Ainsley and Jacob Soboroff, “ New T rump admin order for separated parents: Leave
U.S. with kids or without them,” nbcnews.com , July 3, 2018; and Jeremy Raff, “ ICE Is Pressuring Separated Parents to
Choose Deportation,” The Atlantic, July 6, 2018. Immigration advocates contended that the new form misled parents
who had outstanding asylum claims into thinking that they had to leave the United States without their children, despite
the fact that the forms indicated that they applied only to parents with final orders of removal. DHS responded that “ it
is ‘long-standing policy’ to offer parents facing deportation the option of leaving their [children] behind, noting it is
‘not uncommon’ for parents to elect to do so, historically. Any child who remains in the United States in the custody of
the government or with a family member is allowed to pursue th eir own right to stay, and ICE ‘does not interfere’ in
that decision.”
75
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations, Separated Parent’s Removal
Form, July 2018.
76
Kevin K. McAleenan, Commissioner, Interim Guidance on Preliminary Injunction in Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18 -428
(C.D. Cal. June 26, 2018), U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Memorandum for Carla L. Provost, Chief, U.S. Border
Patrol, and T odd C. Owen, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, June 27, 2018.
77
Order Denying Defendants “Ex Parte Application for Limited Relief from Settlement Agreement,” Flores v.
Sessions, Case 2:85-cv-4544, Document 455 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2018). See also Miriam Jordan and Manny Fernandez,
“Judge Rejects Long Detentions of Migrant Families, Dealing T rump Another Setback,” The New York Times, July 9,
2018.

policy that has been labeled by some as “catch and release.”78 DOJ continued to maintain that its
zero tolerance policy was in effect. 79
On July 11, 2018, in response to the requirements of the ACLU lawsuit, ORR certified a list of
2,654 children that the agency stated were in its custody at the time of the June 26 injunction that
it believed had been separated from their parents and whose parents met the lawsuit’s class
definition. 80 According to a subsequent HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) report, one or
more data sources showed that an additional 946 children may have been separated from family
members at the time of apprehension, but their family members did not meet the criteria needed
for inclusion in the lawsuit. 81
On July 16, 2018, in response to concerns expressed by the ACLU about potential abrupt
deportations following family reunification, Judge Sabraw temporarily halted, for one week, the
deportations of parents who had been reunited with their children. 82 The judge issued the stay of
deportations to provide parents slated for removal with a week’s time to better understand their
legal rights regarding asylum or other forms of immigration relief for themselves and their
children.
On July 16, 2018, Commander Jonathan White, Deputy Director for Children’s Programs at the
Office of Refugee Resettlement, testified before Judge Sabraw that ORR had identified 2,551
separated children in its custody ages 5 to 17 and had matched 2,480 to their parents, while 71
children’s parents remained unidentified. 83 ORR was undertaking intensive background checks to
ensure that separated children were reunited with their actual parents and did not face personal
security risks such as child abuse. 84 According to White, 1,609 parents of separated children
remained in ICE custody. White noted that ICE was also conducting its own security checks and
at that point had cleared 918 parents, failed 51 parents, and had 348 parents with pending
clearances. As of July 16, 2018, ICE had approved about 300 children for release to be reunited
with their parents. 85
On July 18, 2018, HHS submitted a “Tri-Department Plan” in coordination with DHS and DOJ
explaining actions the agencies were taking to reunify Ms. L v. ICE class members with their
78 In summer 2018, the sizable influx of migrants was reportedly overwhelming the capacity of some ICE facilities,
leading to the release of family units. See Nick Miroff, “Migrant families overwhelm detention capacity in Arizona,
prompting mass releases,” Washington Post, October 9, 2018.
79
Miriam Jordan, Katie Benner, Ron Nixon, and Caitlin Dickerson, “ As Migrant Families Are Reunited, Some
Children Don’t Recognize T heir Mothers,” The New York Times, July 10, 2018.
80
T he class was defined as “all adult parents who enter the United States at or between designated ports of entry who
(1) have been, are, or will be detained in immigration custody by the [DHS], and (2) have a minor ch ild who is or will
be separated from them by DHS and detained in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or DHS custody absent a
determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child.” Parents were excluded from the class if they had
a criminal history or communicable disease See Ms. L v. ICE, No. 18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018).
81 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, “Separated Children Placed in Office
of Refugee Resettlement Care,” HHS-OIG Issue Brief, January 2019. OEI-BL-18-00511.
82
Caitlin Dickerson, “ Court Orders T emporary Halt to Migrant Family Deportations,” The New York Times, July 16,
2018 and T ed Hesson, “ Judge will temporarily halt deportations of reunited families,” Politico, July 16, 2018.
83 Ibid.
84
Nick Miroff, Maria Sacchetti and Amy Goldstein, “ In D.C. command center, officials work to reunite migrant
children by court deadline,” Washington Post, July 19, 2018.
85 Ibid.

children. These steps included conducting and reviewing background checks of parents,
confirming parentage, assessing child safety, interviewing parents, and reuniting families. 86
As of July 19, 2018, the Trump Administration had reportedly reunified 364 of the 2,551 children
ages 5 to 17. Apart from the parents of those children, 1,607 parents were eligible to be reunited
with their children, 719 of whom had final orders of deportation. Another 908 parents were not
expected to be eligible for reunification because they possessed criminal backgrounds or required
“further evaluation.”87
On September 6, 2018, DHS and HHS proposed new regulations that would effectively terminate
the Flores Settlement Agreement and replace it with formal regulations governing the
“apprehension, processing, care, custody, and release” of minor children. 88 The primary provision
in these proposed regulations would be the authority to hold migrant children and their parents
until their cases have been adjudicated.
In October 2018, it was widely reported that the Trump Administration was considering
alternative immigration enforcement policies involving family separation to reduce the persistent
and relatively high level of unauthorized migrants seeking asylum at the Southwest border. One
of these approaches, a “binary choice” policy, would give detained parents the option of keeping
their children with them in immigration detention during the pendency of their immigration cases
or being separated from their children, who would be referred to ORR shelters, including possible
foster care. 89 This option gained traction as a large and expanding migrant group originating from
Honduras, referred to as a migrant “caravan,” garnered extensive media attention as it made its
way northward through Central America and Mexico. Subsequent news reports indicated that this
policy was being used in ICE detention centers. 90
Apart from the number of separated children who have been included in the Ms. L. v. ICE
lawsuit, other figures emerged on the total number of family separations that have occurred more
generally. For example, on October 12, 2018, Amnesty International (AI) published a report
citing statistics provided to the organization by CBP indicating that the agency had separated
6,022 “family units” between April 19, 2018, and August 15, 2018. 91 These cases, combined with
86U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Department of
Justice, T he T ri-Department Plan for Stage II of Family Reunification, July 18, 2018. Accessed at
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/UAC-T ri-Department-Process.pdf on November 18, 2018.
87 Julia Ainsley and Jacob Soboroff, “Facing deadline, government reunified 364 of 2,500 -plus migrant children,”
nbcnews.com , July 19, 2018.
88
U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Apprehension,
Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and Unaccompanied Alien Children,” 83 Federal Register 45486-
45534, September 7, 2018.
89
See, for example, Nick Miroff, Josh Dawsey and Maria Sacchett i, “T rump administration weighs new family-
separation effort at border,” Washington Post, October 12, 2018; and Miriam Jordan, Caitlin Dickerson and Michael D.
Shear, “T rump’s Plans to Deter Migrants Could Mean New ‘Voluntary’ Family Separations,” The New York Times,
October 22, 2018.
90
See, for example, Julia Ainsley, “ Family separation is back for migrants at the U.S./Mexican border, say advocates,”
NBC News, May 15, 2020; and Amanda Holpuch, “ Indefinite detention or family separation? US forced immigrants to
choose, lawyers say,” The Guardian, May 15, 2020.
91
Amnesty International, USA: ‘You Don’t Have Any Rights Here’: Illegal Pushbacks, Arbitrary Detention, and Ill-
Treatment of Asylum -Seekers in the United States, October 2018. It is not clear from this report (see Footnote 144)
whether “ family unit” refers to family or to individuals who arrive at the Southwest border as part of a family. T he
report authors suggest that in the context of family separations, “family unit” refers to a family, while in the context of
alien apprehensions reported monthly by CBP, the term refers to individuals who arrive at the Southwest border as part
of a family.

the 1,768 family separations reported by DHS between October 1, 2016, and February 28, 2018
(the 1,065 in FY2017 plus the 703 in the first five months of FY2018 noted separately above)
indicate that CBP has reported a total of 7,790 family separations to either the Congressional
Research Service (CRS) or AI. This total excludes an unknown number of family separations
occurring between March 1 and April 18, 2018. According to AI, it also may exclude an unknown
number of families that were separated after requesting asylum at U.S. ports of entry.
2019
On January 17, 2019, HHS’s OIG issued a report describing ORR’s challenges identifying all
separated children. 92 The report cited limitations with both its information technology system for
tracking such children as well as the complexity of determining which children should be
classified as separated. According to this report, ORR’s review of new information acquired
between July and December 2018 indicated that an additional 162 children had met the criteria to
be included in the Ms. L. v. ICE lawsuit, and that 79 previously included children had not actually
been separated from a parent, changing the total from 2,654 to 2,737 children in the lawsuit. 93 In
addition to the children included in the lawsuit who ORR identified were in its custody as of June
2018, ORR noted that thousands of additional children, who were not included in the accounting
required by the lawsuit, may have been separated during an influx that began in 2017. The OIG
concluded that “the total number of children separated from a parent or guardian by immigration
authorities is unknown.”
On February 7, 2019, a representative from HHS’s OIG testified before Congress that DHS was
continuing to separate children from their parents, although at a lower rate than during the zero
tolerance policy of May-June 2018. 94 The testimony noted that while DHS routinely separates
families if parents have a criminal history, DHS had not provided HHS with sufficient
information to facilitate appropriate placement within the ORR shelter system. The testimony
also noted that thousands more children were likely separated prior to June 26, 2018, but, lacking
any formal system for tracking such separations, the witness could not provide more precise
figures.
On February 14, 2019, Texas Civil Rights Project released a report describing the findings from
interviews with 272 adults who had experienced family separation after President Trump’s June
2018 EO. 95 The interviewees had indicated to screeners that they had been separated from their
children. 96 The data, the first on family separation collected on a large scale by an organization
outside the federal government, indicated that since the zero tolerance policy ended, a
considerable number of family separations had occurred between minor children and relatives
92
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, “Separated Children Place d in Office
of Refugee Resettlement Care,” HHS OIG Issue Brief, OEI-BL-18-00511, January 17, 2019.
93
Problems described in this HHS-OIG report had been reported earlier by DHS’s OIG in September 2018, although
DHS did not quantify children who may have been separated or incorrectly classified. See DHS Office of Inspector
General, “ Special Review - Initial Observations Regarding Family Separation Issues Under the Zero T olerance Policy,”
OIG-18-84, September 27, 2018.
94
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Examining the Failures of the Trump Administration’s Inhumane Family Separation Policy , T estimony of Ann
Maxwell, Office of Inspector General, HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement, 116 th Cong., 1 st sess., February 7.
95
Laura Peña and Efrén C. Olivares, The Real National Emergency: Zero Tolerance & the Continuing Horrors of
Family Separation at the Border, T exas Civil Rights Project, February 14, 2019. Report initially reported by Dara Lind,
“Hundreds of families are still being separated at the border,” Vox, February 21, 2019.
96T he 272 interviewees were a subset of almost 10,000 screened migrants who were prosecuted for immigration
violations at the Southwest border.

other than parents and legal guardians. As noted above, the INA defines an unaccompanied alien
child (UAC) as one under age 18 who lacks lawful immigration status in the United States and
who is not in the care and custody of a parent or legal guardian. 97 According to DHS, minor
children apprehended at the border who are accompanied by older siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles,
grandparents, and other relatives who are not parents or legal guardians must be treated as UAC
separated from their accompanying relatives, and turned over to the custody of ORR. 98 DHS
reportedly does not count such related pairs of individuals as family units in its statistics, raising
concerns among advocates that current CBP statistics may not fully capture the extent of family
separation among apprehended migrants.
On February 21, 2019, the Joint Status Report filed on the status of a revised total of 2,816
children (2,709 ages five and above and 107 under age five)99 included in the Ms. L. v. ICE
lawsuit indicated that 2,735 had been reunited with their parents. 100 The report classified the
statuses of the remaining children as follows: being determined upon further review to have not
been separated from their parents, not reunited because of potential safety issues with the parent,
and not being reunited because deported parents confirmed they wanted to allow the child to
remain in the United States. 101 In addition, the report also indicated that up to 249 additional
children not part of the Ms. L. v. ICE lawsuit had been separated between June 27, 2018 (the day
after the lawsuit was filed), and January 31, 2019. According to ICE, the basis for separation was
largely “parent criminality, prosecution, gang affiliation, or other law enforcement purpose. ”
On March 8, 2019, Judge Sabraw expanded the certified class of parents whose children were
separated from them at the border to include those separated prior to the zero tolerance policy. 102
The expansion occurred after the HHS-OIG reported in January 2019 that potentially thousands
of children may have been separated as early as July 2017. 103
In the year following the enactment and pause of the zero tolerance policy, reports emerged on the
detrimental treatment of children in CBP and ORR custody. 104 Some agency officials attributed
97
6 U.S.C. §279(g)(2).
98
Ibid. See Dara Lind, “Hundreds of families are still being separated at the border,” Vox, February 21, 2019.
99 HHS’s Office of Inspector General testified that ORR has repeatedly revised the number of children determined to be
eligible for inclusion in the Ms. L. v. ICE case. See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Examining the Failures of the Trump Administration’s Inhumane
Family Separation Policy, T estimony of Ann Maxwell, Office of Inspector General, HHS Office of Refugee
Resettlement, 116 th Cong., 1 st sess., February 7.
100 Joint Status Report, Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Case 3:18 -cv-428, Document 360 (S.D.
Cal. February 20, 2019).

101
Ibid.
102
Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Modify Class Definition, Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Case 3:18-cv-428, (S.D. Cal. March 8, 2019).
103
Suzanne Monyak, “Families Separated At Border In 2017 Added T o Class Action,” Law360, March 11, 2019.
104See for example, Nomaan Merchant, “Hundreds of children wait in Border Patrol facility in T exas,” AP News, June
18, 2018; Ginger T hompson, “Listen to Children Who’ve Just Been Separated From T heir Parents at the Border,”
ProPublica, June 18, 2018; Sarah Stillman, “T he Five-Year-Old Who Was Detained at the Border and Persuaded to
Sign Away Her Rights,” New Yorker, October 11, 2018; Caitlin Owens, Stef W. Kight, and Harry Stevens, T housands
of migrant youth allegedly suffered sexual abuse in U.S. custody,” Axios, February 26, 2019; Jacob Soboroff and Julia
Ainsley, “ Botched family reunifications left migrant children waiting in vans overnight,” NBC News, June 3, 2019; and
Caitlin Dickerson, “‘T here Is a Stench’: Soiled Clothes and No Baths for Migrant Children at a T exas Center,” The
New York Times, June 21, 2019.

such treatment to CBP’s inability to transfer custody of children to ORR because the latter agency
lacked sufficient shelter capacity. 105
On July 30, 2019, the ACLU submitted a memorandum to the court indicating that child migrants
had been separated from their parents after the zero tolerance policy was terminated. 106 Of these
cases, the ACLU indicated that 678 occurred because parents had a criminal history for offenses
that included drunken driving, assault, and gang affiliation, as well as theft, disorderly conduct,
and minor property damage. The ACLU filed a request with Judge Sabraw to take action to
prevent parents from losing custody of their children for minor violations, including traffic
offenses. The ACLU subsequently requested that Judge Sabraw enforce a preliminary injunction
that would limit family separation only to cases where the parent is deemed unfit or a danger to
his or her child. 107
On August 21, 2019, DHS and HHS finalized the regulations that would terminate the Flores
Settlement Agreement. 108 As noted above, federal courts have since blocked key aspects of the
regulations as inconsistent with the Flores Settlement Agreement. The rule would have permitted
DHS to detain children with their parents for more than 20 days. Federal courts have since ruled
against this and other key aspects of the regulations based on their inconsistency with the Flores
Settlement Agreement. 109
On October 24, 2019, DOJ disclosed to Judge Sabraw that an additional 1,556 migrant children
had been separated from their parents during the Trump Administration but prior to the zero
tolerance policy, in addition to the 2,816 separated children ultimately tallied for the Ms. L v. ICE
lawsuit. 110 According to the ACLU, which reported the figure, most of the additional children
were under age 13, including 204 under age 5.
On November 25, 2019, the DHS Office of the Inspector General issued a report describing the
lack of CBP’s information technology (IT) functionality that hampered the agency’s ability to
track separated migrant families during the enactment period of the zero tolerance policy. 111
According to the report, CBP officials had known about the deficiencies for several years, having
conducted a pilot program imitating the zero tolerance policy in El Paso, TX, in November 2017.
105Cedar Attanasio, Garance Burke, and Martha Mendoza, “Lawyers: 250 children held in bad conditions at T exas
border,” AP News, June 20, 2019.
106
Maria Sacchetti, “ACLU: U.S. has taken nearly 1,000 child migrants from their parents since judge ordered stop to
border separations,” Washington Post, July 30, 2019. See also, Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce
Preliminary Injunction, Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Case 3:18 -cv-428, Document 439-1
(S.D. Cal. July 30, 2019).
107 Hannah Albarazi, “Family Separation At Border Is ‘Child Abuse’ ACLU T ells Court,” Law360, September 21,
2019.
108U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “DHS and HHS Announce New Rule to Implement the Flores Sett lement
Agreement; Final Rule Published to Fulfill Obligations under Flores Settlement Agreement,” press release, August 21,
2019.
109
Maria Sacchetti, “Federal judge blocks T rump administration from detaining migrant children for indefinite
periods,” Washington Post, September 27, 2019. See also Asher Stockler, “9 th Circ. Rejects T rump Admin. Move T o
Overhaul Flores,” Law360, January 4, 2021.
110
Maria Sacchetti, “ACLU says 1,500 more migrant children were taken from parents by the T rump administration,”
Washington Post, October 24, 2019. See also, Joint Status Report, Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Case 3:18-cv-428, Document 495 (S.D. Cal. November 6, 2019).
111U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, DHS Lacked Technology Needed to
Successfully Account for Separated Migrant Families, OIG-20-06, November 25, 2019.

These IT deficiencies left the OIG’s office unable to confirm the total number of family
separations during the zero tolerance policy or subsequently.
2020
On January 13, 2020, Judge Sabraw issued a ruling reaffirming DHS’s discretionary power to
separate migrant families based on most criminal history (except a first offense of illegal entry) in
the parent’s background.112 The ruling was in response to an ACLU filing that contended that the
Trump Administration was systematically separating migrant families in cases where the parent
was not a danger to the child.
On May 29, 2020, the DHS OIG’s office issued a report indicating that far more families (60
families) than previously reported (7 families) were separated between May 6 and July 9 of 2018
solely because the parents had incurred prior immigration violations. 113 Such circumstances,
according to the report, were “inconsistent with official DHS public messages about the limited
circumstances warranting family separation at ports of entry.”
On June 26, 2020, Judge Dolly Gee ordered ICE to release migrant children detained longer than
20 days within three weeks. 114 The order was in response to advocates’ assertions that ICE was
detaining the children unnecessarily.
On October 20, 2020, parties in the Ms. L v. ICE lawsuit filed a Joint Status Report to establish
the disposition and circumstances of members of the expanded class of the lawsuit (parents of
children separated during the Trump Administration but prior to the zero tolerance policy). 115
According to the report, ICE identified 1,556 children of potential expanded class members,
1,134 of which were confirmed by ICE as being members of the class. Parents of the other 422
children were categorized as “exclusions” who ICE identifies as not being potential expanded
class members. 116
Of the 1,134 children ICE confirmed as expanded class members, ICE had not provided a phone
number in its court documents to allow contact with the parents of 104 of those children. 117 Of the
remaining 1,030 children, a Steering Committee (comprised of ACLU attorneys, members of
several immigrant advocacy organizations, and attorneys from private law firms) had s uccessfully
reached 485 of them. As such, the parents of 545 children (1,030 for which contact information
112
Craig Clough, “Ruling Lets Feds Separate Families At Border For Any Crime,” Law360, January 13, 2020. See
also, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Preliminary Injunction, Ms. L. v. U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Case 3:18-cv-428, (S.D. Cal. January 13, 2020).
113 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, CBP Separated More Asylum -Seeking
Families at Ports of Entry Than Reported and for Reasons Other Than Those Outlined in Public Statements, OIG-20-
35, May 29, 2020.
114Vanessa Romo, “Judge Orders ICE T o Free Detained Immigrant Children Because Of COVID-19,” NPR, June 26,
2020. See also, In Chambers-Order Re Updated Juvenile Coordinator Reports, Jenny L. Flores, et al. v. William P.
Barr, et al., Case 2:85-cv-4544, (C.D. Cal. June 26, 2020).
115
Caitlin Dickerson, “Parents of 545 Children Separated at the Border Cannot Be Found,” The New York Times,
October 21, 2020. See also Joint Status Report, Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Case 3:18 -cv-
428, Document 556 (S.D. Cal. October 20, 2020).
116
DHS reportedly maintained that it would not disclose information about th e parents of the 422 excluded children
because those individuals had criminal records that prevented DHS from reuniting them with their children under DHS
policy. ACLU indicated that it plans to contact those individuals and “reserves the right to contest these exclusions.”
117T he October 20, 2020, Joint Status Report cited above did not explain why ICE lacked a phone number for the 104
children.

exists minus those successfully contacted) were considered to remain out of contact. 118 The
Steering Committee estimated that about two-thirds of these uncontacted parents (representing
about 360 children) were residing in their countries of origin and required alternative on-the-
ground methods to establish contact. These efforts have been hampered by the COVID-19
pandemic. 119 Of the parents that the Steering Committee had contacted, none sought to have their
children returned to their countries of origin. 120
In some cases, members of the Steering Committee have had only names and countries of origin
to go on in trying to locate separated parents. Even after conducting public record searches to
identify the cities where the families were from, they faced additional hurdles. Many of the
families had fled their homes because they were escaping violence or extortion, and intentionally
withheld information from friends and neighbors about where they were going. 121 The ACLU,
which is leading the court challenge to the family separation policy, said it had also been unable
to find 362 of the children, many of whom are likely living in the United States, whose parents
were deemed unreachable. Reportedly, 60 of the 545 children were under age five when they
were separated.
On December 2, 2020, a Joint Status Report in the ongoing ACLU lawsuit described efforts to
locate the parents of 1,198 separated children. This figure included the 1,134 children described
above, and an additional 64 “Recategorized Original Class” children who were not identified as
part of original class in June 2018 but whose existence DHS subsequently disclosed. 122 The
Steering Committee, having contacted the parents or attorneys of 570 children, still needed to
contact those of the remaining 628 children. 123 This latter group consisted of 295 children whose
parents were likely deported and 333 children whose parents were likely still in the United States.
Of the 628, the Steering Committee contacted at least one other family member for 168 children.
On-the-ground searches for parents were hampered by the COVID-19 pandemic. 124
2021
To compute the total number of children who were ever separated from their parents or legal
guardians as the result of the zero tolerance policy and its prototype requires counting those
separated over three periods: 1) during the 2017 pilot program; 2) during the six-week period in
2018 when the policy was enacted; and 3) during the period after the policy’s pause on June 20,
2018. As noted above, the ACLU’s lawsuit includes a class of 1,556 children separated during the
118A subset of these parents representing 470 children are considered “unreachable” because the Steering Committe e
has neither been able to successfully contact them nor expects telephonic outreach to be successful.
119 Methods to establish contact with parents include conducting on-the-ground searches; establishing toll-free
telephone numbers in the United States, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and El Salvador; sending letters to addresses
provided by ICE; using broad-based media outreach; and working with a U.S. nonprofit organization to locate parents
residing in the United States.
120 Joint Status Report, Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Case 3:18-cv-428, Document 556 (S.D.
Cal. October 20, 2020).

121
Caitlin Dickerson, “Parents of 545 Children Separated at the Border Cannot Be Found,” The New York Times,
October 21, 2020.
122 See Joint Status Report, Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Case 3:18 -cv-428, Document 360
(S.D. Cal. February 20, 2019).

123
T he number of related parents is 1,082 because some entered with more than one child.
124Priscilla Alvarez, “Parents of 628 migrant children separated at border still have not been found, court filing says,”
CNN, December 2, 2020. See also, Joint Status Report, Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Case
3:18-cv-428, Document 560 (S.D. Cal. December 2, 2020).

first period. It also includes a class of 2,816 children separated during the six-week policy.
Regarding the third period, according to HHS, 3,793 children were separated from their parents
or legal guardians between April 1, 2018, and November 30, 2020, with 2,826 occurring in the
later 9 months of 2018, 927 occurring in all of 2019, and 40 occurring in the first 11 months of
2020. 125 Combining the HHS figure with the 1,556 children included in the expanded class of the
ACLU lawsuit that were separated prior to the zero tolerance policy yields a total of 5,349
recorded children separated between March 2017, at the start of the DHS pilot program, and
November 30, 2020.
Policy Perspectives
Perspectives on the zero tolerance policy generally divide into two groups. Those who support
greater immigration enforcement point to recent surges in family unit migration and a substantial
backlog of asylum cases that are straining DHS and DOJ resources, potentially compromising the
agencies’ abilities to meet their outlined missions. Those who advocate on behalf of immigrants
criticize the Trump Administration’s treatment of migrants as unnecessarily harsh and
counterproductive.
Enforcement Perspectives
DHS and DOJ contended that the zero tolerance policy enforced existing law and was needed to
reduce illegal immigration. 126 DHS noted that foreign nationals attempting to enter the United
States between ports of entry or “without inspection” were committing a crime punishable under
the INA as a misdemeanor on the first occasion and a felony for every attempt thereafter.
DHS maintained that it had a long-standing policy of separating children from adults when
children are at risk because of threats from human trafficking or because the familial relationship
is suspect. DHS also maintained that it did not have a formal policy of separating parents from
children for deterrence purposes, and it followed a standard policy of keeping families together
“as long as operationally possible.”127 According to DHS, the agency had “a legal obligation to
protect the best interests of the child whether that is from human smugglings, drug traffickers, or
nefarious actors who knowingly break [U.S.] immigration laws and put minor children at risk.”128
Accordingly, DHS considered it appropriate to treat children of apprehended parents as UAC. 129
125
U.S. Department of Healt h and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Monthly Report to
Congress on Separated Children, November 2020 . Of this number, 316 (8%) were under five years old.
126 Sari Horwitz and Maria Sacchetti, “Sessions vows to prosecute all illegal border crossers and separate children from
their parents,” Washington Post, May 7, 2018. Senior immigration and border officials had reportedly issued a
confidential memo to DHS Secretary Nielsen supporting the policy as the “most effective” way to reduce illegal entry.
127 T estimony of the Honorable Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, in U.S. Congress, House Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, FY 2019 Budget Hearing - Department of Homeland
Security, , 115 th Cong., 2 nd sess., April 11, 2018 (hereinafter, “Nielsen testimony, April 11, 2018”). Other observers
contended that Attorney General Sessions explicitly justified the zero tolerance policy on the basis of deterring
migrants from coming to the United States. See, for example, Christopher Ingraham, “ Sessions says family separation
is ‘necessary’ to keep the country from being ‘overwhelmed.’ Federal immigration data says otherwise,” Washington
Post, June 18, 2017; and U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Attorney General Sessions Delivers
Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcement Actions of the T rump Administration,” May 7, 2018.
128
Maria Sacchetti, “ T op Homeland Security officials urge criminal prosecution of parents crossing border with
children,” Washington Post, April 26, 2018.
129
For more information on ORR processing of UAC, see CRS Report R43599, Unaccompanied Alien Children: An
Overview.

DHS posited that while family separation was an unfortunate outcome of stricter enforcement of
immigration laws and criminal prosecution of illegal entry and reentry, it was no different than
the family separation that occurs regularly in the U.S. criminal justice system when parents of
minor children commit a crime and are taken into criminal custody. 130 Then Attorney General
Sessions stated that parents who did not want to be separated from their children should not
attempt to cross the U.S. border illegally. 131
Then DHS Secretary Nielsen justified the zero tolerance policy with statistics showing an
increase of over 200% in illegal border crossings and inadmissible cases along the Southwest
border between April 2017 and April 2018. 132 She also cited similar substantial increases in
monthly apprehensions of family units and unaccompanied alien children during this period.
Secretary Nielsen also stated that while the apprehension figures “are at times higher or lower
than in years past, it makes little difference,” characterizing them as unacceptable. 133 DHS
officials cited results of the pilot program imposed at the Border Patrol’s El Paso sector (covering
West Texas and New Mexico) for part of 2017, where a similar family separation policy reduced
the number of illegal family border crossings by 64%.134
DHS noted135 that its zero tolerance policy reflected President Trump’s January 2017 Executive
Order 13767136 on border security, which directed executive branch departments and agencies to
“deploy all lawful means to secure the Nation’s Southwest border, to prevent further illegal
immigration into the United States, and to repatriate illegal aliens swiftly, consistently, and
humanely.” DHS further contends that parents who attempt to cross illegally into the United
States with their children not only put their children at grave risk but also enrich transnational
criminal organizations to whom they pay smuggling fees. 137 DHS argues that some parents, aware
of the limited amount of family detention space, intentionally use their children as shields from
detention and anticipate that they will be viewed, as they had been in prior years, as low security
130
Nielsen testimony, April 11, 2018.
131 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the
132 Nielsen testimony, April 11, 2018. CBP apprehended 15,798 unautho rized migrants at the southern border in April
2017 and 51,168 in April 2018. See U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “Southwest Border Migration FY2018,”
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration/fy-2018, updated November 9, 2018. CBP defines
inadmissibles as “individuals encountered at ports of entry who are seeking lawful admission into the United States but
are determined to be inadmissible, individuals presenting themselves to seek humanitarian protection under our laws,
and individuals who withdraw an application for admission and return to their countries of origin within a short
timeframe.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “Nationwide Enforcement Encoun ters: T itle 8 Enforcement Actions
and T itle 42 Expulsions,” https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement -statistics/title-8-and-title-42-statistics.
133 Because monthly apprehensions can fluctuate substantially between years, average monthly apprehensions may
provide a more accurate measure of illegal border crossing activity. Average monthly apprehensions of all border
crossers in FY2016, FY2017, and FY2018 were 46,114, 34,626, and 43,424, respectively. Ibid.
134
Maria Sacchetti, “ T op Homeland Security officials urge criminal prosecution of parents crossing border with
children,” Washington Post, April 26, 2018. T he 64% statistic was criticized as inaccurate and misleading by at least
one news report; see Dara Lind, “ T rump’s DHS is using an extremely dubious statistic to justify splitting up families at
the border,” Vox, May 8, 2018. In addition, other reports suggested that family separation was occurring because of
increased prosecution of illegal border crossing since the summer of 2017; see Jonathan Blitzer, “ How the T rump
Administration Got Comfortable Separating Immigrant Kids from T heir Parents,” The New Yorker, May 30, 2018.
135 Email communication to CRS from CBP Legislative Affairs, June 4, 2018.
136
Executive Order 13767, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” 82 Federal Register 8793-
8797, January 25, 2017.
137Victoria A. Greenfield, Blas Nuñez-Neto, Ian Mitch, Joseph C. Chang, and Etienne Rosas, Human Smuggling and
Associated Revenues: What Do or Can We Know About Routes from Central America to the United States? , Homeland
Security Operational Analysis Center, Rand Corporation, 2019.

risks. 138 DHS points to unpublished intelligence reports describing cases where unrelated adults
have used or trafficked children in order to avoid immigration detention. 139 DHS and other
observers also note that asylum requests have increased considerably, a trend that raises concerns
about possible fraud and the misuse of asylum claims to enter and remain in the United States. 140
DHS notes that ICE and ORR both play a role in family reunification and characterizes the
process as “well-coordinated.”141 DHS maintains that it has procedures in place to connect
separated family members and ensure that parents know the location of minors and can regularly
communicate with them. Mechanisms to facilitate such communication include posted
information notices in ICE detention facilities, an HHS Adult Hotline and email inquiry address,
and an ICE call center and email inquiry address. 142 DHS and ORR are using DNA testing to
confirm familial ties between parents and children. 143
Immigrant Advocacy Perspectives

Immigrant advocacy organizations argued that migrant families were fleeing a well-documented
epidemic of gang violence from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras. 144 They criticized the practice of family separation because it seemingly punished
people for fleeing dangerous circumstances and seeking asylum in the United States. They
posited that requesting asylum was not an illegal act, 145 that Congress created laws that require
DHS to process and evaluate claims for humanitarian protection, that DHS must honor
congressional intent by humanely processing and evaluating such claims, and that many who
requested asylum had valid claims and compelling circumstances that merited consideration. 146
Immigrant advocates also criticized the Trump Administration for creating what they consider to
be a debacle of its own making, characterized by frequently changing policies and
138
Ibid.
139
Ariane de Vogue and T al Kopa, “ ACLU class action lawsuit seeks to block immigrant family separations,” CNN,
March 9, 2018.
140
See, for example, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “ USCIS to T ake Action to Address Asylum Backlog,”
press release, January 31, 2018.
141
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Fact Sheet: Zero-T olerance Prosecution and Family Reunification,” press
release, June 23, 2018. In some cases, expedited DOJ hearings resulted in family reunification occurring in CBP
holding facilities because children had not yet been transported to ORR custody. In such cases, family reunification
occurs in CBP custody before the family unit is transported to an ICE immigration detention facility for family units.
142 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Myth vs. Fact: DHS Zero-T olerance Policy,” press release, June 18, 2018.
143
Email correspondence from ORR Legislative Affairs, July 11, 2018; and U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, “ Unaccompanied Alien Children Frequently Asked Questions,” website, July 9, 2018, accessed by CRS on
July 12, 2018.
144
See CRS Report RL34112, Gangs in Central America.
145
See, for example, American Immigration Council, “Asylum in the United States, Fact Sheet,” May 14, 2018; and
International Justice Resource Center, Asylum and the Rights of Refugees, accessed by CRS on July 12, 2018, at
https://ijrcenter.org/refugee-law/.
146
According to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, countries should not punish asylum-seekers who
violate immigration laws if they present themselves to authorities. Although not a party to this convention, t he United
States is a party to a 1967 Protocol to the Convention, provisions of which are found in the 1980 Refugee Act. Under
current U.S. policy, most aliens arriving in the United States without proper documentation who claim asylum are held
until their “ credible fear” hearing, but some asylum seekers are held until their asylum claims have been adjudicated.
For background information, see archived CRS Report RL32369, Immigration-Related Detention.

justifications, 147 what some describe as an uncoordinated implementation process, and the
absence of an effective plan to reunify separated families. 148
News reports and OIG investigations about the decisionmaking process leading up to the zero
tolerance policy indicate that while senior officials in the Trump Administration were aware of
the link between the zero tolerance policy and the family separations that would result from
enforcing it, they lacked a coordinated plan to reunite the separated families. 149
In some cases, records linking parents to children reportedly may have disappeared or been
destroyed, hampering efforts to establish relationships between family members. 150 Media reports
described obstacles to reuniting families after separation, including a lack of communication
between federal agencies, the absence of information about accompanying children collected by
CBP at the time of apprehension, the inability of ICE detainees to receive phone calls without
special arrangements, and a cumbersome vetting process to ensure children’s safe placement with
parents. 151 Similar observations were made subsequently by government agencies. 152 In addition,
while DOJ typically detained and prosecuted parents for illegal entry at federal detention centers
147
Maria Sacchetti, “ DHS proposal would change rules for minors in immigration detention ,” Washington Post, May 9,
2018. T his proposal was first publicly suggested by then DHS Secretary John Kelly in March, 2017. See Daniella Diaz,
“ Kelly: DHS is considering separating undocumented children from their parents at the border ,” CNN, March 7, 2017.
Following the ensuing controversy over his interview, he subsequently stated that DHS would not implement such
policies. See T al Kopan, “Kelly says DHS won’t separate families at the border,” CNN, March 29, 2017.
148 See, for example, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Review of the Department of Justice’s
Planning and Implementation of Its Zero Tolerance Policy and Its Coordination with the Departments of Homeland
Security and Health and Human Services, 21-028, January 2021; Neena Satija, Karoun Demirjian, Abigail Hauslohner
and Josh Dawsey, “A T rump administration strategy led to the child migrant backup crisis at the border,” Washington
Post, November 12, 2019; Kevin Sieff, “T he chaotic effort to reunite immigrant parents with their separated kids,”
Washington Post, June 21, 2018; Erik Hanshew, “Families will no longer be separated at the border. But where are my
clients’ kids?,” Washington Post, June 20, 2018; Jonathan Blitzer, “The Government has no plan for reuniting the
immigrant families it is tearing apart,” The New Yorker, June 18, 2018.
149 See, for example, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Review of the Department of Justice’s
Planning and Implementation of Its Zero Tolerance Policy and Its Coordination with the Departments of Homeland
Security and Health and Human Services, 21-028, January 2021; and Michael D. Shear, Katie Benner and Michael S.
Schmidt, “‘We Need to T ake Away Children,’ No Matter How Young, Justice Dept. Officials Said,” The New York
Times, updated October 21, 2020.
150
See, for example, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, DHS Lacked Technology
Needed to Successfully Account for Separated Migrant Families, OIG-20-06, November 25, 2019; Julia Ainsley and
Jacob Soboroff, “Officials said in 2017 that separated migrants under 12 couldn't find parents again on their own,”
NBC News, October 9, 2020; and Caitlin Dickerson, “T rump Administration in Chaotic Scramble to Reunify Migrant
Families,” The New York Times, July 5, 2018. In response to the challenges with reuniting families that occurred during
and following the zero tolerance policy, DHS initiated the Unified Immigration Portal (UIP), a technological platform
where users from multiple federal agencies with immigration-related missions can access and share immigration data
through a single interface. According to the CBP, “t he federated nature of the solution will allow agencies to manage
their unique domains of the immigration mission, while also accessing complete, real-time information on a common
platform.” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Budget Overview, Fiscal Year
2021, Congressional Justification, CBP-PC&I-40 (pdf p. 281).
151 See, for example, Ian Lovett and Louise Radnofsky, “ Amid Chaos at Border, Some Immigrant Families Reunite,”
Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2018; Jonathan Blitzer, “The Government has no plan for reuniting the immigrant
families it is tearing apart,” The New Yorker, June 18, 2018; T ed Hesson and Dan Diamond, “As deadline looms,
T rump officials struggle to reunite migrant families,” Politico, July 2, 2018; Ritu Prasad, “Undocumented migrant
families embark on chaotic reunion process,” BBC, June 25, 2018; and Caitlin Dickerson, “T rump Administration in
Chaotic Scramble to Reunify Migrant Families,” The New York Times, July 5, 2018.
152
DHS Office of Inspector General, “Special Review - Initial Observations Regarding Family Separation Issues Under
the Zero T olerance Policy,” OIG-18-84, September 27, 2018; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of Inspector General, “Separated Children Placed in Office of Refugee Resettlement Care,” HHS-OIG Issue
Brief, January 2019. OEI-BL-18-00511.

and courthouses near the U.S.-Mexico border, ORR housed their children at shelters
geographically dispersed in 17 states, in some cases thousands of miles away from the parents.
Child welfare professionals asserted that family separation has the potential to cause lasting
psychological harm for adults 153 and especially for children. 154 Some pointed to findings of a
DHS advisory panel as well as of other organizations that viewed family detention as neither
appropriate nor necessary for families and as not being in children’s best interests. 155
Some immigration observers questioned the Trump Administration’s ability to marshal resources
required to prosecute all illegal border crossers given that Congress had not appropriated
additional funding to support the zero tolerance policy. One news report, for example, noted that
3,769 foreign nationals were convicted of illegal entry in criminal courts during March 2018, a
month in which 37,383 foreign nationals were apprehended for illegal entry. 156 Given the relative
size of the task they face, observers questioned how DOJ and DHS could channel fiscal resources
to meet this objective without compromising their other missions. 157 They contended that the
policy was counterproductive because it prevented CBP from using risk-based strategies to
pursue the most egregious crimes, thereby making the Southwest border region less safe and
more prone to criminal activity. 158 Some suggested that the zero tolerance policy was diverting
resources from, and thereby hindering, other DHS operations. 159
Some in Congress criticized the family separation policy because of its cost in light of alternative
options, such as community-based detention programs. They cited, for example, the Family Case
Management Program (FCMP), which monitored families seeking asylum and demonstrated
reportedly high compliance rate with immigration requirements such as court hearings and
immigration appointments. 160 The FCMP, which began in January 2016, 161 was terminated by the
Trump Administration in April 2017. 162 According to DHS, the FCMP average daily cost of $36
See, for example, DHS Advisory Committee on Family Residential Centers, “Report of the DHS Advisory
153
Committee on Family Residential Centers,” September 30, 2016; and Alexander Miller, Julia Meredith Hess, Deborah
Bybee, and Jessica R. Goodkind, “Understanding the mental health consequences of family separation for refugees:
Implications for policy and practice,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 88 (2018), pp. 26-37.
154 See, for example, American Academy of Pediatrics, Letter from Colleen A. Kraft, President, to T he Honorable
Kirstjen M. Nielsen, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, March 1, 2018; Julie M. Linton, Marsha Griffin, Alan J.
Shapiro, and Council on Community Pediatrics, “Detention of Immigrant Children,” Pediatrics, vol. 139 (April 2017),
pp. 1-13; and Kimberly Howard, Anne Martin, Lisa J. Berlin, and Jean Brooks-Gunn, “Early Mother-Child Separation,
Parenting, and Child Well-Being in Early Head Start Families,” Attachment & Human Development, vol. 13 (2011), pp.
5-26.
155
DHS Advisory Committee on Family Residential Centers, “Report of the DHS Advisory Committee on Family
Residential Centers,” September 30, 2016. T his report cites similar findings by Government Accountability Office, the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the American Bar Association, among others.
156
Alan Bersin, Nate Bruggeman and Ben Rohrbaugh, “T rump’s ‘zero tolerance’ bluff on the border will hurt security,
not help,” Washington Post, May 31, 2018.
157
CBP, for example, describes its mission priorities as countering terrorism, combatting transnational crime, securing
the border, facilitating lawful trade and protecting revenue, and facilitating lawful travel. See U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, “About CBP,” https://www.cbp.gov/about, updated December 18, 2020.
158 Ibid.
159
Nick Mirnoff, “Seeking a split from ICE, some agents say T rump’s immigration crackdown hurts investigations and
morale,” Washington Post, June 28, 2018.
160 DHS Office of Inspector General, “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Award of the Family Case
Management Program Contract (Redacted),” OIG-18-22, November 30, 2017.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Fact Sheet, Stakeholder Referrals to the ICE/ERO Family Case
161
Management Program,” January 6, 2016.

162 Frank Bajak, “ICE Shutters Detention Alternative for Asylum -Seekers,” U.S. News and World Report, June 9, 2017.

reportedly exceeded that of “intensive supervision” programs ($5-$7 daily), 163 although both
programs were considerably lower than the average daily cost of family detention ($319). 164
More broadly, immigration advocates contended that the Trump Administration was engaged in a
concerted effort to restrict access to asylum and reduce the number of asylum claims. 165 They
cautioned that prosecuting persons who cross into the United States in order to present themselves
before a CBP officer and request asylum raised concerns about whether the United States was
abiding by human rights and refugee-related international protocols. 166 They noted a considerable
backlog of pending defensive asylum cases, which numbered almost 325,000 (45%) of the
roughly 720,000 total pending immigration cases in EOIR’s docket as of June 11, 2018. 167 They
also cited Attorney General Sessions’s decision to limit the extent to which immigration judges
could consider gang or domestic violence as sufficient grounds for asylum. 168
Congressional Activity
This section in intended to illustrate the range of legislative proposals to address family
separation rather than provide a complete list of all such related proposals. Few of the bills saw
legislative action and none were enacted.
116 th Congress
Family separation-related legislation introduced during the 116th Congress contained provisions
largely intended to prevent or limit the practice. Some bills, for example, would have granted
humanitarian parole and/or LPR status to separated parents and children upon request. Others
contained provisions to keep families together during all processing stages following
apprehension at a U.S. border, or contained protections against prosecution for illegal border
crossing of asylum seekers and grantees. Some contained provisions that would have facilitated
communication among family members and the expeditious reunification of separated families.
Legislative proposals also included funding increases for participation in Alternatives to
Detention programs and Family Case Management Program, both alternatives to family
detention.
163
Ibid. Intensive supervision programs monitor aliens in deportation proceedings who have been released from
detention. T hey often involve electronic monitoring devices such as GPS ankle bracelets or voice recognition software
for telephone-based reporting, and intensive case management.
164 DHS was overseeing three family detention facilities in 2018: Berks Family Residential Center in Berks County,
PA; Karnes Residential Center in Karnes City, T X; and South T exas Family Residential Center in Dilley, T X.
165 Simon Romero and Miriam Jordan, “On the Border, a Discouraging New Message for Asylum Seekers: Wait,” The
New York Times, June 12, 2018; and Jonathan Blitzer, “T he Trump Administration Is Completely Unravelling the U.S.
Asylum System,” The New Yorker, June 11, 2018. For a contrary view on the weakening of the asylum system, see Dan
Cadman, “Asylum in the United States,” Center for Immigration Studies, March 26, 2014.
166
Jonathan Blitzer, “T he T rump Administration Is Completely Unravelling the U.S. Asylum System,” The New
Yorker, June 11, 2018.
167
Email correspondence to CRS from DOJ Legislative Affairs, June 28, 2018.
168
Matter of A-B-, Respondent, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), Interim Decisions #3929. The ruling vacated a 2016
decision by DOJ’s Board of Immigration Appeals, the immigration appeals court for EOIR, granting asylum to a
woman who experienced sexual, emotional, and physical abuse. See T ed Hesson and Josh Gerstein, “Sessions moves to
block asylum for most victims of domestic, gang violence,” Politico, June 11, 2018; and Katie Benner and Caitlin
Dickerson, “Sessions Says Domestic and Gang Violence Are Not Grounds for Asylum,” The New York Times, June 11,
2018.

115 th Congress
Relevant legislation introduced in the 115th Congress included bills that would have increased
immigration enforcement as well as bills that would have prevent family separation. Bills that
emphasized immigration enforcement included provisions, for example, that would have provided
statutory authority for President Trump’s executive order within the INA; clarified standards for
family detention; permitted children accompanied by parents to remain in DHS custody during
the pendency of a parent’s criminal prosecution, rather than being referred to ORR and treated as
UAC; and/or increased funding for family unit facilities, personnel, and judges.
Some legislative proposals intended to prevent or limit family separation contained provisions
that would have kept families together during all stages of processing following apprehension at a
U.S. border, prohibited family separation for individuals with developmental disabilities, and
required federal agencies to reunite minor children already separated from their parents. Others
would have maintained family unity by making the Flores Settlement Agreement and related laws
and regulations inapplicable to apprehended accompanied children, limited the separation of
families seeking asylum by mandating that they be housed together, and facilitated asylum
processing by providing additional resources and establishing asylum processing deadlines.
Author Information
William A. Kandel
Analyst in Immigration Policy
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
Congressional Research Service R45266 · VERSION 11 · UPDATED 26

The Trump Administration's "Zero Tolerance" Immigration Enforcement Policy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Trump Administration's "Zero Tolerance" Immigration Enforcement Policy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Trump Administration's "Zero Tolerance" Immigration Enforcement Policy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Trump Administration’s “Zero

Tolerance” Immigration Enforcement Policy

Updated February 2, 2021

Congressional Research Service

Congressional Research Service

Congressional Research Service

Congressional Research Service

The Zero Tolerance Policy Under the Biden Administration

Congressional Research Service 1

Congressional Research Service 2

Enforcement and Asylum Policy for Illegal

Illegal U.S. Entry

Congressional Research Service 3

Congressional Research Service 4

Congressional Research Service 5

Prosecution of Aliens Charged with Illegal Border

Congressional Research Service 6

Congressional Research Service 7

 cannot determine the family relationship or otherwise verify identity,

Prosecution of Aliens Charged with Illegal Border

Congressional Research Service 8

Timeline on Family Separation

Congressional Research Service 9

Congressional Research Service 10

Congressional Research Service 11

Congressional Research Service 12

Congressional Research Service 13

Congressional Research Service 14

Congressional Research Service 15

Cal. February 20, 2019).

Congressional Research Service 16

Congressional Research Service 17

Congressional Research Service 18

Cal. October 20, 2020).

(S.D. Cal. February 20, 2019).

Congressional Research Service 19

Congressional Research Service 20

Congressional Research Service 21

Immigrant Advocacy Perspectives

Congressional Research Service 22

Congressional Research Service 23

Management Program Contract (Redacted),” OIG-18-22, November 30, 2017.

Management Program,” January 6, 2016.

Congressional Research Service 24

Congressional Research Service 25

Congressional Research Service R45266 · VERSION 11 · UPDATED 26

You might also like