tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC June 19, 2018 6:00pm-7:00pm PDT
p.m. eastern time. i'll be there as well. you should be too. there is more to cover here. lawrence thank you very much for joining me. >> thanks, chris. and we will be back here live from mcallen, texas, tomorrow night where much more reporting on this important story. the rachel maddow show starts right now. good evening, rachel. >> good evening, chris, well done my friend and thank you for being there covering this. thanks at home for joining us this hour. we have a lot to get to tonight. at this time on last night's show, this time last night we reported the new news that the republican governor of massachusetts charlie baker had canceled his national guard deployment to the border from his state in protest of president trump's new policy of separating kids from their parents at the border. massachusetts canceling a national guard deployment and reported last night at this time on another new action taken by the democrat governor of colorado, john hickenlooper. who signed an executive order
yesterday insisting that no colorado state resources could be used in any way to support that new trump administration family separation policy. so we broke the news of both of those aksz actions by the two different governors at this time last night and that is an interesting pair of actions. a democratic governor and a republican governor on the east coast, both of them popular governors, both of them ambitious and both deciding to take an additional step beyond just saying they disagreed with the policy of taking kids away from parents. they both decided on the same day that they needed to move on beyond just criticizing the policy to instead start taking actual overt action against it. well, that was yesterday. with those two governors. now today they apparently bust open the flood gates. today the governor of new jersey phil murphy took the same action as the colorado governor and said no state resources will be used from new jersey to support the family separation policy in
any way. then the governor of delaware, john carney announced, today we received a request to send delaware national guard troops to the southwest border, under normal circumstances we wouldn't hesitate to answer the call but given what we know about the policies currently in effect at the border, i cannot in good conscious send delawareans to help with the mission and rervegsed president tru rerve rervegsed -- and referenced the policy of separating children from parents. and over the course of the day all of the other governors announced variations, democrats and republicans. one governor announced he is pulling all members of the national guard from the border and there are current maryland national guardsmen there now and he's calling them home today, quote, until this policy of separating children from families has been rescinded. and in new hampshire, chris sen
unu a -- saying they have not been asked but the governor said, quote, if asked, he would refuse. governor saying today in a statement, quote, i will not send our new hampshire troops to the southern board tore separate families. and the governor of rhode island will not send -- rhode island national guard and the governor of connecticut said he will not send national guard and andrew cuomo will not send new york national guard troops. like governor hoagin in maryland and in virginia and roy coopner north carolina, they also announced today that -- it wasn't just that they wouldn't send national guard in the future, they are actively taking national guard personnel from their states who are on the border right now and they are calling them home. they are rescinding orders and bringing the national guard troops and materials home from
the border. and there is no ambiguity as to why the governors are doing it. the governor of north carolina, governor cooper cited, quote, the kuehl policy of tearing children away from parents. the governor of virginia, governor northam said, quote, as lo -- as long as the trump administration continues to enforce this, we will not actively or tacitly support it. so this is just a 24-hour snapshot of what is going on in the country. started as a little trickle last night, the interesting governors from a couple of states from two different parties deciding to make a -- a slightly more than symbolic statement against the trump administration family separation policy. that is the trickle last night. today it is this flood of governors all over the country. and realistically speaking, sending home national guardsmen and national guardswomen from the states and border deployment, it is probably not
going to make a material difference on the border. it is not going to make a material difference as to whether or not this policy of taking kids away from parents is able to go ahead. but the fact that all of the governors are doing this and all in a rush shows you the eagerness that the states have, that the governors have to try to make sure they are on the record as more than just condemning this policy, they want to be on the record, they want to be known in history as public officials who actively opposed it. that's basically what is going on in the country right now. as the program itself is getting bigger and faster. around 50 kids are taken away from parents every day as of last month and right now around 70 kids every day being taken away from parents. and as 70 kids are being taken every day, yesterday 70 kids, today 70 kids, tomorrow 70 kids. and as this program gets bigger and bigger and more outrage o--
more swells and spreads all different kinds of americans are trying to sort of do what the governors are doing. they are look for ways not just express their dismay or their criticism or disagreement or their outrage, people are looking for ways to try to stop the policy. to try to stop what the administration is doing. how can i do more than just express my upset? you saw it from the actions taken from the governors. you can't use my state resources and can't use my state troops or my state helicopters at the border. you saw today from the governors. saw it also from these three random moms in columbus, ohio, who decided that even if it was just them and no army, they -- they didn't have any troops to order, these three moms decided they could do something and they decided they would go to the office of their senator, rob portman.
>> hi, everyone. this is merrill lehman, here with -- do you want your last name used. >> sarah boyd. >> with sarah boyd and -- danielle. >> danielle car low. >> so we're inside of -- as you could see the anti-room of senator portman's columbus office and been lear -- and sin 3:30 here asking the senator to respond to specific questions we had that people have been asking him for days and days, what would he would do specifically to address this immediate need to remedy the problem of children being taken from their families. so i don't think we have much time. i think the police are coming up soon. but the answer that we got was not satisfactory. people in similar horrible
situations like holocaust survivors i've seen talk about how now even at age 80 and 90 and even having been transferred from their parents to -- to loving foster homes to try to avoid being killed by the nazis, never got over being separated from their parents. that they suffered with ongoing and long-term psychological harm because of that. and so we don't want to, as parents, allow that and sit back and feel like we haven't done our part. though i'm here with two other moms, sarah, who is there and danielle who is there. and myself and we are all feeling that we are in a position that we -- we can do this. that even if they come and arrest us for trespassing because we've over stayed our
welcome in their office, that our children will not be removed from us and put in wire pens, wire cages. and so -- and we have the money and resources to be able to get out of that situation in a timely fashion. and so it is sort of the least we can do and we told them we expect senator portman to do more. >> my understanding is that our colleague who was trying to come up with us, another mom we were going to be -- four moms is being arrested in the lobby. she was trying to get up with us and stayed in the lobby because they wouldn't allow her. so we're assuming they're coming to get us soon. so please, everyone, don't think about us, just focus on spreading the word and making sure that everyone gets out and votes in november and that senator portman understands that his time for opinion ating has long passed and he needs to do something. >> it looks like the police ultimately did show up and
arrest people at rob portman's office today in columbus. there we there -- other people from the group protesting outsides while the three moms sat in, in portman's office and they were arrested today. there were protests against the familiy separation policy today in philadelphia. a lot of people turned out in philadelphia. where vice president mike pence was giving a speech. there were protests against the policy in new york city today and into tonight. in washington, d.c. today dozens of clergy members spoke outside of the headquarters of customs and border protection. in el paso, texas at the immigration and customs enforcement processing center which we'll talk about later on with the reporter there over the last couple of days, a whole bunch of people today in el paso braved the heat to protest this new policy of the trump administration taking kids away from their parents. and in the congress today the republican-controlled congress,
any proceeding on any topic today was likely to turn into a discussion if not ultimately a righteous denunsiation of this new policy. here is a sample when ch -- that we got from elijah cummings and a hearing that republicans called to discuss hillary clinton's e-mails and this is instead what he wanted to talk about. >> we now have reports that parents are being deported but the trump administration is keeping their children here. 2018, in america. we do not need legislation. this is a policy and understand this, this was a policy invented, implemented and executed by president trump. we need you -- those children
need you. i'm talking directly to my republican colleagues. we need you to stand up to president trump. we need you to join us in telling him that we reject this mean policy. we need you to tell him to abandon this policy. we need you to remind him that this is a united states of america. and it is a great country. and we need you to stand up for those children. we sent letter after letter, letter after letter asking these committees to investigate the trump administration's policy which is now resulting in child internment camps. that is what i said. child internment camps.
but we have got no response. even if you believe immigration should be halted entirely, we all should be able to agree that in the united states of america we will not intentionally separate children from their parents. we will not do that. we are better than that. we are so much better. we should be able to agree that we will not keep kids in child internment camps indefinitely and hidden away from public view. what country is that? this is the united states of america. >> congressman elijah cummings in congress and that is what it is like in congress right now. congressman cummings is his own thing and a very powerful speaker but this is the level of
outrage summoned by what the trump administration has started doing on the border. but they want this. there is this tension here in terms of what the administration is trying to pull off here. it is not that they didn't know it would create outrage to start ripping 2-year-olds away from parents. it is not like they are trying to assuage people's concerns about the policy. there is a reason the president went out of his way today to deliberately describe immigrants as an infestation in this country. they infest our country -- he said today. white house knows what that means. white house adviser steven miller explained to "the new york times" how much the trump administration loves the outrage over this. how much they are in fact banking on it. how, in fact, that is the point of what they are doing. steven miller telling the "times," you have one party in favor of open boards and you have one party that wants to
secure the border. all day long the american people are going to side with the parry that wants to secure the border. not 55-45 or 60-40, 70-30, 80-20, i'm talking 90-10 on that. in the trump administration political view, in their strategic world view, anybody who complains about this policy or expresses outrage or hurt about the policy is exposing themself as a wus and what the american people will vote for at the ballot box is harshness toward immigrants and they want it to be seen as unconscionably harsh. the more the better because the more outrage and protest they stir up, the more strongly anti-immigrant they will be seen. and they think that is the best political issue they've got bar none. washington post white house reporter philip rucker told nickal wallace that he visited the white house today and he was able to see their delight over all of the outrage that has been
generated by this policy. he told nicole today that -- he told them, quote, they are digging in and they are defending this. not only publicly, but privately. i was at the white house talking to a few senior officials who said there is very little unh - unease in the white house about what is playing out. they love the controversy. they want this. they love the upset. they are generating it on purpose. because they think it is their political advantage. we know statistically speaking that the whole deterrence is bull pucky. it is not changing the number of people who cross the border illegally or turn in for asylum or bring their kids. it is all it is doing is showcasing unbelievable cruelty on the part of the u.s. government and that is by design. because they want the upset. this is strong man tactics.
this is authoritian tactics. we've seen this in other kurn-- countries and having it in ours now. whether or not they are right about the american people and how we will respond to that political provocation, will soon be proven. we'll get a chance to say so in november. but in the meantime, while the kids are having lives ruined, while the kids and parents are being irrevocably changed and let's get practical. the expression of outrage from people in the country now are necessary obviously and you couldn't stop them if you wanted to, but they are not sufficient. the trump administration is actually feeding on them. they want this. they see the expressions of outrage and they think that means they are doing it right. the louder the better. and they see that as more and more of a reason to keep this controversy going and keep this story alive. that verified their decision and proves they are doing the right thing and approach intellige--
right way. under normal circumstances, you get disgusted rebukes from bipartisan governors and rebukes from every living first lady of the united states, including the current one. you get horrified criticism from even all over the right from the "wall street journal" editorial page and ralph reid, from previous administrations criticized for the harshness toward immigrants. under normal circumstances, under nonauthoritarian circumstances and a nonauthoritarian calculus, those kind of reaction take you aback. maybe it might cause the administration to tap the brakes on what the administration is doing on the border. the normal dynamics are not at work here. they want what they are getting here. this is part of what they are aiming at. i remember as a little kid, i grew up in the san francisco bay area. but we didn't grow up in san francisco. so going to the city was like a treat and still like an exotic
thing. and remember being a little kid and being with my parents, and taking a tourist like tour of the cable car system. so it is not like we just went for a ride on a cable car as public transport. but we did a tour where they showed you how everything worked. they show you -- cable cars are weird and they show you the gee wiz ancient technology and it stuck with me for approximately 40 years now how cable cars stop. turns out, and i remember this from being in like freaking kindergarten when i did this tour with my parents. it tourn -- it turns ow there are three different ways to brake a cable car and slow it down. the first way is that the conductor guy or whatever they call him has a pedal and that person uses that pedal to brake the way that a car brakes. it is like a steel shoe that presses against the cable car wheel. and that is the first way they try to brake the cable car.
so steel shoe against the wheel and it slows down. if that doesn't work, san francisco is very hilly, if that is not enough and they need to go to the second tier level of braking, instead of the pedal, they could pull up on this big track brake and that brings wooden blocks to press against the tracks to try to help stop the car. literally made of wood. that is option two. that is pretty dire. but the third option if all else fails and cable car -- and you press the pedal and not enough and pull the lever and not enough and it is still going and they need to stop that thing. there is one more way you -- is to the cable car and this is a big piece of medal they drop down a hole. an 18 inch steel wedge they drop threw the bottom of the car and it sticks into the streets and hits the rails and boom that will stop you if nothing else. on this unprecedented runaway
accelerating policy of taking little kids away from parents and not giving them back, so far that little pedal with the steel brake shoe isn't working, the little wooden things are not working. is there an option to throw down a steel shaft and bring this thing to an abrupt halt? is there an emergency brake on this thing? yes, there is. it is a braking system we've had to use a few times in the past year. we have seen it work time and time again on these kind of issues that president trump has chose tone campaign on and pursue as president, specifically because of the outrage those policies generate. when outrage against the policies actually fuels them as seen as a benefit to make this administration want to do them even more and double down, how do you stop those policies? there is a way. that's next. are pretty much the. but while some push high commission investment products,
fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. and we got to know the friends of our friends.r the friends. and we found others just like us. and just like that we felt a little less alone. but then something happened. we had to deal with spam, fake news, and data misuse. that's going to change. from now on, facebook will do more to keep you safe and protect your privacy. because when this place does what it was built for, then we all get a little closer. looking for a hotel that fits... whoooo. ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over... ...200 sites to find you the...
been invalidated by of the courts and he would ban transgender people from the military and blocked in the courts. and the teenager girls held in immigration custody were being physically forced to carry pregnancies to term against their will. that was blocked by the courts. when the trump administration decided that they were going to kill off the dreamers and terminate the daca program, courts blocked that. can the courts block what the trump administration is doing on the southern border right now? all of the political outrage in the world they see as all of the more reason to keep this going. they want this. they see that as politically to their advantage and they think the american people at heart when we vote in november are ratist and anti-immigrant to such a degree that even if they say we're opposed to this policy, we'll side with the strong man on an issue like this because we're a country that is
anti-grnt anti-grant and that is what they're countsing on. we'll find out if they are right. when they see the outrage and disgust and protest over this as the sign they are doing the right thing. so in that environment, is there a path through the cores to stop what they are doing with the policy. when andrew cuomo announced that new york state wouldn't send national guardsmen to the borter, the governor also announced within the next two weeks they will bring a lawsuit against the government to stop this policy in court. in federal court in washington, d.c., a new lawsuit was filed on behalf of a woman who crossed the border from mexico last month and the government seized her 7-year-old son. her lawsuit filed today demands that the u.s. government let her boy go. that the court issue an order prohibiting the u.s. government from separating that boy from his mother and suing for damages and for pain and suffering. and then there is the aclu case. the first time the reality of this new policy started to
generate headlines is when the aclu filed a federal lawsuit in california on bee lev-- on beha of a 7-year-old and 14-year-old boy who was taken away from his mother and that went to a judge apointed by george bush and he said no when the trump administration asked him to dismiss the case. that ruling -- ruling that he would let the case go ahead and the judge's language was stark. he said the allegations at root of the lawsuit, quote, describe government conduct that around terr -- that tears at the sacred bond between parent and child and such is brutal and offensive and fails to comport with fair play and decency. this is the initial ruling by the judge a couple of weeks ago and he wouldn't dismiss the case and let to t go ahead. that is june 6th. we're waiting to hear from the judge on i believe two issues. number one, will he expand the lawsuit so it doesn't just apply
to the two little kids and their mother and applies to all parents and kids who have been split up that way but the u.s. government at the border. second issue we're waiting to hear on is will he issue a nationwide injunction to bring this policy to a halt nationwide. that would be a radical thing but in talking about the alleged behavior about the government the judge seemed fired up. the personal and political outrage on this issue is not just blooming, it is growing ravenously. with every day citizens and members of congress and governors and churches and advocacy groups and schools and random moms in columbus, ohio, skraxbli skr -- scrambling to intervene and throw themselves in the path of what the trump administration is doing to these kids. the one weird trick we all have to understand about our new nationalist authoritarian white house is the trump
administration sees that as good and helping them and as fuel for this policy and encouragement to double down. in that environment, when outrage is what they want, what is likely to work? because on so many other issues it has been the courts, should we expect that on this issue it could be the courts as well. joining us now is dolly lithwick from slate.com. thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> what do you make of the chances of this policy being blocked or alters in court? >> well i think that aclu suit that you just described, that was a surprising language. we should note that was a george w. bush appointee who wrote it. and for him to allow this suit to go forward and for the decisions he's making about serring the class and the -- certifying the class and he utterly rejected justice department argument that this suit should go away and on this issue of why is secretary
nielsen continuing to call this not a policy, that is because in this lawsuit they have to take the position it isn't a policy. >> so ifn terms of the legal approach they need to technically deny it as a policy. >> that is -- had a what is amazing at slate -- and they kept taking the position this isn't a policy, this is a discretionary decision that the attorney general can make by himself, well if it is a discretionary decision as they say, can't donald trump pick up the phone and say, stop it, jeff. so that is part of the reason you're getting these sort of two sides of the mouth analysis. it is a law, it is not a law. it is a policy, it is discretion. so watch that because this is going to turn out like the travel ban. where things that are said, that j r just blurted out, oops john kelly said it was a policy and steven miller is saying it is a policy, that could affect the way a judge thinks about this question of are they lying to me? when they say it is not a policy. >> when we look at the legal
vulnerability of this policy and i'm trying to think about this big picture. i think the outrage and the sort of moral upset that this has caused the country, all sorts of different kinds of people and walks of life and persuasions and i know the polling that said the republicans like it and stuff, we'll see how that wears over time. but i think that people need to -- in that kind of volatile environment, we need to have a realistic sense of how likely it is that the policy will get blocked. do you think that aclu suit is the right juone filed today and the new york state one threatened by the governor and are there others we should be watching. >> i think they have legs an the claims at the heart of the aclu suit there is a due process right not to have your family sent away. if you read the allegation and what has been put into evidence, these are moms who are seeking asylum, who were thought they
were crossing lawfully who didn't see children for months and months and undergurding this whole thing and you touched on it in the last segment, is the talk they are not fit moms or everybody bringing their kids across the border is either a gang member or not to be reunited, all of this talk we're hearing about foster care and adoption, that is bubbling up -- >> because we're take the kids and not giving them back. >> we're taking the kids and i think the judge was just afronted by even the implication that these are bad moms and therefore they should lose custody. this is a core constitutional right to have your family together and whether you are an american citizen or resident or not, those rights are your rights. so these are shocking, shocking claims that are made. i do want to say one thing, i think we have to just remember cora matsui, that the supreme court and oerjz have blessed appalling things in american -- >> japanese internment. >> yes. and that courts are by enlarge
small conservative institutions and there is this paradox that we hope they turn out to be good marshals and they all just wave the flag and say this is wrong. i could tell you in the next week, we'll get the travel ban decision and we'll figure out very quickly whether the u.s. supreme court is willing to say this is nuts or whether they are willing to say, ah, by the third iteration not so bad and you spit shine the worst off of it and live with it and that is what courts can do. >> they have incredible power and here and there is reason to have faith in them and reason to be realistic. >> afraid so. >> dolly lithwick from slate and always a voice of reason. thank you. >> thank you, much more ahead. stay with us. you introduce the all-new ford ecosport and surprise people with how much they can get in a small suv. that means more standard features and more upgrades for a lot less than expected.
anything, they just walked over and grabbed my son. it felt like he was stuck to me. he clung to me and cried and screamed. they had to pull him away. she pleaded with the agents to tell her what was going on and the other women in the cell were too stunned to speak and then in the next few hours the agents
started taking other children too. nearly six weeks later she has not seen her 5-year-old son. shortly after the border patrol agents took him, she signed a voluntary departure order which fast tracked her for deportation and she thought that would allow her to see her son sooner. instead, she was charged with illegal entry and moved to new mexico for a few days and then back to texas. and yesterday in texas at an immigration processing facility in el paso where she is now waiting to be deported, she met a reporter for the new yorker magazine named jonathan blitzer who wrote this story. during the first 12 days in federal custody, she had no idea where her five-year-old son was. she stopped eating and she could barely sleep and cried constantly and no one could give her any information about her child. she did not have a lawyer to help her press the point. by the time she arrived at i.c.e. in el paso on may 18th she was so upset she had trouble speaking. jonathan blitzer reports, quote,
anna seemed dazed. she told me, i don't care if they deport me, what hurts me is my son. i need to be with him. jonathan blitzer is the same report who are yesterday was first to report that there are, in fact, no government procedures, there are no official procedures in place for giving the kids back. after the trump administration has forcibly taken this away from their parents. again, remember, they are doing this at a rate of about 70 kids per day now. they are taking 70 kids. no plans to give them back. no procedures to make sure they give them back. jonathan blitzer was first to report that in the national press. but it is actually been hiding in plain sight. it is absence is evident in plain sight. if you look at homeland security step by step guide they've just released for parents whose kids seized because of the new trump administration policy, you could see the document here, next steps for families. and if you need the extra gut punch, they include a little imagery of a parent holding a child's hand since they are not
allowing that any more. but this is the new guide. step one, you are in the custody of the u.s. department of homeland security, customs and border protection. you've been charged with the crime of illegal entry into the united states. step two, within the next 48 hours you will be transferred to the custody of the u.s. justice department and will be presented before a judge for having violated this law. while this process is occurring, your child or children will be transferred to the u.s. department of health and human services where your child will be held in a temporary shelter or hosted bia -- by a foster family and dhs and hhs could take steps to facilitate reunification with your child or children. that is it. they c they can take steps. they mean there is no steps. there is no next -- there is no step -- next step. there is no government procedure in place for reunifying these kids with parents. there is no plan for that. a homeland security official was
sent out to speak with reporters about the policy today. that official told reporters in response to questions, quote, i don't know how many of the separated kids have been placed or reunited with parents. this policy is relatively new. we're still working through the experience of reuniting. in other words, no, we haven't even thought about that. just taking the kids away for now and we'll just keep them for now. jonathan blitzer first report on this yesterday that there is no procedures in place for giving the kids back, that report mentioned a advocacy group to reunite, called kids in need of defense. this report today about anna and her five-year-old boy, that one mentioned she and the other women with kids seized and have no information, those women being held in el paso called another local advocacy group, one called las americas
immigrant advocacy certainty as the country recoils today and when it comes to direct action and stopping the harm being inflicted americans are scouring the reporting that is out there now about who is actually helping, about who is actually trying to get kids back to their parents. and honestly, it is the little advocacy groups the little legal aid groups that people are reporting on because the by line are el paso and brownsville and the little support groups, the service -- these little service organizations, these local support groups lifting this moral burden for our country right now. they are doing the work. these local advocacy groups of trying to restore kids to parents. parents who are trying to pry their kid loose from the u.s.
government that took them. it is the local legal aid and advocacy groups. and as jonathan blitzer reports from el paso, it is the parents themselves who are being forced to try to locate their kids on their own. because the trump administration built it to take kids and with at almost 70 a day, but as they take more and more kids, they still have no plans for returning them. so how do we find out who is doing that work then? is there a way that americans who are mad about this policy could after practical help? to get these kids returned to families. hold that thought.
♪ i love you baby applebee's 2 for $20, now with steak. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. jonathan blitzer has reported at the new yorker about a young mom named anna who had her five-year-old son taken from her last month at the border by the u.s. government. anna and other women who have incarcerated in el paso trying to find and get back their kids before they are deported so they
are not deported without their kids, blitzer described these women as reaching out and getting a phone number and reaching out to a local group, a group called the las americas grant advocacy center to try to get help to get their kids back. he writes there is not much the legal could do to reunite her with her son. so the lawyer decided that what she would do is try to put pressure on anna's deportation officer to please hold off on deporting her until she could be reunited with her child. the lawyer told blitzer, quote, there is no set policy for how to do this. it depends on who the individual deportation officer is. so this is what it comes down to now. there is no policy tor reuniting the kids with parents after they've been taken. according to lawyers who were working on the individual cases, it is ad hoc. comes down to the individual
personality of lower level gr immigrant officers deciding whether or not a parent gets to see his or her child again. and jonathan blitzer, thank you for your time. >> thanks for having me. >> so the ad hoc nature of the advocacy here seems to be a product of the ad hoc nature of the policy. what i'm sort of inferring from your reporting is that every parent trying to find their kid and get reunited with her kid is going about it by whatever means they can. there is no -- no process or sure fire way to do it, is that right? >> that is right. everyone is improvising. the parents who are in detention commiserating amongst themselves to get information and sharing numbers they've used to locate kids, trying to kind of council each other through the hardship of it all and advocates trying to be creative about working backwards when they've got a
parents to use information about the immigration case to piece together where the kid might be applying pressure on individual officers at i.c.e., or people at the office of refugee resettlement which is the department of health and human services to facilitate these reunifications but as you say the point really is everyone is just scrambling tooth and nail to find some way of connecting parents and kids before the parents are deported and the kids remain here in the u.s. >> have you -- since you've been reporting on this, have you seen an influx in national resources from anywhere in terms of people trying to goetz down there and provide effective advocacy. is this existing local groups that are trying to pick up the slack and upscale to meet this big new need from this big new policy or are they resources there to try to help. >> it's an interesting question. it's hard to tell what the
national scope of all of this attention has allowed local advocates to do. there's obviously a handful of local advocates who are in the trenches. there are a number of national organizations, you mentioned one earlier, the women's refugee commission, then there are groups like las americas or the florence project in arizona that have done more local work. these groups have done this work for a while. they've been toiling pretty much in obscurity until the current moment and i think the -- all of the national attention has helped them. it's helped them coordinate. one thing that is happening, because so much of this is ad hoc is that lawyers are developing strategies for figuring out where kids are and how to put kids and parents in contact. so in some ways even aside from the resource question, there is the strategy question. there is just the question of, okay, what is a template we might use to work efficiently through the government bureaucracy to connect these parents and kids? so i am seeing as advocates
continue to do this work they're learning for each other and that at the least is helping them work more quickly. resources are strained, it takes individual advocates days just to work on individual cases and obviously you mentioned the scale of what's happening. you're talking about dozens and dozens of cases a day nationwide and the stakes couldn't be higher. >> jonathan blitzer, staff writer at the "new yorker" doing very invicive work. thank you for helping us understand it. appreciate you being here. we'll be right back. stay with us. little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring.
don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you.
this just in. we opened the show to want by talking about all the gaucovern who are ordering their states resources cannot be used to help president trump's family separation policy at the border. top of the show tonight we talked about a whole bunch of governors all of a sudden rescinding their national guard deployments to the border in protest of the family separation policy. well, since we have been on the air this hour, we've got a new one. it's pennsylvania governor tom wolf who now says this "while pennsylvania proudly sent troops to texas, florida, and puerto rico for disaster relief and i believe we need to protect our borders from real threats, i oppose state resources being used to further president trump's policy of separating young children from their parents. so i think that means we can add pennsylvania to the ballooning list of states whose governors,
republicans and democrats, are not just criticizing trump and the trump administration over this new and unusual policy on the border, this appears to mean that we can add pennsylvania to the list of states where they are moving beyond criticism and trying to figure out how to take meaningful action. i'll be right back.
associated press. this is incredible. trump administration officials have been sending babies and other young children -- to at least three -- put up the graphic of this. thank you. do we have it? no. three tender-age shelters in south texas. lawyers and medical providers -- i think i'm going to hand this off. sorry. that does it for us tonight, we'll see you again tomorrow. now it's time for "the last word" with lawrence o'donnell where he's in texas. >> thank you very much, rachel, we just got word of that story that rachel was talking about and that is that the trump administraas