rape, a child who's recognized by everybody in the system as being at risk if he's returned, but he won't give enough information. he won't talk about what happened to him. and yet everybody in the shelter, the lawyers, lots of people think this kid is going to be at risk if he is sent back to his home country. so what's been the impact of the influx on our organization? well, first of all, we're just unbelievably busy. we have an office in harlingen, texas, where most of the kids are coming in. those cases are the most difficult and complicated. very young children. you know, situations of abuse. situations where we don't know who the parents are. and then we have an office in chicago. and i think the influx has affected a lot of what the government is doing right now. so although there was a provision in the law providing for expansion of child advocate programs, it hasn't happened until now.

so the government has asked us to open offices in three locations, houston, new york and washington, d.c. so that's just one of the side things that have happened as a result of the influx. so our philosophy, though, is that best interests should be driven by children's rights. and so what this means is that what the child wants is very, very important. and in most cases, we will not go against that unless the child's safety is at issue. we can't just say that honduras is dangerous and he shouldn't go back. we have to have very fact-specific information about that child. we have to be subject to cross-examination, by the child's attorney, by the judge, by the trial attorney. we have to prove what we're saying. okay. best interests, i just want to talk a little bit about that. first of all, it's the law of all 50 states. it's also the law, obviously, of

the convention on the rights of the child and the crc, that language in the crc came from our laws. and yet when it comes to immigrant children, there is no best-interest standard. so what does best interests mean? well, there's really not a precise definition. it really varies case by case, depending on the child's situation. but in state court, it means that a judge, when they're placing a child or making a decision about that child, has to consider is the child going to be safe? is the child going to be separated from family against a child's will or against the parents' will? and is this what the child wants? so this is really -- i would say this is also really important for immigrant children and that we they'd to have a system in place where we make an assessment of whether a child will be safe, whatever the decision is, whether the child is going to stay or is going to

return, that the child should be able to express their own opinion and that we will only oppose that child's expressed wishes if he or she is going to be in danger. so we don't have federal law to look to. so we have to look to international law, convention on the rights of the child, we look at comparative law, cases from other countries, and then we look at the law of the state where the child is in custody and we analyze the child's case according to those factors. and then we take that information, put it into a report, and then put it in the hands of the decision-maker, be it the immigration judge, the i.c.e. officer, whoever, o.r.r., whoever is making a decision about that child. so i said earlier we don't have best-interest standard, but i also would like to say there has been progress. so over the last year, agencies have been involved in getting

together as a group with ngos to develop a best-interest framework for unaccompanied children. and they're doing this in the absence of an actual statute. this is being done through the interagency working group on unaccompanied children. it's a project funded by the mcarthur foundation. and the idea is to come out with a framework so that people in these agencies can take the child's best interests into consideration when making decisions. it is not going to be required. nobody is going to sign this document certainly. but it will, when it's finished, be a document that everyone participated in drafting. and i just want to be clear about best interests. this does not mean that the decision-maker, the immigration judge or i.c.e., has to make a decision that is in the child's best interests. that judge can also consider safety to the community, national security. there may be a myriad of other factors that that judge can consider. but what it means is that judge

has to look at what's in that child's best interests, that child's safety, and that it should be a very important factor, especially if we're going to be removing a child, separating them from family, from all they know. it should be a factor. so, okay. back to what's happening right now. as barbara said, it's prioritizing cases involving children. they're getting speedier times when they have to appear in court. some judges are still granting lengthy continuances, but some judges are granting much shorter continuances. and as you all know, kids have to find their own attorneys. i also think it's fantastic that all of the government agencies, eoar and o.r.r. are working to provide attorneys for kids. and i think that's also another side benefit to the influx is that agencies are much more

concerned with having attorneys for the kids. i also think -- and this is my own personal belief -- that neither judges nor immigration officers like having to make a decision about a child in front of them without an attorney representing them. and so i think that there's an impetus in the agencies to have representation for kids. the other fantastic thing that's happened is that there are now dockets for released children. so it used to be, for example, in chicago, a child who is released in or around chicago came to court, any given day of the week, any given time to any different judge, and so there was absolutely no way for anybody to serve these kids. no way for a lawyer to be present and represent all the kids. and that's changed. eoar is now having all of its courts set up dockets for released children. i think this is really important and a big step towards getting representation for these kids.

so here's the other reality about right now. we're really not deporting kids right now. the kids who came in recently during this recent influx, they are not being removed. but -- and this goes back to that earlier panel today, which was pretty much doom and gloom, if things change, we may start seeing lots of kids deported in very significant numbers. so i think we're really faced with two problems when it comes to kids. has that child been able to access protection? and that just goes back to did they get a lawyer? and then even if they have a lawyer, are they going to qualify for any of the forms of relief that are available? because our system for the most part was built for adults. i also think that there's a misconception among some, although probably nobody in this room, but among others that if the child is determined not to be eligible for any form of relief, he'll be safe if he goes back.

and i think that's really untrue. first of all, many kids still don't have attorneys. i think it is nigh impossible for children to get emigration relief without an attorney. nobody is going to disagree with that. i think pro bono programs are fantastic and really critical, but there needs to be money for the agencies that have to mentor those attorneys. as barbara said, that real estate attorney really doesn't know what he's doing when he goes into immigration court without an organization backing him up. i think asylum is very difficult to establish. it's difficult for an adult. it's difficult for a child that on-account-of language and these five factors. these kids have to make that same case, and it's really difficult. we do have special immigrant juvenile visas for kids who have been abused, abandoned and neglected. it's wonderful. it's a good law. i think, you know, countries in europe are very envious that we have this law. very imperfect.

in chicago, in cook county, children cannot get into our juvenile court if they are detained, for the most part. in lots of parts of the country, it's impossible to get into juvenile -- excuse me, jooucuve court for a variety of reasons. and so we really do need a best-interest standard because a lot of these kids, even if they go through the system, even if they get a lawyer sometime, there may not be any form of relief available to them. so i just want to talk a little bit, too, go the gap cases. and that's what i mean by kids who don't qualify. and that was a term coined by andy. so, you know, what it means is the child's case doesn't fit neatly within a form of protection. but it's not in the child's best interests, safety or well-being for him to return. so a couple of examples. child's parents are in the united states. 12-year-old boy in home country, let's say honduras, is living

with grandparents. one of the grandparents dies. the grandmother gets really ill and can no longer take care of the child. so she sends the child to the united states. his parents are here. his parents are undocumented. so what's in this child's best interests? he wants to do the right thing. he wants to go to court. he wants to do all that's expected of him. but he's not going to qualify for these forms of relief. and yes, there is prosecutorial discretion. and in some places, that is available. the trial attorney will exercise discretion. but that child still has no avenue for permanency, and really, it's another person added to the 11 million in this country. it's also very difficult in some jurisdictions to get prosecutorial discretion. another example, a girl from china, she comes, everybody knows she's got all these kids come, they get smuggled over

here. the parents typically make the arrangement. and the kid has an $80,000 debt. she's still in custody. she hasn't begun working. and so she's destined for trafficking. but the trafficking hasn't yet happened. and the second problem is how does she prove coercion? it was her parents who sent her. now, i would argue that you do what your parents say. in not my kids, but lots of other people's. but she's got -- that's a burden of proof for her in establishing trafficking for labor case. so then there are the cases that i think are really complicated for judges. where the child -- and we've seen this a lot -- and we call it detention fatigue. a child has been in custody for a very long period of time. and they've given up. it's a child who's probably eligible for some form of relief. you know, my example is, says

two of my friends were killed. i know i'll be killed if i go back, and i want to go home. so we recently had a case involving a 17-year-old boy from central america. he fled. his mother was a drug trafficker. he was deeply distressed by that and wanted to get away from her. his dad died when he was very young. and he was being threatened by the gangs. so not an uncommon situation. in the u.s., he was hoping to reunify with a man. he was an american tourist he had met. and it was determined that this guy had -- he was a registered sex offender. so there was an investigation. office of refugee resettlement obviously determined this boy cannot be released to this man, but the boy had no other sponsors in the united states. he's been detained for five months. and he just can't take it anymore. and i want to say, you know, shelter, people who work there are absolutely wonderful. the kids are cared for very well. but you're locked up. you cannot leave.

many places. you have to be escorted from one room to another. it's really tough on kids to be in custody. but the child tells his attorney, i want to go. i want you to ask for voluntary departure. and if you can't get that, i want removal. so this child has a child advocate, and the child advocate goes to the judge and tells the judge all the reasons this child won't be safe. he's got nobody to go back to. he's been threatened by the gangs. he has said and even said in the court that he wants a quick death. it's better for him than sitting in custody. so what should happen? the judge listens in this case but doesn't know what to do because there's no guidance on a case like this. what our judge in chicago does is punt. she will continue the case for a month, and she'll tell the child i'm going to continue and ask the child, is that okay? and most kids are going to say yes, judge, that's fine.

and then she'll admonish everybody to work really hard to get this child out of this restrictive placement. and in most cases, the child will change his or her mind. not in every case, but in many cases. but that doesn't solve the larger issue, which is that this judge is being called on to make a decision about a child when knowing or having factual information that this child might not be safe if that order of removal is issued. so i think we need a plan, a process. i also think, you know, we're all in this together. this is a regional problem. we have to work with el salvador, honduras, guatemala to figure out what's going to happen next if kids are going to be deported. as you heard this morning, families are being deported. it's not yet happening to children, but we don't know what's going to happen in the next few months. we certainly thought it was going to happen at the beginning of the summer. and from what we've been told, nothing is really taken off the

table at this point. so it could still happen. and so one of the questions is what are the sending countries doing? are they going to be capable of receiving thousands of kids back in their countries? so i just want to go back to my original point, which was in our country, in every system, we have a system in place before we send a child, we check to make sure they're going to be safe. we check to make sure there aren't red flags. at the very least, there are no red flags to say this child is going to be in danger if he goes back. and really at essence, when it comes to determining best interests, that's what it is about. it is about safety. so thank you very much for your attention. >> thank you very much, maria. so why is immigration law different from every other aspect of american law? we'll pick that up after you have a chance to start asking questions. so for those who would like to

pose any questions to our panelists, please come forward to the mikes. and i'll ask that you identify yourself. and if you're directing your attention to any particular panelist, to let that panelist know who you're directing your questions to. thanks. >> hi. i'm diane eikenberry. i'm a senior attorney, and i work with detained children in o.r. custody in virginia and maryland. i sort of have two questions but they're related to training and stakeholder relations and sort of two parts for barbara and maria. first maria, i want to thank you so much for the wonderful work that the young center does. >> thanks. >> i've had the pleasure of working with one of your child advocates out of the office in harlingen. i'm so excited you're opening new offices because we need more of your work. >> thanks. >> but barbara, you mentioned there's expanded training for the immigration judges. can you speak a little bit about that? and also maybe generally about what kind of training, if any,

is required for immigration judges around issues relating to these unaccompanied minors. >> so we have done some training with the immigration judges, you know. some of you know because of budgetary issues, we've had to have our conferences on dvd for our judges. we had planned a conference actually this summer, a live in-person conference that we had to postpone in part because of the surge, and we didn't want to take all the judges off the dockets for a week. but we are planning on having a conference at some point where we expect to have a full day of a kid's track for -- for the judges that handle kids' cases. and, you know, like maria's a frequent appearer at all of those. you know, we really do try and bring in the outside experts, bring in the people who do some of the work more directly with the kids, the stuff that comes before they get to see the judge. so, you know, and we listen -- we'll reach out to some of the judges and say what are you interested in knowing more

about? you know, we look at what's happening sort of this summer and, you know, have looked at what are things that might be more important? you know, should we have a particular panel on, you know, asylum claims that are really specific to these types of kids so? so we anticipate having a full day just for kids. and i expect, what i understand from the judges i've talked to, i expect it's going to be really popular given the fact that we have so many judges now hearing the kids' cases. and when we have our training, we record it all. so that, like, if there's a judge who really wants to go to another panel at that time, they can request to see it at another time like on dvd. you know, we understand that training is important. so we are expanding it with respect to dealing with the kids and how to make sure that procedures are appropriate for the kids and to the specialized

needs of what the kids both need in a courtroom and there are types of relief that are just for them, right? like special immigration juvenile status, you know. that's just for them. so to talk about what some of those things are as well. >> professor, may i ask a question? >> sure, go ahead. >> maria, just speaking of stakeholder relations, you mentioned the best-interest document, this being worked on by the interagency working group. is that the main way in which the young center has had relations with dhs? do you guys have another -- any other sort of stakeholder relationships, especially with the office of chief counsel, and do you anticipate this is a document, once completed, that could be, you know, we could be providing or sort of collaborating with the trial attorneys? >> yeah, i mean, we work with all of the agencies. and i just have to say that -- i mean, dhs has been one of the really good agencies to work with. i mean, the enforcement people have been wonderful.

and again, i go back to this point that i think those charged with enforcement and decision-making have a really hard time having to do this with a child. in terms of the document, you know, we hope to finish it in the next couple of months. it has to go to the full interagency. it's been a subcommittee. it has to go to the full interagency working group, and that's all of the agencies plus ngos, most of whom are in this room today. and yes, that will be shared. i mean, it will be in two pieces. one will have footnotes. and the other piece, though, will be kind of a step-by-step here's what you would do if you're in the field to make sure you're looking at a child's best interests. so yes, that will -- that's the intention is to share it widely. yes. >> sounds wonderful. thank you. >> thanks for those questions, diane. we'll go from side to side. on this side, please identify yourself. >> my name is constance freeman, and i work with the community outreach program. i work with a lot of the

children after the o.r.r. process. so i see them months, sometimes years, after they've been released from the shelters. and i'm concerned, one about how many of the 14 to 15-year-olds specifically that are not enrolled in school. and i want to know, how can we get that collaboration with the agencies to make sure that they are staying in school? because i don't have a problem with accepting children and making sure they're in school, but if they're 14 years old and they're out, i'm not sure that we're not putting them at risk, that they're run ago way from. and then also, i have a follow-up question for the ambassador from el salvador. i was amazed at how many children in those three countries are not in school. and i noticed in one of the south american countries, kids get, like, 80 or something to go to school, and if they get good

grades, they get 100 bolivianos. i was wondering if those three countries could use funds from the multinational companies to fund so that the kids are in school and they're not coming here without a day of education. >> so, i mean, i'll take the first question. i mean, i think there aren't enough resources anywhere. none of the agencies -- well, eoar doesn't have enough or o.r.r. doesn't have enough. i will also say that recently i've heard that o.r.r. is doing a lot to start providing more post-release services for children. and i think they've recently issued grants to start providing -- so after the child is released, there's somebody who is available to stay in contact, a social worker, for example. and to help make sure the kids go to school. so, again, though, i mean, i think some of it goes back to resources. and of course, everybody wants the kids in school, but i think we need more resources so that

there can be more post-release services for the kids. and i agree that after the kids get released -- i mean, sometimes they're even more vulnerable than when they're in custody. a child advocate stays with the child to the extent that the child wants. kids can lose us if they really want to. but i think, you know, we need these post-release services for many more kids. >> ambassador? >> yes. you are right. one of the -- fortunately, we have, compared to many other countries, a fairly low level of school attendance and a large level of school desertion. now, a couple of things. the new government has established three priorities. one of them being education. so education is going to be a priority in this administration. second, there is a program that's starting now of conditional cash transfer

precisely around those lines to give some economic support to families that keep the kids in school. similar to something that's happening already in terms of health. there's a task condition program to support mothers who take regularly their kids to the health clinics for control and so forth. and the third thing is that ironically, one of the reasons that we have had a lot of youth involvement in the gangs is that at some point during the '80s, in order to make more efficient the school infrastructure, schools started working on two shifts. so kids would be -- go in the morning, a group of kids would be in school in the morning, and another group of kids would go in the afternoon. what happened is that you have a lot of kids having a lot of free time.

and this was something that created, among other things, many other things, but this also was a part of why a lot of kids joined the gangs. so one of the things that are being done now is to expand the program called full-time schooling. the idea is to keep the kids as much time as possible in the school doing extracurricular activities. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you very much. my name is anna gutierrez. i'm a state legislator here in maryland. originally from el salvador. many questions, but i want to concentrate on something that we have been advocating for both locally, we formed a d.c., maryland and virginia coalition to work with the staunt with tu. and i think many of us in the audience probably are dealing more with what to do with those

students once they come to our neighborhoods and in our states because it doesn't end with the federal role. but the federal role is important. one of the issues that we did was bring up service providers from around the nation to seek the legal representation issue. and i'm surprised that you haven't mentioned or anybody has mentioned the disparities in the way that the legal -- the courts are working, we raised it, and what we saw was that some states like maryland has a very friendly, it has the first hearing according to your 21-day guideline, and then maybe the second one with sufficient time to prepare to get legal representation. there are other states, new york

and california, where the service providers are just -- are just in desperation because of the rocket dockets. could you address, what are the possibilities of your organization, barbara, to provide something more than just a 21-day guidance? because the response we heard was that a lot of the immigration courts are being left to the discretion of the state and of that court. and therefore, you're seeing this in unequal application and practices from one state to the other. and i think that's a very serious concern. >> so i just want to clarify that your question is about the immigration court system and not the juvenile court system in the state. >> no, not the juvenile court. no, the ones who are dealing with the children, the ones that have that first hearing. >> right. i mean, the two are bizarrely

interconnected, as maria connects. >> juvenile courts are state court. >> correct. >> they're not being called to a juvenile court. they're being called -- >> well, some of them are. one that's interesting for this group of cases for our system which can be very frustrating at times is that the relief they seek is adjudicated outside of our court system. and so one of the forms of relief that they seek is special immigration juvenile status. so when a judge is trying to figure out, you know, how much time he should give a child that's looking to seek special immigrant juvenile status, they have to figure, okay, well, uscis is going to have to adjudicate a benefits application. before that, they have to go to state court juvenile proceedings. and so, you know, that does provide a real logistical challenge for us because there

are states in which, you know, and counties in which, you know, as maria mentioned, a child can go to state court proceedings and get an order in three days. there are other places, chicago being one of them, where it takes just a really long time. and so when a judge is trying to figure out when to reschedule the kid, those things can come in. now, with respect to what our guidance has been to judges for immigration court, the guidance that we give immigration judges is nationwide. right? so it's not -- >> we're limited. >> we have one immigration court that has 59 locations. it's sort of what we like to as far as what, you know, there is uniformity in the guidance that we give judges. it doesn't vary by being in one state or another. the guidance that we've given is that the children that are identified by dhs as priority cases get their first hearing within 21 days.

thereafter, the judge can continue -- if the child asks for a continuance, can continue the case in accordance with the law that's on the books right now. it's a good-cause standard. and then the judge determines in his or her discretion how long that continuance should be. and that -- and so it will vary with respect to the facts and circumstances of the particular case. >> what we've heard is that as routine in these two states, they are being called for their second appearance very shortly after the first appearance, without any possibility of legal representation to be one, identified, and two, to be prepared. and that that is really even interfering because they then have to go in and file another motion. i'm not a lawyer, but this is what i've heard over and over again is what's been happening. so it seems to me that because

you are one centralized system with 59 representatives, that clarification of what would be expected. and even if there is no best interest of the child in written law, clearly in every state, i can tell you in my state, that is the guiding principle. and if that is not what is in practice being respected, i think there's something wrong. >> right. so we did issue guidance on september 10th. that specifies that there are no -- there are no extra laws relating to how short continuances need to be or how long they need to be with respect to children. only just that they do take a priority on the docket so that the continuance should be granted with respect to the facts and circumstances of the case rather than the court's docket. so, you know, we heard this concern, and we did issue guidance on september 10th. yeah.

>> yes. go right ahead. thanks. >> my name is ashima. i'm an immigration attorney turned documentary filmmaker. we're working on a film specifically about this issue, central american refugees filming in central america but also some of the issues that we're seeing in the u.s. my question is more for barbara as well. i wanted you to address some of the concerns identified by attorneys who have been volunteering at our facility. i know that's, you know, a family detention center, but nevertheless, some of the concerns that's putting it lightly, just some of the fast-track deportations, the no access to sometimes translators, interpreters, long-distance judges who aren't well versed in the law or the cases. i know things are improving, but from, you know, some of the reports i read and talked to,

it's nowhere near where it should be. >> do you have a specific concern in mind that you want me to address? >> well, i mean, i haven't read anything because i have been researching this particular topic. i haven't read anything that the government has put forth to talk about artesia, but i read a lot from attorneys. >> right. so i think with -- you know, with respect to family detention, i guess it's somewhat germane given that there are children there, too. they're not accompanied. you know, with respect to the detention of families, you know, the artesia facility was put up quickly. in response to the surge this summer. i think what's frustrating for i think us as an agency is that so much of the detention center and the concerns with respect to the detention center are out of our hands with respect to decision-making.

you know, i.c.e. handles detention. so when there are larger issues that i think people have brought to our attention, you know, so, for example, people have said, look, the tvs there are really tiny. and so when the judge is beaming in, you know, what you see on the side of the detainee is, you know, the individual -- the families who are there, they're having a hard time seeing the judge. when we hear that kind of stuff, and people are very vocal with us to let us know what the issues are, you know, we can't buy new tvs and install them, right? dhs does that. it's their facility. what we can do is go to dhs and say look, we'd really like to you change these tvs out. and so i think what we're doing is on a very daily basis, having a lot of conversations with our counterparts at dhs about how to respond to some of the things that we can respond to. i think a lot of the criticism

that we've heard overall from some of the advocates is that there is, you know, a generalized belief that families shouldn't be detained. right? and so to the extent that that's -- that is what we're hearing, you know, i can tell you that that is -- you know, that's a decision that's made sort of out of my hands and certainly out of my logistical hands. and so one of the things we also heard was, look, you've got judges in one time zone. you've got artesia in another time zone. that's causing just confusion. so we changed from the judges in arlington hearing the cases to the judges in denver hearing the cases because now they're all in the same time zone. and so we are trying -- we're also working a lot, i think, with, you know, the bar in denver even before the cases got moved to denver were really active in trying to do pro bono with the folks in artesia. and so, you know, denver was a good spot because we thought we

could assist in trying to make it a little easier on some of the pro bono attorneys there. so i think we're doing what we can, you know, recognizing that, you know, we have to continue a dialogue with people. about what are the things we can do, particularly some of the smaller, you know, what are some of those small things that seem, well, why can't you just do it? why can't you just buy the bigger tvs kind of thing, right? and working with our partners. i mean, understanding, of course, that there are a lot of limitations on us as the agency dealing with the detention center that we don't have control over. >> thank you, barbara. thank you. >> hi there. my name is deana. i'm a student here at georgetown law. i'm here with fellow classmates of mine. we are part of a campus organization that has created the international migrants bill of rights. and our specific project this semester is focused on detention centers in mexico. and we are creating a list of indicators to suggest that these

detention centers go through. my indicator is focused on family unification. so i was wondering if anyone on the panel is able to offer myself and my classmates some advice and realities on what is going on in these detention centers, specifically with unaccompanied minors, whether their family or guardians are in mexico or country of origin or in the united states. >> excellent start to conducting research on that issue. >> it's due thursday. >> does anybody want to tell deana what we know about that situation? the extent we know anything? >> i don't know much at all. >> why don't we know much? maria? >> because we need students to do some research. and tell us what's going on. >> we're all looking forward to reading your results. >> and you need to travel there and talk to people and really -- yeah, and figure out what's going on. >> if georgetown funds our travels, that would be great.

>> i'm focused on new mexico right now. >> so perhaps, though, the ambassador, you talked about, i guess, both having a consulate in border states. i assumed you were talking about u.s. border states. but after all, mexican southern border plays a huge role here. maybe the borders of other states on the way up for the children particularly in roles here. do we know anything about that? >> well, what we have done is, we are mostly working with guatemala in establishing a joint consulates in the mexican -- in mexico, particularly in the road or the path of the migrants. so the idea is that if guatemala has a consulate in this town and we don't have one, that we can share those facilities and vice versa. we have increased our

conversations with the mexican government also to try to provide a little bit more protection to the migrants. and i don't have any specifics on how this is going. what i can tell you is that there is an excellent network of shelters and of efforts provided by civil society who are doing an incredible, incredible job in assisting the migrants, providing them with shelter, with food, et cetera. and there is -- there's a serious, serious network of these type of support going on in mexico. i think more than -- i'll leave it like that. >> okay. thank you. >> have you had good cooperation with the mexican government over these issues? >> in some cases, yes. there have been, as you are very well aware, very horrendous incidents that happened.

a group of 60, 70 migrants had been kill ed. in those cases, there have been sometimes mixed results because it is presumed that there is involvement of -- at certain levels of some authorities. the drug dealers are a big problem, a big problem. it is very clear that drug trafficking network is now together with the smuggling. and as i mentioned before, it's become even in some cases, they say better business to human trafficking and smuggling than drug trafficking. >> thank you. mr. ambassador. ashley. >> good afternoon. my name is ashley. i'm with the georgetown institute for women, peace and security. the panel mentioned that we're seeing a particularly large increase in the number of girls that are crossing the border. i was wondering if you could

address why that is, what particular gender-based vulnerabilities we're seeing at play. and then as a two-part question, how the system is treating that in particular in trainings, at eoar when you're working with these young girls. thank you. >> talk about the training. >> yeah. i mean, i think we're seeing more girls. i mean, i think it's because of the safety issues in these countries and, you know, if you're a parent here -- and i also want to add, i mean, 55% of the kids are being -- are coming and reunifying with parents which goes back to the whole issue around no cir. but if you're a parent here and you're worried about your daughter, you're going to -- you're going to bring her. and i think that we work with a number of girls who are victimized by the gangs. you know, rape is one of the things that they use against the girls.

so i think that's the primary reason why we're seeing more girls. and i don't know if this has slowed down at all, but we have seen many more younger kids under the age of 13. and again, i think this is for the same reason. you have either parents in home country who are worried about their kids and want them to be safe or, you know, you've got family here that want their children to be safe. >> i think with respect to certain -- with the sensitivities to young girls in particular, so it's important to note that while there are increases in the number of young girls, an increase in the number of tender-aged children, it's still -- you know, the majority we're still seeing is, like, older boys. >> didn't the age drop to 13, 14 compared to 16, 17? lae that's what the government reported back in late june. am i wrong about that? >> yeah, i think we're seeing more in this group. >> right. >> but i think overall, if you're looking at how many kids are currently processing through the immigration court system,

you know, we're still very heavy on older boys. but to be, you know, but as we're responding to this group that's coming in and we're seeing them now, you know, we've always known, and there's always been a group of vulnerable young girls in our courts. and so when we've had trainings on child-sensitive issues, we've looked into talking to the judges about some of the issues that might be not exclusive to young girls but more prone in terms of prostitution and the trafficking. and, you know, rape on the way here and how to handle that kind of thing. you know, and judges -- judges will, and i think, you know, maria gave some example of this to say, you know, look, it looks like something's going on here. you're not ready to talk about what's happened to you. and then they look -- you know, this goes back to, you know, a judge being able to look at the individual facts and

circumstances of the case. and say, okay, this looks like a case where i might have to give, you know, this kid a continuance for a lot longer and talk to legal service provider that might be there and say, look, is this something that you can, you know, try and get this kid some help so that they can better articulate what's going on? but again, this may go towards looking at some of the gend gender-based asylum claims, looking at issues and that kind of thing. you know, with respect to the funding that we had for legal services and the justice americorps program, we focused -- the program will serve children who are 15 and under. and in part, that's a response to the increased tender-age kids that we were seeing. because the funding will only go so far. we will only be able to serve so many kids. and so knowing that those kids are probably, you know, a little bit more vulnerable or less able to articulate themselves, that's where we concentrated our funding.

>> thanks, barbara. maria, you want to add? >> i just wanted to add one thing. i think it's not only the judges, but i think there can be training for lawyers and anybody who works with kids. i mean, we have done this, asked the judge to close the courtroom because it's somebody, either a girl who's got to testify about very specific and traumatizing information or a boy or, i mean, you can do that. and i think, though, there needs to be more training for anybody who's representing kids. and the other thing i'll say and it's something that i wish we could import from the child protection system.

who are now waiting even longer to get their cases decided. these are children, they can wait, meanwhile the important cases seem to be pushed back. >> thanks for bringing that up. last but not least -- >> not a lot has been said today about root causes and i know that's not the topic of the -- a lot of the reasons why -- policies in the region, the northern triangle countries are economic client states of the united states, we have been intervenes financially and militarily for the last 100 years. and so, my question is, it doesn't seem like anything is going to change in regards to those policies any time soon, and so while the numbers of kids may go up and down, it doesn't seem like in the medium or long-term this is going to change, so our federal agencyie,

providers, people who are representing them in court, how do we protect them ten, 20, 30 years from now, because it's hard to believe when the flow is going to end. >> the best way to proceed given that we have now basically rain out of time is just ask peach of our panelists to try and encourage you to address any of the particulars of the question towards you. why don't we start with you and go downing the -- >> first, i thought i said that i still believe that the traditional costs of migration, violence, economic, look for economic opportunities and family reunification, we're still valued and we're all recent from migration, what i said was that didn't explain the specific surge that we have seen

in the past three years. that is where i think the roles of the smugglers comes, that's not to diminish the important of the other causes, which are of course the other structural causes of the problem. what are we doing in our country to try to prevent this? we are doing campaigns, media campaigns to educate people about the riskses and the fallacy that if they come here they are going to receive green cards and -- so those perhaps they don't explain by themselves that the crease that we have been looking at the numbers of kids coming there are weather reasons and cyclical reasons, but these are going on in the three countries are starting to have an impact. we are also working in purr --

strengthening the control of our borders, and going after the trafficking networks. in terms of as i mentioned also, these are not short-term measures, the solution is not short-term. these are medium to long-term solutions. in the issue of security for example, which is a very accomplished one, we have started now by doing certain concrete things like implementing full-fledged, the community policing, this is an idea, in which the police, instead of just being a force that will react to 9/11 call for whatever, the idea is that they are members of the community, the police stay there, they are local actors and become local actors and this has by far been proving one of the best policies to confront violence and provide

better assistance and security. as i said, the long-term solution is economic development, this is something that cannot be done from one day to the other one. but that is where we are all aiming in the medium and short-term, to invest in the territories that are the ones that produce the more number of migrants. >> thank you, mr. dwoor. >> so to the first issue about the right versus needs based approach to counsel, we're being sued by lots of folks so i can't really speak to that one. got a couple of my lawyers in the back over there, so we'll leave that in the back of the advocates to talk about. >> they won't olllet you talk. >> we have a couple of attorneys in here, with sweat beads on their faces.

the rationale for setting sort of that 21-day goal for the first master calendar, you know, it was our agency's response to the president's directive to process the kids. and i think with respect to, you know, there are cases, you know, if you look at our adjudication timelines and how long it takes for a case to get through the immigration court. there were courts where if you file the motion to -- so the idea here is that you get the kids started in the process. so if what happens is that the judge says, look, do you want an attorney, here's a list, you know, if you want to start trying to find an attorney, here's what you need to do, or here are the types of relief that could be available to you, talk to me about what your circumstance is, and essentially to start at the beginning of the process, start early, and what's your story, what's going on with

you to try to figure it out a year earlier than maybe it would have happened three years ago. i don't think there is an expectation that the child's case is going to be over, certainly in 21 days, like i said before, there's a lot of aspects of relief for these kids, they are completely out of the hands of our immigration judges. they asked that the asylum case is first, they're firsthandled by ucis. a lot of the ---some of the state koirls and so to the extent that there's a sense that judges are a ringleader, i think that's not a great term, but i would say, you know, they do sort of oversee a lot of things going on with these kids. and they aren't necessarily, you know, in charge of the forms of relief that may be available to them, but i think there is a benefit to starting the process, in saying to the kids, let's figure out what's going on with you, but this is one of the reasons that our judges have discretion to continue cases,

to, you know, allow the appropriate time for the adjudication of the case, and i trust our judges. i think they know what they're doing. and they know how to assess the facts and circumstances of cases in order to make sure that a child's due process rights are protected. >> thank you, barbara. maria? >> i'll go back to the question about the right to counsel, i mean obviously, i don't think anybody in this room would not agree that children need counsel that that there should be a right to counsel. i don't think you'll find anybody here, well, i don't -- i wasn't even looking for a reason, we need, i think we need a change in the law, and i think there's some in the government that think that we can't provide counsel for everyone, i think it's a beginning, that uir are paying for attorneys to provide

direct representation, it's a beginning, it's not everything. we did get a provision, there was a provision in the senate bill last year that would have provided counsel for all children. so it's a start. i think we're all going to have to start over on that. and then i guess in terms of root causes, i don't think on my side of the table we're doing enough. i think, i think it's something we all have to talk about, because i think it is a regional -- regional issue. i think we need to work with el salvador when we have a child who's at risk of going back to el salvador or has no choice but to go back to el salvador, and to work with the people in the government there to get that child back safely or to connect with somebody to receive him. and i think obama wanted more money to deal with root causes and of course he didn't get that and it's probably a lot of money. i think we just need a lot more

resources for everyone, for the countries in the region, for the agencies doing this work and we need a right to counsel, and we need a best interest standard. >> thanks, maria, i want to thank all of you for your questions, i want to thank our panelists for a very rich discussion. please join me in giving them a round of applause. with live coverage of the u.s. house on cspan and the senate on cspan 2, here on cspan 3 we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant hearings and public service events. and on the weekends, we have programs that tell our country's story, the civil war's 150th anniversary. visiting battlefields and key events, american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites. history bookshelf with america's best known american history

writers, and looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief, top college professors delving into america's past. cspan 3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. coming up on cspan 3, we'll talk with the -- later former u.s. afghanistan war commander general john allen talks about the legacy of former afghan president hamid karzai, and after that, i'll look at a proposal for a new world war i memorial in washington. be part of cspan's 4