united kingdom, we are able to have those discussions. when we disagree with what they're doing, we say so. >> i have to say this is a disappointing outcome. we should all be unreservedly condemning the actions of donald trump. i asked to do that. house may be taking up two bills tomorrow on migrant children and border security. we will show you some of this morning's washington journal on this topic. at 10:00 eastern. this is sarah pierce with migration policy institute. she serves as a policy analyst. good morning. guest: good morning. host: what is it? it is a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank that studies the movement of people worldwide. i work in our u.s. immigration policy program.

some of thatne deals with the topic of family separation. guest: absolutely. a lot of it is focused on what is going on right now. host: walk us through what policy has been when it comes to family separations for those entering the united states illegally. guest: anyone who approaches our southern border who does not have authorization to come in, are placed into expedited removal proceedings. individuals are detained and are removed from the country, typically within a few days. while in those proceedings, individuals can express the fear of returning to their home country. that is an -- a credible fear interview. if they have a legitimate claim to asylum. they are placed into long-term proceedings and are treated to finley. in the past, prior to this new policy, families were treated as a single unit when they are

going through these different processes. now, families are being separated because the first thing that is happening is prosecution. the children don't follow the parents into the custody of the federal marshals. through that federal criminal prosecution process. instead, the children are separated and reclassified as unaccompanied child migrants for which we have an entire different structure for how we deal with them. guest: is that to say that children -- host: is that to say that children have never been separated from the parents? prior there were some family separations. they were quite limited. for the most part, under president obama and bush, families may have been separated if there was suspicion of a trafficking concern. where may be there didn't ask a -- actually exist a parent child relationship. otherwise, families were not prosecuted for illegal entry and they were definitely not separated. host: what numbers are we talking about of children

separated? how long do they stay separated? what happens in the meantime? guest: that is a big question. the latest number we have is about 2300 children. that is over the course of a month. it is significant higher than that. we don't have better numbers coming out from the administration just yet. when the children are separated from the parents, they are reclassified as unaccompanied migrant. we have a whole system for dealing with child migrants that includes transferring them to the custody of the office of resettlement. which is obligated for trying to find the children sponsors throughout the united states. parent, families, or close family friends. if they can't come of the children continue to be held in our facilities. in the meantime, these children are placed into our long-term deportation proceedings. and our system is quite backed up. back logged with over 700,000

cases. these children are set up in this system. there is no system for reunifying the parents. once the parents get out of criminal prosecution they are placed in removal proceedings. we have not seen anything coming out of the administration just yet. that would allow for these parents to be reunified with her children. host: she will be with us until 9:00 and take your questions about immigration. them being separated from families. if you want to ask her questions (202) 748-8001 for republicans. tweet us questions or comments at c-span wj. we see these tent city pictures. typically, how long does a child stay? and is that a long stay?

guest: we don't know. office is really being overwhelmed by this artificial surge. they are scrambling to find placements to put these children. cities aret the tent a temporary measure. we don't know how long they are being held there. what extent does that take place? guest: the office is obliged with meeting all the children's need. educational, and any other support services, health care. etc.. the reality is no matter how good that service is, the child has still been separated from their parents. are undergoing major trauma that no good services are going to help make up for. is that part of what the united states provides? guest: i hope that that is something that the office is providing. i don't know if they are

providing the services, then to what extent they are. host: when a child is placed in a home, how is that that it by the united states? if the office is able to locate a potential sponsor, that individual undergoes criminal checks before the office will release the child to that individual. host: we will have a couple more question and answers. joyce is in alabama. republican line. you are on with the american policy institute. go ahead. caller: i was just wondering how many parents and children separate when they were doing this and why there is no outcry for that. cominghildren that are across the border, are they with their parents or just with a sex trafficker or someone that wants to get into the united states and it is not their child?

how do we ow this is their children? and when they are put out into the country, are there not illegal's that the children are staying with in foster homes? i think she was asking a three-part question. first, under the obama administration there was no policy that resulted in the mass separation of parents and children. there might have been some family separation. in which there was suspicion of a trafficking situation. otherwise, there was no mass separation of families at the border under the obama administration. you referenced the situation of fraud. that the trump administration is very concerned about. whether or not parents are claiming to have children with them. that is something that the trump administration is addressing. in this policy. thely, the main driver of

separation is the zero policy under which parents who might have legitimate relationships with their children are prosecuted and separated from their children. after entering the country. finally, you referenced a situation where sponsors who later claimed the children coming out of the office of refugee resettlement might the unauthorized. for a long time, the office has had the policy that it is ok if those sponsors are unauthorized. there have been new policies coming down from the trump administration that has had a chilling effect on individuals who are willing to come forward and be sponsors. all sponsors now undergo fingerprints and the finger prints are now shared with the department of homeland security. there is an enforcement risk against the sponsors. it is likely we will see less people willing to come forward to sponsor these children. which is going to place further stress on the office of refugee resettlement.

host: if a person comes in with a child, they don't have to provide proof that this is their child, they can disclaim? -- they can just claim? guest: we are asking for proof of not sure what kind of proof we are accepting. or what kind of proof we are seeing. host: democrats line. caller: high. trying to respect and support this president but every part of this foolishness is ridiculous. just take away the fact that these are children being separated, let's play on the fact that we have thousands of american children that need --tection and need to be need help. we are taking on the responsibility of somebody else's child who wants to be with their parent. the mere fact that you have calls that would address child

trafficking, means that they are subconsciously trying to find another way to say this is stupid but i really want to support the president. i can't understand how we sit year as a country and want to be respected and we want to call ourselves a nation of christians and a nation of power -- policy, and we turn around and disrespect of the core that we live up to. i am so annoyed. i'm trying to get my head around how we can do something that every day, this is the most ridiculous thing the country can do. host: we have a guest on set to as her questions, do you have a direct question? is where doestion this and? and --end?es this this is the bottom. we can do this anymore. host: what is the sustainability of the zero-tolerance policy? guest: i think she asked a

question that a lot of us are asking ourselves are now. we can only have so many children. we literally abandoned the practice of having orphanages in the united states. this policy is effectively creating orphans. we don't have the facilities to continue to house these children. the parents are removed from the country in a large part. we have this awkward situation where we have a responsibility to the children who we have effectively orphaned. that is not sustainable. it is really hard for us to see where this policy could possibly end. interestingly, the administration has doubled down on the policy. there is no good and insight. -- no good end in sight. host: next, ralph. good morning. what i would like to know is what is the legal status of these folks in custody?

are they detained or have they been arrested? as we all know, there are a different set of circumstances regarding both categories. previously, people who entered this country without documents and who were not guilty of any crime were simply detained. it seems as though the trump administration has changed at and now these folks are possibly being arrested. it would be large for someone to remember that if they are arrested they are entitled to legal representation and all of the privileges that folks who are arrested are entitled to. that could be very costly and time-consuming. i wonder if you could clear up know,tuation and let me are these folks arrested? guest: that a great question.

what president trump's zero-tolerance policy does is it takes anyone who illegally crosses into the country in between parts of entry and prosecutes them. those individuals are first apprehended, they are transferred to the federal marshals where they are in criminal custody and effectively arrested as you put it. those individuals, when they are going to the prosecution, for the crimes of illegal entry, they are provided counsel. the problem is these are mass hearings. you are seeing pictures of hearings in which maybe 40 immigrants are prosecuted at a time. thee is not a lot there for defendant, defending counsel to do when they're are trying to defend these individuals. the defense counsel is given maybe a few minutes before they go into the proceedings. for the most part, these migrants are just pleading guilty to the crime to try to

get out of criminal custody as quickly as possible. especially if they are parents who have been separated from the children. their idea is to get out as quickly as possible. once they go through these criminal proceedings, they are transferred back to the custody of did the department of homeland security. darrell asked the question, what proof do we have the kids are reunited with their parents? don't have proof. like i said earlier, the way the system set up, i don't see how the parents could possibly be reunited with their children. we don't have a system in place to do that. it is unfortunate that the administration did not seem to think ahead about how this policy would be of limited and what the aftereffects would be. there is no system in place to reunite parents and children. a situation that was created by the department of homeland security, or the administration on how these people families, what is the

result? other new problems that stem from that? guest: we could imagine a scenario in which families are housed together at the border. the parents are taken away brieflyo tough the federal prosecutions that the trumpet ministration wants to see, and possibly reunite with their children in those family shelters. the problem is logistically, the administration does not have those resources put into place right now. they can't do that. cases in place that prevent the administration from housing families in any long-term capacity. it is limited to about 20 days. if the family gets out of expedited proceedings, in which they can apply for this -- for asylum, the administration cannot attain that family. this is an issue that bothers to trumpet ministration. guest: --

host: anna from delaware. republican line. i havecaller: -- caller: heard tell of deportation. whatever happened to that. shores theyt to the turned around and sent them back to it why can't they do that with these people half of them probably don't even have fathers. i don't how they can be so up in arms about how they are being treated now. host: thanks. guest: the majority of individuals who do not have authorization are deported. they are placed into expedited removal proceedings and detained and deported within a few days. the only individuals who get out of the removal proceedings are individuals with legitimate claim at asylum. host: from vermont, democrats line.

we will your next from mary. caller: i'm wondering why this is not considered child abuse. i consider this child abuse. have we resorted so low that we will hide behind children and use them as pawns? i find this disgusting. sure. i think she raised an interesting point in that the administration appears to be using this policy as a form of deterrence. they don't want individuals approaching the southern border. and effectively, as you put it, they are using child-abuse to deter parents from trying to enter. host: our guest is with the migration policy institute. aggression policy.org's website. sheriff -- sarah pierce is joining us.

west palm beach florida. independent line. john. hello. that manywas curious countries that allow people to just come into your country the way these people are trying to command. guest: all countries have an obligation to hear asylum-seekers. and to allow asylum-seekers to apply in the country. that is something we have to do under international law obligation. far as representation from central america, of the advocating for these folks on the border? -- do they have an opportunity to do that? guest: i'm not sure i have heard a lot of statements coming out of those countries. that would certainly be something i would expect to see. host: the history this policy goes something -- goes to something called the floor. guest: that was the son -- the

culmination of several years of litigation. children who had arrived at the border without parents, we were placing those in shelters and they were -- there was concern about the quality of the shelters. the u.s. government was obligated to hold unaccompanied child migrants in the least restrictive setting possible. which is why the office of refuge -- refugee resettlement is to try to find this -- the children sponsors. aftermath,ed in the and recently in 2015 and 16, there were federal court decisions that it not only applies to unaccompanied child migrant immigrants but also to child migrants. this actually created a difficult situation. president obama wanted to keep -- from our republican line,

helen, in california. hello. clinton was997 when president, i worked at the juvenile hall for los angeles. what they did then was children of immigrants who entered the country illegally, they incarcerated them in juvenile hall. they had broken the crime. instead of their parents coming across illegally. now, allnderstand why of a sudden, trump is the bad guy. how come no one said when clinton was president that they were putting children of immigrants in juvenile hall with a bunch of criminals. they had to keep them separate. they had to be utilized by other gang bangers in juvenile hall. it was terrible. that is my question. this is not new. this has been going on for --

this is over but years ago. how come, all of a sudden, it is an atrocity? it was an atrocity then. this was clinton's foreign policy treatment of illegal aliens entering the country. host: thanks. guest: it sounds like you witnessed what was occurring to unaccompanied child migrants prior to the settlement going into place. children were detained and were not typically released to sponsors in the united states. as far as why there are so many people more up in arms over what is going on now then what is is a on then, there two-part reason. first, there was no previous policy under any prior administration that resulted in the mass separation of parents and children. this has not occurred before. the second thing is immigration is something that is very much -- very present in the public consciousness. president trump guaranteed that whenra