The July 26 deadline for the federal government to reunite thousands of separated children with their parents is three days away.

Here’s what you need to know about where the reunification process stands.

How many children have been reunited?

On July 23, the Trump administration told the court that it had reunited or 'appropriately discharged' 1,187 of the 2,551 children ages five and older who were forcibly separated from their parents. The government has also reunited 58 out of 103 children who are under the age of five and whose reunions were required by the first deadline, July 10.

The government identified 1,634 class members who are eligible for reunification and are in various stages of the process. However, in the same federal court filing, the government has claimed that the separated children of 917 parents are either not eligible, or “not yet known to be eligible,” for reunification. 

What could render a parent and child “ineligible” for reunification?

The government has provided certain categories of children and parents whom it considers ineligible for reunion by the deadline. These buckets include:

• Parents whom the government has not located
• Parents who are currently in criminal custody
• Parents with an alleged criminal history that would present a danger to the child
• Parents who have a communicable disease

Many of the children whose parents are ineligible may become eligible, for instance as parents are located, released from criminal custody into ICE custody, or a disease passes. 

For parents whose eligibility the government is challenging based on a prohibitive criminal history or unfitness finding by ORR or ICE, more information is clearly needed. As we’ve argued in court — the government’s word alone on this determination is not sufficient, which is why we’ve asked the court to order the government to provide details about the nature of the charge, conviction, or warrant for each parent whom the government excluded, so that we can verify that not reunifying the child is truly in their best interest.

On July 20, Judge Sabraw indicated that he would wait to rule on this matter until after the July 26 deadline, instead focusing on all eligible class members ahead of that day.  

For children under 5, the government said that 20 children fit these criteria and for children five and over, 64. These numbers may change given that 260 parents are still being categorized in the government's murky "further evaluation" bucket.

As of July 23, the government reported that 130 parents had waived their right for reunification, meaning that their child would stay in the U.S. while they are removed, either in Office of Refugee Resettlement custody or possibly being released to a sponsor.

It is critical that we are able to reach these parents and independently verify that they made this important choice with full knowledge of their families’ legal rights. In court on Friday, the government was not able to say how many of the 136 parents were still in the country, and this is information we will continue to press for.

The government still hasn’t found all the parents?

As of July 20, the Trump administration reported that it had 37 children in government custody who have “not yet been matched” to a parent from whom they were taken.

Additionally, when asked in court, the administration was not able to provide a count of the number of parents who were released from ICE custody and whose locations are still unknown.

Finally, there is the all-important question of where are the parents whom the government has already deported? For the separated children under five years old, there were an estimated 12 parents who had already been deported by the time of the court’s June 26 order requiring reunion. 

On July 23, the government reported that per “case notes,” as many as 463 parents of children five and older may no longer be in the United States. These cases are apparently “under review.”

What happens to families when the parents have final orders of removal?

As of July 23, the government estimated that 900 parents have final orders of removal. It’s crucial that the decisions they make about the future of their children’s asylum claims are informed and non-coerced. It cannot be made until parents not only have had the time to fully discuss the ramifications with their children, but also to seek legal advice.

We sought a court order that would block the deportation of any parent until one week after they are reunited with their children. The court is weighing this request, but in the short-term, it has blocked all deportations until July 24.

Each week we will provide you with a rundown of top news stories and must-read articles.

CPB running wild in Maine

Customs and Border Patrol agents have been unnecessarily stopping people all across Maine. They have been especially active along the coast - stopping 21 Canadian fishing boats and countless boats from Maine. Why is CBP wasting time and resources disrupting hardworking fisherman along the coast? We don't know - that's why the ACLU is suing to figure out. 

THE ACLU'S TAKE

Babies forced into immigration court

At least 70 children under the age of 1 have been order to appear in immigration court by the Trump administration since last October. Many of these infants may have had no representation in their proceedings and can't even talk yet.  

THE ACLU'S TAKE

Trans discrimination at CVS 

A young transgender woman, Hilde Hall, was trying to fill her first prescription for hormone treatment at a local CVS when the pharmacist refused and shamed her in front of other people in the store. CVS cannot go on allowing this sort of discrimination and hatred in their stores. 

THE ACLU'S TAKE

Police reform victory in Milwaukee

Customs and Border Protection is making news again for its aggressive immigration enforcement — this time, questioning Canadian fishing vessels in disputed international waters. 

According to a CBP spokesperson, the agency has questioned 21 Canadian vessels since October 2017, plus an unknown number of American vessels (mostly Maine fishermen) in the same area. Although CBP claims that these operations fall within its immigration enforcement authority, nobody should be surprised to learn that targeting these fishing boats has yielded no immigration arrests. 

This naturally provokes a question: So why is CBP invading people's privacy and wasting its own time and resources, given the (unsurprising) absence of any immigration activity in this active fishing area? The unsatisfying answer is that we don't know because CBP is a secretive and opaque agency that refuses to comply with federal disclosure laws even when asked. That’s why we have sued CBP to produce records about its immigration enforcement in Maine. 

What we do know is that CBP is the nation’s largest law enforcement agency, with money and resources to burn. So we should all be concerned when CBP claims virtually untrammeled authority to stop and question people within 100 miles of a land or sea border. This so-called 100-mile zone includes all of Maine, most of New England, and about two-thirds of the entire U. S. population. Within this zone, CBP claims it can stop any car, boat, plane, or train without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion, the usual requirements under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

Given CBP's massive resources, broad claim of authority, and the Trump administration's anti-immigrant policies, it is not surprising that we have seen an increase in immigration enforcement within the 100-mile zone. For example, according to one of the fishermen stopped by CBP, most of the local Maine fishermen along the coast have been recently questioned by CBP. These recent occurrences are in contrast to his experience over the past 40 years when CBP did not operate offshore. 

Inland, there are reports of immigration enforcement in previously safe locations, such as courthouses. Throughout New England, CBP has set up immigration checkpoints to stop and question every passing car to check passengers' immigration status. And at bus stations, CBP agents have asked ticketed passengers for their citizenship status before letting them board the bus, which resulted in a Concord bus employee making the absolutely false claim that only citizens could ride the bus. 

CBP even arrested a French jogger who accidentally crossed the border from Canada, transporting her in a caged vehicle and holding her in custody for more than two weeks. And on top of it all is the Trump administration's cruel "zero tolerance" policies separating parents from their children. 

CBP denies that there is an increase in enforcement. But so long as they refuse to back up that claim with any records or statistics — which the public is entitled to under federal law — we will continue to believe the many people who have reported increases in enforcement. 

As all of these examples attest, the claimed 100-mile zone represents a massive intrusion on all our rights. People should not have to submit to warrantless, suspicionless stops by armed law enforcement officials, regardless of whether they are on an inland highway, at the bus station, or at work fishing for their daily catch.  

Simply put: It doesn't have to be this way. 

CBP's claimed authority rests on a half-century-old regulation passed without any explanation in the 1950s. Although some cases have allowed CBP searches at permanent checkpoints or on vessels at the border, the Supreme Court has not approved all enforcement operations within the 100-mile zone. Far from it. Instead, in cases like United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, the court has upheld Fourth Amendment rights within the 100-mile zone. And a recent New Hampshire court decision found that CBP’s checkpoint operations were “unconstitutional under both State and federal law.” 

So what rights do we all have when stopped by CBP? 

If you are an immigrant with valid documentation, it may be advisable to turn it over. But regardless of your status, try to remember three things in any interaction with a CBP agent. First, you have the right to invoke your right to remain silent, and then remain silent. Second, you can tell the CBP agent: "I do not consent to a search," if it appears the interaction is heading in that direction. Finally, you can ask at any time, "Am I free to leave?" and, if the answer is yes, you can leave. 

Plus, so long as you do not interfere with the CBP officer's operations, you have the right to record the CBP agent. Then you can use that recording to speak out. And you can tell other people about their rights, loud and clear. 

Perhaps most importantly, we all have the right to speak out against invasions of privacy, to tell our elected representatives that enough is enough, and to call our local ACLU affiliate when CBP goes too far. 

These rights belong to all of us, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. And yes, that includes any Canadian fishermen who might be within United States borders.