Tag: minors

Unaccompanied Minors Crossing the Border–The Facts

Over the last few weeks, the media has been abuzz with stories of unaccompanied minors coming across the border and being apprehended by Customs and Border Protections (CBP).  Many of the facts on the ground are fuzzy because we do not have a complete picture of all of the relevant data.  In this post I will lay out several of the relevant facts as they exist.  I will present information that focuses on how the detention facilities are overwhelmed but that it is less likely that border patrol agents on the border are actually overwhelmed.

Background

The unlawful immigration of minors is not a new phenomenon, although it has increased recently.  CBP released this table showing the large increase in the number of unaccompanied minors that have been encountered (different from “apprehended”):

Country Fiscal Year 2009 Fiscal Year 2010 Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2014
El Salvador 1,221 1,910 1,394 3,314 5,990 9,850
Guatemala 1,115 1,517 1,565 3,835 8,068 11,479
Honduras 968 1,017 974 2,997 6,747 13,282
Mexico 16,114 13,724 11,768 13,974 17,240 11,577
Total: 19,418 18,168 15,701 24,120 38,045 46,188

Source: http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children

The government has not released data for the total number of unauthorized immigrants encountered or apprehended so far in 2014.  As a result, I have to use 2013 data to see how big of an addition unaccompanied minors made to apprehensions of unlawful immigrants in that year.  Encounters and apprehensions are not synonymous in Border Patrol statistics but they are close enough for a back of the envelope calculation.

Are Corporations People When They Make Video Games?

I note that I’m not hearing many critics of Citizens United decrying yesterday’s very welcome Supreme Court ruling, in which the majority held unconstitutional a California statute prohibiting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. Perhaps that’s just because they’re concerned with corporate influence on elections as a policy matter, and not so much about Grand Theft Auto, but as a matter of First Amendment interpretation, it seems as though the elements that supposedly made Citizens United a travesty are present here.

As the conservative Justice Alito notes in dissent, for example, the statute at issue here does not prohibit anyone from creating, possessing, freely loaning, or playing violent video games: It regulates only their rental and sale. In other words: Money isn’t speech! The majority opinion—authored by Scalia, but joined by the Court’s most liberal justices—roundly rejects the relevance of that distinction, which “would make permissible the prohibition of printing or selling books—though not the writing of them. Whether government regulation applies to creating, distributing, or consuming speech makes no difference.” While, of course, money isn’t speech, the majority here understands that when the effect and purpose of a regulation is to restrict expression, the First Amendment is not some hollow formalism, and also limits regulation that functions by targeting enabling transactions rather than the speech directly.

None of the justices seem to make much of the obvious fact that the great majority of popular video games—and probably just about all of the ones exhibiting the level of graphical sophistication and realism at issue here—are produced, marketed, and sold by (uh oh) corporations. In fact, the passage quoted above focuses entirely on acts (“creating, distributing, or consuming”) rather than particular actors, just as the First Amendment itself prohibits government interference with speech not with this or that type of speaker. The Court simply observes that because the statute “imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny.” In dissent, Justice Thomas argues that the games are not “protected speech” in the context of the statute, because the Founders would have considered all speech directed at minors unprotected (a premise whose chilling implications the majority is quick to point out). Justice Breyer allows that video games—including violent ones—are indeed “protected speech,” but argues that studies linking them to violence are enough to give the state a “compelling interest” in limiting their dissemination. What nobody suggests, even in passing, is that video games might cease to be “protected speech” if the statute were limited to games manufactured and sold by corporations—which, in practice, is pretty much all the games we’re talking about.

Someone who welcomed this decision as a victory for free speech, but nevertheless supports regulation of independent political expenditures, can always take Breyer’s route: Maybe God of War III is not really harmful enough to make its prohibition a compelling state interest, but the degradation of democracy by corporate influence is a serious enough problem that its regulation survives “strict scrutiny,” overriding ordinary First Amendment protection even in the domain of political speech normally regarded as its core. That is not a position I find plausible, but it is at least coherent. The position I doubt can be made coherent is one according to which a prohibition of a commercial transaction instrumental to corporate-produced speech (and intended precisely to curtail that speech) should not even trigger First Amendment protections when the speech expresses a political opinion, whereas the same prohibition is unconstitutional if the speech is about Kratos impaling a minotaur on his Blades of Chaos. Though if that’s the form political expression has to take to enjoy constitutional protection, I look forward to the impending release of Palinfamous 2 and Barack Band III.