Introduction: The Trump Administration and Children's Human Rights

• Date: 01 April 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12342
• Author: Barbara Stark
• Published date: 01 April 2018

SPECIAL FEATURE EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION: THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND CHILDREN’S

HUMAN RIGHTS

Barbara Stark

The election of Donald Trump was a shock for many advocates of children’s human rights. All

children are vulnerable, of course, but those advocates focused on children who were also members

of already-vulnerable groups, including immigrants, the poor, and people of color, were especially

worried. The new administration had promised to “build a wall,” repeal Obamacare, slash corporate

taxes, and “make America great again.” At what cost? And at whose expense? More specif‌ically,

how, exactly, would a Trump administration af‌fect children’s human rights to health, education, an

adequate standard of living and quality childcare?

In this Special Symposium of Family Court Review, an outstanding group of scholars addresses

these issues with deep insight, considerable experience, and some anxiety. The f‌irst f‌ive very short

essays are an unusual format for a symposium. These authors knew that they would not be able to

prepare full-length articles, but they wanted to participate in this symposium. This ref‌lects these

authors’ engagement with the topic and a real sense of urgency about the risks facing children for the

duration of the Trump administration.

In “Immigration Enforcement and Children’s Human Right to Education,” Martha F. Davis

explains why aggressive tactics by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violate well-

established equal protection law as well as international human rights law. In Plyler v. Doe, the U.S.

Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute denying state funds for children who were not legally

admitted to the United States and allowing school districts to prohibit them from enrolling. Because

of ICE, as Professor Davis shows, children (including citizen children) are afraid to go to school

because their parents may be taken away, and parents are afraid to send their children to school “lest

they be caught up in more ICE enforcement actions.” This is as ef‌fective a denial of access to educa-

tion as the Texas statute in Plyler and an egregious denial of equal protection.

Noting the “energy generated in opposition to [Trump],” Nancy L. Dowd argues that this is “A

Time for Bold Visions for Children.” In Professor Dowd’s view, U.S. children have been neglected

“at least since ... the Johnson administration,” and what is needed is nothing less than a “New Deal

for Children, a comprehensive, structural, and cultural set of policies to assure that every child gets

equal developmental support.”

As Martin Guggenheim points out in “Dark Days for Children’s Rights,” the Trump administra-

tion’s “promise of ‘small government’ is a promise to do even less to help poor children and fami-

lies.” The real problem, he suggests, is the United States’ refusal to recognize positive rights,

including the rights to education, healthcare, and an adequate standard of living as set out in the Eco-

nomic Covenant and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Rather, in this country these

rights are “available only to the extent that elected of‌f‌icials choose to enact laws that promise them to

people.”

In “The Complex First Family,” Clare Huntington of‌fers both a silver lining and a tantalizing

sliver of history. Her silver lining is the idea that the First Family is a sociologically “complex fam-

ily;” that is, the f‌ive children in the family have three dif‌ferent biological mothers. Perhaps, she

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 56 No. 2, April 2018 283–286

V

C2018 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts