As we all know, immigration has been a problem for several years and recently, the topic has been stirring up controversy. The Office of Refugee Resettlement has been described as inhumane and families, or in some cases “rented” families, have been separated at the border. A “rented” family is when a couple or two strangers buy a child to have priority as a family at the border. U.S. Senators Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal support a bill that would possibly put an end to the “cruel and neglectful treatment of children at the U.S. – Mexico border.” The reason behind the senators wanting to pass this bill is that they both want to “reaffirm our core American belief that we are a nation that welcomes and is strengthened by immigrants,” according to U.S. Senator Chris Murphy.

According to The Hartford Courant newspaper, the purpose of the bill is “To improve the current treatment of migrant children, among them the ending of family separations — with exceptions — the establishment of health and safety standards for those in Border Patrol stations and the removal of roadblocks to placing unaccompanied minors with sponsors.”

The concern for immigrant children affects mothers that have crossed illegally and are trying to give their children a better future. Immigrant and mother of two Lorena Reyes said, “Every good or bad treatment towards a child changes how they are in the future both physically and mentally.”

Evidence has shown that food portions at the resettlements have been smaller than the recommended amount and children have been separated from their parents or have been treated poorly have some mental illnesses. According to the Department of Health and Human services, “The children, many already distressed in their home countries or by their journey, showed more fear, feelings of abandonment and post-traumatic stress symptoms than children who were not separated.”

Middle College High School teacher Edward Valenzuela was asked if he would put his child through the conditions that children at the border are in. His response was, “No, I wouldn’t because they are probably in better conditions where they were in the first place.” 

According to the New York Times, “Poverty is hammering away at livelihoods in much of Central America, and for some, the decision to leave is a gamble on a better life. For others, it’s a matter of saving the one they have.”