Journal editorial advocates against separations of illegal alien families because the trauma science claims it’s harmful

CATEGORY: GOVERNMENT PROJECTS

Amanda C. Venta, Ph.D., University of Houston

Source: Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Read time: 2.2 minutes
 
This Happened
In July, 2024, a group of eleven psychologists from universities in southern Texas and Mexico published an editorial to promote trauma-informed policies for migrant families who become separated due to current U.S. policies.
 
Who Did This?
The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, led by an eight-member Antiracism Team of editors, is committed to producing a special series of articles devoted to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Amanda Venta, the first author on this editorial in the series, specializes in the psychological functioning of adolescents from Central America who recently immigrated and attachment theory.
 
The Claim
The editorial recalled the controversy in 2018 about the Trump administration policy that attempted to deter illegal border crossings by detaining parents which de facto caused separations from their children. The key protest coming from scientists at the time was the claim that separations were traumas, which thereby invoked the toxic stress and adverse childhood experiences (ACE) assertions that these exeriences cause permanent neurobiological damage and lifelong physical diseases.

This policy no longer exists, so the editorial focused on two other types of separations. The first type is during illegal crossings when males and females are sometimes processed separately. This causes stress of uncertainty for mothers who get released first with children and do not know how long to wait for fathers to be released. The second type stems from legal attempts to cross at border entry points but families are forced to wait in Mexico while their requests for asylum are processed. If living situations become too dangerous, mothers and fathers may decide to split up on purpose and enter illegally.
 
The authors asserted that both types are traumas caused by U.S. policies. Hence, these families ought to be allowed to remain together; they should be housed in the community instead of detention centers; and they should be given mental health care after they are settled in the U.S.
 
Analysis
Trauma was the foundation of the editorial, being mentioned five times in the brief work. The alleged trauma of the 2018 child separations was invoked for context even though both current types of separations do not involve child separations from both parents.
The editorial concluded with the oft-repeated appeal, “Now is the time to lead with science…” So, what does the science say? There are zero studies of the separated children in the U.S., mostly because the separation policy lasted only three months. Studies conducted in Europe are flawed with self-report questionnaires, cross-sectional designs, or failures to parse out the impact of premigration experiences.
 
The toxic stress and ACE theories of extraordinary and permanent damage to mental and physical systems are controversial and unproven (described here and here) despite advocates’ assertions that the science is settled.
The two current separation types are not traumas; there is nothing inherently life-threatening about them. They may be stressful, which falls under the impossibly broad ACE umbrella, but the ACE theory is even more difficult to defend than toxic stress.
 
Why Is This Happening?
It’s a presidential election year, and record-high illegal immigration at the U.S. southern border is a top issue. The editorial did not mention Trump, but the media has already brought up the 2018 family separation controversy as a campaign issue. If Trump wins in November, it is unlikely that family separation will be repeated because Trump is the one who ended it in 2018 by executive order.
 
In 2020, two prominent journals--Scientific American and Nature—made unprecedented endorsements of a presidential candidate, simply because the candidate was not Trump, who was labeled as anti-science. It seems probable that journals will be more active to influence the election in 2024.
 
 
Like Trauma Dispatch? You can subscribe to our email notices of new posts on this page.