July 24, 2015, in Flores v. Johnson 2015 C.D. Cal., Dolly Judge Mr. Gee ruled that the licensing order applied to accompanied and unaccompanied minors and that immigration officers had violated the consent decree by refusing to release accompanied minors held in a family detention center. [16] [43] [44] [36] The Government stated: On August 21, 2015, Justice Gee clarified the language “without unnecessary delay” and “without delay” in the Flores regulation, ruling that the attitude of parents and children could be “under the parameters” of the comparison for a maximum of 20 days. [43] [45] [46] Justice Gee ruled, that imprisoned children and their parents caught red-handed crossing the border could not be detained for more than 20 days, and stated that Texas prisons, such as the Geo Group`s Karnes County Residential Center (KCRC) in Karnes City, Texas, and the T. Don Hutto Residential Center in Taylor Texas had not met Flores standards. Gee expanded Flores to cover accompanied and unaccompanied children. [47] Justice Gee ruled that Flores was asking the government to release the children “without unnecessary delay,” which kept them within 20 days. [48] [49] The court ordered the release of 1,700 families who had no risk of flight. [42] [50] [51] Certainly, President Clinton, Meissner and Virtue (who supported the agreement at the time) certainly could not have predicted how Flores would be even more distorted in the years to come. Nevertheless, the Occam razor explains that the simplest answer tends to be the right one.

The simplest explanation for the Clinton administration`s action on Flores` signature in 1997 is that she had the same views on asylum laws as activist groups, that they should be more cowardly. In the end, the Court is simply wrong to say that this is not “freedom of physical detention.” That is what it is all about. The Tribunal`s assumption that the detention centres used by the NSO are in compliance with the sub-regime standards [507 U.S. 292, 348] established in this case has nothing to do with the fact that youth who are not returned to responsible parents or adults are detained in detention centres. They do not have the “freedom of physical restraint” that those who are released possess. That is what it is all about. That`s why the class of interviewees continues to argue. These young people do not want to engage with institutions that, according to the INS and the Court of Justice of Foreigners, are “pretty good” simply because they meet the appropriate standards for the imprisonment of juvenile offenders.