US Border Patrol allows reporters to visit but does not allow pictures or interviews at holding facility housing children as young as four
Inside an old warehouse in south Texas, hundreds of children wait away from their parents in a series of cages created by metal fencing.
One cage had 20 children inside. Scattered about are bottles of water, bags of chips and large foil sheets intended to serve as blankets.
One teenager told an advocate who visited she was helping care for a young child she didnt know because the childs aunt was somewhere else in the facility. She said she had to show others in her cell how to change the girls diaper.
On Sunday, the US Border Patrol allowed reporters to briefly visit the facility where it holds families arrested at the southern border, responding to new criticism and protests over the Trump administrations zero tolerance policy and resulting separation of families.
More than 1,100 people were inside the large, dark facility that was divided into separate wings for unaccompanied children, adults on their own and mothers and fathers with children. The cages in each wing open into common areas, to use portable restrooms. The overhead lighting stays on around the clock.
Reporters were not allowed by agents to interview any of the detainees or take photos.
Nearly 2,000 children have been taken from their parents since the attorney general Jeff Sessions announced the policy, which directs homeland security officials to refer all cases of illegal entry into the US for prosecution.
Stories have spread of children being torn from their parents arms, and parents not being able to find where their kids have gone. A group of congressional lawmakers visited the same facility on Sunday and were set to visit a longer-term shelter holding around 1,500 children many of whom were separated from their parents.
Those kids inside who have been separated from their parents are already being traumatized, said the Democratic senator Jeff Merkley, of Oregon, who was denied entry earlier this month to childrens shelter. It doesnt matter whether the floor is swept and the bedsheets tucked in tight.
French president will offer the US president and his wife dinner at the Eiffel Tower among other delights
The US president, Donald Trump, will arrive in Paris on Thursday, to be greeted with a show of military pomp by the French leader Emmanuel Macron, who has chosen to move from his aggressive first handshake and style himself as Trumps new straight-talking best friend on the international stage.
Trump, under pressure over his sons meeting with a Russian lawyer during the US election campaign, will begin a 24-hour visit to the French capital, where Macron will woo him by escorting him to Napoleons tomb, taking him to dinner at the Eiffel Tower then watching the Bastille Day military parade on the Champs Elyses.
Christophe Castaner, a government minister and spokesman, described it as a kind of persuasive bridge-building with Trump. Sometimes Trump makes decisions we dont like, such as on climate. But we can deal with it in two ways: we can say We are not going to talk to you, or we can offer you our hand to bring you back into the circle, he said.
The invitation for a US leader to attend this years Bastille day military parade had been in the pipeline long before either Trump or Macron were elected, because 2017 marks the 100th anniversary of the entry of the United States into the first world war. Inviting foreign leaders to Bastille Day celebrations is common in France Nicolas Sarkozy even made Syrias Bashar al-Assad a guest of honour in 2008. But it was not certain Trump would accept when Macron personally re-issued the invitation in a phone call last month.
The Elyse has added what one official called a personal post-card tourism touch: instead of dining at the Elyse Palace, Macron and his wife, Brigitte, will invite the Trumps to eat a meal cooked by the chef Alain Ducasse in a restaurant at the top of the Eiffel Tower.
It is a deliberate attempt to show the French capital was still welcoming after Trump told a rally that Paris is no longer Paris following a string of terrorist attacks.
The Trump organisation has no financial interests in France and it is unclear how well the US president knows the country. He said last year that the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks would have been very different if French citizens were allowed to carry guns.
On Thursday afternoon Macron and Trump will hold more than an hour of talks at the Elyse Palace focused mainly on counter-terrorism, Syria, Iraq and French anti-jihadi military operations in north Africa. Where we have differences, we talk about them very clearly such as on climate but there are issues like counter-terrorism where we are on the same line and need close cooperation and common action, an Elyse official said.
French diplomats said Macron had been concerned about Trump feeling backed into a corner. The French leader has seen a potential opportunity to sway US thinking and elevate the role of France a nuclear power and permanent member of the UN security council in global affairs, in particular on Syria and the Middle East.
France is the second-biggest contributor to the US-led coalition in Syria and French officials had expressed concerns about what vision the US had in Syria beyond taking the military fight to Islamic State.
The two leaders are starkly different. Trump, 71, is an anti-globalist elected on a pledge to put America first. Macron, 39, believes in a kind of cosmopolitan globalism and is an ardent pro-European. Yet they share some traits both were outsiders who challenged their countrys political status quo. Trump loves a winner and although he deemed Macrons far-right rival, Marine Le Pen, the strongest candidate in Mays French presidential election, he has praised Macrons solid election score.
The military pomp of the Trump visit reflects Macrons new style of showmanship diplomacy seen when he invited Russias Vladimir Putin to the palace of Versailles. It is aimed at highlighting French prestige and grandeur and as much for his domestic audience as foreign leaders.
Macrons defiant, alpha-male handshake with Trump when they first met in Brussels in May played well at home in France. He had to show the French domestic audience he knew how to say no to America, said Philippe Roger, author of the American Enemy, a history of French anti-Americanism, adding that for Macron to be seen to be too pro-US would be the kiss of death in French politics. But he said Macron was now showing it was time to talk to Trump.
I think Macron understands very well that with Mr Trump you have to be present see him and talk to him face to face Ambassadors dont exist for Trump The only thing is to be in the same room and to talk.
Laurence Nardon, head of the US programme the French institute of international relations (IFRI) said: Macrons team tried to establish respect in the first phase and now Macron is trying to become the best buddy in the second phase. It strikes me really as quite clever. Its probably a very smart approach to deal with a bully.
The long read: After a crisis, private contractors move in and suck up funding for work done badly, if at all then those billions get cut from government budgets. Like Grenfell Tower, Hurricane Katrina revealed a disdain for the poor
There have been times in my reporting from disaster zones when I have had the unsettling feeling that I was seeing not just a crisis in the here and now, but getting a glimpse of the future a preview of where the road we are all on is headed, unless we somehow grab the wheel and swerve. When I listen to Donald Trump speak, with his obvious relish in creating an atmosphere of chaos and destabilisation, I often think: Ive seen this before, in those strange moments when portals seemed to open up into our collective future.
One of those moments arrived in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, as I watched hordes of private military contractors descend on the flooded city to find ways to profit from the disaster, even as thousands of the citys residents, abandoned by their government, were treated like dangerous criminals just for trying to survive.
I started to notice the same tactics in disaster zones around the world. I used the term shock doctrine to describe the brutal tactic of using the publics disorientation following a collective shock wars, coups, terrorist attacks, market crashes or natural disasters to push through radical pro-corporate measures, often called shock therapy. Though Trump breaks the mould in some ways, his shock tactics do follow a script, and one that is familiar from other countries that have had rapid changes imposed under the cover of crisis.
This strategy has been a silent partner to the imposition of neoliberalism for more than 40 years. Shock tactics follow a clear pattern: wait for a crisis (or even, in some instances, as in Chile or Russia, help foment one), declare a moment of what is sometimes called extraordinary politics, suspend some or all democratic norms and then ram the corporate wishlist through as quickly as possible. The research showed that virtually any tumultuous situation, if framed with sufficient hysteria by political leaders, could serve this softening-up function. It could be an event as radical as a military coup, but the economic shock of a market or budget crisis would also do the trick. Amid hyperinflation or a banking collapse, for instance, the countrys governing elites were frequently able to sell a panicked population on the necessity for attacks on social protections, or enormous bailouts to prop up the financial private sector because the alternative, they claimed, was outright economic apocalypse.
The Republicans under Donald Trump are already seizing the atmosphere of constant crisis that surrounds this presidency to push through as many unpopular, pro-corporate policies. And we know they would move much further and faster given an even bigger external shock. We know this because senior members of Trumps team have been at the heart of some of the most egregious examples of the shock doctrine in recent memory.
Rex Tillerson, the US secretary of state, has built his career in large part around taking advantage of the profitability of war and instability. ExxonMobil profited more than any oil major from the increase in the price of oil that was the result of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It also directly exploited the Iraq war to defy US state department advice and make an exploration deal in Iraqi Kurdistan, a move that, because it sidelined Iraqs central government, could well have sparked a full-blown civil war, and certainly did contribute to internal conflict.