• The rapper XXXTentacion was shot in South Florida on Monday, multiple outlets reported.
• The Broward County Sheriff's Department later told TMZ he had been pronounced dead.
• TMZ first reported that the rapper, whose real name is Jahseh Onfroy, was shot in his car after leaving a motorcycle dealer. 

The rapper XXXTentacion was shot in Florida on Monday, multiple outlets reported. The Broward County Sheriff's Department later told TMZ he had been pronounced dead.

Citing witnesses, TMZ reported that the 20-year-old rapper, whose real name is Jahseh Onfroy, was shot in his car after leaving a motorcycle dealer in South Florida.

Videos of what appeared to be Onfroy unresponsive in the driver's seat of a car circulated on social media on Monday. A Broward County official told Variety there was "a developing incident regarding a shooting" in Deerfield Beach, about 43 miles north of Miami, in which an "adult male victim was transported to an area hospital."

TMZ described witnesses as saying the rapper had "no pulse" following the incident.

Onfroy was awaiting trial for a 2016 domestic-abuse case. He faced charges of aggravated battery of his pregnant girlfriend, domestic battery by strangulation, false imprisonment, and witness tampering.

Onfroy's second studio album, "?," debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 album chart in March.

Onfroy's representatives did not immediately respond to Business Insider's requests for further information.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Trump pitched peace to Kim Jong Un with this Hollywood-style video starring Kim as the leading man

• Fyre Festival organizer Billy McFarland pleaded guilty to wire-fraud charges in March.
• The 26-year-old was arrested in June 2017 after being accused of misleading investors who poured more than $1 million into Fyre Media.
• McFarland admitted he defrauded 80 investors and a ticket broker out of more than $26 million.
• On June 12, McFarland was arrested on charges of running a fraudulent ticket-selling enterprise called NYC VIP Access while out on bail.
• Here's a look back at what happened. 

The founder of the nightmarish Fyre Festival that left hundreds of attendees stranded in the Bahamas pleaded guilty to two counts of wire fraud in March.

Now, he's facing fresh charges that he ran a separate, fraudulent ticket-selling company while out on bail. 

26-year-old Billy McFarland admitted to defrauding a ticket broker and 80 investors in Fyre Media, a company that he founded and that was responsible for putting on the Fyre Festival. Prosecutors alleged that McFarland used falsified documents to trick investors in a $26 million scheme.

As a result, McFarland could spend eight to 10 years in prison in addition to paying a fine of up to $300,000, according to Bloomberg.

But on June 12, he was arrested again on charges of selling fake tickets under a different company, called NYC VIP Access, starting in 2017. If convicted on the additional fraud charges, McFarland could face an extended prison sentence, likely of an additional two years, according to Time. 

Fyre Festival promised to offer attendees a VIP experience when they set off to Great Exuma in the Bahamas. But the reality was very different, as attendees encountered delayed flights, half-built huts to sleep in, and cold cheese sandwiches to eat. And that doesn't even include the disastrous trip home.

The luxury festival — tickets for which started at $1,200 — was advertised as two weekends in paradise, but it turned into a nightmare.  Take a look at festivalgoers' expectations compared with the reality they encountered, which is currently being developed into a TV series for Hulu. 

And here's the full Fyre Festival promo video:

SEE ALSO: The founder of the doomed Fyre Festival could spend years in prison after pleading guilty to defrauding investors out of millions of dollars

The three-day party was supposed to be on a private beach on the island of Great Exuma in the Bahamas.

It was supposed to be over two weekends in 2017: April 28-30 and May 5-7.

It was described as an "immersive music festival."

• McDonald's' menu has tons of options for customers.
• And McDonald's crew members themselves have their own frequent picks— as well as orders they tend to avoid.
• Business Insider spoke with a number of current and former McDonald's employees about the menu items that they're not crazy about, for whatever reason.

SEE ALSO: McDonald's employees share 11 annoying things they wish customers would stop doing

DON'T MISS: McDonald's employees reveal their 20 favorite menu items — and one bonus secret menu item everyone should try

SEE ALSO: McDonald's employees share the 14 strangest orders they've ever gotten

A famous, fishy sandwich

McDonald's filet-o-fish sandwich has a storied history. It was the first new non-hamburger item added to the fast food giant's nation-wide menu in 1965.

But that doesn't matter much to two crew members who spoke to Business Insider.

One former crew member from Virginia said they viewed the filet-o-fish as a meal popular with older customers "because I assume it's easy for them to chew," but added that they personally didn't like the taste of the sandwich.

Some of the greener options on the menu

A crew member from Minnesota told Business Insider that they steered clear of a batch of the chain's ostensibly healthier options: the salads.

"I'm not a fan of tons of vegetables, and the caloric count in the items is astronomical," the crew member told Business Insider.

The southwest buttermilk crispy chicken salad comes in at 520 calories, the bacon ranch salad with buttermilk crispy chicken boasts 490 calories, and the bacon ranch grilled chicken salad has 320 calories.

For comparison, a Big Mac sandwich is 540 calories.

However, the chain's side salad is only 15 calories, for customers looking for a leaner, leafy option.

A particularly sugary beverage

One McDonald's employee said the chain's sweet tea was a bit too sweet for their taste.

"Pound. Of. Sugar. Per gallon," the employee wrote in a 2013 Reddit thread.

A pound of sugar per gallon of McDonalds sweet tea would translate to a quarter pound — or about 113 grams — of sugar in a large, 32-ounce serving. But McDonalds reports there are actually only 38 grams of sugar in a large, 32-ounce McDonald's sweet tea. 

Compare that to a large Coca-Cola, which contains 77 grams of sugar.

Still, according to the American Heart Association, men should only take in 36 grams of added sugar a day — and women should only consume 25 grams.

So, if you're determined refresh yourself with some McDonald's sweet tea this summer, consider ordering an extra small cup, which will feature 15 grams of sugar. 

• All five living first ladies have now openly criticized the Trump administration's "zero-tolerance policy" of separating families who cross the border illegally.
• While current first lady Melania Trump's statement largely echoed her husband's decrying the practice, the first ladies all called for it to end.

In under 24 hours, all five living first ladies spoke out against the Trump administration's lightning-rod "zero-tolerance" immigration policy of separating families at the border.

Historically, former first ladies respectfully refrain from commenting on the policies of the current administration in power. For all five women to speak out against the same policy, with some crossing party lines in doing so, highlights the mounting bipartisan backlash against the practice.

On Sunday night, former first lady Laura Bush published a rare op-ed in the Washington Post.

"I live in a border state. I appreciate the need to enforce and protect our international boundaries, but this zero-tolerance policy is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart," Bush wrote. "Our government should not be in the business of warehousing children in converted box stores or making plans to place them in tent cities in the desert outside of El Paso."

Former first lady Michelle Obama then re-tweeted a link to Bush's op-ed, adding the message, "Sometimes truth transcends party."

While speaking publicly at an event in New York City on Monday afternoon, Hillary Clinton took a forceful stand against the policy, calling President Donald Trump's repeated claim that family separations are mandated by law an "outright lie."

Clinton also took aim at Trump administration officials, such as attorney general Jeff Sessions and White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, who have cited the Bible to defend the policy.

"I went to a lot of years of Sunday school. I even taught it from time to time," she said. "I've studied the Bible, both the Old and the New Testament. And what is being done using the name of religion is contrary to everything I was ever taught. Jesus said suffer the little children unto me — he did not say let the children suffer."

Rosalynn Carter, the 90 year-old former first lady married to former President Jimmy Carter, put out a statement addressing the separations through her office on Monday afternoon:

"When I was first lady, I worked to call attention to the plight of refugees fleeing Cambodia for Thailand. I visited Thailand and witnessed firsthand the trauma of parents and children separated by circumstances beyond their control," the statement said. "The practice and policy today of removing children from their parents’ care at our border with Mexico is disgraceful and a shame to our country."

First Lady Melania Trump's spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham gave CNN a statement on Sunday.

"Mrs. Trump hates to see children separated from their families and hopes both sides of the aisle can finally come together to achieve successful immigration reform," Grisham said. "She believes we need to be a country that follows all laws, but also a country that governs with heart."

Those words largely echoed what her husband said about the policy on Friday.

"I hate it. I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law. That's their law," he told reporters on the South Lawn of the White House.

Trump has repeatedly, incorrectly blamed Democrats in Congress for the policy. Sessions announced it on May 8, saying at the time, "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

SEE ALSO: Trump keeps falsely blaming Democrats for his administration's family separation policy — here's what's really going on

DON'T MISS: Hillary Clinton: Trump's blaming of 'zero-tolerance,' family-separation policy on Democrats is an 'outright lie'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why the North Korea summit mattered even if it was 'mostly a photo op'

• The Trump administration is under fire for its policy of separating children from their parents at the US-Mexico border.
• As a result, the Department of Homeland Security has published a supposed fact check of its family separation policy.
• It details "myths" about the policy, and blames the media and congressmen for negative stories about it.
• But it leaves out the main reason it is separating families: The Justice Department's new hardline zero-tolerance policy on border immigration.

The Department of Homeland Security published a "Myth vs. Fact" document in an attempt to cool the political firestorm around its family separation policy — but it deliberately avoided mentioning its new zero-tolerance policy that is behind the scandal.

The supposed fact check, published on the DHS website on Monday, attempts to debunk 13 "myths" about ongoing family separations at the US border. Its efforts to do so are dubious, however.

In one instance, the DHS specifically claims that it "does not have a blanket policy of separating families at the border." Instead, it says, families are only split up if the parent or legal guardian "is referred for criminal prosecution."

However, it does not mention the key fact that under the Justice Department's new zero-tolerance policy, everyone crossing the US-Mexico border without authorization is automatically subject to criminal prosecution. All such people would therefore have their children taken away.

Here is the relevant passage:

"DHS does not have a blanket policy of separating families at the border. However, DHS does have a responsibility to protect all minors in our custody.

"This means DHS will separate adults and minors under certain circumstances. These circumstances include:

1) when DHS is unable to determine the familial relationship,

2) when DHS determines that a child may be at risk with the parent or legal guardian, or

3) when the parent or legal guardian is referred for criminal prosecution."

While the above is technically correct, it doesn't acknowledge that deliberate increase in prosecutions is what is driving more separations.

The Trump administration has consistently denied having a specific policy to separate children from parents at the border, but an internal document published on Friday indicated just that.

The DHS document also denied housing children in "cages," opting to call them "short-term facilities" that "make use of barriers in order to separate minors of different genders and age groups." It said this is for their safety.

Photos taken inside the facilities showed hundreds of migrants, including children, sleeping inside metal cages, on mattresses on the ground, and wrapped in foil blankets.

One 16-year-old girl had reportedly been taking care of a young girl who was separated from her mother, and had been teaching other children in the cell how to change diapers.

US Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in May: "I have put in place a zero-tolerance policy for illegal entry on our southwest border. If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It's that simple.

"If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law."

Under the Obama administration, migrants detained at the border were also released and allowed to remain in the US while their immigration court cases were pending, in what was referred to as "catch and release."

Trump has ended that practice. Families were also referred for civil deportation proceedings, and therefore were not separated.

The DHS also blamed the media and opposing congressmen for "mislead[ing] the public" in their reports of the Trump administration's zero-tolerance policy.

Even many senior Republicans, including Senators John McCain and Susan Collins, and former First Lady Laura Bush, have spoken out against the family separation scandal.

SEE ALSO: Conclusive proof that it is Trump's policy to separate children from their families at the border

READ MORE: Senior Republicans are attacking Trump's policy of separating families at the US border — here's how they're turning on the president

DON'T MISS: Audio from inside a border detention facility records young children wailing for their parents as an agent jokes 'We have an orchestra here'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This top economist has a radical plan to change the way Americans vote

• A new study found middle-aged nurses were less likely to develop depression if they were early birds, compared to those who were later risers.
• There wasn't an increase in risk for night owls.
• But the study has a fair few limitations, meaning it is not clear if their chronotype was the direct cause of new cases of depression.
• Consistency is key when it comes to getting enough sleep, by sticking to a schedule that is in tune with your natural rhythm.
• More research is needed to reach firmer conclusions about how our body clocks really affect our health.

There are a fair few benefits of waking up early. Morning people often say they get to experience the best part of the day, and they can get exercise and other chores out of the way before night owls have even surfaced.

There is increasing evidence that suggests morning larks could be healthier overall, too. According to a new study, published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, women in particular who wake up earlier could be less likely to develop depression.

Researchers from the University of Colorado, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard, and the University of Vienna wanted to see if a woman's chronotype — whether they were an "early bird" or "night owl" — had any impact on their risk of depression.

They used data from a large study that assessed the health of more than 32,000 female nurses in the US, with an average age of 55, for nearly three decades. In 2009 they were asked to define whether they were a morning or evening person, then they followed up after four years to see how many of them developed depression.

During that time there were 2,581 new cases of depression, and those who were definite morning types were somewhere between 12 and 27% less likely to develop depression compared to the "intermediate types," who were neither early birds or night owls. There wasn't a clear pattern for the evening people.

The results show that someone's chronotype — or body clock — could be a factor in developing depression, but the risk is small. The study was based on a very specific group of people, who are in a highly emotionally and energetically demanding job, and so there is no certainty that the risk of depression is influenced by their sleeping habits. The results are not necessarily applicable to other women of the same age, or men, or children, either.

While the study had its limitations, it does raise some interesting points of discussion. For example, recent research found that disrupting our body clock can increase our risk of mood disorders like depression. Nurses work long hours, and often they work night shifts. It's not the best job for a regular sleep schedule, so if you know your internal rhythm doesn't adapt easily, that may have a psychological impact.

Also, the lead author of the new research Céline Vetter told The Independent that how much light you are exposed to can influence your chronotype, which in turn can increase the risk of depression. The study didn't look into the impact of light exposure, but it could be an area of further investigation, particularly as nurses may not see daylight as much as people in some other jobs.

Research has consistently found that a regular sleep pattern is key regardless of chronotype. Too much sleep and too little sleep are both likely to be bad for your health, and the best way to ensure you're getting the right amount is to stick to a schedule. That means that even if you have a late night, you should try and get up at the same time every day to avoid something called "social jetlag."

In April, another study appeared to show that night owls had a small increased risk of dying than morning types. But the researchers concluded that this wasn't due to late nights — rather it was probably because of the risk factors associated with staying up later, such as eating less healthily, taking more risks, and the impact of socially-imposed timetables, such as starting work early when their body clock is in tune with a different rhythm.

While the answer isn't as simple as early birds being healthier than night owls, as there are too many variables to come to a solid conclusion, what is clear is when it comes to how important sleep is for avoiding diseases like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's. The prevailing advice remains unchanged — make sure you get enough of it.

SEE ALSO: What a sleep scientist says you should do if you and your partner have different body clocks

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The best dog breeds for apartment living

The race to snag top tech talent from prominent schools is competitive. Typically, tech giants like Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are all vying for the same pool of graduates. 

A recent from study from software company Piazza rounded up the companies that computer science students from schools like MIT, Harvard, Stanford, University of Texas Austin, and Georgia Tech are most interested in working for. Piazza extended its questionnaire to more than 600 schools across North America and surveyed around 150,000 students.

Here's where they said they most wanted to work: 

30) Ebay

29) Visa

28) Samsung

• The Trump administration can't get its story straight when it comes to its new "zero tolerance" policy that has separated thousands of migrant families.
• Some in the Trump administration have resisted referring to the tactic as a "policy." Others have described it as such and advocated its use as a deterrent.
• As critics have pointed out, the differing explanations contradict one another.

As the Trump administration faces heightened scrutiny for its family-separation tactic, various government officials have contradicted one another in explaining what exactly is going on with migrant families at the border — and why.

The administration recently implemented a "zero tolerance" policy in which all adults held on suspicion of immigration violations at the US-Mexico border are priorities for criminal prosecution, an action that separates them from any children they're traveling with.

While some officials have advocated the policy as being necessary to deter illegal immigration, others have shied away from even describing it as a policy.

As critics have pointed out, not all of these explanations add up.

Here's what several officials in the Trump administration have said about the policy:

It's a deterrent

The White House chief of staff, John Kelly, told NPR last month that separating families at the border would most likely dissuade migrants from attempting the deadly journey to the US and would ensure that asylum cases get processed more quickly.

"It could be a tough deterrent — would be a tough deterrent. A much faster turnaround on asylum-seekers," he said, brushing aside concerns that it could be cruel to separate young children from their parents.

"The children will be taken care of — put into foster care or whatever," he added. "But the big point is they elected to come illegally into the United States, and this is a technique that no one hopes will be used extensively or for very long."

President Donald Trump's senior policy adviser, Stephen Miller, has taken a similar view. He told The New York Times this week that the previous practice of releasing immigrants seeking asylum into the US while their cases were pending acted as an incentive for illegal immigration.

"It was a simple decision by the administration to have a zero-tolerance policy for illegal entry, period," he said. "The message is that no one is exempt from immigration law."

It's in the Bible

The Trump administration has had to contend with growing backlash from a key part of Trump's base — evangelical Christians.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended the policy to people he called his "church friends" last week, citing the Bible's guidance to obey the government's laws, though there is no US law requiring the separation of migrant families.

"I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes," Sessions said.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, also cited the Bible when defending the zero-tolerance policy at a press briefing last week.

"I can say that it is very biblical to enforce the law," she said. "That is actually repeated a number of times throughout the Bible."

It's the Democrats' fault

Trump himself has repeatedly blamed Democrats for the policy, falsely saying on Twitter and in interviews that his administration is merely "following laws" that Democrats created.

"I hate the children being taken away," Trump told reporters last week. "The Democrats gave us the laws. Now, I want the laws to be beautiful, humane, but strong. I don't want bad people coming in."

As numerous critics have pointed out, there is no law requiring family separation. The Trump administration's zero-tolerance policy is just that: a policy.

Though the Trump administration has cited several "loopholes" in immigration law that they wish to close as a means to stop illegal immigration — and therefore remove the need for a zero-tolerance policy — none of the existing laws mandate separating families.

There is no family-separation policy

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen held a combative press briefing at the White House on Monday, stunning reporters when she denied that the Trump administration created a family-separation policy and saying it was "offensive" for reporters to suggest that it had.

"Why would I ever create a policy that purposely does that?" Nielsen said. "This administration did not create a policy of separating families at the border."

SEE ALSO: The Trump administration keeps blaming 'loopholes' in immigration law for its family separation policy — here's what's really going on

DON'T MISS: Senior Republicans are attacking Trump's policy of separating families at the US border — here's how they're turning on the president

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why the North Korea summit mattered even if it was 'mostly a photo op'

• Generation Z is the most ethnically-diverse and largest generation in American history.
• They're often cast as anti-social, technology-addicted, or "social justice warriors."
• From talking to 104 teenagers nationwide, Business Insider discovered what makes today's teens stressed out, happy, curious, and connected. 

Generation Z is the most ethnically-diverse and largest generation in American history.

And they're the youngest — Pew Research Center defined them recently as everyone born after 1997. 

We usually view teens and the younger generations with a tinge of derision. And Gen Zs, with their obsession over Instagram and rejection of hourly work, are primed for the utmost scorn by their elders. 

But we're more likely to understand what Generation Z is all about by talking to them. 

Business Insider surveyed 104 Generation Zers nationwide to find out what it's like to be a teenager in 2018. Learn below about their opinions, fears, dreams, and complexities.

SEE ALSO: Generation Z is already moving away from Facebook, and 8 more industries could be next

DON'T MISS: Teenagers are less likely to work today than any generation before them, and some say school is to blame

SEE ALSO: The US allows teens to start working at 14 — here's how to get a first job in every state

Who did we talk to?

Business Insider surveyed 104 teens aged 13 to 19. They came from all over the US, including North Carolina, New York, and Michigan.

Many survey respondents came from WeAreGenZ, a consultancy and think tank powered by Gen Zs nationwide.

The average teen got their first smart phone just before their 12th birthday.

Nearly 80% of teens got their first smartphone between the ages of 11 and 13.

Almost 3% of teens got their first smartphone at age 8, and 6% at 15 or older.

• "We are the first generation to have had access to smartphones our whole lives. We communicate through social media and texts, which changes the dynamic of communication." — 19-year-old
• "Everything in our generation is immediate. Since we have been raised in an age where texts and messages can be sent in the blink of an eye, we are less patient than other generations because we are used to having instant gratification. But our generation is also very determined to show that we are capable of real thoughts and using the technology and communication methods we have been given for making change, despite what older generations expect from us." — 15-year-old

Most teens had an iPhone.

Among survey respondents, 94% had an Apple phone.

That's higher than what other surveys have shown, but not shockingly so. Investment bank and asset management firm Piper Jaffray found that, in their semi-annual survey of around 6,000 American teens, 84% of teens plan that their next phone will be Apple. 

• Several 2014 photos of detained immigrant children in cages went viral in May, and former Obama administration officials rushed to offer explanations.
• The former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau had even shared the images on Twitter, mistakenly believing they were taken during Donald Trump's presidency.
• The former officials doubled down on their criticisms of Trump's immigration policies, and said the 2014 photos showed unaccompanied children the government had been attempting to place with family members.
• On June 17, reporters toured a similar government holding facility in McAllen, Texas, where migrant families are separated from one another and held in cages.

Editor's note: This article was originally published on May 29, 2018, under the headline "Obama administration officials are rushing to explain photos from 2014 that went viral this weekend showing locked-up immigrant children." Due to a surge in renewed interest, Business Insider has updated the story to include context from recent developments and outline how the Trump administration's practices compare to the Obama administration's.

Several former Obama administration officials took to social media and news outlets last month to explain a gallery of years-old photos that showed immigrant children sleeping in shoddy conditions at a government-run holding facility in Arizona.

The images, which the Associated Press first published in 2014, resurfaced recently for reasons that remain unclear, and quickly prompted viral outrage on Twitter. One particularly disturbing image showed two children sleeping on mattresses on the floor inside what appeared to be a cage.

A number of prominent liberals — and even a former Obama administration official — shared the photos, mistakenly believing they depicted the Trump administration's treatment of immigrant children who were forcibly separated from their parents.

Jon Favreau, who worked as a speechwriter for former President Barack Obama, tweeted, "This is happening right now, and the only debate that matters is how we force our government to get these kids back to their families as fast as humanly possible."

Favreau said he later deleted the tweet after social media users pointed out that the photos were taken during the Obama administration. But by that point, critics had already rushed to accuse him of concealing Obama's own harsh immigration tactics while condemning Trump's.

Favreau said in a series of tweets that he made a "mistake" by not checking the date of the photos before sharing them on Twitter. He explained that the photos were taken in 2014, when the Obama administration faced "an influx of unaccompanied minors who showed up at the border, fleeing violence from Central America."

He added that the pictures had been taken while the government was trying to "move those children out of those shelters as fast as humanly possible and connect them with their parents, most of whom were already in the United States."

Another former Obama official, Cecilia Muñoz, who served as the director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, offered a similar explanation to NPR.

"In 2014, we saw an enormous spike compared to what usually happens every year, in the number of kids crossing alone into the United States," she said. "And we didn't have enough shelter facilities, because we had a huge increase, so kids ended up piling up in Border Patrol lock-ups, which are no places for children."

She continued:

"What the Obama administration did, which is what the law requires, is to find shelter facilities for those kids, which were put together by the Department of Health and Human Services. So the goal was to get kids out of the Border Patrol, into proper care by HHS, and then HHS is supposed to release them to the least restrictive setting, and in more than 80% of the cases, that was their parents who were already in the United States."

Trump's administration does have a new policy to separate children from their parents

Both Favreau and Muñoz argued that the Trump administration's policy of separating families at the border is different from the Obama administration's handling of unaccompanied children.

"This policy is new, cruel, and unprecedented," Favreau tweeted. "It was not an Obama policy. It was not a Bush policy. It was not a Clinton policy. That is a fact. And that is what all of us — Democrats and Republicans — should want changed as soon as humanly possible."

The firestorm over the photos came amid ongoing backlash against the Trump administration's recently implemented policy of criminally prosecuting people who illegally cross the border and separating them from their children.

Nearly 2,000 children were separated from their parents under the zero-tolerance policy in the first six weeks it was in place, according to Department of Homeland Security numbers the AP published on June 15.

During that time, numerous reports have circulated throughout the national media describing devastated parents, traumatized children, and dismal-looking conditions they are being held in.

On Sunday, a handful of reporters were permitted to tour the largest government holding facility for migrants, where families are separated, given foil blankets and mattresses to sleep on, and are held in cages.

Though the photos are nearly identical to those from 2014, there is one key difference between them: the 2014 photos showed only children who arrived at the border unaccompanied. The 2018 photos also show families that have been separated from one another.

That difference is significant — while unaccompanied children in 2014 knew what to expect when they arrived at the border and were taken to the holding facilities, the children who have been separated from their parents are often much younger, and had not expected to be taken away from their families.

On Monday, ProPublica published audio from inside a border detention facility that recorded children as young as six wailing for their parents. They could be heard screaming "Mami" and "Papá" repeatedly, and asking Border Patrol agents where their parents were.

Are you are an immigrant who has been separated from your family at the border? Or do you work with families who have been detained or separated? Email mmark@businessinsider.com to share your story.

¿Es usted un inmigrante que ha sido separado de su familia en la frontera? ¿O trabajas con familias que han sido detenidas o separadas? Envíe un correo electrónico a mmark@businessinsider.com para compartir su historia.

SEE ALSO: The Trump administration keeps blaming 'loopholes' in immigration law for its family separation policy — here's what's really going on

DON'T MISS: Trump officials keep contradicting each other trying to explain why they are separating screaming children from their parents at the border

AND THEN: Sobering photos show a Texas detention center where hundreds of immigrant children wait to be reunited with their families

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why the North Korea summit mattered even if it was 'mostly a photo op'

In an age when major film studios have practically killed off the once-thriving genre of romantic comedy, Netflix has been steadily filling a niche by producing original romantic comedies and dramas.  

Netflix's latest romantic film, the rom-com "Set It Up," got an enthusiastic reception from critics and audiences around its release this week.

To find out which of Netflix's original romantic movies have received similar or lesser acclaim, we turned to the reviews aggregator Rotten Tomatoes to rank each release by its critic score.

We excluded Netflix original romantic films that didn't have enough reviews to receive a designation of "fresh" or "rotten" on the site.

Here are eight of Netflix's original romantic films, ranked from worst to best according to critics:

SEE ALSO: 12 fan-favorite shows Netflix has revived or rebooted, ranked from worst to best

8. "The Kissing Booth" (2018) — 17%

Critic score: 17%

Audience score: 71%

Netflix description: "When teenager Elle's first kiss leads to a forbidden romance with the hottest boy in high school, she risks her relationship with her best friend."

7. "When We First Met" (2018) — 39%

Critic score: 39%

Audience score: 60%

Netflix description: "Using a magical photo booth that sends him back in time, Noah relives the night he met Avery over and over, trying to persuade her to fall for him."

6. "Christmas Inheritance" (2017) — 60%

Critic score: 60%

Audience score: 33%

Netflix description: "To inherit her father's company, socialite Ellen must first visit his small hometown, where she learns the value of hard work and helping others."

• Figuring out how much to tip for different services in your own country can be difficult — and the rules change completely when you travel abroad.
• America has a reputation for tipping, while many European countries are known for not tipping.
• GoCompare broke down just how much to tip servers, taxi drivers, and hotel staff in 49 countries around the world.

Figuring out how much to tip— and when to tip — is already complicated enough in the country you live in. But in a different country where customs and practices vary, tipping can come with a whole new set of rules.

America has a reputation for tipping, while many European countries are known for not tipping. In fact, in some countries, tipping is even considered rude. More confusing yet are the countries where tipping isn't common practice, but has tourist areas that expect tips regardless.

What's a traveler to do?

Luckily, travel insurance website GoCompare broke down just how much you should tip servers, taxi drivers, and hotel housekeeping, porters, and doormen in 49 countries around the world.

Below, save yourself any awkward moments and find out how much to tip no matter where you travel to, from Abu Dhabi and Australia to Sri Lanka and Spain.

SEE ALSO: How much to tip in every situation, from Uber drivers to your hairstylist

DON'T MISS: The 20 US cities where shoppers save the most money

Abu Dhabi

How much to tip at restaurants: Tipping isn't expected, but appreciated — 10 AED ($2.72) for a good tip or 20 AED ($5.45) for really good service

How much to tip for taxis: Round off taxi fares to the nearest 5 AED ($1.36)

How much to tip for hotels: 5 AED ($1.36) for a good tip

Austria

How much to tip at restaurants: Many restaurants include tax and service charge in the bill; it's customary to round up the total when paying

How much to tip for taxis: 10% over the meter fare

How much to tip for hotels: €1 ($1.16) per bag for porters

Australia

How much to tip at restaurants: Tipping isn't necessary, but you can tip 10% if the service was particularly good

How much to tip for taxis: Tipping isn't expected

How much to tip for hotels: $1 AUD ($0.74) per bag for porters

• Fender is continuing a revamp of its iconic guitars with new versions of its legendary made-in-Mexico instruments.
• The Standard Series is being replaced by the Players Series.
• The guitars cover the entire electric guitar and bass lineup and range in price from $650 to $775.

For guitar players, a chunk of wood at the top of their instrument matters. It's the headstock, and that's where the name of the guitar maker is found. 

Teenage musicians quickly learn the hierarchy: inexpensive, entry-level guitars dwell far below their far pricier counterparts. So begins the guitarist's march up the ladder. 

That process, however, has undergone some changes in the past decade, and one of the world's most famous purveyors of rockstar dreams, Fender, is smack in the middle of it.

The iconic manufacturer of Telecaster and Stratocasters is revamping its products and introducing new gear. The past year has seen a new range of acoustic guitars and Fender's first serious lineup of effects pedals. But the core stuff matters, too.

The modernization now continues with revisions to the former made-in-Mexico ("MIM," to the initiated) Standards, which are now "Players."

Fender's most affordable guitars are sold under its Asian-built Squier brand, and they have their fans. But if you want Fender script on the headstock — not to mention more intense investment in detail than you get with the MIM instruments — the Player roster is cause for rejoicing. 

The prices range from $650 to $775, and instruments cover the entire range, from the legendary Telecaster to Jazz basses. 

"The Player Series is an evolution of the highly successful Fender Standard Series," Fender CEO Andy Mooney said in an email.

"We upgraded this series to reflect the needs of contemporary players at an entry-level price point," he added. "Our mission at Fender is to support players at every stage."

A thorough revamp of one of Fender's best-value instruments

At this point, Fender is covering a massive amount of sonic territory and addressing a wide variety of budgets. 

"Our highest specification and highest price models are built in Corona, CA, where we craft guitars in a price range from $1000 retail up to $500,000 retail for masterbuilt custom shop guitars," Mooney said.

"We offer lower specification, lower price guitars that are still very much true to the Fender brand from $500 retail to $1,000 crafted in Ensenada [Mexico]. We have increased production in both factories over the last three years and are working at capacity to keep pace with global demand."

Fender's US-made guitars are remarkable and a joy to play, but even inexperienced guitarists know that grabbing a MIM Stratocaster is never disappointing. In many respects, they're the true throwbacks to what founder Leo Fender had in mind when he created his first solid-body electric guitars decades ago: tough, versatile instruments for working musicians. 

A Player Series Strat, for example, will have all the essential, high-quality components and woods to deliver on a player's goals, albeit at a lower price point. A bedroom or basement player will have a sub-$1,000 guitar that they can enjoy for a lifetime, while a gigging artist won't have to worry about trashing their costly axe.

As Mooney pointed out, Fender has been building guitars for players of every purse and purpose for three decades. With the new Player Series, it proves that the company, started 72 years ago, isn't backing off that commitment.

SEE ALSO: Fender has unveiled a lineup of acoustic guitars that electric players will love

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: An electric car from a startup company could outperform the Tesla Roadster

• Americans have garnered several negative stereotypes around the world.
• They include beliefs that Americans are entitled and arrogant and that Americans are obsessed with their jobs.
• Here are the worst stereotypes I heard while traveling to 25 countries.

Every country has its stereotypes, both good and bad.

As one of the biggest populations in the world, Americans have garnered an outsize number of negative stereotypes, like the belief that all Americans are rich or that Americans are way too obsessed with their jobs. That's what I learned after traveling to 25 different countries, ranging from South America to Europe to Southeast Asia.

Read on to see what non-Americans really think of people from the US.

SEE ALSO: There are only 11 phrases travelers need to get by in any language

DON'T MISS: The World Cup is underway — these photos from around the world show why soccer is the world's most beloved game

All Americans are rich

One of the most widely believed stereotypes I encountered while traveling was that all Americans are rich. Not just "I can afford to not haggle at the night market" rich, but "multiple cars and houses back home" rich.

This stereotype is fueled in part by America's powerful global economic standing. But despite the country's reputation, plenty of Americans know that the wealth of the country doesn't always transfer to all its citizens, and there are millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet.

Americans are overly patriotic

Americans have a reputation for being overly patriotic. Many first-time visitors to the US are surprised by the preponderance of American flags waving from our schools, offices, and homes, and it's pretty common to hear Americans proclaim their country the greatest on Earth.

Americans are ignorant about the world

Hand in hand with Americans' supposed superiority complex is an ignorance about the rest of the world, according to the stereotypes I heard while traveling.

It's an unfortunate reality that many Americans who travel lack knowledge of the culture and customs of the country they are visiting, and worse yet, sometimes they don't seem to care enough to learn.

Americans can combat this stereotype by engaging with people from other cultures abroad and making an effort to see things from their perspective.

• On Monday, The New York Times said it was going to air an interview Tuesday with White House senior adviser Stephen Miller about President Donald Trump's "zero tolerance" immigration policy.
• But on Tuesday's episode of "The Daily", they didn't air the interview.
• Reporter Julie Davis said the White House was not "comfortable" with The Times using the audio from the interview on the podcast.

The New York Times backed down from airing an interview with White House policy adviser Stephen Miller on its hit podcast "The Daily" on Tuesday.

On Monday's episode, host Michael Barbaro teased that they were going to have Miller on Tuesday to explain President Donald Trump's "zero tolerance" immigration policy.

But on Tuesday, reporter Julie Davis said the White House was not "comfortable" with The Times using the audio from their West Wing interview with Miller on the podcast.

The purpose of the interview with Miller was to discuss the evolution of Trump's migrant family separation policy at the border, and his quotes appeared in a text story on Sunday. But Davis and the White House apparently did not discuss "alternative uses" for the interview.

"When [The White House] found out that [Miller's] voice was going to be on a podcast discussing this, they were not happy about it," Davis said. "So they asked us not to use it."

The Times' decision to not air the interview with Miller drew questions and criticism from many journalists on Twitter, including Washington Post media reporter Erik Wemple, who thought hearing Miller's voice "would have enhanced the production quite a bit."

"It appears that the @nytimes complied with the White House's insistence that Miller's voice not be used," Wemple tweeted, adding, "In the best of circumstances, the @nytimes would have apprised Miller that they wanted to use his voice in a podcast. That said, if the comments were on the record, the @nytimes can decide how to use it."

In a statement to Business Insider, The Times said the producers of The Daily decided they wanted to use the audio from the Miller interview after the text story was published.

"White House officials objected, saying that they had not agreed to a podcast interview," the statement read. "While Miller's comments were on the record, we realized that the ground rules for the original interview were not clear, and so we made a decision not to run the audio."

The Times reinforced that the substance of the interview with Miller was used in the original story and on Tuesday's podcast episode, just not the audio.

The White House did not respond when reached for comment.

SEE ALSO: A far-right darling in the White House was the one who convinced Trump the US should separate parents from their children at the border

DON'T MISS: Meet Stephen Miller, the 32-year-old White House adviser who convinced Trump to start separating migrant children from their parents at the border

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why the North Korea summit mattered even if it was 'mostly a photo op'

• Organizing a messy home can be a daunting task.
• However, there are general guidelines — like avoiding gimmicky organizing tools and making time for regular maintenance cleaning— that can help you restore order to your environment.
• Here are 6 expert tips for getting and keeping your home clean.

Decluttering a messy home can be a daunting task. What should you throw out? What should you keep? Where do you even begin to clean?

Although it may seem logical to try and organize your home on a room-by-room basis, experts have found that this is not the best way to maintain a clean space.

Organization is a holistic process, and it's all about looking at your lifestyle— and that differs for every person. To come up with more general guidelines that are applicable to everyone, regardless of what type of home someone is living in, Business Insider spoke with professional organizers Laura Cattano, Jeffrey Phillip, and Jill Pollack.

SEE ALSO: 5 organization tips for people who hate organizing

1. Trust your gut

Cattano's starting point when it comes to cleaning is doing a whole sweep of the apartment or home and throwing stuff away by listening to your first instinct.

"There is no thinking when editing," she said. "When going through a home with a client, in our first sweep, there's already at least five items they know they’re going to get rid of."

Once we throw away the easiest things to get rid of, our minds will reshuffle when we move on to the harder-to-throw-away items, she said.

2. Edit according to your lifestyle

People tend to hold on to things for sentimental value, or because those things used to define them — like an sorority sweater or a bread maker you got as a wedding present. According to Pollack, you need to stop thinking in those terms if you want to reduce clutter.

"It's really about taking inventory of your life: where you were, where you are, and where you want to go," she said. "Define yourself and define your life."

If something no longer serves where you are currently in life, toss it. Pollack also said that everything should have a place where it can be stored. If you don't store it anywhere or find that you can't find a place for it, it automatically becomes clutter, and you need to reevaluate if it serves any purpose.

3. Get rid of the guilt

Pollack said to stop beating yourself up over wanting to toss things that have memories attached to them. If you don't use it, don't be afraid to get rid of it. 

"Some people feel bad throwing things out, but I'll use this analogy: If you go to a dinner party that serves beets and you don't eat beets, are you going to start eating beets because it's rude to the hostess? No," Pollack said.

• Most immigrants coming to the US seemingly have no idea that their children could be separated from them on arrival.
• Families who arrived together were almost never prosecuted before the Trump administration's "zero-tolerance" immigration crackdown. 
• In some cases, parents end up being quickly deported to their home countries while children remain in shelters in the US.

The Trump administration has described the "zero-tolerance" policy of separating families who arrive at the border together as a deterrent to prevent people from attempting to either seek asylum or immigrate illegally from Central America.

But lawyers, advocates, and families who have been separated say that most who arrive at the US border have no idea their children could be taken from them. 

Before the "zero-tolerance" policy went into effect in April, it was very rare for families who arrived at the border together to be prosecuted at all, especially if they were applying for asylum, public defenders told The Washington Post. This was especially true for first-time border crossers. 

But with the Trump administration's recent crackdown on illegal immigration, the court system in border areas is becoming overwhelmed and backlogged with the new addition of parents being charged with illegal entry in droves. A public defender in McAllen, Texas told The Post that number of illegal entry cases in McAllen has now soared to 1,000 per week.

While parents make the choice to either plead guilty to the crime and face deportation, or plead not guilty and go to trial, their children are taken into custody by the Office of Refugee Resettlement to be processed. They will then either be transferred to a shelter or be placed with a relative who lives in the US. 

Because the zero-tolerance policy is so new, most migrants coming across the border are unaware of it, and are completely blindsided when their children are taken away from them.

In an interview with Texas Monthly, Anne Chandler of the non-profit Tahirih Justice Center, which aids immigrant women and children, spoke to the confusion and chaos that occurs when families are separated.

"These kids and parents had no idea," Chandler said. "None of the parents I talked to were expecting to be separated as they faced the process of asking for asylum."

Photojournalist John Moore, who captured the now-famous photo of a toddler crying as her mother was searched and detained, recounted in an interview, "I could see on their faces that they had no idea what was about to happen."

A complex process for reuniting parent and child

When parents have their children taken into separate custody, they often receive little to no information about their whereabouts or when they will be reunited. Parents report being told their children are being taken away for questioning or to be bathed, only to never see them again.

Parents receive a flyer with numbers to call to locate their children upon being put in custody, but many parents do not have access to phones or money to pay to make the phone calls.

On the other side, staff in shelters housing unaccompanied minors often struggle to locate the parents of the children. Many children are too young to know their parent's full legal name or their date of birth, or too young to even speak, according to Chandler.

One woman from Honduras who was separated from her son upon crossing the border said in an interview with The New Yorker that border agents told her her son would be returned to her after she spent a few days in jail. She has been separated from him for six weeks as she awaits deportation, hoping her son can be sent back to Honduras with her. 

A story from Miriam Jordan of The New York Times illustrates the complex maze of the immigration system through the story of a Guatemalan woman who tried to immigrate to the US with her 12-year-old son. She was deported back to Guatemala, while her son still remains in a shelter for unaccompanied minors.

When parents and children are separated, they go into two separate legal processes with different procedures and rights afforded to them.

Legal experts who spoke to The Times said that most adults charged with illegal entry end up pleading guilty and go into an "expedited removal" deportation process with the hope of being reunited sooner with their children.

Children, however, are automatically entitled to a full hearing before an immigration judge, a process that takes much longer. This results in situations in which parents are deported while children remain in limbo in the US with no clear end in sight. 

SEE ALSO: This is what happens when families get separated at the US border, step by step

DON'T MISS: This is the Trump administration's reasoning for separating families at the border

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This top economist has a radical plan to change the way Americans vote

• The Trump administration is under fire for its "zero tolerance" immigration policy that has led to thousands of migrant children being separated from their parents at the US-Mexico border — and its inconsistent justifications for this practice have not helped matters.
• The policy is a product of the Trump administration's hardline stance on illegal border crossings.
• The administration's reasoning for implementing the policy is that it is following existing federal laws and guidelines for children who arrive at the border. 

President Donald Trump made cracking down on immigration and securing the US's borders a hallmark of his campaign.

His administration has enacted dozens of policies and executive orders to try to curb illegal immigration to the US. Some of the protocols have also attempted to decrease legal immigration.

The latest Trump administration decision to come under fire is the "zero tolerance" immigration policy that has led to thousands of migrant children being separated from their parents at the US-Mexico border. Officials' inconsistent justifications for this practice have only added ammunition to the criticism.

Trump has repeatedly blamed Democrats for what's happening, while his homeland security chief, Kirstjen Nielsen, at one point claimed the family-separation policy doesn't exist at all, saying the practice is instead based on existing immigration law.

Amid this back-and-forth, it can be difficult to discern the reasoning behind separating families at the border. Here's the administration's justification for it.

'If you don't want your child to be separated, then don't bring them across the border illegally'

In early May, Attorney General Jeff Sessions provided what is perhaps the clearest outline of why the Trump administration is doing this.

"If you cross the border unlawfully, even a first offense, then we're going to prosecute you," Sessions said in a speech announcing the zero-tolerance policy.

He continued: "If you smuggle an illegal alien across the border, then we'll prosecute you for smuggling. If you're smuggling a child, then we're going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you probably, as required by law. If you don't want your child to be separated, then don't bring them across the border illegally. It's not our fault that somebody does that."

In short, the Trump administration has moved to prosecute every adult who's caught crossing the border illegally. Children can't be prosecuted by the Justice Department or placed in a federal jail, but their parents or guardians can.

Previous administrations would often deport people who tried to enter the US illegally instead of criminally prosecuting them, resulting in far fewer migrants being detained overall.

Furthermore, Trump officials have accused "smugglers" of pretending to be asylum seekers.

Nielsen said during the White House press briefing on Monday that there had been a "314% increase in adults showing up with kids that are not a family unit."

In a speech on Tuesday, Trump said: "Smugglers know how the [immigration] system works. They game the system ... It's so easy for them. They're smart. They didn't go to the Wharton School of Finance, but you know what, they're really smart."

Trump claimed that "child smugglers exploit the loopholes" in immigration law to "gain illegal entry into the United States."

But some have accused the Trump administration of embellishment and have taken particular issue with Nielsen's description of a 314% increase in fraudulent cases at the border.

In fiscal 2017 (October 2016 through September 30), there were 46 cases of "individuals using minors to pose as fake family units," according to Homeland Security numbers obtained by The Washington Post. In the first five months of fiscal 2018 (October through February), the number of cases jumped to 191.

This is a roughly 315% increase, but context is important. Those 191 cases were among the 31,102 total family units apprehended at the border. This means child-smuggling cases accounted for about 0.6% of all the families apprehended between October and February.

The numbers show that many more children arrive at the border alone. The government calls them "unaccompanied minors." The latest figures from the Health and Human Services Department, the agency responsible for housing migrant kids, showed that roughly 10,000 children were in government custody at the end of May, including both unaccompanied minors and children who were separated from their families.

'The message is that no one is exempt from immigration law'

Some administration officials have said the separation policy is designed to deter people from entering the US illegally.

"I hope that we don't have to separate any more children from any more adults," Sessions said on June 7. "But there's only one way to ensure that is the case: It's for people to stop smuggling children illegally. Stop crossing the border illegally with your children. Apply to enter lawfully. Wait your turn."

The White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller echoed this claim in an interview with The New York Times.

"No nation can have the policy that whole classes of people are immune from immigration law or enforcement," he said. "It was a simple decision by the administration to have a zero-tolerance policy for illegal entry, period. The message is that no one is exempt from immigration law."

But evidence suggests prosecutions may not be an effective deterrent for illegal border crossings, and some are accusing Trump of holding children hostage as his administration enforces this policy.

Critics of the separation policy contend it's inhumane and traumatizing to children and doesn't take into account the fact that many people attempting to come into the US are fleeing gang violence in Central America and hope to gain asylum. But the Trump administration has taken a hardline stance on asylum, arguing that too many migrants are gaming the system.

Trump also seems to view the detainment of minors as leverage for gaining funding for the wall he's long desired to build along the US-Mexico border. Several officials, including Nielsen, have taken issue with the characterization that children are being used as a bargaining chip and have pushed lawmakers to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

What makes this a Trump administration policy

The Trump administration has made several false claims in defense of the separation policy.

For example, the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, recently claimed that "it's the law, and that's what the law states."

But this is inaccurate. There is no law requiring the separation of families at the border.

What these officials are often referring to are the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and the 1997 Flores settlement.

The 2008 law exempts unaccompanied minors who arrive at the US-Mexico border from "prompt return to their home country," unless those countries are Canada or Mexico. The Trump administration has pushed for its repeal, arguing that it incentivizes the human-smuggling trade.

The Trump administration has argued that the Flores settlement means children must be separated because they cannot be held in custody alongside parents facing criminal prosecution and deportation for crossing the border illegally.

Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have both said the White House could at any time choose to stop separating families.

At the end of the day, the sharp increase in family separations is happening because of the Trump administration's zero-tolerance approach to immigration and illegal border crossings.

Numbers from the Department of Homeland Security show that roughly 2,000 migrant children have been separated from their parents in a recent six-week period. Some have been placed in a former Walmart in Brownsville, Texas, while others are being housed in a "tent city" in Tornillo, Texas.

Overall, at least 2,700 families have been separated at the border since October.

SEE ALSO: Photos show Border Patrol's largest processing facility, a former warehouse where families are separated and hundreds of migrant children are kept in cages

DON'T MISS: We're getting our first bits of evidence that Republicans are rallying around Trump's family-separation policy

AND THEN: Tucker Carlson tells Fox viewers that the 'ruling class' cares 'far more about foreigners' than 'their own people' in monologue on immigration

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why the North Korea summit mattered even if it was 'mostly a photo op'

• President Donald Trump's new "zero tolerance" policy has separated thousands of children from their families at the US-Mexico border.
• The policy means children are being separated from their families upon crossing the border illegally, processed separately, and ultimately deported or released into the US without their parents.
• The administration has claimed it's separating "smugglers" posing as fake families in order to prevent human trafficking.
• See what happens after families are separated at the border, step-by-step.

President Donald Trump's new "zero tolerance" policy has separated thousands of children from their families after they illegally crossed the US-Mexico border.

Amid major backlash from both parties, one consistent falsehood coming from the Trump administration is blaming Democratic legislation for forcing officials to separate migrant families at the border.

But there is no law specifically requiring migrant children be separated from their parents if they illegally cross the border. The current practice is in place because of the Trump administration's zero-tolerance policy, which could be rescinded at any time.

Under this policy, every adult caught illegally crossing the border is criminally charged, a process which separates the migrants from their children during prosecution.

Previously, families were either deported or held together in US custody until their hearing. Under the zero-tolerance policy, families are being split up and processed separately. The administration has also claimed it's separating "smugglers" posing as fake families in order to prevent human trafficking.

The new policy stipulates that adults go through legal proceedings without their children, and are ultimately either deported while their child remains in the US or granted asylum after their child has also either been deported or placed with a sponsor.

Take a look, step-by-step, at the process behind the policy:

SEE ALSO: Photos show Border Patrol's largest processing facility, a former warehouse where families are separated and hundreds of migrant children are kept in cages

DON'T MISS: Trump officials keep contradicting each other trying to explain why they are separating screaming children from their parents at the border

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This top economist has a radical plan to change the way Americans vote

If the director is the most important crew member on set, in most cases the cinematographer is the second-most important.

A skilled director of photography can turn a mediocre movie suddenly into a critical darling or a good movie into an Oscar contender. But unlike directors, who can have a breakout indie and suddenly get snatched up to do the next Hollywood blockbuster, cinematographers are in it for the long game.

Many have to work a decade or two on independent films, shorts, TV shows, and commercials before scoring a studio feature. And even at that point you still have to compete for work with the legends in the field like Emmanuel Lubezi, Robert Richardson, and Roger Deakins to land a job. 

Here are 11 cinematographers who are beginning to make their mark in Hollywood — including the visionaries behind "Moonlight" and "The Last Jedi."

SEE ALSO: "Superfly" director on how making music videos for Drake and Rihanna taught him how to thrive in the Hollywood studio system

Mike Gioulakis (“It Follows,” “Split”)

Gioulakis has found success in the thriller genre with the indie darling “It Follows” and M. Night Shyamalan’s latest hit, “Split,” being the standouts. For both, Gioulakis’ use of natural light and shadows to amp up the spookiness is a very useful tool.

James Laxton (“Moonlight”)

Jumping around from low-budget indies to a few Kevin Smith movies (“Tusk” and “Yoga Hosers”), Laxton reteamed with Barry Jenkins (he shot Jenkins’ debut feature “Medicine for Melancholy”) to make “Moonlight” — and the rest his history. The beautiful exterior shots of Miami are one of the reasons the movie went on to win an Oscar.

Jody Lee Lipes (“Manchester by the Sea,” “Martha Marcy May Marlene”)

In the early 2000s, Lipes was the guy at NYU everyone wanted to shoot their short films, and since he’s been in high demand on the professional level. From shooting episodes of “Girls” to lensing “Trainwreck,” he’s worked on every budget level. His standouts, though, have been his beautiful shooting of tough stories like Sean Durkin’s “Martha Marcy May Marlene” in 2011 and Kenneth Lonergan’s 2016 Oscar-winning movie, “Manchester by the Sea.”