Though it’s impossible to know yet whether the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” crackdown on illegal border crossers will have a significant deterrent effect, one thing was clear this week at the Arizona-Mexico border: Many families — especially those from countries in Central America plagued by gang violence and ruined economies — are making the calculation that even separation or detention in the United States is better than the situation at home.
“Why would you undertake such a dangerous journey?” said Magdalena Escobedo, 32, who works at the migrant shelter here in Tucson, called Casa Alitas. “When you’ve got a gun to your head, people threatening to rape your daughter, extort your business, force your son to work for the cartels. What would you do?”
“Why would you undertake such a dangerous journey?” said Magdalena Escobedo, 32, who works at the migrant shelter here in Tucson, called Casa Alitas. “When you’ve got a gun to your head, people threatening to rape your daughter, extort your business, force your son to work for the cartels. What would you do?”
...
Across the border in the Mexican town of Nogales, many parents preparing to cross the border said temporary separation from their children in the United States would be better than facing the violence back home.
...
Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, a global fellow at the Wilson Center who has interviewed hundreds of Central American migrants in the field, said that they are primarily motivated to leave their countries by violence and lack of economic opportunities, phenomena which she described as closely connected.
She said these migrant families choose the United States because they often have networks in the country already and know that there are many job opportunities. “There are push and pull factors. The push factors are the lack of economic opportunities and the security problems in their countries. It’s a mix of these conditions. The pull factors are of course the jobs and the families.”
Even with steep drops in the number of recorded murders in the past year, El Salvador and Honduras, the home countries of many migrants, are still among the most dangerous countries in the world. 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.
Unauthorized crossings along the border with Mexico have sharply declined over the past two decades, according to government data. From the 1980s to the mid-2000s, the government reported annually apprehending around 1 million to 1.6 million people who tried to cross the southwestern border illegally. That number has been halved in recent years. By month, border apprehensions averaged more than 81,588 under President George W. Bush, declined to more than 34,647 under President Barack Obama and now stand at 24,241 under Mr. Trump.
The president is correct in citing a spike in illegal border crossings that occurred in March: The 37,393 individuals apprehended was a 203 percent increase over the same period in March 2017, though the number was lower than in 2013 and 2014.
Research shows that incarceration rates of both legal and undocumented immigrants across the country are lower than those of native-born Americans, and that the net economic impact of immigration is positive. Mr. Trump’s reference to illegal immigration costing “hundreds of billions of dollars” likely came from a heavily flawed study from an anti-immigration group that pinned the cost at $116 billion annually. Adjusting for the flaws, the impact would more accurately be stated as $3.3 billion to $15.6 billion, according to the libertarian Cato Institute.
As the numbers show, there is a stark disconnect between Mr. Trump’s border rhetoric and the reality of life in border cities like Brownsville.
...
“There’s this misconception that we’re in this lawless land, and it’s the wild, wild frontier, and it’s not,” said the Brownsville police chief, Orlando C. Rodriguez. “We see actually a downward trend in crime in Brownsville over the past few years, and the numbers are just getting better every year.”
...
“To say that illegals are running around in Brownsville causing problems, we just don’t see it,” the chief said.
In Nogales, Ariz., which borders and shares its name with a Mexican city, the number of violent crimes plummeted by more than 70 percent from 1997 to 2016. Similar trends can be seen in San Luis, Somerton and Yuma. The overall crime rate in Arizona has also dropped by more than a third from 1993 to 2016. During that same time, the state’s undocumented-immigrant population more than doubled, according to the Pew Research Center.
Absolute nonsense. Honduras is the most violent country in the western hemisphere. It is currently the poster child of a Neo-Malthusian disaster. You should be thankful that Canada is engaging. (...)
Uhuh, sure, whatever. Typical neo-liberal denial. Hey, we're there to bring those thankless violent savages some civilization, and teach them a thing or two about how to do business! We're charitable like that! (Don't forget to click on some of those markers in BC!)
PS: Talking about neo-Malthusianism sure is fashionable in some circles (again). Population control to the rescue!
Oh, but Canada plays its part too (both in fomenting and supporting coups, and reaping the business benefits). There's a lot of (dirty) mining business down south.
Absolute nonsense. Honduras is the most violent country in the western hemisphere. It is currently the poster child of a Neo-Malthusian disaster. You should be thankful that Canada is engaging.
Yes, there is a lot of dirty mining in Latin America. Most of it is illegal mining.
Several countries are benefiting from legal mining operations. Those mines are state-owned in some cases and owned and operated by western multinational companies in other cases. The draw is not the capital, though that helps. It is the expertise and know-how. Modern resource extraction — mining, oil&gas — is technologically complicated.
R_P. You should ask yourself, why are mines in jurisdictions like British Columbia so successful? Why do they work so well? Why do they generate so much social wealth? Why are mining companies leaders in integrating First Nation community members into the economy?
Chile and Colombia are both now members of the OECD and in relative terms their economies are performing well and should continue to perform well into the future. Being a member of the rich country economic club — the OECD — means having to implement and enforce well defined, secure economic property rights (collective and individual). It means that small committees cannot simply expropriate property as has been the case with all the Neo-Marxist guided authoritarian populist disasters.
There are so many valid points in this thread but I'm going to make this really simple.
There is right and there is wrong.
Separating parents from their children when all they're trying to do is survive the gang violence that threatens their lives daily IS WRONG
The overwhelming majority (like 98%) of detained migrants are seeking asylum which is not a crime. Jailing them IS WRONG
Having a plan to separate families without a plan to track them for future reunification is not only ridiculously stupid and cruel, but it IS WRONG
Agreeing with this policy, and I know people need their jobs, but implementing this policy not only brings bad karma but it IS WRONG
I learned a long time ago that having the right to do something does Not make it right to do.
I am horrified that is happening in America and believe that Trump is evil by virtue of his insanely huge ego and his lust for money. Black-hearted.
The good news is... this is America, and despite a traitorous Congress, We The People will right this wrong. Love conquers hate. Truth conquers falsehood.
I think I know your overall intent here, but I have to say that the suggestion that people objecting to Trump's policies and behavior are just making his supporters even more entrenched is one that I find too simplistic. I do not buy into the refrain that those critical of Trump and his administration are "elites" who refuse to listen to those with opposing viewpoints. This listening thing is not a one-way street. Rote thinking is rote thinking.
I completely agree.
Trump is a political phenomenon. He has completely thrown out any sense of presidential decorum and restraint. He is not trying to speak to all Americans. He goes out of his way to be offensive to people when he wants to. So yes, people here and elsewhere post things that express their shock. Trump gets away with saying things that would sink most politicians. I think we should be over the spectacle of Trump, but it's easier for people to follow an insulting tweet than it is to complain about a complex tax "reform" plan that directs about 83% of its benefits to the top 0.1% of income earners in the US.
I agree with Steely_D that we need to force the Trump administration to explain its policies and proposed legislation. The Democratic party should also make it very clear to Trump supporters that Trump is screwing the majority of them over or trying to.
But as kurtster has noted, some Trump supporters just want someone to scream at the establishment and give it the finger. They mostly want his anger and outrage and swagger. My guess is that supporters thinking like that probably don't believe that the federal government ever did anything for them anyway, so they're not going to get hurt by Trump's attempts to gut the ACA or cut entitlement programs. Their identification with Trump is not focused on policy or even their wallets. It's more tribal.
GW Bush really nailed it when he was occasionally asked why he didn't reach out more to certain groups of voters. He said, "They're not gonna vote for me anyway." My guess is that a large chunk of Trump's base can't be persuaded to abandon him by Democratic proposals on expanding health care or job training programs or making college more affordable. Being positive and reaching out to that chunk and trying way harder to show respect may not work.
This thought has really been bugging me. Because something is likely or "inevitable", we are supposed to throw our hands up in the air and let it happen ? Sounds defeatist to me at the very least. Not singling you out as this appears to be the common rationale for dealing with the malaise we have at our southern border.
So we are supposed to roll over and play dead and let this invasion happen, unabated and without consequence for those entering disrespectfully. This appears to me to be stating that the notion of law and order no longer has any meaning within our borders. Especially the order part of law and order. It's the endorsement of a free for all.
We separate American children from their parents everyday due to both criminal activity or simple stupidity resulting in child endangerment. Why should people entering the country illegally be treated any differently than American citizens ? Would not the act of dragging minor children 2,000 miles through a dangerous and hostile land be considered reckless and child endangerment, especially with the end being to sneak into a foreign country without the means to support or provide for your family and just take your chances ? This must be viewed through the lens of our standards as a country, not someone else's.
And then the conditions these people are escaping from. Cannot we find the very same conditions in Chicago and other American cities such as Detroit or Baltimore or ... I see people here mention that we have the space for these people, but space ≠ to capacity. Remove the barriers and let these people enter unimpeded, to what ? No infrastructure in place to deal with the people arriving under the present rules. More chaos and less order. Remember the order part of law and order ?
What of the people who are showing up at the legal entry points asking for asylum the proper way ? Are we to make fools out of them for playing by the rules ? Dealing with the illegals takes away the resources so desperately needed to deal with those who are playing by the rules by showing up at the proper locations.
With no infrastructure existing sufficient to handle the present flow we are to lower our barriers even further to let in more ? And put them where ? Maybe send them all to Chicago where the conditions most resemble home so that they will not feel displaced in a weird environment. Let's remember that the cages we all object to were largely built by the previous administration. Let's also remember that those Japanese internment camps that are being brought up in comparison to today's situation were the idea of and built by the party of the previous administration. Yet it is the party of the previous administration that built today's immigration processing facilities and those Japanese internment camps who is leading the campaign against their use and even their mere existence. It is also my understanding that the party of the previous administration led by Schumer is also refusing to block any funding that would be used to improve these detention facilities and keep them unbearable. Instead the plan is to withhold additional funding to keep these facilities inadequate and worse so that new arrivals are simply set free without consequences or back to catch and release. And leave these catch and release people vulnerable and dependent on the party that created the mess in the first place by exploiting them instead of helping them.
ymmv ...
"So we are supposed to roll over and play dead and let this invasion happen, unabated and without consequence for those entering disrespectfully."
kurtster, you have a bad habit of taking people's words and stretching/distorting them to unjustifiable extremes—case in point just above. I never said that we should do nothing about illegal immigration. I did say and am saying that this is not a new problem for the US. There have been attempts to address this problem in the past. Why in 1986 some pinko named Ron Reagan passed legislation providing amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants. The law's proposed penalties for hiring illegal immigrants and the procedures for checking the status for an individual apparently got pushed aside by lobbyists for business concerns and political wrangling within Congress.
You might want to look at this NPR piece that offers the opinions of people who've spent their careers on this matter. Here's an excerpt from the piece:
Doris Meissner (....headed the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service under Bill Clinton and is now a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute in Washington) says part of the problem was the two immigration laws that followed in 1990 and 1996 that she said did very little to create a legal path to the United States for low-skilled workers. The government does have a pair of visa programs for seasonal agriculture workers and others who are considered seasonal, nonagricultural workers, but Meissner and other critics of the program argue that it is not sufficient.
“There is no line to get into,” Meissner said. “This is why at the end of the day we need updated laws, we need immigration reform.”
"We separate American children from their parents everyday due to both criminal activity or simple stupidity resulting in child endangerment. Why should people entering the country illegally be treated any differently than American citizens ?"
1. Because Trump wants to separate kids from their families just to deter those families from trying to come here, even though he hasn't offered credible evidence that such a deterrence is effective.
3. Because we apparently have no system in place for placing these kids in a logical manner, tracking them, or providing means for reuniting them with their families. And that separation could become PERMANENT. Don't believe me? Ask this guy:
John Sandweg, who served as acting ICE Director under President Obama, tells Rolling Stone, "There's a very high risk of permanent separation" for the families that were ripped apart.
To understand the plight of the families affected by Trump's initiative – which Amnesty International has condemned as "nothing short of torture" – it's critical to understand that once family units are broken apart, parents and children are in the hands of two separate bureaucracies. Here's how the process typically goes: Parents are detained by ICE within the Department of Homeland Security; the children are handed over to the Department of Health and Human Services, and are now considered unaccompanied minors. Some of the children have extended family in America who can provide a home for them. For the rest, HHS seeks foster care placements – anywhere in the U.S. that can accommodate them. "They're flying these kids all over the country," says Sandweg.
The government is not equipped to keep track of the broken family units as they proceed separately through the adjudication and/or deportation process."It's really hard, logistically, to do this – to track movements of everybody, to match IDs," Sandweg says. "And if you've got two separate agencies doing it, it's really, really hard – even if you've planned it. I'm seeing no signs that any of this was well planned."For parents who've already been deported, Sandweg adds, "There is no agency that's now tracking the parent in Honduras." In other words, even if the Trump administration wanted to fly the child back home, Sandweg says, there's no guarantee the government knows where to send them.
Migrant parents held in detention are on a fast track for deportation – receiving a trial on their immigration status within weeks of crossing the border. Some desperate parents, Sandweg says, may have already been pressured into abandoning asylum claims and voluntarily accepting removal from the United States, in the mistaken belief that this would speed reunification with an infant child. But this is a false hope.
"There's no mechanism for ICE to track the location of the baby, and ICE isn't going to wait for HHS to find that kid and bring that kid down to McAllen, Texas, and pair them with the parent, and then fly the two of them back to Guatemala or Honduras – that's not how it works," ...
Unlike adults, unaccompanied migrant children are a low priority for deportation. It can take years for a child's asylum case to wend its way before an immigration judge. If the child is now in the foster care system, he or she is a ward of whatever state HHS sent him or her to.
Sandweg goes on to note that parents sent back to their home country have no legal or logistical means of tracking their child through a foster system. Once a state court system has determined that the child has been abandoned by the parents—who cannot enter the US to have their voices heard in court—the parents no longer have any right to demand the return of the child.
And those kids that wind up here, without their parents? Sandweg believes that they could be eligible for permanent residency in the US.
kurtster, you wrote
"What of the people who are showing up at the legal entry points asking for asylum the proper way ? Are we to make fools out of them for playing by the rules ? Dealing with the illegals takes away the resources so desperately needed to deal with those who are playing by the rules by showing up at the proper locations."
Can you prove that resources for processing asylum seekers has declined as a direct result of a need for more resources to process non-asylum seekers? You might be able to, I don't know, but once again you fail to support your assertions and notions.
What is the point of my trying to take you seriously when you just write stuff without supporting it? Many times your posts on immigration just read like misplaced anger/anxiety rants about damned kids on your lawn or ravening hordes of marauding Vikings/Latinos. Would you read posts that effectively say, "Hey, I think immigration's OK and we shouldn't bother about it cuz like...freedom! And bagels!"
Finally, you might want to review the following sentence you wrote for coherence and accuracy. Feel free to use Google to support your "I heard something..." statement. I am no longer willing to give you mulligans on providing support for your claims.
"It is also my understanding that the party of the previous administration led by Schumer is also refusing to block any funding that would be used to improve these detention facilities and keep them unbearable."
kurtster: is Schumer trying to block fundings for facilities improvements...or "refusing to block"? Explanations and links to stories about Chuck's dastardly plans most welcome...required even.
Here's why Trump has a chance of being re-elected: people that can't do anything more than post vociferous histrionics...you know what I mean: "look at all the stuff on the internet that you might not have seen so I'll cram it all here and even make a few more political forums so there's room for all the negative articles that I want you to read after I saw the headline!" - Those sorts of people, they lose every bit of credibility because it's clear all they can do is complain, but not process ideas with any delicacy.
And that reinforces the stereotype that the anti-Trump folks are basically immature dependent hippies. This strengthens their argument that they want a real powerful leader in office - and they go back and vote for Trump again instead of the whiny granola candidate whose only pro is that he's not Trump so you have to vote for them.
Folks that want someone else in 2020 need to stop this "look what he did" blubbering and handwringing and powerless victim behavior. Call him out - and then take action instead of sitting back. Act like we can think clearly and in a complex and mature way. No one beats a bully by complaining; they have to stand up tall.
Your drift / concept is within reason. I will agree or say if I misread you, that we are essentially reduced to broad brushes now in discussions and that will not change / recover anytime soon. The image on Time will stand in the minds of never Trumpers which exist in every part of the political spectrum. One picture is worth a 1,000 lies so to speak. To the low information voter, its all they need. It is a meme that never made it to the Internet before it became one. The media that Time is a part of is engaged in overthrowing Trump's presidency and will stop at nothing now to achieve their end. Corrections will go unnoticed or ignored. That is the perception of Trump supporters. You may say it is unreasonable or unfounded and you may be right, but it will not change the perception and its continuation.
Meanwhile, since Trump is so intertwined with this subject and I'm getting both tired and fed up, I'll jack this and bring in the IG's report on the FBI / DOJ. The entire top floor of the FBI is gone or going and facing possible prosecution over the Clinton email and Trump Russia collusion investigations. They are tied together and it appears that Obama has some things to personally worry about. Not a peep out of anyone since the initial release of the report which has since been clarified with two days of Congressional testimony. This immigration uproar led by the same media mentioned above is using this moment to totally distract as many people away from the IG's findings and the blatant insubordination of the FBI and DOJ in refusing to release documents to the point of charges of contempt of Congress and maybe even impeachment of officials in both of these agencies.
This is what the die hard Trump supporters are paying attention to. They see the likes of corruption never seen before and as wide spread at levels never seen before. And with the lack of comment and reporting by the previously referenced media, they see that everyone (as in the audience of said media) is either saying this type of corruption is not possible or that they are ok with it because they are willing to sacrifice all principles in order to remove Trump from office. Not saying that is fact, just saying that is the perception held by die hard Trump supporters in this broad brushed back and forth that has taken over all discourse. This perception is making the die hard Trump supporter's support unshakeable. The Time magazine cover is the frosting on the cake. The Time magazine cover is indelibly etched in the minds of both sides. One sees it as the truth and the other sees it as a lie. Trump supporters see the midterms as a fight to keep either House from flipping. Should that happen, the investigations will cease and everyone will get away with their crimes, Trump gets impeached in the process and the agenda of this deep state insubordinate bureaucracy that thinks all elected officials are just the summer help and to be ignored unless they support their agenda, will continue unimpeded. That is what is really at stake.
To whom it may concern:
Live with it. Own it. There was no shoddy fact finding. It was intentional. They thought believed that they could get away with it.
I think I know your overall intent here, but I have to say that the suggestion that people objecting to Trump's policies and behavior are just making his supporters even more entrenched is one that I find too simplistic. I do not buy into the refrain that those critical of Trump and his administration are "elites" who refuse to listen to those with opposing viewpoints. This listening thing is not a one-way street. Rote thinking is rote thinking.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jun 22, 2018 - 8:14pm
Steely_D wrote:
Here's why Trump has a chance of being re-elected: people that can't do anything more than post vociferous histrionics...you know what I mean: "look at all the stuff on the internet that you might not have seen so I'll cram it all here and even make a few more political forums so there's room for all the negative articles that I want you to read after I saw the headline!" - Those sorts of people, they lose every bit of credibility because it's clear all they can do is complain, but not process ideas with any delicacy.
And that reinforces the stereotype that the anti-Trump folks are basically immature dependent hippies. This strengthens their argument that they want a real powerful leader in office - and they go back and vote for Trump again instead of the whiny granola candidate whose only pro is that he's not Trump so you have to vote for them.
Folks that want someone else in 2020 need to stop this "look what he did" blubbering and handwringing and powerless victim behavior. Call him out - and then take action instead of sitting back. Act like we can think clearly and in a complex and mature way. No one beats a bully by complaining; they have to stand up tall.
I think I know your overall intent here, but I have to say that the suggestion that people objecting to Trump's policies and behavior are just making his supporters even more entrenched is one that I find too simplistic. I do not buy into the refrain that those critical of Trump and his administration are "elites" who refuse to listen to those with opposing viewpoints. This listening thing is not a one-way street. Rote thinking is rote thinking.
Here's why Trump has a chance of being re-elected: people that can't do anything more than post vociferous histrionics...you know what I mean: "look at all the stuff on the internet that you might not have seen so I'll cram it all here and even make a few more political forums so there's room for all the negative articles that I want you to read after I saw the headline!" - Those sorts of people, they lose every bit of credibility because it's clear all they can do is complain, but not process ideas with any delicacy.
And that reinforces the stereotype that the anti-Trump folks are basically immature dependent hippies. This strengthens their argument that they want a real powerful leader in office - and they go back and vote for Trump again instead of the whiny granola candidate whose only pro is that he's not Trump so you have to vote for them.
Folks that want someone else in 2020 need to stop this "look what he did" blubbering and handwringing and powerless victim behavior. Call him out - and then take action instead of sitting back. Act like we can think clearly and in a complex and mature way. No one beats a bully by complaining; they have to stand up tall.
I can see how you got that insight into "how some people think". A just-asking-for-a-friend kinda thing.
Richard, this is an insulting way of responding to complex ideas. If I bring up the idea that America has limited resources, I must therefore be a Trump-supporting Republican that wants to tear kids from their parents arms in order to secure our borders, right?
Actually, that's not what I'm thinking at all. How weird that you jump right to it and couch it with an obsequious little smiley face like it's a teenager's tweet.
I do agree that we need to be thoughtful about how many, and what kind of, people are admitted into the country. That is obviously a very different, more nuanced idea than what the administration is doing - but you went straight for the personal insult. For a particular reason? Just to stir the shit?
There's no personal insult (unless you want it to be).
I made a comment about how you shared a perspective on "limited resources" and "the lifeboat". As far as I recall that previously was not at all presented as being your perspective.
And no, I don't feel the need to immediately draw further conclusions from it. As I said before, it's a rather common perspective. Apparently it's called "territoriality" (see the Evolution topic).
(...) I'm OK with there being rules. I look at the USA as a lifeboat designed to hold a dozen but we're carrying twenty already. It's OK to be selective.
I can see how you got that insight into "how some people think". A just-asking-for-a-friend kinda thing.
I don't know why you all keep responding to this misguided person. He uses the forum the same way Trump uses the media and his supporters. He gets you all in an uproar over what he says and probably sits back and jerks off to the posts that pick apart his long rants. There is no reasoning with stupidity. You will consistently bang your heads up against the proverbial wall and be no closer to changing the ignorant's blind eye. All we can do is show up in November and first boot out his house.......then in 2020 we can make an educated choice instead of tooting our horns at how intellectual we all are. Yes, the general public is THAT stupid. Don't let this potential dictator win again. People laugh at me constantly when I say that he likes the idea of declaring himself president for life. "Oh that could never happen in our democratic country" REALLY? Are we going to laugh and sit back again and tell ourselves that could never happen here? WAKE UP!!!
I do not deal in these terms with anyone nor deserve them.
Take a flying leap at yourself. Or in simple terms, go fuck yourself and your disgusting and contemptuous personal attacks.
2) You wish unrestrained immigration into this country ? Come on in. No worries, we'll give you a free home, medical care, clothes, food and utilities. We have unlimited wealth to cover this. We will gladly accept you on your terms, not our terms. No skills, no problem. Criminal record, no problem. Infectious diseases, no problem. You get a free ride courtesy of the American taxpayer who will happily work hard to make you happy and keep you happy.
I left out a word there and missed it in my review of my post - protecting against unrestrained immigration. I'm OK with there being rules. I look at the USA as a lifeboat designed to hold a dozen but we're carrying twenty already. It's OK to be selective.
Those of you in the Bay Area, I think of People's Park: a great idea that got overrun and is now a horrible place. It did not do it any favors to have no rules.
Uhuh, sure, whatever. Typical 
