Breaking Bad

Spread the love

Loading

The NY Times runs a shocking headline:

Border at ‘Breaking Point’ as More than 76,000 Unauthorized Migrants Cross in a Month

The number of migrant families crossing the southwest border has once again broken records, with unauthorized entries nearly doubling what they were a year ago, suggesting that the Trump administration’s aggressive policies have not discouraged new migration to the United States.

More than 76,000 migrants crossed the border without authorization in February, an 11-year high and a strong sign that stepped-up prosecutions, new controls on asylum and harsher detention policies have not reversed what remains a powerful lure for thousands of families fleeing violence and poverty.



The nature of the problem can be confusing and the Times quickly switches over to playing dumb:

President Trump has used the escalating numbers to justify his plan to build an expanded wall along the 1,900-mile border with Mexico. But a wall would do little to slow migration, most immigration analysts say. While the exact numbers are not known, many of those apprehended along the southern border, including the thousands who present themselves at legal ports of entry, surrender voluntarily to Border Patrol agents and eventually submit legal asylum claims.

The main problem is not one of uncontrolled masses scaling the fences, but a humanitarian challenge created as thousands of migrant families surge into remote areas where the administration has so far failed to devote sufficient resources to care for them, as is required under the law.

Well. We are seeing a surge in immigrant families claiming asylum because if children are involved the family won’t be detained for more than three weeks:

Families with children can be held in detention for no longer than 20 days, under a much-debated court ruling, and since there are a limited number of detention centers certified to hold families, the practical effect is that most families are released into the country to await their hearings in immigration court. The courts are so backlogged that it could take months or years for cases to be decided. Some people never show up for court at all.

As to the idea that a wall wouldn’t help, the Times reports within this story (and more here) that the wall at the legal crossing in Tijuana let Trump enforce the new policy of keeping asylum applicants in Mexico while their claim was processed. Hence the re-routing by would-be immigrants away from areas that have a wall and into the wild.

The Times also had fun with numbers last summer and we see it in some charts today: total apprehensions were much higher in the late 90’s and early 2000’s. But that was mostly single men who could be turned back to Mexico the same day. (Consequently those single men did not cross and promptly surrender). Now we are “apprehending” families as they surrender and claim asylum. Shortages of detention facilities, medical facilities, judges to process claims – all a problem.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The main problem is not one of uncontrolled masses scaling the fences, but a humanitarian challenge created as thousands of migrant families surge into remote areas where the administration has so far failed to devote sufficient resources to care for them, as is required under the law.

Build a wall in those remote areas and the issue is solved.

Shortages of detention facilities, medical facilities, judges to process claims – all a problem.

And what did Democrat recently oppose, along with the wall? Yeah, that’s right… more detention facilities, more beds. They only support the things that make the problem worse because they WANT the problem to be worse.

Obama lowered illegal immigration by keeping the economy in poor shape. Despite the economy making an instantaneous recover when Trump was elected, his tough rhetoric about enforcing immigration law and increasing border security caused a precipitous decrease in illegal immigration. Then word started getting around that the liberal courts still had influence. No matter what precedent existed or what the law said, a liberal court could rule the opposite of what the law stated or they had ruled in the past. It quickly became clear that there were loopholes and, worse, what those loopholes are.

That’s why simply enforcing the laws strictly is not sufficient any more, as another administration might just ignore them again and any gains in controlling illegal immigration would be lost. That’s why a physical and permanent barrier is what is required.