The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Poundwise on November 26, 2018, 05:54:36 AM
-
I'm posting here because my opinions on immigration evolved directly through research I did as a result of discussions on these forums.
I am disgusted at the harmful and wholly manufactured conflict at the San Diego border, and at opinions I've heard from acquaintances. Our government had MONTHS to plan for the arrival of the caravan. For the cost of sending 5900 troops, they could have sent an individual caseworker to meet each migrant, take information, give a case number, and start researching eligibility. What happened was absolutely a manufactured conflict.
-
I registered! Thanks.
Very much what you said about the border conflicts.
-
It's a disgusting display. Entirely engineered to keep Trump's base in a froth.
This is a great shame on our country.
-
Ways to help:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eOh3VAtUupIxN8HgirOxcrxcykIHITMNCPxnDNpcbvE/edit?fbclid=IwAR0vOij8dcfGcj2HPCjof-LSv5KQWl29eLDLTUtJtDAJL_35OeZMcoy8sqA
-
It's a disgusting display. Entirely engineered to keep Trump's base in a froth.
This is a great shame on our country.
Initially it was engineered for that purpose, but it's being escalated to make news reports say that "the situation is escalating", which is misreporting. It would be more appropriate to say "The Trump Administration is escalating the border situation."
The alarming thing about this is that it follows the trend of Trump trying to craft a situation to fit his statements. This will give cover to those who support his over reaches.
-
It's a disgusting display. Entirely engineered to keep Trump's base in a froth.
This is a great shame on our country.
Initially it was engineered for that purpose, but it's being escalated to make news reports say that "the situation is escalating", which is misreporting. It would be more appropriate to say "The Trump Administration is escalating the border situation."
The alarming thing about this is that it follows the trend of Trump trying to craft a situation to fit his statements. This will give cover to those who support his over reaches.
Yes, indeed. I am noticing that a lot this morning.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__22LMBf1Uk
-
I'm posting here because my opinions on immigration evolved directly through research I did as a result of discussions on these forums.
I am disgusted at the harmful and wholly manufactured conflict at the San Diego border, and at opinions I've heard from acquaintances. Our government had MONTHS to plan for the arrival of the caravan. For the cost of sending 5900 troops, they could have sent an individual caseworker to meet each migrant, take information, give a case number, and start researching eligibility. What happened was absolutely a manufactured conflict.
This. It is absolutely a deliberately engineered display of administrative inadequacy and incompetence in order to provoke a predictable response from desperate people. Shameful.
-
I definitely support Trump on this one. Don't let these people into the country.
-
I definitely support Trump on this one. Don't let these people into the country.
Of course a country should only let in the people it wants to. (Which in any civilised nation includes letting in genuine refugees who have no other recourse.) But there are better ways to do it than with the army, with tear gas and with billions on a border wall.
A few millions on providing enough crossing points, border staff and immigration judges to process everyone efficiently as they arrive would avoid all the current chaos, violence and misery. A few millions more on internal enforcement against employers and landlords would naturally decrease the numbers of illegal immigrants already in place. And a system of temporary work permits for the jobs that no USA citizens want to do (primarily agricultural and food industry) would keep the economy buzzing while also providing a legal way for workers to send funds back to their home countries, improving the economies there so that fewer people felt the need to come to the USA.
Trump does none of that. He hasn't even built his stupid wall. All he's done is whip up fears, hold rallies and encourage people to chant "Build the Wall".
-
I definitely support Trump on this one. Don't let these people into the country.
Why?
-
I definitely support Trump on this one. Don't let these people into the country.
Why?
Should we just have open borders? Why would we allow these folks in but not others who try to cross everyday?
-
I definitely support Trump on this one. Don't let these people into the country.
Why?
Should we just have open borders? Why would we allow these folks in but not others who try to cross everyday?
Lol. Why is it you guys always jump right to the "open borders" straw man?
Oh, yeah. I know why.
-
Thanks for lumping me in with various others...
It was a serious question.
What makes this group of people "eligible" but not the random guy/girl/child trying 10 minutes later?
-
I definitely support Trump on this one. Don't let these people into the country.
Why?
If DreamFIRE is going to respond, I would suggest this is a two-part question.
Why do you support Trump's actions specifically?
Why do you think we should not let these people into the country?
Assuming "these people" refers to those who made a dash for the border then the second part seems obvious. Of course we shouldn't let them in with priority over others* but I don't think anyone is arguing for that. If by "these people" you mean something else, I would be interested in elaboration?
*or did you mean make them ineligible for future entry?
-
Thanks for lumping me in with various others...
It was a serious question.
What makes this group of people "eligible" but not the random guy/girl/child trying 10 minutes later?
-
Without responding directly to anyone, I think most of the displeasure towards the administration here stems from its decision to send soldiers to the border rather than investing that same money in infrastructure that would improve the asylum process. And I agree.
-
Thanks Kris.
For anyone who knows... is it true that an asylum seeker must take refuge in the first "safe" country granting asylum?
I don't agree with many things this president does. I haven't been following this issue closely either. I like reading threads like this as I learn new things. I appreciate the responses from folks who are willing to explain the issue or their point of view.
-
Thanks Kris.
For anyone who knows... is it true that an asylum seeker must take refuge in the first "safe" country granting asylum?
I don't agree with many things this president does. I haven't been following this issue closely either. I like reading threads like this as I learn new things. I appreciate the responses from folks who are willing to explain the issue or their point of view.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-and-answers-asylum-eligibility-and-applications
-
Thanks Kris.
For anyone who knows... is it true that an asylum seeker must take refuge in the first "safe" country granting asylum?
I don't agree with many things this president does. I haven't been following this issue closely either. I like reading threads like this as I learn new things. I appreciate the responses from folks who are willing to explain the issue or their point of view.
As I understand it, the EU and US-Canada have safe third country agreements. US-Mexico does not, and it would have to be negotiated between the countries. It cannot be unilaterally imposed by one country on asylum seekers entering through the third country.
-
I definitely support Trump on this one. Don't let these people into the country.
Why?
Should we just have open borders? Why would we allow these folks in but not others who try to cross everyday?
Should we just have open borders?
No, but our mechanism for processing and vetting asylum seekers and immigrants is not functional. Both parties are to blame, but there was a line-- cruelty to children-- which previous administrations made attempts to avoid, that has been disregarded by the Trump administration. To be honest, I think that the immigrant work visas suggested by the GWB administration would have been a better solution, although the implementation should have been tweaked to ensure that citizens had first shots at jobs and that minimum wages and workplace safety continued to be enforced.
The following graphic is a few years old, but the situation has gotten much worse since. I have read that, for instance, that there's now a 150 year wait for Indian immigrants with advanced degrees.
https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/a87d1550853898a9b306ef458f116079.pdf
Why would we allow these folks in but not others who try to cross everyday? Who said we should do that? Nobody here. The point is that we should have had a system in place to meet and process all the asylum seekers within a reasonable time frame and to let them know they had a place in line.
It was a tremendous failure to not anticipate the surge in applicants with the arrival of the caravan. When you're teargassing kids, either your system has failed, or it worked as you planned because you're evil.
"The waiting list for asylum claims had 3,000 names on it before the caravan arrived, and the San Ysidro center is processing fewer than 100 claims a day." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/whats-happening-with-asylum-seekers-at-the-border
This isn't a perfect analogy, but if there were a big family concert with 6000 people expected, insufficient staffing at the box office, a huge line, and some people jumped the fence, would you teargas the whole crowd? Or would you arrest the people attempting to jump the fence? And who would be to blame... the organizers of the concert or the crowds spilling around the entrance to the venue?
And P.S., there were only a few hundred people in the march, most of whom were not causing trouble.
-
I’m gonna jump in here and add: active duty military are prevented from doing police work in the US. We aren’t at war with Mexico, and these aren’t combatants wanting to cross and apply for asylum. So, what are the unlucky troops sent there doing? Camping in mud, puttting up barbed wire, all through the holidays FOR NO GOOD REASON. Military members aren’t allowed to get political so it’s why you aren’t seeing them publicly complain, but I’m only a family member so I can. Why the HELL are so many people totally okay with this? Please stop this “support the troops” shit. It’s vapid and empty when you support this kind of stupid use of the military.
-
I’m gonna jump in here and add: active duty military are prevented from doing police work in the US. We aren’t at war with Mexico, and these aren’t combatants wanting to cross and apply for asylum. So, what are the unlucky troops sent there doing? Camping in mud, puttting up barbed wire, all through the holidays FOR NO GOOD REASON. Military members aren’t allowed to get political so it’s why you aren’t seeing them publicly complain, but I’m only a family member so I can. Why the HELL are so many people totally okay with this? Please stop this “support the troops” shit. It’s vapid and empty when you support this kind of stupid use of the military.
This. 1000 times this.
It infuriates me that most of the "SEND THE TROOPS TO THE BORDER, DAMN RIGHT, TRUMP'S PROTECTING US!!!" are also the ones who are convinced THEY have a monopoly on caring about/supporting the troops. I have many words about this, none of them nice or kind.
Frankly, I feel similarly about any efforts to allow/force police officers to check immigration status of people, making them into de facto ICE officers. FUCKING infuriating.
-
I'm ex-military, and I support the troops.
-
I'm ex-military, and I support the troops.
Okay? Bravo? See, it doesn’t mean anything to just say that.
-
I get hte feeling that Trump wanted troops on the border, doesn't understand that they are no allowed to do peacetime police work so just as the migrants arrived at the border they were sent home to prevent them from truly being involved and the Pentagon can chalk it all up as "training maneuvers". Trump still gets to tell his ra-ra crowds that he sent the troops to the border but he won't mention that the troops accomplished NOTHING and it all happened for the low, low price of $220M give to take a few millions.
I can't believe (yes I can actually) the fiscally conservative GOP led congress isn't having a melt down over the expense. There are SO many ways that $220M could be spent more constructively than useless troop movements but then Congress is always okay with spending ridiculous amount of money on the American military.
-
I'm ex-military, and I support the troops.
All of the troops?
-
I'm ex-military, and I support the troops.
Hey, so do I! I support them not having to spend a major holiday in a just-put-together camp (or an old Walmart) for the purposes of propaganda and to protect us from an invading caravan of...the desperately poor who want to earn a living.
Fuck yeah I support the troops.
-
I'm ex-military, and I support the troops.
All of the troops?
(https://i.imgur.com/aKds6XA.gif)
-
A 7 year old girl died last week of dehydration and shock eight hours after being taken into custody by Customs and Border Patrol.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/421343-7-year-old-migrant-dies-of-dehydration-shock-after-being-taken-into-border
Now this may or may not be the fault of CBP (though being in their custody, they may legally be responsible.)
But how can we trust them? Look at how Border Patrol has acted (across administrations)!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/17/us-border-patrol-sabotage-aid-migrants-mexico-arizona
Here's the executive summary of the No More Deaths report: http://nomoredeaths.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ExecSummFinal.pdf
There has got to be a better way. God rest this little child's soul.
-
Zach's words still seem appropriate today unfortunately.
Those who died are justified, for wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
You justify those that died by wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWXazVhlyxQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWXazVhlyxQ)
-
Now the migrants are demanding $50,000 each for their troubles. What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/border-baja-california/sd-me-migrant-demands-12122018-story.html
-
Now the migrants are demanding $50,000 each for their troubles. What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/border-baja-california/sd-me-migrant-demands-12122018-story.html
If I belonged to the second group of migrants (Castillo), I'd be angry to be lumped in with the first group (Ulloa) with their ridiculous and off-putting demand for money.
-
Now the migrants are demanding $50,000 each for their troubles. What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/border-baja-california/sd-me-migrant-demands-12122018-story.html
Geesh, the craziness of these people. They just want to take. We have enough takers without adding to that burden. We should only let in the best of the best who will a contribute more than they suck out of society. And people need to go to the back of the line of everyone else who is already trying to get into country.
-
A taker already at seven years old.
-
Now the migrants are demanding $50,000 each for their troubles. What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/border-baja-california/sd-me-migrant-demands-12122018-story.html
I assume by "the migrants" you mean 1.6% of them?
-
Now the migrants are demanding $50,000 each for their troubles. What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/border-baja-california/sd-me-migrant-demands-12122018-story.html
Geesh, the craziness of these people. They just want to take. We have enough takers without adding to that burden. We should only let in the best of the best who will a contribute more than they suck out of society. And people need to go to the back of the line of everyone else who is already trying to get into country.
True Dat! I was stationed in San Diego back in the early 80's and the border was just as insane back then. People Lined up and slept along the wall just waiting to rush over every night. Heck we weren't even aloud to where are uniforms if we crossed the border in worry of being killed. Nothing has changed since then and its not just one administration its been all of them. I don't claim to know the answer but I sure don't want anyone coming in that isn't processed properly no matter how long it takes. Open boarders YES to those that follow the process but I'll be the first to agree our process needs definitely to be improved since most of the time where just regathering and taking back and forth the same people.
-
And people need to go to the back of the line of everyone else who is already trying to get into country.
People keep talking about how the immigrants should just "get in line" and "wait their turn." Okay. How does one enter this line? Where do they go? What forms do they fill out? How long is the wait after they get in line?
The truth is there is no line. There is no law stating anyone is eligible to put their name down as an interested immigrant, and each year we'll call up the next X thousand people in line and grant them legal entry and work permits. It simply doesn't work that way. Short of earning a doctorate, becoming a world class baseball player, having US citizen relatives appear out of thin air, or getting an asylum claim granted, there is not really any legal path to immigration for most folks in Latin America. This notion that people applying for asylum are somehow cutting ahead of the "line waiters" does not seem to be based in any set of facts I have seen.
If you want to say that these people should never be allowed to immigrate, okay. Say that. Don't hide behind some fiction of a line that doesn't exist.
-
For more information about the line (or lack thereof), please see this expert post from an immigration attorney (https://deportnation.com/all-possible-responses-to-they-should-get-in-line-and-do-it-the-right-way-the-way-my-family-did-ab0b7dbcbb26).
-
And people need to go to the back of the line of everyone else who is already trying to get into country.
People keep talking about how the immigrants should just "get in line" and "wait their turn." Okay. How does one enter this line? Where do they go? What forms do they fill out? How long is the wait after they get in line?
The truth is there is no line. There is no law stating anyone is eligible to put their name down as an interested immigrant, and each year we'll call up the next X thousand people in line and grant them legal entry and work permits. It simply doesn't work that way. Short of earning a doctorate, becoming a world class baseball player, having US citizen relatives appear out of thin air, or getting an asylum claim granted, there is not really any legal path to immigration for most folks in Latin America. This notion that people applying for asylum are somehow cutting ahead of the "line waiters" does not seem to be based in any set of facts I have seen.
If you want to say that these people should never be allowed to immigrate, okay. Say that. Don't hide behind some fiction of a line that doesn't exist.
And as I was trying to say but you did so much better is really the basis to this entire problem.
-
Ya know, there probably wouldn’t be so much chaos at the border if we HAD a line. And more guest worker visas for industries who rely on immigrant labor because Americans WON’T WORK THERE (meatpackers, field work, landscaping, etc). So instead of wasting money on a wall that won’t do what everyone wants it to, how about we put that energy into reforming immigration?
Or just keep screaming about a wall because that feels easy....sigh.
-
And people need to go to the back of the line of everyone else who is already trying to get into country.
The truth is there is no line.
It doesn't mean a literal line that people are standing in. Geesh.
Just as a quick example, I've read, "19 years to clear the existing backlog of more than 4 million individuals who have already demonstrated their visa eligibility but are waiting for their priority date to become current". No one else should be let in until everyone else clears through the system and has time to assimilate.
If you want to say that these people should never be allowed to immigrate, okay. Say that.
I have said before, maybe in this thread, that we shouldn't let anyone in that isn't likely to be a net contributor. I've said it. And for those that are likely to be net contributors, they should have to wait for years before they are allowed in, not invade our country by sneaking across the border and "taking."
-
Ya know, there probably wouldn’t be so much chaos at the border if we HAD a line. And more guest worker visas for industries who rely on immigrant labor because Americans WON’T WORK THERE (meatpackers, field work, landscaping, etc). So instead of wasting money on a wall that won’t do what everyone wants it to, how about we put that energy into reforming immigration?
Or just keep screaming about a wall because that feels easy....sigh.
Yeah, I also always laugh about those comments that say Americans won't work those jobs, yet when those places are raided and people deported, suddenly you have long lines of Americans ready to take those jobs. The illegals just bring down the wages for Americans while taking from the system, just like the Heritage study shows. They don't pay enough in taxes to pay for themselves.
Of course, the wall is a necessary piece of the pie which is long over due, but that doesn't mean we stop all of the other enforcement mechanisms including workplace citizenship verification and deporting anyone not here legally.
-
Now the migrants are demanding $50,000 each for their troubles. What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/border-baja-california/sd-me-migrant-demands-12122018-story.html
Geesh, the craziness of these people. They just want to take. We have enough takers without adding to that burden. We should only let in the best of the best who will a contribute more than they suck out of society. And people need to go to the back of the line of everyone else who is already trying to get into country.
True Dat! I was stationed in San Diego back in the early 80's and the border was just as insane back then. People Lined up and slept along the wall just waiting to rush over every night. Heck we weren't even aloud to where are uniforms if we crossed the border in worry of being killed. Nothing has changed since then and its not just one administration its been all of them. I don't claim to know the answer but I sure don't want anyone coming in that isn't processed properly no matter how long it takes. Open boarders YES to those that follow the process but I'll be the first to agree our process needs definitely to be improved since most of the time where just regathering and taking back and forth the same people.
Yeah, it's too easy for these people to just come across the border. Enforcement definitely needs stepped up. A effective wall would help a lot, but that doesn't solve everything. No open borders - only let in people that would be net contributors after a long wait while deporting the illegals.
-
People keep talking about how the immigrants should just "get in line" and "wait their turn." Okay. How does one enter this line? Where do they go? What forms do they fill out? How long is the wait after they get in line?
From experience of extended family (anecdotal, I realize), it seems to take 7-10 years on average. That is from Europe. I think I read that other countries can take longer for various reasons.
-
And people need to go to the back of the line of everyone else who is already trying to get into country.
The truth is there is no line.
It doesn't mean a literal line that people are standing in. Geesh.
Just as a quick example, I've read, "19 years to clear the existing backlog of more than 4 million individuals who have already demonstrated their visa eligibility but are waiting for their priority date to become current". No one else should be let in until everyone else clears through the system and has time to assimilate.
A couple things:
1) Yes, there is a very large backlog of people who qualify for visas based on the current law. Being a close family member of an existing citizen or permanent resident is one of the more common ways to qualify for a visa. Again, if you're not related to an American or have some other exceptional quality, you don't qualify for a visa and so there is no line for you to enter.
2) You seem to be saying that asylum seekers should be placed in the same queue as all the other visa applicants, and barred from entering the US until their number is called. The problem with this is that asylum is supposed to be for cases where a person would be in imminent danger if they stay in their home country. As quoted above, a typical procedure is for someone to apply for asylum once they have already crossed the border. I'm not in any position to judge the merits of an asylum claim for any particular person trying to cross the border, but shouldn't we err on the side of letting these people live in the US until their claim can be heard before a judge? The alternative is to send them back to a place where (they claim) they would be in danger. If that claim is meritless, sure, send them back. If it's not, I don't want their blood on my hands by telling them they have to try and stick it out in a dangerous place for the better part of a decade before they're allowed to seek refuge here.
-
And people need to go to the back of the line of everyone else who is already trying to get into country.
The truth is there is no line.
It doesn't mean a literal line that people are standing in. Geesh.
Just as a quick example, I've read, "19 years to clear the existing backlog of more than 4 million individuals who have already demonstrated their visa eligibility but are waiting for their priority date to become current". No one else should be let in until everyone else clears through the system and has time to assimilate.
A couple things:
1) Yes, there is a very large backlog of people who qualify for visas based on the current law. Being a close family member of an existing citizen or permanent resident is one of the more common ways to qualify for a visa. Again, if you're not related to an American or have some other exceptional quality, you don't qualify for a visa and so there is no line for you to enter.
2) You seem to be saying that asylum seekers should be placed in the same queue as all the other visa applicants, and barred from entering the US until their number is called. The problem with this is that asylum is supposed to be for cases where a person would be in imminent danger if they stay in their home country. As quoted above, a typical procedure is for someone to apply for asylum once they have already crossed the border. I'm not in any position to judge the merits of an asylum claim for any particular person trying to cross the border, but shouldn't we err on the side of letting these people live in the US until their claim can be heard before a judge? The alternative is to send them back to a place where (they claim) they would be in danger. If that claim is meritless, sure, send them back. If it's not, I don't want their blood on my hands by telling them they have to try and stick it out in a dangerous place for the better part of a decade before they're allowed to seek refuge here.
The problem is the amount of people that cross the border that claim to be in "imminent danger" . What that might mean to you or me necessary is not the same meaning as to the person running for the border. You bring up good points and its so complicated not to mention that its like every country that has people that are trying to come to the USA has different rules. I have friends from Canada that have been very (for lack of better term) productive people to society from Canada that are doing very well but his DW cant legally get a job and they haven't got their citizenship in 10 years despite him having a very specific job , having an attorney and doing as I said very well. But, I know others that have come here from Mexico that have even used other peoples names etc.. and have come over illegal that are now citizens. The hole thing is F'd up and its been for a long time. I really wish some administration would come up with a real plan that makes sense because no one has yet. No matter what there will still be suffering but right now/the last 30-40 years plus its just not working. We ignore it when we need people to fill jobs and say Americans wont work those jobs and when things get slow then we want to throw people out of our country. Like anything else the government runs its getting old.
-
Yeah, I agree it seems fishy that all these people really are in "imminent danger." I've never met them. Maybe they are! The cynic in me says there's a bunch of folks claiming danger because it's their only real shot at starting a better life for themselves in the US, as there's no line for them to get in otherwise.
I agree with you that we need to reform our immigration policy.
My ideal policy:
* Anyone without a felony conviction on their record in their home country can cross the border, find a home to live in, seek employment if they wish.
* After five years of legitimate work history in the US you can get a green card.
* Most parts of the social safety net (Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment benefits, earned income tax credit, section 8 housing vouchers, and more) will be for citizens and green card holders only. You have to earn your own way at the beginning. If you make it work and pay your taxes for a few years you've earned the right to be an American just like in prior generations.
The benefits of this policy are severalfold:
* It's fair. I didn't choose to be an American citizen. It was an accident of birth. I was born on the right side of an imaginary line in the sand, and that has been a very major factor in my prosperity. I don't think that any human being is any less deserving of a chance at the opportunity that America provides just because they were born on the wrong side of a line.
* If anyone legitimately seeking a better life for themselves is allowed to immigrate legally, we can be pretty sure that anyone crossing the border outside of an official crossing is up to no good and should be apprehended and sent back immediately. Think of how much better our border security could be if our guards didn't have to spend most of their time chasing after harmless poor people.
* A preference for mostly open borders can be used as leverage in negotiations for reciprocal benefits with other countries. Right now it's pretty hard even as an American to immigrate to many places. Wouldn't it be nice if we had the right to live and work where we liked? It's hard to argue for getting that benefit for ourselves without also letting people from other countries move into our land.
-
Yeah, I agree it seems fishy that all these people really are in "imminent danger."
And it shouldn't be Americans' responsibility to pay for these people within our own borders. We send a ton of my tax dollars to other countries. They need to protect their own citizens.
My ideal policy:
* Anyone without a felony conviction on their record in their home country can cross the border, find a home to live in, seek employment if they wish.
Definitely not. We need to restrict immigration until we can improve border security and deport most of the current illegals.
Many terrorists and gang bangers don't have felony records, but don't think for a second that they are here for peaceful reasons .
* It's fair. I didn't choose to be an American citizen. It was an accident of birth. I was born on the right side of an imaginary line in the sand, and that has been a very major factor in my prosperity.
I disagree. There's nothing fair about it. Being an American citizen isn't an accident and doesn't have anything to do with an "imaginary" line. We're talking about the American border and homeland here - it's not imagined. WTF? I do want to add that birthplace citizenship shouldn't exist. It's the law now in this country, and it's just contributed to the illegal problem because illegals can sneak across the border and deliver a baby at our expense, and then the kid is consider an American. It gives illegals more incentive to sneak in. Unless at least one parent is an American, the kid shouldn't be a citizen. Many other countries don't have such absurd laws. That didn't get thought through many years ago, and we are paying for it now. This is something that Trump understands, but he doen't have the power to do anything about it, so the problem will just get worse.
You obviously have some very liberal thinking, so I'm sure we will never agree on this nor change each other's minds. This is something I've followed and have been discussing for years. If anything, I've toughened my stance that more I've learned about it.
-
I like lively conversation. But can we cut this bullshit about immigrants can take the jobs that legal workers don’t want or refuse to want? That’s bullshit! There’s not a damn job anywhere that “American’s don’t want” if it actually had to get paid market rate.
So agriculture, lawn care, meatpacking, whatever - it’s a crappy job because these companies can pay cheap labor and / or care less about worker safety. Full stop.
As for our current immigration? It’s broken and a bad system. Fix that. Border wall? Troops? Terrible ideas. Let’s not be assholes about people who want to come here and be awesome. Let them. We want them. It makes us more awesome.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
These asylum seekers won't be safe in Mexico, other Latin American, or South American country?
Won't be safe relocating within their own country? Putting some distance between themselves and their tormentor?
I recognize that the USA is the preferred destination. Not sure that the USA, Canada, and Western Europe can support the world's needy.
Can we help these people live better lives in their home countries?
-
These asylum seekers won't be safe in Mexico, other Latin American, or South American country?
Won't be safe relocating within their own country? Putting some distance between themselves and their tormentor?
I recognize that the USA is the preferred destination. Not sure that the USA, Canada, and Western Europe can support the world's needy.
Can we help these people live better lives in their home countries?
joe, that's just crazy talk. Where did you come up with such radical ideas?
-
These asylum seekers won't be safe in Mexico, other Latin American, or South American country?
Won't be safe relocating within their own country? Putting some distance between themselves and their tormentor?
I recognize that the USA is the preferred destination. Not sure that the USA, Canada, and Western Europe can support the world's needy.
Can we help these people live better lives in their home countries?
Joe, the thing is that Canada has a safe third party agreement with the US. This assumes that anyone accepted as a refugee in the US is safe, we don't take them. We take people directly (i.e. the Syrian refugees). This is why last winter we had people crossing the border away from entry points, they didn't feel safe in the US and they knew we would turn them back at a border crossing. So someone coming into the US and making the trek north will be assumed to be in a safe third party country and refused.
If anyone has more direct knowledge of Canadian immigration policy as it would apply to these refugees, please add it.
-
These asylum seekers won't be safe in Mexico, other Latin American, or South American country?
Won't be safe relocating within their own country? Putting some distance between themselves and their tormentor?
I recognize that the USA is the preferred destination. Not sure that the USA, Canada, and Western Europe can support the world's needy.
Can we help these people live better lives in their home countries?
Can we help them in their home countries?
Well, I suppose we could invent a time machine and go back a hundred years ago, for starters..
https://medium.com/s/story/timeline-us-intervention-central-america-a9bea9ebc148
-
Could we do a better job than the last time?
-
Could we do a better job than the last time?
What do you think has changed since last time?
-
In the past our govt's has overthrown foreign governments leading to a less stable society. Perhaps go in and offer to make improvements without a political coup?
-
I like lively conversation. But can we cut this bullshit about immigrants can take the jobs that legal workers don’t want or refuse to want? That’s bullshit! There’s not a damn job anywhere that “American’s don’t want” if it actually had to get paid market rate.
So agriculture, lawn care, meatpacking, whatever - it’s a crappy job because these companies can pay cheap labor and / or care less about worker safety. Full stop.
As for our current immigration? It’s broken and a bad system. Fix that. Border wall? Troops? Terrible ideas. Let’s not be assholes about people who want to come here and be awesome. Let them. We want them. It makes us more awesome.
To build on what you're saying, @Papa bear, I agree we need to
1) enforce worker protections and fair wages
2) fix the broken immigration system
and also what others have said here, we need to
3) ensure safe borders and keep "bad guys" out.
But to go a step further, these needs are not necessarily incompatible. The better we deal with need #2, that is the faster and more efficiently immigrants can be processed and allowed to enter legally, and the less we punish immigrants for following the law (i.e. entering at legal ports of entry; reporting for court dates or checkins without arresting and detaining them), the better we can take care of needs #1 and #3.
If harmless people wanting to enter the U.S. for work or for asylum can get through the border with a reasonable wait time (or better yet, can remotely fill out most of their application from their home country, so they have an idea of their chances before they make the trek) it would be easier to detect the "bad hombres" because they would be the ones trying to cross illegally. Legal immigrants will be easier to monitor.
And if more immigrants have work visas, then they would be able to stand up for themselves if employers want to cheat them of living wages or safe working conditions. Also, maybe we could require that employers give preference to citizen employees for certain jobs.
The fear is that with an easier legal entry, what if half of the population south of the border tries to enter the US and overwhelm our labor market? Is there a way to phase it in? I think that in the end, if there is less of an obstacle to crossing and recrossing our border legally, we may find more workers who live and earn here, and send money back home where the cost of living is cheaper, as they did before the borders were hardened. There may be ways to incentivize this. I am sure that the consequences of a having a country dependent on remittances (like the Phillipines) are mixed positive and negative, but a thoughtful policy would encourage both worker visas to the US and investment in industries in countries that are a major source of immigrants such as Honduras and Guatemala.
Certainly where I live in the NY metro area, there are many many immigrants from these areas who are a net plus. Hard working and decent people whose kids play with my kids. Natural successors to the Irish, Polish, and Italian immigrants who used to live in this area and who are now their employers in the building, landscaping, and restaurant trades. The American citizens whom I know who are unemployed, are looking for white collar jobs, and also have health issues that make finding a job difficult. They aren't in competition with the recent immigrants.
-
Yeah, I agree it seems fishy that all these people really are in "imminent danger."
And it shouldn't be Americans' responsibility to pay for these people within our own borders. We send a ton of my tax dollars to other countries. They need to protect their own citizens.
My ideal policy:
* Anyone without a felony conviction on their record in their home country can cross the border, find a home to live in, seek employment if they wish.
Definitely not. We need to restrict immigration until we can improve border security and deport most of the current illegals.
Many terrorists and gang bangers don't have felony records, but don't think for a second that they are here for peaceful reasons .
* It's fair. I didn't choose to be an American citizen. It was an accident of birth. I was born on the right side of an imaginary line in the sand, and that has been a very major factor in my prosperity.
I disagree. There's nothing fair about it. Being an American citizen isn't an accident and doesn't have anything to do with an "imaginary" line. We're talking about the American border and homeland here - it's not imagined. WTF? I do want to add that birthplace citizenship shouldn't exist. It's the law now in this country, and it's just contributed to the illegal problem because illegals can sneak across the border and deliver a baby at our expense, and then the kid is consider an American. It gives illegals more incentive to sneak in. Unless at least one parent is an American, the kid shouldn't be a citizen. Many other countries don't have such absurd laws. That didn't get thought through many years ago, and we are paying for it now. This is something that Trump understands, but he doen't have the power to do anything about it, so the problem will just get worse.
You obviously have some very liberal thinking, so I'm sure we will never agree on this nor change each other's minds. This is something I've followed and have been discussing for years. If anything, I've toughened my stance that more I've learned about it.
So what Native American tribe are you from?
-
This looks a lot like the 'refugee' crisis in Europe. The global elite decides that certain countries need a massive influx of migrants and arrange for it to happen. Doesn't matter what the citizens of the receiving countries want. All you need is a couple billionaire globalists and their NGO's (an NGO is a 'non-governmental organization' with it's own sources of funding and its own agenda and purpose) and presto, you've got 1 million non-German speaking refugees in Germany who are sucking up welfare. The German citizens are left wondering what happened and, more importantly, why. Who wins? Not the German citizens, so it must be someone else. That's why the anti-globalist populists in Europe (both left and right, interestingly) are winning more seats in their governing bodies.
I don't know who the global elite are who are funding the migrant caravans through Mexico, and what their goals are, but someone is funding them and directing them.
-
According to this article, they are apprehending just over 50k immigrants/mo right now attempting to enter the country illegally.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/06/politics/immigrants-undocumented-family-apprehension-us-mexico-border/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
Another article I read (CNN) that I now can’t find had quoted 189k apprehensions between November and December.
Even by the article I posted, that’s 600k people per year. Or over a decade that’s an extra 6 million people. Where would we have the infrastructure to just naturally integrate another 600k people per year?
I have nothing against immigrants. I’ve spent many many years working construction in Texas, and many immigrants will work circles around the Americans, with a great attitude and smile on the face. Just not sure how we’d make those kind of numbers work. Prior to researching, I expected maybe 1/10 that many..
-
According to this article, they are apprehending just over 50k immigrants/mo right now attempting to enter the country illegally.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/06/politics/immigrants-undocumented-family-apprehension-us-mexico-border/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
Another article I read (CNN) that I now can’t find had quoted 189k apprehensions between November and December.
Even by the article I posted, that’s 600k people per year. Or over a decade that’s an extra 6 million people. Where would we have the infrastructure to just naturally integrate another 600k people per year?
I have nothing against immigrants. I’ve spent many many years working construction in Texas, and many immigrants will work circles around the Americans, with a great attitude and smile on the face. Just not sure how we’d make those kind of numbers work. Prior to researching, I expected maybe 1/10 that many..
There's about four million 18 year old (or 22 year old) Americans leaving school or college each year. Do you worry about the infrastructure to integrate them? The jobs and houses they need? Probably not, because the current USA birth rate is below the population replacement rate. Without immigrants, the USA will decline in population and economic development.
-
According to this article, they are apprehending just over 50k immigrants/mo right now attempting to enter the country illegally.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/06/politics/immigrants-undocumented-family-apprehension-us-mexico-border/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
Another article I read (CNN) that I now can’t find had quoted 189k apprehensions between November and December.
Even by the article I posted, that’s 600k people per year. Or over a decade that’s an extra 6 million people. Where would we have the infrastructure to just naturally integrate another 600k people per year?
I have nothing against immigrants. I’ve spent many many years working construction in Texas, and many immigrants will work circles around the Americans, with a great attitude and smile on the face. Just not sure how we’d make those kind of numbers work. Prior to researching, I expected maybe 1/10 that many..
There's about four million 18 year old (or 22 year old) Americans leaving school or college each year. Do you worry about the infrastructure to integrate them? The jobs and houses they need? Probably not, because the current USA birth rate is below the population replacement rate. Without immigrants, the USA will decline in population and economic development.
Interesting statistic. You didn’t mention that there’s also around 3.5 million people retiring each year, so that balances out perfect.
You’re also comparing finding jobs for high school and college graduates, to people that speak little to no english and I’d bet are probably lower than the US high school graduate education. What jobs are being filled for people that speak little to no English? Do we have an extra 600k of these jobs each year?
Edit* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Mexico
“While over 90% of children in Mexico attend primary school, only 62% attend secondary school ("secundaria"). Only 45% finish high school ("preparatoria").”
I’m not going to go into the details, but for the world as a whole, declining populations are a good thing. Overpopulation is going to wreak havoc on our planet in the coming decades and centuries.
-
Point of information - are those new people each time or the same ones over and over? Because it does make a difference. Just like an airport having X passengers pass through each month does not mean X people passed through, since most of those would be repeats.
-
Point of information - are those new people each time or the same ones over and over? Because it does make a difference. Just like an airport having X passengers pass through each month does not mean X people passed through, since most of those would be repeats.
That’s a great question. From what I’ve read there does seem to be a lot of repeats.
I was mostly surprised at the numbers. I wish we could trade the hardworking immigrants for some of our worthless leaching Americans lol.
My main question is: what is the cutoff number for immigration? Can we happily support 50,000 a year? 500,000? 5,000,000?
I just don’t see this discussed much but I think it makes a huge difference for both sides of the discussion. My opinion for us accepting 50,000 people per year is a bit different than 5,000,000.
-
You’re also comparing finding jobs for high school and college graduates, to people that speak little to no english and I’d bet are probably lower than the US high school graduate education. What jobs are being filled for people that speak little to no English? Do we have an extra 600k of these jobs each year?
Edit* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Mexico
“While over 90% of children in Mexico attend primary school, only 62% attend secondary school ("secundaria"). Only 45% finish high school ("preparatoria").”
People don't lose the capacity to learn as soon as they leave school, though. Given the opportunity, it's quite likely that immigrants with the personal abilities to get themselves out of usually dire situations and into the USA will learn what they need to in order to make a success of the move for themselves and their children.
I’m not going to go into the details, but for the world as a whole, declining populations are a good thing. Overpopulation is going to wreak havoc on our planet in the coming decades and centuries.
Well yes, but I'm not sure how that feeds into border issues. Except of course that climate change is going to massively increase both internal and international migration pressures over the next few decades. In twenty years' time the thought of immigration at today's low levels will look like just part of the historical record.
-
You’re also comparing finding jobs for high school and college graduates, to people that speak little to no english and I’d bet are probably lower than the US high school graduate education. What jobs are being filled for people that speak little to no English? Do we have an extra 600k of these jobs each year?
Edit* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Mexico
“While over 90% of children in Mexico attend primary school, only 62% attend secondary school ("secundaria"). Only 45% finish high school ("preparatoria").”
People don't lose the capacity to learn as soon as they leave school, though. Given the opportunity, it's quite likely that immigrants with the personal abilities to get themselves out of usually dire situations and into the USA will learn what they need to in order to make a success of the move for themselves and their children.
I’m not going to go into the details, but for the world as a whole, declining populations are a good thing. Overpopulation is going to wreak havoc on our planet in the coming decades and centuries.
Well yes, but I'm not sure how that feeds into border issues. Except of course that climate change is going to massively increase both internal and international migration pressures over the next few decades. In twenty years' time the thought of immigration at today's low levels will look like just part of the historical record.
They are absolutely capable of still learning. In the meantime, these people are limited to positions that likely do not require a person to speak English or have a high school diploma.
It’d be a lot different if we were getting blends of somewhat educated personnel in different careers that spoke English. That isn’t the case. We aren’t getting loads of college or high school educated English speaking people. They will be filling a very certain section of the work force. These aren’t 500k people being spread over our nations different industries.
I’m just really seeing little to no suggestions on any actual details of how we can accommodate these people, or what changes to our existing laws would prevent so many people trying to enter our country illegally while circumventing our programs we do have in place.
-
You’re also comparing finding jobs for high school and college graduates, to people that speak little to no english and I’d bet are probably lower than the US high school graduate education. What jobs are being filled for people that speak little to no English? Do we have an extra 600k of these jobs each year?
Edit* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Mexico
“While over 90% of children in Mexico attend primary school, only 62% attend secondary school ("secundaria"). Only 45% finish high school ("preparatoria").”
People don't lose the capacity to learn as soon as they leave school, though. Given the opportunity, it's quite likely that immigrants with the personal abilities to get themselves out of usually dire situations and into the USA will learn what they need to in order to make a success of the move for themselves and their children.
I’m not going to go into the details, but for the world as a whole, declining populations are a good thing. Overpopulation is going to wreak havoc on our planet in the coming decades and centuries.
Well yes, but I'm not sure how that feeds into border issues. Except of course that climate change is going to massively increase both internal and international migration pressures over the next few decades. In twenty years' time the thought of immigration at today's low levels will look like just part of the historical record.
They are absolutely capable of still learning. In the meantime, these people are limited to positions that likely do not require a person to speak English or have a high school diploma.
It’d be a lot different if we were getting blends of somewhat educated personnel in different careers that spoke English. That isn’t the case. We aren’t getting loads of college or high school educated English speaking people. They will be filling a very certain section of the work force. These aren’t 500k people being spread over our nations different industries.
I’m just really seeing little to no suggestions on any actual details of how we can accommodate these people, or what changes to our existing laws would prevent so many people trying to enter our country illegally while circumventing our programs we do have in place.
They will find ways to accommodate themselves, through family and community networks, as immigrants (legal and illegal) have always done.
And, honestly? You will never stop everyone who wants to come and isn't given a legal way to do it. You can stop some of them wanting to come by promoting better security and opportunities in their own countries. You can do something to stop Americans from paying so much money to drug producers and undermining security and democracy in central America when they do so. You can create a work permit system that gives people hope that it might at some point be their turn to come and work legally for a little while and make some money to take back home, so that they won't jeopardise that chance by trying to get in illegally. But without a southern Berlin Wall with mines and guards with machine guns every 100 metres and a ban on ships and aeroplanes visiting the USA you will never stop everyone.
-
Point of information - are those new people each time or the same ones over and over? Because it does make a difference. Just like an airport having X passengers pass through each month does not mean X people passed through, since most of those would be repeats.
That’s a great question. From what I’ve read there does seem to be a lot of repeats.
I was mostly surprised at the numbers. I wish we could trade the hardworking immigrants for some of our worthless leaching Americans lol.
My main question is: what is the cutoff number for immigration? Can we happily support 50,000 a year? 500,000? 5,000,000?
I just don’t see this discussed much but I think it makes a huge difference for both sides of the discussion. My opinion for us accepting 50,000 people per year is a bit different than 5,000,000.
Great points and information, @use2betrix Thanks for bringing this up. There is so much misinformation on all sides of this issue that it is hard to get at real facts and figures unfortunately.
-
Two articles that may interest us:
What we are doing with people trying to apply for asylum lately:
https://www.newsweek.com/us-border-patrol-accused-forcing-migrant-families-sleeping-outside-wake-stand-1382858
Why people are coming north anyway.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/05/opinion/honduras-women-murders.html
-
Here's a really clear article on why we have been jailing (to heck with the euphemism "detained")
thousands of separated kids in Homestead FL.
https://www.uusc.org/homestead-whos-profiting-from-detaining-kids/
"The Miami New Times reported on Sunday on some of the corporate actors who are making a profit from the expansion of this facility. It turns out, they are a tightly-interconnected group – many with a checkered past and close ties to the Trump administration:
Comprehensive Health Services, the company that co-manages the facility, was awarded a $600,000 tax break from then-Florida governor Rick Scott, the New Times reports. This deal occurred just five months after the company paid $3.8 million to the Justice Department to settle a major Medicare fraud case.
Medicare fraud is a subject on which former Governor Rick Scott knows a thing or two, as he served as CEO of the Hospital Corporation of America during a federal investigation that eventually forced the company to pay what was then the largest healthcare fraud settlement in U.S. history.
Incidentally, the program coordinator for Comprehensive Health Services’ ORR shelters, including Homestead, is a former employee of Hospital Corporation of America.
Comprehensive Health Services is owned by Caliburn International, a corporation founded by D.C. Capital Partners, which has close ties to former top-ranking Trump administration official John Kelly.
Defense giant General Dynamics won a contract to provide “training and technical assistance” at the Homestead facility, according to the New Times.
As the Daily Beast reported in June 2018, General Dynamics has allegedly “faced $280.3 million in penalties for 23 misconduct cases since 1995,” involving underpayment of wages and other regulatory and labor violations.
General Dynamics also has a controversial history of working with security contractor Sallyport Global, which in turn is also owned by DC Capital Partners – the John Kelly-linked firm mentioned above that created the corporation that now owns Comprehensive Health Services.
Former Trump administration defense chief Jim Mattis is also a former board member of General Dynamics.
According to the New Times, at least 14 children at the Homestead facility were transferred to an adult immigration detention center as soon as they turned 18. This detention center is owned by the GEO Group – a notorious prison and detention contractor that has been implicated in medical neglect, forced labor, and other human rights abuses at the facilities they operate.
The GEO Group has made major campaign contributions to Donald Trump, and hired a lobbyist who previously worked on behalf of Trump’s Florida golf courses, as reported in the New York Times."
-
Honest question.
Costa Rica is much closer and a stable / safe country why not try to go there if your life is in danger or you want to flee?
Or even stop in the Yucatan or Panama rather than make the long journey to the US?
I have spent time a good amount of time in Costa Rica and I know they do have some illegal immigration issues but not on the scale that we are talking about for the US.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
-
Honest question.
Costa Rica is much closer and a stable / safe country why not try to go there if your life is in danger or you want to flee?
Or even stop in the Yucatan or Panama rather than make the long journey to the US?
I have spent time a good amount of time in Costa Rica and I know they do have some illegal immigration issues but not on the scale that we are talking about for the US.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Immigration has two ends: a push factor (why you leave) and a pull factor (where you decide to go). Why the USA over Costa Rica? Economic opportunity, educational opportunities, existing established immigrant populations from their country/region/city, culture, family ties, language, reputation, etc. etc.
-
Honest question.
Costa Rica is much closer and a stable / safe country why not try to go there if your life is in danger or you want to flee?
Or even stop in the Yucatan or Panama rather than make the long journey to the US?
It's a good question, but @former player is right about why people choose the US.
As well as first time immigrants, there are a lot of people who want to re-cross the border for family or work reasons.
For instance I know a guy from Guatemala who overstayed his visa, got married, and lived here for over a decade. He wanted to go back for a visit because his father was dying of cancer, but if he had gone, then he would have had to cross the border somehow. Obviously he wouldn't try to get to any other country because his wife and two kids are here (American citizens) and he has work here.
At any rate, his dad died and he couldn't see him, and he missed the funeral too. They felt the risk that he would be caught and detained in this political climate was too high. But it's pretty lousy.
-
I guess I did not give much thought to family living here as a reason as it seemed like that would be a small percentage of people particularly ones that were seeking asylum.
I kind of figured the other part was that people viewed the US as the best place to go if making the journey but did not want to be presumptuous.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
-
Here's a research-supported summary of alternatives to detention. More effective, less expensive.
https://immigrantjustice.org/research-items/report-better-way-community-based-programming-alternative-immigrant-incarceration
-
Here's a research-supported summary of alternatives to detention. More effective, less expensive.
https://immigrantjustice.org/research-items/report-better-way-community-based-programming-alternative-immigrant-incarceration
There's big money in that industry...changing it will be hard.
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/us-spends-80-billion-year-incarceration
-
Here's a research-supported summary of alternatives to detention. More effective, less expensive.
https://immigrantjustice.org/research-items/report-better-way-community-based-programming-alternative-immigrant-incarceration
There's big money in that industry...changing it will be hard.
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/us-spends-80-billion-year-incarceration
Hard but not impossible. To be able to live with ourselves, we must do it.
Here's another way out of the crisis.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/opinion/sunday/migrants-guatemala.html
When Lesly Cano Gómez was 15, she wrote out her plan to migrate to America.
“My dream is to go to the United States,” she wrote, followed by three discussion sections: “How Am I Going to Pay for It,” “Who’s Going to Take Me” and “Who’s Going to Meet Me When I Get to the United States.”
There were extensive family talks about the trip, which Cano Gómez would have undertaken with her cousin, Enilda, who is four years younger than her.
“There wasn’t anything here,” Cano Gómez explained. “That’s why I wanted to migrate.”
She knew that along the way she could be murdered or trafficked to a brothel, or else die of thirst in the desert. “But I felt I needed to go,” she added. “The people I went to school with had migrated, a ton of them.”
To stop the flow of migrants, Trump has called for a wall at the Mexico border that would cost billions of dollars, has separated children from parents for months, has cut off aid to Central America and, most recently, threatened to impose tariffs on Mexico.
The result? The torrent keeps getting bigger, with twice as many migrants seized at the border in each of the last few months as a year earlier. Trump’s strategy so far seems counterproductive.
People here say that this is partly because Trump is providing free advertising for the coyotes who take people north. When he thunders about migrants, he isn’t scaring people away, but rather is sparking more discussion about migration."
"Then there’s Trump’s cutoff of financial assistance in March. This reversed an Obama administration effort that enjoyed some success in using aid to improve conditions in Central America and reduce migration. El Salvador is the best example: Aid helped improve governance and reduce gang violence, and the number of its migrants to the U.S. fell by 56 percent over the last two full years.
In contrast, Guatemala is becoming more corrupt and messy, yet the Trump White House is ignoring the deteriorating conditions. Pushing for credible elections and effective, clean governance would do more to reduce emigration than a wall, and would be far cheaper, but Trump doesn’t think like that.
That is a broader problem with Trump. He inclines toward the dramatic, visual and simplistic — a modern version of Persian King Xerxes lashing the sea for damaging his bridge — rather than grasp the difficult, complicated and imperfect policy tools that don’t quite “solve” problems but do mitigate them.
Yet even in a troubled country like this, aid can help by giving ordinary Guatemalans some sense that they might have a future where they are.
Do you want to know why Lesly Cano Gómez tossed out her written plans to migrate to the U.S.? Because of an aid project.
Mercy Corps has a program to support young farmers, and Cano Gómez joined it at 16. She and others learned to adapt to climate change and produce high-quality tomatoes and other produce for export, at up to twice the local price.
“I don’t need to emigrate now, because there’s a place for me here now,” Cano Gómez told me. “This program opened doors for me. It gave me opportunity.”