The Border

Does anyone have a good handle on what's happening at the Mexican border, because I'm kind of lost.

Having said that, WAPO has a piece running that I think is incredibly unfair to Biden.

Look at this summary below of the article by one of the reporters.

That line about the biggest surge in 20 years I'm pretty sure is wrong, and makes no mention of the fact that this surge started in the Trump admin.

And "poor planning"? WTF? They've been in office for 2 months, and entered the government practically blind on a number of issues because there was no transition.

Ridiculous. WAPO may have to get their own thread if they keep this up.


It's Biden's fault for not being a sadistic sociopath.


drummerboy said:

That line about the biggest surge in 20 years I'm pretty sure is wrong, and makes no mention of the fact that this surge started in the Trump admin.

The source is probably this excerpt from a statement on Tuesday by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas: “We are on pace to encounter more individuals on the southwest border than we have in the last 20 years.” Mayorkas did not mention when the surge started, either, or what the pace entailed: Fiscal year? Calendar year? Some other period?

From CNN

Facts First: This might well be accurate -- though we should be cautious about "pace"-based projections given that changes in political, economic and even weather conditions can cause immigration trendlines to shift mid-year. But experts say Mayorkas left out some important context about how current figures differ from past figures.

First, 
let's look at the numbers. In the first five months of the 2021 fiscal year, through February, Customs and Border Protection reported 396,958 "encounters" with migrants on the southwest land border. Through February, then, this fiscal year has had a slightly lower per-month average than the full 2019 fiscal year. But given that the number of encounters has increased each and every month of the 2021 fiscal year, and given that the number spiked from 78,442 in January to 100,441 in February, a five-month average doesn't fully represent the present situation. Mayorkas has access to internal data CNN does not have, including in-progress March figures, and his projection appears reasonable.Nonetheless, he left out some pertinent facts. 

Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute think tank, said that because of the pandemic-era "Title 42" policy of swiftly expelling people who have crossed the border without authorization, adopted under former President Donald Trump and largely preserved so far by Biden, "recidivism is higher than it has been in years -- it is easier than ever for rejected migrants to turn around and try again. That high rate of recidivism is making the numbers appear higher than they actually are."

"Unfortunately, the administration has not updated the recidivism rate in a while, so we don't know how artificially high the 'encounters' numbers are," Pierce said. (A Customs and Border Protection official confirmed to reporters during a briefing on March 10 that there are "higher than usual recidivism rates as a result of Covid protocols.") 

Erica Schommer, clinical professor of law at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, said comparing today's raw numbers to numbers 20 years ago "may be misleading" because, while people back then tended to be crossing the border trying not to be spotted by authorities, today "many children and families and even some single adults Border Patrol is apprehending are essentially turning themselves in" to begin the asylum-claim process. 

Similarly, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, a pro-immigration advocacy organization, said "there's a lot of nuance missing" from the claim by Mayorkas. He said that since Border Patrol agents are evaded by a far smaller percentage of migrants today than 20 years ago, the actual total number of migrants crossing the border today would be "MUCH lower" than the total 20 years ago, even if the recorded number of "encounters," which doesn't include successful evasions, did end up hitting the same heights.

Apparently word spread that Biden would have a far different attitude toward immigrants and refugees than Trump which prompted more immigrants and refugees to seek entry to the US.

It probably could have been predicted but so what? 

Did anyone expect the new administration to be perfect in every regard or did anyone expect that critics would be critical?

Of course I am a fan of the words of Emma Lazarus.


Here's a more balanced article.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/20/us-mexico-border-immigration-crisis-477277

“There’s no question Donald Trump’s strategy was inhumane, brutal and un-American,” said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), who represents a border district. “But what we’re doing now is also a failure.”

Officials and community leaders along the border also say there’s one key detail missing in the debate: These are human beings that politicians are arguing about.



STANV said:

Here's a more balanced article.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/20/us-mexico-border-immigration-crisis-477277

“There’s no question Donald Trump’s strategy was inhumane, brutal and un-American,” said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), who represents a border district. “But what we’re doing now is also a failure.”

Officials and community leaders along the border also say there’s one key detail missing in the debate: These are human beings that politicians are arguing about.

 I would, just for once, like to hear what their solution is from these people decrying "failure".


regarding the number of border crossings, I point to this graph from Kevin Drum. While we're on a trajectory for a 20 year high, we're certainly not there yet.


drummerboy said:

regarding the number of border crossings, I point to this graph from Kevin Drum. While we're on a trajectory for a 20 year high, we're certainly not there yet.

The short Kevin Drum post that went with it:

There Really Is a Biden Surge at the Border

The concluding paragraph:

If you believe in more-or-less open borders, none of this will bother you. But if, like most people, you believe the border ought to be secured, this is a big problem and Biden isn't doing a good job of addressing it. Progressives shouldn't kid themselves about this.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

regarding the number of border crossings, I point to this graph from Kevin Drum. While we're on a trajectory for a 20 year high, we're certainly not there yet.

The short Kevin Drum post that went with it:

There Really Is a Biden Surge at the Border

The concluding paragraph:

If you believe in more-or-less open borders, none of this will bother you. But if, like most people, you believe the border ought to be secured, this is a big problem and Biden isn't doing a good job of addressing it. Progressives shouldn't kid themselves about this.

 yes, I read that, and I think Drum is kind of contradicting himself there, as his data does not point clearly to his conclusion.

(sorry for not posting the link to his post.)


here's more data. only question is an "encounter" (Drum's term) the same as "apprehensions"?


It's very simple, explains GOP Senator Cornyn.  When you don't treat people like animals, this is what happens.  


For those on the right, the border crisis is that so many people believe so strongly in America that they'd like to be part of it. That's not a crisis -- arguably that's a success. You don't hear about throngs of people desperately seeking to join North Korean society.

What is a problem is our execution of border management. When NJ's unemployment system struggled to handle demand during the pandemic, the crisis was not that NJ offers unemployment assistance, but NJ's inability to execute its unemployment assistance program was a problem. Similarly, while the fact that American society is one people want to join and contribute to is not a crisis, our inability to humanely, efficiently, and effectively handle surges of traffic on our borders is a problem.

The infrastructure Biden inherited is not well suited to the realities of the natural waxing and waning of border traffic, so the "crisis" isn't his fault -- but he is the president, so it is his responsibility. This current surge in traffic will eventually subside, but I hope they're looking beyond the current situation so we can better handle future surges. I'd like to see a lot more done to engage potential migrants before they physically arrive at the border, both at the macro level of lending our assistance to help improve the situation in the countries of origin many of these people are fleeing (and which, in many cases, our own past actions have contributed to political destabilization and economic challenge), and at the individual level (for instance, why not make it easier to apply for asylum at local US consulates or embassies, and so reduce the crush of asylum seekers physically at the southern border)?


PVW said:

(for instance, why not make it easier to apply for asylum at local US consulates or embassies, and so reduce the crush of asylum seekers physically at the southern border)?

“Easier” meaning legal at all, since federal law requires that asylum seekers be present in the U.S. Embassies do not accept asylum applicants.

That doesn’t jibe with my (and maybe your) conception of embassies as sanctuaries, but the law and other references I read are clear. Maybe I was thinking of refugees, but even there, refugees must already have fled their native country and reached one of the designated U.S. embassies that handle refugees.

At least, this is my current understanding.


(In practical terms, I’m having difficulty envisioning how an official, open-door process for seeking asylum at an embassy would function in the heart of a nation that is causing large numbers of people to seek asylum.)


Here's an interesting exchange:

Both sides have spin.  And I'm sure Trump's rhetoric discouraged immigration and Biden's shows a bit more empathy towards those who need help.

So where's the middle ground and will we ever find bipartisanship?

Obviously middle ground must be sought.  Will it happen in the next 4 years, doubtful.


DaveSchmidt said:

(In practical terms, I’m having difficulty envisioning how an official, open-door process for seeking asylum at an embassy would function in the heart of a nation that is causing large numbers of people to seek asylum.)

 Admittedly I'm not even poorly versed in the legal questions around this -- my reaction is mainly logistical. There's a bottleneck at the borders; solutions for solving bottlenecks generally involve a combination of reducing flow and distributing it better. If the obstacles to processing asylum applications in the country of origin are legal, then that might explain why that's not something we currently do (and something I'd think should change).

Someone in El Salvador fleeing murderous gangs and eligible for asylum in the U.S, for instance, doesn't strike me as less qualified for asylum if they're still in El Salvador. Making it possible to make the initial petition locally strikes me as more likely to save their life AND reduce the amount of processing needed at the actual borderI'm sure there's all kinds of logistical challenges around such a scenario, but I suspect those would be solvable if we actually collectively agreed that such people should be granted asylum in the first place and that the goal was to make that safe and efficient.

IOW -- what I see as the crisis and what, say, a Trump voter sees as the crisis are two very different things.


jamie said:

Here's an interesting exchange:

Both sides have spin.  And I'm sure Trump's rhetoric discouraged immigration and Biden's shows a bit more empathy towards those who need help.

So where's the middle ground and will we ever find bipartisanship?

Obviously middle ground must be sought.  Will it happen in the next 4 years, doubtful.

 The current Biden rhetoric IS the middle ground.


PVW said:

I'm sure there's all kinds of logistical challenges around such a scenario, but I suspect those would be solvable if we actually collectively agreed that such people should be granted asylum in the first place and that the goal was to make that safe and efficient.

Much of the logistical challenge of operating asylum applications in an embassy strikes me as beyond U.S. control and firmly in the hands of the country that is presumably hostile to such applications.


DaveSchmidt said:

PVW said:

I'm sure there's all kinds of logistical challenges around such a scenario, but I suspect those would be solvable if we actually collectively agreed that such people should be granted asylum in the first place and that the goal was to make that safe and efficient.

Much of the logistical challenge of operating asylum applications in an embassy strikes me as beyond U.S. control and firmly in the hands of the country that is presumably hostile to such applications.

 I'm not sure that's universally true. My El Salvador gang example isn't one where it's the local government that's necessarily the problem, for instance.


PVW said:

I'm not sure that's universally true. My El Salvador gang example isn't one where it's the local government that's necessarily the problem, for instance.

It’s a rare national government, I think, that would sit on its hands and let citizens flock to a foreign embassy to flee the country.

ETA: But they’re fleeing anyway, right? One difference with an embassy process is the optics — the lines of desperate people, the official acknowledgment that so many of your citizens want to get out. Just seems to me like an implausible option.


DaveSchmidt said:

PVW said:

I'm not sure that's universally true. My El Salvador gang example isn't one where it's the local government that's necessarily the problem, for instance.

It’s a rare national government, I think, that would sit on its hands and let citizens flock to a foreign embassy to flee the country. The optics alone.

 Or maybe the US opens a consulate in southern Mexico. Mexico has an interest in reducing the number of migrants crossing through.

It was probably a mistake to try and make specific policy recommendations here -- I'm very far off from having the remotest amount of requisite background on it. So I'll just let what I already said stand or fall as it may, and try and reframe to my actual point --

We as a country do not have consensus on what the goal of our border policy is. We use the same words, but this obscures the differences in what we think the goals are. A lot of people, especially on the political right, are pursuing the goal of restricting immigration. If the laws were changed so that all the people currently crossing the border without full legal authorization could so so legally, and if cross-border traffic was constant and manageable rather than subject to chaotic surges and ebbs, they would still feel there was a "crisis." Further evidence of this -- the strong support the Trump admin received in their pursuit of limiting legal immigration. The border crisis, for them, is that people they don't like want to immigrate to the United States.

I'm not an immigration restrictionist. I'm not in favor of "open borders" because I see a lot of legitimate reasons to restrict who enters the country and at what rate. Currently, for instance, I think we we want to make sure anyone entering the country is tested for covid. Human trafficking is a problem, and ideally we're detecting and stopping traffickers, and making sure victims are properly cared for. People wanted for violent crimes in one country ideally should be identified and sent back to their country's authorities.

For all that to happen, you need orderly, humane, and efficient border controls. So "securing the border" is very much something I support, but that's very different from what an immigration restrictionist means by the same phrase. So from my perspective, the overcrowded shelters we are seeing are a problem, a crisis even, but the kinds of solutions I'd hope to see are quite different.

Without further leaning into my mistake of trying to make specific recommendations in an area I know very little of, I'll say that generally I'd like more acknowledgment that border crossing flow in both directions, that what happens on both sides of a border matter and that the United States can't separate itself from it's broader geopolitical context. You can't, for instance, create a concentration of covid-positive people on one side of border and not expect it to affect people on the other. You can't, for instance, contribute to the political destabilization of a country, then re-seed violence in that same country, then be surprised when there's a surge of people fleeing violence from that country showing up at your border.

If the goal is to make border traffic orderly and secure, there's definitely things we can be doing, and although I'm not qualified to say what those are, I'm fairly certain they involve broadening the scope beyond the physical border. if the goal is to discourage people from wanting to join the United States, well, let's be honest about that and not claim we're worried about "the border."


PVW said:

It was probably a mistake to try and make specific policy recommendations here -- I'm very far off from having the remotest amount of requisite background on it. 

I wouldn't say it was a mistake at all. It's a discussion, after all, not a test of expertise.  



PVW ....”Someone in El Salvador fleeing murderous gangs and eligible for asylum in the U.S, for instance, doesn't strike me as less qualified for asylum if they're still in El Salvador. 

Making it possible to make the initial petition locally strikes me as more likely to save their life AND reduce the amount of processing needed at the actual border. I'm sure there's all kinds of logistical challenges around such a scenario, but I suspect those would be solvable if we actually collectively agreed that such people should be granted asylum in the first place and that the goal was to make that safe and efficient.”


If such a scenario were even remotely possible, and folks could wait at home until the proper time to safely exit — murderous gangs cooperating — we would not have a problem. Legal immigration works that way.

We most certainly need to control the spread of the coronavirus first and foremost. We are just beginning to see some hope in a return to some normality in the United States. Do we open our country now to thousands of unvaccinated immigrants coming here clandestinely, while schools, businesses, restaurants remain in lockdown? Are we ready for more waves?



mtierney said:


If such a scenario were even remotely possible, and folks could wait at home until the proper time to safely exit — murderous gangs cooperating — we would not have a problem. Legal immigration works that way.

We most certainly need to control the spread of the coronavirus first and foremost. We are just beginning to see some hope in a return to some normality in the United States. Do we open our country now to thousands of unvaccinated immigrants coming here clandestinely, while schools, businesses, restaurants remain in lockdown? Are we ready for more waves?

 I go back and forth on whether you are dishonest or misinformed (or whether the distinction matters much and you are just choosing to be misinformed).

Under the Trump admin, gang violence was not grounds for asylum claims. How is it that you can say "legal immigration works that way" while simultaneously supporting efforts to prevent people from legally immigrating that way?

And as for your incoherence and (willful?) ignorance on covid policy, don't get me started.


mtierney said:

We most certainly need to control the spread of the coronavirus first and foremost. We are just beginning to see some hope in a return to some normality in the United States. Do we open our country now to thousands of unvaccinated immigrants coming here clandestinely, while schools, businesses, restaurants remain in lockdown? Are we ready for more waves?

Now that it can be used as a (phony) argument against migrants from Latin America, Republicans and other conservatives have suddenly discovered the risks of spreading Covid-19.


Fact -

White people who ignore and mock mask mandates, and demand premature relaxing of health and safety measures, are MORE likely to cause the spread of Covid-19 than people of color who are tested and follow safety protocols as they are processed through US Immigration.

Example: Idaho.


Coverage of the migrant surge at the border shows how easily the media can be trolled by Republicans

It was inevitable that a crisis at the U.S. border with Mexico would refocus the media away from the ongoing pandemic and the consequential economic fallout. Those are old stories and it appears that most people believe the nation is "rounding the turn," as Trump used to weirdly say. The immigration story, however, while one that repeats itself every few years, most recently in 2019, offers up a deeply satisfying new narrative for the media: "Donald Trump was right." 

Surely the executive branch under Biden now has responsibility for doing what they can to put a band aid on this wound. But it's also obvious that a real solution will only come via legislation. 

And it's also obvious there won't be legislation. And we know why -- Republicans don't WANT to fix this crisis. They didn't want to find a solution with a Republican in the White House, so why would they when Biden is president.

Honest coverage of this issue wouldn't lay the blame on a White House that doesn't have the means to solve it alone. Honest coverage would be identifying GOP obstruction in Congress as the main culprit. 


nohero said:

Now that it can be used as a (phony) argument against migrants from Latin America, Republicans and other conservatives have suddenly discovered the risks of spreading Covid-19.

 Back 2018 the same people said it was leprosy and smallpox.


PVW said:


mtierney said:


If such a scenario were even remotely possible, and folks could wait at home until the proper time to safely exit — murderous gangs cooperating — we would not have a problem. Legal immigration works that way.

Under the Trump admin, gang violence was not grounds for asylum claims. How is it that you can say "legal immigration works that way" while simultaneously supporting efforts to prevent people from legally immigrating that way?

I could be wrong, but I thought mtierney was saying legal immigration works that way -- through local petitioning and process -- when there aren't murderous gangs. That is, when there are murderous gangs, local petitioning and process are moot.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Advertise here!