I agree with the editors of the Washington Post that increased and improved aid to Central Americans is an important component of reducing immigration of Guatemalans, Nigaraguans, and so on into the United States:
If Mr. Trump signs on to Mr. López Obrador’s vision for reviving Central America with an ambitious aid plan — one that would also serve U.S. interest as a means to “disincentivize†migration — that could be just the sweetener Mr. López Obrador needs to go along with Mr. Trump’s asylum plan.
This could be the start of a beautiful friendship, or at least a constructive alliance, between a pair of populist presidents who happen to be ideological opposites but whose goals on Central American migration should be aligned. Like Mr. Trump, Mr. López Obrador has his own reasons to discourage migrants who, in the case of the thousands who have reached Tijuana with the caravans, have become an increasingly unpopular local irritant.
and with their skepticism about the effectiveness of a wall:
Hundreds of miles of existing barriers at the border haven’t stopped the flow of migrants, and neither will Mr. Trump’s wall, if it is ever built.
President Trump’s citing of Israel in his argument for the effectiveness of a wall is misplaced. The Israelis are committed in a way and for reasons that we are not. Any wall we build will never be as impenetrable as the Israelis’ wall.
The editors neglect to mention that Mexico’s laws against illegal immigration are harsher than ours if anything and their enforcement of them can be quite ruthless. Both carrots and sticks are necessary to enforce our laws and one element of the “sticks” would be biometric ID and requiring employers to verify the eligibility of workers with stiff penalties for infractions and significantly greater likelihood of detection.
For years, I’ve offered work to any Mexican or Central American who comes knocking at my door. They’ve done tree-trimming, mowing, framing, roofing, painting and tile work. I’ve not had any complaints.
I will continue to do so, and I can’t imagine subjecting any of them to a test of citizenship, residency or work-permit. And doing so would complicate the lives of all the gringo electricians, plumbers and HVAC techs who would be subject to the same treatment by EEOC rules.
I don’t share the skepticism over the efficacy of a wall. A real wall, not a periodic fence, with enforcement. And I’ve come around on the notion of business monitoring. But the obvious unintended consequence will be hiring fewer foreigners. (seen comments on hiring women in the age of metoo??)
But it does put into play the notion of bribing, er, foreign aid so people don’t want to leave. What should be our demand in return. Usually foreign aid aids dictators.
It seems to me that we have given a bit of aid to Central America in the past and I am not really sure that more will make a difference.
A wall won’t stop much. A wall with guards that shoot to kill anyone who gets close to the wall will have some effect. While I suspect 70%-80% of conservatives might support that, I dont se it getting wider support.
Steve
It is amusing that the people with a wall and/or armed guards around their neighborhood claim that a wall is worthless.
I have been informed that there are no shitholes south of the US border. Could somebody explain why thousands of people would leave the ‘land of milk and honey’, walk over 1,000 miles, and ask for asylum.