After six paragraphs of throat-clearing, the editors of the Washington Post finally get around to the point they’re trying to make about the “wait in Mexico” policy with respect to those seeking to enter the United States via our southern border:
What is clear is that the United States is not absolved of responsibility for migrants legitimately seeking asylum simply because they are compelled to wait elsewhere. If asylum seekers are preyed on, exploited and harmed after having been returned to Mexico, U.S. officials will not be able to shrug off their moral responsibility. The United States is bound by law and international obligations to welcome and vet migrants fleeing persecution, and to grant asylum to those who meet specific criteria. That obligation cannot be abrogated by an announcement.
In bridge “crossruffing” is a play where tricks are made by taking alternate ruffs, playing a non-trump card to be trumped by the partner, in each hand. In this paragraph the editors are attempting to crossruff legal and moral arguments. Neither is nearly as strong as they appear to believe.
The phrase “legitimately seeking asylum” is just being coy. Anyone may legitimately seek asylum. Three-quarters or more of the applications for asylum from Central Americans or Mexicans are denied because they don’t meet the requirements for asylum, something intended for religious, racial, ethnic or political persecution. In other words when you take those who don’t even bother applying into account, the actual asylum-seekers comprise a tiny fraction of those who come here.
As to the moral argument, I’ve already made my views clear. I think we are morally obligated to treat those who come here legally or illegally decently and kindly. We are not morally obligated to allow them to remain, give them jobs, or grant them citizenship. The notion that we are morally obligated to extend that level of consideration to those who haven’t actually come here is simply incredible.
Pollsters tell us that in the Americas alone 150 million people would move here from other countries if they were given the chance. We have no moral obligation to accept them and suggesting that we do goes beyond being foolhardy.
The US needs to be careful what precedent is set by our actions here, because the message travels south within seconds to poor people weighing their options. We need to be firm (and consistent), for their sake as well as ours.
Basically, an argument for the wall. The Clinton administration gathered Haitian refugees at sea and returned them to Haiti without processing any asylum request, sometimes sheltering them at Gitmo in the interim. They waited and were returned; they were not welcomed. If they had legitimate claims to asylum, they were ignored. SCOTUS approved 8-1. Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1993).
So preventing potential refugees from entering the U.S. is a legitimate response. If they don’t have a right of entry, their entry can be barred. “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrant or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” (8 U. S. C. § 1182(f))
Walls are immoral and don’t work. That’s why Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez will co-sponsor legislation to tear them down at all prisons.
I haven’t mentioned it lately but my opinion of building an impermeable wall is that it’s only as good as the weakest border agent. The stronger the wall the more likely it is that someone or some group will be bribed and a systematic breach in the wall will be created, either over or under.
Internal controls will reduce incentives and increase costs so, consequently, are a better use of resources.
Excellent. So we establish that the physical barrier isn’t the issue, but rather the administration of it. This, of course, is a criticism that can be leveled at any security system. And yet walls are singled out. It’s a diversion.
Physical barriers and other technological techniques are not mutually exclusive. They are only cast as so by those worried walls will work, and by those seeking political advantage. You know this from spurious arguments about cost, which is trivial in the scheme of things, and immorality, which would only be more immoral in a scheme using something better than a wall. Is all bullshit.
The chamber of commerce wants cheap labor. The Democrats want votes. They are willing to harm an awful lot of people to satisfy their goals. Talk about immoral. Where’s that guillotine?
@Drew
… worried walls will work …
Those four words are the entire reason for the opposition. Walls and physical barriers work everywhere except the US border. I am supposed to believe that people are going to be running to the wall with their shovel to dig a tunnel.
If one likes, the wall is an infrastructure project, and it will put people to work.
I guess I drove through two minefields, but the engineers could have built a tunnel instead. I am fairly certain that the tankers who had a track blown off by a mine that rolled back into the breached lane would have preferred going through one of these magic tunnels instead.
“Those four words are the entire reason for the opposition.â€
I think, although admittedly at a different level, two other reasons should be considered. Nancy Pelosi no doubt traded speakership votes for absolute opposition. To the degree that encourages immigrants and the attendant dangers to their travels, the guillotine for her. Chuck Schumer simply opposes a wall as appeasement to a rabid base who hate Trump at all costs. Bring a size 34 guillotine neck block please…….
The news today 1,000 migrants have been released at shelters and bus stops in El Paso. can’t find their legal status, but it doesn’t matter. They made it and everyone from here to Venezuela knows it.
I agree that internal controls would be preferable. I’m just observing that the more political and/or moral requirements are made into costly legal requirements, the incentives clearly become to stop potential refugee claimants from setting foot on the homeland. There are no extraterritorial legal requirements.
There was probably a higher ratio of legitimate refugees during the Haitian military coup of the early 90s than have been coming from Latin America the last several years, but we’ll never know.
” This, of course, is a criticism that can be leveled at any security system. ”
Sure, but we are talking about walls. They have been fairly effective when the distances covered are short and the walls are manned with soldiers willing to shoot people trying to cross. Over larger distances like this I dont think we have much experience. I would guess that it would cut down on the number of people crossing to pick fruit for 5 months then go back home. Wont do much about criminals or people overstaying visas. If we dont care about how we spend money, and think it important to advance the political careers of people supporting the wall, then we should build it. If those goals are not important, then do stuff that will reduce the number of illegals here.
” Nancy Pelosi no doubt traded speakership votes for absolute opposition.”
Naughty Nancy! Since we know that McConnell or Ryan or Trump would never trade to get votes, this is clearly uniquely bad behavior on her part.
Steve
“So we establish that the physical barrier isn’t the issue, but rather the administration of it. This, of course, is a criticism that can be leveled at any security system. And yet walls are singled out. It’s a diversion.”
The wall is singled out because it is Trump’s signature issue and Trump sucks the air out of the room. Our politicians (on both sides) are not going to even try to have any kind of reasonable discussion about alternatives as long as that remains the case.
I think this battle is purely political in the sense that the facts don’t matter, winning and not giving an inch matters.
And the irony is we have a government shutdown when the GoP controls the Presidency and both houses. Why would Democrats rescue Trump and/or the GoP from shooting themselves in the foot when their power and leverage will increase dramatically in a month?
I’m not sure they are shooting themselves in the foot. I guess time will tell. The Steve’s of the world need to attempt to keep this a narrow technical argument, but as a general proposition Americans are smarter and know we have a border problem. I think they are wise enough to see that this is just political, and that Dems have simply cynically and hypocritically done a 180 degree about face on prior positions, and oppose more than just the Wall (ICE etc) and are fighting over a trivial expenditure.
If I were King and advising the GOP I’d hammer the Dem reversal with campaign style ads showing the previous speeches given by Dems, highlight the whacko ICE opposition, and ask “ how bad can a wall be?†And….use this to illustrate why you can’t get anything done in Wash if it’s just oppose Trump at all costs. That strategy focuses on the middle 20%. The question whether Mitch can manage the chamber of commerce.
The practical problem is the parties are controlled by their bases and primary threats are a real and existential threat to those in Congress. Therefore I see little hope for any strategy that actually focuses on the middle 20% beyond lip service. In my view, the political middle and those like me with heterodox views are less influential than we’ve ever been.
If the parties were controlled by their bases, we’d have far fewer problems. The party leaders, for the most part, are without ideology. They cater to wealthy donors who are more extreme in their views one way or another than the parties’ actual bases.
I think leadership recognizes that well-funded establishment candidates are losing primaries with regularity now. That’s not a reality they can ignore.
“The party leaders, for the most part, are without ideology.†Etc
A true statement, and argument for less government. But that’s a horse to beat another day.
In point of fact, elections are won between the 40 yard lines. They are financed in the respective red zones.
“The Steve’s of the world need to attempt to keep this a narrow technical argument, but as a general proposition Americans are smarter and know we have a border problem.”
The only problem the wall solves for sure is Trump making his base happy. Point out another wall this long that was successful at keeping people out without a very vigorous and active military shooting (or the pre-guns equivalent) people trying to cross. What we have is a problem with having too many people here illegally, most of whom crossed the border legally. A “narrow technical” solution that would solve our real problems makes a lot more sense than the PR approach of the wall. In that sense Drew is correct. Would be a lot cheaper and probably better at protecting jobs if we just handed out more work visas and used a robust E-verify program.
That said, I also think there is a revenge element here on the part of the Democrats. They risked the ire of their base by offering Trump the wall in exchange for DACA. Dems wanted DACA, but the base really hated the idea of giving Trump anything he wants. Most polls show that a majority of Republicans support DACA, but Trump would not risk angering his base. So once again we have the far right base of the GOP controlling legislation, but this time supported by Trump.
Steve
A pretty good summary of my views.
Also, if we reduce the pull forces encouraging immigration we can devote human resources to protecting the border more effectively than at present.