The ‘crisis’ of the migrant caravan is one of misperception

Central American migrants reach the shore on the Mexican side of the Suchiate River after wading across from Guatemala on Oct. 20. Thousands of migrants from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala are making their way north through Mexico. (AP Photo/Moises Castillo)Central American migrants reach the shore on the Mexican side of the Suchiate River after wading across from Guatemala on Oct. 20. Thousands of migrants from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala are making their way north through Mexico. (AP Photo/Moises Castillo)

The 3,500 or so unarmed men, women and children seeking asylum in a country of 350 million represents as much a threat to the United States of America as a glass of water is to the ocean. Nevertheless, the U.S. media has been full of scare stories about the “caravan” of Central American migrants making the dangerous trek north through Mexico. News outlets have obsessively covered the caravan like an approaching hurricane.

For xenophobes, the caravan has created the perfect visuals to trigger white demographic anxiety: young brown people headed north. Images of the caravan are featured prominently in many campaign ads for Republican candidates in this year’s midterm elections. For some, it looked to be the perfect “October surprise.”

Advertisement

The caravan has created the perfect visuals to trigger white demographic anxiety: young brown people headed north.

The tragic irony of this story is the local activists who initially organized the caravan sought to raise awareness about the abuses faced by Central American migrants. But the likely outcome is a harder journey north than ever before. President Trump is reportedly preparing a travel-ban style executive order to close the border to all Central American asylum seekers, which would leave them with no legal way to seek entry.

Whatever “crisis” has been provoked by the caravan is a one of perceptions. The border is secured. Gone are the days when all one had to do was sprint from Tijuana to San Diego when the Border Patrol wasn’t looking. Today’s migrants instead actively look for the nearest Border Patrol officer to turn themselves in and ask for asylum, which is (for now) perfectly legal to do.

Much of the footage of the caravan presents the migrants as an indistinguishable mass, with the camera at a far distance.

Instead, the real threat to the United States is the very fear and hate the caravan story has fomented. According to his posts on social media, the man who attacked and killed 11 people at a synagogue in Pittsburgh believed that Jews were the ones behind the migrant caravan. The president’s habit of amplifying and spreading racially charged conspiracy theories about Central American migrants and the caravan cannot be ignored as a possible factor in the massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue.

Yet the incessant media coverage of the caravan has played into Mr. Trump’s hands and may also be fueling racial violence. Words like “army” have been used even in mainstream, reputable news outlets to describe unarmed, desperate families seeking safety or opportunity. Is it any wonder that the most fearful in the United States may feel compelled to lash out? Even well-meaning pundits defensively point out how far the migrants remain from the United States, implicitly conceding that the best Latino is a faraway Latino.

[Sign up to receive Convivir, a newsletter that highlight news, culture and trends related to Latino Catholics.]

Even more powerful than the words have been the images. Much of the footage of the caravan, whether on CNN, Fox or MSNBC, presents the migrants as an indistinguishable mass, with the camera at a distance. The frame is always full of people; but each of them are small; the details of their faces lost within a single pixel. Meanwhile, the talking heads and expert panelists get close-ups, hair and makeup. They are allowed to be individuals; we always know their names.

It is not that the media should avoid images of the migrants’ journey. But there can be better, more humanizing footage. The photographers who are with them should get close. Show their faces; show their eyes; make the viewer recognize an individual. If the only footage of migrants available as background for cable news had close-up faces of men, women and children, the immigration debate in this country might be a little different.

Was it naïve to think increased focus on migration from Central America might spur more sympathy for the migrants themselves? Not if the media in the United States were more responsible and more diverse than it is. For now, I fear immigrant advocates must confront the truth that many in the undocumented community have long understood: Deer should not call attention to themselves when surrounded by wolves.

And yet I find even the distant images of migrants beautiful. I see neither weak victims nor threatening invaders. I see brave people, on an exodus across half a continent of mountains, jungles and deserts. In these journeys I see reflections of my own ancestors. I see the struggles they went through to get here. I see the pursuit of happiness. Images of the caravan evoke the words of Walt Whitman, in his ode to the pioneers: “Come my tan-faced children.... All the past we leave behind, we debouch upon a newer mightier world, varied world, fresh and strong the world we seize.”

I am holding out hope that we might still somehow recognize the best of ourselves in the migrants heading toward the United States. If we did, our nation might rediscover some of that courage, decency and determination to seek better lives that we ourselves lost somewhere along the way.

[Want to discuss politics with other America readers? Join our Facebook discussion group, moderated by America’s writers and editors.]

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
J Cosgrove
3 weeks 1 day ago

Irony There are a lot of misperceptions in this article (ironic) which is just another Trump hit piece. TDS is paramount amongst the writers here. This and every other article written on immigration are not attempts to find a reasonable resolution. Until a sensible immigration policy is proposed by America the magazine and its authors, all this discussion is just going pass each other's ears.

J Cosgrove
3 weeks 1 day ago

The author accuses those who object as racist. But since 1965 about 60 million immigrants have arrived in the US. About 90% are people of color. I dont see people objecting to legal immigration. It is illegal entry that is being objected to. So please stop accusing others of things which are not true. There is a sin taught in Catholic religion classes about this.

Monica Storozuk
3 weeks 1 day ago

J Cosgrove. So I take it that you support these asylum seekers as long as they don't break any laws? As you must know the United States recognizes the right of asylum of individuals as specified by international and federal law. And if you are a Christian then can I assume that you feel compassion for these people and support processes at the border that support this legal right to seek asylum?

rose-ellen caminer
3 weeks 1 day ago

Asylum seekers have no right to be adjudicated for asylum in the US if they are from a banned country, which a President or Congress can do, the Supreme Court has said. There is always a loop hole to skirt international law; which the US often shows contempt for; the right wing anti globalist, US sovereignty reins supreme, mantra .[lol].So far Trump is more bark then bite as he has not placed any of these Central American countries on the banned countries list.

J Cosgrove
3 weeks ago

How many potential asylum seekers are there in the world? Probably at a minimum about 5 for every person in the United States. For those who make the asylum argument, are you willing to take 20 people into your household to support if you live in a house with four people in it? Here is a related video . https://www.youtube.com/embed/LPjzfGChGlE

Monica Storozuk
2 weeks 6 days ago

J. Cosgrove. I watched the video. The point it seems to make is "US immigration is not going to solve the overwhelming scale of global poverty so why bother?". And the video does not distinguish between immigrants and refugees. A different set of criteria is used To assess claims of each. In general we want immigrants to add to our economy whereas applications of refugees are evaluated on humanitarian grounds.
I don't agree with you that anything short of resolving global poverty is useless. Perhaps I'm not up to having 20 people move in with me (per your example) but I would consider one family moving in with me. I know of a woman who gave her home for two years to a refugee family from Syria. As Christians we can all do more to help others in this world if so much suffering. I hope we can both agree at least on that?

J Cosgrove
2 weeks 6 days ago

You have misread the video and do not understand what has been happening in the world. The video paints a bleak picture but what is missing is the tremendous movement out of poverty in the last 50 years. But it has to be done in each country not here.

Monica Storozuk
2 weeks 6 days ago

J Cosgrove. Excellent videos and very informative. I like that both videos are fact-based. The stats used suggest that things are improving in the world rather than getting worse. For example these stats show that income inequality is improving. Let's hope that the Trumps of the world do not reverse this trend.
The second video talks about how fear (as opposed to facts) can influence us and can create ignorance and misperceptions. This is exactly what Trump is doing. He is using fear of migrants (use of words like "invasion") rather than facts. I think we can both agree that the unarmed and poor migrants approaching the US border are not a threat to US security. The far greater threat is the proliferation of weapons which Trump promotes. Again great videos; I have shared with my family and friends.

J Cosgrove
2 weeks 6 days ago

Let's hope that the Trumps of the world do not reverse this trend.

Why would Trump reverse that trend? His programs are working for the small guy, record low unemployment of Blacks and Hispanics. Is this an unfounded fear about Trump. I look at the agenda and see little to fear and lot to like. You may disagree but be specific if you do. Also income inequality got worse under Obama but in reality is nothing to fear if the poor are doing better.

Monica Storozuk
2 weeks 5 days ago

J Cosgrove. Why would Trump reverse the trend you ask? Ok, to be specific see the attached link to an article by Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2016/11/12/what-a-trump-admini…
I hope this copied as a live link. Basically Forbes gives Trump very low points in terms of reducing income inequality.
I am glad that you like facts and don't like emotion-based arguments. I'm not sure then, why you like Trump, who despises facts and plays on negative emotions (fear, animosity, anger). If you would like to continue this debate please feel free to email me at
grace081887@gmail.com
I don't know a single Trump supporter (or at least not that I know of) and am interested in why people support him.
If you choose not to message me I may reply to one of your future comments as I notice that you like to criticize many articles in America Magazine. I'm guessing you are not a fan of the magazine....yet you read and criticize many of the articles.

J Cosgrove
2 weeks 6 days ago

He is using fear of migrants

Trump is making a point that I agree with. Let's have all immigration legal. The caravan is small but if these caravans are not stopped, they will only get bigger and more numerous and their entrance into the US will represent not a military threat but a societal threat. There is no limit to the number so theoretically it could turn into several million. Again you can disagree but don't use emotions to validate your beliefs.

Phillip Stone
2 weeks 3 days ago

Monica
First, where in the Gospel are we commanded to be subject to international law, a body of laws which are so contrary to many of the 10 commandments.
Christian love is strong and difficult, not sentimental compassion, such feelings are shallow and evanescent.

Why do you presume to know the thoughts of another if they are either not stated or ignored by you?

I prefer not to hear the sanctimonious virtue signalling of hypocrites.
Do you have more clothes and shoes than other poorer people, but not shared.
Do you leave your domicile unattended with open doors and windows so the homeless may take shelter therein?
By what right do you live where you live? Are you from the first invaders crossing from East Eurasia or the second invaders in ships armed to the teeth or perchance from refugees genuinely in mortal danger or perhaps captive as slaves?

Get back to us when I can wear your clothes, eat your food, enter your home at will and use any of your stuff that I do not have and you serenely allow this from compassion.

Personal space, boundaries, territory, resources, cultural heritage and the like are far more complex challenges than slogans invoking compassion.

Ellen B
2 weeks 6 days ago

J Cosgrove, The entire "it's a national crisis, I'm calling out the troops" is a dog whistle. They are hundreds of miles away from the border. On foot.
Caravans like this have happened for years. The "crisis" has nothing to do with immigration, it's just a way to stir people who don't bother looking at the history of the many caravans that have come to this country for years up prior to the election.

Will Niermeyer
2 weeks 6 days ago

They may be hundreds of miles away from the border but it takes time to mobilize an army to respond.

John Hess
2 weeks 6 days ago

Will, please let me address several points to you.
Regarding the caravan. According to reference.com, in 2015, 507,767 Mexicans crossed the border legally and 267,885 Mexicans were apprehended attempting illegal entry. That is a total of 775,652 individuals processed. Assuming even 7000 in the caravan, and that they all make the thousand miles to the border, that represents 0.9% of the 2015 total. 0.9%, it seems to me, would constitute an invasion needing the army only in the most fevered imagination.
For the sake of your own blood pressure, calm down. Sorry. but to me you sound like a scared little girl.

Monica Storozuk
2 weeks 6 days ago

Well said Ellen B.

JOHN GRONDELSKI
3 weeks 1 day ago

The "crisis" is always on the part of the one calling for legal and moral accountability, not the one violating it. So, the illegal immigrant is not the problem, it is the citizen who demands the immigration laws of his country be enforced in a country that values rule of law. The homosexual predator priest is not the problem but the Catholic who demands that the Church enforce what it teaches about the meaning of human sexuality and not build bridges to nowhere.

Michael Barberi
3 weeks 1 day ago

With due respect to the author, the crisis is not being misperceived by a narrative that describes most of the 7,000 migrants as criminals, gang members and terrorists. Most Americans see the overwhelming majority of migrants and perhaps 98% of them as very poor people who are seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Only about 2%-5% of them are honestly seeking asylum at least based on the criteria the U.S and international community has established for asylum.

The crisis, in part, is the fact that this caravan was organized to take advantage of a loop hole in the U.S. immigration laws, commonly called 'catch and release'. If a migrant steps into the U.S. and asks for asylum, the U.S. must respect their request. At this point, they are give a court date in order to establish whether they qualify for asylum.

Unfortunately, 98% of migrants that ask for asylum do not show up for their court appearance. They disappear into the U.S. as illegal immigrants. For the few that do show up for their court date, 80% of them are denied asylum and are deported.

Let me be clear about this so-called 'crisis of misperception' about this caravan. The crisis is not about a lack of compassion for poor people who want a better life for themselves or their families. The crisis is caused by corrupt and inept governments of many Latin American countries whose citizens are fleeing their countries in order to find a better life in the U.S. These migrants don't like the violence, the gangs, and the lack of jobs, low wages and the poor quality of life in their countries. However, the U.S. is not morally responsible for solving the problems of others countries with inept and corrupt governments. In truth, the U.S. sends millions of dollars to Latin American countries only to see that only a few of these dollars go to the people in need.

I do believe the U.S. should increase the annual number of immigrants they allow into the U.S. 'legally' from 1 million to 2 million provided they are responsibly vetted. At the same time, we need to secure our borders to prevent the drug traffickers, criminals and others from entering the U.S. illegally.

The crisis is the Congress who have the responsibility for fixing our immigration laws. If we want to stop the caravans, the solution rests with the our politicians in Washington. The answer is not "open borders" but fairer and compassionate immigration laws. Unfortunately, the Congress is failing us and that is the real crisis.

Philip Fabiano
3 weeks ago

There is way too much inaccuracy in your post. Let me respond to just one. Apparently, you just read the numbers wrong. According to Justice Department data from the last five available years, around 60 to 75 percent of non-detained migrants have attended their immigration court proceedings. That’s determined by subtracting the percentage of judgments entered against migrants in their absence (known as an in absentia ruling) from total judgments entered. The Justice Department’s data from FY 2016 puts “in absentia” cases — immigration cases for which there are no defendants — at just 25 percent, not the 98 percent you cite or 97 percent the president cites. So just one in four immigrants failed to show up for their hearings.

Michael Barberi
3 weeks ago

Phil - Honestly, I have no idea what you just said because of your phrasing. You seem to be claiming that the number of illegal immigrants who claim asylum and don't show up for a court date....which is usually more than a year later...is just 25% and not 98%. Well the anti-Trump media, in particular the Washington Post, usually calls out inaccuracies made by various politicians with rating of 1-5 pinocchios but has not challenged the numbers that immigration officials and the Trump Administration use. However, you did not challenge the other number, that 80% of the illegal immigrants who claim asylum are denied by the immigration courts. I will do my own research on the point you raised.

Philip Fabiano
2 weeks 6 days ago

It seemed clear but perhaps it is not. Around 25 percent do not show up for hearings, the rest do. The numbers do suport that 80 percent are denied asylum.

Philip Fabiano
3 weeks ago

There is way too much inaccuracy in your post. Let me respond to just one. Apparently, you just read the numbers wrong. According to Justice Department data from the last five available years, around 60 to 75 percent of non-detained migrants have attended their immigration court proceedings. That’s determined by subtracting the percentage of judgments entered against migrants in their absence (known as an in absentia ruling) from total judgments entered. The Justice Department’s data from FY 2016 puts “in absentia” cases — immigration cases for which there are no defendants — at just 25 percent, not the 98 percent you cite or 97 percent the president cites. So just one in four immigrants failed to show up for their hearings.

Michael Barberi
2 weeks 6 days ago

Phil - Thanks for the explanation. Nevertheless, see below from a fact check. Note that about 80% of asylum cases from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala are denied by immigration courts. These are the countries that the caravan is coming from. From press reports from interviews with this 7,000 person caravan, most of them are seeking entrance into the U.S. because of economic reasons including jobs, wages and a better life. They don't want to live in their country anymore because of the violence, drugs and gangs. However, these are not reasons that satisfy the criteria for asylum.

Of course, there are thousands of asylum cases that are approved without appearing in immigration court. However, many of these cases are from countries like China and not necessarily "illegal" immigrants who enter the U.S. at the border from Mexico and Central America.

"The asylum denial rate is closer to the 80 percent figure when looking at decisions for people seeking asylum from Central America and Mexico rather than all countries. A significant portion of asylum-seekers and recipients are from China, for instance, and not as relevant to the debate about the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy on the southern border.

Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) also calculates immigration court asylum denial rates by comparing only grants and denials. Its data on EOIR asylum decisions shows that from FY 2012 to FY 2017, the asylum denial rate was 79 percent for people from El Salvador, 88 percent for people from Mexico, 78 percent for people from Honduras and 75 percent for people from Guatemala.

The most recent figures published by EOIR and calculations by TheDCNF show that the asylum denial rate was 74 percent for countries in Central America alone and 77 percent for Central America and Mexico combined in FY 2016.

Statistics on EOIR asylum cases, however, do not include thousands of people who received asylum without appearing in immigration court."

Jim Spangler
3 weeks ago

So we are supposed to feel sorry about a bunch of people who are going to try and force themselves into our country, to utilize all of our welfare benefits, bring criminal activity etc. It is a repeat of the invasion of Europe with the Syrian refugees. Look at the problems that they have had since they opened their borders to the refugees. A stip of landmines across the Mexican-US border will solve the issue real fast.

rose-ellen caminer
3 weeks ago

The problems of bringing in Syrian refugees , or any mass migration of refugees, is primarily the result of discrimination and bigotry by natives in the host country.. When ever new waves of immigrants come into a country; the trope about their criminality is invoked against them. [these people are not like us and never will be ; they are inherently criminals and we are inherently good people],As if the native populations did not have criminals and criminals gangs too. [ and it turns out many people in these so called refugee gangs actually include non refugee natives.There are plenty of non Syrian refugee gangs and crime by non Syrian refugees in Europe too]. Syrian and other refugees are no more inherently criminal then American vets are inherently prone to being drug addicts or domestic abusers. Or then that African -Americans in Chicago are inherently more prone to violence then other Chicagoans! These are all traumatized people , people facing structural or particular obstacles to harmonious social integration. In the case of Syrian refugees, people escaping traumatizing violence of wars, the trauma of the journey ,and when ostensibly safe, facing bigoted backlash in a foreign land like the bigotry you expressed. Criminal gangs often form as a defense protection form a dominant society that has marginalized them in many ways. What you say is the standard; those people are not like us, fear of newcomers bigotry! Your insight is a mere regurgitated cliché, of an ignorant man.

Philip Fabiano
2 weeks 6 days ago

What benefits? Unauthorized immigrants are ineligible for most major federally-funded safety net programs. Key safety net programs, including the cash welfare program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program), and the means-tested disability program Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are available only to “qualified” immigrants and citizens. Undocumented immigrants are also excluded from most federal health programs. They are prohibited from non-emergencyMedicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Medicare program. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act or to participate in the ACA insurance exchanges.
Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive Social Security benefits even though many contribute to the system.​

Philip Fabiano
2 weeks 6 days ago

Landmines? How American of you. The beacon of the world setting up landmines for people trying to escape terrorism or just looking for a better life. When that happens the concept of America ceases to exist and the "idea" of AMerica ends. I live just 150 yards from the massacre in Pittsburgh. THe terrorist targeted this synagogue due to a Jewish relief organization that assisted refugees and immigrants to settle in the United States. He like you saw these people as invaders as the President has called these poor folks and in his last social media post said he was not going to allow them--the refugees to destroy America. His killing was done on this side of the border while you are advocating doing the same on the ohter side of the border. SHAME!

John Walton
3 weeks ago

Perhaps the editors of America could take the time and give a call to Mario Duarte, Intel Secretary for Guatemala who stated that the "caravan" is funded by leftist NGO's.

Greg Heck
2 weeks 6 days ago

Lawless invasions must be stopped. We owe these people nothing.

William Bannon
2 weeks 6 days ago

Mindless....to move into poor usa neighborhoods is to move into Guatemala’s murder rate which is 27 per 100,000. Now google Ecuador’s murder rate....5.85 per 100,000. These caravans are primarily about making better money regardless of safety. Let the bs continue.

Robert Dowd
2 weeks 6 days ago

Yes-unarmed ....but so were the 19 hijackers from 9-11 that killed 3000 Americans.....!

Roland Greystoke
2 weeks 6 days ago

I don't like criminals. And parents who teach their children that committing any crime for personal gain are lousy parents.

Woody Pfister
2 weeks 6 days ago

What a vile, racist hit piece.

Woody Pfister
2 weeks 6 days ago

What a vile, racist hit piece.

Woody Pfister
2 weeks 6 days ago

What a vile, racist hit piece.

Woody Pfister
2 weeks 6 days ago

What a vile, racist hit piece.

Will Niermeyer
2 weeks 6 days ago

If they enter the USA through the proper procedures then more power to them. All of this boils down to one thing. Entering legally. They cannot just walk into the USA. By doing that it demeans all those who follow the proper procedures to enter the USA and learn to become citizens of this great Country. It is the magnitude of this caravan that is scary. What happens IF that caravan attempts to not follow the LAW and just illegally enter the USA. Well they will be arrested. Hopefully not shot to death for their illegal attempt at entering the USA. We have borders for a reason just like other Countries and those other Countries in Europe are having huge problems with those who are seeking asylum.

KATHERIN MARSH
2 weeks 6 days ago

Antonio,
The people who criticize the caravan from Central America are not xenophobes, nor do the people commenting on the caravan say it is full of dangerous people. Those are hateful accusations on your part.
The laws of our Church allow our country to have sovereign borders, and with good reason.
Let's add a few facts that you do no acknowledge: It is perfect weather in the part of the world for the caravan to enjoy a walk north. there is not the oppressive heat of summer, which I believe a true refugee would endure. The caravan's arrival coincides with the national elections in this country. Their path is not one through danger. It is accessible. and beautiful in parts. Who funds this group? Why didn't that money stay in Central America to fund social justice centers and momentum in those countries?

arthur mccaffrey
2 weeks 6 days ago

thank you Katherin for noting that Antonio uses "xenophobe" only 8 lines into his childish diary notes, a good indication that we are not about to read a fair, unbiased treament of the issue-- I am surprised that the editors of America would choose this kind of sloppy, emotional introspection for an article. It is also so accusatory against anyone who has any real facts about who is behind this "caravan" which seems to get food and transportation from somewhere/someone........there is a misperception Antonio, and it is YOURS!

John Hardey
2 weeks 6 days ago

There is a question asked often but never answered. How many immigrants should be allowed?

This is the concern sir. Not your romantic notions of charity and your attempts at accusing those who express concerns as bigoted. Your view is myopic.

Esperanza Y Paz
2 weeks 6 days ago

Dear Mr. De Loera-Brust,

I am a practicing Catholic. I wholeheartedly welcome the foreigner - all the more so since I immigrated to this country I love forty-three years ago. Legally. I have no wish to enter into a discussion about the emotional statements you make that lack a basis in fact. I do wish to point out to you, though, that the "better, more humanizing footage" from "the photographers who are with them [who] should get close." that shows their faces; shows their eyes, that particular footage that accompanies your article does not give us close-up faces of men, women and children. It shows us only able-bodied strong young men whose background has not been vetted. They will be welcome when they apply, legally, from the other side of the border, and are vetted. And please know that my parents, with two young daughters in a small flat in postwar Germany in 1956, welcomed a family of four - mother, father, young daughter, young son - who was fleeing for their lives from the bloody Russian invasion into Hungary. The eight of us lived, slept, ate together in that small apartment for many months until they were able to get back on their feet, and long friendships were forged. How many immigrants are living with you?

Bob Will
2 weeks 6 days ago

It is amazing how our church has the christian answer to everything as long as they do not have to practice what they preach. They tell us to leave our country wide open and welcome everyone, but our church is locked at 5 0-clock every evening and if you need to use it you have to apply and qualify and get permission to enter. Then we say we should welcome all regardless of their qualifications, but if a someone other than a Catholic comes to our church they are not welcome at the sacraments. They must take classes and qualify first. Even what we supposedly. The leadership always says one thing but their leadership does another. Just sit back and let them tell you how wrong we all are as long as they do not have to practice what they preach.

Stephen Shore
2 weeks 4 days ago

This "migrant" issue is being played by both sides of the political spectrum....

The far left shouts and cries out about how we need to be responsive to these undeniably abused migrants heading to our border. BUT... what specifically are they advocating? What policies do they want changed and what should we do about the border? Open it up and just let everyone in (open border) or just leave it "as is" - kind of hard and dangerous to get across, and if you are lucky enough to live through your crossing you can stay? Kind of like a 2,000 mile long obstacle course. If you make it across your prize is you can stay, but if you die trying, well, that is the chance you took. The left does not even make sense - because they really don't have an answer.

The far right is just as ridiculous - build a wall! That will keep them out! Well, how about just enforcing employment laws on the books? Just put the large corporation CEO's in jail and fine the hell out of the companies that employ (and exploit) illegal aliens? If this was done, you not only would not need a wall, you could do away with the Border Patrol and almost in effect have an "open border", or at least one very similar to the one we share with Canada. But I think we all know why enforcing employment laws would never happen - big business does not want it to.

Just think if these laws were enforced - wages would increase across the board for these blue collar citizens that need the work and our chronically under and unemployed would have the jobs that they so desperately need.

So what IS the answer and policy changes that the left (or right) really want? It sure is not apparent to me.

KATHERIN MARSH
2 weeks 4 days ago

Stephen,
I think we do not have good immigration laws because both the left and right "play" the issue. Maybe we would be more successful with starting by changing the political funding rules. Big money on both sides will not let US touch that one, though.

Phillip Stone
2 weeks 3 days ago

Does the author know about the heavy vehicles arranged along the route and loaded with water, food and other equipment to support the well-being of the horde as it approaches the US border.
Does that not look to anyone else besides me like a movement of troops being co-ordinated by a central command than a spontaneous flight towards sanctuary.

Money from Catholic charities, George Soros or Saudi Arabia?

Advertisement

The latest from america

Something that happened more than 2,000 years ago will draw all of time, all of the longings of the human heart, into itself.
Terrance KleinNovember 21, 2018
The only Americans under review for canonization to attend a public university, Day’s indiscretions and confusions, those awkward discoveries and repeated failures of youth, are our own.
Nathan TyeNovember 21, 2018
Father Keating left us a powerful but unlikely solution to our current national crisis: centering prayer.
Tim ShriverNovember 21, 2018
Pope Francis eats lunch with poor people

This week on “Inside the Vatican,” Gerry and I look into some new developments in the stories surrounding the U.S.

Colleen DulleNovember 21, 2018