Immigration

President Trump's New Asylum Ban Will Lead to More Illegal Immigration

It will backfire bigly. The better border solution is more work visas for Central Americans

|

The Trump administration is trying to end asylum as we know it for Central American migrants and others coming from the southern border effective today. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice issued a rule that would make asylum seekers who come to America by land ineligible for asylum unless they have first applied—and been denied—in the countries they transitioned through.

I explained in The Week today that the rule is unlikely to withstand the legal challenges that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other outfits have pledged to file within 48 hours. This is not only because the administration is trying to accomplish through administrative fiat what it couldn't through legislative means, basically doing an illegal end run around Congress, but also because the rule violates standing American law that requires all asylum seekers to get a hearing. It also bars America from consigning these migrants to countries where they aren't actually safe, which is what the administration is effectively trying to do.

The administration maintains that America's asylum laws have become a magnet for all kinds of people with all kinds of motives not just those who are fleeing persecution and danger. This has strained the country's border resources and stressed its processing capacity to a breaking point. As proof, the administration notes that the denial rate for asylum seekers has been steadily rising and touched 65 percent in 2018.

That rate, actually, is hardly unprecedented or hugely out of line with past trends.

More to the point, the spike corresponded with the time when former Attorney General Jeff Sessions narrowed the asylum criteria and made women and children fleeing domestic and gang violence ineligible. This affected families who arrived under old assumptions, notes Zuzana Cepla of the National Immigration Forum.

But will scrapping asylum actually prevent migrants from "forum shopping" for a country not based on safety considerations but economic ones, as the administration insists they are doing?

Not likely.

For starters, as Migration Policy Institute's Susan Fratzke has noted, if the United States starts turning away migrants arriving by foot through other countries, they will find more direct routes (via the sea, for example). And just because America bans migrants and refugees transitioning from Guatemala and Mexico (countries with whom America is laughably trying to sign a "Safe Third Country" agreement) doesn't mean they'll stay there. They'll just enter America without authorization, re-upping the illegal population that has been plummeting for years now. "This could contribute to creating deeper and more sophisticated smuggling networks in the region and extending into the United States," she notes. In other words, the asylum ban will backfire bigly.

So what is the real solution?

As I have noted before, Central American migrants certainly do have multiple motives for coming to the United States. They are looking for the quickest way out of gang violence and political instability. But such conditions also lead to economic destitution, so they are also looking for jobs. The main reason they end up using the asylum route is because guest worker visas are even harder to land. Moreover, unlike asylum, they don't offer an option for permanent residency in America.

But asylum taxes border resources more than any other admission route because of the copious processing involved. And the Trump administration's zero-tolerance policy has made matters infinitely worse because, unlike in the past, migrants are now detained on the U.S. taxpayers' dime rather than released to friends and families while their claims wend their way through hopelessly backlogged immigration courts.

The better way to relieve the strain on the asylum system would be to make more low-skilled work visas like the H-2A (for agricultural workers) and H-2B (for seasonal non-agricultural workers) available to Central American migrants. These migrants pay coyotes hefty fees in the thousands of dollars to transport them to America. America could up the visa fees and capture the revenue that is currently going in the pockets of criminal organizations and cartels. What would also help is letting employers open recruitment offices in these countries where they would be responsible for doing background checks on potential hires before petitioning for their visas.

President Trump is trying to strong-arm Mexico into sealing its southern border so that Guatemalans don't use that country to come to America. But instead of forcing Mexico to turn itself into a fortress, Trump should use America's considerable diplomatic muscle to get its southern neighbor to relax its tight-fisted work visa policies and hand more work permits to Central American migrants. Heck, he could create a regional guest worker consortium spanning the Americas where migrants could easily move back and forth for work.

There are many ways to deal with the rush of Central American migrants. Banning asylum—this president's preferred choice—is by far the worst.

NEXT: The Tort of Loss of Sepulcher

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Popcorn

    1. At this rate, we’ll hit a popcorn shortage before Nov 2020.

      1. If we’d just let American citizens repel the invaders with deadly force, we’d have an ammunition shortage…
        and then we’d have a criminal invader shortage (which would be a VERY GOOD THING.)

        The key is to make entering (or remaining) in the United States illegally a lot MORE dangerous than whatever they’re facing somewhere else. Kill them all. Let god sort them out.

        1. Shiksa is clearly not very imaginative when she thinks the current method is by far the worst…

    2. Will migrant farmers also work with the 1,000 that came from Africa or the other thousand from Haiti? How about the others that are coming via the sea from the middle east on the same path as the South America migrants. Since the 70’s Asylum has been being abused. The cleric that masterminded the first tower bombing and the bomber both came and applied for Asylum and then an appeal after that was denied.

      Thousands came in through airports and were released with notes. How many immigrants should we let in? How many aliens are needed to be let in til we have all the populations who want a better life than the s-tholes they’re from.

      We need real reform to even begin to do the smart things.

  2. Bigly.

    I came to pick on Shikha for the over-the-top hyperbole that’s sure to appear in the article…but…

    Bigly.

    1. Alex, what is how does John prefer his dates to occupy their dinner seat?

  3. This generally is a valid argument. When you make things illegal, you get more illegal things.

    1. It’s the most persuasive argument she’s made on the subject at least this year. Still garbage, but like rich people garbage.

      1. Shikha would solve the opiate crisis by giving drug users fake prescriptions. That’s what she’s arguing here. Utilizing a loophole to not be illegal and then failing to self deport at the conclusion of the loophole.

    2. That can be true but there is another truism, that the more you make something available, the more people will want it. The assumption behind these sorts of arguments is that there is some set and reasonable number of people in Central America who want to come to this country and all we have to do to solve illegal immigration is just give those people admission. The problem with that thinking is that once you give those people admission, the possibility of getting in will cause more people to want to come.

      1. Huh, that’s not true in general. For example, the more you make your opinion available by posting comments, the less people want it.

        1. Your thinking of you, not John.

      2. “The problem with that thinking is that once you give those people admission, the possibility of getting in will cause more people to want to come.”

        They’re coming in hordes now, when they have no guarantee they’ll be allowed to stay. If we tell them they’ll be able to stay, that the free buffet is now open, how many more will come?

        1. No guarantee they’ll be allowed to stay?
          Umm…

          1. “Allowed to stay”? Maybe not. WILL they stay? Yes.

    3. Unfortunately for Shikha’s argument, Asylum claims are abused as most applicants are poor. They don’t have valid legal reasons to be granted asylum inside the USA.

      1. They don’t have valid legal reasons to be granted asylum inside the USA.

        They’ve diluted ‘asylum’ out to mean just about anything covered under the social safety net. Most of the ‘justifications’ I’ve heard for asylum have nothing to do with immigration and we might as well be granting people asylum from Cook County.

        1. In fact, “asylum” has been so diluted that residents of Chicago and Detroit could apply for asylum in Canada.

    4. We made narcotics illegal, and then ended up with illegal narcotics. The obvious solution is to double down on the drug war and make narcotics doubleplus bad illegal. Eventually they will be so illegal that we that we have to call out the military and shit.

      Same thing with people. You make people illegal you end up with illegal people. Duh.

      1. Okay. Do you not want to make it illegal for anyone to enter the country? Even criminals? If not, then aren’t you always going to have illegal entry and have the problem of securing the border?

        1. Here is an analogy to consider.

          Right now, it is illegal for unwanted persons to enter onto my property – they would be trespassing. And yet, to “secure the borders” of my property, I don’t need to build a huge wall around it, and I don’t need to hire armed thugs to stand guard 24/7. Why? Because right next to my property, there is a street which facilitates transportation of all those people who are migrating from one end of the neighborhood to another – migrants who, if there were no street, would wind up trespassing on my property instead. Because legal migration is so easy, there is no need to go to extreme lengths to secure my property against illegal migration (trespassing). And yet there are still criminals and bad people who live in my neighborhood. But in order to secure against them ‘invading’ my property, all that’s needed are some rather rudimentary self-defense measures like a lock on the door, or a personal firearm. No need to go apeshit about building huge walls.

          1. That is the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life. Even for you that is stupid.

            People want to get in here. Unlike the street in your analogy, you have to vet those people and figure out who they are before you let them in. Good luck with that. Moreover, you still have to have armed people to keep the criminals from getting in assuming you actually turn them down.

            Just go the fuck away. Really. You make people’s heads hurt.

            1. Well, John, let me try to make my point in a different way.

              How many criminals do you think you should tolerate in your neighborhood? Zero, right? After all, who wants to live next door to a murderer?

              Okay, then does that necessarily mean that your local municipal government should be vetting and screening everyone who tries to enter your neighborhood? After all, what if one of those people is a criminal?

              1. They already have that system in place. You can look up felons in your neighborhood online, it’s called criminal watchdog.

                1. Okay, sounds interesting, but that doesn’t really answer the question.

                  Should a municipal government vet and screen everyone who tries to enter a neighborhood, in order to prevent every potential criminal from entering?

                  I am guessing this system that you are describing only informs people if there are criminals living in the neighborhood, but doesn’t try to stop them from entering in the first place.

                2. I love how jeff gets told about a well known program and this quickly dismisses it like the retard he is.

            2. John, don’t engage Pedo Jeffy. Just treat him like shit as I do. Then maybe he quits his endless shitposting.

          2. What if they’re using that road to migrate right past your shitty little plot of land towards the biggest and most beautiful house on your street, so they can trespass on that one?

            Then, you say to the migrants “hey, you guys are welcome to stay here, you know” and they say “eh, but that guy down there has a bigger house, gives out free money and enforces less rules.”

            1. I think you missed the point of the analogy.

              Whether property owners hand out “free money” is irrelevant. The point is, making peaceful migration easier lessens the necessity to have vetting and secured borders everywhere.

              1. Better: Take away the carrot and beat the snot out of them with the stick.
                The carrot, of course, it money. So make sure they have none.
                Make it a crime to negligently employ or rent property to a criminal alien. The standard of “negligence” would be failure to obtain an E-Verify clearance. The penalty for a first offense would be 1 day in jail for every day of employ or rental. Second offense, add $1000 per day. Apply the same penalty to government workers who release any kind of welfare benefit to a criminal alien. Sweep the projects and dump anyone harboring a criminal invader on the street. Give the criminals 6 months to clear out. After that offer a bounty on them consisting of ALL their personal property. Put any criminal invaders captured in prison for two years. No exceptions for any reason. Then deport them. If they ever come back – execute them.
                When they can’t get a job, can’t get any welfare payments, can’t find a place to live, are facing two years in prison if they don’t leave – the problem will solve itself.
                But to make sure, station the military on the border to protect AMERICA (for a change). Shoot anyone crossing the border illegally.

                1. No, not fascist at all.

                  1. Laws are fascist – baby jeffrey.

          3. So its ok for you to defend your property with a firearm and use its lethal force if necessary. But if border patrol shoots someone there will be 10 bills put forth by dems trying to abolish ice and the border patrol. Followed by civil suits, and maybe criminal trials, trying to ruin the shooting officers life even if it was 100% justified.

            But you’re to damn stupid to understand that.

            1. Please learn the difference between “self defense” and “not self defense”.

              1. Self defense, in Jeff’s case, being a fundamental dishonesty about his own character and the world around him

                1. Uh huh. I’m sure you think your bachelor’s degree in psychology from Trump University was meaningful, but news flash, it wasn’t.

                  1. Lol
                    Fuck a psychology degree.

          4. Except we’re not talking about something as small as your house. How many people each year want to come to your house – legally or otherwise?

            The reasom more people aren’t traipsing through your house is because they might get shot – or arrested and sent to prision. Both of those are good solutions for the criminal aliens crossing the border.
            Shoot them.
            Lock them up.
            But don’t let them just walk in and take over your living room.

            So scale your solution up, and I think you’re got it.
            A 40-foot wall.
            And instead of a personal firearm, Predator drones, minefields, sniper teams and napalm. I really, really, REALLY would like to pick up a paper some day and read, “1400 criminal invaders – men, women, children and little babies – crossed the border today… and were promptly turned into buzzard burgers by a Spectre gunship.”

            Kill them all. Let god sort them out.

            Once we’ve established the alternative to a LEGAL immigration process, order will be restored.

            1. Not sure if serious.

      2. We made narcotics illegal, and then ended up with illegal narcotics. The obvious solution is to double down on the drug war and make narcotics doubleplus bad illegal. Eventually they will be so illegal that we that we have to call out the military and shit.

        Same thing with people. You make people illegal you end up with illegal people. Duh.

        Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
        Drugs don’t kill people. People kill people.
        People don’t kill people. Wait… … shit.

    5. Yep, locked doors cause break-ins.

      And wet roads cause rain.

      1. “And wet roads cause rain.”

        Moron, everyone knows grass(the turf kind, not weed) causes rain.

    6. Well, that’s true: You’d have far fewer bank robberies if banks just handed out money to anybody who asked for it. And you could totally eliminate rape by just adopting a universal policy of allowing anybody who asked to to screw you.

      Only a moron thinks this proves anything about the policy you should adopt, though.

      1. That rape policy… is that what Shikah does? Just spreads her legs at every opportunity and invites sex from anyone who wants it to avoid calling it “rape”? Does she walk around with a “feel free to fuck me in the ass” sign?
        It would explain much about her world view if she has no pride, no sense of possession or ownership, if she allows druggies and vomiting drunks to trespass on her person, repeatedly entering her, never thinking about establishing boundaries or a “border”.
        Come one, come all! Shikah wants no borders.

    7. “The way to get less of the illegal Invasion USA is to further legalize Invasion USA.”

      That’s Shikha’s, and Reason’s, answer to illegal immigration – open borders *for the US*, the country with the largest foreign born population in the world, by multiples.

      Odd that we don’t hear cries from them for open borders for Japan. Or any non-white majority country. Plenty of hatred and vitriol for Americans enforcing their borders, relative silence on non-white majority countries with much much more restrictive immigration policies.

      Why is their hatred and outrage reserved for the country with the most *generous* immigration policy in the world?

      Is there anything about America that they particularly hate? Anything about Americans that they particularly hate?

      What could that be, I wonder.

  4. For starters, as Migration Policy Institute’s Susan Fratzke has noted, if the United States starts turning away migrants arriving by foot through other countries, they will find more direct routes (via the sea, for example).

    So by sea, where you need a boat and risk drowning, is more direct than walking? So I guess land borders are harder to cross than oceans. Okay.

    But asylum taxes border resources more than any other admission route because of the copious processing involved. And the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy has made matters infinitely worse because, unlike in the past, migrants are now detained on the U.S. taxpayers’ dime rather than released to friends and families while their claims wend their way through hopelessly backlogged immigration courts.

    That is just straight up lie. Whether an immigrant is detained or has nothing to do with asylum. They are detained if they are deemed to be a risk not to show up. And something like 90% of the people who are captured at the border do not show up. Why would they?

    The better way to relieve the strain on the asylum system would be to make more low-skilled work visas like the H-2A (for agricultural workers) and H-2B (for seasonal non-agricultural workers) available to Central American migrants.

    That sounds nice except that these people are not seasonal workers. H-2B visas are only granted when the person has a job. There is no indication that there is enough demand for the specific types of work covered by H-2B visas to employ all of these people. It is impossible to see how there could be given the number of people involved. Moreover, since they want to come here and stay, they wouldn’t go home. They would just overstay their visas and stay here forever, because no way in hell would Dalmia and her ilk ever support enforcing the terms of those VISAs.

    As usual, reason’s writing on immigration is nothing but lies and bad faith arguments.

    1. That sounds nice except that these people are not seasonal workers. H-2B visas are only granted when the person has a job.

      They need asylum from seasonal joblessness!

      Of note; due to a protracted wet spring crop yields across the midwest and plains are expected to reach lows not seen in over 30 yrs.

    2. “So by sea, where you need a boat and risk drowning, is more direct than walking? So I guess land borders are harder to cross than oceans. Okay.”

      Let’s see:

      By sea there are at most two boarders to cross, while for many of the migrants, the land route crosses half a dozen boarders.

      The sea route is literally shorter. The land route is not a straight line.

      You call out drowning as a risk on the sea route and ignore far more significant dangers in walking more than 1000 miles

    3. Whether an immigrant is detained or has nothing to do with asylum.

      How true is this though?

      From an article dated June 15th, 2018:
      “So the idea of zero tolerance under the stated policy is that we don’t care why you’re afraid. We don’t care if it’s religion, political, gangs, anything. For all asylum seekers, you are going to be put in jail, in a detention center, and you’re going to have your children taken away from you. That’s the policy. They’re not 100 percent able to implement that because of a lot of reasons, including just having enough judges on the border. And bed space.”

      https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/whats-really-happening-asylum-seeking-families-separated/

    4. Pretty good review. Who is the writer trying to convince.

  5. MIGRANT CARAVAN!

    SHIT YER PANTS, BOYS!

    1. Go surf some more child porn you weirdo.

    2. What about people from Europe? Or like my family from Argentina who actually needed asylum from a dictator?

      Why should all those people going through the process the legal way have their place in line jumped by a bunch of Latin Americans because they’re geographically closer?

      What you progtards like shikha the retard don’t understand is that you’re advocating for geographical favoritism. Basically saying central americans are more deserving to Americans than the rest of the world. Which is fucked up, but you idiots are too stupid to realize you’re showing favoritism to one ethnicity over all the rest you xenophobic pieces of shit.

      1. It is true – people who live in Manhattan have an easier time going to Times Square than people who live in Iowa.

        Why are those New Yorkers more *deserving* to go to Times Square than those Iowans? It’s not fair!

    3. Go commit suicide Kiddie Raper.

    4. Are you “manning” the NAMBLA booth down at the border?

  6. Why does Shikha hate Canada and Mexico so much? She practically calls them shitholes. Why wouldn’t anyone be safe in Canada or Mexico ??

    1. That’s the irony. All of the outrage over Trump calling other countries “shitholes” — THEN we’re supposed to accept refugees from fucking Africa and not turn them away because…everywhere else is a shithole.

      1. “They are looking for the quickest way out of gang violence and political instability”

        How’d it get that way? Surely we should prevent it from happening to us…. right?

  7. “The rule is unlikely to withstand the legal challenges that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other outfits have pledged to file within 48 hours. This is not only because the administration is trying to accomplish through administrative fiat what it couldn’t through legislative means, basically doing an illegal end run around Congress, but also because the rule violates standing American law that requires all asylum seekers to get a hearing.”

    The rule is unlikely to survive the scrutiny of the courts, but it’s not for the reasons stated here–some of which have no factual basis.

    The United States has been in a Safe Third County agreement with Canada for decades. Dalmia is just completely ignoring that fact when she writes that, “The rule violates standing American law that requires all asylum seekers to get a hearing”. We’ve been doing this with Canada for years, and not everyone who asks for asylum is granted a hearing. If you say you want asylum because you can’t find a job, you don’t get a hearing. In order to get a hearing, you have to claim to have been persecuted in your home country. Even then, if you come to Canada first, you don’t get asylum in the U.S. You get it in Canada.

    U.S. law and treaties governing the treatment of asylum seekers say that it’s okay for the president to enter into a Safe Third Country agreement, but it needs to be bilateral or multilateral. From the perspective of the U.S. Senate, which ratified the relevant treaties, and the Clinton era laws that added to it, they didn’t want some future president agreeing to take in all the asylum seekers from some Safe Third Country if that country refuse to reciprocate. For that reason, because Trump doesn’t have a Safe Third Country agreement with Mexico, he cannot unilaterally decide to inflict asylum seekers from Guatemala on Mexico against Mexico’s will. Trump’s actions are simply prohibited by a treaty that was ratified by the U.S. Senate.

    It should be noted that the thing that brought this to a head is because Morales, the president of Guatemala, had to cancel a planned announcement with Trump, yesterday, in which Guatemala was to announce that they were entering a Safe Third Country agreement with both the United States and Mexico. Mexico has already agreed that if they don’t substantially reduce the number of asylum seekers reaching the U.S. border within 45 days of June 7, 2019, then they will introduce legislation in the Mexican Senate to enter into a Safe Third Country agreement with the United States. The president of Mexico has repeatedly warned that the Mexican Senate is unlikely to approve such an agreement unless Guatemala does likewise.

    Mexico doesn’t want to be the final destination for hundreds of thousands of destitute Central Americans, and so they want Guatemala to enter into the agreement with them, so that anyone from El Salvador or Honduras who enters into Mexico through Guatemala won’t be eligible for asylum in Mexico. When Guatemalan politicians in their legislature found out that the president of Guatemala was heading to the White House yesterday to announce such a deal, they quickly sued in their version of the Supreme Court, which prohibited the president of Guatemala from entering into that deal.

    Without Guatemala on board, the Mexican Senate is unlikely to pass the legislation necessary to enter into a Safe Third Country agreement, and that is why Trump threw his hands up, yesterday, and declared the rule himself.

    Notice how wrong Dalmia is about Trump supposedly trying to strong arm Mexico (or Guatemala) into rejecting asylum seekers. It’s the exact opposite of what she says. Mexico doesn’t want to enter into the agreement because they’re afraid it will mean accepting hundreds of thousands of destitute Central Americans into their country. Guatemala is refusing to join because they’re afraid of being forced to accept hundreds of thousands of destitute asylum seekers from El Salvador and Honduras. It’s exactly the opposite of what Dalmia says.

    1. This safe-third-country is painfully un-talked about. Painfully.

        1. This was the reason Trump agreed to not hit Mexico with tariffs on June 7.

          I don’t know if the TDS victims don’t talk about the facts because they’re TDS victims or because they’re being dishonest. I’m not sure it matters. Facts are facts. If they want to sell their credibility down the toilet, well, it’s a free country.

          The rest of aren’t limited to only reading what one person has to say. They do make themselves look like Baghdad Bob. Remember Baghdad Bob?

          1. It’s not TDS. Shikha is lying and knows it. She is too familiar with the issue not to know.

            Reason should really stop publishing her.

            1. She could be severely delusional. My aunt has an above average IQ and is severely delusional on political things. Anything that she doesn’t agree with is a lie, or she pretends it doesn’t exist.

              1. That’s my aunt! Are we related?

        2. Oh, and just for the record, I’m still an open borders guy!

          I still want an open borders treaty between the U.S. and Mexico that would allow Mexican citizens to enter the U.S. just like American citizens enter Mexico. I think that is what would be best for U.S. security and our economy. In fact, we could throw a Third Safe Country agreement in for good measure.

          It took a real socialist like Orwell to care enough to savage the government of Stalin, back when other socialists thought they had to pretend he was a great guy so that it wouldn’t make socialism look bad in public. Making a Baghdad Bob of herself from a libertarian pulpit isn’t doing the cause of open borders or libertarianism any good.

          1. We could get to that point someday. But socialism in both countries must end first. Plus the cartels should be dealt with first. Lots of other things too.

            1. The idea that we have to wait for freedom until the socialists give us permission is ridiculous.

              1. Permission?
                No, more like the threat is ended

            2. There’s only one way to deal with the cartels: legalize recreational drugs and cut off their income.

      1. International law says you are entitled to asylum if you are a refugee. It doesn’t say you are entitled to asylum in the country of your choice. That part seems to be lost. The reason position seems to be that refugees are entitled to asylum in the US if that is what they want even if they are in another country that will hear their claim. And that is just not true.

        1. Yeah, we have to abide by the treaties we ratify, and the treaty states that we can enter into these agreements. The last legislation that enhanced that power was signed by Bill Clinton in 1996.

          I’d expect Trump to suspend all developmental aid to Guatemala in the near future.

          When the Mexican Senate votes down the proposal to enter into a Safe Third Country agreement, I’d expect Trump to hit them with tariffs, too.

          Trump has a ton of leverage, and I’d expect him to use it if he doesn’t get what he wants.

          1. They can’t get to the US, if they can’t get through Mexico. Mexico wants them even less than the US does. They are happy to let them transit knowing they will end up in the US. Trump just has to make letting them transit painful and Mexico will stop doing it and the problem will go away.

    2. It’s exactly the opposite of what Dalmia says.

      That is pretty much an evergreen comment on Dalmia’s articles.

      1. I’m trying to figure out if she’s naive, stupid or trying to maintain the cocktail hour keycard.

  8. I shall pop some corn and brew a pot of covfefe to enjoy this shit storm.

    1. Ironic that a lot of the covfefe comes from countries in South and Central America?

      1. Only because the colonizers brought it over. And never a thank you is heard.

  9. Question:
    Prior to implementing or expanding a “Work Visa Program”, would it be a good idea to have some control of the border? Would it be a good idea to have a plan regarding family of workers, taxation, health care, etc?

    Or should we continue to have the horse chasing the cart?

    1. Also, how does a work VISA program solve the problem of minors wanting to enter the country? Does Dalmia want to put these kids to work in the fields?

  10. I’m going to commend Shikha on the inclusion of this link. Read it, it paints a highly complex picture.

    This rebound during FY 2018 in part reflects the delayed impact of many organized efforts to provide pro bono legal representation. These efforts picked up speed after the asylum seekers from Central America – many involving mothers with children — began arriving in large numbers beginning in 2014.

    […]

    While Figure 1 shows a fairly steady rise in asylum denial rates since FY 2015, the month-by month picture gives a more nuanced impression. Against a backdrop of natural month-to-month variability, Figure 3 shows that there were periods of relative increase followed by stretches where rates showed little average gain. The switch to a purple line from blue shown in Figure 3 marks where President Trump assumed office following President Obama.

    Check out the entire data set. It’s interesting. Very interesting.

    1. That is a very good resource, yes.

      1. Like the dark web is for your kiddie porn?

  11. President Trump’s New Asylum Ban Will Lead to More Illegal Immigration

    But isn’t this a good thing because they’re the ones making America great? Is this a criticism or an attaboy?

    1. That is sort of like how all efforts at immigration enforcement are pointless and doomed to fail but at the same time the greatest threat to immigrants imaginable.

      It is like quantum logic or something.

      1. Well, just as long as we prioritize the illegal over our own citizens. Which is the democrat platform. FFS, Beta O’Rourke and Cory Booker are campaigning right now……. in Mexico.

  12. The other thing Dalmia is getting flat wrong is the cause of the problem. I dug up the numbers yesterday, and I’ll post them again here:

    When I went to go look for the number of asylum seekers from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras in 2011, there were so few of them that the only country that showed up on the top ten list was Guatemala. In 2011, there were only 484 asylum claims from Guatemala–that’s including both affirmative (people walking up to a checkpoint and asking for asylum) and defensive (people caught sneaking into the country and asking for asylum as a defense against deportation). Go to the Homeland Security website and see for yourself. The number from El Salvador and Honduras aren’t listed because there were even less than the number from Guatemala. That means that, in total, there were fewer than 1,500 asylum seekers from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras in all of calendar year 2011.

    Here are the number of (defensive) asylum seekers in May of 2019 alone:

    People apprehended for illegal entry between checkpoints: 132,887
    Number of those traveling in family groups: 84,542
    Number of unaccompanied children: 11,507

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-pressures-mexico-as-second-day-of-border-talks-begin-11559826586

    Do the math and you’ll find that 72% of them are either children themselves or families traveling with their children. Of the 28% who are adults traveling without children, for all we know, they’re traveling to be with children who already made it into the United States. Regardless, there’s one feature of that explosion in numbers that stands out more than anything else–this wave of asylum seekers that has built since calendar year 2011 is all about children.

    What happened between 2011 and now that encouraged so many people to come here with children?

    The correct answer is DACA.

    It shouldn’t be surprising to anybody that when Obama announced that these people wouldn’t be deported if they came here as children, it created a huge incentive for people to bring their children here! What’s more, our treaties on asylum seekers prohibit the U.S. from discriminating against asylum seekers in regards to social services. They get Medicaid, SNAP benefits, rent subsidies, etc.–right up until the day of their court hearing. More than 90% of them are never granted asylum by the courts. They just become illegal immigrants–but that isn’t much of a problem if you settle in a sanctuary city either.

    The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the challenge to Trump’s overturning of Obama’s DACA executive order in October. Even Dalmia has written that she expects Trump’s overturning of it to be upheld. The people who supported Obama’s unconstitutional DACA executive order have a lot more than the unconstitutionality of it. DACA is obviously a huge contributing factor in why so many of these children came flooding here and, ultimately, why they’re continuing to suffer.

    1. It shouldn’t be surprising to anybody that when Obama announced that these people wouldn’t be deported if they came here as children, it created a huge incentive for people to bring their children here!

      Forget it Ken, it is reasontown. Moral hazards exist in every part of life except immigration. Sort of like how the laws of supply and demand magically don’t apply to labor markets.

  13. “These migrants pay coyotes hefty fees in the thousands of dollars to transport them to America.”

    Ergo, ipso facto, and henceforth thereunto, they are NOT economic ‘refugees’. They are criminals deliberately violating US law for their own selfish gains. Maybe if Shikha considered each person as a corporation it would become clear.

    The elusive “real solution” is to address the two issues, legal immigration, and criminal border crossings, as two issues.

  14. Shikha doesn’t understadn Trump’s goal. His goal is not to solve an immigration problem. His goal is to stop ALL immigration from the people south of our border. He may still allow Cannucks and Euros, but the goal is to stop Central or South Americans. Period.

    To him and his supporters they are all the same Asylum seekers, legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, they are all the same to him. There is no difference to his supporters. To him an asylum seeker is just an illegal you tried to go through a legal loophole, and he will have none of it. He doesn’t want to solve the asylum problem, because his goal is to stop everyone from south of the border regardless of their status.

    1. Trump wants to stop all immigration from Latin America. That is why he offered to greatly increase legal immigration as part of a deal to let the DACA stay.

      Did you take the brown acid or the J. Bob Briggs stuff?

    2. Well, who knows what Trump’s actual goals are. I don’t think Trump knows what Trump’s actual goals are.

      I do think for many of his supporters, yes, they want to reduce all forms of immigration, legal or illegal, especially from south of the border.

      1. Yeah Trump just made the whole fucking thing up. There are not thousands of people trying to cross the border and overwhelm the system or anything. Nope.

        Does being this dishonest ever get old? Is that hard to just tell the fucking truth?

      2. Pedo Jeffy, go drink some battery acid. You detract from any discussion you but into and ruin good conversations.

    3. You could have saved a lot of wasted pixels and just said he’s a racist.

    4. Orange man bad! Orange man real bad!

      1. Some of his supporters are even worse.

        Trump is just a conman. Selling nothing more than an image and hype.

        Some of his supporters, however, are quite serious.

    5. Shikha doesn’t understadn Trump’s goal. His goal is not to solve an immigration problem. His goal is to stop ALL immigration from the people south of our border. He may still allow Cannucks and Euros, but the goal is to stop Central or South Americans. Period.

      Trump’s goal is to limit immigration to groups of people who tend to make a net-positive contribution to the US. Naturally, that biases immigration strongly towards Western democracies with highly educated populations, while excluding most people from developing nations. What’s wrong with that?

      For that matter, even if it were a purely ethnic thing, what would be wrong with Americans saying “we want immigrants from the UK, not from Mexico”?

      1. For that matter, even if it were a purely ethnic thing, what would be wrong with Americans saying “we want immigrants from the UK, not from Mexico”?

        Because it would be arbitrary, irrational, and bigoted?

        1. What’s arbitrary or irrational about saying that we want people to immigrate who come from a nation with a more or less stable government, a functional education system, whose citizens can more easily adapt to our country and its culture and are not as likely to end up on social programs because they can’t find a job, and who actually share and collect enough data that we can actually vet the people coming here with some consistency (unlike Mexico, which is well on its way to being another failed narco-state)?

          Seems like you’re the one whose ideas are arbitrary, irrational, and bigoted, if you think that racial background and your sense of pity should be the only criteria by which immigrants are deemed worthy to enter this country.

          1. What’s arbitrary or irrational about

            Because you cannot know any of that about a person just by knowing where that person was born.

            How about if people are judged on their individual merits instead?

            Seems like you’re the one whose ideas are arbitrary, irrational, and bigoted, if you think that racial background and your sense of pity should be the only criteria by which immigrants are deemed worthy to enter this country.

            No, I think that people should be judged on their individual merits, regardless if they come from Mexico or from the UK. Don’t you agree?

  15. Why don’t all these immigrants just learn to code?

    1. Because they have useful skills that are valued in the market – like a strong work ethic and a drive to make life better, not worse?

      Journalist being the polar opposite of that, of course.

  16. The premise of this article is specious: By restricting asylum claims, it magically increases illegal aliens. Nonsense. The ‘illogic’ of this article’s argument is breathtaking.

    What has become abundantly clear is that the United States has lost control over it’s southern border. A country that cannot enforce it’s border and control who enters is no country at all. It is little more than a sponge that soaks up whatever is spilled – for good or for ill.

    We want legal immigration. In fact, we want a hell of a lot of it. We need STEM graduates, physicians, computer scientists, programmers, botanists, etc. We absolutely want those people to come here and make our on-going 200+ year American Experiment even better. I want those people here because they are our future.

    What I do not want is legions of unskilled labor. The time for that was a century ago. Now, we need people with specialized skills. I could care less about their color. I care more about their skills, and their willingness to assimilate into our culture, and adopt our uniquely American values as their own.

    AG Sessions left much to be desired. AG Barr is the real deal; he will have thought this all the way through. Do not underestimate him, or his legal acumen.

    1. We will see. When I start to see democrats go to prison I will fully believe he’s the real deal.

    2. A country that cannot enforce it’s border and control who enters is no country at all

      Side note, was listening to a former Trotskyite socialist revolutionary who said that they agitated for open borders. He said he and his cohorts in academia didn’t give two shits about immigrants, they just wanted to abolish the nation-state– and you abolish the nation-state by making borders meaningless.

      1. Side note, was listening to a former Trotskyite socialist revolutionary who said that they agitated for open borders. He said he and his cohorts in academia didn’t give two shits about immigrants, they just wanted to abolish the nation-state– and you abolish the nation-state by making borders meaningless.

        Socialists have been advocating open borders for more than a century. That’s why the Communist Manifesto leads with “Workers of the world, unite!” Socialists view the nation state as a means of oppressing the working class and profiteering from wars.

        Open borders vs nationalism is the one major point of disagreement between socialists and fascists; otherwise, they are largely interchangeable. That’s also why socialists are so quick to label anybody who wants national border to be upheld a “fascist”; they really believe it.

    3. A country that cannot enforce it’s border and control who enters is no country at all.

      What if a nation’s government declared “we don’t really care who comes and who goes, just as long as those on our territory abide by our rules”? Would that nation be “really a country”?

      1. What if a nation’s government declared “we don’t really care who comes and who goes, just as long as those on our territory abide by our rules”?

        What if a nation declares “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”? That’s certainly a quite moral approach to organizing society; after all, why should people live in poverty just because they are born with limited abilities?

        The problem with open borders, as with other objectives of socialism/communism, isn’t that you can’t come up with nice moral justifications for it, the problem is that it doesn’t work in practice. That is, if you try to implement it, your society falls into poverty and despotism.

        1. You’re talking to a brick. That argument doesn’t get through to Jeffy at all.

          1. I’m not going to be persuaded by arguments suggesting that libertarians should compromise among themselves about how best to push for more liberty.

            1. Have fun in your Mom’s Basement of doctrinal purity. Fortunately, there are lots of us who value liberty and also understand that it has to be promoted and practiced in the real world, where there are real consequences for making mistakes. We have at least some hope for some relevancy.

              1. There is no virtue in fantasy.

        2. The USA had open borders for it’s first century and more – and that was the period when America became great.

      2. chem….Don’t care about what other nations declare about their border, who comes and goes. Others can argue whether it is a country or not. I care about the USA.

        We have lost control of our border and we must end that state of affairs ASAP.

    4. The premise of the article is that Shikha can predict the future. The climate scientist impersonation industry could use her talents. New Mexico residents are meanwhile building the border fence with private contributions and no initiation of force. Search “We Build the Wall”

  17. Banning them claiming asylum will just lead them to discarding their phony-baloney claims of persecution and just come here illegally for the real reason, because they want to? That doesn’t sound like a good reason to keep the current asylum policy. Sounds like we’re just unmasking the asylum deception.

  18. The political extremism of Donald Trump

    I’m not sure how “extreme” Donald Trump is. Some of his positions are extreme, but some of them are just counter-cultural– which I suppose might appear extreme. And by counter-cultural, I mean the real definition of counter-cultural, not the nostalgic one. By counter-cultural, his behavior, comments and *some* policies cut against the prevailing cultural norms that are only acceptable in polite society.

  19. >>>cut against the prevailing cultural norms that are only acceptable in polite society

    right. he’s President Droz. i love it.

  20. “They are looking for the quickest way out of gang violence and political instability. ”

    How did it get that way? Funny how the easy answer to this question is dismissed, yet the easy solution of “let them all in” gets a pass.

    Both the problem and solution relates to welfare, and we’re supposed to just feed and house the world and shut up about it. It’s only “fair”

  21. Relevant:
    Excellent argument on immigration, from Bryan Caplan.
    http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/pdfs/whyimmigration.pdf

    It’s long but worth every minute.

    1. Immigration restrictions trap many millions in Third
      World misery. Economists’ consensus estimate is that open borders would roughly double world GDP, enough to virtually eliminate global poverty. But hard evidence that immigration has major drawbacks is not enough. The proponent of immigration restrictions also has to show that there is no cheaper or more humane way to mitigate the evils of immigration. Surgery wouldn’t be morally justified if a $1 pill were an equally effective treatment. The rest of this paper examines the alleged evils of immigration
      through this moral lens.

      As a libertarian, I am under no obligation to act in ways that maximize world GDP, to lift other people out of poverty, or even to save anybody’s life. I am under no obligation to act “morally” according to Caplan’s views; the only moral authority I’m responsible to is my own moral judgment (and possibly God if I swing that way).

      In reality, Caplan’s argument is the usual progressive or socialist argument and as such irrelevant to libertarian political debates.

      I also doubt it’s very convincing to political moderates or conservatives, since anybody with half a brain understands that liberal democracies or modern welfare states will cease to exist if they open their borders.

      1. Huh, so you selectively quoted Caplan’s paper. I wonder why? Here is the entire quote that you sliced up:

        To justifiably restrict
        migration, you need to overcome the moral presumption in favor
        of open borders (Huemer 2010).
        How would one go about overcoming this presumption? For
        starters, you must show that the evils of free immigration are fairly
        severe. Immigration restrictions trap many millions in Third
        World misery. Economists’ consensus estimate is that open borders would roughly double world GDP, enough to virtually eliminate global poverty (Clemens 2011). The injustice and harm that
        immigration restrictions prevent has to be at least comparable to
        the injustice and harm that immigration restrictions impose.

        But hard evidence that immigration has major drawbacks is not
        enough. The proponent of immigration restrictions also has to
        show that there is no cheaper or more humane way to mitigate the
        evils of immigration. Surgery wouldn’t be morally justified if a $1
        pill were an equally effective treatment. Why not? Because even
        if surgery will save the patient’s life, there is a cheaper, more
        humane way to do so.

        He is not arguing that world GDP should be maximized just for the sake of maximizing GDP. He is saying that in order to be justified, the harm arising from immigration restrictions need to be no more severe than the harm that may arise from the lack of immigration restrictions. If you can argue that the harm from immigration restrictions are worth it even in the face of potentially doubling world GDP from removing immigration restrictions, then by all means present the case for doing so.

        1. He is not arguing that world GDP should be maximized just for the sake of maximizing GDP. He is saying that in order to be justified, the harm arising from immigration restrictions need to be no more severe than the harm that may arise from the lack of immigration restrictions.

          Caplan is saying that there are many more people in poverty than would have to be otherwise because immigration restrictions keep down global GDP. That difference is what he defines as “harm”.

          If you can argue that the harm from immigration restrictions are worth it even in the face of potentially doubling world GDP from removing immigration restrictions, then by all means present the case for doing so.

          Why do I have to argue that? As a libertarian, I am obligated to respect other people’s property rights and not to aggress against them. I am under no obligation to prevent any other “harm” to anyone.

          I’m saying that Caplan’s premises are not libertarian, and that I reject his claim that I have a moral obligation to even engage in the kind of argument with him that he seeks.

          I happen to think that his economic analysis is b.s., but that’s fine; he is entitled to believe it and act accordingly, just as I am entitled to act according to my own economic analysis of the situation.

          1. As a libertarian, I am obligated to respect other people’s property rights and not to aggress against them. I am under no obligation to prevent any other “harm” to anyone.

            I’m saying that Caplan’s premises are not libertarian, and that I reject his claim that I have a moral obligation to even engage in the kind of argument with him that he seeks.

            We aren’t talking about your personal moral duty, or lack thereof. Sure if you want to metaphorically spit on orphans, no libertarian should deny you the right to do so, even if it is odious.

            We are discussing what the *state* should do. If there is going to be a state, then there is going to be some government policy on immigration. For a libertarian-minded state, *any* policy should protect and preserve individual liberty, right? Well, when it comes to immigration, then this position is best manifested in open borders. How the state precisely chooses to implement this position necessarily involves some practical tradeoffs. If you have a *utilitarian* reason why the borders should be more closed than open, then the proper utilitarian way to evaluate this objection is to determine if the harm from the more closed position should be at least less than the harm from the more open position.

            Again this has nothing to do with how you choose to interact with others in your life. You should not be compelled to help others against your wishes.

            1. Theocracy!

              1. Huh?

  22. President Trump’s New Asylum Ban Will Lead to More Illegal Immigration

    I don’t see that as “backfiring”. Even if all asylum seeker became illegal migrants, I’d rather have 100000 additional people in the country illegally than have the same 100000 people here legally with lawful claims on government services.

    Note that until around 2011, the number of asylum seekers per year was about 1500/year; now it’s closer to 150000/year and growing rapidly. The idea that all these new asylum claims are legitimate is ludicrous.

  23. the denial rate for asylum seekers has been steadily rising and touched 65 percent in 2018.

    Is that 65% of all asylum claimants, or just 65% or those who actually show up for their hearings?

  24. Honestly, it’s pretty fucking rude for someone to show up on your doorstep and beg entry.
    It’s even more rude to do do in groups of thousands.

  25. My own solution is fairly modest but is easy to do and will save money. In the long run it may alleviate immigration, legal and illegal, from Central America.

    Trump can simply recall all US government agents from these countries. The DEA is down there contributing to the drug war. They collaborate with corrupt governments and death squads. They make shit holes shittier.

    1. That is exactly true. Since president-elect Herbert Hoover’s “Good Neighbor” tour to get Latin America to adopt shoot-first prohibitionism, those policies crashed our securities market in 1929, then the banking system until repeal was secured and plant products like beer ceased being felonies. Prohibition caused that crash, the ones in 1987 and 2008, and practically every crash and depression now plaguing our Good Neighbors to the south. Canada has had sense enough to lighten up, but our agents do not write Canadian laws.

  26. Seek asylum closer to home. Curtail immigration of our natural Moslem enemies, limit Latin immigration, open the doors to Eastern Europeans, Brazilians and non-Moslem Asians… Bravo for Trump…

  27. With every name-dropping rant, Dalmia reveals utter cluelessness regarding the LP’s recently damaged platform, and even the definition of government. Try as I might I cannot help thinking of George Kennan’s Long Telegram. Translated it would say that if the US were to abolish all border inspection, allow infected cattle and Saracen terrorists to be herded in and out, no questions asked, Shikha would still find reasons for shrieking–while the border of HER divided country bristles with barbed wire, lasers and snipers. To paraphrase Kennan, Dalmia herself needs to be studied with the “courage, detachment, objectivity, and same determination not to be emotionally provoked or unseated by it, with which doctor studies unruly and unreasonable individual.”

  28. Oh silly Shikha, haven’t you READ the present rules and laws about “asylum”?That is a carefully and specifically defined thing, and requires certain proceedures to be observed.
    One of the first is this: when an individual leaves their country of residence to seek asylum elsewhere, they are to apply for that status in the FIRST nation in which they lend after leaving their country of residence.

    For someone from Guatemala, that would be Mexico, From El Salvador it would be Guatemala, from Honduras either El Calvador or Guatemala, from Nicaragua El Salvador…… from Mexico the USA or Guatemala.

    Another requirement that must be met: the REASON or BASIS for your asylum request must come from a limited number of things, or conditions. And tough economic conditions are NOT on that list. Nor is local civil unrest. Things like persecution on racial or religious grounds ARE on the list, but NO ONE wanting to enter the USA through Mexico is being persecuted like that.
    So the “new rules” being enforced soon are simply the OLD long standing rules finally being upheld and enforced.

    The real rub, for the likes of yourself, is that you’ve grown accustomed to the long-standing rules being ignored…. but that is never a legal ground for overturning the rules/laws. Face it, Shikha, some ninety percent of asylum seekers at our southerm boundary are NOT eligible for true asylum, never were, never will be. And that would be true even if the rules about applying for asylum in the first country of landing when they flee their own were to be done away with. Those central american “asylees” are no more asylees than the residents of large inner cities such as Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, or the “homeless” i San Francisco, Portland, Seattle.

    The United States of America are NOT free for all who come moochers.

  29. […] President Trump’s New Asylum Ban Will Lead to More Illegal Immigration  Reason […]

  30. Shiksa, go back to your shithole country and fix that instead of trying to destroy the nation that offered you so much.

  31. Great idea!

    One we could have had 15 years ago…. but the Democrats roundly rejected it and refused to work with the Bush administration on the topic. It is almost as if everyone would rather have the problem of illegal immigration.

    Obama could have done something – but instead he loudly invited people to come here illegally, and promised not to prosecute them. This, from a guy with quite a bit of authority to actually raise legal immigration quotas. Something he did not do.

    So you have to wonder why? Why did Obama want millions of illegal immigrants coming in every year, even as he was deporting tens of thousands of illegal immigrants? Why did the democrats refuse to cooperate with giving people who want to come here for work a legal status? What are they really trying to accomplish?

    1. Dirty Mexicans being bused to polling places, duh.

  32. NONE of these people are legitimate asylum seekers.

    Baltimore has DOUBLE the murder rate of Guatemala. DOUBLE. These people are just useless peasants who will make our country shittier, who are coming here because we’re a rich country and they think they will make more money. We have no obligation to make our country shittier for the people who built it just so some foreign asshole can get a raise. They can make their own countries non shitty instead.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.