The Trump administration had the news footage of the kids in cages. Now the Biden administration has the images of men on horseback chasing down refugees at the border. A really bad look, and now they are saying the ICE agents aren't riding horses anymore. The horses actually weren't the problem. It was the policy.
According to this article from Vox News, this is just a continuation of a longstanding history of exclusionary policy against Haitian asylum seekers:
"The images left many sickened and outraged: Border Patrol agents on horseback hounding Haitian migrants near the US-Mexico border, more than 14,000 of whom were camped under the Del Rio bridge on September 19. The uniformed men swung their long horse reins — which many interpreted as whips — to keep the migrants from crossing into Texas. In one photo, an agent grabbed the T-shirt of a migrant, while another shouted in a video, “Get out now! Back to Mexico!” Condemnation of the agents’ behavior was swift, with advocates drawing parallels to slave patrols, or the white men on horses who whipped enslaved people in cotton fields. But inhumane treatment of Black migrants, particularly Haitian migrants, is not new; it’s closely linked to the history of immigrant detention in the United States."
"Haitians have sought asylum at US borders for decades, but every presidential administration since the 1970s has treated Haitians differently than other migrant groups, rejecting asylum claims, holding them longer in detention, and making it harder for them to settle down in safety. In the early 1990s, for example, when the United States detained more than 12,000 Haitian refugees at Guantanamo indefinitely, Immigration and Naturalization Services denied the vast majority of them asylum."
"...migrants hoping for asylum are instead being chased down and shut out at the border — images show them being removed from airplanes in Port-au-Prince with their belongings scattered on the airport’s tarmac — while an undisclosed number are being allowed into the United States. Biden’s decision to fly Haitians back to deadly circumstances, under a Trump-era policy, underscores the United States’ longstanding animus toward Black migrants."
It's hard to imagine that we treat Haitians worse than other immigrants and asylum seekers; because we treat all of them pretty badly, but that does appear to be the case.
And about the distinction between whips and reins, it seems to me that it is a technicality. I have done a fair amount of horseback riding in my youth, and the reins pictured are way longer and heavier than any we had for our horses back home. Reins that long would have been a hazard. The men on horseback have them for a reason.
The Biden administration is stumbling badly on the immigration issue, like just about all of them in recent memory have. I don't know how I would solve it, but here are three suggestions from an article by Heather Stephenson in the Tufts University News, from professors at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. The article is from 2019, but the suggestions still seem valid:
- Boost Legal Migration
"As arguments over building a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico led to a partial federal government shutdown last winter, visiting professor of international law John Cerone outlined his thoughts on reducing illegal migration in a Tufts video recorded in January.
“The only way to effectively reduce irregular migration is to give people some hope of regular migration. Give them the opportunity to migrate pursuant to law, through regular legal pathways.
“The United States can create more work visas for people to work in areas of the U.S. labor market where there currently are shortages—for example, in the agriculture or elder-care sectors.
“By and large, these are jobs that Americans are not signing up to do. And labor is needed in these areas. So, permit migrants from elsewhere to come to the United States and work in these fields.
“This means more people will be entering through regular migration than through irregular migration. Regular migration avoids the problem of bolstering organized crime. Regular migration creates greater transparency. It allows for proper security assessments. It’s a win-win situation.”
- Reduce Disease Fears
"Refugees and vulnerable migrants are often stigmatized as carriers of infectious disease, and both public health policies and politicians’ rhetoric can increase anxieties, according to research conducted by adjunct assistant professor Nahid Bhadelia, J99, F04, M05, and Ian Johnstone, professor of international law and interim dean of The Fletcher School."
....Separate infectious disease screening and health services from migrant and refugee application outcomes."Linking asylum-status approval (and the threat of deportation) to infectious disease surveillance may dissuade migrants from getting needed tests and treatment. Health-care professionals must be able to operate independently from immigration authorities."
Deliver health services to migrants and refugees in a culturally sensitive way."Inter-governmental organizations, working with NGOs and governments, should develop sensitization-training programs for front-line health professionals and community health workers. Holistic health screening rather than screening for infectious disease alone can reduce the possibility of stigmatization."
Raise awareness among local officials and community leaders as well as central governments. "Overcoming the stigma associated with infectious disease requires creative education and communication efforts at all levels. School officials have an especially important role to play in stemming fears that migrants and refugee children will infect children in the host population. The same is true for local media."
- Recognize Migrants’ Vulnerability
When a caravan of migrants was making its way through Central America to the United States to seek asylum last fall, President Donald Trump said that Middle Eastern terrorists were probably hiding within the group’s ranks. He later acknowledged that there was no evidence to support his claim, yet he had already painted the group as a threat. The real reason that migrants travel in groups, though, is because they are vulnerable, said Karen Jacobsen, the Henry J. Leir Chair in Global Migration at Fletcher, in a recent article on The Conversation
“....Whether crossing Central America, the Sahara Desert, or the mountains of Afghanistan, migrants are regularly extorted by criminals, militias, and corrupt immigration officials who know migrants make easy targets: They carry cash but not weapons.
“Large groups increase migrants’ chance of safe passage, and they provide some sense of community and solidarity on the journey, as migrants themselves report.”
Is there any country which has handled immigration humanely and well? If there is, I haven't read about it. That's not an excuse, we need to figure it out better.
ReplyDeleteThe Dallas Morning News reported that most of these immigrants are ethnic Haitians who are not coming from Haiti; they are coming from Brazil and Chile. They had migrated to those countries a decade or more ago. Whatever it is that is inducing them to come to the US, they are not fleeing conditions in the world's poorest country, nor the hurricanes, earthquake, presidential assassination, et al that make life in Haiti even worse.
ReplyDeleteBecause these immigrants are originating from Brazil and Chile, the Biden Administration's flying some of them to Haiti is ... not immediately sensible. As I understand it, the ones being deported to Haiti are single young men; families with children are being given court dates and released to aid organizations in the US. The stated rationale for shipping the young men to Haiti is concern about their being infected with COVID; why they are notably more likely to be infected than married couples isn't clear. I suspect the actual reason is that very poor young men are more likely than others to commit crimes.
Many people use the terms immigrant, refugee and asylum seeker more or less interchangeably, but in immigration law, these are three separately defined statuses with three different sets of criteria for being admitted. I think it's unlikely that these Brazilian- and Chilean-Haitian immigrants qualify for asylum under US law. Their claiming asylum most likely is a legal strategy.
The Biden Administration is in a difficult position. It has two basic choices: admit them, or turn them away. Both carry political peril.
I would guess we all agree that our immigration laws need to be reformed, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards. Biden with his FDR aspirations hasn't made immigration reform a priority. He is actually making Trump's immigration policies look attractive by comparison. Walls, and agreements with Mexico, look more humane than Federal agents chasing down Haitians on horseback.
The agents on horseback thing certainly did look bad, but in my opinion the Trump administration's policy (dreamed up by Stephen Miller) of separating children from their parents was much more harmful. At least they're not doing that now.
DeleteKatherine, yes, you're right about how bad it was to separate children from parents. That's not defensible. To say nothing of keeping children in cages!
DeleteTrump's policy innovation was to keep asylum seekers in Mexico until their hearing date, rather than releasing them into the US. This policy has its defenders. Supposedly, the policy caused the number of immigrants/applications to decline substantially. When Biden came into office, there was an immediate surge, and the perception is that it hasn't really abated since then.
I think Trump, for all his gigantic character flaws and spectacular incompetence (oh, and treasonous attempts to subvert election results), will go down in history as one of the US's great political entrepreneurs. He put the immigration issue on the front burner and (to mix metaphors) rode it to the White House. His political career is far from extinct, and the more Biden and Harris flounder about with immigration issues, the more they are breathing life into Trump's chances for a comeback.
FWIW, I think of it this way: Trump was elected by presenting a contrast with President Obama's immigration policies, which were perceived to be, depending one's point of view, generous or lax. Trump demonstrated that a large segment of the electorate was passionately unhappy with Obama's policies. In my view, Biden has essentially resuscitated Obama's policies. But that simply reintroduces the same electoral dynamic which got Trump elected in the first place. Biden needs to come up with policies which are fresh, markedly different than Obama's, and effective. He could try to work with Congress on this; he has a window of opportunity, which may be inching closer to slamming shut day by day, in which his party controls both houses of Congress.
Trump did ride the immigration issue to the White House. He did it by appealing to white supremacist instincts, overtly inciting fear and hatred of people with btown skin, even if Christian, and people with light brown skin who are not Christians.
DeleteThe fact that his message, which was not about immigration per se, but about keeping out poor, brown people whether from Latin America or refugees from North Africa and Middle East countries, was so welcomed by so many Americans, mostly white “ Christians “, including white Catholics reveals a very dark and malevolent undercurrent in America. Remember - Norwegians would be more than welcome.,
Anne, yes, it's deplorable. But two points: (1) politically it's effective. And (2) liberals, in their eagerness to stand for the opposite of whatever Trump stood for, run the risk of swinging, pendulum-like, too far in the other direction. Open borders probably aren't politically feasible. How to be more generous than Trump without pumping oxygen into the Trump nationalist movement is not an easy balance to strike.
DeleteJim, who has recommended open borders? I believe one or two Uber libs may have done so, but it is not a commonly held position among Democrats as far as I know. It seems to be one of the far right’s scaremongering accusations.
DeleteWhat is needed is a huge infusion of cash for consular officials in the countries that most asylum seekers are coming from. They should be country experts who are fluent in the language, with specific knowledge of the conditions faced in the parts of the countries that most are trying to flee. One reason many don’t go through the normal application process before heading for the US border is that with highly inadequate current staffing levels to handle asylum requests, do background checks etc, it takes MANY years to get through the process. Far better to do it in the countries themselves, in a timely manner, than to have so many desperate people head for the US border. Country experts with specific knowledge of the conditions facing asylum seekers in the towns and villages they are fleeing would be far more qualified to determine the validity of the cases than overwhelmed asylum court judges in Texas, Arizona, and California. Plus the asylum seekers could use their own language to make their case and not depend on uncaring lawyers assigned by the court who aren’t fluent in the person’s language.
And don’t you think we should ask ourselves why the racist fear/ hate approach has been so “ politically effective “? What does that say about our country’s people and values? . Not anything good. So how do we change that? How do we change the hearts and consciences of people who claim to be Christians so that they become real Christians - following Christ instead of someone like trump? The Christian churches seem to have failed miserably in teaching the gospels.
Anne, hiring more and better trained consular officials seems like a logical step toward getting people to stay in their country until their application is processed. Now they just think Hades will freeze over before anyone even looks at their application.
Delete"Jim, who has recommended open borders? "
DeleteI understand Secretary Mayorkas, on the Sunday talk shows, stated that 12,000 Haitians have been allowed into the US. At least to the Haitians in the makeshift Del Rio camp, the border has been opened. That is, quite literally, an open-border policy.
Jim, those who were admitted were women and children who will be allowed to petition for asylum. They may not succeed, but at least a decent humanitarian decision. That is NOT an open border - no laissez passer at our southern border. It is a conservative straw man argument meant to frighten people. It has apparently even worked with you, an educated man, even though it does not reflect the full reality.
DeleteI don’t know how most other countries handle would be immigrants and refugees, Canada does more to help than we do though., more on the Haitians
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-haiti-route/fact-check-how-haitian-migrants-make-their-way-to-the-u-s-border-idUSL1N2QQ1XB
Anne, interesting short video in your link. I hadn't been aware how many of the Haitians had been living in South America. According to the article, few of them are actually coming directly from Haiti. It seems that they are being turned away here by means of a provision known as Title 32, which has to do with danger of communicable disease. Which is a valid concern, especially if they are coming from places such as Brazil, in which Covid is rampant, and most of it is variant strains. Title 32 specifically excludes unaccompanied minors and families with children from immediate deportation, which is why we are seeing mostly single men being put on planes.
DeleteIt would seem that most of these people don't fit the definition of asylum seekers, that they are more economic refugees. Which is valid, you can die of starvation and want. But I am wondering if they could be aided to shelter in place in the South American countries they are coming from, which would be less disruptive than trekking thousands of miles to get here, where the welcome mat is not out.
Correction, should be Title 42 rather than 32.
DeleteWe are just starting to see the beginnings of the next great wave of immigration due to climate change. When it gets too hot to live, when the water runs out, when your cities and towns are devastated by superstorms. There have been discussions about whether Category 6 storms may become possible. So all the equator people will have to move toward the poles. Not that it's going to be great here. But we have 1/3 the population of India and 3X the population. It's almost physics that people will move here. If we don't want them to move here, we need to help them live where they are. But economics can be addressed. 140°F not so much.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point, Stanley
DeleteI meant 3x the area, of course not that you folks didn't figure it out.
DeleteI have not kept track about what is going on with regard to immigration largely because it seems to me that immigration is very important for us, and an obvious issue like climate change.
ReplyDeleteThe US like most advanced nations has an aging population. We are not as bad off as China, or Japan, or Europe however we do need young immigrants to support our aging population. Fortunately we also have sufficient land and a good economy to support immigrants. Most immigrants are healthier than the average person, and have strong work ethics, and family values. Yes there are a few bad apples, people who need to escape the law in their own country. If we did not force people to illegally migrant to get into the country, the bad apples would not be able to hide.
I don’t understand why Republicans are against immigration, with their work ethics and family values many immigrants would make good Republicans. In fact many do become Republicans.
I could see why many Evangelicals might not want Catholics from Latin America. However increasingly immigrants are becoming Evangelical either before or after immigration.
Yes, we need immigrants but many Americans, mostly white, only want immigrants who look like themselves. Republicans are against immigration because most of the people who want to move here aren’t white and they often are poorly educated. Few white Europeans have any interest at all in moving here. They look at the USA these days and are shocked and often appalled. Their quality of life is generally quite a bit higher than the quality of life of average Americans. It’s pretty much only the desperate who are so anxious to come here because our quality of life is a whole lot better than theirs. It’s all relative.
DeleteThere are so many people of Hispanic background here, I don't even see them as foreigners. More like another flavor of American. At worst, it's a disappointment to me that, as Jack indicates, they buy into the system without changing it. I think this country could use a shift in viewpoints and attitudes.
DeleteThere always has been a thread of distrust of foreigners running through American culture. Catholics were on the distrusted list for quite a time. Trump teased out that thread of distrust and dislike and wove a garment of hatred out of it. He transformed the GOP into a grievance party, building on the groundwork laid by Fox News and much other right wing media.
Delete