This week, U.S. media and politicians are showcasing the “inhumane” treatment of immigrants at the border. Babies are being “ripped” from their parents said one politician; others compare the parent/child separations to Nazi Germany.
But the “inhumane” treatment is actually courtesy of parents who are subjecting their children to illegal border crossings, essentially using their children as human shields. All these parent have to do to not have their children taken from them is not cross the border illegally with their children.
Trump’s zero tolerance policy for immigration means illegal crossers go to jail. How many of those facing incarceration in the U.S. keep their children with them when they go to jail? Zero.
Why does the U.S. have millions upon millions of dollars to spend on care and housing for illegal immigrants when our own veterans and poor are homeless and in need of housing, food and medical care? What’s wrong with this picture?
In addition to referring to fencing as “cages,” some news outlets call illegal border crossers “asylum seekers.” One such “asylum seeker” says she flew with her child to the U.S. from Brazil for “asylum” against a boyfriend who hit her. There was, presumably, nowhere safe between Brazil and the U.S. 4,295 miles away. Though the lady had enough money for an airplane ticket.
The same question might be asked of “asylum seekers” in Central America – bypassing all of Mexico to seek safety “from gangs” in the U.S. Imagine U.S. citizens fleeing gang violence in Manhattan declaring the only safe place for them and their children was Quebec. Imagine Canadian citizens picketing for our right to cross the border and dwell there as “asylum seekers.”
No, the U.S. is held to a higher standard than other countries which would not accept the immigrants at all or let them remain in their country for years while their cases are pending as the U.S. does. Certainly guilt for being such a rich country underpins the press and politician emotionalism but again – what about our own homeless in encampments all over the country? Including our veterans?
Nor do melodramatic World War II analogies hold up. Fleeing gang violence or a boyfriend who hits is not analogous to fleeing a government committing genocide against its people with concentration camps and ovens.
Of course the elephant in the room in the U.S. immigration debate is jobs. If businesses did not hire illegal immigrants, they would not come to the U.S. It is that simple. Yet sanctions against businesses using illegal labor are largely absent from Trump’s immigration policies.
Neither immigration activists or businesses want to use E-Verify, a system that ascertains the legal immigration status of workers. Jobs would be opened for U.S. citizens and immigration would be deterred but businesses would have to pay more for labor and shadow jobs for immigrants would be lost. Prices would also go up, especially for agricultural products.
If businesses were not hiring illegal immigrants, the crisis we are now seeing – parents illegally crossing the border with their children – would be greatly diminished.
