The republican President Donald Trump started off his campaign preying on peoples fears and insecurities on the immigration issue. He called peoples from Mexico, rapists and criminals. Later he was equating migrants seeking asylum at the southwest border with MS-13 gangs even though nothing could be further from the truth.
Those who fret over the diversification of the US culture with peoples of different colors, religions, nationalities, belief systems have been drawn to the pied piper of Donald Trump.
Most of us celebrate this diversity, recognizing that this hodgepodge of peoples from all over the world is what makes America truly great, but there is that minority of folks who face this changing world with trepidation and who are too easily persuaded by someone who promises to be their champion, to fight with every strength of his being against this changing tide.
BUT CONTRARY TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAYS, THE VAST MAJORITY OF IMMIGRANTS DO NOT COMMIT CRIMES AND DO NOT COME HERE TO LIVE OFF OF GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE. THESE ARE LIES.
There are numerous credible studies proving that the percentage of immigrants who become criminals is much less than that of the already existing population. This is also a fact that those in the immigrant community access government programs much less than American citizens.
The President’s new immigration protocol, based on the myth that there was an immigration crisis, was enacted on April 6, 2018, but the president was forced to end parts of it on the 20th of June 2018, due to public outrage. Still, the president needed a way to show his anti-immigration base of supporters that he was being tough on this issue.
The new immigration policy was started with President Donald Trump’s Attorney General Jeff Sessions on April 6, 2018, with his memo,
These new immigration procedures allowed for the automatic separation of children from parents who were seeking asylum at the southwest US border. The president’s cabinet members and spokespeople were announcing that if refugees did not enter at designated US points of entry, there was the -0- tolerance rule in play, where every parent would be detained and prosecuted for a misdemeanor. It was at this point that the children were forcibly separated from their Moms and Dads for indeterminate periods of time.
As per Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the president could have ended this practice of separating children from the parents with one phone call at any time. Directing the migrants to apply for asylum at the US designated points of entry was not a realistic plan as most peoples were being turned away at these designated points. There are documented stories detailing how peoples had been waiting for weeks to gain entry as well as instances where children were still being forcibly separated from their parents, even at these US designated points of entry.
As per international law, it SHOULD NOT BE illegal for peoples fleeing danger, persecution, war like circumstances, to ask for asylum.
Here’s the rest of the story…
On June 22, 2018, Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post penned the following report, “Trump created the immigration crisis out of sheer ignorance and cruelty”
“The Trump presidency is one of incomplete sentences, sneers and slogans: “Catch and release!” “Zero tolerance!” If you quizzed President Trump or many of his supporters, chances are that they’d be hard-pressed to explain what these things mean.”
“Catch and release” does not mean asylum-seekers are set loose, never to be heard from when their immigration hearing comes around. To the contrary, the alternatives to detention (ATD) programs in effect before Attorney General Jeff Sessions and senior adviser Stephen Miller decided it was a great idea to incarcerate those who committed the misdemeanor of entering without documentation were working extremely well.”
“ATDs usually take at least one of three forms. The first is electronic monitoring devices whereby migrants have to wear a tracking device like an ankle bracelet. The second is assigning caseworkers to periodically check up on the migrants. The third is monetary incentives, such as bonds. Many ATD programs mix these three. [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] runs the ATD program because they are responsible for apprehending, removing, and detaining immigrants inside of the United States. Detention costs about $170 per day for long stays and about $30 for short stays. The proposed tent cities to house migrant children would have cost about $775 per person per night. As far as I can tell, about 100 percent of them comply with court orders as they are in government detention and therefore have no choice. The tradeoff for this extra effectiveness are the various costs of detention.”
“Under the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, for example, which used “electronic ankle monitors, telephone checkups that used biometric voice recognition software, unannounced home visits, employer verification, and in-person reporting to supervise participants,” 99.6 percent of the immigrants showed up for their hearings. The Family Case Management provides “caseworkers to help migrants meet their legal and judicial obligations, such as reporting to ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) check-ins, appearing at court hearings, and departing the United States when ordered by the courts.” Trump discontinued this program, although “100 percent made it to their court appearances, and only 2 percent absconded into the black market after receiving removal orders.” Groups such as the Catholic Church and the “”Lutheran Church run similar programs, with about a 97 percent appearance rate.”
“Trump’s insistence on locking up people fleeing their home countries was based on the notion that “catch and release” was a disaster. In fact, a variety of programs have been in place and could be expanded upon — ones that are, as Nowrasteh argues, “far cheaper, more humanitarian, and less of a political disaster for this administration” than incarcerating families is.”
“Trump’s hand may be forced by the courts since the Flores Settlement, which prevents migrant children from being held more than 20 days, remains in effect. If Trump cannot persuade courts to allow indefinite detention of families (and good luck with that), the administration might finally return to programs that work.”
Moreover, the notion that desperate families with little kids trek through the desert to get to the US so that they can go on a crime spree is preposterous to begin with. Here is what one study found looking at 10 cities with “the most refugees relative to the size of their population between 2006 and 2015”:
“Rather than crime increasing, nine out of 10 of the communities actually became considerably more safe, both in terms of their levels of violent and property crime. This included places like Southfield, Michigan, a community just outside of Detroit, where violent crime dropped by 77.1 percent. Decatur, Georgia, a community outside Atlanta, experienced a 62.2 percent decline in violent crime.”
“The only place where crime went up was West Springfield, Mass., which was simultaneously hit by an opioid epidemic.”
“In short, refugees were not a risk to Americans’ safety to begin with. Before Trump came along, we had a system that cheaply and effectively monitored immigrants until their cases could be heard. It is almost as if Trump created a problem out of thin air by demonizing a group of people, then cruelly separating babies and toddlers from their families and ultimately deciding to lock up families indefinitely at enormous cost. Gosh, it sure looks like Trump is not out to solve a problem, but rather to stir up his low-information voters, whose xenophobia helped elect him.”