Immigration, Emigration....

.....and refugees seeking asylum from Wars, violence, poverty. Not limited to 'political persecution' but including 'democratic' government corruption. It's a humanitarian crisis for several million people -- across the globe -- at levels not seen since WWII (according to groups like WHO and UN).

The US has thousands of children fleeing Central America. Turkey and Jordan have hundreds of thousands trying to get out of Syria and Iraq. Etc, etc.

Feel free to post your analysis, with ideas for solutions....




Regarding the US dilemma -- I haven't seen much attention paid to the role Mexico plays in its own border control, let alone its national security, even though these kids are traveling over 1,000 miles through Mexico to get to the US. :confused:

Anybody else find it amusing that US news reports about middle east label those who cross borders to escape violence as refugees but in reports about our southern border they label people who cross the border to escape violence as illegal immigrants?

I wouldn't call it "amusing", but yeah. :(



One glaring thing (IMO) is that international 'trade agreements' have a lot of blow-back....even though we like to think it's promoting Freee Trade or western-style Democracy around the world when we make them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Anybody else find it amusing that US news reports about middle east label those who cross borders to escape violence as refugees but in reports about our southern border they label people who cross the border to escape violence as illegal immigrants?

---

Possibly because so many were sent via smuggler networks under the impression that Obama would magically legalize them.

Central America isn't Syria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Possibly because so many were sent via smuggler networks under the impression that Obama would magically legalize them.

---

The laws protecting Central American refugees were written, and passed, during the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration has deported more people than any previous administration.

Quote:

---

Central America isn't Syria.

---

Is that your rubric? :confused:

Sorta. After all, generally people do make subjective judgement calls when it comes to asylum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Possibly because so many were sent via smuggler networks under the impression that Obama would magically legalize them.

---

Smuggler...another label for our border; middle east border it'd be humanitarian aid.

I'd say an important distinction is whether you're an economic refugee, or if you are fleeing violence/persecution/oppression etc. Of course this is possible in, say, Mexico too, but most are economic.

Second, over here at least, refugees will report themselves to authorities and request asylum, not simply live illegally in secret.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

I'd say an important distinction is whether you're an economic refugee, or if you are fleeing violence/persecution/oppression etc. Of course this is possible in, say, Mexico too, but most are economic.

Second, over here at least, refugees will report themselves to authorities and request asylum, not simply live illegally in secret.

---

I was just about to make the same point. There's no rationale at all for calling Mexican illegal immigrants refugees. The situation in Mexico isn't that dire, and people who live in the few regions that are really bad can just move to other regions. One could actually make the case that people fleeing some of the Central American countries should be considered refugees though. Then again, there would be a better case for them being refugees in Mexico (first point of exit), not the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I was just about to make the same point. There's no rationale at all for calling Mexican illegal immigrants refugees. The situation in Mexico isn't that dire, and people who live in the few regions that are really bad can just move to other regions. One could actually make the case that people fleeing some of the Central American countries should be considered refugees though. Then again, there would be a better case for them being refugees in Mexico (first point of exit), not the US.

---

Yeah but these folks might one day vote Democratic!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I was just about to make the same point. There's no rationale at all for calling Mexican illegal immigrants refugees. The situation in Mexico isn't that dire, and people who live in the few regions that are really bad can just move to other regions. One could actually make the case that people fleeing some of the Central American countries should be considered refugees though. Then again, there would be a better case for them being refugees in Mexico (first point of exit), not the US.

---

I could be wrong but I believe the immediate crisis is a massive influx of children from Central America not Mexico.

So they should park it in Mexico

Really? 'Cause I thought Mexico was kinda shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Really? 'Cause I thought Mexico was kinda shit.

---

Shit in what sense? Economically it's doing not quite as well as Turkey. It's ahead of most of the Balkans and the former Eastern bloc (the parts not incorporated into the EU) though it's behind Russia itself. Mexico faces three major problems, from a socio-economic perspective. One, for various reasons it isn't strong enough to effectively keep the drug cartels controlled. Two, it is substantially better off than its southern neighbors. Three, it possesses the world's longest border with a very large economic divide between it and a more prosperous neighbor. It's not that Mexico is shit. It's that it is right next to the largest genuinely well-off economy in the world. In Europe there are substantial buffer areas between the well-off areas and those that aren't in the well-off category at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

One could actually make the case that people fleeing some of the Central American countries should be considered refugees though. Then again, there would be a better case for them being refugees in Mexico (first point of exit), not the US.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Shit in what sense? Economically it's doing not quite as well as Turkey. It's ahead of most of the Balkans and the former Eastern bloc (the parts not incorporated into the EU) though it's behind Russia itself. Mexico faces three major problems, from a socio-economic perspective. One, for various reasons it isn't strong enough to effectively keep the drug cartels controlled. Two, it is substantially better off than its southern neighbors. Three, it possesses the world's longest border with a very large economic divide between it and a more prosperous neighbor. It's not that Mexico is shit. It's that it is right next to the largest genuinely well-off economy in the world. In Europe there are substantial buffer areas between the well-off areas and those that aren't in the well-off category at all.

---

That's why I asked about Mexico's role and responsibility. I'm not familiar with their immigration or asylum policies, but it seems they spend a lot of time and money on policing narco-trade and drug cartels, and don't bother much with women/children hopping trains, or "coyotes" who profit from human trafficking through their interior. Reducing human trafficking was the basis for earlier US law, but maybe it focused too much on border control, and not other important policies?

If Mexico isn't seen as a "good" place for Central America refugees to stop, and they keep moving north to the US -- is it because Mexico has a weaker economy than the US....or is it because Mexico spends less federal money on Public needs (childhood education, healthcare, etc.) and humanitarian/refugee needs that use legal proceedings and (expensive) public court systems like the US does?

Is that a serious question? If you had the slightest interest in money and security, and had a choice between living in the US and in Mexico, would you ever choose Mexico?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Is that a serious question? If you had the slightest interest in money and security, and had a choice between living in the US and in Mexico, would you ever choose Mexico?

---

Yes, it's a serious question. "Choice" is the hot bed issue.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Thousands of Migrants Have Failed to Report to Immigration Offices
Families Caught at Border Who Haven't Reported to ICE May Still Be Attending Immigration Court Hearings

By MIRIAM JORDAN
Sept. 26, 2014 5:48 p.m. ET

Thousands of families apprehended for entering the country illegally and then released by U.S. authorities have subsequently failed to report to immigration offices as required.

According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, about 70% of migrant families encountered at the border since May and released haven't reported to an office of the agency as instructed. Between May and August, agents apprehended about 40,000 people entering the U.S. in family units, amid a surge in illegal immigration from Central America.

Because of a shortage of detention space, most migrant families caught at the border have been allowed to join relatives in the U.S. as they await deportation proceedings. Separately, the individuals are instructed to report to an ICE office within a few weeks of reaching their destination.

The no-show figure for ICE supervision doesn't mean individuals have absconded or failed to appear in immigration court. "Individuals who don't report to ICE as requested may still be attending their immigration court hearings," said an ICE spokesperson.

Depending on whether ICE deems an individual a flight risk, migrants who visit an ICE office may be fitted with an electronic ankle bracelet, which monitors their movement, or simply told to check in again in a few weeks. The goal is to ensure that an individual facing removal from the country stays in touch with U.S. authorities and reports to court. The ICE monitoring, or check-in, is an alternative to detention, which is limited and costs about $260 per family member per day.

Immigrant advocates said they were seeking clarification from immigration authorities.

"This data contradicts everything we have known about people complying with orders to report," said Royce Bernstein Murray, the director of policy at the Chicago-based National Immigrant Justice Center. "We need to understand this data in detail to find out where gaps can be addressed."

Human-rights groups and immigrant organizations have criticized the Obama administration for opening detention centers and filling them with mothers and children, migrants they believe are likely to win asylum, which will permit them to remain in the U.S. Many of the Central American migrants say they are fleeing gang violence and extortion.

In June, the administration opened a temporary detention facility in Artesia, N.M., that can hold about 650 women and children. A second facility in Karnes, Texas, was opened to house 530 people. A third such detention center with a capacity for 480 people is due to open in Dilley, Texas, by the end of 2014.

Before the new facility opened in Artesia, the government had the capacity for fewer than 100 individuals at a family detention center in Pennsylvania.

The flood of adults with children coming to the U.S. has subsided, from a peak of 16,329 in June to 3,296 in August. The Executive Office of Immigration Review, which oversees immigration courts, said in a statement that it continues to schedule and hear these deportation cases on an expedited basis, following the Obama administration's decision to make them a priority.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/thous...ces-1411768102

---