At least according to my Facebook friends, the U.S. is in crisis because we can’t figure out what to do with migrants who stream across the border with companions under 18 years of age (or at least who say that they are under 18!).
As noted in Americans separating children and parents at the border and within and How does our government deport children? it seems that we are forced by our current interlocking laws to operate an open borders policy for anyone who can get hold of a child before coming into the U.S. Because the child cannot be imprisoned in our current facilities and the child cannot be separated from adults claiming to be his or her parents, the adults and children who are here contrary to our immigration laws must be set free to roam this great land of Sanctuary Cities.
It is kind of interesting that the country that permanently separates more native-born children from parents than any other (comparative statistics on what our family law system does: “The USA stands out as an extreme case”), an activity that excites little interest and no media coverage (unless it is a Hollywood plaintiff), is now mad with passion regarding the temporary separation of foreign children from parents (my own state of Massachusetts, for example, which has historically been very pro-separation of children from loser parents in its winner-take-all family court system (e.g., if the winner parent wants to move to California with the child), has sued the Trump Administration to demand that migrants be set free in Texas).
I wonder if there is a middle ground that can satisfy at least some people on both sides of this issue: facilities sort of like the debtors’ prisons that were run starting in medieval times, e.g., Marshalsea. Obviously the physical quality of the community would be up to a 21st century standard rather than a 14th century standard, but the basic idea would be the same: families could all be in prison together and adult members could go out and work during the day.
[Credit for this idea to a European friend who is a student of history. He noted that it was bizarre that a nation that was so passionate about divorce, custody, and child support litigation would find the treatment of migrant children to be intolerable. He drew a parallel to the Bad Old Days in Europe as well: “In the 18th century there were kidnappers in Europe. You’d pay them and get your kids back. The difference between kidnappers and an American pussy worker is that you have to pay her, but you don’t get your kids back.”]
Readers: Could this work if we simply didn’t call it a “prison”? Could we combine it with Sanctuary Cities? From Compromise: Unlimited Haitians for communities that prepare to welcome them?
What if Trump were to offer immigration proponents an unlimited supply of people, without any preference for those capable of working, on condition that immigration advocates use state and local tax dollars to pay for their housing, health care, food, and walking-around money? So if people in San Francisco want to build a 1000-unit apartment complex for Haitian immigrants, and folks will be permanently entitled to live there by paying a defined fraction of their income in rent ($0 in rent for those with $0 in income), and San Francisco commits to build additional apartment complexes in which any children or grandchildren of these immigrants can live, why should the Federal government stand in the way of their dreams? (Of course, the city and state would also have to pay 100 percent of the costs of Medicaid, food stamps, Obamaphones, and any other welfare services consumed by these immigrants or their descendants.)
So being in “family immigration prison” would simply mean that you didn’t have the right to move. A Sanctuary City would welcome you, park you in a public housing development that its citizens had funded, and let you live there for however many years it took for your asylum application to be considered (and then, in the event of a negative finding, obstruct your deportation?).
Basically we would have the same de facto open borders policy that we have today for anyone who can find a convenient baby or toddler, but the “families” admitted under this policy wouldn’t have the same freedom to move from city to city or state to state as legal U.S. residents.
Related:
- Promise of divorce ruined by children (Australia parental relocation study) (notes on a talk about how Australia has tried to balance the interest of adult plaintiffs in family courts (they want to have sex with new friends while spending the income of their former spouses) with the interest of children (they want access to both biological parents, even parents who are court-deemed “loser parents”))
Some engineers suggest real solutions. This one must be retired.
philg Blog Post Checklist:
1) Inflammatory aside (eg. “Are the children under 18?” when they are a mix of babies, toddlers, children and teens)
2) Propose absurd what-if scenario that derives/follows from… nothing.
3) (optional) Toss in some gross statements (immigrant “families” are fake and have somehow found “convenient babies”. Make people think “isn’t this guy a parent?”)
4) (required) Sprinkle mention of family law or divorce litigation throughout
Voila!
Shame this blog’s gone 90% long-form trolling. When the posts weren’t garbage there were some good discussions here.
Matt: How do you know a 19 year old won’t claim to be 17 to avoid jail? Do you think 100% of people desperate enough to need asylum won’t fib when their future depends on it?
You seem to assume that everyone crossing the border is an angel. In that sense, you are the opposite of anti-immigration fanatics who presume that every person who crosses the border is a gang member. Can you bring yourself to admit that the truth is almost certainly in between those cartoonish extremes?
If you do, you will end up (roughly) where Phil is, based on this blog post 😉
They aren’t “prisons”. They are “all-inclusive immigrant family resorts”. Problem solved.
The problem with mass migration is that the negative impact hits the least affluent worst. Here is a solution that is more equitable.
Start sending these kids to Andover and Exeter Academies. I understand they have very nice facilities for young people that are underutilized in summer. Just have DHS show up with the busses and get them settled in. The legalities can be sorted out later.
In the fall, they can be sent to Martha’s Vineyard.
This process can be repeated in any state, just change the names of the boarding schools and vacation spots. Here in New York, the Hamptons are used to having illegals work for them. Why not let them live in their homes when the master is away?
I have proposed this on various forums and everyone seems to agree with this plan. Close the borders except for 26 checkpoints along the border. At those checkpoints there will be a center where immigrants can be interviewed for a job using Skype. A private company operating for the government will manage the job postings and verify these are jobs that cannot be filled with an American citizen. Immigrants will be interviewed in the language they are expected to work in. (Can Be Spanish, Urdu, Mongolian, it’s between the employer and the worker). Here’s the deal. The employer is “host” for the worker and is responsible for their whereabouts and behavior in country. He will pay fines for the worker and carry the liability if the immigrant causes damage. Immigrants will be tracked, either chipped or wear a tracker.
1. Immigrant agrees to work for employer/host. If immigrant is dismissed, they have to leave the country in 30 days unless they can find another host employer. Immigrant can quit his job, but has to find another host (and is free to do so). Tracking will be used beyond the 30 day period and you WILL be deported and not allowed to return.
2. Immigrant understands that commission of a felony crime will result in immediate deportation of immigrant and family. This includes drunk driving and protesting. Commission of a felony crime by a minor child will also result in deportation of the family.
3. Immigrant will be screened and monitored for violent tendencies (extreme religious posting on social media, membership in groups advocating violence). Promotion of such views will be grounds for deportation.
4. Immigrant can apply for green green card status with automatic acceptance in 5 years if citizenship criteria is met. That’s the carrot. The government cannot indefinitely withhold status. I have a friend who waited 17 years for his green card.
5. immigrant agrees to learn English in 5 years, and use it for business/customer transactions.
This closes most of the loopholes and gets immigrants in the country working. It will grow our GDP and fill jobs Americans donMt want to do.
The problem is that we need to scrap current immigration law and have something like this. They are not citizens and we are not promising a full court trail, just some due process. But we don’t imprison criminals, we deport them. And close the borders so they don’t return.
Glen, your proposal has a lot of merit