Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau says that Canada welcomes any refugees or asylum-seekers that the U.S. rejects. “Central American Migrants in Mexico Want Buses to US Border” (nytimes) says
Central American migrants in a caravan that has stopped in Mexico City demanded buses Thursday to take them to the U.S. border, saying it is too cold and dangerous to continue walking and hitchhiking. About 200 migrants, representing the roughly 5,000 staying in a stadium in the south of Mexico’s capital, marched to the United Nations office in Mexico City to make the demand for transportation.
What is the practical obstacle to giving them plane tickets to Toronto?
Separately, “Caravan Walks Quietly On, U.S. Opposition a Distant Rumble” (nytimes, 11/9/2018) is interesting for describing the experience of the folks in the current caravan:
Ms. Alvarado and her relatives left their home on the outskirts of Comayagua, a city in central Honduras, on Oct. 12. They came from a family of farm laborers who worked for abysmal wages in coffee plantations. Generations of residents from Comayagua had made the trek to the United States to find better-paying work, and the possibility was always forefront in the minds of those who remained behind.
Ms. Alvarado, one of the few in her family who had managed to escape the coffee fields, had been working as an assistant in a government social development program, but barely getting by on a salary of $200 a month.
(So the woman who gets a monthly paycheck from the Honduran government will have to claim in her asylum hearing (2-3 years from now?) that she is being persecuted by the Honduran government?)
Do-gooders should considering seeting up a shoe distribution center on the southern border of Mexico, rather than thoughts and prayers on Facebook:
They, like most members of the caravan, were ill-prepared for walking. Ms. Jiménez was wearing pink plastic sandals. Ms. Banegas and her son wore flip-flops. Ms. Jiménez’s 3-year-old had to be carried by the adults for much of the way.
The mechanics of getting into the U.S.:
The group did not plan to apply for asylum. Rather, like many other families in the caravan, their plan was to cross between official border entries and turn themselves into the United States Border Patrol. Since they were women traveling with children, they hoped they would be released quickly from detention and allowed to remain in the United States pending the outcome of their deportation cases. It’s a practice that has been widely used for years, but one that Mr. Trump is seeking to end.
Ms. Banegas said she picked Elmer, who left school three years ago to work in the coffee fields, to travel with her to the United States because he was her oldest minor child.
With him, “I might have a better chance of getting in,” she said.
The women had heard that the Trump administration policy of family separation had ended. Other migrants from their hometown had successfully crossed into the United States since then and had been released with their children.
I’m still confused by the policy of limiting refugee/asylee status to those who are fit enough to make an overland trek to the U.S. If we are humanitarians, given that Honduras has an awesome airport with a 9,500′ runway (MHLM), why aren’t we sending a daily Airbus A380 to pick up the elderly and disabled in 900-person groups? If we are not humanitarians, why do we accept any low-skill refugees/asylees?
Circling back to the top of this post… even if we take Canada out of this, why buses? Why wouldn’t the U.N. charter an Airbus A350 (after the A380, the world’s quietest airliner so that caravan members can relax!) to bring caravan members to the U.S. destination of their choice? If the U.S. objects to the daily arrivals, the U.N. can simply cite that the U.S. signed up to the 1967 refugee protocol.
Related:
- “Can the refugee caravan at the U.S. border simply fly up to Canada?” (April 30, 2018; I offered to pay $50,000 to ferry a previous caravan to Vancouver)
- “Deployed Inside the United States: The Military Waits for the Migrant Caravan” (nytimes, 11/10/2018), on the suffering of U.S. troops: “The tents sleep 20 soldiers and have no electricity or air-conditioning. Phone charging is relegated to a few generators that power the spotlights around the living area. … Unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, the troops do not receive extra combat pay. … Come Thanksgiving, they most likely will still be here.” (this is why new veterans have higher rates of disability than Vietnam combat vets?)
“Since they were women traveling with children, they hoped they would be released quickly from detention”
The photos show all men. Are they going to demand the UN provide women to the group too? Claiming to be upper executives oppressed by bad socialist policies as opposed to good socialist policies would help in this aspect.
lion: I think it is Oxfam that has the experience and proven capability in this area. See https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/allegations-of-sexual-misconduct-at-oxfam/ for example.
About 200 migrants, representing the roughly 5,000 staying in a stadium in the south of Mexico’s capital, marched to the United Nations office in Mexico City to make the demand for transportation.
What is the practical obstacle to giving them plane tickets to Toronto?
One problem is that that UN office probably doesn’t have a couple hundred thousand dollars in its budget for such a purpose. The UN may also have arrangements with its member states regarding asylum seekers that preclude such activities.
I’m still confused by the policy of limiting refugee/asylee status to those who are fit enough to make an overland trek to the U.S.
It was just about a week ago that your posed question about Bhutanese refugees in Erie, PA. Clearly they could not have an overland trek to America from Nepal.
(So the woman who gets a monthly paycheck from the Honduran government will have to claim in her asylum hearing (2-3 years from now?) that she is being persecuted by the Honduran government?)
A few lines below you includes this in a quote “The group did not plan to apply for asylum.” So it sounds like the answer to the question that placed in parentheses must be no. Why do you need help with that?
There was also this paragraph that you didn’t quote:
Ms. Alvarado, who had spent a year living and working without immigration papers in New York and Ohio, hoped to reunite with the father of her son, Dubier, in Ohio. Ms. Jiménez planned to move in with her father in Ohio.
If many of the others in the group have similar stories, they may not take tickets to Canada if they were offered.
Sanctimonious trudeau pines for future votes from unlimited refugees (cost: $240k per refugee family), but 70% of Canadians disagree with him. The election to get rid of him can’t come soon enough.
Mr. Canuck: Thanks for the perspective from North of the Border. The link about Canadians squabbling regarding refugee numbers confuses me (as does almost everything else on this issue). If taking in refugees is a moral imperative, why does it stop at 25,000 or 50,000 or any other specific number? If taking in refugees is not a moral imperative, why would Canadian taxpayers pay for even 1? (maybe some private funds would be volunteered to finance the care of refugees at a beach resort or to bring fully-funded refugees into Canada, but why is money forcibly extracted from taxpayers if it is not morally required to bring in people who say that they’re refugees?)
[Also, how is it possible that refugees are costing Canadian taxpayers money? Here in the U.S., all of the smartest people assure us that immigrants, even those with the fewest skills, provide a huge boost to an economy. In other words, the arrival of a disabled 70-year-old who is unable to speak English and who will live in public housing should make current U.S. residents wealthier.]
Vince: The UN doesn’t have the money for a plane? https://www.un.org/press/en/2017/gaab4270.doc.htm says that the annual budget is roughly $2.7 billion ($5.4 billion for two years). Why can’t the UN charter an Airbus A350 and bring the people of its choice to the UN HQ in NYC? After that, the arrivals can walk out the front door of the UN into Manhattan and claim asylum, no?
If necessary, the UN can simply hire caravan members as employees and then I think they are entitled to visas to be “present in New York” (see https://usun.state.gov/about/6632/6644 ). It wouldn’t be a sham for the UN to hire caravan members because we are assured that low-skill immigrants provide a huge economic boost. Like any other US-based employer, the UN should be delighted to employ these hard-working folks for the about-to-be-implemented $15/hour minimum wage (see https://www.ny.gov/new-york-states-minimum-wage/new-york-states-minimum-wage ).
If the former caravan members don’t like working for $15/hour as UN employees (or if the UN fires them), they could walk to the Fifth Avenue office of https://www.hias.org/ for example and get immediate assistance as asylees, one would hope.
How about buses with 3 rest stops in the US? Outside of cities? These are military escort camps. Refugees are fed, sent to the bathroom and put back on the bus. All passengers are counted coming off and getting back on. The stops have cameras which videotape the faces coming off and getting back on. They are escorted to Canada for processing. Post processing verifiers that all faces match both ways. The buses are stopping in “rest areas” outside of Lubbock, Colorado, and Western Washington (or North Dakota). Drivers are changed at each stop for fresh ones.
Busses are timed to depart and arrive so that all 5000 passengers are not in a rest stop at one time, so it is manageable. Less than 4 busses at a time. I’ll bet we can find a private prison contractor to build the “rest stops”. Food provided is simple sustenance to get to the next rest stop, not fancy meals. If someone demands kosher or halal, they can go hungry for 1-2 days.
@Vince,
What is your opinion of the following idea to wipe out poverty and unjust all over the world to put an end to migration issues: Have the UN declare war on poverty and unjust dictatorship all over the word and unseat (by any means but humanly if at all possible) the government of any country that does not protect its own citizens or pay them enough to live a comfortable life established by the guidelines of the UN. By doing so, no one will want to flee their home country and thus problem is solved. The UN can also unset the government of the USA so that no one will want to migrate to Canada like Barbara Streisand [1] wants to or give Philig crazy ideas such as the USA invading Venezuela [2].
[1] https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2018/11/06/barbara-streisand-may-be-moving-to-canada-after-today/
[2] https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2018/11/07/should-our-new-congress-declare-war-on-venezuela/
This blog may have jumped the shark.
George: the “crazy idea” of invading Venezuela was not mine! As noted in that post, it came from my Uber driver, a Venezuelan immigrant to the U.S.
ConcernedCitizenTexas: Of course I support your bus caravan to Canada idea (why deny Canada the economic benefits of 5000 new immigrants?), but I think it might well be cheaper to use airliners. I attended a talk by a Boeing engineer who explained that, per-passenger-mile, the B747 was the cheapest mode of transportation ever devised (this was before the Airbus A380). His calculation included the cost to build rails or highways, though, so maybe if we posit an already-built highway system, buses are in fact cheaper.
Donald: I know some of these ideas sound crazy, but isn’t the true crazy idea our current refuge/asylum system? Why is it that these 5,000 migrants are entitled to apply for asylum if and only if they are fit enough to walk to the U.S. border? Why should their entitlement to a lifetime of welfare be determined by a mode of transportation?
Why can’t the UN charter an Airbus A350 and bring the people of its choice to the UN HQ in NYC? After that, the arrivals can walk out the front door of the UN into Manhattan and claim asylum, no?
If necessary, the UN can simply hire caravan members as employees and then I think they are entitled to visas to be “present in New York” (see https://usun.state.gov/about/6632/6644 ). It wouldn’t be a sham for the UN to hire caravan members because we are assured that low-skill immigrants provide a huge economic boost. Like any other US-based employer, the UN should be delighted to employ these hard-working folks for the about-to-be-implemented $15/hour minimum wage.
Why do keep posing these questions that know are deranged? You even contradict yourself. If these people are employees of the United Nations and can get visas for because of that, they have no need to apply for asylum. If the UN were to bring them into the US claiming that they intended to employ these people and then not actually employing them, that would certainly be a sham.
Then there are other issues. The relevant UN agency, the UNHCR, is currently keeping track of over 10 million refugees around the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_High_Commissioner_for_Refugees#Persons_of_concern_to_UNHCR . Some have been living in miserable camps in the Third World for quite a few years. If the UN were to start engaging in people smuggling, there would be no good reason to start with these people in Mexico City.
Besides that, US Customs and Border Protection at the Mexico City airport would probably bar the vast majority, if not all, of those Central Americans from boarding a flight to New York City.
George: Assuming that you’re an American, you must really be concerned about Barbra Streisand leaving the country. You should still be able to purchase his recording and view concerts on the Internet after she becomes a Canadian. So don’t worry about it.
@Vince:
> Assuming that you’re an American, you must really be concerned about Barbra Streisand leaving the country….
You must think that I’m anti immigration. I assure you that I’m not.
I’m a naturalization US citizen as of 1986 after legally migrating to the US with my family, from Aleppo, Syria, in 1981. My family and I waited almost 7 years for the process to complete and we went through all the background checks you can imagine. In 1993, my father (he was naturalization in 1992) submitted application to have his 2 brothers and family legally migrate to the US. They finally came to the US, legally, in 2011 (that’s over 18 years of waiting). What’s more, I know a friend who also did the same as my father to his brother in 1998. Even after losing his home due to the civil war in Syria and escaping to Lebanon, and the friend writing to the US counsel in Lebanon that he will be responsible for his brother and family (he has enough money to do so) and him visiting the counsel, they denied him visa. He is still on the waiting list which will take at least another 5 years. If that is not enough, even in 5 years when this family is finally ready to immigrate, they will NOT be able to bring with them their 2 daughters who will be over 21 years of age which is exactly what happened to one of my uncle’s son.
If that wan’t enough, my friend has enough income as such he can easily afford to have had put his brother and family and even few other relatives on a vacation trip to Mexico during the height of the Syrian civil war. Once they were in Mexico, all that they had to do is travel to a US / Mexico boarder petrol office and ask for asylum.
So, am I against immigration, no. Am I against illegal immigration, or unworthy asylum seekers, absolutely. And if Barbra Streisand or any one else wants to move to Canada to save themselves from the USA, I say let them. Because I have families in Syria who want to move to the US, legally.
A follow up post to my post of “November 11, 2018 at 8:29 pm” for the benefit of readers who are not families with the legal immigration process:
1) After the long wait for your turn, you and your family will be processed and interviewed for the visa. If for any reason you are rejected, you are not entitled for an explanation, period. You can appeal but almost all appeals end in the void and again with no explanation. I know this first hand because a family of a friend was rejected.
2) Once you are in the USA, it’s not a done deal. You are given a temporary Green Card (based on how you immigrated, it can be as temporary as 3, 5 or 10 years). You will be re-processed again and re-interviewed and you could be rejected even if you have been living in the USA legally. So you better hurry up and get your citizenship ASAP which is not easy if you are young and still don’t speak English after that 5 year minimum wait period to apply for citizenship.
The processing and re-processing is complex. Most applicant use lawyers to get the documents right and advice. If you have a missing document, or incorrect data, you will be notified, but it means you just added 1-2 years extra wait time to your application. The interview and background check is extensive. Everyone over the age of 13 is interviewed, and everyone, regardless of age, is given a medical exams (in the home country of the applicant, by Dr. working for the immigration office). Not just that, the background check is real. They *do* send someone to look up on you and speak with your neighborhood to make sure you are who you said you are and work and live where you said you work and live. That is exactly what happened to my family, in 1980 (1 year before 1981 when we got our visa to immigrate).
You can cross check what I said above by Google’ing for it. If you are unsure where to start, then visit this site https://www.immihelp.com/ where you will see posts from ordinary folks who want to immigrate to the USA, legally, and the pain they go through.
@Phil,
Is it possible to:
1) Fix the site so it remembers returning visitors? I forgot to complete my sign info as such my post of “November 12, 2018 at 12:30 pm” appears as “Anonymous”.
2) Put a number next to posts so I can reference them as #N.