Press whips up emotion in child migrant feeding frenzy, and workable solutions get obscured

The press here is doing what it did in Europe to encourage the vast migrant waves: focusing on children, as it did in the case of Alan Kurdi, the Syrian toddler who drowned at sea in 2015 as his parents attempted to enter Europe illegally.  With no legal ground to stand on, the idea has always been to ensure that emotionalism outweighs rational immigration laws that are humane for everyone.  After all, everyone cries when a child drowns, and everyone wants to comfort a small child crying (as the news photos now show); why have immigration law at all?  That was what led to the great human waves inundating Europe – which have since led to a lot more drownings and other mayhem.

The problem is that reacting on that emotional level is a good way to ensure more child misery and victimization – because these things are already happening as a result of perverse incentives within the law itself.

A good piece to read on the background of why illegal immigrants are coming to the border, instead of the embassies, to claim asylum, is by Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review, headlined "The Immorality of Open Borders."  His opener is a perfect summary of all the hard facts he supports with diamond-clarity:

We have two choices when it comes to border security and interior enforcement.  We can continue telegraphing the message that when you come here with children you are home free.  This will continue fueling the drug crisis, growing MS-13, enriching the drug cartels, inducing sex trafficking and terrible crimes at the border, encouraging illegals to kidnap children to gain admission, and causing death and mayhem on both sides of the border.  Or we could finally deter this behavior by announcing an end to any immigration requests not processed in a controlled environment through our embassy.  If you are concerned about "separating children" and don't support the latter path, then you need to seriously examine your values and priorities.

He points out that the child border crisis didn't arise out of nowhere, but came as a result of the perverse incentives embedded into President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals de facto amnesty for child illegals.  From there on out, the migrant waves stopped being all about military-aged young men and turned to women and children.  Amnesty, he notes, is a big prize to get.

What's more, drug-dealers and cartels are all in for this, given the amount of money they make from border crossings, which has the double advantage of tying up the Border Patrol as they process entries – about four hours per illegal per agent, he surmises.  Border Patrol agents tied up with famished and thirsty illegals are a golden opportunity for drug-smugglers fueling the opiate epidemic in the states, because drug-smugglers know how to cross the desert border, armed and provisioned.  The lawmen, tied up with the diapers and crying, can do nothing.

Nobody benefits more than cartels from child-smuggling, and in many ways, Horowitz notes.

The whole perverse incentive of this is that migrants are now claiming asylum to win entry, not just asking for a green card.  Given that cartels are benefiting so much from this setup, Horowitz writes that ending all asylum applications at the border and taking them only at U.S. embassies is what will end the scam – and all its incidental human carnage.  That is something President Trump can do and should do pronto.

Read the whole thing.

The press here is doing what it did in Europe to encourage the vast migrant waves: focusing on children, as it did in the case of Alan Kurdi, the Syrian toddler who drowned at sea in 2015 as his parents attempted to enter Europe illegally.  With no legal ground to stand on, the idea has always been to ensure that emotionalism outweighs rational immigration laws that are humane for everyone.  After all, everyone cries when a child drowns, and everyone wants to comfort a small child crying (as the news photos now show); why have immigration law at all?  That was what led to the great human waves inundating Europe – which have since led to a lot more drownings and other mayhem.

The problem is that reacting on that emotional level is a good way to ensure more child misery and victimization – because these things are already happening as a result of perverse incentives within the law itself.

A good piece to read on the background of why illegal immigrants are coming to the border, instead of the embassies, to claim asylum, is by Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review, headlined "The Immorality of Open Borders."  His opener is a perfect summary of all the hard facts he supports with diamond-clarity:

We have two choices when it comes to border security and interior enforcement.  We can continue telegraphing the message that when you come here with children you are home free.  This will continue fueling the drug crisis, growing MS-13, enriching the drug cartels, inducing sex trafficking and terrible crimes at the border, encouraging illegals to kidnap children to gain admission, and causing death and mayhem on both sides of the border.  Or we could finally deter this behavior by announcing an end to any immigration requests not processed in a controlled environment through our embassy.  If you are concerned about "separating children" and don't support the latter path, then you need to seriously examine your values and priorities.

He points out that the child border crisis didn't arise out of nowhere, but came as a result of the perverse incentives embedded into President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals de facto amnesty for child illegals.  From there on out, the migrant waves stopped being all about military-aged young men and turned to women and children.  Amnesty, he notes, is a big prize to get.

What's more, drug-dealers and cartels are all in for this, given the amount of money they make from border crossings, which has the double advantage of tying up the Border Patrol as they process entries – about four hours per illegal per agent, he surmises.  Border Patrol agents tied up with famished and thirsty illegals are a golden opportunity for drug-smugglers fueling the opiate epidemic in the states, because drug-smugglers know how to cross the desert border, armed and provisioned.  The lawmen, tied up with the diapers and crying, can do nothing.

Nobody benefits more than cartels from child-smuggling, and in many ways, Horowitz notes.

The whole perverse incentive of this is that migrants are now claiming asylum to win entry, not just asking for a green card.  Given that cartels are benefiting so much from this setup, Horowitz writes that ending all asylum applications at the border and taking them only at U.S. embassies is what will end the scam – and all its incidental human carnage.  That is something President Trump can do and should do pronto.

Read the whole thing.