Is the migration tide starting to turn? Now even the 9th Circuit is supporting Trump
With five million people from Latin America alone making plans to enter the U.S. illegally this year (including about a third of Guatemala), it rather looks as if there's a Europe-style migrant tide ahead for us.
Maybe that's why things seem to suddenly be braking from at least a few directions. Here's an unexpected story from the Washington Examiner:
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed President Trump's administration a win on Tuesday after it ruled the government can send asylum-seekers back to Mexico to wait for a court to adjudicate their petitions.
The judges approved the policy in part due to Mexico's commitment to ensure the safety of the asylum-seekers. "We are hesitant to disturb this compromise amid ongoing diplomatic negotiations between the Untied [sic] States and Mexico because ... the preliminary injunction (at least in its present form) is unlikely to be sustained on appeal."
Coming from that far-left court, wow.
It follows three other recent stories that suggest a turning tide for illegal migration.
One, the caravans are not filling up from Central America, based on a Mexican police raid of migrants who busted though Mexico's southern borders illegally. The risk-versus-reward ratio got just a little more balanced with that act, and so a certain percentage of would-be migrants are now reconsidering their options: choosing to stay home, selecting another destination, or deciding to come here legally instead, in which case they would be quite welcome. Word has gotten out that caravanning is not the easy way to the U.S. its leftist organizers promise. The empty caravans signal they don't control the show anymore.
Two, Fox News and others have been reporting some very negative news highlighting the reality of illegal immigration — such as a recent story on migrants renting and recycling children in order to get unfettered access into and around the U.S. without detention. Surely that highlighting of organized cartel profiteering and human-trafficking has got to give all sides in this issue some cause for consideration. Is getting into the U.S. worth the act of renting children? Should U.S. asylum law really be in the business of incentivizing this kind of human-trafficking? The narrative is shifting, and now maybe there really is a cause for considering what's going on at the border an actual crisis.
Third, now the New York Times has come out to admit that there is a crisis on the border. The newspaper of record turned heads the other day by putting out an editorial to argue that it favors more government funding for more comfortable beds for detained migrants, which is where they see the best point for stopping the crisis may be. (The rest of us think maybe a wall involving no detention at all would be more humane, or better still, a change in U.S. asylum laws so these laws could be utilized by those who really need them instead of everyone facing clogged courts filled with unserious cases just playing for time). The Times wouldn't have written that editorial if it didn't think its readers were thinking this, too. Editorial pages are there to please their readers. Again, more evidence of a shifting tide.
Now the far-left Ninth Circuit has moved against form, actually handing the Trump administration a victory, complete with a little snipe that courts above them will likely do their work for them. Really? This is passing the buck, and we have never seen this sort of thing out of these people.
Slowly, surely, through a variety of signals, it seems the tide is starting to turn.
Image credit: Channel 4 News via shareable YouTube screen shot.