Thoughts on Immigration

On the front page of today's Wall Street Journal, a uniformed man (presumably a Border Patrol agent) leans over the bank of the Rio Grande, extending a hand to a boy, no more than 15, holding a girl, no more than 6, as they climb out of the river. "New approach to spare child migrants a perilous trek," the headline proclaims. I instinctively liked this image of U.S. border policy.  Not one of fences and guns, but of awareness and compassion. We cannot begin to help the tens of thousands of Central American refugee children that have arrived at our Southern border without awareness of their history (and our own) and compassion for their futures (and our own).

My formative trip to the border took place in 2006, as I spent my spring break meeting people and exploring issues facing El Paso, Texas and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. (For my college roommate's perspective on how this trip and her subsequent experiences at the border shaped her view on immigration policy, read this article.) Even then, I learned that there are no clear-cut, easy answers when it comes to the people at the border. The reasons that people from countries like Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador make the dangerous journey north are multifaceted.  Their countries are poor.  Violent gangs abound.  The global drug market--fueled by U.S. consumption--pours money into those gangs' coffers.  Governments and police forces are corrupt.  Hope is hard to find.

In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week, Jeb Bush and Clint Bolick propose that the solution to "border disorder" rests on three pillars: returning these children to Central America, "aggressively remov[ing]" the incentives that cause them to come to our country, and creating a functional system for legal immigration.

 As to the first pillar, I do not see how we can return these children to Central America in a responsible manner. Will our government really expend the effort to reunite each child with his or her parents? Also, these children left their countries for a reason. Are we sending them back to an unconscionable fate? Their mothers made the heart-rending calculation that sending their babies on freight trains across thousands of miles--risking death, robbery, rape, and all sorts of other evils--provided more hope than staying at home. On the other hand, what can our government provide the children here? A childhood in a detention center? Intentionally lax supervision that allows them to eventually strike out on their own?

Next, removing the incentives that cause people to come to our country is not as simple as giving humanitarian aid to Central American countries. It would have to involve the drug market--reducing illegal consumption in the States to give less money and power to the gangs abroad. Clearly the war on drugs has not achieved this yet.  Perhaps education is the answer. Do people even know that their cocaine habit is funding femicides and gang wars in other countries?  Perhaps legalization is the answer. Take away the black market and the funding is cut off.

Finally, I agree with Bush and Bolick that a functioning path to legal immigration is key. The administration seems to be taking this step by allowing Hondurans to apply for refugee status from home. But this creates new questions--whose applications for immigration are granted? People who have relatives here? People who can pay their own way? People with college degrees who can encourage innovation and entrepreneurship? Young children? Single mothers? People who have no hope of success in their home countries? Will this be just another way to leave the defenseless behind?

I have no answers. That is hard to admit. I've been thinking and praying about these issues for the better part of a decade, and I cannot see a clear way forward. I would love to hear your thoughts on the issue.