A lot has been coming up in the news lately regarding the influx of unaccompanied immigrant children to the United States, and the amount of ignorance and racism surrounding the issue is astounding. People have taken so much time decrying the situation, they make no attempt to go beyond the surface and look at the issues surrounding it. And that's what I hope to do here.
Why are they fleeing? [a.k.a. "Wah wah, they're just coming here because Obama told them they'd have a better life"]
There are countless reasons why someone would flee a violent, unstable country and risk the dangers to get somewhere that they believe would be safe. It has been happening for centuries; this isn't exactly a new phenomenon on the global scale.
In this instance, about a quarter of the children this year are from Honduras, a notoriously violent and unstable country. One child, age 11, describes a community where murders (especially of people he knows) happen on a regular basis, one girl close to his age brutally killed over $5. As Sonia Nazario, writing for the New York Times, says, this "is not an immigration crisis. It is a refugee crisis."
UNHCR, in a report on this crisis, spoke to a number of children fleeing their home countries. They quote a 14-year-old girl from El Salvador, who says:
So yes, I suppose one can argue that they are coming here for a better life. For them, however, a better life is simply one where they do not have to live in fear every day of being exploited or murdered by vicious criminals operating with impunity.
Why aren't we turning these kids away or deporting them immediately? [a.k.a. "I am a horrible person"]
Because they are refugees applying for asylum, and there are very strict laws governing that. First off, to repatriate a refugee is a violation of the principle of non-refoulement (enshrined in international law), which forbids returning a refugee to a place where they face threats to their lives or freedoms. Some may claim that these kids may not fit the definition of a true refugee, which is an acceptable argument. However, there must first be an assessment to determine one's claim for asylum. To return someone to their home country without first making such an assessment is still a violation of that principle.
You may be asking, what makes these kids true refugees? According to UNHCR:
In the New York metropolitan area, asylum seekers are detained in the Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility in Elizabeth, NJ, where they await their immigration hearings. Occasionally asylum seekers are released into the custody of family members or legal representatives who agree to take responsibility of the person until a final determination is made, which is exactly what the proposal for these children is.
[A sidenote about the Elizabeth Detention Facility and others: the Elizabeth center, while ostensibly controlled by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is in reality owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), a for-profit prison management company, part of the prison-industrial complex. In other locations, asylum seekers are detained in "regular" prisons, alongside actual convicted criminals. This means the United States is treating asylum seekers, who are fleeing persecution in their home countries, like criminals when they have for the most part done nothing wrong except enter the country and SURRENDER THEMSELVES IMMEDIATELY, which is all that is necessary for their cases to begin. Yes, some may enter through illegal means, but if you were someone fleeing persecution and possible death in your home country, wouldn't you use any means necessary to get to a safe location?]
Returning to an earlier point, discussing the US's obligations under international law, I know there are many voices in the United States that say that we should not be beholden to what other countries say, as it degrades our sovereignty. First, the US is not beholden to any international law unless it subscribes to that law. In this instance, the US is a signatory to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which means that it must conform with those standards. Furthermore, as Joan Fitzpatrick, a professor of law at the University of Washington, explains, the Refugee Act of 1980 (adopted by the Senate unanimously) codifies the text of the Protocol into US law.
Second, the United States is part of the global community, and one part of that is participating in international law. If we don't want to participate and prefer to return to pre-World War American isolationism, then in addition to withdrawing international law, we should not participate in anything internationally. This means withdrawing from our various military engagements, including dismantling our bases around the world, and withdrawing from our multitude of political and military alliances with a vast number of countries. If this sounds ridiculous, that is because it is. In the 21st century, it is nearly impossible to withdraw from the global community, even in a political sense. If we cannot withdraw, then we must learn how to operate within it.
Why is Obama allowing this to happen?
The short answer is, he's not. This massive influx has been tied to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (read the full text here), which was actually signed by President Bush in one of his last acts as president. Obama did not create the policy, he is simply enforcing it. His critics further claim that he is being soft on illegal immigration, which is patently false. In fact, Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any president in modern history. In 2012 alone, Obama deported 409,849 people, nearly four times as many as Bush Sr. did in his entire presidency.
Another question needs to be asked: why is this law so important? It is designed to prevent and deter human trafficking, which is a serious global and domestic issue. According to a 2005 State Department report, between 14,500 and 17,500 people are trafficked in the United States each year. Not all trafficking victims in the US are illegal; victims are a mix of US citizens and foreign nationals. Therefore, repealing this law (as many outraged with this influx of child refugees are clamoring for) would not only hurt foreign nationals, legal or illegal, which have come to this country for refuge, but American citizens as well who likewise need protection.
The Polaris Project has a vast FAQ about trafficking in the United States, which is well worth the read.
Why are my taxpayer dollars going toward supporting illegal immigrants?
The first initial distinction that is necessary is that these are not simply illegal immigrants, they are refugees, which fall into a completely different category, as explained at the very beginning. While yes, taxpayer dollars may be used to get refugees set up in their new lives, ultimately they end up paying more in taxes than were initially used to resettle them. As soon as refugees are settled, they are expected to get jobs and start paying taxes (and no, they do not steal jobs from Americans).
I hope here I have been able to make this as comprehensive yet readable as possible, and clear up any concerns about these children entering the country. While yes, the high numbers are shocking, it is indicative of a systematic problem that the US has a moral and legal obligation to help resolve. It is not the threat to Americans that people seem to think it is, but it is something that needs to be addressed before this refugee crisis becomes even worse.
Why are they fleeing? [a.k.a. "Wah wah, they're just coming here because Obama told them they'd have a better life"]
There are countless reasons why someone would flee a violent, unstable country and risk the dangers to get somewhere that they believe would be safe. It has been happening for centuries; this isn't exactly a new phenomenon on the global scale.
In this instance, about a quarter of the children this year are from Honduras, a notoriously violent and unstable country. One child, age 11, describes a community where murders (especially of people he knows) happen on a regular basis, one girl close to his age brutally killed over $5. As Sonia Nazario, writing for the New York Times, says, this "is not an immigration crisis. It is a refugee crisis."
UNHCR, in a report on this crisis, spoke to a number of children fleeing their home countries. They quote a 14-year-old girl from El Salvador, who says:
There are problems in my country. The biggest problem is the gangs. They go into the school and take girls out and kill them . . . I used to see reports on the TV every day about girls being buried in their uniforms with their backpacks and notebooks. I had to go very far to go to school, and I had to walk by myself. There was nowhere else I could go where it would be safer. I lived in a village, and it was even worse in cities.The refugee organization also notes that America is not the only country affected by this. According to this same report, Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, Belize, and Nicaragua have reported a 432% increase in the number of asylum applications since 2009 from citizens of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala (which is where the majority asylum applicants in the US originate as well).
So yes, I suppose one can argue that they are coming here for a better life. For them, however, a better life is simply one where they do not have to live in fear every day of being exploited or murdered by vicious criminals operating with impunity.
Why aren't we turning these kids away or deporting them immediately? [a.k.a. "I am a horrible person"]
Because they are refugees applying for asylum, and there are very strict laws governing that. First off, to repatriate a refugee is a violation of the principle of non-refoulement (enshrined in international law), which forbids returning a refugee to a place where they face threats to their lives or freedoms. Some may claim that these kids may not fit the definition of a true refugee, which is an acceptable argument. However, there must first be an assessment to determine one's claim for asylum. To return someone to their home country without first making such an assessment is still a violation of that principle.
You may be asking, what makes these kids true refugees? According to UNHCR:
A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries.As has been shown above, these children have fled due to the excessive violence in their home countries and the well-founded fear of becoming victims of this violence. Obviously, an individual assessment must be done to determine if this fear is well-founded and if they meet the other requirements for declaring someone a refugee (which in the US system is very strict), but this process takes time, and we need to house these applicants somewhere in the meantime.
In the New York metropolitan area, asylum seekers are detained in the Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility in Elizabeth, NJ, where they await their immigration hearings. Occasionally asylum seekers are released into the custody of family members or legal representatives who agree to take responsibility of the person until a final determination is made, which is exactly what the proposal for these children is.
[A sidenote about the Elizabeth Detention Facility and others: the Elizabeth center, while ostensibly controlled by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is in reality owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), a for-profit prison management company, part of the prison-industrial complex. In other locations, asylum seekers are detained in "regular" prisons, alongside actual convicted criminals. This means the United States is treating asylum seekers, who are fleeing persecution in their home countries, like criminals when they have for the most part done nothing wrong except enter the country and SURRENDER THEMSELVES IMMEDIATELY, which is all that is necessary for their cases to begin. Yes, some may enter through illegal means, but if you were someone fleeing persecution and possible death in your home country, wouldn't you use any means necessary to get to a safe location?]
Returning to an earlier point, discussing the US's obligations under international law, I know there are many voices in the United States that say that we should not be beholden to what other countries say, as it degrades our sovereignty. First, the US is not beholden to any international law unless it subscribes to that law. In this instance, the US is a signatory to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which means that it must conform with those standards. Furthermore, as Joan Fitzpatrick, a professor of law at the University of Washington, explains, the Refugee Act of 1980 (adopted by the Senate unanimously) codifies the text of the Protocol into US law.
Second, the United States is part of the global community, and one part of that is participating in international law. If we don't want to participate and prefer to return to pre-World War American isolationism, then in addition to withdrawing international law, we should not participate in anything internationally. This means withdrawing from our various military engagements, including dismantling our bases around the world, and withdrawing from our multitude of political and military alliances with a vast number of countries. If this sounds ridiculous, that is because it is. In the 21st century, it is nearly impossible to withdraw from the global community, even in a political sense. If we cannot withdraw, then we must learn how to operate within it.
Why is Obama allowing this to happen?
The short answer is, he's not. This massive influx has been tied to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (read the full text here), which was actually signed by President Bush in one of his last acts as president. Obama did not create the policy, he is simply enforcing it. His critics further claim that he is being soft on illegal immigration, which is patently false. In fact, Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any president in modern history. In 2012 alone, Obama deported 409,849 people, nearly four times as many as Bush Sr. did in his entire presidency.
Another question needs to be asked: why is this law so important? It is designed to prevent and deter human trafficking, which is a serious global and domestic issue. According to a 2005 State Department report, between 14,500 and 17,500 people are trafficked in the United States each year. Not all trafficking victims in the US are illegal; victims are a mix of US citizens and foreign nationals. Therefore, repealing this law (as many outraged with this influx of child refugees are clamoring for) would not only hurt foreign nationals, legal or illegal, which have come to this country for refuge, but American citizens as well who likewise need protection.
The Polaris Project has a vast FAQ about trafficking in the United States, which is well worth the read.
Why are my taxpayer dollars going toward supporting illegal immigrants?
The first initial distinction that is necessary is that these are not simply illegal immigrants, they are refugees, which fall into a completely different category, as explained at the very beginning. While yes, taxpayer dollars may be used to get refugees set up in their new lives, ultimately they end up paying more in taxes than were initially used to resettle them. As soon as refugees are settled, they are expected to get jobs and start paying taxes (and no, they do not steal jobs from Americans).
I hope here I have been able to make this as comprehensive yet readable as possible, and clear up any concerns about these children entering the country. While yes, the high numbers are shocking, it is indicative of a systematic problem that the US has a moral and legal obligation to help resolve. It is not the threat to Americans that people seem to think it is, but it is something that needs to be addressed before this refugee crisis becomes even worse.
