New York Times columnist David Brooks must have really pitied the political process when all on his own he came up with what is, according to him, “a practical response” to the crisis at the southern border.
It just so happens, however, that Brooks’ recommendations are either already in place or they’re points of dispute between the White House, which wants to end the hundreds of thousands of illegal border crossings, and Democrats, who simply want to accommodate them all. This is otherwise known as “American democracy.”
“Over the short term do the things any practical mayor would do,” Brooks wrote Tuesday with Olympian confidence. “Build new detention centers at the border; expand the capacities at the ports of entry; expand the number of judge teams, to speed through the backlog; create an orderly release procedure coordinated with humanitarian agencies; increase the number of counselors so refugees can navigate the system; vet children in their home countries for refugee status so they don’t have to make a fruitless trip.”
Problem solved!
Building new detention centers would not deter the unabated flow of migrants coming to the U.S. and taking advantage of the gaping asylum loophole. It would do the opposite. When cities erect more Section 8 housing, the buildings don’t sit there empty. Building more detention centers simply means filling them up with ever more migrants. It would function as an incentive, not a solution.
Expanding ports of entry would have the same effect. To reiterate for Brooks what is well known, the migrants coming to the U.S. are abusing our own law that was intended to save people of other nations who fear persecution based on their race, religion, or political opinions. The asylum law was never supposed to function as a welcome mat for the world’s destitute.
Adding more immigration judges to the system could help, but not if nothing is done to discourage migrants from exploiting the asylum scheme. The backlog for immigration hearings is at nearly 1 million cases. We won’t put a dent in that number with more judges if the stream of asylum claims continues at its current pace.
By establishing an “orderly release procedure,” Brooks presumably means the process by which migrants who have their claims denied are sent back to their country of origin. Why hadn’t anyone thought of creating an “orderly release procedure?”
They have, and there is one. But, contrary to Brooks’ very well-informed declarations, it’s not as easy as buying a plane ticket from Washington to New York. Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, where the vast majority of these people are coming from, are thousands of miles away. When 200,000 people are showing up at the border in the span of three months, how many planes, buses, and agents do you think it takes to get these people home? It’s almost as if there’s a reason the current situation is called a “crisis” and not “orderly.”
Brooks wants to “increase the number of counselors so refugees can navigate the system,” which is another way of saying, “aid the migrants in their exploitation of the system.” You know, just like any practical mayor would do!
Finally, he suggests that the U.S. “vet children in their home countries for refugee status so they don’t have to make a fruitless trip.” The process for this already exists. It’s called claiming asylum or refugee status at the American embassy. Central Americans make the “fruitless trip” to the U.S. precisely because it’s not fruitless. When children are involved, they are largely allowed to stay, at least until their court hearing arrives some two years later. That’s only if they show up for it at all.
If only Brooks were in Congress to solve all of the nation’s most pressing issues. Unfortunately, kids, he has a column to write.
