So what’s this “wall” stalemate really all about? One word: politics.
Okay, so when did walls become immoral? Are doors likewise immoral? What about roofs? The answer is that, at least in America, they have never been and never will be “immoral”, except within the context of talking points drafted by a party dead set on delegitimizing a president they believe they would otherwise have a hard time beating at the polls. Which, of course, is a pretty embarrassing state of affairs when that President is Donald J. Trump.
I understand the political reality here, but what really annoys me are the idiotic talking points being sold to the American public by both parties. No, we don’t have zillions of criminals looking to infiltrate our southern border. Are there at least some trying to do so? This, of course, is quite likely, though not provable. If I left a thousand dollar bill on the counter at a store, I may not be able to state, with 100% certainty, that someone will steal the bill, but I can definitively say is that it is highly likely that someone will. Which of course is the entire point behind a physical barrier – a Wall. It’s why, even in the best of neighborhoods, we have doors to our homes and why we generally lock those doors, at least at night.
Everyone knows that Democrats previously legislatively supported the construction of border walls and/or barriers as part of our overall U.S. immigration strategy. They did so because they are simply a logical part of ANY plan to protect a country’s national safety and integrity. This has been true for thousands of years. So why are Democrats so unwilling to support the exact same legislation now? The answer is simple – This stalemate is all about preventing the President from fulfilling a key campaign promise in the hope that, as a result, enough of his people will not vote for him so as to give the Democrat party a chance to take the presidency in 2020. Nothing more and nothing less.
That said, is erecting a physical barrier (fence, wall, etc.) at our southern border a national crisis at this juncture? Yes.
We recently witnessed thousands of foreigners converge on soft spots around the U.S. southern border attempting to enter into the U.S. illegally. In at least one encounter, border agents who were being attacked were forced to disperse a crowd which included women and children with tear gas. Encounters like these occur because the perpetrators believe there is at least a chance of success. Most of these immigrants are banking on our catch and release posture, where they are detained given a court date and then released into the U.S. general population with a court date. Based on the most recent data, only about 6 out of every 10 immigrants actually show up to their court date. An immovable physical barrier serves to lessen both the violators confidence and resolve while preventing the need for active and hostile physical engagement with violators by border agents which serves to endanger the safety of both the perpetrators and the officers trying to stop them.
Are Asylum claims being made generally legitimate? No.
As is made clear by countless videos taken by news agencies interviewing the recent want-to-be immigrants at the southern border, the majority are attempting to enter the U.S. not because they are fleeing real or imminent persecution in their home countries, but because those countries do not offer the financial opportunities available to citizens and legal immigrants in the United States.
As an immigration attorney who helps the immigrant community, I know this to be the case first hand. That said, do at least some of them have “reasonable fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, national origin, political opinion, or membership in a social group”? Of course. But based on our past experience [cold, hard facts], the number of immigrants that ultimately are allowed into the country after filing an asylum claim is only about 20%. Basically, 8 out of 10 asylum applications simply fail.
Another critical legal factor is that there is a discretionary bar to granting asylum to any noncitizen who has already been offered the opportunity to live permanently in a third country before entering the U.S. Mexico has in fact done that. So as a matter of law, asylum can legitimately be denied to everyone seeking asylum in the U.S. who has tried to do so from the Mexican/U.S. border.
Wasn't Mexico supposed to "pay for the wall"? Yes.
To a large extent, they are. Trump's recent U.S. favorable trade arrangement with Mexico along with Mexico's offer of asylum to these noncitizens, indirectly will help to fund the wall by virtue of tariffs collected, a reduction in the trade deficit, and cost savings resulting from Mexico's asylum grants.
In sum,
Because there is really not only NO IMPETUS for Democrats to seek a middle ground with President Trump on the all-important “wall” issue, but rather an extremely STRONG INCENTIVE TO DENY THE PRESIDENT any semblance of victory in all areas including this one at all costs, the President really has no choice, in terms of what he has to do. It appears that President Trump will have to use his Constitutionally granted Presidential powers to go around Congress and build the wall as a matter of national security, while simultaneously ending the stalemate involving federal workers. He wins on both counts with this decision.
Bendiciones,
Mario
