For years, the immigration-reform debate has boiled down to one question: Secure the border first, or not?
Those on the “not” side would have you believe it’s a humanitarian matter, that plugging the leaks in our southern border before resolving the fates of millions of illegal immigrants is the inhumane approach. What, then, do we call our allowing a stream of children to flow here from Central America?
Some 57,000 unaccompanied children, primarily from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, have been taken into U.S. custody since October, according to the Customs and Border Protection commissioner. The number from those three countries is more than double what it was a year ago; it’s about 10 times as many as in all of (fiscal) 2011.
Something changed. What?
Conditions are desperate in those countries, but that’s not exactly novel. In any case, it doesn’t explain why these children are coming alone.
They are not being brought by their parents, as were the so-called “Dreamers” some Americans want to legalize because they didn’t choose to break the law. These newcomers are being sent by their parents, who believe they’ll be allowed to stay.
And it is hard not to attribute that belief in large part to the discussion of, and actions taken toward, “amnesty” for some immigrants.
Consider that the number of unaccompanied child immigrants from those three countries was steady from 2008 through 2011. But starting in 2012, when President Barack Obama deferred prosecution of certain teenagers and young adults who came here illegally, the number has roughly doubled each year.
The appeals to emotion are strong. Both this generation of child immigrants and the previous one came with a sense of desperation and hope for a better life. It tugs on the heartstrings to think of the future they’d face if deported.
Yet, many of the latest immigrants will be deported — but only after having survived who-knows-what conditions on their journey, and then being herded into crowded facilities on this side of the border. This is to say nothing of those who may have died or been kidnapped along the way.
Whose notion of humanity does all that serve?
The president can characterize his opponents as heartless, mock them for challenging his disregard for the rule of law, and blame congressional gridlock all he wants. But the gridlock exists largely because some people expected Obama’s policies to have grave consequences — and predicted as much when he gave up on “the phone” and picked up “the pen,” as he puts it. The legislative process is contentious because there are many aspects of important policies to consider, and because neither side has a monopoly on humane motivations.
One man’s leniency is another’s moral, and in this case mortal, hazard. We see the people around us who would benefit; we don’t always see those who are put at risk.
That’s one reason it matters if we signal seriousness about maintaining control over who comes, goes or stays in this country, or instead encourage them to risk their lives based on what may turn out to be a false promise.
We do need immigration reform, and it does involve both border security and some kind of legal resolution for those who are here illegally. And no, our options on the latter front are not limited to deportation or “amnesty.”
But we are watching what happens when leniency comes first. For a lot of young innocents, it isn’t remotely humane.
