Better ways to handle migrants
Tear gas at the USMexico border is a symptom of a deeply dysfunctional system, writes the Chicago Tribune.
THE scene at the border in San Ysidro, California, on Monday was something noone wanted to see: hundreds of migrants on the Mexican side trying to charge across, with some allegedly throwing things at United States agents, who then fired tear gas that enveloped children as well as adults.
Homeland security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said the response was necessary ‘‘to ensure public safety in response to large numbers of migrants seeking to enter the US illegally,’’ but Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez tweeted, ‘‘Shooting tear gas at children is not who we are as Americans.’’
The two sides can debate whether there were better tactics for dealing with an unruly crowd striving to breach security barriers. But the situation should never have come to this. The ugly spectacle is a symptom of a US border and asylum system that is deeply dysfunctional. It should prompt Congress and the president to reconsider what they are doing — and what they have failed to do.
The Administration and its allies insist that the US has every right to control its borders and that those foreigners who want to come here should do so through legal channels. That sounds reasonable. At the same time, though, the current system makes it virtually impossible for many people to come — and the waiting times for those who do qualify are often measured in decades.
Accepting more legal migrants would remove much of the incentive to break the law. But the Administration favours legislation that would reduce legal entries by half. It has also sharply reduced the number of refugee admissions. In his final year as president, Barack Obama said the US would take up to 110,000 refugees; next year’s ceiling will be just 30,000.
Thousands of Central Americans have reached Tijuana in their quest to gain asylum in the United States, and both US and international law guarantee them the right to request sanctuary from persecution. But most have been unable to apply because the US Government has not allotted the personnel and funding to process such cases in a timely manner.
As Everard Meade, director of the TransBorder Institute at the University of San Diego, told United Press International, ‘‘The system is broken when you have to wait five years to get a substantive hearing in an asylum case, even when you have all kinds of data that you will face torture or murder if you return to your home country.’’
US officials say they can handle no more than 100 applications a day at the San Ysidro crossing. That means thousands of asylum seekers could be stuck for months, living in tents and trapped in uncertainty. Trump’s deployment of troops to the border carries a price tag of $US210 million
($NZ306 million) — money that could have been better spent on civilian personnel to handle asylum claims.
There is also the longterm need in Central America to improve economic growth, political stability and public safety. Washington could take the lead in providing help to foster conditions that would encourage people to stay in their homelands instead of risking death to trek northward. But Trump has threatened a cut in such aid to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador as punishment for not preventing the caravan.
We have no problem agreeing that foreigners who want to come here should not try to rush across the border without permission. But if the US Government wants to prevent such conduct, it should be doing all it can to give them better options. — TCA