BORDER BATTLE - Mexico

"Why Trump’s Mexico tariff idea is widely opposed" PBS NewsHour 5/31/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump has long praised the use of tariffs, but his new threat to Mexico took many people by surprise.  Trump said he will levy a 5 percent tariff on Mexican imports as of June 10 unless the country curbs immigration to the U.S.  The proposal drew widespread bipartisan criticism from lawmakers, who predicted U.S. consumers would bear its cost.  Yamiche Alcindor joins Amna Nawaz to discuss.

"Why this former U.S. ambassador thinks Trump’s tariffs won’t achieve immigration goals" PBS NewsHour 5/31/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  This spring, around 100,000 migrants per month have been caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.  With a proposed 5 percent tariff on imports from Mexico, one of the largest U.S. trading partners, President Trump wants to leverage economic power to reduce that flow.  But will the strategy work?  Amna Nawaz talks to Ambassador John Feeley, a former U.S. envoy to Panama, for analysis.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION - The Boot of a Dictator

Trump again proves he is a dictator-want-to-be and will not accept that the Constitution, Congress, or the courts can limit him.  Trump does not believe in the rule of law.

He wants a 'Pennywise' in charge of Homeland Security.

"Why Trump decided Nielsen wasn’t tough enough on immigration" PBS NewsHour 4/8/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  On Sunday, President Trump announced the resignation of Homeland Security Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen, who reportedly was forced to step down amid Trump’s growing frustration with the growing number of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.  Amna Nawaz reports and joins Judy Woodruff with Yamiche Alcindor to discuss why Nielsen fell out of favor with Trump and what the shakeup means for immigration policy.

NEWSHOUR BOOKSHELF - "Lost Children Archive" (a novel)

"Novelist Valeria Luiselli on writing to document ‘political violence’" PBS NewsHour 3/6/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The U.S. is reportedly experiencing illegal immigration at the highest rates since 2007, with significant increases in the number of unaccompanied minors.  It is these child migrants who are the subject of Valeria Luiselli’s book “Lost Children Archive.”  Luiselli talks to Jeffrey Brown about her experience helping child asylum seekers, balancing truth and fiction and "political violence."

OUTRAGE - Big Brother Watching Advocates

"Feds tracked caravan advocates and others" by Kate Morrissey, San Diego Union-Tribune 3/7/2019

NOTE:  Copied from e-newspaper, so no link to article.

Dossiers were kept on 59 activists, lawyers, journalists involved at border

Documents published Wednesday indicate that the federal government has monitored a group of journalists, attorneys, advocates, and activists who interacted with a migrant caravan that arrived in Tijuana late last year.

As recently as a week ago, an attorney with Al Otro Lado, a legal services organization that has been supporting migrants in Tijuana, was stopped when trying to enter Mexico in what some believe is continued targeting of people who either worked with the caravan or covered the story of its journey to the border.

NBC7 in San Diego published leaked documents Wednesday indicating that the U.S. government has kept dossiers on a group of 59 advocates , activists, attorneys and journalists it is investigating in relation to the migrant caravan that arrived in Tijuana in November.  Many of those in the dossiers appeared in previous articles by The San Diego Union-Tribune , the Los Angeles Times, and The Intercept talking of frequent interrogations at the border or being denied entry to Mexico.

A number of people in the group began to come forward earlier this year after being interrogated repeatedly in secondary inspection when crossing north through the San Ysidro Port of Entry.  They said they were asked questions about the caravan and about the people helping it.

Others, like freelance photographer Kitra Cahana, found themselves blocked from entering Mexico.  Cahana was twice denied entry to the country when she tried to return to continue her work covering migrants.

Most, but not all, of the people interviewed by the Union-Tribune who believed they had been targeted by Customs and Border Protection for investigation had been present when some members of the caravan were trying to cross the border illegally, such as the incident on New Year’s Day when more than 100 migrants gathered on the south side of the border that resulted in U.S. officials firing tear gas.  (Officials maintain that they were responding to rocks being thrown at them, but some witnesses have disputed the order of events.)

The published documents indicate that officials placed alerts on some of the people in the group and canceled visas or SENTRI passes for others.  At least nine people in the documents appear to have red X’s over their photos, indicating that they were arrested.  Many of those nine were later deported from Mexico.

Asked about the dossiers, a Customs and Border Protection spokesman said that the arriving caravans had “added increased and new challenges to an already complicated and dangerous mission.”

“Criminal events, such as the breach of the border wall in San Diego, involving assaults on law enforcement and a risk to public safety, are routinely monitored and investigated by authorities,” the CBP official said.

“These activities could result in a more thorough review of those seeking entrance into our country.  It is protocol following these incidents to collect evidence that might be needed for future legal actions and to determine if the event was orchestrated.  CBP and our law enforcement partners evaluate these incidents, follow all leads garnered from information collected, conduct interviews and investigations, in preparation for, and often to prevent future incidents that could cause further harm to the public, our agents, and our economy.”

Exactly how much authority border officials have to search and interrogate individuals versus how much civil rights protect individuals passing through the border is still being litigated in court.

Attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union called for more oversight and accountability of the agency after learning of the dossiers.

“This is an outrageous violation of the First Amendment,” said Esha Bhandari, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.  “The government cannot use the pretext of the border to target activists critical of its policies, lawyers providing legal representation, or journalists simply doing their jobs.  We are exploring all options in response.”

Al Otro Lado attorney Erika Pinheiro’s name doesn’t appear on the documents that NBC7 published, but her colleague’s, Nicole Ramos, does.  (The news outlet blurred many of the faces and names in the dossier, but Ramos appears to be the only person identified as an attorney in the pages that were published.  Some of those in the documents do not have a role identified.)

Pinheiro was denied entry when she tried to enter Tijuana on foot from San Diego in late January because of an international alert placed on her passport, she said.  She spent about a month in the U.S. working to get a residence card to be able to return.

“All my family lives in Mexico,” Pinheiro said.  “The whole time I was out, my family was separated.  They removed me from Mexico without my kid.”

The alert was triggered again when she drove across at the San Ysidro Port of Entry a little over a week ago and took her residence card paperwork to Mexican immigration officials, she said.  One of the supervisors told her that the alert is for people who have national security or criminal issues, she said.

She had to fill out a questionnaire that asked whether she had warrants in other countries and if she’d ever been convicted of a crime.  Officials at the port of entry sent her information to Mexico City, and she was allowed into the country after waiting for about an hour.

“The last time they were much more aggressive,” Pinheiro said of her experience.  “This time they seemed generally confused.”

A Mexican immigration official confirmed that Pinheiro had to go through an “administrative process” at the port of entry because of an alert on her passport.  The official was not able to share the reason for the alert.

Pinheiro believes that the United States government placed the alert on her passport.

“It seems like the United States government is targeting anyone who provides assistance to migrants,” Pinheiro said.  “There’s a very clear pattern of that.”

Nora Phillips, legal director of Al Otro Lado, was also denied entry to Mexico in January because of a flag on her passport.

Al Otro Lado is part of several lawsuits against the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

The State Department and the Department of Justice referred the Union-Tribune to Mexican immigration officials for comment on Pinheiro’s case.

The Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the record.

Days before Pinheiro’s second incident at the border, attorneys included a request for information about the alert on Pinheiro’s passport as part of the discovery process in a case alleging that the federal government is illegally turning away asylum seekers.  Court documents related to the attorney’s request in the case are sealed.

A statement from organizations involved in the case said that attorneys had filed for expedited discovery to determine whether the alerts on the two Al Otro Lado attorneys’ passports were in retaliation for the lawsuit and Al Otro Lado’s advocacy on behalf of asylum seekers.  It points out that the work that Pinheiro and other Al Otro Lado attorneys do, including representing clients in the lawsuits against the U.S. government, requires them to be able to travel to Mexico.

Though Pinheiro has been able to return to Mexico, she worries that she will be denied entry from any other country because of the alert on her passport.

Her work requires her to travel to Central America frequently as she’s among those who have been on the ground supporting deported parents of separated families.  Just this week Al Otro Lado supported 29 deported parents on a journey back to the U.S. border in Calexico to ask to be reunited with their children.

TRUMP SHUTDOWN - End to Hostage Crisis, Maybe

Trump the Hut

"Why Trump is ‘edging closer’ to declaring a national emergency over border wall" PBS NewsHour 1/21/2019

aka "Dictator-want-to-be to Ignore Congress"

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  On day 31 of the partial government shutdown, the only deal on the table is the one President Trump proposed Saturday, which would provide temporary protection for DACA recipients in exchange for $5.7 billion for a border wall.  Democrats immediately rejected the plan, but Sen. Mitch McConnell is expected to bring it to a vote.  Judy Woodruff talks to Yamiche Alcindor for more.

"As Trump and Pelosi spar over State of the Union, Democrats consider funding compromise" PBS NewsHour 1/23/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  On day 33 of the government shutdown, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House won't host the President's State of the Union address until the shutdown is resolved.  In response, President Trump said Pelosi is "afraid of the truth."  Meanwhile, some Democrats are considering a new plan for $5.7 billion in border security, but no wall.  Judy Woodruff talks to Yamiche Alcindor and Lisa Desjardins.

"Trump and Pelosi must ‘both give a little,’ says Sen. Rounds" PBS NewsHour 1/23/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As the Senate prepares to vote on two funding proposals Thursday, what are their expectations for making progress to end the government shutdown?  Judy Woodruff speaks to Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) for his take on how we got to this point, what Democrats and Republicans should do next and why the President's request for additional miles of border barrier is "not unreasonable."

"‘End this shutdown madness,’ says Sen. Van Hollen" PBS NewsHour 1/23/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Senate is scheduled to vote on two funding proposals Thursday, and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) says he hasn't given up hope that the one to reopen the government for two weeks will pass.  Judy Woodruff talks to Sen. Van Hollen about the "poison pills" included in President Trump's most recent proposal and why the short-term funding deal represents a bipartisan "best alternative" for now.

"On day 34 of shutdown, signs of progress toward resolution" PBS NewsHour 1/24/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Two bills to end the government shutdown failed in the Senate Thursday, as expected.  But there are a few signs of progress, with support building for a proposal by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).  Meanwhile, thousands of federal workers will miss another paycheck this Friday.  Judy Woodruff is joined by Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor for the latest.

Nancy Pelosi gets partial win (aka spanks little boy Donny)

"How ‘pressure mounting’ on Trump led him to make temporary deal" PBS NewsHour 1/25/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  On Friday, President Trump announced a deal to reopen the government for three weeks.  The funding plan does not include immediate money for a border wall.  It will allow Democrats and Republicans to negotiate a longer-term solution without the shadow of the shutdown hanging over them -- in theory, at least.  Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor join Judy Woodruff with the latest.

"Of temporary funding deal, Rep. Lujan says ‘we’re all moving forward’" PBS NewsHour 1/25/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  After President Trump reached a deal with Congress to reopen the government and fund it for three weeks, “we’re all moving forward,” says Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.).  He talks to Judy Woodruff about what he sees as the administration’s “lack of empathy,” why the President should take responsibility for the shutdown and anticipating a “robust conversation” about border security.

TRUMP ANTI-IMMIGRATION - The Evil of Xenophobia

I am tired of this use of immigrants as being criminals by our obviously racist President.  What he has done by slamming the door closed to people that we once welcomed is nothing more that an old dictator's tactic of finding someone to falsely blame for problems to whip-up supporters.  The U.S. should be a welcoming nation, especially since today's America is made up of families that were once immigrants.

"Asylum seekers forced to wait across border" by Molly O'Toole & Kate Linthicum, San Diego Union-Tribune 1/25/2019

NOTE:  Article form e-newspaper therefore no link.

DHS policy begins today to block migrants from entering United States

The Trump administration said Thursday night that it would start requiring asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while their cases are considered in the United States, a dramatic escalation in its immigration crackdown.

Border officers will start returning asylum applicants back across the border as soon as the implementation becomes operational today, beginning at the San Ysidro Port of Entry, according to Department of Homeland Security officials.

Until now, most migrants seeking asylum were released from detention into the United States while awaiting a court hearing, a process that can take years due to backlogs.

Migrant advocates say implementing the plan will put asylum seekers at risk by requiring them to wait in Mexican border cities with some of the deadliest homicide rates in the world.

On Dec. 20, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen announced the policy shift to force asylum seekers to wait in Mexico, hailing the measure as “historic.”  Operations on the border did not change over the past month, however.

On Wednesday, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials briefed asylum workers on how to interview individuals affected under the new policy, saying it would be rolled out imminently, according to a federal employee who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the internal planning.

Arturo Rocha, a spokesman for Mexico’s foreign ministry, said Thursday that U.S. officials had not informed the Mexican government that they were beginning to implement the policy.

“We have not been officially notified by the U.S. government of their intention to implement today,” Rocha told the Los Angeles Times.

Mexican officials said in December, when Nielsen announced the plan, that they would cooperate on a temporary basis, allowing non-Mexican migrants to remain in Mexico for humanitarian reasons.

It wasn’t clear Thursday how Mexico would respond to U.S. officials pushing asylum seekers back, however.

The crackdown comes as President Donald Trump continues to clash with Congress over his demands for $5.7 billion for a border wall, a dispute that led to a partial government shutdown on Dec. 22.

On Saturday, Trump said he would consider a deal to end the impasse that would include temporary deportation relief for some immigrants already in the United States.  Democrats have said they will negotiate after Trump agrees to reopen the government.

The new asylum policy could directly affect thousands of migrants from Central America who are stuck on the Mexican side of the border, or are now approaching it in hopes of seeking asylum.

In Tapachula, on Mexico’s southern border with Guatemala, more than 10,000 migrants have applied for humanitarian visas to head north, and the group continues to grow.

“I actually think they encourage the caravans because they want to get rid of the people from their country,” Trump said of Central American countries Wednesday at a White House meeting with conservatives to discuss his immigration proposal.

“We have a lot of very dangerous people that want to come into our country,” he added.  “And we’re not letting them in.”

Since December, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services personnel have been stationed at the San Ysidro crossing and other Border Patrol stations in California, and a recent recruitment effort added to their ranks.

They will be charged with carrying out the new policy and conducting interviews to determine whether asylum seekers will be returned to Mexico.

A Homeland Security official said Customs and Border Protection personnel will take applicants who they determine must wait in Mexico to a gate at San Ysidro typically used for deportations.

In her Dec. 20 announcement, Nielsen said the Trump administration had decided on its own to change longstanding immigration policy that enabled most asylum seekers to be released in the U.S. while awaiting a hearing.

Immigrant rights groups opposed the move, saying it violates U.S. and international asylum laws and could potentially face court challenges.  “The President thinks he can do this unilaterally,” said Kevin Appleby, a senior director at the Center for Migration Studies.  “But it’s a blatant rejection of current law.”

U.S. officials have provided few details about the new plan or how it will be implemented.

On Wednesday, a reminder went out to Citizenship and Immigration Services employees not to leak documents or information, saying it would “risk harm to our operations, create confusion, threaten the safety of the American public and law enforcement, and may even provide an opening to individuals to exploit those seeking to access our immigration system and programs,” according to a BuzzFeed News report.

Before the asylum applicants are released from U.S. custody and returned to Mexico, they will get a date for their hearing on a “notice to appear.”

There will be a hotline they can call for updates on the status of their cases, and the policy of returning applicants to Mexico will not be applied to unaccompanied minors or other vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women or migrants who are ill, Homeland Security officials said.

Asylum processing at the San Ysidro port of entry, between San Diego and Tijuana, appeared normal early Thursday.

U.S. officials accepted 39 asylum seekers, fewer than on a typical day.  Families from Mexico, a family from Russia and a man from Eritrea were among those taken in vans by Mexican officials to make their claims for asylum in the U.S.

Violence is on the rise in all of the Mexican border states and a record number of people were victims of homicide last year in Tijuana — more than any city in Mexico.

With 133 killings for every 100,000 people, the sprawling border metropolis now ranks as more violent than the capitals of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, the countries that most migrants who arrive at the southern border are fleeing.

The new approach represents a significant departure from long-standing asylum-screening procedures and comes as the administration struggles to handle a record surge of Central American families coming to the southern border.  In fiscal 2018, 107,000 migrant family members were taken into custody by U.S. border security officials, surpassing a record set in 2016.

Trump administration officials have acknowledged that the President’s proposed border wall would have little effect stemming the flow of migrant families seeking asylum as they often surrender to authorities, in accordance with the law, once they arrive on U.S. soil.

The new initiative is one of several measures the administration has sought to implement at the border, including the deployment of several thousand military personnel and the separation of thousands of migrant children from their families — a policy Trump eventually reversed after widespread condemnation.

O’Toole and Linthicum write for the Los Angeles Times.  U-T staff writer Kate Morrissey contributed from Tijuana.  The Washington Post contributed to this report.

TRUMP IMMIGRATION - The Wall and Fake Crisis

"Why we should expect ‘more of the same’ from the President’s address" PBS NewsHour 1/8/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump plans to make his case for a border wall during a primetime speech, in which he’s expected to reiterate his argument that the situation at the southern border constitutes a “crisis.”  Yamiche Alcindor and Lisa Desjardins join Judy Woodruff to discuss how the administration justifies the government shutdown, where public opinion stands and how congressional Democrats might respond.

"In familiar refrain, Trump relies on fear to sell immigration message" PBS NewsHour 1/8/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In an Oval Office address, President Trump again appealed for $5.7 billion to build a physical barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border, calling illegal immigration "a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul."  After his remarks, Democratic congressional leaders spoke, followed by analysis from Judy Woodruff, Amna Nawaz, Lisa Desjardins, Yamiche Alcindor, and the Cook Political Report's Amy Walter.  (full speech video)

"The facts behind the administration’s border ‘crisis’ claim" PBS NewsHour 1/8/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Ahead of his address on the government shutdown and border wall, President Trump tweeted that the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border was a humanitarian and national security crisis.  Meanwhile, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said that the “crisis is getting worse.”  But are these statements true?  Amna Nawaz joins Judy Woodruff for a look at the facts.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  So, even before President Trump's address tonight, his administration has been making a case that there is a crisis on the southern border, a national security and a humanitarian crisis.

Vice President Mike Pence spoke to reporters yesterday alongside Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.  She said the crisis is getting worse.

"NewsHour"'s Amna Nawaz is here with a look at the facts.

Amna, you have been looking at this in-depth.  First of all, how do we define crisis, and is it our sense that there is a terrorist threat at the border, as the White House is suggesting?

Amna Nawaz (NewsHour):  So, first of all, we're following the administration's lead on this, right?

They're saying there is enough of a crisis, that it necessitates some kind of physical barrier to stop it in its tracks.  And there's really two prongs.  We have heard this already in the show, humanitarian crisis and a national security crisis.

That terrorist threat you mentioned, the administration has been citing a few examples repeatedly, including one we heard from Vice President Pence just this morning in an interview.  Here's what he had to say.

"With regard to terrorists," he said, "we have seen more than 4,000 known or suspected terrorists attempt to come into our country through various means."

Judy, that exact number is actually 3,755.  It's a rounding up.  That group that we know of, those are people with a direct link to terrorism.  But to associate it with the southern border is very, very misleading.

We know the vast majority of those people who've been apprehended come in through airports.  And so that — it's a misleading claim we have heard the government say again and again.  And, in fact, we have government's own numbers in this case that looked at the terrorist threat on the southern border.  This is from a State Department report in 2017.

They [State Department] said, "There are no known international terrorist organizations operating in Mexico, no credible info that any member of a terrorist group has traveled through Mexico to gain access to the U.S."

So that was 2017.  But, Judy, even in this year, it's now been reported, in the first half of 2018, there are believed to be six known or suspected terrorists who entered the country, none of them from our southern…

Judy Woodruff:  Six?

Amna Nawaz:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  The number six?

Amna Nawaz:  That's right.

Judy Woodruff:  So — but, even apart from this, you hear the administration making the argument there are dangerous people coming across.  Who are they, could they be referring to?

Amna Nawaz:  So, there's two other numbers we have heard repeated again and again.  And we dug into them to figure out, who are these groups they're talking about?

In a briefing yesterday, Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen cited these numbers.  She cited a group of special interest aliens, 3,000 of them, she said, who were encountered on the southern border last year, in addition, 17,000 convicted criminals who were stopped at the southern border last year.

Let's just take those piece by piece for a second.  The special interest aliens, all those are, are a group of people who come from different countries that may require a second look, either because of the nature of terrorism or threats in their home country or because of their travel patterns.  Those are not suspected terrorists.

The libertarian Cato Institute actually looked at the group in-depth.  They did a huge comprehensive study.  And they found, from 1975 to 2017, that those groups from special interest aliens, there were seven of them in that — all of those years who entered illegally who were convicted of planning a terrorist attack, and none of them actually successfully carried out the attack.

And none of them, Judy, actually entered on the southern border.  And most of them actually came in from our northern border.  The 17,000 criminal convictions, what we can say about that is, I went to a DHS source and said, what are those convictions?  They don't have a breakdown.

But they did say many of those convictions were for previous illegal entries.

Judy Woodruff:  Huh.  But northern border, Canada?

(CROSSTALK)

Amna Nawaz:  Northern border on those seven ones over — from 1975 to 2017.

Judy Woodruff:  So, setting that aside, setting aside the national security threat, the other argument the administration is making is, there's a humanitarian crisis at the border.

Amna Nawaz:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  What do we know about that?

Amna Nawaz:  There's absolutely a humanitarian crisis.

OK, it starts all the way down in Central America, makes its way all the way up to our border.  Here's what Secretary Nielsen had to say yesterday about that in the briefing.  She cited 60,000 children sent here unaccompanied at the border, 30 percent of the women who are raped on the journey, seven out of 10 that are the victims of violence.

We know these folks from these Central American countries who are fleeing violence and instability.  They have a dangerous journey along the way.  None of those are things that we have direct control over.

The things that we have control over in our government, kind of creating a crisis of our own.  We know that volume is not the problem.  Historically, border crossings are at an all-time low.  If you take a look at border apprehensions over the years, over the last 20 years, that's an 81 percent decline.  Volume is not the issue.

We have handled many, many more people, many hundreds of thousands more people a month.  The difference is demographics.  We now have more families, meaning parents and guardians, with children coming to our borders.  Take a look at those numbers.  Those have been going up over the last five years.  It's a 400 percent increase.

And that has taxed our system in ways it wasn't meant to handle.  We were built as an immigration system to handle single men.  We're not built to handle the families and children.  It's creating a backlog through the whole system.

Judy Woodruff:  And that's one thing the administration is acknowledging.

One other thing, Amna.  So, the President is going to speak to the nation tonight, short remarks, we're told seven or eight minutes.  He is going to make again, we believe, a case for a wall along the border, saying, if we build a physical wall, we will be able to address these crises we have been discussing.

Amna Nawaz:  Yes, there's a few other threats the President has cited too, with validity, absolutely.

He has said about the nature of drugs coming across the border — just on Friday, he said drugs are pouring into this country.  They don't go through the ports of entry.  When they do, they sometimes get caught.  We know that there's elicit narcotics trafficking flowing back and forth.  We know it's a problem, and the violence that comes with it too.

Statistically, those illicit drugs come through legal ports of entry.  A wall wouldn't really do much to stop it.  And we have DEA data that actually debunks that too.

But, more importantly, Judy, they say the wall could act as a deterrent, it'll send a message that people cannot illegally enter.

The problem is, historically, that hasn't worked.  In previous administrations and this one, anything we have done as a deterrent, whether it was pamphleting in Mexico, or putting families and children in mass detention — and these were in previous administrations, by the way — or family separation in this one, it hasn't worked, because the conditions on the ground these people are fleeing have not changed.

TRUMP ANTI-IMMIGRATION - Televised Border Wall Fight

"How Trump got into a televised tussle over a border wall" PBS NewsHour 12/11/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump met with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer at the White House to discuss border security, but the meeting soon erupted into an on-camera argument, with Trump saying that he would take full responsibility if the government shuts down next week over a conflict for wall funding.  Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor join Judy Woodruff for more.

"Rep. Collins [R]: Trump putting security first with border wall fight" PBS NewsHour 12/11/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  It’s time to stop punting on the issue of border security and “have honest discussions” about funding the border wall, says Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga) Collins joins Judy Woodruff to discuss President Trump’s threat to Democrats to shut down the government and why he thinks the time is right for negotiations.

Note to Rep. Collins, Schumer is upholding American values over Trump xenophobia.


"Hoyer: Democrats believe in border security, not Trump’s wall" PBS NewsHour 12/11/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md) says President Trump’s “theater” of suggesting he is willing to shut down the government if he doesn’t get what he wants for border wall funding is “not particularly productive” as a negotiating tactic.  Hoyer joins Judy Woodruff to talk about the opening for compromise between Trump and the Democrats.

TRUMP XENOPHOBIA - New Border Policies

NOTE:  This is partly political, and Trump is using Joseph Goebbels (head of Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda) playbook.  Identify a person or group and use them to (falsely) blame them for all ills in your nation.  In Goebbels' case the Jews, in Trump's case immigrants.

"How Trump’s border decisions represent ‘completely new’ American policy" PBS NewsHour 11/26/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As immigration policy takes center stage, we analyze the administration's recent moves on border closures and asylum requests.  Scott Shuchart worked on immigration for the Department of Homeland Security under both President Obama and President Trump.  He's now a senior immigration fellow at the Center for American Progress and a Washington Post contributor, and he joins Amna Nawaz to discuss.

TRUMP AGENDA - New Border Directive

It may not violate the law, but it IS still immoral and unethical.

"Does Trump’s new border directive violate federal law?" PBS NewsHour 11/21/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  More than 5,700 service members are providing support at the U.S.-Mexico border.  Now, the President has authorized troops to defend border patrol agents, “including a show or use of force (including lethal force).”  Nick Schifrin talks to former Army lawyer Geoffrey Corn, who teaches at South Texas College of Law Houston, about how Secretary of Defense James Mattis is walking a legal “tight rope.”

AMERICA - Refugees or Immigration?

"Does America face a refugee or an immigration problem?" by Jon Greenberg, Politifact 6/29/2018

Separating children from their parents at the southwest border ignited a broad emotional outcry not often seen in the country’s long-running immigration debate.  After weeks of defending the policy both as a deterrent and necessary to make the border legally meaningful, President Donald Trump and his administration reversed course.

The policy switch was itself a rarity for Trump, and it prompted the host of NBC’s Meet the Press Chuck Todd to ask the guests on his June 24 show, "Is this more of a refugee crisis than an immigration crisis?"

There is no definitive answer, but to frame the issue in terms of refugees instead of immigration redefines the problem.

"It becomes more of a humanitarian problem, than a jobs or economic one," said Sarah Pierce, an immigration analyst with the Migration Policy Institute.

We looked at what the data have to say.

It’s all about the Northern Triangle

For decades, the bulk of people crossing the southwest border without permission were Mexican.  They worked on American farms, built American homes, processed American pigs, beef and chickens, and did other manual work.

The people showing up at the border today are more likely to come from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, a cluster known as the Northern Triangle.  In 2017, non-Mexicans stopped at the southwest border outnumbered Mexicans by 50,000.

Not only are those nations poor, they are also particularly violent.  The highest murder rates in the world are found in El Salvador and Honduras.

As the places people came from changed, so did the demographics of who was caught at the border.

Between 2013 and 2017, the number of families apprehended by Customs and Border Patrol agents rose five-fold, from 14,855 to 75,622.

Minors (anyone under 18) went from 7 percent of all people stopped at the border in 2011 to 27 percent in 2017 – nearly a four-fold increase.  In the same period, the fraction of females, both children and adults, doubled from 13 percent of all apprehensions to 26 percent.

"The recent crisis brings very different immigrants from those who were undocumented and came in the 1990s," said economist Giovanni Peri at University of California, Davis.  "They are younger, more vulnerable and more similar to refugees."

Peri, along with most researchers, emphasizes that migrants have a blend of motivations.  In the case of the Northern Triangle countries, escaping poverty and fleeing violence go hand in hand.

Teasing out the relative weight of each is tricky.

Fortunately for us, one economist took a stab at it.

The violence-migration connection

Around 2012, a surge of teenagers without their parents began arriving at the southwest border.  By 2013, for the first time, the unaccompanied minors from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras outnumbered those from Mexico.  In 2014, they accounted for 75 percent of arrivals at the border.

U.S. authorities ended up collecting detailed information on 178,825 minors.  Critically, that data included the towns and cities they had left behind.

Economist Michael Clemens at the Center for Global Development took that location data and ran it against the homicide data specific to those places.  Violence, Clemens noted, isn’t spread evenly.  It concentrates in hot spots.

He also folded in figures for local unemployment, income, poverty and school enrollment.

Clemens found that murders drive migration, but it wasn’t as simple as people fleeing the areas with the highest murder rates.  What mattered most was a rise in homicides.

Clemens determined that on average, an increase of 1.08 homicides per year over four years in a community led to one additional minor from that community at the American border each year.  To further complicate the picture, a jump in murders had a snowball effect, driving migration numbers up for several years going forward, even if the violence leveled off.

Clemens also found that poverty alone didn’t drive migration.  Teenagers – and it was mainly 16-and-17-year-olds – tended not to come from the poorest places, but from places where there was enough money to pay smugglers to shepard minors through Mexico and across the U.S. border.

At the same time, there was a strong connection between sustained poverty and migration.

At the end of the day, Clemens gave about equal weight to violence and economic drivers.

The impact of "short-term increases in violence is roughly equal to the explanatory power of long-term economic characteristics like average income and poverty," Clemens wrote.

Put another way, the surge of minors at the U.S.-Mexico border is both an immigration and refugee issue.

A key caveat to Clemens’ work is that it looked only at unaccompanied minors, and it’s possible that the picture would change if adults and families were included.  But based on studies of family migrants, Clemens said it likely would look the same.

"The decision for movement by unaccompanied children is one of safety and opportunity for children, and that is also heavily in the minds of family units," Clemens said.  "The two kinds don’t self-report substantially different motives."

Clemens also noted that in the 2011-16 period, changes in U.S. policy had little impact on migration trends from the Northern Triangle.

The end of a rule of thumb

For decades, a simple correlation tied illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States.

"When the U.S. unemployment rate went down, migration went up," said Jeffrey Passel, senior demographer at Pew Research.  "If the unemployment rate went up, migration went down."

That held true through 2010.  Then, the pattern stopped.

"After 2010, the unemployment rate dropped dramatically," Passel said.  "If this model had held, Mexican migration would have gone up.  Instead, Mexican migration went down."

Passel said the rise in numbers from other Central American countries, mainly the Northern Triangle group, is not a simple swap of one group for another.  The demographic mix is entirely different.

"There’s something else going on that’s causing the Central American increase," Passel said.  "The economy plays a role but it’s not solely determinative."

Passel and other researchers point to several reasons for the breakdown in the traditional pattern of illegal migration.  Studies show a drop in the number of young men in Mexico, a group that was always the main source of border crossers.  In some areas of Mexico, jobs are more available.  And importantly, American border security has gone steadily up since about 2005.

"Just about everybody gets caught now," said Passel.  "That seemed to work as a deterrent of Mexican migration, but those same factors don’t seem to be affecting Central American migration."

Peri, the UC Davis economist, suggested that the hardening of the border itself changed the mix of people caught trying to enter illegally.

"The very strict enforcement keeps away people who are motivated mainly by jobs, and selects only very desperate Central Americans, including many kids."

To the extent that dynamic is at work, then the primary solution to an immigration problem fueled a humanitarian one.

Not your typical refugee

Legally, American laws and regulations count someone as a refugee by granting them asylum on the grounds that their personal safety is at risk if they stayed in their home country.  As we’ve reported, the number of asylum requests has skyrocketed, but the fraction granted has held steady at about 20 percent.

"If they do not qualify for asylum either then they are not ‘refugees’ in the border sense of someone fleeing for their life and in need of resettlement," said the director of the Center for Immigration Studies Steven Camarota.  The center promotes lower and more selective immigration.

"If someone has gone 1,500 miles through Mexico, and did not apply for asylum there, then it implies that they are not so much fleeing for their life, which is suppose to be the case for an asylee, but rather they are looking for a better life in the United States," Camarota said.

Passel at Pew Research noted that ties to family and friends play a large role when migrants pick a destination.  Many people stopped at the border have an immediate or extended family member already in the United States.  Migrants aim for places where community connections will help them once they arrive.

"Safety is one thing, but you have to live, too," Passel said.

COMMENT:  Camarota is wrongly assuming that asylum seakers know U.S. immigration policy.  They usually don't speak nor read English, so how would they know?

TRUMP - The Immigrant Child 'Kidnapper'

"What Trump immigration policy means for children who cross the border" PBS NewsHour 5/29/2018

QUESTION:  Would you let Trump babysit your child?

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  You might have seen the recent headlines about what’s happening to migrant children who cross the U.S. border without legal documents.  Amna Nawaz explains what we really know about minors who have been separated from their parents, or who arrive at the border alone.

OPINION - Shields and Salam 4/6/2018

"Shields and Salam on China tariff tit-for-tat, Scott Pruitt under fire" PBS NewsHour 4/6/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and National Review executive editor Reihan Salam join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including President Trump’s escalating calls for tariffs on Chinese imports, the decision to deploy the National Guard to the U.S.-Mexico border, ethics concerns for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, and the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. 50 years after his death.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  From calling for a National Guard presence at the U.S.-Mexican border, to floating the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, the President’s announcements this week raised more questions than answers.

And that brings us to the analysis of Shields and Salam.  That is indicated — syndicated…

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  … columnist Mark Shields and “National Review” executive editor Reihan.

Reihan, welcome to the program.

And, Mark, you are more than indicated.  You’re syndicated.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

Mark Shields:  Part of the syndicate.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  So let’s start, Mark, with the lead tonight, and that is these mixed signals mining from the top of the administration over trade.

The President putting out the word, the White House, late last night that they were looking seriously at more taxes, more tariffs on China.  And then the President’s chief economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, saying — today saying, well, no, no, we’re still in negotiations.

What are we to make of this?  The President clearly wants to send some sort of signal to China.

Mark Shields:  No question about it, Judy, and he has, I think it’s fair to say.  Larry Kudlow is an interesting case.

I first ran into him, he was working on the anti-war campaign of Senator Gene McCarthy, a Democrat, then worked for Senator Edmund Muskie, a Democrat, and then became a supply-sider, free trader with Ronald Reagan, and is now whatever Donald Trump is economically, and one can’t be absolutely sure.

But I think his time is short, because he’s been cast as the interpreter of Donald Trump, and Donald Trump fancies himself the world’s greatest communicator, and he doesn’t need an interpreter.

But that having been said, I think it’s fair to say that China in the short run — in the long run, is in tougher shape on this than we are, because we’re a bigger share of their market.  But in the short run, which is where we all live, especially in a November election and the Republican majorities hanging by a thread, I think the pressure will mount on Donald Trump politically from his own base.

These are red states particularly being felt on the soybeans and the retaliation by the Chinese.  So I think that’s where it is politically.  I mean, if you’re a Republican up for reelection this year — and I would just point that more Republicans have retired in the year 2018 than any year since 1930, which was the middle of the first Depression, which tells you something about how they see it.

You want to talk about tax cuts.  That’s what you want to talk about.  You don’t want to talk about trade and immigration and borders, quite frankly.  And I think that’s where the President’s returned.

Judy Woodruff:  Reihan, how do you see the calculus?

Reihan Salam, National Review:  I disagree politically.

Mark raises a very good point when he says the Chinese have been shrewd.  They are targeting Republican constituencies, rock-ribbed, middle-of-the-country, farm Republican constituencies, et cetera.

But there is also the fact that Donald Trump presented himself as a different kind of Republican.  He was a sort of third-party candidate running under the Republican banner.  And protectionism is an idea that is awfully popular with many people.

Now, when you’re talking about the negative impacts here, the thing is that sometimes we have a tendency to overstate them, because a lot of the negative impact is borne by companies that have relied on those supply chains, right?

But the thing is that, overall, think back to the Soviet grain embargo.  You had a lot of farmers who said, yes, this is going to hurt me, but ultimately I support the policy.

You might wind up having a lot of people rally around the flag and saying that, yes, China, they engage in a lot of trade abuses, and this is something where they need to get clamped down.  And so that’s why I think that, as opposed to tax cuts, which are a classically orthodox Republican thing to do, here Donald Trump left to his own devices is trying to do something a bit different that might be appealing to people who otherwise don’t vote Republican.

Judy Woodruff:  But you don’t see mixed signals coming from the administration, or do you?

Reihan Salam:  Oh, I absolutely see mixed signals.

So, part of this could be the savviness of, hey, this is my opening bid, and then I try to get something halfway, but there are definitely mixed signals.

Mark Shields:  I respectfully disagree, in the sense that, if you want to go back to the grain embargo, you ask Democrats who lost their seats at that time under Jimmy Carter.

I do think, quite bluntly, that Donald Trump is playing Presidential politics, and he’s keeping his promise.  He’s talking about his constituents.  That’s why he returns to tariffs.  That’s why he returns to the border and the hordes of rapists descending upon us, quite contrary to fact and reality.

But I don’t think, Judy, that this is helping Republicans, who are in an increasingly discouraging situation and condition heading into November 2018.

"What past administrations learned from sending troops to the border" PBS NewsHour 4/5/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump said Thursday that he wants to send as many as 4,000 National Guard troops to secure the U.S.-Mexico border.  While his plan has raised concerns, there is precedent from past administrations.  John Yang speaks with former ICE acting director John Sandweg, and former Department of Homeland Security adviser Theresa Cardinal Brown, about decision to deploy troops, then and now.

NEWSHOUR BOOKSHELF - "The Line Becomes a River"

"How this former Border Patrol agent learned to see through the eyes of those trying to cross" PBS NewsHour 2/12/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In "The Line Becomes a River," Francisco Cantú describes his experience as a Border Patrol agent in the deserts of Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico.  Written as a collection of dispatches, Cantú shows how the job became a difficult balancing act between his sense of shared humanity and the demands of law enforcement.  The author joins Jeffrey Brown for a conversation near the border.