Support Free Republic Folks, Donate Today!
Posted on 07/13/2019 12:06:05 PM PDT by jazusamo
Good news for the U.S. and for thousands of asylum seekers who show up at the U.S. border. An immigration official has told the New Yorker that as the result of a deal between the U.S. and Guatemala, "asylum seekers from any country who either show up at U.S. ports of entry or are apprehended while crossing between ports of entry could be sent to seek asylum in Guatemala instead."
The U.S. currently has a "remain in Mexico" policy, where the Mexican government agreed to keep several thousand migrants there, even granting work permits so that the asylum seekers could live while waiting for their U.S. court date.
Currently, the backlog of asylum cases is nearing one million. Every single one of those asylum seekers is entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge. Previously, the procedure was to simply give the asylum seeker a court date -- now stretching out to five years or more -- and let them go on their merry way, free to disappear into the interior of the U.S..
Up to 90% of asylum seekers fail to show up for their court date. With tens of thousands arriving at the U.S. border every month looking for asylum, the agreement with Guatemala would appear to be an ideal solution for everyone concerned.
Um...well, not everyone:
The biggest, and most unsettling, question raised by the agreement is how Guatemala could possibly cope with such enormous demands. More people are leaving Guatemala now than any other country in the northern triangle of Central America. Rampant poverty, entrenched political corruption, urban crime, and the effects of climate change have made large swaths of the country virtually uninhabitable. “This is already a country in which the political and economic system can’t provide jobs for all its people,” McFarland said. “There are all these people, their own citizens, that the government and the political and economic system are not taking care of. To get thousands of citizens from other countries to come in there, and to take care of them for an indefinite period of time, would be very difficult.” Although the U.S. would provide additional aid to help the Guatemalan government address the influx of asylum seekers, it isn’t clear whether the country has the administrative capacity to take on the job.
Yes, there will be problems. Yes, Guatemala is poor and a wretched place to live. (Leaving because of "climate change"? Really?) But wouldn't it be better for the migrants to be in a country where their native language is spoken? And given the hullabaloo from open borders advocates about the inhumane conditions that many migrants are suffering under in the U.S., would they be better off there -- or anywhere -- than the U.S.?
The New Yorker headlined this piece, "Trump Is Poised to Sign a Radical Agreement to Send Future Asylum Seekers to Guatemala." Pray tell, what is so "radical" about this deal? We have a similar deal with Mexico. How can precedent be "radical"?
In truth, the New Yorker headline editor is just displaying the usual bias against any Trump idea that would ease the humanitarian crisis at the border that doesn't include allowing anyone and everyone to be welcomed with open arms into the U.S. It shows that the left really doesn't give a good damn about he crisis, but would rather use it to blast a hated political opponent.
Or perhaps they simply can't stand the idea of another foreign policy success for the president.
Isn’t that a country they’re leaving in droves. What do they get out of the deal?
Hooray!
The New Yorker headlined this piece, "Trump Is Poised to Sign a Radical Agreement to Send Future Asylum Seekers to Guatemala." ...In truth, the New Yorker headline editor is just displaying the usual bias...
Thanks jazusamo.
Partisan Media Shills update.
Well, if I ran Guatemala, I’d promise to harbor the illegals as a way to make the US happy. But for practical reasons alone I wouldn’t work very hard at it. Maybe just enough to keep up appearances.
Why are we expected to absorb and support all the world’s lazy losers?
Excerpt from New Yorker article linked is this article:
“According to a draft of the agreement obtained by The New Yorker, asylum seekers from any country who either show up at U.S. ports of entry or are apprehended while crossing between ports of entry could be sent to seek asylum in Guatemala instead. During the past year, tens of thousands of migrants, the vast majority of them from Central America, have arrived at the U.S. border seeking asylum each month. By law, the U.S. must give them a chance to bring their claims before authorities, even though there’s currently a backlog in the immigration courts of roughly a million cases. The Trump Administration has tried a number of measures to prevent asylum seekers from entering the country—from “metering” at ports of entry to forcing people to wait in Mexico—but, in every case, international obligations held that the U.S. would eventually have to hear their asylum claims. Under this new arrangement, most of these migrants will no longer have a chance to make an asylum claim in the U.S. at all. “We’re talking about something much bigger than what the term ‘safe third country’ implies,” someone with knowledge of the deal told me. “We’re talking about a kind of transfer agreement where the U.S. can send any asylum seekers, not just Central Americans, to Guatemala.””
There should be round-the-clocks packed charter/USAF flights taking illegals from detention centers in the USA to Guatemala.
Pay Guatemala whatever it takes to house them temporarily. It won’t be much, because the migrants will soon leave Guatemala and return home, mostly to El Salvador and Honduras. And once word gets out that a trip to the US border equals a trip to Guatemala, the entire flood will slow to a trickle.
Of course Chief Justice Roberts is probably already warming up his open-borders-forever pen on this one.
Sooooo, they’re ALL seeking asylum? Riiiight.
A valid point and believe if this deal is true it would slow asylum seekers from around the world.
I sometimes wonder if there is anyone left in Guatemala, considering their numbers in this area - and they charge $20 per hour for crappy yard work. The last two (the only two) I hired drank booze while spreading bark and ended up rolling on the ground fighting with each other.
What a nightmare, lucky they didn’t decide to fight you. :^)
Support Free Republic Folks, Donate Today!
Great, but “thousands” is not nearly enough.
Excellent. Pres. Trump is working behind the scenes.
Get all those C-47’s out of the bone yards and replicate the Berlin Airlift... Just with a different destination...
Could get the Philippines to run the operation to save landing costs...
Good.
Making little bits of progress here and there finally.
Keep building up that mojo - and don’t quit.
Probably $$$.
Suits me fine because it will still cost us a lot less in the long run.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.