Migrants hiding in the United States are demanding that federal agencies deliver their foreign children to them faster, according to the Washington Post.
“During the 10 days that Andrea’s 6-year-old son, Juan, was held in government custody after crossing the southwest border with his grandmother, the Venezuelan mother who lives in California said she called government officials several times a day, trying to arrange his release,” said the Washington Post article, dated April 20. It continued:
“How can they do this to a child?” said Andrea, 37, who goes by her middle name and did not want her last name used because she did not want to jeopardize her asylum case. “He’s never been separated from his family.”
“This is like entitled customers complaining at the Nordstrom store,” Jessica Vaughan, the director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies. “It shows just how clearly these migrants understand what is going on, what their role is, and how they can make sure that they get away with this.”
Under Biden, tens of thousands of migrants in the United States are paying coyotes to deliver their foreign children and teenagers to U.S. border agents. They can do this because Biden’s deputies, including homeland security chief Alejandro Mayorkas, force the border agents to relay the children to the parents for free.
Part of the coyotes’ fees is used to pay off the drug-trafficking cartels who control the border. That payoff is worthwhile to many parents because Biden’s deputies promise to deliver the children once the cartels let the children reach the U.S. border.
In contrast, President Donald Trump tried to wreck the transactions between the cartels, coyotes, and parents by using federal agencies to fly the children — and adult migrants — back to their extended families in their homeland.
“We’re complicit as a nation in human trafficking,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said at a March 26 press conference in Texas with 17 other GOP senators. Under Biden, “we’re transporting people — who pay [coyotes] to get here — the last mile with your taxpayer dollar.”
A second migrant who spoke to the Post, named “Lorena,” was indignant about the slower-than-expected federal handover of her children:
“I just want them to give me my daughters,” said Lorena, who wanted her last name withheld because she came to the United States illegally. Lorena left her daughters with her mother in their rural village outside the city of Huehuetenango more than a decade ago, soon after splitting up with their father.
…
“There are a lot of cases that are processed quickly, so I don’t know why it’s taking so long,” she said. “Why won’t they let them go?”
But pro-migration activists and lawyers are also cheerleading the transactions, according to the Post:
Andrea [the Venezualan asylum-seeker] eventually enlisted the help of immigrant rights advocates and traveled last week from her home in California to Arizona, where Juan was being held. Flanked by members of the media, she and an advocate demanded that her son be released — and, under pressure, he was.
Slow handovers are traumatic, insisted Amy Cohen, a child psychiatrist who runs a nonprofit called Every.Last.One. Her goal, according to her website, is:
… ending the damage caused by cruel and negligent treatment arising from American immigration policy.
…
The atrocities being inflicted on young children are committed by our government, in our name, and on our watch. We cannot look away. We cannot allow this to happen anymore. Together, we can build a nation of which we can all be proud: one that welcomes and protects vulnerable, victimized children. It’s up to us to demand better policies that protect Every. Last. One.
Cohen told the Post:
Children who are separated from families experience ongoing trauma until they are reunified … We’re seeing parents grieving and terrified for children who they are unable to contact for weeks on end.
The Post‘s article exemplifies the media’s compliant support for Biden’s border theater, said Vaughan.
The theater is designed to hide the administration’s policy of opening many doors to many types of migrants — including single adults, working teenagers, and families of migrants from many countries — by focusing the eager media’s attention on the migrants’ children, she said:
The [migrants have] embarked on this migration with the full expectation that they were going to be allowed to settle in the United States. They knew what the steps were going to be, depending on whether the parent was already here or whether the parents came with the kids. They know they had every reason to believe that the federal government would play its role and quickly deliver their child. They know what they’re supposed to tell the news reporters who are entirely willing to go along with this same narrative that [the migrants have a] right to have their child turned over quickly with no questions asked.
Everybody knows their roles and they’re playing them with gusto.
But she added, “Americans will walk out of the theater [because] they want their money back.”
The reality is very different from the Biden theater, she said. For example, she said, the child separation often begins when the U.S. government lets illegal migrants get jobs in the United States if they leave their children behind:
That is the choice they made, and in many cases, long ago … And when the child was left behind 10 years ago, that means the U.S. government should be returning that child to their recent home [in their home country], not to the parent that has been absent for a decade.
But the migrants, the U.S. lawyers, progressive activists, the media, and administration officials ignore the multi-year abandonment of children by the migrant workers, Vaughan said. Instead, they stick to their scripted lines about the brief period between the coyotes’ delivery of the children to federal agencies and the agencies’ verification of the migrants’ claims to be the kids’ parents:
The news media, and the advocacy groups, only condemn the brief separation of the child from their [parent in the United States]. They never condemn the original decision of the parents to separate themselves from their children.
Nor are the [reporters and advocates] ever curious about the effects of migration on the family structures and the communities in Central America, and how the migration process that we encourage through our [lax border] policies dislocates these communities and families … We [U.S. government officials] are enabling the breakup of families and the breakup of communities and the breakup of local economies .. so that [American] politicians and advocacy groups can tell themselves that they are dealing with a humanitarian crisis and so businesses can have a continuous supply of cheaper labor.
Even allowing this [extraction migration] industry to flourish and to assist it with our policies …. [ensures] the coyotes have more money to bribe politicians, to buy equipment and weapons to stay one step ahead of law enforcement, to enrich themselves to the point where they’re not going to give up this [migration] revenue very easily. The more money they make, the worse it becomes for people in those countries.
If we didn’t allow all this migration, these [Central American] countries would not have [economic] remittances to fall back on, and they’d have to actually do something about the economies and goverbments of their countries.
Most reporters “are willing partners in building a humanitarian narrative to whitewash this whole [extraction migration] process,” said.
The migration industry, she added, “is worse than [1950s-style] banana colonialism because it involves people.”
For many years, a wide variety of pollsters have shown deep and broad opposition to labor migration and the inflow of temporary contract workers into jobs sought by young U.S. graduates. This opposition is multiracial, cross-sex, non-racist, class-based, intra-Democratic, rational, and recognizes the solidarity that Americans owe to each other.
The voter opposition to elite-backed economic migration coexists with support for legal immigrants and some sympathy for illegal migrants. But only a minority of Americans — mostly university-credentialed progressives — embrace the many skewed polls and articles pushing the 1950’s corporate “Nation of Immigrants” claim.
The deep public opposition to labor migration is built on the widespread recognition that migration moves money away from most Americans’ pocketbooks and families. It moves money from employees to employers, from families to investors, from young to old, from children to their parents, from homebuyers to real estate investors, from red states to blue states, and from the central states to the coastal states such as New York.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.