Why all those kids are crossing the border all of the sudden

[ttt]

So sad. I am solidly unimpressed with Obama's handling of this issue. Of course, just look at Cantor's loss to Random Tea Party Guy over immigration. Clearly the American people support the "send the kids back to the gangs!" platform. 


www.vox.com/2014/6/30/5842054/violence-in-central-america-and-the-child-refugee-crisis

A surge of unaccompanied child migrants has been crossing the US-Mexico border and seeking refuge in the United States since 2011, and the problem seems to be getting worse. US Customs and Border Protection says that apprehensions of unaccompanied children are up a staggering 92 percent from the previous year, with growing numbers of children coming from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. Since October, 52,000 children have come to the US without an adult.

They're coming in so quickly that normal immigration facilities have been completely overwhelmed, and thousands of kids are now being warehoused in makeshift detention centers, like the one shown above. Border state politicians, particularly Republicans, want to tighten immigration restrictions; immigrant rights activists say that's the exact opposite of what these children need.

Recent studies suggest that most of these unaccompanied children aren't economic migrants, as many Americans might assume — they're fleeing from threats and violence in their home countries, where things have gotten so bad that many families believe that they have no choice but to send their children on the long, dangerous journey north. They're not here to take advantage of American social services — they're refugees from conflict. Understanding the nature of the violence pushing them north is crucial for figuring out what to do about the child refugee crisis on our southern border.



Why are so many children fleeing Central America?

Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, the three countries that make up Central America's "Northern Triangle," are experiencing a terrifyingly level of violence that's been rising rapidly since the late 2000s. State weakness and corruption has allowed a number of different armed groups — including transnational street gangs, drug cartels, and other organized crime syndicates — to flourish, checked by little but their competition with one another.

Today, those groups battle for control of drug trafficking routes, residential neighborhoods, bus systems, human-smuggling operations, and more or less anything else that allows them to leverage their skills in violence to extract a profit.

To put the problem in perspective, this chart shows murder rates in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras since 2007:



And this chart shows civilian casualties in Iraq from the same period:




These charts show that the murder rate in Honduras in 2012 was a whopping 30 percent higher than UN estimates of the civilian casualty rate at the height of the Iraq war. In other words, all three Central American countries were, statistically speaking, twice as dangerous for civilians as Iraq was.

Why are children coming in such large numbers? Are gangs targeting kids specifically?

Children are uniquely vulnerable to gang violence. The street gangs known as "maras" — M-18 and Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13 — target kids for forced recruitment, usually in their early teenage years, but sometimes as young as kindergarten. They also forcibly recruit girls as "girlfriends," a euphemistic term for a non-consensual relationship that involves rape by one or more gang members.


If children defy the gang's authority by refusing its demands, the punishment is harsh: rape, kidnapping, and murder are common forms of retaliation. Even attending school can be tremendously dangerous, because gangs often target schools as recruitment sites and children may have to pass through different gangs' territories, or ride on gang-controlled buses, during their daily commutes.

A recent report on the child migrant crisis from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) includes testimony from several children who came to the US to escape gang violence. Here's 17-year-old Alfonso, explaining why he fled after receiving threats from Mara-18 members at his school:

"The problem was that where I studied there were lots of M-18 gang members, and where I lived was under control of the other gang, the MS-13. The M-18 gang thought I belonged to the MS-13. They had killed the two police officers who protected our school. They waited for me outside the school. It was a Friday, the week before Easter, and I was headed home. The gang told me that if I returned to school, I wouldn't make it home alive. The gang had killed two kids I went to school with, and I thought I might be the next one. After that, I couldn't even leave my neighborhood. They prohibited me. I know someone whom the gangs threatened this way. He didn't take their threats seriously. They killed him in the park. He was wearing his school uniform. If I hadn't had these problems, I wouldn't have come here."

15-year-old Maritza:

"I am here because the gang threatened me. One of them "liked" me. Another gang member told my uncle that he should get me out of there because the guy who liked me was going to do me harm. In El Salvador they take young girls, rape them and throw them in plastic bags. My uncle told me it wasn't safe for me to stay there. They told him that on April 3, and I left on April 7. They said if I was still there on April 8, they would grab me, and I didn't know what would happen."

17-year-old Mario:

"I left because I had problems with the gangs. They hung out by a field that I had to pass to get to school. They said if I didn't join them, they would kill me. I have many friends who were killed or disappeared because they refused to join the gang. I told the gang I didn't want to. Their life is only death and jail, and I didn't want that for myself. I want a future."

As these testimonies show, merely attempting to get an education can be life-threateningly dangerous for children in gang-controlled areas — which helps to explain why so many feel they have no choice but to leave.

What about the police? Can't they protect the kids?

Nope. In all three countries, the police are too weak and corrupt to offer any meaningful protection. In fact, the police often essentially operate as dangerous criminal gangs themselves.

In both El Salvador and Honduras, there are numerous, credible reports that the police are responsible for hundreds of "social cleansing" killings, including the murders of youths they suspect to be gang members. The Salvadoran national police "specializ[es] in obstructing justice and guaranteeing impunity for those with sufficient amounts of money," writes Hector Silva, a fellow at American University who researches police corruption.

Guatemala's police (and military) were so thoroughly infiltrated by organized crime that in 2006 the United Nations had to set up a special agency, the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (which goes by its Spanish acronym, CICIG), to help fight the pervasive abuses committed by "clandestine groups." CICIG has enjoyed some recent successes, but nearly three in four killings committed in Guatemala still go unpunished.

But isn't the journey to the US also dangerous for children?

Yes, it is — but for desperate families trying to save their kids' lives, it's often the best of a bad set of options.

There is no denying that the long overland journey from the northern triangle to the US is tremendously dangerous. Routes north are increasingly under the control of Mexico's Los Zetas cartel, according to a recent report from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which means that child migrants are at risk of "violence, extortion, kidnapping, sexual assault, trafficking and murder" during the journey. Sending a child to the United States is also extremely expensive. "Coyotes" (people smugglers) charge $5,000 to $7,000 to bring a child to the US, according to the same report — an amount that can represent more than 18 months of earnings for an entire family.

Still, even with all the dangers of the journey north, when children become the targets of gang threats, there is often no better option available to their families than to send them to the United States (or another safe country). Refusing the gang's demands is more dangerous, because it is likely to lead to violent retaliation. Agreeing to join a gang is more dangerous, because it means signing up for a (probably short) life of crime and violence. Acceding to a gang member's sexual demands is more dangerous, because it means accepting certain rape, as well as the other dangers that come from being associated with a criminal group. Because the police do not offer meaningful protection, migration is the only course of action that remains.

Coming to the US is risky. But for these vulnerable kids, it's the best hope there is.

What can the US do about this crisis?

Part of the challenge for the US is reducing the number of children who arrive at the border in the first place. The most effective way to do that would probably be to allow kids to apply for asylum (or another form of humanitarian immigration relief) from their home countries.

That policy would allow children to escape violence at home without forcing them to risk the dangerous overland journey. It would also ease the burden on US immigration facilities, because there would be no need for the children to be detained after entry, or to go through removal proceedings in immigration court. Unfortunately, that option does not appear to be under serious consideration.

The other part of the challenge is what to do about the kids who are already at the border. For this, President Obama is asking Congress for additional authority to deport unaccompanied children quickly. It's likely that that would mean sending them back after just a brief interview with border guards, without a full hearing on their asylum claims or an opportunity to request other humanitarian relief. If that happens, it is all but certain that some children with legitimate fears of persecution will be sent back to their home countries, either because they are too young and unsophisticated to advocate for themselves, or because they are too afraid to tell interviewers the whole story right away.

As those policies are debated in the coming days, it's important to remember what Obama is really proposing: to send young children back, alone, to a conflict zone that is twice as dangerous as Iraq was from 2008 to 2012.

[gpw]

One thing I am excited about in my new position is the practice I'm working for does about 90% immigration. It's going to be trial by fire for me because I don't know a whole lot, but I am definitely excited to learn.

[jordancatalano4ever]

I wish we had a better solution to this crisis. It feels like this should fall under the umbrella of the U.N. I wonder if this immigration is occurring in other nations at an equal rate or just ours? Reading stuff like this also trivializes (for me) the problems we have in our country because we don't have issues like this in such a large scale. (Not that what's happening is trivial).

My MIL is convinced that terrorists are going to use this influx as a way to sneak in operatives but I feel like that sounds like a Fox News scare tactic.

[ttt]

Jun 30, 2014 21:27:55 GMT -5 jordancatalano4ever said:

I wish we had a better solution to this crisis. It feels like this should fall under the umbrella of the U.N. I wonder if this immigration is occurring in other nations at an equal rate or just ours? Reading stuff like this also trivializes (for me) the problems we have in our country because we don't have issues like this in such a large scale. (Not that what's happening is trivial).

My MIL is convinced that terrorists are going to use this influx as a way to sneak in operatives but I feel like that sounds like a Fox News scare tactic.

I think the part that stands out to me from the article is that this is NOT an immigration crisis, it's a refugee crisis. And it should be addressed as such, but nobody seems to be doing that. 

I think the UN really should be involved, or other international relief organizations. 

[sparrowsong]

I wish we could get the fuck out of the middle east and beyond and be a real influence in north/middle/south american countries that in many ways are so much more relevant to us.

This opinion may be entirely ignorant based on my limited background and the amount of wine I've had tonight but that's what I'm thinking here. I'd rather we solve the issues in Nicaragua than Iraq.

[Michelle]

I am really concerned about how to handle this because it is a:

1) Refugee crisis
2) Human trafficking crisis
3) Impossible situation.

If we take in all the kids, there will be an incentive for families to send more here. But where are they going to go?

If we let them kind of fend for themselves they will be victims of pedophiles and sweat shop owners.

If we send them back, we knowingly send them back to countries where the violence is so bad we indefinitely continue to extend the legal status and EAD cards for those adults who came here. If it is too bad to send adults back, how do we send Children who cannot provide much identifying information? Where we do we "drop them off?" With paid corrupt officials who will deliver them to MS13?

There is no winning proposition here.

[IIOY]

My long post got eaten. Grrrr.

Long story short, it has been known for a while now that this is primarily a refugee crisis, rather than an immigration crisis. However, we are contributing to the problem is on our end.

First, there is rampant misunderstanding in Central America that sending children here automatically guarantees they can stay. This is because of a 2007 law called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals that suspends deportation proceedings for any child brought to the US illegally prior to 2007. Biden was in Central America recently and tried to make clear that simply coming here as a child doesn't guarantee you stay.

Obama's changing (read: more lax) policies toward immigrants has further contributed to the perception that once you get here, you can stay. Our overburdened courts have also contributed to the perception because children are usually sent off to family (or "family") here in the States while awaiting processing. You can imagine how that plays out.

Basically we are paying the price of being a wealthy country in close proximity to multiple failed states. There is no good immediate solution and we have to hope these countries get their houses in order. Unfortunately that will probably require some level of assistance from us, which no one in our spending-fatigued nation is going to want to provide.

[Deleted]

Jul 1, 2014 6:06:34 GMT -5 IIOY said:

My long post got eaten. Grrrr.

Long story short, it has been known for a while now that this is primarily a refugee crisis, rather than an immigration crisis. However, we are contributing to the problem is on our end.

First, there is rampant misunderstanding in Central America that sending children here automatically guarantees they can stay. This is because of a 2007 law called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals that suspends deportation proceedings for any child brought to the US illegally prior to 2007. Biden was in Central America recently and tried to make clear that simply coming here as a child doesn't guarantee you stay.

Obama's changing (read: more lax) policies toward immigrants has further contributed to the perception that once you get here, you can stay. Our overburdened courts have also contributed to the perception because children are usually sent off to family (or "family") here in the States while awaiting processing. You can imagine how that plays out.

Basically we are paying the price of being a wealthy country in close proximity to multiple failed states. There is no good immediate solution and we have to hope these countries get their houses in order. Unfortunately that will probably require some level of assistance from us, which no one in our spending-fatigued nation is going to want to provide.

why not send our military to central america too? 

[IIOY]

Jul 1, 2014 6:10:00 GMT -5 @septimus said:

why not send our military to central america too? 

I am sure that Dick Cheney and John McCain approve of your idea.

[Velar Fricative]

It's an impossible situation that can only approve if the Salvadarons, Guatemalans and Hondurans get their acts together. The rampant corruption and lack of any kind of public safety is atrocious. I am totally sympathetic to the child refugees arriving to the US but the solution isn't to just keep allowing other countries to just shrug their shoulders and let this chaos continue.

Or is El Salvador just too busy jailing women who terminate their pregnancies? What are government officials doing besides looking out for their fellow upper-class citizens?

I have also read that Costa Rica has been on the receiving end of many refugees since it is the most stable nation in Central America. So this isn't just a US problem, though it's one we have a huge stake in helping to resolve.

[IIOY]

Jul 1, 2014 6:49:44 GMT -5 @mx said:

IIOY, I'm not convinced US policy is driving this. Most unaccompanied minors end up in front of an English speaking judge without access to a lawyer or adequate information on their rights. Our requirement that you be on US soil to claim asylum might contribute, but other countries in the region have seen their rates of asylum applications from these countries increase by 4-7 fold in a five year period--and I'm talking about countries like Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama, not exactly countries free from drug war related violence and deep poverty. And given the fact that very few of these people end up making asylum claims in the US, I'm skeptical that our asylum law is the key factor (though I would like to see it changed).

I didn't say US policy is driving this, I said it is contributing. There is no question this is a refugee crisis, but US actions have not helped.

[ttt]

Jul 1, 2014 6:49:44 GMT -5 @mx said:

Jun 30, 2014 21:54:25 GMT -5 ttt said:

I think the UN really should be involved, or other international relief organizations. 

Relief organizations are involved but I think may have been avoiding public fundraising on the issue because of a fear of backlash. I suspect that may change. FEMA has been receptive, DHS less so, which also may contribute to the under the radar response. Access remains an issue. PDQ this part.

UNHCR has a mandate for involvement but it would set off such a political firestorm to have the UN involved (especially in TX!).

Good point. I can't even imagine what would happen if anyone even publicly mentioned the UN taking some sort of action in Texas. 

I figured some relief organizations had to be involved but there's been not a whisper about this in the news. Then again, this whole thing has been pretty poorly covered by the media in general. 

[gpw]

Jul 1, 2014 6:30:15 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

It's an impossible situation that can only approve if the Salvadarons, Guatemalans and Hondurans get their acts together. The rampant corruption and lack of any kind of public safety is atrocious. I am totally sympathetic to the child refugees arriving to the US but the solution isn't to just keep allowing other countries to just shrug their shoulders and let this chaos continue.

Or is El Salvador just too busy jailing women who terminate their pregnancies? What are government officials doing besides looking out for their fellow upper-class citizens?

I have also read that Costa Rica has been on the receiving end of many refugees since it is the most stable nation in Central America. So this isn't just a US problem, though it's one we have a huge stake in helping to resolve.

YES!!!