The New York Times “Morning” newsletter, which it delivers en masse to nonsubscribers, presumably in hopes of persuading them to provide monetary support to the Sulzberger wing of the Democratic Party, today addressed “Republican governors’ immigration stunts”. It didn’t praise Governors Abbott and DeSantis. The writers (the piece took the form of one Times reporter interviewing another) took it for granted that it is unsavory for Texas and Florida to provide illegal immigrants with the means to travel to other parts of the country. Lest any reader misapprehend their opinion, they describe the governors’ motives thus:
Ultimately, it’s about optics. It’s in part about securing support from his right-wing base. They back cracking down on unauthorized immigration; punishing people who, in their view, didn’t come to the U.S. the right way; and placing the burden of helping the migrants on Democratic cities and states.
Nonetheless, the substance of the condemnation is hard to distinguish from praise, beginning with the full subhead: “Republican governors’ immigration stunts are actually helping some migrants.”
The writers note that a large proportion of the current wave of immigrants comes from Venezuela: “a broken country, where political dissent is repressed and the economy has collapsed. There are shortages of food, medicine and other staples” (no mention of what economic system did the breaking).
So these migrants were willing to basically risk their lives to reach the United States. They braved the lawless jungle out of Venezuela and passed through seven countries to ultimately reach the United States out of despair, out of a desire to make a living and support their families.
Bear in mind that, according to the Times, the motive for sending these desperate displaced persons to hellholes like Martha’s Vineyard is to punish them. How did that turn out?
Ironically, it’s benefiting many of the migrants.
For example: I met a Venezuelan migrant named Lever Alejos. He had used up all the money he saved to make the trek to the U.S. from Venezuela. He took one of the buses to Washington, D.C., where he found a bed in a shelter. In a matter of weeks, he has managed to not only find work; he has started sending money back to Venezuela to support his 7-year-old son. He said his son’s life is 100 percent better. He has also saved to buy a cellphone and plans to buy a used 2012 Honda Civic.
The incredulous interviewer asks, “Is this backfiring for Abbott, if the migrants are doing well and they’re filling an economic need for Democratic areas?” As already noted, the writers assume that the objective is to inflict pain on the aliens rather than to reduce the pain suffered by the border towns that have to cope with the influx (and also, indeed, to call attention to the disastrous failure of the Biden Administration’s border-neglect policy).
In the absence of a workable immigration law, spreading out the new arrivals is probably the best that can be done. The Biden Administration seems to feel the same way, since it has flown thousands of illegal immigrants to distant parts of the country, but, unlike Governors Abbott and DeSantis, under cover of darkness and with as little publicity as possible.
While some illegal aliens are criminals, terrorists, drug smugglers or economic opportunists, a great many are trying to escape intolerable conditions in their native lands. One can hardly blame a Venezuelan for thinking that life in U.S. shadows is better than trying to evade the spotlight in Maduro’s dictatorship. Unfortunately, letting in everybody who wants to cross the border is no solution. The experience of the past couple of years has proven that.
Moreover, the Democratic Party’s utter indifference to the problems created by uncontrolled immigration and non-enforcement of the law has created a political environment in which reasonable colloquies are all but impossible. Long ago, I came up with my own proposal, aimed at providing economic opportunities to foreigners who are willing and able to work, without throwing the border wide open. It no doubt had its flaws, but fifteen years ago it fit into mainstream thinking about the issue. Now the opposing camps will consider nothing but their own absolutes.
The present and the immediate past Administrations stand on opposite sides of the divide. It would be false to the point of comedy to call either one’s policy a “success”. At this point, I’m inclined to think that the Trump Administration, for all its rhetorical excess and not infrequent blundering, was the lesser failure, but that is hardly an encomium. Perhaps, after the “Big Guy” leaves office, we can hope for something better than a choice of follies.