During the June 27, 2019 Democratic presidential debate, candidate Julian Castro stated, “We saw that image today that broke our hearts,” referring to photos of Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his daughter drowned after crossing the Rio Grande River to illegally enter the United States.
Both Castro and the debate moderator, José Diaz-Balart, stated that Martinez Ramirez and his family were seeking asylum in the United States because of the economic hardships the endured in El Salvador. Expanding on his reaction to the drowning, Castro stated, “It should also piss us all off.”
Castro was right, it should piss us off! But not for the reason he alleges. In fact, Castro, Diaz-Balart and their ideological allies have propagated this myth that anyone wanting to enter the United States is eligible for asylum. This myth has provided false hope to many individuals seeking to bypass the legal immigration process. They have been led to believe that asylum is possible if they are economically destitute in their home countries, or if they live in dangerous areas.
In fact, none of this is true.
Asylum is not offered by the United States for people suffering economic deprivation, nor is it available for people who reside in violent or dangerous places. Asylum is only legally available to people “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
If a person is unable to prove that he or she is actively being persecuted by a governmental or de-facto governmental policy directed specifically at specific races, religions, nationalities, social groups, or political opinions, that person is not eligible for asylum in the United States. Even if a person is a victim of persecution due to their membership in the listed groups, people are not eligible for United States asylum if there are areas in their own nations where that persecution does not exist or if they pass through another country in which that persecution does not occur. In fact, if a person makes a frivolous claim for asylum, that person may be permanently prohibited from any kind of immigration to the United States in the future.
It is true that the “catch and release” policy of asylum seekers used under previous presidential administrations facilitated illegal immigration. Those seeking to bypass United States immigration law knew that the asylum claims system was overwhelmed. If people claimed asylum after arriving on United States soil, they were usually given a future court date and were permitted to remain in the United States. It is no surprise that an overwhelming majority of those who claimed asylum never appeared for their court dates. Instead, they remained in the United States as illegal immigrants.
Recognizing that well over 90% of requests for asylum are denied by our courts and that the vast majority of those claiming asylum never returned for their court dates, the Trump administration ended the “catch and release” policy. Instead, applicants for asylum were either incarcerated while waiting for their court dates or were refused entry until the courts would be able to hear their cases. Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez chose not to wait in accordance with United States policy, and instead took the dangerous path of fording the Rio Grande River with his family to enter the United States illegally. From all appearances, Martinez Ramirez was not legally eligible for asylum anyway. He was attempting to enter the United States solely for economic reasons.
It is obvious that there are many politicians, particularly in the Democratic party, who are encouraging people to immigrate illegally and to improperly claim asylum. Julian Castro and José Diaz-Balart exemplified this during the June 27, 2019 debate. This tactic undermines United States immigration law, overwhelms our immigration enforcement resources, and puts potential immigrants at risk. One can not know if these politicians are signaling false hopes for asylum in order to pander to certain electoral constituencies, intentionally undermine immigration law, or out of sheer ignorance. But their actions in holding out false hope puts more potential immigrants at risk than any of Trump’s policies.
Most of the Democratic presidential candidates served in Congress. They know (or should know) that President Trump did not create immigration law. Immigration law emanated from Congress – the president just enforces the laws passed by Congress. Each of these candidates had the opportunity to propose new immigration laws. None of them did. Instead, they advertise false hope to potential immigrants in order to sabotage Trump’s presidency. This is an abdication of their own responsibilities and a reckless policy that puts lives at risk. I fear the Democrats don’t recognize the consequences of their actions and are only concerned with the political advantages they may provide.
Should we have completely open borders? Some make strong cases that we should. But the United States (or any other nation) can’t have unconstrained immigration and generous and universal social welfare programs. If we wish to retain the current level of welfare programs, we must carefully vet potential immigrants to ensure they won’t become burdens on the public welfare system. If we instead decide to open our borders completely, we must recognize that our current social welfare programs will be quickly overwhelmed by freeloading immigrants who will put significant pressure on the public treasury.
Regardless of the type of immigration laws we desire, it is not within the authority of the president to create such laws. Immigration laws may only be created and passed by Congress. If any presidential candidates who once served in Congress claim they will change immigration law as president, they are lying! They had their opportunity to do so while in Congress. If they failed to reform immigration law when serving in the body responsible for creating such laws, what makes one think they will successfully change the law while serving in a position that does not have the authority to create laws?
Julian Castro is right when he says we should be pissed about immigrants dying as they try to reach our shores. We should be pissed that there are pandering politicians who make people believe they can receive asylum even though they are not legally eligible to do so. We should be pissed at politicians who seek to undermine the laws they are responsible for creating just because they with to pander to certain groups in order to secure a political advantage. We should be pissed at politicians who use desperate and uninformed people as pawns in their attempts to secure political points. Yes, Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez was ultimately responsible for the poor decision that cost him and his daughter their lives. But they were encouraged to make that decision by politicians who falsely and cynically held out hope for asylum to Martinez Ramirez.
It is those politicians who should be targets of our ire!