The NYTimes finally recognizes that there is a crisis at the border and publishes an almost honest article about it.
This, after months of everybody repeating, like a trained parrot, that no, there is no crisis. Psh, what crisis? There is none.
And now it turns out that yes, people do drag children with them because it’s a free pass in. And yes, many asylum claims are manufactured. And yes, most people don’t show up for any hearings once they are released into the country, turning into members of the illegal underclass. And yes, traffickers do lie to people to drag them in for profit. And yes, the decision to emigrate is often made for no reason other than a vague wish not to lose out on an opportunity.
What’s next? Will we finally be told that coyotes are, indeed, abusing women? Or that the illegal underclass does help drive down labor costs? Or that an enormous influx of children who are traumatized by the journey and don’t speak English will be very harsh on the public education system? Or even – perish the thought – that not everyone who believes this isn’t a wonderful situation is a racist and a Nazi?
For the millionth time, I want to ask everybody to observe how not a single politician is voicing anything close to my suggestion that the concept of “port of entry” be changed from physical to digital. We could spare people this horrible journey. We could prevent them from slipping into illegality. We could put traffickers out of work. Surely, this plan is a lot more realistic than taxing the banksters at 75% or doing away with fossil fuels in 10 years.
Why is nobody proposing this? What could possibly be the reason?
It’s not that hard to figure out.