UPDATE: The Las Cruces City Council unanimously approved the immigration resolution on Monday.
What should Las Cruces say to Washington about immigration and the flood of asylum-seekers?
The Las Cruces City Council will vote Monday on a resolution, introduced by Councillor Greg Smith, urging the feds to address more comprehensively the conditions that cause asylum-seeking and the problems the influx of refugees is causing. The meeting starts at 1 p.m. in City Hall.
Public input encouraged. If you have new ideas, firsthand experience, studies, or other useful information, please share. (Just saying, “Trump's a moron” or “Democrats are socialistic idiots” ain't helpful.
I'm glad the resolution will likely include U.S. programs to improve conditions in home countries so fewer people feel they must flee to keep themselves and their families safe. People don't like to leave home, but will if they have to. The people in our shelters don't look as if they wanted to travel somewhere unfamiliar just for fun. Too, the U.S. bears some responsibility for Central America's problems.
You could say it's not a city's business; but having to spend significant local resources makes it our business.
The draft resolution also seeks “clarifications on what constitutes seeking asylum” – and the rules covering asylum and immigration. Many don't realize the strict and narrow requirements to apply for refugee status (outside the U.S.) or asylum status (in U.S.).
The law is 8 U.S.C. 1101. One might obtain asylum if s/he has suffered persecution and/or has a well-founded fear that s/he will be persecuted. The threat can't be something one could escape by moving to another town. The persecution must be based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a social group. One of these must be a “central” reason, but need not be the only one. (Whether “gender” is a viable ground is being litigated. Some have gained asylum fleeing cultural practices such as female genital mutilation, forced marriage, domestic violence, particularly if the government has failed to protect the victim or prosecute perpetrators. (The Trump Administration has narrowed the scope of this.)
Persecution means infliction of suffering or harm, or a serious threat to life or freedom. Death threats, torture, imprisonment, constant surveillance, pressure to join a group engaging in illegal activity, interference with family privacy or home, and discrimination have all been found to qualify. The threat need not come from the government. Being poor or unemployed, or seeking a better life or education don't qualify.
The U.S. should clarify all that, particularly to Central Americans. On TV and radio – and, with so much suffering and money involved, how about hiring local citizens to circulate in areas from which people emigrate? Couldn't hurt. They'd speak the local language and carry copies of the laws (and translations). They could stress that these are requirements – and that the road to the U.S. is arduous and potentially dangerous, with minimal chance of success.
It'd be a dangerous job. Coyotes making big bucks transporting folks probably minimize the dangers and claim gaining asylum is easy. The truth could hurt profits. And we'd need better diplomacy, to ensure other governments' cooperation.
Meanwhile, we need better infrastructure on both sides of the border and more resources to expedite the process; and the feds should compensate communities like Las Cruces for the costs involved in sheltering people. Federal agencies should have to give cities maximum notice of “deliveries.”
And the Feds should reimburse the city! What do you think?