On a winter-like Thanksgiving when the overnight temperature on my home weather station showed 24.2 degrees, the South Jersey Times print edition published some chilly Trump bashing from a Washington Post editorial: “Skip the troops – here’s a rational response to the caravan.”
The editorial supposedly focused on a solution to the masses seeking asylum at the U.S. border.
A key proposal came from the editorial’s supposition that more judges should have been employed to handle immigration pleas that have drastically increased since 2006. Where does the Post think so many qualified justice administrators could be found?
If President Barack Obama had thought it through, he might have employed more of these judges. However, Obama allowed an overwhelming number of asylum seekers to come in, regardless of the social spending costs. The effect was to increase a non-assimilating population that might eventually be granted voting rights.
The cost of the military troops that President Donald Trump added to the border — which the editorial acknowledges are already on the Army’s payroll — is only a minor increase for their transportation and field support.
When the so-called migrant caravan arrives in the United States, thee people will be dumped on towns that must provide shelter, food, warm clothing, schooling and urgent medical care. They are largely unemployed and not conversant in English. Their number could include felons and those not vaccinated against communicable diseases.
These added costs will be far higher than the expenses of maintaining the troops at the border.
A more rational response would be to put pressure on the governments of these migrants’ home countries, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, where U.S. foreign aid is already flowing.
The editorial jumps right to blaming Trump without reflection on how we arrived at this state. Who is behind the pennies poured into the food aid backpacks and coaching the migrants on how to obtain asylum?