Escaping the Echo Chamber

[Alatar]

For those of us outside the US, can you explain "sanctuary states"?

[Dave_LF]

Basically, they agree not to ship undocumented immigrants back where they came from (or to aid federal efforts to do so). We'd also need to assume that's the sort of person we're actually dealing with here, as opposed to the 100% legal asylum seekers who were exploited for the real stunt.

[Alatar]

This sounds quite positive? Whats the downside?

[Dave_LF]

The downside is that it's a hypothetical scenario that didn't happen

But in this hypothetical scenario, from the perspective of someone who crossed the border illegally, I'd have to assume being bused to DC or wherever is certainly better than being send back.

[Alatar]

Ah!

Yes, that would seem better. But from the other side, isn't there border-less travel in the US? Whats to stop said immigrants from getting the next bus to NYC?

[Dave_LF]

I'm not sure what position I'm supposed to be arguing here . The obstacles would be 1) getting across the border in the first place without being detained, 2) money, and 3) finding someone who'll take cash (it would be difficult/impossible to get a credit card or bank account without proof of identity). But given those three things, nothing.

[River]

You can buy bus tickets with cash at the bus station. Bus services aren't necessarily persnickety about who they sell tickets to. It's not like a plane where you need a valid id to board.

Ah!

Yes, that would seem better. But from the other side, isn't there border-less travel in the US? Whats to stop said immigrants from getting the next bus to NYC?

Other than cash and desire, nothing. They may have to take a bus back to wherever for court appearances and a bus ride from any state along the the US-Mexican border to NYC is going to be a multi-day haul of ~2000 miles or more (probably more, I can't be bothered to look it up) but, other than these practical considerations, nothing.

People who come in as refugees already do get shipped around. We've got Afghans and Ukrainians around here as well as asylum-seekers from other parts of the world. They didn't necessarily land at the Denver International Airport asking for asylum but they ended up here. I wouldn't be surprised if we've got people coming up to Colorado from the Mexican border in buses. It's a quicker trip, there's a community for them, and it's pretty much impossible to live in this state without picking up a few words of Spanish.

[Inanna]

And if that *is* the case (it is reasonable etc) why the huge fuss about Texas busing them to NYC?

[Dave_LF]

As I understand it, the fuss is mostly media-generated. The response from the actual recipients of the GOP human trafficking has been largely along the lines of "thanks, we're pretty desperate for workers over here!"

[RoseMorninStar]

This is a difficult challenge for me (within the perimeters of 'Echo chamber' and the rules Inanna set forth but I'll try. I make no claim I will be successful. The situation varies a great deal depending upon the status of the persons in question; refugee, undocumented immigrant, asylum seeker. Sometimes they all get lumped in together with no rhyme or reason.

I understand the concern of those who believe we should know who is coming into the country and what their purposes are (temporary work, permanent relocation, joining family, schooling, etc..). I have lived in areas which rely heavily on seasonal workers for agriculture or tourism and these workers are essential and mutually beneficial, at least in some cases. It fills a niche not filled by the permanent residents. Such persons have been coming to this country seasonally (and often returning to their own) for a very long time.

I understand those who get angry knowing employers hire undocumented workers (illegally, 'under the table') in order to pay lower wages, little to no benefits, and skirt the law. My hubby used to go into factories in which he was almost certain that a good deal of the work force was illegal. Such practices hurt the local workforce and suppress wages, and make people angry at 'illegals'. However, as I see it, the burden should fall on employers and they should receive heavily penalties for this practice. If employers would not hire them within the limits of the law, would workers come from other countries? These people are being exploited and it can hurt the community.

This concept works on a micro level as well as large scale. I have a family member who lives near the border in Arizona. They are upset that the person who used to trim their palms (dirt cheap!) isn't coming around any more (This person was from Mexico and was likely undocumented and may have returned to Mexico). I have remarked that there are tree services in her area which she can call but of course she doesn't want to pay a legit tree service which has insurance and pays a wage, benefits, etc.. This is likely true of many who work in grounds-keeping, housekeeping, etc..

Historically, many church communities would 'host' refugee &/or asylum seekers and help them settle and get jobs. We have large Hmong communities in this state, for example. They are in their insular communities but gradually assimilate as immigrants to this country have for centuries, including my own family.

So why is it such a big problem now? Perhaps someone who is more attuned to these issues than I am could answer this question. Personally, I think it comes down to race. I have heard it from family members: They are afraid of the browning of America. I have relatives who ask when my daughter is going to have babies because we need more white babies in this country because 'they' are taking over. These comments often come from staunch 'Christians'. It really messes with my head and .. I just

Climate change and war will make migration worse, exacerbating these problems.

[Sunsilver]

Climate change and war will make are making migration worse, exacerbating these problems.

Edited your sentence for you!

I also live in an area that has a high demand for seasonal workers. I asked my friend, Dan, about how the potato farmers managed their labour. He said most of them have the same workers come back year after year. It is all carefully managed by the government. They provide decent accommodations for them, and some of them save up their money year after year and eventually immigrate.

Pierre Trudeau was pro-immigration, so I believe we already have a much more heterogenous work force here than they do in the States. Granted, you're much more likely to see people with brown and black faces in the big cities. My only contact with the migrant workers is when I sometimes see groups of them shopping together at the local grocery store. It will be an all male group, of a similar age, and most of them are black, while the population here is at least 95% white. They will often be hanging out together after shopping, as they wait for a ride back to the farm.

This is an old, old problem. A slow trickle of immigrants is much easier for a society to integrate with, without people starting to shout about their jobs being stolen, or 'we're being replaced'. Any large mass migration, like what would have happened if countries had allowed all the Jews in after Hitler came to power, is almost certain to result in hard feelings towards the immigrants.

[RoseMorninStar]

Climate change and war will make are making migration worse, exacerbating these problems.

Edited your sentence for you!

Yes, of course you are right.

[Inanna]

Rose, my Q specifically was not about immigration- I get all that you were saying. I am an immigrant myself, and live in greater nyc! Don’t even know the status of the people I’m talking to in a cafe.

My Q specifically was - why the hue & cry about Texas busing asylum seekers/immigrants/refugees to NYC?

If as Dave says, the fuss was all just in
the media, then ok.

But this point has been discussed here at hof (I try and stay out of lasto - so not clear on who & why etc). So I threw this out in our echo chamber. Also there are I am sure, valid concerns about doing so (not telling the city, for example - which suddenly got many more homeless folks without being able to prepare for them).

[RoseMorninStar]

I failed the assignment. I'll probably continue to fail because I do not understand the championing of intentional cruelty from any 'side'.

It was cruel, manipulative, exploitative, and done purely for (one persons) personal political gain.

[River]

And if that *is* the case (it is reasonable etc) why the huge fuss about Texas busing them to NYC?

The people being bussed out of TX didn't necessarily consent or understand what was happening. Some of them already have people in TX they were trying to go to. Aid groups meeting the buses have been helping these migrants get back to where they wanted to be. That's why it's cruel. It was coerced.

[Alatar]

I failed the assignment. I'll probably continue to fail because I do not understand the championing of intentional cruelty from any 'side'.

Nobody's asking you to do that. The idea of this one thread (in a giant board of threads) is to try to understand the other point of view. Not to "champion" it. I really think the fact that everyone finds that so incredibly difficult highlights a lot of America's polarisation, which is often presented here as "If only the Republicans weren't all hate filled racists".

I think its no surprise that all the republican voices on this board have drifted away over time.

[RoseMorninStar]

I failed the assignment. I'll probably continue to fail because I do not understand the championing of intentional cruelty from any 'side'.

Nobody's asking you to do that. The idea of this one thread (in a giant board of threads) is to try to understand the other point of view. Not to "champion" it. I really think the fact that everyone finds that so incredibly difficult highlights a lot of America's polarisation, which is often presented here as "If only the Republicans weren't all hate filled racists".

I think its no surprise that all the republican voices on this board have drifted away over time.

Oh, I get the general idea of the echo chamber and seeing the other side, and I understand your point (and it's a good one Al) but I don't get it as applied to certain circumstances, including this one. Another example: the Sandy Hook massacre deniers. Alex Jones used that tragedy to make boatloads of cash for personal gain at the expense (and great pain) of others. Holocaust deniers, etc.. I don't think these are 'right' or 'left' issues. Many of these people were non-political and are taken in by conspiracy theories. Is it proper to validate blatant lies by seeing 'the other side' as equally valid?

In 2009 Trump was a Democrat, in 2012 an Independent, in 2001 he was Reformed party. He shopped the various parties to find one that was most receptive to authoritarianism and conspiracy theories. Most long-time Republicans have denounced Trump and what he has done. He did the same thing with his staff. He had competent staff but when they wouldn't go along with him he fired them until he found someone who would do his bidding. That is not Republicanism. Doing illegal and intentionally cruel things shouldn't be 'party line' and defended as a 'point of view'.

[Frelga]

And if that *is* the case (it is reasonable etc) why the huge fuss about Texas busing them to NYC?

Because they already had services in place in TX, and court appointments for their asylum hearings. They are in the country legally while their asylum case is being processed, and missing a hearing can ruin their chances.

They were lied to about jobs and services awaiting them, and also got dropped off without coordinating with local orgs who would have come out to meet them and connect them with services, had they known they were coming.

Besides, I have a hereditary dislike of governments who round up people for mass transport based on their ethnicity.

Any large mass migration, like what would have happened if countries had allowed all the Jews in after Hitler came to power, is almost certain to result in hard feelings towards the immigrants.

What do you mean? What would have happened?

[RoseMorninStar]

And if that *is* the case (it is reasonable etc) why the huge fuss about Texas busing them to NYC?

Because they already had services in place in TX, and court appointments for their asylum hearings. They are in the country legally while their asylum case is being processed, and missing a hearing can ruin their chances.

I believe this was the point.
$615,000 of Florida taxpayer money to send Texas asylum seekers to do this.

While Martha's vineyard is known for it's vacation homes of the rich & famous (63% of the homes there are seasonal homes) most of the of the 17,000 year-round residents are not wealthy, 7.5% live in poverty. It is an expensive place to live, is mostly rural and doesn't have a lot of resources nor are there a lot of jobs. Because it's an island it isn't easy for them to go somewhere else.

[River]

Also, to Rose's point, some of the asylum seekers who crossed into TX and arrived In Martha's Vineyard via FL had hearings scheduled in Tacoma, WA.

Tacoma is south of Seattle. Next city after SeaTac if you're heading south on I-5. Other side of the country from Martha's Vineyard. They were being set up to fail. And seeking asylum is a basic human right (you aren't guaranteed to get it, but you have the right to ask for it).

Fortunately (or not if you're opposed to asylum seekers), Martha's Vineyard is enriched with lawyers. Some are sympathetic and a class-action lawsuit has been filed.