Mediaboss Marketing

The Guardian

Many foreign-born workers have lost their jobs to the pandemic and strict new visa rules have raised the threat of removal Losing your job is a big deal, and if youre an immigrant it also means losing your status, so its an even bigger deal. Photograph: Hanna Kuprevich/Alamy When Swaraj lost his job amid the recession last year, it triggered a ticking time bomb. Suddenly, he had to either find a different employer to sponsor his visa or return to India, throwing away the life he had built during half a decade in the United States. Its not right, said Swaraj, who asked the Guardian to only use his first name to protect his career. If I lose my work status, I have to leave this country within 60 days. I felt like thats not correct. Swaraj messaged contacts on Linkedin, pored over applications and contacted to references. He tossed excess clothes in the recycling bin and sold his valuables a television, sofa, bed in case he had to move across the world during the crisis. Then, he found a new position. But months later, his room in Madison, Wisconsin, was still empty enough to hear echoes, and he continued to sleep on an air mattress, too wary to invest in replacement furniture. This is not your home, he said. So you can be kicked out any time. Swarajs experience is far from a one-off. From data analysts and software consultants to project engineers and molecular biologists, many foreigners with advanced degrees and specialized knowledge have been losing their jobs in America amid the pandemic. And because theyre only able to live and work legally in the US thanks to their H-1B status a coveted visa for skilled workers routine layoffs that arent their fault have the potential to completely upend their lives. Theres a whole lot of uncertainty and anxiety associated with losing your job, no matter who you are. But when youre an immigrant, that anxiety and uncertainty is definitely compounded, said Jennifer Minear, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Losing your job is a big deal, and if youre an immigrant it also means losing your status, so its an even bigger deal, she added. As the economy foundered and millions of Americans struggled to make ends meet, the former president Donald Trump used immigrants as scapegoats, suspending H-1B visas through early 2021. Officials also unveiled sweeping new rules around the visa program, creating even more hurdles for potential candidates and employers. Swaraj lost an offer soon after because the company that had hired him couldnt comply. Today, I might feel secure, he said. Tomorrow, because of some political situation, things might just change overnight. And I just need to accept that fact. Already, H-1B holders live under precarious conditions where, when they lose employment, theyre only granted a 60-day grace period to find another qualifying role and re-up their visas. Otherwise, they have few viable options outside of leaving the country. Living in the United States without work authorization and trying to work off the books, under the table that doesnt tend to give you the standard of living that I think a lot of college-educated workers, wherever theyre from in the world, would want, said Julia Gelatt, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. A number of online posts about layoffs amid the economic downturn provides a glimpse into which foreign professionals have been impacted most over the last year. Many hold graduate degrees from American universities, and they often say theyre open to relocating anywhere in the US. One engineer wrote that what hurt the most was being rejected by hiring managers based on my visa status. Another warned that she only had 20 days left before packing everything along with my dreams. It has been roughly 48 hours since I found out that my role at Victorias Secret was affected by the company-wide restructuring, a design researcher wrote. It is tough, defeating, and soul-crushing. The more years that people spend in the US, the deeper the roots they tend to put down Julia Gelatt The H-1B visa program is supposed to offer a temporary avenue for highly educated professionals to work in the US for up to three years, or possibly six. But because the visas are privy to different caps than green cards, Indian and Chinese workers who represent the lions share of H-1B petitions get stuck in a long, byzantine queue for permanent residency. Recently backlogged Indian workers face an impossible wait of nine decades if they all could remain in the line, according to a 2020 report by the Cato Institute. More than 200,000 petitions filed for Indians could expire as a result of the workers dying of old age before they receive green cards. In the meantime, would-be immigrants stay legally by extending their temporary visas, despite the instability that represents. While they wait, they continue to make friends, start relationships, buy houses, join faith communities and have children. The more years that people spend in the United States, the deeper the roots they tend to put down, Gelatt said. It just becomes harder and harder to leave. Swaraj sometimes worries about what would happen if he marries his significant other, who is also on an H-1B visa, and they start a family together in the US. His memories from last year loom large, and for now, hes trying to live as minimalist a life as possible. But over the last five years, hes already started to put down roots. Friends are more like family now, and when he scrambled to come up with a way to stay legally, colleagues went out of their way to help him. I guess thats what I have gained in this country: people, he said. If I was working alone, and if I had no friends, I had no connections, I would have not made it. Like, as simple as that.

Go here to read the rest:
Schumer Actively Exploring Granting Citizenship to Millions of Illegal Immigrants Without GOP Support - Yahoo News

Migrants wait to cross the border at the Gateway International Bridge from Matamoros, Mexico, to Brownsville, Texas, on March 15, 2021. (Chandan Khanna/AFP via Getty Images)

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand the publics views about immigration policy in the U.S. For this analysis, we surveyed 5,109 U.S. adults conducted April 5-11, 2021. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of Pew Research Centers American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATPs methodology.

Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses, and its methodology.

With Border Patrol apprehensions once again increasing this spring, Americans are expressing renewed concern over illegal immigration and the current situation at the U.S. border with Mexico.

The government receives negative ratings for how it has handled the situation at the border. About two-thirds of U.S. adults (68%) say that the government is doing a very (33%) or somewhat (35%) bad job of dealing with the increased number of people seeking asylum at the countrys southern border, while fewer than half as many (29%) say it is doing a very or somewhat good job.

The public is in broad agreement regarding some possible government actions for dealing with the situation at the border: Large majorities say it is very or somewhat important to increase available staff both to patrol and police the border and to quickly process unaccompanied minors. About half say each of these priorities is very important. Nearly as many (47%) say it is very important to reduce the number of people coming to the U.S. seeking asylum; another 32% say this is somewhat important.

While there are partisan differences on each of these three priorities, majorities of both Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and Democrats and Democratic leaners say it is very or somewhat important to reduce the number of asylum seekers and to increase staff for border patrols and processing unaccompanied minors.

However, there are wider divides on other goals: For example, Republicans (78%) are twice as likely as Democrats (39%) to say it is important to make it harder for asylum seekers to be granted legal status in the U.S.

And while 79% of Democrats say it is very or somewhat important to increase aid to Central American countries, where many asylum seekers come from, only 40% of Republicans say the same.

The survey, conducted April 5-11, 2021, among a nationally representative sample of 5,109 adults who are members of Pew Research Centers American Trends Panel, also finds sizable partisan differences in evaluations of the governments handling of the border situation.

However, majorities in both parties say the government has done a bad job of dealing with the influx of asylum seekers at the border: 86% of Republicans rate the governments performance negatively, as do 56% of Democrats.

The publics current evaluations of the governments performance in dealing with the border situation are overall comparable to ratings two years ago, when the Trump administration faced an influx of children and families seeking asylum in the U.S. In August 2019, 33% said the government was doing well in dealing with the situation at the border. In contrast to today, however, in 2019 Republicans were far less critical of the governments response than Democrats.

A separate national survey of Latinos in the United States, conducted in March of this year, found that Latinos also gave negative ratings to the governments job in dealing with the increase in children and families seeking asylum; just 36% said the government was doing a very or somewhat good job.

The survey also finds that the share of adults who say undocumented immigrants who are now living in the U.S. should be allowed to stay in the country legally has decreased slightly over the past four years, with the decrease being driven by shifting attitudes among Republicans.

Nearly seven-in-ten adults (69%) now say that there should be a way for undocumented immigrants who are now living in the U.S. to stay in the country legally if certain requirements are met, down from 77% in March 2017.

Republicans are closely divided on this question, with about half (48%) saying that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay if certain requirements are met and about half (51%) saying they should not be allowed to stay. In March 2017, a majority of Republicans (61%) said that undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. should be allowed to stay.

A large majority of Democrats (86%) say that undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. should be allowed to stay if certain requirements are met. The share of Democrats who say this has essentially stayed the same in recent years.

Among the majority of adults who favor allowing undocumented immigrants to stay legally in the U.S., most say they should be eligible to apply for citizenship. Among the public overall, 42% say that undocumented immigrants who are currently living in the U.S. and meet certain requirements should be eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship; about a quarter (26%) say they should be eligible to apply for permanent residency but not for U.S. citizenship.

Among the 30% of adults who say that undocumented immigrants should not be allowed to stay in the country legally, a large majority also express support for a national deportation effort. A quarter of adults overall say that undocumented immigrants should not be allowed to stay in the country legally and that there should be a national law enforcement effort to deport them.

Comparatively few adults just 5% say that undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. should not be allowed to stay in the country legally but also say that there should not be a national effort to deport undocumented immigrants.

There are large partisan divisions on these questions: A majority of Democrats (56%) say that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the country legally and be eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship if they meet certain requirements, compared with about a quarter of Republicans (26%). Nearly half of Republicans (46%) including a 53% majority of conservative Republicans say undocumented immigrants should not be allowed to stay legally in the U.S. and there should be a national effort to deport undocumented immigrants; fewer than one-in-ten Democrats (7%) say this.

Public concern over illegal immigration fell sharply last year, as the coronavirus outbreak worsened in the U.S. Since June 2020, however, the share of Americans who say illegal immigration is a very big national problem has risen 20 percentage points, from 28% to 48%. The share currently citing illegal immigration as a major problem is similar to 2019 (43%) and 2018 (42%).

The increase in concern since 2020 has come among members of both parties, though as in recent years, Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to cite illegal immigration as a very big problem. Among Republicans, 72% say illegal immigration is a very big problem in the country today, compared with 43% in June 2020. Among Democrats, 29% now say this, compared with 15% in 2020. For more, see Americans views of the problems facing the nation, April 15, 2021.

Almost half of Americans (46%) today say they have heard a lot about the increase in the number of people seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, with Republicans and Republican-leaning independents more likely than Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents to say this (56% vs. 41%). In August 2019, Republicans were also more likely than Democrats to have reported hearing a lot about that increase, but the partisan gap was narrower than it is today (5 percentage points then, 15 percentage points now).

Overall, 42% of Democrats say that the U.S. government is doing either a very or somewhat good job dealing with the increased number of people seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, while 56% say it is doing a bad job. More than eight-in-ten Republicans say the government is doing a bad job; only 13% of Republicans rate the governments performance positively.

But there are significant differences in these views within both partisan coalitions.

Roughly half of Black (49%) and Hispanic (47%) Democrats say the government is doing a good job with asylum seekers. By comparison, 36% of White Democrats say this. And while few Republicans rate the governments performance positively, White Republicans are even less likely than Hispanic Republicans to do so (9% vs. 18% respectively).

Younger Republicans are more likely than their older counterparts to say the government has done a good job with those seeking asylum (27% of those under 35 say this, compared with just 11% of those 35-49 and just 7% of those 50 and older). Among Democrats, the pattern is reversed while about half (49%) of Democrats 50 and older say the government has done a good job handling the asylum situation at the U.S.-Mexico border, that drops to 41% among those 35-49 and 33% among those under 35. As a result, there is virtually no partisan gap in these views among adults under 35, while there is a substantial partisan divide among older Americans.

While Republicans and Democrats differ in many respects in their priorities for the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border, there also are some shared priorities.

For example, clear majorities of both Democrats and Republicans say it is at least somewhat important both to increase staff and resources available to patrol and police the border and to process unaccompanied minors more quickly. However, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to consider an increase in resources for patrolling the border very important (68% vs. 42%, respectively), while Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say increased resources for processing unaccompanied minors is very important (66% vs. 37%).

Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to say it is important to reduce the number of asylum seekers, to make it harder to be granted asylum and to not allow people to seek asylum. For instance, while 78% of Republicans say it is at least somewhat important that the U.S. make it harder for asylum seekers to be granted legal status in the U.S., 39% of Democrats say the same. Similarly, seven-in-ten Republicans say it is at least somewhat important that the U.S. not allow people to seek asylum in the U.S., compared with just 35% of Democrats.

By contrast, Democrats (79%) are about twice as likely as Republicans (40%) to say that providing assistance to countries in places like Central America where many asylum seekers are coming from is at least somewhat important. And while majorities of both Democrats and Republicans say it is at least somewhat important to provide safe and sanitary conditions to asylum seekers once they arrive in the U.S., fully 91% of Democrats say this (including 60% who rate this as very important), compared with 61% of Republicans (23% say this is very important).

Overall, the publics views of priorities for the southern border are similar to 2019, although the shares saying it is important to reduce the number of asylum seekers or to make it harder to seek asylum have increased, while the shares placing importance on providing safe and sanitary conditions for asylum seekers and on assistance to Central American countries have decreased.

Democrats are slightly more likely to now say that reducing the number of people coming to the U.S. to seek asylum is important than they were in 2019 (61% then, 68% now). GOP opinion on this question is little changed since 2019.

The share of Republicans saying that providing safe and sanitary conditions for asylum seekers in the U.S. is important has declined over this period (73% then, 61% now). As in 2019, about nine-in-ten Democrats (91%) say that providing safe and sanitary conditions for asylum seekers is at least somewhat important, although the share saying this is very important has dropped (71% then, 60% now).

The share of Americans saying it is at least somewhat important for the U.S. to provide assistance to countries in places like Central America where many asylum seekers are coming from has declined from 69% in 2019 to 61% today. While Democrats remain far more likely than Republicans to place importance on this, the decline occurs in both partisan groups.

Overall, 69% of adults say that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the country legally if certain requirements are met, including 42% who say they should be eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship (26% say they should be eligible to apply for permanent residency but not for citizenship). Three-in-ten say that undocumented immigrants should not be allowed to stay legally, including a quarter who say there should be a national effort to deport undocumented immigrants.

More than eight-in-ten Democrats 83% of conservative and moderate Democrats and 90% of liberal Democrats say there should be a way for undocumented immigrants who meet requirements to stay in the country legally. Support for a path to citizenship is higher among liberal Democrats than among conservatives and moderates: Two-thirds of liberal Democrats say undocumented immigrants who meet requirements should be eligible for citizenship, as do about half of conservative and moderate Democrats (48%).

Republicans are divided over whether undocumented immigrants should be eligible to stay in the country legally if they meet certain requirements (48% say they should, 51% say they should not), and there is an ideological divide within the GOP. Nearly six-in-ten conservative Republicans (59%) say that undocumented immigrants should not be allowed to stay in the country legally, with 53% saying there should be a national deportation effort. In contrast, about six-in-ten moderate and liberal Republicans (61%) say that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay if certain requirements are met (34% say this should include eligibility for citizenship, while 27% say it should include permanent residency but not citizenship).

Hispanic adults (84%) are more likely than Black (78%), Asian (68%) or White (64%) adults to say that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the country legally. About half (51%) of Hispanic adults, and a similar share of Black adults (47%), say that undocumented immigrants who meet certain requirements should be eligible to apply for citizenship. White (40%) and Asian (37%) adults are somewhat less likely to say this.

Hispanic Republicans are much more likely than White Republicans to say that there should be a way for undocumented immigrants who are now living in the U.S. to stay in the country legally if certain requirements are met. Nearly three-quarters of Hispanic Republicans (73%) say this, compared with 45% of White Republicans.

There also are age differences within the Republican Party: 62% of Republicans under 35 favor allowing undocumented immigrants to stay, compared with 46% of those ages 35 to 64 and 40% of Republicans 65 and older.

Among Democrats, while eight-in-ten or more across racial and ethnic groups say that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the country legally, this rises to roughly nine-in-ten among White (89%) and Hispanic (88%) Democrats.

Read the original here:
Most Americans Are Critical of Government's Handling of Situation at U.S.-Mexico Border - Pew Research Center

Oxfam America, a nonprofit organization, said in a statement: We are relieved that the Biden administration has, after a long and unnecessary delay, kept its promise to raise the refugee admissions cap for this year to 62,500.

The back-and-forth about the refugee program is the latest turn in the presidents struggle to deal with the immigration system.

On his first day in office, Mr. Biden proposed a comprehensive overhaul of the nations immigration laws and issued a number of executive orders aimed at rolling back Mr. Trumps policies. But after about 100 days, immigration legislation still has not advanced in Congress. And for weeks, Mr. Biden delayed raising refugee admissions, despite a plea from his own secretary of state, Antony J. Blinken, to make good on his commitment.

The administration has also had to defend its response to a surge of migrants at the border with Mexico, even as Mr. Biden has continued to rely on a Trump-era health rule to rapidly turn away many migrants from entering the United States without providing them a chance to apply for asylum. The administration has said the rule is necessary to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

The presidents Republican critics have seized on the issue as a political weapon, accusing Mr. Biden of making poor policy choices that opened the floodgates to illegal immigration during a pandemic.

The administration, however, has made progress in safely processing migrant children and teenagers out of border detention facilities and into temporary shelters. While more than 5,000 minors were stuck in facilities run by the Border Patrol in March, on Monday, the administration recorded roughly 600 minors in such jail-like facilities.

White House officials have urged migrants not to come to the United States now, but have promised that Mr. Biden will work to increase legal opportunities to live, work and visit the United States. Eleanor Acer, the director of refugee protection at Human Rights First, said the president must continue to do that.

Continue reading here:
In Another Reversal, Biden Raises Limit on Number of Refugees Allowed Into the U.S. - The New York Times

In last weeks Dickinson County News the author of a Letter to The Editor complained that Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds should welcome all the illegal immigrants with open arms. I am happy the governor did not jump at the chance to subsidize the housing, food, medical care and education for an unknown number of persons to be paid by Iowa taxpayers.

The humanitarian crisis at the U.S.Mexico border was caused by President Biden by his actions his first day in office:

Biden stopped construction of the southern border wall 450 miles had already been constructed. Much of the material and construction costs for the unfinished portions of the wall had already been paid.

Biden reinstated the failed Obama-era catch-and-release policy. When illegals were caught during the Trump administration the illegals were sent back. Now under Biden, illegals are released into the United States most are not given a future hearing date. History shows most of these illegals disappear into the United States.

Biden cancelled the northern triangle deal (Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador) made by President Trump that required asylum seekers to stay in their home country in order to seek asylum.

Biden ended the Remain in Mexico policy that Trump had negotiated with the Mexican government. This means illegal migrants can come into the United States without waiting in Mexico. As a result, they flood across the border making any kind of control impossible.

These four Trump policies were so effective they resulted in a massive drop in illegal immigrationso much so that in 2020, the United States experienced thelowestlevel of illegal immigration in 45 years. Now, because of Joe Biden's policies, we have thehighestrate of illegal immigration in 20 years.

President Biden and Vice-President Harris are so afraid of the southern border crisis they refuse to go anywhere close to the border, They do not even want to talk about the border crisis they have created. To fix the border problem, they would have to admit President Trump had the right border policies. The national news media is all too willing to sweep the border problem under the rug.

Many people believe illegal immigrants have the right to asylum if they ever place one foot in the United States. This is not true. In order to be granted U.S. asylum, a person must show they are being politically persecuted in their home country. Economic hardship and general crime cannot be used to justify U.S. asylum. If we are in fact such a racist country, it is a mystery why so many people want to come to the United States.

One might think the Democrats feel sorry for these people who want to immigrate to the United States. I believe the real Democratic motivation is to create more Democratic voters, since the American people will not support their policies when the policies are fully explained. Their goal is to create a large block of voters who are dependent on the United States government for their housing, food, medical care and education; and therefore, support Democratic candidates.

There are more than five billion people in the world. The United States does not have the resources to solve the economic problems for everyone in the world. The U.S. government's purpose is take care of its existing citizens. Too many Americans, including veterans, are sleeping in the streets.

Phil Petersen

Okoboji

Original post:
Letter to the Editor: Who caused the immigration crisis? Who should pay? (5/4/21) - Dickinson County News

OJINAGA, Mexico Under the international bridge connecting this town to Presidio, Texas, a human smuggling guide snorted cocaine with a buddy and two prostitutes the chosen rewards earned from leading a large group of Central American immigrants on a long backpacking journey to new American lives.

Jose Antonio, the name offered to the Center for Immigration Studies, said he was a long-distance foot guide, a guia for the ultra-violent La Linea cartel controlling this area. He leads groups of immigrants on eight- to 12-day treks through the remote desert terrain in West Texas with a singular goal: get them to U.S. Interstate 10, where associates pick them up at landmarks and drive them into the nations interior.

By cell phone, Antonio ordered the chunk of plastic-wrapped cocaine and paid the delivery man from a fist-sized wad of $500 and $200 peso bills pulled from the front pocket of his jeans. He chopped up the small white block with a knife on the tailgate of his beat-up old Chevy pickup truck a brand new truck was on order with all his new money, he said.

Over the course of an hour or so, Antonio explained the business, attributing his windfall to what he termed la invitacin, the invitation. This is the local cartel reference to presidential candidate Joe Bidens promises to the worlds poor that if they crossed the border illegally when he becomes president they would be welcomed to stay, never fear deportation and maybe get citizenship. Antonio said that when Biden actually won, business in Mexicos Chihuahua State instantly boomed como nunca! Like never before.

They come in from all over Central America, Haiti, Africa, Indonesia and from all over South America, Antonio explained between snorts from a flattened 16-penny nail, smiling at his new good fortune. They just keep coming and keep coming and keep coming.

For the first time in local memories, rising streams of large groups 50 to 100 illegal immigrants each are constantly flowing through the normally quiet Big Bend Sector, one of the biggest, remote and perhaps out-of-mind of the eight designated CBP operating areas along the southern border. With 165,154 square miles and 571 miles of Rio Grande border, Big Bend also is historically the least traveled by illegal immigrants, perhaps because of its deterring harshness.

Not anymore, though.

Eighteen-wheeler tractor-trailer rigs and trucks of all sizes now pull right up to the river in unending succession to unload people and drug cargo in broad daylight along the long empty stretches of riverside territory. Police chases of immigrant transport vehicles are now commonplace in towns further inland for the first time. And Border Patrol agents, largely unreinforced despite new circumstances, are chasing groups through the desert day and night, losing most and strained beyond capacity to impact whats happening, they say.

Its never been this busy, one agent who has worked in the Van Horn Station Area for more than a decade told CIS. Ive never seen 18-wheelers out on the levy on the Mexican side like this, filled with God only knows what. It was predicted before the new administration came in, and it happened. Now the cartels are having a field day.

In one recent reflective incident, five vehicles blasted in from the Mexican side not far south of Sierra Blanca filled with marijuana, meth and 87 immigrants. Border Patrol caught that convoy.

But much more often, Border Patrol only ever learns about these events from tracks that churn the dirt, video recordings from hidden cameras and distant dust plumes. Inland, sheriffs deputies and Texas DPS Highway Patrol routinely engage in high-speed vehicle chases of smuggler vehicles that pick up migrants off the interstate and state roads leading to it.

More often than not, the passengers and drivers bail out and run into the desert, never to be seen again. The most recent of three crazy smuggler vehicle chases through Marfa and Fort Davis, where Presidio County Sheriff Danny Dominguez was in the lead vehicle, ended in the backyard of Dominguezs own house. The driver ran and got away.

The Runners: Who, How Many, and Why Here for the First Time?

The illegal immigration surge through this lightly populated, rugged wilderness sector is entirely new and different than what most American media reports show is happening in other sections of the border. The vast majority of illegal immigrants now coming over a shallow Rio Grande border are single adults, rather than the families and unaccompanied minors flooding other zones and attracting media attention hundreds of miles south.

The many reasons for this are not initially obvious.

To understand, it helps to know that families and unaccompanied minors now attracting some national attention are ushered in by the tens of thousands under Biden administration policies some call catch-and-bus. After turning themselves in to the first agents they can find, the vast majority of these immigrants are quickly processed, given temporary legal status, and released to board buses heading to cities throughout the nation rich rewards that attract ever more immigrant families in a self-perpetuating cycle of illegal border crossings. The families and unaccompanied teenagers come to these crossing areas because they are cheaper, shorter, and easier on parents hauling small children than those in West Texas.

But the singles are coming to Big Bend because catch-and-bus does not apply to most of them. When they get caught among the families and teens, Border Patrol instantly expels most to Mexico under the Trump-era pandemic-containment policy colloquially known as Title 42, which Biden kept. Some singles in other sectors (known as runners because they do not want to be caught and expelled) try over and over before either going home weary of the repetitive instant expulsions, or shop for easier sectors where they can get through.

Now, however, the smugglers and many other single runners, shopping border sectors for paths of least resistance, have discovered Big Bend and its high probabilities for successful illegal entry and evasion.

Sector apprehension statistics show a massive spike there, almost all of it in the category of single adult runners.

For example, U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics show that just 3,029 single adults were apprehended in the first quarter through March 2020. For the same period this year, the number spiked to 14,091, a 365 percent increase. A smattering of family unit and unaccompanied minor apprehensions brought the sector total for just that one quarter to 15,389.

For historical perspective as to just how significant that number is, consider that total apprehensions of all immigrant categories in the sector for full past fiscal years amounted to 4,096 in 2014, 5,031 in 2015, 6,366 in 2016, and 6,002 in 2017. So more than 15,000 in a single quarter for Big Bend reflects that the nations historic border surge has arrived here with a vengeance.

The real total numbers are likely much, much higher than official tally of 15,389. The Border Patrol agents who work here estimate that 70-80 percent get away clean here, probably even more. That means tens of thousands more could probably be added to the official tally, assuming a 70 percent no-catch rate.

People who live here dont need numbers to know whats going on.

Homesteaders Miguel and Alma Soto, who are building a wooden house on 75 acres of desert a mile from the river, said they see immigrant groups every week moving constantly by them on some invisible route on the other side of a flimsy barbed-wire fence from their property. It wasnt like that when they first bought, and now they feel pretty insecure.

Theres no border. Theres no wall, Miguel said. Theyll come across, you know, but the problem to us is that some could be armed.

Ray Whetstone, owner of the Neely Ranch which backs up to a standalone wall segment, said the segment quieted things down for years. Now, large groups are coming through his property, crossing before the wall starts and moving horizontally across the southern part of his ranch. He said hes been sleeping with a gun at the pillow now for the first time in his life, ever since the new president.

Since the election, theres lots of traffic coming through, Whetstone said. Theres just more, a lot more.

For single adult immigrants and their smugglers, the Big Bend Sector offers a range of other attributes that contribute to a higher probability that immigrants will reach the U.S. interior than theyll have in more infrastructure-rich sectors further south.

A Border Washington Has Left Almost Undefended

Beyond Bidens la invitacin, Antonio offered why he thought so many were now willing to pay top dollar for long, arduous wilderness slogs that, so short a time ago, were regarded as unappealing.

Theres no one watching on the American side, he offered.

Indeed, ranchers, residents, police and federal agents agree with Antonio that the Big Bend region is among the least patrolled on the border, a forgotten backdoor left open when it comes to CBP resource allocations. Theres precious little wall anywhere south of Fort Hancock; one 4.5-mile segment built under President George W. Bush stands alone in a surrounding wilderness south of Sierra Blanca doing nothing to stem a tide that simply goes around it.

By all accounts, the single runners are flooding in, over and around a tiny Border Patrol force that tries but can only do so much with what it was given.

CBP does not publicly release personnel strength data, lest criminals use those numbers to inform their illicit operations. The agents working in the Sierra Blanca and Van Horn stations, however, tell CIS that some shifts field fewer than a half-dozen field agents for 120 miles of river border, arroyos, canyons, and mountains. Agents in other stations appear to have been lent out to help manage family units in far-away sectors. During a 60-mile round-trip drive along Highway 170, along the river in the Alpine station area, CIS did not see a single Border Patrol agent.

All complain that their ranks are ridiculously miniscule to catch more than a small fraction of those coming through.

Theyre just bum-rushing the border. Probably three-quarters of them are getting away, one said. Its like each station is only allotted a certain number of agents hired and, even if we had the maximum, its not enough to stop the groups. They know were overwhelmed and the word has gotten out. As long as they send a giant amount of people out, theyll get through.

Still, they try.

During a recent visit, for instance, CIS came across an empty Border Patrol vehicle, left open with a window rolled down, about 35 miles south of Van Horn. Tracks suggested the agent must have spooked a large group of immigrants and then pursued them into an otherwise trackless desert. After an hour, the agent still had not returned to his vehicle and the odds that he caught all of them, or any at all, did not seem very promising.

Tracks lead from an empty Border Patrol vehicle into the desert, an agents boot print among those of illegal immigrants near Valentine, Texas. Photo by Todd Bensman

In another circumstance on a different morning in the same area, CIS observed four Border Patrol agent vehicles maneuvering through the desert in pursuit of what one said was a large group picked up by surveillance, probably a drone.

After more than an hour searching the desert on foot and by vehicle, using high-tech vision technology mounted on the back of one truck, the group had to admit defeat and leave the area to do something else.

Little relief is in the offing.

The agency lately has taken to adding D-Day type vehicle barriers to parts of the river to deter the brazen smuggling. CBP did send a Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC) to the region last month to shore things up.

CIS met two National Guard troops who were sent to Big Bend Sector to help fill gaps and spot for groups. One said there not many others were sent.

But resources are still stretched thin. When the Biden Department of Homeland Security ordered redeployments of Border Patrol agents from the northern border, and called for volunteers from other federal agencies, they went elsewhere.

CBP spokesman Gregory Davis, in an email exchange, did not answer specific questions about the agencys response to the sectors new circumstances, to include any recent response or future plans for it.

Davis wrote that 300 Border Patrol agents from northern and coastal sectors had been shifted to supportoperations due to fluctuations along the Southwest Border, though he did not say where those agentswent.

CBP seeks to deter and disrupt human smuggling activities by transnational criminal organizations to ensure our personnel are properly equipped to maintain border security, Davis wrote.

There is no sign that Washington headquarters is interested in reinforcing the beleaguered Big Bend outposts. Short of interest or much knowledge about whats happening there, Big Bend will remain largely defenseless in a migration crisis that has arrived there and shows only signs of sharp escalation.

The views expressed here are the writers and are not necessarily endorsed by Homeland Security Today, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints in support of securing our homeland. To submit a piece for consideration, email[emailprotected]Oureditorial guidelines can be found here.

(Visited 9 times, 9 visits today)

See the original post here:
PERSPECTIVE: Migration Overwhelming Once-Quiet Big Bend Sector Homeland Security Today - HSToday