U.S.A.: Central American children on the border -- let's interrupt this hysteria and consider some facts

Why do people leave home to move to another country?  Why do they do this when their transit includes riding on top of a train called La Bestia?  (You probably don't have to look up the English translation to figure out what it means.)  Why do this when riding on La Bestia might be the safest part of the trip?

People voluntarily uproot themselves, leave their homes and move to another country for only a few reasons:  long-term personal safety and security are always among the top reasons, along with pursuing opportunities for education, comfort and wealth.  Americans--other than Native Americans--are exclusively either immigrants, or are descendants of immigrants, slaves and others who were forcibly brought here in some indentured manner; most of us have American pedigrees that originate within the last three hundred years, a relatively short time span in the great scheme of things that we call civilization. 

Despite this history, the American consciousness--including especially our politics--has occasionally been obsessed with an almost hysterical fear that our country is being overwhelmed with outsiders who are--for purposes of this controversy--lumped together as "illegal immigrants."  Now is one of those occasions.

Leaving aside for the moment the inherent absurdity that a nation based on the pedigree of immigration can be overwhelmed by any number or type of additional immigrants--out of a current population of 315 millions, the undocumented or illegal population numbers about 11 millions, or roughly 3.5% of the total--let's focus only on the immediate "crisis" at hand, which is described as the illicit arrival--many via La Bestia--over the last almost a year of 57,000 illegally-immigrated minors (children) from Central America.  That's right:  children riding on top of La Bestia.

Here's something that might come as a surprise to most people:  these 57,000 are not necessarily "illegals."  Almost certainly some are, but with equal certainty some--perhaps the majority--are not.

Granted, 57,000 people in one place at one time can be a lot of people.  But we're not talking about all of these people being in one place at one time.  They are spread out over a huge geography, and over some significant amount of time.  True, more have probably arrived since that number was counted, but some have already been returned to their countries of origin, all of which is a normal state of affairs.

Yes, believe it or not, there is some normalcy in this "crisis" story.

But let's work with that number:  57,000 added to 315 million works out to .02%, which is two one-hundredths of a percent of America's total population.  That is a pretty small, almost miniscule, and proportionally insignificant, addition to the nation's count of residents.

Admittedly, managing to a situation such as this costs the country something, some of which was anticipated and therefore planned for.  These 57,000 people are seeking asylum in the United States; asylum is a legal status, granted upon judicial review, and it has been around for decades.  In particular, a specific law that was adopted by the U.S. six years ago in the waning months of the Bush 2 administration could apply to many of these 57,000 since it was crafted to offer asylum to Central American children who are determined to be at risk of exploitation by gangs and criminals (sometimes organized) in their home countries.

There's a much larger context to asylum than just the current plight of children from Central America.  The United States offers asylum for many reasons, and the offers go out to people all over the world.  In the years 2003 to 2012, the United States granted asylum to over 250,000 people from more than 100 countries.

During that time period, fewer than 10,000 of those grants of asylum were made to people from all Central American countries combined.  Almost the same number of Ethiopians--about 9500--were granted asylum.  Over in the Caribbean, Haiti by itself accounted for over 16,000 grants of asylum.  China had the most:  almost 65,000.  (See the New Republic article by Danny Vinik that analyzes asylum data from the U.S. Government, and then presents it in a really nifty interactive map.)

Put all of this together--American history; immigrants being spread out over space and time; the legal and historical context of asylum--and the case for calling this situation a "crisis" is just not convincing.  If there is anything of crisis in this, it is a crisis of our morals and ethics; but let's pass on discussion of that, at least for now, because my working assumption is that the great majority of Americans, when confronted with the reality of endangered children, will choose to provide those children with safety instead of returning them to an environment of hostility and criminal compulsion; especially when at least some of the root causes of that criminality emanate from America's own social and legal behaviors towards cocaine, heroin and other drugs.

Nonetheless, working through thousands of asylum-seekers is time-consuming and costly.  I don't know what is the "right thing to do" for these people as individuals, because each one will have a different story.  But taken together as a group, I know that the legalities of asylum require that due process be provided.  America is, after all, a legalistic society.  Tedious though that might be at times, it is our adherence to the "rule of law," as we call it, that helps us to build and maintain our leading position among the world's nations.

Additionally, in the current case of the Central American children, it is in the self-interest of law-abiding Americans to do whatever is possible and practical to show them that there are better ways to live than to return to an environment that could make them a part of criminal enterprises supplying illicit and dangerous drugs to the North American market.  If we are law-abiding Americans, do we want to encourage young people to pursue criminal lifestyles that ultimately profit from the continuing use and purchase of dangerous drugs in the United States?  I think not. 

The larger question, of course, is this:  Will the United States be welcoming to immigration, or hostile to it?  There's a general feeling in this country that we Americans are opposed only to illegal immigration, and welcoming to legal immigration, and that this means that the United States is anything but hostile to immigration.  Unfortunately, the whole story is that the U.S. provides immigration visas to only a small fraction of the apparently-qualified applicants, and so because of that fact we therefore severely restrict the number of foreign people who can legally move into the country and seek to become naturalized citizens.

Some will say that this is as it should be because the United States is populous enough as it is.  Certainly, the size of the population bears watching, but also consider the nature of that population, and realize that without sustained, large numbers of immigrants--more than the U.S. currently allows in legally--the country faces two undeniable demographic shortcomings:  first, large numbers of highly-skilled potential immigrants are denied access to America and therefore go elsewhere, enriching the business and innovation cultures of those other countries instead of doing so in the U.S.; and, second, America's population will age much faster with less immigration than it will with more immigration, which means fewer workers making money, paying taxes and supporting programs like Social Security and Medicare that are vitally important to an older population.

It's true, as some like to say, that a country must be able to control its borders.  But the bigger truth is that border control is only a small part of the bigger picture.  Is there an immigration crisis?  Maybe so, but it's not a crisis of figuring out how to deport 57,000 children as quickly as possible; it's bigger than that.

(Note:  this posting is corrected from the original with regard to math errors pointed out by an astute reader.  I should have done a better job in proof-reading my own work.  Sorry.)