Haitian illegal immigration falls 97%

The Trump crackdown is the cause.

Sometime around November, word began to trickle back down the spine of Latin America: The U.S. was getting stricter about letting in Haitians at the border.

Not only had the Obama administration begun deporting Haitians after a six-year humanitarian pause, but President Trump also had just been elected, presaging an even tougher policy.

Many of those en route, such as the hundreds staged at migrant camps in Costa Rica and Nicaragua, figured they had gone that far and had little to lose by trying to finish the journey north.

But for the tens of thousands of Haitians in Brazil, Chile and elsewhere in South America who had been planning to journey north, the news was devastating. In a matter of weeks, the northward stream of people dried up.

It is one of the biggest among a plethora of success stories from the southwestern border, where illegal immigration appears to have nearly dried up in the two months since Mr. Trump took office.

So what does this tell us? It tells us that ending the wink and nod encouragement of illegal entry into the US effectively discourages it. It also tells us, quite frankly, that Trump’s wall is a costly and largely unnecessary boondoggle.

Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Haitian illegal immigration falls 97%

  1. mr_bill says:

    Smuggling these people into the US is big business for cartels. Up to this point, nobody has offered much for practical proposals to curtail cartel activities. Because cartels use these people (not just Haitians, but illegals from anywhere) in so many facets of their operations, this will have a considerable impact (and for the mere cost of a couple press conferences).

  2. R.D. Walker says:

    The Haitian crossings stopped were on the southwestern border in California and Arizona. They come in through Mexico. Read the article.

    The argument that America needs to build a coast-to-coast wall was a sophism.

    • mr_bill says:

      We’re on the same page. Re-reading what I wrote, maybe I could have been more articulate. I was adding that a side effect of reducing illegal immigration is that it impairs some of the abilities of cartels because they rely upon illegal immigrants as mules, sex slaves, etc. It hits them in the wallet, which is an effective way to combat them.

      Holding a press conference or two to announce a policy shift has demonstrated to be infinitely more effective and practical than building a wall. From a cost/benefit standpoint, it’s done in a matter of months, what nothing else has done in decades. All it took was an attitude shift from the executive office.

      • R.D. Walker says:

        Like I have always said, if you have ants in your house, it is much easier to get rid of them by ending your practice of mopping the floor with sugar-water than it is to plug every ant-sized opening.

        • Greg says:

          Agree. Remove the benefits package and a good many will self-deport and many will not come. I enjoy the notion of a wall, but realize that the wall may well be virtual in many respects… while some areas may actually have fences. Drug runners. Sex Slave market. Terrorists (OTMs from Arab nations). Some of these will still require vigilance to apprehend and thwart. I have always liked the idea of a military type force that young folks could enlist into to augment the BP/ICE to put boots on the ground while giving them benefits, similar to military, but perhaps something else.

  3. fasttimes says:

    “The argument that America needs to build a coast-to-coast wall was a sophism.”

    it may have been parabolic, but it wasn’t deceptive and never once did he ever say it was the end all be all of the problem.

    boards are important and so is a coherent immigration policy. both having one and enforcing it. No one said a wall would solve 100% of the illegal immigration problem. it is but a step, both actual and/or symbolic to address that problem. i still support an actual wall. however, if it can be shown the problem can/is solved without it, it won’t hurt my feelings if it isn’t built.

    perhaps the better argument is that the wall represents a level of diminishing returns in light of information in the article. just a thought.

  4. miforest says:

    “We don’t need a wall” crazy , just crazy

  5. Jim22 says:

    ‘Wall’ is political talk. I’d have no trouble with a fence. I think many of Trump’s supporters would be satisfied with one as well. Fences are not leak proof but neither would a wall. We see fences around lots of things. They are a lot cheaper than walls.

    The increased investigation and enforcement of immigration laws is more effective than a wall or a fence but out political leaders will not continue to enforce them forever.

    The fence and the increased enforcement are both worthwhile, In my opinion.