Mediaboss Marketing

Senate Appropriations Committee member John Hoeven, R-N.D., told Fox News on Tuesday that illegal immigrants who are given notice-to-appear tickets by federal immigration authorities are receiving court dates that are several years into the future, as the border crisis overwhelms government resources.

Hoeven told "Your World" that the flow of illegal immigrants has increased so exponentially, little is known about most of those coming across the Rio Grande river from Mexico.

He said that those illegally entering the United States from near Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico are being processed in a makeshift area under the Anzalduas International Bridge, which connects that city with Mission, Texas.

"What is happening isinsome cases they were beingprocessed under thebridge. We saw hundreds andhundreds of children and mothersand they essentially didn'tgo to the processing center," said Hoeven, who toured the border with 17 other Republican senators hosted by the border patrol union.

"They were actually -- they gointo town and like I said, are givena bus ticket and off they go.They're given a notice thatthey're supposed to appear incourt, but in many cases that'snot for three or four years," the North Dakota lawmaker continued.

Hoeven said giving illegal immigrants such a long gap between their entry and the adjudication of whether they are qualified to receive formal asylum essentially incentivizes more migrants from all over the world to come illegally.

"So think about it.They're being sent into theinterior of the country.They may have a contact, may bea family member -- or maybe eventhe cartel because the cartelsare operating in our country aswell as on the border...Of coursethey don't come backfor that."

Host Neil Cavuto noted, in that regard, that as the crisis continues, migrants from outside the so-called Central American "triangle countries" are attempting to enter the United States as well.

He said some migrants have come from as far as Eritrea, on the Red Sea in East Africa.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

During his trip, Hoeven told Cavuto, he and the other lawmakers viewed things the Biden administration "wouldn't [show]", he claimed.

"We were in the RioGrande Valley and saw the trailswhere minors were coming overthe border illegally. They're processed for 8 or 9 hours ...and sent into McAllen.They're turned over to NGO's andthey get on a bus and they go aoff to wherever in the country.

"So once they're here and they gointo the country, that's it.They're here.That's why they're coming.They know that's what's goingon."

View post:
Sen. Hoeven: Illegal immigrants being given court dates 'three to four years' away, as crisis worsens - Fox News

This week, a 14-year-old Rohingya girl, detained for two years in India,faced a peculiar situation: authorities wanted to deport her back to Myanmar, but her family was in Bangladeshs refugee camps. She drew public attention for being the first person India officially attempted to deported since a military coup began in Myanmar; a minor forced to flee violence was sent back to even more violence,critics decried. The deportation didnt take place in the end, because Myanmar authorities refused to accept her, The Wire reported Friday. But it is the governments firm stance that stands out: the girl, along with more than 150immigrantRohingyas who escaped persecution in Myanmar and were living in Jammu andother states, wasillegal and must exit Indian premises, they maintained.

The persistent labeling of people as illegal immigrants is a poignant issue, one that has perturbed western countries like the U.S. for long. Perhaps, the human rights crisis unfolding right under our eyes gives India sufficient reason to mull over the moral concerns at playin the language we use to discuss them.

The most evident is the way this dubious attribution frames vulnerable people seeking a better life. The use of the term illegal to refer to a person is a usage which is confined to exactly one group of people: Migrants. As a result, illegal, when used as a noun, always means immigrantspeople whose only crime is the victimless pursuit of liberty and prosperity, Felix Salmon wrote about what we understand when we hear the word illegal in Fusion. Human rights groups have called illegal immigrant a slur and pejorative as well; arguably, it strips people of the dignity and humanity to which they, like everyone, are entitled to.

The language of immigration, or any socio-cultural issue, is more than minor semantic hiccups; it is inherently political. In calling people illegal, there is an implication that someone poses a security threat; several political parties and organizations in Jammu have claimed Rohingyas presence is a threat to peace and a conspiracy to alter the demographic character, The Print reported. During a hearing in the Supreme Court last week, the Centre called Rohingyas absolutely illegal migrants who posed serious threats to the national security. The counsel pushing for their deportation told the bench it would start a dangerous trend by interfering with a diplomatic issue relating to illegal migrants.

Rohingyas, in particular, are doubly oppressed; as a Bengali-dialect speaking Muslim minority from Myanmar, they also bear the stigma of being Muslims in a country witnessing growing religious friction. Indias most recent policy around displaced people from neighboring countries (the Citizenship Amendment Act) still weighs fresh in public discourse; many have argued that Islamophobic sentiments underline the contentious national policy. The term illegal, used more and more by the state, only works to alienate them.

American media houses have recalibrated their style guide over the years; the Associated Press, NBC, and ABC have banned illegal immigrant; they recommend the usage of undocumented instead, reiterating the idea that even language can be violent.

Related on The Swaddle:

J&K Government Rounds Up 168 Rohingya Refugees, Places Them in Holding Centres

Beyond linguistics, the term alters, and ignores, a grim social reality. The Rohingyas fled to parts of India and Bangladesh not out of whim: as a persecuted ethnic minority in Myanmar, they have been facing an ongoing genocide since 2017. The United Nations has called the Myanmar armys campaign against the Rohingya a textbook example of ethnic cleansing. Rohingyas displacement is as much a state issue as it is a humanitarian one; but by casting their presence in refuge countries as illegal, the discourse stops being about the people and their persecution, and instead transforms them into perpetrators of harm against the state.

Sabber, a Rohingya Myanmar who reached India in 2008, recounts the scale of violence to The Wires Ismat Ara: We will be killed if we return They were burning us to death back there. My family sent me because I was the only one who could manage such a long journey, my parents were old and my sister was weak. His mother, father, and sister are still in Myanmar.

An article in The Swaddle last month also pointed out the pathos of the deportation exercise: It is not clear where the Rohingya people would be deported. In Myanmar, they would likely face death following the recent coup by the military, a key institution driving the genocide of the community. Bangladesh, at the forefront of the Rohingya influx from Myanmar, hasrefused to acceptforcible returns of the people and is undertaking its own questionable process ofmoving Rohingya people to Bhasan Char, a newly-formed sediment island in the Bay of Bengal. This may leave the Rohingya people in J&K, and potentially elsewhere in India, in permanent residence at the sub-jail, an incarcerated state that cannot be the solution to the crisis even if it ismutually acceptableto the state.

The debate around refugee rights and citizenship is not a new one. In 2017, Indias Ministry of Home Affairs issued an urgent notice to all states and union territories saying that Rohingya illegal migrants must be identified and deported without delay. While hearing the Rohingya deportation issue on March 26 this year, the Supreme Court remarked: The fear is that once they are deported, they may get slaughtered. But we cannot stop it. The Chief Justice also added that India cannot become the international capital of illegal migrants, according to a Hindustan Times report.

A commonly recognized principle under the international human rights framework asserts the idea of non-refoulment, noting that people should not be returned to a country where they would face torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, and other irreparable harm which Rohingyas do. But since India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the global treaty to protect the interests of refugees, India faces no legal qualms in carrying out the present deportation exercise.

The tussle between law and human rights could continue till the end of time. But in the end, it boils down to: can a person be illegal? The word illegal in itself is evil and fundamentally wrong There can be irregular migrants or undocumented migrants, not illegal human beings, Fazal Abdali, an associate with the Human Rights Law Network, reflects in The Wire.

Language carries the imperative of evolution; our linguistic understanding has progressed to find better substitutes for many objectionable terms: we have found wisdom in using oppressed instead of lower while talking about the Indian caste system; historians now prefer the usage of enslaved persons to slaves. More recently, people pointed out the erroneous labeling of migrant workers; they have been invisibilized, and arent invisible, as many media reports termed them. Perhaps, the phrase illegal immigrant could come to a much-needed halt.

New York Times writer Jeffrey Toobin, in a 2015 article titled Should I Use The Term Illegal Immigrants?, argued that the term has proved to be slanderous and should retire from civilized discourse. His conclusion was this: There does seem to be a consensus against the use of the term by the people most affected by it, who happen to be a vulnerable minority seeking a better life, and thats good enough for me.Personally, Im dropping the use of the term illegal immigrant.' This battle over words seems primed for a moral resolution.

Follow this link:
Why We Need To Stop Calling People 'Illegal Immigrants' - The Swaddle

New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez exchanged jabs on Twitter with Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz Thursdayover the growing immigration crisis at the U.S. southern border.

In response to a series of tweets by Ocasio-Cortez on the Democratic Partys division in addressing migrant children crossing the border illegally,Cruz condemned the spike in undocumented migrant arrivals.

CRUZ, AOC EXCHANGE BLOWS ON NAZI ACCUSATIONS

Ocasio-Cortez"explains the real Dem position: abolish ICE. Full open borders. Which would make the [Biden border crisis] even worse," the Texas Republican wrote.

"She says nothing else works. Really? Last year, we had the lowest illegal immigration IN 45 YEARS. This year, we have the highest in 20 years," he added.

Ocasio-Cortez fired back, recapping the senators decision to leave his home statein February, amidone of Texas biggest crises in years.

"Ted, this is pretty rich coming from someone who fled their own home (and responsibilities) during an environmental crisis to cross the border and seek refuge in Mexico," she retorted in a tweet Thursday. "Also you funded cages, expanded cages, and yet youre complaining about cages. You have no policy, just puff."

"Maybe Mexico shouldnt let YOU in the next time you try to run away from your job to sip umbrella drinks in Cancn," she continued before adding, "A reminder that your resignation is 84 days past due. At least."

AOC REBUFFS TED CRUZ TWITTER OVERTURE: 'YOU ALMOST HAD ME MURDERED'

Thursdays diatribe is just the latest Twitter exchange between the two political big wigs.

Ocasio-Cortez and Cruz have been firing heated tweets at one another since early January, after the New York Democrat accused the Texan of inciting the violent Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.The attack resultedin the death of five people, andvideos showingpro-Trump supporters seeking out officials like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez were posted to social media.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Cruz has called Ocasio-Cortez a "liar" for her claims, and the New York Democrat in turn has rejected any calls for comradery, telling the Republican from Texas he almost had her "murdered".

"Happy to work w/ almost any other GOP that arent trying to get me killed," she said in a January tweet. "In the meantime if you want to help, you can resign."

Follow this link:
Cruz, AOC go at it on Twitter over immigration debate - Fox News

Im proud to have joined the team of opinion columnists at The Denver Gazette. I subscribed to The Denver Post for 50 years and wrote an opinion column for that paper for 25 (as a token conservative). I finally dumped the Post last year as have many others. Just as the flagrant left-wing bias of the New York Times has made it unreadable for so many, the Post has succumbed to the same failing as its quality and credibility have declined.

The Gazette is a long overdue right-leaning alternative for conservatives and moderates. Its news pages are especially attentive to Denver and Colorado matters and offer more balance than the Post. Gazette editorials and opinion pages are reliably conservative but also feature a number of nationally-syndicated columnists on the left, like Ruben Navarrette who describes himself as the most widely read Latino columnist in the country and writes from that perspective. In one of his recent columns, he advocated for more permissive and expansive Latino immigration. And hes supportive of illegal immigrants.

With typical liberal condescension, Navarrette declared that Conservatives on talk radio (are) a mostly White cohort that is dependably wrong when discussing refugees and immigrants. He was gleeful about the United States march(ing) toward its destiny of becoming a majority non-White country by 2040. (Isnt that anti-white racism?)

He also argued that the whole point of America is to be a safe haven for those who come as refugees fleeing violence or economic migrants looking for a square deal. Adding, It says so right there in the brochure.

No, that isnt the whole point of America. Since the Constitution makes no such claim, I presume the brochure Navarrette has in mind is the inscription on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty which welcomes all the worlds tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free. But thats never been official U.S. government policy. Those exact words were from a poem by Emma Lazarus, a progressive New York socialite, anti-poverty activist and advocate for Russian Jews seeking immigration to the U.S. The statue was a gift to America from France in 1886 after our first centennial honoring the Declaration of Independence and American Democracy. Years later, in 1903, a fund-raising campaign by N.Y. writers and artists added a pedestal to the statue that included the Lazarus inscription, voicing her personal opinion and crusade.

The U.S. has historically imposed limits and restrictions on immigration. In the 19th century, as America expanded westward, building railroads and infrastructure the nation had a great need for physical laborers, who were welcomed as immigrants on the condition that they support themselves. Federal public assistance programs of the kind we have today didnt exist, nor did the spiraling national debt those programs are now driving. In the 21st century, open borders for countless needy immigrants and a welfare state are fiscally incompatible.

The point of America as codified by our founders in the Constitution was mostly about independence, individual liberty, limited government and private enterprise; the economic dimension of liberty.

The Bill of rights restricts government infringement on the peoples freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly, the right to bear arms and other fundamental rights. But those freedoms arent absolute. Theyre implicitly limited by four vital words: Up to a point. Freedom of speech and the press doesnt countenance libel, slander or incitement to riot. Freedom of religion doesnt allow human sacrifice. Freedom of assembly doesnt condone trespassing.

Up to a point also applies to immigration. Im not a nativist or a xenophobe, and I dont oppose legal immigration. But I do oppose illegal immigration as do all sovereign countries including Mexico. The worlds impoverished and oppressed masses may yearn to come to America but its neither our obligation nor within our means to take them all in.

Progressives claim that multiculturalism makes us a better country. Perhaps, but, again, only up to a point. A tidal wave of immigration in the absence of assimilation would overwhelm our culture and lead to divisiveness and tribalism. Understandably, the French have resisted the Americanization of their culture. Ive visited more than 50 foreign countries. Some cultures are charming, intriguing and admirable, but not all. Sharia Law of Muslim fundamentalists is an affront to the Constitutional rights of American women. I much prefer our culture to Chinas totalitarian dictatorship. In fact, I prefer our culture to any other.

Dont be fooled by progressive propaganda. Democrats see open borders and multiculturalism as their route to a permanent electoral majority from ever-grateful migrants and their progeny. Thats what its all about.

Mike Rosen is a Denver-based American radio personality and political commentator.

Read more from the original source:
Immigration and multiculturalism have their limits | Denver-gazette - Colorado Springs Gazette

A direct link exists between criminal organizations and illegal immigration, former federal prosecutor Josh Jones says.

Jones, now senior fellow in border security at Texas Public Policy Foundation, joins The Daily Signal Podcast to discuss his recent report, Joined at the Hip: Organized Crime and Illegal Immigration. Jones explains how gangs and other criminal groups in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala lead illegal immigrants to the border and often exploit the migrants for their own profit.

Also on todays show, we read your letters to the editor and share a good news story about a foster child who was adopted by his teacher.

Listen to the podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript.

Virginia Allen: I am joined by Josh Jones, a senior fellow in border security at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and a former prosecutor with the US Department of Justice. Mr. Jones, thank you so much for being here.

Josh Jones: Thank you for having me, Virginia.

Allen: Today, we are talking about a subject that is on the minds of many, many Americans, and that is immigration, illegal immigration. And you have just recently authored a study called Joined at the Hip: Organized Crime and Illegal Immigration. So lets begin by talking about what role criminal organizations and gangs do play in illegal immigration.

Jones: Sure. So theres a distinction between transnational gangs and transnational criminal organizations. The transnational gangs, or what we refer to as transnational gangs, are gains that come out primarily of El Salvador, and MS-13 and 18th Street are the two primary gangs.

Those gangs control territory in what we call the Northern Triangle countries, which are Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. And oftentimes the reason that migrants join these caravans or move up toward the United States using a smuggler is because of the violence caused by the transnational gangs in their home countries.

Then, as you move into Mexico, obviously there are cartels, or what we call transnational criminal organizations. And these are much larger, much more complex criminal organizations that function more like businesses or corporations. They too control territory throughout Mexico.

As migrant caravans come north, they tax the traffickers to move the caravans through their territory. And oftentimes theres some interplay, too, at the U.S. border, where the transnational criminal organizations will use the migrant caravans to further their drug trafficking operations getting into the United States.

So, basically, every step of the way from the southwest border down to the Northern Triangle, youre pretty much on territory either controlled by gangs or by cartels.

Allen: So, these individuals in countries that you mentionedEl Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemalatheyre wanting to leave their country because of the violence. But then in turn, the same individuals who are responsible for furthering that violence are also the ones that are really, deeply entrenched in a part of this process of individuals migrating and getting across the border illegally, correct?

Jones: That is correct. And its not just violence, its economic opportunity. They see economic opportunity in the United States that they dont have down there, but those two things are intertwined in Central Americathe economic opportunity, or the lack thereof, and the violence or the lack of security in those countries.

Allen: How do local law enforcement and government officials interact with these criminal groups, with these gangs? I mean, do they have any power to stop the violence? Do they try to engage to stop the violence?

Jones: In Latin America, the criminal justice systems are not very well-developed. Theyre far behind what we have here in the United States.

And oftentimes corruption is a huge, huge problem down there, particularly when were talking about those countries, particularly in Honduras and Mexico, and to a lesser extent, also in Guatemala and El Salvador.

So the criminal justice systems really are not capable of controlling the violent crime that the gangs perpetrate down there. And in El Salvador, for example, instead of trying to take enforcement action against MS-13, the government actually negotiates with the gangs in order to reduce violence. Its not a great scenario. Its not a great long-term solution to a crime problem.

Allen: Wow. You mentioned that economic impact, but talk a little bit more about how that organized crime does directly impact the economic opportunity of a single mom or a family thats just trying to make ends meet.

Jones:Sure. So, as I said, these gangs control territory in the Northern Triangle countries, and what theyll do in their territory is actually tax the people who are trying to live there.

So in addition to being taxed by their federal governments down there, theyre also taxed by the gangs that control their territories. And the economic development is way behind what we have here in the United States, so the job markets really not there to support the populations down there.

So theyre kind of in a situation where its really hard to find jobs, and for those who can find jobs, they are taxed by the local street gangs. So oftentimes the reason to come to the United States is just, A, to avoid gangs, and B, to come to a place where they can actually find a job.

Allen: Wow. What happens if those individuals cant pay the taxes that are demanded of them, of these gangs?

Jones: Its oftentimes that the gangs resort to violence. They resort to extortion, kidnapping. They do wherever they can to squeeze money out of the people in their territory.

And another thing, too, that I think in El Salvador, and I think also in Honduras, the biggest part of their gross domestic product is actually remittances coming from the United States.

So theyll have family members in the United States that have migrated either legally or illegally, and the migrants will send money down to their family members in El Salvador, and oftentimes thats money used to pay the local gangs so that the gangs will leave them alone.

Allen: Yeah, yeah. So I want to understand a little bit more about kind of the journey that these individuals take as theyre seeking to get to the U.S. You mentioned this in your piece, but could you explain a bit about the difference between smuggling and trafficking? And do we know percentage wise how many illegal immigrants are being smuggled over the border versus trafficked over?

Jones: So when I use those words, in this case, the immigrants that move by smuggling or by hiring smugglers are those who will pay, theyre typically a very small organization, trafficking organization, that theyll pay anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000, usually to be moved from Central America up into the United States.

And the people that are paying the smugglers have connections throughout that route, so they can make it possible. And these days, they can almost guarantee entry, especially if its an undocumented child coming across, because the Biden administration is letting all the undocumented children aliens come into the U.S.

A trafficker, on the other hand, typically is moving people involuntarily. And so they would be your sex traffickers, the people who are in the business of forced labor. And so they are oftentimes more intertwined with the criminal organizations along that route, particularly in Mexico.

Allen: OK. And for those arriving at the border right now, were seeing that thousands of migrants are arriving at our southern border daily right now, how many of those people used a criminal organization to get them to the border, worked with a criminal organization?

Jones: Well, in a way, theyre all criminal organizations. The smugglers are moving people into the country illegally and theyre profiting from it. So in a sense, they are criminal organizations as well. And most of them are being smuggled across.

Most of them are hiring trafficking organizations to use their connections to smuggle them up to the border, and then to instruct them on how to best get across the border, which sometimes involves just coming in and crossing the bridge and claiming asylum, and sometimes it means trying to go across the Rio Grande River, or sometimes it means just going through open desert.

Allen: And how much are these individuals paying the smuggling groups to get them across? Is there some exchange of goods, services?

Jones: Usually if were talking about a smuggling group, its a flat fee, and weve heard that that fee can run anywhere between $2,000 or $3,000, up to $10,000, and that normally the price fluctuates by where the migrant is originating.

So if a migrant comes from outside Central America, oftentimes migrants from Asia trying to get to the United States will first come to Central America or South America, and then be moved up, move themselves up in a caravan or by using a smuggler.

If youre Asian, youre paying over $10,000. Youre paying upwards of $20,000 or $30,000. If youre Central American, where, obviously, they probably cant afford that, theyre paying much less.

And kind of the dark side of it too is that when migrants cant pay, thats when the smugglers or the traffickers find other ways of making money off of them, which is where sex trafficking comes in or forced labor comes out.

Allen: OK. I know in your study you also talk a little bit about how these individuals are often used for drug trafficking. Could you explain that?

Jones: Sure. There are some scenarios that weve heard kind of anecdotally from drug traffickers themselves or from people who have seen this or have experienced this, the Border Patrol guys.

At times when theres a very large migrant caravan moving up through a cartels territory, theyll instruct the caravan to go in one direction, and the [Customs and Border Protection] in that area is going to be directed toward the caravan coming up in one area, and then theyll move drug shipments in an opposite area, in a different area where they know that the Border Patrol officers are not going to be there.

In other cases, weve heard of the drug trafficking organizations on the border working with the migrants, coming up with the smugglers, where they will allow them to go through, but theyll instruct them to carry backpacks, or mochila is the Spanish word for it.

And the backpacks will be full of methamphetamine, or cocaine, or heroin, and then theyll tell them once they get to the United States, to go to a certain point at a certain time and hand the drugs or the backpacks over to one of the people in the United States.

Allen: Lets talk a little bit about solutions. Right now, we are looking at a crisis at our border. So what actions should the Biden administration take today to keep migrants from entering the country illegally?

Jones: I think the short term, most important thing that the Biden administration can begin to do better is just messaging.

Through the Biden campaign, when he was running for president, he was using words like amnesty, and he was essentially using a vernacular thats going to signal to Central America that if hes elected president, this is going to be time to come up because the gates are going to be open. The borders going to be open.

So that actually started before he became president. Once he becomes president, one of the first things he does is undo a lot of President [Donald] Trumps immigration policy, which in a lot of ways was pretty sensible. And so that furthers that message, echoes that message that the borders open, the gates are open, come on up.

And then [Homeland SecuritySecretaryAlejandro] Mayorkas here, this past Sunday, began to change the messaging a bit by saying, The border is closed. Its not time yet. And they still used the word yet, which would indicate there will be a time in the future when it would be OK for them to come up.

Again, the messaging is just not strong enough, that the border is not in fact open, and that in fact, the border never will be truly open, but in the sense that people will be able to come into the United States unaccounted for. I think that messaging has to become stronger and more consistent from the Biden administration.

And looking kind of forward, one thing that they could do, [President Joe] Biden could do, that they have talked about is create a process for handling asylum claims in Central America so that the migrants dont have to make that very dangerous journey up to the United States to file. They can file asylum from where they are.

Very few asylum claims from Central America get granted, but if theyre in the 5% or 10% that do get granted, then that can be handled where they are. And if they are granted asylum, then they can make that journey up to the United States, knowing that when they get to the border, theyll be allowed to cross.

I think long term, the solution is to work with the Central American countriesand Biden has talked about doing thisto improve security down there, to reform the criminal justice systems, to make it safer to live in those countries, so that fewer people will be wanting to leave to come to the United States.

One thing that I disagree with is kind of the direct payments to the countries. Hes proposed, essentially, a $4 billion point check that hes trying to send to Central American countries, and the problem is that these are very corrupt governments down there.

Allen: Yeah.

Jones: I think a better approach would be to incentivize investment by U.S. corporations down there so that we can try to get kind of capital down into Central America, so that our corporations can create jobs down there and start to build their economy that way.

Allen: Yeah. I was going to ask you about that because, ultimately, it seems like that would be the solution, is to strengthen these nations so that individuals dont want to leave, so that they can support their family, so that they can feel safe, so that they can really provide, have jobs, and the best way to do that, we so often see, is through industry, through creating those economic opportunities.

Jones: I think thats absolutely the long-term solution, is to build up Central America. And again, the Biden administration is talking in the right way in that regard, but I dont think direct payments to corrupt governments is going to get it done.

I think we have to find creative ways of getting U.S. companies to go down there and invest, and to build their resort industry. Tourism is going down in those countries. Those types of things are what will bridge the gap between where we are and where they are in a way that should reduce the problem of illegal immigration from Central America in the future.

Allen: Yeah. So if America continues right now on the trajectory that its on, and thousands of illegal immigrants continue to arrive at our southern border and be released into the country, who, ultimately, are the winners and losers of that scenario?

Jones:Well, the winners are the criminal organizations that either forced them up and/or profit from them along the way.

So the cartels in Mexico that are taxing the caravans as they come north are profiting. The smugglers themselves, obviously, or the traffickers themselves are profiting. The sex trafficking industry is going to profit from it.

Its essentially kind of the worst parts of our society are doing well when we have immigration crises like we have right now.

Allen: Wow. Mr. Jones, I so appreciate the work that you are doing on this issue. Youre really on the forefront of it. Tell us how our listeners can follow your work and keep up with what you all are doing down there in Texas.

Jones: Sure. So, Im a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which is the largest state-oriented policy foundation office. Obviously, we do a lot of work that covers the entire country and we do work in Washington, D.C., as well. But the websites http://www.texaspolicy.com.

There are several fellows in addition to me that are doing work in this area. We have livestreams twice a week, and were publishing and getting the word out as much as we can. This is a crisis, and there are reasonable solutions to the crisis.

Allen: Well be sure to link your report, Joined at the Hip: Organized Crime and Illegal Immigration, in todays show notes. But we so, so appreciate your time and all the work that youre doing on this issue.

Jones: Thank you.

Read the original:
Illegal Immigration Linked With Organized Crime, Border Expert Says - Daily Signal - Daily Signal