The Caravan

A few thoughts about the caravan of Hondurans heading to our southern border. First of all, I've seen numerous memes mis-characterizing this large group of migrants. Notable among them, one compared them to the Israelites fleeing Egypt and headed toward the Promised Land. The theme was that this was another group of migrants fleeing poverty. (I'm actually glad for that meme, but I'll get to the reason later.)

I guess I must have a bunch of defective Bibles in my house. Because the ones I have all say that the Israelites were fleeing slavery, not poverty. By all accounts, they were pretty well provided for in Egypt. But they were enslaved, so that's what Moses was sent to free them from. Guess I need one of those new Bibles that re-states the story to say they were fleeing poverty, and not slavery.

Another compares the caravan to a ship of immigrants headed to the U.S., probably in the late 1800s or early 1900s. Of course, those immigrants were headed to Ellis Island, to be processed under the rule of law as legal immigrants, and who would eventually seek and obtain citizenship. My own forebears were among their number.

See, this is where civil discourse fails. I'm completely willing to engage in reasoned discussion with anyone regarding the merits of illegal immigration. But when you lead by misrepresenting the facts of the matter, reasoned discourse is impossible. It breaks down before it can begin. There is no reason to be found in being unreasonable, in distorting the facts.

I'm willing to assume that the caravan does not contain gang members or Middle Easterners, even though on-ground reports have stated that among the caravan are people with gang tattoos. But that's not my issue with the caravan.

My issue is grounded in the rule of law. These people are purported to be refugees, asylum-seekers. The problem is that the left has no apparent inkling of the laws of the United States as they pertain to asylum, which states that asylum-seekers are fleeing religious or political persecution.

These people are not fleeing religious persecution. Honduras is a predominantly Catholic country, and I've seen no reports of persecution of Catholics in particular, or Christians in general, in that country.

Nor are they fleeing political persecution. Honduras is a democratic republic, as is the U.S., and appears to hold free and fair elections. There are no reports of political persecution in that country, contrary to, say, Iran or Russia.

No, they are fleeing poverty. They are seeking better economic opportunity in the U.S. Indeed, reporters who have gone to Mexico to interview them have asked why they want to go to the U.S., and all of the answers I've heard have indicated that they're seeking better economic opportunity.

As an aside, that should speak to the economic opportunity that America offers, which should be an argument in favor of the policies of the current administration. Yet the same people that argue that these immigrants should be allowed into the U.S. in the absence of any legal standing, would also have you believe that the current administration's economic policies are bad, and disadvantage U.S. citizens. Well, if those policies are bad for U.S. citizens, why do so many people want to risk life and limb to come here illegally?

Sorry, Dems; you can't have it both ways.

So my argument against allowing this large group to come here is based on the fact that they do not meet the well-established legal litmus test for asylum. Plain and simple.

I also won't call this an invasion, as some have; after all, these people do not appear to be armed. I do wonder how they manage to be so well-organized. Stories have been floated about that indicate they have been organized by special interest groups within Honduras, and may be funded by Venezuelan interests. I don't know whether that's true or not, or to what extent it is.

What I do know is that it seems highly unusual that 7,000+ people from Honduras could be so well-organized on their own. If it were that simple for the Honduran people to organize, one would think that they could organize in even larger numbers to bring about positive change in their country that perhaps might make it a better place to live.

It's also curious that they declined offers of amnesty by the Mexican government. Mexico is willing to take them in, and presumably offers better economic opportunity than Honduras, plus they could save a lot of walking by not having to come all the way to the U.S. Maybe they all have Fitbits and need the steps. I don't know.

Finally, the timing is also suspect. Why did they choose to make their exodus right before the U.S. midterm elections? They won't get here before election day, but the timing puts them front and center as an election issue. Interestingly, it's one that has at least as much chance of benefiting the GOP as it does the Democrats.

There will be scores of ACLU lawyers waiting just on the other side of the border to help them craft their stories, to help them shift from "I'm seeking better economic opportunities" to "I'm seeking asylum from persecution." It will be a colossal s***-show. I don't disagree with the decision to send troops to the border, but I do pray this doesn't turn into a staged humanitarian crisis for political gain by the left.

Beyond all that, I will say this: there may be instances of children being separated from the adults who bring them across the border, and that will naturally ignite the collective hair of the left. Of course, we don't know whether those adults are actually those children's parents, or whether they're just random people using the children to cross the border in hopes of being released with them, or - God forbid - whether they're human traffickers intent on selling those children into sexual slavery. (Don't scoff, my Democrat friends - it's happened. The cases are documented.)

So here's my question for the Dems: would you be willing to risk the chance that one child is trafficked into sexual slavery against the practice of separating children from adults at the border? Or is your opposition to "ripping babies from their mothers' arms" so absolute that you believe everyone who brings a child across the border should be kept with that child, and allowed to freely enter without deterrence, even if that child winds up being trafficked?

I'm not willing to risk one child being trafficked into the horror of sexual slavery. If you are, then what that child ultimately suffers is on your head. You bear responsibility for it. You choose.

And if that's your choice, then don't even begin to tell me that where Justice Brett Kavanaugh is concerned, you stand with "the victims," because your position on this matter demonstrates that you're willing to sacrifice the victims for your political position.

You can't have it both ways. You choose.