Yes, He Won
The New York Times reported…
TIJUANA, Mexico — Pushed beyond their limits by prolonged waits in dangerous and squalid conditions in parts of Northern Mexico, thousands of caravan members who had been waiting to seek asylum in the United States appear to have given up, Mexican officials said, dealing President Trump an apparent win after a humbling week for his immigration agenda.
About 6,000 asylum seekers who had traveled en masse, many of them in defiance of Mr. Trump’s demands that they turn around, arrived in Northern Mexico in late November as part of a caravan that originated in Honduras. Since then, more than 1,000 have accepted an offer to be returned home by the Mexican government, the officials said. Another 1,000 have decided to stay in Mexico, accepting work permits that were offered to them last fall, at the height of international consternation over how to deal with the growing presence of migrant caravans.
And some critics decided they did it wrong.
What an awful framing from the New York Times, describing Trump's success at making migrants so miserable that they don't wait long enough to exercise their legal right to apply for asylum as a "win." pic.twitter.com/1p5OWMovug
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) February 16, 2019
The thing is, though, that the New York Times’ description is accurate. The Trump administration pursued a series of policies with an objective. Opponents opposed it, with many saying that it wouldn’t work even on its own terms. The policies were pursued and the objective was achieved.
The word here is “Win”. Or, if you prefer, “victory”.
That’s not a normative judgment on the virtues of the policy and it is unlikely any disinterested party would read it as such. Further, it wasn’t entirely clear that the policy would succeed on its own terms. Many suggested it wouldn’t because the asylum-seekers were too desperate to care about American policy. That turned out not to be the case which in turn validates the extent to which the administration’s ugly smashmouth enforcement approach is likely to continue and result in fewer asylum-seekers.
In any event, the Times’ depiction is accurate. Refusing to use the word “win” here would actually be greater editorialization than using it.
Photo by Michael Vadon 
Compared to the hundreds of thousands apprehended annually, virtually none are granted refugee status. For example, in 2016 only 1,340 people from Latin America or the Caribbean were granted refugee status, and only 4,390 from Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Venezuela were granted asylum..
DHS refugees and asylees 2016 report (pdf)
One of the problems, however, is that many thousands at a time can show up, fill out an asylum application form, and then stay for two or three years for a court date that they’ll skip. Entire countries have figured this out.
Our refugee and asylum systems are for actual refugees or people needing asylum, such as Yazidis from Iraq and Syria, Chinese dissidents, Africans whose villages got wiped out by Boko Haram. Fleeing a place where Americans vacation in huge numbers, and leaving because of multi-generational endemic poverty instead of oppression, shouldn’t qualify.
What we have right now is an “attractive nuisance.” Our border is wide open, our court system can’t handle the load, and our laws let people stay for years after they illegally enter. So why wouldn’t every poor person south of the border just barge on in? One of the key functions of a wall is to spread the idea that there’s a wall, and that we don’t allow people to just rush in, so that tens of thousands of people will stop making the very dangerous and ill advised attempt to just rush in.Report
Agreed. One of the things which floors me constantly – about liberals more then conservatives – is that ability to look at policy decisions, assume they are somehow aimed other then they are, and then get twisted in a knot when describing the outcome. Trump and many of his supporters want to eliminate immigration of Hispanics from south and central America. He does it because it keeps him in power. They do it because they believe (wrongly) it will bring back their lost prosperity and “place” in the world.
But they are all very clear on why they are doing what they are doing. Which means that people deciding to give up trying to come here is indeed a win for them.Report
I’m going to dissent from this partially. There is plenty of polling evidence that suggest that while Americans are not quite ready for open borders, they are opening up to being more immigration friendly. Part of this is because of the hardline stance that Trump and the Republicans are taking.
The issue is that Trump and the immigration hardliners just don’t give a fuck about the polling. 2/3rds of Americans were against funding the border wall and were largely on the side of the Democrats during the shutdown. But if Trump is an absolutist on one thing, it is his hardline racist and anti-immigrant stance.
I don’t think polling is on Trump’s side here but his willingness to do anything to get his damn wall is.Report
Polling isn’t the objective here.
Think about PPACA. Polling on that was abysmal when it passed…. but it was a big win. They got what they wanted (or, at least, took a big step in that direction) and it was a victory long before public opinion on the law turned around.Report
My mother is a Fox News addict and Trump supporter and I really think she determines the success or failure of his actions based on whether or not they drive the liberal members of our family nuts.Report
Back when I was doing the Kettlebell/Keto thing with all of my energy, we used to yell Conan the Barbarian quotes at each other as we worked out.
I enjoyed coming up with new ones.
“WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?”
“I DON’T KNOW! WHY?”
“STEEL!”
And
“KNOCK KNOCK”
“WHO’S THERE?”
“STEEL!”
were my two favorite versions of “the riddle of steel” but the best “real” quote we yelled while doing swings and cleans was the one about what is best in life.
“WHAT IS BEST IN LIFE?”
“TO CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES, SEE THEM DRIVEN BEFORE YOU, AND TO HEAR THE LAMENTATIONS OF THEIR WOMEN!”
Say what you will about Der Trumpler: He is very, very good about eliciting the lamentations of their women.
But as I grow older, I see that the guy who sang the joys to be found in an open steppe, a fleet horse, and falcons at your wrist was treated poorly.
Maybe it was the “wind in your hair” part that got him yelled at. Screw you, hair guy.Report
“Shock the Bourgeoisie”
“Freak the Squares”
“Own the Libs”
I am sure we could go back and spot more, but that conveys what is essentially happening. You have to rally the troops somewhat, show them that you have the same sensibilities. Nothing new really, it just isn’t your politics using the old tricks.Report
Inasmuch as it is truthful to describe this as a win for Trump’s objective, it would be dishonest not to note what that objective is.
Namely, blocking brown people from entering America, by any means.Report
I don’t know if Trump thinks in skin color. I know you do.Report
This is assuming that the wall is going to be built. Even though Trump declared a national emergency to get it, Trump’s history suggests that he is going to find a way to pocket the money for himself and not build what he said he would.Report
I assume you’re being a bit tongue and cheek. My guess is that this is going to be held up in court for years. Something will eventually be built but who knows what and under what conditions.Report
It also gives him a rallying cry for his supporters. Much like how the ACA was tied up in court and finally decided by SCOTUS, which many on the left decried as the right being the Party of No to good effect, it keeps the discussion on efforts to block the wall.Report
Agreed, keeping the issue alive is probably the bigger win for him politically than whatever fortifications are put on the southern border long-term.Report
I don’t think the wall will be built, but this is independent of that. This (pre-emptive denial of asylum resulting in people going home) is, in fact, more effective than the proposed wall would be even if built.Report