Here's something that really puzzles me about the "caravan" of refugees from Central America. They worked their way all through Mexico and are now clustered at the border fence just outside Tijuana. Apparently there's an international convention that we signed in 1980 that obligates countries to give asylum to people fleeing violence and oppression for various specified circumstances. According to the New York Times in the U.S. there's been a giant surge in such claimants in recent years, overwhelming the court system that's supposed to decide whether their claim is legitimate. So people are caught and released until their court date never to be seen again.
But here's what puzzles me. Isn't Mexico a country that's subject to the same convention? In fact it's a pretty big country with a moderately successful economy. So if these refugees from Central America have reached Mexico why aren't they seeking asylum there? You'd think it would be better for fleeing refugees to take their refuge in an environment that shares their language and culture.
It makes you kind of wonder, doesn't it, if these refugees are less trying to get away from somewhere and more just trying to get into somewhere. In other words if you and your family are in such danger that you're forced to leave the shelter of your home, isn't the idea just that you want to get to a place where you've escaped the danger, such as the country just across your border. Getting to the absolute best place, where you get the most benefits, shouldn't really be the issue. Not to mention waving the Salvadorean flag. What's that all about?
I read a couple of articles in the New York Times about the situation. The reporters detail the plight of the refugees, the passionate statements of those organizations advocating for them, the complexity of the legalities they face in the U.S. courts and the intransigence of the Trump administration, but nowhere is it mentioned why asylum isn't being sought in Mexico rather than the U.S.
But the photos in the articles raised my interest about another subject. They show fencing along the border which wouldn't stop a really determined trespasser but is enough to cause all the "caravan" people to collect on the Tihuana side. I looked it up and it turns out that there's actually fencing along 635 miles of the southern border, although much of it isn't very effective. Where it has been effective, along 46 miles of the 60 mile border of southern San Diego County, apparently there was a drastic drop in nighttime sneak-ins along that part of the border after it was put up. The photos also show that for some reason even that fence is covered with wire mesh along the Mexican side, making it fairly easily scalable by a young healthy guy. Trump's prototypes appear to be much less inviting.
The 635 miles of border fence has been there for decades, mostly in the area not bounded by the Rio Grande River. So the opponents of Trump's wall don't really seem so much to mind a barrier as long as it isn't effective in preventing sneaking into the country. But isn't one of the big arguments of the wall opponents that it would be a waste of money because it wouldn't be effective? That seems to be a contradiction but somehow that part doesn't puzzle me.
