Is migration baffling our political system?

The Trump shutdown in our country was created by a long-festering, huge humanitarian crisis in Central America and a deadlocked Congress that would not protect our national borders in a manner that a civilized society could expect. What is in question, in simple terms, is the right of the so-called “nation state” to protect its traditional national borders versus a more liberal view, very much rooted in our historical past, that advocates greater freedom of movement, sometimes referred to as open borders with Mexico. Much of this discussion is becoming academic, at the 11th hour, since the proverbial “train” representing the American way of life “has already left the station” in Los Angeles, California and much of the border regions of the Southwest.

Another huge humanitarian problem emanating from the war-torn regions of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan has also caused significant cultural disruption in Europe, as the EU nations were taking different views on how to accommodate the distinctly Muslim migration. As a consequence, “open” liberal societies are beginning to “close” and more autocratic voices are being heard. Brexit has created a political paralysis in the UK. All in all, these countries display similar difficulties in dealing with migration and changes in the political calculus.

The phenomenon of large population dislodgments caused by war is not new and should not come as a surprise. Both WWI and WWII caused significant population dislodgments in Europe, but were accommodated, within the legal administrative frameworks provided by the victorious powers. The current migration phenomenon admittedly is more complex, not only driven by war, but also organized crime, political persecution, growing economic disparity – all occurring outside the domain of governmental oversight as the national borders of existing nations are violated and their cultural cohesion impacted adversely.

Tragically here at home, we are stuck with a president in serious jeopardy about his legitimacy, and who has lost his credibility to influence events both at home and abroad. Congress continues to obfuscate the migration dialogue for political purposes, and is not willing to draw a clear distinction between illegal migration and immigration. Most Americans watched the Trump shutdown (of the federal government) in hopeless bewilderment, but also seem deeply divided between those who want orderly border procedures adhered to and those who are comfortable to absorb the endless multitudes of asylum-seeking Central Americans. Somehow, common sense is being held hostage by a deadlocked political system and an agitative media enjoying lucrative coverage of the events.

Given the political deadlock, maybe we as a country need to take a realistic view of the causes of worldwide migration and embark on a new strategy. The new strategy should play out within a coalition framework between us and the home countries and focus on “keeping them home, rather than keeping them out.” Billions spent on dubious barrier schemes need to be targeted to the creation of humanitarian conditions that would not force millions to flee. This strategy could be a winner for both sides, since the retention of their population is in the interest of the home country. Migration, however, represented by pitiful throngs of victimized humanity, which has already upset acceptable social cohesion both here and in Europe, should not jeopardize our way of life.