Oregon writer, Rain Trueax, and Oregon painter, Diane, co-author Rainy Day Thought, where they write about experiences, ideas, nature, creativity, and culture. The latter might appear at times political, but we will try to avoid partisanship to speak to the broader issues that impact a culture. This is just too important a time not to sometimes speak to problems that impact society. As she and I do, readers will find we often disagree and have for over 50 years-- still able to be close friends. You can do that if you can be agreeable that we share more than not despite the difference.

Diane posts on Wednesdays and Rain on Saturdays. There may be extra days or changes as situations warrant. Comments, relating to the topic, are welcome as it turns an article into a discussion, but must be in English, with no profanity, hate-filled comments, or links (unless pre-approved).

Fantasy, the painting by Diane Widler Wenzel, cropped a little to fit the needs of a banner.

Saturday, April 13, 2019


by Rain Trueax

 Sonoran Gopher Snake at our Tucson backyard pool. He/she might look scary, but they are very beneficial to the environment. You can tell a dangerous snake from this one by head shape. Rattlers have triangular heads. The rattles are less reliable as they can lose those various ways. It's nice when we can clearly define what is dangerous and what is beneficial.

Originally, I had not planned on starting with from where my thinking on immigration has come, but Diane asked that I do that. She and I come from different backgrounds but have been friends for over 50 years. In the early mornings, we used to meet for coffee, when we both lived in a Tucson apartment complex. Our husbands would leave for Graduate School, and she and I'd talk over different things that seemed important at the time. We often disagreed, but it didn't matter. We didn't get mad. She'd head off to paint and I'd write. It was a creative environment, one I have never actually duplicated.

Recently, she and I decided here to discuss some big topics that we know we don't see the same way. We are doing it to show people can disagree and remain friends. We can let it go when we can't convince someone else that we are right. One of the problems today is the bubbles in which so many live. They hear only one side and get to thinking everyone out of their bubble is bad. I've been unfriended for that very reason on Facebook. I've come to believe that in most bubbles, if I read them at all, it's smarter to not say what I think unless it's Amen. The bubble is their right. It's a shame though as hearing from other viewpoints can let us know the ones who think that way are not bad people for disagreeing.

As for my own background, I come from working people, mostly lower income but responsible folks. There wasn't an elite among us-- intellectually or economically. I have jokingly called myself a redneck because I understand those people and ranchers tend to work with the basics of life. My people valued education but didn't see someone with a fancy degree as necessarily any smarter than someone without a high school diploma. They were more knowledgeable, of course, at least about some things...

One of my main lessons from childhood is--actions have consequences. I grew up with a belief that idealism is fine, but it has to be tempered with reality. This was reinforced when my husband of 55 years and I bought a farm over 40 years ago. Farming teaches you even more strongly that idealism doesn't get the work done. It doesn't fix broken fences. There is a reality that those who work the land learn or they go back to the city. For farmers and ranchers, work is not a temporary vacation. It's a day by day reality. You do it or it does not get done. 

True, some farmers do pay those not legally here to do the work but not many cattle ranchers as it's dangerous work where you need to be skilled or it won't turn out well for you. That is also true of most forestry work; and in my part of Oregon, I see very few migrants in those jobs. The only big farmer nearby has brought up workers from Mexico but applied for them legally with blue cards. That lets the workers come and go.

Now, I do see a lot of those likely without documentation seasonally for Christmas tree harvesting. They aren't here later. Generally speaking, work for migrants has meant a need to move with the crops-- this is not new. It was big in the US during the Dust Bowl years in the '30s for families like Ranch Boss's father's. It is true today for those living in RVs, who go from job to job. Steady work isn't always available for some-- here illegally or otherwise.

My time in Arizona, where the border is today an issue, began in 1965 and has been off and on until it increased when we finally bought a second home in Tucson 20 years ago. Tucson is a place of many ethnicities, a city proud of its past with influences from the early Mexican settlers, the Native Americans, the Chinese, and yes, European settlers.

I've seen the difference illegal immigration has made to Southwestern places where I enjoy re-creating, mountain islands and valleys along the border. There was a time, when we could explore washes down there or out of Tucson with no concern for who we might meet. For those who don't know, the scary people are not generally speaking the migrants but those who bring them and drugs. I've personally seen what it has done to border towns like Nogales where the fences got more onerous and intimidating, where the ones I'd see hanging around looked more dangerous-- on both sides. Where rudeness to women got more out in the open by the comments made. That was not the Nogales of 1965.

One of my favorite areas to explore out of Tucson (Ironwood National Monument now) had a group of immigrants murdered as they waited for a ride-- murdered by a rival cartel. It's a place we no longer go without watching for what's coming. 

Same thing with nearer to the border. We go but with caution and yes, with a gun. On the ranches down there, I've read their stories, seen for myself the plastic garbage strewn (which when cows eat kills them), seen cut fences, to which I, of course, relate. I've read how tanks were left dry after migrants refilled their bottles and left the tap open. This whole thing of having people crossing land with no respect for it can't be understood unless someone understands and tends to the land. 

Despite understanding the side of those who have their land and want to protect it, I also sympathize with those here without papers, who work hard but find their lives on hold as they never really know if there will be a knock at the door. This is an intolerable problem and it's made worse that some profit from it-- on both sides of the partisan divide. 

Because of my nature, I read both sides, desperate stories like this one [Risks for the migrants] but I am a practical woman, made so by my life and belief in rules-- an archaic way to be in today's world apparently. I also believe that with a country 22,000,000,000 in debt, where we aren't going to see 0 interest in the future, what can we really afford? There is no sugar daddy out there to pay that all off. We have to live responsibly as individuals. Why is the government different.

So, here we go with what I have come to believe-- and yes, it involves a wall--

 Immigration -- legal or otherwise

To discuss this topic, i want to separate legal from illegal immigration. The US still allows over 1,000,000 people to become citizens every year. There are 37,000,000 naturalized citizens, legal immigrants in the US. They come from around the world but from what I could tell, the largest numbers are from Asia. I have read we assimilate (a word I like for when an immigrant comes here) more than any other nation. 

For those who think we are the harshest country, I read recently in the Guardian that in England if a landlord rents to someone without documents, they face [major penalties]. Can you imagine the uproar if that was suggested for the US?

As for how many are here illegally, the current administration wants that question on the next census as Democrats resist the idea. Why wouldn’t they want to know? At this point, the numbers are guesswork but maybe 12 to 22,000,000. In some states they get driver’s licenses. They can go to ERs for medical care. Despite denials, some get benefits like food stamps and even welfare, their children go to school and some probably vote, which may explain democrat reluctance to have a solid count. Given the ease of getting fake IDs, we really have no idea what's going on-- and some don't want to know.

Those coming across a porous border compete for jobs on the lower economic levels likely helping to keep wages down for others in that job market. They may influence lower hotel prices due to maid service. How many in favor of flows of illegals connect their cheaper veggies to workers working at low wages, often, because they can't complain to an authority, below even our minimum wages. How many, who object to a meaningful border, get their gardening done by a crew not here legally because it's cheaper than paying those who have documentation and can ask for more?

Going by their quotes, some of the candidates running for the Presidency advocate an open border. Others claim they want a border but no wall or fence.  The interesting thing with politicians is how seldom they say what they actually want. So Beto says he believes in borders but wants to tear down existing walls that help to maintain those borders. Hillary speaks more like a moderate but where does she really want to go?
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the Hemisphere,” she said in the May 2013 speech to the Brazilian bank Banco Itau.
Of the 19 people currently running for the Presidency, I don't think any are advocating changing the policy allowing people from non-contiguous countries to immediately apply for asylum upon touching American soil. This is where the emergency is-- because it takes a long time to go through the courts to assess genuine claims from just a desire to make more money. This is where another law, the Flores, means children can only be held in such institutions for a limited time. It has led to separations of families. The talk of children in cages though has been somewhat distorted with some from the Obama years and a few faked for sympathy.

What suggestion do Dems offer to this whole problem (which is simpler where it involves Mexico as those people can be sent right back)? For refugee claimers, it's-- build more dormitories and get more judges. That does not solve the problem of how many can the country take in? Are these people who can work here or those who will need more social services? From where do they come? 

Rudolfo Karisch, RGF Sector Chief, said his sector has apprehended people from 50 different countries, including China, Bangladesh, Turkey, Egypt and Romania. “People are traveling across hemispheres to attempt to illegally enter the U.S., using the same pathways as the Central Americans,” he said.
"What we need is comprehensive immigration reform,” Bernie Sanders said. "If you open the borders, my God, there's a lot of poverty in this world, and you're going to have people from all over the world. And I don't think that's something that we can do at this point. Can't do it.”

Idealism vs. practicality.

People who express what my friend Diane said about open borders generally speaking are idealists. They are also not working or living in neighborhoods most impacted by unbounded immigration from poverty stricken countries. Just look at Africa alone for the problems there often with corrupt governments that have robbed from their own people. How many impoverished people would love to get here for our social programs? What does that do to those already on them?

For how corruption has impacted a lot of this, one only has to look at Maduro and earlier Chavez in Venezuela, which despite its oil riches, is today a broken country propped up by Russia and China to get the oil and a foothold in the Americas. 

Democrats, eager for a victory in 2020, where they take back control of the Senate, keep the House and have a president in power, are saying there is no crisis. Why would they admit that? It doesn't profit them.

With unlimited immigration from around the world, what is the breaking point?  The youngest ones running for President on the Dem side don’t seem to think there is one as they want the richer to pay more or cut the military in a time where both Russia and China are making aggressive moves around the world (if you didn't know that, do some research). I wonder sometimes whether those who advocate open immigration, with no controls, think much about who it impacts the most.
From Andrew Sullivan's column in New York Magazine:  “The issue will be dominant again — because of a huge wave of migrants, many of them rural Guatemalans, who are overwhelming the border, trying to enter the U.S. at a current pace of 100,000 a month. Their ability to claim asylum under current law permits them to show up at the border, get admitted and processed by the Border Patrol, and then released into the interior, to reside here until a court date, which could come up years later. The backlog in the underfunded immigration courts is vast, with more than a million still in line for a hearing. Many of the migrants won’t show up for the court date; those who do can still resist deportation indefinitely.
“What this means is that the U.S. now has an effectively open border with Mexico, and, according to the American Bar Association, the immigration system is “irredeemably dysfunctional and on the brink of collapse.” Repeating the Democratic mantra that there is no border crisis will not work for much longer. This year will see more undocumented immigrants than in any year under Obama. And the high rate of success among those trying to enter to the country now encourages more migrants to make the journey, especially given the forces of disorder and climate change that are forcing people to flee. The lesson from Europe in 2015 is that a migrant surge fuels itself, as word gets back home. We could, in other words, be in the mother of all immigration scares as the first primaries take place. We could have a million more migrants to grapple with.”
So, the left offers no solutions for what we do for the poor and homeless in our country. They don't consider basic housing for so many coming here, a fair number not even speaking Spanish let alone English. They don't really think about the price these wantabe immigrants pay as they come to a land where they are told a good life awaits them. No, it's all about-- the poor need to be taken care of... except, by whom? Some Dem leaders want to guarantee everyone a job-- apparently paid for by government (you do know who that is). Skills? How can that matter? They want health care for everyone. They want college tuition for everyone. When it comes to discussions on how to do that, how to pay for that, you are a racist to ask the question. 

I do respect Bernie Sanders for at least listing the increased taxes he'd be wanting for half the cost of his program of Medicare for all. I think his desire for that program at least explains why he doesn't favor unlimited entries. Can you imagine how that influx would impact your own access to medical care. You can see how it already does in countries that have it.

Dems ignore that they can't control their own cities, the ones they run, with now pooping on the streets apparently okay (forgetting about the plagues of human history). Dems ignore a lot, which is why I am now an unaffiliated voter. 

Reality is we cannot take in all the poor of the world. We cannot demand  countries, like Venezuela, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, do more to fix their own problems. When it has been threatened to take the aid we send them, it's supposed to be cruel except who got that aid? If it was the poor, why are they coming here? If the aid was fixing water systems down there or creating jobs, doing more about gangs down there, we'd still have some coming but not in these big caravans.

Some time back, on a blog, I wrote about my own ideas of what we do about immigration. In short it's--
1. Fix the border so nobody comes across without permission. That means walls some places and good surveillance others.  There are places where there is more traffic, especially cities, do what can be done with good barriers.
2. As part of fixing the border, we end the law that lets those from non-contiguous countries apply for asylum once they step on American soil. What that means is anybody in the world other than Mexico or Canada. That's insane IMHO. Along with that, find a way to end the 1997 [Flores Settlement Agreement], which is why children get separated from parents waiting for an asylum hearing.
3. We make it possible with increased staff for those who want to apply for legitimate asylum and refugee status to do so in their own countries, then if they qualify, we fly or bus them to America (cutting the coyotes out of millions-- not to mention their ability to abuse and rape the ones they are paid to bring up). 
4. With strict penalties, we enforce eVerify in the work place. We make it so that even those who came here with Visas cannot work once they overstay them. 
5. Once the border is closed to all but legal traffic, I favor a path to citizenship for those already here, young or old, if they've been good citizens. I want them then to go through the same process legal immigrants go, as we try to assimilate them into this country, not to take away their own cultures but to teach them what this one has been about-- warts and all. That cannot happen without stopping the border. Reagan tried it the other way in '84 and it got us to where we are. As Bernie Sanders said, it would destroy our country to let in all who want to come if we offer so much once they get here.

Nobody really benefits from a hidden population. For those who fear their construction, maid services, food, etc. will cost more if we have a totally legal working force (who are able to complain when abused, able to ask for better wages), they are paying more than they think for those veggies. They just don't see the true cost. 

Despite what some want to say, we are facing a humanitarian and legal emergency, and it's due to both parties benefiting from it with no concern for the immigrants or the economic lower classes already here (most don't even know that world). I only wish I could hear that from more Dems running for office, who will care more about people than winning, who have ideas that might solve the problem, not just spout rhetoric, and don't want to tear down existing walls to pander to the idealists. I am not even sure those who say it believe it. They just know it plays to those who don't count costs  (often to someone other than themselves) in their idealism.


Diane Widler Wenzel said...

Thank you Rain for sharing your formative past along with how you see the immigration problem as very seriously bad problem. Your description is overwhelmingly depressing to me. But your practicality list of what can be done has been well thought out as a number of measures that sound possible. As I read and reread your post I had a part of me looking at my reactions. I started to take offense of being labeled as an idealist of lesser value than a liberal idealist. Then I understand two things. One, my preceived put-down is simply a result of liberals bashing the pragmatic laboring class close to the eaath.

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

At first a little offended by being labeled as an idealist, I have done a 180 degree switch in my feelings. I am a day dreamer. And invite others to brain storm. My first dream is a cruise ship promotion. Contract large cruise ships to advertise sponsership cruises to matched them up with a refugee family. On a month long cruise the refugees would learn English and the sponsering client would learn the language of their adopted family. Also on the cruise would be government officials and judges to process the families' legal status. Refugees accepted would be able to make a claim of intention to become citizens and attend classes necessary for becoming citizens. Also classes in job training like cooking and maintenance and the arts! Of course the cruise ship would do little cruising to minimize expenses.

Rain Trueax said...

I never saw an idealist as a bad thing. I just think it's often not taking into account the reality of a problem for the downside. All the current dems running for the nomination, except maybe one, are idealists. They don't tell us the cost of what they will do-- most are rich, as are many who support open borders.

The cruise ship issue is a good example of an idealistic idea. Do you really believe people who come from little education would want a cruise more than a home or job? To learn English, why not pay for a luxury hotel to give them lodging and meals along with lessons in the conference rooms OR give those immigrants an option of taking the money or the week in the hotel. Bet most would want the money. With many coming up here with their home country's flag, do they want to be Americans or just want jobs? That's the advantage of increasing the number of blue cards; so that those who like where they live can travel freely up for work and back for family. Cut the coyotes out however you do it.

Rain Trueax said...

To add to the hotel, if it was in a big city, they could take day trips to museums.

One thing, about those who are poorer, is they don't really know about fancy restaurants etc. Do you know I never ate in a restaurant except on a Prom date and then it made me edgy as to right forks etc. I was much older before a fancy restaurant did not intimidate me.

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

The trouble with written conversation as opposed to face to face discussion is it is hard to get the emotional content behind what is said. A good example is the word, "idealism". So easy to be offended unless it is given a definition!

The point of the isolation of a cruise is to pair each family with a sponsor who will mentor their transition into the United States citizenship. The issolation periods with a sponsorship family could take place on college campuses during summer break. Or church camps during the winter. Even in large cities in hotels too.

On the down side of my idea are unanswered questions. How many can afford to pay for a cruise for themslves in addition to the want to be immigrant family? How many people will have the time to visit and assist their immigrant family when the cruise is over? How can we afford to not offer assistance?

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

Since anonymous comments are not accepted because I received a bullying comment, I am copying and pasting a right wing friend's email response to my idealism as:
"Virtue signaling when it comes to illegal immigration displays a profound lack of reason. Those who would "take in the world's poor," and that's what open borders amounts to, would take away from their fellow man in the U.S. to pay for it until all the money's gone. It's called theft. Socialism is theft. Venezuela is staring you in the faceif you care to look."
I am reminded that there is a real problem with taking too many too quickly for permanent citizenship status. Immigration issues are multifaceted. If we made addictive illegal drugs legal for addicts the drug smugglers who are bad people entering our country would have no profit and their corrupt governments would be toppled. The peoples fleeing these countries would likely return home.
If the drug smuggeling continues we will not be able to cope alone with the masses of refugees. We need Canada and Japan to help with all these peoples until drug and human trafficing ends. And then there is also the problem of water levels of low islands nations in the South Pacific and other places that will experience catastrophic damage rendering them uninhabitable.

Rain Trueax said...

I like that anonymous comment, obviously lol. After WWI, I read that the US blocked immigration for a while to let those who had come here assimilate. That has been the desire when you take in new people. Let them keep their cultural identities but become Americans. And that period of blocking was with mostly Europeans.

I think for now a lot coming from Central America is wanting better jobs and trying to avoid dangerous gangs. The problem is a lot of the cities where they go are also facing dangerous gangs.

Too bad on anonymity. I will probably allow it again after a while, after we pretty much can tell that we don't get that bully back here *s*

Rain Trueax said...

from a Google search: "An idealist is someone who envisions an ideal world rather than the real one. Some people consider idealists to be naive, impractical, and out of touch with reality. Idealists think that striving for perfection makes the world a better place. The main root of idealist is "ideal," which comes from the Latin word idea."

I think idealists see the world as they wish it could be-- not as it is. Some believe they will change it to become what they visualize. I obviously am more of a pragmatist but can see the desire that it be otherwise. I grew up with the reality-- it isn't what one might wish. I grew even more to see that as an adult, when some of what i used to think was true-- wasn't.

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

Rain, as for my being an idealist, I need to be surrounded by practical people like you to bounce my ideas off of to reach something that might work.
To my good anounymous friend, I have additional thoughts. The title of the email I copied and pasted was "Good person until the money is gone." As for the sponsors of immigrants paying for running the cruise ship, I suspect without doing research that running the ship will cost more than sponsors will be able to pay. Going back to my Great, great grandfather who was among the idealist organizers of the first evacuation from Odessa to Jaffa poor Jews who had suffered under Russian pogroms. They commissioned a ship and obtained permission from the Ottoman Empire to allow the Jews to live in one location for a year. Then they would have to move. They were given temporary asylum. To finance this endeavor they networked rich Jews and Christians for contributions.
The presence of Hasidic non-Jewish population was not met with open arms. The people were distrustful and felt these Jews were going to outstay what the Ottomans permitted. The Arabic speaking people might have terrorized our family. Or maybe the zealous Hascidics were the ones who kidnapped my great aunt when she was just a teenager. Maybe she became a sex slave.
The lessons learned from my ancestors is don't have idealistic dreams and be quiet.
I have not given up the idea of using a ship as a partial solution to end the coyote's maltreatment of people wanting to flee. Also a solution to processing their status.
There must be a better creative, pragmatic plan than shutting down the border and sending refugee seekers to sanctuary cities. One of my right-wing cousins recently wrote that sending immigrants to sanctuary cities is a bad idea because these murders and criminals will leave and threaten her well being in a remote area in Colorado. She felt it was time to form a posse. Either my cousin or Facebook removed the post. These sentiments are not to be ignored shoved under the carpet. We all need to talk.

Rain Trueax said...

I thought it was weird that liberals objected to Trump saying he'd take them to sanctuary cities. Isn't that where they want to go? Sometimes you can't win with some who want to find fault with ideas that are not theirs. To me, having them staying in cities that don't welcome them, didn't offer sanctuary, is not helping. Take them to Portland or San Francisco that say they do want them.

People who are practical also have ideas. It's not just dreamers. It's that they take into account human nature as well as the world in which we live. On the ship, I just think these people are not looking for a vacation. You are trying to use something you like and not take into account what others like. That might be the biggest problems with idealists-- it's all about what they think should be.

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

My purpose was to brainstorm and invite others to think of some better ideas than turning cruise ships into issolation units for pairing immigrants with citizens who would provide them mentoring support which would continue into their settlement after their documentation. Certainly your critic is well taken. Immigrants conceiveably would be intiminated by the luxury of a vacation cruise. The gambeling, the bars, the shops, entertainments, pools and spas all in operation would be rediculous. I also think the cruise ships would be vulnerable targets. Security and health issues are problems. But a cruise ship is a nicer cage for immigrants than our previous policy of family seperation. Trumps threat of dumping immigrants on sanctuary cities is worth considering. The threat brings reality to sanctuary cities of the magnitude of the number of people seeking assylum. Rather than bashing Trump, why not consider using hotels and convention centers in these cities? Why not consider options? How many can these cities absorb? Are there vacancies in their hotels? Which is more expensive housing them in a hotel or docking a cruise ship or other ships near sanctuary cities? New cruise ships are being built. Are there any being scraped. Are the old ones safe?

Rain Trueax said...

I just don't see how a cruise ship helps them integrate into the American culture. The ones who take cruises have to have more money. The communities, in which these people will end up, whether Trump's idea or not, will not remotely have that level of money. My suspicion is most immigrant families would rather be mentored by those already here from their own culture. Now, would those be willing to do it? Maybe if they were paid as most of them are probably working a lot of hours already.

At one time, immigrants want to be Americans. I am not sure that is as true today with some of them thinking our culture is decadent and some of them not speaking the language enough to assimilate.

Children were separated from parents based on the Flores Act which required that children can only be held 20 days or something like that. Change the law and let the children stay with their parents. Turn these centers into places to learn English, but i bet a lot of lefties will protest that.

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

I didn't think that sponsors would most likely come from the cultures from which the immigrants came. And recently naturalized citizens who we notice stand out because we cannot see their effort to support the norm by dressing differently even waving the flag of their place of origin. Some of the immigrants may have religious connection with USA religious missionaries. That would be a possible sponsorship opportunity.
On 60 minutes I heard that the President doesn't have the power to bus assylum seekers across the country. Maybe sanctuary cities need send representatives to go to the border and recruit immigrants and pay for their transport. Also Peru has taken thousands of Guatemolan refugees. Showed how some educated ones already have fit right in finding jobs in their field. Other skilled workers have to take on unskilled work but efforts are being made to place them in better paying work. Peru has a number of status catagories in the realit that many want to go back to their country when the current uphaeval has passed.

Rain Trueax said...

Weird on the 'not the power' thing when they can let them go in the city where they crossed and they can bus them to detainment centers. I also believe there are already sponsorship programs, sometimes relatives. The idea of accepting just anyone to be a sponsor could have unintended consequences given how we know some people are-- especially if money is involved.

What I don't understand is Pelosi saying it'd be 'disrespectful' to bus them to sanctuary cities. Why??? The sanctuary cities/states are probably their goals and they have to do it the hard way or in Arizona sometimes it's coyotes this side who take them where they want to go for thousands of dollars. Sometimes that ends up where they didn't want to go when it's human trafficking. Maybe Pelosi doesn't like the idea of cutting out the business for the cartels *s*

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

The way I heard Pelosi's comment was that it would be disrespectful to the immigrants to bus and dump them without first making arrangements for their temporary placement. She was not clear. As for in the past placing immigrants all over the states, the President didn't micro-manage their placement.

Rain Trueax said...

The states have already been alerted. Some said they'd welcome them. I think those who hate Trump (and Pelosi clearly is one of them with the things she says), look for anything to blame him for. The people came up here with nobody greeting them and suddenly that's important.

Rain Trueax said...

The president is not micromanaging their placement. He's suggesting they go to cities and states that voluntarily have claimed they offer sanctuary. That seems more logical than hoping for the best. The other thing that gets me is people donate to the groups that are organizing and helping immigrants come to our border-- where they then dump them. That's okay though and logical, I guess... To me, helping them get to where they will be welcomed (supposedly) should be what open borders people want.

I was thinking it's too bad they don't use the detainment centers currently on the border to help the new arrivals learn English, some anyway, and do some assessment as to possible job skills for where they should go. As it stands, if there are a million waiting for a court to decide if they qualify as refugees, they either have to be fed and housed that long or get work of some sort.