What Are The Odds? How The Differences Between Trump And Biden’s Border Rhetoric Took Immigration From Calm To Crisis

I was invited to visit two ICE immigration detention facilities in South Texas shortly after Donald Trump’s surprise 2016 win and January inauguration. I had to go to South Texas ICE immigration detention centers to interview the apprehended Afghans from Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan. This was to get intelligence about possible Islamic terrorism.

Pearsall, Texas’ South Texas Processing Center was filled with detainees. It is located about 100 miles from Mexico. It was empty for the first ever time in baseball season, surprise me! So was ICE’s larger, ever-packed-to-capacity Port Isabel center near Brownsville, Texas.

“Where is everyone?” I spoke with the ICE intelligence officers in separate conversations at both facilities.

The surprising result was something similar: Latin Americans heard Trump’s campaign pledges to crackdown on illegal immigration, and they decided to stay home. The majority of those who tried were found in ICE detention cells with no evidence whatsoever. They had all their money for smuggling fees spent on getting over the border. They explained that the ones who were back in their homelands didn’t want Trump to threaten their money and so they stopped coming.

Although it was obvious, it was the first time that I had heard of such a concept.

Before people risked thousands of dollars in smuggling fees they wanted assurance that the money would be returned with successful entries, long-term stays working, and earning multiples of their investment.

If they believed the odds of this happening were too low, they stayed at home.

This simple, straightforward calculus had evidence backing it. I saw empty, large detention centers, and very short cafeteria lines at ICE detention facilities. The intelligence officers made a great point of it. I was told by the intelligence officers that they also caught and interviewed immigrants who attested to it. Some of this was even published in the media.

“Right now, nobody wants to go” Honduran national Victoria Cordova, who was speaking on behalf of the United States, said Reuters For a story on Trump’s border crackdown talks, see March 2017. “If in the future the situation looks better, well, I imagine then people will be more willing to travel.”

Yes!

Trump Effect

Some media outlets reported on empty detention centers and low apprehension rates. They called it “”The Trump Effect.” Later, many immigrants would confirm my calculations in interviews. It was about whether or not the smuggling money would pay off as a gamble. Those considering putting cash on the felt felt incentivized and encouraged to watch the news, listen to family and friends who were already there and to also follow the news.

Thanks to Spanish-language media, both Latin America and the United States were able to tune in to what Trump and Hillary Clinton said during their campaign. If it was a good time, relatives in the United States would be able to immerse themselves in the event and tell their family back home.

Spanish-language news channels that were available in Spanish to serve Latin American and American audiences focused on Trump’s immigration ideas during mid-2015. They accounted for 80 percent of all Spanish-language mentions, according to The New York Times reported. Telemundo anchor José Díaz-Balart said his viewership had delved deeply into the specifics of Trump’s plans with a sense of “urgency.”

“Our audience is very well versed, very knowledgeable, very well educated on the issue of immigration,” Díaz-Balart told the paper. The paper’s viewers were keen to hear from Trump. “realistically proposing and planning to do on the issues that are so important to the community.”

CNN International’s CNN en Español, reaching 40 million households in Latin America and 22 million more in the United States, made sure they re-served every morsel of what Trump Dished.

The Atlantic published a July 2016 story in which it marveled at the intense Spanish-language media coverage and wondered if Univision could single-handedly tip this election. Clinton.

Remember that pollsters all predicted a Clinton win in the lead-up to the 2016 elections. The odds of Clinton winning were excellent for gambling money smuggling across the border. Clinton’s rhetoric was the exact opposite of Trump’s.

“Stop the raids, stop the round-ups, stop the deporting of people who are living here doing their lives, doing their jobs, and that’s my priority,” Clinton spoke during a March 2016 televised discussion, appealing to an ascendant leftist side of the party Party.

The idea of a border crossing was a possibility for many immigrants. They believed that the money they smuggled would be worth it and began voting. From 2012 to mid-2016, the average monthly apprehension was between 30,000 and 40,000. In anticipation of Clinton’s victory, the numbers nearly doubled to 66,708 at the end of October 2016, just before the election. As we all now know, Trump won an unexpected victory.

The number of Border Patrol apprehensions dropped from 63.361 in November 2016 to 23.555 by February 2017. By April 2017, they hit a rock-bottom of 15,766 — one of the lowest numbers in decades.

In 2021, there will be a National Bureau of Economic Research Study Concluded that Trump’s rhetorical and policy statements are not in his best interest. “led to a dramatic … reduction in illegal immigration of Central Americans to the United States” Minimum seven months, before the clock ticks back to preelection norms. Sandra Orozco Aleman and Mark Hoekstra (researchers) used one of my favourite datasets to make their discovery: real migrants planning to cross the border. The Mexican government’s regular migration data was used by the researchers. “Surveys of Migration across Mexican Borders,” These interviews are randomized by government workers who have interviewed border crossers for the first time, as well as deported Americans.

“We would argue this was one of the more important changes in the U.S. immigration policy space in recent years,” They described their confirmation of the fact that immigrant decisions are influenced by American politicians’ political communication. Hoekstra and Orozco Aleman reported that Trump’s rhetoric dampened the reentry plans of deported people. These “fell dramatically” By 10 to 15% for many months following the election, compared with the increasing levels just before it.

Although my 2017 Trump Effect lesson was a little revelatory, it soon became a mainstay in my understanding of immigration dynamics. I began to tease immigrants in lengthy, in-depth interviews that included details about their internal decision-making process. They were primarily concerned with American policy, political communication and follow-through on the ground. However, court decisions could also be important as they considered whether smuggling investments might allow them to continue to make money.

Alexandre, a 28-year old Haitian named Alexandre was the subject of this story. I met him in Tapachula and we spoke for hours about his life. After his wife fled Haiti in 2016, he and her husband looked for Hillary Clinton’s border. But, they were shocked to find that Trump had won.

They joined hundreds of thousands of Haitians who began to gather in Chile and Brazil to withstand the harsh Trump environment. Why? Trump swiftly instituted a plan to eliminate the problem Program called “metering,” This required border jumpers to plan to use a fake asylum claim to wait in Mexico while the Americans called one at a time for processing. “Remain in Mexico” policy denied claimants entry to highly desired immediate access

Haitians were trapped in Mexico without any proof of their money spent on smugglers.

“Under President Trump, his policy was to make us stay outside the country and seek asylum from there. That was bad,” Alexandre explained.

Alexandre was asked by me if he decided to wait in Chile with his wife rather than risk their $7,000 hoping that they would get over Trump’s new border and not be stuck in Mexico. “Si, si, si, si, si!” He answered in Spanish, which he had learned during his Chile years. “That money, in order to come to the United States … I worked hard for that money. I wouldn’t have spent that money when Trump was president.”

Biden won Trump’s election, but they noticed that Biden would admit all Haitians with children. Alexandre and Alexandre had one. They did what thousands of Haitians did after Trump’s election: they had one. “We talked it over with the family, and we decided to make the trip. Under this president, it seemed like things are different.”

In November 2021, he gambled when he noticed others winning more than he did. This confirmed that his odds of winning would not be high. Greater.

The Biden Effect

It may seem obvious to most people that a presidential candidate can affect the internal calculation for odds among immigrant populations thousands of miles away. But it might be too basic to even mention in books. However, the Trump Effect on immigrant decision-making clearly didn’t take root. Many of the Democratic Party’s talks about opening the border soon enough during the 2020 campaign resulted in the same increase in anticipatory traffic to the border that Clinton’s open-doors talk four year earlier. 

Now that Trump had won the nomination, what was Biden and Harris going to say to the global audiences who were listening to them? These were all the things that would increase your chances of winning the smuggling fees gamble.

For example, after the election, the president-elect indicated that he would not return unaccompanied children migrants to his administration. “ends up” As though no one was doing anything illegally at the Mexican border “starve to death.” Candidate Biden indicated that he would cooperate with faith-based groups in order to move them to safer locations “as fast as possible.” Possible.”

Soon, the product I called a “a” was produced. “Biden Effect” A massive assault on the border. This was the exact opposite of Trump’s empty ICE detention centres.

Even the most basic truths about mass migrations are still elusive to Democratic precincts, influential quarters of American politics, media, public policy, and political parties. This basic immigrant calculation is so important that nobody seems to grasp it. The same mistake keeps happening.

Families whose heads were buried in $10,000 worth of smuggling fees, only to be stopped at the border, had their money, borrowed, or earned it. “don’t go” There are many options for those who follow the trail. Even if the entry is successful, there are still high chances of being deported. “no-go” decisions.

Aspiring border jumpers must be confident in both the outcomes. They need to believe that the money they risk paying smugglers will pay for a successful entry, as well as a long time inside earning a lot more than their smuggling fee investment. When border-crossers see a higher risk of being caught in smuggling fraud and end up in debt to unscrupulous lenders, flows tend to retreat.

My analysis of U.S. Border Patrol apprehension statistics and interviews with migrants planning to jump the border matches closely with what American leaders have said out loud. This is only if they do follow through. The thousand ships will be launched or returned to port if they are given their orders through telegrams, political communication and concrete action.

Todd Bensman is a Texas-based senior National Security Fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies. He is also a writing fellow for The Middle East Forum. His book “Overrun: How Joe Biden Unleashed the Greatest Border Crisis in U.S. History,” (Bombardier Books), will be published in February. For nearly a decade, Bensman led counterterrorism-related intelligence efforts for the Texas Department of Public Safety’s Intelligence and Counterterrorism Division. Follow him on Twitter @BensmanTodd