Dropped off in suburb wearing T-shirts and sandals, migrants finally reach Chicago by Metra train

[Eugene]

Source: Chicago Tribune

Dropped off in suburb wearing T-shirts and sandals, migrants finally reach Chicago by Metra train

Nell Salzman, Chicago Tribune
Sun, January 7, 2024 at 6:00 AM EST·8 min read

After they missed their train from Glen Ellyn to Chicago early Friday morning, migrants wrapped themselves in thin white blankets on the concrete platform.

They were left at the Metra station after a ride in a large charter bus from El Paso, Texas, and given train tickets by their bus driver. They ran toward a train that was just pulling out of the station, but had gotten there too late. Police said the next train wouldn’t come for five hours.

“It’s so bad,” said 22-year-old Daniel Torres from Maracay, Venezuela, after riding the bus for over 30 hours. “Look at the time we arrived.”

A complex humanitarian crisis in Venezuela that has brought record numbers of migrants to the U.S. border is now being twisted into a game of human transport where people are passed off like cargo.

Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has sent more than 630 buses to Chicago in the past 16 months carrying some 29,000 migrants, as of city data Friday. ...

-snip-

Read more: https://news.yahoo.com/dropped-off-suburb-wearing-t-110000903.html

[keithbvadu2]

1. Pass the word to the incoming immigrants... get the bus license plate and a picture of the bus driver if possible.

If they put you on a bus, get as much info as you can.

Human trafficking.

[pinkstarburst]

4. Once migrants are given permission to stay in the US

They are free to travel. They can go to any major city they would like to. Surely some on this board are not suggesting that we should allow 302,000 migrants per month (that's how many crossed the southern border in December) into the country, but that they should be the southern border state's responsibility to feed and shelter? Immigration is a national issue. If we support letting these people into the country, and currently we are letting in 10,000 per day, then they will have to go to all the major cities. That means there will be busses arriving every day as long as the border is open at the current level it is.

This means we have to shift the conversation away from anger about busses and bus drivers. The conversation must become about how to help these people, how to get funding and resources to cities and states, how to pressure the federal government to organize the bussing and coordination with mayors and governors (because this chaos and lack of coordination is, I'm sad to say, due to a profound lack of the federal government being willing to step up and lead and do their jobs), and if we as a nation feel we cannot support 10,000 refugees per day entering the country, then the discussion must turn to letting fewer in per day. But being angry at southern border states and busses has no part of the conversation. Southern border states are not the dumping ground for US immigration policy nor should they be expected to shoulder the burden alone when federal leaders fail to act.

[keithbvadu2]

5. Then do it in the open and not sneakily.

[pinkstarburst]

6. I think doing it in the open is an excellent suggestion

And who should be responsible for coordinating getting the 10,000 migrants crossing per day onto busses and sending them across the country to major cities? That would be the federal government. As long as the current administration decides (by failing to act) that it doesn't want the responsibility of dealing with the 10,000 migrants crossing per day, then I cannot fault the overwhelmed southern border states for doing a slapped together, terrible job of it.

They are overwhelmed.

And to be fair, I highly doubt that if they called and announced, "there will be 1,500 migrants arriving per day, prepare now," that the reaction of Chicago and New York and Denver would be any happier. But realistically when we have 10,000 migrants being admitted EVERY DAY those people are going to have to go somewhere. Screaming NIMBY doesn't work. If we let them into the country, we then have to find places to shelter and feed them. If we cannot shelter and provide for 10,000 per day, then fine, but that conversation must shift towards talking to your elected representatives about stopping border crossings before they occur, not being angry at border states AFTER they occur. The border states are not the dumping grounds for every migrant who crosses into the US. If we let these people in, that means YOUR CITY, YOUR STATE.

[keithbvadu2]

7. Abbot could do it in the open.

[GP6971]

13. Hello.

[Bayard]

2. They don't even feed them

"Several said they were hungry and hadn’t eaten all day."

How to stop the victimization? Abbott is hellbent on stopping refugees at the border. Could the target states station National Guard at their borders to stop the buses from crossing? But then, we'd have to worry where these people would be dumped.

The federal government has to come up with a plan. Can they sue Abbott? At least get a stay of his treachery until a solution can be found?

[pinkstarburst]

3. The hypocrisy in your post is shocking

How to stop the victimization? Abbott is hellbent on stopping refugees at the border. Could the target states station National Guard at their borders to stop the buses from crossing? But then, we'd have to worry where these people would be dumped.

You call Abbott out for being "hellbent on stopping refugees at the border."

Then in the next sentence you state: Could the target states station National Guard at their borders to stop the buses from crossing?

So which is it? Do you want to let migrants into the US, or don't you? If the answer is YES, then all states and major cities must be ready to receive busses of migrants every single day and week as long as the border is open at the current level it is. To say "let them in, but I don't want one of those busses coming to MY STATE or MY TOWN and STOP THEM AT THE STATE BORDER" is NIMBYism and does not reflect democratic values.

Immigration is a national issue. In December 2023 along, 302,000 migrants crossed the southern border. Just sit with that number for a minute. Where do you expect that those 302,000 people are supposed to go to find shelter, food, support and hopefully jobs? Of course they are making their way to the major cities.

If we want to keep letting them into the country at the current level (302,000 per month) then every major city and every state in the US should expect constant busses. It is hypocrisy to say "let them in" but then "keep them all in Texas so I never have to look at a migrant or have one of those busses show up in my town."

We are losing the messaging war on this one.

[Elessar Zappa]

8. Why are you defending the most repulsive Republican governor in this country?

[former9thward]

9. What is your solution?

[harumph]

10. I don't see him as defending Abbott, but rather

stating the obvious - that there is a lot of NIMBYISM on this site where posters decry efforts to stop migrants at the
Texas border, but are unwilling for their towns/cities to take them in. 300k per month is a lot of people. It took Ellis Island 50 YEARS to
process 27 million people. And one could make the argument that rising industrialism during that era allowed immigrants
to find and keep jobs and support families more readily than they're likely to see today. That the current rate is completely unsustainable and Abbott is a utterly wretched human being are both true statements.

[pinkstarburst]

15. Correct. No one is defending Abbott

It is simply acknowledging the truth that even if Texas had a democratic governor, we would still need to bus the 302,000 migrants crossing per month to other states/cities as soon as they cross, for the simple reason that there are always more migrants coming on their heels the following day.

If we are not able to support the number of migrants who are currently coming across (which means the major cities), then the conversation must shift to how many should we be letting in per day (tightening border control) rather than letting them in and then getting angry at border states for helping them move on to other states/cities.

[pinkstarburst]

16. No one is defending Abbott

Even if Texas had a democratic governor, the 302,000 migrants crossing every month would have to be sent to other cities/states as soon as they cross for the simple reason that there are always more crossing the following day/week/month on their heels.

Immigration is a national issue. If we support letting these people in, it means ALL states/cities must do their part. We should see the governors and mayors of major cities stepping up and volunteering to take in more busses. Why aren't we seeing that sort of leadership? Why are we only seeing NIMBYism? We either can support 302,000 new homeless migrants per month or we can't. If we can't, the conversation must shift to how many we allow in per month. If we can, the conversation must shift to how we can better support states/cities with more resources, and how mayors and governors can volunteer to take in busses.

Turning away busses, arresting bus drivers, impounding busses, saying "don't come here"... all of these things do not reflect democratic values. It's as embarrassing as the old "No Irish wanted" signs from a century ago and it's embarrassing that it's democratic mayors and governors leading the charge.

[Calculating]

22. It's about fairness

We're supposed to be better than them.

[Bayard]

11. Where did I say keep them all in Texas?

My point is that Abbott is a completely sadistic jackass for shipping desperate people around the country like they are worse than cattle. I think inspections and regulation of buses at state borders could insure that refugees are being taken to where they have been told they are going, and not just dumped beside the road somewhere without proper clothing or supplies. Sad that we would have to enforce humanitarianism.

I don't think anybody is promoting completely open borders. Letting in migrants is a different kettle of fish then letting in refugees.

[pinkstarburst]

14. What then do the "inspections" do?

Is the result of the "inspections" that the state police say, okay great, we've inspected this bus, let's send it on to Chicago now? Or do the state police decide that every bus stopped at the state border gets turned around?

We have a lot of NIMBYism going on here unfortunately, people assuming that migrants do not want to go to Chicago or New York or Denver and using any excuse in the book to try to keep them out of their cities.

As long as we are allowing 302,000 migrants into the country per month, pending their immigration hearings, they are going to make their way to the major cities. Those 302,000 people PER MONTH (which is 3 million PER YEAR) need some place to go and support services as the vast majority are homeless. Some people here are trying to come up with every excuse in the book to turn them away from their state, their town, to find technicalities to send them someplace else so they don't have to provide support services, while in the other breath, saying "keep the border open."

We can't have it both ways. Immigration is a national issue. As soon as we allow these people to stay, we must support them, which means they will wind up in the major cities.

[Bayard]

17. As I said previously,

The least we can do at the state borders is to ascertain bussed refugees have the necessary clothing, food, and other essentials (like correct information,) before releasing the bus to go on to a state approved destination in Chicago, or wherever they have been told they are going. I'd think we could spare one cop car then to follow and make sure they aren't being dumped 20 miles outside the city.

I understand your concern about the numbers of migrants coming in. Yes, its a lot. Is your proposal to stop them all at the U.S. border? Again, I'm talking about refugees, not migrants, which you keep referring to.

The only cities I've seen complaints from are the ones where busloads show up unannounced and unexpected. You can't blame them there.

I agree with you that immigration is a national issue. As it stands now, one nasty little man in Texas is pulling a political stunt in Democratic cities.

[pinkstarburst]

18. My point is, once the US admits these people and allows them to stay, what then?

I understand your concern about the numbers of migrants coming in. Yes, its a lot. Is your proposal to stop them all at the U.S. border? Again, I'm talking about refugees, not migrants, which you keep referring to.

The only cities I've seen complaints from are the ones where busloads show up unannounced and unexpected. You can't blame them there.

Call them whatever you like. The people I am referring to are the 302,000 individuals who cross the southern border per month that the US allows to stay pending their immigration hearings.

My proposal is that we either must: 1) decide as a nation that we CAN support 302,000 homeless migrants/refugees per month--which means the federal government needs to step up and organize the bussing itself--sending them not only to just three cities, but all major cities in the US. It means the mayors and governors of all major cities and states in the lower 48 must organize and find and create shelter space as well as create lists of where jobs are available on farms, on dairies, in meat packing facilities, in factories. Right now we just have a bunch of NIMBYism and people getting mad at Texas. We need the federal government to step up and do its job. Not blame border states for the federal government's lack of action.

2) If we as a nation decide that we CANNOT support 302,000 homeless migrants/refugees per month, then we must immediately take steps to secure the border and stop so many from crossing. It is unfair to point anger at southern border states when it is the US government allowing this volume of people to enter every month.

It is unfair to point anger at southern border states for "unannounced and unexpected arrivals" when it is the federal government who should be coordinating ALL the bussing of migrants in the first place. If we don't like the way Abbott is doing it (and of course he's doing it in such a way to score as many political points as possible), then why isn't the federal government doing its job and showing up with busses at the border to immediately take every migrant/refugee on to a major city as soon as they cross, and then coordinating that with the majors/governors AND providing appropriate food/clothing resources? That is what you need to be asking your elected official, not directing anger at southern border states who are already overwhelmed with 302,000 border crossings per month.

[Bayard]

19. Amnesty International makes important definitions:

"The terms “refugee”, “asylum seeker” and “migrant” are used to describe people who are on the move, who have left their countries and have crossed borders.

The terms “migrant” and “refugee” are often used interchangeably but it is important to distinguish between them as there is a legal difference.

Who is a refugee?
A refugee is a person who has fled their own country because they are at risk of serious human rights violations and persecution there. The risks to their safety and life were so great that they felt they had no choice but to leave and seek safety outside their country because their own government cannot or will not protect them from those dangers. Refugees have a right to international protection.

Who is an asylum seeker?
An asylum seeker is a person who has left their country and is seeking protection from persecution and serious human rights violations in another country, but who hasn’t yet been legally recognized as a refugee and is waiting to receive a decision on their asylum claim. Seeking asylum is a human right. This means everyone should be allowed to enter another country to seek asylum.

Who is a migrant?
There is no internationally accepted legal definition of a migrant. Like most agencies and organizations, we at Amnesty International understand migrants to be people staying outside their country of origin, who are not asylum seekers or refugees.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/refugees-asylum-seekers-and-migrants/#:~:text=The%20terms%20%E2%80%9Crefugee%E2%80%9D%2C%20%E2%80%9C,there%20is%20a%20legal%20difference.

Per CBS News,
"In the first 28 days of December, Border Patrol agents processed nearly 235,000 migrants who crossed the southern border illegally in between ports of entry, averaging roughly 8,400 apprehensions each day, the preliminary Department of Homeland Security (DHS) statistics show. If the pace continues, Border Patrol will report roughly 260,000 apprehensions this month, a record high."

snip

"Officials, for example, do not have the manpower and resources to screen and detain all migrants who could be subjected to the asylum restriction. In fact, government figures indicate that most migrants who entered the U.S. illegally in recent months have been released with court notices, without any asylum screenings.

On average, those court cases take years to complete due a massive backlog of claims. The immigration court system, staffed by fewer than 800 immigration judges, is overseeing 3 million pending cases."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-mexico-border-migrants-processed-december-record/

"U.S. Border Patrol agents at the Mexican border are on course to take into custody this month a quarter of a million migrants who entered the country illegally, while their colleagues at official ports of entry are expected to process roughly 50,000 new arrivals under a Biden administration appointment system. "

So, we obviously need more manpower to screen people, and that is on the feds. It would seem a lot of migrants don't want to wait to go through proper channels. Those people should not be on buses headed elsewhere. The people on the buses are supposedly screened and here legally. I would hope that the refugees and asylum seekers are given preference. No, just anyone crossing the border should not be immediately loaded onto a bus.

Where to hold the regular legal migrants who are waiting to be processed is a different conversation. Obviously trump's inhuman solution was not acceptable.

Here is a fact sheet that has some good information, such as:

"FACT: The federal government can and should do more to help local governments and asylum seekers
While comprehensive immigration reform is needed to address the root causes of a broken immigration system, the federal government can and should do more to support cities welcoming new arrivals.
The federal government can provide more funding[46] and flexibility in reimbursing localities for the cost of providing shelter, case management, workforce development, and legal services.
When war broke out in Ukraine, we saw what our federal government can do[47] when we decide to compassionately welcome people who have been displaced by turmoil.
Under federal law,[48] asylum applicants are not eligible for work authorization until six months after they file their asylum applications. The federal government can increase access to work authorization for new arrivals by expanding humanitarian parole[49] and Temporary Protected Status[50]
Providing more lawful immigration pathways reduce unlawful immigration. Between 2022 and 2023, illegal crossings from Ukrainians, Haitians, Venezuelans, Cubans, and Nicaraguans sharply decreased[51] after lawful pathways to entry through humanitarian parole[52] were implemented for those countries."

https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/facts-not-fear-how-welcoming-immigrants-benefits-new-york-city/

Should we remove the welcome mat from the Statue of Liberty?
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."

[Duppers]

20. A thoughtful, fact-filled post.

Thank you.
The problem is so multi-layered and serious on many levels. States can't be expected to handle it all.

How do we, as a country, try to solve our border problems and deal with the major cause, i.e. a humanitarian crisis in an independent country?

[Bayard]

21. Just one country's refugees--Thousands of people are fleeing Venezuela every day

"7.3 million since 2014. Six million, are hosted by countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (as of March 2023). Rampant violence, inflation, gang-warfare, soaring crime rates as well as shortages of food, medicine and essential services have forced millions to seek refuge in neighboring countries and beyond."

https://www.unrefugees.org/emergencies/venezuela/

However, most are still going to neighboring counties--not the U.S.

"According to the Regional Inter-Agency Coordination Platform for Refugees and Migrants from Venezuela (R4V)*, co-led by UNHCR and IOM, as of September 2023, there were over 7.7 million Venezuelan refugees and migrants worldwide, of which 84% (6.5 million) are in Latin America and the Caribbean."

https://reporting.unhcr.org/operational/situations/venezuela-situation#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Regional%20Inter,Latin%20America%20and%20the%20Caribbean.

The country's crisis started under Hugo Chavez, and the fiasco continued under Maduro.

https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/who-or-what-is-to-blame-for-the-venezuelan-crisis/