[music]
Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Well, it may be the Christmas to New Year's week, but in some things, the news marches on even for the United States Supreme Court and how it affects millions of people. Yesterday, if you haven't heard, the Supreme Court issued to stay, allowing for the indefinite continuation of Title 42. That's the pandemic-era measure that expels migrants at the US southern border, preventing many who may qualify from seeking asylum, at least in the United States.
Now, this comes as the mayor of El Paso, Texas declared a state of emergency last week due to the influx of migrants arriving in anticipation of Title 42 being lifted. Governor Greg Abbott of Texas has also continued his stunt, I think we can call it a stunt, of busing migrants from Texas to locations that are politically strategic. Did you hear that about 130 migrants were dropped off in front of Vice President Kamala Harris's DC home on Christmas Eve, the frigid night of Christmas Eve?
In New York City, about 50 migrants just arrived at the Port Authority Bus Terminal on Christmas Day after a five-day journey from El Paso was delayed by winter storms. It took five days. Let's take a step back and look at the broader picture. This is kind of the year in migration as well as the particular developments of the last 24 hours in the last few days. According to Axios, a record number of about 2.75 million migrants have crossed the border in fiscal year 2022 alone.
That's over a million more than the previous year. 2.75 million people in one year. The increase comes partly due to more Venezuelans, Cubans, and Nicaraguans fleeing their home countries. These numbers may be inflated though as folks who are denied entry and try again are counted more than once. It may not be 2.75 million individuals. It's 2.75 million entries, but it's still a lot of people, definitely seven figures.
This tracks with the UN Refugee Agency's reporting that as of October of this year, the world saw 7.1 million Venezuelan migrants alone, 80% of them hosted in Latin-American countries. More than seven million people fleeing Venezuela, most of them not to here. Also related, the number of new asylum applications rose to above one million in 2021 with the main countries of origin being Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and Syria. That's where the migrants are coming from. That's according to an OECD report.
CNN shared on Monday that the US asylum backlog is nearing 1.6 million people, the highest number on record. That's 1.5 million people waiting for their asylum claims to be processed through the court system. That same report also notes that as of September of this year, five million refugees from Ukraine have been recorded across the EU and other OECD countries. Worldwide, more than 100 million people are currently listed as forcibly displaced from their countries of origin. That's according to the UN Refugee Agency.
As climate change worsens, we have to include that. The Institute for Economics and Peace predicts that over a billion people may become displaced by 2050. That's a projection, but we see how many are already being displaced right now by climate forces and all these other things. All this is to say, it's clear the world is in almost an unprecedented state of mass migration, and yet governments and citizens of receiving countries too often show incompetence and even cruelty when migrants arrive at their borders and neighborhoods.
With us now to discuss the migrant crisis here and more broadly is Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services. Her organization works to protect and embrace refugees, migrants, and children, that's their stated mission, who arrived here in the United States. Krish was also previously policy director for Michelle Obama during the Obama White House years. Krish, welcome to WNYC. Thank you so much for coming on.
Krish O'Mara Vignarajah: Brian, thanks so much for having me, and happy holidays.
Brian Lehrer: On the news first, remind everybody, what is Title 42? What does it have to do with the pandemic? Why has it been extended at this moment when most policy anyway is being seen as post-pandemic?
Krish O'Mara Vignarajah: The Trump administration's strategy at the border was to essentially build both literal and figurative walls. Title 42 was a key part of their arsenal that was implemented by Stephen Miller under that administration. It effectively halted--
Brian Lehrer: Stephen Miller, the very anti-immigration aide to Donald Trump?
Krish O'Mara Vignarajah: Exactly. It was even contemplated before the COVID crisis went into a full effect. It effectively halted asylum law under the pretense of public health. At the time, I think it's important to note that public health officials were strongly against it, didn't believe that there was a rationale. The truth is the pretense is in policy. Title 42 didn't protect the American people from COVID.
It wasn't even effective at what it was implemented by the Trump administration to do, which was basically border enforcement, border management. What Title 42 removal means is that we would actually be returning to the rule of law because it would allow people to access the legal right that they have under US and international law to seek asylum. Right now with Title 42 in place, that is essentially eviscerated.
Brian Lehrer: Few months ago, it was notable that many of the migrants who arrived to the US-Mexico border were fleeing Venezuela. We talked a lot about that on the show as thousands of those Venezuelans also arrived in New York. Part of the political conversation was, "Wait, people on the right who oppose the leftist dictatorship of Maduro in Venezuela don't want to welcome the people fleeing that persecution." They were more anti-migrant than they were anti-Maduro apparently. Now, it seems that the current wave is more people coming from a few Central-American countries. What's significant about the patterns of migration from different home countries to the United States just within this year? Why is it changed?
Krish O'Mara Vignarajah: Yes, it's a great question because I do think it reflects a lot on the system and why people are coming to the southern border specifically. Obviously, as you mentioned, we have seen a number of Venezuelans. We've also seen a number of Ukrainians. We had over 20,000 Ukrainian refugees come through the southern border. It begs the question of, "Why would a Ukrainian fly to Central America, come through Mexico in order to come to the US?"
The answer is the answer I give when people asked me the question of, "Well, why aren't they coming the 'right way'?" Well, candidly, we don't really have a right way anymore. Last year, we had the lowest immigration into the US since 2010. Many of the pathways that people would ordinarily access have been closed until the Biden administration announced the Uniting for Ukraine program, for example.
Ukrainians fleeing for their lives, mostly women and children, were coming the only way they could, which was through the southern border. Unfortunately, the southern border has become the lightning rod of immigration. It relates to a broader set of issues, which is, yes, for those seeking asylum in the most desperate circumstances, they should come to the southern border because perhaps they have no other way to go in. It's allowing them to flee their house as it's figuratively on fire.
For many who are coming for economic reasons at a time when we have over 10 million jobs that are unfilled, for those who really should be coming through refugee resettlement, we need to have functioning systems so people can apply. The final example I'll give, the Central American Minors Program is a program that was created under the Obama administration that has been resurrected under the Biden administration, which would allow for children to apply to be reunified with their parent or guardian here in the US as opposed to undertaking a treacherous and traumatic over a 1,000-mile journey.
I think that's where the system is broken. It's been broken for a very long time, but there are efforts that we can put into place that will actually create an orderly system. I think the vast majority of Americans aren't looking for a completely open border or a completely closed border. There are some solutions where we can actually have systemic reforms so that we have a coherent system.
Brian Lehrer: Let me go back to the Ukrainians for just a minute. Some of our listeners may have been surprised to hear you say that even the Ukrainians can't get in the "right way," what people deem the right way. Is that true or to what extent is that true? Because I think one of the things that people have been saying this year is, "Oh, look how special the Ukrainian people are being treated as compared to refugees from Syria, from Central America, from Afghanistan, from elsewhere that aren't as politically sympathetic," that Europe was opening its arms to Ukrainians, the United States was opening its arms to Ukrainians. Maybe because they're white Europeans. Maybe because of the way we view Putin, but with special treatment. Are you saying not?
Krish O'Mara Vignarajah: Brian, let me clarify. It is absolutely true that racism and disparities based on country origin are seen in immigration as they are seen in so many aspects of our American society. What we saw before the Biden administration announced a program called Uniting for Ukraine in April of 2022 was Ukrainians who were fleeing were basically trying to enter any way they could. For many of them, before this program was announced as an avenue, they would come through the southern border.
What was interesting is you would have these instances of where a woman and a child at the southern border would be allowed in, but a woman and a child from another country would not. You could certainly see the disparity there. It was also true that, yes, the administration did put in place a program that was specifically for Ukrainians in light of the crisis and did distinguish them from other immigrants.
Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we can take your phone calls on the current migrant crisis in the United States, the current migrant crisis in the countries that are sending people to the United States, and what US policy should be. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or Tweet @BrianLehrer. This can be specifically about Title 42 and what the Supreme Court said last night, specifically that Title 42 will remain in place for at least a few months while the Supreme Court hears arguments on the merits of the policy under the law.
Title 42 in place for now, making it harder for a lot of asylum seekers and others to actually physically cross the border or to cross and stay or anything else on the bigger picture of the year in migration from anywhere to anywhere. Tell us your migration story or that of somebody you know from any country to any country as well as talking about what's going on in New York, what's going on in Texas, what's going on in front of Kamala Harris's house, or anything related, questions or comments or stories. Help us report this story or ask a question of our guest, Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, the president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or Tweet @BrianLehrer.
Krish, is there some hypocrisy on both sides with respect to Title 42? People on the right, some of them who don't want any behavioral restrictions as a result of COVID, freedom, want migrants barred from entering the US under this law that frames it as a COVID prevention measure. Some people on the left or some people in public health who wanted-- everybody comes in on a plane to have to show a vaccine card or something like that. They say, "Well, not in the case of thousands of people flooding across the border."
Krish O'Mara Vignarajah: I think that during the pandemic, we could debate, right? What are the protections that we need to have in place to obviously focus on our principal concern of protecting Americans? It's important to understand that there were protocols at the border that required migrants as with anyone coming into the country to quarantine. COVID tests were undertaken. Vaccines were given.
It's not as though it was an all-or-nothing situation where we needed to allow people to exercise their legal right and that would put Americans in danger. Likewise, as you said, it has been difficult to understand how 19 Republican attorneys-generals who, in many of their states, have completely avoided mask protocols or putting in place even during the tripledemic, any additional modifications, who at the same time are saying, "No, we're still in the height of a pandemic, and so you can't allow people in."
When I say pretense isn't policy, it's important to understand that it's not as though we remove Title 42 and there is no border management tool. We have something called Title 8, which does allow for expedited removal. It's important to understand when we say we're returning to the rule of law, the rule of law wasn't just the wild west of the southern border. It was actually having a system in place where people could assert a legal claim.
If there was a credible fear, they would be allowed to continue the process of their legal case. For others who were trying to avoid detection or who didn't have a legal claim, they could still be removed. I think that's where it's really important for the American public to understand that we don't need to use relics of the past in order to have an orderly border system.
Brian Lehrer: What do you make of Texas Governor Greg Abbott sending migrants to different parts of the country, including New York City, and specifically in the last few days dropping a busload of, or maybe it was several busloads, I'm not sure, in front of Kamala Harris's home on Christmas Eve?
Krish O'Mara Vignarajah: Seeing these children who had undertaken hours, hours, long journeys on Christmas Eve certainly reminded me as the head of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service that it's worth repeating that Jesus was a refugee. Our organization obviously focuses on the people that we serve. It is sad to see how politics has taken over and political leaders are using people as political pawns.
When I say "people," I truly do mean, in many cases, women and children who are fleeing for their lives with nothing but the clothes on their backs. They're escaping unimaginable violence, political persecution, extreme poverty. You mentioned it, devastating climate disasters. That's where we need to understand that immigration is a federal issue, which means there needs to be more of a national infrastructure.
My organization, for example, has welcome centers in places like San Antonio but also places like New York because we realize that, yes, of course, our border states are going to bear the brunt of those individuals who are coming across the southern border, but that can't be the only way we approach this. Many of these migrants do have family, close friends, who are all across the country. Having a system in place is what we've advocated for.
For refugees, for example, we have an infrastructure that's been built over four decades. For asylum seekers who are, in many cases, fleeing for the similar reasons of war, political persecution, religious persecution, there's nothing. It shouldn't be that asylum seekers just face this cliff. That's why we've advocated for more of a national model so that no one can say, "Oh, I live in Arizona or Texas, and so I uniquely feel the burden," because many states, whether it's New York or Washington State, are feeling the impacts of migration.
Brian Lehrer: Let's take a phone call. Here's Laura in Dallas. Laura, you're on WNYC. Hi there.
Laura: Hi, good morning. Thank you so much for having me. Yes, I am in Dallas. I used to live in the New York City area. Unfortunately, I'm here now. I work for a not-for-profit because of us as a provider here in Texas, we deal mainly with refugees, asylees, and other immigrants. We have also seen a great influx of Afghan nationals. If they're allowed in, they're placed in removal proceedings. They're not even given parole. Parole is basically a temporary permit that allows the person to stay here for a set period of time. Many of these people, they could have been part of the evacuation.
That happened last year. Unfortunately, they couldn't make it to the plane on time. I know that the issue that we're seeing is people who are granted parole like Ukrainians who came in before the Uniting for Ukraine program, but they cannot get their parole renewed by CBP since they are refusing to renew it. I just feel like all of this is very telling of, one, the inflexibility of the system and, two, the different treatment that people are seeing depending on where they come from or what the color of their skin is. Thank you.
Brian Lehrer: You're seeing people from Afghanistan who are finding their way to Latin America, and then trying to work their way to the United States through there?
Laura: Yes. At one office, we see at least a case a week. Many of these are people who worked with a prior Afghan government, who worked with the US government or were contractors for the US government. They're basically placed in removal. Many of them are not given parole to stay here for a period of time to get a work permit, so they have to pursue an asylum case. Many of them endure months of traveling and hardship to make it to the border.
I'm very thankful that this government has the program for Afghans during the evacuation, but it's also very telling of how out of touch with reality they are and how inflexible the system is because the only difference between the client that I see in my office who just made it here and the client who came in last year is that they couldn't make it to the plane. That's all.
Brian Lehrer: Laura, thank you so much for your call and that report from Dallas. We really appreciate it. That's some story, Krish, and yet some people who worked for the Trump administration because here's another Trump policy and some people who say, "Well, there are just too many people coming into the United States all at once. What about every other country?" The Trump administration had the first-country-you-arrive-at policy that you can't just start from many countries away and say you want to come to the United States. They're suspicious of those really being asylum seekers as opposed to people who want to be here for economic or other immigration reasons.
That could even apply to some of the Afghans who find their way to Central America or elsewhere in Latin America before they come here. The argument is, "Wait, if you're really seeking political asylum, you're just trying to get out of your country. The first country you come to, like so many Ukrainians are staying in Poland, that's the country where you should seek political asylum. The United States is not the catch-all for everybody from everywhere." What would your response to that be?
Krish O'Mara Vignarajah: The transit ban as we call it was something straight out of Stephen Miller's playbook. It was championed alongside the Muslim ban and its family separation policy. I just want to give the legal perspective first. There is nothing in US or international humanitarian law that requires people to apply for protection in the very first country they pass through. It was litigated under the Trump era.
I do believe that if the Biden administration were to implement something similar, they would also face legal challenges. I think it's important to understand that when we're talking about the Afghans or Venezuelans or Ukrainians, in part why we are seeing these circuitous routes that, frankly, make no sense are because of the legal labyrinth that these individuals, parents who are trying to protect their children that they're willing to undertake because they will seek protection and freedom any way they can.
Of course, I realized, especially given the stats, Brian, that you mentioned at the outset of this conversation, those are staggering, right? The idea of 100 million who've been displaced at this moment, and that number is only going to grow, it means that, of course, every country that is able needs to play its part. I do think it's important to also understand that this is where American global humanitarian leadership matters because when we step away, other host nations do as well.
Refugee resettlement is a great example of that where every time our administration reduces the number of refugees we will accept, we'll see a number of Western European countries do the same. At this moment, when you see Europe having taken in millions of Ukrainian refugees, when you see countries like Turkey or Jordan have done the same, I think it raises this question of, "Well, what is the US doing?"
When you look at even our refugee numbers, and we're only talking about 25,000 or 35,000, or when we're talking about Ukrainians over 100,000, it begs the question of, "Can we do more?" I think we're certainly capable of doing it, but it requires us to have systems in place. That's where the administration has been rebuilding since the Trump era. Now that we are going into 2023, they own the system that they've created. I do hope we see more of a priority placed in rebuilding.
Brian Lehrer: We'll continue in a minute with Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, who is president and CEO of the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. We'll also take more of your calls. Krish, one of the things that I want to ask you when we come back from the break since you were policy director for Michelle Obama and also Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of State Kerry in the Obama administration, the comparative numbers that I've been seeing are staggering like the asylum backlog nearing 1.6 million people right now.
I saw on CNN an estimate that that's an average of four years for an asylum seeker to get their case heard in court. Back in 2012, according to what I saw, it was only 100,000 people. It's so hugely different from when you were a policy adviser in the Obama administration. When we come back, I'm going to ask you why. Listeners, we'll take more of your calls. Stay with us.
[music]
Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC as we continue to talk about the year in migration, including the Supreme Court ruling just last night. Yes, they did this during Christmas to New Year's week, during Kwanzaa week, that said Title 42 remains in place. That's a pandemic-era migration restriction, which makes it a lot harder for a lot more people to enter the country through the southern border than have been entering.
We're talking about all of this with Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, who is president and CEO of the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and taking your phone calls and tweets. I mentioned before the break and in the intro, that CNN report from Monday stating that the US asylum backlog is nearing 1.6 million people. That's the highest number on record. They said when you were there in the Obama administration, the year 2012, it was only 100,000. Why the explosion?
Krish O'Mara Vignarajah: I think part of it is, as you mentioned, migration has increased. This year, we crossed the grim milestone of 100 million across the world who have been displaced, so the need has gone up. Obviously, you mentioned some of these crises, but whether we're talking about Ukraine or Venezuela or Afghanistan, we have had not just--
Brian Lehrer: Syria. 2012 was before the Syrian civil war.
Krish O'Mara Vignarajah: That's right. Exactly. We're talking about not just humanitarian crisis after crisis. It was humanitarian crisis on top of crisis. Then when you combine that with the fact that so many pathways have been either literally closed or have essentially been so backlogged that they aren't really pathways to apply from, you're going to have the pressure put on systems that they are backlogged, but they are still an avenue of seeking protection like asylum that will bear the front.
I also think it's important to understand because I know that you got this sense from the prior administration that the country was full. We need migration, right? When we talk about inflation and the price premium that we're paying on goods from milk to eggs, some of that is affected by immigration. I mentioned that we had the lowest immigration into the US last year since 2010, but that dynamic isn't going to go away. We have the lowest birth rate since the census tracked this issue.
If we have more people retiring and a growing population, immigration has to be part of that solution, not to mention what immigrants bring to this country. I'll give you one stat. 44% of Fortune 500 companies have at least one founder who is an immigrant or the child of immigrants. It's not just something that we need to do out of necessity, but it's a comparative advantage that, frankly, we have over countries like China, which is that people are willing to risk their lives to come into the US.
Brian Lehrer: I'm glad you brought up the basic economic math and birth-rate math, population math. It's something we've talked about somewhat on this show, but I don't think it gets nearly as much attention. The fact that there are countries like Japan and some of the countries in Europe that are facing massive debt bombs potentially in the coming years because the birth rate is not keeping up with the aging population rate. They don't have as much immigration as the US, largely a country of immigrants, does.
It's one of the reasons that our country's finances are in better shape than some of the developed, industrial countries we might compare ourselves to. More immigration is, in so many ways, a net plus economically for the country while some of the media wants to focus on, "Oh, this individual who was an undocumented migrant committed a crime," or "Drugs are also coming in across the border," which is true and which is a problem, but it's not the point.
I'm glad you brought up some of those economic statistics. Here is a tweet from a listener who asks, "Can you define asylum and what causes are now legally eligible?" Listener writes, "I think people's anger is that they think asylum is being used inappropriately for people coming in through the southern border. A good definition of asylum seems to be where to start." What'd you say to that listener and everybody else?
Krish O'Mara Vignarajah: Yes, it's a great question because I do think that there is some confusion on who's an asylum seeker, who is a refugee. By contrast to a refugee, which is a person who has crossed a third-country border applied through the UN or the US to seek refuge in a host country, that person will wait. The only way they get into the US is they've gone through the process and are legally admitted.
Their process essentially ends when they come into the US. For an asylum seeker, the only way that they can apply for asylum is, essentially, they need to reach American soil. They may be fleeing for the same reasons as a refugee, so that would be political asylum, religious asylum. They're fleeing war or violence. Those are similar criteria for a refugee as well. Really, the distinction is, "Are you coming to the US directly or are you going to a third country to wait to be admitted into the US?"
Brian Lehrer: Joseph in Suffern in Rockland County, you're on WNYC. Hi, Joseph.
Joseph: Hi. My question is, in the recent midterm election, it was clear that New York has lost a couple of House seats because of a reduction in population. I'm sure other states around have the same issues. I was just wondering, why wouldn't these states want to accept asylum seekers?
Brian Lehrer: Yes, from a political standpoint, right. It was the redistricting based on the census that showed faster growth in states like Florida and Texas, who therefore got more House seats. New York lost one, I think, out of its previous allocation, so there's a political reason. Actually, New York welcomes the migrants, doesn't it? Is that your perception, Krish? Mayor Adams, he may be controversial for some of the ways that he sets up for them like tent cities, but Mayor Adams and Governor Hochul keep saying, "Send us your tired, your poor."
Krish O'Mara Vignarajah: Well, it's no surprise given the Statue of Liberty is there. Ellis Island was that most active port. I do think that it was a strength of the US. Certainly, as you note, it was states like Texas and Florida that, though other governors have done some grandstanding, have significant immigrant populations. I'd also just note that we're not just talking about New York City in terms of being a welcoming community and what that has meant in terms of the richness and diversity.
Even places like Utica. We have a strong partner in Utica that we work through. I've talked to political representatives who pledged allegiance to Trump policies more broadly but on immigration understand how immigrants have been a critical part of the revitalization of Utica. I think that is where it is important for us to understand that it's not just the right thing to do. It is the smart thing to do for communities across the country.
Brian Lehrer: It was not that long ago that Schenectady, also upstate just west of Albany, was asking immigrants to New York City to, "Please, some of you, come up to Schenectady and help revitalize our city," which fell into hard times after General Electric closed its plant there. It used to be known as the Electric City. They wanted migrants. They asked for migrants, Schenectady.
We think of the housing stock in New York City and the revitalization of neighborhood after neighborhood, whereas some other cities that are losing population fall into such disrepair. It's wave of migration after wave of migration historically that does that for New York City. On the asylum seekers, of course, not many of them are going to become citizens very quickly and add to the voting roles in terms that would increase the House delegation.
Isn't it true that the large majority of people who file for asylum, even when their claims finally get through the courts and that CNN report said the backlog is now four years, they get denied? If they're in custody, they get sent back. Do you have stats on that? Is that evidence that people are just using the asylum system because they want to be economic migrants, they're not necessarily fleeing for their lives, but that the rejection rate of asylum applications tells us something that maybe we'd rather not know?
Krish O'Mara Vignarajah: I do think that there is an intersectionality in the sense that it's not as though anyone is-- I'm sure there are are some examples, but oftentimes, you'll find individuals who are fleeing for an asylum-related reason who also are affected by downturns in economies or climate disaster affecting crop failure, for example. It's not as though it's a pretense.
It's just the complexity of what we see in countries, whether we're talking about El Salvador or Honduras or Guatemala or Haiti, where there is a clear nexus between the political and the economic crises these countries are facing. I do think it's an important point that you make in terms of how it is a years-long process because, candidly, I don't think anyone wants that.
I think it is very difficult when we serve clients. They were so hopeful that their case would be a winning case and they truly believe it. In that hope, they put down roots here in the US. Then all of a sudden, four years later, there is a resolution and they're uprooted. That's where we advocate for a more efficient and effective asylum system because we think it is better for the country and we think it's better for our clients.
Brian Lehrer: One more call. Deborah in Hurley, New York, you're on WNYC. Hi, Deborah.
Deborah: Hi. My question is, why hasn't the US set up a UN-style refugee camp for asylum seekers near the southern border that could provide basic services and help people get processed at least as a temporary measure?
Brian Lehrer: You're talking about as some other countries have done when there are large numbers of refugees coming from across their borders?
Deborah: Yes, like in the Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya and other refugee camps you see around the world.
Brian Lehrer: Deborah, thank you very much. Well, is that a good model according to you, Krish?
Krish O'Mara Vignarajah: It is a great question because I do think it's a complicated answer. When you go to a place like Reynosa, Mexico, and you're talking about places that essentially are feet away from the US border, and yet they are ruled by gangs, you can't say that that system is working, right? I visited about a year ago and I'm talking to families who are paying 5 to 10 pesos just to use the bathroom, 25 pesos if they want to take a shower. You can tell that these are dire circumstances. It's far from ideal.
There have been some discussion. I think there was some contemplation that UNHCR could play a more active role. I think the issue was that there were a lot of political leaders here in the US who feared that this would attract more migrants. I think that certainly has been a narrative that political leaders have tried to avoid. I will say that on our side of the border, there are organizations like LIRS who have essentially set up that infrastructure. I mentioned we call them welcome centers.
Basically, they provide everything from medical screenings, showers, room and board, help with logistics to their final destination, instruction on the legal process that they can follow. That certainly is a more orderly system. We've also advocated that rather than just financing private prisons who've been pushed out of the domestic penitentiary system and looked to immigration as their new profit center and profit they have because they've gotten billions of dollars of contracts, that there are better models where we could help more people with the same amount of resources.
We're not talking about 24/7 detention, but we are talking about compliance with immigration law. We've shown these alternatives to detention models, which people show up at near 100% rates for their ICE meeting, their court hearing, because these are people who actually want a legal status. They don't want to just hide in the shadows for the rest of their lives. What has been interesting when you see the busing is that governors have actually tried to move migrants away from that infrastructure to land them in places like Martha's Vineyard who don't have any infrastructure in part to try to create crisis. I think that is where it's deeply troubling because you realize you're playing with lives of children of families.
Brian Lehrer: Migration, one of the biggest stories of 2022 and looks to be set up as one of the biggest stories of 2023. We thank Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, who is president and CEO of the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. Thank you so much for joining us today.
Krish O'Mara Vignarajah: Thanks so much for having me, Brian.

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.
New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.