It Just Doesn't Add Up!

It Just Doesn’t add up!

       “We’re not letting them into our country. And then they never show up, almost, it’s like a level of 3 percent. They never show up for the trial. So, by the time their trial comes, they’re gone, nobody knows where they are.” As you’ve probably guessed, those are Donald Trump’s words regarding the numbers (percentages) of all immigrants, whether seeking refugee status or simply undocumented, who fail to appear for their assigned hearings. 

       This small (“3 percent”) number would be troubling if it were true, but as with so many statements by Mr. Trump, it isn’t true, nor is it remotely close. The real number is that of all “illegals,” more than 70% do show up for hearings. In fact, among asylum seekers specifically, only 11 percent did not show up for legal proceedings. Of the asylum seekers who participated in a pilot program tested as an alternative to detention, 99 percent attended Immigration and Custom Enforcement check-ins and appointments. And 100 percent turned up for court hearings! This, of course, is violently contradictory to what the Trump administration would like “White” Americans to believe.

        In spite of its 100% success rate, the Trump administration ended the pilot program last June. Justification for this cancellation escapes the logical thinker.

        So, you say, “Even 11% failing to appear is too many!” Agree or disagree with that metric, it may be useful to compare the behavior of these individuals with home grown persons in somewhat the same circumstances.

        There is no specific group which precisely fits this definition because the asylum seekers and even simply undocumented persons all types face the same possible negative consequence, that being deportation. There is, however, a group of citizens (primarily) who “sort of” fit – that being persons charged with actual crimes, released on either bail, or their own recognizance, pending trial.

        It is probably a wasted effort to attempt to specifically compare or quantify the harshness of the various penalties each group faces, but the fact is that for the accused person, being found innocent is a real possibility.  So, on to the crux of the comparison. It is difficult to find nationwide data related to failures to appear (bail jumping) but as a sample, in more than 15 counties in New Jersey, the percentage is at or over 50%! These are persons who have been charged with crimes of varying severity and, in many cases, have had parents post real property (homes, etc.) as surety for their bond. They are in many cases multiple offenders and frequently felons. And yet, we allow them to be free from custody on the promise to appear. As stated above, the likelihood that they will (appear) is far, far less than the appearance percentage of asylum seekers (who are criminals by a political definition only!)

       Doesn’t even seem rational,  does it?  We characterize persons seeking asylum in this country, fleeing oppression and threat of physical danger (and who promise to show up for administrative hearings, and do so in almost all cases), as criminals and, under Trump administration policy, place them under custodial supervision. Yet, we release our own citizens, accused of actual felonies in many cases, sometimes on their own recognizance, and in almost all other cases, because of a monetary promise a large percentage have no intent of keeping.

         So, and here’s where critical thinking comes in, who is the real threat here? Is it the Honduran family fleeing a repressive and until recently, US supported authoritarian regime which has resulted in Honduras, now being classified as the most dangerous country on the planet outside a full-fledged war zone? (The murder rate reached an unenviable global high of 85 for every 100,000 residents in 2012 year and was on course to reach 90 per 100,000 in 2013, the last year for which data was allowed to be published by the “government.”)   Or, is it the actual criminal mugger,  charged with multiple assaults but released on bond and free with nothing to identify him, because the “algorithm” in use (yes, that’s how some states do it now) indicated he’d “probably” show up for trial without reoffending?  

       I consider the answer to that question to be a “no-brainer”, but then I consider the current POTUS in the same light.