"El Salvador's Gangs Are Targeting Young Girls: The Trump Administration's Immigration Policies Are Certain To Make It Worse"

IMO the main points to make in this vicinity are:
1. We do have an obligation to take a significant number of refugees; that should be a major component of our immigration policy--and it is.
2. We can't take everyone.
3. There are about ten countries closer to El Salvador than the U.S. is. As in the case of so many refugees (or "refugees") to Europe, if the aim were really just to get out of their home country, you'd expect them to aim for somewhere closer / stop sooner. Given that they don't, there can't be any doubt that they're not merely trying to get out of somewhere, but, rather, trying to get somewhere.
4-ish. Furthermore, it'd be interesting to know how many keep going to Canada. My guess: if getting out of El Salvador were the overriding (?) motive, you'd expect a pattern that was more-or-less directionally indifferent, and people should tend to cluster in nearby countries. I'd also guess that you'd actually find an inordinate number of people going north, and passing right through Guatemala and Mexico...and going to the U.S...and stopping.
   I think we should aim to help more refugees rather than fewer. But I also think we shouldn't be stupid about it. I'd also like us to do more to help out places like El Salvador--which I'd think would mean: more foreign assistance of some kind, probably including law enforcement training and funding. Just letting their people flee here isn't the greatest plan. Maybe we could give preference to people who agree to learn about international development and return some day. I don't know. It's not exactly my area. But progressives often seem to hover on the verge of arguing that we have to take in anyone who is worse off elsewhere. All of their arguments are slanted in the direction of taking in more and more people...from groups high up in the progressive stack, anyway...and alternatives are rarely mentioned. Others note that the vast majority of those they want to take in are future Democrats...but I doubt that's their main goal. I think it's the general progressive principle of aiding the poor and disadvantaged, and women and nonwhites. Those principles pervade progressivism. I doubt we'll see any similar progressive push to give refugee states to, say, white South African farmers. (Though not a lot of white South African farmers are showing up at our borders; so there's an asymmetry.) At any rate, I think it's clear that progressives are constitutionally disinclined to think of alternatives to and limits on our acceptance of poor, nonwhite females who can plausibly claim to be fleeing sexual violence. (I'd also guess--were I guessing--that the article makes the problem seem more pervasive than it actually is. I'd further guess that someone less committed to the progressive project of (in effect) maximizing immigration of certain kinds would note the obvious objection: one goal of regulating such immigration is to prevent the gangs in question from flourishing here. To refuse to seriously attend to keeping e.g. MS-13 out of the U.S is just going to make the problem bigger.)
   At any rate: I'm generally in favor of helping refugees, but generally suspicious of the relentlessly single-minded progressive orientation on immigration.