On Immigration Fairness and Justice for Central Americans
Dr. Common Good
The flak, misperceptions, and outright falsehoods about the current immigration situation in the U.S. are hard to tolerate, even if this is not a new phenomenon. Our history is full of periodic anti-immigrant and anti-foreigner flareups. But the stream of hyperbolic, racist fearmongering from the current administration and its loyal pundits has gone beyond the repugnant. Let’s just take a look at a few facts, and at our role in contributing to the crisis surrounding immigrants from Central America. There is a circular transnational history that has to be considered as integral to the migration context. Before the 1970s, Central American migration patterns were seasonal and intra-regional (Castles, de Haas, & Miller, 2014). From the late 1970s through the 1990s and including the recent wave of unaccompanied youth, migration from this region has been closely linked to U.S. policy. Under the umbrella of the U.S.– Soviet bipolar conflict, the U.S. provided support (beginning in the late 1940s) to a number of oligarchic, authoritarian regimes in Central America viewed as anti-communist, despite the violence they perpetrated on their own citizens (e.g., by the Somozas in Nicaragua, Efrain Rios-Montt in Guatemala, the military junta and several successive regimes in El Salvador) and the entrenched poverty. The violence, together with U.S. – supported neoliberal economic policies and debt crises contributed to the wave of Central American migrants fleeing to the U.S. beginning in the late 1970s (Castles, deHaas, & Miller, 2014; ECLAC, 2011). As one historian wrote, “Warfare not only killed thousands and displaced millions, it also institutionalized a migration pattern that heretofore had been very minor: emigration to El Norte” (Mahler & Ugrina, 2006). Ironically, it is these migrants, fleeing from violence, who founded the MS-13 gang, and appropriated the 18th Street gang, in Los Angeles (where there was, and is a gang-rich environment pushing immigrants to form their own protective structures), both of which were subsequently exported back to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. In an environment of high poverty, government corruption and instability, and proximity to Mexican drug cartels, both gangs grew precipitously. In turn, these two gangs are responsible for most of the severe violence from which youth and families are now fleeing. Moreover, in the migration process itself, these migrants are often exposed to multiple traumas and adverse circumstances, including physical and sexual violence, witnessing violence, involuntary confinement, detention, lack of food and water, and other situations. When they seek to relocate in the U.S., they are faced with legal barriers, economic hardship, discrimination, a hostile political climate, family reunification difficulties, language barriers, and difficulties accessing services – though in truth for some that make it here their situations are still better than what they left. Now they are faced with child separation and worse.
Considering this, a significant number of these migrants should rightfully be considered as refugees, and as such protected under international law. Some no doubt merit asylum status as well. Of course, there are also those who come primarily for economic reasons – because there is no way to sustain a living in their home country. But that is no justification whatsoever for the vilification thrown at them. Look in the mirror. We are them. They are us. What proportion of the current U.S. population descended from families or individuals who fled from starvation and poverty? Or violence, war and persecution? That IS the body politic. The American essence. The American story.
So it is at the core of who we should be as Americans true to our national heritage and values that we find a better way to address the immigration situation – not by some absurd, offensive “wall.” Given the context briefly described above, it makes sense that we approach this as a regional issue, requiring a collaborative regional solution that includes at least the following (Note: This is in reference to Central American immigration and its context – some of these strategies may overlap with strategies for addressing immigration from Mexico, but there are additional issues to consider for that):
- Multilateral assistance to reduce gang violence in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. This has to extend beyond police training and security support. The gangs take root in part because there are few alternatives, few competing pathways, not just for individuals but for communities. This must include efforts to combine community security with resources that communities can use to help those in need and to promote educational opportunity and civic engagement among youth, to involve youth in decision-making. It also means working to increase income-generating possibilities at the local level, and efforts to fight corruption (which are, to be sure, difficult).
- A collaborative approach to address the economic challenges faced by Central American countries. This cannot be a repeat of past attempts to simply impose neoliberal economic policies and requirements that end up primarily benefiting an economic elite and that starve government agencies of funds for health, education and social programs.
- A rational, just revision of U.S. immigration policy that includes a range of immigration and residency statuses that are a better match for the realities of a globalized international economy in which labor flows are increasingly the norm, that is based on human rights principles prohibiting mistreatment of children or of migrants awaiting status determination, and that contributes to multilateral efforts to address human rights crises. This does not mean uncontrolled, open borders. It means that border control mechanisms are implemented as part of a broader solution.
References
Castles, S., de Haas, H., & Miller, M.M. (2014). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world (5th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). (2011). Social panorama of Latin America 2011. Santiago de Chile: ECLAC.
Mahler, S., & Ugrina, D. (2006). Central America: Crossroads of the Americas. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/central-america-crossroads-americas