This migrant surge calls for cross-border solutions

Central America, Mexico, and the U.S. can recognize each other’s urgent needs and stem the flow of families seeking asylum.

Reuters
Women in San Salvador, El Salvador, protest violence against women March 29.

With immigration facilities in the United States overwhelmed by thousands of Central Americans seeking asylum, now may be the right time for creative – and cross-border – leadership. The U.S., Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, as well as other stakeholders, know where the problems lie. They just need to agree on thoughtful solutions.

There is plenty of blame to go around in the way governments have responded to the exodus of Central Americans, most of whom are fleeing violence, food scarcity, corruption, and poverty. The last big migrant surge spanned from 2013 to 2014, but the latest flow of families points to an urgent need for cooperation. All the countries involved can find constructive ways to respect laws, norms, and values rather than making the situation worse. A starting point is to agree that the difficult issues should not be used for domestic political gain.

One model of cooperation is a recent U.S.-Mexico agreement on increasing investment in southern Mexico and northern Central America. The various programs have yet to generate jobs to prevent people from migrating. Yet the serious work is beginning and shows promise.

Mexico has also made some progress in recognizing that the flow of migrants effectively interferes in the domestic affairs of the U.S. The government of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has signaled that in addition to respecting the human rights of migrants, it will beef up efforts to control migration flows. 

Mexico has been overwhelmed by the number of people crossing the southern border. It has been unable to manage well the migrants or to care for them. Many of the migrants can find quick transport northward, often provided by organized traffickers. Some are subject to violence along the way or near the U.S. border.

The northern three Central American countries continue to fall short of their basic obligations to deal with the criminal violence, poverty, and poor governance that prompt so many to flee. Correcting that is a long-term effort, but progress has been made. Various U.S. aid programs have helped specific areas, reducing crime and creating alternative income sources, for example.

Just last week, Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Homeland Security chief, signed a “historic” law enforcement agreement with counterparts in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador designed to improve cooperation to stem irregular immigration. However the U.S. is now threatening to cut off all aid aimed at helping to keep migrants at home.

Though the three countries are being lumped together, each has different urgent issues. Media reports suggest that most of the recent families arriving at the border are fleeing food scarcity in Guatemala. While in El Salvador and Honduras the danger motivating people to flee seems largely criminal violence. Assistance, aid, and requests for action need to be targeted appropriately to address the causes pushing migrants to leave.

In the U.S., the political debate has focused mainly on building out a border wall rather than seeking a bipartisan and comprehensive agreement to improve the immigration system. The most immediate need is to increase the number of federal immigration judges and other personnel necessary to improve and speed processing for asylum-seekers and to build and staff facilities to humanely house them while their claims are adjudicated.

America’s southern neighbors are now quite aware of U.S. concerns. Good solutions will not come from further threats or inflicting broader harm on any of the countries involved, such as closing the border. The value of trade between the U.S. and Mexico averages about $1 million a minute. The urgent need is for wisdom in making decisions consistent with America’s highest ideals, the law, and the best interests of all involved.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.