Relevant Categories: —IMMIGRATION—
Post#: 328-18 – Words: 967 – Audio: N/A
As of this writing today, the Trump administration has negotiated a deal with Mexico to keep the bulk of the “asylum caravan” that has been on their steadfast trek from Honduras and other points south, inside Mexico as the asylum-seekers are processed. This of course is a deviation of current immigration policy that anyone seeking asylum in the U.S. has some limited access into the country until such time as their case is heard in a court of law.
To recap… this caravan is, generally speaking, made up of refugees fleeing the threat of death and hunger from the civil chaos inside Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Estimates have suggested the numbers this last October had reached over 7,000 people, primarily parents with children. The changing political mood of the United States toward a more nationalistic fervor has resulted in a greater concern of illegal immigration along the southern border with Mexico. President Trump has made charges that this caravan contains a large number of gang members, drug smugglers, rapists, thieves, etc. and has lead the call for greater border security to prevent this mass of humanity.. the “invasion” as he calls it… from just “walking in” unimpeded. He has responded by sending military troops to augment border security.
Today’s revelation of the agreement with Mexico to hold whomever comprises this “invasion” on their side of the boarder until they can be processed properly puts at risk the traditional policy of allowing asylum seekers into the country until their cases are heard. The long term effects of this have yet to play out with the public and Congress as we don’t know if this is temporary or will blaze the way for a new asylum policy in general.
It’s not the theme of this blog to lament about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of such policies as they relate to current American politics and/or casting aspersions toward Trump. My other blog does that. Here I want to try and provide some thought to problem solving and thoughtful options, and far less about political or social divisiveness.
In a previous post in here, HERE, I made a recommendation for handling the refugee problem from Central and South America which included the idea of having larger staging areas attached to perhaps a specific consulate on Mexico’s southern border, from which refugees could claim asylum without having to make the dangerous trek north to the U.S. border. Since this would be a diplomatic mission, the assigned land would be the same as U.S. soil. The goal would be two-fold… 1) to achieve a level of humanitarian relief in not requiring refugees to travel large distances over dangerous terrain and at the vulnerability to assault from predator gangs… and.. 2) to relieve the pressure at our direct border on processing and re-location, and to afford an additional level of screening before entry into the States.
Today’s agreement with Mexico to hold the “caravan” on their side of the border is a slight variation of what I was recommending. Given the humanitarian help for these people sticking around outside our border must come from Mexico, I personally have significant apprehensions of Mexico’s ability to provide same given they are typically unable to control their drug cartel violence. These refugees will be very vulnerable to being victims of crime as they try and adapt to Mexican life and economy even for a short time. We shall see.
But I have a long term consideration to contain refugee migration from problem countries.
Remember the Monroe Doctrine?
In a nutshell it was an 1823 doctrine penned by then Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, that essentially notified the world’s powers that there would be no more European colonial expansion to Central and South America. America was stating that such infraction would be “the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.” The idea being that the Americas should determine their own independent future, and at the same time assured a measure of United States security from European threats in establishing a foothold in the Americas.
Using the Monroe Doctrine as a kind of example, we need to look at the causes for the refugees in the first place. All through the history of the South and Central Americas since the Doctrine, countries have fallen victim to unstable governments, dictators, constant revolution, with populations suffering the burdens. When a country anywhere in the world falls into chaos, anarchy, and revolution it affects all countries in the region as it destabilizes entire populations and economic systems.. and political stability. The days are long gone when a country’s internal problems are just “their” problem. Syria has proven that.. and those effects have even reached as far as the States.
Likely through the Organization of American States (or a new organization), we develop a new doctrine, perhaps limited to Central American countries and those bordering north South America, the United State will intervene diplomatically (first) to contain any potential refugee threat, up to and including removal of the head of state in order to restore order; that such impending government collapse would pose a direct threat to the safety and security of the Americas and their peoples. Force, if necessary, would be from the U.S., Canada, and OAS member nations. A kind of mini-NATO or mini-UN that’s already in place. In this way all nations keep their sovereign borders and even their individual right of self-rule and self-determination… until such time as their population flees due to internal strife.
In the least… the OAS (or a new collective organization) should take up the role in administering to future refugees crossing borders and fleeing through adjacent countries as this recent caravan did.
The goal: No more refugee caravans to the U.S. or anywhere else in this hemisphere.
My other sites… if you’re interested…