If one gets their news from right-wing media, they would believe that an invasion is imminent and that criminal-laced hordes are on the verge storming the U.S. southern border. They come, it is said, to take jobs, obtain free benefits and possibly eat your babies. For them, their savior, Trump, has the solution, build a wall; a beautiful, albeit expensive wall. Today (11 December 2018) there was a circus-like performance, orchestrated by President Trump, in which again he elicited the fear factor for his base. He claimed ten terrorists have been caught and focused on drug smugglers crossing the border. Then he restated his unsupported claim of immigrants spreading contagious diseases. If believing Trump, illegal immigration is tantamount to the zombie apocalypse. It matters not that almost all of his accusations are either not true or greatly exaggerated, and a wall won’t work to solve those problems.
There are, however, solutions but they will take both money and political will. They also require a strategic approach versus the pervasive myopic understanding of geopolitical realities. These are factors that transcend artificially contrived geographic borders, but nonetheless exert inexorable forces that will dominate the future.
A fundamental flaw in the thinking of most Americans is not understanding equilibrium and the power that can be generated in pursuance of it. Nature seeks equilibrium in all things and constantly progresses until balance is achieved. The tendency toward equilibrium is noted in chemistry, thermodynamics, economics and even psychology. The process is clearly observable in liquids as higher pressures move toward lower ones and the movement continues until equality is obtained. It doesn’t matter if the liquids are compatible, only that pressure is equalized. In fact, those liquids may not even merge (think oil and water), it is just pressure that is important. Important is that the greater the disparity, the greater the force will be to create balance.
Now consider human migration as a process with pressure seeking equilibrium as the driving force. That pressure can be thought of as many factors. Certainly, economic imbalance is one of the key features. Seeking to improve financial status would be an attracting force. Then too there are circumstances to be avoided, such as high violent crime rates and fear of physical harm. We know those issues to be of substantial concern to many of the asylum seekers from Central America.
Though we are a “nation of immigrants,” most Americans are woefully ignorant of both geography and history. Too many of them believe they are independent or self-made, when in reality there was a complex confluence of coincidences that facilitated their current status. That does not mean that some people have not excelled and taken better advantage of the circumstances in which they found themselves. It does mean that they rarely acknowledge all of the underlying conditions that facilitated their enterprises.
Geographic happenstance of birth should be at the top of the list. Another key factor is the form of governance and concomitant institutional structures afforded to them. For most Americans there was a public education system, a relatively stable economy, established communications and logistical infrastructure, and very importantly, domestic security and freedom from most international threats of violence. Yes, there was the Cold War, during which some people felt psychologically concerned, but even those threats were held at bay by others. For many decades, the vast majority of Americans have relegated international security issues to relatively few people with less than one percent actually involved in the defense of the country. Internally, well established and functioning institutions provided the services that fostered the environment in which many thrived. While our system of jurisprudence has not been perfect, rare indeed is the situation in which average citizens would dare offer a bribe to a police officer or judge. With exceptions, in general, our law enforcement agencies can be trusted to do the right thing.
The same cannot be said in many areas from which the migrants have fled. Both the physical and institutional infrastructures pale when compared with those in the United States. Even acknowledging the fact that many of our physical facilities need attention (roads, bridges, etc.), as a country we far exceed what can be found south of the border. Of importance and concern are the many fragile national and local structures of governance found in that region. Further, we bear some culpability for their current situation.
There is a reason that many people in Mexico, Central and South America refer to the U.S. as the Colossus del Norte. Long forgotten, if ever known, are the number of U.S. military interventions that have occurred in Central America in support of “national interests.” In fact, there have been over one hundred U.S. incursions in this hemisphere during the last two centuries. Definitely forgotten was that those “interests” included supporting private companies, such as United Fruit, as well as propping up compliant autocrats. In Guatemala the U.S. went so far as to help overthrow a democratically elected, albeit Communist leaning, government in favor of a dictatorship. Business dealings often exploited the local populations and their natural resources frequently without providing substantial benefits to the citizens of those countries. Strikingly, most of the aid that has been provided to Central American countries in recent years has been militarily-oriented.
Of course, drug smuggling greatly exacerbated the situation. Consider that the counter-narcotics program, Plan Colombia, in a decade consumed over $6B with about 90 percent going to military, rather than much needed social support. Given the general success of interdiction along the Caribbean routes, alternatives were found. The natural path was to transport up through Central America. Subsequently, as developing nations struggled with establishment of viable democracies, those efforts were subverted by the sheer enormity of illegal money. Mexican gangs transitioned from a local marijuana industry to support the Colombian cartels moving huge amounts of cocaine. Violence and corruption rose exponentially. Beyond cocaine, other drugs followed in the extremely lucrative smuggling and distribution business.
Despite the failure of the decades old War on Drugs, massive efforts continue to be placed on interdiction. As I have addressed in other articles, (as have many others) the emotionally-laden, albeit poorly conceived, War on Drugs was lost long ago. The cardinal issue is that drugs are a user-driven, not a supply problem. Cynically thinking of it, the problem can be viewed as the epitome of capitalism (supply and demand). What politicians do not want to face is that many Americans are users thus generating high demand for product. Only recently did they realize that an opioid epidemic was at hand. Fostered by unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies that enlisted the aid of medical practitioners, millions of additional addicts were created. Here to, focusing on supply, the main effort was to cut access from legitimate sources. That problem has direct bearing on a subset of illegal immigration, but one that attracts a great deal of attention. “We must stop the drug smugglers,” is a popular political refrain employed to justify commitment of resources; especially the spurious notion that building a wall will curtail the flow of narcotics.
Turning to solutions there are two major things that can be done to reduce the immigration flow. Neither would be politically popular, but in the end would be less expensive, and more humane that the current situation. First, and easiest, legalize (or at least decriminalize) the use of all drugs. Take the profit out of smuggling and thus undercut the criminal enterprises. It would also reduce secondary crime that is related to gaining funds for addicts to obtain drugs. There are no accurate figures on the direct and indirect costs in prosecution drug-related crime. However, when totaled it would be hundreds of billions of dollars annually. The arguments for and against legalization fill volumes. However, facts and logic come down on the side of legalization, or decriminalization, of many, if not all, substances. Elimination of demand would serve as an incentive to stop most smuggling. Thus, it should go a long way in facilitating reduction in gang activities that have disrupted too many lives throughout the area.
One of the main talking points against legalization is the claim that it will lead to widespread use. While relatively small by comparison, the decriminalization measures in Portugal have shown that drug use does not increase drug use among the population. Further, it had a positive effect in reducing other related effects, such as decreasing HIV deaths and other diseases generated by unsafe practices like needle-sharing.
The second recommendation is to greatly increase the aid provided to all countries in Central America and Mexico. Basically, what is needed is similar to the Marshall Plan (formally European Recovery Program) following World War II. Under that plan 16 countries received about $12B (1948 dollars). Today, that would equate to over $100B. Importantly, the recipients included the United Kingdom, France and Germany, countries that while suffering catastrophic infrastructure destruction during WWII, are now major trading partners. They are also military allies and significant actors on the world stage.
As with ending the War on Drugs, I am hardly the first person to suggest a massive aid program. What is clear is that the current approach is wrong. Under the Trump Administration, there is emphasis on placing requirements on foreign aid recipients with expectations that they must kowtow to American interests. As a political whipping boy, the shadow of immigrants has been successfully employed to instill fear in average citizens. Consider Trump’s infamous remarks about Mexicans being murders and rapists. The worst examples of bad behavior by individuals are pointed to and then generalized to all undocumented people. Yes, MS-13 exists and some members have committed heinous crimes. However, they represent a tiny fraction of the immigrant population. Also remember, MS-13 was created in Los Angeles jails then transported back to El Salvador. Further, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, mass murders are far more likely to be committed by white men than any immigrant (even from the Middle East).
What the Marshall Plan demonstrated was that economic support can have significant positive impact. In the long run, not only would we reduce the incentive for immigration, it would likely increase trade and be of financial benefit to all – including the U.S. Should we fail to act in a positive vein and continue with excoriation of undocumented immigrants while committing substantial resources to apprehension and blocking efforts, we will pay far more over time. Pure cost/benefit analysis supports a process that enhances the governance and economic environment throughout Central America and Mexico.
A critical aspect that must be addressed is extent corruption that currently exists in many of the countries. Reducing the influence of illegal smuggling would go a long way in doing that. Another would be the influx of American and multinational companies that generally operate within the bounds of legal propriety. Attaining democracy is a process, not one that can be imposed. Over time, the benefits of functioning within an acceptable legal framework would influence governments to behave similarly. As corrective measures, pressure should be placed on individuals, not as punishment to entire countries.
Contrary to popular opinion, undocumented immigrants already contribute to the American economy. Millions have lived in this country for more than a decade. Without committing crimes, they have paid taxes, and filled voids in several industries for which few, if any, Americans would be willing to work (think picking your vegetables). As our workforce nears full employment (unemployment now under 4 percent), we actually need additional workers, especially in low-skilled positions. Readily demonstrated, the current anti-immigrant atmosphere leaves them vulnerable to exploitation both individually and collectively.
The ineffectiveness of physical barriers I addressed previously. Rather than building a wall, the money would be better spent on aiding the people in their own countries. While it may be politically expedient to demonize “the others,” it is simply wrong and something that needs to be addressed as counter to our core values. There is an urgent need to acknowledge that the War on Drugs was a colossal failure and did irreparable harm to the country. The alternative is legalization/decriminalization that would begin to make the problem manageable. The effects of disincentivizing drug smuggling would be enormous.
As for aiding the developing countries of Central America, a Marshall Plan-like program would be in our long-term best interests. True, the initial costs would be substantial, but beneficial in years to come. There would be screams from politicians and taxpayers alike. If, however, we can obligate trillions for war, billions for stability would be a bargain.