America’s broken foreign policy is fueling its immigration challenges
With dim prospects for immigration reform, an international perspective is desperately needed.
The current state of affairs
As politicians and government officials in the United States continue to exploit the desperate plight of migrants in increasingly cruel ways, it is helpful to recall that xenophobia is nothing new in American history or culture. Nativist attitudes have existed for centuries in the U.S., and continue to play a dominant role in American political discourse to this day. But while the Republican party has been unwilling to move beyond the harsh rhetoric employed by Donald Trump and his right wing allies in recent years, the Democratic party’s reluctance to embrace a robust pro-immigrant stance has too often ceded ground and allowed a narrative to be constructed by right wing voices attempting to portray democrats as the party of “open borders”.
In reality, democrats have shown a remarkable amount of timidity when discussing or addressing the issue of immigration. This is understandable to some extent, given how politically charged the issue of immigration in the U.S. is, and the reality that congress is a long way from reaching any compromise towards enacting comprehensive immigration reform. In an increasingly polarized environment, there seems to be no common ground or mutual understanding between elected officials on both sides of the aisle. Fresh off his recent victory in the Arizona senate midterm race, Senator Mark Kelly recently made the following remark during a wide-ranging interview with the Washington Post which further illustrates this point:
“When I first got to Washington, it didn’t take me long to realize that there are a lot of Democrats who don’t understand our southern border and a lot of Republicans who just want to talk about it. Don’t necessarily want to do anything about it, just want to use it politically. So my approach has been — to the extent that we could and can — to make progress on securing it, but also doing it in a way that’s in accordance with our ethics and our values, not to demonize people.”
While Senator Kelly’s pragmatism seems to be an attempt to take a balanced position, immigration advocates are growing impatient with what they view as a lack of progress. Amidst these challenges, the Biden administration has also struggled to find what they deem to be a viable solution, fearful of being attacked from all sides politically. This dynamic has led to infighting within the administration as officials disagree on what the best approach to take is. One of the most delicate areas of consternation has revolved around the continuation of the Trump era “Title 42” policy which was used to expel over one million migrants under the guise of public health concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic. With the recent decision by a federal judge to terminate the policy, it remains to be seen how the Biden administration will respond. Immigration advocates have celebrated this development, but one thing is clear: a new approach is needed and fast.
In the aftermath of a horrific four years under the Trump administration that significantly bolstered the anti-immigrant movement in the U.S., and following the shortcomings of the Obama administration, it is clear that neither party has managed to address the issue of immigration in an adequate, humane, or sustainable way.
American foreign policy and its connection to the border
While it’s easy to look at the situation on the U.S. — Mexico border and the U.S. immigration system today and point out its numerous flaws, an important aspect often missing from this entire conversation is how American foreign policies have directly influenced the flow of refugees attempting to enter the country. In a recent piece for The New Republic, journalist James North discusses some of the challenges faced by the U.S. in response to an influx of migrants from Venezuela:
“Thousands of Venezuelans continued to arrive by land on the southern banks of the Rio Grande and started crossing in large groups — to the delight of Fox News and its aerial camera drones. Here, Secretary Mayorkas had a problem: The U.S. did not have diplomatic relations with Venezuela (emphasis added), so he couldn’t deport Venezuelans there directly, and at first Mexico refused to accept them. (Unlike the thousands of deported Central Americans, who have huddled in makeshift refugee camps back in Mexico, in some cases for years.)”
While reading this passage, I couldn’t help but reflect on how a discussion surrounding the actions of the U.S. abroad and its policy decisions vis-à-vis other governments (particularly those that we consider to be hostile) is so sorely missing from the public debate about immigration. The example of Venezuela is illustrative, as the Biden administration has continued to stubbornly express support for “Interim President” Juan Guaidó, despite the fact that others have stopped referring to him as such. More recently, there have been signs that the U.S. may finally be rethinking its policies towards Venezuela. These developments have surely been influenced by the global energy crisis sparked by sanctions against Russia as a result of the war in Ukraine (which have also impacted Americans in numerous ways, but that’s a story for another day). It has been well documented that American sanctions against Venezuela have had a devastating impact on Venezuelan society and have fueled its migration crisis. Sanctions relief could go a long way towards improving the situation and helping Venezuela recover from the crisis that it has faced for many years. Not only has the American policy of sanctions caused an enormous amount of human suffering, it has clearly not worked in achieving its purported goal of removing Nicolás Maduro from power. The consequences of these misguided policies are now being felt directly on the U.S. — Mexican border.
Given that most Americans tend not to have a deep understanding of foreign affairs, this is even more reason to try and help educate Americans on the connection between our actions abroad and how their consequences are felt at home. This may be a tall task, but in the long run it is essential if we ever want to get to a place where immigration isn’t just used as a political football, but is instead understood through a global lens. Considering the long history of U.S. interventions throughout Latin America, and the ongoing prospect of continued intervention in the region, we must find ways to elevate the discussion and push for real solutions based in a genuine appreciation for the impact we as a nation have around the world through our actions.
Yuri Dafonseca is the newest contributing author for Migrant Matters. His examination of US policy impacts on global migration will continue in future pieces.
