Thursday, June 21, 2018

The face of Latin American migration is rapidly changing. US policy isn’t keeping up

Customs and Border Patrol data show the magnitude of the increase in Central American migrants over the past decade. In 2000, 28,598 non-Mexicans (primarily Central Americans) were apprehended at the U.S. border. By 2014, this number had increased to 252,600.

In an effort to understand what is driving this surge, my colleagues and I have carried out research on what leads a person to consider emigrating. In a broad study of more than 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, we found that the decision to emigrate is far more nuanced and complex than often portrayed in political rhetoric and mainstream media.… 
My colleagues and I concluded that the Obama administration’s, and now the Trump administration’s, attempt to “send a message” to Central Americans through an emphasis on detention and deportation may work for those considering emigration for economic reasons. It does not, however, appear to have any impact on those individuals seeking to flee the warlike levels of violence in Honduras and El Salvador....
The developed world on both sides of the Atlantic needs to recognize that they don't have an immigration problem, they have a refugee problem. The solution to this problem is vastly stepping up the pace of development in the underdeveloped and emerging countries and for the developed countries to stop propping up tin-pot dictators as compradors.

Europe needs to recognize that Africa will be a huge benefit to Europeans as it develops, and the US also needs to recognize the same for Latin America. China certainly recognizes already that these countries will be a great benefit to China as they develop, and the Chinese leadership is making this a priority.

The Conversation
The face of Latin American migration is rapidly changing. US policy isn’t keeping up
Jonathan Hiskey | Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of Graduate Studies, Vanderbilt University

12 comments:

Konrad said...

We have a choice in every aspect of life.

We can choose to see immigrants as our dear brothers and sisters who seek our help.

Or we can choose to see immigrants as marauding locusts. This latter choice is what drives immigrants here in the first place. Hatred of others, and indifference to their suffering, makes us cheer the military and economic wars that create refugees, and makes us see all immigrants as rapists and criminals. (A small percentage of immigrants are bad people, but this occurs in any human group worldwide.)

Q. I hate immigrants. Why are there so many?

A. Because you hate them.

Some people “justify” their hatred by claiming that immigrants are a plot by big corporations to drive down wages.

There is indeed a plot, but it is by private prison companies (e.g. GEO group, and CoreCivic) whose leaders want more and more immigrants to come so they can fill private prisons, thereby boosting corporate profits.

For example, CoreCivic hires people in Haiti to encourage Haitians to go to the USA. Once the Haitian immigrants are across the U.S. border, they are grabbed by ICE and sent to a CoreCivic prison, where they are caged for life. In the CoreCivic prison they are surprised to meet intake personnel who speak perfect Haitian creole. (CoreCivic hires the intake personnel in Haiti.)

On a different topic, I suspect that it is not possible to grasp the monstrosity of Trump’s kiddie-snatch policies unless you have a child of your own. A diagnosis of terminal cancer, or a sentence of life without parole, would not equal the pain of having your child torn from you. Trump’s kiddie-snatching is so over-the-top that it has even shocked many of his fans. I’m surprised that Trump has not borrowed a talking point used by his beloved Jews when anyone questions Israeli atrocities: “America has a right to defend itself!”

Q. Suppose I agree that immigrants are refugees from warlike levels of violence. Why can’t immigrants get their own countries in order?

A. Because every time they try, the U.S. Empire foils them, e.g. the US-backed coup against Honduras in June 2009, against Guatemala and Paraguay (1954) Brazil (1964), Chile (1973), Paraguay again in 1989, and Paraguay again in 2012, and Venezuela in 2002. The US backed a savage war against Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s. In Oct 1983 the US invaded Grenada. In Dec 1989 the US invaded Panama. The list is endless.

Q.Why can’t they get their own countries in order?

A. Why can’t we get our own country in order?

GLH said...

"The solution to this problem is vastly stepping up the pace of development in the underdeveloped and emerging countries and for the developed countries to stop propping up tin-pot dictators as compradors."
That will happen only after the banker empire collapses.

Tom Hickey said...

Right. But not just finance capital.

The world's militaries are assuming that mass migration will be a major destabilizing factor in this century as climate change affects resources like water and food, and sea levels rise making coastal populations seek higher ground. If this transpires as expected, a whole lot of increasingly desperate people are going to be on the move. Even with the best of intentions, there may be no way to avoid a a major culling. And in all likelihood, the best of intentions won't prevail as crises widen and deepen. The militaries are not making a big deal of this publicly but they are preparing for an eventuality that is looking increasingly more probable.

Ralph Musgrave said...

Konrad resorts to the bog standard leftie explanation as to why anyone disagrees with a leftie: they must be motivated by "hate". There have been a thousand articles in the supposedly intelligent Guardian newspaper over the last ten years where “hate” is automatically attributed to anyone who disagrees with a Guardian journalist without so much as the beginnings of an attempt to prove that hatred is present.

Konrad also fails to mention the basic reason for opposing unrestricted immigration: those migrating come from inferior cultures bring their cultural and/or racial characteristics with them, e.g. “war-like levels of violence”.

Jihad and terrorism are part and parcel of Islam. Surprise, surprise about 90% of convicted terrorists in the UK are Muslims: pretty incredible when you consider that Muslims make up just 5% of the population.

Ryan Harris said...

I don't know, I'm biased because I know so many central americans first hand here in Houston. There are areas in central america, like Chicago in the US, plagued with violence, but I'm not sure it is any worse for most people than it ever has been. The difference was US policy, where it encouraged women and children to come to the US, Obama sent people down to appear on media and work the embassies to coach people on how to get to the US, what to say "fleeing violence, gangs" and then how to enroll to get free school, free food, housing certificates, free healthcare and oh by the way, you automatically get registered to vote with your driver's license... *wink*nod* It was very, very organized.

I'm not sure it's entirely a bad policy to import workers and their children now that we are approaching "full employment" and seeing disability apps drop, but it was pretty cynical back in 2000s when this program began and millions of Americans had stagnant wages and inadequate employment opportunity. It was a clear attempt to garner votes. It seems like congress should create immigration policy based on consensus. but in the absence of consensus, the Administration of the current President sets policy until it offends enough people that congress eventually acts.

Academic studies like the ones above clearly don't ask tough questions but create a frame of the questions that the left wants to hear a preset answer to. You can see from the questions if you answered them, they are leading you into a victim frame... Anyone with half a brain sees what they want to hear and knows to answer it the way the academics want it answered.

This is the general problem with dodgy social sciences funded by political funds, you know the answers the politicians need and why they are funding your work to get those justifications.
Humans are not ignorant. Central Americans are not ignorant victims. They are generally smart, hardworking people, everyone has social media, cell phones etc. They do and say whatever is necessary just as anyone would given opportunity. The left victimizes them, the right demonizes, can't we just view them as economic "agents?" The faux sterile view seems less toxic than the political caricatures.

Konrad said...

“Konrad resorts to the bog standard leftie explanation as to why anyone disagrees with a leftie: they must be motivated by ‘hate’.” ~ Ralph Musgrave

I see. If I hate immigrants, then this does not mean that I hate immigrants. In this I contradict myself, but I “justify” my contradiction by calling people names such as “leftie.”

If I cheer wars that create refugees, and I don’t give a sh*t about anyone but myself, then my hatred and selfishness are “common sense.”

“Konrad also fails to mention the basic reason for opposing unrestricted immigration: those migrating come from inferior cultures bring their cultural and/or racial characteristics with them, e.g. ‘war-like levels of violence’.”

Immigrants are cockroaches that bring disease! They crawl out from a sewer that is created and sustained by the U.S. Empire with its coups and its debt slavery. Make more of them by attacking them militarily, and by staging government coups! Kill them all before they mutate into human form!

“Jihad and terrorism are part and parcel of Islam.”

You have been well programmed indeed. Now pick up your rifle, march off to the front, and create more refugees from “inferior cultures.” Do you speak any foreign languages? Have you ever traveled beyond the borders of your own town, let alone your own country?

Never mind.

I already know the answer.

Konrad said...

Central Americans are not ignorant victims. They are generally smart, hardworking people, everyone has social media, cell phones etc. The left victimizes them, the right demonizes, can't we just view them as economic ‘agents’?” ~ Ryan Harris

How about viewing them as human beings?

There was no immigration crisis from south of the U.S. border before NAFTA went into effect in 1994.

There was no immigration crisis from Africa before NATO destroyed Libya in 2011.

The Empire creates refugees. And the hatred and selfishness of ordinary people supports the Empire.

If I ask people to be a little less hateful and selfish, so that the Empire creates fewer refugees, people object with anger. They cherish their own hatred and selfishness, which they justify by barking, “You want unrestricted immigration!”

No, I want people to stop contributing to the Empire’s creation of refugees. Stay out of foreigners’ countries, and they’ll stay out of yours.

I recognize that this is beyond the grasp of some people. That’s okay. My job is to plant mental seeds.

Ralph Musgrave said...

Konrad,

Like most lefties, you are impervious to reality and FACTS. I backed up my claim that "Jihad and terrorism are part and parcel of Islam" by quoting an indisputable fact (which I got from British government sources): the fact that about 90% of terrorism in the UK is down to Muslims rather than Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Athiests. In case you still don't understand, that means terrorists are over-represented among the Muslim population to a STAGGERINGLY large extent.

Konrad said...

An "indisputable fact"? From "British government sources"?

Wow.

The UK government falsely claims that it "has no money." This too is an "indisputable fact." Right?

The Skripal poisoning hoax, the Douma gassing hoax, and so on are all "indisputable facts." When Margaret Thatcher said "there is no alternative" to neoliberalism, it was an "indisputable fact." Anything claimed by politicians and corporate media outlets is an "indisputable fact."

I can tell by your verbiage that you have never been outside your personal zone, physically, mentally, or emotionally.

Inside your tiny box, you have the Absolute Truth, as proven by "government sources" and by labels such as "leftie."

That's okay. For all of us, learning takes time.

GLH said...

Ralph, I am afraid that Konrad is correct, the British government is no source for indisputable fact. You will have to do better.

Noah Way said...

Ralph, your bias is showing. It's not flattering.

Konrad said...

I wrote my comment two days ago.

Looking at it again just now, I see that I could have made the same point in milder and kinder language.

My apologies to Ralph Musgrave.