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


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...

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


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.