The ramifications of the Cold War still haunt not just this country, but the entire Americas. I remember learning about this back in college. The Cold War rivalry and our failed drug policy are one of the worst things to happen, not just for the US, but for the Americas. Though I suppose being the only real major power in our hemisphere definitely makes screwing over the whole place easier.
It seems like the obvious (though very hard) solutions are:
1) Create a system of evaluation for asylum seekers that is capable of handling the flow.
2) Attack the problem at its source: help these countries get back on their feet so that there are fewer of both asylum seekers and economic migrants. (I'm not sure how much faith I have that we can "fix" these problems, but can we at least ameliorate them?)
As for the second, despite its messiness re: civil rights, El Salvador is a model for bringing peace to an ultra-violent, gang-ridden Central American nation. And for economic migration, we could start by renegotiating NAFTA to be more favorable to Mexican industry. Corporations will balk, but American workers will be fine with it and immigration hawks should be, too. The Republicans need to figure out which one is more important to them, free trade or controlling the border. NAFTA shows you can't have both. If they're serious about the border then they need to give up on trade liberalization altogether, and start structuring an industrial policy that will actually benefit Mexicans in Mexico, to eliminate the push factors for migration.
Here I'm forced to disagree for a couple of reasons:
a) A relatively low percentage of the recent refugees are Mexican.. In fact, Mexican immigration to the USA has been falling since around 2007.
b) The USA is no longer really in a position to build up Mexico because it no longer produces the necessary exportable capital. For all the bloviating about "nearshoring" during the past 3 years, it's actually China that's been providing the bulk of the useful FDI.
Your observation about modern El Salvador is excellent. But there's a facet to it that I think you have overlooked - Bukele has signed on to the BRI. This is a very logical thing to do in the interest of developing his country because - let's face it - the USA isn't exporting much useful capital these days. But it's the sort of thing that infuriates our state department and leads to all sorts of "color revolution" and "regime change" initiatives that produce country-wrecking results.
Another great piece. In the short-term I can only see this vicious cycle worsening as our State Department insists on doubling-down on these country-wrecking measures to (vainly) combat the growing influence of China in Latin America. How can one expect otherwise when the architects of our many foreign policy disasters never face anything like career-ending consequences for their failures?
The ramifications of the Cold War still haunt not just this country, but the entire Americas. I remember learning about this back in college. The Cold War rivalry and our failed drug policy are one of the worst things to happen, not just for the US, but for the Americas. Though I suppose being the only real major power in our hemisphere definitely makes screwing over the whole place easier.
It seems like the obvious (though very hard) solutions are:
1) Create a system of evaluation for asylum seekers that is capable of handling the flow.
2) Attack the problem at its source: help these countries get back on their feet so that there are fewer of both asylum seekers and economic migrants. (I'm not sure how much faith I have that we can "fix" these problems, but can we at least ameliorate them?)
Totally agree.
As for the second, despite its messiness re: civil rights, El Salvador is a model for bringing peace to an ultra-violent, gang-ridden Central American nation. And for economic migration, we could start by renegotiating NAFTA to be more favorable to Mexican industry. Corporations will balk, but American workers will be fine with it and immigration hawks should be, too. The Republicans need to figure out which one is more important to them, free trade or controlling the border. NAFTA shows you can't have both. If they're serious about the border then they need to give up on trade liberalization altogether, and start structuring an industrial policy that will actually benefit Mexicans in Mexico, to eliminate the push factors for migration.
Here I'm forced to disagree for a couple of reasons:
a) A relatively low percentage of the recent refugees are Mexican.. In fact, Mexican immigration to the USA has been falling since around 2007.
b) The USA is no longer really in a position to build up Mexico because it no longer produces the necessary exportable capital. For all the bloviating about "nearshoring" during the past 3 years, it's actually China that's been providing the bulk of the useful FDI.
Your observation about modern El Salvador is excellent. But there's a facet to it that I think you have overlooked - Bukele has signed on to the BRI. This is a very logical thing to do in the interest of developing his country because - let's face it - the USA isn't exporting much useful capital these days. But it's the sort of thing that infuriates our state department and leads to all sorts of "color revolution" and "regime change" initiatives that produce country-wrecking results.
Another great piece. In the short-term I can only see this vicious cycle worsening as our State Department insists on doubling-down on these country-wrecking measures to (vainly) combat the growing influence of China in Latin America. How can one expect otherwise when the architects of our many foreign policy disasters never face anything like career-ending consequences for their failures?
FIRST!!!
Congratulations, Razib